Structural Analysis and Design of Highrise Building

Structural Design

1. Brickell Arch Josiah Makay Structural Option | B.A.E/M.A.E Adviser: Dr. Aly Said The Pennsylvania State University Department of Architectural Engineering 2019 Senior Thesis Final Presentation

2. Brickell Arch Location: Miami, Florida Occupancy: Mixed – Use Size: 750,000 ft 2 Height: 483 ft (36 Stories) Construction: Dec. 2000 – June 2004 Project Delivery: Design – Bid – Build Cost: $226M (Total Project Cost)

3. Brickell Arch Owner: Gaedeke Group Architect: KPF Structural Eng.: LERA Consulting Structural Engineers MEP Eng.: Flack & Kurtz, Inc. Construction Manager: AMEC Owner’s Representative: Bovis Lend Lease, Inc.

4. Contents Existing Systems Proposal Depth Analysis Cost Analysis Breadth (Construction Scheduling) Conclusion Acknowledgments

5. Josiah Makay Brickell Arch Adviser: Dr. Aly Said Existing Systems Lateral System Gravity System Proposal Depth Analysis Cost Analysis Breadth (Construction Scheduling) Conclusion Acknowledgments Lateral System (Base) RC Shear Wall Properties Reinforcement Properties F y = 60 ksi Concrete Properties Base – 10 th Floor : f 1 c = 8,000 psi 10 th – 25 th Floor: f 1 c = 6,000 psi Above 25 th Floor: f 1 c = 4,000 psi

6. Josiah Makay Brickell Arch Adviser: Dr. Aly Said Existing Systems Lateral System Gravity System Proposal Depth Analysis Cost Analysis Breadth (Construction Scheduling) Conclusion Acknowledgments Lateral System (23 rd – 24 th Floor) RC Shear Wall Properties Reinforcement properties F y = 60 ksi Concrete properties Base – 10 th Floor : f 1 c = 8,000 psi 10 th – 25 th Floor: f 1 c = 6,000 psi Above 25 th Floor: f 1 c = 4,000 psi

7. Existing Systems Lateral System Gravity System Proposal Depth Analysis Cost Analysis Breadth (Construction Scheduling) Conclusion Acknowledgments Gravity System Typical PT Slab Thicknesses Base – 16 th Floor (one-way slab, t = 7.5”) 16 th – 22 nd Floor (flat plate, t = 6.5”) 25 th – 36 th Floor (flat plate, t = 7”) Material Properties Beams: f 1 c = 6,000 psi Slabs: f 1 c = 6,000 psi Josiah Makay Brickell Arch Adviser: Dr. Aly Said

8. Existing Systems Proposal Project Goals SpeedCore Girder-Slab Depth Analysis Cost Analysis Breadth (Construction Scheduling) Conclusion Acknowledgments Proposed Systems Project Goals Take advantage of the increased stiffness of SpeedCore in order to reduce the overall deflection of the tower Reduce the schedule for the erection of the superstructure Maintain a competitive structural depth to a post-tensioned system. Josiah Makay Brickell Arch Adviser: Dr. Aly Said

9. Josiah Makay Brickell Arch Adviser: Dr. Aly Said Existing Systems Proposal Project Goals SpeedCore Girder-Slab Depth Analysis Cost Analysis Breadth (Construction Scheduling) Conclusion Acknowledgments SpeedCore Typical Panel Construction Plate F y = 50 ksi t = 3/8” or 1/2” Shear studs F y = 65 ksi d = 3/4” Cross-ties d = 1” Spacing = 12” O.C.

10. Existing Systems Proposal Project Goals SpeedCore Girder-Slab Depth Analysis Cost Analysis Breadth (Construction Scheduling) Conclusion Acknowledgments SpeedCore Benefits to Using SpeedCore Expedited construction Potential increase in lateral stiffness Better tolerances when compared to concrete Potential cost savings Flexibility for wall openings Potential reduction in wall thickness Improved seismic performance Improved blast resistance Josiah Makay Brickell Arch Adviser: Dr. Aly Said

11. Existing Systems Proposal Project Goals SpeedCore Girder-Slab Depth Analysis Cost Analysis Breadth (Construction Scheduling) Conclusion Acknowledgments Girder-Slab D-Beam A992 steel Parent beam: W12 or W14 Top plate: t = 1” or 1 - 1/2” Prestressed Hollow Core Plank Spanning capabilities 8”: 17’ – 35’ 10” : 26’ – 39’ Lightweight Josiah Makay Brickell Arch Adviser: Dr. Aly Said

