1 / 37

Structural Overview of CBD Chemical Production Building, Virginia, USA

Detailed structural analysis of a 5-story chemical manufacturing plant in Virginia, including foundation and floor system overview, framing, and lateral design.

emilynunez
Download Presentation

Structural Overview of CBD Chemical Production Building, Virginia, USA

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. CBD Chemical Production Building Virginia, USA Christina DiPaolo │Structural Option

  2. CBD Chemical Production Building Virginia, USA N Building Statistics Function/Occupant Type: High Hazard, Chemical Manufacturing Plant Size: 55,000 GSF Stories: 5 floors, a mezzanine in the first floor, and a penthouse Primary Project Team: Withheld at request of Engineers and Contractors Site Plan Dates of Construction: April 2008 – January 2009 Cost Information: $125 Million Project Delivery Method: Design-Bid-Build with a Negotiated Guaranteed Max Contract

  3. CBD Chemical Production Building Virginia, USA • 12 inch x12 inch precast piles • Tie beams between each column • 100-ton capacity each Structural Overview Foundation System Typical pile cap detail

  4. CBD Chemical Production Building Virginia, USA • 12 inch x12 inch precast piles • Tie beams between each column • 100-ton capacity each Structural Overview Floor System Typical pile cap detail • 7 ½ inches of normal weight concrete on 3VLI18 • roof has 6 inches of normal weight concrete on 3VLI18 Vulcraft 3VLI18 extrusion

  5. CBD Chemical Production Building Virginia, USA 12’6” 20’0” 20’0” 20’0” 20’0” 30’0” N • 12 inch x12 inch precast piles • Tie beams between each column • 100-ton capacity each 22’6” Structural Overview 27’6” Framing System Typical pile cap detail 30’0” • 7 ½ inches of normal weight concrete on 3VLI18 • roof has 6 inches of normal weight concrete on 3VLI18 12’0” 30’0” Vulcraft 3VLI18 extrusion Third floor framing plan

  6. CBD Chemical Production Building Virginia, USA 12’6” 20’0” 20’0” 20’0” 20’0” 30’0” N 22’6” Structural Overview 27’6” Framing System 30’0” 12’0” 30’0” Third floor framing plan

  7. CBD Chemical Production Building Virginia, USA 12’6” 20’0” 20’0” 20’0” 20’0” 30’0” N • Moment frame in both N-S and E-W 22’6” • Odd column rotation Structural Overview 27’6” Lateral System 30’0” 12’0” 30’0” Third floor framing plan

  8. CBD Chemical ProductionBuilding Virginia, USA Outline • Thesis Goals • Structural Depth (MAE Requirement) • Construction Management Breadth • Conclusions • Questions / Comments

  9. Structural Depth Outline Construction Management Breadth • Optimize the steel for the same assumptions • Design a concrete beam and girder system for these constraints • Compare steel and concrete systems • Analyze impact on deep foundation • system • Compare cost of two structural systems • Compare schedules of two structural systems • Thesis Goals • Structural Depth (MAE Requirement) • Construction Management Breadth • Conclusions • Questions / Comments A sketchup model of the layout of the one-way slab system.

  10. Structural Depth Construction Management Breadth PV/Electrical Breadth • Optimize the steel for the same assumptions • Design a concrete beam and girder system for these constraints • Compare steel and concrete systems • Analyze impact on deep foundation • system • Analyze potential output of photovoltaic panels on roof • Size wiring for panels and inverter • Cost benefit analysis / payback period • Compare cost of two structural systems • Compare schedules of two structural systems MAE Course Material • 3D lateral modeling in ETABS from AE 597A A sketchup model of the layout of the one-way slab system.

  11. Outline Steel Optimization • ¾” shear studs spaced 1‘ o.c. on all beams • All beams designed non-compositely • Redesign using these shear studs already in place • Thesis Goals • Structural Depth (MAE Requirement) • Construction Management Breadth • Conclusions • Questions / Comments Structural notes from drawings

  12. Steel Optimization Original Design New Design • ¾” shear studs spaced 1‘ o.c. on all beams • All beams designed non-compositely • Redesign using these shear studs already in place Total Weight Savings: 95,040 lbs Total Cost Savings: $114,156

  13. GravityDesign N • Loads • Gravity Beams

  14. Gravity Design • 6” slab based on worst beam spacing • All beams are 12x22 for constructability • Gravity beams use only #6 and #8 bars • Controlling load case: 1.2D + 1.6L • Loads • Gravity Beams Detailing for gravity beam Concrete framing plan

  15. East-West Wind Loads New Earthquake Loads Lateral Design • Design Category C • Must use at least Intermediate Moment Frame • R value of 5 • Lateral Loads / Recalculation of earthquake loads 516.7 k 29832.2 kip-ft North-South Wind Loads 450.8 k 505.9 k 32700 kip-ft 29954.5 kip-ft

  16. ETABS Model Lateral Design • Rigid end zones are applied to all beams with a reduction of 50% • The slabs are considered to act as rigid diaphragms • All self weights were applied as an additional area mass at the center of gravity of the diaphragms • P-∆ effects are considered • The moment of inertia for columns = 0.7Ig • The moment of inertia for beams = 0.35Ig • Lateral Loads / Recalculation of earthquake loads • ETABS model 3D extruded view of ETABS model A birds eye view of ETABS model

