North Shore Hyatt Place
AE Senior Thesis …… Spring 2011
Kyle Tennant ………… Structural Option
Faculty Consultant ... Dr. Ali Memari
Presentation Outline
Existing Conditions
Thesis Proposal
Problem Statement
Proposed Solution
Structural Depth
Gravity System Redesign
Lateral System Redesign
SCBF Design
ETABS Results
Cost and Schedule Breadth
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Questions and Answers
Existing Conditions
Existing
Conditions
Thesis Proposal
Structural Depth
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
Existing Conditions
Building Statistics
Location:
Function:
Size:
Construction:
Architect:
Structural:
260 North Shore Drive, Pittsburgh
Hotel
15,800 SF Building Plan
109,000 SF Total Building Area
178 guest rooms
7 Stories – 70 ft to roof level
Design-Bid-Build
June 2009 to October 2010
$27 million total development cost
Burt Hill
Atlantic Engineering Services
Bird’s Eye View of Location – Courtesy of bing.com
Existing Conditions
Existing
Conditions
Thesis Proposal
Structural Depth
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
Existing Conditions
Building Layout
Ground Level
Lobby/Bar/Café (LW)
Pool (LW)
Meeting Rooms (RW)
North
Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions
Existing
Conditions
Thesis Proposal
Structural Depth
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
Building Layout
Upper Levels
Typical King Room – 360 SF
178 hotel rooms
North
Existing Conditions
Existing
Conditions
Thesis Proposal
Structural Depth
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
Existing Conditions
Existing Structure
 Foundations – on soft soil along the Allegheny River
▫ 18” diameter auger piles on average 70’ to bedrock – 121 total
Gravity system
Lateral System
North
Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions
Existing
Conditions
Thesis Proposal
Structural Depth
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
Existing Structure
Foundations
 Gravity System
 8” thick untopped precast concrete plank – max span 30’
 Reinforced concrete masonry units around exterior, center
corridor, and vertical shafts
 12” thick on ground level
 8” thick on upper levels
8” untopped precast concrete
plank bearing on 12”
reinforced masonry bearing
walls on ground level
Lateral System
North
Existing Conditions
Existing
Conditions
Thesis Proposal
Structural Depth
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
Existing Conditions
Existing Structure
North
Foundations
Gravity System
 Lateral System – same as gravity system
 Semi-rigid diaphragm
 Base shear of 537 kips
CM
CR
Thesis Proposal
Existing Conditions
Thesis
ThesisProposal
Proposal
Problem
Problem
Problem
Solution
Structural Depth
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
 Problematic Building Shape in High Seismic Regions
 Façade problems at reentrant corner
 Poor overall building behavior
 Wings tend to want to displace and behave differently
 High amount of stress in structure where wings meet
 Torsional irregularity
Move to High Seismic Region to Amplify Effects
From ASCE 7-05
North
Thesis Proposal
Existing Conditions
Thesis
ThesisProposal
Proposal
Problem
Problem
Problem
Solution
Structural Depth
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
Building Shape Problematic in High Seismic Regions
 Move to High Seismic Region to Amplify Effects
 San Diego, CA
Move 2,500 miles to San Diego, CA
courtesy of bing.com
North
Thesis Proposal
Existing Conditions
Thesis
ThesisProposal
Proposal
Left Wing
59’
Solution
Problem
Solution
Solution
Structural Depth
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
 Redesign using Special Concentric Braced Frames
and Special Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
