Pro-Con Structural Study for Alternative Floor Systems October 27, 2004

Similar documents
151 First Side. Technical Assignment 2 November 16 th, William J. Buchko. AE 481w Senior Thesis The Pennsylvania State University

THE FORENSIC MEDICAL CENTER

These systems are evaluated on the basis of serviceability issues such as:

David A. Walenga Technical Assignment #2

Caitlin Ferrell Structural Option Dr. Boothby, AE Faculty Consultant. Erie Convention Center and Sheraton Hotel

Pro-Con Structural Study of Alternate Floor Systems

STRUCTURAL TECHNICAL REPORT 2

North Mountain IMS Medical Office Building

Eric Alwine Structural Option George Read Hall The University of Delaware Dr. Boothby Technical Assignment #2 October 31, 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Structural Technical Report #2 Pro/Con Study of Alternate Floor Systems

Temecula Medical Center Temecula, CA

Alexis Pacella Structural Option Dr. Schneider Lexington II, Washington D.C. Technical Report #2 October 31,

TECHNICAL REPORT II STRUCTURAL STUDY OF ALTERNATE FLOOR SYSTEMS

Earth and Engineering Sciences Building

Crossroads at Westfields Building II

Kaleida Health Global Heart and Vascular Institute University at Buffalo CTRC/Incubator. Buffalo, New York. Technical Report #2

Structural Tech Report #2 Pro Con Structural Study of Alternate Floor Systems

Table of Contents.2. Introduction...3 Gravity Loading and Deflections..4. Existing Structural System..8

Hershey Research Park Building One. Technical Report 2. Jonathan Krepps Structural Option Advisor: Dr. Hanagan 10/12/12

Brent Ellmann Structural Option 200 Minuteman Park, Andover, MA Structural Consultant: Dr. Hanagan

Technical Report #2 10/26/06

Structural Redesign Gravity System

U.S. Pharmacopeia Headquarters Consolidation. Rockville, MD

Hilton Baltimore Convention Center Hotel Western Podium

SIGNAL HILL PROFESSIONAL CENTER Manassas, Virginia Morabito Consultants EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Technical Report 2: Pro-Con Structural Study of Alternate Floor Systems

Jonathan R. Torch Technical Report 2 Columbia University. Technical Report 2. Pro-Con Structural Study of Alternate Floor Systems

THE PLAZA AT PPL CENTER HAMILTON BOULEVARD AT 9 TH STREET - ALLENTOWN, PA

Nasser Marafi. Alternate Floor Systems. Pro Con Structural Study of. Technical Report 2. Center & Facility Service Building

David A. Walenga Technical Assignment #1

William W. Wilkins Professional Building Columbus, Ohio

OVERALL STRUCTURAL SYSTEM

Executive Summary. Non-Composite Steel system 2- Way Flat Concrete Slab Wood Beam with Form Deck Pre-Cast Hollow Core Plank

Technical Report #2. Matthew R Peyton

Danielle Shetler - Structural option Courtyard by Marriott Lancaster, PA

Structural Technical Report 1 Structural Concepts / Structural Existing Conditions Report

MOUNTAIN STATE BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD HEADQUARTERS

Table of Contents 2. Structural Systems.4 Foundations.4 Floor System...4 Columns..5 Lateral System...5

Agricultural Hall and Annex East Lansing, MI. Structural Design. Gravity Loads. 1- Based on US Standards

Structural Technical Report 1 Structural Concepts/ Structural Existing Conditions Report

Technical Report 3. Alyssa Stangl Structural Option Advisor Dr. Linda Hanagan L A J O L L A C O M M O N S P H A S E I I O F F I C E T O W E R

OF THREE NEW BUILDINGS BEING CONSTRUCTED TO REPLACE THE EXISTING COMPLEX. THE FLOOR SYSTEM OF GEORGE READ HALL IS A HAMBRO COMPOSITE SYSTEM

Imaging Research Building

House of Sweden. Structural Study of Alternative Floor Systems K St. NW Washington, DC 20007

Structural Design Engineers 120 Montgomery Street, Suite 1410 San Francisco, California / Fax 415/

Dead Loads (psf): Concrete Floor Slab on Metal Deck 45 psf Mechanical and Ceiling 7 psf Miscellaneous 5 psf Exterior Wall 80 psf

