Introduction Joshua Castillo Construction Management Center for Creative and Performing Arts High...
-
Upload
jocelin-carson -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Introduction Joshua Castillo Construction Management Center for Creative and Performing Arts High...
IntroductionIntroduction
Joshua CastilloJoshua Castillo
Construction ManagementConstruction Management
Center for Creative and Performing Arts High School
(CAPA High School)Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
AgendaAgenda
• General Project Information• Existing Building Systems• Foundation Analysis• Site Plan Analysis• “Astrovision” Video Screen Analysis• Conclusions
General Project InformationGeneral Project Information
• Existing Site and Old Building– Downtown Pittsburgh– Adjacent to Allegheny River– Donation of Site and part of
Existing Building– Existing Building Usage
• Bar and Lounge 1st Floor • Jazz Club 2nd and 3rd Floors• CAPA use Floors 4-6• Unoccupied 7th and 8th Floors• Residence on 9th Floor Penthouse
General Project InformationGeneral Project Information
• New CAPA Building– Approximately 120,000 SF,
7 Stories– Full- Functioning High
School Including:• Classrooms and Labs
• Staff and Faculty Offices
• Cafeteria and Gym
• Below Grade Parking Lot
– Focus in Creative and Performing Arts
• 5,500 SF Theater
• 4 Studios
RENDITION OF CAPA BUILDING
Existing Building SystemsExisting Building Systems
• Foundation System– Caissons with spanning Grade Beams– Slab on Grade and CIP Concrete Walls Below Grade
• Framing System– A36 Steel Framing and Details
• Mechanical systems– Complete with 2 AHU, air Distribution Ducts, Diffusers,
Registers, Dampers, and Grilles
• Electrical systems– Dry-Type Distribution Transformers – Low Volt Distribution Switch Boards– Light and Power Panel Boards for Wiring
Existing Building SystemsExisting Building Systems
• Façade Systems– East Side:
• CMU on Entire Side adjacent to Feiser Building
– West Side: • Brick and Aluminum Windows
– South Side:• Same as West other than Building
Connection to Existing
– North Side:• Glass Curtain Wall Spanning Height
• “Astrovision” Video Display Screen
• Brick and Aluminum Windows
Connection to Existing Building
Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis
• CAPA Originally Designed with Caissons– Caisson Construction Methods
• Drill Holes• Reinforce Walls to Prevent Collapsing• Pump Water Out• Place Steel Reinforcing• Place Concrete
Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis
• Problems with Using Caissons – Difficult to Construct in unstable Soil Conditions
• High Water Table • Steel Casing as Hole Wall supports• Pump Water or use Tremie Method to Place
Concrete
– Variable Construction • Eight Sizes of Caisson Diameters Ranging from
2 ½ ft to 6 ½ ft across the site
Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis
• Problems with Using Caissons– Duration of Installation
• Time to Install Steel Casing• Time to Pump Water• Drill, Reinforce Hole Walls, Place Steel
Reinforcing, then Pour Concrete
Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis
• Auger Cast Piles (ACP’s) as an Alternative– Auger Cast Pile Construction Method
• Drill Hole• Concrete Placed as Drill Bit is Removed• Steel Reinforcing Placed after Concrete is Placed• ACP’s used in a Cluster require a Pile Cap to tie them
together
1.Drill Bit
2.Pressurized Concrete
3.Auger Cast Pile
Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis
• Using ACP’s as an Alternative Foundation– General Benefits of Using ACP’s
• Speed of Installation• Less Material Costs• Bearing Capacity • Overall Reduced Costs
– Problems with Using ACP’s• Susceptible to Variability• More ACP’s Required than Caissons
Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis
• Comparing the Two Foundation Systems
Caissons VS Auger Cast Piles
– Structural Bearing Capacity– Cost differences in Material and Construction– Constructability and Length of Time to Install
Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis• General Bearing Capacity
QUltimate = QP + QS
= AP(CNC+ ЧLNq + ЧNЧ) + Σ∆L(AS)S• Surface-Friction per Unit Area
S = KS σ Tan∂ where: KS = Ave. Coeff. of Earth Pressure on Pile
Shaft
Steel Lined Caissons KS=1.1Concrete Alone KS=1.5
*ACP’s can have 36% more Surface-Friction Bearing Capacity than Steel lined Caissons
Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis
QUltimate = AP(CNC+ ЧLNq + ЧNЧ) + ASFS
Average Unit Surface-Friction
FS= C+ ½ KS(Ч-G) L (tan Ø)
Assumptions: Ø = 12°
C = 6 KN/m^2
Ч = 18 KN/m^3
Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis
• Ultimate Bearing Capacity Comparison– Average Length of 50 Feet– 24” Diameter
• Surface-Friction ComparisonCaissons FS = 20.5 KN/m^2
ACP’s FS = 25.85 KN/m^2
Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis
• Ultimate Bearing Capacity ComparisonQUltimate = AP(CNC+ ЧLNq + ЧNЧ) + ASFS
Caissons QUlt = QP + QS
