The Food Science Building University Park Campus, PA

The Food Science BuildingUniversity Park Campus, PA

Kelly Sadusky ~ Structural Option Senior Thesis 2005

Presentation Outline

Building StatisticsExisting Structural ConditionsProposalStructural RedesignAcousticsConclusion


Project Team

Architect: IKM Architects Incorporated

Construction Manager: Gilbane Company

Structural Engineer: H.F. Lenz

Project Manager: Richard Riccardo

Owner: The Pennsylvania State University, Office of Physical Plant


http://www.ikminc.com/

http://www.gilbaneco.com/

http://www.hflenz.com/

http://www.opp.psu.edu/

Building Statistics

Location East Sub Campus; corner of

Bigler and Curtin RoadsFunction

Creamery Production ClassroomsOffices

Size130,000 sfFour Stories Above Grade


Building Statistics

ArchitectureFollows guidelines established for the East Sub Campus

~Brick Façade~Punch Windows~Glass Curtain


Building Statistics

Architecture of the East Sub Campus


Food Science

Forestry Building

Smeal College Of Business

Building Statistics

Dates of ConstructionStart Date: November 30, 2004Scheduled Finish: Summer 2006

Project Cost Information$45,060,000*soft costs unavailable for release

Project DeliveryGilbane is CM Agency with 17 separate Prime

Contracts





Existing Structural ConditionsFoundation

Piles and Pile Caps

Grade Beams

Building Separation• Analyzed Separately

• Expansion Joint• West (rectangular)• East (L-shaped)


Existing Structural ConditionsGravity System

Composite BeamsComposite Floor DeckingLightweight Concrete Topping

Typical Bay32’ X 29’

Lateral SystemSteel Moment Frames ~Throughout Building





ProposalSteel Redesign

Gravity System Redesign~Fully Composite to Partially Composite Floor

System with the objective to reduce the budget

Lateral System Redesign~Incorporate Braced Framing with the objective

to reduce the budgetAcoustic Redesign

~Investigate the sound levels caused by the production plant

~Redesign according to professional recommendations





Structural System RedesignGravity System

For a full composite action the number of shear studs is chosen with the assumption that the plastic neutral axis (PNA) is in the concrete slab.

• The process of redesign for partially composite is rather arbitrary• Shear studs are chosen by the designer• The flexural capacity is less than the required

• The design is revised in one of several ways• Increasing/decreasing the number of shear studs• Increasing the beam depth• Choosing a heavier section


Structural System RedesignGravity System Redesign

~AISC LRFD used in Redesign~Maintained Existing Column Grid

Process of Redesign~A range of typical bays were chosen~Data used to calculated the composite action needed:

Fy=50 ksi Wu= 1.2(45psf) + 1.6(80psf) = 182 psff’c=3 ksi Mu= 182 psf/8 * (9.5 ft)*(32ft)2 = 221’k

WLL=80 psfWDL= 45 psf


Structural System Redesign


Process of Redesign contd..With Mu = 182’k and Wu = 221’kUsing USD 2” Lock Floor; 18g Light Weight Concrete

beff= 9.5ft * (12in/ft)= 114in = ¼ * (32ft) * (12in/ft)= 96in

Assuming a = 1”Then, Y2= 6.5” - (a/2) = 6”Refer to Table 5-14 in the Steel Manual for Design Strength in Flexure (Composite W-Shapes)Refer to Table 5-13 for Shear Stud Connectors for Unreduced Shear Strength


Gravity Design ConclusionsThe previous calculation was repeated for a few typical bays found throughout the building. Below is a chart designating the beam redesign and stud change.

RS Means. Building Construction Cost Data, 2004 was used for pricing.

Structural System RedesignConclusions• The number of studs can be reduced in some cases• Overall goal is to reduce cost• In some cases, reducing the number of studs does

not economically improve the budget• This procedure saved the budget $55,400


Structural System Redesign Lateral System Redesign• Existing Moment Frames• Goal: Incorporate Braced

Frames

Moment Frame Disadvantages

• Costly due to highly specialized and labor-intensive connections

Moment Frame Cost BreakdownSmall Connections-$125• (up to 3 completed per day)Larger Connections-$400-$500• (usually 1 completed per day)



Advantages of Diagonal Bracing• Much less labor involved as compared to Moment Framing• According to AISC publications, a braced frame connection

costs about ¼ to 1/3 of the price of a Moment Connection


Structural System RedesignSimple Cost Analysis Of Diagonal Bracing

If the Moment Frames were completely replaced my Braced Frames, this project would save at least 2/3 of the budget.The budget can potentially save:

$86,250 X 1/3 = $28,750$86,250 - $28,750 = $57,500*Due to architectural features, The Food Science Building required some moment framing, and therefore the overall savings do not reach $57,500.

