Cooper Jesse good.ppt - Pennsylvania State University · 2010-04-14 · THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE 1. Project Background 2 Structural Depth PENTHOUSE. Structural Depth BUILDING INFORMATION

PENN STATE ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERNIG SENIOR THESIS

THESIS ADVISOR ~ DR. THOMAS BOOTHBYJESSE COOPER ~ STRUCTURAL

THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE

1. Project Background2. Structural Depth

1 Column Layout1. Column Layout2. Slab Design3. Column & Corbel Design4. Masonry Wall Design5. Lateral System Design

3. Construction Management Study1. Takeoffs2 Durations2. Durations3. Cost

4. Acoustic Study

5 R lt & C l i

PENN STATE ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERNIG SENIOR THESIS

5. Results & Conclusions1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison

THESIS ADVISOR ~ DR. THOMAS BOOTHBYJESSE COOPER ~ STRUCTURAL

3. Practicality Comparison6. Final Remarks


1. Project Background

2 Structural Depth

PENTHOUSE

BUILDING INFORMATION – EXISTING CONDITIONS2. Structural Depth1. Column Layout2. Slab Design3. Column & Corbel Design4 Masonry Wall Design

TERRACESBUILDING INFORMATION EXISTING CONDITIONS

14 Story Structure Rising 175’ Above Grade4. Masonry Wall Design5. Lateral System Design

3. Construction Management Study1. Takeoffs2 Durations

RESIDENTIAL5,900 SF of Retail Space

62,000 SF of Residential Space2. Durations3. Cost

4. Acoustic Study

5 Results & Conclusions

RETAILPenthouse (Rec. Room, HVAC, Laundry Room, Kitchen)

Trapezoidal Shape Closely Resembling Shape of Site5. Results & Conclusions

1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison

6 Final Remarks

SURROUNDING BUILDINGS

Approximate Building Plan Dimensions: 56’ x 75’

Location: New York, New York (Lower Manhattan)6. Final Remarks

Nestled tightly between two existing structures, Eden Alley and Gold Street.

THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE SMALL CONSTRICTED SITE


2 Structural Depth BUILDING INFORMATION – EXISTING CONDITIONS2. Structural Depth1. Column Layout2. Slab Design3. Column & Corbel Design4 Masonry Wall Design

14 Story Structure Rising 175’ Above Grade

BUILDING INFORMATION EXISTING CONDITIONS

4. Masonry Wall Design5. Lateral System Design


5,900 SF of Retail Space

62,000 SF of Residential Space2. Durations3. Cost

4. Acoustic Study


Penthouse (Rec. Room, HVAC, Laundry Room, Kitchen)

Trapezoidal Shape Closely Resembling Shape of Site5. Results & Conclusions


6 Final Remarks

Approximate Building Plan Dimensions: 56’ x 75’

Location: New York, New York (Lower Manhattan)6. Final Remarks

Nestled tightly between two existing structures, Eden Alley and Gold Street.



2 Structural Depth EXISTING STRUCTURAL SYSTEM2. Structural Depth1. Column Layout2. Slab Design3. Column & Corbel Design4 Masonry Wall Design

EXISTING STRUCTURAL SYSTEM



4. Acoustic Study

5 Results & Conclusions5. Results & Conclusions1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison

6 Final RemarksSteel framing with 2 ½” L.W.C topping on 2”

it t l d ki6. Final Remarks composite metal decking. Slab Reinforcement: #4 @ 12” and W3xW3 WWF

THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINEEXISTING LATERAL SYSTEM


2 Structural Depth EXISTING STRUCTURAL SYSTEM2. Structural Depth1. Column Layout2. Slab Design3. Column & Corbel Design4 Masonry Wall Design

EXISTING STRUCTURAL SYSTEM



4. Acoustic Study


Braced Frames:

Moment Frames:5. Results & Conclusions1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison

6 Final Remarks6. Final Remarks

THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE THESIS PROPOSAL & OBJECTIVES


2 Structural Depth PROBLEM STATEMENT

Design concrete structural system (owner preference)Two way flat plate waffle slabReinforced concrete columns2. Structural Depth

1. Column Layout2. Slab Design3. Column & Corbel Design4 Masonry Wall Design

PROBLEM STATEMENTRe-Design structural system without significantly deviating from owners vision: Owner Prefers Concrete Structural System

