1 / 31

Structural Design Proposal for Northern Arizona University College of Business Administration Building

This senior thesis presents a proposal for the structural design of the College of Business Administration building at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. It includes a cost analysis and schedule comparison with the existing structural system.

jonathankjones
Download Presentation

Structural Design Proposal for Northern Arizona University College of Business Administration Building

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. The College of Business Administration Northern Arizona University Flagstaff, Arizona Michael A. Troxell Structural Option Senior Thesis 2006

  2. Presentation Outline • Building Background • Existing Structural System • Proposal • Structural Design • Cost Analysis • Schedule Comparison • Conclusion • Acknowledgements & Questions

  3. Design Professionals Owner: Northern Arizona University Architect: Carter Burgess Inc. Structural Engineer: Caruso Turley Scott Inc. M/E/P Engineer: ARUP General Contractor: Ryan Companies Civil Engineer: Carter Burgess Inc.

  4. Building Background • 110,000 Sq. ft., 5 Story University Building • Completed January 2006 • Estimated Overall Project Cost: $24 Million • LEED Certified – Sustainability Measurement • Signature Building for NAU

  5. Building Description • Building Features • 14 Classrooms • 56 Faculty Offices • 200 Seat Auditorium • 5 Computer Labs • Café with outdoor plaza • Student lounges • Career Exploration Office

  6. Presentation Outline • Building Background • Existing Structural System • Proposal • Structural Design • Cost Analysis • Schedule Comparison • Conclusion • Acknowledgements & Questions

  7. Structural System Overview Superstructure: Precast Concrete Floor Framing: Hollow-Core Plank Foundation: Deep – Caissons Shallow – Grade Beams Lateral System: Moment Frames Braced Frames Shear Walls

  8. 3” Topping Inverted T-Beam 10” Hollow-Core Plank Floor Framing • 10” Hollow-Core Plank – span 36 ft. • 3” Cast-in-place concrete topping • Inverted T-Beams – 34” x 27” most common – span up to 38 ft. • 5000 psi Concrete Plank and Beams

  9. Vertical Framing • Caissons with 2’-0” Minimum Penetration into Bedrock • Sizes: from 2’-6” to 7’-0” Diameter • All Columns are 24” Square

  10. N Typical Floor Plan 4’ wide, 10” deep Plank 24” Square Column Inverted T-Beam

  11. Lateral System • Combination of: • Concrete Moment Frames • Concrete Shear walls • Concrete Frames w/ Steel Braces

  12. Blue = Moment Frame Red = Shear Wall Green = Braced Frame N Lateral System Layout

  13. Presentation Outline • Building Background • Existing Structural System • Proposal • Structural Design • Cost Analysis • Schedule Comparison • Conclusion • Acknowledgements & Questions

  14. Problem Statement • Efficiency of System • Is there a system which is Cheaper? Faster to Construct? • Weight of Existing System is high • High Loads & Longer Spans • Complicated Lateral System • Combination of Braced frames, Moment frames, and Shear Walls • Seismic Loads control design – Lower Weight = Lower Loads • A lot of Moment Connections

  15. Design Gravity System using Steel Members • Develop new Seismic Loads using ASCE 7-02 • Design Lateral System using Braced Frames • Compare Construction Time of redesign to Existing System • Compare Cost of redesign to Existing System Solution Method

  16. Presentation Outline • Building Background • Existing Structural System • Proposal • Structural Design • Cost Analysis • Schedule Comparison • Conclusion • Acknowledgements & Questions

  17. Structural Design Design Criteria: LRFD 3rd Edition ASCE 7-02 IBC 2003 • Design Loads: • Dead Loads • Slab on Deck 68 psf • Steel Framing 8 psf • Other 14 psf • Total 90 psf • Live Loads • All Floors 100 psf

  18. N Gravity System • 1-½” Composite Steel Deck + 4” Concrete Slab • Beams spaced @ 9’-0” O.C., Spans – 11’ to 38’ • Beam Sizes: W8X10 to W16X31 • Girders E-W direction, span 36’ • Girder Sizes: W16X31 to W21X62 Typical Floor Plan

  19. RAM Model

  20. Lateral System • Steel Braced Frames • No Moment Connections Required • Building weighs less so lower Seismic Loads • Limit Story Drift to L/600

  21. N Plan with frames • East-West Direction – 3 Frames • North-South Direction – 4 Frames • Torsion effects minimal due to layout

  22. All Braces W 10 X 77 W 18 X 60 Upper Columns W 12 X 87 W 18 X 40 W 21 X 62 Lower Columns W 12 X 96 East-West Frame

  23. W 216X 26 W 21 X 48 All Braces W 10 X 77 Upper Columns W 12 X 87 W 21 X 48 Lower Columns W 12 X 96 North-South Frame

  24. Presentation Outline • Building Background • Existing Structural System • Proposal • Structural Design • Cost Analysis • Schedule Comparison • Conclusion • Acknowledgements & Questions

  25. Cost Analysis

  26. Presentation Outline • Building Background • Existing Structural System • Proposal • Structural Design • Cost Analysis • Schedule Comparison • Conclusion • Acknowledgements & Questions

  27. Schedule Comparison

  28. Presentation Outline • Building Background • Existing Structural System • Proposal • Structural Design • Cost Analysis • Schedule Analysis • Conclusion • Acknowledgements & Questions

  29. Conclusions • Based on Analysis, the Proposed Steel framing effectively carries Gravity Loads • Proposed Steel Lateral System limits story drift to less than L/600. • The Cost Analysis showed the Proposed system to cost about 8% less than the Existing System. • A Comparison of construction times, showed the Proposed system would take 2 weeks longer to construct. • The Proposed Steel System is comparable to the Existing Precast System.

  30. Acknowledgements • AE Faculty and Staff • My thesis Advisor, Professor Parfitt • Dave Melfi & Chris Glinski • Mary Reik - NAU • Craig Porter – Caruso Turley Scott, Inc. • My Family and Friends • THANK YOU!

  31. QUESTIONS?

More Related