Schenley Place
Final Thesis Presentation
Pittsburgh, PA
Hali Voycik I Structural Option
M. Kevin Parfitt, P.E., Thesis Advisor
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
PROJECT OVERVIEW
BUILDING LOCATION
4420 Bayard Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
OCCUPANCY TYPE
Typical office
PROJECTED COST
$17.5 Million
SIZE
165,000 SF
PROGRAM
7 levels of unfinished tenant space
3.5 levels of parking garage
KEY PLAYERS
Elmhurst Group, owner
Burt Hill, architect
Atlantic Engineering Services, structural
Image courtesy of Google Map
Introduction
Project Overview
Scope of Work
Structural Depth Study
Building Site Relocation
Existing Structure
Gravity Framing for 3-story Addition
Redesign of Supporting Gravity Systems
Design of Lateral Force Resisting Systems
Determination of Effective LFRS
Architectural Breadth
Evaluation of LFRS Relocation
Construction Management Breadth
Evaluation of Cost due to 3-story Addition
Evaluation of Benefits to Owner
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Questions
SCOPE OF WORK
STRUCTURAL DEPTH STUDY
1.
2.
3.
4.
Relocate Schenley Place Office Building to a site free of zoning and design constraints
Design the gravity framing for a 3-story addition of rentable office space
Redesign the supporting above and below grade gravity systems of the existing structure
Design a lateral force resisting system that effectively reduces torsional effects
ARCHITECTURAL BREADTH STUDY
1.
Evaluate the effect relocating the LFRS core has on the existing floor plans
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT BREADTH STUDY
1.
2.
Evaluate the effect a 3-story addition has on the final cost of the existing structural system
Determine if the owner benefits from a 3-story addition
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Introduction
Project Overview
Scope of Work
Structural Depth Study
Building Site Relocation
Existing Structure
Gravity Framing for 3-story Addition
Redesign of Supporting Gravity Systems
Design of Lateral Force Resisting Systems
Determination of Effective LFRS
Architectural Breadth
Evaluation of LFRS Relocation
Construction Management Breadth
Evaluation of Cost due to 3-story Addition
Evaluation of Benefits to Owner
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Questions
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
BUILDING DESIGN
Originally designed as a 10-story building
Final 7-story design and existing geometry dictated by historic zoning constraints
governing the building’s site due proximity to:
1.
Schenley Farms—a historic
residential district
2.
The First Baptist Church of
Pittsburgh—a designated
historic structure
Image courtesy of Google Map
Introduction
Project Overview
Scope of Work
Structural Depth Study
Building Site Relocation
Existing Structure
Gravity Framing for 3-story Addition
Redesign of Supporting Gravity Systems
Design of Lateral Force Resisting Systems
Determination of Effective LFRS
Architectural Breadth
Evaluation of LFRS Relocation
Construction Management Breadth
Evaluation of Cost due to 3-story Addition
Evaluation of Benefits to Owner
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Questions
HISTORIC PROTECTION ZONING ORDINANCES
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Introduction
Project Overview
Scope of Work
Structural Depth Study
Building Site Relocation
Existing Structure
Gravity Framing for 3-story Addition
Redesign of Supporting Gravity Systems
Design of Lateral Force Resisting Systems
Determination of Effective LFRS
Architectural Breadth
Evaluation of LFRS Relocation
