Game Day Building
Post Tensioned Redesign
AE Senior Thesis Spring 2009
Matthew Haapala
BAE/MAE Structural Option
Faculty Consultant: Dr. Hanagan
Presentation Outline
 Existing Conditions
 Thesis Proposals and Goals
 Gravity System Redesign
 Lateral System Redesign
 Foundation Optimization
 Cost & Schedule Analysis
 Lighting Redesign
 Conclusions
 Question and Answer
Game Day Building
Post Tensioned Redesign
By: Matthew Haapala
•Foundation Optimization
•Thesis Proposal & Goals
•Cost & Schedule Analysis
•Gravity System Redesign
•Lighting Redesign
•Lateral System Redesign
•Conclusions
Building Statistics
Building Name: Foreman Field Game Day Building
Project Team:
 Owner - Old Dominion University
 General Contractor - S.B. Ballard Construction Company
 Architect - Ellerbe Becket
 Engineer - Clark Nexsen
Size : Gross Floor Area = 54,877 sq. ft. , Height = 47 ft.
 1st Floor = 16,500 sq. ft.
 2nd Floor = 16,100 sq. ft.
 3rd Floor = 11,500 sq. ft.
 4th Floor = 10,800 sq. ft.
Construction: Dates of February 22, 2008 thru July 22, 2009
Cost: $11.9 million
Project Delivery Method: Design-Building
Building Statistics
Location: The Game Day building is currently under construction in
the south end zone of Foreman Field on the campus of Old
Dominion University in Norfolk Virginia.
Game Day Building
Post Tensioned Redesign
By: Matthew Haapala
Existing Gravity System
3rd Floor Structural Plan
Cast in Place Reinforced Concrete Flat Plate
 Typical bay size 31’-6” x 17’-0”
 Typical slab depth 12”
 No shear caps or drop panels
 Shear stud rails used to resist punching shear
Cast in Place Reinforced Concrete Beams
 Located around openings and seating
•Foundation Optimization
•Thesis Proposal & Goals
•Cost & Schedule Analysis
•Gravity System Redesign
•Lighting Redesign
•Lateral System Redesign
•Conclusions
Cast in Place Concrete Columns
 18” x 18” typical
Blue: Beam Location
Red: Column or Load Bearing Wall Location
Game Day Building
Post Tensioned Redesign
Existing Lateral System
 Seven Cast in Place Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
 Located in Architecturally Convenient Locations
Existing Lateral System
 Capacity Significantly Exceeds Lateral Loading Demands
 Column & Slab Moment Frames’ Stiffness not Considered
By: Matthew Haapala
Shear Wall Location Plan
•Foundation Optimization
•Thesis Proposal & Goals
•Cost & Schedule Analysis
•Gravity System Redesign
•Lighting Redesign
•Lateral System Redesign
•Conclusions
ETABS Model of Existing Lateral System
Game Day Building
Post Tensioned Redesign
By: Matthew Haapala
Existing Foundations







Square Precast Prestressed Concrete (SPPC) Piles
100’ long from Tip to Cutoff
183 Piles Total
Typically Driven in Clusters of 4 Below Most Columns
Clusters of Up to 18 Below Shear Walls
Topped With 36” - 40” Deep Pile Caps
Grade Beams Below Exterior Walls & Between Pile Caps
Average Depth (ft.)
