koshland integrated natural science center

Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center

Haverford CollegeHaverford, Pennsylvania

Christopher J. Shelow Structural Option

Senior Thesis Spring ‘06

Thesis Presentation Outline

•Introduction & Building Background

•Design Professionals

•Existing Conditions

•Proposal

•Structural Study

•Construction Management Study

•Conclusions

Introduction & Building Background

• Located on the Haverford College campus

•4-story laboratory facility w/basement

•Also contains classrooms, offices, & communal spaces

•185,423 ft2

•Directly connected to existing Hilles & Sharpless Halls

•Total project cost of $42.6 Million

• Constructed in multiple phases

• Completed in 2003

• State-of-the-art laboratories

• Undergraduate & graduate research facility

• Houses seven natural science departments

•Design Professionals

•Proposal

•Structural Study

•Conclusions

Design Professionals

• Owner – Haverford College (Physical Plant) Haverford, PA

•Architect – Ayers/Saint/Gross (ASG) Architects & Planners Baltimore, MD

•Engineer – CUH2A Princeton, NJ

•General Contractor/CM – Skanska USA Building, Inc. Blue Bell, PA

•Laboratory Planner – Earl Walls Associates San Diego, CA

•Proposal

•Structural Study

•Conclusions

Existing Conditions - Overview

•Superstructure – Precast concrete framing

•Foundation – CMU foundation/retaining walls, precast piers

•Floor System – 10” precast plank w/ 2” topping

•Façade – Stone & precast panels

•Roof System – Steel framing w/ metal deck; precast plank

Existing Conditions – Floor System

•10” precast concrete hollow core plank by Strescon

•2” cast-in-place concrete topping slab

•Prestressed steel reinforcing tendons

•Typical span of 31’-6”

2” Topping Slab

Existing Conditions – Floor Framing

• Typical bay: 31’-6” X 21’-0”

• Precast beams : 24”x12” spanning 21’-0”

• Precast columns : 16”x16” & 20”x20”

• Typical story height of 13’

Existing Conditions – Expansion Joints

• Separated by expansion joints into three independent structures

– East Wing– West Wing– Link

Existing Conditions – Typical Floor Plan

WEST WING

EAST WING

Expansion Jts. -

Existing Conditions – East Wing Plan

EAST WING

Typ. P.C. Beam

Typ. P.C. Column

Typ. P.C. Shear Wall

31’-5”31’-5”

13’-8”

Existing Conditions – West Wing Plan

WEST WING

Typ. P.C. Column

Typ. P.C. Shear Wall

Typ. P.C. Beam

31’-6” 31’-6”13’-8”

Existing Conditions – Link Plan

Typ. CMU Shear Wall Typ. CMU

Brg. Wall

104’

25’-1

Existing Conditions – Roof System

• East & West Wings – typical steel bent frames; W-shapes

• Link – precast plank w/ topping slab

Existing Conditions – Lateral System

• East & West Wings – 8” precast concrete shear walls

• Link – 10” CMU shear wall

WEST WING

EAST WING

Existing Conditions

•Proposal

•Structural Study

•Conclusions

Proposal – Problem Statement

Investigate an alternate system that could prove to be a more efficient system based on certain criteria

•Investigation Criteria:

– Cost of structural system

– Construction schedule duration

– Reduce loads – gravity & seismic

–Maintain existing floor layout & architecture

Proposal – Solution Process•Gravity system designs:

– Composite slab on deck floor system– Structural steel floor framing – beams, girders, & columns– Maintain typical bay size & story height

•Lateral system designs:– Reduced seismic loads– Concentric steel braced frame system– Check drift limitations

•Construction Management comparisons:– Structural system cost– Construction schedule of structural system

Proposal•Additional design considerations:

– All expansion joints will remain

– Existing foundation remains; lighter overall building weight

– Existing roof systems for East & West Wings remain; coincides steel framed system

– Central stair case design to remain, preserving innovative design of spiraled cantilevered stairs

Existing Conditions

Proposal

•Structural Study

•Conclusions

Structural Study – Design Codes

• 2003 International Building Code (IBC)

• AISC Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD), 3rd Edition

• ASCE 7-02 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures

Structural Study – Procedure

• Recalculation of gravity loads

• Create building model in RAM

• Perform RAM design of gravity members

• Recalculation of lateral loads

• Create several models of steel braced frames in STAAD Pro.

• Check drift limitations

• Calculate approximate cost of both structural systems & compare

• Create construction schedules for systems & compare

Structural Study – Slab Design

• Slab:

4” normal weight concrete, C.I.P.

