Façade Access and Fall Protection – Designed Systems or Afterthought? Kimani Augustine, PE Walter P. Moore & Associates, Inc. 1301 McKinney St., Ste. 1100, Houston, TX, 77010 713-630-7467 • kaugustine@walterpmoore.com Jeffrey Kobes, PE Walter P. Moore & Associates, Inc. 500 N. Akard St., Ste. 2300, Dallas, TX, 75201 214-740-6272 • jkobes@walterpmoore.com and Kristian Krc, PE IIBEC 2020 Virtual International Conve ntion & Trade Show | June 12-14, 2020 A ugustine and Kobes | 257 Kimani Augustine is a senior associate and senior project manager at his firm’s Houston office. He has been in the engineering industry since 2004 and has experience in diversified aspects of enclosure diagnostics consulting, including conducting field visits and assessments of existing structures requiring retrofit or renovation. He has led efforts on a wide variety of building enclosure, façade access, and parking restoration projects. Augustine has also managed several significant building enclosure renovation projects involving rope access and building façade maintenance unit assessments, certification, and retrofits. Jeffrey Kobes is a is a senior associate and senior project manager at his firm’s Dallas office. Kobes specializes in services related to the assessment, repair, and expansion of existing and historical buildings, including the building enclosure issues associated with existing buildings. He utilizes his experience with historical buildings to develop thoughtful approaches to façade access and maintenance for both existing and new buildings. He is a member of the Association of Preservation Technology and Preservation Dallas and serves on the Structural Engineers Emergency Response Committee for the Structural Engineers Association of Texas. Nonpresenting Author: Kristian Krc, PE 258 | Augustine and Kobes IIBEC 2020 Virtual International Conve ntion & Trade Show | June 12-14, 2020 ABSTRACT SPEAKERS The rules and regulations governing safety requirements for workers exposed to occupational hazards associated with walking-working surfaces are often misunderstood by building owners, design consultants, employers, employees, and third-party contractors. Owners are not always clear what is required, and traditional design consultants are often not comfortable specifying these systems. Due to this issue, façade access and fall protection systems frequently become an afterthought instead of being included in pre-design discussions and considerations. This presentation will discuss the regulations and industry best practices associated with façade access and fall protection systems. It will also address the role of the design consultant in specifying these systems and recommended methods to streamline coordination challenges among the parties. A façade access case study for the Las Vegas Convention Center project will be presented to demonstrate the benefit of early coordination. With 120-foot-tall curtainwalls at the 220-foot-wide porte cochere, 60-foot-tall curtainwalls along the remainder of the 600-foot-long building front, and a continuous undulating ribbon overhang that extends 8 to 12 feet from the exterior face of the building, designing systems for routine façade access and maintenance of the center was a challenge. The case study will highlight the successful processes used by the design and construction team to produce safe, efficient, and OSHA-compliant access at elevated building areas. INTRODUCTION With the increased complexity of modern building architecture, exterior access for workers performing operations at elevated surfaces can be potentially unsafe unless a properly designed and installed fall protection and façade access system is provided. Regulatory agencies have begun to address these potentially unsafe conditions and have required that building owners and employers provide the necessary safety measures for their workers. However, during the design of a new building, owners and design consultants are often uncertain of the appropriate procedures to be implemented for mitigating these safety concerns. If not properly considered during the original design, inadequately implemented façade access and fall protection systems may negatively impact the future safety of maintenance operations at the facility. In cases where the façade access and fall protection systems are implemented after initial design, the consultant is often restricted by finalized architectural and structural elements. These restraints can increase the overall cost of the façade access systems through change orders, rework, extended schedules, and field-ordered strengthening. Additionally, the specified systems may have negative aesthetic impacts. Finally, and most importantly, an improperly planned and designed system could result in a safety- and efficiency-compromised application, which can place workers in potentially dangerous situations and increase future maintenance costs due to additional labor and staging requirements. Instead of the façade access and fall protection systems being an afterthought to the design process, it is recommended that an upfront planned and integrated