•Foundation Optimization
0 to 1
0 to 4
2 to 18
18 to 53-84
•Thesis Proposal & Goals
•Cost & Schedule Analysis
53-84 to 110
•Gravity System Redesign
•Lighting Redesign
•Lateral System Redesign
•Conclusions
Sub-Surface Soild Conditions
Description
Topsoil or Asphalt
Fill of fibrous organics and wet sand
Sand with varying amounts of silt and clay
Gray, wet clay with varying amounts of sand and
marine shell fragments
Gray, wet, silty, fine sand with marine shell fragments
and varying amounts of clay
Existing Foundations
Foundation Plan
Game Day Building
Structural Depth Proposal
Post Tensioned Redesign
Study 1 Gravity System Redesign
Problem: Two-way flat plate is structurally inefficient floor system
Solution: Replace with one-way slabs on post tensioned beams
Goals:
 Reduce slab depth
 Develop understanding of post tensioned concrete design
 Use post tensioning to minimize beam depth
 Reduce self weight of the structure
By: Matthew Haapala
•Existing Conditions
•Foundation Optimization
•Cost & Schedule Analysis
•Gravity System Redesign
•Lighting Redesign
•Lateral System Redesign
•Conclusions
Structural Depth Proposal
Study 2 Lateral System Redesign
Problem: Shear walls’ excess capacity suggests reduction possible
Solution: Consider Moment Frames in Lateral Design and Remove
Existing Shear Walls Where Practical
Goals:
 Utilize Post Tensioned Beams in Ordinary Concrete Moment
Frames
 Reduce The Number of Shear Walls
Study 3 Foundation Optimization
Problem: With poor soils extensive deep foundations required
Solution: Analyze foundation requirements of redesigned structure
to determine possible foundation reductions
Goal: Reduce the number of piles
Game Day Building
Post Tensioned Redesign
By: Matthew Haapala
•Existing Conditions
•Foundation Optimization
•Cost & Schedule Analysis
•Gravity System Redesign
•Lighting Redesign
•Lateral System Redesign
•Conclusions
C.M. Breadth Proposals
Problem: Unknown cost, constructability, and construction schedule
impacts of structural redesign
Solution: Conduct cost and schedule analyses comparing of the
original and redesigned structure
Goals:
 Lower the price of the structure
 Develop a construction sequence that satisfies the unique
demands of post tensioning
 Do not Increase the Overall Project Duration
C.M. Breadth Proposals
Game Day Building
Post Tensioned Redesign
By: Matthew Haapala
•Existing Conditions
•Foundation Optimization
•Cost & Schedule Analysis
•Gravity System Redesign
•Lighting Redesign
•Lateral System Redesign
•Conclusions
Lighting Breadth Proposal
Problem: Original lighting design predominantly inexpensive troffers
and cans
Solution: Create an alternate lighting scheme for the scholarship
lounge
Goals:
 Integrate the structural redesign into the redesigned lighting
scheme
 Make the room seem more spacious have emphasizing the
peripherals by having a high luminance on the Walls and
Ceiling.
 Increase flexibility by specifying dimmable fixtures
 Satisfy ASHRE 90.1 and IESNA Lighting Handbook
requirements
 Use attractive or concealed luminaries
Lighting Breadth Proposal
Game Day Building
Gravity System Redesign
Post Tensioned Redesign
By: Matthew Haapala
Reference Design Codes and Standards
Original Design Code
2003 Virginia Uniform
Statewide Building Code
ASCE 7-02
Substitutions
ACI 318-02
ACI 318 08
2006 IBC
ASCE 7-05
Concrete Material Properties
•Existing Conditions
•Foundation Optimization
•Thesis Proposal & Goals
•Cost & Schedule Analysis
•Lighting Redesign
•Lateral System Redesign
•Conclusions
Location
Pile Caps and Grade Beams
Slabs on Grade
Structural Slabs and Beams
Walls and Columns
Original
New
Cement
Cement
f'c (psi) Type
f'c (psi) Type
I
3000
I
3000
I
3000
I
3000
III
5000
I
6000
III
5000
I
6000
Game Day Building
Post Tensioned Redesign
By: Matthew Haapala
•Existing Conditions
•Foundation Optimization
•Thesis Proposal & Goals