Construction Management Breadth
Evaluation of Cost due to 3-story Addition
Evaluation of Benefits to Owner
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Questions
Image courtesy ofGoogle Map
Image courtesy of The Elmhurst Group
BUILDING SITE RELOCATION
PROPOSED
SITE
EXISTING
SITE
Image courtesy of Google Map
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Introduction
Project Overview
Scope of Work
Structural Depth Study
Building Site Relocation
Existing Structure
Gravity Framing for 3-story Addition
Redesign of Supporting Gravity Systems
Design of Lateral Force Resisting Systems
Determination of Effective LFRS
Architectural Breadth
Evaluation of LFRS Relocation
Construction Management Breadth
Evaluation of Cost due to 3-story Addition
Evaluation of Benefits to Owner
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Questions
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
EXISTING STRUCTURE
FOUNDATION SYSTEM
Concrete perimeter caisson wall
Concrete drilled caissons
Concrete grade beams
PARKING GARAGE
FLOOR SYSTEM
11” two-way flat slab with drop panels
GRAVITY SYSTEM
30”X18” concrete columns
8” to 12” concrete walls
TYPICAL OFFICES
FLOOR SYSTEM
3 ½” n.w.c. slab
3”-20 G composite metal floor deck
GRAVITY SYSTEM
Composite steel W-shape beams
Steel W-shape columns
LATERAL SYSTEM
Eccentrically braced frames
Concentrically braced frames
Introduction
Project Overview
Scope of Work
Structural Depth Study
Building Site Relocation
Existing Structure
Gravity Framing for 3-story Addition
Redesign of Supporting Gravity Systems
Design of Lateral Force Resisting Systems
Determination of Effective LFRS
Architectural Breadth
Evaluation of LFRS Relocation
Construction Management Breadth
Evaluation of Cost due to 3-story Addition
Evaluation of Benefits to Owner
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Questions
GRAVITY FRAMING FOR 3-STORY ADDITION
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Introduction
Project Overview
Scope of Work
Structural Depth Study
Building Site Relocation
Existing Structure
Gravity Framing for 3-story Addition
Redesign of Supporting Gravity Systems
Design of Lateral Force Resisting Systems
Determination of Effective LFRS
Architectural Breadth
Evaluation of LFRS Relocation
Construction Management Breadth
Evaluation of Cost due to 3-story Addition
Evaluation of Benefits to Owner
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Questions
REDESIGN OF SUPPORTING GRAVITY SYSTEM
AVAILABLE
MAXIMUM SERVICE FACTORED
CAISSON
AREA
OF
BEARING
AVAILABLE REDESIGN
EXISTING DESIGN
MAXIMUM
SERVICE
LOADS
(RAM OUTPUT)
LOADS
(RAM
OUTPUT)
COLUMN
AXIAL
ABOVE
GRADE
GRAVITY
SYSTEM
DIAMETER CAISSON CAPACITY OF
CAPACITY ACCEPTABLE?
COLUMN
MOMENTS @ TOP
MOMENTS
LOCATION
LOADS, P@
u
2
REINFORCEMENT
AXIAL
(k)
REINFORCEMENT
 COLUMN
RAM
Steel
Column
used
to
optimize
design
COLUMN
(in)
(ft )
CAISSON, Pa
(Pu/Pa)
AXIAL
(k)
LOCATION
(ft-k)
BOTTOM
(ft-k)
1.2D+1.6L
SIZE
SIZE
 Wherever
possible, original
(k) column depths maintained
LIVE DEAD(k) LIVE
VERTICAL
TIES
DEAD
LIVE DEAD
DEAD
LIVE
VERTICAL
TIES
54
795
47615
201
1.12
NO #4@18"
B2B2
18"X30"
10-#9 16#3@18"
476
201
10
-7 893 -5
18"X30"
10-#11
BELOW
GRADE
GRAVITY
B3
60
982 SYSTEM
69016
B3
18"X30"
10-#9 20
#3@18"
690
443
B4B4
B5B5
443
11
18"X30"
60
C2C2
10-#9 20#3@18"
10-#9 16#3@18"
675
982
329
67515
10
329
18"X30"
54
584
795
242
584-3
-10
242
C3
66
24
1188
745
496
66
24
1188
331
189
DRILLED
FOUNDATION
C3
18"X30" CAISSION
10-#9
#3@18"
745
496
-19SYSTEM
-11
C4
18"X30"
10-#11
C6
18"X30"
10-#9
D2
18"X30"
10-#9
D3
18"X30"
10-#9
C6
D2
D3
66
60
54
66
#4@18"
350
245
#3@18"
