Schenley Place Pittsburgh, PA

Schenley PlacePittsburgh, PA

Final Thesis Presentation

Hali Voycik I Structural OptionM. Kevin Parfitt, P.E., Thesis Advisor

BIGELOW BLVD BAYARD ST

RUSKIN ST

N BELLEFIELD AVE

BUILDING

SITE

BUILDING LOCATION4420 Bayard Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15213

OCCUPANCY TYPETypical office

PROJECTED COST$17.5 Million

SIZE165,000 SF

PROGRAM7 levels of unfinished tenant space

3.5 levels of parking garage

KEY PLAYERSElmhurst Group, owner

Burt Hill, architectAtlantic Engineering Services,

structural

Image courtesy of Google Map

PROJECT OVERVIEW PRESENTATION OUTLINE

IntroductionProject OverviewScope of WorkStructural Depth StudyBuilding Site RelocationExisting StructureGravity Framing for 3-story AdditionRedesign of Supporting Gravity SystemsDesign of Lateral Force Resisting SystemsDetermination of Effective LFRSArchitectural BreadthEvaluation of LFRS RelocationConstruction Management BreadthEvaluation of Cost due to 3-story AdditionEvaluation of Benefits to OwnerConclusions AcknowledgementsQuestions

SCOPE OF WORK

STRUCTURAL DEPTH STUDY1. Relocate Schenley Place Office Building to a site free of zoning and design constraints2. Design the gravity framing for a 3-story addition of rentable office space3. Redesign the supporting above and below grade gravity systems of the existing structure4. Design a lateral force resisting system that effectively reduces torsional effects

ARCHITECTURAL BREADTH STUDY5. Evaluate the effect relocating the LFRS core has on the existing floor plans

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT BREADTH STUDY6. Evaluate the effect a 3-story addition has on the final cost of the existing structural system7. Determine if the owner benefits from a 3-story addition

PRESENTATION OUTLINE


BUILDING

SITE

SCHEN

LEY F

ARMS

FIRST BAPTIST

CHURCH

Originally designed as a 10-story building

Final 7-story design and existing geometry dictated by historic zoning constraints governing the building’s site due proximity to:

1. Schenley Farms—a historic residential district

2. The First Baptist Church of Pittsburgh—a designated historic structure


BUILDING DESIGN PRESENTATION OUTLINE


Image courtesy ofGoogle Map

Image courtesy of The Elmhurst Group

HISTORIC PROTECTION ZONING ORDINANCES PRESENTATION OUTLINE


BUILDING SITE RELOCATION

BAYARD ST

RUSKIN BELLEFIELD

AVE

N CRAIG ST

BAYARD ST

N DITHRIDGE ST

CENTRE AVE PROPOSED SITE

EXISTING SITE




EXISTING STRUCTUREFOUNDATION SYSTEM

Concrete perimeter caisson wallConcrete drilled caissons

Concrete grade beams

PARKING GARAGEFLOOR SYSTEM

11” two-way flat slab with drop panelsGRAVITY SYSTEM

30”X18” concrete columns8” to 12” concrete walls

TYPICAL OFFICESFLOOR SYSTEM3 ½” n.w.c. slab

3”-20 G composite metal floor deckGRAVITY SYSTEM

Composite steel W-shape beamsSteel W-shape columns

LATERAL SYSTEMEccentrically braced frames

Concentrically braced frames



GRAVITY FRAMING FOR 3-STORY ADDITION PRESENTATION OUTLINE


REDESIGN OF SUPPORTING GRAVITY SYSTEM

ABOVE GRADE GRAVITY SYSTEM RAM Steel Column used to optimize design Wherever possible, original column depths maintained

BELOW GRADE GRAVITY SYSTEM Existing designs analyzed in PCA Column RAM Concrete Column Load Summary output used to verify designs

DRILLED CAISSION FOUNDATION SYSTEM Designed with an end-bearing capacity of 25 tons per square foot

