Xt 101 Eola Drive, Orlando, FL Justin Raducha Structural Option - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
x t
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Xt 101 Eola Drive, Orlando, FL Justin Raducha Structural Option - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dec 17, 2022 135 likes •352 views

Xt 101 Eola Drive, Orlando, FL Justin Raducha Structural Option April 15 th , 2008 Senior Thesis Presentation Outline Building Statistics Introduction & Building Overview Building Statistics Location : 101 South Eola Dr.

slide-1
SLIDE 1

XÉÄt

Justin Raducha Senior Thesis Structural Option April 15th, 2008 101 Eola Drive, Orlando, FL

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Presentation Outline

Introduction & Building Overview Building Statistics Existing Structure Overview Proposal Structural Depth Study Structural System Overview Redesign Details Impacts & Considerations Construction Management Breadth Study Site Analysis Existing Cost & Schedule Proposed System Impact Comparison Sustainability Breadth Study LEED Checklist Research Conclusions & Recommendations

Building Statistics

Location: 101 South Eola Dr. Orlando, FL Architecture: 12 Stories Green Glass and White Concrete Building Use: Mixed‐Use

  • Retail Stores
  • 3 Levels of Parking
  • 130 Luxury Condominiums

Size: 322,810 Square Feet Cost: $36.4 Million Structure: 100% Precast Concrete Construction

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Introduction & Building Overview Building Statistics Existing Structure Overview Proposal Structural Depth Study Structural System Overview Redesign Details Impacts & Considerations Construction Management Breadth Study Site Analysis Existing Cost & Schedule Proposed System Impact Comparison Sustainability Breadth Study LEED Checklist Research Conclusions & Recommendations

Presentation Outline Existing Structure

  • 100% Precast Concrete Structure
  • Building steps back 10 feet on all sides above level 5
  • Central Core houses stair towers and elevator shafts
  • Ground Floor : Slab on Grade
  • Levels 2‐4: Double Tee Parking Deck supported by Precast Walls (E‐W Span)
  • Levels 5‐12:
  • 8” Hollowcore Planks with 1” Gyp‐Crete Topping
  • Planks are supported by precast concrete trusses
  • Lateral System:
  • Shear walls are placed around exterior of the structure
  • Shear walls take lateral loading as well as gravity loading from levels 5‐12
  • Concrete trusses span between shear walls and central core
  • Half of lateral load is transferred to opposite shear walls by trusses
slide-4
SLIDE 4

Presentation Outline

Introduction & Building Overview Building Statistics Existing Structure Overview Proposal Structural Depth Study Structural System Overview Redesign Details Impacts & Considerations Construction Management Breadth Study Site Analysis Existing Cost & Schedule Proposed System Impact Comparison Sustainability Breadth Study LEED Checklist Research Conclusions & Recommendations

Skip Truss System

  • Similar to staggered truss system
  • Each of the 48 trusses carries 2 floors worth of loading
  • System allows alternate floors to be column and load‐bearing wall free
  • Precast Trusses developed and designed exclusively for this project
  • 45 foot span / 12 feet tall
  • Placed within partition walls between condominiums
slide-5
SLIDE 5

Introduction & Building Overview Building Statistics Existing Structure Overview Proposal Structural Depth Study Structural System Overview Redesign Details Impacts & Considerations Construction Management Breadth Study Site Analysis Existing Cost & Schedule Proposed System Impact Comparison Sustainability Breadth Study LEED Checklist Research Conclusions & Recommendations

Presentation Outline Proposal

Redesign Rationale:

  • Each concrete truss weighs in excess of 54,000 pounds
  • Concrete is poor in tension – any tensile forces need to be carried by steel reinforcement
  • Trusses needed to be specially designed for the intended purpose
  • Superimposed loading can be more efficiently carried over the 45 foot span by steel

Proposed Changes:

  • Redesign of skip truss system utilizing equivalent steel trusses in place of concrete trusses
  • Reduce overall weight of the system and therefore the structure
  • Compare impact of change to the cost and schedule of the project

Additional Proposals

  • Evaluate building for applicability and feasibility of Green Building practices
  • Investigate additions and changes to allow 101 Eola to achieve a LEED Rating
  • Provide for a more sustainable, healthy, and enjoyable environment
slide-6
SLIDE 6

Introduction & Building Overview Building Statistics Existing Structure Overview Proposal Structural Depth Study Structural System Overview Redesign Details Impacts & Considerations Construction Management Breadth Study Site Analysis Existing Cost & Schedule Proposed System Impact Comparison Sustainability Breadth Study LEED Checklist Research Conclusions & Recommendations