approach be implemented. For this approach to be effective, the façade access consultant should be engaged early in the design process to assess the facility design and identify potential hazards. Eliminating or addressing the hazards in a way that is compliant with the multiple federal, local, and industry regulations becomes the next phase of the approach and often iterates back to the first phase of hazard identification as the building design evolves. Documentation of the necessary maintenance and certification procedures occurs after installation and completes the integrated approach to ensure that the owners understand how to safely utilize and maintain the components that make up their access strategy. Each of these phases will be discussed in more detail, and a case study will be presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of such an approach. FACILITY ASSESSMENT AND HAZARD IDENTIFICATION Early during the schematic design phase, the façade access consultant reviews the schematic plans, interviews the owner and the design team, and identifies potential fall hazards related to the planned maintenance and operations of the building. As the design progresses, the consultant provides perspective regarding required fall protection systems and façade access systems for more efficient integration into the overall project scope. The façade access consultant also closely facilitates discussions between the owner, structural engineer, architect, and any specialized equipment manufacturers to ensure that aesthetics, loads, and other requirements are considered and coordinated. Besides just working with the design team, it is important that the consultant evaluate the design for various types of fall hazards based on the owner’s intended use of the facility. With the increased complexity of modern façades and usage requirements for maintenance and cleaning, understanding the specific needs of the facility is critical. For example, nearly all buildings incorporate glazing systems in one form or another. In these cases, window washing and periodic façade maintenance operations—such as sealant or gasket replacement—require access to windows from the exterior. In some cases, elevated interior access must also be provided in locations such as tall atriums. It is important to note that developing a proper understanding of how and with what frequency the owner intends to perform these tasks will influence the access strategy. Modern structures also often incorporate LED lighting for aesthetics, aircraft warning, or advertising. If the owner desires to install these systems, providing safe means for their maintenance or replacement over the life of the building is also necessary. Other future façade access situations that may be considered by the consultant include green façade maintenance, replacement of glazing, or transport of materials and equipment to a roof. After developing an understanding of the intended vision of the design team and the future façade access usage requirements by the owner, the façade access consultant can proceed with assessing the facility design. This stage of the process is performed by reviewing available schematic 3-D models and design drawings. Hazards associated with assessing the façade access equipment and performing other work at Instead of the façade access and fall protection systems being an afterthought to the design process, it is recommended that an upfront planned and integrated approach be implemented. Façade Access and Fall Protection – Designed Systems or Afterthought? IIBEC 2020 Virtual International Conve ntion & Trade Show | June 12-14, 2020 A ugustine and Kobes | 259 elevated surfaces are identified. Potential hazards include unprotected edges, low-height parapets (Figure 1), skylights or clerestory windows (Figure 2), manholes, stairs and ladders, step bolts, suspended access work, and any other hazards exposing the employee to a potential fall greater than 4 ft. The consultant will then assign an appropriate safety system to address each of the identified hazards. It is at this point that the locations and loads of the proposed safety systems are communicated to the project design team. The process of coordination begins among the façade access consultant, architect, engineers, and manufacturers. The architect is interested in knowing the locations of the façade access systems that might impact the building enclosure, require concealment, or that impact architectural finishes such as balconies or plaza pavers. The structural engineers need to know the design loads that these systems impart on their structure for implementation into their design. Early implementation of loads results in a more efficient structure. The mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) engineer benefits by knowing where electrical and water sources will be needed for the maintenance procedures. APPLICATION OF DESIGN PRINCIPLES There are multiple façade access and fall protection entities that provide regulatory requirements at the local, state, or federal governmental level, as well as industry consensus standards