ECMC Skilled Nursing Facility 462 Grider Street Buffalo, NY 14215 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

ECMC Skilled Nursing Facility 462 Grider Street Buffalo, NY 14215 Brian Brunnet Structural Option AE 482 – Senior Thesis Dr. Ali Memari

Presentation Outline 1. Project Background 2. Scope of Work 3. Structural Depth Study i. Foundation System ii. Gravity System iii. Lateral Force Resisting System 4. Mechanical Breadth 5. Construction Management Breadth 6. Summary of Conclusions 7. Acknowledgments

Project Background Building Statistics: Project Team: • • Location: 462 Grider St. Buffalo, NY 14215 Owner: ECMC Corporation • • Occupant: Erie County Medical Center Architect: Cannon Design • • Occupancy Type: Medical Construction Manager: LP Ciminelli • • Size: 296,000 SF Structural Engineer: Cannon Design • • Number of Stories: 6 Civil Engineer: Watts Architecture & Engineering • Maximum Height: 90’ - 0” • MEP Engineer: M/E Engineering • Completion Date: July 2012 • Project Cost: $95 Million • Delivery Method: Design-Bid-Build

Project Background 1. Project Background Existing Structural System 2. Scope of Work Foundation System: 3. Structural Depth Study • 5” Slab on Grade i. Foundation System • 12” Concrete Mat beneath elevator core • Square Spread Footings ii. Gravity System • Sizes range from 3’ - 6” to 7’ iii. Lateral Force Resisting System • Depths range from 1’ - 8” to 2’ - 8” 4. Mechanical Breadth • 3000 psi Normal Weight concrete 5. Construction Management Breadth • Soil Bearing Capacity of 16,000 psf 6. Summary of Conclusions 7. Acknowledgments

Project Background 1. Project Background Existing Structural System 2. Scope of Work Gravity System: 3. Structural Depth Study • Composite Metal Decking i. Foundation System • 5¼” LWC Floor Slab on 2” 20 Gage Metal Decking ii. Gravity System • Blended Fiber Reinforcement iii. Lateral Force Resisting System 4. Mechanical Breadth • Composite Steel Framing 5. Construction Management Breadth • Column Sizes of W10 6. Summary of Conclusions • Beam Sizes of W12 to W16 • Girder sizes ranged from W14 to W24 7. Acknowledgments • Column Splices at 2 nd and 4 th floors

Project Background 1. Project Background Existing Structural System 2. Scope of Work Lateral Force Resisting System: 3. Structural Depth Study • Concentrically Braced Frame system i. Foundation System • HSS Cross Bracing range in size from 6x6x3/8 to 7x7x1/2 ii. Gravity System iii. Lateral Force Resisting System • Lateral system located at the end of each and 4. Mechanical Breadth surrounding the building core 5. Construction Management Breadth 6. Summary of Conclusions • Layout consists of a Radial Geometry 7. Acknowledgments

Scope of Work Problem Statement: • Existing Structural System currently the most efficient and economical • Design Similar Structural System for Downtown Los Angeles, CA • High Seismic activity in this new location Problem Solution: • Design Adequate Foundations • Design Lighter Floor System • Design Sufficient Lateral System: • Base Isolation • Concentric Braced Frame System Buffalo, NY Los Angeles, CA

Scope of Work 1. Project Background Project Goals: 2. Scope of Work Structural Depth Study • 3. Structural Depth Study Reduce Floor System Weight • Maintain Architectural Layout i. Foundation System • Design Adequate Foundation and Lateral ii. Gravity System Systems for new location iii. Lateral Force Resisting System 4. Mechanical Breadth Mechanical Breadth Study • Verify Existing mechanical AHU’s are adequate 5. Construction Management Breadth for new location’s climate 6. Summary of Conclusions 7. Acknowledgments Construction management Breadth Study • Impact on construction schedule & cost

Structural Depth Study 1. Project Background Buffalo, NY: 2. Scope of Work • Wind Loads primarily dominated Lateral System Design • 3. Structural Depth Study Snow Loads contributed to Gravity System i. Foundation System ii. Gravity System Los Angeles, CA: iii. Lateral Force Resisting System • Highly Active Seismic Region 4. Mechanical Breadth • Frequent Earthquakes 5. Construction Management Breadth • Possibility of Soil Liquefaction • Bedrock is located around 80’ depth 6. Summary of Conclusions • Densely Populated Area 7. Acknowledgments

