CAVE-176453_DB_Attachments.pdf

Value Analysis Study July 25 – 26, 2016

National Park Service Carlsbad

Caverns National Park New Mexico

(Edited for Elevators #3 & #4 and Emergency Rescue System Only;

discussion on Elevators #1 & #2 deleted for CAVE-176453 DB-RFP)

Holistic Investigation of Vertical Transportation System

PMIS 219342

Value Analysis Final Report

October 10, 2016

Prepared by:

Kirk Associates, LLC 3007 North 156 Drive Goodyear, AZ 85395 www.kirkvalueplanners.com

In Association with:

HDR

1670 Broadway, Suite 3400 Denver, CO 80202 www.hdrinc.com http://www.kirkvalueplanners.com/ http://www.kirkvalueplanners.com/ http://www.hdrinc.com/ http://www.hdrinc.com/

Holistic Investigation of Vertical Transportation System

Carlsbad Caverns National Park

FORWARD

July 25 - 27, 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION A: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page

• Summary Description of Project .………………………………….…….… 4

• Project Budget .…………………………………………………….……...… 8

• Value Analysis Objectives ..……………………………………….……..… 9

• Passenger Elevators 3&4, Preferred Alternative ………………………... 10

• Service/ Freight Elevators 1&2, Preferred Alternative* .…….…….…

• Reconsideration* of Service/ Freight Elevators 1&2 …..….…………

• Temporary Solution for Elevator 4 ………………..……………………

• Type of Hoist Machine, Preferred Alternative ……………..…………

• Type of Hoist Ropes, Preferred Alternative ………………..…………

• Type of Traveling Cable, Preferred Alternative ……..……..…………

• AC versus DC Gearless Hoist Machine, Preferred Alternative ……

• Emergency Rescue, Preferred Alternative ………………………..…

SECTION B: VALUE ANALYSIS STUDY

• Phase I Information ………………………………………………….……… 33 o Study Specifics .…………………………………………………..… 33 o Reference Documents …………………………………….……..… 34

• Phase II Function Analysis ………………………………………………… 35 o Function Logic Diagram ……………………………………..….…. 35

• Phase III Creativity………………………………………………………

• Phase IV Evaluation (Part 1 - Evaluation Factors & Definitions) .….…. 43

• Phase IV Evaluation (Part 2 – Choosing by Advantages) ……....….… 44

• Phase V Development ………………………….………………..…..…… 45 o Passenger Elevators 3&4 Options …...….……………………..… 46 o Service/ Freight Elevators 1&2 Options ……....……...………..… 56

• Phase VI Recommendation/ Next Steps ……………………….………… 68

• VA Team …………………………………..……………………….………… 68

SECTION C: APPENDIX

• Value Analysis Process…………………………………………………...… 73

• Workshop Agenda...………………………………………………………… 76

• Risk Models ……………………………..……………………………....….. 79

• Lerch Bates Value Analysis Presentation of Alternatives & Costs ...….. 85

• Memo, Intermountain Regional Director ……………………………...….. 107

FORWARD

This report includes recommendations for the Improvement of the Vertical Transportation System at Carlsbad Caverns National Park in New Mexico. They stem from a Value Analysis (VA) workshop initiated by the National Park Service. The VA workshop was held at the Denver Service Center in Denver, Colorado, July 25 - 27, 2016.

Coordination of this VA was done by Jon H. Holbrook, Project Manager, Associate Vice President, HDR. Lerch Bates was the technical consultant for this project. Stephen Kirk, a certified value specialist of Kirk Value Planners (Kirk Associates, LLC), led the team's deliberations during the workshop. The list of attendees is contained at the end of Section B.

A reconsideration WebEx meeting was held September 23 following the VA workshop to further evaluate the Service/ Freight Elevators 1&2. This was done in response to a memo from the Intermountain Regional Director. This reconsideration discussion is included in this report.

SECTION A: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

"He has the right to criticize who has the heart to help," A. Lincoln

Summary Description of Project

Background

Carlsbad Caverns National Park has an average of 392,000 annual visitors, employees and materials that are transported from the Visitor Center to the Cavern 750 feet below via 4 high speed traditional elevators. Due to the depth of the Cavern and the steepness of the trail many visitors choose to enter and leave the cavern via the elevators. Due to the steep climb, very few visitors choose to leave the Caverns via the Natural Entrance. Carlsbad Caverns elevator equipment is ADA compliant and offers accessibly to experience the cave that would not be possible without elevator equipment. The elevators also comprise a critical piece of the park’s emergency medical and law enforcement response capabilities, enabling much faster extrications of injured visitors and deployment of protection rangers to incidents requiring intervention.

The elevator systems at Carlsbad Caverns exist in two 750-foot vertical shafts, drilled and blasted through limestone rock, into the underground cavern space. The older and smaller shaft houses Freight Elevators #1 and #2, while the newer and larger shaft houses Passenger Elevators #3 and #4.

Elevators #3 and #4 are the main transports for visitors and staff into the Cave. Freight Elevators #1 and #2 are primarily used by the concessionaire and park maintenance staff. The freight elevators also act as redundancy if Elevator #3 or #4 is removed from service for maintenance or repair. The steel structure in the hoistway for Elevators #3 & #4 was completely replaced in 2013

The Freight Elevator System - Elevators #1 & #2 - was installed in 1931. All mechanical components of the elevator system (cars, DC motors, controllers, drive sheaves, buffers, and safety systems) have been replaced many times over the 85 year period that these elevators have been in service; however, the cars are still riding on the steelwork (guiderails and supporting I-beams) that was installed in 1931.

• Corrosion on the 1931-vintage steelwork has been monitored for several decades.

