• Save
Harlem Park Building Design Project
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Harlem Park Building Design Project

on

  • 1,612 views

Harlem Park Building Design Project-Master of Engineering, Lehigh University

Harlem Park Building Design Project-Master of Engineering, Lehigh University

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,612
Views on SlideShare
1,611
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
4
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.docshut.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Comprehensive design exposure to two very different structuresChance to explore various structural systems
  • W-section: majority of the flexural capacitySteel decking: selected to satisfy span lengths and fireproofingConcrete slab: flexural capacity, transfers load, fireproofing for the steel deckingShear studs: transfer shear forces, diaphragm action, brace flange – local buckling, brace beam – ltb Welded wire fabric: temp and shrinkage
  • Makes use of the slab as a structural elementProvides lateral bracing for the beams along their length to prevent ltbEfficiency is improved – lighter, more economic structural systemIf large amounts of studs are neededConstructing using shored spans
  • General layout Typical Caission Design Basement Wall
  • General layout Typical Caission Design Basement Wall
  • General layout Typical Caission Design Basement Wall
  • General layout Typical Caission Design Basement Wall
  • General layout Typical Caission Design Basement Wall
  • General layout Typical Caission Design Basement Wall
  • General layout Typical Caission Design Basement Wall
  • General layout Typical Caission Design Basement Wall
  • General layout Typical Caission Design Basement Wall
  • General layout Typical Caission Design Basement Wall
  • General layout Typical Caission Design Basement Wall
  • General layout Typical Caission Design Basement Wall
  • General layout Typical Caission Design Basement Wall
  • Concrete Columns Base Plates Anchor Details
  • General layout Typical Caission Design Basement Wall
  • General layout Typical Caission Design Basement Wall
  • Typical Floor (Skewed Members, Column Splice) Truss Design
  • Typical Floor (Skewed Members, Column Splice) Truss Design
  • Typical Floor (Skewed Members, Column Splice) Truss Design
  • Typical Floor (Skewed Members, Column Splice) Truss Design
  • General layout Typical Caission Design Basement Wall
  • General layout Typical Caission Design Basement Wall
  • General layout Typical Caission Design Basement Wall
  • General layout Typical Caission Design Basement Wall
  • Column cantilever Façade Stepback
  • Column cantilever Façade Stepback
  • General layout Typical Caission Design Basement Wall
  • General layout Typical Caission Design Basement Wall
  • General layout Typical Caission Design Basement Wall
  • General layout Typical Caission Design Basement Wall
  • General layout Typical Caission Design Basement Wall
  • General layout Typical Caission Design Basement Wall
  • General layout Typical Caission Design Basement Wall
  • Deflection approximation Geometry limitations
  • Iterative phases
  • Deflection approximation Geometry limitations
  • Deflection approximation Geometry limitations
  • - Elevations and typical connections
  • - Elevations and typical connections
  • - Elevations and typical connections
  • General layout Typical Caission Design Basement Wall
  • - Elevations and typical connections
  • - Elevations and typical connections

Harlem Park Building Design Project Harlem Park Building Design Project Presentation Transcript