Structural Depth Study The following systems will be evaluated: Foundation System Gravity System Lateral Force Resisting System

Foundation System 1. Project Background Los Angeles, CA: 2. Scope of Work • 2,000 to 5,000 psi bearing strength • 3. Structural Depth Study Large Vertical/Lateral Loads on foundation • 80’ depth to Limestone Bedrock i. Foundation System • Possibility of Liquefaction ii. Gravity System iii. Lateral Force Resisting System Solution: Deep Foundation 4. Mechanical Breadth • Driven piles provide adequate bearing strength 5. Construction Management Breadth • Use of Bodine Resonant Pile Driver 6. Summary of Conclusions • Relatively Quiet Vs. Impact Hammer 7. Acknowledgments

Foundation System 1. Project Background Deep Foundation Design Results: 2. Scope of Work • Pile Shape Size: HP12x84 • 3. Structural Depth Study Pile Capacity: 597 Kips / Pile • Safety Factor: 3.5 i. Foundation System • Pile Length: 80’ (bearing on bedrock) ii. Gravity System • Largest Footing: 9’ x 6’ w/ 12 Piles iii. Lateral Force Resisting System 4. Mechanical Breadth 5. Construction Management Breadth 6. Summary of Conclusions 7. Acknowledgments

Gravity System 1. Project Background 2. Scope of Work Framing Plan: 3. Structural Depth Study • Bays vary in size / largest = 29’ - 2” x 26’ - 0” i. Foundation System • Columns match wall partitions in plan ii. Gravity System • Composite Decking spans parallel to wing • Beams span perpendicular to wing iii. Lateral Force Resisting System • Girders span parallel to wing 4. Mechanical Breadth 5. Construction Management Breadth 6. Summary of Conclusions 7. Acknowledgments

Gravity System 1. Project Background Design Loads: 2. Scope of Work • ASCE 7-10 • 3. Structural Depth Study Live loads • Superimposed Dead Loads i. Foundation System ii. Gravity System Serviceability Criteria: Deflection iii. Lateral Force Resisting System • Live Load = L/360 • 4. Mechanical Breadth Total Load = L/240 5. Construction Management Breadth Controlling Load Combination: 6. Summary of Conclusions • 1.2D + 1.6L + 0.5L r 7. Acknowledgments

Gravity System 1. Project Background Gravity System Design Results: • W-Flange Steel Columns • 2. Scope of Work W10 shapes used for easy spliced connections • Composite Steel Slab • Sizes range from W10x33 to W10x60 • 3. Structural Depth Study 3VLI22 steel decking • Design relatively similar to Existing • 5” total thickness i. Foundation System • Reduced floor weight from 42 psf to 35 psf ii. Gravity System iii. Lateral Force Resisting System • Composite W-Flange Steel Beam 4. Mechanical Breadth • W14x26 (w/16 shear studs) 5. Construction Management Breadth • Redesign lighter than Existing (by 5 lb) 6. Summary of Conclusions • Composite W-Flange Steel Girder 7. Acknowledgments • W18x35 (w/ 20 shear studs) • Same weight as existing, less studs

Lateral Force Resisting System 1. Project Background Lead-Core Rubber Base Isolation: 2. Scope of Work • Increases building period • 3. Structural Depth Study Reduces building lateral drift • Incorporation of lead core dampens seismic forces and i. Foundation System re-aligns building after quake ii. Gravity System iii. Lateral Force Resisting System Seismic Base Isolation Comparison (Los Angeles, CA) 4. Mechanical Breadth No Base Isolation Base Isolation Building Period 4.1803 sec 1.4754 sec 5. Construction Management Breadth Base Shear 6550 kips 6550 kips 6. Summary of Conclusions Total Moment 350,694 ft-k 350,694 ft-k 7. Acknowledgments Displacement (@ 90') 2.971" 2.64" Drift (@90') 0.025" 0.018" Member Size W14x370 W14x283