In 2001, a project to repaint the I-beams was undertaken in an effort to curtail corrosion. Monitoring of the steel beam corrosion has continued over the ensuing 12 years, the park staff has been monitoring the elevator operation and the condition of the steelwork during this entire period. This has provided us with an excellent history and consistency in documenting the deteriorating conditions of the steelwork.

• In late 2014, the park’s freight elevators began having a series of landing system and control vane failures associated with Elevator Car #2. Mr. Joe Davis, park elevator maintenance foreman, conducted an investigation of the problem that revealed movement of the elevator car guiderail was occurring due to weakening of the steel supporting beams. This was of great concern to the park maintenance staff since these traction elevators must run on steel rails that are precisely aligned.

Proper functioning of safety and control systems are absolutely dependent upon rigidity in the beam and rail steelwork.

• In March of 2015 a structural steel analysis was conducted by JVA Inc., of Boulder, Colorado. They issued a report to the park indicating that the corrosion had caused “significant section loss” on a number of structural steel beams. In general, the report cited a number of deficiencies in the steelwork and deterioration was actually worse than park staff had thought. The elevators were immediately tagged “Out of Service” and taken offline for passenger use.

The Passenger Elevator System – Elevators #3 & #4 – was installed in 1955. In 2007 the elevator system was analyzed and, although this was a newer system, the steelwork was in worse condition than that in the Freight Elevator hoistway. The analysis concluded with a major structural repair project that included total replacement of 153 corroded steel beams was required.

• In 2010 a contract was awarded to address the structural concerns and lead-based paint abatement in the hoistway for Elevators #3 & #4. In addition to the replacement of the 153 corroded steel beams with new structural steel beams that were pre-cut, welded (plates), prepped with a zinc primer, and protected with a two-coat Carboline protective coating system off-site and delivered to the park ready for installation, the project scope included the abatement of all remaining lead-based paint (following removal of the 153 steel beams being replaced) and the application of the same protective coatings system on all remaining steel members in the entire hoistway. This project was originally scheduled to be completed in 240 calendar days; however, for various reasons the project stretched out to over 3 years and was finally completed in 2013. The project was fraught with logistical difficulties associated with installing 14 foot-long beams into a 12 foot wide “mineshaft” 750 feet deep in solid limestone rock.

• Confronted with the difficulties in carrying out the work, re-acquiring the guiderail alignment at the necessary state of precision, and dealing with future corrosion repair and maintenance, the park staff and others associated with the work questioned if there was a better way to do the work. There was also the realization that in 75 years or so, this very same work would have to be repeated as the newly-installed beams reached the end of their service life.

Current Status:

The Elevators are an essential part of the vertical transportation system that makes it possible for people to visit one of the most spectacular underground caverns in the world.

Although Passenger Elevators #3 & #4 are the primary transportation system, they have to be taken offline periodically for maintenance, repair, and rope replacements. Downtime can run from several days to several weeks. A second set of elevators is also critical to operations because unforeseen breakdowns in the working elevator system can and do occur. Without a backup elevator, visitors who are not physically able to hike out of the cave could be stranded underground.

Freight Elevator System had been taken offline as a safety precaution in March 2015. And then both Passenger Elevators #3 & #4 were shut down following the car for Elevator 4 becoming stuck within the shaft with a broken motor (cracked armature shaft). Visitor experience was impacted by this shutdown resulting in the temporary structural repairs within the hoistway for Freight Elevators #1 & #2 in order to get them back in operation before Memorial Day weekend, 2016. The final inspection of those repairs was completed and accepted on May 6, 2016, and the Park was able to restore interim elevator service for visitors until a more permanent fix could be funded and carried out.

Goal:

Carlsbad Caverns (CAVE) is in the need for a sustainable vertical transportation system (VTS) that is reliable - as well as economical to construct, operate, and maintain into the future. The current traction elevator system, designed and built in 1931, may not be the best solution for the VTS application. Over the ensuing 85 years, there have been improved technologies that would improve efficiency, simplify construction, and provide us with a more sustainable VTS. Part of the task for this task order is to identify existing problems and see if there are alternative VTS designs that should be considered.

Upon completion of the site visit and reviewing the past documents, develop a plan and a program that provides recommendations for the renovation, replacement and upgrading of the vertical transportation system (VTS) for CAVE.

Consideration should be given not to just current industry standard systems, but should investigate systems installed in other underground facilities, or systems within a natural setting.

One option that had never been considered in the original VA was whether or not there was a better system (other than a conventional “traction elevator”) that could have been installed. A mine hoist or some other type of hybrid system that is less subject to the ravages of corrosion might be a better long-term choice.

Unlike the VTS in a building, this is in a drilled shaft, some 750 feet deep. At times, ground water infiltration is so high, that it literally "rains" in the hoistway. Sump pumps within the shaft prevent the elevator pits from flooding. When it's not actively raining, it's still very humid in the hoistway. Condensation forms on exposed steel components including elevator ropes, sheaves, guiderails, steel beams, elevator cars, exposed door operators, and other equipment on the car tops. When specifying certain types of elevator ropes for replacement, that can best withstand the corrosive atmosphere, while maintaining sufficient "traction" qualities, can be so hard that they cause undue wear on the elevator motor sheave grooves. Corrosion causes a lot of maintenance problems and shortens the life expectancy of VTS components. These problems are not necessarily present in elevator systems used in buildings. Therefore, a VTS that reduces the amount of steel and rotating machinery in the wet hoistway would be a desirable improvement. This is especially true in the long term, where some 200 steel beams and 6400 feet of precision steel guiderail have to be maintained in perfect alignment, and periodically installed and removed - most from grout pockets in a confined space.

