Docstoc

Thesis Presentation

Document Sample
Thesis Presentation Powered By Docstoc
					          Andrew Diehl

“The Comparison of a Pan Joist Concrete
System to a Steel Frame System in UMCP
     Student Housing – Building B”

     The Pennsylvania State University
   Architectural Engineering Department
             Structural Option
       5th Year Senior Thesis Project
Andrew Diehl                              5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                 The Pennsylvania State University


                        Outline

   Existing Building
   Design Criteria
   Pan Joist Concrete System
   Steel Frame System
   Cost Comparison
   Construction Management
   Architecture
   Conclusion
Andrew Diehl                  5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option     The Pennsylvania State University


 UMCP Student Housing – Building B
Andrew Diehl                                  5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                     The Pennsylvania State University


                    Project Design Team

   Owner – Collegiate Housing Foundation
   Architect – Design Collective, Inc.
   Construction Manager – Whiting-Turner Contracting
   Structural Engineer – Hope Furrer Associates, Inc.
   Civil Engineer – A. Morton Thomas & Associates
   MEP Engineer – Burdette, Koehler, Murphy & Associates
   Geotechnical Engineer – Froehling & Robertson, Inc.
   Landscape Architect – Mahan Rykiel Associates, Inc.
Andrew Diehl                            5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option               The Pennsylvania State University


                     Location

The University of
 Maryland
   College Park, Maryland
   Easy access to the big
    cities (Baltimore and
    Washington, DC)
   South Campus Commons
Andrew Diehl                                    5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                       The Pennsylvania State University


                    Existing Building

Building Stats
   5 stories
   77,445 square feet
   Dormitory - R-2 classification (BOCA 1999)
   2-4 Bedroom Fully-Furnished Apartments
   Lobby and Student Lounges
   Designed using BOCA 1996
Andrew Diehl                              5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                 The Pennsylvania State University


                Existing Building, cont’d

Architecture
   Facade – combination of
    brick and pre-cast
    cladding
   Roof – hipped roof that
    conceals mechanical
    system
   Cavity wall construction
Andrew Diehl                                    5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                       The Pennsylvania State University


                Existing Building, cont’d

Mechanical System
   Multi-zone system
   2 – 4500 cfm Centrifugal Rooftop Chillers
   3 – Split System Air Conditioning Units
   Electric Heating Units

Electrical/Lighting System
   16 panel boards
   3 phase 120V / 208V power
   Fluorescent Lighting
Andrew Diehl                                     5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                        The Pennsylvania State University


                Existing Building, cont’d

Construction Management
   Project Cost - ~$52 million (includes 4 other buildings)
   Duration – November 2000 to August 2002
   Design-Build delivery system
   Demolition was required of previous building
   Utility and transportation service could not be disrupted
Andrew Diehl                                     5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                        The Pennsylvania State University


               Existing Structural System

Gravity System
   Hambro composite open web steel joists
   Light gauge metal load-bearing exterior walls
   Tube steel columns (span to 3rd floor)
   Pre-fabricated wood trusses
   Wood load-bearing walls in the 5th floor
   8” reinf. CMU retaining wall with strip and spread
    footings

Lateral System
   X-braced light gauge metal stud shear walls
Andrew Diehl                             5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                The Pennsylvania State University


               Existing Structural System

Hambro Composite Joists
Andrew Diehl                                    5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                       The Pennsylvania State University


                    Design Criteria

   Keep floor-to-floor height the same (9’-10”)
   Minimize structural impact in floor plan
   Open up the ceiling plenum
   Minimize cost impact
Andrew Diehl                                      5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                         The Pennsylvania State University


                    Pan Joist Concrete

Design Decisions
   40” pans
   4 ksi normal weight concrete
   Grade 60 reinforcement
   Slab thickness is 5” (fireproofing)
Andrew Diehl                                    5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                       The Pennsylvania State University


               Pan Joist Concrete, cont’d

Slab Design
   5” thick
   Flexural Reinforcement = #3s @ 5”
   S&T Reinforcement = #3s @ 5”
Andrew Diehl                                         5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                            The Pennsylvania State University


               Pan Joist Concrete, cont’d

Joist Design
   4’ modules
   8” x 7” joists

           Spans     Top Reinf.   Bottom Reinf.       Shear Reinf.
         10’ & 11’     2 #4s         2 #4s             #3s @ 5”
         15’ & 11’     2 #5s         2 #4s             #3s @ 5”
       12’ & 11’4”     2 #5s         2 #4s             #3s @ 5”
         16’ & 11’     2 #6s         2 #5s             #3s @ 5”
Andrew Diehl                                       5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                          The Pennsylvania State University


               Pan Joist Concrete, cont’d

Girder Design
                Span         Top Reinf.       Bottom Reinf.
           24’8” & 12’4”   4 #9s & 2 #7s      3 #8s & 1 #8
           10’1” & 12’4”   2 #7s & 3 #8s      1 #8 & 2 #8s
           25’1” & 12’4”   4 #8s & 2 #8s      2 #9s & 1 #8
            16’ & 12’4”    3 #7s & 3 #7s       1 #9 & 1 #8
            17’ & 12’4”    3 #7s & 2 #8s       1 #9 & 1 #8
            16’ & 12’4”    2 #9s & 1 #8        1 #9 & 1 #6
            17’ & 12’4”    2 #8s & 1 #8        1 #8 & 1 #8
Andrew Diehl                                   5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                      The Pennsylvania State University


