Jonathan Goodroad Jonathan Goodroad Structural Option Structural Option 2005 Thesis 2005 Thesis Penn State AE Penn State AE Delaware State Delaware State University University Administration and Administration and Student Services Student Services Building Building
36
Embed
Jonathan Goodroad Structural Option 2005 Thesis Penn State AE Delaware State University Administration and Student Services Building.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Jonathan GoodroadJonathan GoodroadStructural OptionStructural Option2005 Thesis2005 ThesisPenn State AEPenn State AE
Delaware State Delaware State University University
Administration and Administration and Student Services Student Services
BuildingBuilding
DSU Administration BuildingDSU Administration Building
4-Story Office Building4-Story Office Building 88,600 SF88,600 SF Southeast corner of DSU campusSoutheast corner of DSU campus
OutlineOutline Building BackgroundBuilding Background
Depth Study – Redesign with Two-way Flat Plate SystemDepth Study – Redesign with Two-way Flat Plate System– Redesign ProposalRedesign Proposal– Gravity SystemGravity System– Lateral SystemLateral System– Building ImpactBuilding Impact– System ComparisonsSystem Comparisons
Breadth Study – Construction Issues Breadth Study – Construction Issues Breadth Study – Mechanical Loading AnalysisBreadth Study – Mechanical Loading Analysis ConclusionsConclusions AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements QuestionsQuestions
OutlineOutline Building BackgroundBuilding Background
Depth Study – Redesign with Two-way Flat Plate SystemDepth Study – Redesign with Two-way Flat Plate System– Redesign ProposalRedesign Proposal– Gravity SystemGravity System– Lateral SystemLateral System– Building ImpactBuilding Impact– System ComparisonsSystem Comparisons
Breadth Study – Construction IssuesBreadth Study – Construction Issues Breadth Study – Mechanical Loading Analysis Breadth Study – Mechanical Loading Analysis ConclusionsConclusions AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements QuestionsQuestions
East portion uses 24” mat foundationEast portion uses 24” mat foundation West portion slab on grade with square footings West portion slab on grade with square footings Piers around perimeter of entire footprintPiers around perimeter of entire footprint Grade beam around perimeter of slab on gradeGrade beam around perimeter of slab on grade Wide grade beam down center of matWide grade beam down center of mat
OutlineOutline Building BackgroundBuilding Background
Depth Study – Redesign with Two-way Flat Plate SystemDepth Study – Redesign with Two-way Flat Plate System– Redesign ProposalRedesign Proposal– Gravity SystemGravity System– Lateral SystemLateral System– Building ImpactBuilding Impact– System ComparisonsSystem Comparisons
Breadth Study – Construction IssuesBreadth Study – Construction Issues Breadth Study – Mechanical Loading Analysis Breadth Study – Mechanical Loading Analysis ConclusionsConclusions AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements QuestionsQuestions
Depth StudyDepth Study
Redesign ProposalRedesign Proposal– Change from steel frame system to cast-Change from steel frame system to cast-
Determined with IBC 2003 (Chapter 16), ACI Determined with IBC 2003 (Chapter 16), ACI 318-02 (Chapter 21), and ASCE 7-02 318-02 (Chapter 21), and ASCE 7-02
Base Shear = 747 kips
Depth StudyDepth Study
Lateral SystemLateral SystemDesign:Design:
Shear wallsShear walls– Seismic loading governsSeismic loading governs– Stiffness analysis used for Stiffness analysis used for
wall load determinationwall load determination– ETABS used for strength andETABS used for strength and
deflection analysisdeflection analysis
Depth StudyDepth Study
Lateral SystemLateral SystemDesign:Design:
Flexural steel determined with minimum Flexural steel determined with minimum requirementsrequirements
Max steel ratio notedMax steel ratio noted Longitudinal spacing accounted forLongitudinal spacing accounted for Transverse steel spaced at 6”Transverse steel spaced at 6” Shear reinforcement spaced at 6”Shear reinforcement spaced at 6”
Depth StudyDepth Study
Lateral SystemLateral SystemDesign:Design:
Required SteelRequired Steel
(worst case for (worst case for
E-W direction)E-W direction)
Depth StudyDepth Study
Building ImpactBuilding Impact– Building weight greatly increasedBuilding weight greatly increased
Expensive existing foundation may not have Expensive existing foundation may not have capacity to expand on questionable soilcapacity to expand on questionable soil
– Thickness of shear walls may intrude Thickness of shear walls may intrude upon corridor spacesupon corridor spaces
– Floor to floor height reduced by 2’ per Floor to floor height reduced by 2’ per floor, overall building height reducedfloor, overall building height reduced
– Fire rating of 4 hours for concrete, no Fire rating of 4 hours for concrete, no spray on fireproofing requiredspray on fireproofing required
Depth StudyDepth Study
