Home > Floor System Exploration (Tech 2)

Floor System Exploration (Tech 2)

Page 1
Floor System Exploration (Tech 2)
CHRIS VANDELOGT | Structural Option
11/10/2011
Global Village Rochester Institute of Technology The Pennsylvania State University Faculty Advisor: Dr. Hanagan
Revised:

Page 2
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 1 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE
Executive Summary
The structural study of alternative floor systems report compares three alternative floor systems to the structure used in Global Village Building 400. Global Village is a European-inspired complex that provides commercial and residential space for the campus at the Rochester Institute of Technology in Rochester, NY. Each location has been designed to incorporate themes and materials that represent different regions from around the world, including marble from Italy and wood siding from Denmark. Global Village is a four-story building that also supports a fifth story dedicated to mechanical equipment; making it rise to an overall height of 62.5 feet. The building is constructed of steel with metal deck and lightweight concrete at the first, second, and third floors while the fourth floor and mechanical penthouse have wood framing. Due to the varying bay sizes throughout the building, the largest typical bay located on the second floor of the north wing was chosen to be conservative. To make calculations easier, the 29��-3�� x 34��-4�� bay was rounded up to 30��-0�� x 34��-0��. This bay size would then be altered along with floor heights and slab depths as needed throughout the report. The existing floor type consists of a 3.25�� lightweight concrete slab on 3�� composite metal deck supported by W16x31 [+24] beams which rest on W24x62 [+50] girders. The three alternative floor systems that were analyzed are:
• Pre-Cast Hollow Core Planks on Steel Framing • Two-Way Flat Plate (Without Drop Panels) • Solid One-Way Slab with Beams
Nitterhouse Concrete Products Catalogs were used in designing the Hollow Core system. The typical bay size of 30��-0�� x 34��-0�� needed to be changed to 30��-0�� x 32��-0�� in order to accommodate the planks 4��-0�� increments. From the tables in the catalog, an 8�� thick x 4��-0�� wide plank with (7) ½��ø strands was to considered to be adequate. W21x201 girders would then be needed to support the planks and the applied loading. Overall, the Hollow Core weight was the closest to the existing system but the cost and total depth were the worst out of all the floor types analyzed. Due to this and the change in bay size, the Hollow Core system is determined not to be feasible. To design the Flat Plate floor slab, the Direct Design Method was used. Punching shear was the main controlling factor which changed the minimum slab thickness of 12��, found by code, to a thickness of 17��. Comparing this to all the other floor types; it had the lowest total floor depth and cost but had the largest system weight. The weight was more than four times that of the existing system which could bring up foundation concerns. However, this is a viable alternative to the existing system.

Page 3
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 2 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE Through the use of the CRSI Handbook, the Solid One-Way Slab was designed to have a 4�� slab with 12�� x 18�� beams and 20�� x 26�� girders. This floor type is mainly in the middle for each category except for constructability. Due to this system being comprised mostly of concrete, formwork is needed and weather conditions need to be taken into account. As a result, this system is feasible and may be considered an alternative to the existing system.

Page 4
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 3 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 1 Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 4 Structural Overview ..................................................................................................... 6
Foundation ................................................................................................................................................ 6 Floor System .............................................................................................................................................. 6 Framing System ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Lateral System ........................................................................................................................................... 8
Design Codes ............................................................................................................... 9 Material Properties .................................................................................................... 10 Design Loads .............................................................................................................. 11 Floor System Analysis ................................................................................................ 12
Existing Light Weight Concrete on Composite Deck ............................................................................... 12 Pre-Cast Hollow Core Planks on Steel Framing ....................................................................................... 14 Two-Way Flat Plate ................................................................................................................................. 16 Solid One-Way Slab with Beams ............................................................................................................. 18
Floor System Summary .............................................................................................. 22 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 23 Appendices ................................................................................................................ 24
Appendix A: 2nd Floor Framing Plan ........................................................................................................ 24 Appendix B: Existing Composite Steel ..................................................................................................... 25 Appendix C: Hollow Core Plank ............................................................................................................... 35 Appendix D: Two-Way Flat Plate............................................................................................................. 38 Appendix E: One-Way Slab with Beams .................................................................................................. 46 Appendix F: System Analysis ................................................................................................................... 52
Table of Contents