that outline best-practices design guidelines. These entities include the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), state governmental agencies such as CalOSHA, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), and the International Window Cleaning Association (IWCA). The following is a brief overview of regulations and standards used by the façade access consultant to identify and address fall hazards during design. OSHA 1910 The OSHA standards are divided into four main categories: Agriculture, Part 1928; Construction, Part 1926; General Industry, Part 1910; and Maritime, Parts 1915, 1917, and 1918. Often, confusion arises as to which category standards should be followed for façade access and maintenance and fall protection for buildings (i.e. OSHA 1926 or OSHA 1910). Even though OSHA 1910 and OSHA 1926 standards both cover fall protection and are intended to be similar, they are not interchangeable between the construction and general industry sectors. For the typical day-to-day façade access and fall protection requirements used in the process of maintaining a facility, consultants should follow the 1910 General Industry standards except in isolated circumstances such as when OSHA 1910 references the 1926 standards. Specifically, out of the 1910 General Industry standards, 29 CFR OSHA 1910, Subpart D – Walking-Working Surfaces, Subpart E – Means of Egress, and Subpart F – Powered Platforms, Manlifts, and Vehicle-Mounted Work Platforms, are of particular interest to a façade access consultant. OSHA 1910, Subpart D – Walking-Working Surfaces covers minimum dimensions, use limitations, and maintenance requirements of walking-working surfaces including but not limited to ladders, stairways, scaffolds, and rope descent systems (RDS). OSHA 1910, Subpart E – Means of Egress covers dimensional requirements to means of egress and can apply to items such as catwalks that can be utilized at locations such as tall parapets where anchorages or davits might need to be accessed. OSHA 1910, Subpart F – Powered Platforms, Manlifts, and Vehicle-Mounted Work Platforms covers platforms permanently dedicated to exterior and interior building maintenance. However, it does not cover temporary suspended scaffolds or swing stages; these are covered under OSHA 1926, Subpart L, as incorporated by reference in OSHA 1910. OSHA Final Rule On November 17, 2016, OSHA issued a Final Rule on Walking-Working Surfaces and Personal Fall Protection Systems to “prevent and reduce workplace slips, trips, and falls, as well as other injuries and fatalities associated with walking-working surface hazards.” The Final Rule aimed to bring consistency between the construction standards and general industry standards. One significant change that impacts designers and owners is that inspection and certification of existing permanent building anchorages were required (effective November 20, 2017). Fixed ladder fall protection requirements were also updated as part of the Final Rule. This ruling presented a significant change to the fall protection and façade access industries. By being incorporated in OSHA, the visual 260 | Augustine and KobesBES IIBEC 2020 Virtual International ConveVEntion & Trade Show | June 12-14, 2020 Figure 1 – Unprotected edge with low-height parapet. Figure 2 – Unprotected clerestory windows. inspection and certification of anchorages, providing fall protection measures for ladders, and other updates to walking-working surfaces became mandatory. Previously, a lot of these safety applications either had limited regulatory requirements in OSHA or were referenced by OSHA’s General Duty Clause through applicable industry consensus standards. Very importantly, the Final Rule introduced mandatory anchorage certification requirements to be completed by the building owner. ANSI/IWCA I-14.1-2001 Consensus standard ANSI/IWCA I-14.1 is applicable for window cleaning safety and provides a comprehensive set of guiding principles for rope descent systems. It is separated into two parts: A) General and Performance Requirements and B) Building and Equipment Design Requirements. Many of the requirements in Section B are in line with OSHA requirements such as minimum safety factor used for design, minimum load requirement for design of rooftop anchorages, inspections and certification requirements, as well as unprotected edge height and load requirements. ANSI/ASSP Z359 Fall Protection and Arrest Standards These standards are the most comprehensive general industry standards relating to fall protection and are also referenced by OSHA. Nearly all industries in which work is performed at height are covered by ANSI Z359 standards. The standards are continually evolving and updated. Many of the ANSI sections are aimed at providing a baseline for safety product manufacturers. However, it is important for a consultant to be aware of these requirements as well. In recent years, there has been an effort to unify the referenced standards applicable to fall protection and façade access. Local Governmental Agencies and Similar Entities The consultant must also coordinate the