Best Buy Corporate Building D (4) Richfield, MN

Technical Report 1 Bed Tower Addition at Appleton Medical Center Appleton, WI

Simplified Building Schematic for Typical Floor (Levels 9 through 22):

STRUCTURAL TECHNICAL REPORT 1

COURTYARD INFILL STRUCTURE DESIGN

This report investigates alternative floor systems for the building. A brief summary of each system is as follows:

Structural Comparison between Pan Joist Concrete and Steel Frame Systems for UMCP Student Housing Building B

Concrete Framing systems. Design choices. Basic flavors

North Shore at Canton Baltimore, MD Beau Menard Technical Report 1

Structural System. Design Criteria Fire Resistance Concrete designed for 2 HR rating (worst case) Geotechnical Report Allowable Bearing Capacity

Point Pleasant Apartments Point Pleasant, NJ Ryan P. Flynn Structural Option Faculty Consultant: Dr. Hanagan

Structural Technical Report #2 By Robert Whitaker

Brent Ellmann Structural Option 200 Minuteman Park, Andover, MA Structural Consultant: Dr. Hanagan

Matthew Kutzler. Structural Option Spring Buildings C and D Campus Square, Lehigh University Bethlehem, PA

TECHNICAL REPORT 1. Structural Concepts / Structural Existing Conditions. Penn State Hershey Medical Center Children s Hospital. Hershey, Pennsylvania

Lecture-06 Analysis and Design of Slab Systems

GEN*NY*SIS CENTER FOR EXCELLENCE IN CANCER GENOMICS Rensselaer, NY

Franklin Square Hospital Center Patient Tower

Technical Report 1. Seneca Allegany Casino Hotel Addition. Salamanca, NY

John Jay College Expansion Project

Trump Taj Mahal Hotel

HIGH RISE CONDO SOHO, NEW YORK, NY

Aubert Ndjolba Structural Option PENN COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY. Pro-Con Structural Study of Alternate Floor Systems. Faculty advisor: Dr.

Traci Peterson Option: Structural Faculty Consultant: Memari. Executive Summary

Erie on the Park. Timothy Moore Penn State University Architectural Engineering Structural Emphasis Advisor: Prof. Ali Memari

Structural Technical Report 1 Structural Concepts / Existing Conditions

Technical Assignment 3 December 3, 2007

Spring Hill Suites Marriott

SJI Updates Expanded Load Tables for Noncomposite Joists / Joist Girders and Development of New Composite Joist Series

Visteon Village Corporate Center

181 Fremont San Francisco, CA. Tech Report 3 10/17/2014. PSUAE Structural Option Advisor: Dr. Thomas Boothby

eight plates and grids APPLIED ACHITECTURAL STRUCTURES: DR. ANNE NICHOLS SPRING 2018 lecture STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND SYSTEMS ARCH 631

CVEN 483. Structural System Overview

eight plates and grids Plates, Slabs & Grids Plates, Slabs & Grids Term Project plates horizontal plane, rigid slabs thin, flat, rigid

FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES, MARRIOT PITTSBURGH, PA

Simplified Building Schematic for Typical Floor (Levels 9 through 22):

FINAL REPORT. Structural Redesign of Hershey Medical Center Children s Hospital. Penn State Hershey Medical Center Children s Hospital

SENIOR THESIS PROPOSAL STRUCTURAL REDESIGN USING STEEL FRAMING

North Mountain IMS Medical Office Building

Project. San Jose City College Physical Education Building. Prepared For. Prepared By PLACE IMAGE HERE. Ken Bauer, AIA Principal

Technical Report #1. Indiana Regional Medical Center Indiana, PA. Cody A. Scheller. Structural Concepts & Existing Conditions Report

Fairfield Inn and Suites Pittsburgh, PA

Structural Technical Report I October 5, 2006 Structural Concepts / Structural Existing Conditions Report

Technical Report 1. Kingstowne Section 36A 5680 King Center Drive Kingstowne, VA James Chavanic. Structural Option. Advisor: Dr.

C H A N T I L L Y, V A

DESIGN INFORMATION WAFFLE-CRETE. FOR MORE INFORMATION, WRITE OR CALL International, Inc.