12. Existing Systems Proposal Project Goals SpeedCore Girder-Slab Depth Analysis Cost Analysis Breadth (Construction Scheduling) Conclusion Acknowledgments Girder-Slab Benefits to Using Girder-Slab Expedited construction Reduced structural depth Flat soffit condition Lightweight Josiah Makay Brickell Arch Adviser: Dr. Aly Said

13. Existing Systems Proposal Depth Analysis Lateral Redesign Gravity Redesign Cost Analysis Breadth (Construction Scheduling) Conclusion Acknowledgments Modeling Approach Modeling Details Shear walls Belt and outrigger walls were modeled in order to engage the columns in lateral force resistance Modeled as layered shell elements Considered to have full fixity at the base level Maximum mesh size is set to 4’x4’ All columns were modeled to investigate the effect they have on the lateral stiffness P-Delta Effects were also taken into consideration Josiah Makay Brickell Arch Adviser: Dr. Aly Said

14. Existing Systems Proposal Depth Analysis Lateral Redesign Gravity Redesign Cost Analysis Breadth (Construction Scheduling) Conclusion Acknowledgments Deflection Comparison (Existing vs. Proposed) SpeedCore Wall Properties Plate properties F y = 50 ksi t = 3/8” Concrete properties Base – 10 th Floor : f 1 c = 8,000 psi 10 th – 25 th Floor: f 1 c = 6,000 psi Above 25 th Floor: f 1 c = 4,000 psi Average Deflection Reduction East – West : 23% North – South : 39% Josiah Makay Brickell Arch Adviser: Dr. Aly Said

15. Existing Systems Proposal Depth Analysis Lateral Redesign Gravity Redesign Cost Analysis Breadth (Construction Scheduling) Conclusion Acknowledgments Wall Capacity Design Procedure for Dual-Plate Composite Shear Walls Outlines procedures for calculating the moment and shear capacity for a SpeedCore system Moment capacity for the system as a whole Shear capacity is based on the contribution from concrete alone Steel Design Guide 32 Suggests that shear capacity should be calculated based on the contribution from the steel Josiah Makay Brickell Arch Adviser: Dr. Aly Said

16. Existing Systems Proposal Depth Analysis Lateral Redesign Gravity Redesign Cost Analysis Breadth (Construction Scheduling) Conclusion Acknowledgments Wall Capacity (Base) East – West Design Forces Controlling load case: 1.2D + 1.0L +1.0W M u = 15.9*10 6 kips*ft V u = 19.3*10 4 kips Controlling load case: 0.9D + 1.0W P u = 56.2*10 4 kips North – South Design Forces Controlling load case: 1.2D + 1.0L +1.0W M u = 11.7*10 6 kips*ft V u = 11.1*10 4 kips Controlling load case: 0.9D + 1.0W P u = 56.2*10 4 kips Josiah Makay Brickell Arch Adviser: Dr. Aly Said

17. Existing Systems Proposal Depth Analysis Lateral Redesign Gravity Redesign Cost Analysis Breadth (Construction Scheduling) Conclusion Acknowledgments Wall Capacity (Base) East – West Capacities F M n = 35.3*10 6 kips*ft F V n = 25.1*10 4 kips North – South Capacities F M n = 21.4*10 6 kips*ft F V n = 48.6*10 4 kips Josiah Makay Brickell Arch Adviser: Dr. Aly Said

18. Existing Systems Proposal Depth Analysis Lateral Redesign Gravity Redesign Cost Analysis Breadth (Construction Scheduling) Conclusion Acknowledgments Wall Capacity (16 th Floor) East – West Design Forces Controlling load case: 1.2D + 1.0L +1.0W M u = 5.6*10 6 kips*ft V u = 11.6*10 4 kips Controlling load case: 0.9D + 1.0W P u = 19.9*10 4 kips North – South Design Forces Controlling load case: 1.2D + 1.0L +1.0W M u = 4.7*10 6 kips*ft V u = 5.4*10 4 kips Controlling load case: 0.9D + 1.0W P u = 19.9*10 4 kips Josiah Makay Brickell Arch Adviser: Dr. Aly Said

