PENN STATE ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERNIG SENIOR THESIS
JESSE COOPER ~ STRUCTURAL
THESIS ADVISOR ~ DR. THOMAS BOOTHBY
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Project Background
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
PENN STATE ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERNIG SENIOR THESIS
JESSE COOPER ~ STRUCTURAL
THESIS ADVISOR ~ DR. THOMAS BOOTHBY
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
PENTHOUSE
1. Project Background
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
BUILDING INFORMATION – EXISTING CONDITIONS
TERRACES
 14 Story Structure Rising 175’ Above Grade
 5,900 SF of Retail Space
RESIDENTIAL
 62,000 SF of Residential Space
 Penthouse (Rec. Room, HVAC, Laundry Room, Kitchen)
 Trapezoidal Shape Closely Resembling Shape of Site
RETAIL
 Approximate Building Plan Dimensions: 56’ x 75’
 Location: New York, New York (Lower Manhattan)
 Nestled tightly between two existing structures, Eden Alley
and Gold Street.
SURROUNDING
BUILDINGS
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
SMALL CONSTRICTED SITE
1. Project Background
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
BUILDING INFORMATION – EXISTING CONDITIONS
14 Story Structure Rising 175’ Above Grade
 5,900 SF of Retail Space
 62,000 SF of Residential Space
 Penthouse (Rec. Room, HVAC, Laundry Room, Kitchen)
 Trapezoidal Shape Closely Resembling Shape of Site
 Approximate Building Plan Dimensions: 56’ x 75’
 Location: New York, New York (Lower Manhattan)
 Nestled tightly between two existing structures, Eden Alley
and Gold Street.
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1. Project Background
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
EXISTING STRUCTURAL SYSTEM
Steel framing with 2 ½” L.W.C topping on 2”
composite metal decking.
Slab Reinforcement: #4 @ 12” and W3xW3 WWF
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
EXISTING LATERAL SYSTEM
1. Project Background
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
EXISTING STRUCTURAL SYSTEM
Braced Frames:
Moment Frames:
THESIS PROPOSAL & OBJECTIVES
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1. Project Background
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Re-Design structural system without significantly deviating from
owners vision: Owner Prefers Concrete Structural System
ISSUE: Is there a concrete structural system that is…
 Feasible? Concrete Building Weight & Settlement Potential
 High Performing? (competitive market)
 Practical?
 Construction Duration
 Construction Cost
 Constructability Issues (Site Congestion)
 Design concrete structural system (owner preference)
 Two way flat plate waffle slab
 Reinforced concrete columns
 Lateral system: concrete shear walls
 Limit building weight
 Micro pile foundation system capacity
 Soil Bearing capacity
 Avoid settlement (poor soil conditions and existing
structures within close proximity)
 Show that concrete structural system yields a final product
that is high performing (serves well as a residential structure).
 Compare New & Existing Design: Practicality
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1.
Project Background
2. Structural Depth
3.
4.
5.
6.
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
STRUCTURAL DEPTH
COLUMN LAYOUTS
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1.
2.
Project Background
Structural Depth
COLUMN LAYOUTS
1. Column Layout
3.
4.
5.
6.
2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
 Uniform grid like layout (15’x15’ average size bays)
 Brief Investigation of column layout strategy (weight
efficiency)
 small bay sizes & many columns
 large bay sizes & less columns
 Architectural Constraints
 Floor plan changes several times
 Door Ways
 Windows
 Critical Living Space & Circulation Paths
 Discontinue Column 6-D.4 at 10th Floor
 Large 30’ Span
FLOOR 1
RETAIL: 100 PSF
FLOOR 2
RESIDENTIAL: 40 PSF
COLUMN LAYOUTS
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1.
2.
Project Background
Structural Depth
FLOORS 3 - 9
COLUMN LAYOUTS
1. Column Layout
3.
4.
5.
6.
2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
6. Structural System Comparison
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
 Uniform grid like layout (15’x15’ average size bays)
 Brief Investigation of column layout strategy (weight
efficiency)
 small bay sizes & many columns
 large bay sizes & less columns
 Architectural Constraints
 Floor plan changes several times
 Door Ways
 Windows
 Critical Living Space & Circulation Paths
 Discontinue Column 6-D.4 at 10th Floor
 Large 30’ Span
RESIDENTIAL: 40 PSF
FLOORS 10 -13
RESIDENTIAL: 40 PSF
spSlab Design Results: Frame 6 (Floor 2)
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Top Reinforcement
Span
1.
