adam kaczmarek structural option spring 2011, hanagan cambria suites consol energy center...
DESCRIPTION
Adam Kaczmarek Structural Option Spring 2011, Hanagan Cambria Suites CONSOL Energy Center Pittsburgh, PA I.Project Background II.Scope of Work III.Structural Depth Study i.Gravity System ii.Lateral Force Resisting System iii.Impact on Foundation IV.Architectural/Façade Breadth V.Construction Management Breadth VI.Summary of Conclusions VII.Acknowledgments PRESENTATION OUTLINE Project Background Location: 1320 Centre Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA Building Statistics: 120,000 SF 7 stories above grade Overall height of 102’-2” Project Statistics: $25 Million Design-Bid-Build delivery method Nov – Dec. 2010TRANSCRIPT
Ada
m K
aczm
arek
St
ruct
ural
Opt
ion
Spri
ng 2
011,
Han
agan Ca
mbr
ia S
uite
s H
otel
@ C
ON
SOL
Ener
gy C
ente
rPi
ttsb
urgh
, PACambria Suites Hotel
Pittsburgh, PA
Adam Kaczmarek | Structural OptionDr. Linda Hanagan
Ada
m K
aczm
arek
St
ruct
ural
Opt
ion
Spri
ng 2
011,
Han
agan Ca
mbr
ia S
uite
s H
otel
@ C
ON
SOL
Ener
gy C
ente
rPi
ttsb
urgh
, PACambria Suites Hotel
Pittsburgh, PA
I. Project Background
II. Scope of Work
III. Structural Depth Study
i. Gravity System
ii. Lateral Force Resisting System
iii. Impact on Foundation
IV. Architectural/Façade Breadth
V. Construction Management Breadth
VI. Summary of Conclusions
VII. Acknowledgments
Adam Kaczmarek | Structural OptionDr. Linda Hanagan
Ada
m K
aczm
arek
St
ruct
ural
Opt
ion
Spri
ng 2
011,
Han
agan Ca
mbr
ia S
uite
s H
otel
@ C
ON
SOL
Ener
gy C
ente
rPi
ttsb
urgh
, PA
I. Project Background
II. Scope of Work
III. Structural Depth Study
i. Gravity System
ii. Lateral Force Resisting System
iii. Impact on Foundation
IV. Architectural/Façade Breadth
V. Construction Management Breadth
VI. Summary of Conclusions
VII. Acknowledgments
PRESENTATION OUTLINE Project BackgroundLocation:•1320 Centre Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA
Building Statistics:•120,000 SF•7 stories above grade•Overall height of 102’-2”
Project Statistics:•$25 Million•Design-Bid-Build delivery method•Nov. 2009 – Dec. 2010
Ada
m K
aczm
arek
St
ruct
ural
Opt
ion
Spri
ng 2
011,
Han
agan Ca
mbr
ia S
uite
s H
otel
@ C
ON
SOL
Ener
gy C
ente
rPi
ttsb
urgh
, PA
I. Project Background
II. Scope of Work
III. Structural Depth Study
i. Gravity System
ii. Lateral Force Resisting System
iii. Impact on Foundation
IV. Architectural/Façade Breadth
V. Construction Management Breadth
VI. Summary of Conclusions
VII. Acknowledgments
PRESENTATION OUTLINE Project BackgroundExisting Structural System
Foundation:
•4” slab on grade
•Cast in Place Concrete Caissons• 30”, 36”, & 42” diameters
• Spaced 15’-0” to 30’-0” apart
• 4000 PSI concrete
• End bearing capacity of 15 ton/SF
•Grade Beams:• 30”-48” in width
• 36”-48” in depth
• 3000 PSI concrete
Ada
m K
aczm
arek
St
ruct
ural
Opt
ion
Spri
ng 2
011,
Han
agan Ca
mbr
ia S
uite
s H
otel
@ C
ON
SOL
Ener
gy C
ente
rPi
ttsb
urgh
, PA
I. Project Background
II. Scope of Work
III. Structural Depth Study
i. Gravity System
ii. Lateral Force Resisting System
iii. Impact on Foundation
IV. Architectural/Façade Breadth
V. Construction Management Breadth
VI. Summary of Conclusions
VII. Acknowledgments