The existing VTS at CAVE is different from a building elevator in another important way: Most building elevators have multiple floors wherein passengers can be extricated from a disabled elevator car just by opening a door and providing ladders to reach the next floor. At CAVE, the elevator landings are located 750 feet (75 stories) apart. In the event of an elevator car disablement in our hoistway, passengers cannot be so easily extricated. They are stranded until either an Elevator Mechanic can repair the problem, or an adjacent car can be sent down to take the passengers out of the disabled one. This is a potentially dangerous situation that has liability implications for the NPS. Constructing and managing the VTS at Carlsbad Caverns actually has much more in common with mine shaft operations than it does with a skyscraper of similar height. We are taking the public into an underground mine in an elevator designed for use in a building.

The Freight Elevators are located in the original elevator tower, constructed in 1931. The Tower sits atop the 750-foot hoistway and houses the two 35 HP electric motors that power the elevators. Subsequently, a Visitor Center was constructed around the Elevator Tower, with expansions of the floor plans occurring in the 1950s, again in the 1970s, and most recently, in 2007. When the electric motors eventually have to be renovated or replaced, it will take a very large crane to make the longer reach over the VCV to the Tower. Since no provision was made for taking the Freight Elevator motors out of the Tower, some demolition of the Tower's exterior will have to be done in order to get them out. If motor work or replacement is anticipated as part of this project, impacts to the Tower will have to be addressed. It would also behoove us to modify the Tower to make future motor replacements less invasive to the structure.

The currently-installed elevator control systems are complex electronic systems that actually require an electronics technician (not just an Elevator Mechanic) to troubleshoot.

Fortunately, the park has the excellent technical skills that can be relied upon to handle problems in this area. Even so, the currently-installed electronic elevator controls are obsolete and must be replaced soon, since technical support and spare parts from the manufacturer are being discontinued. Replacing the electronic elevator controllers should be considered as part of this project.

Summary

Typically the park has replaced elevators at 20-year intervals; however, some components were left in place each time. This has resulted in an entire system that requires modernization, including steel from 1930s, guide rails from the 1950s, machines and rotating equipment from the 1970s, and the controllers and cars from the 1990s. The result has been the cumulative degradation of the transportation system, which is essential to the operation of the park.

Operating and maintaining a public elevator system in a 750-foot deep mine shaft is expensive and complex. The safety of park employees and visitors is of paramount importance. The park staff takes pride in managing one of the most spectacular, yet accessible, cavern resources in the world. They are acutely aware of the impact that the loss of elevator service has had on park visitors, contractors, concessions, and local businesses affected by downturns in tourism.

Value Analysis

This value analysis workshop included a discussion of:

1. Alternative technologies/elevator systems for use in a corrosive environment

2. Long-term maintainability and sustainability of design

3. Affordable, simpler, less invasive hoist way infrastructure

4. Alternative (i.e., non-metallic/non-corrosive) structural materials

5. Options to minimize operational costs and maintenance

6. Evaluation/ cost comparison to “repair existing elevator” vs. “full replacement”

7. Selection/ recommendation of a “preferred” vertical transportation system

8. Development of ideas to serve as a basis for the PD/SD phase of the project

Information from this VA session will be used for reporting and updating the related PMIS statements as well as background for eCPIC, ADAB and SCVR reporting requirements of projects of this magnitude.

Project Budget

The project budget will be further refined based on this value analysis study.

Value Analysis Objectives

This VA workshop focused on:

• Creating a clear path forward

• Solving the immediate situation

• Create a long term solution

• Identify more efficient way to get visitors in and out of the cave

• Address maintenance staff limitations

• Selecting preferred alternatives using Choosing By Advantages (CBA) and Life

Cycle Costing (LCC) for a variety of decisions

• Identifying ideas to add value to the project

• Sharing information

• Protecting & preserving natural & cultural resources

• Minimizing the “total cost of ownership” – life cycle costs

Alternatives Considered (Passenger Elevators 3&4)

The VA team reviewed the base design prepared by Lerch Bates. Further discussion led to some modification. Two additional alternatives were also developed by the VA team.

These were evaluated using Choosing By Advantages and Life Cycle Costing by the VA team. Following is a summary:

Alternative:

Description:

Status:

Initial Costs:

Life Cycle Costs:

Alternative 1 Base Design, including Guide Rail Replacement, Two Governors, Pit Buffers, etc.

Evaluated in CBA

& LCC

$3,130,000 $3,541,500

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative)

Base Design (+) Cab Replacement, Car Counterweight, Entrances, Safeties

Evaluated in CBA

& LCC

$3,560,000 $3,560,000

Alternative 3 Base Design (-) No New Cab Finishes, No Guide Rail Replacement

Evaluated in CBA

& LCC

$2,330,000 $3,508,600

Preferred Alternative (Passenger Elevators 3&4, via CBA)

Based on the CBA analysis, the VA team identified Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative. The advantages of Alternative 2 over the other alternatives is as following:

Alternative 2 Advantages from CBA:

• Significantly better visitor safety due to opportunity to improve emergency exiting

• Much better visitor experience due to improved aesthetics

• Significantly better reliability due to all new improvements

• Significantly better extending the life of the elevators

• Slightly better maintainability

• Significantly better at limiting NPS risks

See importance to initial cost graph and importance to life cycle cost graphs which follow.

Passenger Elevators 3&4 Importance to Initial Cost

Passenger Elevators 3&4 Importance to Life Cycle Cost

Alternative 1: Alternative 2:

Gearless Machine Geared Machine

Speed 500' to 1000' per minute 200' to 500' per minute

Advantage 2 to 3 times faster No Advantage

Energy Efficiency High energy efficiency Moderate energy efficiency

Advantage 8% Better energy efficiency No Advantage

Smoothness of ride

Smooth start/ stop Moderately smooth start/ stop

Advantage Better smoothness of ride No Advantage

Robust Highly robust Moderately robust

Advantage More robust No Advantage

Vibration/ Quietness

Low Vibration, quiet Moderate vibration, Moderately quiet

Advantage Lower vibration, quieter operation

No Advantage

No. of Manufacturers

Several Two

Advantage Larger number of manufacturers

No Advantage

Ease of Replacement

Easy to replace machine Difficult to replace machine

Advantage Much easier to replace machine

No Advantage

Preferred Alternative for Type of Hoist Machine

S-4 Two options for the type of hoist machine were considered as follows:

• Geared Machine

• Gearless Machine

Based on the CBA analysis below, the VA team identified the gearless machine as preferred. The final decision will be made during predesign phase.

