American Eagle OutfittersQuantum III: South Side WorksQuantum III: South Side Works
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Topics
General Building InformationExisting/New Design ConsiderationsThesis GoalsThesis GoalsStructural Depth
Existing systemProposed systemProposed system
Gravity loads and designLateral loads and design
Continuing designContinuing designArchitectural Breadth
Frame locationsFaçade architectureFaçade architectureWall assemblies
Success of ThesisQuestions
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Questions
Corporate Expansion in South Side of Pittsburgh
Location: 55 Hot Metal St.; Pittsburgh, PA
Height: Five Stories; Top of Parapet at 72’-4”,Typical Floor 13’-8”Typical Floor 13 -8
Size: 150,000 Sq. Ft.
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Picture Courtesy of Google Earth
Corporate Expansion in South Side of Pittsburgh
Construction: May 2007 to October 2008
Cost: $16 million Building Core and Shellg
Project Delivery Method: Design-Bid-gBuild
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Original Design ConsiderationsNew Design Considerations
Structural30’ x 30’ typical baysWind controlled lateral designWind controlled lateral design80 psf live load
ArchitecturalArchitecturalFrames do not interfere with architecture Reflects existing mood in South Side WorksMaterials lend to a sense of placeMaterials lend to a sense of place
Brick and glass curtain wall
MechanicalMechanicalTwo 35,000 pound rooftop units
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Original Design ConsiderationsNew Design Considerations
StructuralMove building to Oakland, CaliforniaAdd 2 floors to building elevation
ArchitecturalQIII reflects architecture in OaklandAdd 2 floors to building elevationAdd 2 floors to building elevation
MechanicalMechanicalRe-evaluate heating/cooling loads
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Senior Thesis Goals
StructuralGravity system design with added storiesPreliminary lateral system designPreliminary lateral system design
ArchitecturalArchitecturalRedesign shell to fit Oakland, CAShell scaling matches new building height
MechanicalFind heating/cooling loads for new building
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Existing System - Typical Bay
Typical bay and material properties
3” steel galvanized deck20-gauge composite
2.5” LWC topping2.5 LWC topping
f’c = 3000 psi
Fy = 60 ksi
4” long, ¾” diameter4 long, ¾ diameterShear studs
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Existing Structural System
Typical floor plan and vertical truss locations
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Existing Structural System
Typical floor plan and vertical truss locations
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Existing Structural System
Typical floor plan and vertical truss locations
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Existing Structural System
Typical floor plan and vertical truss locations
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Existing Structural System
Typical floor plan and vertical truss locations
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Proposed Gravity System
2 floors added to elevationFloor framing or loading doesn’t changeGravity columnsGravity columns
Similar until 3rd floor
Proposed Gravity Framing Existing Gravity FramingTypical infill beams:W16x31 (18 studs)Typical girders:
Typical infill beams:W18x35 (16 studs)Typical girders:y g
W24x68 (24 studs)Columns stories 6-7:W12x53
yp gW24x55 (26 studs)Columns stories 4-5:W12x53
Columns stories 4-5:W12x72Columns stories 2-3:
Columns stories 2-3:W12x72
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
W12x96
Proposed Lateral System
Building moved to Oakland, CAGravity loading unchangedLateral design now controlled by seismic forcesLateral design now controlled by seismic forces
Original wind base shear: 630 kNew seismic base shear: 2240 k
Existing System Proposed SystemSDS = 0.133 SDS = 1.015SD1 = 0.0784 SD1 = 0.6D1 D1
Site Class: D Site Class: DR = 3.0 R = 6.0W 3 0 W 2 0Wo = 3.0 Wo = 2.0Cd = 3.0 Cd = 5.0
Seismic Design Cat: B Seismic Design Cat: E
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Proposed Lateral System
Building moved to Oakland, CAGravity loading unchangedLateral design now controlled by seismic forcesLateral design now controlled by seismic forces
Original wind base shear: 630 kNew seismic base shear: 2240 k
2 floors added to elevationExtra levels of lateral framing required
Existing System Proposed SystemSDS = 0.133 SDS = 1.015SD1 = 0.0784 SD1 = 0.6
Seismic lateral forcesLateral frame member sections increase
D1 D1
Site Class: D Site Class: DR = 3.0 R = 6.0W 3 0 W 2 0
Significant detailing requiredAsymmetric frame layout can lead to torsional concerns
Wo = 3.0 Wo = 2.0Cd = 3.0 Cd = 5.0
Seismic Design Cat: B Seismic Design Cat: E
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Truss LayoutConsider additional lateral frames
Increase redundancyIncrease redundancyDecrease required member sections
