Introduction Joshua Castillo Construction Management Center for Creative and Performing Arts High School (CAPA High School) Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
2.2 STRUCTURAL ELEMENT Reinforced Concrete Slabs
Advertisements

Reinforced Concrete QTO Design Stage 1 Preconstruction Stage 2: Procurement Conceptual Planning Stage3: Construction Stage 4: Project Close-out.
Milton S. Hershey Medical Center Biomedical Research Building Joshua Zolko, Structural Option.
Johanna Mikitka AE-390 October 13, 2004
Benefits of Precast Concrete Sound Walls over Alternative Products Case Study June 4, 2010.
MICA GATEWAY RESIDENCE BALTIMORE, MARYLAND SCOTT MOLONGOSKI SENIOR THESIS STRUCTURAL OPTION ADVISOR: PROFESSOR SUSTERSIC.
Reconstruction of the Eads Bridge Highway Deck
Foundation Systems.
Foundation Fundamentals GSD 6204 Building Technology Harvard Graduate School of Design.
Jeremiah Ergas AE 482 – 5 th Year Senior Thesis Structural Option April 15 th, 2008 Faculty Consultant: Dr. Ali Memari Northside Piers – Brooklyn, NY Structural.
A Medical Office Building For The Primary Health Network Daniel Goff I Structural Option Dr. Thomas Boothby l Faculty Advisor Sharon, Pennsylvania Source:
Milton S. Hershey Medical Center Biomedical Research Building Joshua Zolko, Structural Option.
Penn State Hershey Medical Center Children’s Hospital Hershey, Pennsylvania Matthew Vandersall Structural Option AE Senior Thesis Dr. Richard Behr.
The University Sciences Building Northeast, USA Final Presentation Chris Dunlay Structural Option Dr. Boothby.
Chapter 18 Foundations.
Foundation Engineering CE 483
Chapter 2b Foundations Shallow & Deep Foundations.
Anthony J. Lucostic Construction Management AE Senior Thesis Food Science Building University Park, PA AE Senior Thesis Anthony J. Lucostic.
LOCKWOOD PLACE BALTIMORE, MARYLAND Monica Steckroth- Structural Option.
Bethesda Triangle Brian Groark Construction Management Faculty Consultant: Dr. Messner.
360 State Street New Haven  CT  Structural | Sabrina Duk | T. Boothby.
AE SENIOR THESIS APRIL 14 th, 2014 CHRIS DUARTE – STRUCTURAL Dr. THOMAS BOOTHBY ORCHARD PLAZA.
Reading Structural Drawings
Jonathan Coan AE Senior Thesis April 10, 2012 Weill Cornell Medical Research Building New York, NY Images courtesy of Ennead Architects.
GARY NEWMAN STRUCTURES OPTION ADVISOR: DR. HANAGAN SENIOR THESIS PRESENTATION SPRING 2008.
Kennedy Krieger Institute Outpatient Medical Center Baltimore, Marylan d Katie Sennett Construction Management Dr. Messner Spring 2008.
Southeast View of IRMC West View of IRMC. Presentation Outline Introduction Existing Structure Thesis Goals Structural Depth Lighting Breadth Conclusion.
Charles Miller Construction Option Spring Dr. Riley WestEnd25.
BRYAN DARRIN SENIOR THESIS PRESENTATION MILLENNIUM HALL DREXEL CAMPUS PHILADELPHIA, PA.
Gateway Plaza Wilmington, DE Elizabeth Hostutler Structural Option.
The Health Care Center Dauphin County, PA Ken Lorenz Penn State University Architectural Engineering Construction Management April 17, 2007.
Nicole C. Drabousky Pennsylvania State University Architectural Engineering Structural Option Spring 2006 Senior Thesis Presentation.
Foundation Systems Unit 11. Types of Foundations Pilings Continuous Grade Beam.
The Towers at the City College of New York Robin Scaramastro - Structural Option - Advisor: Dr. Memari Senior Thesis Final Presentation – Spring 2007.
Waynesburg Central High School Waynesburg, Pennsylvania Robert Owen Brennan The Pennsylvania State University Construction Management.
Whiteland Village Mary Longenecker Structural Option Senior Thesis August 7, 2007.
Senior Thesis 2006 The Pennsylvania State University
University of Maryland’s Gossett Field House College Park, MD Jason Borowski Architectural Engineering Mechanical Option Pennsylvania State University.
Fordham Place Bronx, NY Aric Heffelfinger Structural Option Spring 2006.
Justin Purcell Structural Option Advisor: Dr. Hanagan.
The Sunshine Elementary School Redesign Proposal Pennsylvania State University AE Senior Thesis Nicholas Scheib Mechanical Option- IP.
Eastern USA University Academic Center Alexander AltemoseIStructural Option.
Arts & Humanities Instructional Building Noah J. Ashbaugh Construction Management 2006.
James C. Renick School of Education PSU AE Senior Thesis 2006 Mick Leso - Structural North Carolina A&T State University - Greensboro.
200 Minuteman Drive New Design for Additional Floors and Vibration Sensitive Equipment Brent Ellmann Structural Option Dr. Linda Hanagan - Consultant.
Malory J. Faust ∙ Mechanical Option ∙ Senior Thesis 2007.
Student Health Center Jacob Brambley - AE (structural option)
Foundation Loads Dead Load Live Load Wind Load
Brandon mckee ae senior thesis 2007 construction management penn state university ambridge area high school Ambridge Area High School ambridge, pennsylvania.
Twin Rivers Elementary/Intermediate of McKeesport Area School District Tessa Bauman Mechanical Option Technical Consultant: Laura Miller 1600 Cornell St.,
Chagrin Highlands Building One Beechwood, Ohio Branden J. Ellenberger - Structural Option Senior Thesis 2004.
Biobehavioral Health Building The Pennsylvania State University Daniel Bodde Structural Option Advisor – Heather Sustersic.
THE NORTHBROOK CORPORATE CENTER Redesign of the Lateral Load Resisting System.
William W. Wilkins Professional Building Columbus, Ohio Michelle Benoit Senior Thesis Presentation Spring 2007 Structural Option.
Albany Medical Center Patient Pavilion Albany, Ny Thomas J. Kleinosky – Structural Senior Thesis 2012 | Advisor: Dr. Hanagan.
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
WEST DES MOINES LIBRARY ADDITION Team North Final Presentation Team North The Ace Mentor Program career direction for students in architecture,
. Client: City of Pittsburgh, Brighton Heights Community Objectives : Develop a pedestrian/bicycle bridge reconnecting Brighton Heights to Riverview park.
Sardar Patel Institute Of Technology
Pearl Condominiums Philadelphia, PA
Redifer Commons Addition & Renovation Project
Arch205 Materials and building construction 1 foundation
Wrangle Hill Elementary School New Castle, DE
Ryan Johnson - Structural Option
Arch205 building construction foundation
Building Construction I Sofia Sebastian 1
Component or parts of a building
The sport hall.
North Shore at Canton The Pennsylvania State University
Project: 250 West Street, Columbus, Ohio
Presentation transcript:

Introduction Joshua Castillo Construction Management Center for Creative and Performing Arts High School (CAPA High School) Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Agenda General Project Information Existing Building Systems Foundation Analysis Site Plan Analysis “Astrovision” Video Screen Analysis Conclusions

General 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 1 st Floor Jazz Club 2 nd and 3 rd Floors CAPA use Floors 4-6 Unoccupied 7 th and 8 th Floors Residence on 9 th Floor Penthouse

General 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Analysis General Bearing Capacity Q Ultimate = Q P + Q S = A P (CN C + ЧLN q + ЧN Ч ) + Σ∆L(A S )S Surface-Friction per Unit Area S = K S σ Tan∂ where: K S = Ave. Coeff. of Earth Pressure on Pile Shaft Steel Lined Caissons  K S =1.1 Concrete Alone  K S =1.5 * ACP’s can have 36% more Surface-Friction Bearing Capacity than Steel lined Caissons

Foundation Analysis Q Ultimate = A P (CN C + ЧLN q + ЧN Ч ) + A S F S Average Unit Surface-Friction F S = C+ ½ K S (Ч-G) L (tan Ø) Assumptions: Ø = 12° C = 6 KN/m^2 Ч = 18 KN/m^3

Foundation Analysis Ultimate Bearing Capacity Comparison –Average Length of 50 Feet –24” Diameter Surface-Friction Comparison Caissons  F S = 20.5 KN/m^2 ACP’s  F S = KN/m^2

Foundation Analysis Ultimate Bearing Capacity Comparison Q Ultimate = A P (CN C + ЧLN q + ЧN Ч ) + A S F S Caissons Q Ult = Q P + Q S = =738.9 KN =168 kips ACP’s Q Ult = Q P + Q S = = KN =200 kips

Foundation 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 Analysis

Foundation Cost Comparison –System Estimates Using: Means Cost Guides Walker’s Building Estimating General Contractor Consulting

Foundation Analysis Means Cost Guide Results Total Cost Caissons System$900,000 Auger Cast Pile System$500,000 Difference$400,000

Foundation Analysis Duration of Foundation Construction –Foundation System Duration Estimates Using: Means Cost Guides General Contractor Consulting

Foundation Analysis Means Cost Guide Duration Results Total Duration Caissons60 work days Auger Cast Piles40 work days Difference20 work days/ 4 Weeks

Site 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 Modification Location of Foundation Problem –West Side Caissons are too Close to Sewer Line

Site Plan Modification 1 st Possibility –Reduce Width of Entire Vault Area 1-2 ft –Leave Caissons/Piles at the edge

Site 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 Modification 2 nd Possibility –Move West Side Caissons/Piles East 5 ft

Site 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 Modification Solution –Move West Side Foundation Piers 5ft East –Move Entire Vault Area 10 ft South

“Astrovision” Video Display Screen Analysis What is it? –22ft X 37ft Video Screen –112 Individual Modules

“Astrovision” 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 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 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 Analysis Change in Cost With Louvers Total Cost 21 Screen Modules$200,000 Louvers$10,000 Difference$190,000

Conclusions 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 Time CONS –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?