19. Existing Systems Proposal Depth Analysis Lateral Redesign Gravity Redesign Cost Analysis Breadth (Construction Scheduling) Conclusion Acknowledgments Wall Capacity (16 th Floor) East – West Capacities F M n = 14.7*10 6 kips*ft F V n = 24.7*10 4 kips North – South Capacities F M n = 10.5*10 6 kips*ft F V n = 42.8*10 4 kips Josiah Makay Brickell Arch Adviser: Dr. Aly Said

20. Existing Systems Proposal Depth Analysis Lateral Redesign Gravity Redesign Cost Analysis Breadth (Construction Scheduling) Conclusion Acknowledgments Wall Capacity (25 th Floor) East – West Design Forces Controlling load case: 1.2D + 1.0L +1.0W M u = 2.4*10 6 kips*ft V u = 7.3*10 4 kips Controlling load case: 0.9D + 1.0W P u = 7.1*10 4 kips North – South Design Forces Controlling load case: 1.2D + 1.0L +1.0W M u = 1.8*10 6 kips*ft V u = 3.0*10 4 kips Controlling load case: 0.9D + 1.0W P u = 7.1*10 4 kips Josiah Makay Brickell Arch Adviser: Dr. Aly Said

21. Existing Systems Proposal Depth Analysis Lateral Redesign Gravity Redesign Cost Analysis Breadth (Construction Scheduling) Conclusion Acknowledgments Wall Capacity (25 th Floor) East – West Capacities F M n = 4.3*10 6 kips*ft F V n = 12.1*10 4 kips North – South Capacities F M n = 3.1*10 6 kips*ft F V n = 19.4*10 4 kips Josiah Makay Brickell Arch Adviser: Dr. Aly Said

22. Existing Systems Proposal Depth Analysis Lateral Redesign Gravity Redesign Cost Analysis Breadth (Construction Scheduling) Conclusion Acknowledgments New Column Layout (6 th Floor) Column Location Preliminary investigation Intermediate interior columns needed to be added to accommodate the spanning capabilities of prestressed precast hollow core plank Intermediate exterior columns needed to be added to accommodate the spanning capabilities of D-Beams Selected locations Where interior columns were needed, the columns from upper floors were replicated down to minimize the number of transfers that would be needed Josiah Makay Brickell Arch Adviser: Dr. Aly Said

23. Existing Systems Proposal Depth Analysis Lateral Redesign Gravity Redesign Cost Analysis Breadth (Construction Scheduling) Conclusion Acknowledgments New Column Layout (17 th Floor) Column Location Preliminary investigation Existing column layout is mostly conducive to a Girder-Slab system Minor changes were made to the layout to regularize it Selected locations New locations were based on what would create the most regular geometry for the prestressed precast hollow core plank Josiah Makay Brickell Arch Adviser: Dr. Aly Said

24. Existing Systems Proposal Depth Analysis Lateral Redesign Gravity Redesign Cost Analysis Breadth (Construction Scheduling) Conclusion Acknowledgments New Column Layout (27 th Floor) Column Location Preliminary investigation Existing column layout is mostly conducive to a Girder-Slab system Minor changes were made to the layout to regularize it Selected locations New locations were based on what would create the most regular geometry for the prestressed precast hollow core plank Josiah Makay Brickell Arch Adviser: Dr. Aly Said

25. Existing Systems Proposal Depth Analysis Lateral Redesign Gravity Redesign Cost Analysis Breadth (Construction Scheduling) Conclusion Acknowledgments Prestressed Precast Hollow Core Plank Using Tables for Selection Loading Loading tables are show the maximum factored superimposed loads that can be carried at a specific span Self-weight of the plank and topping weight are considered in the value given for the maximum loading Capacity Capacity is dependent on a uniform 2” topping over the entire span, any less will result in a decreased capacity Josiah Makay Brickell Arch Adviser: Dr. Aly Said

26. Existing Systems Proposal Depth Analysis Lateral Redesign Gravity Redesign Cost Analysis Breadth (Construction Scheduling) Conclusion Acknowledgments D-Beam Girder-Slab Design Tool Bay Geometry Span Tributary width Loads Live (with or without reduction) Dead Self-weight (D-Beam, plank, and grout) Superimposed dead load Load Combinations 1.4D 1.2D + 1.6L Josiah Makay Brickell Arch Adviser: Dr. Aly Said