Page 5
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 4 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE
Purpose
The purpose of Technical Report 2 is to design and analyze three alternative floor types and compare them to the existing system used in Global Village. This report will give a background on each system and list the advantages and disadvantages based on the outcomes of the design. An overall summary at the end will compare each system with one another and test if the alternative system is feasible.
Introduction
Global Village is a mixed-use building that provides commercial and residential space for the campus at RIT. Global Village has achieved LEED Gold certification and has been designed to be community friendly. In total, the Global Village project provides 414 beds for on campus living and 24,000 square feet of commercial and retail space. The $57.5 million dollar project consists of three independent structures on the campus at RIT. The main four-story Global Village building (Building 400) is 122,000 square feet and the two additional three-story Global Way buildings (Buildings 403 and 404) are 32,000 square feet each. The main project team includes RIT as the owner, Architectural Resources Cambridge as the architect, and The Pike Company as the CM-at-Risk. Eleven other firms were also employed to handle MEP, lighting, acoustics, and so forth. Commercial space is located on the first and second floors, which consist of two dining facilities, a post office, salon, wellness center, sports outfitter, and a convenience store. Campus housing is located on the third and fourth floor which provides room for 210 beds. There is also a fifth floor; however, it is used primarily as a mechanical penthouse. Building 400��s unique ��U�� shape creates a courtyard that features a removable stage, gas fireplace, and a glass fountain. See Figure 1 for a campus map of the Global Village complex. The area also includes outdoor seating with tables equipped with umbrellas.
Figure 1: GVP is Building 400 (Global Village Building). GVC and GVD are Buildings 403 and 404 (Global Way Buildings). Courtesy of RIT.

Page 6
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 5 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE The 28,000 square foot courtyard is also heated to extend its use during the winter and to minimize winter maintenance. The façade of Building 400 is made up of a cement fiber board rain screen, brick masonry veneer, and flat seamed sheet metal with aluminum clad wood windows, and a coated extruded aluminum storefront. Global Village Building 400 is a LEED Gold Certified Building. Green aspects include a green roof above the restaurant, daylight sensor lighting, and sensors to shut off mechanical equipment when windows are opened. Global Village is located on a sustainable site that is walk-able and transit oriented, encourages low-emitting vehicles, and reflects solar heat. The building reduces water consumption through water efficient landscaping and technologies such as high-efficiency toilets, faucets, and shower heads. Through the implementation of several energy efficient systems, the building is predicted to use 29.4% less energy. To encourage sustainable energy, seventy percent of the building��s electricity consumption is provided from renewable sources (wind) through the engagement in a two-year renewable energy contract. Construction of Global Village included waste management recycling, air quality control, and low emitting materials. Along with regional materials, recycled content were also installed that constitute 20% of the total value of the materials in the project. Global Village is a part of RIT��s campus outreach program. The buildings not only provide student housing and retail space, but were also designed to be community friendly and to provide students with a global living experience. Global Village is LEED Gold certified and the courtyard created promotes outdoor activity.

