The Food Science Building University Park Campus, PA

The Food Science BuildingUniversity Park Campus, PA Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

Presentation Outline Building Statistics Existing Structural Conditions Proposal Structural Redesign Acoustics Conclusion Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

Project Team Architect: IKM Architects Incorporated Construction Manager: Gilbane Company Structural Engineer: H.F. Lenz Project Manager: Richard Riccardo Owner: The Pennsylvania State University, Office of Physical Plant Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

Building Statistics Location East Sub Campus; corner of Bigler and Curtin Roads Function Creamery Production Classrooms Offices Size 130,000 sf Four Stories Above Grade Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

Building Statistics Architecture Follows guidelines established for the East Sub Campus ~Brick Façade ~Punch Windows ~Glass Curtain Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

Building Statistics Architecture of the East Sub Campus Forestry Building Food Science Smeal College Of Business Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

Building Statistics Dates of Construction Start Date: November 30, 2004 Scheduled Finish: Summer 2006 Project Cost Information $45,060,000 *soft costs unavailable for release Project Delivery Gilbane is CM Agency with 17 separate Prime Contracts Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

Existing Structural Conditions Foundation Piles and Pile Caps Grade Beams Building Separation • Analyzed Separately • Expansion Joint • West (rectangular) • East (L-shaped) Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

Existing Structural Conditions Gravity System Composite Beams Composite Floor Decking Lightweight Concrete Topping Typical Bay 32’ X 29’ Lateral System Steel Moment Frames ~Throughout Building Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

Proposal Steel Redesign Gravity System Redesign ~Fully Composite to Partially Composite Floor System with the objective to reduce the budget Lateral System Redesign ~Incorporate Braced Framing with the objective to reduce the budget Acoustic Redesign ~Investigate the sound levels caused by the production plant ~Redesign according to professional recommendations Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

Structural System Redesign Gravity System For a full composite action the number of shear studs is chosen with the assumption that the plastic neutral axis (PNA) is in the concrete slab. • The process of redesign for partially composite is rather arbitrary • Shear studs are chosen by the designer • The flexural capacity is less than the required • The design is revised in one of several ways • Increasing/decreasing the number of shear studs • Increasing the beam depth • Choosing a heavier section Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

Structural System Redesign Gravity System Redesign ~AISC LRFD used in Redesign ~Maintained Existing Column Grid Process of Redesign ~A range of typical bays were chosen ~Data used to calculated the composite action needed: Fy=50 ksi Wu= 1.2(45psf) + 1.6(80psf) = 182 psf f’c=3 ksi Mu= 182 psf/8 * (9.5 ft)*(32ft)2 = 221’k WLL=80 psf WDL= 45 psf Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

Structural System Redesign Process of Redesign contd.. With Mu = 182’k and Wu = 221’k Using USD 2” Lock Floor; 18g Light Weight Concrete beff= 9.5ft * (12in/ft)= 114in = ¼ * (32ft) * (12in/ft)= 96in Assuming a = 1” Then, Y2= 6.5” - (a/2) = 6” Refer to Table 5-14 in the Steel Manual for Design Strength in Flexure (Composite W-Shapes) Refer to Table 5-13 for Shear Stud Connectors for Unreduced Shear Strength Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

Structural System Redesign Gravity Design Conclusions The previous calculation was repeated for a few typical bays found throughout the building. Below is a chart designating the beam redesign and stud change. RS Means. Building Construction Cost Data, 2004 was used for pricing.

Structural System Redesign Conclusions • The number of studs can be reduced in some cases • Overall goal is to reduce cost • In some cases, reducing the number of studs does not economically improve the budget • This procedure saved the budget $55,400 Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

Structural System Redesign Lateral System Redesign • Existing Moment Frames • Goal: Incorporate Braced Frames Moment Frame Disadvantages • Costly due to highly specialized and labor-intensive connections Moment Frame Cost Breakdown Small Connections-$125 • (up to 3 completed per day) Larger Connections-$400-$500 • (usually 1 completed per day) Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

Structural System Redesign Advantages of Diagonal Bracing • Much less labor involved as compared to Moment Framing • According to AISC publications, a braced frame connection costs about ¼ to 1/3 of the price of a Moment Connection Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