Lateral system: concrete shear walls

Limit building weight4. Masonry Wall Design5. Lateral System Design


ISSUE: Is there a concrete structural system that is…

g gMicro pile foundation system capacitySoil Bearing capacityAvoid settlement (poor soil conditions and existing 2. Durations

3. Cost4. Acoustic Study


Feasible? Concrete Building Weight & Settlement Potential

High Performing? (competitive market)

o d sett e e t (poo so co d t o s a d e st gstructures within close proximity)

Show that concrete structural system yields a final product5. Results & Conclusions1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison

6 Final Remarks

g g ( p )

Practical?Construction Duration

Show that concrete structural system yields a final product that is high performing (serves well as a residential structure).

Compare New & Existing Design: Practicality6. Final Remarks Construction DurationConstruction CostConstructability Issues (Site Congestion)

Compare New & Existing Design: Practicality



2 Structural Depth2. Structural Depth

1. Column Layout2. Slab Design3 C l & C b l D i3. Column & Corbel Design4. Masonry Wall Design5. Lateral System Design

3. Construction Management Study1 Takeoffs STRUCTURAL DEPTH1. Takeoffs2. Durations3. Cost

4. Acoustic Study5 Results & Conclusions

STRUCTURAL DEPTH



THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE COLUMN LAYOUTS


COLUMN LAYOUTS1. Column Layout

2. Slab Design3 Column & Corbel Design

COLUMN LAYOUTS

Uniform grid like layout (15’x15’ average size bays)Brief Investigation of column layout strategy (weight

FLOOR 1RETAIL: 100 PSF

3. Column & Corbel Design4. Masonry Wall Design5. Lateral System Design

3. Construction Management Study1 Takeoffs

g y gy ( gefficiency)

small bay sizes & many columnslarge bay sizes & less columns1. Takeoffs

2. Durations3. Cost


large bay sizes & less columnsArchitectural Constraints

Floor plan changes several timesD W

FLOOR 2RESIDENTIAL: 40 PSF5. Results & Conclusions


6 Final Remarks

Door WaysWindowsCritical Living Space & Circulation Paths

RESIDENTIAL: 40 PSF

6. Final Remarks g pDiscontinue Column 6-D.4 at 10th Floor

Large 30’ Span

THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE COLUMN LAYOUTS


COLUMN LAYOUTS FLOORS 3 - 91. Column Layout

2. Slab Design3 Column & Corbel Design

COLUMN LAYOUTS

Uniform grid like layout (15’x15’ average size bays)Brief Investigation of column layout strategy (weight

RESIDENTIAL: 40 PSF

3. Column & Corbel Design4. Masonry Wall Design5. Lateral System Design6. Structural System Comparison

3 Construction Management Study

g y gy ( gefficiency)

small bay sizes & many columnslarge bay sizes & less columns3. Construction Management Study

1. Takeoffs2. Durations3. Cost

4 Acoustic Study FLOORS 10 -13

large bay sizes & less columnsArchitectural Constraints

Floor plan changes several timesD W4. Acoustic Study

5. Results & Conclusions1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3 Practicality Comparison

Door WaysWindowsCritical Living Space & Circulation Paths

RESIDENTIAL: 40 PSF


g pDiscontinue Column 6-D.4 at 10th Floor

Large 30’ Span

THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE spSlab Design Results: Frame 6 (Floor 2)