•Cost & Schedule Analysis
•Lighting Redesign
•Lateral System Redesign
•Conclusions
Gravity Loading Assumptions
GRAVITY LOADING DESIGN VALUES
Loading
Dead Loads
Normal Weight Concrete
Masonry Walls
Curtin Walls
Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing
100% Outdoor Air Handling Unit
Variable Refrigerant Volume Heat Pump
Gas Fired DX Package Roof top Unit
DX Split System Heat Pump
Live Loads
ROOF
STAIRS
CORRIDORS
TERRACES
SEATING
STORAGE
MECH./ELEC. ROOMS
Snow Loads
Pg
Pf
Design Value
150
40
15
5
750
350
500
250
pcf
psf
psf
psf
lbs
lbs
lbs
lbs
20
100
100
100
100
125
125
psf
psf
psf
psf
psf
psf
psf
10 psf
11 psf
ASCE 7-05 Req'd
20
100
100
100
60
125
psf
psf
psf
psf
psf
psf
10 psf
11 psf
Game Day Building
Trial Layout Development
Trial Layout Development
Post Tensioned Redesign
By: Matthew Haapala
•Existing Conditions
•Thesis Proposal & Goals
•Lateral System Redesign
•Foundation Optimization
= Post Tensioned Concrete Beam
= Post Tensioned Concrete Beam
•Cost & Schedule Analysis
= Reinforced Concrete Beam
= Reinforced Concrete Beam
•Lighting Redesign
= Support Column or Wall
= Support Column or Wall
•Conclusions
Game Day Building
Post Tensioned Redesign
PCA Slab Analysis & Design
nd
PCA Slab Unit Strip 2 Floor Between Gridlines 3.8 and 4.1 w/ Initial Beam Layout
Unit Strip Plan
By: Matthew Haapala
Unit Strip
Isometric View
Unit Strip
Deflection Diagram
PCA Slab Analysis & Design
nd
PCA Slab Unit Strip 2 Floor Between Gridlines 3.8 and 4.1 w/ Final Beam Layout
Unit Strip Plan
Unit Strip
Isometric View
Unit Strip
Deflection Diagram
Total Deflection = 1.789”
Total Deflection = 0.224”
•Existing Conditions
•Foundation Optimization
•Thesis Proposal & Goals
•Cost & Schedule Analysis
•Lighting Redesign
•Lateral System Redesign
•Conclusions
Game Day Building
Post Tensioned Redesign
By: Matthew Haapala
•Existing Conditions
•Foundation Optimization
•Thesis Proposal & Goals
•Cost & Schedule Analysis
•Lighting Redesign
•Lateral System Redesign
•Conclusions
PT Beam Hand Calculations
Calculations
 Designed in accordance with ACI 318-08 for:
 Flexural serviceability
 Ultimate flexural strength
 Shear and torsion
 Deflection
 Every post tensioned beam analyzed at supports and midspan
 Member loads determined by iterative moment distribution
 Pattern loading not critical
 Moment redistribution not performed
 et>.0075 (ACI 318-08 Sect. 8.4.2)
 Beam/Slab effective T beams considered
• PT Beam Hand Calculations
Game Day Building
PT Beam Hand Calculations
Post Tensioned Redesign
 Interior beams
 Depth: 14” = 2x slab depth of 7”
 Width: 12” - 40”, typ. 28”
 # Tendons: (5) - (13), typ. (6)
 Longitudinal Rebar: (3) - (5) #8 Top & Bottom , typ. (4)
 Perimeter beams: depth 18”
 Depth 18” - 29”
 Width 12” - 24”, typ. 18”
 # Tendons: (4) - (6), typ. (4)
 Longitudinal Rebar : (2) - (4) #8 Top & Bottom, typ. (2)
 On average76% dead load balanced after losses
 Average Compressive Stress 164psi – 475psi, typ. 250 psi
 > Code required 125psi
 < 500psi reasonable maximum
By: Matthew Haapala
•Existing Conditions
•Foundation Optimization
•Thesis Proposal & Goals
•Cost & Schedule Analysis
•Lighting Redesign
•Lateral System Redesign
•Conclusions
PT Beam Hand Calculations
Game Day Building
Post Tensioned Redesign
By: Matthew Haapala
•Existing Conditions
•Foundation Optimization
•Thesis Proposal & Goals
•Cost & Schedule Analysis
•Lighting Redesign
•Lateral System Redesign
•Conclusions
RAM Concept Analysis
Game Day Building
Torsion & Deflection Design
Post Tensioned Redesign
By: Matthew Haapala
29”
12”
18”
•Existing Conditions
•Foundation Optimization
•Thesis Proposal & Goals
•Cost & Schedule Analysis
•Lighting Redesign
•Lateral System Redesign
•Conclusions
9’-6”
18”x18” Edge Beams
Game Day Building
Torsion & Deflection Design
Post Tensioned Redesign
By: Matthew Haapala
•Existing Conditions
•Foundation Optimization