760
387
#3@18"
584
242
#3@18"
745
496
24
20
16
24
1188
982
18"X30"
1.37
10-#11
NO #4@18"
8
18"X30"
10-#11
795
1188
7
-17
-10
8
3
10
-1
19
11
-8
11
760
584
745
387
242
496
10-#11
NO #4@18"
10-#11
NO #4@18"
-12
245
10-#11
NO #4@18"
18"X30"
1.36
-16
350
10-#11
NO #4@18"
-7 1336 -5
1 1088 5
1688 5
1.42
 18"X30"
Designed
with an
end-bearing
capacity
per square
foot
10-#11
#4@18"
331
189
-38 of 25
-16tons 17
7
18"X30"
C5
C5
18"X30"
1.57
 18"X30"
Existing
designs
analyzed
10-#9
839
509 Column
11
-7 1821 -5
18"X30"
72
28#3@18"
1414in PCA
83916
509
1.29
 18"X30"
RAM72Concrete
Column 857
Load
Summary
output
used
to
verify
designs
10-#9 28#3@18"
570
18
12
-8
-5
18"X30"
1414
857
570
1940
1.37
B6B6
C4
-7 1537 -5
700
812
1531
1088
0.59
NO #4@18"
10-#11
#4@18"
YES
5
18"X30"
10-#11
#4@18"
5
18"X30"
10-#11
#4@18"
-5
18"X30"
10-#11
#4@18"
-5
18"X30"
10-#11
#4@18"
1.42
18"X30"
1.62
18"X30"
NO #4@18"
10-#11
NO #4@18"
10-#11
0.68
1.56
1.37
YES
NO
NO
145
89711
533
7
-10 1688 -5
-5 1929 -3
1188
757
385
24217
145
10
-8 522 -5
0.44
18"X30"
YES #4@18"
10-#11
10-#9 20#3@18"
982
476
201
757
-15
385
-10
7 1524 5
1.55
18"X30"
NO #4@18"
10-#11
54
18"X30"
10-#9 16#3@18"
795
690
443
476
-16
201
-11
7 893
5
1.12
18"X30"
NO #4@18"
10-#11
E4E3
60
18"X30"
10-#9 20#3@18"
982
867
529
690
-16
443
-11
7 1537 5
18"X30"
1.57
10-#11
NO #4@18"
E5E4
18"X30"
66
10-#9 24#3@18"
874
1188
580
-18
867
-12
529
18"X30"
1.59
10-#11
NO #4@18"
E6E5
18"X30"
66
10-#9 24#3@18"
702
1188
347
-15
874
-10
580
8 1887 5
7 1977 5
18"X30"
1.66
10-#11
NO #4@18"
E6
60
20
982
347
1398
D4
18"X30"
10-#11
D5D4
66
18"X30"
1188
242
D6D5
66
18"X30"
10-#11 24#4@18"
10-#9 24#3@18"
#4@18"
897
E2D6
60
18"X30"
E3E2
533
22
702
1.42
NO
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Introduction
Project Overview
Scope of Work
Structural Depth Study
Building Site Relocation
Existing Structure
Gravity Framing for 3-story Addition
Redesign of Supporting Gravity Systems
Design of Lateral Force Resisting Systems
Determination of Effective LFRS
Architectural Breadth
Evaluation of LFRS Relocation
Construction Management Breadth
Evaluation of Cost due to 3-story Addition
Evaluation of Benefits to Owner
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Questions
ETABS MODELS
GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
 Only lateral members were modeled
 Floor diaphragms were modeled as rigid area elements
 Gravity loads were applied as additional area masses
BRACED FRAME ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
 Column splices and beam-to-column connections were assumed rigid
 Braces were released of end fixity
SHEAR WALL ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
 Walls were modeled as area objects, meshed with maximum 48”X48” dimensions
 Walls were modeled to only resist in-plane shear
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Introduction
Project Overview
Scope of Work
Structural Depth Study
Building Site Relocation
Existing Structure
Gravity Framing for 3-story Addition
Redesign of Supporting Gravity Systems
Design of Lateral Force Resisting Systems
Determination of Effective LFRS
Architectural Breadth
Evaluation of LFRS Relocation
Construction Management Breadth
Evaluation of Cost due to 3-story Addition
Evaluation of Benefits to Owner
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Questions
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
CONTROLLING LOAD CASES
DESIGN WIND LOADS
 Design wind load cases were calculated by hand and applied manually
DESIGN SEISMIC LOADS
 Design seismic load cases were calculated by hand and applied manually
