MICHAEL PAYNE
BAE/MAE -- Structural Option
AE Senior Thesis 2012
Hunter’s Point South
Long Island City, New York
Presentation Outline
Introduction
Existing Structure
Thesis Redesign
Structural Depth
MAE Course Related Study
Construction Management Breadth
Summary and Conclusion
Question and Comment
Presentation Outline
Introduction
Existing Structure
Thesis Redesign
Structural Depth
MAE Course Related Study
Construction Management Breadth
Summary and Conclusion
Question and Comment
Introduction To Building
• Hunter’s Point South School
• Mixed School Building
• Hunter’s Point South Project
Bing Maps 2012
Google Maps 2012
Building Statistics
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Intermediate School and High School
Project cost: $61 Million
Construction: January 2011-October 2013
5 Story (14 ft. Typical)-72.5 ft. tall
154,000 sq. Ft.
Grade 6-12 + Special Needs
2 Gymnasiums, Auditorium, and 2 Cafeterias
4000 sq. ft. roof terrace on 5th floor
Building Statistics
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Intermediate School and High School
Project cost: $61 Million
Construction: January 2011-October 2013
5 Story (14 ft. Typical)-72.5 ft. tall
154,000 sq. Ft.
Grade 6-12 + Special Needs
2 Gymnasiums, Auditorium, and 2 Cafeterias
4000 sq. ft. roof terrace on 5th floor
Building Statistics
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Intermediate School and High School
Project cost: $61 Million
Construction: January 2011-October 2013
5 Story (14 ft. Typical)-72.5 ft. tall
154,000 sq. Ft.
Grade 6-12 + Special Needs
2 Gymnasiums, Auditorium, and 2 Cafeterias
4000 sq. ft. roof terrace on 5th floor
Building Statistics
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Intermediate School and High School
Project cost: $61 Million
Construction: January 2011-October 2013
5 Story (14 ft. Typical)-72.5 ft. tall
154,000 sq. Ft.
Grade 6-12 + Special Needs
2 Gymnasiums, Auditorium, and 2 Cafeterias
4000 sq. ft. roof terrace on 5th floor
Project Team
Owner: NYC School Construction Authority
Architect: FX Fowle Architects
CM: SKANSKA Construction
Structural: Ysreale A. Seinuk, PC.
Presentation Outline
Introduction to Existing Structural System
Introduction
Existing Structure
Thesis Redesign
Structural Depth
MAE Course Related Study
Construction Management Breadth
Summary and Conclusion
Question and Comment
• Foundation: 14” 800kip Caissons
H-Piles and grade beams
Presentation Outline
Introduction to Existing Structural System
Introduction
Existing Structure
Thesis Redesign
Structural Depth
MAE Course Related Study
Construction Management Breadth
Summary and Conclusion
Question and Comment
• Foundation: 14” 800kip Caissons
H-Piles and grade beams
• Steel framing system: W-Shapes
80 ft. long span plate girders.
Presentation Outline
Introduction to Existing Structural System
Introduction
Existing Structure
Thesis Redesign
Structural Depth
MAE Course Related Study
Construction Management Breadth
Summary and Conclusion
Question and Comment
• Foundation: 14” 800kip Caissons
H-Piles and grade beams
• Steel framing system: W-Shapes
80 ft. long span plate girders.
• 3 in. 18 gage Galvanized Steel deck
3 1/4 in. lightweight concrete topping
Introduction to Original Lateral System
• Concentrically Braced Frames
X cross bracing typical
• Moment Frames around Gymnasium
Floor plan showing location/
Presentation Outline
Introduction
Existing Structure
Thesis Redesign
Structural Depth
MAE Course Related Study
Construction Management Breadth
Summary and Conclusion
Question and Comment
Thesis Redesign Goals
 Explore the effects of a more ductile lateral system
 Investigate whether a redesign of the lateral system for
a higher seismic region is effective and efficient
MAE Coursework:
•
•
Design Connections for new lateral frames
Include proper detailing
** Architectural Breadth:
New York City
SDC C


Redding, California
SDC D
Structural Depth:
•
•
•
Redesign lateral system using EBF
Design with ELFP and prevent torsion
Design with MRSA to lessen load
•
•
Investigate impact new lateral systems have
on architectural layout.
