Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Inova Fairfax Hospital South Patient Tower Falls Church, VA Senior Thesis 2012 Faculty Advisor: Dr. Richard Behr Nathan McGraw | Structural Option.

Published byJeremy Hopkins Modified over 9 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Inova Fairfax Hospital South Patient Tower Falls Church, VA Senior Thesis 2012 Faculty Advisor: Dr. Richard Behr Nathan McGraw | Structural Option."— Presentation transcript:

1 Inova Fairfax Hospital South Patient Tower Falls Church, VA Senior Thesis 2012 Faculty Advisor: Dr. Richard Behr Nathan McGraw | Structural Option

2 South Patient Tower □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments Building Introduction Site Map □Hospital/Patient Tower □Located in Falls Church, VA □236,000 SF □Height – 145’ to Main Roof Level □Construction Cost - $76 Million □Summer 2010 – Fall 2012 □LEED Silver Certification □Design – Bid – Build

3 South Patient Tower Project Team Introduction □Owner: Inova Fairfax Hospital □General Contractor: Turner Construction □Architect/Planner: Wilmot/Sanz Architects □Structural Engineer: Cagley & Associates □MEP: RMF Engineering, INC. □Civil Engineer: Dewberry & Davis LLC □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments

4 South Patient Tower Design Highlights Introduction □Addition to existing hospital (not depicted in picture) □Designed to maintain floor-to-floor relationships □Once completed, construction of the Women’s Hospital will be undertaken □Design Highlights: □174 all-intensive patient rooms □Medical/surgical beds situated on five floors □Three floors dedicated to ICU beds □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments

5 South Patient Tower □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments Existing Structural System Foundation □Foundation □Floor System □Lateral System

6 South Patient Tower Existing Structural System Foundation □Foundation □Net allowable bearing pressure of 3000 psf □Equivalent fluid pressure = 60 psf/ft □Friction factor of 0.30 □16 in. diameter auger-cast piles and pile caps □5 in. slab on grade □Floor System □Lateral System □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments

7 South Patient Tower Existing Structural System Foundation □Foundation □Net allowable bearing pressure of 3000 psf □Equivalent fluid pressure = 60 psf/ft □Friction factor of 0.30 □16 in. diameter auger-cast piles and pile caps □5 in. slab on grade □Floor System □Lateral System □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments

8 South Patient Tower Existing Structural System Floor Plans □Foundation □Floor System □Typical bay size: 29 ft x 29 ft □9.5 in. two-way flat slab concrete system with 15.5 in. drop panels □Typical column: 24 in. x 24 in. □Lateral System Ground Floor □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments

9 South Patient Tower Existing Structural System 1 st Floor Floor Plans □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments □Foundation □Floor System □Typical bay size: 29 ft x 29 ft □9.5 in. two-way flat slab concrete system with 15.5 in. drop panels □Typical column: 24 in. x 24 in. □Lateral System

10 South Patient Tower Existing Structural System 2 nd Floor Floor Plans □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments □Foundation □Floor System □Typical bay size: 29 ft x 29 ft □9.5 in. two-way flat slab concrete system with 15.5 in. drop panels □Typical column: 24 in. x 24 in. □Lateral System

11 South Patient Tower Existing Structural System 3 rd Floor Floor Plans □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments □Foundation □Floor System □Typical bay size: 29 ft x 29 ft □9.5 in. two-way flat slab concrete system with 15.5 in. drop panels □Typical column: 24 in. x 24 in. □Lateral System

12 South Patient Tower Existing Structural System 4 th – 11 th Floors Floor Plans □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments □Foundation □Floor System □Typical bay size: 29 ft x 29 ft □9.5 in. two-way flat slab concrete system with 15.5 in. drop panels □Typical column: 24 in. x 24 in. □Lateral System

13 South Patient Tower Existing Structural System Lateral System □Foundation □Floor System □Lateral System □7 shear walls located around elevator/staircase cores □Scattered moment frames situated mainly in the Y- Direction □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments

14 South Patient Tower □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments Problem Statement California Site □Interest in seismic design □New scenario created □Building commissioned by the University of California – Davis (near Sacramento, CA) □“Hospital buildings that house patients who have less than the capacity of normally healthy persons to protect themselves…must be reasonably capable of providing services to the public after a disaster.” - Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act of 1983