 Seismic accidental torsion was calculated by hand applied manually
 Assumed inherent torsion was accounted for by ETABS
BASE SHEAR, V X (k)
BASE SHEAR, V Y (k)
LOAD
CASE
SHEAR
WALL
TECH III
BRACED
FRAME
SHEAR
WALL
TECH III
BRACED
FRAME
EX
-324
-221
-245
0
0
0
EY
0
0
0
-392
360
-367
CASE1X
-393
-337
-393
0
0
0
CASE1Y
0
0
0
-448
-361
-448
CASE2X
-393
-253
-393
0
0
0
CASE2Y
0
0
0
-336
-270
-336
CASE3
-295
-253
-295
-336
-270
-336
CASE4
-221
-188
-221
-252
-204
-252
Introduction
Project Overview
Scope of Work
Structural Depth Study
Building Site Relocation
Existing Structure
Gravity Framing for 3-story Addition
Redesign of Supporting Gravity Systems
Design of Lateral Force Resisting Systems
Determination of Effective LFRS
Architectural Breadth
Evaluation of LFRS Relocation
Construction Management Breadth
Evaluation of Cost due to 3-story Addition
Evaluation of Benefits to Owner
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Questions
RELATIVE STORY STIFFNESS, Ri
FRAME 4
LEVEL
DESIGN OF BRACED FRAME
LFRS
BRACED
FRAME
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
FRAME 5.1
TECH III
BRACED
FRAME
TECH III
ROOF
0.42
---
0.58
---
10
0.42
---
0.58
---
9
0.42
---
0.58
---
8 as its 0.43
0.45 reasons
 Maintained design of a LFRS core as well
existing 0.55
location0.57
for practical
 Special attention paid to torsional effects
7
0.44
0.55
0.56
0.45
6
0.47
0.55
0.53
0.45
5
0.51
0.55
0.49
0.45
4
0.59
0.38
0.41
0.62
3
0.60
0.38
0.40
0.62
2
0.59
0.38
0.41
0.62
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Introduction
Project Overview
Scope of Work
Structural Depth Study
Building Site Relocation
Existing Structure
Gravity Framing for 3-story Addition
Redesign of Supporting Gravity Systems
Design of Lateral Force Resisting Systems
Determination of Effective LFRS
Architectural Breadth
Evaluation of LFRS Relocation
Construction Management Breadth
Evaluation of Cost due to 3-story Addition
Evaluation of Benefits to Owner
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Questions
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
FINAL DESIGN OF BRACED FRAME LFRS
Introduction
Project Overview
Scope of Work
Structural Depth Study
Building Site Relocation
Existing Structure
Gravity Framing for 3-story Addition
Redesign of Supporting Gravity Systems
Design of Lateral Force Resisting Systems
Determination of Effective LFRS
Architectural Breadth
Evaluation of LFRS Relocation
Construction Management Breadth
Evaluation of Cost due to 3-story Addition
Evaluation of Benefits to Owner
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Questions
FINAL DESIGN
 Controlling wind design base shear: 448 kips
 Design values determined via ETABS model and hand calculations
 Designs of steel members verified through hand checks based on
Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, 2005 (AISC 360-05)
COLUMN LINE 4
COLUMN LINE 5.1
COLUMN LINE C
COLUMN LINE D
RELATIVE STORY STIFFNESS, Ri
LEVEL
DESIGN OF SHEAR WALL LFRS
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
COLUMN LINE 4
SHEAR
WALL
ROOF
COLUMN LINE 5.1
TECH III
SHEAR
WALL
TECH III
0.5
---
0.5
---
10
0.5
---
0.5
---
9
0.5
---
0.5
---
8 location
0.5 for practical
0.55 reasons
0.5
 Maintained design of a LFRS core as well as its existing
 Accommodated existing architectural floor plans
7
0.5
0.55
0.5
 Special attention paid to torsional effects
6
0.5
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.45
0.45
5
0.5
0.55
0.5
0.45
4
0.5
0.38
0.5
0.62
3
0.5
0.38
0.5
0.62
2
0.5
0.38
0.5
0.62
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Introduction
Project Overview
