cooper jesse good.ppt - pennsylvania state university · 2010-04-14 · thesis presentation outline...
TRANSCRIPT
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
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
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
1. Project Background
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
3. Construction Management Study1. Takeoffs2 Durations
5,900 SF of Retail Space
62,000 SF of Residential Space2. Durations3. Cost
4. Acoustic Study
5 Results & Conclusions
Penthouse (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
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
1. Project Background
2 Structural Depth EXISTING STRUCTURAL SYSTEM2. Structural Depth1. Column Layout2. Slab Design3. Column & Corbel Design4 Masonry Wall Design
EXISTING STRUCTURAL SYSTEM
4. Masonry Wall Design5. Lateral System Design
3. Construction Management Study1. Takeoffs2 Durations2. Durations3. Cost
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
1. Project Background
2 Structural Depth EXISTING STRUCTURAL SYSTEM2. Structural Depth1. Column Layout2. Slab Design3. Column & Corbel Design4 Masonry Wall Design
EXISTING STRUCTURAL SYSTEM
4. Masonry Wall Design5. Lateral System Design
3. Construction Management Study1. Takeoffs2 Durations2. Durations3. Cost
4. Acoustic Study
5 Results & Conclusions
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
1. Project Background
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
3. Construction Management Study1. Takeoffs2 Durations
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
5 Results & Conclusions
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
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1. Project Background
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
5. Results & Conclusions1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison
6 Final Remarks6. Final Remarks
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE COLUMN LAYOUTS
1. Project Background2. Structural Depth
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
4. Acoustic Study5 Results & Conclusions
large bay sizes & less columnsArchitectural Constraints
Floor plan changes several timesD W
FLOOR 2RESIDENTIAL: 40 PSF5. Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison
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
1. Project Background2. Structural Depth
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
3. Practicality Comparison6. Final Remarks
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. Project Background2. Structural Depth
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
3. Construction Management Study1 Takeoffs
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
4. Acoustic Study5 Results & Conclusions
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. Project Background2. Structural Depth
1. Column Layout SLAB DESIGNy
2. Slab Design
3 Column & Corbel Design Slabs / Beams Col mns
Concrete
Material PropertiesReinforcing Steel
SLAB DESIGN
3. Column & Corbel Design4. Masonry Wall Design5. Lateral System Design
3. Construction Management Study1 Takeoffs
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
4. Acoustic Study5 Results & Conclusions
Young s Modulus (ksi) 3139.2 4676.4 Young s Modulus (ksi) 29000
Rupture Modulus (ksi) 0.43389 0.57852
5. Results & Conclusions1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison
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. Project Background2. Structural Depth
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. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison
6 Final Remarks6. Final Remarks
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1. Project Background2. Structural Depth
1. Column Layout BOTTOM REINFORCEMENT: TYPCIAL INTERIOR FRAMEy
2. Slab Design
3 Column & Corbel Design
BOTTOM REINFORCEMENT: TYPCIAL INTERIOR FRAME
3. 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. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison
6 Final Remarks6. Final Remarks
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1. Project Background2. Structural Depth
1. Column Layout Floors 10 13: Typical Floor Slab Designy
2. Slab Design
3 Column & Corbel Design
Floors 10 – 13: Typical Floor Slab Design
Base Waffle Slab: 3 ½” Sl b 4” 8” ib @ 20” l3. Column & Corbel Design
4. Masonry Wall Design5. Lateral System Design
3. Construction Management Study1 Takeoffs
Slab, 4” x 8” ribs @ 20” clear space
1. Takeoffs2. Durations3. Cost
4. Acoustic Study5 Results & Conclusions
Modified Waffle Slab: 3 ½” Slab, 4” x 8” ribs @ 16” clear
5. Results & Conclusions1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison
6 Final Remarks
space
6. Final Remarks8” Flat Plate
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE Floor 2: Slab Design Layout
1. Project Background2. Structural Depth
1. Column Layout Floor 1: Slab Design LayoutBase Waffle Slab: 3 ½” Slab 4” x 8” ribs @ 20”y
2. Slab Design
3 Column & Corbel Design
Floor 1: Slab Design Layout Slab, 4 x 8 ribs @ 20 clear space
3. Column & Corbel Design4. Masonry Wall Design5. Lateral System Design
3. Construction Management Study1 Takeoffs
Modified Waffle Slab: 3 ½” Slab, 4” x 8” ribs @ 1. Takeoffs
2. Durations3. Cost
4. Acoustic Study5 Results & Conclusions
½ , @16” clear space
5. Results & Conclusions1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison
6 Final Remarks 11.5” Flat Plate6. Final Remarks
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE EXPLANATION OF COLUMN DESIGN PROCESS
:
1. Project Background2. Structural Depth
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
3. Construction Management Study1 Takeoffs
2. Determined unbalance moment transferred to each column1. Exterior Columns:
2 Interior Columns:
Vertical Spacing of TiesPrevent buckling of vertical reinforcement
1. Takeoffs2. Durations3. Cost
4. Acoustic Study5 Results & Conclusions
2. Interior Columns:
3. Chose Set of 6 Load Conditions Representative of all load conditions5. Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison
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. Project Background2. Structural Depth
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
4. Masonry Wall Design5. Lateral System Design
3. Construction Management Study1 Takeoffs
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
4. Acoustic Study5 Results & Conclusions
11 192 8
5. Results & Conclusions1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison
6 Final Remarks6. Final Remarks
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1. Project Background2. Structural Depth
1. Column Layout WHY NEED CORBELS?y2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design
WHY NEED CORBELS?
