1. DESIGN OF AIRPORT TERMINAL AND CONTROL TOWER
VARSHA SIEURAJSINGH

2. INTRODUCTION
A new regional airport is planned, in Trinidad & Tobago, to support the growing economy and improve transport links.
The primary requirements are for an entirely new terminal building and a new control tower, with an outline design being required for both structures.
Group 12 has been appointed as the structural engineering consultant to the client.

3. AIMS
To prepare preliminary designs of structural solutions for both the terminal building and the control tower.
To compare the alternative design solutions and to select the most viable designs.
To present a clear recommendation to the client about the design solutions selected with reasons for our choices.

4. PROCESS
To present the alternatives and to state the bases for their selection.
To describe the methodology for the selection of the best alternative.
To finally present the best options to the client.

5. PROJECT APPROACH HOW DID WE SELECT THE BEST ALTERNATIVE?
1. DESIGN STRUCTURES – THIS includes THE preliminary calculations and drawings
2. COMPARE ALTERNATIVES BASED ON FINANCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, STRUCTURAL AND AESTHETIC FACTORS
3. ASSESS STRUCTURES BY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION MATRIX AND COST COMPARISON
4. CHOOSE ALTERNATIVE WITH THE HIGHEST PERFORMANCE POINTS AND ALSO WITH THE LOWER COST
5. PRESENT BEST DESIGN OPTION TO CLIENT

6. Terminal Building
A “Pier” layout for the terminal building was chosen by the design team.
- It ensures a regular, symmetrical and simple shape. All of which aid in the feasibility and functionality of the design.
- The pier design offers high aircraft capacity and simplicity in design.
From this common layout two Structural options were considered for the Terminal design.

7. Airport Terminal Option 1
For the first design option, the primary material used was Reinforced Concrete.
Concrete was utilized because of its relative inexpensiveness and adaptability.
The structural system employed was a MRF ( Rigid Moment Resisting Frame).
The MRF was utilized to effectively resist vertical loads and also seismic loads which are prevalent in Trinidad.
The foundation type selected was a pad footing foundation with tie beams.

8. STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS
Moment Resisting Frames consist of beams and columns connected by rigid joints.
The type of MRF utilized for the terminal building was a Ductile R.C. frame.
This subtype of RC frame was adjudged to be sufficient in resisting lateral loading, and thus was suitable for the Terminal design.

9. GRAVITATIONAL LOAD PATH

10. LATERAL LOAD PATH

11. FOUNDATION PLAN: OPTION 1

12. GROUND FLOOR LAYOUT: OPTION 1

13. 1ST FLOOR PLAN: OPTION 1

14. ROOF FRAMING PLAN: OPTION 1

15. ELEVATIONS: OPTION 1

16. Conceptual View of Option 1

17. Airport Terminal Option 2
For this option, Structural steel was the material selected.
Structural steel is tough – that is, it has both high strength and ductility.
Steel structures are well suited to having additions made to them.
Steel frames that are properly maintained will last indefinitely

18. STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS
The foundation used for this terminal was a pad footing foundation with tie beams.
Composite floor decking was used for the flooring system in this terminal.
Also, a truss system was used to support the roof.
MRFs were also utilized in the structural steel design, ensuring that strong moment connections were formed equally in both the x and y directions.

19. FIRST FLOOR PLAN: OPTION 2

20. ROOF FRAMING PLAN: OPTION 2

21. OPTION 2: ELEVATIONS

22. CONCEPTUAL VIEW OF OPTION 2

23. CONTROL TOWER OPTION 1
For this option High strength reinforced concrete was selected as the construction material (30N/mm2).
The use of high strength concrete permits the design of a stable, economic and space efficient, high rise structure.
The structural system chosen, utilizes a combination of moment resisting frames and a shear wall core to resist axial and lateral loads respectively and also to decrease sway.

24. Structural Systems
A Moment Resisting Frame was selected to resist mainly gravitational loading and some lateral loading.
A shear wall core, was implemented to resist major lateral loads, which would be significant due to the effective height of the Control Tower.
For the foundation, a combination of raft and pile system was utilized to ensure stability.

25. LOAD PATH DIAGRAM: OPTION 1

26. Structural layout of Option 1

27. CONTROL TOWER OPTION 2
For this option S355 high strength, structural steel was used.
Steel structures are highly suitable in areas subjected to earthquakes, as steel allows the structure to absorb part of the kinetic energy produced by the earthquake in the form of plastic deformation.
Moment resisting frames and a shear wall system was used to resist both vertical and lateral loads.
The foundation used was a combination of a raft and pile system with R.C. pedestals.