Scope of Work
Structural Depth Study
Building Site Relocation
Existing Structure
Gravity Framing for 3-story Addition
Redesign of Supporting Gravity Systems
Design of Lateral Force Resisting Systems
Determination of Effective LFRS
Architectural Breadth
Evaluation of LFRS Relocation
Construction Management Breadth
Evaluation of Cost due to 3-story Addition
Evaluation of Benefits to Owner
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Questions
FINAL DESIGN OF SHEAR WALL LFRS
FINAL DESIGN
 Controlling wind design base shear: 448 kips
 Design values determined via ETABS model and hand calculations
 Steel reinforcement designed according to Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete, 2008 (ACI 318-08)
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Introduction
Project Overview
Scope of Work
Structural Depth Study
Building Site Relocation
Existing Structure
Gravity Framing for 3-story Addition
Redesign of Supporting Gravity Systems
Design of Lateral Force Resisting Systems
Determination of Effective LFRS
Architectural Breadth
Evaluation of LFRS Relocation
Construction Management Breadth
Evaluation of Cost due to 3-story Addition
Evaluation of Benefits to Owner
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Questions
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
FINAL DESIGN OF SHEAR WALL LFRS
FINAL SHEAR WALL DESIGN
 18” thick walls
 Designed both shear and flexural reinforcement
 Uplift was accounted for in design of flexural reinforcement
 Flexural reinforcement design was verified in PCA Column
C
18
25.2
0.701
851
1322
FACTORED
MOMENT
DUE TO
WIND,
Muw=1.6Mw
(k)
27246
1081
979
102
1.89
D
18
25.2
0.701
851
1322
26813
1064
979
85
1.57
C
18
5.4
0.701
182
194
6521
1208
758
450
8.32
D
18
8.8497
0.701
299
318
6521
737
820
-83
-1.54
DIRECTION
WALL THICKNESS, WALL LENGTH,
WALL ASSEMBLY
OF LOADING
h (in)
lw (ft)
Y
X
TOTAL
DEAD
LOAD, w D
(ksf)
SW OF
SHEAR
WALL, Dsw
(k)
0.9D (k)
SHEAR
WALL
f'c
SW-4.1
Muw/lw (k)
1
TENSION, T
/2(0.9D) (k)
(k)
FLEXURAL
STEEL, A s
(in2)
A s =T/Фf y
REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE
A (ft)
A Vertical
Horizontal
Vertical
6 ksi
1'-7"
(10)#9
(2)#6 @ 14"
(2)#6 @ 18"
SW-C
6 ksi
---
---
(2)#6 @ 18"
(2)#6 @ 18"
SW-5.1.1
6 ksi
1'-7"
(10)#9
(2)#6 @ 18"
(2)#6 @ 18"
Introduction
Project Overview
Scope of Work
Structural Depth Study
Building Site Relocation
Existing Structure
Gravity Framing for 3-story Addition
Redesign of Supporting Gravity Systems
Design of Lateral Force Resisting Systems
Determination of Effective LFRS
Architectural Breadth
Evaluation of LFRS Relocation
Construction Management Breadth
Evaluation of Cost due to 3-story Addition
Evaluation of Benefits to Owner
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Questions
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
FINAL DESIGN OF SHEAR WALL LFRS
Introduction
Project Overview
Scope of Work
Structural Depth Study
Building Site Relocation
Existing Structure
Gravity Framing for 3-story Addition
Redesign of Supporting Gravity Systems
Design of Lateral Force Resisting Systems
Determination of Effective LFRS
Architectural Breadth
Evaluation of LFRS Relocation
Construction Management Breadth
Evaluation of Cost due to 3-story Addition
Evaluation of Benefits to Owner
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Questions
FINAL COUPLING BEAM DESIGN
 18” in width, 24” in depth (typical)
 Designed both shear and flexural reinforcement
 Not specially detailed for seismic
COUPLING
BEAM
w (in)
d (in)
TOP BARS
BOTTOM BARS
TYPICAL
18
24
(4)#9
(4)#9
STIRRUPS
SIZE
SPACING
#3
@ 10" o.c.
