You are on page 1of 62

Design of a Concrete Terraced Structure

Vipsanius Incorporated
“Designs to stand the test of time”
Meet the Team
 Project Manager: Josh Prines

 Structural Team: Roberto Cintron, Kwaku Boampong, Nisarg Thakkar, Hal


Hamilton Jr.
Lower Hill Redevelopment Proposal

 Architectural rendering courtesy of Bjarke Ingles Group


(BIG)
 28-acre masterplan; 1,200 residential units, 1 million SF of retail
and commerce space
 An attempt to combine a green network of walking and
bicycle paths with the urban street grid of downtown
Pittsburgh
 Promote a sense of sustainability and community; reversing a
trend of vacating property in the area
Project Overview
Site Overview
Project Scope

 Complete design of all above-grade structural members. The following items will be cast-in-place
on site:
 Beams
 Columns
 Stairwell Shear Walls
 Elevator Shear Walls
 Floor Slabs
 Construction Management
 Complete Construction Schedule
 Above-grade construction estimate
 Return on Investment Analysis
 Geotechnical will be subcontracted
Advantages of Using Concrete

 Fire Resistance
 Affordability
 Material Availability
 Durability
Floor Layouts
Structural Framing Layouts
Dead Loads
 Risk Category: II (ASCE 7-
10, Table 1.5-1)
 Slab:
 7.5” thickness
 Lightweight Concrete
(115 pcf)
 Cast-in-place
Dead Loads (Cont.)

ASCE 7-10, Chapter C-3


Interior non-load bearing walls
6” thickness
Exterior load bearing wall
8” thickness – 87 psf
Mechanical Allowance – 5 psf
Elevator Enclosure Wall
8” thickness -100 psf
Minimum required 3” for fire resistance (2 hours)
Dead Loads
Live loads

 Base values (ASCE 7-10, Table 4-1)


 “Ordinary flat, pitched, and curved roofs”: 20 lb/ft²
 “Private rooms and corridors serving them”: 40 lb/ft²
 “Roofs used for roof gardens” (patios): 100 lb/ft²
 Determined for each column and girder
 Reduced according to sections 4.7.2 and 4.8.2 of ASCE 7-10
Tributary Areas
Main Wind Force Resisting System

 Consists of the stairwell and elevator shafts


 Moment frames were considered but
they’re not the MWFRS
 Stairwell needed 5” thickness for fire
protection
 Non-seismic region so shear walls were
sufficient
Wind loads

 ASCE 7-10 Directional Procedure


(Chapter 27)
 Complex building geometry
 Conservative methodology to assign
appropriate wind pressures
 Biggest Challenge: Torsion
Wind Load Cases (ASCE 7-10)
 Four different load cases
 Only considering the cases with torsion
(Case 2 and Case 4)
 Case 2: Uses 75% of the design wind
pressure acting on the principal axis with the
torsional moment as shown.
Wind Load Cases (ASCE 7-10)

 Case 4: 56% of the design wind pressure


acting on both faces of the building
simultaneously.
 Underestimated eccentricity from this load
case
 LATERAL LOAD ANALYSIS FOR BUILDINGS
WITH SETBACK By Victor W.-T. Cheung and
W. K. Tso, M. ASCE
Wind Design
 Used tributary areas for each floor to
determine a resultant force per floor
 Used the lever arm to determine the torsion
on the MWFRS
 Torsion results

El. (ft) Torsion(kip-ft)


12 1262.59425
24 1145.19375
36 1046.440125
48 952.9305
60 880.228125
72 420.948
Total 5708.33475
Wind Load Design

 We also used an article LATERAL LOAD ANALYSIS FOR BUILDINGS WITH


SETBACK By Victor W.-T. Cheung and W. K. Tso, M. ASCE
 Used to properly calculate the eccentricities for both faces of the building
 Also to apply shear per floor to analyze the shear walls
Snow Load Overview
 Acts vertically on the structure
 Supported by the columns
 Each floor experiences a portion of the load due to stepped patios
 Wind forces cause a drift on stepped side of building
Snow Load Analysis (ASCE 7-10;
Chapter 7)
Seismic Load Analysis (ASCE 7-10;
Chapters 11 & 12)
 Seismic Load creates a gravity load and lateral load on structure
 Torsion & Deflection
 Seismic Design Category A
 Determine base shear of structure using the equivalent lateral force
analysis
 Load generated by the inertia of the mass of the structure
 Redistributed to each level as a point load at the center of mass of the
structure
Broad Design
• Two-way and One-way slab (only corridor)
• Don’t need East-West horizontal
members in corridor area