• Deck:

1.5SB Normal Wt. Composite Metal Deck – Wheeling Catalog

1 ½” depth; 20 gage

Span – 7’-0”

Structural Study – Gravity Loads

Structural Study – RAM Design – East Wing• Typical beam size for typical bay: W10X12

• Typical girder size for typical bay: W21X44

• Typical column sizes: W10X33 & W10X39

Structural Study – RAM Design – West Wing• Typical beam size for typical bay: W8X10, W10X12

• Typical column sizes: W10X33 & W10X39

Structural Study – RAM Design – Link

• Typical beam size for typical bay: W10X12

• Typical column size: W10X33

Structural Study – Lateral Loads• Despite a lighter system, seismic still controlled

• Reduced shear on the building:

Precast Steel Precast Steel Precast SteelRoof - - - - 4th 71 73 - - 49 50 3rd 253 173 89 37 171 119 2nd 377 242 270 85 254 167

Base Shear 441 277 366 354 297 191

EAST WING WEST WINGLINK

1114 15

Structural Study – Braced Frames Layout

Structural Study – Lateral System

• Torsional components calculated for each frame

• In most, torsional forces negligible but still included

• Columns may be biaxially loaded; accounted for in STAAD design

• Strong and weak axis bending in braced frame columns

Structural Study – Lateral System

• Frames design - concentric K-braces or X-braces

• Drift limitations - L/600

• E-W direction: typ. K-braced frames

• N-S direction: typ. X-braced frames

Structural Study – Typical K-braced Frame

• L/600 = 1.04”

• Typ. column

W12X40

• Typ. girder

W21X44

• Typ. brace

W12X40

= 0.908”

Structural Study – Typical X-braced Frame

• L/600 = 1.04”

• Typ. column

W12X40

• Typ. beam

W12X14

• Typ. brace

W10X49

= 0.982”

Structural Study – 3D Models of Each Wing

West Wing Link East Wing

Existing Conditions

Proposal

Structural Study

•Conclusions

C. M. Study - Procedure

• Cost breakdown of both structural systems

• System cost comparison

• Task duration estimates for both systems

• Construction schedule comparison

C. M. Study – Cost Comparison

Precast Concrete System Structural Steel System

Summary

Proposed Steel system saves approx. 14% of total structural cost

Structure component System CostP.C. Columns 332,267.00P.C. Beams 245,600.00Precast Planks 670,311.00Concrete Topping 181,561.66CMU Bearing Walls 37,742.30P.C. Shear Walls 119,889.00

Total Cost: $1,587,370.96

Building Cost BreakdownStructure component System CostStructural Beams 469,665.36Structural Columns 162,370.26Lateral Braces 95,035.55Metal Deck 130,210.89WWF Slab Reinforcing 27,555.19Concrete Slab 193,482.38Fireproofing 229,301.51Connections 30,529.68Shear Studs 23,828.09

Total Cost: $1,361,978.90

Building Cost Breakdown

Building System System Cost Cost/sq. ft.Steel System 1,361,978.90 14.85Precast System 1,587,370.96 17.31

Total Savings: $225,392.06% Savings: 14%

Building Cost Breakdown

C. M. Study – Schedule Comparison

• Existing Precast Concrete System

Duration: 21 weeks

• Proposed Steel System

Duration: 27 weeks

• Existing precast system saves 6 weeks of construction time

Existing Conditions

Proposal

Structural Study

Construction Management Study

•Conclusions

Conclusions

• Proposed steel system to save 14% structural cost

• Precast system cuts erection time by 6 weeks

• Material availability – systems similar

• Floor layout & architecture remained unchanged

• Findings:

–Both systems viable options

–14% savings outweighs 6 wk. prolonged schedule

–Proposed steel system is slightly more efficient

Acknowledgements

• John Diaz & Ron Tola – Haverford College

• Sam Rozycki – CUH2A

• Valerie Gillespie – Gillespie Engineering

• AE Department Faculty & Staff

• Professor Parfitt – Thesis Advisor

• Chris Glinski, Dave Melfi, Justin Mulhollan, and many other 5 th year AE students

• Family & Friends

Thank you

Questions

koshland integrated natural science center

precast columns

precast beams

precast piersfloor system

cmu shear walltyp

cmu brg

shear wallkoshland

mdengineer cuh2a princeton

blue bell

Documents

koshland pharm: prescriptions for health (vol. 7; pediatrics...

alliance of chief executives may 13, 2016 san francisco...

the integrated natural sciences approaches to the

the marian e. koshland integrated natural sciences center...

phi: integrated natural resources and environmental ... -...

u. s. air force integrated natural resources …

integrated natural resources assessment in kenya

koshland pharm: prescriptions for health (vol. 6 hormone...

integrated marketing communication plan for paw natural

integrated natural resources management

high altitude integrated natural resource management

smarter wikis through integrated natural language

koshland pharm: prescriptions for health (vol. 7 sterile...

m.sc. integrated natural resource management (inrm)

koshland pharm: prescriptions for health newsletter (vol.5...

integrated population modeling a natural tool for population...

natural gas - an integrated analysis

integrated pest management and natural farming solutions

integrated natural resources management of coastal fisheries

integrated system of natural capital and ecosystem