A q u a b l u e a t t h e G o l d e n M i l e

Similar documents
twenty one concrete construction: shear & deflection ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURES: FORM, BEHAVIOR, AND DESIGN DR. ANNE NICHOLS SUMMER 2014 lecture

Design of Reinforced Concrete Beam for Shear

Design of Reinforced Concrete Beam for Shear

CHAPTER 5. T a = 0.03 (180) 0.75 = 1.47 sec 5.12 Steel moment frame. h n = = 260 ft. T a = (260) 0.80 = 2.39 sec. Question No.

Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures (II)

4.3 Moment Magnification

The Pennsylvania State University. The Graduate School. College of Engineering EVALUATION OF LIMIT DESIGN FOR EARTHQUAKE-RESISTANT MASONRY WALLS

Case Study in Reinforced Concrete adapted from Simplified Design of Concrete Structures, James Ambrose, 7 th ed.

Earthquake Loads According to IBC IBC Safety Concept

This Technical Note describes how the program checks column capacity or designs reinforced concrete columns when the ACI code is selected.

Appendix K Design Examples

PEER/SSC Tall Building Design. Case study #2

TABLE OF CONTANINET 1. Design criteria. 2. Lateral loads. 3. 3D finite element model (SAP2000, Ver.16). 4. Design of vertical elements (CSI, Ver.9).

Sway Column Example. PCA Notes on ACI 318

Design of a Multi-Storied RC Building

ε t increases from the compressioncontrolled Figure 9.15: Adjusted interaction diagram

3.4 Reinforced Concrete Beams - Size Selection

Chapter 2. Design for Shear. 2.1 Introduction. Neutral axis. Neutral axis. Fig. 4.1 Reinforced concrete beam in bending. By Richard W.

Chapter 8. Shear and Diagonal Tension

Lecture-04 Design of RC Members for Shear and Torsion

Chapter 4 Seismic Design Requirements for Building Structures

Lecture-03 Design of Reinforced Concrete Members for Flexure and Axial Loads

Moment Redistribution

Interaction Diagram Dumbbell Concrete Shear Wall Unsymmetrical Boundary Elements

PUNCHING SHEAR CALCULATIONS 1 ACI 318; ADAPT-PT

Sabah Shawkat Cabinet of Structural Engineering Walls carrying vertical loads should be designed as columns. Basically walls are designed in

Serviceability Deflection calculation

Design of a Balanced-Cantilever Bridge

3.5 Reinforced Concrete Section Properties

Lecture-08 Gravity Load Analysis of RC Structures

7.2 Design of minaret: Geometry:

SERVICEABILITY OF BEAMS AND ONE-WAY SLABS

Lecture 7 Two-Way Slabs

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF ARKANSAS TEST SERIES PILE #2 USING OPENSEES (WITH LPILE COMPARISON)

Codal Provisions IS 1893 (Part 1) 2002

EARTHQUAKE SIMULATION TESTS OF BRIDGE COLUMN MODELS DAMAGED DURING 1995 KOBE EARTHQUAKE

COLUMN INTERACTION EFFECT ON PUSH OVER 3D ANALYSIS OF IRREGULAR STRUCTURES

Where and are the factored end moments of the column and >.

Lecture-09 Introduction to Earthquake Resistant Analysis & Design of RC Structures (Part I)

Singly Symmetric Combination Section Crane Girder Design Aids. Patrick C. Johnson


INELASTIC SEISMIC DISPLACEMENT RESPONSE PREDICTION OF MDOF SYSTEMS BY EQUIVALENT LINEARIZATION

Beam Design - FLOOR JOIST

Chapter (6) Geometric Design of Shallow Foundations

DESIGN AND DETAILING OF COUNTERFORT RETAINING WALL

Figure 1: Representative strip. = = 3.70 m. min. per unit length of the selected strip: Own weight of slab = = 0.

ABS Consulting Project No

Flexure: Behavior and Nominal Strength of Beam Sections

A METHOD OF LOAD INCREMENTS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF SECOND-ORDER LIMIT LOAD AND COLLAPSE SAFETY OF REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMED STRUCTURES

Lecture 4 Dynamic Analysis of Buildings

Lecture-05 Serviceability Requirements & Development of Reinforcement

CHAPTER 4: BENDING OF BEAMS

DIVISION: METALS SECTION: METAL FASTENINGS SECTION: STEEL DECKING REPORT HOLDER: PNEUTEK, INC.