• Beam & Girder will be in same plane


• They will share tributary area
• Both will transfer load to column

• Lateral force resisting system


• Elevator shaft and shear walls
Slab Design
• Lightweight Concrete (115 pcf)
• Designed for Deflection (Service limit state)
• Check for Shear and Flexure

Setting
Upper • Simple • Complex
• Useful where spans, • Compared to
Limits to loads, load distributions, Calculate
predicted value
Span- and member sizes and
proportions fall in usual
Deflection
imposed by codes
Depth range • Approximate
Ratio
Slab Design

One-Way Two-Way

Flexural
Short Direction Long Direction Reinforcement in
both direction

Flexural Minimum steel for


Reinforcement to temperature and
resist entire load shrinkage effect
Slab Design
 Effect of Edge beam on slab thickness
 α-factor (Beam to slab stiffness ratio)

 Slab thickness is uniform throughout irrespective of loading.


 For Fire and Heat – 5”
 One-way portion - 4.6”
 Two-way portion - 7.5”
 Minimum thickness required (International Building Code) - 3.5”

 Selected thickness - 7.5”


 Sufficient for seismic
One-Way Slab

 Critical Section
 Minimum thickness- l/28 = 4.3”
 Correction factor when using
light weight concrete : 1.65 – 0.005w >= 1.09
 Minimum thickness – 4.6”
One-Way Slab
 Chosen thickness- 7.5”
 Load Combination:
 1.2 w(d) + 1.6 w(l) = 271.45 psf
 Maximum moment based on moment coefficients and clear span

 Mu As reinforcement

 As is so small so Min As governs

 Check for shear and crack control


Calculation for One-Way
One-Way Slab Cross Section

 # 4 bar at spacing of 8” (spacing governed by crack control) (short direction)

 # 4 bar at 15” o.c. (min reinforcement for temp. & shrinkage) (transverse direction)
Two-Way Slab
 Critical Section
 Biggest span
 25’*25’

 Minimum thickness (ACI):


 ln/33 (interior) (without beams)
 ln/30 (corner, exterior) (without beams)
 When beams are present thickness reduces by 15%
 Effect of edge beam (αf-factor) (Beam to slab stiffness ratio)
 Light weight concrete correction factor
 7.5”
Two-Way Slab
 Chosen thickness- 7.5”

 Direct-Design Method for


Moment distribution

 Statical Moment (Mo)


Two-Way Slab Calculation

East-west Slab strip 5


A5 B5 C5
l1 25 20
23.3333333 18.3333
ln 3 3
l2 25 25
A_inf 625 500
reduced live load (ksf) 0.034 0.034
173.097
Mo 279.6 2
end mid end mid end
coeff -0.16 0.57 -0.7 -0.7 0.57 -0.16
98.6654
neg & pos moment (kip-ft) -44.736 159.372 -195.72 -121.168 2 -27.6956
Sum of column moments 27.6955
(kip-ft) 44.736 70 6
Two-Way Slab Cross Section
 Moment Distribution to slab and beam
 Mu As reinforcement
 Column Strip – 5 #5 bars
 Middle Strip – 10 #5 bars
Horizontal members: Design
 Microsoft Excel spreadsheet
 Base assumptions
 4-k/in2 concrete
 60-k/in2 steel
 Equal reinforcement at top and bottom of beam

 Includes formulas from ACI manual


 Also includes references in ACI manual for easy corroboration

 Optimized with Solver


 Then manually rounded up to standard bar sizes
 Some integrated integer constraints are included
Spreadsheet Workings

 IF(input,output_if_true,output_if_false), OR(input_1,input_2,...)
 Strength reduction factor φ=IF(εc>0.005,0.9,IF(εc<0.002,0.65,0.65+(εc-0.002)*250/3))
 MAX(input_1,input_2,...), MIN(input_1,input_2,...)
 Used in combination
 Maximum transverse-reinforcement spacing smax=MIN(d/2,24,ph/8,12)*IF(VS>4*√(fc')*b*d,0.5,1)
 Solver
 Number minimized: Total materials, weighted by tensile strength
 Adding 1 in3 of 60-k/in2 steel = adding 15 in3 of 4-k/in2 concrete

 First, use “Ignore integer constraints” checkbox to reach optimal solution without encountering
errors
 Integers: Base, height, 2 × transverse-reinforcement spacing

 Then, reënable integer constraints to ensure constructability


 Manually round bar sizes up to next standard size
Horizontal member cross-sections

