Slide 1

ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

Justin PurcellStructural OptionAdvisor: Dr. Hanagan

PRESENTATION OUTLINEBuilding BackgroundExisting Structural SystemProposalProposed Structural SystemCost and Schedule AnalysisElectrical RedesignConclusionsQuestions and Comments

PROJECT BACKGROUND

BUILDING INFORMATIONOwner: Confidential ClientLocation: PennsylvaniaBuilding Type: Office and Specialty Amenity SpacesSize: 311,905 S.F.Stories: 5/4 Above GradeF-F Height: 20 For Ground Floor, 13.33 For Floors 1-5Building Height: 87Construction Dates: 10/22/01-7/24/03

KEY PLAYERSArchitect: KlingStubbins

CM: Skanska

Engineer: KlingStubbins

EXISTING STRUCTURAL SYSTEM

GRAVITY SYSTEM3 Lightweight Concrete Slab, 4,000 PSI Concrete Strength3 Composite Metal DeckW18x35 Composite Beams-40W18x35 Composite Girders-20W12x96 Columns-13.33

GRAVITY DESIGN LOADSLIVE LOADFLOOR:100 PSFROOF:150 PSFFLOOR DEAD LOADCONCRETE SLAB:35 PSFSUPERIMPOSED:30 PSF

STEEL STRUCTURE15 PSFEXTERIOR BRICK TRUSS PANEL40 PSFTYPICAL FLOOR

LATERAL SYSTEMBraced Frames (Frames in Red)HSS 8x6x Braces Coordinated With Mechanical Distribution

BRACED FRAMES

PROPOSAL

GOALSChange Existing Structural System To A One-Way Slab, CIP Concrete SystemEstimate Cost Of Existing And Proposed Structural SystemEstimate Schedule Of Both SystemsRedesign Electrical System To Limit The Number Of TransformersSTRUCTURAL REDESIGN

DESIGN PROCEDUREASCE 7-05ACI 318-02CRSI 2002 Design ManualE-TABS Unit Strip MethodPCA Slab And ColumnHand CalculationsSTRUCTURAL OVERVIEW6 Normal Weight Concrete Slab-CIP16 x 28 CIP Beams20 x 26 CIP Girders20 x 30 CIP ColumnsMoment FramesDesign Floor And Roof Loads:

DESIGN LIVE LOADFLOOR LOAD:100 PSFROOF LOAD:150 PSFDESIGN DEAD LOADCONCRETE SLAB:88 PSFSUPERIMPOSED:30 PSFTYPICAL FLOOR

SLAB DESIGN4000 PSI Concrete, 60 KSI Steel ReinforcingMinimum 5 Thick Concrete Slab Based On ACI6 Thick Concrete Slab Was UsedPattern Loading Considered To Find Critical MomentsSteel ReinforcingBottom: #3s @ 8 O/C (Positive)Top: #4s @ 12 O/C (Negative)T-S: #4s @ 15 O/CCOLUMN DESIGNDesigned For 1300 Kips and 750 K-FTGravity and Lateral LoadsSlenderness Considered Based On ACI For Lateral Loads4000 PSI Concrete# 3 Ties

COLUMN DESIGN20 x 30 CIP Column32 #10 BarsOriented So That The 30 Depth Handles The Larger Wind Force In The Long Direction

BEAM DESIGNMoment and Shear Coefficient Analysis16 x 28 BeamSteel ReinforcingBottom: 2 #11sTop: 2 #11sStirrups: #5sL/370 Deflection Ratio

GIRDER DESIGNMoment and Shear Coefficient Analysis20 x 26 GirderSteel ReinforcingBottom Bars: 3 #11sTop Bars: 4 #14s#5 StirrupsL/706 Deflection Ratio

MOMENT FRAMESDesigned To Resist Lateral Loads In Both DirectionsAchieved From CIP Monolithic Pour At Every ConnectionFor Simplicity Of Lateral System And Ease Of Construction, Every Column And Beam Connection Is A Moment ConnectionForces Distributed By Relative Stiffness32 Moment Frames6 In The Short Direction26 In The Long DirectionLATERAL DRIFTCombination Of Shear Deflection And Bending DeflectionControlled By WindDrift Found To Be Less Than 1 In Both Directions0.2 In Long Direction0.15 In Short Direction

ADVANTAGES OVER EXISTING STRUCTURAL SYSTEMFloor Depth Savings: 5Beam Deflection Savings: 0.7Girder Deflection Savings: 0.4# Of Column Savings: 76Drift Savings: 0.37COST AND SCHEDULING

EXISTING STRUCTURAL SYSTEMCost Estimate #1: $8.62 MillionEstimate Based On G.C.s Suggestions And FeedbackCost Estimate #2: $7.71 MillionEstimate Based On R.S. Means 2008Detailed Estimate Based On Takeoff Per L.F. Of SteelCost Estimate #3: $8.67 MillionEstimate Based On R.S. Means 2008Generic Steel Estimate Based On A 3-6 Story Steel BuildingEXISTING STRUCTURAL SYSTEMSchedule For Estimate #1: N/ASchedule For Estimate #2: 5 MonthsSchedule For Estimate #3: 5 MonthsPROPOSED STRUCTURAL SYSTEMCost Estimate #1: $13.46 MillionBased On R.S. Means 2008Detailed Estimate Based On TakeoffCost Estimate #2: $12.44 MillionBased On R.S. Means 2008Generic Estimate Based On CIP One-Way Slab W/Beams and ColumnsPROPOSED STRUCTURAL SYSTEMSchedule For Estimate #1: 15 MonthsSchedule For Estimate #2: 15 MonthsELECTRICAL DESIGN

PROBLEM STATEMENTThere Is An Excessive Amount Of TransformersCurrently There Are 50 TransformersGOALS:Reduce Number Of TransformersResize The FeedersPROBLEM STATEMENT

PROBLEM STATEMENT

SOLUTION EXAMPLE

BEFORE:

AFTER:

SOLUTION EXAMPLE LEFT SIDE:Transformer Savings: 5Connected Load: 53 KVA-TelecommunicationsReplaced With 75 KVA Eaton 480V-208/120VReplaced Feeder With 2 Sets Of 4 KcMil WireSOLUTION EXAMPLERIGHT SIDE:Transformer Savings: 3Connected Load: 35 KVA-TelecommunicationsReplaced With 45 KVA Eaton 480V-208/120VReplaced Feeder With 2 Sets Of 4 KcMil Wire

REDESIGN OVERVIEWTransformers Before: 50Transformers After: 11Savings: 39Utilized Eaton 480V-208/120V TransformersRECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSIONS

RECOMMENDATIONKeep Structural System As Steel Composite System With Braced Frames For The Following Reasons:CostErection Time

CONCLUSIONSInitial Cost Analysis Was Proven WrongRecommend Keeping Existing Structural SystemAble To Reduce The Number Of Electrical Transformers

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSKlingStubbins, Especially Bill GillespieDr. Hanagan, Professor Parfitt And The Rest Of The AE DepartmentBen Kovach At Balfour BeattyPennsylvania State UniversityFellow AEsMy Family And FriendsQUESTIONS AND COMMENTS