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Special Concentric Braced Frames
Columns and bracesOriginal columns sized based on driftColumns optimized in ETABS including torsionColumns optimized in ETABS including torsionBraces sized in ETABS including torsion
GirdersGirdersSized in excel based on shear resistanceNo shear reinforcement assumed
SCBF DesignColumns are efficientBraces can be optimizedBraces can be optimizedGirders require resizing
assuming shear reinforcing
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Eccentric Braced Frame
Columns and bracesOriginal columns sized based on driftColumns optimized in ETABS including torsionColumns optimized in ETABS including torsionBraces sized in ETABS including torsion
Eccentric GirdersEccentric GirdersLink design based on AISC design exampleShear reinforcement assumed
Eccentric Braced Frame DesignEfficient preliminary designContinue with design ofContinue with design of
Beam outside of linkConnections
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Torsion and Building Irregularities
Final design allows significant torsion
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Continuing Design
Special Concentric Braced FramesProvide shear reinforcing for inverted-V trussesDesign connections
Eccentric Braced FramesCheck beams outside of linkLink shear reinforcingConnections
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Frame Locations and Architecture
NT-A obstructs ground level entranceProves inadequate for building architecture
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Frame Locations and Architecture
NT-A obstructs ground level entranceProves inadequate for building architecture
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Frame Locations and Architecture
NT-B and D optimal frame locationsMinimal interaction with façade architecture
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Frame Locations and Architecture
NT-B and D optimal frame locationsMinimal interaction with façade architecture
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Façade Architecture
Shell scaling re-evaluationBuilding height increases from 67’ to 96’Existing shell scaling proves adequate
96’67’
96
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Façade Architecture
Façade materials not suited for Oakland, CABrick uncommon in Bay Area architectureReplace brick with aluminum panelling
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Façade Assemblies
Façade materials not suited for Oakland, CAUse windows that describe Bay Area high riseCan also be energy efficient
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Picture Courtesy of Architectural Graphic Standards, Eleventh Edition; 2007
Façade Assemblies
Façade materials not suited for Oakland, CAPossible 60” rain per yearFaçade requires weather barrier
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Picture Courtesy of Architectural Graphic Standards, Eleventh Edition; 2007
Senior Thesis Goals
StructuralGravity system design with added storiesPreliminary lateral system designPreliminary lateral system design
ArchitecturalArchitecturalRedesign shell to fit Oakland, CAShell scaling matches new building height
MechanicalFind heating/cooling loads for new building
Façade AssembliesEnergy efficient window added
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Weather barrier required
Special Thanks To:
The Entire AE Faculty and Staff
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Questions?Questions?
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Chevron Braced Frame Beam Design
Large Girder SizesAttributed to AISC Seismic Design Provisions
Beams must be designed against the shear from 100% tension brace strength and 30% compression brace strength
R lt i l ti l f bResults in large vertical force on beamsOver 1000k where braces were W18x119
O l b b i t thi h fOnly beam web resists this shear force
Continuing DesignA h i f i t i ifi tl lAssume shear reinforcing to significantly lower
girder sections
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Chevron Braced Frame Beam Design
Large Girder SizesDesign example provided below
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Chevron Braced Frame Beam Design
Large Girder SizesDesign example provided below
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Chevron Braced Frame Beam Design
Large Girder SizesDesign example provided below
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Chevron Braced Frame Beam Design
Large Girder SizesDesign example provided below
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Story Drift Check
Seismic Loading Controlled in Strength
Checks Performed for Both Seismic and WindSeismic
Cd=5, allowable story drift was 0.02hsxWind
Serviceability requirement of H/400
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Story Drift Check - Wind
Wind Drift Minimal in Comparison to Seismic Drift
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008
Story Drift Check - Wind
Wind Drift Minimal in Comparison to Seismic Drift
Samuel M. P. Jannotti StructuralApril 14, 2008