Sean Felton | Structural Advisor: Sustersic A MERICAN A RT M USEUM Northeast, United States AE Senior Thesis 2013
F INAL P RESENTATION O UTLINE Building Introduction • Problem Background • Proposed Structural System • Architecture Considerations • Comparative Summary • A MERICAN A RT M USEUM Northeast, United States
O VERVIEW Fully-Functional Facility • N Building Introduction • 220,000 sq. ft. • Building Overview • 150’ tall • Project Team • 9 Stories, Varying Floor Heights Problem Background • • Proposed Structural System • N May 2011 – December 2014 • Architecture Considerations • Design-Bid-Build; Single Prime Contract • Comparative Summary • $266,345,323 GMP • N www.maps.google.com A MERICAN A RT M USEUM
P ROJECT T EAM Owner: Not Disclosed Turner Construction General Contractor: N Building Introduction • Design Architect: Renzo Piano Building Overview • Building Workshop Project Team • Problem Background • Executive Architect: Cooper, Robertson Proposed Structural System • N & Partners Architecture Considerations • Comparative Summary Robert Silman • Structural Engineer: Associates N Geotechnical: URS Corporation www.maps.google.com A MERICAN A RT M USEUM
P ROBLEM S TATEMENT Building Introduction • Problem Background • 4 Columns Exposed • Existing System • Column 3-M.5 is Last Support • SE Corner Cantilever • N Problem Statement • Exists outside Building Envelope • Proposed Structural System • Architect Request for Removal • Architecture Considerations • Comparative Summary • A MERICAN A RT M USEUM
S OLUTION G OALS Building Introduction • Problem Background • Proposed Structural System • Structural Stability without 3-M.5 • Solution Goals • Load Path Comparison • Serviceability • Design Assumptions • N Minimize Architectural Impact • Truss X • Minimize Weight and Cost Foundations • • Deflections • Work within Precedence • Architecture Considerations • Provide Enough Evidence for Decision • Comparative Summary • A MERICAN A RT M USEUM
C URRENT L OAD P ATH Building Introduction • Problem Background • Proposed Structural System • Floor N-S • Solution Goals • Load Path Comparison • Truss 0.9 • Design Assumptions • N Trusses H, J, L • Truss X • 3-M.5, PG46-2 Foundations • • Deflections • Architecture Considerations • Comparative Summary • N A MERICAN A RT M USEUM
P ROPOSED L OAD P ATH Building Introduction • Problem Background • Proposed Structural System • Floor N-S • Solution Goals • Load Path Comparison • Truss 0.9 • Design Assumptions • N Trusses H, N.2 • Truss X • Truss X Foundations • • Deflections • Truss J • Architecture Considerations • Comparative Summary • N A MERICAN A RT M USEUM
M ODELING A SSUMPTIONS D ESIGN A SSUMPTIONS Building Introduction • Problem Background • Proposed Structural System • 1.2D + 1.6L + 0.5S Solution Goals • • Individual Models • Load Path Comparison • No Composite Action • Design Assumptions Itemized Reactions • • Concentric Connections • Truss X • P-D Effects not Considered • Foundations • No Impact on Lateral • Deflections Checked Separate • Deflections • System Architecture Considerations • Comparative Summary • A MERICAN A RT M USEUM
T RUSS X Building Introduction • Problem Background • Proposed Structural System • Point Loads at Panel Points • Solution Goals • Level 4 Beams for Bracing Load Path Comparison • • 42’ 31’ 11’ Design Assumptions • Truss J resists uplift • Truss X • Overview • Custom Members • Summary • Foundations • Deflections • Architecture Considerations • Comparative Summary • A MERICAN A RT M USEUM
T RUSS X Mu = 40,700 ft-k • Building Introduction • Vu = 3200 k • Problem Background • Proposed Structural System • Tu = 1580 k • Solution Goals • Level 5 Load Path Comparison • 42’ 31’ 11’ D = 1340 k Design Assumptions • L = 945 k Truss X • S = 2 k Overview • Custom Members • Pu = 3200 k Summary • Foundations • Deflections • Architecture Considerations • Comparative Summary • A MERICAN A RT M USEUM
