MTOB ae senior thesis april 26, 2013 multi-tenant advisor: dr. boothby office building victoria interval [struc] pennsylvania
MTOB ae senior thesis introduction proposal april 26, 2013 multi-tenant redesign mechanical advisor: dr. boothby office building architectural conclusion victoria interval [struc] pennsylvania
stats 152,000 SF 5 stories introduction proposal composite steel framing redesign mechanical construction July 2012 to July 2013 architectural conclusion located in office park
project team general contractor | Rycon Construction introduction proposal architect | Kernick Architecture, LLC redesign mechanical architectural conclusion structural engr | Atlantic Engineering Services site/civil engr | Gateway Engineers
scenario tenant looking for more contemporary high-end space: open feel introduction proposal modern materials redesign mechanical architectural conclusion
scenario proposal struc – cellular beams in exposed ceiling tenant looking for more contemporary high-end space: open feel introduction proposal modern materials redesign mechanical architectural conclusion
scenario proposal struc – cellular beams in exposed ceiling tenant looking for more contemporary high-end space: open feel mech – run through structure (IBC height introduction restriction) proposal modern materials redesign mechanical architectural conclusion
scenario proposal struc – cellular beams in exposed ceiling tenant looking for more contemporary high-end space: open feel mech – run through structure (IBC height introduction restriction) proposal modern materials redesign mechanical architectural arch – façade redesign (aesthetics + thermal) conclusion
depth | STRUC introduction proposal redesign mechanical architectural conclusion
depth | STRUC introduction proposal redesign mechanical architectural conclusion
depth | STRUC introduction proposal redesign mechanical architectural conclusion
depth | STRUC introduction RAM optimized: proposal redesign mechanical LB27x35/46 architectural conclusion
depth | STRUC plastic analysis plastic analysis assumptions + behaves like Vierendeel Truss introduction RAM optimized: proposal redesign + failure mechanism will be mechanical LB27x35/46 architectural symmetrical conclusion
depth | STRUC plastic analysis introduction proposal redesign mechanical architectural conclusion
depth | STRUC plastic analysis introduction proposal redesign mechanical controlling collapse mechanism architectural conclusion failure load P = 11 k = 5.5 klf actual load = 0.9 klf
depth | STRUC plastic analysis introduction proposal redesign mechanical controlling collapse mechanism architectural conclusion + axial force in flanges failure load P = 11 k = 5.5 klf + deflection actual load = 0.9 klf + web buckling
depth | STRUC vierendeel trusses introduction proposal redesign mechanical architectural conclusion
depth | STRUC vierendeel trusses Vierendeel Truss Designs Description Span # panels Depth Size quantity ft in (each member) introduction "1" Beam 30 8 27 W8x10 6 proposal "2" Girder (half load) 30 8 27 W8x18 6 redesign "3" Girder (full load) 30 8 27 W8x31 1 mechanical "4" Girder 20 6 27 W8x10 4 architectural conclusion
depth | STRUC introduction proposal redesign mechanical architectural conclusion redesign original design
depth | STRUC braced frames text introduction proposal redesign mechanical architectural conclusion K = 3.34 k/in K = 10 k/in
depth | STRUC efficiencies introduction proposal redesign mechanical architectural conclusion original design redesign model floor size max axial (k) efficiency 4 th floor HSS6x6x3/8 71.69 .484 original 1 st floor HSS6x6x1/2 85.91 .509 ≈15% more efficient 4 th floor HSS6x6x3/8 62.58 .626 redesign 1 st floor HSS6x6x1/2 84.36 .768
depth | STRUC recap + verified cellular beam sizes introduction proposal redesign + stiffer concentrically braced frames mechanical architectural conclusion + more efficient lateral system
breadth | MECH introduction proposal redesign mechanical architectural conclusion
TRACE model – 15,520 CFM/floor introduction proposal redesign mechanical Excel – 14,800 CFM/floor architectural conclusion ≈ 5% accuracy
breadth | MECH rtu zones introduction proposal redesign mechanical architectural conclusion
breadth | MECH vav zones original – 2 Fan Powered Boxes introduction proposal redesign redesign – 19 VAV boxes mechanical + edge offices architectural conclusion + conference spaces + interior offices