2nd floor columns (RED) do not align with 1st floor columns
4. Masonry Wall Design5. Lateral System Design
3. Construction Management Study1 Takeoffs
Settlement Potential (poor soil conditions)
Existing Buildings and foundations at site perimeter1. Takeoffs2. Durations3. Cost
4. Acoustic Study5 Results & Conclusions
g g p
Pile caps offset to middle5. Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison
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. Project Background2. Structural Depth
1. Column Layout CORBEL DESIGN PROCESS
Primary Tension ReinforcementCase 1:
Case 2:
Size Steel Bearing PlateDetermine Depth of Outside Edge
y2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel 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
4. Masonry Wall Design5. Lateral System Design
3. Construction Management Study1 Takeoffs Di i
Corbel Design Information
Closed Hoop Reinforcement
Determine Shear Friction Reinforcement
Flexural Reinforcement
1. Takeoffs2. Durations3. Cost
4. Acoustic Study5 Results & Conclusions
av 11"
h 44"d 40"bw 20"
Dimensions
Flexural Reinforcement
Mi i T il F
5. Results & Conclusions1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison
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. Project Background2. Structural Depth
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
4. Masonry Wall Design5. Lateral System Design
3. Construction Management Study1 Takeoffs
Closed Hoop Reinforcement(4) #5 Parallel to Primary ReinforcementEvenly Spaced Over Area Within 2/3d of Primary Reinf1. Takeoffs
2. Durations3. Cost
4. Acoustic Study5 Results & Conclusions
Evenly Spaced Over Area Within 2/3d of Primary Reinf.Primary Reinforcement
(3) # 14 Framing BarsWelded to Anchor Bar5. Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison
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. Project Background2. Structural Depth
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
4. Acoustic Study5 Results & Conclusions
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. Project Background2. Structural Depth
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
4. Acoustic Study5 Results & Conclusions5. Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison
6 Final Remarks6. Final Remarks
Adjusted For SlendernessNot Adjusted For Slenderness
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1. Project Background2. Structural Depth
1. Column Layouty2. Slab Design3. Column & Corbel Design4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
3. Construction Management Study1 Takeoffs
LATERAL SYSTEM DESIGN1. Takeoffs2. Durations3. Cost
4. Acoustic Study5 Results & Conclusions5. Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison
6 Final Remarks6. Final Remarks
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE INITIAL SHEAR WALL LAYOUT
1. Project Background2. Structural Depth
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
3. Construction Management Study1 Takeoffs
Setbacks
Change in floor plan layout
Location1. Takeoffs2. Durations3. Cost
4. Acoustic Study5 Results & Conclusions
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. Project Background2. Structural Depth
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
3. Construction Management Study1 Takeoffs
4 Wind Cases
ASCE7-05 Load Combinations1. Takeoffs2. Durations3. Cost
4. Acoustic Study5 Results & Conclusions
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
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison
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. Project Background2. Structural Depth
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
5. Lateral System Design
3. Construction Management Study1 Takeoffs
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
4. Acoustic Study5 Results & Conclusions
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
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison
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
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1. Project Background2. Structural Depth
1. Column Layout FINAL SHEAR WALL DESIGN DETAILSy2. Slab Design3. Column & Corbel Design4. Masonry Wall Design
FINAL SHEAR WALL DESIGN DETAILS
5. Lateral System Design
3. Construction Management Study1 Takeoffs1. Takeoffs2. Durations3. Cost
4. Acoustic Study5 Results & Conclusions5. Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison
6 Final Remarks6. Final Remarks
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1. Project Background2. Structural Depth
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
4. Acoustic Study5 Results & Conclusions5. Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison
6 Final Remarks6. Final Remarks
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE – NEW STRUCTURE
1. Project Background2. Structural Depth
1. Column LayoutCONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE NEW STRUCTURE2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design4. Masonry Wall Design5. Lateral System 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. Project Background2. Structural Depth
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
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 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. Project Background2. Structural Depth
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
3. Construction Management Study1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
Steel FramingDeckingWWF
3. Cost4. Acoustic Study5. Results & Conclusions
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
TOTAL DURATION: (37) 8 Hour Work Days
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE – ORIGINAL STRUCTURE
1. Project Background2. Structural Depth
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
3. Construction Management Study1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
Decking:
WWF:
Steel FramingDeckingWWF
3. Cost4. Acoustic Study5. Results & Conclusions
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
TOTAL DURATION: (37) 8 Hour Work Days
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE – COST ANALYSIS
1. Project Background2. Structural Depth
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
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison
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
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1. Project Background2. Structural Depth
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
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure2. Performance Comparison3. Practicality Comparison
6. Final Remarks
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1. Project Background2. Structural Depth
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)
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
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
3. Practicality Comparison6. Final Remarks
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. Project Background2. Structural Depth
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. Project Background2. Structural Depth
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.