PRESENTATION OUTLINE Project BackgroundExisting Structural System
Gravity System:•10” precast hollow-core concrete plank
•Exterior CMU load bearing walls
•Interior steel frame
Lateral Force Resisting System:•Reinforced concrete masonry shear walls
• Typically 8” or 12” thick CMU walls
Ada
m K
aczm
arek
St
ruct
ural
Opt
ion
Spri
ng 2
011,
Han
agan Ca
mbr
ia S
uite
s H
otel
@ C
ON
SOL
Ener
gy C
ente
rPi
ttsb
urgh
, PA
I. Project Background
II. Scope of Work
III. Structural Depth Study
i. Gravity System
ii. Lateral Force Resisting System
iii. Impact on Foundation
IV. Architectural/Façade Breadth
V. Construction Management Breadth
VI. Summary of Conclusions
VII. Acknowledgments
PRESENTATION OUTLINE Scope of WorkProblem Statement:•Existing structural system currently the most efficient and economical
•Design equally effective and efficient building system
•High overall building weight
Problem Solution:•Design lighter structural system
• Girder-Slab Composite Steel and Precast System
• Specially designed D-Beams
• Concentrically Braced Frames
Ada
m K
aczm
arek
St
ruct
ural
Opt
ion
Spri
ng 2
011,
Han
agan Ca
mbr
ia S
uite
s H
otel
@ C
ON
SOL
Ener
gy C
ente
rPi
ttsb
urgh
, PA
I. Project Background
II. Scope of Work
III. Structural Depth Study
i. Gravity System
ii. Lateral Force Resisting System
iii. Impact on Foundation
IV. Architectural/Façade Breadth
V. Construction Management Breadth
VI. Summary of Conclusions
VII. Acknowledgments
PRESENTATION OUTLINE Scope of WorkProject Goals
Structural Depth Study:•Reduce overall building weight•Optimize gravity and lateral systems•Impact on foundation
Architectural/Façade Breadth Study:•Research façade options for building redesign•Address thermal effects of exterior facades
Construction Management Breadth Study:•Impact on construction schedule and cost
Ada
m K
aczm
arek
St
ruct
ural
Opt
ion
Spri
ng 2
011,
Han
agan Ca
mbr
ia S
uite
s H
otel
@ C
ON
SOL
Ener
gy C
ente
rPi
ttsb
urgh
, PA
I. Project Background
II. Scope of Work
III. Structural Depth Study
i. Gravity System
ii. Lateral Force Resisting System
iii. Impact on Foundation
IV. Architectural/Façade Breadth
V. Construction Management Breadth
VI. Summary of Conclusions
VII. Acknowledgments
PRESENTATION OUTLINE Structural Depth Study
Girder-Slab System
•Composite Steel and Precast System
•Mid to High-Rise Residential Structures
•Light Weight
•Offers Rapid Construction
•Reduces Building Height
•Requires Minimum Fireproofing
•Meets Required Sound (STC) Ratings
www.girder-slab.com
Ada
m K
aczm
arek
St
ruct
ural
Opt
ion
Spri
ng 2
011,
Han
agan Ca
mbr
ia S
uite
s H
otel
@ C
ON
SOL
Ener
gy C
ente
rPi
ttsb
urgh
, PA
I. Project Background
II. Scope of Work
III. Structural Depth Study
i. Gravity System
ii. Lateral Force Resisting System
iii. Impact on Foundation
IV. Architectural/Façade Breadth
V. Construction Management Breadth
VI. Summary of Conclusions
VII. Acknowledgments
PRESENTATION OUTLINE Structural Depth StudyFraming Plan
•D-Beams limited in availability•Typical bay is 18’-0” x 27’-6”•Columns aligned with room partition walls•Precast planks span East/West•D-Beams span North/South
Ada
m K
aczm
arek
St
ruct
ural
Opt
ion
Spri
ng 2
011,
Han
agan Ca
mbr
ia S
uite
s H
otel
@ C
ON
SOL
Ener
gy C
ente
