The Residences at Christina Landing

Food Sciences Building

Pamela A. MorrisStructural Emphasis

Wilmington, DE

Renderings provided by KLING

AE Senior ThesisApril 12, 2005

Acknowledgements

The Buccini / Pollin Group

The Gilbane Building Company

Kling

Program

1. Project Introduction

2. Structural Existing Conditions

3. Problem Statement

4. Proposed Structural System

5. Architecture

6. Fire Protection

7. Cost and Schedule Analysis

8. Conclusion

Program

1. Project Introduction

2. Structural Existing Conditions

3. Problem Statement

4. Proposed Structural System

5. Architecture

6. Fire Protection

7. Cost and Schedule Analysis

8. Conclusion

Project IntroductionGeneral Project DataProject Name: The Residences at Christina Landing

Scope: 228,884 SF Residential with Limited Commercial

Cost: $32,800,000

Owner: The Buccini / Pollin Hotel Partners III, LLC

Architect / Engineer: KLING

Contractor / CM: Gilbane Building Company

Project IntroductionScope DetailGeneral: 173 one and two bedroom apartments, fitness center, great room, and on-site parking

Building Height: 240’ to top of high parapet

Typical Floor to Floor Height: 10’

Typical Floor Square Footage: 12,012 SF

TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN

Program

1. Project Introduction

2. Structural Existing Conditions

3. Problem Statement

4. Proposed Structural System

5. Architecture

6. Fire Protection

7. Cost and Schedule Analysis

8. Conclusion

Structural Existing ConditionsGeneral Structural DataBuilding Code : BOCA 1996 with City of Wilmington Amendments

Beam Deflection Criteria: Must meet L/ 360 for support of deflection sensitive materials

Load Combinations:1.4 D

1.2 D + 1.6 L

1.2 D + 0.5 Lr +/- 1.3 W

1.2 D +/- 1.3 W

0.9 D +/- 1.3 W

Loads Considered:

LIVE, DEAD, WIND, SNOW, ROOF LIVE, SEISMIC

Loads Used:

LIVE, DEAD, ROOF LIVE, WIND

Structural Existing ConditionsSitePrevious Use: Concrete Batch Plant

Surface Materials: 2” Asphalt over 8” Concrete Slab

Subsurface Materials: Concrete Fill, Stone, and Soil Materials

Underlying Natural Soils: Silty & Clayey Sand AND Hard Silt OVER Sand

Underlying Natural Rock: Gneiss (fractured in certain areas)

Depth – 48’ to 69’ below surface

Structural Existing ConditionsFoundation System• Steel H Piles (175 ton Capacity)

• Average Depth = 70’

• Reinforced Concrete Pile Caps and Grade Beams

• Site conditions caused unforeseen difficulties

• Piles vibrated into soil not driven

Structural Existing ConditionsGravity System• Square or Circular Cast-In-Place Reinforced Concrete Columns

• 8” Two-way Reinforced Concrete Flat Slabs

• Meets deflection criteria

TYPICAL FLOOR FRAMING PLAN

Structural Existing ConditionsLateral System• 12” Cast-In-Place Reinforced Concrete Shearwall Core

• Extends Full Height of Building

• Located Centrally along West Wall

Program

2. Structural Existing Conditions

3. Problem Statement

4. Proposed Structural System

5. Architecture

6. Fire Protection

7. Cost and Schedule Analysis

8. Conclusion

1. Project Introduction

Problem StatementA comparison of both the materials cost estimate and schedule ofconstruction between the existing concrete system and the proposed steel system will determine if the steel system is feasible.

WILL THE PROPOSED STEEL SYSTEM AFFECT COST AND SCHEDULE?

WILL THE PROPOSED STEEL SYSTEM WORK WITH EXISTING ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES?

Program

2. Structural Existing Conditions

3. Problem Statement

4. Proposed Structural System

5. Architecture

6. Fire Protection

7. Cost and Schedule Analysis

8. Conclusion

1. Project Introduction

Proposed Structural System

LIVE LOAD:Public = 100 psf

Private = 40 psf

DEAD LOAD = 20 psf

ROOF LIVE LOAD = 150 psf (for mechanical equipment)

WIND LOAD = 39 psf max

General Structural DataBuilding Code : BOCA 1996 with AISC LRFD Steel Standards

Beam Deflection Criteria: Must meet L/ 360 for support of deflection sensitive materials

DESIGNED IN RAM STRUCTURAL SYSTEM

6 DIFFERENT FLOOR TYPES:1. SECOND

2. TYPICAL

3. 20TH (load transfer from penthouse floors)

4. LOWER PENTHOUSE

5. UPPER PENTHOUSE

6. UPPER ROOF

Proposed Structural SystemPossible Gravity Systems Studied• Two-way Waffle Flat Slab (CONCRETE SYSTEM - NOT CONSIDERED)

• One-way Concrete Joists (CONCRETE SYSTEM - NOT CONSIDERED)

• Non-Composite Beams with Non-Composite Deck

• Composite Beams with Composite Deck

• Steel Joists with Non-Composite Deck (DEFLECTION CRITERIA - NOT CONSIDERED)

