FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory Timothy Mueller Timothy - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
fda cdrh laboratory fda cdrh laboratory
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory Timothy Mueller Timothy - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oct 01, 2023 558 likes •960 views

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller Senior Thesis, Spring 2006 Senior Thesis, Spring 2006 Structural Option Structural Option FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory Timothy Mueller Senior

slide-1
SLIDE 1

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller Senior Thesis, Spring 2006 Senior Thesis, Spring 2006 Structural Option Structural Option

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Project Background General Architecture Existing Structure Depth Study Gravity Analysis Lateral Analysis Additional Considerations Breadth Study Construction Management Architectural Analysis Summary and Conclusions Acknowledgements

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option

slide-3
SLIDE 3

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option P P R R O O J J E E C C T T B B A A C C K K G G R R O O U U N N D D Navy Ordnance Site U.S. Food and Drug Administration U.S. General Services Administration

slide-4
SLIDE 4

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option

  • White Oak Campus

White Oak Campus White Oak Campus White Oak Campus Silver Spring, MD Silver Spring, MD Silver Spring, MD Silver Spring, MD

P P R R O O J J E E C C T T B B A A C C K K G G R R O O U U N N D D

slide-5
SLIDE 5

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option P P R R O O J J E E C C T T B B A A C C K K G G R R O O U U N N D D

Delivery Method: Delivery Method: Design-Bid-Build Major Building Code: Major Building Code: IBC 2000 Cost: Cost: $63 Million Start Date: Start Date: March 22, 2005 Finish Date: Finish Date: November 1, 2006

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Project Background General Architecture Existing Structure Depth Study Gravity Analysis Lateral Analysis Additional Considerations Breadth Study Construction Management Architectural Analysis Summary and Conclusions Acknowledgements

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option

slide-7
SLIDE 7

G G E E N N E E R R A A L L A A R R C C H H I I T T E E C C T T U U R R E E

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option

Size:

  • 139,805 Sq Ft

Façade:

  • Many decorative aluminum & sheet

metal panels

  • Ribbon windows
  • Full glazing curtain walls
  • Horizontal sunshields

High Bay Laboratory:

  • Located on West Side
  • Decorative curved metal roof

Height:

  • 86’ above grade
  • Central core w/ 5th floor penthouse
  • Four story main structure
  • One floor below grade
slide-8
SLIDE 8

Project Background General Architecture Existing Structure Depth Study Gravity Analysis Lateral Analysis Additional Considerations Breadth Study Construction Management Architectural Analysis Summary and Conclusions Acknowledgements

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option

slide-9
SLIDE 9

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option E E X X I I S S T T I I N N G G S S T T R R U U C C T T U U R R E E Roof: Roof: Typical concrete on metal deck w/ steel frame of:

  • W14X122
  • W10X73

Superstructure: Superstructure: Typically one-way cast-in-place concrete w/ monolithic poured:

  • 4.5” slab
  • 10”X16” joist
  • 16”X16” joist
  • 20”X20.5” beams
  • 18”X24” columns

Foundation: Foundation:

  • 3’ deep step footing
  • 10’X10’spread footing

below columns Unique protection: Unique protection:

  • 20”X30” progressive

collapse beams

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Project Background General Architecture Existing Structure Depth Study Gravity Analysis Lateral Analysis Additional Considerations Breadth Study Construction Management Architectural Analysis Summary and Conclusions Acknowledgements

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option

slide-11
SLIDE 11

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option

Considerations: Considerations:

Concrete Pros: Concrete Pros:

  • High Vibration Stability
  • Integrated Fireproofing
  • Small Floor Sandwich

Concrete Cons: Concrete Cons:

  • Labor Intensive
  • Large Total Mass
  • Steel Roof System

Proposed Solution: Proposed Solution:

  • Construct the FDA CDRH

Construct the FDA CDRH Laboratory with Steel Laboratory with Steel

D D E E P P T T H H S S T T U U D D Y Y

slide-12
SLIDE 12

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option D D E E P P T T H H S S T T U U D D Y Y

Loading: Loading:

Dead load: Dead load: 73psf 73psf USF2X deck and Concrete: 48psf Superimposed: 25psf Snow load (Washington D.C.): Snow load (Washington D.C.): 30psf 30psf Live Load: Live Load: 125psf 125psf Light Manufacturing (Most Laboratory Spaces): 125psf Light Storage (Supplementary Laboratory Spaces): 125psf The controlling combination in both N/S and E/W direction is 1.2D +1.0E + 0.5L + 0.2S 1.2D +1.0E + 0.5L + 0.2S for all floors except the first floor which was controlled in both directions by 1.2D + 1.6W + 0.5L + 0.5S 1.2D + 1.6W + 0.5L + 0.5S

slide-13
SLIDE 13

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option

Project Background General Architecture Existing Structure Depth Study Gravity Analysis Lateral Analysis Additional Considerations Breadth Study Construction Management Architectural Analysis Summary and Conclusions Acknowledgements

slide-14
SLIDE 14

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option Deflection Criteria: Deflection Criteria: Live: l/360, Total: l/240, & Vibration Criteria