VERTICAL TIES DEAD LIVE DEAD LIVE DEAD LIVE VERTICAL TIESB2 18"X30" 10-#9 #3@18" 476 201 15 10 -7 -5 18"X30" 10-#11 #4@18"B3 18"X30" 10-#9 #3@18" 690 443 16 11 -7 -5 18"X30" 10-#11 #4@18"B4 18"X30" 10-#9 #3@18" 839 509 16 11 -7 -5 18"X30" 10-#11 #4@18"B5 18"X30" 10-#9 #3@18" 857 570 18 12 -8 -5 18"X30" 10-#11 #4@18"B6 18"X30" 10-#9 #3@18" 675 329 15 10 -7 -5 18"X30" 10-#11 #4@18"C2 18"X30" 10-#9 #3@18" 584 242 -3 -10 1 5 18"X30" 10-#11 #4@18"C3 18"X30" 10-#9 #3@18" 745 496 -19 -11 8 5 18"X30" 10-#11 #4@18"C4 18"X30" 10-#11 #4@18" 331 189 -38 -16 17 7 18"X30" 10-#11 #4@18"C5 18"X30" 10-#11 #4@18" 350 245 -16 -12 7 5 18"X30" 10-#11 #4@18"C6 18"X30" 10-#9 #3@18" 760 387 -17 -10 8 5 18"X30" 10-#11 #4@18"D2 18"X30" 10-#9 #3@18" 584 242 3 10 -1 -5 18"X30" 10-#11 #4@18"D3 18"X30" 10-#9 #3@18" 745 496 19 11 -8 -5 18"X30" 10-#11 #4@18"D4 18"X30" 10-#11 #4@18" 897 533 22 11 -10 -5 18"X30" 10-#11 #4@18"D5 18"X30" 10-#11 #4@18" 242 145 11 7 -5 -3 18"X30" 10-#11 #4@18"D6 18"X30" 10-#9 #3@18" 757 385 17 10 -8 -5 18"X30" 10-#11 #4@18"E2 18"X30" 10-#9 #3@18" 476 201 -15 -10 7 5 18"X30" 10-#11 #4@18"E3 18"X30" 10-#9 #3@18" 690 443 -16 -11 7 5 18"X30" 10-#11 #4@18"E4 18"X30" 10-#9 #3@18" 867 529 -16 -11 7 5 18"X30" 10-#11 #4@18"E5 18"X30" 10-#9 #3@18" 874 580 -18 -12 8 5 18"X30" 10-#11 #4@18"E6 18"X30" 10-#9 #3@18" 702 347 -15 -10 7 5 18"X30" 10-#11 #4@18"

REDESIGN

COLUMN SIZE

REINFORCEMENTCOLUMN LOCATION

MOMENTS @ BOTTOM (ft-k)

MAXIMUM SERVICE LOADS (RAM OUTPUT)

AXIAL (k) MOMENTS @ TOP (ft-k)

REINFORCEMENTCOLUMN SIZE

EXISTING DESIGN

DEAD LIVEB2 54 16 795 476 201 893 1.12 NOB3 60 20 982 690 443 1537 1.57 NOB4 72 28 1414 839 509 1821 1.29 NOB5 72 28 1414 857 570 1940 1.37 NOB6 60 20 982 675 329 1336 1.36 NOC2 54 16 795 584 242 1088 1.37 NOC3 66 24 1188 745 496 1688 1.42 NOC4 66 24 1188 331 189 700 0.59 YESC5 66 24 1188 350 245 812 0.68 YESC6 60 20 982 760 387 1531 1.56 NOD2 54 16 795 584 242 1088 1.37 NOD3 66 24 1188 745 496 1688 1.42 NOD4 66 24 1188 897 533 1929 1.62 NOD5 66 24 1188 242 145 522 0.44 YESD6 60 20 982 757 385 1524 1.55 NOE2 54 16 795 476 201 893 1.12 NOE3 60 20 982 690 443 1537 1.57 NOE4 66 24 1188 867 529 1887 1.59 NOE5 66 24 1188 874 580 1977 1.66 NOE6 60 20 982 702 347 1398 1.42 NO

AVAILABLE CAPACITY

(Pu/Pa)ACCEPTABLE?