project requirements with all applicable local governmental agencies such as CalOSHA, Oregon OSHA, KY OSH, NYS DOL, and similar groups which may exceed the federal OSHA regulations. The consultant must be aware of the local requirements for each project. Additionally, the local fire department may have specific requirements in some cases. It is the consultant’s responsibility to address all potential fall hazards identified during the assessment and façade access design in accordance with all applicable federal and local regulations and consensus standards. FALL HAZARD MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES Based on the understanding of the facility requirements and the governmental and industry regulations and guidelines, the façade access consultant seeks to address the hazards in the various areas. In general, the hierarchy of fall hazard management is shown in decreasing order in Table 1. Other systems such as safety nets are now allowed by OSHA for general industry; however, these systems are rarely used for façade access and fall prevention. For places where suspended work is required to take place, the consultant has a wide variety of systems and products to choose from to provide access to even the hardest places to reach. These devices include: • Rope Descent Systems (RDSs) – Typically specified for buildings less than 300 ft. in height per OSHA 1910, Subpart D – Section 1910.27, with lower initial cost compared to more complex and load-demanding solutions such as davits or building IIBEC 2020 Virtual International ConveVEntion & Trade Show | June 12-14, 2020 A augustine and KoBES | 261 Figure 3 – Fall restraint line and tieback anchors. Table 1 – Fall hazard management hierarchy. maintenance units. Nevertheless, RDSs are more labor intensive and present limits on what can be done. Typically, the primary uses of RDSs include window washing and general façade maintenance work such as caulking via bosun chairs. RDSs typically utilize supports systems, including tieback anchorages and davits as described below. • Tieback/Rooftop Anchorage – A system of anchorages strategically located around the perimeter of the roof to serve as tie-off points for RDSs and sometimes as personal lifeline tie-off points for davit or temporary outrigger systems (Figure 3). • Temporary Outrigger Beams – Transportable pinned or counterweighted beams typically used to support RDSs or powered platforms utilizing ground rigging. • Davits – Cantilevered suspension systems, typically installed around the perimeter of the roof, allowing raising or lowering of a work platform such as a swing stage. These systems utilize permanent bases attached to structural elements and moveable arms that serve as tie-off points (Figure 4). These systems can impose large loads on the supporting structure due to extended moment arms. • Ground-Based Systems – This solution is ideal for interior or exterior of shorter structures and includes scissor lifts, aerial platforms, and other mobile elevated work platforms. • Monorails – Consist of a system of rails supporting a trolley that moves over or through the rails. The suspended work can take place from a platform or RDS. Monorails are ideal for difficult-to-reach areas such as the underside of building overhangs, sloped glazing, domes, etc. • Building Maintenance Units (BMUs) – Permanent equipment typically located on the roof of a building that delivers workers on platforms from the location of the BMU to any location on the façade (Figures 5 and 6). BMUs are considered the primary method of access for currently built high-rise buildings greater than 300 ft. in height that fall under OSHA 1910, Subpart F. BMUs vary in size and can be custom built to suit the needs of the project. BMUs can impose significant loads on the structure, further demonstrating the need to have the façade access strategy addressed early in the design process and prior to steel mill orders. MAINTENANCE AND CERTIFICATION After the consultant has identified and addressed all hazards based on regulatory requirements, the final step is to prepare a written managed fall protection program that specifies the fall protection equipment and systems used to protect authorized persons from each fall haz262 | Augustine and KobesBES IIBEC 2020 Virtual International ConveVEntion & Trade Show | June 12-14, 2020 Figure 4 – Davit base near parapet. Figure 5 – Rooftop BMU. Figure 6 – BMU system in use. ard. This should include adequate usage instructions for operation of the specified fall protection systems, including installation, inspection, and certification. Training and rescue requirements, qualifications of authorized persons permitted to use the system, and defined responsibilities of each designated person should be clearly outlined. Responsibilities of the designated personnel as the employer, qualified person (design professional), competent person (typically supervisor or foreman versed in OSHA regulations), authorized person (typically worker or user of fall protection and façade access systems), etc. are defined in ANSI Z359. The employer, as referenced