  • G

G R R A A V V I I T T Y Y A A N N A A L L Y Y S S I I S S

D D E E P P T T H H S S T T U U D D Y Y

slide-15
SLIDE 15

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option

Design A Design A

5” slab over 22 gage UF2X form deck with 44-W2.9XW2.9 welded wire fabric. Vibration velocity when a person is walking slowly: 6,214 6,214 μ μ in/sec in/sec Criteria level: 1 1

≤ 8,000 μ in/sec: computer systems, operating rooms, surgery, and bench microscopes at up to 100x magnification

Vibration velocity when a person is running: 141,086 141,086 μ μ in/sec in/sec Criteria level:

  • G

G R R A A V V I I T T Y Y A A N N A A L L Y Y S S I I S S

D D E E P P T T H H S S T T U U D D Y Y

slide-16
SLIDE 16

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option

Design B Design B

5” slab over 20 gage UF2X form deck with 44-W2.9XW2.9 welded wire fabric. Vibration velocity when a person is walking slowly: 255 255 μ μ in/sec in/sec Criteria level: 5 5

≤ 500 μ in/sec: electron microscopes at up to 30,000x magnification, microtomes, magnetic response imagers, and microelectronics manufacturing equipment class C

Vibration velocity when a person is running: 5,794 5,794 μ μ in/sec in/sec Criteria level: 1 1

≤ 8,000 μ in/sec: computer systems, operating rooms, surgery, and bench microscopes at up to 100x magnification

  • G

G R R A A V V I I T T Y Y A A N N A A L L Y Y S S I I S S

D D E E P P T T H H S S T T U U D D Y Y

slide-17
SLIDE 17

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option

Project Background General Architecture Existing Structure Depth Study Gravity Analysis Lateral Analysis Additional Considerations Breadth Study Construction Management Architectural Analysis Summary and Conclusions Acknowledgements

slide-18
SLIDE 18

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option Deflection Criteria: Deflection Criteria: h/400 Seismic Deflection Criteria: Seismic Deflection Criteria: 0.02h/floor No damage to building systems (h/180)

  • L

L A A T T E E R R A A L L A A N N A A L L Y Y S S I I S S

D D E E P P T T H H S S T T U U D D Y Y

slide-19
SLIDE 19

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option Typical Column: W14 W14

Design A Design A

  • L

L A A T T E E R R A A L L A A N N A A L L Y Y S S I I S S

D D E E P P T T H H S S T T U U D D Y Y Moment Frames: 3 3

slide-20
SLIDE 20

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option

Design B Design B

Typical Column: W14 W14

  • L

L A A T T E E R R A A L L A A N N A A L L Y Y S S I I S S

D D E E P P T T H H S S T T U U D D Y Y Moment Frames: 6 6

slide-21
SLIDE 21

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option

Project Background General Architecture Existing Structure Depth Study Gravity Analysis Lateral Analysis Additional Considerations Breadth Study Construction Management Architectural Analysis Summary and Conclusions Acknowledgements

slide-22
SLIDE 22

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option

  • A

A D D D D I I T T I I O O N N A A L L C C O O N N S S I I D D E E R R A A T T I I O O N N S S

D D E E P P T T H H S S T T U U D D Y Y

Blast Control: Blast Control:

  • Location

Location - center of the limited access White Oak campus

  • One road access

road access point - north end of the building

  • No interior below grade parking

below grade parking garages

  • Extra layer of welded wire mesh

welded wire mesh in upper portion of the deck

  • Moment connections
  • Square columns

Square columns -

  • HSS shapes versus W-shape resistance torsion
  • progressive collapse beam

progressive collapse beam support the load of two bay spans without deflection criteria W40X230 W40X230 to W40X431 W40X431

  • Overall cost of a blast resistant system as compared to a non-resistive

5% 5% increase

slide-23
SLIDE 23

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option

  • A

A D D D D I I T T I I O O N N A A L L C C O O N N S S I I D D E E R R A A T T I I O O N N S S

D D E E P P T T H H S S T T U U D D Y Y

Height Height

Total height increase: 8.25 8.25’ ’

  • No height restrictions
  • Slight increase in wind loads
  • Minimal additional cladding cost

Weight/Foundation Weight/Foundation

Total mass decrease: ¼ ¼ original design

  • riginal design (just under 6 million kips)
  • Lower seismic forces
  • Foundations reduced to 1/3 original area