Show in redesigned plans and elevations
Construction Management Breadth:
1. Schedule Impact
2. Cost Impact
Presentation Outline
Introduction
Existing Structure
Thesis Redesign
Structural Depth
MAE Course Related Study
Construction Management Breadth
Summary and Conclusion
Question and Comment
Thesis Redesign Goals
 Explore the effects of a more ductile lateral system
 Investigate whether a redesign of the lateral system for
a higher seismic region is effective and efficient
MAE Coursework:
•
•
Design Connections for new lateral frames
Include proper detailing
** Architectural Breadth:
New York City
SDC C


Redding, California
SDC D
Structural Depth:
•
•
•
Redesign lateral system using EBF
Design with ELFP and prevent torsion
Design with MRSA to lessen load
•
•
Investigate impact new lateral systems have
on architectural layout.
Show in redesigned plans and elevations
Construction Management Breadth:
1. Schedule Impact
2. Cost Impact
Presentation Outline
Introduction
Existing Structure
Thesis Redesign
Structural Depth
MAE Course Related Study
Construction Management Breadth
Summary and Conclusion
Question and Comment
Thesis Redesign Goals
 Explore the effects of a more ductile lateral system
 Investigate whether a redesign of the lateral system for
a higher seismic region is effective and efficient
MAE Coursework:
•
•
Design Connections for new lateral frames
Include proper detailing
** Architectural Breadth:
New York City
SDC C


Redding, California
SDC D
Structural Depth:
•
•
•
Redesign lateral system using EBF
Design with ELFP and prevent torsion
Design with MRSA to lessen load
•
•
Investigate impact new lateral systems have
on architectural layout.
Show in redesigned plans and elevations
Construction Management Breadth:
1. Schedule Impact
2. Cost Impact
Presentation Outline
Introduction
Existing Structure
Thesis Redesign
Structural Depth
MAE Course Related Study
Construction Management Breadth
Summary and Conclusion
Question and Comment
Thesis Redesign Goals
 Explore the effects of a more ductile lateral system
 Investigate whether a redesign of the lateral system for
a higher seismic region is effective and efficient
MAE Coursework:
•
•
Design Connections for new lateral frames
Include proper detailing
** Architectural Breadth:
New York City
SDC C


Redding, California
SDC D
Structural Depth:
•
•
•
Redesign lateral system using EBF
Design with ELFP and prevent torsion
Design with MRSA to lessen load
•
•
Investigate impact new lateral systems have
on architectural layout.
Show in redesigned plans and elevations
Construction Management Breadth:
1. Schedule Impact
2. Cost Impact
Presentation Outline
Introduction
Existing Structure
Thesis Redesign
Structural Depth
CBF System
 CBF has insufficient ductility for high seismic region
 System has torsional irregularity
MAE Course Related Study
Construction Management Breadth
Summary and Conclusion
Question and Comment
72.5’
Structural Depth
EBF System
Structural Depth
 CBF has insufficient ductility for high seismic region
 System has torsional irregularity
Chose EBF system as replacement
• Increased ductility and strength
• Code approved for SDC D
• Minimal changes to rest of structure
72.5’
EBF System
Structural Depth
 CBF has insufficient ductility for high seismic region
 System has torsional irregularity
Chose EBF system as replacement
• Increased ductility and strength
• Code approved for SDC D
• Minimal changes to rest of structure
72.5’
Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure (ELFP)
• Requires no torsional irregularity
• Similar design process shows effectiveness of EBF
Modal Response Spectrum Analysis (MRSA)
• Requires more in depth design process
• Decreases load dramatically- creates efficient system
EBF Systems Explained
• EBF bracing connected eccentrically- i.e. there is a gap between
connections
• Shear and moment exists in beam portion called a link
e
EBF Systems Explained
• EBF bracing connected eccentrically- i.e. there is a gap between
connections
• Shear and moment exists in beam portion called a link
• Link length controls stiffness of frame
• Link deforms plastically under load, while rest of system remains
elastic
e
EBF Systems Explained
• EBF bracing connected eccentrically- i.e. there is a gap between
connections
• Shear and moment exists in beam portion called a link
• Link length controls stiffness of frame
• Link deforms plastically under load, while rest of system remains
elastic
• Limit link length to 1.6Ms/Vs for shear yield control
• Link design creates ductility and energy dissipation qualities
• Added ductility allows for Response modification factor (R) = 8
e
Redesign 1: ELFP
• Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure prescribed by ASCE 7-10
12.8
• Seismic Design Category (SDC) D
• e=4 feet typical
• Base shear and overturning moment found  Seismic design
loads
• Framing layout changed to prevent torsional irregularity
Original System
Redesign 1: ELFP
• Max Shear= 849 kip (vs. 1067 kip for CBF)
• Max Overturning Moment = 7550 kip-ft. (vs. 9491 kip-ft. for CBF)
Original System
72.5’
Redesign 1: ELFP
• Max Shear= 849 kip (vs. 1067 kip for CBF)
• Max Overturning Moment = 7550 kip-ft. (vs. 9491 kip-ft. for CBF)
Original System
Redesign 1: ELFP
Drift comparison
1.05”
30’
• Max floor drift decreases from 1.05 in.  0.818 in.