Top Reinforcement

Span StripLeft Side Right Side Continuous


1. Column Layout SLAB DESIGN – THE PROCESS

Bars Length Bars Length Bars Length Bars Length Bars Length

Column 8 ‐ #5 11

Middle 5 ‐ #5 11

Column 3 ‐ #5 5.82 5 ‐ #5 17

Middle 5 ‐ #5 17

Column 3 ‐ #5 5.82 2 ‐ #5 3.78 2 ‐ #5 5.82 1 ‐ #5 3.78

1

2

3

Span Strip

y

2. Slab Design

3 Column & Corbel Design

Middle 5 ‐ #5 5.11 7 ‐ #5 4.11

Column 3 ‐ #5 13

Middle 4 ‐ #5 3.21 3 ‐ #5 3.21 3 ‐ #5 13

Column 2 ‐ #5 5.82 1 ‐ #5 3.78 3 ‐ #5 5.82 1 ‐ #5 3.78

Middle 6 ‐ #5 4.61 4 ‐ #5 4.09

4

5

Bottom Reinforcement

L B W ffl T l S i

1. Preliminary Hand Calculations (Equivalent Frame Method)

2 Began with typical layout floors 3 – 93. Column & Corbel Design4. Masonry Wall Design5. Lateral System Design


Bars Start Length Ribs Bars / Rib As / Rib

Column

Middle

Column 3 ‐ #5 0 17 3 1 ‐ #5 0.31

Middle 3 ‐ #5 0 17 3 1 ‐ #5 0.31

Column 3 #5 0 17 3 1 #5 0 31

1

2

Span StripLong Bars Waffle Total Strip

WidthMaximum Possible Number of Ribs Per Strip (20" clear spacing)

2. Began with typical layout floors 3 91. Base waffle slab design2. Modifications of Base Waffle Slab3 8” Flat Plate1. Takeoffs

2. Durations3. Cost


Column 3 ‐ #5 0 17 3 1 ‐ #5 0.31

Middle 3 ‐#5 0 17 3 1 ‐ #5 0.31

Column 2 ‐ #5 0 13 1 2 ‐ #5 0.62

Middle 2 ‐#5 0 13 2 1 ‐ #5 0.31

Column 4 ‐ #5 0 17 2 2 ‐ #5 0.62Middle 3 ‐ #5 0 17 3 1 ‐ #5 0.31

3

4

5

3. 8 Flat Plate4. No voids (11.5” thick slab)

3 SP SLAB5. Results & Conclusions1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison

6 Final Remarks

SPAN 1

SPAN 2

SPAN 3

SPAN 4 SPAN

5

3. SP-SLAB1. Model Every Frame (Every Floor)2. Spot Checks

6. Final Remarks

4. Investigate Layout of ribs (number of ribs per middle or column strip)

THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE Floors 3 – 9: Typical Floor Slab Design


1. Column Layout SLAB DESIGNy

2. Slab Design

3 Column & Corbel Design Slabs / Beams Col mns

Concrete

Material PropertiesReinforcing Steel

SLAB DESIGN



Slabs / Beams Columns

Unit Density (lb/ft3) 115 150 Yield Stress of Flexural Steel (ksi) 60Compressive Strength (ksi) 5.95 5.95 Yield Stress of Stirrups (ksi) 60

Young's Modulus (ksi) 3139 2 4676 4 Young's Modulus (ksi) 290001. Takeoffs2. Durations3. Cost


Young s Modulus (ksi) 3139.2 4676.4 Young s Modulus (ksi) 29000

Rupture Modulus (ksi) 0.43389 0.57852


6 Final Remarks 8”6. Final Remarks

Base Waffle Slab: 3 ½” Slab, 4” x 8” ribs @ 20” clear space

THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE TOP BAR REINFORCEMENT (TYPICAL INTERIOR FRAME)


1. Column Layouty

2. Slab Design

3 Column & Corbel Design3. Column & Corbel Design4. Masonry Wall Design5. Lateral System Design

3. Construction Management Study1 Takeoffs1. Takeoffs2. Durations3. Cost

4. Acoustic Study5 Results & Conclusions5. Results & Conclusions





1. Column Layout BOTTOM REINFORCEMENT: TYPCIAL INTERIOR FRAMEy

2. Slab Design


BOTTOM REINFORCEMENT: TYPCIAL INTERIOR FRAME








1. Column Layout Floors 10 13: Typical Floor Slab Designy

2. Slab Design


Floors 10 – 13: Typical Floor Slab Design

Base Waffle Slab: 3 ½” Sl b 4” 8” ib @ 20” l3. Column & Corbel Design



Slab, 4” x 8” ribs @ 20” clear space



Modified Waffle Slab: 3 ½” Slab, 4” x 8” ribs @ 16” clear


6 Final Remarks

space

6. Final Remarks8” Flat Plate

THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE Floor 2: Slab Design Layout


1. Column Layout Floor 1: Slab Design LayoutBase Waffle Slab: 3 ½” Slab 4” x 8” ribs @ 20”y

2. Slab Design


Floor 1: Slab Design Layout Slab, 4 x 8 ribs @ 20 clear space



Modified Waffle Slab: 3 ½” Slab, 4” x 8” ribs @ 1. Takeoffs

2. Durations3. Cost


½ , @16” clear space


6 Final Remarks 11.5” Flat Plate6. Final Remarks

THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE EXPLANATION OF COLUMN DESIGN PROCESS