Presentation Outline Proposal

Success Measured By:

Structural Concerns: Lighter System Thinner Wall Sandwich Meet Strength & Serviceability Criteria Construction Concerns Less Expensive System Shorter Schedule Duration Maintain workable site Sustainability Concerns Provide for a more sustainable, healthy, and enjoyable environment

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Introduction & Building Overview Building Statistics Existing Structure Overview Proposal Structural Depth Study Structural System Overview Redesign Details Impacts & Considerations Construction Management Breadth Study Site Analysis Existing Cost & Schedule Proposed System Impact Comparison Sustainability Breadth Study LEED Checklist Research Conclusions & Recommendations

Presentation Outline Structural System Overview

Concrete Truss Details:

  • 45 foot span
  • 13 inch thickness for top (web) section of truss
  • 12 foot height
  • Constructed of 7000 psi concrete
  • Reinforced with (12) ½” diameter tendons, #11 longitudinal bars, #10 vertical bars, #4 stirrups
  • 54.6 kips self weight per truss

Floor Construction:

  • 8” Hollowcore Planks
  • Average Bay Span = 26’‐7”
  • 1” Gyp‐Crete topping for continuity
  • Planks rest on top chord and bottom chord of truss
  • Fully grouted through truss to achieve rigid diaphragm action
slide-8
SLIDE 8

Presentation Outline

Introduction & Building Overview Building Statistics Existing Structure Overview Proposal Structural Depth Study Structural System Overview Redesign Details Impacts & Considerations Construction Management Breadth Study Site Analysis Existing Cost & Schedule Proposed System Impact Comparison Sustainability Breadth Study LEED Checklist Research Conclusions & Recommendations

Truss Redesign

Materials:

  • Chords: Wide Flange W‐Shape Members, A992 Steel
  • Vertical and Diagonal Web Members: Square HSS Tubing, A500 Grade B Steel
  • Gusset Plates: ½” thick, A36 Steel

Design:

  • Two panel designs were considered: 5 panels & 7 panels
  • 5 panel solution chosen from analysis for giving lowest weight to strength ratio

Connections:

  • Two options were considered:
  • Slotted HSS to gusset plate connection
  • Direct HSS to W‐Shape flange connection
  • Gusset plate connection chosen per fabricator suggestions
  • Cheaper connection (less labor costs)
  • Allows for hollowcore planks to rest on flange
slide-9
SLIDE 9

Presentation Outline

Introduction & Building Overview Building Statistics Existing Structure Overview Proposal Structural Depth Study Structural System Overview Redesign Details Impacts & Considerations Construction Management Breadth Study Site Analysis Existing Cost & Schedule Proposed System Impact Comparison Sustainability Breadth Study LEED Checklist Research Conclusions & Recommendations

Final Design

  • HSS vertical and diagonal members, W‐Shape chords
  • Connections are slotted HSS connected to ½” gusset with ¼” fillet weld on either side
  • Design resulted in a truss weighing 8.55 kips
  • Resulting deflection of 0.396” is well within the code limit of L/240 (2.25”)
  • Connected to shear walls in same fashion as concrete trusses – welded plate connection
slide-10
SLIDE 10

Presentation Outline

Introduction & Building Overview Building Statistics Existing Structure Overview Proposal Structural Depth Study Structural System Overview Redesign Details Impacts & Considerations Construction Management Breadth Study Site Analysis Existing Cost & Schedule Proposed System Impact Comparison Sustainability Breadth Study LEED Checklist Research Conclusions & Recommendations

Impacts & Considerations

Foundation Impact

  • Lighter System, No redesign required

Lateral Force Resisting System

  • Lighter System
  • Functions the same as concrete solution

Fireproofing

  • 2 hour fire rating required by code
  • Achieved using 1” minimum of Spray Applied Fire Resistive Material (SFRM)

Wall Width

  • Truss width decreased from 13 inches to 6 inches inside wall
  • An additional 3.5” of floor space on either side of truss ≈ 26 Square Feet along length

No Redesign Required

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Presentation Outline

Introduction & Building Overview Building Statistics Existing Structure Overview Proposal Structural Depth Study Structural System Overview Redesign Details Impacts & Considerations Construction Management Breadth Study Site Analysis Existing Cost & Schedule Proposed System Impact Comparison Sustainability Breadth Study LEED Checklist Research Conclusions & Recommendations