Page 7
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 6 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE
Structural Overview
The structure of Global Village Building 400 consists of steel framing on a concrete foundation wall. The first, second, and third floor slabs use a lightweight concrete on metal decking system while the fourth floor, mechanical penthouse, and roof use wood framing. The lateral system consists of concentrically braced frames in both directions.
Foundation
In January 2009, Tierney Geotechnical Engineering, PC (TGE) provided a subsurface exploration and geotechnical investigation for Global Village. TGE performed 14 test borings and 2 test pits on the site of Building 400 and recommended foundation types and allowable bearing pressures along with seismic, floor slab, and lateral earth pressure design parameters. In general, the borings and test pits encountered up to 8 inches of topsoil at the ground surface, or fill. The fill, generally consists of varying amounts of silt, sand, and gravel. At several locations, the fill also contained varying amounts of construction-type debris and deleterious material such as asphalt, topsoil, and wood. The fill was generally encountered to depths of approximately 4 to 8 feet. Below the fill, native soils with a very high compactness were encountered. Overall, most of the structure��s foundation is on very compact glacial fill. From these results, it was determined that the structure may then be supported on a foundation system consisting of isolated spread and continuous strip footings. TGE recommends an allowable bearing pressure of 7,500 psf to be used in the foundation design. It was also recommended by TGE that, due to lateral earth pressure, retaining walls are to be backfilled to a minimum distance of 2 feet behind the walls with an imported structural fill. To prevent storm run-off, permanent drains should also be installed behind all retaining walls.
Floor System
The first floor consists of a 6�� concrete on grade slab. For the second and third floors, the floor system is comprised of 3¼�� lightweight concrete slab on 3�� composite metal (18-gage) decking. Individual steel deck panels are to be continuous over two or more spans except where limited by the structural steel layout. The rest of the floors are made up of wood framing with ¾�� plywood sheathing. Shear stud connectors are welded to beams and girders where appropriate. See Figure 2 for details.

Page 8
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 7 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE
Framing System
The framing grid that Global Village possesses is very unique and very complicated. The bay sizes on each floor vary dramatically and the beams don��t line up on each side of the transfer girders. The framing is also not consistent between floors. There is no simple consistent grid except for a couple areas highlighted in Figure 3. In these highlighted areas, the beams vary from W18x35 to W16x31 while the transfer girders vary from W14x22 to W21x44. Column sizes also vary significantly throughout the structure where the majority is in between W10x54 to W12x106.
Figure 2: Typical composite slab details. Courtesy of RIT. Drawings not to scale. Figure 3: 2nd Floor (left) and 3rd Floor (right) framing plans. Typical bays on each level highlighted. Courtesy of RIT. Drawings not to scale.

Page 9
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 8 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE
Lateral System
The main lateral load resisting system consists of concentrically braced frames in both the N-S direction as well as the E-W direction. The lateral HSS bracing ranges in size where the majority is HSS7x7x½. See
Figure 4 for details and placements.
Figure 4: Typical bracing details and placement of bracing on 2nd Floor. Courtesy of RIT. Drawings not to scale.
WB-11

Page 10
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 9 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE
Design Codes
Below is a list of codes and standards that the design team used on Global Village. As a comparison, codes, standards, and aids used for this report are given.
Design Codes
Design Codes:
• American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318-99, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete • American Concrete Institute (ACI) 301-99, Specifications for Structural Concrete for Buildings • CRSI Manual of Standard Practice (MSP 1-97) • Specification for structural Steel Buildings – Allowable Stress Design and Plastic Design (AISC
1989)
• Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings & Bridges (AISC 1992) • National Design Specification for Wood Construction (NF.PA, 1991 Edition)
Model Codes:
• 2007 Building Code of New York State / 2003 International Building Code • 2007 Fire Code of New York State / 2003 International Fire Code • Electrical Code of New York, NFPA 70 2005 • 2007 Mechanical Code of New York State / 2003 International Mechanical Code • 2007 Plumbing Code of New York State / 2003 International Plumbing Code
Standards:
• American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-02, Minimum Design Loads for buildings and
Other Structures
Thesis Codes
Design Codes:
• AISC Steel Construction Manual, 14th Edition • American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318-08, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
Standards:
• American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for buildings and
Other Structures Design Aids:
• CRSI Design Handbook 2008, 10th Edition

Page 11
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 10 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE
Material Properties
Listed below are materials and their strengths used in Global Village. These material strengths are followed best as possible in this report.
Steel
Unless Noted Otherwise Fy = 50 ksi (A992 or A588 Grade 50) Where Noted by (*) on Drawings Fy = 36 ksi (A36) Square and Rectangular HSS (Tubes) Fy = 46 ksi (A500 Grade B) Round HSS (Pipes) Fy = 46 ksi (A500 Grade C) Anchor Bolts (Unless Noted Otherwise) Fy = 36 ksi (F1554) High Strength Bolts (Unless Noted Otherwise) Fu = 105 ksi (A325) Metal Deck Fy = 33 ksi (A653) Weld Strength Fy = 70 ksi (E70XX)
Concrete Other
* Material strengths are based on American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard rating * Other wood strengths are given in the structural drawings
Slabs-on-Grade 4000 psi (Normal Weight) Walls, Piers 4000 psi (Normal Weight) Concrete on Steel Deck 3000 psi (Light Weight) Topping Slabs & Housekeeping Pads 3000 psi (Normal Weight) Bars, Ties, and Stirrups 60 ksi Masonry F��m = 3000 psi Wood Fb = 1000 psi (Bending Stress) Fv = 70 psi (Shear Stress)