Properties of Sections

EFFECT OF SHEAR REINFORCEMENT ON FAILURE MODE OF RC BRIDGE PIERS SUBJECTED TO STRONG EARTHQUAKE MOTIONS

Case Study in Reinforced Concrete adapted from Simplified Design of Concrete Structures, James Ambrose, 7 th ed.

A Modified Response Spectrum Analysis Procedure (MRSA) to Determine the Nonlinear Seismic Demands of Tall Buildings

Seismic Pushover Analysis Using AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design

Entrance exam Master Course

host structure (S.F.D.)

Observations in Shear Wall Strength in Tall Buildings. Presented by StructurePoint at ACI Spring 2012 Convention in Dallas, Texas

Appendix J. Example of Proposed Changes

Karbala University College of Engineering Department of Civil Eng. Lecturer: Dr. Jawad T. Abodi

SIMPLIFIED DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETE SLABS AND BEAMS

Design Beam Flexural Reinforcement

Nonlinear and Code Analyses of PT Slab-Column Connections

FIXED BEAMS IN BENDING

ANALYTICAL MODELS FOR THE NONLINEAR SEISMIC RESPONSE OF REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES. A Thesis in. Architectural Engineering. Michael W.

Bayesian Approach in Structural Tests with Limited Resources

ME Final Exam. PROBLEM NO. 4 Part A (2 points max.) M (x) y. z (neutral axis) beam cross-sec+on. 20 kip ft. 0.2 ft. 10 ft. 0.1 ft.

Annex - R C Design Formulae and Data

CE5510 Advanced Structural Concrete Design - Design & Detailing of Openings in RC Flexural Members-

Beam Design - Shed Roof Back Wall Beam-S

RETAINING WALL LOADS: Horizontal Equivalent Fluid Pressure = pcf. (Load Case = Soil)

ACCELERATION RESPONSE OF RIGID AND FLEXIBLE NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS IN BUILDINGS SUBJECTED TO STRONG GROUND MOTIONS

5. What is the moment of inertia about the x - x axis of the rectangular beam shown?

Appendix G Analytical Studies of Columns

SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATE DESIGN

Simplified Base Isolation Design Procedure. Gordon Wray, P.E.

Part 1 is to be completed without notes, beam tables or a calculator. DO NOT turn Part 2 over until you have completed and turned in Part 1.

UC Berkeley CE 123 Fall 2017 Instructor: Alan Kren

Chapter 7: Bending and Shear in Simple Beams

This procedure covers the determination of the moment of inertia about the neutral axis.

BENCHMARK LINEAR FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF LATERALLY LOADED SINGLE PILE USING OPENSEES & COMPARISON WITH ANALYTICAL SOLUTION

Seismic load calculations per the NYS 2002 code

SEAoT State Conference Seminar Topics. Early knowledge needed. 11/5/2009. Wind Versus Seismic Which Controls? The Code

IDE 110 Mechanics of Materials Spring 2006 Final Examination FOR GRADING ONLY

Preferred practice on semi-integral abutment layout falls in the following order:

MECHANICS OF MATERIALS Sample Problem 4.2

Title. Author(s)DONG, Q.; OKAZAKI, T.; MIDORIKAWA, M.; RYAN, K.; SAT. Issue Date Doc URL. Type. Note. File Information BEARINGS

Failure in Flexure. Introduction to Steel Design, Tensile Steel Members Modes of Failure & Effective Areas

APPENDIX D SUMMARY OF EXISTING SIMPLIFIED METHODS

Design of AAC wall panel according to EN 12602

Homework No. 1 MAE/CE 459/559 John A. Gilbert, Ph.D. Fall 2004

Ishik University / Sulaimani Architecture Department. Structure. ARCH 214 Chapter -5- Equilibrium of a Rigid Body

Two-Way Flat Plate Concrete Floor System Analysis and Design

Structural Calculations For:

An Investigation of the Fundamental Period of Vibration of Irregular Steel Structures THESIS

500 Delaware Ave. APPENDICES

Suspended high-rise. Suspended high-rise Copyright G G Schierle, press Esc to end, for next, for previous slide 1

Transcription:

A q u a b l u e a t t h e G o l d e n M i l e H a t o R e y, P u e r t o R i c o

G e n e r a l B u i l d i n g I n f o r m a t i o n Building Facts: 7-story parking structure + luxury apartments 900,000 ft 2 31 stories above grade total height = 276 approximate plan dimensions = 120 x 490 Construction dates: February 2007 August 2009 Structural Engineer: DeSimone Consulting Engineers Existing Structural System: foundation drilled piles beneath 10 concrete slab gravity system two-way, post-tensioned slabs lateral system 18 concrete shear walls 5 seismic joint

T y p i c a l F l o o r P l a n s Parking Garage Level 51,900 ft 2 plan dimensions = 120 x 490 Apartment Towers 11,600 ft 2 and 14,500 ft 2 plan dimensions = 90 x 160 and 90 x 200

E x i s t i n g S h e a r W a l l D e s i g n Features of Shear Walls: f c = 8000 psi up to level 13 f c = 6000 psi above level 13 Detailed integration of shear wall segments Intricate construction process

C o d e s a n d R e f e r e n c e s National Model Codes used by DeSimone Consulting Engineers: Building Code 1999 UBC 1997 (Uniform Building Code) ACI 318-99 ( Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete ) ACI 530-99 ( Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures ) SJI 1994 (Steel Joist Institute) Codes and References used for this design project: ACI 318-08 (American Concrete Institute) ASCE 7-05 (American Society of Civil Engineering) IBC 2006 (International Building Code) ETABS Nonlinear v9.2.0 (Computers and Structures, Inc.) pcacolumn v3.64 (Portland Cement Association)

P r o p o s a l a n d P r o j e c t G o a l s Overview of Project Proposal: Lateral force analysis Shear wall and coupling beam re-design Reinforcement design ETABS and pcacolumn analysis Architectural breadth study Construction Management breadth study Project Goals: Detailed analysis of lateral loads Concrete shear wall design (ACI 318-08 building code) Computer modeling as a means of structural analysis Hato Rey Central, PR Architectural impact of structural design

P r o p o s e d S h e a r W a l l D e s i g n Ideas for Shear Wall Re-design: Two I-shaped shear walls with connecting coupling beams More regular and efficient shape Minor architectural impact Hand calculations + computer modeling for analysis Reinforcement design Focus on the core of one tower Preliminary Sketch (N.T.S.)

L a t e r a l D e s i g n L o a d s seismic joint Wind Analysis: Seismic Analysis: ASCE 7-05 (Chapter 6) ASCE 7-05 (Chapters 11 and 12) Analytical Procedure (Method 2) Basic Wind Speed, V = 145 mph Importance Factor, I = 1.0 Exposure Category = B Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure Importance Factor, I = 1.0 Seismic Design Category = D Response Modification Coefficient, R = 6 Special Wind Cases Fundamental Period, T = 2.031 Seismic Response Coefficient, C s = 0.0165

L a t e r a l D e s i g n L o a d s 35 Factored Story Shears for NS Direction 35 Factored Story Shears for EW Direction 30 30 25 25 Floor Level 20 15 Floor Level 20 15 Wind Seismic 10 5 10 5 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Story Force (k) 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Story Force (k) S t o r y S h e a r F o r c e s

P r e l i m i n a r y S h e a r W a l l T h i c k n e s s e s 25-9 (SW1) CB1 25-9 (SW2) t = ρ φ3 V f x ' c ( l w ) S W N 31-9 (SW5) 31-9 (SW6) Equation variables: E t = wall thickness (in) ρ = fraction of story shear force V x = total factored shear force ф = 0.75 for wind, ф = 0.60 for seismic 3 f c = approximate shear stress of the wall 16-0 (SW3) CB2 16-0 (SW4) l w = length of the wall (in)

E T A B S M o d e l Design Assumptions: Same concrete strength as original building User-defined loads Rigid floor diaphragms with assigned masses Meshed walls with 0.7 multiplier for moment of inertia 18 wide x 19.5 deep coupling beams with reduced moment of inertia Seismic Joint

E T A B S M o d e l Final Shear Wall Thicknesses: 18 30 thickness (2) 18 thick walls added through parking levels