rPi
ttsb
urgh
, PA
I. Project Background
II. Scope of Work
III. Structural Depth Study
i. Gravity System
ii. Lateral Force Resisting System
iii. Impact on Foundation
IV. Architectural/Façade Breadth
V. Construction Management Breadth
VI. Summary of Conclusions
VII. Acknowledgments
PRESENTATION OUTLINE Structural Depth Study
Ada
m K
aczm
arek
St
ruct
ural
Opt
ion
Spri
ng 2
011,
Han
agan Ca
mbr
ia S
uite
s H
otel
@ C
ON
SOL
Ener
gy C
ente
rPi
ttsb
urgh
, PA
I. Project Background
II. Scope of Work
III. Structural Depth Study
i. Gravity System
ii. Lateral Force Resisting System
iii. Impact on Foundation
IV. Architectural/Façade Breadth
V. Construction Management Breadth
VI. Summary of Conclusions
VII. Acknowledgments
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
D-Beam Design
•Initial Load – Precomposite• MDL = 62.37 k-ft. < 84 ft-k = Mall
•Total Load – Composite• Mtot = 151.5 ft-k• Sreq = 60.6 in3 < 68.6 in3 = St
• ΔSUP = 0.5 in. < 0.6 in. = ΔLL
•Check Compressive Stress on Concrete• Fc = 2.25 ksi > 2.16 ksi = fc
•Check Bottom Flange Tension Stress• Fb = 45 ksi > 28 ksi = fb
•Check Shear• Fv = 20 ksi > 15.6 ksi = fv
DB 9x46 PropertiesSteel Section:•Is = 195 in4
•St = 33.7 in3
•Sb = 50.8 in3
•Mall = 84 ft-k•tw = 0.375 in.
Transformed Section:•It = 356 in4
•St = 68.6 in3
•Sb = 80.6 in3
•B = 5.75 in.
Structural Depth Study
Ada
m K
aczm
arek
St
ruct
ural
Opt
ion
Spri
ng 2
011,
Han
agan Ca
mbr
ia S
uite
s H
otel
@ C
ON
SOL
Ener
gy C
ente
rPi
ttsb
urgh
, PA
I. Project Background
II. Scope of Work
III. Structural Depth Study
i. Gravity System
ii. Lateral Force Resisting System
iii. Impact on Foundation
IV. Architectural/Façade Breadth
V. Construction Management Breadth
VI. Summary of Conclusions
VII. Acknowledgments
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Column Design
• Comply with LRFD methods and AISC Steel Construction Manual
• Optimal members designed by RAM
• Resist gravity loads only
• Spliced above 2nd and 5th floor levels
• Sizes range from W10x33 to W12x87
Structural Depth Study
Ada
m K
aczm
arek
St
ruct
ural
Opt
ion
Spri
ng 2
011,
Han
agan Ca
mbr
ia S
uite
s H
otel
@ C
ON
SOL
Ener
gy C
ente
rPi
ttsb
urgh
, PA
I. Project Background
II. Scope of Work
III. Structural Depth Study
i. Gravity System
ii. Lateral Force Resisting System
iii. Impact on Foundation
IV. Architectural/Façade Breadth
V. Construction Management Breadth
VI. Summary of Conclusions
VII. Acknowledgments
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Lateral Force Resisting System
General Assumptions and Considerations:• Only lateral members were modeled• Floor diaphragms modeled as rigid area elements• Gravity loads applied as additional area masses• Accidental and inherent torsion considered
Braced Frame Assumptions and Considerations:• Columns pinned at base• Columns in braced frames were fixed• Beams and braces pinned• P-Delta effects taken into account
Structural Depth Study
Ada
m K
aczm
arek
St
ruct
ural
Opt
ion
Spri
ng 2
011,
Han
agan Ca
mbr
ia S
uite
s H
otel
@ C
ON
SOL
Ener
gy C
ente
rPi
ttsb
urgh
, PA
I. Project Background
II. Scope of Work
III. Structural Depth Study
i. Gravity System
ii. Lateral Force Resisting System
iii. Impact on Foundation
IV. Architectural/Façade Breadth