 Minimize seismic base shear
 Lower weight
 Higher R-Value
North
59’
140’
140’
Split Building Into Two Wings
Even Distribution of Lateral Elements
X Brace
Inverted V
Effects of Changing Location on Construction and Architecture
Right Wing
Existing Conditions
Thesis
ThesisProposal
Proposal
Problem
Solution
Solution
Structural Depth
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
Left
Wing
Thesis Proposal
Right Wing
North
Left Wing
59’
Solution
Redesign using Special Concentric Braced Frames and Special
Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
North
59’
 Split Building Into Two Wings
140’
 Allows each wing to be behave independently
 Eliminates higher forces where wings meet
Allow wings space to move independent of each other
140’
 Decreases chance of high building torsion
Even Distribution of Lateral Elements
Effects of Changing Location on Construction and Architecture
Right Wing
Thesis Proposal
Existing Conditions
Thesis
ThesisProposal
Proposal
Problem
Solution
Solution
Structural Depth
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
Left Wing
59’
Solution
Redesign using Special Concentric Braced Frames and Special
Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
Layout of Lateral Force Resisting Elements in Left Wing
North
59’
Split Building Into Two Wings
140’
 Even Distribution of Lateral Elements
140’
 Limit torsion in each building wing
Effects of Changing Location on Construction and Architecture
Right Wing
Existing Conditions
Thesis
ThesisProposal
Proposal
Problem
Solution
Solution
Structural Depth
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
Thesis Proposal
Left Wing
59’
Solution
Redesign using Special Concentric Braced Frames and Special
Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
North
59’
Split Building Into Two Wings
Even Distribution of Lateral Elements
140’
140’
 Effects of Changing Location on Construction and
Architecture
 Cost and schedule changes due to proposed structure
 Proposed structure around existing architecture
Right Wing
Existing Conditions
Thesis
ThesisProposal
Proposal
Problem
Solution
Solution
Structural Depth
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
Left Wing
Thesis Proposal
Right Wing
North
Left Wing
59’
Goals
Zero Torsional Amplification
North
59’
Good Overall Seismic Building Behavior
140’
Limit Architectural Disruption
Allow wings space to move independent of each other
140’
Limit Cost and Schedule Disruption
Right Wing
Existing Conditions
Thesis Proposal
Structural Depth
Depth
Structural
Gravity
GravityDesign
Design
Lateral Design
SCBF Design
ETABS Results
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
Structural Depth
Summary
Materials: Concrete: 4’-0” x 8” topped
f’c = 5000 psi
Grout: f’c = 4000 psi
Steel: DB 9x46 29000 ksi
Thickness: 10” (from concrete toping to bottom plank and girder)
Loading: Superimposed = 30 psf
Live Load = 40 psf
Left Wing
Gravity System Redesign
North
 Floor System
 Keep existing 8” precast concrete plank
 Same span directions and distances
 Add 2” concrete topping for diaphragm rigidity
Total = 1.2*30 + 1.6*40 = 100 psf
Allowable = 106 psf (Manufacturer Tables)
Total System Weight: 63 + 25 = 88 psf
Beams and Girders
Columns
Right Wing
Structural Depth
Existing Conditions
Thesis Proposal
Structural Depth
Depth
Structural
Gravity System Redesign
Gravity
GravityDesign
Design
Lateral Design
SCBF Design
ETABS Results
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
Floor System
Left Wing
North
 Beams and Transfer Truss
 D-Beams along interior spans – Girder-Slab System – dictate
typical span
 Typical 15’ span – DB9x46
Sample Ext. Wall Cross Section