2.
2. Slab Design
3.
4.
5.
6.
1
Project Background
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
3. Column & Corbel Design
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
2
1.
SLAB DESIGN – THE PROCESS
Preliminary Hand Calculations (Equivalent Frame Method)
3
4
5
2.
Began with typical layout floors 3 – 9
1. Base waffle slab design
2. Modifications of Base Waffle Slab
3. 8” Flat Plate
4. No voids (11.5” thick slab)
SP-SLAB
1. Model Every Frame (Every Floor)
2. Spot Checks
4. Investigate Layout of ribs (number of ribs per middle or column
strip)
Bars
Length
3 - #5
5.82
Continuous
Right Side
Bars
Length
Bars
Length
Bars
Length
Column
Middle
Column
Middle
Column
3 - #5
5.82
Middle
5 - #5
Middle
2 - #5
3.78
2 - #5
5.82
5.11
7 - #5
4.11
4 - #5
3.21
3 - #5
3.21
Column
2 - #5
5.82
3 - #5
5.82
Middle
6 - #5
4.61
4 - #5
4.09
1 - #5
3.78
1 - #5
Length
11
5 - #5
11
5 - #5
17
5 - #5
17
3 - #5
13
3 - #5
13
3.78
Column
1 - #5
Bars
8 - #5
3.78
Bottom Reinforcement
Span
1
2
3
4
5
3.
Strip
Left Side
SPAN
1
Strip
Long Bars
Waffle
Bars
Start
Length
Ribs
Bars / Rib
As / Rib
Column
3 - #5
0
17
3
1 - #5
0.31
Middle
3 - #5
0
17
3
1 - #5
0.31
Column
3 - #5
0
17
3
1 - #5
0.31
Middle
3 -#5
0
17
3
1 - #5
0.31
Column
2 - #5
0
13
1
2 - #5
0.62
Middle
2 -#5
0
13
2
1 - #5
0.31
Column
Middle
4 - #5
0
0
17
17
2
3
2 - #5
1 - #5
0.62
0.31
Total Strip
Width
Maximum Possible Number of
Ribs Per Strip (20" clear spacing)
Column
Middle
3 - #5
SPAN
2
SPAN
3
SPAN
4
SPAN
5
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1.
2.
Floors 3 – 9: Typical Floor Slab Design
Project Background
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
SLAB DESIGN
Material Properties
2. Slab Design
Reinforcing Steel
Concrete
3.
4.
5.
6.
3. Column & Corbel Design
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
Slabs / Beams
Columns
Unit Density (lb/ft3)
Compressive Strength (ksi)
115
150
Yield Stress of Flexural Steel (ksi)
5.95
5.95
Yield Stress of Stirrups (ksi)
Young's Modulus (ksi)
3139.2
4676.4
Young's Modulus (ksi)
Rupture Modulus (ksi)
0.43389
0.57852
60
60
29000
8”
Base Waffle Slab: 3 ½” Slab, 4” x 8” ribs @ 20” clear space
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1.
2.
Project Background
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
3.
4.
5.
6.
3. Column & Corbel Design
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
TOP BAR REINFORCEMENT (TYPICAL INTERIOR FRAME)
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1.
2.
Project Background
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
3.
4.
5.
6.
3. Column & Corbel Design
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
BOTTOM REINFORCEMENT: TYPCIAL INTERIOR FRAME
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1.
2.
Project Background
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
Floors 10 – 13: Typical Floor Slab Design
2. Slab Design
3.
4.
5.
6.
3. Column & Corbel Design
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
Base Waffle Slab: 3 ½”
Slab, 4” x 8” ribs @ 20” clear
space
Modified Waffle Slab: 3 ½”
Slab, 4” x 8” ribs @ 16” clear
space
8” Flat Plate
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1.
2.
Project Background
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
3.
4.
5.
6.
3. Column & Corbel Design
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
Floor 2: Slab Design Layout
Floor 1: Slab Design Layout
Base Waffle Slab: 3 ½”
Slab, 4” x 8” ribs @ 20”
clear space
Modified Waffle Slab: 3
½” Slab, 4” x 8” ribs @
16” clear space
11.5” Flat Plate
:
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1.
