Introduction

1. Introduction Center for Creative and Performing Arts High School (CAPA High School) Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Joshua Castillo Construction Management

2. Agenda • General Project Information • Existing Building Systems • Foundation Analysis • Site Plan Analysis • “Astrovision” Video Screen Analysis • Conclusions

3. General Project Information • Existing Site and Old Building • Downtown Pittsburgh • Adjacent to Allegheny River • Donation of Site and part of Existing Building • Existing Building Usage • Bar and Lounge 1st Floor • Jazz Club 2nd and 3rd Floors • CAPA use Floors 4-6 • Unoccupied 7th and 8th Floors • Residence on 9th Floor Penthouse

4. General Project Information • New CAPA Building • Approximately 120,000 SF, 7 Stories • Full- Functioning High School Including: • Classrooms and Labs • Staff and Faculty Offices • Cafeteria and Gym • Below Grade Parking Lot • Focus in Creative and Performing Arts • 5,500 SF Theater • 4 Studios RENDITION OF CAPA BUILDING

5. Existing Building Systems • Foundation System • Caissons with spanning Grade Beams • Slab on Grade and CIP Concrete Walls Below Grade • Framing System • A36 Steel Framing and Details • Mechanical systems • Complete with 2 AHU, air Distribution Ducts, Diffusers, Registers, Dampers, and Grilles • Electrical systems • Dry-Type Distribution Transformers • Low Volt Distribution Switch Boards • Light and Power Panel Boards for Wiring

6. Existing Building Systems • Façade Systems • East Side: • CMU on Entire Side adjacent to Feiser Building • West Side: • Brick and Aluminum Windows • South Side: • Same as West other than Building Connection to Existing • North Side: • Glass Curtain Wall Spanning Height • “Astrovision” Video Display Screen • Brick and Aluminum Windows Connection to Existing Building

7. Foundation Analysis • CAPA Originally Designed with Caissons • Caisson Construction Methods • Drill Holes • Reinforce Walls to Prevent Collapsing • Pump Water Out • Place Steel Reinforcing • Place Concrete

8. Foundation Analysis • Problems with Using Caissons • Difficult to Construct in unstable Soil Conditions • High Water Table • Steel Casing as Hole Wall supports • Pump Water or use Tremie Method to Place Concrete • Variable Construction • Eight Sizes of Caisson Diameters Ranging from 2 ½ ft to 6 ½ ft across the site

9. Foundation Analysis • Problems with Using Caissons • Duration of Installation • Time to Install Steel Casing • Time to Pump Water • Drill, Reinforce Hole Walls, Place Steel Reinforcing, then Pour Concrete

10. Foundation Analysis • Auger Cast Piles (ACP’s) as an Alternative • Auger Cast Pile Construction Method • Drill Hole • Concrete Placed as Drill Bit is Removed • Steel Reinforcing Placed after Concrete is Placed • ACP’s used in a Cluster require a Pile Cap to tie them together 1.Drill Bit 2.Pressurized Concrete 3.Auger Cast Pile

11. Foundation Analysis • Using ACP’s as an Alternative Foundation • General Benefits of Using ACP’s • Speed of Installation • Less Material Costs • Bearing Capacity • Overall Reduced Costs • Problems with Using ACP’s • Susceptible to Variability • More ACP’s Required than Caissons

12. Foundation Analysis • Comparing the Two Foundation Systems Caissons VS Auger Cast Piles • Structural Bearing Capacity • Cost differences in Material and Construction • Constructability and Length of Time to Install

13. Foundation Analysis • General Bearing Capacity QUltimate = QP + QS = AP(CNC+ ЧLNq + ЧNЧ) + Σ∆L(AS)S • Surface-Friction per Unit Area S = KSσ Tan∂ where: KS = Ave. Coeff. of Earth Pressure on Pile Shaft Steel Lined Caissons  KS=1.1 Concrete Alone  KS=1.5 *ACP’s can have 36% more Surface-Friction Bearing Capacity than Steel lined Caissons

14. Foundation Analysis QUltimate = AP(CNC+ ЧLNq + ЧNЧ) + ASFS Average Unit Surface-Friction FS= C+ ½ KS(Ч-G) L (tan Ø) Assumptions: Ø = 12° C = 6 KN/m^2 Ч = 18 KN/m^3