above, can be the building owner or an outside contractor hired to perform work. The exact definition of “employer” provided by ANSI is “any corporation, partnership, proprietorship, government agency, or other organization that has employees.” There are two types of systems as recognized in ANSI Z359: certified and non-certified. Typically specified anchorages are the non-certified type. This means that anchorage points are designed and tested based on the standard specified load. Certified anchorages are acceptable based on their design by a registered professional engineer. It should be pointed out that ANSI Z359 and OSHA 1910 are not consistent regarding the term “certified anchorages.” The certification requirements as set forth by ANSI Z359 are summarized in Table 2. Following the installation and certification process, a maintenance schedule should be established. Maintenance should follow all applicable regulatory requirements as well as the manufacturer’s recommended protocols. Along with routine maintenance, the systems should be visually inspected annually by a competent, qualified person, depending on the system type. The visual inspection should be documented and kept on file by the building owner to be presented to employers prior to use of the certified anchorages. The anchorages should also be load-tested (certified) at a maximum 10-year period or as otherwise required by the manufacturer or design professional. The load-tested certification should be overseen by a professional engineer who prepares a certification report to be kept on file by the building owner and provided to all authorized workers prior to use of these systems. Next, a case study is presented showing the three-step process outlined above, including assessment of the structure and identifying fall hazards, coordination with the design team, and providing guidance on maintenance and certification of the fall protection systems in a real-world application. CASE STUDY The three-step approach to façade access and fall protection detailed above has proven successful for many projects. One such example is the Las Vegas Convention Center Phase Two Expansion (Figure 7). The LVCC expansion will add over 1.4 million sq. ft. to the existing convention center and provide the convention center with a vital facelift. A 60-ft.-tall curtainwall lines the front of the expansion with a grand atrium that soars to over 150 ft. A ribbon roof that overhangs the front curtainwall sweeps up and over the grand atrium where it also cantilevers out to create a dramatic porte cochère. However, a byproduct of expansion was an increased complexity for façade access and new potential fall hazards. Developing the access strategy began by reviewing the design with the architect and identifying the areas that required regular maintenance. The planned maintenance activities included: • Cleaning the curtainwall on the exterior and interior • Cleaning skylights • Replacing lights and other minor electrical equipment hung from the overhangs • Maintaining roof drains • Making minor roof repairs • Inspecting the condition of the roof IIBEC 2020 Virtual International ConveVEntion & Trade Show | June 12-14, 2020 A augustine and KoBES | 263 Figure 7 – Las Vegas Convention Center. Large overhangs, 150-ft. curtainwalls, and open skylights create challenges for access and worker safety. (Image courtesy of TVS Design.) Table 2 – Typical system certification requirements. • Accessing and maintaining mechanical equipment We also discussed this list with the Las Vegas Convention Center District, which already had experience maintaining the original facility. It was helpful to get their perspective on previous access issues they had at the interior and exterior of the original building. Once all the access areas had been identified, we were able to determine an access strategy for the expansion. One particular issue that impacted the strategy was an understanding of the master plan for the entire convention center complex. A key part of the master plan was connecting the original convention center with the expansion. This would be accomplished with a pedestrian bridge and potentially an elevated people mover, which would allow vans to shuttle people back and forth between the two facilities. The people mover was envisioned as an elevated road bridge structure on the south side of the expansion, close to the curtainwall. Knowing the location of that elevated people mover and its proximity to the building was critical to ensure that the access strategy did not become obsolete when the people mover was installed. It also allowed the design of the future people mover to accommodate the access strategy. Since design is an iterative and fluid process, it was important for the façade consultant to maintain involvement throughout that process so that the strategy could be modified or the design adjusted. In some cases, the access strategy changed; in others, the design changed to prevent the access from becoming more difficult than necessary. Hazard mitigation was also a focus of the project. For example, achieving access to the