http://www.masonrysystems.org/information/cavitywall-brick-veneer-steel-stud/
 Remainder designed in RAM and spot checked by hand
 Exterior spans – L/600 (supports brick) – deflection controls
 Perpendicular to plan span – supports ext. wall & floor loads
 Typical 15’ span - W18x35
 Parallel to plank span – only considered to support ext. wall
 30’ span – W18x35
 Transfer Truss – 45’ span over meeting room on ground level
 W12x190 spaced 5’ apart – HSS web members
D-Beam Cross Section and Properties
Columns
D-Beam
Ext. Perp. To Floor Span
Ext. Parallel To Floor Span
Transfer Truss
Right Wing
7th
Structural Depth
Depth
Structural
5th
4th
W10x39
Gravity
GravityDesign
Design
Lateral Design
SCBF Design
ETABS Results
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
6th
3rd
2nd
W10x60
Existing Conditions
Thesis Proposal
W10x33
Roof
Structural Depth
Left Wing
Gravity System Redesign
North
Floor System
Beams and Girders
 Columns
 Designed using RAM and spot checked by hand
 All Gravity Columns are W10s
 Typical interior column – trib. area = 30’ x 15’
 Typical exterior column – trib. area = 15’ x 15’
Lateral
Columns
View of Column Splices and
Typical Interior Gravity Column
Right Wing
Structural Depth
Existing Conditions
Thesis Proposal
R=5
Structural Depth
Depth
Structural
VB = 1191.9 K
 ASCE 7-05 – Equivalent Lateral Force Proceedure
 Seismic Loads Control – 1.2D + 1.0E + L
North
Total Wing Weight = 8,163.58 Kips
R=5
 Specifically 100%N/S + 30%E/W in both wings
VB = 1428.6 K
VB = 1089.2 K
Mode Shapes (by direction)
Direction LW
Mode CuTa RW
Mode CuTa
Y - (N/S)
0.8952
2
0.8
1.0303
1
0.8
X - (E/W)
1.0767
1
0.8
0.5217
3
0.8
Z Axis
0.6423
3
0.8
0.5726
2
0.8
 Seismic Design Variables




R-Value varies per wing and direction
Ss = 1.5 S1 = 0.5
Seismic Design Category D – some design limitations
Cu*Ta = 1.4*.57 = .8 seconds (all other structural systems)
 Modeled periods were higher in all cases except right wing
E/W direction (has 4 SRCSWs)
 Stiffer buildings experience a higher seismic load
R=6
Special Concentric Braced Frames (steel)
Special Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
Comparison of Building Weights
Redesign
Existing
LW
RW
%Reduction
20908.88 Kips
8163.58
7460.20
Difference =
15623.78 Kips
5285.10 Kips Less
25%
Total Wing Weight = 7,460.2 Kips
Gravity Design
Lateral
Lateral Design
SCBF Design
ETABS Results
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
VB = 1305.5 K
Lateral System Redesign
R=6
Existing Conditions
Thesis Proposal
1 Kip
∆
Structural Depth
Structural Depth
Depth
Structural
Lateral System Redesign
Gravity Design
Lateral
Lateral Design
SCBF Design
ETABS Results
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
•
Structural Depth
Gravity Design
Lateral
Lateral Design
SCBF Design
ETABS Results
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
Vdi
Resistance
Vti
+
Vdi
Vti
CR
CM
Lateral System Redesign
•
Left
Wing
Structural Depth
Depth
Structural
Torsional Load
Load
Right
Wing
Existing Conditions
Thesis Proposal
Summary
Ӯ=
Hand
Ӯ=
Center of Mass
Ecentricity
Ey =
Hand
Ӯ=
Ӯ=
Center of Mass
Ecentricity
Ey =
28.1
29.2
-1.1
76.8
71.2
5.6
ẍ=
ẍ=
Ex =
ẍ=
ẍ=
Ex =
75.3
76
-0.7
32.0
27.50
4.5
Structural Depth
Existing Conditions
Thesis Proposal
Structural Depth
Depth
Structural
SCBF Design (MAE)
Gravity Design
Lateral Design
SCBF
SCBFDesign
Design
ETABS Results
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
 Chose Frame Type
Layout of Lateral Frames Around Existing Windows
 Around windows vs. open space
 Chose Invert-V because simplicity, economy, Seismic Design
Category D, and less architectural disturbance
Special Considerations
Determined Story Shears on Controlling Frame (LW 16-F)
Sized Brace
Sized Beam
Sized Columns