2.
Project Background
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design
3.
4.
5.
6.
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
EXPLANATION OF COLUMN DESIGN PROCESS
EXPLANATION OF COLUMN DESIGN PROCESS
1. Hand calculated axial loads on each column
2. Determined unbalance moment transferred to each column
1. Exterior Columns:
 “Short Column Behavior” Assumption
 Square tied columns
 non-seismic region
 provide sufficient lateral restrain on column core
 Efficient
 Vertical Spacing of Ties
 Prevent buckling of vertical reinforcement
2. Interior Columns:
3. Chose Set of 6 Load Conditions Representative of all load conditions
4. Designed 6 Columns – Hand calculated (Used Design Aids)
5. Generated Corresponding Interaction Diagrams
1. pcaColumn & Hand Calculated
6. Assigned all columns most efficient column section
 Design For Combined Axial and Flexural Loading
 Check for intermediate ties (6” from lateral restrained bar)
 Check Cover
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1.
2.
40
Project Background
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
Column Loading Conditions - Hand Calculations
Condition
1
2
3
3. Column & Corbel Design
3.
4.
5.
6.
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
6
11
Axial (kips)
151.6
118.05
266.3
Flexure (ft-kips)
49.3
53.5
29.78
Design Section
A
B
C
Condition
4
5
6
192
Axial (kips)
492.1
639
391.4
Flexure (ft-kips)
56.7
55.62
38
Design Section
D
E
F
8
8
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1.
2.
Project Background
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design
3.
4.
5.
6.
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
WHY NEED CORBELS?
 2nd floor columns (RED) do not align with 1st floor columns
Settlement Potential (poor soil conditions)
Existing Buildings and foundations at site perimeter
Pile caps offset to middle
Corbels required to establish load path between misaligned first
and second floor columns
Existing structure used cantilever beams
 W24 x 300
SUMMARY OF CORBEL CALCULATIONS
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1.
2.
Project Background
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design
3.
4.
5.
6.
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
 Primary Tension Reinforcement
 Case 1:
CORBEL DESIGN PROCESS
 Size Steel Bearing Plate
 Determine Depth of Outside Edge
 To Avoid Premature Failure
 Propagation of diagonal tension cracks
 Determine Shear Friction Reinforcement
 Flexural Reinforcement
 Case 2:
 Primary Tension Reinforcement
 Closed Hoop Reinforcement
Corbel Design Information
Dimensions
av
h
d
bw
.5d
11"
44"
40"
20"
20"
Loads
 Minimum Tensile Force
Vu
363 kips
Nuc
72.6 kips
Properties
f'c
fy
Concrete
4 ksi
60 ksi
N.W.
FINAL CORBEL DETAIL
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1.
2.
Project Background
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design
3.
4.
5.
6.
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
FINAL CORBEL DETAIL
 14 x 14 x ½ Steel Bearing Plate
 Closed Hoop Reinforcement
 (4) #5
 Parallel to Primary Reinforcement
 Evenly Spaced Over Area Within 2/3d of Primary Reinf.
 Primary Reinforcement
 (3) # 14 Framing Bars
 Welded to Anchor Bar
 Required Outer Edge Depth
 20”
 Anchor Primary Reinforcement
 Weld to Transverse Anchor Bar
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1.
2.
Project Background
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design
LOCATION OF MASONRY WALL
CONCRETE MASONRY DESIGN
 Location: Grade level, façade facing Gold Street (RED)
4. Masonry Wall Design
3.
4.
5.
6.
5. Lateral System Design
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
 Why CMU wall?
Dual Purpose
Structural
 Architectural – Storefront Façade
 Lintel beam design
 Single story URM wall
 Two story RM wall
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1.
2.
Project Background
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design
Condition
Pure Axial Compression
Point Above Balance Condition
Balance Condition
Point Below Balance Condition
Pure Flexure
8" Full Grouted CMU Blocks. Type S PCL Mortar. Hollow Units.
# 9 @ 24" Steel Reinforcement (Placed in Center of Cells)
Axial Capacity (lbs) Axial Capacity Adjusted For Slenderness (lbs) Moment Capacity (in-lbs)
78,675
33,909
0
36,420
15,697
42,765
7402
3190
71,887
3040
1310
68,683
0
0
34,800
4. Masonry Wall Design
3.
