1 / 36

Alcoa Business Services Center

Alcoa Business Services Center. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Efficiency Considerations for Modern Design. Geoffrey E. Measel – Structural Option 2004 Senior Thesis. Introduction Thesis research. Structural Depth Alternate Floor Systems Alternate Foundation Systems Core Framing For UFADS

helki
Download Presentation

Alcoa Business Services Center

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. AlcoaBusiness Services Center Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Efficiency Considerations for Modern Design Geoffrey E. Measel – Structural Option 2004 Senior Thesis

  2. IntroductionThesis research • Structural Depth • Alternate Floor Systems • Alternate Foundation Systems • Core Framing For UFADS • Mechanical Breadth • Under Floor Air Distribution System • Construction Breadth • Direct Cost Of Each System • Overall Building Cost • Schedule Impact

  3. IntroductionPresentation Outline • Introduction • Structural Depth • Alternate Floors • Alternate Foundation • Building Impacts • Mechanical Breadth • Under Floor Redesign • Construction Management • Conclusions • Questions

  4. IntroductionProject Players • General Contractor: PJ Dick Inc. • Construction Manager: PJ Dick Inc. • Architects: • Primary: Pfaffmann & Associates • Interior: IKM Inc. • Engineers: • Structural: Atlantic Engineering Services • Mechanical: Ray Engineering • Electrical: Hornfeck Engineering, Inc. • Site Consultant: Civil & Environmental Consultants Inc. • Owner: Jackson Row Holdings C/OThe Rubinoff Company

  5. IntroductionLocation

  6. IntroductionBuilding Statistics • Function Types: • Multi-tenant office • Ground Floor Retail • Underground Parking Garage • Size: • 228,500 NRSF • 6 Stories • Cost Information: • Overall Cost: $26 million • $19.3 million (excluding tenant fit-out work) • Delivery Method: Design-Bid-Build with CM at Risk

  7. StructuralEXISTING STEEL FRAMING

  8. Structuralexisting core framing

  9. Presentation Outline • Introduction • Structural Depth • Alternate Floors • Alternate Foundation • Building Impacts • Mechanical Breadth • Under Floor Redesign • Construction Management • Conclusions • Questions

  10. Structuralfloor re-design • Existing Composite • My Existing (Control for Study) • Percentage Composite • Shored • Unshored • Cambered • Non-Composite • Joists • Pre-Cast Concrete

  11. Structuralfloor re-design Floor Framing Comparison

  12. StructuralFoundation Re-design • 7.5” Diameter Mini-Pile • Pall =(.4 to .5) Fy As + (.35 to .45) F’c Ac • Fy =Yield Stress of Steel Casing (80ksi) • As =Cross-sectional area of steel casing (7.86 in2) • F’c =28 day Compressive Strength of grout (4000 psi) • Ac =Cross-Sectional area of grout (35.78 in2) Mini-Piles 150 Ton Capacity 300 Piles Existing Auger Cast Piles 95 Ton Capacity 374 Piles

  13. StructuralCore Re-Design • Existing Core Framing • My Existing (Control for Study) • Raised Floor Framing • Beam Raised Floor • Raised Core Framing

  14. StructuralCore Re-Design Existing Core Framing

  15. StructuralCore Re-Design Raised Floor Core 24” Raised Tate Access Floor

  16. structuralCore Re-Design Beam Raised Floor W21X44 with Slab

  17. StructuralCore Re-Design Raised Core Framing

  18. StructuralCore Re-Design Raised Core Framing Option 1 Option 2

  19. StructuralCore Re-Design Core Framing Comparison

  20. Presentation Outline • Introduction • Structural Depth • Alternate Floors • Alternate Foundation • Building Impacts • Mechanical Breadth • Under Floor Redesign • Construction Management • Conclusions • Questions

  21. MechanicalUnder-Floor Raised Floor Design ConCore 2000 • System Weight: 11.5 lbs/sq. ft • Concentrated Load: 2000 lbs • Uniform Load: 500 lbs/sq. ft • Ultimate Load: 5750 lbs • Impact Load: 150 lbs

  22. MechanicalDuct work Re-Design Existing Duct Plan Re-Designed Duct Plan

  23. Presentation Outline • Introduction • Structural Depth • Alternate Floors • Alternate Foundation • Building Impacts • Mechanical Breadth • Under Floor Redesign • Construction Management • Conclusions • Questions

  24. Const. MgmtCost Summary Overall Floor Framing Cost Comparison

  25. Const. Mgmtcost summary Overall Core Framing Cost Comparison

  26. Const. Mgmtcost summary Foundation Comparison • Existing Auger Cast Piles • 374 Piles *( 50’) * $30.00/ft = $561,000 • Schedule: 50’ (374 piles) / 350 = 53 days • Micro-Piles (Mini-Piles) • 300 Mini-piles*($55.00/ft) 50’ = $825,000 • 300 mini-piles * 50’ / 275ft/day = 54.5 days

  27. Const. Mgmtcost summary Projected Mechanical Savings • Reduction of Construction Cost: • -HVAC Cost = $283,040 • Enhancement of Property Value: • -Tenant Re-Occupancy = $312,131 • Improvement in Tenant Attractiveness: • -Life Cycle Savings (1st Year) = $304,168 • -Staff Productivity (1st Year) = $635,400

  28. Summary & Conclusions • Structural: • Floor Framing: 70% Composite Unshored • Watch Steel Prices- 100% Comp. Shored • Foundation: Stay with Auger Cast Piles • If Schedule becomes an issue go with Mini-Piles • Core Framing: Raise the Core • Mechanical: Under Floor Air Distribution

  29. Special Thanks • Atlantic Engineering Services • John Schneider • Andy Verrangia • PJ Dick • Frank Babic • Matt Wetzel • Pfaffman & Associates • G.E.M. Inc. • AE Faculty • Kevin Parfitt • Walt Schneider • Jonathan Dougherty • AE Classmates • My Family

  30. Questions ?

  31. Floor Framing Summary

  32. Structuralfloor re-design Percentage Composite Comparison Unshored

  33. Structuralfloor re-design Percentage Composite Comparison Shored

  34. Structuralfloor re-design Existing Floor Comparison

  35. StructuralCore Re-Design Steel Systems Comparison

  36. StructuralFoundation Re-design Pile Cap Re-Design

More Related