Structural Depth
Existing Conditions
Thesis Proposal
Structural Depth
Depth
Structural
SCBF Design (MAE)
Gravity Design
Lateral Design
SCBF
SCBFDesign
Design
ETABS Results
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
 Chose Frame Type
Layout of Lateral Frames Around Existing Windows
 Around windows vs. open space
 Chose Invert-V because simplicity, economy, Seismic Design
Category D, and less architectural disturbance
Special Considerations
Determined Story Shears on Controlling Frame (LW 16-F)
Sized Brace
Sized Beam
Sized Columns
Existing Conditions
Thesis Proposal
Structural Depth
Structural Depth
Depth
Structural
SCBF Design (MAE)
Gravity Design
Lateral Design
SCBF
SCBFDesign
Design
ETABS Results
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
Chose Frame Type
 Special Considerations
 Brace elements to yield and dissipate cyclic loading
 Mainly compression member - not too slender or too stocky
 Beams and columns remain elastic
(Ry-value)
 More ductile than “ordinary” concentric
 Able to sustain larger displacements
 R=6
Cd = 5
Determined Story Shears on Controlling Frame (LW 16-F)
Sized Brace
Sized Beam
Sized Columns
T
C
Existing Conditions
Thesis Proposal
Story
Shear
Structural Depth
59.5k
SCBF Design (MAE)
Structural Depth
Depth
Structural
Gravity Design
Lateral Design
SCBF
SCBFDesign
Design
ETABS Results
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
114.6k
•
161.4k
200.1k
230.7k
253.4k
269.7k
W21x62
Existing Conditions
Thesis Proposal
W24x84
SCBF Design (MAE)
Structural Depth
Depth
Structural
W10x33
W30x108
W30x108
W30x108
W30x108
W10x49
Gravity Design
Lateral Design
SCBF
SCBFDesign
Design
ETABS Results
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
Structural Depth
W40x167
•
T
C
W21x62
Existing Conditions
Thesis Proposal
W24x84
SCBF Design (MAE)
Structural Depth
Depth
Structural
W10x33
W30x108
W30x108
Chose Frame Type
Special Considerations
Determined Story Shears on Controlling Frame (LW 16-F)
Sized Brace
W30x108
W30x108
W10x49
Gravity Design
Lateral Design
SCBF
SCBFDesign
Design
ETABS Results
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
Structural Depth
W40x167
T
Ty
Sized Beam (Followed AISC “Seismic Design Manual” example.)
 To remain elastic - Ry = 1.1
 Compression brace yields before tension brace
 Beam takes 100% tension – 30% compression
 Results in large beam sizes
 No windows in bay ∴ unrestricted height
Sized Columns
+
.3Cy
.3C
=
Py
Vert. Load on Beam
W21x62
Existing Conditions
Thesis Proposal
W24x84
SCBF Design (MAE)
Structural Depth
Depth
Structural
•
W30x108
W30x108
W30x108
Uplift Forces
W10x33
W30x108
W10x49
Gravity Design
Lateral Design
SCBF
SCBFDesign
Design
ETABS Results
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
Structural Depth
W40x167
Column Forces in X-Brace
Structural Depth
Existing Conditions
Thesis Proposal
Gravity Design
Lateral Design
SCBF
SCBFDesign
Design
ETABS Results
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
Chose Frame Type
Special Considerations
Determined Story Shears on Controlling Frame (LW 16-F)
Sized Brace Sized Beam
 Sized Columns (Followed AISC “Seismic Design Manual” example.)
Uplift Forces
SCBF Design (MAE)
Structural Depth
Depth
Structural
 Uplift on frames
 Largest in frames furthest from CR and parallel to plank span direction
 Compressive forces higher than tensile
 Design foundations for both conditions
Column Forces in X-Brace
205k
307k
Structural Depth
Existing Conditions
Thesis Proposal
Structural Depth
Depth
Structural
ETABS Results
Gravity Design
Lateral Design
SCBF Design
ETABS
ETABSResults
Results
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
• Used to Look at How Building Responds as a Whole