CAISSON DIAMETER

(in)

AREA OF CAISSON

(ft2)

COLUMN LOCATION

AXIAL (k)

MAXIMUM SERVICE LOADS (RAM OUTPUT)

AVAILABLE BEARING

CAPACITY OF CAISSON, Pa

(k)

FACTORED AXIAL

LOADS, Pu

1.2D+1.6L (k)



ETABS MODELS

GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS Only lateral members were modeled Floor diaphragms were modeled as rigid area elements Gravity loads were applied as additional area masses

BRACED FRAME ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS Column splices and beam-to-column connections were assumed rigid Braces were released of end fixity

SHEAR WALL ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS Walls were modeled as area objects, meshed with maximum 48”X48” dimensions Walls were modeled to only resist in-plane shear



CONTROLLING LOAD CASES

DESIGN WIND LOADS Design wind load cases were calculated by hand and applied manually

DESIGN SEISMIC LOADS Design seismic load cases were calculated by hand and applied manually Seismic accidental torsion was calculated by hand applied manually Assumed inherent torsion was accounted for by ETABS

SHEAR WALL TECH III

BRACED FRAME

SHEAR WALL TECH III

BRACED FRAME

EX -324 -221 -245 0 0 0

EY 0 0 0 -392 360 -367

CASE1X -393 -337 -393 0 0 0

CASE1Y 0 0 0 -448 -361 -448

CASE2X -393 -253 -393 0 0 0

CASE2Y 0 0 0 -336 -270 -336

CASE3 -295 -253 -295 -336 -270 -336

CASE4 -221 -188 -221 -252 -204 -252

BASE SHEAR, VX (k) BASE SHEAR, VY (k)

LOAD CASE



DESIGN OF BRACED FRAME LFRS

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Maintained design of a LFRS core as well as its existing location for practical reasons Special attention paid to torsional effects

BRACED FRAME

TECH III BRACED FRAME

TECH III

ROOF 0.42 --- 0.58 ---

10 0.42 --- 0.58 ---

9 0.42 --- 0.58 ---

8 0.43 0.55 0.57 0.45

7 0.44 0.55 0.56 0.45

6 0.47 0.55 0.53 0.45

5 0.51 0.55 0.49 0.45

4 0.59 0.38 0.41 0.62

3 0.60 0.38 0.40 0.62

2 0.59 0.38 0.41 0.62

LEVEL FRAME 4 FRAME 5.1

RELATIVE STORY STIFFNESS, Ri

BRACED FRAME

TECH III BRACED FRAME

TECH III

ROOF 0.42 --- 0.58 ---

10 0.42 --- 0.58 ---

9 0.42 --- 0.58 ---

8 0.43 0.55 0.57 0.45

7 0.44 0.55 0.56 0.45

6 0.47 0.55 0.53 0.45

5 0.51 0.55 0.49 0.45

4 0.59 0.38 0.41 0.62

3 0.60 0.38 0.40 0.62

2 0.59 0.38 0.41 0.62

LEVEL FRAME 4 FRAME 5.1

RELATIVE STORY STIFFNESS, Ri PRESENTATION OUTLINE


FINAL DESIGN OF BRACED FRAME LFRS

FINAL DESIGN Controlling wind design base shear: 448 kips Design values determined via ETABS model and hand calculations Designs of steel members verified through hand checks based on

Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, 2005 (AISC 360-05)

COLUMN LINE 4 COLUMN LINE C COLUMN LINE DCOLUMN LINE 5.1



DESIGN OF SHEAR WALL LFRS

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Maintained design of a LFRS core as well as its existing location for practical reasons Accommodated existing architectural floor plans Special attention paid to torsional effects

SHEAR WALL

TECH III SHEAR WALL

TECH III

ROOF 0.5 --- 0.5 ---

10 0.5 --- 0.5 ---

9 0.5 --- 0.5 ---

8 0.5 0.55 0.5 0.45

7 0.5 0.55 0.5 0.45

6 0.5 0.55 0.5 0.45

5 0.5 0.55 0.5 0.45

4 0.5 0.38 0.5 0.62

3 0.5 0.38 0.5 0.62

2 0.5 0.38 0.5 0.62

LEVEL COLUMN LINE 4 COLUMN LINE 5.1

RELATIVE STORY STIFFNESS, Ri

SHEAR WALL

TECH III SHEAR WALL

TECH III

ROOF 0.5 --- 0.5 ---

10 0.5 --- 0.5 ---

9 0.5 --- 0.5 ---

8 0.5 0.55 0.5 0.45

7 0.5 0.55 0.5 0.45

6 0.5 0.55 0.5 0.45

5 0.5 0.55 0.5 0.45

4 0.5 0.38 0.5 0.62

3 0.5 0.38 0.5 0.62

2 0.5 0.38 0.5 0.62

LEVEL COLUMN LINE 4 COLUMN LINE 5.1

RELATIVE STORY STIFFNESS, Ri PRESENTATION OUTLINE


FINAL DESIGN OF SHEAR WALL LFRS

FINAL DESIGN Controlling wind design base shear: 448 kips Design values determined via ETABS model and hand calculations Steel reinforcement designed according to Building Code Requirements for Structural