  • Lehigh University Master of Engineering in Structural Engineering
    Final Design Phase
    Class of 2010
    Friday, April 30th, 2010
  • Two different structures will be designed to increase the educational value of the design process.
    Harlem Park
    Saratoga Street Parking Structure
    Structural Engineer: Tindall/Cagley & Assoc. Architect: HSMM
    Structural Engineer: DeSimone
    Architect: Swanke Hayden Connell Architects
  • Fall 2009: Gravity System Study and Selection
    Composite Beam
    Steel Decking
    Concrete Slab
    Shear Studs
    Welded Wire Fabric
    Steel W-Section
  • There are many advantages and disadvantages of composite beam design for this structure
    Overall:
    Lighter, more economic system
    Works best with building geometry
    Disadvantages:
    Using “shored” spans
    High amount of studs
    Serviceability Concerns
  • Yellow Structural Engineers
    Harlem Park Development Final Design
    Seth E. Darley
    Steven K. Dutra
    Anthony J. Ferraro
    Eddie M. Guerra Fuentes
  • Lateral Load Resisting System Design
    Gravity System Design
    Foundation Design
  • Foundation Design
  • Design Loads
    • Unfactored Service Loads:
    • ASCE 07 Combinations
    • Factored Service Loads:
    • ACI 318 Combinations
    • Loads Considered
    • Shear
    • Moment
    • Downward Axial
    • Uplift
  • Subsurface Characterization
    Geologic Composition
    Soil Properties
    FILL
    Bedrock Strength
    FINE SAND
    SILT
    CLAY
    Subsurface conditions taken from Geotechnical Report
    ROCK
    TILL
  • Foundation Selection: Caissons
    • High loads can be transferred directly to bedrock
    • Cost of mobilization
    • Noise and vibration during construction
  • Caisson Design
    • Axial Load Capacity
    • End Bearing
    • Caisson-Rock Bond
    • Lateral Load Capacity
    • Evans & Duncan Method
    φ’
    γ
  • Caisson Design
    • Longitudinal Reinforcement (ACI 318-10.9)
    • Ties (ACI 10.13.8.4)
    • Bearing Strength of concrete (ACI 318-10.14.1)
    • Embedment of Longitudinal Reinforcement (CRSI 13-42)
    • Development Lengths (ACI 318-12.2)
    Maximum
    Uplift
    25
    Maximum
    Moment
    24
  • Foundation Design
  • Basement Wall Design
    • Assumptions:
    • Braced Excavation during construction
    • Neglect surcharge
  • Basement Wall Design
  • Basement Wall Design
  • Concrete Column Design
    Gravity
    Pu = 2168 kips
    36” x 36”
    (12) - #11 bars
    Lateral
    - Pu = 3944 kips
    • 42” x 52”
    • 16 - #11 bars
  • Base Plate Design
    Gravity
    Pu = 2168 kips
    36” x 36”
    (12) - #11 bars
    Base Plate Design
    - Column: W 14 x 283
    - Pu = 2168 kips
    - Base Plate Dimensions
    30” x 30” x 3 1/2”
    Lateral
    - Pu = 3944 kips
    • 42” x 52”
    • 16 - #11 bars
    Base Plate Design
    - Column: W 36 x 652
    • Pu = 3944 kips
    • Mu = 620 kip*ft
    • Base Plate Dimensions
    36” x 48” x 4 ¾”
  • Anchorage Design
    Gravity
    - Code Minimum: 4 Anchors
    - Headed Anchors
    • Self leveling nuts for easy erection
    Lateral
    - Uplift force = 3225 kip
    • (14) 2” Dia. Anchor Bolts
    • 60” Embedment Length
  • Ground Floor Mezzanine
  • Ground Floor Mezzanine
    Hanger
    L3x2x1/4 TYP.
  • Ground Floor Mezzanine
    Brace
    L2x2x1/8 TYP.
  • 4th Floor
  • 4th Floor
  • 4th Floor
  • 4th Floor
    Proposed splice location
  • 4th Floor
  • 6th Floor
    R = 67 kip
    R = 75 kip
  • 19th Floor Column Offset
    • Five Exterior Columns step back due to the façade at the 19th Floor
    • Façade constraints also prevent bracing of offset connection
  • 19th Floor Column Offset
  • 19th Floor Column Offset
  • Roof Design
    • Gravity and Lateral Design
    • Some sections not included in RAM Model
    • Wind: Partially blocked
    • Siesmic: ASCE 7-05 Chp. 15
    • Cooling Tower Dunnage
    • Typical Connection
    • Sunken Roof Design
    • Water Tower Dunnage
  • Cooling Tower Dunnage
  • Cooling Tower Dunnage:
    NS Elevation
  • Cooling Tower Dunnage: EW Elevation
  • Cooling Tower Dunnage:
    Typical Connection
  • Sunken Roof
  • Sunken Roof
    NS Elevation
  • Sunken Roof
    EW Elevation
  • Water Tower Dunnage
  • Lateral Design - Forces
    Wind Base Shear
    Hand Calculations:
    RAM Frame Analysis:
  • Lateral Design - Forces
    Seismic Base Shear
    Hand Calculations: 413 kip
    RAM Frame Analysis: 408 kip
    Within 2% =
  • Lateral Design - Forces
    Center of Rigidity
    Center of Mass
    21st Floor
    dymax = 3.35”
    dymin = 1.32”
  • Lateral Design - Forces
    Center of Rigidity
    Center of Mass
    10th Floor
    dymax = 1.13”
    dymin = 0.38”
  • Lateral Design Process
    Initial Thoughts
    Façade Step-backs
    Column Locations
    Building Geometry
  • Lateral Design Process
    Braced Frames
    Moment Frames
    Linked Beams
    Braced Frames
    Moment Frames
    Linked Frames
  • Final Lateral Design
  • Final Lateral Design
  • Final Lateral design
  • Final Lateral design
  • Final Lateral design
  • Lateral Design - Forces
    Lateral Deflection Approximation
    W14x145
    A = 42.7in2 I = Ad2
    dapproximate = 17”
    dRAM = 20.17”
    Within 15%
  • Typical Moment Frame Connection
    Column: W 14 x 283 Mu = 454 kip*ft
    Beam: W 30 x 90 Vu = 75 kip
  • Typical Braced Frame Connection
  • Questions ?
  • Questions ?