Figure 61: Left Wing ETABS Mode 1
Mode Shapes (by mode)
Mode LW
Direction RW
Direction
1
1.0767 X -(E/W)
1.0303 Y - (N/S)
2
0.8952 Y - (N/S)
0.5726 Z Axis
3
0.6423 Z - Axis
0.5217 X - (E/W)
Table 21: Mode Shapes
Mode Shapes (by direction)
Direction LW
Mode RW
Mode Figure 62: Right Wing ETABS Mode 1
Y - (N/S)
0.8952
2
1.0303
1
X - (E/W)
1.0767
1
0.5217
3
Z Axis
0.6423
3
0.5726
2
Table 22: Mode Shapes
Right Wing
ΔR n/s ΔL n/s
ΔL e/w
Left Wing
ΔL n/s
 Mode shapes - relates mass and stiffness
ΔR e/w
 Mode one is the weakest direction
 Displacements
 Check to see if torsionally irregular
 Slightly torsionally irregular left wing
 Due to different systems
Conclusion
Redesign
Conclusion
Code Checks
Design Checks
ΔL e/w
Torsionally Irregular Check
Wing
Left
Right
Direction
∆L (in)
∆R (in)
1.2∆avg (in)
N/S
E/W
N/S + .3E/W
.3N/S + E/W
N/S
E/W
N/S + .3E/W
.3N/S + E/W
1.81
3.012
1.87
2.96
2.35
0.84
2.79
1.1
3.02
2.88
2.98
2.98
2.06
0.56
2.39
0.78
2.90
3.54
2.91
3.56
2.65
0.84
3.11
1.13
Torsionally
Irregular
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Ax
ΔR n/s
1.04
none
1.02
none
none
none
none
none
ΔR e/w
System Rigidity Comparison
Steel Braced Frame F
Δ
Roof
1st Diaphragm
0.001571
0.000428
Ri
637
2336
Conc. Shear Wall J
%Ri
Δ
44 0.001249
5 0.000021
Ri
801
47619
%Ri
Sum Ri
56 1437.18
95 49955.50
Structural Depth
Existing Conditions
Thesis Proposal
ETABS Results
Structural Depth
Depth
Structural
Gravity Design
Lateral Design
SCBF Design
ETABS
ETABSResults
Results
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
Gapneeded = 20.6”
Left Wing
ΔE/W = 5.5”
Used to Look at How Building Responds as a Whole
Figure 61: Left Wing ETABS Mode 1
Mode Shapes (by mode)
Mode LW
Direction RW
Direction
1
1.0767 X -(E/W)
1.0303 Y - (N/S)
2
0.8952 Y - (N/S)
0.5726 Z Axis
3
0.6423 Z - Axis
0.5217 X - (E/W)
Table 21: Mode Shapes
Mode Shapes (by direction)
Direction LW
Mode RW
Mode Figure 62: Right Wing ETABS Mode 1
Y - (N/S)
0.8952
2
1.0303
1
X - (E/W)
1.0767
1
0.5217
3
Z Axis
0.6423
3
0.5726
2
Table 22: Mode Shapes
• Conclusion
Right Wing
100%X
▫ Improvements can be made to design
 Offset effect of SRCSWs with additional SCBFs - lessen torsion
 Add SCBFs to LW E/W direction
 Limit deflection toward RW
 Help make wings behave more similar
Redesign
Conclusion
Code Checks
Design Checks
100%X
ΔE/W = 15.1”
Figure 66: Necessary Size of Separation Gap
30%Y
Structural Depth
Existing Conditions
Thesis Proposal
ETABS Results
Structural Depth
Depth
Structural
Left Wing
Wing
Right Wing
Gravity Design
Lateral Design
SCBF Design
ETABS
ETABSResults
Results
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
Level
ETABS (Proposed)
Used to Look at How Building Responds as a Whole
Conclusion
ETABS
(Optimized)
RooF
7th Floor
6th Floor
5th Floor
4th Floor
3rd Floor
2nd Floor
CRX ex CRY ey
874 38 352 11
876 36 354 9
863 49 358 5
842 70 362 1
795 117 368 -5
720 192 373 -10
619 293 373 -10
CRX ex CRY ey
881 31 400 -37
882 30 400 -37
868 44 399 -36
846 66 399 -36
797 115 399 -36 Figure 68: Right Wing Redesign
721 191 398 -35
619 293 396 -33
RooF
7th Floor
6th Floor
5th Floor
4th Floor
3rd Floor
2nd Floor
506
498
486
467
441
408
370
411
406
400
390
374
353
333
-176
-168
-156
-137
-111
-78
-40
851
845
840
832
823
815
813
-36
-30
-25
-17
-8
0
2
-81
-76
-70
-60
-44
-23
-3
878
872
864
854
841
829
822
-63
-57
-49
-39
-26
-14
-7
 Redesign
 Able to eliminate torsional amplification factor
 Left Wing E/W deflection significantly reduced
Conclusion
Code Checks
Design Checks
Mode Shapes Redesign (by direction)
Direction
Y - (N/S)
X - (E/W)
Z Axis
LW
Mode LW (revised) Mode Better?
0.8952
2
0.8506
1 Yes
1.0767
1
0.7641
2 Yes
0.6423
3
0.6269
3 Yes
RW
Mode RW (revised) Mode Better?