= 140.3 + 598.6 =738.9 KN =168 kips
ACP’s QUlt = QP + QS
= 140.3 + 753 = 893.3 KN =200 kips
Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis
• Pile Cap Design– Based on # of Piles / Cluster– All Pile Caps used were 49” deep– Four different pile layouts– Four different size pile caps
Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis
Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis
• Foundation Cost Comparison– System Estimates Using:
• Means Cost Guides• Walker’s Building Estimating• General Contractor Consulting
Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis
• Means Cost Guide Results
Total Cost
Caissons System $900,000
Auger Cast Pile System $500,000
Difference $400,000
Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis
• Duration of Foundation Construction– Foundation System Duration Estimates Using:
• Means Cost Guides• General Contractor Consulting
Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis
• Means Cost Guide Duration Results
Total Duration
Caissons 60 work days
Auger Cast Piles 40 work days
Difference 20 work days/ 4 Weeks
Site Plan ModificationSite Plan Modification
• A Discrepancy Affecting the Site Layout– Location of Existing Sanitary Sewer Line
• Located 5 Feet closer to Building than shown on Drawings
• Changes that were Made– Redesign of shoring system– Hand Excavation
Site Plan ModificationSite Plan Modification• Location of Foundation Problem
– West Side Caissons are too Close to Sewer Line
Site Plan ModificationSite Plan Modification• 1st Possibility
– Reduce Width of Entire Vault Area 1-2 ft – Leave Caissons/Piles at the edge
Site Plan ModificationSite Plan Modification
• Effects of Reducing Vault Area Width– Positive Effects
• Less Congestion for Foundation Installation• No Change in Building Superstructure
– Negative Effects• Vault Area Will be More Congested• Vault is Pre-cast Concrete
Site Plan ModificationSite Plan Modification
• 2nd Possibility – Move West Side Caissons/Piles East 5 ft
Site Plan ModificationSite Plan Modification
• Effects of Partial Foundation Relocation– Positive Effects
• Less Congestion for Foundation Installation• Building Superstructure Stays the Same
– Negative Effects• Located in the Central Axis of the Vault Area• Creates 1 to 1 Cantilever on Grade Beams
Site Plan ModificationSite Plan Modification
• Solution– Move West Side Foundation Piers 5ft East– Move Entire Vault Area 10 ft South
““Astrovision” Video Display Screen AnalysisAstrovision” Video Display Screen Analysis
• What is it?– 22ft X 37ft Video
Screen– 112 Individual Modules
““Astrovision” Video Display Screen AnalysisAstrovision” Video Display Screen Analysis
• Problem With Screen Design– No Outlet to Disperse Heat Generated
• Could Cause Damage to the Screen• Could Cause Excess Heat in Building
• Possible Solution– Add Louvers to Disperse Heat
““Astrovision” Video Display Screen AnalysisAstrovision” Video Display Screen Analysis
• Effects of Adding Louvers– Screen is Able to be Cooled
• Eliminates Potential Damage to Itself• Better Chance of Lasting Expected Lifetime• Eliminates Excess Heat Exposure of Building
– Reduced Screen Size to Account for Louvers• Loss of 3 Lines of Screen Modules (21 Modules)
““Astrovision” Video Display Screen AnalysisAstrovision” Video Display Screen Analysis
• Effects of Adding Louvers– Reduced Screen Size
• Loss in Aesthetical Quality of Screen
• Overall Cost of Screen is Reduced
– Added Cost of Louvers
““Astrovision” Video Display Screen AnalysisAstrovision” Video Display Screen Analysis
• Change in Cost With Louvers
Total Cost
21 Screen Modules $200,000
Louvers $10,000
Difference $190,000
ConclusionsConclusions• Foundation Analysis
PROS– ACP’s have Better Surface-Friction making their Bearing Capacity higher than
Steel Lined Caissons in the right soil conditions. – Using ACP’s Would Save Money and TimeCONS– More potential for Displacement – Increased Chance of Variability in the Shafts
• Site Plan Modification– Resizing the Vault Area Would Not be a Practical solution– Relocating the Foundation Caissons Reduces the Structural Integrity of the Vault
Area– Move Entire Vault Area away from Potential Traffic Loads
• Screen Redesign with Louvers – Saves Money in Initial and Repair Costs– Loss in Aesthetical Quality
Summary of Costs
Caisson Foundation System………………………………………………… $901,442
ACP Foundation System……………………………………………………. $445,701
Savings………………………….. $455,741
Original "Astrovision" Design……………………………………………….. $1,500,000
Reduced Size "Astrovision" With Louvers………………………………… $1,299,800
Savings………………………… $200,200
Total Cost Savings ………………… $655,941
Duration of Foundation Systems
Caisson Foundation System………………………………………………… 63 Work Days
ACP Foundation System……………………………………………………. 43 Work Days
Total Time Savings………………… 20 Work Days
• AE Faculty
• Mascaro Construction– Tom Weber– Marc Delrossi – Project Engineer
• Family and Friends
Questions?Questions?