D r i f t A n a l y s i s Check for horizontal structural irregularity: Extreme torsional irregularity Torsional amplification factor, A x = 1.46 Accidental eccentricity ratio = 0.073 Drift limitations: L/400 for wind loads (0.70W permitted by section CC.1.2 of ASCE 7-05) 0.020h for seismic loads Deflection amplification factor, C d = 5 (seismic drifts) Drifts within the required limits Maximum drift at level 7 = 1.06 (assumed that seismic joint is adequate) C o d e R e q u i r e m e n t s

D r i f t A n a l y s i s 35 Story Drift Ratio 35 Building Drift at Each Level 30 30 25 25 Floor Level 20 15 Floor Level 20 15 Actual Drift L/400 Limitation 10 5 10 5 0 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0 0 5 10 Drift Ratio Drift (in) D r i f t A n a l y s i s f o r W i n d

D r i f t A n a l y s i s 35 Story Drift Ratio 35 Building Drift at Each Level 30 30 25 25 Floor Level 20 15 Floor Level 20 15 10 5 10 5 0 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Drift Ratio Drift (in) D r i f t A n a l y s i s f o r S e i s m i c

C o u p l i n g B e a m F e a s i b i l i t y T e s t Equation variables: V u = factored shear force in the beam λ V u f φ ' c A cw 12( wind) 4( seismic 1.2D + 0.5L + 1.6W 0.9D + 1.6W 1.32D + 0.5L + 1.0E 0.78D + 1.0E λ = 1 (normal weight concrete) A cw = cross-sectional area of the beam Results: Diagonal reinforcement is not required Beam depths are feasible

C o u p l i n g B e a m F e a s i b i l i t y T e s t 35 CB1 Shear Stresses (Wind) 35 CB1 Shear Stresses (Seismic) 30 30 25 25 Floor Level 20 15 Floor Level 20 15 10 10 5 5 0 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 Shear Stress (ksi) 0 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 Shear Stresses (ksi)

C o u p l i n g B e a m F e a s i b i l i t y T e s t 35 CB2 Shear Stresses (Wind) 35 CB2 Shear Stresses (Seismic) 30 30 25 25 Floor Level 20 15 Floor Level 20 15 10 10 5 0 5 0 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 Shear Stresses (ksi) 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 Shear Stresses (ksi)

S h e a r W a l l R e i n f o r c e m e n t Design process: Preliminary design according to seismic provisions of ACI 318-08, chapter 21 Reinforcement checked for wind loads using ACI 318-08, chapter 11 (2) curtains for both transverse and longitudinal reinforcement ' φ V = φa ( α λ f + ρ f n cv c c t y ) Transverse (horizontal) Longitudinal (vertical) Level SW1 and SW2 reinforcement 14 to sky lobby (2) #5 @ 12" (2) #5 @ 10" 4 to 13 (2) #5 @ 9" (2) #5 @ 8" 2 to 3 (2) #7 @ 9" (2) #7 @ 8" SW3 and SW4 reinforcement φv ' = φ( 2λ fc twd As, n + t f y d / s) 2 to sky lobby (2) #5 @ 12" (2) #5 @ 12" SW5 and SW6 reinforcement 20 to sky lobby (2) #5 @ 12" (2) #5 @ 10" 16 to 19 (2) #5 @ 8" (2) #5 @ 6" 2 to 15 (2) #7 @ 8" (2) #7 @ 6"

S h e a r W a l l R e i n f o r c e m e n t Check in pcacolumn: Shear wall design checked in pcacolumn for level 9 #5 bars at either 8 or 12 spacing #9 bars for the boundary elements p c a C o l u m n

S h e a r W a l l R e i n f o r c e m e n t 800000 My (k-ft) Biaxial moment interaction diagrams 800000 My (k-ft) 2 1 Mx (k-ft -800000 3 4 800000-800000 6 5 7 8 Mx (k-ft 800000 P = 1983 kip -800000-800000 P = 3898 kip p c a C o l u m n

C o u p l i n g B e a m R e i n f o r c e m e n t Longitudinal reinforcement design: Minimum steel area from chapters 10 and 21 of ACI 318-08 Area of steel for 6 ksi strength concrete Area of steel for 8 ksi strength concrete Generally, (6) (10) #7 bars at both the top and bottom of the beams sufficed Reinforcement ratio below 0.025 (acceptable) A A s s M u = 4.17d M u = 4.25d Level CB1 Required Reinforcement (top and bottom) 9 to sky lobby (10) #7 7 to 8 (8) #7 5 to 6 (6) #7 3 to 4 (4) #7 2 (2) #7 CB2 Required Level Reinforcement (top and bottom) 11 to roof level (8) #7 6 to 10 (6) #7 3 to 5 (4) #7 2 (2) #7 L o n g i t u d i n a l R e i n f o r c e m e n t