Y - (N/S) 1.0303
1
0.9375
1 Yes
X - (E/W) 0.5217
3
0.4965
3 Yes
Z Axis
0.5726
2
0.5687
2 Yes
Wing
Left
Right
Torsionally Irregular Check (redesign)
Torsionally
Direction
∆L (in)
∆R (in) 1.2∆avg (in)
Irregular
N/S
1.74
2.57
2.59
NO
E/W
1.47
1.47
1.76
NO
N/S + .3E/W
1.76
2.6
2.62
NO
.3N/S + E/W
1.45
1.56
1.81
NO
N/S
1.89
1.8
2.21
NO
E/W
0.72
0.61
0.80
NO
N/S + .3E/W
2.2
2.08
2.57
NO
.3N/S + E/W
0.86
0.57
0.86
NO
Ax
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
Structural Depth
Existing Conditions
Thesis Proposal
ETABS Results
Structural Depth
Depth
Structural
Gravity Design
Lateral Design
SCBF Design
ETABS
ETABSResults
Results
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
Gapneeded = 11.7”
Sample Seismic Isolation Joint – from “Seismic
Used to Look at How Building Responds as a Whole
Conclusion
Redesign
Joints in Steel Frame Building Construction” by Mark
Saunders
• Conclusion
 Wings behave better and building separation joint needed is
more reasonable
 Within the 2” per floor rule of thumb (in “Seismic Joints in Steel Building
12”
ΔE/W = 4.3”
Left Wing
Right Wing
100%X
100%X
12”
ΔE/W = 7.4”
Figure 66: Necessary Size of Separation Gap
Construction” by Mark Saunders)
Plumbing Consideration
http://www.metraflex.com/seismic
_met.php
30%Y
Code Checks
Design Checks
Floor Separation – from
http://www.profoundit.com/product::10644::SJS
-SEISMIC-JOINT-SYSTEM
http://schnellcontractors.com/newconstruction/seismic-expansion-joints/
Existing Conditions
Thesis Proposal
Displacement
Structural Depth
Structural Depth
Depth
Structural
ETABS Results
Gravity Design
Lateral Design
SCBF Design
ETABS
ETABSResults
Results
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
•
Story
Drift
5
5
5
5
Left Wing Seismic Story Drifts
Location (in.)
Story
Item
Load
Ht. (in)
X
Y
117.6 Max Drift X 100%E/W + 30%N/S
804
0
117.6 Max Drift Y 100%N/S + 30%E/W
1704
120
117.6
117.6
Right Wing Seismic Story Drifts
Max Drift X 100%E/W +_30%N/S
0
1668
Max Drift Y 100%N/S +_30%E/W
0
996
DriftX
Cd = 5 (SCBF)
Δ (in) ∆Allow (in)
Z
698.4
698.4
0.002104 1.237152
0.003628 2.133264
2.352
2.352
698.4
698.4
0.001193 0.701484
0.003196 1.879248
2.352
2.352
Existing Conditions
Thesis Proposal
Structural Depth
Structural Depth
Depth
Structural
ETABS Results
Gravity Design
Lateral Design
SCBF Design
ETABS
ETABSResults
Results
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
Used to Look at How Building Responds as a Whole
Conclusion
Redesign
Conclusion
Code Checks
• Design Checks
 Center of rigidity
 Member forces
 Member capacity ratios
 Elastic vs. yielding
 Braces around H1-1a =1.0 and beams/columns around H1-1a = 0.7
 Some members failed under 1.5E cases when steel design check ran
Hand Vs. ETABS
CRX
LW
RW
CRY
Hand
ETABS
Diff.
% Diff.
Hand
ETABS
Diff.
% Diff.