Concrete, 2008 (ACI 318-08)




FINAL SHEAR WALL DESIGN 18” thick walls Designed both shear and flexural reinforcement

Uplift was accounted for in design of flexural reinforcement Flexural reinforcement design was verified in PCA Column

DIRECTION OF LOADING

WALL ASSEMBLY WALL THICKNESS, h (in)

WALL LENGTH, lw (ft)

TOTAL DEAD

LOAD, w D

(ksf)

SW OF SHEAR

WALL, Dsw

(k)

0.9D (k)

FACTORED MOMENT DUE TO WIND,

Muw=1.6Mw

(k)

Muw/lw (k) 1/2(0.9D) (k) TENSION, T (k)

FLEXURAL STEEL, As

(in2) As=T/Фfy

C 18 25.2 0.701 851 1322 27246 1081 979 102 1.89D 18 25.2 0.701 851 1322 26813 1064 979 85 1.57C 18 5.4 0.701 182 194 6521 1208 758 450 8.32D 18 8.8497 0.701 299 318 6521 737 820 -83 -1.54

Y

X

A (ft) A Vertical Horizontal VerticalSW-4.1 6 ksi 1'-7" (10)#9 (2)#6 @ 14" (2)#6 @ 18"SW-C 6 ksi --- --- (2)#6 @ 18" (2)#6 @ 18"

SW-5.1.1 6 ksi 1'-7" (10)#9 (2)#6 @ 18" (2)#6 @ 18"

SHEAR WALL f'c

REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE




FINAL COUPLING BEAM DESIGN 18” in width, 24” in depth (typical) Designed both shear and flexural reinforcement Not specially detailed for seismic

SIZE SPACING

TYPICAL 18 24 (4)#9 (4)#9 #3 @ 10" o.c.

COUPLING BEAM

STIRRUPSBOTTOM BARSTOP BARSd (in)w (in)



DETERMINATION OF EFFECTIVE LFRS

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS System that adequately resists lateral loads System that reduces the direct effects of torsion

Ftotal = Fdirect + Ftorsional

Where, Fdirect = Viki and Ftorsional = kixi(Viey/Ji)

COLUMN LINELEVEL FRAME WALL FRAME WALL FRAME WALL FRAME WALL ROOF 2.10 3.50 1.44 3.50 2.12 4.58 1.90 2.93

10 4.24 6.87 3.02 6.87 4.40 8.96 3.81 5.759 4.29 6.65 3.18 6.65 4.60 8.64 3.80 5.608 4.55 6.48 3.61 6.48 5.10 8.39 3.97 5.507 4.84 6.31 4.05 6.31 5.68 8.12 4.07 5.406 5.34 6.13 4.91 6.13 6.43 7.81 4.65 5.325 6.12 5.90 6.40 5.90 7.09 7.41 6.33 5.234 8.21 10.44 8.50 10.44 9.31 12.81 9.29 9.563 10.37 11.79 9.66 11.79 11.06 13.91 11.04 11.352 11.39 11.26 9.57 11.26 11.37 12.53 11.34 11.59

COLUMN LINELEVEL FRAME WALL FRAME WALL FRAME WALL FRAME WALL ROOF 0.43 1.47 0.29 1.47 0.43 1.92 0.38 1.92

10 1.06 2.83 0.76 2.83 1.11 3.70 0.96 3.709 1.34 2.70 1.00 2.70 1.44 3.51 1.19 3.518 1.68 2.57 1.33 2.57 1.89 3.32 1.47 3.327 2.12 2.41 1.78 2.41 2.49 3.10 1.79 3.106 1.95 2.21 1.79 2.21 2.34 2.81 1.69 2.815 0.63 1.93 0.66 1.93 0.73 2.42 0.65 2.424 0.01 1.56 0.01 1.56 0.01 1.91 0.01 1.913 0.01 1.02 0.01 1.02 0.01 1.20 0.01 1.202 0.01 0.38 0.01 0.38 0.01 0.42 0.01 0.42