V. Construction Management Breadth
VI. Summary of Conclusions
VII. Acknowledgments
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Controlling Load Combinations (ASCE 7-05)• Wind - North/South direction
• 1.2D + 1.6 WY + 1.0L + 0.5Lr
• Seismic – East/West direction
• 0.9D + 1.0EX
Structural Depth Study
Design Wind and Seismic Loads• Design wind and seismic load cases were
calculated
• Loads manually applied to ETABS model
Story Point Load FX FY FZ MX MY MZSummartion 0,0,Base Case 1X -139.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 -7377.10 7034.70Summartion 0,0,Base Case 1Y 0.00 -479.50 0.00 25364.80 0.00 -52504.20Summartion 0,0,Base Case 2X -104.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 -5532.30 3726.84Summartion 0,0,Base Case 2Y 0.00 -359.62 0.00 19023.74 0.00 -51228.20Summartion 0,0,Base Case 3 -104.39 -359.62 0.00 19023.74 -5532.30 -34102.52Summartion 0,0,Base Case 4 -78.36 -269.97 0.00 14281.11 -4153.11 -35659.47Summartion 0,0,Base Case EX -225.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 -14408.67 11764.63Summartion 0,0,Base Case EY 0.00 -225.89 0.00 14408.67 0.00 -25392.93
Design Wind Load Cases: Controlling Base Shears and Overturning Moments
Ada
m K
aczm
arek
St
ruct
ural
Opt
ion
Spri
ng 2
011,
Han
agan Ca
mbr
ia S
uite
s H
otel
@ C
ON
SOL
Ener
gy C
ente
rPi
ttsb
urgh
, PA
I. Project Background
II. Scope of Work
III. Structural Depth Study
i. Gravity System
ii. Lateral Force Resisting System
iii. Impact on Foundation
IV. Architectural/Façade Breadth
V. Construction Management Breadth
VI. Summary of Conclusions
VII. Acknowledgments
PRESENTATION OUTLINE Structural Depth Study
Frame 2
Ada
m K
aczm
arek
St
ruct
ural
Opt
ion
Spri
ng 2
011,
Han
agan Ca
mbr
ia S
uite
s H
otel
@ C
ON
SOL
Ener
gy C
ente
rPi
ttsb
urgh
, PA
I. Project Background
II. Scope of Work
III. Structural Depth Study
i. Gravity System
ii. Lateral Force Resisting System
iii. Impact on Foundation
IV. Architectural/Façade Breadth
V. Construction Management Breadth
VI. Summary of Conclusions
VII. Acknowledgments
PRESENTATION OUTLINE Structural Depth StudyRelative Story Stiffness
Frame C: 49.25% Frame 2: 58.7%Frame O: 40.8% Frame 8: 41.3%Frame M & M.2: 9.95%
C
2
M M.2
O
8
Frame C Frame M Frame M.2 Frame O0.507 0.034 0.044 0.4150.506 0.035 0.045 0.4140.504 0.036 0.047 0.4130.501 0.038 0.050 0.4110.498 0.040 0.053 0.4090.492 0.043 0.058 0.4060.481 0.048 0.067 0.4040.452 0.066 0.088 0.394
Relative Story Stiffness, Ri
Riy = Kiy/Kiy,total
Frame 2 Frame 80.605 0.3950.602 0.3980.598 0.4020.593 0.4070.588 0.4120.581 0.4190.573 0.4270.553 0.447
Relative Story Stiffness, Ri
Rix = Kix/Kix,total
Ada
m K
aczm
arek
St
ruct
ural
Opt
ion
Spri
ng 2
011,
Han
agan Ca
mbr
ia S
uite
s H
otel
@ C
ON
SOL
Ener
gy C
ente
rPi
ttsb
urgh
, PA
I. Project Background
II. Scope of Work
III. Structural Depth Study
i. Gravity System
ii. Lateral Force Resisting System
iii. Impact on Foundation
IV. Architectural/Façade Breadth
V. Construction Management Breadth
VI. Summary of Conclusions
VII. Acknowledgments
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Drift and Displacement
Wind Seismic
Structural Depth Study
LevelHeight Above Ground, h (ft)
Allowable Drift Δallowable = h/400
Total Drift (ETABS)
Adequate?
