Date post: | 27-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | dora-fleming |
View: | 216 times |
Download: | 1 times |
The Food Science BuildingUniversity Park Campus, PA
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Presentation Outline
Building StatisticsExisting Structural ConditionsProposalStructural RedesignAcousticsConclusion
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Project Team
Architect: IKM Architects Incorporated
Construction Manager: Gilbane Company
Structural Engineer: H.F. Lenz
Project Manager: Richard Riccardo
Owner: The Pennsylvania State University, Office of Physical Plant
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Building Statistics
Location East Sub Campus;
corner of Bigler and Curtin Roads
FunctionCreamery Production ClassroomsOffices
Size130,000 sf
Four Stories Above Grade
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Building Statistics
ArchitectureFollows guidelines established for the East Sub Campus
~Brick Façade~Punch Windows~Glass Curtain
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Building Statistics
Architecture of the East Sub Campus
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Food Science
Forestry Building
Smeal College Of Business
Building Statistics
Dates of ConstructionStart Date: November 30, 2004Scheduled Finish: Summer 2006
Project Cost Information$45,060,000*soft costs unavailable for release
Project DeliveryGilbane is CM Agency with 17 separate Prime
Contracts
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Presentation Outline
Building StatisticsExisting Structural ConditionsProposalStructural RedesignAcousticsConclusion
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Existing Structural Conditions
FoundationPiles and Pile
CapsGrade Beams
Building Separation• Analyzed Separately
• Expansion Joint• West (rectangular)• East (L-shaped)
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Existing Structural Conditions
Gravity System
Composite BeamsComposite Floor
DeckingLightweight
Concrete Topping
Typical Bay
32’ X 29’
Lateral SystemSteel Moment
Frames ~Throughout
Building
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Presentation Outline
Building StatisticsExisting Structural ConditionsProposalStructural RedesignAcousticsConclusion
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Proposal
Steel Redesign Gravity System Redesign
~Fully Composite to Partially Composite Floor System with the objective to reduce the budget
Lateral System Redesign~Incorporate Braced Framing with the objective
to reduce the budget
Acoustic Redesign~Investigate the sound levels caused by the production
plant~Redesign according to professional recommendations
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Presentation Outline
Building StatisticsExisting Structural ConditionsProposalStructural RedesignAcousticsConclusion
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Structural System RedesignGravity System
For a full composite action the number of shear studs is chosen with the assumption that the plastic neutral axis (PNA) is in the concrete slab.
• The process of redesign for partially composite is rather arbitrary• Shear studs are chosen by the designer• The flexural capacity is less than the required
• The design is revised in one of several ways• Increasing/decreasing the number of shear studs• Increasing the beam depth• Choosing a heavier section
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Structural System RedesignGravity System Redesign
~AISC LRFD used in Redesign~Maintained Existing Column Grid
Process of Redesign~A range of typical bays were chosen
~Data used to calculated the composite action needed:
Fy=50 ksi Wu= 1.2(45psf) + 1.6(80psf) = 182 psf
f’c=3 ksi Mu= 182 psf/8 * (9.5 ft)*(32ft)2 = 221’k
WLL=80 psf
WDL= 45 psf
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Structural System Redesign
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Process of Redesign contd..With Mu = 182’k and Wu = 221’kUsing USD 2” Lock Floor; 18g Light Weight Concrete
beff= 9.5ft * (12in/ft)= 114in
= ¼ * (32ft) * (12in/ft)= 96in
Assuming a = 1”Then, Y2= 6.5” - (a/2) = 6”
Refer to Table 5-14 in the Steel Manual for Design Strength in Flexure (Composite W-Shapes)
Refer to Table 5-13 for Shear Stud Connectors for Unreduced Shear Strength
Structural System Redesign
Gravity Design ConclusionsThe previous calculation was repeated for a few
typical bays found throughout the building. Below is a chart designating the beam redesign and stud change.
RS Means. Building Construction Cost Data, 2004 was used for pricing.
Structural System Redesign
Conclusions• The number of studs can be reduced in some cases• Overall goal is to reduce cost• In some cases, reducing the number of studs does
not economically improve the budget• This procedure saved the budget $55,400
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Structural System Redesign Lateral System Redesign• Existing Moment Frames• Goal: Incorporate Braced
Frames
Moment Frame Disadvantages
• Costly due to highly specialized and labor-intensive connections
Moment Frame Cost BreakdownSmall Connections-$125• (up to 3 completed per day)
Larger Connections-$400-$500• (usually 1 completed per day)
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Structural System Redesign
Advantages of Diagonal Bracing• Much less labor involved as compared to Moment Framing• According to AISC publications, a braced frame connection
costs about ¼ to 1/3 of the price of a Moment Connection
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Structural System RedesignSimple Cost Analysis Of Diagonal Bracing
If the Moment Frames were completely replaced my Braced Frames, this project would save at least 2/3 of the budget.The budget can potentially save:
$86,250 X 1/3 = $28,750$86,250 - $28,750 = $57,500
*Due to architectural features, The Food Science Building required some moment framing, and therefore the overall savings do not reach $57,500.