Uniform Section Unique Sections


Horizontal member design
Column Design
 Columns are vertical structural members designed to support axial
compressive loads, with or without moments
 Design to support axial compressive load, with moments
 Supported Loads:
 Dead & Live Load from floors above
 Live Roof Load
 Snow Load
 Critical load determined using ASCE 7-10, LRFD load combinations

 Columns are extended into foundation


Column Design
Alternatives
 Tied Columns
 Rectangular
 Typically used in low seismic regions
 Economical
 Spiral Columns
 Circular
 Improved ductility and strength
 Expensive
Column Design Procedure
(Tied Columns)

 Determine critical load on column, Pu


 Select trial size and trial reinforcement ratio
based on material properties
 Properties:
 f’c = 4 ksi
 fy = 60 ksi

 Determine steel ratio using interaction


diagram (use critical load and moment for
diagram)
 Select reinforcement using new steel ratio
 Check the max load capacity, ΦPn > Pu
 Select ties (ACI Code Section 7.10.5)
Column Design Summary
Shear Walls
(Overview)
 One shear wall resisting in lateral force wall
each stairwell
 Height of wall above ground = 72’
 Length of wall = 20’
 Wall extends into foundation
 Designed to resist shear & flexure, axial load,
and moment/torsional effects
 Steel reinforcement in front face and back face
 In both vertical and horizontal directions
Shear Wall
(Design Procedure)
 Determine shear force on each floor
 Select trial rebar and reinforcement ratio based on material properties
 Minimum percentage of reinforcement in ACI Code Section 11.9.9.4
 Check factored moment strength
 Maximum moment is at the base
 Accounts for factored axial load (ACI Code Eq. 9-6)
 Check factored shear strength
 Maximum shear strength is at the base
Shear Wall Design Summary
Shear Wall Reinforcement
(Cross Section)
Elevator Shear Wall

 ACI 318-11
 Reinforced Concrete Mechanics and Design
6th edition
 Results
 Vertical Reinforcement
 2 rows of #8 rebar @ 18” O.C. & 2 #8 bar @ 4”
O.C for support at the corners

 Horizontal Reinforcement
 2 rows of #5 rebar @ 18” O.C
Market Analysis and Net Operating
Income
*Number shown above is the Hard Cost only Pittsburgh (2012) = $178.23
*Both Soft Costs and Land Costs are excluded Pittsburgh (2016) = $184.86
*Rental Statistics from 2014*
Expected Budget for Construction
High-Rent Luxury Apartments in
Pittsburgh, PA
 Aria Cultural District Lofts (7th Street Across from North Shore)
 $2.2/sqft (1BR/1BA) – 684-972 sqft
 The Encore on 7th Apartments (7th Street Across from North Shore)
 $2.3/sqft (1BR/1BR) – 800-1000 sqft
 Flats on Fifth (5th Ave – Crawford Roberts Hill)
 $2.5/sqft (1BR/1BA) – 661-814 sqft
 $2.3/sqft (2BR/2BA) – 1054 sqft

Source: Apartments.com
Construction Budget
Quantity Take-off
&
Estimate
Quantity Take-off
 Quantities only include above-grade quantities
 Subgrade work subcontracted
 Superstructure Concrete = 5048 cy
 Structural Framing, Exterior Walls, Shear Walls
 Reinforcing = 126 tons; 161,500 LF
 #3, #4, #5, #8, #9, #11 bars
 C.S.I. Divisions 1-16 (Excluding 2-Site Work)

Source: Design Cost Data Archives


Concrete Labor Costs

Source: Construction Estimating 3rd Edition (David Pratt)


Construction Estimate

Lower Hill Redevelopment Project 48,000 SF


1. Fees, Permits, Field Supervision, Insurance, Temporary Utilities
2. Pilings, Earthwork, Utilities
3. Formwork, Cast-in-place, Reinforcement
4. -
5. Miscellaneous
6. Rough Carpentry
7. Insulation, Damp proofing, Caulking
8. Doors, Frames, Hardware, Aluminum Windows & Doors
9. Metal Studs, Plaster, Drywall, Carpet, Painting, Staining
10. Signage, Fire extinguishers, Mailboxes
11. Appliances
14. Elevators (1)
15. Basic Materials, Fire Protection, Plumbing, HVAC
16. Basic Materials, Wire Conduit, Panel Boards, Fixtures, Fire Alarms

(Labor Included in Values)

Return on Investment: 7.4%


Construction Schedule

Start Date: 2/18/16 Project Completion: 3/17/17 282 Work Days; Approximately 13 months
Questions?