Choosing By Advantages Subject: Gearless vs. Geared Machine

CBA: S-4

Factor:

Maintenance Nearly maintenance free Requires long term maintenance

Advantage Much Lower Maintenance No Advantage

Capital Cost Moderately high cost Moderate cost

Advantage No Advantage Approximately 25% less cost

Life Cycle cost Moderate cost Moderately high cost

Advantage Approximately 25% - 50% less cost

No Advantage

Steel Rope w/ Steel Rope w/ hemp core steel core

Alternative 3:

Galvanized Steel Ropes

Alternative 4:

Stainless Steel Ropes

Reliability Reliable Reliable Extremely Reliable

Extremely Reliable

Advantage No Advantage No Advantage More reliability in wet environment

Most reliability in wet environment

Corrosion Resistance

No corrosion resistance

No corrosion resistance

Moderate corrosion resistance

Most corrosion resistance

Advantage Quieter Operation

No Advantage No Advantage Most corrosion resistance in wet environment

Rope Stretch/Shrink Resistance

Ropes will stretch/shrink

Limited rope stretch/shrink

Ropes will stretch/shrink

Ropes will stretch/shrink

Advantage No Advantage Most resistance to hoist rope stretch/shrinkage due to steel core

No Advantage No Advantage

Maintenance Requires lubrication, shortening

Requires lubrication

Requires lubrication, shortening

Requires lubrication, shortening

Advantage No Advantage Requires lubrication but does not require periodic length adjustment.

No Advantage No Advantage

Useful Life Cycle 5-10 Years 10-12 Years 12-15 years 15-20 years

Preferred Alternative for Type of Hoist Ropes

S-24 Four options for the type of hoist ropes were considered as follows:

• Steel Rope w/ hemp core

• Steel Rope w/ steel core

• Galvanized Steel Ropes

• Stainless Steel Ropes

Based on the CBA analysis below, the VA team identified stainless steel hoist ropes as

Subject: Hoist Ropes

CBA: S-24

Advantage No Advantage No Advantage No Advantage Much longer lifecycle in the wet/corrosive environment

Cost Cost Similar Cost Similar High Cost Highest Cost

Life Cycle Cost Highest LCC Moderate LCC High LCC Lowest LCC

Round Traveling Cable Flat Traveling Cable

Reliability Very reliable Very reliable

Advantage No Advantage No Advantage

Corrosion Resistance No corrosion resistance No corrosion resistance

Advantage Quieter Operation No Advantage

Loop/Bend Radius Due to round construction, cable requires a greater radius for loop/bend.

Flat cable design allows for a smaller/tighter cable loop/bend.

Advantage No Advantage The smaller/tighter cable loop/bend allows traveling cable to avoid making contact with hoistway walls/beams.

This eliminates traveling cable damage that requires replacement.

Maintenance Requires patching and/or replacement due to hoistway contact.

No maintenance required

Advantage No Advantage The smaller/tighter cable loop/bend allows traveling cable to avoid making contact with hoistway walls/beams.

This eliminates traveling cable damage that requires repair and/or replacement.

Useful Life Cycle 10 Years 20 Years

Preferred Alternative for Type of Traveling Cable

S-25 Two options for the type of traveling cable were considered as follows:

• Round Traveling Cable

• Flat Traveling Cable

Based on the CBA analysis below, the VA team identified flat traveling cable as preferred.

The final decision will be made during predesign phase.

Choosing By Advantages Subject: Traveling Cable

CBA: S-25

Advantage No Advantage Much longer lifecycle

Cost Cost similar Cost similar

Life Cycle Cost Highest LCC Lowest LCC

AC Gearless Machine DC Gearless Machine

Reliability Extremely Reliable Extremely Reliable

Advantage No Advantage No Advantage

Quietness Low Vibration, Quiet Vibration, Moderately Quiet

Advantage Quieter Operation No Advantage

Compactness Compact Design Moderately Compact

Advantage More Compact, allows for deflector sheave assembly at machine room level for easy of service and repair.

No Advantage

Maintenance Nearly maintenance free (no carbon brushes)

Requires maintenance due to use of carbon brushes

Advantage Much Lower Maintenance No Advantage

Industry Support Largely used by Industry Limited use by Industry

Advantage Much Better Industry Support Now & Future

No Advantage, technical and parts support is becoming limited.

Energy Efficiency High energy efficiency Moderate energy efficiency

Advantage 8% Better Energy Efficiency No Advantage

Capacity/ Speed Performance

Moderate capacity/ speed performance

Maximum capacity/ speed performance

Advantage No Advantage - meets the required speed/capacity for this project

No Advantage - meets the required speed/capacity for this project

Disassembly Moderately easily to disassemble

Easily to disassemble

Advantage No Advantage Much Better Disassembly

Preferred Alternative for AC vs. DC Gearless Hoist Machine

S-34 Both AC and DC gearless hoist machines were considered as follows:

• AC Gearless Machine

• DC Gearless Machine

Based on the CBA analysis below, the VA team identified the AC gearless machine as

Subject: Hoist Machine

CBA: S-34

Familiarity New Technology Legacy Product Technology

Advantage No Advantage Current install is DC Machine, mechanic is familiar with DC machine

Impact on Machine Room

High heat generation Moderate heat generation

Advantage No Advantage Moderately lower heat generation

Initial Cost Cost Similar Cost Similar

Life Cycle Cost Lower Cost No Advantage

Preferred Alternative for Emergency Rescue

The following sub systems are to be used as in sequence, combination or individually to provide Emergency Rescue operations for the elevators at Carlsbad Caverns. These Emergency Rescue sub systems should be utilized in the event of an entrapment that cannot be resolved through troubleshooting efforts. The first sub systems is an Auxiliary Motor that mounted to the main hoist machine and designed to drive the hoist machine.