breadth | MECH recap + met IBC height restrictions introduction proposal redesign + able to lay out ductwork through structure mechanical architectural conclusion + added VAV boxes for occupant comfort
breadth | ARCH façade introduction proposal redesign mechanical architectural conclusion
breadth | ARCH façade introduction proposal redesign mechanical architectural conclusion
breadth | ARCH façade introduction inspiration: The Vontz Center, proposal redesign Cincinnati mechanical architectural architect: Frank Gehry conclusion photo credit: J. Miles Wolf Photography
breadth | ARCH façade introduction inspiration: The Vontz Center, proposal redesign Cincinnati mechanical architectural architect: Frank Gehry conclusion southwest view
breadth | ARCH envelope schematic section: introduction ext air film original proposal brick redesign air gap mechanical rigid ins R = 15.3 architectural batt ins/metal studs conclusion gypsum bd int air film
breadth | ARCH envelope schematic section: rigid insulation replacement: introduction MetalWrap Series (by CENTRIA) ext air film original proposal brick redesign air gap 2 ” rigid insulation mechanical rigid ins R = 15.3 architectural batt ins/metal studs 36” x 20’ max panel conclusion gypsum bd int air film
breadth | ARCH envelope introduction original redesigned brick redesigned metal proposal redesign mechanical R = 15.3 R = 22.0 R = 21.6 architectural conclusion 44% increase 41% increase
breadth | ARCH recap + redesigned façade with modern materials introduction proposal redesign + improved thermal properties of envelope mechanical architectural conclusion
scenario tenant looking for more contemporary high-end space: open feel introduction proposal modern materials redesign mechanical architectural conclusion
scenario conclusion struc – cellular beams in exposed ceiling tenant looking for more contemporary high-end space: cellular beams are appropriate to address open feel open feel introduction concentrically braced frames are more efficient proposal modern materials than previous design redesign mechanical architectural conclusion
scenario conclusion struc – cellular beams in exposed ceiling tenant looking for more contemporary high-end space: cellular beams are appropriate to address open feel open feel mech – run through structure (IBC height introduction restriction) concentrically braced frames are more efficient proposal modern materials in accommodating the height restriction set by than previous design redesign the IBC, the mechanical ductwork is able to be mechanical completely laid out within the structural cells architectural conclusion
scenario conclusion struc – cellular beams in exposed ceiling tenant looking for more contemporary high-end space: cellular beams are appropriate to address open feel open feel mech – run through structure (IBC height introduction restriction) concentrically braced frames are more efficient proposal modern materials in accommodating the height restriction set by than previous design redesign the IBC, the mechanical ductwork is able to be mechanical completely laid out within the structural cells architectural arch – façade redesign (aesthetics + thermal) conclusion the façade redesign showcased the braced frames to reflect the contemporary style of the building thermal properties were improved by switching to a higher-end rigid insulation panel envelope system
acknowledgements Atlantic Engineering Services John Schneider Angelo Maione introduction Justin Kovach proposal redesign entire ae faculty mechanical architectural Dr. Thomas Boothby conclusion Professor M. Kevin Parfitt Professor Robert Holland fellow ae students family + friends
comments introduction proposal redesign mechanical architectural conclusion
30% increase in foundation load appendix 60% increase in foundation load
depth | STRUC plastic analysis – upper bound theorem 𝜀𝑋 𝑗𝑜𝑢 = 𝜀𝑋 𝑓𝑦𝑢 appendix 𝑄 ∙ 𝑒 𝑗 ∙ 𝜄 = 𝑁 𝑞,𝑗 ∙ 𝜄
IBC 2009 height requirements Table 503 Type II A B (business) 5 stories max ≤ 5 stories (good) 37,500 SF max ≥ 28,800 SF (good) appendix 65’ max < 70’ (must reduce to 65’ height) Table 601 Type II A Primary Structure → 1 hour fire rating note d: 1 hour fire rating substituted by sprinkler (exposed ceiling OK)
Recommend
More recommend