T RUSS X Mu = 40,700 ft-k • Building Introduction • Vu = 3200 k • Problem Background • Proposed Structural System • Tu = 1580 k • Solution Goals • Level 5 Load Path Comparison • 42’ 31’ 11’ D = 1340 k Design Assumptions • L = 945 k Truss X • S = 2 k Overview • Custom Members • Pu = 3200 k Summary • Foundations • Deflections • Architecture Considerations • Comparative Summary • A MERICAN A RT M USEUM
T RUSS X Mu = 40,700 ft-k • Building Introduction • Vu = 3200 k • Problem Background • Proposed Structural System • Tu = 1580 k • Solution Goals • Level 5 Achieves 94% Efficiency • Load Path Comparison • 42’ 31’ 11’ D = 1340 k Design Assumptions • L = 945 k PG56-1 Capacity Truss X • S = 2 k Lb 20 ft f Mn 41571 ft-k Overview • Custom Members D 56 in f Vn 3402 k • Pu = 3200 k Summary • B 24 in f Tn 25245 k Foundations • 10 in f Pn 27541 k tf Deflections • tw 2.25 in Architecture Considerations • Comparative Summary • A MERICAN A RT M USEUM
T RUSS X Building Introduction • Problem Background • Proposed Structural System • Shape Lu f Mn f Pn f Tn Solution Goals • 15A 25 750 2421 2295 Load Path Comparison • 42’ 31’ 11’ Design Assumptions • 15B 25 624 2161 1685 Truss X • 22 25 1714 4389 3545 D = 3392 k Overview • L = 2419 k Custom Members • S = 4 k Summary • P U = 7943 k Foundations • Deflections • 24R-1 Architecture Considerations • f Pn= 8272 k Comparative Summary • A MERICAN A RT M USEUM
T RUSS X Pipe Building Introduction • Do 24 in Problem Background • t 1.75 in Proposed Structural System • Concrete Solution Goals • Load Path Comparison • f'c 15000 psi 42’ 31’ 11’ Design Assumptions • fy 150 ksi Truss X • no. 11 D = 3392 k Overview • n 16 L = 2419 k Custom Members • S = 4 k Capacity Summary • P U = 7943 k Foundations f Pn 8272 k • Deflections • f Tn 8053 k 24R-1 Architecture Considerations • f Mn 2754 ft-k f Pn= 8272 k Comparative Summary • A MERICAN A RT M USEUM
T RUSS X Building Introduction • Multiple Custom Sections • Problem Background • Proposed Structural System • PG56-1 • Solution Goals • PG46-3 • Load Path Comparison • 42’ 31’ 11’ Design Assumptions 24R-1 • • Truss X • W14x 68 – W14x455 – W27x539 • Overview • Eccentricity Issues • Custom Members • Summary • Foundations • Final Weight : 121.6 t • Deflections • Architecture Considerations • Comparative Summary • A MERICAN A RT M USEUM
T RUSS S UPPORTS Building Introduction • D = -350 k Problem Background • L = -252 k S = -1 k Proposed Structural System • T U = -823 k 6 Solution Goals • Shape Lu f Mn f Pn f Tn W14x74 D = -906 k D = 429 k f Tn= -981 k L = -572 k L = 179 k Load Path Comparison • S = -16 k S = 2 k 25 750 2421 2295 15A T U = -2009 k P U = 802 k Design Assumptions • 15-A 15-B 25 624 2161 1685 Truss X 15B • 4 f Tn= 2295 k f Pn= 2161 k Foundations • 25 1714 4389 3545 22 Truss Supports • D = -973 k 3 L = -179 k Caissons • S = -6 k T U = -1206 k Deflections • 15-B Architecture Considerations • f Tn= -1685 k H J L M.5 N.2 Comparative Summary • A MERICAN A RT M USEUM
T RUSS S UPPORTS Pipe Do 24 in Building Introduction • t 1.75 in Problem Background • Proposed Structural System Concrete • 6 Solution Goals • f'c 15000 psi Load Path Comparison • fy 150 ksi Design Assumptions • 11 no. Truss X • 4 n 16 Foundations • D = 3392 k D = 2479 k Truss Supports Capacity L = 2419 k • L = 1661 k S = 4 k S = 34 k 3 Caissons P U = 7943 k • P U = 5646 k f Pn 8272 k Deflections 24R-1 • 24R-1 f Tn 8053 k f Pn= 8272 k f Pn= 8272 k Architecture Considerations • H J L M.5 N.2 f Mn 2754 ft-k Comparative Summary • A MERICAN A RT M USEUM
F OUNDATIONS Building Introduction • T U = -248 t Problem Background • 6 (2) #1 Ta = -302 t Proposed Structural System • Solution Goals • P U = 378 t T U = -675 t Load Path Comparison 1 • (1) #1 (2) #1 Pa = 414 t 4 Ta = -302 t Design Assumptions • 2 P U = 3022 t Truss X • (5) #2 3 Pa = 3726 t Foundations • 3 P U = 2191 t T U = -470 t Truss Supports • (4) #2 (3) #2 Pa = 2484 t Ta = -681 t Caissons • D+H+F+L+S+T Deflections • Architecture Considerations • Comparative Summary H J L M.5 N.2 • A MERICAN A RT M USEUM
Recommend
More recommend