4.
5.
6.
5. Lateral System Design
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
Not Adjusted For Slenderness
Adjusted For Slenderness
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1.
2.
Project Background
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
3.
4.
5.
6.
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
LATERAL SYSTEM DESIGN
INITIAL SHEAR WALL LAYOUT
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1.
2.
Project Background
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
3.
4.
5.
6.
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
INITIAL SHEAR WALL LAYOUT
 Architectural Restraints on position / size of shear walls
 Setbacks
 Change in floor plan layout
 Location
 Exterior Walls
 Along Corridor
 Around Vertical Circulation Nodes
 Elevators / Stairwell
 Oversized: Reduced later in design process
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1.
2.
Project Background
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
3.
4.
5.
6.
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
3D ETABS MODEL
LOAD CASES AND COMBINATIONS
 38 Load Combinations
4 Wind Cases
ASCE7-05 Load Combinations
1.4 (D + F)
1.2 (D + F + T) + 1.6(L+H) + 0.5(Lr or S or R)
1.2D + 1.6(Lr or S or R) + (L or .8W)
1.2D + 1.6W + L + 0.5(Lr or S or R )
1.2D 1.0E + L + 0.2S
.9D + 1.6W + 1.6H
.9D + 1.0E + 1.6H
.
.
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1.
2.
Project Background
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design
4. Masonry Wall Design
SHEAR WALL DESIGN CALCULATIONS
CONTROLLING LOAD CONDITIONS
Wall 4
Story
5. Lateral System Design
3.
4.
5.
6.
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
 Strength Behavior
 h/r > 3.0
 Tall Slender Wall / Flexure Controls
 Flexural Reinforcement Design
BASE
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
PENTHOUSE
Story Shear
(kips)
172
154.6
150.5
149.6
144.67
142.87
136.54
125.95
112.67
95.74
76.05
53.34
24.03
Story Force
(Kips)
17.4
4.1
0.9
4.93
1.8
6.33
10.59
13.28
16.93
19.69
22.71
29.31
24.03
Story Height From Base
(ft)
21
31
41
51
61
71
81
91
101
111
121
131
141
TOTAL MOMENT =
Moment
(ft-kips)
365.4
127.1
36.9
251.43
109.8
449.43
857.79
1208.48
1709.93
2185.59
2747.91
3839.61
3388.23
17277.6
Shear Reinforcement Design
Capacity Check:
Chapter 11 Provisions:
 Minimum Requirements Governed:
 Spacing Limitations
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1.
2.
Project Background
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
3.
4.
5.
6.
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
FINAL SHEAR WALL DESIGN DETAILS
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1.
2.
Project Background
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
3. Construction Management Study
4.
5.
6.
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT STUDY
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE – NEW STRUCTURE
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1.
2.
3.
Project Background
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
4.
5.
6.
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE – NEW STRUCTURE
 Schedule Layout
 F/ R / P of slabs, columns, shear walls
High Rise Concrete Structure
 Limited Overlap Potential Between Floors
 Significant Overlap Between Forming, Reinforcing, Pouring
 Column and Walls
 Finish-to-start relationship with Slab F/R/P
 Columns and walls overlap
 Walls lag Columns
 Reduce congestion
TOTAL DURATION: (95) 8 Hour Work Days
F/R/P Slabs:
F/R/P Columns:
F/R/P Shear Walls:
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE – NEW STRUCTURE
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1.
2.
3.
Project Background
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
4.
5.
6.
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE – NEW STRUCTURE
 Schedule Layout
 F/ R / P of slabs, columns, shear walls
High Rise Concrete Structure
 Limited Overlap Potential Between Floors
 Significant Overlap Between Forming, Reinforcing, Pouring
 Column and Walls
 Finish-to-start relationship with Slab F/R/P
 Columns and walls overlap
 Walls lag Columns
 Reduce congestion
F/R/P Slabs:
F/R/P Columns:
TOTAL DURATION: (95) 8 Hour Work Days
F/R/P Shear Walls:
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE – ORIGINAL STRUCTURE
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1.
2.
3.
Project Background
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
4.
5.
6.