Fireproofing Fireproofing

Compatible spray spray-

  • on fireproofing
  • n fireproofing
  • Decking: 3/8”
  • Beams and girders: 1”
  • Columns: 1-3/8”
slide-24
SLIDE 24

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option

Considerations: Considerations:

Concrete Pros: Concrete Pros:

  • High Vibration Stability
  • Integrated Fireproofing
  • Small Floor Sandwich

Concrete Cons: Concrete Cons:

  • Labor Intensive
  • Large Total Mass
  • Steel Roof System

Proposed Solution: Proposed Solution:

  • Construct the FDA CDRH

Construct the FDA CDRH Laboratory with Steel Laboratory with Steel

D D E E P P T T H H S S T T U U D D Y Y

Proposed Solution: Proposed Solution:

  • Design B Steel Structure

Design B Steel Structure

  • Fewer members

Fewer members

  • High vibration control

High vibration control

  • Blast control

Blast control

  • More moment connections

More moment connections

slide-25
SLIDE 25

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option

Project Background General Architecture Existing Structure Depth Study Gravity Analysis Lateral Analysis Additional Considerations Breadth Study Construction Management Architectural Analysis Summary and Conclusions Acknowledgements

slide-26
SLIDE 26

S S T T U U D D Y Y

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option

  • C

C O O N N S S T T R R U U C C T T I I O O N N M M A A N N A A G G E E M M E E N N T T

B B R R E E A A D D T T H H Cost: Cost:

  • Current System (concrete)

Current System (concrete)

  • Design A (steel spanning N

Design A (steel spanning N-

  • S)

S)

  • Design B (steel spanning E

Design B (steel spanning E-

  • W)

W)

  • Design B with Blast Resistance

Design B with Blast Resistance $4,492,275.00 $4,492,275.00 $3,799,940.00 $3,799,940.00 $3,392,223.00 $3,392,223.00 $3,561,834.15 $3,561,834.15 $692,335.00 $692,335.00 $1,100,052.00 $1,100,052.00 $930,440.85 $930,440.85

slide-27
SLIDE 27

S S T T U U D D Y Y

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option

  • C

C O O N N S S T T R R U U C C T T I I O O N N M M A A N N A A G G E E M M E E N N T T

B B R R E E A A D D T T H H Steel Construction Concrete Construction

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Proposed Solution: Proposed Solution:

  • Design B Steel Structure

Design B Steel Structure

  • Fewer members

Fewer members

  • High Vibration control

High Vibration control

  • Blast control

Blast control

  • More moment connections

More moment connections Proposed Solution: Proposed Solution:

  • Design B Steel Structure

Design B Steel Structure

  • Fewer members

Fewer members

  • Increased vibration control

Increased vibration control

  • More moment connections

More moment connections

  • Cost savings

Cost savings

  • Time savings

Time savings

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option

Considerations: Considerations:

Concrete Pros: Concrete Pros:

  • High Vibration Stability
  • Integrated Fireproofing
  • Small Floor Sandwich

Concrete Cons: Concrete Cons:

  • Labor Intensive
  • Large Total Mass
  • Steel Roof System

S S T T U U D D Y Y

  • C

C O O N N S S T T R R U U C C T T I I O O N N M M A A N N A A G G E E M M E E N N T T

B B R R E E A A D D T T H H

slide-29
SLIDE 29

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option

Project Background General Architecture Existing Structure Depth Study Gravity Analysis Lateral Analysis Additional Considerations Breadth Study Construction Management Architectural Analysis Summary and Conclusions Acknowledgements

slide-30
SLIDE 30

S S T T U U D D Y Y

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option

  • A

A R R C C H H I I T T E E C C T T U U R R A A L L A A N N A A L L Y Y S S I I S S

B B R R E E A A D D T T H H

slide-31
SLIDE 31

to W30X90 to W30X90 to W24X76 to W24X76 to W21X48 to W21X48 S S T T U U D D Y Y

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option

  • A

A R R C C H H I I T T E E C C T T U U R R A A L L A A N N A A L L Y Y S S I I S S

B B R R E E A A D D T T H H W27X84 W27X84 W21X50 W21X50 W18X40 W18X40 Steel fa Steel faç çade Brick fa ade Brick faç çade E.I.F.S. fa ade E.I.F.S. faç çade ade Precast Precast fa faç çade ade

slide-32
SLIDE 32

( (-

  • $509,516.02)

$509,516.02) ( (-

  • $488,900.10)

$488,900.10) $1,574,993.45 $1,574,993.45 $46,306.63 $46,306.63 $1,592,609.37 $1,592,609.37 S S T T U U D D Y Y

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option

  • A

A R R C C H H I I T T E E C C T T U U R R A A L L A A N N A A L L Y Y S S I I S S

B B R R E E A A D D T T H H Steel fa Steel faç çade Brick fa ade Brick faç çade E.I.F.S. fa ade E.I.F.S. faç çade ade $1,086,093.35 $1,086,093.35 $1,039,786.72 $1,039,786.72 Precast Precast fa faç çade ade