Structural System Redesign Simple Cost Analysis Of Diagonal Bracing If the Moment Frames were completely replaced my Braced Frames, this project would save at least 2/3 of the budget. The budget can potentially save: $86,250 X 1/3 = $28,750 $86,250 - $28,750 = $57,500 *Due to architectural features, The Food Science Building required some moment framing, and therefore the overall savings do not reach $57,500. The total cost of the redesigned system is $31, 375 Braced Framing Cost: 80 frames * $375/3 = $10,000 Moment Framing Cost: 57 frames * $375 = $21,375 Actual Savings: $54,875 Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

Structural Steel Redesign Lateral System Redesign The redesign was modeled using RAM Steel. • RAM analyzes each loading condition separately • Loading conditions are combined to formulate worst possible condition for each member • To pass the interaction analysis, the values must be less than 1.0 • Higher values have more stress • Values which are too low indicate an over sizing of the beam • Values close to one are close to failing Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

Structural System Redesign Proposed Redesign for a more Economical Lateral System Braced Frame Placement ~East End Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

Structural System Redesign Proposed Redesign for a more Economical Lateral System Braced Frame Placement ~ West End Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

Structural System Redesign Frame Design • This frame design can be found in the stairwell. • HSS shapes were used to construct the braced frames throughout the building. • Only a few ranges of HSS shapes were used • Purchasing shapes in bulk will cut down on construction costs Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

Structural System Redesign Conclusions Braced Frame Pros • Braced Frame system is very effective in controlling drift • Smaller members than a moment frame system • Monetary savings of $54,875 from connection standpoint alone Braced Frame Cons • Braced Frames must coordinate with the architectural features Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

Acoustical Redesign Acoustical Background The Food Science Building will not only hold classrooms, offices, and labs, but also a creamery production plant. The building must be designed to inhibit noise created from the production plant. Designated Areas To better understand the acoustical design, the project was broken up into the following areas: • Private Offices • Classrooms • Food Production Plant Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

Acoustical Redesign Design Methods Hand Calculations Trane Acoustics Program Example: Classroom Goal: To limit noise levels, allowing students and professors to enjoy an optimal acoustical environment that is conductive to focusing, interacting and general learning. • Recommended reverberation time is 0.4-1.0 • Lower Room Noise Reduction Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

Acoustical Redesign Classroom Reverberation Time Sound Absorption Coefficients at 500HZ: Reverberation Time, T, at 500Hz: T = 0.78 seconds Acceptable, but… Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

Acoustical Redesign Classroom Reverberation Time Conclusion: The reverberation time is between .4 and 1.0, and therefore is already acceptable. However, a redesign will allow sound energy to be distributed from the lectern end towards the rear end of the room. Classroom Redesign Sound absorption Coefficients at 500Hz: Reverberation Time: 0.87 seconds Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

Acoustical Redesign Conclusion • Reverberation Time is raised 11.54% from existing situation, which is not usually noticeable. • Room Noise Reduction: NR=0.46 dB *which is imperceptible These calculations show that the classroom can improve sound energy distribution without a significant impact on reverberation time or room noise. Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

Final Conclusions Gravity System Redesign • Monetary Savings of $55,400 Lateral System Redesign • Monetary Savings of $54,875 • Total Structural Redesign Savings: $110,275 Acoustical Redesign • Sound Energy Distribution was improved • Kept reverberation time within recommended limits • Room Noise Reduction changed insignificantly Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

Acknowledgements Architectural Engineering Faculty Prof. Kevin Parfitt ~ Dr. Linda Hanagan ~ Prof. Moses Ling Dr. Geschwindner ~ Dr. Memari ~ Paul Bowers Professionals Rick Riccardo ~ Rob Evanko ~ Tom Deter ~ Steve Sanko Family and Friends Joe & Sharon Sadusky ~ Arlene Sadusky ~ Irene Mallick Danielle Shetler ~ PJ Morris ~ Benjamin Ardary Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

Questions? Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

Structural System Redesign Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

Structural System Redesign Deflection Criteria Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

The Food Science Building University Park Campus, PA