Caroline Klatman Advisor | Dr. Aly Said 181 Fremont Structural Option San Francisco, California AE Senior Thesis April 13, 2015 Images courtesy of Heller Manus
Introduction INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW EXISTING DESIGN PROPOSAL REDESIGN Existing Design Proposal and Depth Construction Breadth COMPARISON CONSTRUCTION CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW Construction Project Team EXISTING DESIGN PROPOSAL Nov 2013 — Early 2016 General Contractor | Level 10 Construction REDESIGN Design-Bid-Build Construction Manager | Jay Paul Company COMPARISON CONSTRUCTION $375 Million Owner | Jay Paul Company CONCLUSIONS 563,804 square feet Architect | Heller Manus 56 Stories | 700 ft tall Structural and MEP Engineer | Arup Image courtesy of Google Maps
Transbay Transit Center District Plan City Park Bridge INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW EXISTING DESIGN N PROPOSAL REDESIGN 181 Fremont COMPARISON CONSTRUCTION CONCLUSIONS Images courtesy of Heller Manus
Existing Design N INTRODUCTION EXISTING DESIGN Layout BACKGROUND ARCHITECTURE 16 Residential STRUCTURE 1 Residential Amenity PROPOSAL 4 Units Open Office 1 Mechanical REDESIGN COMPARISON 33 Office CONSTRUCTION CONCLUSIONS N Images courtesy of Heller Manus
INTRODUCTION EXISTING DESIGN BACKGROUND Exterior Aesthetic ARCHITECTURE STRUCTURE Tilting Façade PROPOSAL REDESIGN Megaframe COMPARISON CONSTRUCTION CONCLUSIONS Images courtesy of Heller Manus
INTRODUCTION EXISTING DESIGN Performance Objective: Performance Objective: BACKGROUND Seismic Design Superstructure remains elastic Moderate damage under 2/3 MCE ARCHITECTURE Seismic Design Category D Minor Damage to non-structural components STRUCTURE PROPOSAL T x = 7.2 sec REDESIGN Method of Compliance: Method of Compliance: COMPARISON T y = 6.7 sec Code Design Level REDi Gold CONSTRUCTION CONCLUSIONS
BOX36x36x2.5-5 Primary BRB INTRODUCTION EXISTING DESIGN BACKGROUND Megaframe ARCHITECTURE STRUCTURE Secondary Unclassified by ASCE 7 PROPOSAL BRBs REDESIGN COMPARISON Back-calculated R = 2.5 BOX16x1.5-2 CONSTRUCTION CONCLUSIONS N Images courtesy of Heller Manus
Proposal INTRODUCTION EXISTING DESIGN PROPOSAL Purpose Solution PURPOSE SOLUTION Pursue a traditional design REDESIGN Design a dual system classified by approach in order to COMPARISON ASCE 7-10 compare to Arup’s solution CONSTRUCTION CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION Solution EXISTING DESIGN PROPOSAL PURPOSE A C SOLUTION A C REDESIGN B B COMPARISON CONSTRUCTION CONCLUSIONS Level 37 Lower Level Image adapted from Arup Image adapted from Heller Manus
Approach INTRODUCTION EXISTING DESIGN Approach Response Spectrum PROPOSAL Design Response Spectrum Response Spectrum Analysis REDESIGN 1.2 Acceleration, Sa (g) Spectral Response 𝑇𝑑𝑏𝑚𝑓 𝐺𝑏𝑑𝑢𝑝𝑠 = 0.85 ∗ (𝐽 ∗ /𝑆) ∗ (𝑊 ELF /𝑊 MRSA ) 1 APPROACH 0.8 ETABS 2013 DESIGN X-direction = 109 0.6 0.4 GRAVITY SYSTEM 0.2 Y-direction = 176 COMPARISON 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 N CONSTRUCTION Period, T (s) CONCLUSIONS
Story Shears INTRODUCTION Roof EXISTING DESIGN Approach Base Shear PROPOSAL Response Spectrum Analysis 41 REDESIGN Story 2463 kips in the x-direction APPROACH ETABS 2013 DESIGN 23 2216 kips in the y-direction GRAVITY SYSTEM X-direction COMPARISON Y-direction N CONSTRUCTION 5 CONCLUSIONS 0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 Force, kip
Max Story Displacement INTRODUCTION Roof EXISTING DESIGN Seismic Drift Deflection Behavior X-direction PROPOSAL REDESIGN 41 Seismic Drift Story APPROACH DESIGN 20% of story height 23 GRAVITY SYSTEM Multiply actual drift by C D /I COMPARISON Y-direction CONSTRUCTION 5 CONCLUSIONS 4 12 20 28 36 Displacement, (in)
Moment Frames Design INTRODUCTION EXISTING DESIGN Special Moment Frames Building Behavior PROPOSAL REDESIGN 25% of Prescribed Seismic Forces APPROACH Moment Frames up to 473’ 646 kips in the x-direction DESIGN Seismically Compact Sections GRAVITY SYSTEM 554 kips in the y-direction COMPARISON CONSTRUCTION CONCLUSIONS
Shear Walls INTRODUCTION EXISTING DESIGN Openings Shear Walls PROPOSAL A C REDESIGN Outrigger Interaction APPROACH DESIGN Natural placement GRAVITY SYSTEM B Minimal impact on floor plan COMPARISON CONSTRUCTION y Need for Openings CONCLUSIONS x Image adapted from Heller Manus
