1 / 29

855 N. Wolfe Street, Building L-1

855 N. Wolfe Street, Building L-1. P RESENTED O N : May 4, 2007. H EATHER A. S USTERSIC. S TRUCTURAL O PTION. Biomedical Research Facility– offices and laboratories. 1 st of 5 Research Buildings in New East Baltimore Development. 31 Acre Science & Technology Park 80 Acres total

laszlo
Download Presentation

855 N. Wolfe Street, Building L-1

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. 855 N. Wolfe Street, Building L-1 PRESENTED ON: May 4, 2007 HEATHER A. SUSTERSIC STRUCTURAL OPTION

  2. Biomedical Research Facility– offices and laboratories 1st of 5 Research Buildings in New East Baltimore Development • 31 Acre Science & • Technology Park • 80 Acres total • $800 million urban • redevelopment • 1,200 mixed housing units • 1.1 million ft2 in • 5 buildings • 277,000 ft2 in • Building L-1 • Pedestrian bridge to Johns Hopkins University acts as “gateway” Size: 277,000 ft2 Height: 8 stories, 143'-5" tall (from lowest grade) Construction: April 2006 to May 2008 Project Cost: $50,000,000 (base building cost) plus $100 to $200 per square foot (finishes) Envelope: Precast concrete panels with punched windows and glass curtain walls HEATHER A. SUSTERSIC

  3. Important Design Issues for Building L-1 • Structural Concerns: • 8,000 μ-in/sec vibration criteria • 100 psf live load • 47’ - 30’ - 47’ typical 3 span configuration • Construction Concerns: • Small site • Cost • Building Wall Envelope Concerns: • Water Management • Air Infiltration Structural redesign in concrete. Cost and schedule analysis of redesign. Evaluate building wall envelope. HEATHER A. SUSTERSIC

  4. Success of thesis project measured by: • Structural Concerns: • Meet gravity load & vibration criteria • Thinner floor sandwich • Resist lateral loads • Construction Concerns: • Workable site & schedule • Save $ • Building Wall Envelope Concerns : • Wall envelope is not prone to failure HEATHER A. SUSTERSIC

  5. Existing system is composite steel with braced frames. Typical Floor Plan with Braced Frames: HEATHER A. SUSTERSIC

  6. Existing system is composite steel with braced frames. Existing Typical Bay: Composite Properties: HEATHER A. SUSTERSIC

  7. Existing system is composite steel with braced frames. Personal Photo: Taken January 4th, 2007 HEATHER A. SUSTERSIC

  8. Existing system composite steel beams are large. Personal Photo: Taken January 4th, 2007 HEATHER A. SUSTERSIC

  9. Proposed system is a combination of PT and regular concrete. Proposed Typical Floor Plan with Shear Walls: HEATHER A. SUSTERSIC

  10. Proposed system is a combination of PT and regular concrete. 0’-7 ½” 2’-0” 7’-0” Proposed Typical Beam/Slab Sizes: One-way regular concrete slab #5 @ 8” end span #5 @ 12” interior span Post-Tensioned wide, shallow beams Worst case: (44) ½” φ lo-lax strands with (25) #5 bars Typ. case: (26) ½” φ lo-lax strands with (25) #5 bars Photo taken from: Design Fundamentals of Post-Tensioned Concrete Floors. PTI, 1999. HEATHER A. SUSTERSIC

  11. Proposed system is a combination of PT and regular concrete. Proposed Typical Beam/Slab Sizes: 0’-7 ½” 2’-0” • Controlling Design Parameters: • Slab– cracked section deflection • 2. PT beams– strength/serviceability • requirements 7’-0” Photo taken from: Design Fundamentals of Post-Tensioned Concrete Floors. PTI, 1999. HEATHER A. SUSTERSIC

  12. Proposed system is a combination of PT and regular concrete. PH Low Roof PH 6th 5th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st 6 ksi 4 ksi Interior Spandrel Proposed Typical Column Size: Proposed Typical Shear Wall Size: 20”x20”, fc’ changes HEATHER A. SUSTERSIC