Roof 86.833 2.60 1.37 OK7 76.833 2.30 1.17 OK6 66.833 2.00 0.99 OK5 56.833 1.70 0.82 OK4 46.833 1.40 0.64 OK3 36.833 1.10 0.47 OK2 26.833 0.80 0.32 OK
Plaza 14.833 0.44 0.14 OK
Controlling Wind Drift (X-Direction)
LevelHeight Above Ground, h (ft)
Allowable Drift Δallowable = h/400
Total Drift (ETABS)
Adequate?
Roof 86.833 2.60 1.91 OK7 76.833 2.30 1.56 OK6 66.833 2.00 1.36 OK5 56.833 1.70 1.1 OK4 46.833 1.40 0.86 OK3 36.833 1.10 0.62 OK2 26.833 0.80 0.48 OK
Plaza 14.833 0.44 0.06 OK
Controlling Wind Drift (Y-Direction)
LevelHeight of
Story, hsx (ft)Allowable Story Drift
Δallowable = 0.02hsx
Total Drift (ETABS)
Adequate?
Roof 10 0.20 0.005 OK7 10 0.20 0.005 OK6 10 0.20 0.004 OK5 10 0.20 0.004 OK4 10 0.20 0.004 OK3 10 0.20 0.003 OK2 12 0.24 0.002 OK
Plaza 14.83 0.30 0.001 OK
Controlling Seismic Drift (X-Direction)
LevelHeight of
Story, hsx (ft)Allowable Story Drift
Δallowable = 0.02hsx
Total Drift (ETABS)
Adequate?
Roof 10 0.20 0.015 OK7 10 0.20 0.014 OK6 10 0.20 0.013 OK5 10 0.20 0.012 OK4 10 0.20 0.01 OK3 10 0.20 0.007 OK2 12 0.24 0.007 OK
Plaza 14.83 0.30 0.002 OK
Controlling Seismic Drift (Y-Direction)
Ada
m K
aczm
arek
St
ruct
ural
Opt
ion
Spri
ng 2
011,
Han
agan Ca
mbr
ia S
uite
s H
otel
@ C
ON
SOL
Ener
gy C
ente
rPi
ttsb
urgh
, PA
I. Project Background
II. Scope of Work
III. Structural Depth Study
i. Gravity System
ii. Lateral Force Resisting System
iii. Impact on Foundation
IV. Architectural/Façade Breadth
V. Construction Management Breadth
VI. Summary of Conclusions
VII. Acknowledgments
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Impact of Lateral Loads
Structural Depth Study
Existing Building Design New Building DesignBuilding Weight 20,223 kips 14,260 kips
Base Shear 508.03 kips 228.16 kipsTotal Moment 29,463 ft-k 13,468 ft-k
Ada
m K
aczm
arek
St
ruct
ural
Opt
ion
Spri
ng 2
011,
Han
agan Ca
mbr
ia S
uite
s H
otel
@ C
ON
SOL
Ener
gy C
ente
rPi
ttsb
urgh
, PA
I. Project Background
II. Scope of Work
III. Structural Depth Study
i. Gravity System
ii. Lateral Force Resisting System
iii. Impact on Foundation
IV. Architectural/Façade Breadth
V. Construction Management Breadth
VI. Summary of Conclusions
VII. Acknowledgments
PRESENTATION OUTLINE Structural Depth Study
Impact on Foundation
Stress Due to E/W Seismic Loads
• 1.6% of the Dead Load
Stress Due to N/S Lateral Loads
• 1.5% of Dead Load
Concrete Caissons•Lighter building weight
•Reduced loads to foundation
•Foundation expected to reduce amount of concrete and reinforcement
Structural System No. of Caissons
Existing CMU System 74
Redesigned Steel System
76
Number of Caissons
Ada
m K
aczm
arek
St
ruct
ural
Opt
ion
Spri
ng 2
011,
Han
agan Ca
mbr
ia S
uite
s H
otel
@ C
ON
SOL
Ener
gy C
ente
rPi
ttsb
urgh
, PA
I. Project Background