• Acceptable drift for each floor
Torsional Irregularity Fixed
• Torsional irregularity is Prevented
16.5’
14’
Δ2 <1.2 (Δ1+Δ2)
2
Redesign 2: MRSA
• Modal Response Spectrum Analysis prescribed by ASCE 7-10
12.9
• Seismic Design Category (SDC) D
• Analysis of building modes under lateral loading to distinguish the
ductility and forces each frame receives
• Maximum 15% decrease in base shear from ELFP analysis
• e= 4 feet typical
• Base shear and overturning moment found  Seismic design
loads
Original System
Redesign 2: MRSA
Response Spectrum
from ETABS
• Max Shear= 722 kip (vs. 1067 kip for CBF)
• Max Overturning Moment = 6421 kip-ft. (vs. 9491 kip-ft. for CBF)
Original System
72.5
’
Redesign 2: MRSA
Response Spectrum
from ETABS
• Max Shear= 722 kip (vs. 1067 kip for CBF)
• Max Overturning Moment = 6421 kip-ft. (vs. 9491 kip-ft. for CBF)
Original System
Redesign 2: MRSA
Drift comparison
• Max floor drift decreases from 1.05 in.  0.593 in.
• Acceptable drift for each floor
0.8”
30’
16.5’
14’
Torsional Irregularity
• There is some torsional irregularity  OK
• Off by < .005 in.  Will not have much effect
ELFP EBF
• Less design work necessary
• Higher loads and larger members required
• Drift adequate for design
• Added lateral frames prevent torsional irregularity
System Comparison
MRSA EBF
• More design work necessary
• Smaller loads and smaller members required
• Story drift is very low- very effective system
• Torsional irregularity not an issue; same layout as
original can be used
Original CBF
ELFP EBF
MRSA EBF
Presentation Outline
Introduction
Existing Structure
Thesis Redesign
Structural Depth
MAE Course Related Study
Construction Management Breadth
Summary and Conclusion
Question and Comment
MAE Course Related Study – Connections
• Conform to AISC 341-10 and AISC 327-05
• Design Brace-to-link connection for ELFP and MRSA Designs
• Ductility requires proper connection detailing
• Design Brace-to-column/beam connection for ELFP and
MRSA Designs
• Must withstand design loads with seismic amplification factor
MAE Course Related Study – Connections
Original Design
MAE Course Related Study – Connections
ELFP Design
MAE Course Related Study – Connections
MRSA Design
Presentation Outline
Introduction
Existing Structure
Thesis Redesign
Structural Depth
MAE Course Related Study
Construction Management Breadth
Summary and Conclusion
Question and Comment
Construction Breadth Study
• Study construction management related impact of redesigns
• Analyze the schedule for erection time and critical path
differences for each design
• Analyze the cost impact each redesign will have on the
original construction cost.