C D

Y-DIRECTIONAL LOADING

X-DIRECTIONAL LOADINGDC5.14

4 5.1



ARCHITECTURAL BREADTH

EVALUATION OF LFRS RELOCATION Feasibility initially assumed Practical relocations of LFRS create greater eccentricities or interrupt exterior façade Elimination of core and scattered lateral system interrupts open office floor plans



CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT BREADTH

ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS Existing schedule and cost information was not attainable Cost Works, a program created by RS Means used in analysis Steel and area take-offs as computed by RAM




IMPACT OF 3-STORY ADDITION ON COST OF STRUCTURAL SYSTEM



CONDITIONSTEEL BEAM

TAKEOFF (lbs)STEEL COLUMN TAKEOFF(lbs)

TOTAL STEEL TAKEOFF (tons)

TOTAL COST OF STEEL

TOTAL NUMBER OF

STUDS

TOTAL COST OF STUDS TOTAL COST

EXISTING 938435 181865 560 1,907,264.00$ 12816 26,400.00$ 1,933,664.00$

PROPOSED 1276265 392995 835 2,843,868.00$ 17892 36,858.00$ 2,880,726.00$

947,062.00$ ADDITIONAL COST:

TOTAL AREA OF METAL DECKING PER FLOOR

(ft2)

COST OF METAL DECKING PER FLOOR

TOTAL CONCRETE PER FLOOR (c.y.)

COST OF CONCRETE PER FLOOR

NUMBER OF FLOORS TOTAL COST

13430 41,633.00$ 144 15,376.00$ 3 171,027.00$

171,027.00$ ADDITIONAL COST:

TOTAL ADDITIONAL COST: $1,120,000


BENEFIT OF 3-STORY ADDITION TO OWNER



CONDITIONREPORTED

PROJECTED TOTAL COST

TOTAL COST VIA COST WORKS SCALE FACTOR SCALED TOTAL COST

EXISTING 17,500,000.00$ 19,921,000.00$ 17,500,000.000$

PROPOSED --- 23,109,500.00$ 20,301,001.46$

2,801,001.46$

0.878

ADDITIONAL COSTS:

CONDITION RENTAL RATE (per ft2 per year)

TOTAL RENTABLE SPACE (ft2)

ANNUAL PROFITS SCALED TOTAL COST PAY BACK PERIOD (yrs)

EXISTING 18.30$ 107250 1,962,675.00$ 17,500,000.000$ 8.9

PROPOSED 18.30$ 147030 2,690,649.00$ 20,301,001.46$ 7.5

CONCLUSIONS

A 3-story addition forces the redesign of the supporting above and below grade gravity systems

Redesign of drilled caisson foundation system is necessary

Braced frame lateral system determined most effective in reducing direct affects of torsion after comparative analysis of calculated torsional shears

The relocation of the LFRS core not structurally feasible

The design of a scattered LFRS is not architecturally feasible

Although the 3-story addition adversely impacts the final building cost, the owner benefits from the increased cost through increased profits allowing for a shorter pay-back period


IntroductionProject OverviewScope of WorkStructural Depth StudyBuilding Site RelocationExisting StructureGravity Framing for 3-story AdditionRedesign of Supporting Gravity SystemsDesign of Lateral Force Resisting SystemsDetermination of Effective LFRSArchitectural BreadthEvaluation of LFRS RelocationConstruction Management BreadthEvaluation of Cost due to 3-story AdditionEvaluation of Benefits to OwnerConclusionsAcknowledgementsQuestions

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PRESENTATION OUTLINE


I would like to thank the following individuals and companies for the steadfast support they offered throughout the duration of the thesis process:

The Elmhurst Group Andy GildersleeveAtlantic Engineering Services Andy VerrengiaThe Pennsylvania State University The entire AE Faculty

Professor Parfitt

And lastly, my family and friends for their unconditional support and encouragement.

QUESTIONS? PRESENTATION OUTLINE


Schenley Place Pittsburgh, PA

Documents

story design

buildings site

final cost

site free of zoning

existing structuredesign

lfrs core

existing geometry

owner benefits