II. Scope of Work
III. Structural Depth Study
i. Gravity System
ii. Lateral Force Resisting System
iii. Impact on Foundation
IV. Architectural/Façade Breadth
V. Construction Management Breadth
VI. Summary of Conclusions
VII. Acknowledgments
PRESENTATION OUTLINE Architectural/Façade Breadth
• Analyze thermal effects of alternative facades
• Compare construction cost and time
• ASHRAE Fundamentals Handbook
• R-values
• Tx = Toutdoor + (Tindoor – Toutdoor)(ΣRo-x/ Σ Ro-i)
• Façade alterations on North façade only
Ada
m K
aczm
arek
St
ruct
ural
Opt
ion
Spri
ng 2
011,
Han
agan Ca
mbr
ia S
uite
s H
otel
@ C
ON
SOL
Ener
gy C
ente
rPi
ttsb
urgh
, PA
I. Project Background
II. Scope of Work
III. Structural Depth Study
i. Gravity System
ii. Lateral Force Resisting System
iii. Impact on Foundation
IV. Architectural/Façade Breadth
V. Construction Management Breadth
VI. Summary of Conclusions
VII. Acknowledgments
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Thermal Gradients
Architectural/Façade Breadth
Between Material
ΣRo-x
(°F-ft2-h/BTU)
Temperature (°F)
0-1 0.17 21-2 0.81 5.752-3 1.79 10.33-4 12.06 57.94-5 13.09 62.75-6 13.55 64.96-i 14.01 66.98
Total 14.66 70
Existing CMU/Masonry System
U-Value = 0.0682 (BTU/°F-ft2-h)
Between Material
ΣRo-x
(°F-ft2-h/BTU)
Temperature (°F)
0-1 0.17 21-2 0.81 5.622-3 1.79 103-4 1.91 10.544-5 14.1 65.085-i 14.56 67.14
Total 15.2 70
Brick Vaneer System
U-Value = 0.0658 (BTU/°F-ft2-h)
Between Material
ΣRo-x
(°F-ft2-h/BTU)
Temperature (°F)
0-1 0.17 21-2 2.045 27.622-3 0.98 38.953-i 2.045 62.6
Total 0.64 70
Curtain Wall System
U-Value = 0.17 (BTU/°F-ft2-h)
Ada
m K
aczm
arek
St
ruct
ural
Opt
ion
Spri
ng 2
011,
Han
agan Ca
mbr
ia S
uite
s H
otel
@ C
ON
SOL
Ener
gy C
ente
rPi
ttsb
urgh
, PA
I. Project Background
II. Scope of Work
III. Structural Depth Study
i. Gravity System
ii. Lateral Force Resisting System
iii. Impact on Foundation
IV. Architectural/Façade Breadth
V. Construction Management Breadth
VI. Summary of Conclusions
VII. Acknowledgments
PRESENTATION OUTLINE Architectural/Façade Breadth
Wall System S.F. Crew Size Material Cost/SF Labor Cost/SF Total Cost Daily OutputConstruction
Time
CMU/Brick System 19,0163 Bricklayers, 3 Bricklayer
Helpers$9.40 $21.00 $578,096 159 120 days
Wall System S.F. Crew Size Material Cost Labor Cost Total Cost Daily OutputConstruction
Time
Curtain Wall System
19,0162 Glaziers, 2
Structural Steel Workers
$33.50 $7.05 $771,099 205 93 days
Brick Veneer System/Metal Stud Backup
19,0163 Bricklayers, 2 Bricklayer
Helpers$6.95 $15.55 $427,860 230 83 days
Façade of Existing System
Façade Systems for Redesigned System
Cost/Time Comparison
Ada
m K
aczm
arek
St
ruct
ural
Opt
ion
Spri
ng 2
011,
Han
agan Ca
mbr
ia S
uite
s H
otel
@ C
ON
SOL
Ener