The total cost of the redesigned system is $31, 375Braced Framing Cost: 80 frames * $375/3 = $10,000Moment Framing Cost: 57 frames * $375 = $21,375
Actual Savings: $54,875
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Structural Steel RedesignLateral System Redesign
The redesign was modeled using RAM Steel. • RAM analyzes each loading condition separately• Loading conditions are combined to formulate worst
possible condition for each member• To pass the interaction analysis, the values must be less
than 1.0• Higher values have more stress• Values which are too low indicate an over sizing of the beam• Values close to one are close to failing
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Structural System RedesignProposed Redesign for a more Economical Lateral
SystemBraced Frame Placement ~East End
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Structural System Redesign
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Proposed Redesign for a more Economical Lateral System
Braced Frame Placement ~ West End
Structural System Redesign
Frame Design• This frame design can be
found in the stairwell. • HSS shapes were used to
construct the braced frames throughout the building.
• Only a few ranges of HSS shapes were used• Purchasing shapes in bulk
will cut down on construction costs
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Structural System RedesignConclusions
Braced Frame Pros• Braced Frame system is very effective in controlling drift• Smaller members than a moment frame system• Monetary savings of $54,875 from connection standpoint
alone
Braced Frame Cons• Braced Frames must coordinate with the architectural
features
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Presentation Outline
Building StatisticsExisting Structural ConditionsProposalStructural RedesignAcousticsConclusion
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Acoustical Redesign
Acoustical BackgroundThe Food Science Building will not only hold
classrooms, offices, and labs, but also a creamery production plant. The building must be designed to inhibit noise created from the production plant.
Designated AreasTo better understand the acoustical design, the
project was broken up into the following areas: Private Offices Classrooms Food Production Plant
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Acoustical Redesign
Design MethodsHand CalculationsTrane Acoustics Program
Example: ClassroomGoal: To limit noise levels, allowing students and professors to enjoy an optimal acoustical environment that is conductive to focusing, interacting and general learning.
• Recommended reverberation time is 0.4-1.0• Lower Room Noise Reduction
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Acoustical RedesignClassroom Reverberation Time
Sound Absorption Coefficients at 500HZ:
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Surface
Treatment
Floor Vinyl Composite Tile
0.03
Ceiling
Acoustical Tile 0.83
Wall Paint on 5/8” Green GWB
0.08Reverberation Time, T, at 500Hz:
T = 0.78 seconds
Acceptable, but…
Acoustical RedesignClassroom Reverberation Time
Conclusion:
The reverberation time is between .4 and 1.0, and therefore is already acceptable. However, a redesign will allow sound energy to be distributed from the lectern end towards the rear end of the room.
Classroom RedesignSound absorption Coefficients at 500Hz:
Reverberation Time: 0.87 seconds
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Surface Treatment a
Bare Ceiling Plywood 0.17
Treated Ceiling
Acoustic Tile 0.85
Walls 5/8” GWB 0.08
West Wall Glass Window
0.18
Floor Vinyl Composite
Tile
0.03
Acoustical RedesignConclusion• Reverberation Time is raised 11.54% from existing
situation, which is not usually noticeable. • Room Noise Reduction: NR=0.46 dB *which is
imperceptible
These calculations show that the classroom can improve sound energy distribution without a significant impact on reverberation time or room noise.
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Presentation Outline
Building StatisticsExisting Structural ConditionsProposalStructural RedesignAcousticsConclusion
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Final Conclusions
Gravity System Redesign• Monetary Savings of $55,400
Lateral System Redesign• Monetary Savings of $54,875
• Total Structural Redesign Savings: $110,275
Acoustical Redesign• Sound Energy Distribution was improved
• Kept reverberation time within recommended limits• Room Noise Reduction changed insignificantly
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005
Acknowledgements
Architectural Engineering FacultyProf. Kevin Parfitt ~ Dr. Linda Hanagan ~ Prof.
Moses LingDr. Geschwindner ~ Dr. Memari ~ Paul Bowers
ProfessionalsRick Riccardo ~ Rob Evanko ~ Tom Deter ~
Steve Sanko
Family and FriendsJoe & Sharon Sadusky ~ Arlene Sadusky ~
Irene MallickDanielle Shetler ~ PJ Morris ~ Benjamin Ardary
Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005