View
217
Download
0
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Chagrin Highlands Building One Branden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004 Background Information Background Information Existing Structure Existing Structure Problem Statement Problem Statement Proposal Proposal Structural Redesign Structural Redesign Breadth Study Breadth Study Conclusions Conclusions Thesis Presentation Outline
Citation preview
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building OneBeechwood, OhioBeechwood, Ohio
Branden J. Ellenberger - Structural Option
Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
• Background InformationBackground Information• Existing StructureExisting Structure• Problem Statement Problem Statement • ProposalProposal• Structural RedesignStructural Redesign• Breadth StudyBreadth Study• ConclusionsConclusions
Thesis Presentation Outline
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
• Background InformationBackground Information• Existing StructureExisting Structure• Problem Statement Problem Statement • ProposalProposal• Structural RedesignStructural Redesign• Breadth StudyBreadth Study• ConclusionsConclusions
Thesis Presentation Outline
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
Owner:Owner:
General Contractor:General Contractor:
Architect:Architect:
Structural Engineer:Structural Engineer:
MEP Engineer:MEP Engineer:
Landscape/Civil Engineer:Landscape/Civil Engineer:
Primary Project Team
The Richard E. Jacobs GroupThe Richard E. Jacobs Group
The Whiting-Turner CompanyThe Whiting-Turner Company
Kohn Pederson Fox Associates, PCKohn Pederson Fox Associates, PC
Gilsanz-Murray-SteficekGilsanz-Murray-Steficek
Cosentini AssociatesCosentini Associates
Opus DesignOpus Design
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
Building OneBuilding One is located in the is located in the Beechwood EastBeechwood East section of the Chagrin section of the Chagrin Highlands corporate community Highlands corporate community
www.chagrinhighlands.com
Building Location
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
• 4 story multi-use office building4 story multi-use office building• Single level under building parking garageSingle level under building parking garage• $13,600,000 overall cost$13,600,000 overall cost• Building foot print = ~31,500SF Building foot print = ~31,500SF • Total sq. ft. = ~130,000SFTotal sq. ft. = ~130,000SF• Floor to floor heights:Floor to floor heights:
– Parking to Ground floor – 12ftParking to Ground floor – 12ft– Ground & Penthouse – 15ftGround & Penthouse – 15ft– 22ndnd, 3, 3rdrd, & 4, & 4thth – 13ft – 13ft
Building Information
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
• Open plan designOpen plan design
• Single level of underground parkingSingle level of underground parking
• Horizontal glass curtain wall defines the contemporary styleHorizontal glass curtain wall defines the contemporary style
• 2 story entry lobby atrium2 story entry lobby atrium
• Monolithic stone panels help draw attention to the entranceMonolithic stone panels help draw attention to the entrance
Architectural Details
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
• Background InformationBackground Information• Existing StructureExisting Structure• Problem Statement Problem Statement • ProposalProposal• Structural RedesignStructural Redesign• Breadth StudyBreadth Study• ConclusionsConclusions
Thesis Presentation Outline
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
SubstructureSubstructure• 4000 psi concrete• 5” slab-on-grade
Existing Structure
• Exterior columns sit on spread footings• 10” reinforced foundation walls
• Core columns sit on deeper tied footings
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
Substructure Substructure (con’t)(con’t)
Structural Background
• 40 perimeter spread footings• The core of the building is supported by 3 sets of tied spread footings.