Howard County General Hospital Patient Tower Addition Columbia, MD. Kelly M. Dooley Penn State Architectural Engineering Structural Option

Campus Square Buildings C & D Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA

Kaleida Health Global Heart and Vascular Institute University at Buffalo CTRC/Incubator. Buffalo, New York. Revised Thesis Proposal

Christopher McCune Structural Option 2006 Senior Thesis Penn State Architectural Engineering. Eight Tower Bridge Conshohocken, Pennsylvania

[TECHNICAL REPORT 3] Lateral System Analysis

Rutgers University Law School Building Addition and Renovation Camden, NJ

Transcription:

Ismail Al-Hadhrami Structural Option Faculty Consultant: Dr. Thomas Boothby Agricultural Hall and Annex East Lansing, MI Pro-Con Structural Study for Alternative Floor Systems October 27, 2004 Executive Summary This report studies four alternative floor systems for the Agricultural Hall and Annex. Two-way flat plate and two-way flat slabs are eliminated from the start of the design due to the result of heavy systems. Each possible system is evaluated individually in details comparing mentioning both the advantages and disadvantages. Non-composite steel with composite metal deck, composite steel with composite metal deck, and prestress hollow-core are possible options for the current system, one-way joist. However, the waffle slab system is not a viable system. Original system: One-way joist Good for long spans Good vibration resistance No fire-protection needed Space for electrical and mechanical utilities Reduced dead load Alternative #1 Waffle Flat Slab 30 x30 with voids: 6 Ribs @ 36 Expensive Slow in erection Complicated reinforcement steel Low shear capacity Heavy system More labor Alternative #2 Non-composite Steel with composite metal deck Quick Erection process Long spans Plenum space Economical Page 1 of 15

Alternative #3 Composite steel with composite metal deck Light system Economical Plenum Space Good vibration resistance Alternative # 4 Prestress Hollow-Core Long spans Short floor depth Quick erection Space for electrical and mechanical utilities Heavy loads Fire-Protection Page 2 of 15

Building Description The owner of Agricultural building and Annex (Michigan State University) preferred a concrete building. It is about 100 x 100 concrete building. It has been designed to be fivestory building above grade, but only three floors have been built, a future expansion of two floors with a penthouse will be added. This building is an expansion to an existing building, Agricultural Building which looks like an early 1900 s building. The primary use of the building is for office space. The use of concrete material was the preference of the owner. This is primary to match the existing building. The flooring system used is cast-in-place one way joist. Also, all other systems such as electrical and mechanical can be placed between the voids. National Codes and Requirements Used BOCA- 1993 for gravity and lateral loads. AISC 318-95 for concrete structure and partitions. ASD 9 th for partitions. BOCA 1996 for wind with wind speed = 75 mph and vertical drift = 0.05. ASTM A615 for reinforcing steel, Grade 60 ASTM A185 for welded wire fabric with minimum of f y = 65 ksi Overall Structural System Agricultural building and Annex has cast-in-place flooring system. The flooring system is a one way reinforced concrete joist which has a material strength of 4000 psi. Two types of joists are used for the framing. For the second floor, joists of 30 inches clear span are used. For the rest of the floor, joist of 20 inches clear span is used. The slab thickness varies from floor to another. Slab on grade has slab of 5-6 inches. A slab of 4.5 inches is used for the rest of the floors. Again, the concrete slab strength is 4000 psi. The maximum span form center of column to the next is about 31. For wind/seismic load distribution, rigid diaphragms, concrete moment frames at each column line in each direction so the force is distributed by reactive stiffness. Page 3 of 15

Typical Framing Plan Page 4 of 15

Floor Systems The main purpose of this report is to design four other possible flooring systems in addition to the existing system. Some of the systems such as two-way flat plate and two-way flat slabs with drop panels were eliminated at the beginning due to some factors such as long spans, and two much difference between live load and dead load. An attempt was made to design both systems; however, the absence of beams in the systems resulted in big slab thickness due to the control of shear in design. All systems will be designed either using the CRSI design hand book (2002),RAM software using LRFD, and PCI design handbook. The same dead load (15 psf for superimposed and live load (100 psf) are used for every alternative system to make it possible to compare all flooring systems with each other, and see whether it is possible to use such a system or not. Some of the factors that were taking into account are cost, vibration, loads, spans, fire protection, space of electrical and mechanical utilities, and the weight of the system. Page 5 of 15