The total cost of the redesigned system is $31, 375Braced Framing Cost: 80 frames * $375/3 = $10,000Moment Framing Cost: 57 frames * $375 = $21,375Actual Savings: $54,875


Structural Steel RedesignLateral System Redesign

The redesign was modeled using RAM Steel. • RAM analyzes each loading condition separately• Loading conditions are combined to formulate worst

possible condition for each member• To pass the interaction analysis, the values must be less

than 1.0• Higher values have more stress• Values which are too low indicate an over sizing of the beam• Values close to one are close to failing


Structural System RedesignProposed Redesign for a more Economical Lateral

SystemBraced Frame Placement ~East End




Proposed Redesign for a more Economical Lateral System

Braced Frame Placement ~ West End


Frame Design• This frame design can be

found in the stairwell. • HSS shapes were used to

construct the braced frames throughout the building.

• Only a few ranges of HSS shapes were used• Purchasing shapes in bulk

will cut down on construction costs


Structural System RedesignConclusions

Braced Frame Pros• Braced Frame system is very effective in controlling drift• Smaller members than a moment frame system• Monetary savings of $54,875 from connection standpoint

alone

Braced Frame Cons• Braced Frames must coordinate with the architectural

features





Acoustical RedesignAcoustical Background

The Food Science Building will not only hold classrooms, offices, and labs, but also a creamery production plant. The building must be designed to inhibit noise created from the production plant.

Designated AreasTo better understand the acoustical design, the

project was broken up into the following areas: Private Offices Classrooms Food Production Plant


Acoustical RedesignDesign Methods

Hand CalculationsTrane Acoustics Program

Example: ClassroomGoal: To limit noise levels, allowing students and professors to enjoy an optimal acoustical environment that is conductive to focusing, interacting and general learning.

• Recommended reverberation time is 0.4-1.0• Lower Room Noise Reduction


Acoustical RedesignClassroom Reverberation Time

Sound Absorption Coefficients at 500HZ:


Surface

Treatment

Floor Vinyl Composite Tile

0.03

Ceiling

Acoustical Tile 0.83

Wall Paint on 5/8” Green GWB

0.08Reverberation Time, T, at 500Hz:T = 0.78 secondsAcceptable, but…

Acoustical RedesignClassroom Reverberation Time

Conclusion:The reverberation time is between .4 and 1.0, and therefore is already acceptable. However, a redesign will allow sound energy to be distributed from the lectern end towards the rear end of the room.

Classroom RedesignSound absorption Coefficients at 500Hz:

Reverberation Time: 0.87 seconds


Surface Treatment a Bare Ceiling Plywood 0.17

Treated Ceiling

Acoustic Tile 0.85

Walls 5/8” GWB 0.08West Wall Glass

Window0.18

Floor Vinyl Composite

Tile

0.03

Acoustical RedesignConclusion• Reverberation Time is raised 11.54% from existing

situation, which is not usually noticeable. • Room Noise Reduction: NR=0.46 dB *which is

imperceptible

These calculations show that the classroom can improve sound energy distribution without a significant impact on reverberation time or room noise.





Final ConclusionsGravity System Redesign• Monetary Savings of $55,400

Lateral System Redesign• Monetary Savings of $54,875

• Total Structural Redesign Savings: $110,275

Acoustical Redesign• Sound Energy Distribution was improved

• Kept reverberation time within recommended limits• Room Noise Reduction changed insignificantly


AcknowledgementsArchitectural Engineering Faculty

Prof. Kevin Parfitt ~ Dr. Linda Hanagan ~ Prof. Moses LingDr. Geschwindner ~ Dr. Memari ~ Paul Bowers

ProfessionalsRick Riccardo ~ Rob Evanko ~ Tom Deter ~ Steve Sanko

Family and FriendsJoe & Sharon Sadusky ~ Arlene Sadusky ~ Irene MallickDanielle Shetler ~ PJ Morris ~ Benjamin Ardary


Questions?





Deflection Criteria


Documents

The Food Science Building University Park Campus, PA