:


1. Column Layout EXPLANATION OF COLUMN DESIGN PROCESS

“Short Column Behavior” AssumptionSquare tied columns

i i iy2. Slab Design

3. Column & Corbel Design

EXPLANATION OF COLUMN DESIGN PROCESS

1. Hand calculated axial loads on each column

2 Determined unbalance moment transferred to each column

non-seismic regionprovide sufficient lateral restrain on column coreEfficient

S f4. Masonry Wall Design5. Lateral System Design


2. Determined unbalance moment transferred to each column1. Exterior Columns:

2 Interior Columns:

Vertical Spacing of TiesPrevent buckling of vertical reinforcement



2. Interior Columns:

3. Chose Set of 6 Load Conditions Representative of all load conditions5. Results & Conclusions


6 Final Remarks

4. Designed 6 Columns – Hand calculated (Used Design Aids)

5. Generated Corresponding Interaction Diagrams1 pcaCol mn & Hand Calc lated

Design For Combined Axial and Flexural LoadingCheck for intermediate ties (6” from lateral restrained bar) Check Cover 6. Final Remarks 1. pcaColumn & Hand Calculated

6. Assigned all columns most efficient column section

THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE 40 6


1. Column Layouty2. Slab Design

3. Column & Corbel DesignCondition Axial (kips) Flexure (ft‐kips) Design Section Condition Axial (kips) Flexure (ft‐kips) Design Section

1 151.6 49.3 A 4 492.1 56.7 D

Column Loading Conditions ‐ Hand Calculations



2 118.05 53.5 B 5 639 55.62 E3 266.3 29.78 C 6 391.4 38 F

11 1928 81. Takeoffs

2. Durations3. Cost


11 192 8





1. Column Layout WHY NEED CORBELS?y2. Slab Design


WHY NEED CORBELS?

2nd floor columns (RED) do not align with 1st floor columns



Settlement Potential (poor soil conditions)

Existing Buildings and foundations at site perimeter1. Takeoffs2. Durations3. Cost


g g p

Pile caps offset to middle5. Results & Conclusions


6 Final Remarks

Corbels required to establish load path between misaligned first and second floor columns

6. Final RemarksExisting structure used cantilever beams

W24 x 300

THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE SUMMARY OF CORBEL CALCULATIONSPrimary Tension Reinforcement


1. Column Layout CORBEL DESIGN PROCESS

Primary Tension ReinforcementCase 1:

Case 2:

Size Steel Bearing PlateDetermine Depth of Outside Edge

y2. Slab Design


CORBEL DESIGN PROCESS Case 2: Primary Tension Reinforcement

Determine Depth of Outside EdgeTo Avoid Premature Failure Propagation of diagonal tension cracks

Determine Shear Friction Reinforcement


3. Construction Management Study1 Takeoffs Di i

Corbel Design Information

Closed Hoop Reinforcement

Determine Shear Friction Reinforcement

Flexural Reinforcement



av 11"

h 44"d 40"bw 20"

Dimensions

Flexural Reinforcement

Mi i T il F


6 Final Remarks

bw 20.5d 20"

Vu 363 kips

Nuc 72.6 kips

Loads

Minimum Tensile Force6. Final Remarksf'c 4 ksify 60 ksi

Concrete N.W.

Properties

THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE FINAL CORBEL DETAIL


1. Column Layout FINAL CORBEL DETAILy2. Slab Design

3. Column & Corbel Design 14 x 14 x ½ Steel Bearing PlateClosed Hoop Reinforcement

FINAL CORBEL DETAIL



Closed Hoop Reinforcement(4) #5 Parallel to Primary ReinforcementEvenly Spaced Over Area Within 2/3d of Primary Reinf1. Takeoffs

2. Durations3. Cost


Evenly Spaced Over Area Within 2/3d of Primary Reinf.Primary Reinforcement

(3) # 14 Framing BarsWelded to Anchor Bar5. Results & Conclusions


6 Final Remarks

Welded to Anchor BarRequired Outer Edge Depth

20”Anchor Primary Reinforcement6. Final Remarks Anchor Primary Reinforcement

Weld to Transverse Anchor Bar

THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE LOCATION OF MASONRY WALL