Original Schedule
ELFP Schedule
MRSA Schedule
Original Schedule
ELFP Schedule
MRSA Schedule
Lateral System Steel: 22 Days
Lateral System Steel: 29 Days (+7)
Lateral System Steel: 25 Days (+3)
Total Steel Erection: 63 Days
Total Steel Erection: 72 Days (+9)
Total Steel Erection: 68 Days (+5)
Overall Completion : Oct. 7th 2013
Overall Completion : Oct. 17th 2013
Overall Completion : Oct. 15th 2013
Cost Issues
• Important factor in deciding efficiency of seismic related redesign
• New lateral system must be cheap enough to be worth doing
• Seismic design vs. non-seismic design  less than 5% increase
(per Applied Technology Council (ATC))
Cost Issues
• Important factor in deciding efficiency of seismic related redesign
• New lateral system must be cheap enough to be worth doing
• Seismic design vs. non-seismic design  less than 5% increase
(per Applied Technology Council (ATC))
• Location Factor played larger role than originally anticipated
• Steel cost/lb. back calculated from original steel PO
• Steel weight differences
Cost Issues
• Important factor in deciding efficiency of seismic related redesign
• New lateral system must be cheap enough to be worth doing
• Seismic design vs. non-seismic design  less than 5% increase
(per Applied Technology Council (ATC))
• Location Factor played larger role than originally anticipated
• Steel cost/lb. back calculated from original steel PO
• Steel weight differences
• Total cost for connections and members increases for ELFP
but decreases for MRSA
Cost Issues
Cost Issues
Presentation Outline
Introduction
Existing Structure
Thesis Redesign
Structural Depth
MAE Course Related Study
Construction Management Breadth
Summary and Conclusion
Question and Comment
Summary and Conclusion
MRSA Design vs. ELFP Design:
• EBF system sufficient replacement in higher seismic zone
• Adequate system ductility allows for energy dissipation
• Proper seismic detailing creates effective connections
• Both EBF designs suitable as new lateral systems
• Better strength/serviceability characteristics than CBF design
• Fall within reasonable cost increases (<5% from original)
• Added erection time to schedule assumed to be non-issue
• ELFP Design
• Quicker design process, but more conservative loads
• Must prevent torsional irregularity
• Added frames and over strength required
• *Requires architectural layout changes
• MRSA Design
• In-depth design process, 15% decrease in loads
• Torsional irregularity and architectural layout not issues
• Original frame layout, but smaller members
• Overall construction cost becomes 3% cheaper than original
Presentation Outline
Introduction
Existing Structure
Thesis Redesign
Structural Depth
MAE Course Related Study
Construction Management Breadth
Summary and Conclusion
Question and Comment
Summary and Conclusion
MRSA Design vs. ELFP Design:
• EBF system sufficient replacement in higher seismic zone
• Adequate system ductility allows for energy dissipation
• Proper seismic detailing creates effective connections
• Both EBF designs suitable as new lateral systems
• Better strength/serviceability characteristics than CBF design
• Fall within reasonable cost increases (<5% from original)
• Added erection time to schedule assumed to be non-issue
• ELFP Design
• Quicker design process, but more conservative loads
• Must prevent torsional irregularity
• Added frames and over strength required
• *Requires architectural layout changes
• MRSA Design
• In-depth design process, 15% decrease in loads
• Torsional irregularity and architectural layout not issues
• Original frame layout, but smaller members
• Overall construction cost becomes 3% cheaper than original
Summary and Conclusion
• The redesign using MRSA is the most effective system to be
used in a high seismic region
• Gives sufficient strength, lowers drift, and is cost effective
Acknowledgments
Sharvil Patel, Project Manager
Edward Szwarc, Exec. Vice President
Family
Thank you for always being there and pushing me to succeed. I would
not be where I am today if it were not for your love and support
Friends
Thank you everyone for a great five years. It has been a great run, and
I feel lucky to have you all in my life.