  13. Proposed system is a combination of PT and regular concrete. Depth Comparison of Existing and Proposed Floor Sandwich Note that the two systems differ by 9 ¼”. HEATHER A. SUSTERSIC

  14. STAAD Pro model was created to determine fn • Model Statistics: • 2 ½ bays of typical floor • 7,300 12”x12” plates • Plate thickness matched floor thickness (7.5”, 24”) • Pinned supports HEATHER A. SUSTERSIC

  15. Proposed system exceeds minimum vibration criteria. Vibration Criteria Required: 8,000 μ-in/sec Vibration Criteria Achieved: Depends on tempo HEATHER A. SUSTERSIC

  16. 8,000 μips is an acceptable vibration criteria for this project. • Nature of End Use of Building: • Biomedical research • Sensory perception • Infectious diseases • Imaging • Office/Administrative Source: www.stanford.edu/group/bioconfocal/ HEATHER A. SUSTERSIC

  17. The site is very small– concrete requires less site space than steel. Site Trailers & Laydown Area Building Footprint Photo: Courtesy of Matt Scott, Project Engineer, Hensel Phelps/Commercial Interiors HEATHER A. SUSTERSIC

  18. The site is very small– concrete requires less site space than steel. Site Trailers & Laydown Area 180’ tall tower crane with 181’ boom radius Personal Photo: Taken on January 4th, 2007. HEATHER A. SUSTERSIC

  19. Site Trailers Site Boundary Concrete Truck Concrete Pump Rebar Staging ~15’ Crane 13’ 10’ Deliveries 10’ HEATHER A. SUSTERSIC

  20. Concrete will be pumped to the superstructure. Photo: Courtesy of Corinne Ambler, PSU AE Student HEATHER A. SUSTERSIC

  21. Floor by Floor Concrete Construction Sequencing Form Rebar/Ducts Pour Post Tension HEATHER A. SUSTERSIC

  22. Schedule almost the same for new system. HEATHER A. SUSTERSIC

  23. Cost savings achieved with new system. • Existing Structural System Cost Breakdown: • 1. Structural Steel (including metal deck) $5,666,000 • 2. Superstructure Concrete $1,700,000 • 3. Sprayed-on Fireproofing $755,000 • 4. Foundation Concrete (drilled piers) $2,600,000 ($1,300,000) • Existing Structural System Total: $10,721,000 • 5. Building Skin $55 per SF • New Structural System Cost Breakdown: • 1. Superstructure Concrete (w/placing & forms) $6,246,263 • 2. Foundation Concrete $2,990,000 • New Structural System Total: $9,236,263 • 3. Building Skin Savings (height decrease of 5’) $222,000 HEATHER A. SUSTERSIC

  24. Building wall envelope works well. • Curtain Wall Details • Wet glazed • Constructability • Moisture Management Kawneer 1600 System 2 Assembly Detail Diagram Available at: http://www.alcoa.com HEATHER A. SUSTERSIC

  25. Building wall envelope works well. • Punched Window Details • Dry glazed • Unitized System • Moisture Management TRACO TR-2800 System Detail Available at: http://www.traco.com/pdupg/pd_2800.htm HEATHER A. SUSTERSIC

  26. A full-scale mock-up should be constructed to test interfaces. • Potential problems: • Reentrant corners • Punched window/ • curtain wall/ • precast interface • Improper installation HEATHER A. SUSTERSIC

  27. Success of thesis project measured by: • Structural Concerns: • Meet gravity load & vibration criteria • Thinner floor sandwich • Resist lateral loads • Construction Concerns: • Workable site & schedule • Save $ • Building Wall Envelope Concerns : • Wall envelope is not prone to failure       HEATHER A. SUSTERSIC

  28. Special Thanks To The Project Team: Structural Engineer: Civil Engineer: Owner/Developer: Architect: Construction Managers: MEP Engineer: Lighting Consultant: Architect of Record: Project Renderings and Floor Plans provided by Forest City Enterprises, Unless Otherwise Noted Several other companies also participated. HEATHER A. SUSTERSIC

  29. Questions? HEATHER A. SUSTERSIC

More Related