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Proposed Solution: Proposed Solution:

  • Design B Steel Structure

Design B Steel Structure

  • Fewer members

Fewer members

  • Increased vibration control

Increased vibration control

  • More moment connections

More moment connections

  • Cost savings

Cost savings

  • Time savings

Time savings Proposed Solution: Proposed Solution:

  • Design B Steel Structure

Design B Steel Structure

  • Fewer members

Fewer members

  • Increased vibration control

Increased vibration control

  • More moment connections

More moment connections

  • Cost savings

Cost savings

  • Time savings

Time savings

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option

Considerations: Considerations:

Concrete Pros: Concrete Pros:

  • High Vibration Stability
  • Integrated Fireproofing
  • Small Floor Sandwich

Concrete Cons: Concrete Cons:

  • Labor Intensive
  • Large Total Mass
  • Steel Roof System
  • Precast

Precast Fa Faç çade ade

  • Fast installation

Fast installation

  • Traditional image

Traditional image

  • Additional blast resistance

Additional blast resistance

S S T T U U D D Y Y

  • A

A R R C C H H I I T T E E C C T T U U R R A A L L A A N N A A L L Y Y S S I I S S

B B R R E E A A D D T T H H

slide-34
SLIDE 34

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option

Project Background General Architecture Existing Structure Depth Study Gravity Analysis Lateral Analysis Additional Considerations Breadth Study Construction Management Architectural Analysis Summary and Conclusions Acknowledgements

slide-35
SLIDE 35

$930,440.85 $930,440.85 $441,540.75 $441,540.75 Current Building Current Building

(concrete structure & steel fa (concrete structure & steel faç çade) ade)

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option C C O O N N C C L L U U S S I I O O N N S S S S U U M M M M A A R R Y Y A A N N D D

Proposed Building Proposed Building

(steel structure & steel fa (steel structure & steel faç çade) ade)

Proposed Building Proposed Building

(steel structure & (steel structure & precast precast fa faç çade) ade)

$5,578,368.35 $5,578,368.35 $4,647,927.50 $4,647,927.50 $5,136,827.60 $5,136,827.60

slide-36
SLIDE 36

$930,440.85 $930,440.85 $441,540.75 $441,540.75 Current Building Current Building

(concrete structure & steel fa (concrete structure & steel faç çade) ade)

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option C C O O N N C C L L U U S S I I O O N N S S S S U U M M M M A A R R Y Y A A N N D D

Proposed Building Proposed Building

(steel structure & steel fa (steel structure & steel faç çade) ade)

Proposed Building Proposed Building

(steel structure & (steel structure & precast precast fa faç çade) ade)

$5,578,368.35 $5,578,368.35 Cost Savings Cost Savings Greater Than Satisfactory Vibration Control Greater Than Satisfactory Vibration Control Time Savings Time Savings Equivalent Fireproofing Equivalent Fireproofing Campus Unifying Fa Campus Unifying Faç çade ade Smaller Foundation Smaller Foundation Increased Blast Protection Increased Blast Protection

slide-37
SLIDE 37

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option

Project Background General Architecture Existing Structure Depth Study Gravity Analysis Lateral Analysis Additional Considerations Breadth Study Construction Management Architectural Analysis Summary and Conclusions Acknowledgements

slide-38
SLIDE 38

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option

I would like to thank the following people: James Piedrafita, Truland Systems Corporation, for providing me with all of my resources, as well as a work experience and knowledge that can not be quantified.

  • Dr. Ali Memari, Penn State University, for being my faculty advisor.
  • Dr. Walter Schneider, Penn State University, for being my advisor in the Fall of

2005 as well as a tremendous help throughout the thesis year.

  • Dr. Hanagan and Professor Parfitt, Penn State University, for a answering my

incessant questions with great patience. The AE Faculty and Staff, Penn State University, for providing me with a truly unique and extraordinary college experience and the ability to present my thesis. The Professional Structural Mentors, for providing insight in a matter of seconds that would take me days to unravel. My Friends, who without their help, support, and ear, I would never have been able to survive this past year.

and

My Family, who not only provided me with a sounding board this past year, but a sound foundation to build my future from.

A A C C K K N N O O W W L L E E D D G G E E M M E E N N T T S S

slide-39
SLIDE 39

FDA CDRH Laboratory FDA CDRH Laboratory

Timothy Mueller Timothy Mueller •

  • Senior Thesis

Senior Thesis •

  • Spring 2006

Spring 2006 •

  • Structural Option

Structural Option

Questions? Questions?