System ComparisonSystem Comparison– Steel system cost approximately $1.5 millionSteel system cost approximately $1.5 million– Concrete system cost approximately $1.9 Concrete system cost approximately $1.9
millionmillion– Concrete requires little lead timeConcrete requires little lead time– Steel construction more preciseSteel construction more precise– Steel system can be fabricated in any Steel system can be fabricated in any
Depth Study – Redesign with Two-way Flat Plate SystemDepth Study – Redesign with Two-way Flat Plate System– Redesign ProposalRedesign Proposal– Gravity SystemGravity System– Lateral SystemLateral System– Building ImpactBuilding Impact– System ComparisonsSystem Comparisons
Breadth Study – Construction IssuesBreadth Study – Construction Issues Breadth Study – Mechanical Loading Analysis Breadth Study – Mechanical Loading Analysis ConclusionsConclusions AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements QuestionsQuestions
Breadth StudyBreadth Study
Construction IssuesConstruction Issues– Concrete constructionConcrete construction
Uniform bays allows for faster floor cycle with consistent Uniform bays allows for faster floor cycle with consistent formworkformwork
– Use of flying forms allows for thisUse of flying forms allows for this Consistent column dimensions add to ease of erectionConsistent column dimensions add to ease of erection
– Rebar changes, dimensions do notRebar changes, dimensions do not Use of #18 bars in basement columnsUse of #18 bars in basement columns
– Requires crane for placementRequires crane for placement Smaller bars may be better choiceSmaller bars may be better choice
Shear stud stripsShear stud strips– Reduces congestion at column locationsReduces congestion at column locations– Provides shear reinforcement without labor of bending barsProvides shear reinforcement without labor of bending bars
OutlineOutline Building BackgroundBuilding Background
Depth Study – Redesign with Two-way Flat Plate SystemDepth Study – Redesign with Two-way Flat Plate System– Redesign ProposalRedesign Proposal– Gravity SystemGravity System– Lateral SystemLateral System– Building ImpactBuilding Impact– System ComparisonsSystem Comparisons
Breadth Study – Construction IssuesBreadth Study – Construction Issues Breadth Study – Mechanical Loading AnalysisBreadth Study – Mechanical Loading Analysis ConclusionsConclusions AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements QuestionsQuestions
Breadth StudyBreadth Study
Mechanical Loading AnalysisMechanical Loading Analysis– South facing atrium spaceSouth facing atrium space
Analyze effect of Analyze effect of glazing on cooling glazing on cooling loadload
Using Hourly Using Hourly Analysis Program, Analysis Program, take sample space take sample space and determine and determine effectseffects
Breadth StudyBreadth Study
Mechanical Loading AnalysisMechanical Loading Analysis– U-value and shading coefficient effect U-value and shading coefficient effect
heat transmission through glazingheat transmission through glazing– U-value is measure of ability to conductU-value is measure of ability to conduct
Lower value = lower heat transmittanceLower value = lower heat transmittance
– Shading coefficient is ratio of heat gain Shading coefficient is ratio of heat gain through selected glazing to heat gain through selected glazing to heat gain through single pane of clear glazingthrough single pane of clear glazing Expressed as <1 Expressed as <1 Lower value = lower heat transmittanceLower value = lower heat transmittance
– New glazing:New glazing: U = 0.31U = 0.31 SC = 0.20SC = 0.20
Breadth StudyBreadth Study
Existing System Cost: $73,500Existing System Cost: $73,500 Proposed System Cost: $85,000Proposed System Cost: $85,000 Difference: $11,500Difference: $11,500 Payback: 4.6 yearsPayback: 4.6 years
OutlineOutline Building BackgroundBuilding Background
Depth Study – Redesign with Two-way Flat Plate SystemDepth Study – Redesign with Two-way Flat Plate System– Redesign ProposalRedesign Proposal– Gravity SystemGravity System– Lateral SystemLateral System– Building ImpactBuilding Impact– System ComparisonsSystem Comparisons
Breadth Study – Construction IssuesBreadth Study – Construction Issues Breadth Study – Mechanical Loading Analysis Breadth Study – Mechanical Loading Analysis ConclusionsConclusions AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements QuestionsQuestions
ConclusionsConclusions
Concrete design would use 12” slab, Concrete design would use 12” slab, 22” square columns, and 16” 22” square columns, and 16” reinforced concrete shear wallsreinforced concrete shear walls
Steel system more cost effective Steel system more cost effective optionoption
Coordination of trades would require Coordination of trades would require more work for a concrete systemmore work for a concrete system
Better glazing can improve energy Better glazing can improve energy costscosts
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements
Thanks to…Thanks to…– PSU AE FacultyPSU AE Faculty– Delaware State UniversityDelaware State University– CVM EngineersCVM Engineers– Family and FriendsFamily and Friends– Holly and ToddHolly and Todd