full height of the curtainwall was needed to facilitate cleaning as well as hanging decals or banners for advertisements. Working at height presents a common hazard, and getting workers safely to and from that height is accomplished in various ways that have previously been discussed. For the expansion, a davit system to support a swing stage would be an economical approach. Cable holes through the ribbon roof would be required so that the swing stage could hang close to the glass. However, that approach would require the stage to be rerigged at each location, which would increase the time required to perform the cleaning or other maintenance. A monorail system was also discussed with the architect. It would allow for relatively quick movement along a track-mounted unit on the underside of the ribbon roof. But it was eventually determined that this would have too much impact on the aesthetic of the underside of the ribbon; furthermore, traveling up and down the sloped roof would pose a challenge for the system. What was determined to be the most efficient and flexible was the use of a ground-based lift to clean the windows. In the Las Vegas market, ground-based lifts are commonly available and frequently used to access building exteriors. A smaller, 85-ft. lift could be used for the majority of the building. A large lift with a 185-ft. reach could be rented periodically to reach the apex of the grand atrium and address any conditions of the soffit (Figure 8). We also needed to consider how the inside of the glass at the grand atrium would be maintained. A lift was still determined to be the most flexible option for the owner. We were able to demonstrate that these larger interior lifts were available, but it would require some special design effort for the exterior doors and floor finishes. We coordinated with the architect to locate doors with a removable center mullion in selected locations. We also reviewed where floor finishes were located so that the lift did not damage less durable finishes. These relatively small design features were picked up and included in the construction documents, allowing for the curtainwall manufacturer and fabricator to proactively address these conditions in their shop drawings without additional costly changes. It also reduced the maintenance cost of the building by mitigating the need for floor finishes to be replaced after installation. When reviewing the ground-based approach, we also needed to understand the local codes and ordinances. At the pedestrian bridge connecting the expansion to the original convention center, the glass walls would require regular cleaning and maintenance (Figure 9). Access from the 264 | Augustine and KobesBES IIBEC 2020 Virtual International ConveVEntion & Trade Show | June 12-14, 2020 Figure 8 – Roof plan of the Las Vegas Convention Center expansion showing the proposed coverage. Orange shows the coverage by the conventional lift. Pink shows the coverage by the large-reach exterior lift. Green shows the coverage by the large-reach interior lift. roof using swing stages or bosun chairs would require that the vehicular roadway below be closed. We determined that the city would not allow this access method; however, the city would allow maintenance staff working over the roadway as long as they did not have to launch or land from within the roadway. A monorail system was considered; however, the cost and impact on the building design were deemed too excessive for maintenance to a relatively small area. Since aerial lifts were already being used, we chose to extend that coverage. After coordinating with the civil site plans, it was confirmed that the 85-ft. articulating lift could be positioned on the sidewalk without blocking traffic. At one location where they could potentially impinge on the roadway, a lane closure and traffic plan to route traffic around that lane could be required. A single lane closure for a short period of time was acceptable to the city. Another hazard that required appropriate application of the regulations was protecting workers from unprotected edges, which was a major concern for this project. For the most part, the expo hall roof walking surfaces had a parapet that was over 42 in. tall that met regulatory requirements for passive protection; therefore, additional fall protection provisions were not required at these areas. However, the entire perimeter of the ribbon roof had no parapet. Additionally, the blade elements that supported the grand atrium porte cochère had skylights and openings between them. Workers would need to get close to these unprotected edges to inspect roofing, clean roof drains, and clean skylight glazing. Passive protection of these edges with guardrails or parapets could not be accommodated within the architect’s aesthetic design. The solution was a well-positioned fall restraint system and, in some cases, a fall arrest system. In most locations, this took the form of a horizontal lifeline that allows workers to maintain engagement to the lifeline while walking near these unprotected edges. They can approach the edge, but the lifeline will