•Thesis Proposal & Goals
•Cost & Schedule Analysis
•Lighting Redesign
•Lateral System Redesign
•Conclusions
Typical Long Term Deflection Plan
Game Day Building
Post Tensioned Redesign
By: Matthew Haapala
•Existing Conditions
•Foundation Optimization
•Thesis Proposal & Goals
•Cost & Schedule Analysis
•Lighting Redesign
•Lateral System Redesign
•Conclusions
2ND Floor Shear
Reinforcement Plan
Game Day Building
Post Tensioned Redesign
By: Matthew Haapala
•Existing Conditions
•Foundation Optimization
•Thesis Proposal & Goals
•Cost & Schedule Analysis
•Lighting Redesign
•Lateral System Redesign
•Conclusions
2ND Floor Flexural
Reinforcement Plan
Game Day Building
Post Tensioned Redesign
By: Matthew Haapala
•Foundation Optimization
•Cost & Schedule Analysis
•Lighting Redesign
•Conclusions
Lateral System Redesign
Game Day Building
Post Tensioned Redesign
By: Matthew Haapala
•Foundation Optimization
•Cost & Schedule Analysis
•Lighting Redesign
•Conclusions
Wind Loading
Wind Loading Design Values
Basic Wind Speed
Wind Importance Factor
Wind Exposure Category
Gust Response Factor
Internal pressure Coefficients
110MPH
1.15
B
0.85
+/-0.18
Wind Loading
Game Day Building
Post Tensioned Redesign
By: Matthew Haapala
Seismic Loading
Seismic Design Values
Site Class
D
Importance Factor, I
0.118
S1
0.048
Fa
1.6
Seismic Force Resisting System
Fv
2.4
Ordinary Reinforced Concrete
Moment Frames
Ordinary Reinforced Concrete
Shear Walls
SDS=(2/3)*Fa*Ss
0.126
SD1 =(2/3)*Fv*S1
0.0768
Building Height, h
B
47'
Ct
0.02
x
0.75
•Foundation Optimization
Ta = Ct*h
•Cost & Schedule Analysis
Cu
•Conclusions
1.25
Ss
Seismic Design Category
•Lighting Redesign
Seismic Loading
CuTa
TL
x
0.359
1.7
0.61
8
Design Coefficients for Seismic Force Resisting Systems
Ordinary Reinforced Concrete
Moment Frames and Ordinary
Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
Response Modification
Coefficient, R
Deflection Amplification
Factor, Cd
3
2.5
5
4.5
4.5
4
Game Day Building
Post Tensioned Redesign
By: Matthew Haapala
•Foundation Optimization
•Cost & Schedule Analysis
•Lighting Redesign
•Conclusions
Shear Wall 7 Removal
Shear Walls 1 & 3 Removal
Game Day Building
Lateral System Plan
Post Tensioned Redesign
By: Matthew Haapala
•Foundation Optimization
•Cost & Schedule Analysis
•Lighting Redesign
•Conclusions
= Columns Sections Increased
= Plan East/West Direction Lateral System Components
= Plan North/South Direction Lateral System Components
Game Day Building
South Wind Deflected Shape
Seismic Deflected Shape
Post Tensioned Redesign
By: Matthew Haapala
Seismic Drift Analysis
Max Deflections Caused By Wind Loading
•Foundation Optimization
Story
•Cost & Schedule Analysis
Roof
Floor 4
Floor 3
Floor 2
•Lighting Redesign
•Conclusions
Max Deflection X
(in.)
0.0686
0.0709
0.0707
0.0684
Max Deflection Y h/600
(in.)
0.0868
0.0401
0.0376
0.0340
(in.)
0.2133
0.2133
0.2133
0.3000
Deflection Check
(OK or NG)
OK
OK
OK
OK
Story
Roof
Floor 4
Floor 3
Floor 2
Cd
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
Average Diaphragm Drift
0.002915
0.003378
0.003383
0.002220
Story
Roof
Floor 4
Floor 3
Floor 2
Cd Average Diaphragm Drift (Y)
4
0.001120
4
0.000816
4
0.000816
4
0.000396
East/West Direction
Max Diaphragm Drift Seismic Drift Limit
0.002953
0.02
0.003418
0.02
0.003418
0.02
0.002245
0.02
North South Direction
Max Diaphragm Drift (Y) Seismic Drift Limit
0.001204
0.02
0.000960
0.02
0.000884
0.02
0.000472
0.02
Drift Limit Exceded
No
No
No
No
Torsional Irregularity
No
No
No
No
Drift Limit Exceded
No
No
No
No
Torsional Irregularity
No
No
No
No
Game Day Building
Post Tensioned Redesign
By: Matthew Haapala
Shear Wall Design
Loading
Load Combo
1.2D+1.6W+L
0.9D+1.6W
1.2D+1.0E+L
0.9D+1.0E
Pu (Kips)
1127
606
1128
606
Vu (Kips)
174
201
27
54
Mu (K-ft)
8001
7965
3370
3333
F Design Values
F Tension
0.9
# of Curtains Req'd
F Shear
75
As min (in^2/ft)
F Comp.