• from 6 ½’x6 ½’x20”deep… • to 11’x11’x28”deep
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
Superstructure• Composite beams• 3”composite decking • 4000psi concrete deck• Steel columns
Structural Background
• Typical 40’x40’ Bay
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
Structural Background
East/West Lateral SystemEast/West Lateral System• 5 identical laterally braced frames 5 identical laterally braced frames
located at column lines 5,6,7,9,&10located at column lines 5,6,7,9,&10
North/South Lateral SystemNorth/South Lateral System• 2 identical laterally braced 2 identical laterally braced
frames located along column frames located along column lines B & Clines B & C
• Design controlled by Wind in E-W direction• Design controlled by Seismic in N-
S direction
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
Lateral Bracing LocationsLateral Bracing Locations
Structural Background
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
• Background InformationBackground Information• Existing StructureExisting Structure• Problem Statement Problem Statement • ProposalProposal• Structural RedesignStructural Redesign• Breadth StudyBreadth Study• ConclusionsConclusions
Thesis Presentation Outline
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
• Change existing steel structure to concreteChange existing steel structure to concrete
• Stay consistent with open plan designStay consistent with open plan design
• Monitor constructabilityMonitor constructability
Problem Statement
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
• Background InformationBackground Information• Existing StructureExisting Structure• Problem Statement Problem Statement • ProposalProposal• Structural RedesignStructural Redesign• Breadth StudyBreadth Study• ConclusionsConclusions
Thesis Presentation Outline
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
• Cast-in-place concrete structureCast-in-place concrete structure
Proposal
Gravity LoadingGravity Loading-Post-tensioned t-beams-Post-tensioned t-beams-Post-tensioned girders-Post-tensioned girders-Edge Beams-Edge Beams-Concrete columns-Concrete columns
Lateral LoadingLateral Loading-Concrete Shear walls-Concrete Shear walls
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
• Background InformationBackground Information• Existing StructureExisting Structure• Problem Statement Problem Statement • ProposalProposal• Structural RedesignStructural Redesign• Breadth StudyBreadth Study• ConclusionsConclusions
Thesis Presentation Outline
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
Post-tensioning Design Criteria**Design based on ACI allowable stress criteriaConcrete• Normal weight – 150 pcf• Strength – 5000 psi• Modulus of Elasticity – 4030.5 ksi• Creep factor for deflections for beams/slabs – 2.0Tensioning Strands• Unbonded or greased strands• Ultimate strength – 270 ksi• ½” strands – 0.153 in^2Mild Steel• Yield strength – 60 ksi
Structural Redesign
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Design Span ConditionsWidth of member
Deepest member
Tributary width
Slab thickness # of strands
Tendon force
40’-22’-40’ w/columns 4 ½’ 20” 20ft 5” 26 702 kips
40’-22’-40’ w/girders 4 ½’ 20” 20ft 5” 24 648 kips
41.5’-22’-40’ w/columns 4 ½’ 20” 20ft 5” 29 783 kips
41.5’-22’-40’ w/girders 4 ½’ 20” 20ft 5” 26 702 kips
40’-22’-40’ w/columns 5’ 20” 25ft 6” 43 1161 kips
Single 41 ½’ span 4 ½’ 20” 20ft 5” 20 540 kips
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
Post-tensioned T-Beam Design
Structural Redesign
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
Post-tensioned T-Beam Design
Structural Redesign
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Design Span ConditionsWidth of member
Deepest member
Tributary width
Slab thickness
# of strands
Tendon force
40’-22’-40’ w/columns 4 ½’ 20” 20ft 5” 26 702 kips
40’-22’-40’ w/girders 4 ½’ 20” 20ft 5” 24 648 kips
41.5’-22’-40’ w/columns 4 ½’ 20” 20ft 5” 29 783 kips
41.5’-22’-40’ w/girders 4 ½’ 20” 20ft 5” 26 702 kips
40’-22’-40’ w/columns 5’ 20” 25ft 6” 43 1161 kips
Single 41 ½’ span 4 ½’ 20” 20ft 5” 20 540 kips
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
Post-tensioned T-Beam Design
Structural Redesign
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
Post-tensioned T-Beam Design
Structural Redesign
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
Typical Tensioning Strand Drape
Structural Redesign
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
Post-tensioned Girder Design
Structural Redesign
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Design Span Cases Width Depth Tributary width # of strands Strand Force