1. Column LayoutCONCRETE MASONRY DESIGN

y2. Slab Design3. Column & Corbel Design

4 Masonry Wall Design

CONCRETE MASONRY DESIGN

Location: Grade level, façade facing Gold Street (RED)4. Masonry Wall Design

5. Lateral System Design3. Construction Management Study

1 Takeoffs

Why CMU wall?Dual Purpose

Structural1. Takeoffs2. Durations3. Cost


Structural Architectural – Storefront Façade

Lintel beam design5. Results & Conclusions1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison

6 Final Remarks

Lintel beam design

Single story URM wall6. Final Remarks

Two story RM wall

THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINECondition Axial Capacity (lbs) Axial Capacity Adjusted For Slenderness (lbs) Moment Capacity (in‐lbs)

8" Full Grouted CMU Blocks. Type S PCL Mortar. Hollow Units. # 9 @ 24" Steel Reinforcement (Placed in Center of Cells)


1. Column Layout

Pure Axial Compression 78,675 33,909 0Point Above Balance Condition 36,420 15,697 42,765

Balance Condition 7402 3190 71,887Point Below Balance Condition 3040 1310 68,683

Pure Flexure 0 0 34,800y2. Slab Design3. Column & Corbel Design

4 Masonry Wall Design4. Masonry Wall Design

5. Lateral System Design3. Construction Management Study

1 Takeoffs1. Takeoffs2. Durations3. Cost




Adjusted For SlendernessNot Adjusted For Slenderness



1. Column Layouty2. Slab Design3. Column & Corbel Design4. Masonry Wall Design

5. Lateral System Design


LATERAL SYSTEM DESIGN1. Takeoffs2. Durations3. Cost




THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE INITIAL SHEAR WALL LAYOUT


1. Column Layout INITIAL SHEAR WALL LAYOUTy2. Slab Design3. Column & Corbel Design4. Masonry Wall Design

INITIAL SHEAR WALL LAYOUT

Architectural Restraints on position / size of shear walls

Setbacks5. Lateral System Design


Setbacks

Change in floor plan layout

Location1. Takeoffs2. Durations3. Cost


Location

Exterior Walls

Along Corridor5. Results & Conclusions1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison

6 Final Remarks

Along Corridor

Around Vertical Circulation Nodes

Elevators / Stairwell6. Final Remarks Elevators / Stairwell

Oversized: Reduced later in design process

THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE 3D ETABS MODEL


1. Column Layout LOAD CASES AND COMBINATIONSy2. Slab Design3. Column & Corbel Design4. Masonry Wall Design

LOAD CASES AND COMBINATIONS38 Load Combinations

4 Wi d C5. Lateral System Design


4 Wind Cases

ASCE7-05 Load Combinations1. Takeoffs2. Durations3. Cost


1.4 (D + F)1.2 (D + F + T) + 1.6(L+H) + 0.5(Lr or S or R)1.2D + 1.6(Lr or S or R) + (L or .8W)5. Results & Conclusions


6 Final Remarks

( r ) ( )1.2D + 1.6W + L + 0.5(Lr or S or R )1.2D 1.0E + L + 0.2S9D + 1 6W + 1 6H6. Final Remarks .9D + 1.6W + 1.6H.9D + 1.0E + 1.6H

THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE SHEAR WALL DESIGN CALCULATIONS. .


1. Column Layout CONTROLLING LOAD CONDITIONS

Strength Behaviorh/r > 3.0

Tall Slender Wall / Flexure Controlsy2. Slab Design3. Column & Corbel Design4. Masonry Wall Design

CONTROLLING LOAD CONDITIONS

Wall 4

StoryStory Shear

(kips)Story Force

(Kips)Story Height From Base

(ft)Moment (ft‐kips)

Tall Slender Wall / Flexure ControlsFlexural Reinforcement Design



BASE 1722 154.6 17.4 21 365.43 150.5 4.1 31 127.14 149.6 0.9 41 36.95 144.67 4.93 51 251.43

(kips) (Kips) (ft) (ft kips)

Shear Reinforcement DesignCapacity Check:1. Takeoffs

2. Durations3. Cost


6 142.87 1.8 61 109.87 136.54 6.33 71 449.438 125.95 10.59 81 857.799 112.67 13.28 91 1208.4810 95.74 16.93 101 1709.9311 76.05 19.69 111 2185.59

Capacity Check:

Chapter 11 Provisions:5. Results & Conclusions


6 Final Remarks

11 76.05 19.69 111 2185.5912 53.34 22.71 121 2747.9113 24.03 29.31 131 3839.61

PENTHOUSE 24.03 141 3388.23TOTAL MOMENT = 17277.6

Minimum Requirements Governed:

6. Final Remarks

Spacing Limitations



1. Column Layout FINAL SHEAR WALL DESIGN DETAILSy2. Slab Design3. Column & Corbel Design4. Masonry Wall Design

FINAL SHEAR WALL DESIGN DETAILS








1. Column Layouty2. Slab Design3. Column & Corbel Design4. Masonry Wall Design5. Lateral System Designy g

3. Construction Management Study

1 Takeoffs

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT STUDY1. Takeoffs2. Durations3. Cost




THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE – NEW STRUCTURE


1. Column LayoutCONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE NEW STRUCTURE2. Slab Design


CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE – NEW STRUCTURE

Schedule LayoutF/ R / P f l b l h ll3. Construction Management Study

1. Takeoffs

2. Durations

F/R/P Slabs:

F/R/P Columns:

F/R/P Shear Walls:

F/ R / P of slabs, columns, shear wallsHigh Rise Concrete Structure

Limited Overlap Potential Between FloorsSi ifi t O l B t F i R i f i P i

3. Cost4. Acoustic Study5. Results & Conclusions

Significant Overlap Between Forming, Reinforcing, PouringColumn and Walls

Finish-to-start relationship with Slab F/R/P1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison

6. Final Remarks

Columns and walls overlap Walls lag Columns

Reduce congestion

TOTAL DURATION: (95) 8 Hour Work Days

THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE – NEW STRUCTURE


1. Column LayoutCONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE NEW STRUCTURE2. Slab Design

3. Column & Corbel Design4. Masonry Wall Design5. Lateral System Design Schedule Layout

F/ R / P f l b l h ll

CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE – NEW STRUCTURE

3. Construction Management Study1. Takeoffs

2. Durations

F/ R / P of slabs, columns, shear wallsHigh Rise Concrete Structure

Limited Overlap Potential Between FloorsSi ifi t O l B t F i R i f i P i


Significant Overlap Between Forming, Reinforcing, PouringColumn and Walls

Finish-to-start relationship with Slab F/R/P1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison

6. Final RemarksF/R/P Slabs:

Columns and walls overlap Walls lag Columns

Reduce congestionF/R/P Columns:

F/R/P Shear Walls: TOTAL DURATION: (95) 8 Hour Work Days

THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE – ORIGINAL STRUCTURE


1. Column Layout CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE – ORIGINAL STRUCTURE2. Slab Design3. Column & Corbel Design4. Masonry Wall Design5. Lateral System Design

De-linearizedSignificant Overlap Potential Between Floors

CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE


2. Durations

Steel FramingDeckingWWF


Steel ReinforcementPlacing Concrete

By Dividing Steel Frame Erection Into Two Phases1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison

6. Final RemarksSteel Framing: Steel Reinforcement:

y gConcrete pouring / Steel Framing never occur together

Prevents CongestionStill Very Efficient - significant overlap exists

Decking: Placing Concrete:

WWF:

Still Very Efficient significant overlap exists


THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE – ORIGINAL STRUCTURE


1. Column Layout CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE – ORIGINAL STRUCTURE2. Slab Design3. Column & Corbel Design4. Masonry Wall Design5. Lateral System Design

Steel Framing:

De-linearizedSignificant Overlap Potential Between Floors

CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE


2. Durations

Decking:

WWF:

Steel FramingDeckingWWF


Reinforcement:

Steel ReinforcementPlacing Concrete

By Dividing Steel Frame Erection Into Two Phases1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison

6. Final Remarks

Placing Concrete:

y gConcrete pouring / Steel Framing never occur together

Prevents CongestionStill Very Efficient - significant overlap existsStill Very Efficient significant overlap exists


THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE – COST ANALYSIS


1. Column LayoutSteel Decking ‐ Floor Decking

RS MEANS ONLINE COST WORKS ‐ UNIT COST CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE (Steel Frame ‐ Slab On Metal Decking)

Extended Total

CrewUnitQuantityItemExtended Total

O&P

NEW STRUCTURE – COST ANALYSIS2. Slab Design3. Column & Corbel Design4. Masonry Wall Design5. Lateral System Design