15 South Patient Tower □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments Problem Solution Goals □3 designs undertaken in concrete □One-Way Slab Floor System in VA □Base Model □Immediate Occupancy Design in California □Traditional Fixed Base System (CA – Fixed Model) □ Immediate Occupancy Design in California □Augmented with Base Isolators (CA – Base Isolation Model) □Comparison between the various designs includes: □Existing Structure vs. CA – Fixed Model □Existing Structure vs. CA – Base Isolation Model □CA – Fixed Model vs. CA – Base Isolation Model (Traditional system vs. High Seismic Performance System) □Utilize MAE coursework to accomplish the above tasks

16 South Patient Tower □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments System Alterations Proposed One-Way Layout □Addition of shear wall in Northern Tower □Addition of two columns located near the Northern Shear Wall Tower □Moment Frames situated along the existing column location □Addition of shear wall in northern core □Addition of two columns □Moment frames situated along the existing column lines and in the X-Direction

17 South Patient Tower One-Way Slab Design RAM Concept □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments

18 South Patient Tower One-Way Slab Design RAM Concept □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments

19 South Patient Tower Fixed Base System ASCE 41-06 □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments □ASCE 41-06 – Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings □S-3: “Life Safety” □Concrete Frames – 2% Transient Drift □Concrete Walls – 1% Transient Drift □S-1: “Immediate Occupancy” □Concrete Frames – 1% Transient Drift □Concrete Walls – 0.5% Transient Drift

20 South Patient Tower Fixed Base System Lateral System Design □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments

21 South Patient Tower Fixed Base System Lateral System Design □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments

22 South Patient Tower Fixed Base System Lateral System Design □Response Modification Factor □R = 6.5 □C d = 5 □Dual systems with intermediate moment frames capable of resisting at least 25% of prescribed seismic forces □Special reinforced concrete shear walls □Torsional Irregularity □Horizontal Irregularity: □Type 1a: 6 th – Penthouse □Type 1b: 1 st – 5 th □Redundancy Factor = 1.3 □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments

23 South Patient Tower □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments Base Isolation System □Three basic elements in any particular seismic isolation system:

24 South Patient Tower Base Isolation System Basic Properties □Three basic elements in any particular seismic isolation system: □Flexible mounting system so that the period of vibration of the total system is lengthened (reduces force response and acceleration for floor systems) □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments

25 South Patient Tower Base Isolation System Basic Properties □Three basic elements in any particular seismic isolation system: □Flexible mounting system so that the period of vibration of the total system is lengthened (reduces force response and acceleration for floor systems) □Damper or energy dissipater to decrease deflections and drift □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments

26 South Patient Tower Base Isolation System Basic Properties □Three basic elements in any particular seismic isolation system: □Flexible mounting system so that the period of vibration of the total system is lengthened (reduces force response and acceleration for floor systems) □Damper or energy dissipater to decrease deflections and drift □Means of controlling low load levels such as wind (secondary/backup system) □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments

27 South Patient Tower Base Isolation System Base Isolation Layout □Base isolators generally attached near the foundation level □Isolators placed directly beneath ground floor slab □Crawl space □Inspect/Maintenance □Repair damages □Distribution of forces □60 isolators □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments

28 South Patient Tower Base Isolation Design Process Preliminary Sizing □Design Process: □Hysteresis curve to obtain characteristics of isolators (could not obtain one) □Preliminary sizing designed assuming an effective period at design displacement and maximum displacement □Isolator damping properties (roughly 10 – 20%) □Obtained lateral forces for preliminary trial □Reiterated to obtain drifts adequate for S-1 performance requirements Energy Dissipation Core Layers of Rubber and Steel Steel Mounting Plate □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments

29 South Patient Tower Base Isolation Design Process Preliminary Sizing □Design Process: □Hysteresis curve to obtain characteristics of isolators (could not obtain one) □Preliminary sizing designed assuming an effective period at design displacement and maximum displacement □Isolator damping properties (roughly 10 – 20%) □Obtained lateral forces for preliminary trial □Reiterated to obtain drifts adequate for S-1 performance requirements □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments

30 South Patient Tower □Earthquake history records were selected and scaled for a nonlinear time history analysis (MAE Incorporation – AE 538) □Recommendations from FEMA P695 □Scaling was done for the response of the building in Sacramento, CA □Applied simultaneously in both directions due to torsional irregularity □PEER NGA (Pacific Engineering Earthquake Research) Earthquake Scaling Normalized Accelerations □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments

31 South Patient Tower Earthquake Scaling Normalized Accelerations □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments □Earthquake history records were selected and scaled for a nonlinear time history analysis (MAE Incorporation – AE 538) □Recommendations from FEMA P695 □Scaling was done for the response of the building in Sacramento, CA □Applied simultaneously in both directions due to torsional irregularity □PEER NGA (Pacific Engineering Earthquake Research)

32 South Patient Tower □Nonlinear properties modeled in ETABS Base Isolation System Final Size □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments

33 South Patient Tower Base Isolation System □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments

34 South Patient Tower □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions /Comments Comparison of Systems

35 □Isolator Costs □D = 45.5” □Base Isolator Costs Per Device = $16,204 □ Isolator Costs South Patient Tower □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments Construction Management Costs □Isolator Impact □D = 45.5” □Material Costs Per Device = $16,204 □Total Isolation Costs = $1,070,370 □Difference between CA – Fixed Model and CA – Base Isolation Model = $684,300 □Additional Costs □Seismic Moat Wall □Flexible MEP Connections □Design and Testing/Inspection Costs

36 South Patient Tower Construction Management Durations □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments □Difference between CA – Fixed Model and CA – Base Isolation Model = $684,300 □Base isolation is a very efficient method of increasing the performance □Cost minimal in comparison to cost of replacing damaged system following a significant earthquake □Isolator Impact □Roughly 6 weeks for start of delivery □12 – 15 weeks for total project delivery time □Isolator Impact □Roughly 6 weeks for start of delivery □12 – 15 weeks for total project lead time

37 South Patient Tower Conclusions □Difference between CA – Fixed Model and CA – Base Isolation Model = $684,300 □Base isolation is a very efficient method of increasing the performance □Cost minimal in comparison to cost of replacing damaged system following a significant earthquake □Base isolation is a very efficient method of increasing the performance of the structure □Cost minimal in comparison to cost of replacing damaged structural components following a significant earthquake □Minimize hospital room operational losses □Building Enclosure □Mitigate damage to expensive hospital equipment □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments

38 South Patient Tower □Building Introduction □Existing Structural System □Problem Statement □Proposed Solution □Gravity Redesign □Fixed Base System □Base Isolation System □Comparison of Designs □Construction Management Breadth □Questions/Comments Acknowledgements Questions? □Turner Construction □Tessa Teodoro □James Kelleher □Joseph Kranz □Entire AE Faculty □Dr. Richard Behr □Professor M. Kevin Parfitt □Professor Robert Holland □Entire AE Student Body (My social life has been isolated due to thesis © David Tran) □Family and Friends □z

Download ppt "Inova Fairfax Hospital South Patient Tower Falls Church, VA Senior Thesis 2012 Faculty Advisor: Dr. Richard Behr Nathan McGraw | Structural Option."

Similar presentations

8621 Georgia Avenue Silver Spring, MD

8621 Georgia Avenue Silver Spring, MD
Milton S. Hershey Medical Center Biomedical Research Building Joshua Zolko, Structural Option.

Milton S. Hershey Medical Center Biomedical Research Building Joshua Zolko, Structural Option.
MICA GATEWAY RESIDENCE BALTIMORE, MARYLAND SCOTT MOLONGOSKI SENIOR THESIS STRUCTURAL OPTION ADVISOR: PROFESSOR SUSTERSIC.

MICA GATEWAY RESIDENCE BALTIMORE, MARYLAND SCOTT MOLONGOSKI SENIOR THESIS STRUCTURAL OPTION ADVISOR: PROFESSOR SUSTERSIC.
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.

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.
Milton S. Hershey Medical Center Biomedical Research Building Joshua Zolko, Structural Option.

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 - 2011 Dr. Richard Behr.