               Pan Joist Concrete, cont’d

Girder Design, cont’d
   Formed from 40” pans
   12”x15” and 12”x18” girders


Column Design
   Bi-axial columns – 14”x14” with 8 #6s
   Uni-axial columns – 12”x12” with 4 #6s
Andrew Diehl                              5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                 The Pennsylvania State University


               Pan Joist Concrete, cont’d

Bar Cut-offs
   Negative Reinforcement


                              Positive Reinforcement
Andrew Diehl                             5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                The Pennsylvania State University


               Pan Joist Concrete, cont’d

1st Floor Framing Plan
Andrew Diehl                              5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                 The Pennsylvania State University


               Pan Joist Concrete, cont’d

Recommendation
 System did not meet design requirements

 Column interference

 Increase size of ceiling plenum

 Additional cost ~$1.3 million



                    Pan Joist Concrete
                       is not viable
Andrew Diehl                                 5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                    The Pennsylvania State University


                    Steel Frame

Design Decisions
   Grade 50 steel
   United Steel Deck Manufacturer
   Bolted Connections
Andrew Diehl                                   5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                      The Pennsylvania State University


                    Steel Frame, cont’d

Slab Design
   United Steel Deck Manual
   18 gage UF2X Form Deck
   4 ½” concrete slab with 44 – W4.0x4.0 weld wire fabric
Andrew Diehl                                5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                   The Pennsylvania State University


                    Steel Frame, cont’d

Beam and Column Design
   1.2D + 1.6L
   Meet AISC design requirements
         Beam Design Charts

         Column Design Charts

   W-shapes
Andrew Diehl                              5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                 The Pennsylvania State University


                    Steel Frame, cont’d

Beam and Column Design, cont’d
Andrew Diehl                              5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                 The Pennsylvania State University


                    Steel Frame, cont’d

1st Floor Framing Plan
Andrew Diehl                              5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                 The Pennsylvania State University


                    Steel Frame, cont’d

Bolted Connection
   6”x8”x1/8” A36 steel
    angle
   2 bolts
Andrew Diehl                                    5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                       The Pennsylvania State University


                    Steel Frame, cont’d

Recommendation
 System did not meet design requirements

 Column interference

 Increase size of ceiling plenum

 Additional cost ~$600,000



                        Steel Frame
                        is not viable
Andrew Diehl                                           5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                              The Pennsylvania State University


                          Cost Comparison

Cost Comparison
   Based from R.S. Means

                     Structural               Cost Difference
                                  Cost ($)
                      System                        ($)
                     Existing     501,380           ---
                     Pan Joist
                                  1,797,100   +1,295,720
                     Concrete
                    Steel Frame   1,058,903    +557,523
Andrew Diehl                            5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option               The Pennsylvania State University


               Construction Management

Site Layout
   Easy flow around the
    building for trades and
    deliveries
   Easy access to the lay-
    down area
   Steel deliveries can be
    picked off truck and put
    into place
   Temporary power is
    accessible under the site
Andrew Diehl                   5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option      The Pennsylvania State University


   Construction Management, cont’d

Site Layout, cont’d
Andrew Diehl                                 5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                    The Pennsylvania State University


    Construction Management, cont’d

Formwork Design
   Column forms are ½” plywood forms with 2x4 studs and
    wales
   Stud spacing is 12” O.C.
   Wale spacing is 18” O.C.
   Column forms can be reused
   Joist and Girder forms are standard 40” pans
   40” pan forms will remain in place
Andrew Diehl                      5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option         The Pennsylvania State University


   Construction Management, cont’d

Formwork Design, cont’d
Andrew Diehl                                    5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                       The Pennsylvania State University


                     Architecture

Facade Design
   Accent the structural design
   Visually stimulating
   Done by visual breaks in the facade
   At column locations
   White colored bricks
   Disadvantages – increase in labor costs
Andrew Diehl                               5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                  The Pennsylvania State University


                    Architecture, cont’d

Facade Design, cont’d
Andrew Diehl                                   5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                      The Pennsylvania State University


                    Architecture, cont’d

Interior Exposure of Structure
   Visually stimulating
   Not usually seen in buildings
   See mechanical and electrical systems
   Not done in dwelling areas
   Only can be done in 2 rooms in building (lobby and
        lounge)
   Disadvantages – increase costs in mechanical and
        electrical labor
Andrew Diehl                                5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                   The Pennsylvania State University


                         Conclusions

   Both designs did not meet design requirements
   Column interference
   Ceiling needs to be lowered
   Costs the owner significant amount of money


                    Hambro Composite Joists
                           is viable
Andrew Diehl                               5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                  The Pennsylvania State University


                    Thank You

   Scott Stewart, PE (Hope Furrer Associates, Inc.)
   Design Collective, Inc.
   Dr. Thomas Boothby
   Friends
   Family
Andrew Diehl                            5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option               The Pennsylvania State University


                    Questions
Andrew Diehl                                     5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                        The Pennsylvania State University


                     Foundations

Pan Joist Concrete System
   More Dead Load
   Must watch punching shear at columns
   Increase in size and thickness of footings


Steel Frame System
   Slight increase in Dead Load
   Must watch punching shear at columns
   Slight increase in size and thickness
Andrew Diehl                                   5th Year AE Senior Thesis
Structural Option                      The Pennsylvania State University


                    Structural Scheduling

Pan Joist Concrete System
   Set-up and stripping of formwork
   Pouring and curing of concrete
   Laying of reinforcement cage
   ~ 1 month added to schedule

Steel Frame System
   Erection of members
   Connection Detailing
   ~ 2-3 weeks added to schedule

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:4
posted:9/11/2012
language:Unknown
pages:40