904
384
874
506
29
-122
3
-32
337
854
352
850
-16
4
-5
0
∅Pn of HSS 8x8x.5 (KL=22)= 336 kips >208 kips
(ok) (293K predicted, less because of changes addition of another
frame and possibly building effects)
Earthquake load combination - 100%N/S + 30%E/W
Existing Conditions
Thesis Proposal
Structural Depth
Cost
Schedule
Cost &
and
Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
Cost and Schedule
Line Number
Material
Proposed columns, beams, braces, and shear walls were
approximated in order to compare structural cost to existing
 Proposed structure is 42% more expensive
 Mainly due to heavy beams, bracing and extra concrete needed for
high seismic loads
Unit
Crew
(1 Crew)
42210141150 8" CMU, reinforced
42210141250 12" CMU, Reinforced
34113500100 8" Hollowcore, untoped
Cost
Amount
Cost of Existing Masonry Structure
Days to
Daily
Labor
Labor
Complete
Output
Hours/Units Hours
57650 SF
15498 SF
95753 SF
D-8
D-9
C-11
395
300
3200
146
52
30
0.101
0.16
0.023
5823
2480
2202
Material Labor Equipment Total
Cost/Unit Cost/Unit Cost/Unit Cost/Unit
2.36
3.35
7.16
3.91
6.06
1.3
Total
Cost
with
0
6.27
8.51
0
6.41
12.8
0.72
9.18
10.87
Total Existing System Cost =
Total
Cost
490601.5
198374.4
1040835
1729811
Table 31: Detailed Existing Cost
Cost of Proposed Steel Structure
Line Number
Material
Amount
Unit
Crew
Days to
Daily
Labor
Complete
Output
Hours/Units
(1 Crew)