Story Shears 57’ 60 INTRODUCTION EXISTING DESIGN Shear Walls 50 PROPOSAL A C 40 REDESIGN Shear Increase From 30 APPROACH Story Outriggers 37.5’ DESIGN 20 A and C are 24” thick GRAVITY SYSTEM B 10 COMPARISON Shear Wall B is 18” thick CONSTRUCTION 0 0 2000 4000 6000 CONCLUSIONS Shear (kips) Image adapted from Heller Manus
Outrigger Design INTRODUCTION EXISTING DESIGN Traditional Belt Truss PROPOSAL REDESIGN Engages all perimeter columns APPROACH Maintains clear entryway DESIGN GRAVITY SYSTEM Minimal impact on floor plan COMPARISON CONSTRUCTION CONCLUSIONS Image adapted from Heller Manus
INTRODUCTION EXISTING DESIGN Optimization Shear Wall PROPOSAL B N REDESIGN APPROACH A C DESIGN B y GRAVITY SYSTEM x COMPARISON Shear Walls A and C CONSTRUCTION CONCLUSIONS
With Outriggers With Outriggers Without Outriggers Without Outriggers INTRODUCTION Roof Roof EXISTING DESIGN Overturning Moment PROPOSAL REDESIGN 41 41 Story APPROACH Drift A C Y-direction Y-direction DESIGN B 23 X-direction 23 X-direction y GRAVITY SYSTEM x COMPARISON CONSTRUCTION 5 5 CONCLUSIONS 320 480 640 800 36 0 160 0 160 320 480 640 800 0 0 4 12 20 28 4 12 20 28 36 Moment, (1000 kip-ft) Displacement, (in)
Impact on Gravity System INTRODUCTION EXISTING DESIGN PROPOSAL REDESIGN APPROACH DESIGN GRAVITY SYSTEM COMPARISON CONSTRUCTION CONCLUSIONS Images adapted from Heller Manus
INTRODUCTION EXISTING DESIGN Floor Framing PROPOSAL REDESIGN A C APPROACH Transfer of shear from DESIGN diaphragm B GRAVITY SYSTEM COMPARISON CONSTRUCTION CONCLUSIONS Images adapted from Heller Manus
Systems Comparison INTRODUCTION EXISTING DESIGN PROPOSAL Existing New Design REDESIGN COMPARISON Vs Withstands 475-year return period earthquake Withstands 2/3 MCE defined by ASCE 7-10 CONSTRUCTION CONCLUSIONS Just over $9 million Just under $7 million Added design time and cost due to Peer Review Additional floor framing to transfer shear to shear wall Images adapted from Heller Manus
Façade Cost Construction Breadth INTRODUCTION Cost EXISTING DESIGN Curtainwall $21,185,680 Cost Concrete Shear PROPOSAL $6,889,365 Walls REDESIGN Total Cost $28,075,045 Mega-frame façade cost COMPARISON Additional Cost of Mega-frame CONSTRUCTION Cost New façade cost Mega-Cladding $2,177,244 COST Mega-Braces $4,371,542 CONSTRUCTABILITY Connections $4,965,056 CONCLUSIONS Total Cost $32,699,522 Total Additional: $4,624,477 Image courtesy of Heller Manus
INTRODUCTION EXISTING DESIGN Constructability PROPOSAL REDESIGN Megaframe Shear Walls COMPARISON complex connections cure time CONSTRUCTION delayed schedule gravity-only columns COST CONSTRUCTABILITY specialty contractor hydraulic form system CONCLUSIONS Image courtesy of Arup
Conclusions INTRODUCTION EXISTING DESIGN PROPOSAL Existing New Design REDESIGN COMPARISON Vs CONSTRUCTION CONCLUSIONS Superior Performance Significant cost savings Images adapted from Heller Manus
Acknowledgements Amy Graver and Craig Allender Dana Burzo for her patient assistance in helping from Simpson Gumpertz & Heger me understand the constructability issues and Mr. Bob McNamara for his consultations and advice. for generously donating their time schedule impacts involved in this thesis. to obtain a thesis building as well Dr. Aly Said and Dr. Thomas Boothby for their as necessary project drawings and Jay Paul Company for permission to use 181 guidance as my faculty advisors. information. Fremont as my thesis building.
Appendices APPENDICES INTRODUCTION REINFORCING EXISTING DESIGN COST ESTIMATE PROPOSAL FLOOR PLANS REDESIGN FAÇADE COMPARISON CONSTRUCTION CONCLUSIONS
Appendices APPENDICES REINFORCING COST ESTIMATE Shear wall reinforcing: FLOOR PLANS FAÇADE Typical Shear Outrigger Shear Typical Flexural Outrigger Flexural Shear Wall B #7’s at 12” EF #10’s at 10” EF #7’s at 12” EF #7’s at 12” EF A #7’s at 10” EF #10’s at 8” EF #10’s at 4” EF #10’s at 8” EF C #7’s at 10” EF #10’s at 8” EF #10’s at 4” EF #10’s at 8” EF
25 12 APPENDICES APPENDICES 37 REINFORCING COST ESTIMATE FLOOR PLANS FAÇADE Images courtesy of Heller Manus
APPENDICES APPENDICES 40 REINFORCING 52 COST ESTIMATE FLOOR PLANS FAÇADE Images courtesy of Heller Manus
Recommend
More recommend