gy C
ente
rPi
ttsb
urgh
, PA
I. Project Background
II. Scope of Work
III. Structural Depth Study
i. Gravity System
ii. Lateral Force Resisting System
iii. Impact on Foundation
IV. Architectural/Façade Breadth
V. Construction Management Breadth
VI. Summary of Conclusions
VII. Acknowledgments
PRESENTATION OUTLINE Construction Management Breadth
Construction Schedule
•Existing Structural System• Start Date – January 6, 2010• Finish Date – August 10, 2010
• Redesigned Structural System• Start Date – January 6, 2010• Finish Date – May 31, 2010
Existing Construction Schedule
Redesigned Construction Schedule
Ada
m K
aczm
arek
St
ruct
ural
Opt
ion
Spri
ng 2
011,
Han
agan Ca
mbr
ia S
uite
s H
otel
@ C
ON
SOL
Ener
gy C
ente
rPi
ttsb
urgh
, PA
I. Project Background
II. Scope of Work
III. Structural Depth Study
i. Gravity System
ii. Lateral Force Resisting System
iii. Impact on Foundation
IV. Architectural/Façade Breadth
V. Construction Management Breadth
VI. Summary of Conclusions
VII. Acknowledgments
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Cost of Structural Systems
•Costs unaccounted for:• Foundation• Steel Connections
Construction Management Breadth
Steel Amount UnitMaterial
Cost/UnitLabor
Cost/UnitEquipment Cost/Unit
Total Cost/Unit
Total Cost w/ O&P
Total Cost
Columns 4986 LF 84 2.7 1.65 88.35 99 493614.00Baseplates 119.2 SF 46 0 0 46 0 5483.20
Beams 9435 LF 62 3.99 1.8 55.29 63.5 599122.50Braces 2368 LF 47.14 3.79 2.32 53.25 n/a 126096.00
Fireproofing 95400 SF 1.31 0.29 0.04 1.64 1.95 186030.00
Concrete Amount UnitMaterial
Cost/UnitLabor
Cost/UnitEquipment Cost/Unit
Total Cost/Unit
Total Cost w/ O&P
Total Cost
8" P.C. Plank 120000 SF 7.2 1.07 0.6 8.87 10.45 1254000.00
2664345.70
Cost Estimate of Redesigned System
Total Cost of Redesigned System:
Shearwalls Amount UnitMaterial
Cost/UnitLabor
Cost/UnitEquipment Cost/Unit
Total Cost/Unit
Total Cost w/ O&P
Total Cost
8" CMU, reinforced 59904 SF 2.62 4.03 0 6.65 9.35 560102.4012" CMU, reinforced 12339 SF 3.65 6.25 0 9.9 14 172746.00
Steel Amount UnitMaterial
Cost/UnitLabor
Cost/UnitEquipment Cost/Unit
Total Cost/Unit
Total Cost w/ O&P
Total Cost
Columns 1224 LF 84 2.7 1.65 88.35 99 121176.00Baseplates 52.2 SF 46 0 0 46 0 2401.20
Beams 2888 LF 68 3.45 1.56 73.01 83 239704.00Fireproofing 27180 SF 1.31 0.29 0.04 1.64 1.95 53001.00
Concrete Amount UnitMaterial
Cost/UnitLabor
Cost/UnitEquipment Cost/Unit
Total Cost/Unit
Total Cost w/ O&P
Total Cost
10" P.C. Plank 120000 SF 7.5 0.95 0.53 8.98 10.55 1266000.00
2415130.60
Cost Estimate of Existing System
Total Cost of Existing System:
Cost Comparison
Component Existing System Redesigned System Additional Cost
CMU Walls $732,848.40 $0.00 -$732,848.4Steel Bracing $0.00 $126,096.00 $126,096