RS MEANS Online Cost Works Analysis ‐ Unit Cost Construction Estimate NEW STRUCTURAL DESIGN

Description Quantity Crew Extended TotalExtended Total

Units

Steel Decking Floor DeckingNon Cellular Composite Deck, Galvanized, 2" deep, 18 guage 54375 SF E‐4 $243,056 $288,731

Welded Wire Fabric6x6 W2.9xW2.9 (6x6) Sheets, 42 lb per CSF 544 CSF 4 Rodm $44,281 $62,391

Structural ConcreteL.W.C 4000 psi, ready mix 402 CY N/A $63,420 69,980

NEW STRUCTURE COST ANALYSIS

3. Construction Management Study1. Takeoffs2. Durations

Structural ConcreteL.W. , 5000 psi, Elevated Slabs 938 CY $161,242 $176,550N.W. , 4000 psi, Ready Mix, Columns 85 CY $9,803 $10,728N.W. , 4000 psi, Ready Mix, Walls 440 CY $50,745 $55,532

Placing Concrete (Labor,Equipment Included)

Description Quantity Crew Extended Total O&P

UnitsPlacing Concrete

Elevated Slab < 6" Thick, pumped 402 CY C‐20 13,021 18,693Steel Reinforcement ‐ In Place

Elevated Slab: #4 ‐ #7 , uncoated 21 Ton 4 Rodm $56,594 $72,570Concrete Floor Finishing

3. Cost

4. Acoustic Study5. Results & Conclusions

12" Square Columns, Pumped 85 CY C‐20 $6,397 $9,316Elevated Slabs, less than 6", Pumped 833 CY C‐20 $26,981 $38,735Elevated Slabs, 6" ‐ 10" 105 CY C‐20 $2,973 $4,354Walls $0 $0

Structural Cast In Place Concrete FormingElevated Slab ‐ flat plate, job built plywood, 4 use 82461 SFCA C‐2 $636,598 927,686

Power Screed, Bull Float, Machine Float & Trowel (Ride On) 48230 SF E‐10 $21,221 $29,903Structural Steel Framing ‐ Columns

W10 x 45 1664 LF E‐2 $136,963 $153,288W10 x 68 1970 LF E‐2 $239,118 $266,856W12 x 120 418 LF E‐2 $87,997 $97,799W14 120 55 LF E 2 $11 579 $12 868


6. Final Remarks

Columns ‐ job built plywood, 12"x12" columns, 4 use 11881 SFCA C‐2 $127,958 193,660Shear Walls ‐ 8' ‐ 16' High, Job Built Plywood, 4 use 25920 SFCA C‐2 $248,054 375,840

Steel Reinforcement In PlaceElevated Slab Steel Reinforcement (#4 ‐ #7) 58 Ton 4 Rodm $156,309 $200,433Shear Walls, Steel Reinforcement (#4 ‐ #7) 79 Ton 4 Rodm $195,893 $253,733Columns, Steel Reinforcement (#3 ‐ #7) 6 Ton 4 Rodm $20,793 $28,619

W14 x 120 55 LF E‐2 $11,579 $12,868Structural Steel Members ‐ Beams

W8 x 10 1582 LF E‐2 $41,179 $50,861W10 x 15 1507 LF E‐2 $52,488 $62,254W12 x 22 9763 LF E‐2 $428,400 $493,129W14 x 30 119 LF E‐2 $6 807 $7 773, ( ) $ , $ ,

Columns, Steel Reinforcement (#8 ‐ #18) 3.68 Ton 4 Rodm $10,437 $13,868Concrete Floor Finishing

Power Screed, Bull Float, Machine Float & Trowel (Ride On) 48230 SF C‐10E $21,221 $29,902Total $1,675,404 $2,318,956

W14 x 30 119 LF E 2 $6,807 $7,773W16 x 40 95 LF E‐2 $7,128 $8,078W18 x 106 208 LF E‐2 $39,305 $43,861

Total: $1,492,557 $1,739,035



1. Column Layout2. Slab Design3. Column & Corbel Design4. Masonry Wall Design5. Lateral System Design

3. Construction Management Study1. Takeoffs2. Durations3. Cost RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS

4. Acoustic Study

5. Results & Conclusions


6. Final Remarks



1. Column Layout FEASIBILITY – WEIGHT OF STRUCTURE2. Slab Design3. Column & Corbel Design4. Masonry Wall Design5. Lateral System Design

