Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
description
Transcript of Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Haverford CollegeHaverford, Pennsylvania
Christopher J. Shelow Structural Option
Senior Thesis Spring ‘06
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Thesis Presentation Outline
•Introduction & Building Background
•Design Professionals
•Existing Conditions
•Proposal
•Structural Study
•Construction Management Study
•Conclusions
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Introduction & Building Background
• Located on the Haverford College campus
•4-story laboratory facility w/basement
•Also contains classrooms, offices, & communal spaces
•185,423 ft2
•Directly connected to existing Hilles & Sharpless Halls
•Total project cost of $42.6 Million
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Introduction & Building Background
• Constructed in multiple phases
• Completed in 2003
• State-of-the-art laboratories
• Undergraduate & graduate research facility
• Houses seven natural science departments
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Thesis Presentation Outline
Introduction & Building Background
•Design Professionals
•Existing Conditions
•Proposal
•Structural Study
•Construction Management Study
•Conclusions
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Design Professionals
• Owner – Haverford College (Physical Plant) Haverford, PA
•Architect – Ayers/Saint/Gross (ASG) Architects & Planners Baltimore, MD
•Engineer – CUH2A Princeton, NJ
•General Contractor/CM – Skanska USA Building, Inc. Blue Bell, PA
•Laboratory Planner – Earl Walls Associates San Diego, CA
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Thesis Presentation Outline
Introduction & Building Background
Design Professionals
•Existing Conditions
•Proposal
•Structural Study
•Construction Management Study
•Conclusions
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Existing Conditions - Overview
•Superstructure – Precast concrete framing
•Foundation – CMU foundation/retaining walls, precast piers
•Floor System – 10” precast plank w/ 2” topping
•Façade – Stone & precast panels
•Roof System – Steel framing w/ metal deck; precast plank
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Existing Conditions – Floor System
•10” precast concrete hollow core plank by Strescon
•2” cast-in-place concrete topping slab
•Prestressed steel reinforcing tendons
•Typical span of 31’-6”
10”
2” Topping Slab
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Existing Conditions – Floor Framing
• Typical bay: 31’-6” X 21’-0”
• Precast beams : 24”x12” spanning 21’-0”
• Precast columns : 16”x16” & 20”x20”
• Typical story height of 13’
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Existing Conditions – Expansion Joints
• Separated by expansion joints into three independent structures
– East Wing– West Wing– Link
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Existing Conditions – Typical Floor Plan
WEST WING
LINK
EAST WING
Expansion Jts. -
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Existing Conditions – East Wing Plan
EAST WING
Typ. P.C. Beam
Typ. P.C. Column
Typ. P.C. Shear Wall
31’-5”31’-5”
13’-8”
21’
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Existing Conditions – West Wing Plan
WEST WING
Typ. P.C. Column
Typ. P.C. Shear Wall
Typ. P.C. Beam
31’-6” 31’-6”13’-8”
21’
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Existing Conditions – Link Plan
LINK
Typ. CMU Shear Wall Typ. CMU
Brg. Wall
104’
23’
25’-1
1”
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Existing Conditions – Roof System
• East & West Wings – typical steel bent frames; W-shapes
• Link – precast plank w/ topping slab
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Existing Conditions – Lateral System
• East & West Wings – 8” precast concrete shear walls
• Link – 10” CMU shear wall
WEST WING
LINK
EAST WING
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Thesis Presentation Outline
Introduction & Building Background
Design Professionals
Existing Conditions
•Proposal
•Structural Study
•Construction Management Study
•Conclusions
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Proposal – Problem Statement
Investigate an alternate system that could prove to be a more efficient system based on certain criteria
•Investigation Criteria:
– Cost of structural system
– Construction schedule duration
– Reduce loads – gravity & seismic
–Maintain existing floor layout & architecture
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Proposal – Solution Process•Gravity system designs:
– Composite slab on deck floor system– Structural steel floor framing – beams, girders, & columns– Maintain typical bay size & story height
•Lateral system designs:– Reduced seismic loads– Concentric steel braced frame system– Check drift limitations
•Construction Management comparisons:– Structural system cost– Construction schedule of structural system
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Proposal•Additional design considerations:
– All expansion joints will remain
– Existing foundation remains; lighter overall building weight
– Existing roof systems for East & West Wings remain; coincides steel framed system
– Central stair case design to remain, preserving innovative design of spiraled cantilevered stairs
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Thesis Presentation Outline
Introduction & Building Background
Design Professionals
Existing Conditions
Proposal
•Structural Study
•Construction Management Study
•Conclusions
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Structural Study – Design Codes
• 2003 International Building Code (IBC)
• AISC Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD), 3rd Edition
• ASCE 7-02 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Structural Study – Procedure
• Recalculation of gravity loads
• Create building model in RAM
• Perform RAM design of gravity members
• Recalculation of lateral loads
• Create several models of steel braced frames in STAAD Pro.