engage to prevent the user’s center of mass from getting to the edge. They can also move freely along the edge without having to unhook and reattach the traveler device, which greatly increases worker efficiency (Figure 10). At skylights, the glass itself presented a hazard. If the glass is not protected by a guardrail, then it must be able to support a worker’s weight if they are to fall on it. This requires a special glass design that needed to be accounted for in the design documents. If this item had not been considered in the early phases of the design, protecting the glazed skylight openings would have been limited to potentially aesthetically impactful options such as wire screens or guardrails. Through early coordination with the architect on access around the skylights, the desired aesthetic framework was achieved, and the contractors knew which costs to include in their guaranteed maximum price, thus saving the project costly changes later on. It was also important to review potential hazards as a worker traversed the roof to perform the various required tasks. Once mechanical equipment had been roughly located and the roof drainage pattern had been laid out, it was possible to lay out pathways to various areas that would require ongoing maintenance. For the expansion, close attention was paid to the numerous elevation changes in the roof where a worker would need steps or a ladder (Figure 11). IIBEC 2020 Virtual International ConveVEntion & Trade Show | June 12-14, 2020 A augustine and KoBES | 265 Figure 9 – Pedestrian bridge connecting the expansion to the original convention center. No longer can façade access and fall protection be an afterthought to only be implemented during construction of the building; rather, upfront and proactive design of the systems is necessary to prevent cost and schedule impacts. It starts with active and iterative collaboration between the consultant, architect, and owner to determine an appropriate strategy. It was also identified that access at the west side of the building would require traversing the sloped portion of the ribbon roof and that workers would have to get close to the unprotected edge to get there. A more direct and safer route would involve a direct path to a ladder. The final step of the integrated approach is related to the construction and completion of the building. When a project moves into the construction phase, the fall protection and façade access strategy is handed off to the manufacturer and installer of the system(s). The Las Vegas Convention Center Expansion project was no different. However, we still maintained involvement in the process to ensure that the strategy, as designed, was the one that was implemented. Shop drawings were reviewed for the horizontal lifeline layout to ensure that it met the access strategy and aligned with the building superstructure. Since the structural steel framing for the roof had already been ordered and was in the process of being fabricated, it was important that the shop drawings did not deviate from the design as it would cause a change to the steel and a costly change order for the owner. There were several areas that were pointed out to be corrected so that the design aligned with what was reflected in the construction documents and the original steel roof framing design. As the project completes, we ensure that the owner’s team receive training on how to use the system effectively and how the system should be maintained. This includes the routine inspections and certifications that are required to make sure that the system is safe to use. CONCLUSIONS The three-phase approach used for the design and implementation of the façade access and fall protection system at the Las Vegas Convention Center Phase Two Expansion is one that is becoming increasingly necessary as building façades become more complex. No longer can façade access and fall protection be an afterthought to only be implemented during construction of the building; rather, upfront and proactive design of the systems is necessary to prevent cost and schedule impacts. It starts with active and iterative collaboration between the consultant, architect, and owner to determine an appropriate strategy. Implementation of the strategy requires an understanding of the available safety systems and increasing quantity of federal and local regulations, many of which have been briefly reviewed in this paper. Finally, upon installation of the designed system, the owner should receive appropriate training and procedures to ensure that their designed façade access and fall protection systems are ready and safe to use when needed. By doing so, workers are kept safe and building owners are able to maintain their investment. 266 | Augustine and KobesBES IIBEC 2020 Virtual International ConveVEntion & Trade Show | June 12-14, 2020 Figure 11 – Roof plan with pathway routes shown. Ladders and steps shown in the architect’s drawings are shown in orange and recommended additional ladders are shown in blue. Figure 10 – Roof plan with the area protected by a horizontal lifeline (red) and tiebacks (blue).