The Auxiliary Motor drives the main hoist machine at slow speed and would allow the elevator car to be moved in the up or down direction, taking the entrapped passengers to the closest floor for removal. The Auxiliary Motor does require that the main hoist machine be free of all mechanical binds. The next sub system is an Auxiliary Power Supply, this system provides battery back-up power in the event of building power loss or failure. The Auxiliary Power Supply provides enough power to run the elevator to the next landing and open the doors. This system will allow for safely, timely and seamless transporting of passengers in the event of a power loss. The Auxiliary Power Supply could also be used to power the Auxiliary Motor. The last option system in Emergency Rescue Operations is a Building Maintenance Unit (BMU). The BMU system is traditionally used to perform building maintenance to exterior building facades. However, the BMU monorail system provides a safe, mobile and flexible system that can be used as a vehicle to provide emergency rescue services to entrapped passengers when all other options have been exhausted. The BMU operates on a monorail track system with hoisting devices that are mounted on the BMU platform. The monorail track systems design offers great maneuverability and presents the potential of having a BMU system that could move from hoistway to hoistway and store in the elevator overhead area. The emergency rescue operation of transferring entrapped passengers from the elevator to the BMU platform needs to be fully engineered. This process is highly dangerous and will need several levels of safety redundancy in place.

Auxiliary Motor Auxiliary Power Supply

Building Maintenance Unit (BMU)

The VA study details are contained in Section B of this report which follows.

SECTION B: VALUE ANALYSIS STUDY

Phase I - Information Study Specifics

Carlsbad Caverns is in the need for a sustainable vertical transportation system (VTS) that is reliable - as well as economical to construct, operate, and maintain into the future. The current traction elevator system, designed and built in 1931, may not be the best solution for the VTS application. Over the ensuing 85 years, there have been improved technologies that would improve efficiency, simplify construction, and provide us with a more sustainable VTS. Part of the task for this task order is to identify existing problems and see if there are alternative VTS designs that should be considered.

Future Planned projects:

PMIS 176453- Emergency Replacement of Old Cavern Elevator Equipment (#3 & #4); this project is a complete repair and modernization of elevators 3 and 4 at Carlsbad Caverns National Park. This includes removal of old equipment and installation of new machines, guiderails for cars and counterweights, replacement of associated elevator controllers, cars and all attached equipment, counterweight frames and attachments, overspeed governor equipment, hoistway controls, call stations, all wire ropes, all pit equipment, deflector or secondary sheaves, and replacement of all wiring and traveling cables. This includes 2 elevators which are 4000 pound capacity units, at a current contract speed of 800 feet per minute.

PMIS-6891740-Replace Elevator Controllers for 3 & 4. Associated with 176453

PMIS 219342- Replace Structural Steel and Elevator Equipment for 1 and 2 Elevator: This project will replace the structural steel elevator support system and all elevator components associated with elevators 1 and 2. The project will include the replacement and alignment of all guiderails, wiring, cars and counterweights and attached equipment, pit equipment and machine room equipment. Replacement of elevator cables, lead paint abatement, and asbestos remediation may be included in this project. This project will replace the over speed governor equipment in entirety. The contract will include inspection and certification of elevator system prior to acceptance.

Reference Documents

The design team of HDR provided the VA team with the following reference documents:

• Carlsbad 2010 Repair Drawings

• Draft Scope of Services, NPS, May 4, 2016

• Carlsbad Caverns Program Outline, Lerch Bates, June 30, 2016

• Conference Call Notes, Various Dates

• Value Analysis Presentation (including costs), Lerch Bates, July 25, 2016

Phase II - Function Analysis

Function Logic Diagram

Function analysis is core to any value analysis study. For this project, the VA team prepared a function logic diagram (Figure 1) to help understand the overall purposes of the project. Functions are described using an abridged description with an active verb and a measurable noun. For example one of the basic functions of this project is for the purpose of “improving visitor ingress/ egress.”

The function logic diagram describes the essential functions of the project. Reading to the right of the boxes on the diagram answers “how” the mission of NPS is strengthened with the completion of is project. Functions include:

• Improving visitor Ingress/ Egress

• Improve emergency exiting

• Improve worker safety

• Protecting cultural resources

• Protecting natural resources

• Improving visitor convenience

• Improve comfort quality

• Improve reliability

• Improve operational effectiveness

• Extend system life

• Minimize maintenance

• Minimize total cost of ownership

• Enhance sustainability

• Enhance resiliency

• Minimize visitor risks

• Minimize construction time

Reading from right to left on the diagram answers “why” the specific functions of the project are to be done.

This function logic diagram was later used by the VA team to identify factors to evaluate the alternatives using the Choosing By Advantages (CBA) decision making approach. The functions used as factors are identified on the diagram. Those functions that are equally met by each alternative (no advantages to one alternative over another) did not need to be included as evaluation factors in the CBA.

Carlsbad Caverns National Park, New Mexico Function Logic

Diagram

Figure 1

HOW? Legend: WHY? WHEN?