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
DETERMINATION OF EFFECTIVE LFRS
X-DIRECTIONAL LOADING
4
COLUMN LINE
DESIGN
CONSIDERATIONS
LEVEL
FRAME
WALL
FRAME
5.1
C
WALL
FRAME
ROOF
System that
resists
loads 2.12
2.10 adequately
3.50
1.44 lateral
3.50
4.24 reduces
6.87the direct
3.02 effects
6.87of torsion
4.40
 10
System that
D
WALL
FRAME
WALL
4.58
1.90
2.93
8.96
3.81
5.75
9
4.29
6.65
3.18
6.65
4.60
8.64
3.80
5.60
8
4.55
6.48
3.61
6.48
5.10
8.39
3.97
5.50
7
4.84
8.12
4.07
5.40
6
5.34
7.81
4.65
5.32
6.33
5.23
5
6.31
Ftotal
6.13
5.68
= 4.05
Fdirect +6.31
Ftorsional
4.91
6.13
6.43
6.12 Fdirect
5.90= Viki6.40
5.90
Where,
and Ftorsional
=7.09
kixi(Vi7.41
ey/Ji)
4
8.21
10.44
8.50
10.44
9.31
12.81
9.29
9.56
3
10.37
11.79
9.66
11.79
11.06
13.91
11.04
11.35
2
11.39
11.26
9.57
11.26
11.37
12.53
11.34
11.59
Y-DIRECTIONAL LOADING
4
COLUMN LINE
5.1
C
D
LEVEL
FRAME
WALL
FRAME
WALL
FRAME
WALL
FRAME
WALL
ROOF
0.43
1.47
0.29
1.47
0.43
1.92
0.38
1.92
10
1.06
2.83
0.76
2.83
1.11
3.70
0.96
3.70
9
1.34
2.70
1.00
2.70
1.44
3.51
1.19
3.51
8
1.68
2.57
1.33
2.57
1.89
3.32
1.47
3.32
7
2.12
2.41
1.78
2.41
2.49
3.10
1.79
3.10
6
1.95
2.21
1.79
2.21
2.34
2.81
1.69
2.81
5
0.63
1.93
0.66
1.93
0.73
2.42
0.65
2.42
4
0.01
1.56
0.01
1.56
0.01
1.91
0.01
1.91
3
0.01
1.02
0.01
1.02
0.01
1.20
0.01
1.20
2
0.01
0.38
0.01
0.38
0.01
0.42
0.01
0.42
Introduction
Project Overview
Scope of Work
Structural Depth Study
Building Site Relocation
Existing Structure
Gravity Framing for 3-story Addition
Redesign of Supporting Gravity Systems
Design of Lateral Force Resisting Systems
Determination of Effective LFRS
Architectural Breadth
Evaluation of LFRS Relocation
Construction Management Breadth
Evaluation of Cost due to 3-story Addition
Evaluation of Benefits to Owner
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Questions
ARCHITECTURAL BREADTH
EVALUATION OF LFRS RELOCATION
 Feasibility initially assumed
 Practical relocations of LFRS create greater eccentricities or interrupt exterior façade
 Elimination of core and scattered lateral system interrupts open office floor plans
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Introduction
Project Overview
Scope of Work
Structural Depth Study
Building Site Relocation
Existing Structure
Gravity Framing for 3-story Addition
Redesign of Supporting Gravity Systems
Design of Lateral Force Resisting Systems
Determination of Effective LFRS
Architectural Breadth
Evaluation of LFRS Relocation
Construction Management Breadth
Evaluation of Cost due to 3-story Addition
Evaluation of Benefits to Owner
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Questions
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT BREADTH
ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
 Existing schedule and cost information was not attainable
 Cost Works, a program created by RS Means used in analysis
 Steel and area take-offs as computed by RAM
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Introduction
Project Overview
Scope of Work
Structural Depth Study
Building Site Relocation
Existing Structure
Gravity Framing for 3-story Addition
Redesign of Supporting Gravity Systems
Design of Lateral Force Resisting Systems
Determination of Effective LFRS
Architectural Breadth
Evaluation of LFRS Relocation
Construction Management Breadth
Evaluation of Cost due to 3-story Addition
Evaluation of Benefits to Owner
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Questions
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT BREADTH
IMPACT OF 3-STORY ADDITION ON COST OF STRUCTURAL SYSTEM
TOTAL
NUMBER OF
STUDS
CONDITION
STEEL BEAM
TAKEOFF (lbs)
STEEL COLUMN
TAKEOFF(lbs)
TOTAL STEEL
TAKEOFF (tons)
EXISTING
938435
181865
560
$
1,907,264.00
12816
$
26,400.00
$
1,933,664.00
PROPOSED
1276265
392995
835
$
2,843,868.00
17892
$
36,858.00
$
2,880,726.00
ADDITIONAL COST: $
947,062.00
TOTAL AREA OF METAL
DECKING PER FLOOR
(ft2)
13430
COST OF METAL
DECKING PER FLOOR
$
41,633.00
TOTAL CONCRETE PER FLOOR
(c.y.)