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE – ORIGINAL STRUCTURE
 De-linearized
 Significant Overlap Potential Between Floors
 Steel Framing
 Decking
 WWF
 Steel Reinforcement
 Placing Concrete
 By Dividing Steel Frame Erection Into Two Phases
 Concrete pouring / Steel Framing never occur together
 Prevents Congestion
 Still Very Efficient - significant overlap exists
TOTAL DURATION: (37) 8 Hour Work Days
Steel Framing:
Steel Reinforcement:
Decking:
Placing Concrete:
WWF:
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE – ORIGINAL STRUCTURE
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1.
2.
3.
Project Background
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
4.
5.
6.
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE – ORIGINAL STRUCTURE
 De-linearized
 Significant Overlap Potential Between Floors
 Steel Framing
 Decking
 WWF
 Steel Reinforcement
 Placing Concrete
 By Dividing Steel Frame Erection Into Two Phases
 Concrete pouring / Steel Framing never occur together
 Prevents Congestion
 Still Very Efficient - significant overlap exists
TOTAL DURATION: (37) 8 Hour Work Days
Steel Framing:
Decking:
WWF:
Reinforcement:
Placing Concrete:
ORIGINAL STRUCTURE – COST ANALYSIS
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1.
2.
3.
Project Background
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
4.
5.
6.
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
NEW STRUCTURE – COST ANALYSIS
RS MEANS Online Cost Works Analysis - Unit Cost Construction Estimate
NEW STRUCTURAL DESIGN
Description
Structural Concrete
L.W. , 5000 psi, Elevated Slabs
N.W. , 4000 psi, Ready Mix, Columns
N.W. , 4000 psi, Ready Mix, Walls
Placing Concrete (Labor,Equipment Included)
12" Square Columns, Pumped
Elevated Slabs, less than 6", Pumped
Elevated Slabs, 6" - 10"
Walls
Structural Cast In Place Concrete Forming
Elevated Slab - flat plate, job built plywood, 4 use
Columns - job built plywood, 12"x12" columns, 4 use
Shear Walls - 8' - 16' High, Job Built Plywood, 4 use
Steel Reinforcement In Place
Elevated Slab Steel Reinforcement (#4 - #7)
Shear Walls, Steel Reinforcement (#4 - #7)
Columns, Steel Reinforcement (#3 - #7)
Columns, Steel Reinforcement (#8 - #18)
Concrete Floor Finishing
Power Screed, Bull Float, Machine Float & Trowel (Ride On)
Extended Total
Extended Total
O&P
$161,242
$9,803
$50,745
$176,550
$10,728
$55,532
C-20
C-20
C-20
$6,397
$26,981
$2,973
$0
$9,316
$38,735
$4,354
$0
SFCA
SFCA
SFCA
C-2
C-2
C-2
$636,598
$127,958
$248,054
927,686
193,660
375,840
58
79
6
3.68
Ton
Ton
Ton
Ton
4 Rodm
4 Rodm
4 Rodm
4 Rodm
$156,309
$195,893
$20,793
$10,437
$200,433
$253,733
$28,619
$13,868
48230
SF
C-10E
Total
$21,221
$1,675,404
$29,902
$2,318,956
Quantity
Units
938
85
440
CY
CY
CY
85
833
105
CY
CY
CY
82461
11881
25920
Crew
RS MEANS ONLINE COST WORKS - UNIT COST CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE
ORIGINAL STRUCTURE (Steel Frame - Slab On Metal Decking)
Extended Extended Total
Item
Quantity
Unit
Crew
Total
O&P
Steel Decking - Floor Decking
Non Cellular Composite Deck, Galvanized, 2" deep, 18 guage
54375
SF
E-4
$243,056
$288,731
Welded Wire Fabric
6x6 W2.9xW2.9 (6x6) Sheets, 42 lb per CSF
544
CSF
4 Rodm $44,281
$62,391
Structural Concrete
L.W.C 4000 psi, ready mix
402
CY
N/A
$63,420
69,980
Placing Concrete
Elevated Slab < 6" Thick, pumped
402
CY
C-20
13,021
18,693
Steel Reinforcement - In Place
Elevated Slab: #4 - #7 , uncoated
21
Ton
4 Rodm $56,594
$72,570
Concrete Floor Finishing
Power Screed, Bull Float, Machine Float & Trowel (Ride On)
48230
SF
E-10
$21,221
$29,903
Structural Steel Framing - Columns
W10 x 45
1664
LF
E-2
$136,963
$153,288
W10 x 68
1970
LF
E-2
$239,118
$266,856
W12 x 120
418
LF
E-2
$87,997
$97,799
W14 x 120
55
LF
E-2
$11,579
$12,868
Structural Steel Members - Beams
W8 x 10
1582
LF
E-2
$41,179
$50,861
W10 x 15
1507
LF
E-2
$52,488
$62,254
W12 x 22
9763
LF
E-2
$428,400
$493,129
W14 x 30
119
LF
E-2
$6,807
$7,773
W16 x 40
95
LF
E-2
$7,128
$8,078
W18 x 106
208
LF
E-2
$39,305
$43,861
Total: $1,492,557
$1,739,035
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1.