27. Existing Systems Proposal Depth Analysis Lateral Redesign Gravity Redesign Cost Analysis Breadth (Construction Scheduling) Conclusion Acknowledgments D-Beam Girder-Slab Design Tool Capacity and serviceability checks Noncomposite : Moment capacity Shear capacity Fully composite LL deflection Moment capacity Flexural ductility Shear capacity Josiah Makay Brickell Arch Adviser: Dr. Aly Said

28. Existing Systems Proposal Depth Analysis Lateral Redesign Gravity Redesign Cost Analysis Breadth (Construction Scheduling) Conclusion Acknowledgments Final Floor Layout (6 th Floor) Girder-Slab Design With the superimposed live and dead loads given, the floor layout lends itself to minimum sizing Total structural depth of this system at this floor is 12” Josiah Makay Brickell Arch Adviser: Dr. Aly Said

29. Existing Systems Proposal Depth Analysis Lateral Redesign Gravity Redesign Cost Analysis Breadth (Construction Scheduling) Conclusion Acknowledgments Final Floor Layout (17 th Floor) Girder-Slab Design With the superimposed live and dead loads given, the floor layout lends itself to minimum sizing Total structural depth of the system at this floor is 10” Josiah Makay Brickell Arch Adviser: Dr. Aly Said

30. Existing Systems Proposal Depth Analysis Lateral Redesign Gravity Redesign Cost Analysis Breadth (Construction Scheduling) Conclusion Acknowledgments Final Floor Layout (27 th Floor) Girder-Slab Design With the superimposed live and dead loads given, the floor layout lent itself mostly to minimum sizing Total structural depth of the system at this floor is 10” Josiah Makay Brickell Arch Adviser: Dr. Aly Said

31. Existing Systems Proposal Depth Analysis Cost Analysis Breadth (Construction Scheduling) Conclusion Acknowledgments Cost Comparison Cost Data Data for the existing systems cost estimate was gathered from Building Construction Costs with RSMeans Data 2018 With both proposed system being relatively new, most relevant cost data was provided by industry professionals Gravity System Costs Existing: $53.1M Proposed: $41.8M Lateral System Costs Existing: $1.7M Proposed: $7.9M Josiah Makay Brickell Arch Adviser: Dr. Aly Said Total Cost of Construction of the Superstructure Existing System $54.8M Proposed System $49.7M Reduction in Overall Cost (%) ~ 9%

32. Existing Systems Proposal Depth Analysis Cost Analysis Breadth (Construction Scheduling) Conclusion Acknowledgments Schedule Comparison Schedule Data Data for the existing systems and most of the proposed system schedule estimate was gathered from Building Construction Costs with RSMeans Data 2018 With SpeedCore having only been used a few times in high-rise construction, there is little data for the typical duration of erection. The most current observation is that core walls can go up at a rate of one story a week The schedule does not account for material procurement or the duration of prefabricating materials Josiah Makay Brickell Arch Adviser: Dr. Aly Said Total Schedule Duration of Construction of the Superstructure Existing System 1,184 Working Days Proposed System 533 Working Days Reduction in Overall Schedule (%) ~ 50%

33. Existing Systems Proposal Depth Analysis Cost Analysis Breadth (Construction Scheduling) Conclusion Acknowledgments System Comparison SpeedCore performs significantly better than the existing system under lateral loading The construction schedule for the erection of the superstructure is nearly halved when comparing the existing system to the proposed system The cost of construction of the superstructure is significantly reduced as well Competitive structural depths are achieved with the proposed system System Selection For the reasons noted it seems as though a SpeedCore lateral system, combined with a Girder-Slab gravity system, prove to be a viable alternative to the existing cast-in-place systems of Brickell Arch Josiah Makay Brickell Arch Adviser: Dr. Aly Said

34. Existing Systems Proposal Depth Analysis Cost Analysis Breadth (Construction Scheduling) Conclusion Acknowledgments Special Thanks To: My family The entire AE faculty with special mention to my adviser, Dr. Aly Said and Dr. Ryan Solnosky LERA Consulting Structural Engineers Joe Senker Robert McNamara Charlie Carter Ron Klemencic Dan Fischer Josiah Makay Brickell Arch Adviser: Dr. Aly Said

35. Appendix A: RS Means Data Josiah Makay Brickell Arch Adviser: Dr. Aly Said

36. Appendix B: Enclosure Breadth Josiah Makay Brickell Arch Adviser: Dr. Aly Said