One Way Joist System (Existing System) The system was believed to be the best flooring system. Using such a system can reduced the total dead load due to the voids and reinforcement. Also, electrical and mechanical utilities can be placed between the voids. Sometimes, vibration is a concern during design; therefore, one-way joist system has a good vibration resistance. When it comes to heavy loads, one-way joist slab can take heavy loads. The only concern with this slab system is that it requires expensive formwork which requires more labor. This might cause slowness in construction. The overall structure cost might be thought of as the formwork and construction time versus material cost. The cost can be reduced by reusing the same formwork thought out the project. Foundation of the building is always affected by weight of the buildings. In general, concrete buildings require bigger foundation systems than that of steel. Due to the heavy weight of concrete compared to steel, seismic design for most low-rise concrete buildings controls the design. Finally, a one-way joist system satisfies the fire-protection codes for two-hour rating. In other words, there is no need to add additional material to meet the 2-hour fire rating requirements. Design Results Slab: 4-1/2 thick with 6x6w5.5xw5.5 Joist: 36 wide, and 16 deep Width = 6 Rib = 4 Girder: 48 wide and 16 + 4.5 deep Girder reinforcement: o Top bars 6#10 bars o Bottom bars 4#10 bars + 2 Joist Reinforcement: o Bottom Steel 1#5 & 1#6 o Top each end #5 @ 9 o Top Distance end #5@ 13 Page 6 of 15

Alternative #1 Waffle Flat Slab 30 x30 with voids: 6 Ribs @ 36 Waffle flat slab is another option as a floor system having attractive exposed ceiling. The construction of this system allows a great reduction of dead load when compared to other flat slab system. Waffle slab is used for long spans or heavy loads. This eliminates sometimes the use of drop panels or beams. Also, all electrical and mechanical utilities can be accommodated within the system. Waffle slab might be costly if not design the right way. To obtain maximum cheapest cost, a uniform depth and same size of domes must be used thought the flooring system. Reduction of cost might be obtained by selecting a system that can support the desired loads without using stirrups. The main concern of waffle slab systems is that it requires time to construct. This might lead to the need of more labor which results in more cost. Also, the reinforcement of waffle slab is kind of complicated. Waffle slab is a heavy system, this leads to a control of seismic load as it is the case of the existing system. Most concrete buildings resist seismic and lateral loads via concrete moment frame. This is mainly via the stiffness created by the columns. Lateral system will not be changed much since concrete moment frame can be obtained in this system. As mentioned above, there is no need to add additional material to meet the 2-hour fire rating protection for concrete systems. Design Results Slab: 3 Rib depth = 12 Min. Column = 18 x 18 Reinforcement Column strip (Exterior Panel) o Top edge 25#5 + 2 o Bottom bars o No. of Ribs = 6 o Bars per Rib 1#8 + 1#9 o Top Interior 28#6 Middle strip (Exterior Panel) o Top edge 25#5 + 2 o Bottom bars o No. of Ribs = 6 Page 7 of 15

o Long bars #6 o Short bars #7 o Top Interior 12#6 Column strip (Interior Panel) o Bottom bars o No. of Ribs = 6 o Bars per Rib 2#7 o Top Interior 26#6 Middle strip (Interior Panel) o Bottom bars o No. of Ribs = 6 o Long bars #6 o Short bars #6 o Top Interior 11#6 Page 8 of 15

Alternative #2 Non-composite Steel with composite metal deck Another system might be used in designing the floor system is non-composite steel system with composite steel metal deck. Ram software was used to analyze the typical floor system shown above. The metal deck was chosen to be 2 USD 2 Lok-floor, 20 gage. The concrete above the deck is 3 in with studs, which are 4 high having ¾ in diameter. The beam and girders sizes are shown bellow as a result from the RAM analysis. The lack of noncomposite action in the system resulted in heavier members, which might add to the total cost of the building. Also, this might result in unwanted vibration. Adding to the total cost of the building, the beam might need extra cementitious spray to meet 2-hour rating protection code. The erection of steel in general is quick. However, the installation of shear studs might make the process slower since they require installation on site. This might add to the cost of construction. Another good advantage of Steel system is that it allows for longer spans. Due to complete different system, another lateral system must be designed to resist the lateral loads such as shear walls. Design Results Slab: 3 above deck Deck: USD 2 Lok-floor, 20 gage Stud: 4 with ¾ diameter Beams and girders: noted on drawing Page 9 of 15