15’-45’-40’ 18” 20” 20” 7 189 kips
20’-45’-40’ 18” 20” 20” 7 189 kips
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
Post-tensioned Girder Design• Design for worst 3 span conditions• Same depth as beam design for constructability• Use ADAPT to take into account moment transfer
Structural Redesign
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
Edge Beam Design
• 30ft beam span • 20’ tributary width• 6” slab• 303ft-kip moment
Reinforcement
Structural Redesign
Design CaseDesign Case Beam Sizes Beam Sizes (wide x deep)(wide x deep)
Shear Shear ReinforcingReinforcing
Top Top ReinforcingReinforcing
Bottom Bottom ReinforcingReinforcing
24” x 20”24” x 20” #5 bars @ 10.5”#5 bars @ 10.5” 5-#7 bars5-#7 bars 5-#5 bars5-#5 bars
30” x 20”30” x 20” #6 bars @ 9”#6 bars @ 9” 6-#6 bars6-#6 bars 5-#5 bars5-#5 bars
• 40ft beam span• 10’ tributary width• 5” slab• 276 ft-kip moment
30 ft edge beam
40 ft edge beam
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
Column Design
Structural Redesign
Exterior Column Interior Column
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
Shear Wall Design & Lateral Analysis
Structural Redesign
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Shear Wall Thickness Designed Length Actual Length
Resist E-W direction 10” 15’-0” 22’-0”
Resist N-S direction 8” 46’-6” 60’-0”
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
Lateral Analysis
Structural Redesign
• Seismic forces control the deflection in the N-S direction• Wind controls in the deflection in the E-W direction.
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
Redesigned Structure
Structural Redesign
Plan View
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
• Background InformationBackground Information• Existing StructureExisting Structure• Problem Statement Problem Statement • ProposalProposal• Structural RedesignStructural Redesign• Breadth StudyBreadth Study• ConclusionsConclusions
Thesis Presentation Outline
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
• Office plan lighting and ceiling was specified to the tenants
Lighting Design
Design Assumptions:• 40’ x 40’ Bay• If partitions, they had to be between columns• Lighting designed for no daylight
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
Lighting Design
• Desired illuminance of 50 foot candles (fc)
• 2’x4’ Parabolic, 3-lamp fixtures with 3” louvers (www.columbia-ltg.com)
• 10’x10’ lighting grid
Total Fixtures:Per 40’x40’ Bay – 16Per typical Floor – 232
• Modeled in Lighting Designer to yield 69.1 fc
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
Existing Structure CostBased on:• W-shape steel beams, girders, and columns• Lateral bracing TS members• Base plates• Shear studs• Steel decking• Concrete deck• WWF
Construction Management
Final Cost - $1,900,000
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
Redesigned Structure CostBased on:• Structural concrete• Pre-stressing steel strand weight• Mild steel reinforcing weight• Concrete forms• Shoring• Placing concrete
Construction Management
Redesign Cost - $ 1,480,000
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
Construction ManagementStructural Cost Comparison
Existing: $1,900,000Redesign: $1,480,000
$ 390,000 saved in redesign
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
• Background InformationBackground Information• Existing StructureExisting Structure• Problem Statement Problem Statement • ProposalProposal• Structural RedesignStructural Redesign• Breadth StudyBreadth Study• ConclusionsConclusions
Thesis Presentation Outline
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
SummaryStructure
Gravity and Lateral system20” max floor depth
LightingDirect louvered lighting
Construction ManagementCost savings of $390,000
Conclusions
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
• Post-tensioning design & composite steel framing are used hand in hand with in this span condition to limit the structural depth
• Given further construction information I would be able to investigate scheduling more closely to find which system would be better.
Recommendation
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
AcknowledgementsAE FacultyAE Faculty
Professor ParfittDr. HanaganDr. Boothby
Jonathan Dougherty
Special ThanksSpecial ThanksGilsanz Murray Steficek
Adapt CorporationDr. Andrea Schokker
Brian SiverlingMy AE Friends
My Thesis SponsorsMy Thesis Sponsors
Chagrin Highlands Building OneChagrin Highlands Building One
Branden Ellenberger – Structural OptionBranden Ellenberger – Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004Senior Thesis 2004
Any Questions?...Any Questions?...
The End!
Recommended