Ryan Pletz Structural Dr. Hanagan The Pennsylvania State University Department of Architectural Engineering Senior Thesis April 14, 2008
Ryan PletzStructuralDr. Hanagan
The Pennsylvania State UniversityDepartment of Architectural Engineering
Senior Thesis
April 14, 2008
Project Team
Owner: Prince William County SchoolsArchitect: Jim Pociluyko, Moseley ArchitectsStructural Engineer: Jeff O’beirne, Moseley ArchitectsMechanical Engineer: Jim Miller , Moseley ArchitectsElectrical Engineer: Russell Roundy , Moseley ArchitectsPlumbing Engineer: Jeffry Mortensen , Moseley ArchitectsCivil Engineer: Ross, France, Ratliff, Ltd.Construction: V.F. Pavone
Pletz ‐ Structural
Where We’re Going…
Existing ConditionsProblem / ProposalResearch GoalsArchitectural StudyStructural StudyConclusions
Pletz ‐ Structural
Where We’re Going…
Existing ConditionsProblem / ProposalResearch GoalsArchitectural StudyStructural StudyConclusions
Pletz ‐ Structural
Existing Conditions
Location: Manassas, Virginia
Pletz ‐ Structural
Existing Conditions
Location: Manassas, VirginiaAdministration building for Prince William County Schools150,000 square feetOne 1‐story wing, two 3‐story wingsOriginal building height: 46’‐0”
Pletz ‐ Structural
Existing Conditions
Location: Manassas, Virginia
Pletz ‐ Structural
Existing Conditions
Pletz ‐ Structural
Existing Conditions
Pletz ‐ Structural
Where We’re Going…
Existing ConditionsProblem / ProposalResearch GoalsArchitectural StudyStructural StudyConclusions
Pletz ‐ Structural
Problem / Proposal
Owner wants more building spaceWhere to expand?
Impact on the existing structural systemFoundationsGravity ColumnsLateral System
Alternative and possibly more efficient systemGravityLateral
Pletz ‐ Structural
Where We’re Going…
Existing ConditionsProblem / ProposalResearch GoalsArchitectural StudyStructural StudyConclusions
Pletz ‐ Structural
Research Goals
Add additional space and maintain good aesthetics throughoutCreate more efficient structural systemSave money and scheduling time
Pletz ‐ Structural
Where We’re Going…
Existing ConditionsProblem / ProposalResearch GoalsArchitectural StudyStructural StudyConclusions
Pletz ‐ Structural
Architectural Study
2 preliminary optionsExpand OutwardExpand Upward
Pletz ‐ Structural
Architectural Study
2 optionsExpand OutwardExpand UpwardMinimize site impactIncrease site usable space (Parking, …)One construction sequence
Pletz ‐ Structural
Architectural Study
Pletz ‐ Structural
Architectural Study
Pletz ‐ Structural
Architectural Study
Additional 2 stories (15’‐4” story height)New Height: 76’‐8”37,770 additional square feet116 additional open workstations36 additional private offices
Pletz ‐ Structural
Architectural StudyLandscaped Roof
Pletz ‐ Structural
Occupant experienceNew Stories 4‐5
Views of rooftopMechanical units
Greater aestheticsConnect the occupant to outside
Architectural Study
30,000 square feetIntensive‐typeAesthetic and psychological benefitsEcological and economic benefits
Landscaped Roof
Pletz ‐ Structural
Architectural StudyLandscaped Roof
Typical Intensive Roof Garden Details
Typical Hardscape to SoftscapeTransition
Pletz ‐ Structural
Where We’re Going…
Existing ConditionsProblem / ProposalResearch GoalsArchitectural StudyStructural StudyConclusions
Pletz ‐ Structural
Structural Study
Existing SystemNon‐CompositeSteel W‐shape main beams and girders24’‐0” width, 31’‐0” length
OWSJ bay fillers6 per bay, 4’‐0” on center
Spread footing foundation
Pletz ‐ Structural
Structural Study
New SystemCompositeSteel W‐shapes at 3 per bay, 8’‐0” on center
No joists4” Composite concrete slab
Pletz ‐ Structural
Structural Study
Roof FramingTypical Size: W14x22Original Design: 20KCS230% reduction in depth
Pletz ‐ Structural
Structural Study
Floor FramingTypical Sizes: W14x22, W12x19, and W21x44Original Design: 28K850‐57% reduction in depth