• Check drift limitations
• Calculate approximate cost of both structural systems & compare
• Create construction schedules for systems & compare
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Structural Study – Slab Design
• Slab:
4” normal weight concrete, C.I.P.
• Deck:
1.5SB Normal Wt. Composite Metal Deck – Wheeling Catalog
1 ½” depth; 20 gage
Span – 7’-0”
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Structural Study – Gravity Loads
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Structural Study – RAM Design – East Wing• Typical beam size for typical bay: W10X12
• Typical girder size for typical bay: W21X44
• Typical column sizes: W10X33 & W10X39
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Structural Study – RAM Design – West Wing• Typical beam size for typical bay: W8X10, W10X12
• Typical girder size for typical bay: W18X40
• Typical column sizes: W10X33 & W10X39
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Structural Study – RAM Design – Link
• Typical beam size for typical bay: W10X12
• Typical girder size for typical bay: W18X40
• Typical column size: W10X33
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Structural Study – Lateral Loads• Despite a lighter system, seismic still controlled
• Reduced shear on the building:
Precast Steel Precast Steel Precast SteelRoof - - - - 4th 71 73 - - 49 50 3rd 253 173 89 37 171 119 2nd 377 242 270 85 254 167
Base Shear 441 277 366 354 297 191
EAST WING WEST WINGLINK
34
7 8
9
10
1114 15
12 13
2
1
56
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Structural Study – Braced Frames Layout
N
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Structural Study – Lateral System
• Torsional components calculated for each frame
• In most, torsional forces negligible but still included
• Columns may be biaxially loaded; accounted for in STAAD design
• Strong and weak axis bending in braced frame columns
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Structural Study – Lateral System
• Frames design - concentric K-braces or X-braces
• Drift limitations - L/600
• E-W direction: typ. K-braced frames
• N-S direction: typ. X-braced frames
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Structural Study – Typical K-braced Frame
• L/600 = 1.04”
• Typ. column
W12X40
• Typ. girder
W21X44
• Typ. brace
W12X40
= 0.908”
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Structural Study – Typical X-braced Frame
• L/600 = 1.04”
• Typ. column
W12X40
• Typ. beam
W12X14
• Typ. brace
W10X49
= 0.982”
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Structural Study – 3D Models of Each Wing
West Wing Link East Wing
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Thesis Presentation Outline
Introduction & Building Background
Design Professionals
Existing Conditions
Proposal
Structural Study
•Construction Management Study
•Conclusions
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
C. M. Study - Procedure
• Cost breakdown of both structural systems
• System cost comparison
• Task duration estimates for both systems
• Construction schedule comparison
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
C. M. Study – Cost Comparison
Precast Concrete System Structural Steel System
VS.
Summary
Proposed Steel system saves approx. 14% of total structural cost
Structure component System CostP.C. Columns 332,267.00P.C. Beams 245,600.00Precast Planks 670,311.00Concrete Topping 181,561.66CMU Bearing Walls 37,742.30P.C. Shear Walls 119,889.00
Total Cost: $1,587,370.96
Building Cost BreakdownStructure component System CostStructural Beams 469,665.36Structural Columns 162,370.26Lateral Braces 95,035.55Metal Deck 130,210.89WWF Slab Reinforcing 27,555.19Concrete Slab 193,482.38Fireproofing 229,301.51Connections 30,529.68Shear Studs 23,828.09
Total Cost: $1,361,978.90
Building Cost Breakdown
Building System System Cost Cost/sq. ft.Steel System 1,361,978.90 14.85Precast System 1,587,370.96 17.31
Total Savings: $225,392.06% Savings: 14%
Building Cost Breakdown
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
C. M. Study – Schedule Comparison
• Existing Precast Concrete System
Duration: 21 weeks
• Proposed Steel System
Duration: 27 weeks
• Existing precast system saves 6 weeks of construction time
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Thesis Presentation Outline
Introduction & Building Background
Design Professionals
Existing Conditions
Proposal
Structural Study
Construction Management Study
•Conclusions
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Conclusions
• Proposed steel system to save 14% structural cost
• Precast system cuts erection time by 6 weeks
• Material availability – systems similar
• Floor layout & architecture remained unchanged
• Findings:
–Both systems viable options
–14% savings outweighs 6 wk. prolonged schedule
–Proposed steel system is slightly more efficient
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Acknowledgements
• John Diaz & Ron Tola – Haverford College
• Sam Rozycki – CUH2A
• Valerie Gillespie – Gillespie Engineering
• AE Department Faculty & Staff
• Professor Parfitt – Thesis Advisor
• Chris Glinski, Dave Melfi, Justin Mulhollan, and many other 5 th year AE students
• Family & Friends
Thank you
Koshland Integrated Natural Science Center
Questions