Site and Construction Analysis

  • Urban Site on the edge of Orlando’s Residential District
  • 0.95 Acres
  • Final building footprint encompasses 76% of site area
  • No room on site for lay‐down area or material storage
  • Deliveries must be structured according to demand
  • Erection was completed in zones to allow other trades to move in sooner
slide-12
SLIDE 12

Presentation Outline

Introduction & Building Overview Building Statistics Existing Structure Overview Proposal Structural Depth Study Structural System Overview Redesign Details Impacts & Considerations Construction Management Breadth Study Site Analysis Existing Cost & Schedule Proposed System Impact Comparison Sustainability Breadth Study LEED Checklist Research Conclusions & Recommendations

Existing Cost & Schedule

Existing System Costs: (Total Structure Cost = $10.4 Million) Item Units Price per Unit Total Price Concrete Truss Beams 48 = 26,576 SF $31.70 $842,363 Design & Engineering 384 MH $2.73 $1048 Hauling 48 $427.34 $20,512 $863,923 Existing System Schedule: Item Units Units per day Total Duration Design & Engineering 384 MH 13 6 weeks Form Preparation, Place Reinforcement, Pour & Finish 48 trusses 0.33 32 weeks 38 weeks Erection Sequence (32 weeks)

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Presentation Outline

Introduction & Building Overview Building Statistics Existing Structure Overview Proposal Structural Depth Study Structural System Overview Redesign Details Impacts & Considerations Construction Management Breadth Study Site Analysis Existing Cost & Schedule Proposed System Impact Comparison Sustainability Breadth Study LEED Checklist Research Conclusions & Recommendations

Proposed System Impacts

Site Impact:

  • There will be no impact on the site or erection if sequenced properly with concrete
  • On‐site crane can be used to erect trusses as they are needed

Schedule Impact: (affects lead time only) Fireproofing Impact:

  • 730 square feet of surface area per truss x 1.25” average thickness = 76 ft

3 of SRFM per

truss

  • Total 35,000 SF of SFRM = $44,776 total added cost

Rentable Floor Area:

  • At an average price of $396/SF

1248 additional square feet = $492,960 additional first sales revenue Concrete Trusses Steel Trusses Lead time required to produce shop drawings, procure materials, and fabricate completely 38 weeks 20 weeks System Cost Estimate Comparison

$0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000 $900,000 $1,000,000 RS Means 2008 Fabricator 1 Fabricator 2 Fireproofing Overhead & Pricing Shipping Shop Drawings Labor Materials

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Presentation Outline

Concrete Trusses Steel Trusses Difference Lead time required to produce shop drawings, procure materials, and fabricate completely. 38 weeks 20 weeks 18 additional weeks to make changes to structure before fabrication needs to begin to stay on schedule. Cost for trusses, including design, fabrication, transport, and other associated costs. $863,923 1) $728,978 2) $504,808 1) $134,945 saved 2) $359,115 saved Additional Revenue Possible n/a $492,960 $492,960 in additional rent due to added floor space

System Comparison

Introduction & Building Overview Building Statistics Existing Structure Overview Proposal Structural Depth Study Structural System Overview Redesign Details Impacts & Considerations Construction Management Breadth Study Site Analysis Existing Cost & Schedule Proposed System Impact Comparison Sustainability Breadth Study LEED Checklist Research Conclusions & Recommendations

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Presentation Outline

Introduction & Building Overview Building Statistics Existing Structure Overview Proposal Structural Depth Study Structural System Overview Redesign Details Impacts & Considerations Construction Management Breadth Study Site Analysis Existing Cost & Schedule Proposed System Impact Comparison Sustainability Breadth Study LEED Checklist Research Conclusions & Recommendations

LEED Checklist

Rationale: 101 Eola is already very sustainable

  • 100 % Precast concrete creates less waste, uses recycled material
  • Utilizes instant water heaters and localized FCUs instead of

central system

  • Chilled water is used in place of refrigerant
  • Concrete provides high thermal mass & is inherently sustainable

Credits: 34 of 69 possible points are able to be achieved

  • 11 of 14 Sustainable Sites Credits
  • 1 of 5 Water Efficiency Credits
  • 7 of 17 Energy & Atmosphere Credits
  • 5 of 13 Materials & Resources Credits
  • 7 of 15 Indoor Environmental Quality Credits
  • 3 of 5 Innovation & Design Process Credits
slide-16
SLIDE 16