144
COST OF CONCRETE
PER FLOOR
$
15,376.00
TOTAL COST OF
STEEL
NUMBER OF FLOORS
3
TOTAL COST
OF STUDS
TOTAL COST
TOTAL COST
$
171,027.00
ADDITIONAL COST: $
171,027.00
TOTAL ADDITIONAL COST: $1,120,000
Introduction
Project Overview
Scope of Work
Structural Depth Study
Building Site Relocation
Existing Structure
Gravity Framing for 3-story Addition
Redesign of Supporting Gravity Systems
Design of Lateral Force Resisting Systems
Determination of Effective LFRS
Architectural Breadth
Evaluation of LFRS Relocation
Construction Management Breadth
Evaluation of Cost due to 3-story Addition
Evaluation of Benefits to Owner
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Questions
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT BREADTH
BENEFIT OF 3-STORY ADDITION TO OWNER
CONDITION
EXISTING
REPORTED
PROJECTED TOTAL
COST
$
PROPOSED
CONDITION
17,500,000.00
---
RENTAL RATE (per
ft2 per year)
TOTAL COST VIA COST
WORKS
SCALE FACTOR
$
19,921,000.00
$
23,109,500.00
SCALED TOTAL COST
$
17,500,000.000
$
20,301,001.46
ADDITIONAL COSTS: $
2,801,001.46
0.878
TOTAL RENTABLE SPACE
PAY BACK
ANNUAL PROFITS SCALED TOTAL COST
(ft2)
PERIOD (yrs)
EXISTING
$
18.30
107250
$
1,962,675.00
$
17,500,000.000
8.9
PROPOSED
$
18.30
147030
$
2,690,649.00
$
20,301,001.46
7.5
Introduction
Project Overview
Scope of Work
Structural Depth Study
Building Site Relocation
Existing Structure
Gravity Framing for 3-story Addition
Redesign of Supporting Gravity Systems
Design of Lateral Force Resisting Systems
Determination of Effective LFRS
Architectural Breadth
Evaluation of LFRS Relocation
Construction Management Breadth
Evaluation of Cost due to 3-story Addition
Evaluation of Benefits to Owner
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Questions
CONCLUSIONS
 A 3-story addition forces the redesign of the supporting above and below grade gravity systems
 Redesign of drilled caisson foundation system is necessary
 Braced frame lateral system determined most effective in reducing direct affects of torsion after
comparative analysis of calculated torsional shears
 The relocation of the LFRS core not structurally feasible
 The design of a scattered LFRS is not architecturally feasible
 Although the 3-story addition adversely impacts the final building cost, the owner benefits from the
increased cost through increased profits allowing for a shorter pay-back period
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Introduction
Project Overview
Scope of Work
Structural Depth Study
Building Site Relocation
Existing Structure
Gravity Framing for 3-story Addition
Redesign of Supporting Gravity Systems
Design of Lateral Force Resisting Systems
Determination of Effective LFRS
Architectural Breadth
Evaluation of LFRS Relocation
Construction Management Breadth
Evaluation of Cost due to 3-story Addition
Evaluation of Benefits to Owner
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Questions
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the following individuals and companies for the steadfast support they offered
throughout the duration of the thesis process:
The Elmhurst Group
Atlantic Engineering Services
The Pennsylvania State University
Andy Gildersleeve
Andy Verrengia
The entire AE Faculty
Professor Parfitt
And lastly, my family and friends for their unconditional support and encouragement.
Introduction
Project Overview
Scope of Work
Structural Depth Study
Building Site Relocation
Existing Structure
Gravity Framing for 3-story Addition
Redesign of Supporting Gravity Systems
Design of Lateral Force Resisting Systems
Determination of Effective LFRS
Architectural Breadth
Evaluation of LFRS Relocation
Construction Management Breadth
Evaluation of Cost due to 3-story Addition
Evaluation of Benefits to Owner
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Questions
QUESTIONS?
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Introduction
Project Overview
Scope of Work
Structural Depth Study
Building Site Relocation
Existing Structure
Gravity Framing for 3-story Addition
Redesign of Supporting Gravity Systems
Design of Lateral Force Resisting Systems
Determination of Effective LFRS
Architectural Breadth
Evaluation of LFRS Relocation
Construction Management Breadth
Evaluation of Cost due to 3-story Addition
Evaluation of Benefits to Owner
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Questions