"Function" or "Purpose" Basic Function (Verb-Noun)

CBA Factor (Elev.1&2) CBA Factor (Elev.3&4)

Secondary Function

Improve Visitor

Ingress/Egress Improve Passenger

Rescue Provide Improve Define

Safe Visits Emergency Implement Project & Working Exit Project Requirements Conditions

CBA Factor (Elev.3&4) Improve

Worker Safety re: Elevator

Servicing/ Maint. CBA Factor (Elev.1&2)

Protect Avoid Cultural Cultural

Resources Resource Protect Impacts

Cultural & Natural Avoid

Resources Cave Protect Resource Natural Impacts

Resources Minimize

CBA Factor (Elev.1&2) Cave Resource Impacts

Minimize Travel

Improve Time Visitor

Convenience Minimize

Construction Delays

Improve Minimize

Visitor Enjoyment Noise thru Better Services

Ed., Rec. Opp.

Improve

Ride Quality

Improve Enhance Comfort Air Quality Quality

Aesthetics (Elevator Cab)

CBA Factor (Elev.3&4)

Interpret Educate Vertical Visitors Transportation

System

Carlsbad Caverns National Park, New Mexico Function Logic

Diagram

Figure 1

Use Use Improve Well-Known, State-of-the-Art Reliability Reliable Products/Materials

Technology CBA Factor (Elev.3&4)

Consider High Season Efficiencies Optimize

Capacity

Operational

Consider Low Season Efficiencies

Effectiveness Use Simple, Upgradable

Control System

Minimize EQ

Area Requirements

CBA Factor (Elev.1&2) Use

Durable Improve Park Extend Resist EQ Define Efficiency, System Cave Minimize Implement Project Reliability & Life Moisture Corrosion Project Requirements Sustainability Impacts Use

CBA Factor (Elev.1&2) Durable CBA Factor (Elev.3&4) Materials

(Rail, etc.)

Use Simple

Maintenance Free Equipment

Maximize Accommodate

Minimize Equipment EQ Disassembly Maintenance Accessibility Repair Time

CBA Factor (Elev.3&4) Consider Improve Seek

Future Response Industry Replacement Repair Time Support

Total Cost of Ownership

(LCC)

Enhance Sustainability

Use

High Energy Efficient EQ

Sustainable

CBA Factor (Elev.1&2) Materials

Enhance Resiliency

Risks

(Tech/ Cost/ etc.)

Provide CBA Factor (Elev.1&2)

Other NPS CBA Factor (Elev.3&4) Priority #1 Benefits Passenger Elev.3&4

(Operation by Minimize May 2018)

Construction Time Priority #2

Service Elev.1&2 (Operation by

May 2021)

Project Scope

Phase III - Creativity Creative Ideas

A total of sixty three (63) creative ideas were generated during the “brainstorming” portion of the VA workshop. Below is a listing of all the ideas. Ideas in bold type indicate team desires them to be further studied.

IDEAS – Service/ Freight (S) Elevators 3&4 Note: Bold type indicates further consideration

S-1 Consider investigation into reasons for failure of elevator #4 for future consideration

S-2 Temporary Solution Option, repair only “must have items” to get elevators operational ASAP, then repair remainder in a future phase (note this doesn’t meet required task SOW) Cost Estimate:

Investigation of 3 & 4 $100,000 Repair/rebuild #4 armature shaft 200,000 Other repairs, rail, etc. 50,000 Possibly repair #3 armature shaft 200,000

Total $550- 600,000 (life expectancy 10-15 years)

S-3 Guiderails – consider replacing now

S-4 Consider options for type of hoist machine – See CBA S-4 in Section A

• Geared Machine

• Gearless Machine

S-5 Identify options for controllers with one long run (similar to observation decks)

S-6 Consider “winders”

S-7 Consider machine-less room

S-8 Use multiple cars in same shaft

S-9 Put two cabins on same shaft (deeper pit)

S-10 Explore innovative guideway system options such as a “magnetic system,” a cutting edge approach

S-11 Identify options to using VFD’s

S-12 Perform power study at site as input to selection of equipment

S-13 Have controller manufacturer provide written support information

S-14 Consider timeliness of controller manufacturer response to servicing elevators

S-15 Consider options for procurement of controllers

• Design Build

• Design Bid Build

S-16 Consider other controller manufacturers including those east of the Mississippi River

S-17 Add ISO qualification as part of controller criteria (to avoid unqualified bidders)

S-18 Select a large controller company to assure service performance

S-19 Assure Maintenance Control Program (MCP) is in place

S-20 Consider door landing system options which are an issue of concern:

• Current optical

• Proximity

• Barcode type

S-21 Investigate “sling” adjustment due to problem after adding heavy load

S-22 Design system to allow heavy loads

S-23 Consider options to respond to water entering shaft

S-24 Consider options for ropes, including storage of ropes – See CBA S-24 in Section A

• Steel Rope w/ hemp core

• Steel Rope w/ steel core

• Galvanized Steel Ropes

• Stainless Steel Ropes

S-25 Consider options for traveling cable – See CBA S-25 in Section A

• Round Traveling Cable

• Flat Traveling Cable

S-26 Set schedule for repairs in low season (Sept. to Feb., Apl. 15 – May 20 *Avoid Spring Break, Memorial Day, Easter)

S-27 Identify options for work schedule (5 day, 6 day, etc.)