Existing System

Non-Composite Beams with Non-Composite Deck

Composite Beams with Composite Deck

+

Typical Bay: Column Lines 6-7 and A-B

Proposed Structural SystemGravity System• Composite Steel Beams with Non-Composite Steel Deck

• All Members are W Shapes

• Deck: 3” concrete topping/ welded wire mesh, 6” total depth

• BOCA 96 Load Combinations

• AISC LRFD Method for economy of members

• May need to look at vibration control on second floor

• Meets Deflection Criteria

• Decreases overall weight of building

• May require more uplift control

← Typical Bay from

Studied Systems

Proposed Structural SystemLateral System• Not Emphasized But Considered for Cost Comparison

• Braced Frames In Place of Existing Shearwall Core

• Braced Frames Around Stairwells and Elevator Shafts

• Designed for Wind Resistance NOT Seismic

• All Members are W Shapes

• Does NOT meet Steel Code for Lateral Force Resistance

• Larger Members Required to meet Code

Typical Frame Layout Plan

Program

2. Structural Existing Conditions

3. Problem Statement

4. Proposed Structural System

5. Architecture

6. Fire Protection

7. Cost and Schedule Analysis

8. Conclusion

1. Project Introduction

ArchitectureChanges• Floorplans / Elevations

• Building Height

Floorplans

Steel Columns placed directly where Concrete Columns were in existing system.• May require more “cover-up” for aesthetics

Elevations

Overall Look stays same.• Pre-cast concrete architectural panels in Curtain Wall System

• Panels need to be adjusted to compensate for new floor to floor height

Building Height

Increases to compensate for increased plenum space.• Typical Floor to Floor height: 12’ instead of 10’

• Overall height: 275’ instead of 240’

Program

2. Structural Existing Conditions

3. Problem Statement

4. Proposed Structural System

5. Architecture

6. Fire Protection

7. Cost and Schedule Analysis

8. Conclusion

1. Project Introduction

Fire ProtectionGeneral DetailsCodes: BOCA 96 and NFPA Life Safety Code

Minimum Fire Resistance Rating: 2 hours

Proposed System• Steel Structural System – Protection required

• Spray Applied Cementitious Fireproofing Agent for all exposed surfaces – Average Thickness 1 5/8”

• Uses same Automatic Sprinkler System

• Uses same Egress Plans

Existing System:• Concrete Structural System – NO Protection required

• Automatic Sprinkler System

• Egress Plans Satisfy LSC

COST OF FIRE PROOFING

$520,309

Monokote® Fireproofing - the world's most widely specified spray applied cementitious fireproofing

RS Means: $$/ BF of steel

Program

2. Structural Existing Conditions

3. Problem Statement

4. Proposed Structural System

5. Architecture

6. Fire Protection

7. Cost and Schedule Analysis

8. Conclusion

1. Project Introduction

Cost and Schedule AnalysisExisting SystemTotal Cost of Structural System: $6,172,851 (includes Labor and Materials)

Due to unforeseen complications with the foundation system the structural system is possibly 0 - 4 weeks behind.

Start: October 12, 2003

Finish: April 4, 2005

Substantial Completion: December 1, 2005

SCHEDULE OF CONSTRUCTION

Cost and Schedule AnalysisProposed SystemTotal Cost of Structural System: $4,134,730 (includes Labor, Materials, and Fire Protection)

Cost will increase with Lateral Member Size, which will need to increase for Code Requirements.

Does NOT include complex Connections.

Lead Time: 7 months (mill - 10 weeks / fabrication - 18 weeks)

RS Means: Crane averages 45 pieces/ day

Start: October 12, 2003

Finish: August 12, 2005

Substantial Completion:

April 2006

SCHEDULE OF CONSTRUCTION(Steel NOT Ordered Prior)

Start: October 12, 2003

Finish: January 14, 2005

Substantial Completion:

September 2005

SCHEDULE OF CONSTRUCTION(Steel Ordered Prior)

Cost and Schedule Analysis

Steel Ordered Prior: - 3 months

Steel NOT Ordered Prior: +4 months

Finish: April 4, 2005

Substantial Completion:

December 2005

EXISTING SYSTEM

Finish: January 14, 2005

Substantial Completion:

September 2005

PROPOSED SYTEM

$6,172,851 $4,134,730COST:

SCHEDULE:

DIFFERENCE: - $2,038,121

Comparison of Existing and Proposed• Total Cost of Structural System

• Schedule of Construction

Increased cost of lateral system due to member sizes should not create more than 50% increase in price, based on the fact that the steel for lateral system is not more than 50% of entire steel. The steel system should still cost less than the existing.

Program

2. Structural Existing Conditions

3. Problem Statement

4. Proposed Structural System

5. Architecture

6. Fire Protection

7. Cost and Schedule Analysis

8. Conclusion

1. Project Introduction

ConclusionWith Respect To:• Architecture

• Schedule

• Cost

COSTSteel System costs less with Today’s steel prices as opposed to 2003 steel prices

ARCHITECTUREOriginal Aesthetic Intact

Minor Changes To:

• building height

• “cover up” of less than pleasurable sight of steel members

SCHEDULESteel System finishes approximately 3 months prior to Existing System

Suggest using steel system

Thank You

Questions?