2.
3.
4.
Project Background
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
5. Results & Conclusions
6.
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Project Background
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
6.
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
FEASIBILITY – WEIGHT OF STRUCTURE
 Weight of Existing Structural System: 4,681 Kips
 Weight of New Structural Design: 7,000 kips
 1.5 times heavier
 Geotechnical Report
 75 Ton Capacity per 9.625” diameter micro pile
 Consulted Geotechnical Firm
 Considering Existing Micro Pile System and Soil Bearing
Capacity , 7,000 kip building weight is manageable
 Conclusion: Structural design is feasible. (Settlement Issues)
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Project Background
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
6.
3. Practicality Comparison
Final Remarks
CATEGORY OF COMPARISON
NEW STRUCTURE
ORIGINAL STRUCTURE
Floor Construction Depth
Very Good, 11.5"
Maximum
Not Good, 14.5" to 16.5"
Floor-to-ceiling Height
Good, design options
Not Good
Framing Interferes With
MEP Space
No Framing
Yes, Steel Beams
Architectural Advantages
Yes, Exposed Ceilings and
fLoors
No
Acoustic Performance
Good Sound Isolation
Poor Sound Isolation
Average Slab Weight
46 PSF
34 PSF
Additional Fireproofing
Needed
No
Yes, Steel Framing (Spray
On)
Connections / Slab
Reinforcement
No / A lot
A lot / Some
As shown the new structural design appears
to yield a higher performing residential building.
Evidently, other non-performance issues played a
role in the design process, since the existing
structure is a steel system.
These issues pertain to practicality issues:
•Cost
•Duration
•Constructability
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
 Longer Duration (2.5 times longer)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Project Background
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
6.
Final Remarks
 95 (8) hour work days vs. (37) 8 hour work days
CONCLUSIONS REGARDING PRACTICALITY
 Drives up General Conditions Costs
 Reputation In Competitive Market
INVESTIGATION OF NON-PERFORMANCE ISSUES
 Delayed Occupation of Building
 Constructability Issues
 Waffle Slab and Several Slab Modifications
 Higher Skill Workers / Labor Intensive
 Site Congestion
 Concrete trucks pumps, forms, multiple trades on site
simultaneously
 Increased Cost: Primary Structural Components (+ $579,921)
Original: $ 2,318,956
New: $1,739,035
THESIS PRESENTATION OUTLINE
PHILOSOPHY OF DESIGN
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Project Background
Structural Depth
1. Column Layout
2. Slab Design
3. Column & Corbel Design
4. Masonry Wall Design
5. Lateral System Design
Construction Management Study
1. Takeoffs
2. Durations
3. Cost
Acoustic Study
Results & Conclusions
1. Feasibility – Weight of Structure
2. Performance Comparison
3. Practicality Comparison
CONCLUSION:
The concrete design is structurally feasible and
offers several performance enhancements. It is
the preferred structural system of the owner.
However, the increased cost, increased
construction duration, and constructability issues
all suggest the design lacks practicality. Although
6. Final Remarks
the two systems differ in the balance between
performance and practicality, both are acceptable.
“Design is only restricted by the necessity to produce a
safe design, for there is no single correct solution to any
design problem. In fact, an infinite number of solutions
exist, all of which have disadvantages and advantages.
With this said, what is really important is proper
collaboration between all individuals involved in order to
yield a final product that satisfies the client, and most
importantly, functions safely.”