Pletz ‐ Structural
Column Redesign for Floors 1 and 2Size spliced at second story
Column Redesign for Floors 3, 4, and 5
Structural StudyGravity
Lateral
Pletz ‐ Structural
Structural Study
Foundation Redesign Column M‐17(Highest Moment)
Column S‐17(Highest Axial Load)
Pletz ‐ Structural
Structural Study
Foundation RedesignFooting M‐17P = 228.3 kips (106.5 Dead, 121.8 Live)M = 291 ft‐kips
Pletz ‐ Structural
Structural Study
Foundation RedesignFooting M‐1711’‐0”x11’‐0” (49% larger)25” thick(11)#7 bars each way
Original RedesignFooting M‐179’‐0”x9’‐0”25” thick(10)#7 bars each way
Pletz ‐ Structural
Structural Study
Foundation RedesignFooting S‐17P = 475.6 kips (212.4 Dead, 258.2 Live)M = 255.2ft‐kips
Pletz ‐ Structural
Structural Study
Foundation RedesignFooting S‐1713’‐6”x13’‐6” (65% increase)25” thick(13)#8 bars each way
Original DesignFooting S‐1710’‐6”x10’‐6”25” thick(10)#7 bars each way
Pletz ‐ Structural
Structural Study
Existing Lateral SystemMoment Frames11 in N‐S Direction3 in E‐W Direction
102 fixed connections framing level
Pletz ‐ Structural
Structural Study
Redesign possibilitiesBraced FramingShear WallsDual SystemReduction in Moment Frames
Pletz ‐ Structural
Pletz ‐ Structural
Structural Study
Pletz ‐ Structural
Structural Study
Redesign possibilitiesBraced FramingShear WallsReduction in Moment Frames3 north‐south frames
6 north‐south frames
1 east‐west frame
Pletz ‐ Structural
Structural Study
Redesigned Moment Frame Plan
Pletz ‐ Structural
Structural Study
WindControlling Lateral Load for North‐South Frames
Story Drift (in.) Load Combination % of Height H/4001 0.33 Wind 0.18 0.46"2 0.46 Wind 0.25 0.46"3 0.45 Wind 0.25 0.46"4 0.42 Wind 0.23 0.46"5 0.33 Wind 0.18 0.46"
Story Drift of North South Frame
Pletz ‐ Structural
Structural Study
SeismicControlling Lateral Load for East‐West Frame
Story Drift (in.) Load Combination Cd/I δCd/I 0.015H1 0.54 Seismic 3 1.617 2.76"2 0.75 Seismic 3 2.241 2.76"3 0.63 Seismic 3 1.899 2.76"4 0.47 Seismic 3 1.413 2.76"5 0.30 Seismic 3 0.909 2.76"
Story Drift of East West Frame
Pletz ‐ Structural
Structural Study
Green Roof Framing
Loading
MaterialHeight/Thickness (inches)
dry wetHydroflex RB 3/8 2.5 2.5Dow STYROFOAM (R=5/inch) 3 0.5 0.5Moisture Mat SSM45 3/16 0.2 1FD60 w/ mineral soil 2 1/4 5 7.4Pea Gravel 6 54 60Intensive Soil 6 30 45Intensive Plants (<5'‐0") 4Conrete Pavers 18‐30
Weight (psf)Description Type Location Load
Green Roof Weight Dead Full 80 PSFSuperimposed Dead Load Dead Full 20 PSFFlat Roof Snow Load Snow Full 21 PSFDrift Snow Load Snow Radial 28 PSFDrift Snow Load Snow Atrium 51 PSFLive Load Live Full 20 PSF
Green Roof Loading
Pletz ‐ Structural
Structural Study
Green Roof FramingDesign
Radial: W18x40Atrium:W8x10 to W16x31
Pletz ‐ Structural
Structural StudyGreen Roof Framing
Pletz ‐ Structural
Where We’re Going…
Existing ConditionsProblem / ProposalResearch GoalsArchitectural StudyStructural StudyConclusions
Pletz ‐ Structural
ConclusionsNew Architecture provides needed additional space requirements for future growthGreen Roof aesthetically pleasing and provides potential economic benefitsStructural floor framing more efficient than originalDecreased number of lateral frames
Frames much bigger than originalOriginal design still adequate
Construction costs very close to originalPletz ‐ Structural
Acknowledgments
Prince William County Schools for permission
Moseley Architects for sponsorship
American Hydrotech for all the green information that I could want
V.F. Pavone Construction for multiple site visits
Dr. Hanagan and the structural faculty for everything you have taught me
Professor Holland and all the consultants and mentors for all the guidance through this research
All 2008 AE students for always being around to help
Friends and family for support, inspiration, and encouragement
Pletz ‐ Structural
Questions?
Pletz ‐ Structural