C o u p l i n g B e a m R e i n f o r c e m e n t Stirrup reinforcement design: Shear capacity of concrete neglected Required steel area determined by chapters 11 and 21 of ACI 318-08 (3) (4) legs of #3 stirrups in each beam 2 spacing at supports 4 spacing throughout beam S t i r r u p R e i n f o r c e m e n t

I m p a c t o n E x i s t i n g F o u n d a t i o n Original foundation: Drilled compression piles (147) and drilled tension piles (23) Compression capacity = 200 tons (170 total piles) Lateral capacity = 20 tons (170 total piles) Tension capacity = 40 tons (23 tension piles) Mat slab under group of columns and shear walls Analysis of lateral capacity: Maximum factored base shear determined Force converted to number of required piles No change necessary for existing design East-West Direction North-South Direction Total Shear (k) Total Shear (k) Wind Case 1a 0.8 1961.8 Wind Case 1b 2951.6 304.0 Wind Case 2a 151.9 1472.4 Wind Case 2b 2183.1 183.9 Wind Case 3 2214.2 1466.1 Wind Case 4 1630.9 1102.0 Seismic - NS 9.7 932.1 Seismic - EW 540.7 75.9 Total Shear (tons) = 1475.8 980.9 Required Piles = 73.8 49.0 B a s e S h e a r A n a l y s i s

I m p a c t o n E x i s t i n g F o u n d a t i o n Analysis of tension capacity: Maximum factored overturning moment determined Moment divided by wall length for tension force at extreme fiber Force converted to number of required piles Approximately 33 required piles unnecessary due to gravity load effects 56 piles still required (convert 33 compression piles to tension piles) Base Moment (k-ft) Tension Force (k) Tension Force (tons) Number of Required Piles Wind Case 1a 182637.4 7092.7 3546.4 88.7 Wind Case 1b 33349.4 1295.1 647.6 16.2 Wind Case 2a 136919.1 5317.2 2658.6 66.5 Wind Case 2b 23847.2 926.1 463.1 11.6 Wind Case 3 138366.3 5373.4 2686.7 67.2 Wind Case 4 103416.1 4016.2 2008.1 50.2 Seismic - NS 96733.5 3756.6 1878.3 47.0 Seismic - EW 8881.0 344.9 172.4 4.3 O v e r t u r n i n g A n a l y s i s

A r c h i t e c t u r a l B r e a d t h S t u d y Impact of New Shear Wall Design on the Existing Architecture: Elimination of two columns of existing windows More narrow bedroom windows New Shear Wall Design Windows to be removed Existing Shear Wall Design

A r c h i t e c t u r a l B r e a d t h S t u d y Impact of New Shear Wall Design on the Existing Architecture: Elimination of two columns of existing windows

A r c h i t e c t u r a l B r e a d t h S t u d y Impact of New Shear Wall Design on the Existing Architecture: Additional Floor Space Level Original Shear Wall Design Percentage of Floor Area (%) New Shear Wall Design Percentage of Floor Area (%) Floor Area Gained in New Design (ft 2 ) sky lobby roof level 4.47 4.56-4.0 17 - roof level 1.75 1.60 20.3 14 16 2.14 2.23-10.0 8 13 2.14 2.45-34.8 3 7 1.88 1.72 38.6 2 2.08 1.72 83.9

C o n c l u s i o n s The project was a success because the initial goals were met and valuable design experience was gained: Completion of lateral analysis Familiarity with the ACI 318-08 design code Use of ETABS for modeling purposes Study of architectural impact Opportunity for further study Dynamic analysis of the structure

A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s The following people need to be recognized for their assistance in the completion of this senior thesis project. Collectively, they provided technical expertise, general engineering consulting, patience and support throughout the year. Dr. Andres Lepage (structural advisor) Professor Kevin Parfitt (general thesis advisor) Professor Robert Holland (general thesis advisor) Anh Trong Nguyen (project structural engineer) Architectural Engineering Peers Family and Friends

Questions?