28. LOAD PATH DIAGRAM: OPTION 2

29. Structural Layout of Option 2

30. SELECTION OF BEST ALTERNATIVE
1. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS:
Analysis and calculations were done to estimate quantities of material required for the structures.
Basic rates were applied to the quantities to arrive at a preliminary costing for the structures.
Percentages were added to account for additional formwork, services and architectural considerations.
A total preliminary cost was then calculated for each option, arriving at the respective estimates.

31. SELECTION OF BEST ALTERNATIVE
2.PERFORMANCE EVALUATION MATRIX USED TO EVALUATE THE FOUR ALTERNATIVES
The structures were evaluated based on various criteria such as material properties (ductility, stiffness, fire resistance), constructability as well as economic costs.
Each structure was given a rating of either ++,+,0 or - if performance was very good, good, neutral or bad respectively.

32. SELECTION OF BEST ALTERNATIVE
3. QUANTITATIVE CONSIDERATIONS FOR ARRIVING AT FINAL CHOICE
Cost – refers to preliminary costing.
Amount of materials – refers to quantity of material used.
Total loading – refers to the total load of building, this affects stability, sway and the size of foundation.

33. SELECTION OF BEST ALTERNATIVE
4. QUALITATIVE CONSIDERATIONS FOR ARRIVING AT FINAL CHOICE
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
This refers to whether the materials can be recycled or whether they are sustainable.
SITE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
This refers to the impact which the materials and construction has on the environment inclusive of the waste produced as a result of construction.

34. SELECTION OF BEST ALTERNATIVE
ASSURANCE OF HIGH SAFETY LEVEL
This refers to whether the structure would better human life protection in case of accidental damage.
EASE OF CONSTRUCTION
This refers to the relative amount of labor, time and material taken to construct the structure.

35. RESULTS OF COMPARISON ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
STRUCTURE
TOTAL COST ($TT)
1. CONCRETE TERMINAL
131,471,629.77
2. STEEL TERMINAL
230,688,189.40
3. CONCRETE CONTROL TOWER
19,067,135.91
4. STEEL CONTROL TOWER
26,695,701.15
Both the concrete terminal and concrete control tower are the most feasible options based on economic cost. The steel terminal is 75% more than the cost of the concrete terminal and the steel control tower costs 40% more than the concrete control tower

36. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION MATRIX
CRITERIA
1. CONCRETE TERMINAL
2. STEEL TERMINAL
3. CONCRETE CONTROL TOWER
4. STEEL CONTROL TOWER
STIFFNESS ++
DUCTILITY +
SWAY
N/A
FIRE RESISTANCE
SIMPLICITY AND EASE OF CONSTRUCTION
IMMEDIATE CONSTRUCTION COSTS -
CONSTRUCTION TIME AND FEASIBILITY
LOW MAINTENANCE COSTS

37. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION MATRIX
CRITERIA
1. CONCRETE TERMINAL
2. STEEL TERMINAL
3. CONCRETE CONTROL TOWER
4. STEEL CONTROL TOWER
SITE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - +
CONSTRUCTION FLEXIBILITY
LOW MAINTENANCE COSTS ++
ASSURANCE OF HIGH SAFETY LEVEL
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
TOTAL LOAD
TOTAL MATERIALS
USABLE AREA

38. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION MATRIX
CRITERIA
1. CONCRETE TERMINAL
2. STEEL TERMINAL
3. CONCRETE CONTROL TOWER
4. STEEL CONTROL TOWER
LEAD TIME ++
TOTAL 17 12
Both the concrete terminal and concrete control tower score higher on the performance evaluation matrix

39. RESULTS OF COMPARISON The table below gives a summary of the review of the main objectives of the design. A YES indicates that the objective was satisfied whilst a NO indicates that the objective was not fulfilled.
OBJECTIVES
CONCRETE TERMINAL
STEEL TERMINAL
CONCRETE CONTROL TOWER
STEEL CONTROL TOWER
FINANCIAL
YES NO
CONSTRUCTABILITY
ENVIRONMENTAL
STABILITY
GRANDEUR / ICONIC

40. CONCLUSION
After careful examination of the different performance evaluation criteria and economic analysis, it was determined that both the concrete terminal and concrete control tower design options would be the structural solutions which best meet the client’s specifications.
We recommend the client advance to the next stage in the design process using both concrete options.

41. QUESTIONS?

42. THANK YOU!