Presentation Outline

Introduction & Building Overview Building Statistics Existing Structure Overview Proposal Structural Depth Study Structural System Overview Redesign Details Impacts & Considerations Construction Management Breadth Study Site Analysis Existing Cost & Schedule Proposed System Impact Comparison Sustainability Breadth Study LEED Checklist Research Conclusions & Recommendations

Credit Research

Sustainable Sites Credit 2 Intent:

  • Channel Development to urban areas
  • Protect Greenfields
  • Preserve habitats & natural resources

Requirements:

  • Construct Building on previously developed site
  • Site within ½ mile of residential zone with 10 units per acre net
  • Site within ½ mile of at least 10 basic services
  • Pedestrian access between building and services
  • Credit is Achievable
slide-17
SLIDE 17

Credit Research Presentation Outline

Introduction & Building Overview Building Statistics Existing Structure Overview Proposal Structural Depth Study Structural System Overview Redesign Details Impacts & Considerations Construction Management Breadth Study Site Analysis Existing Cost & Schedule Proposed System Impact Comparison Sustainability Breadth Study LEED Checklist Research Conclusions & Recommendations Sustainable Sites Credit 4.1 Intent:

  • Reduce Pollution and Land development impacts from automobile use
  • Promote the usage of mass transit

Requirements:

  • Locate project within ¼ mile of one or more stops for two or more public

bus lines usable by occupants

Credit is Achievable

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Credit Research

Water Efficiency Credit 3.1

Presentation Outline

Introduction & Building Overview Building Statistics Existing Structure Overview Proposal Structural Depth Study Structural System Overview Redesign Details Impacts & Considerations Construction Management Breadth Study Site Analysis Existing Cost & Schedule Proposed System Impact Comparison Sustainability Breadth Study LEED Checklist Research Conclusions & Recommendations Intent:

  • Maximize water efficiency within buildings
  • Reduce burden on municipal water supply and wastewater systems

Requirements:

  • Employ strategies that in aggregate use 20% less later than baseline case
  • Baseline based on Energy Policy Act of 1992 fixture performance

requirements Solution:

  • Utilize low‐flow water fixtures in an effort to conserve potable water
  • Dual‐Flush Toilets (0.8 / 1.6 GPF)
  • Low Flow Sinks (1.8 GPM)
  • Low Flow Shower Heads (1.8 GPM)
  • Compare to Baseline case
  • Conventional Modern Toilet (1.6 GPF)
  • Conventional Sink (2.5 GPM)
  • Conventional Shower Head (2.5 GPM)

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Baseline Design Case Non‐Residents Residents

30.41 % Reduction

  • Credit is Achievable
slide-19
SLIDE 19

Conclusions & Recommendations Presentation Outline

Introduction & Building Overview Building Statistics Existing Structure Overview Proposal Structural Depth Study Structural System Overview Redesign Details Impacts & Considerations Construction Management Breadth Study Site Analysis Existing Cost & Schedule Proposed System Impact Comparison Sustainability Breadth Study LEED Checklist Research Conclusions & Recommendations

Success Measured By:

Structural Concerns: Lighter System Thinner Wall Sandwich Meet Strength & Serviceability Criteria Construction Concerns Less Expensive System Shorter Schedule Duration Maintain workable site Sustainability Concerns Provide for a more sustainable, healthy, and enjoyable environment

  • Redesign Details
  • Steel Truss weighs 49.52 kips less than concrete truss
  • Wall sandwich with steel truss is a full 7 inches thinner than with concrete

truss

  • System exceeds capacity and deflection requirements
  • System is in the range of $135,000 to $360,000 less expensive than equivalent

concrete system. Also an additional $493,000 can be made from gained floor space

  • Lead time for steel is 18 weeks shorter than that of concrete
  • Steel trusses can be sequenced easily with the concrete structure
  • 34 of 69 possible LEED points are achievable – Silver rating

Redesign is Beneficial

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Questions ?

Acknowledgements

Without you none of this would have been possible.

Finfrock Industries D‐M‐C Inc. Allen Finfrock William Finfrock Tony Owen Lloyd Kennedy Real Estate Inverlad Development LLC Chance Gordy Cives Steel Company Rory Guma Qualico Steel Inc. Harold Turner American Institute of Steel Construction Inc. Charlie Carter The Pennsylvania State University Professor M. Kevin Parfitt Professor Robert Holland

  • Dr. Andres LePage
  • Dr. Ali Memari

The entire AE faculty and staff My fellow AE seniors and friends A special thanks to my family and friends, especially my girlfriend, who have all provided me with guidance and support these past five years, and understandingly dealt with my not being around due to long hours in my other home, the thesis lab.

XÉÄt