Steel Framing $416,282.20 $1,284,249.70 $994,063.5Pre-Cast Plank $1,266,000 $1,254,000 -$12,000
Total $2,415,130.60 $2,664,345.70 $249,215.1
Ada
m K
aczm
arek
St
ruct
ural
Opt
ion
Spri
ng 2
011,
Han
agan Ca
mbr
ia S
uite
s H
otel
@ C
ON
SOL
Ener
gy C
ente
rPi
ttsb
urgh
, PA
I. Project Background
II. Scope of Work
III. Structural Depth Study
i. Gravity System
ii. Lateral Force Resisting System
iii. Impact on Foundation
IV. Architectural/Façade Breadth
V. Construction Management Breadth
VI. Summary of Conclusions
VII. Acknowledgments
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Gravity System Redesign• Girder-Slab Composite Steel and Precast System
• Sufficiently designed for strength and serviceability requirements
• Reduced overall building weight
• Framing plan conformed easily to existing floor layout
• Maintained floor-to-ceiling height
Lateral Force Resisting System Redesign• Concentrically Braced Frames
• Lighter weight• Fast construction• Economical• Limit drift and displacement
Impact on Foundation• Reduced overturning moment•Reduced base shear •Reduce size of foundation
Architectural/Façade Breadth• Brick veneer system is most efficient
Construction Management Breadth• Reduced schedule•Minimal increase in cost
If a minimal cost increase and minor architectural layout changes were not a concern, the redesigned structural system could be implemented as an alternative design.
Summary of Conclusions
Ada
m K
aczm
arek
St
ruct
ural
Opt
ion
Spri
ng 2
011,
Han
agan Ca
mbr
ia S
uite
s H
otel
@ C
ON
SOL
Ener
gy C
ente
rPi
ttsb
urgh
, PA
I. Project Background
II. Scope of Work
III. Structural Depth Study
i. Gravity System
ii. Lateral Force Resisting System
iii. Impact on Foundation
IV. Architectural/Façade Breadth
V. Construction Management Breadth
VI. Summary of Conclusions
VII. Acknowledgments
PRESENTATION OUTLINE AcknowledgementsAtlantic Engineering Services
• Chris Kim• Andy Verrengia• Tim Jones
Horizon Properties Group, LLC• J.P. Morgan
DLA + Architecture & Interior Design• Joe Sepcic
Snavely Development Company• Greg Osborne
The Pennsylvania State University• Dr. Linda Hanagan• Prof. Robert Holland• Prof. Kevin Parfitt• The entire AE faculty and staff
All my friends, family, and classmates for their unconditional support and encouragement
Ada
m K
aczm
arek
St
ruct
ural
Opt
ion
Spri
ng 2
011,
Han
agan Ca
mbr
ia S
uite
s H
otel
@ C
ON
SOL
Ener
gy C
ente
rPi
ttsb
urgh
, PA
I. Project Background
II. Scope of Work
III. Structural Depth Study
i. Gravity System
ii. Lateral Force Resisting System
iii. Impact on Foundation
IV. Architectural/Façade Breadth
V. Construction Management Breadth
VI. Summary of Conclusions
VII. Acknowledgments
PRESENTATION OUTLINE Cambria Suites Hotel
Questions & Comments