God
Thank you God for blessing me with all the opportunities given to me,
and for the strength to always continue on no matter what
A.E. Faculty:
Dr. Behr
Dr. Memari
Dr. Hanagan
Dr. Lepage
Prof. Parfitt
Prof. Holland
Ryan Solnosky
Presentation Outline
Introduction
Existing Structure
Thesis Redesign
Structural Depth
MAE Course Related Study
Construction Management Breadth
Summary and Conclusion
Question and Comment
Questions and Comments
Thank You
Appendix
Original Lateral Frame System
CBF 1X
CBF 2X
CBF 3X
CBF 4X
Moment Frame
CBF 1Y
CBF 2Y
CBF 3Y
CBF 4Y
Eccentrically Braced Frame System
EBF 1X
EBF 2X
EBF 3X
EBF 4X
EBF 5X
EBF 1Y
EBF 2Y
EBF 3Y
EBF 4Y
CBF
EBF
Moment Frame
•
•
Design link for code forces
Design other members for link strength including strain hardening
• Roughly 50% increase in strength over strength factor of 1.5
Original Design
Typical Connection:
Item
Bolt
Weld
Plate
Type
1" A490
1/4" Br-G
1/4" e-C
1/4" e/B
3/4" Guss
3/4" end
3/4" end
# Cost/Unit Uunit Type
29
10.5
bolt
5
11.26
foot
4
11.26
foot
8
11.26
foot
8.6
38.5
sqft
1.6
38.5
sqft
1.8
38.5
sqft
Total
Total Cost
304.5
52.5
48.8
90.1
333.0
62.8
69.8
961.5
ELFP Redesign
MRSA Redesign
Typical Connection:
Typical Connection:
Item
Bolt
Weld
Type
1" a325x
5/16 B-G
5/16 E-G
1/4" B-E
Plate
3/4" Guss
3/4" end
T member WT8x25
# Cost/Unit Uunit Type Total Cost
36
10.16
bolt
365.76
3
14.84
ft
42.7
3
14.84
ft
51.3
3.1
11.26
ft
34.5
2.5
38.5
sqft
95.7
2.8
38.5
sqft
106.0
72.9
1.73
lbs
126.1
Total
822.2
Item
Bolt
Weld
Plate
T member
Type
# Cost/Unit Uunit Type Total Cost
7/8" a325x 20
9.06
bolt
181.2
1" a325x
16
10.16
162.6
5/16 B-G
3
14.84
ft
42.7
1/4" E-G
3.5
11.26
ft
38.9
1/4" B-E
3.1
11.26
ft
34.5
3/4" Guss 2.5
38.5
sqft
95.7
3/4" end
2.8
38.5
sqft
106.0
WT8x22.5 65.6
1.73
lbs
113.5
Total
775.2
Architectural Breadth
Architectural Breadth
Base Reactions and Foundation Capacity
N-S Loading Direction
Point Fz (Orig.) Fz (ELFP) Fz (MRSA) Pile Cap Axial Capacity Adequate?
#
(k)
(k)
(k)
Y/N
(k)
28
-301
-318
-267
300DP2
600
Y
29
-309
-321
-270
300DP2
600
Y
30
-168
-241
-221 300MP1A
300
Y
31
-126
-183
-148
300MP2
600
Y
46
-613
-301
-258
300DP2
600
Y
48
-612
-287
-262
200DP2
400
Y
49
-21
183
-17
300DP2
600
Y
50
-9
-11
-3
200DP2
400
Y
52
-48
-38
-37
300MP2C
600
Y
55
-135
-111
-108 300MP2A
600
Y
56
-145
-106
-106 300MP2C
600
Y
Point
#
17
27
30
31
45
49
50
52
55
56
E-W Loading Direction
Fz (Orig.) Fz (ELFP) Fz (MRSA) Pile Cap Axial Capacity Adequate?
(k)
(k)
(k)
Y/N
(k)
-219
-182
300DP2
600
Y
-203
-174
300DP2
600
Y
-17
-19
-16
300MP1A
300
Y
-625
-273
-193
300MP2
600
Y
-634
-347
-247
200DP2
400
Y
-239
-237
300DP2
600
Y
-228
-223
200DP2
400
Y
-132
-114
-87
300MP2C
600
Y
-26
-10
-9
300MP2A
600
Y
-29
-4
-4
300MP2C
600
Y
Material Strengths
Material
Element
Pile Caps under Columns
Grade & Strap Beams
Cast-in-Place
Column Pier and Buttress
Concrete
Slab on Grade
Floor Slab
Reinforcing
Concrete Reinforcing bars
Caisson Steel threadbars
Steel
Steel Wide Flange Members
Steel HSS Tubes
Steel Base Plates
Structural Steel
Steel Deck
Steel Bolts
Type
Strength
Normal Weight Concrete
Normal Weight Concrete
Normal Weight Concrete
Normal Weight Concrete
Light Weight Concrete
f'c= 5950 psi
f'c= 4000 psi
f'c= 4000 psi
f'c= 4000 psi
f'c= 3500 psi
FY= 60 ksi
Fy= 75 ksi
Fy= 50 ksi
Fy= 46 ksi
Fy= 50 ksi
Fy= 40 ksi
Fu= 120 ksi
Fu= 150 ksi
ASTM A992
ASTM A500
ASTM A572 gr 50
ASTM A653
ASTM A325
ASTM A490