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 - 4.9.2012 Chris Dunlay Structural Option Dr. Boothby.

The University Sciences Building Northeast, USA Final Presentation Chris Dunlay Structural Option Dr. Boothby.
University Health Building Thesis Final Presentation

University Health Building Thesis Final Presentation
3711 Market Street 3711 Market Street Philadelphia, PA Zachary Yarnall l Structural Option AE Senior Thesis l Spring 2010 Faculty Consultant l Professor.

3711 Market Street 3711 Market Street Philadelphia, PA Zachary Yarnall l Structural Option AE Senior Thesis l Spring 2010 Faculty Consultant l Professor.
Courtesy of Holbert Apple Associates. 8621 Georgia Avenue Building Introduction Statistics Gravity System Lateral System Problem Statement & Solution.

Courtesy of Holbert Apple Associates Georgia Avenue Building Introduction Statistics Gravity System Lateral System Problem Statement & Solution.
Samuel M. P. Jannotti Structural April 14, 2008 American Eagle Outfitters Quantum III: South Side Works.

Samuel M. P. Jannotti Structural April 14, 2008 American Eagle Outfitters Quantum III: South Side Works.
LOCKWOOD PLACE BALTIMORE, MARYLAND Monica Steckroth- Structural Option.

LOCKWOOD PLACE BALTIMORE, MARYLAND Monica Steckroth- Structural Option.
Kirk Stauffer BAE / MAE - Structural Option Senior Thesis Project Life Sciences Building The Pennsylvania State University University Park Campus.

Kirk Stauffer BAE / MAE - Structural Option Senior Thesis Project Life Sciences Building The Pennsylvania State University University Park Campus.
VIRGINIA ADVANCED SHIPBUILDING & CARRIER INTEGRATION CENTER John Boyle Structural Option Thesis Advisor – Dr. Behr NEWPORT NEWS, VA Source: Clark-Nexsen.

VIRGINIA ADVANCED SHIPBUILDING & CARRIER INTEGRATION CENTER John Boyle Structural Option Thesis Advisor – Dr. Behr NEWPORT NEWS, VA Source: Clark-Nexsen.
UNC Imaging Research Building UNC Imaging Research Building Chapel Hill, NC Daniel R. Hesington, LEED AP l Structural Option AE Senior Thesis l Spring.

UNC Imaging Research Building UNC Imaging Research Building Chapel Hill, NC Daniel R. Hesington, LEED AP l Structural Option AE Senior Thesis l Spring.
Rockville Metro Plaza II Rockville Pike John Vais | Structural Option PSU AE Senior Thesis 2014 Faculty Advisor – Dr. Hanagan Rockville, Maryland www.klnbretail.propertycapsule.com.

Rockville Metro Plaza II Rockville Pike John Vais | Structural Option PSU AE Senior Thesis 2014 Faculty Advisor – Dr. Hanagan Rockville, Maryland
Hershey Research Park Building One Jonathan Krepps Structural Option Senior Thesis 2013 Faculty Advisor: Dr. Hanagan.

Hershey Research Park Building One Jonathan Krepps Structural Option Senior Thesis 2013 Faculty Advisor: Dr. Hanagan.
Jonathan Coan AE Senior Thesis April 10, 2012 Weill Cornell Medical Research Building New York, NY Images courtesy of Ennead Architects.

Jonathan Coan AE Senior Thesis April 10, 2012 Weill Cornell Medical Research Building New York, NY Images courtesy of Ennead Architects.
All Hakuna Resort photos in courtesy of LMN Development LLC Young Jeon Structural Option Advisor: Heather Sustersic Hakuna Resort AE Senior Thesis 2015.

All Hakuna Resort photos in courtesy of LMN Development LLC Young Jeon Structural Option Advisor: Heather Sustersic Hakuna Resort AE Senior Thesis 2015.
Introduction Connected to existing Benton Hall via skywalk Size: 103,154 SF above grade on 4 levels 82,661 SF below grade parking on 3 levels Cost: $23,651,159.

Introduction Connected to existing Benton Hall via skywalk Size: 103,154 SF above grade on 4 levels 82,661 SF below grade parking on 3 levels Cost: $23,651,159.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google