0.65
•Foundation Optimization
lw (in)
222
h (in)
18
hw (in)
180
•Lighting Redesign
•Conclusions
80.00%
A (in^2)
3996
S (in^3)
147852
I (in^4)
16411572
•Cost & Schedule Analysis
Max Spacing (in)
1 Boundary Zone
0.54
# of Curtains
2 FMn>Mu,FPn>Pu
#5
Bar Spacing (in)
12
rt
Flexural Reinforcement Design
7
Bar Size
Bar Size
ac
No
13.78 # of Bars
Shear Reinforcement Design
Geometry
d%
Flexural Reinforcement Req'd
Shear Reinforcement Req'd
P (k ip)
16000
#9
(Pmax)
Yes
Flexural Reinforcement Detail
3
0.006
FVn (Kips)
268
Vu/FVn
75%
fs=0
fs=0
fs=0.5fy
fs=0.5fy
Material Properties
f'c
6000
fy
60000
4
3 9 10
6
5
7
8
2
1
1314
11 12
-50000
50000
M y (k -ft)
-2000
(Pmin)
Game Day Building
Post Tensioned Redesign
Foundation Optimization
Column Foundation Requirement Analysis
Location
By: Matthew Haapala
•Existing Conditions
•Thesis Proposal & Goals
•Cost & Schedule Analysis
•Gravity System Redesign
•Lighting Redesign
•Lateral System Redesign
•Conclusions
Foundation Optimization
1,0.A
1.1,0.A
1.2,0.A
1,E.5
1,F
1.1,E.5
1.2,E.6
1.2,F
1.8,A.1
1.9,A.2
1.9,E.6
1.9,F
2,B
2,C
3,B
3,C
4,B
4,C
6,B
6,C
6,D
7,B
7,C
7,D
8,B
8,C
8,D
8.1,0.A
9,0.A
9,B
2.1,F
3.1,F
3.8,F
4.1,E
4.1,F
5,E
4.9,F
5.5,E
5.5,F
6.6,E
6.6,F
Shear Wall Base Shear Comparison Chart
3 Piles
Original
Final
Crit.
Crit.Ten
P<PAllowable Uplift # of Piles # of Piles
Comp.
Load
Load
(K/Pile) (K/Pile)
23.44
18.94
35.74
25.95
22.11
28.08
40.21
17.60
71.42
60.31
61.40
26.07
81.21
75.67
139.86
140.71
135.67
116.36
135.87
99.79
73.63
143.35
105.38
56.94
105.22
89.12
36.57
39.82
29.72
49.91
58.74
37.33
43.99
92.81
59.06
80.78
55.53
98.69
94.03
91.55
60.48
4.08
-8.73
13.68
6.22
4.36
-7.90
11.64
-12.54
25.39
18.72
19.37
6.13
21.10
12.85
51.23
43.60
49.40
34.70
48.43
32.19
20.05
52.21
28.12
16.09
31.83
16.24
8.11
12.16
11.91
2.17
17.69
13.45
9.24
26.85
22.06
32.39
16.46
28.55
25.37
29.70
24.83
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
3
3
0
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
2
4
4
2
4
3
0
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
4
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Original Base Shear
Seismic
Wind
(Kips)
(Kips)
72
129
102
99
162
81
New Design Base Shear
Seismic
(Kips)
% Orig.
62
106
67
86%
82%
66%
Wind
(Kips)
95
158
77
% Orig.
96%
98%
95%
Shear Wall Foundation Analysis
Wall
Critical Comp. Load
(K/Pile)
SW 1, SW 3, SW 5, & SW7
SW 2
SW 4
SW 6
77
142
61
Critical Tensile Load Critical Shear Load P<PAllowab V<VAllowable Uplift Original
Final
(K/Pile)
(K/Pile)
# of Piles # of Piles
le
22
0
OK
-29
9 OK
YES
10
10
Fail*
-27
12 OK
YES
10
10
OK
-21
8 OK
YES
12
12
Foundation Redesign Summary
Supporting
Columns
Shear Walls
Façade
Total
Original # of Piles
113
54
16
183
Final # of Piles
110
32
16
158
Difference
-3
-22
0
-25
Game Day Building
Post Tensioned Redesign
By: Matthew Haapala
Cost Analysis
Structural System Cost Comparison
$3,000,000
$1,502,882
$30.33/sq.-ft.