S-28 Consider phasing project

S-29 Identify options to remove damaged cab from shaft

S-30 Grit blast counter weight

S-31 Consider options for cab replacement

S-32 Consider slightly slower elevator (with less HP), for example 700 FPM (or less) with simplified maintenance and less cost

S-33 Add window in cab for visitor observation/visitor experience

S-34 Consider options for hoist machine – See CBA S-34 in Section A

• AC Gearless Machine

• DC Gearless Machine

P-8 Consider Traditional elevator system, replace steel in kind (similar to current elevators 3&4)

P-9 Consider Traditional elevator system, replace rail system with alternative material

P-10 Reconsider spacing of structural beams from 14’ to 10’ to reduce cost

P-11 Concern for proper materials for jointing, explore materials such as poly-carbon, stainless steel, other (This to be studied as the design develops)

P-12 Laser scan to precisely locate existing conditions. Provide to contractor for Revit model

P-13 Use laser scan after construction to verify QA/QC and for future Park reference

P-14 Use laser beam to align structure during repair/ replacement

P-15 Minimize number of anchors into cave wall by using longer steel columns (see sketch)

P-16 Consider design-build construction method with VA workshops to make value based decisions

P-17 Have good oversight during construction, use drones for inspection

P-18 Prequalify contractors/subcontractors

P-19 Use charcoal as a fireproof coating material

P-20 Separate two different metals (steel & SS)

P-21 Consider one larger cab vs. two (for 1&2)

IDEAS – Emergency Rescue (E) Note: Bold type indicates further consideration

E-1 Consider “drifting a car” with breaking system and good break release (manual breaking)

E-2 Consider combination of breaking system with small motor to move cars to safe location

E-3 Provide backup generator for small motor operation

E-4 Develop rescue plan

E-5 Incorporate emergency rescue system as part of “Base” project

E-6 Use elevator cable/ rail as part of rescue

E-7 Investigate other similar cave situations for emergency rescue ideas such as:

• Jewell Cave

• Wind Cave

• Also consider observation deck type rescue

E-8 Identify short term solutions to improve emergency rescue such as:

• Capsule drop-down

• Etc.

Phase IV - Evaluation (Part 1 – Factors & Definitions)

As the first task of the evaluation phase the team developed and discussed the CBA factors which would be used to evaluate the alternatives. Factors were selected from the Function Logic Diagram. The study team then defined variables and sub factors to tailor the evaluation factors to the needs for each topic. The following table, Figure 3, is the evaluation factors and definitions used.

CBA Topics

NPS OBJECTIVE: Protect Public and Employee Health, Safety & Welfare Factor 1: Protect Public and Employee Health, Safety & Welfare NPS OBJECTIVE: Protect Cultural and Natural Resources Factor 2: Prevent Loss, Maintain & Improve Resources NPS OBJECTIVE: Provide for Visitor Enjoyment Factor 3: Improve Visitor Services, Educational and Recreational Opportunities NPS OBJECTIVE: Improve Efficiency of Park Operations Factor 4: Improve Operational Efficiency, Reliability and Sustainability NPS OBJECTIVE: Other Considerations Factor 5: Provide Other Advantages to NPS

SPECIAL FACTOR: COST

Sub-factor Definition/Variables Initial Cost (Short-term) • Capital Costs Life Cycle Cost (Long-term) • Maintenance Costs

• Operating Costs

• Staffing Costs

Figure 2: CBA Evaluation Factors

Phase IV - Evaluation (Part 2 – Choosing by Advantages)

Alternatives within each decision topic were evaluated using a process called Choosing by Advantages, where decisions are based on the importance of advantages between alternatives. The value based decision making technique has been used by the NPS for many years to help identify the preferred alternative for further design development. The evaluation involves the identification of the attributes or characteristics of each alternative relative to the evaluation criteria, a determination of the advantages for each alternative within each evaluation factor, and then the weighing of importance of each advantage.

The highest importance advantage is identified in each factor. The paramount advantage, across factors, was determined and assigned a weight determined by the team.

Remaining advantages were rated on the same scale. Construction and life cycle costs were developed for each alternative, as appropriate. Recommendations are based on a balance of cost and importance.

The evaluation sheets form the basis for presenting the alternatives and design sketches and cost estimates. The evaluation tables present may types of information. Attributes of an alternative are shown above the dotted line in the CBA table. Advantages between alternatives are shown below the dotted line. An anchor statement summarizes those advantages. The advantage with the highest importance within a factor is indicated by a highlight around the advantage cell.

The study team evaluated the benefit or “importance of advantage” to be realized from the Alternatives (see CBA Matrix). Relative initial cost estimates for the alternatives were developed by the VA team. Results were graphed with importance or benefit on the vertical scale and initial cost on the horizontal scale, as appropriate. The positive slope of the increment reflects good value and the highest benefit to cost ratio. Similarly, when the life cycle costs are considered, certain alternatives offer the best value and the highest benefit to cost ratio to the NPS and were selected as the preferred alternative.

Upon reconsideration, the VA team suggested the design team explore ways to add additional benefits and lower initial and life cycle costs to each of the preferred alternatives.

Phase V - Development

The development phase of the VA job plan includes preparing a variety of items to verify each creative idea truly adds value to the project. The results are then used to prepare a presentation.

Two subject areas were the focus of this value analysis workshop. Each followed the Choosing By Advantages (CBA) decision-making process. The documentation on the following pages includes, as appropriate, the following:

A. Value Analysis Recommendation

• Alternatives Considered

• Preferred Alternative

• Reconsideration Recommendations

• Life Cycle Cost Analysis Summary

B. Sketches of Alternatives C. Choosing By Advantages Matrix D. Total Importance Allocation to Advantages Scale E. Life Cycle Cost Analysis F. CBA Importance to Initial Cost Graph G. CBA Importance to Life Cycle Cost

Figure 3 documents the Passenger Elevators 3&4 Alternative Selection (CBA1)

Figure 4 documents the Service/ Freight Elevators 1&2 Alternative Selection (CBA2)

Value Analysis Recommendation-Choosing By Advantages Figure 3A

Project: Passenger Elevators 3 & 4 VA No.