FEASIBILITY WEIGHT OF STRUCTUREWeight of Existing Structural System: 4,681 Kips

W i ht f N St t l D i 7 000 ki3. Construction Management Study1. Takeoffs2. Durations3. Cost

Weight of New Structural Design: 7,000 kips1.5 times heavier

4. Acoustic Study5. Results & Conclusions

1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure

Geotechnical Report 75 Ton Capacity per 9.625” diameter micro pile

y g

2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison

6. Final Remarks

Consulted Geotechnical FirmConsidering Existing Micro Pile System and Soil Bearing

Capacity , 7,000 kip building weight is manageable

Conclusion: Structural design is feasible. (Settlement Issues)


A h th t t l d i1. Project Background2. Structural Depth

1. Column Layout

As shown the new structural design appears to yield a higher performing residential building. Evidently, other non-performance issues played a

2. Slab Design3. Column & Corbel Design4. Masonry Wall Design5. Lateral System Design

CATEGORY OF COMPARISON NEW STRUCTURE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE

Floor Construction DepthVery Good, 11.5"

Maximum Not Good, 14.5" to 16.5"

Floor to ceiling Height Good design options Not Good

y p p yrole in the design process, since the existing structure is a steel system.

3. Construction Management Study1. Takeoffs2. Durations3. Cost

Floor‐to‐ceiling Height Good, design options Not Good

Framing Interferes With MEP Space No Framing Yes, Steel Beams

These issues pertain to practicality issues:•CostD ti4. Acoustic Study

5. Results & Conclusions1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure

Architectural AdvantagesYes, Exposed Ceilings and

fLoors No

Acoustic Performance Good Sound Isolation Poor Sound Isolation

•Duration•Constructability

2. Performance Comparison


Average Slab Weight 46 PSF 34 PSF

Additional Fireproofing Needed No

Yes, Steel Framing (Spray On))

Connections / Slab Reinforcement No / A lot A lot / Some

THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINELonger Duration (2 5 times longer)


1. Column Layout CONCLUSIONS REGARDING PRACTICALITY

Longer Duration (2.5 times longer)

95 (8) hour work days vs. (37) 8 hour work days

Drives up General Conditions Costs2. Slab Design3. Column & Corbel Design4. Masonry Wall Design5. Lateral System Design

CONCLUSIONS REGARDING PRACTICALITYReputation In Competitive Market

Delayed Occupation of Building

C bili I

INVESTIGATION OF NON-PERFORMANCE ISSUES

3. Construction Management Study1. Takeoffs2. Durations3. Cost

Constructability Issues

Waffle Slab and Several Slab Modifications

Higher Skill Workers / Labor Intensive4. Acoustic Study5. Results & Conclusions

1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison

Higher Skill Workers / Labor Intensive

Site Congestion

Concrete trucks pumps, forms, multiple trades on site

3. Practicality Comparison

6 Final Remarks

simultaneously

Increased Cost: Primary Structural Components (+ $579,921)

Original: $ 2 318 9566. Final Remarks Original: $ 2,318,956

New: $1,739,035

THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINEPHILOSOPHY OF DESIGN


1. Column Layout CONCLUSION:

PHILOSOPHY OF DESIGN

“Design is only restricted by the necessity to produce a 2. Slab Design3. Column & Corbel Design4. Masonry Wall Design5. Lateral System Design

CONCLUSION:The concrete design is structurally feasible and safe design, for there is no single correct solution to any

design problem In fact an infinite number of solutions3. Construction Management Study1. Takeoffs2. Durations3. Cost

offers several performance enhancements. It is

the preferred structural system of the owner.

design problem. In fact, an infinite number of solutions

exist, all of which have disadvantages and advantages.

With thi id h t i ll i t t i4. Acoustic Study5. Results & Conclusions

1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison

However, the increased cost, increased

construction duration, and constructability issues

With this said, what is really important is proper

collaboration between all individuals involved in order to 3. Practicality Comparison

6. Final Remarks

y

all suggest the design lacks practicality. Although

the two systems differ in the balance between

yield a final product that satisfies the client, and most

importantly, functions safely.”the two systems differ in the balance between

performance and practicality, both are acceptable.

Documents

Cooper Jesse good.ppt - Pennsylvania State University · 2010-04-14 · THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE 1. Project Background 2 Structural Depth PENTHOUSE. Structural Depth BUILDING INFORMATION