15. Foundation Analysis • Ultimate Bearing Capacity Comparison • Average Length of 50 Feet • 24” Diameter • Surface-Friction Comparison Caissons  FS = 20.5 KN/m^2 ACP’s  FS = 25.85 KN/m^2

16. Foundation Analysis • Ultimate Bearing Capacity Comparison QUltimate = AP(CNC+ ЧLNq + ЧNЧ) + ASFS Caissons QUlt =QP + QS = 140.3 + 598.6 =738.9 KN =168 kips ACP’s QUlt =QP + QS = 140.3 + 753 = 893.3 KN =200 kips

17. Foundation Analysis • Pile Cap Design • Based on # of Piles / Cluster • All Pile Caps used were 49” deep • Four different pile layouts • Four different size pile caps

18. Foundation Analysis

19. Foundation Analysis • Foundation Cost Comparison • System Estimates Using: • Means Cost Guides • Walker’s Building Estimating • General Contractor Consulting

20. Foundation Analysis • Means Cost Guide Results

21. Foundation Analysis • Duration of Foundation Construction • Foundation System Duration Estimates Using: • Means Cost Guides • General Contractor Consulting

22. Foundation Analysis • Means Cost Guide Duration Results

23. Site Plan Modification • A Discrepancy Affecting the Site Layout • Location of Existing Sanitary Sewer Line • Located 5 Feet closer to Building than shown on Drawings • Changes that were Made • Redesign of shoring system • Hand Excavation

24. Site Plan Modification • Location of Foundation Problem • West Side Caissons are too Close to Sewer Line

25. Site Plan Modification • 1st Possibility • Reduce Width of Entire Vault Area 1-2 ft • Leave Caissons/Piles at the edge

26. Site Plan Modification • Effects of Reducing Vault Area Width • Positive Effects • Less Congestion for Foundation Installation • No Change in Building Superstructure • Negative Effects • Vault Area Will be More Congested • Vault is Pre-cast Concrete

27. Site Plan Modification • 2nd Possibility • Move West Side Caissons/Piles East 5 ft

28. Site Plan Modification • Effects of Partial Foundation Relocation • Positive Effects • Less Congestion for Foundation Installation • Building Superstructure Stays the Same • Negative Effects • Located in the Central Axis of the Vault Area • Creates 1 to 1 Cantilever on Grade Beams

29. Site Plan Modification • Solution • Move West Side Foundation Piers 5ft East • Move Entire Vault Area 10 ft South

30. “Astrovision” Video Display Screen Analysis • What is it? • 22ft X 37ft Video Screen • 112 Individual Modules

31. “Astrovision” Video Display Screen Analysis • Problem With Screen Design • No Outlet to Disperse Heat Generated • Could Cause Damage to the Screen • Could Cause Excess Heat in Building • Possible Solution • Add Louvers to Disperse Heat

32. “Astrovision” Video Display Screen Analysis • Effects of Adding Louvers • Screen is Able to be Cooled • Eliminates Potential Damage to Itself • Better Chance of Lasting Expected Lifetime • Eliminates Excess Heat Exposure of Building • Reduced Screen Size to Account for Louvers • Loss of 3 Lines of Screen Modules (21 Modules)

33. “Astrovision” Video Display Screen Analysis • Effects of Adding Louvers • Reduced Screen Size • Loss in Aesthetical Quality of Screen • Overall Cost of Screen is Reduced • Added Cost of Louvers

34. “Astrovision” Video Display Screen Analysis • Change in Cost With Louvers

35. Conclusions • Foundation Analysis PROS • ACP’s have Better Surface-Friction making their Bearing Capacity higher than Steel Lined Caissons in the right soil conditions. • Using ACP’s Would Save Money and Time CONS • More potential for Displacement • Increased Chance of Variability in the Shafts • Site Plan Modification • Resizing the Vault Area Would Not be a Practical solution • Relocating the Foundation Caissons Reduces the Structural Integrity of the Vault Area • Move Entire Vault Area away from Potential Traffic Loads • Screen Redesign with Louvers • Saves Money in Initial and Repair Costs • Loss in Aesthetical Quality

37. AE Faculty • Mascaro Construction • Tom Weber • Marc Delrossi – Project Engineer • Family and Friends

38. Questions?