Introduction Joshua Castillo Construction Management Center for Creative and Performing Arts High School (CAPA High School) Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

IntroductionIntroduction

Joshua CastilloJoshua Castillo

Construction ManagementConstruction Management

Center for Creative and Performing Arts High School

(CAPA High School)Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

AgendaAgenda

• General Project Information• Existing Building Systems• Foundation Analysis• Site Plan Analysis• “Astrovision” Video Screen Analysis• Conclusions

General Project InformationGeneral Project Information

• Existing Site and Old Building– Downtown Pittsburgh– Adjacent to Allegheny River– Donation of Site and part of

Existing Building– Existing Building Usage

• Bar and Lounge 1st Floor • Jazz Club 2nd and 3rd Floors• CAPA use Floors 4-6• Unoccupied 7th and 8th Floors• Residence on 9th Floor Penthouse

General Project InformationGeneral Project Information

• New CAPA Building– Approximately 120,000 SF,

7 Stories– Full- Functioning High

School Including:• Classrooms and Labs

• Staff and Faculty Offices

• Cafeteria and Gym

• Below Grade Parking Lot

– Focus in Creative and Performing Arts

• 5,500 SF Theater

• 4 Studios

RENDITION OF CAPA BUILDING

Existing Building SystemsExisting Building Systems

• Foundation System– Caissons with spanning Grade Beams– Slab on Grade and CIP Concrete Walls Below Grade

• Framing System– A36 Steel Framing and Details

• Mechanical systems– Complete with 2 AHU, air Distribution Ducts, Diffusers,

Registers, Dampers, and Grilles

• Electrical systems– Dry-Type Distribution Transformers – Low Volt Distribution Switch Boards– Light and Power Panel Boards for Wiring

Existing Building SystemsExisting Building Systems

• Façade Systems– East Side:

• CMU on Entire Side adjacent to Feiser Building

– West Side: • Brick and Aluminum Windows

– South Side:• Same as West other than Building

Connection to Existing

– North Side:• Glass Curtain Wall Spanning Height

• “Astrovision” Video Display Screen

• Brick and Aluminum Windows

Connection to Existing Building

Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis

• CAPA Originally Designed with Caissons– Caisson Construction Methods

• Drill Holes• Reinforce Walls to Prevent Collapsing• Pump Water Out• Place Steel Reinforcing• Place Concrete

Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis

• Problems with Using Caissons – Difficult to Construct in unstable Soil Conditions

• High Water Table • Steel Casing as Hole Wall supports• Pump Water or use Tremie Method to Place

Concrete

– Variable Construction • Eight Sizes of Caisson Diameters Ranging from

2 ½ ft to 6 ½ ft across the site

Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis

• Problems with Using Caissons– Duration of Installation

• Time to Install Steel Casing• Time to Pump Water• Drill, Reinforce Hole Walls, Place Steel

Reinforcing, then Pour Concrete

Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis

• Auger Cast Piles (ACP’s) as an Alternative– Auger Cast Pile Construction Method

• Drill Hole• Concrete Placed as Drill Bit is Removed• Steel Reinforcing Placed after Concrete is Placed• ACP’s used in a Cluster require a Pile Cap to tie them

together

1.Drill Bit

2.Pressurized Concrete

3.Auger Cast Pile

Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis

• Using ACP’s as an Alternative Foundation– General Benefits of Using ACP’s

• Speed of Installation• Less Material Costs• Bearing Capacity • Overall Reduced Costs

– Problems with Using ACP’s• Susceptible to Variability• More ACP’s Required than Caissons

Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis

• Comparing the Two Foundation Systems

Caissons VS Auger Cast Piles

– Structural Bearing Capacity– Cost differences in Material and Construction– Constructability and Length of Time to Install

Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis• General Bearing Capacity

QUltimate = QP + QS

= AP(CNC+ ЧLNq + ЧNЧ) + Σ∆L(AS)S• Surface-Friction per Unit Area

S = KS σ Tan∂ where: KS = Ave. Coeff. of Earth Pressure on Pile

Shaft

Steel Lined Caissons KS=1.1Concrete Alone KS=1.5

*ACP’s can have 36% more Surface-Friction Bearing Capacity than Steel lined Caissons

Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis

QUltimate = AP(CNC+ ЧLNq + ЧNЧ) + ASFS

Average Unit Surface-Friction

FS= C+ ½ KS(Ч-G) L (tan Ø)

Assumptions: Ø = 12°

C = 6 KN/m^2

Ч = 18 KN/m^3

Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis

• Ultimate Bearing Capacity Comparison– Average Length of 50 Feet– 24” Diameter

• Surface-Friction ComparisonCaissons FS = 20.5 KN/m^2

ACP’s FS = 25.85 KN/m^2

Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis

• Ultimate Bearing Capacity ComparisonQUltimate = AP(CNC+ ЧLNq + ЧNЧ) + ASFS

Caissons QUlt = QP + QS

= 140.3 + 598.6 =738.9 KN =168 kips

ACP’s QUlt = QP + QS

= 140.3 + 753 = 893.3 KN =200 kips

Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis

• Pile Cap Design– Based on # of Piles / Cluster– All Pile Caps used were 49” deep– Four different pile layouts– Four different size pile caps

Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis

Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis

• Foundation Cost Comparison– System Estimates Using:

• Means Cost Guides• Walker’s Building Estimating• General Contractor Consulting

Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis

• Means Cost Guide Results

  Total Cost

Caissons System $900,000

Auger Cast Pile System $500,000

Difference $400,000

Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis

• Duration of Foundation Construction– Foundation System Duration Estimates Using:

• Means Cost Guides• General Contractor Consulting

Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis

• Means Cost Guide Duration Results

  Total Duration

Caissons 60 work days

Auger Cast Piles 40 work days

Difference 20 work days/ 4 Weeks

Site Plan ModificationSite Plan Modification

• A Discrepancy Affecting the Site Layout– Location of Existing Sanitary Sewer Line

• Located 5 Feet closer to Building than shown on Drawings

• Changes that were Made– Redesign of shoring system– Hand Excavation

Site Plan ModificationSite Plan Modification• Location of Foundation Problem

– West Side Caissons are too Close to Sewer Line

Site Plan ModificationSite Plan Modification• 1st Possibility

– Reduce Width of Entire Vault Area 1-2 ft – Leave Caissons/Piles at the edge

Site Plan ModificationSite Plan Modification

• Effects of Reducing Vault Area Width– Positive Effects

• Less Congestion for Foundation Installation• No Change in Building Superstructure

– Negative Effects• Vault Area Will be More Congested• Vault is Pre-cast Concrete

Site Plan ModificationSite Plan Modification

• 2nd Possibility – Move West Side Caissons/Piles East 5 ft

Site Plan ModificationSite Plan Modification

• Effects of Partial Foundation Relocation– Positive Effects

• Less Congestion for Foundation Installation• Building Superstructure Stays the Same

– Negative Effects• Located in the Central Axis of the Vault Area• Creates 1 to 1 Cantilever on Grade Beams

Site Plan ModificationSite Plan Modification

• Solution– Move West Side Foundation Piers 5ft East– Move Entire Vault Area 10 ft South

““Astrovision” Video Display Screen AnalysisAstrovision” Video Display Screen Analysis

• What is it?– 22ft X 37ft Video

Screen– 112 Individual Modules

““Astrovision” Video Display Screen AnalysisAstrovision” Video Display Screen Analysis

• Problem With Screen Design– No Outlet to Disperse Heat Generated

• Could Cause Damage to the Screen• Could Cause Excess Heat in Building

• Possible Solution– Add Louvers to Disperse Heat

““Astrovision” Video Display Screen AnalysisAstrovision” Video Display Screen Analysis

• Effects of Adding Louvers– Screen is Able to be Cooled

• Eliminates Potential Damage to Itself• Better Chance of Lasting Expected Lifetime• Eliminates Excess Heat Exposure of Building

– Reduced Screen Size to Account for Louvers• Loss of 3 Lines of Screen Modules (21 Modules)

““Astrovision” Video Display Screen AnalysisAstrovision” Video Display Screen Analysis

• Effects of Adding Louvers– Reduced Screen Size

• Loss in Aesthetical Quality of Screen

• Overall Cost of Screen is Reduced

– Added Cost of Louvers

““Astrovision” Video Display Screen AnalysisAstrovision” Video Display Screen Analysis

• Change in Cost With Louvers

  Total Cost

21 Screen Modules $200,000

Louvers $10,000

Difference $190,000

ConclusionsConclusions• Foundation Analysis

PROS– ACP’s have Better Surface-Friction making their Bearing Capacity higher than

Steel Lined Caissons in the right soil conditions. – Using ACP’s Would Save Money and TimeCONS– More potential for Displacement – Increased Chance of Variability in the Shafts

• Site Plan Modification– Resizing the Vault Area Would Not be a Practical solution– Relocating the Foundation Caissons Reduces the Structural Integrity of the Vault

Area– Move Entire Vault Area away from Potential Traffic Loads

• Screen Redesign with Louvers – Saves Money in Initial and Repair Costs– Loss in Aesthetical Quality

Summary of Costs  

Caisson Foundation System………………………………………………… $901,442

ACP Foundation System……………………………………………………. $445,701

Savings………………………….. $455,741

Original "Astrovision" Design……………………………………………….. $1,500,000

Reduced Size "Astrovision" With Louvers………………………………… $1,299,800 

Savings………………………… $200,200

Total Cost Savings ………………… $655,941

Duration of Foundation Systems  

Caisson Foundation System………………………………………………… 63 Work Days

ACP Foundation System……………………………………………………. 43 Work Days

Total Time Savings………………… 20 Work Days

• AE Faculty

• Mascaro Construction– Tom Weber– Marc Delrossi – Project Engineer

• Family and Friends

Questions?Questions?