  17. Intermediate Moment Frame Lateral Design • Lateral Loads / Recalculation of earthquake loads • ETABS model • Lateral design • Positive moment capacity at supports must be at least 1/3 negative moment capacity • Positive and negative moment capacity must be at least 1/5 the maximum moment capacity throughout entire length Concrete framing plan

  18. Calcs for lateral beam Detailing for lateral beam Concrete framing plan

  19. Column Design • All columns are 30x30 for ease of construction • Controlling Load Case: 1.2D+1.0W+L+.5S • Three rebar configurations: (12) #8 (12) #10 (16) #10 spColumn Output for the columns shaded in purple Concrete framing plan

  20. Drift Checks Lateral Design • Wind loads were checked against h/400 • Lateral Loads / Recalculation of earthquake loads • ETABS model • Lateral design • Drift checks • Earthquake loads were checked against .015 for category III buildings • All drifts acceptable

  21. Foundation Impact Lateral Design • Each pile has a 100-ton capacity • Lateral Loads / Recalculation of earthquake loads • ETABS model • Lateral design • Drift checks • Foundation Impact A simplified approach to the number of piles needed for each column.

  22. Outline • Cost Analysis Original Cost Estimate provided by project engineer • Cost information for existing structure obtained from Engineers • Detailed concrete, formwork, and reinforcement takeoffs were done by hand • RS Means used to obtain unit prices for concrete structure • Comparison of steel versus concrete cost performed • Thesis Goals • Structural Depth (MAE Requirement) • Construction Management Breadth • Conclusions • Questions / Comments Sum = $5,197,429 Estimated Cost of Concrete Structure

  23. Cost Analysis Original Cost Estimate provided by project engineer • Cost information for existing structure obtained from Engineers • Detailed concrete, formwork, and reinforcement takeoffs were done by hand • RS Means used to obtain unit prices for concrete structure • Comparison of steel versus concrete cost performed Sum = $5,197,429 Concrete is $1,266,592.12 cheaper Estimated Cost of Concrete Structure

  24. Schedule Analysis • Schedule Information from RS Means • One schedule made for each structural system • Concrete schedule took 107 days while steel took 223 days • Saving over a hundred days may justify the more expensive structure • Concrete Schedule • Steel Schedule

  25. Outline Conclusions • The concrete redesign is a viable solution • The concrete system is significantly cheaper • A longer construction schedule does pose a significant loss in income for CBD Chemical • Thesis Goals • Structural Depth (MAE Requirement) • Construction Management Breadth • Conclusions • Questions / Comments

  26. Outline • Thesis Goals • Structural Depth (MAE Requirement) • Construction Management Breadth • Conclusions • Questions / Comments Questions / Comments

  27. CBD Chemical Production Building Virginia, USA 12’6” 20’0” 20’0” 20’0” 20’0” 30’0” N • 12 inch x12 inch precast piles • Tie beams between each column • 100-ton capacity each 22’6” Structural Overview 27’6” Framing System 30’0” • 7 ½ inches of normal weight concrete on 3VLI18 • roof has 6 inches of normal weight concrete on 3VLI18 12’0” 30’0”

  28. Steel Optimization Original Design New Design • ¾” shear studs spaced 1‘ o.c. on all beams • All beams designed non-compositely • Redesign using these shear studs already in place Total Weight Savings: 95,040 lbs Total Cost Savings: $114,156

  29. GravityDesign • Loads • Gravity Beams

  30. Gravity Design • 6” slab based on worst beam spacing • All beams are 12x22 for constructability • Gravity beams use only #6 and #8 bars • Controlling load case: 1.2D + 1.6L • Loads • Gravity Beams

  31. East-West Wind Loads New Earthquake Loads Lateral Design • Design Category C • Must use at least Intermediate Moment Frame • R value of 5 • Lateral Loads / Recalculation of earthquake loads 516.7 k 29832.2 kip-ft North-South Wind Loads 450.8 k 505.9 k 32700 kip-ft 29954.5 kip-ft

  32. Lateral Design • Lateral Loads / Recalculation of earthquake loads • ETABS model • Lateral design

  33. Column Design • All columns are 30x30 for ease of construction • Controlling Load Case: 1.2D+1.0W+L+.5S • Three rebar configurations: (12) #8 (12) #10 (16) #10 spColumn Output for the columns shaded in purple Concrete framing plan

  34. Drift Checks Lateral Design • Wind loads were checked against h/400 • Lateral Loads / Recalculation of earthquake loads • ETABS model • Lateral design • Drift checks • Earthquake loads were checked against .015 for category III buildings • All drifts acceptable

  35. Foundation Impact Lateral Design • Each pile has a 100-ton capacity • Lateral Loads / Recalculation of earthquake loads • ETABS model • Lateral design • Drift checks • Foundation Impact A simplified approach to the number of piles needed for each column.

  36. Cost Analysis Original Cost Estimate provided by project engineer • Cost information for existing structure obtained from Engineers • Detailed concrete, formwork, and reinforcement takeoffs were done by hand • RS Means used to obtain unit prices for concrete structure • Comparison of steel versus concrete cost performed Sum = $5,197,429 Concrete is $1,266,592.12 cheaper Estimated Cost of Concrete Structure

  37. Schedule Analysis • Schedule Information from RS Means • One schedule made for each structural system • Concrete schedule took 107 days while steel took 223 days • Saving over a hundred days may justify the more expensive structure • Concrete Schedule • Steel Schedule

More Related