Labor
Hours
Material Labor Equipment Total
Cost/Unit Cost/Unit Cost/Unit Cost/Unit
Total
Cost
with
O&P
Total Cost
Steel Superstructure
51223177000 Columns - W10x68
51223177050 Columns - W10x45
51223756900 Beams - W16x31
51223756300 Beams - W30x108
512234004 Bra ci ng - Extra pol a ted From 3x3
78116100400 Fireproofing
3214 L.F.
2273 L.F.
4830 L.F.
2710 L.F.
5712 L.F.
40404 S.F.
33105350300 N.W. Concrete, 4000psi
32110502700 Reinforcement, #7 to #11
31113852550 Formwork
33105705200 Placing, pumped
413 C.Y.
17 Ton
22464 SFCA
413 C.Y.
E2
E2
E2
E5
E3
G2
984
1032
900
1200
48
1500
3
2
5
2
119
27
0.057
0.054
0.062
0.067
0.058
0.016
183
123
299
182
331
646
89.35
59.02
40.61
141.87
7.15
0.53
2.65
2.52
2.9
3.14
20.42
0.38
1.63
1.56
1.79
1.46
2.57
0.08
93.63
93.63
63.1
70.96
45.3
51.8
146.47
162.92
28.13
44.25
0.99
1.24
Steel Frame Total =
$ 300,926.82
$ 161,292.08
$ 250,194.00
$ 441,513.20
$ 252,756.00
$ 50,100.96
$ 1,406,682.10
100.43
110.18
44.06
48.25
6.17
9.24
29.22
41.76
Shear Walls Total =
$ 45,467.61
$
833.76
$ 207,567.36
$ 17,232.96
$ 271,101.69
9.66
11.23
100.43
110.18
7.26
29.22
41.76
Precast Plank Total =
Total Proposed System Cost =
$ 1,075,306.19
$ 65,123.86
$ 24,683.00
$ 1,165,113.05
$ 2,994,896.84
Concrete Shear Walls
Cost Comparison
Existing Proposed
Structure
688976
1677784
Floor
1040835
1165113 % Difference
Total
1729811
2994897
42%
C2
C20
395
110
57
4
0.122
0.582
2741
240
C-11
3200
30
0.023
2202
C20
110
5
0.582
344
100.43
44.06
0.64
5.53
21.6
7.26
1.08
0.63
Precast Concrete Plank
34113500100 8" Hollowcore, untoped
95753 SF
33105350300 N.W. Concrete, 4000psi
591 C.Y.
33105705200 Placing, pumped
591 C.Y.
Seismic Separation Joint
760 linear feet (ext. and interior) $152,000
$200 plf
Table 32: Detailed Proposed Cost
Costs Mainly Due To Seismic
7.98
100.43
21.6
Existing Conditions
Thesis Proposal
Structural Depth
Cost
Schedule
Cost &
and
Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
Cost and Schedule
Order
Task
Schedule 1st Floor (existing)
Daily
Amount
Crews
Days
Output
Complete 1st 12" CMU
8" CMU
Plank
Schedule
Proposed columns, beams, braces, and shear walls were
approximated in order to compare structural schedule to existing
 Proposed structure has a 1 day faster schedule
 But with much more coordination between tasks and crews
 Coordinate shear walls with steel structure
 Coordinate steel and concrete crews on individual wings
 2 cranes – 1 for each wing
 More room for error
15498
1638
13679
3
1
2
300
395
3200
Total
Days
17.2
4.1
2.1
24.0
Schedule 2nd Through 7th (existing) 6 floors
Daily
Total
Task
Amount
Crews
Days
Output
Table
31: Detailed Existing Days
Cost
Complete 1st 8" CMU
Plank
Coordination
Complete 1st
1 Week Allowance
Complete Before Beams
Complete Before Bracing
Before Topping
As Placing Plank
After Floor is Done
9335.5
13679
4
2
Task
Amount
Formwork
Placing Concrete
Columns-W10x68
Columns-W10x45
Beams-W30x108
Beams-W16x31
Plank
Plank Toping
Bracing
Fireproofing
2736
51
802
568
390
690
13697
85
1360
8355
Crew
Type
# on
Jobsite
D-8
1 to 4
D-9
2*
C-11
2
*Only on First Floor
395
5.9
8.0
3200
2.1
Total Days of Building =
72
Schedule 1st Floor (existing)
Daily Days Shear Days Steel
Days Steel
Days Plank
Wall
Frame
Bracing
Output
Crews
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
395
110
984
1032
900
1200
3200
110
48
1500
Fireproofing
Total Days Total Per
of Work
Floor*
6.9
0.5
7.4
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.6
2.4
13.0
4.3
0.8
5.0
7.1
Crew
Type
# on
Jobsite
E2
E3
E5
C2
C11
C20
G2
Cranes
1
4
1
1
2
1
1
2
7.1
5.6
5.6
Schedule 2nd Through 7th (existing)
Complete 1st
1 Week Allowance
Complete Before Beams
Schedule Summary
Existing Proposed % Change
1st Floor
24
13
-45.8%
2nd - 7th
8
9
12.5%
Total
72
71
-1.4%
Complete Before Bracing
Before Topping
Anytime post beam
After Floor is Done
Formwork
Placing Concrete
Columns-W10x68
Columns-W10x45
Beams-W30x108
Beams-W16x31
Plank
Plank Toping
Bracing
Fireproofing
1440
27
401
284
390
690
13697
85
816
5484
1
395
3.6
1
110
0.2
1
984
0.4
1 1032
0.3
1
900
0.4
1 1200
0.6
1 3200
Table 32: Detailed
1
110Proposed Cost
4
48
1500
3.9
1.7
`
9.0
4.3
0.8
5.0
4.3
4.3
3.7
4*
Total Days of Building =
*coordinated so that some tasks can be worked on similaneously so total days per floor are less than total days of work
**done after completion of floor so only added time is to the end of the structure
71
Existing Conditions
Thesis Proposal
Structural Depth
Cost and Schedule
Left Wing
Thesis Proposal
Right Wing
North
Conclusions
Conclusions
Goals
Gapneeded = 11.7”
12”
Left Wing
Zero Torsional Amplification
North
ΔE/W = 4.3”
Right Wing
Acknowledgements
Q&A
100%X
Good Overall Seismic Building Behavior
100%X
Limit Architectural Disruption
Allow wings space to move independent of each other
Limit Cost and Schedule Disruption
ΔE/W = 7.4”
Figure 66: Necessary Size of Separation Gap
30%Y
Existing Conditions
Thesis Proposal
Structural Depth
Cost and Schedule
Acknowledgements
Andy Verrengia
Conclusions
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
Burt Hill
PSU Architectural Engineering Faculty
 Dr. Ali Memari
 Prof. Robert Holland
 Prof. Kevin Parfitt
Family and Friends
Existing Conditions
Thesis Proposal
Structural Depth
Cost and Schedule
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Q&A
Questions
Questions?