$2,500,000
$49,331
$336,597
$0
$2,000,000
$596,631
Cost Savings
$1,264,735
$25.52/sq.-ft.
$47,675
$298,460
$16,188
$404,878
$1,500,000
$238,147
$4.80/sq.-ft
16% Reduction in Structure Cost
2% Reduction in Overall Project Cost
$520,323
$497,533
$1,000,000
$500,000
$77,776
$132,684
$851,525
$77,776
$120,328
$738,506
$0
•Existing Conditions
•Foundation Optimization
Original Design
New Design
•Thesis Proposal & Goals
Deep Foundations
Shallow Foundations
Slab on Grade
Concrete Formwork
•Gravity System Redesign
•Lighting Redesign
Reinforcing steel
Prestressing Steel
Concrete
Concrete Placing
•Lateral System Redesign
•Conclusions
Game Day Building
Post Tensioned Redesign
By: Matthew Haapala
•Existing Conditions
•Foundation Optimization
•Thesis Proposal & Goals
•Gravity System Redesign
•Lighting Redesign
•Lateral System Redesign
•Conclusions
Original Design Schedule
Game Day Building
New Design Schedule
Construction Sequence
Post Tensioned Redesign
By: Matthew Haapala
•Existing Conditions
•Foundation Optimization
•Thesis Proposal & Goals
•Gravity System Redesign
•Lighting Redesign
•Lateral System Redesign
•Conclusions
Sequence 2
Sequence 1
Sequence 3
Game Day Building
Post Tensioned Redesign
By: Matthew Haapala
•Existing Conditions
•Foundation Optimization
•Thesis Proposal & Goals
•Cost & Schedule Analysis
•Gravity System Redesign
•Lateral System Redesign
•Conclusions
Lighting Redesign
Game Day Building
Post Tensioned Redesign
By: Matthew Haapala
•Existing Conditions
•Foundation Optimization
•Thesis Proposal & Goals
•Cost & Schedule Analysis
•Gravity System Redesign
•Lateral System Redesign
•Conclusions
Pseudo Color Rendering
Game Day Building
Post Tensioned Redesign
By: Matthew Haapala
•Existing Conditions
•Foundation Optimization
•Thesis Proposal & Goals
•Cost & Schedule Analysis
•Gravity System Redesign
•Lighting Redesign
•Lateral System Redesign
Conclusions
Gravity System Redesign
 Slab depth reduced by 5”
 Floor depth increase at beams only 2”
 Buildings weight reduced by 36%
Lateral System Redesign
 4 out of 7 shear walls removed
 Lateral loading does not control beam design
Foundation Optimization
 Number of Piles Reduced by 15%
Cost and Schedule Analysis
 $238,000 in savings
 Structural erection expedited
Lighting Redesign
 Non uniform floor depth can improve aesthetics
Game Day Building
Post Tensioned Redesign
By: Matthew Haapala
•Existing Conditions
•Foundation Optimization
•Thesis Proposal & Goals
•Cost & Schedule Analysis
•Gravity System Redesign
•Lighting Redesign
•Lateral System Redesign
Acknowledgements
Professional Consultants
 Rich Apple
 Peter A. Allen
 Brian M. Barna
 Alicia B, Udovich
 John Wilson
Holbert Apple Associates
Clark Nexsen
Clark Nexsen
Clark Nexsen
Clark Nexsen
AE Dept. Faculty
 Dr. Walter Schneider III
 Dr. Andres Lepage
 Dr. Linda Hanagan
 Dr. Ali Memari
 Dr. John Messner
Classmates, Friends, and Family
Game Day Building
Post Tensioned Redesign
By: Matthew Haapala
•Existing Conditions
•Foundation Optimization
•Thesis Proposal & Goals
•Cost & Schedule Analysis
•Gravity System Redesign
•Lighting Redesign
•Lateral System Redesign
Questions?