Floor Map RAM Steel v8.1 DataBase: noncompositesteel2 10/26/04 21:34:16 Building Code: IBC Floor Type: floortyp 4 W18x40 W18x40 W18x40 3 2 W24x68 W24x68 W24x68 W27x84 W27x84 W27x84 W27x84 W27x84 W27x84 W24x68 W24x68 W24x68 1 W18x40 W18x40 W18x40 A B C D Page 10 of 15

Alternative #3 Composite steel with composite metal deck Composite steel with composite metal deck is another viable option as a floor system. The system is designed using RAM software. The metal deck that was chosen for this system was USD 2 Lok-floor, 20 gage, with 3 concrete above it. ¾ studs were chosen for the system with 4 inches high. One of the best things about this system is minimizing the floor depth. The composite reaction between steel and concrete resulted in lighter members compared to non-composite steel (Alternate#1). The using of light steel results in reduction in steel used in building which might result in reduction in cost. Since the system has a composite behavior, the live load deflection is reduced due to the increase in stiffness. In general, installing the studs on site reduces the process of steel erection. Other than that, steel can be relatively quick. However, steel projects have greater leading time than that of concrete. Also, cementitious spray will be required to meet the 2-hour rating, with might lead to extra cost. As mentioned above; the lateral system should be changed from the original design due to complete different design of the system. Design Results Slab: 3 above deck Deck: USD 2 Lok-floor Stud: 4 with ¾ diameter Beams and girders: noted on drawing Page 11 of 15

Floor Map RAM Steel v8.1 DataBase: compsite steelstory 10/26/04 00:42:10 Building Code: IBC Floor Type: typicalflor 4 W16x31 W16x31 3 2 W18x40 W21x50 W21x48 W21x50 W21x50 W21x48 W21x50 W18x40 1 W16x31 W16x31 A B C D Page 12 of 15

Alternative # 4 Prestress Hollow-Core Due to the long span between columns, prestress hollow-core system is another option for the floor system. The hollow-core section that is shown bellow is designed based on the PCI Design Handbook, 5 th edition. The table in the manual is designed based on the service load instead of the ultimate load. The total load (topped sections) includes 15 psf for superimposed dead load, the rest is live load. The selected section is 58-S which means that the each section has 5 strands with a diameter 8 in 16ths, 1/2. The S means that the strands are straight. Each section is 4-0 x 10 with 2 topping (4HC10+2). The concrete that is being used is normal weight concrete having f c = 5000 psi and f ci = 3500 psi. One of the great advantages of hollow-core is that electrical and mechanical utilities can be place in the hollow space available. In addition, the erection of this system is quick. Due to use the prestress steel, the total depth of floor is reduced, 12 for this system. The lateral system might not be changed much as long as the moment frames are capable in resisting the lateral loads. There is no need to add spray to meet the 2-hour fire rating, and thus reducing the total cost. However, this system might be the far most expensive especially if it is not available in the area. Also, these sections must be designed with so much careful because corrosion is one of the main problems in the prestress concrete if not installed properly. Design Results Topping: 2 Self weight = 93 psf W = 115 psf Depth: 10 Load = 115 psf (service load) Strands: 5 (Straight) Strand Diameter: 8 in 16ths = ½ G3 ( see typical floor above) = 34 by 20 Calculations for girder are upon request. Page 13 of 15

Page 14 of 15

Systems Comparison: Floor System Advantages Disadvantages Viable Option? One-way Joist Reduce dead load Good for long spans Meet fire protection Provides space for utilities Good vibration resistance Heavy Slow in erection Need more labor Yes Waffle Slab Non-composite Steel with composite metal deck Composite Steel with composite deck Prestress Hollow Core Good for long spans Heavy loads Good accommodation for utilities Meet fire protection Good vibration resistance Relatively quick erection Long spans Plenum Space Relatively good with vibration Quick erection Plenum space Long spans Light system Economical Quick erection Long spans Heavy loads Provides space for utilities Fire-Protection Floor depth Expensive formwork Need more Labor Complicated reinforcement Low shear capacity Heavy system Slow erection Heavy Members Fire-Protection Stud installation Floor depth Fire-Protection Studs installation Expensive Corrosion No Yes Yes Yes Page 15 of 15