Item: Elevator Modernization CBA-1

Alternatives Considered The VA team reviewed the base design prepared by Lerch Bates. Further discussion led to some modification. Two additional alternatives were also developed. These alternatives included:

• Alternative 1: Base Design, including Guide Rail Replacement, Two Governors, Pit Buffers, etc.;

• Alternative 2: Base Design (+) Cab Replacement, Car Counterweight, Entrances, Safeties;

• Alternative 3: Base Design (-) No New Cab Finishes, No Guide Rail Replacement.

Preferred Alternative

Based on the CBA analysis, the VA team identified Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative.

Advantages of the Preferred Alternative 2:

l Significantly better visitor safety due to opportunity to improve emergency exiting l Much better visitor experience due to improved aesthetics l Significantly better reliability due to all new improvements l Significantly better extending the life of the elevators l Slightly better maintainability l Significantly better at limiting NPS risks

Reconsideration Recommendations After initial selection of Alternative 2, the team identified a number of further improvements to enhance emergency exiting. A separate analysis was prepared for this recommendation.

Life Cycle Cost Summary

Initial Cost

Life Cycle Cost Preferred Alternative 2 3,560,000 3,560,000

Value Analysis Existing Situation Figure 3A

Passenger Elevators – 3 & 4*

Equipment Details:

4,000 lbs capacity, 800 FPM, 750’ Travel 1955 Original Installation Dover DC Gearless Machines – 1976 install

–DC Machines rebuilt in 2009 MCE Controls – 1999 Installation Structural Steel replaced in 2010-2013

* Both elevators are currently out of service. #4 DC Gearless machine has a broken shaft – 11/2015

Sketch Worksheet Figure 3B

Alternative 1: Base Design, including Guide Rail Replacement, Two Governors, Pit Buffers, etc.

Base Design

The modernization of these elevators includes the following:

1. New hoist machines, cabs and frames, counterweight frames and weights, DC motors, hoist ropes, deflector sheaves, ascending over speed protection devices, microprocessor controllers, piping and wire way in machine room and machine room wiring.

2. New traveling cables, hoist way piping, wire way and wiring.

3. New car top control station, leveling unit, exhaust fan, code approved emergency exit switches and car top guard rails where required.

4. New light and GFI top and bottom of cars.

5. New high performance closed loop door operators, stainless steel car doors, tracks, hangers, rollers, gibs, restrictors, drive arms and clutch assembly.

6. New car operating panels, digital car position indicator and audio voice system.

7. New LED light fixtures, drop ceiling frame, ceiling panels, interior cab wall panels and floor c8o. vNeerwingh.all push buttons fixtures, hoist way access key switches, digital hall lantern/position indicator. Fire emergency key switches in hall station faceplates and main car operating panels.

9. New stainless steel hoist way doors, tracks, hangers, rollers, gibs, guide roller assemblies, door locks and closers. Replace stainless steel entrance frames and repair adjacent surfaces.

10. New normal and terminal limit switches.

11. Replace pit ladder. Locate new light and new stop switches at the top of pit ladders and in the pit. Add grab bar at top of each ladder, new pit equipment including comp sheaves, ropes, and buffers.

12. Replace top of hoist way, machine room, and lobby smoke detectors and wiring.

13. New governor, hoisting, and compensating ropes and attachments.

14. Remove all unused conduit from hoist way and patch all holes with approved fire proofing material.

VA Team added:

1. Guide rail replacement

Alternative 2: Base Design (+) Cab Replacement, Car Counterweight, Entrances, Safeties

VA Team added:

1. Guide rail replacement

2. Cab replacement

3. Car counterweight replacement

4. Entrances replacement

5. Safeties replacement

Alternative 3: Base Design (-) No New Cab Finishes, No Guide Rail Replacement

VA Team removed:

1. Existing cab replacement of finishes

2. Guide rail replacement

Choosing By Advantages Matrix Figure 3C Project: Passenger Elevators 3 & 4 Item: Elevator Modernization

Factors:

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Base Design, including Guide Rail Replacement, Two Governors, Pit

Buffers, etc.

Base Design (+) Cab Replacement, Car Counterweight, Entrances, Safeties

Base Design (-) No New Cab Finishes, No Guide Rail

Replacement

Provide Safe Visits and Working Conditions

Sub Factor: Visitor Safety - Emergency Exiting Attributes: - Without new cab, limits improvements to emergency exiting

- Allows cab to accommodate new emergency exiting options

- Without new cab, limits improvements to emergency exiting

Advantages: No Advantage 0.0 Significantly better visitor safety due to opportunity to improve emergency exiting

95.0 No Advantage 0.0

Protect Natural and Cultural Resources (No Differences)

Improve Visitor Enjoyment Through Better Services, Educational & Recreational Opportunities

Sub Factor: Visitor Experience - Improved Aesthetics Attributes: - Existing rusted cab, new cab finishes - Cab replaced, new cab finishes - Existing rusted cab, no replacement

Advantages: Much better visitor experience due to improved aesthetics

60.0 Much better visitor

experience due to improved aesthetics

60.0 No Advantage 0.0

Improve Efficiency, Reliability and Sustainability of Park Operations

Sub Factor: Improved Reliability Attributes: - Moderate improvements to elevators

3 & 4

- All new improvements to elevators 3

& 4

- Many components not improved

Advantages: Moderately better reliability due to moderate improvements

40.0 Significantly better reliability

due to all new improvements

90.0 No Advantage 0.0

Sub Factor: Extended Life Attributes: - Life extended by 10 years - Life extended by 50 years - Life extended by 5 years

Advantages: Slightly better extending the life of the elevators

15.0 Significantly better

extending the life of the elevators

85.0 No Advantage 0.0

Sub Factor: Maintainability Attributes: - Requires maintenance on cab - Minimum maintenance - Annual repainting and repairs of cab

- Annual guide rail maintenance

Advantages: No Advantage 45.0 Slightly better maintainability

80.0 No Advantage 0.0

Provide Cost…