Page 12
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 11 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE
Design Loads
Due to the fact that the structural drawings only gave a typical floor partition allowance of 20 psf as a dead load, other dead loads were found or assumed by using Vulcraft catalogs and textbooks on structural design. For a summary of assumed superimposed dead loads used, see Table 1. Live loads, however, were provided in the structural drawings. These loads were compared to live loads found using Table 4-1 in ASCE 7-10 based on the usage of the spaces. The results are given in Table 2. Most live loads found match designer loads except for fan and mechanical equipment room loadings. Since these were not able to be found in ASCE 07-10, the loads were taken from the design team to be consistent.
Live Loads
Space Design Live Load (psf) Live Load Used (psf) Notes
Lobbies and Common Areas 100 100 ASCE 7-10: Residential 1st Floor Corridors 100 100 ASCE 7-10: Schools Typical Floors 40 40 ASCE 7-10: Residential Corridors above 1st Floor 80 80 ASCE 7-10: Schools Stairways 100 100 ASCE 7-10: Stairways Fan Room 80 80 Assumed Mechanical Equipment Rooms 150 150 Assumed
Superimposed Dead Loads
Description Load (psf)
Framing 10 Superimposed DL 10 MEP Allowance 10 Partitions 20 Composite Decking 46 Roofing 60
Table 1: Summary of superimposed dead loads Table 2: Comparison of design live loads and live loads used

Page 13
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 12 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE
Floor System Analysis
Four different floor systems were designed and analyzed using a typical bay in the existing structural system of Global Village. Since bay sizes vary considerably throughout the building, the largest typical bay located on the second floor of the north wing was chosen to be conservative, see Figure 5. To make calculations easier, the 29��-3�� x 34��-4�� bay was rounded up to 30��-0�� x 34��-0�� which would then be altered as needed. Upon completion of designing each floor system, an analysis was done to test if each was a feasible alternative. Various criteria such as cost, system weight, system depth, constructability, etc. was used to find the most viable alternative to the existing floor system used in Global Village Building 400. As a note, only gravity loads were taken into account when designing each floor type. Also, the effects on the lateral system from each type of floor were not analyzed in this report. 2012 RSMeans Assemblies Cost Data was used to estimate each floor systems cost per square foot. The 2008 CRSI Handbook was used to aid in the design of a Solid One-Way Slab with Beams. All other values were hand-calculated and can be found in the appendices.
Existing Light Weight Concrete on Composite Deck
The existing superstructure of Global Village consists of 3¼�� lightweight concrete slab on a 3�� metal (18-gage) decking supported by structural steel framing, see Figure 6. To find an adequate deck, the composite section in the Vulcraft Floor Decking Systems Catalog was used. Deck units were determined to be continuous over three or more spans with a typical bay size of 29��-3�� x 33��-4�� and a total thickness of 6¼��. From these considerations and the gravity loads given above, it was determined that a Vulcraft 3VLI18 would be sufficient. An unshored span check was also performed and proved to be adequate. From these results, the composite slab matches the designed slab��s dimensions and has an overall weight of 46 psf.
Figure 6: Composite Deck floor construction. Courtesy of RSMeans.
33��-4�� 29 ��-3 ��
Figure 5: Typical Bay used for floor system designs. Courtesy of RIT.

Page 14
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 13 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE The decking is supported on W16x31 [+24] beams spaced at approximately 11��-1��. The beams rest on W24x62 [+50] girders spanning 33��-4�� which frame into W12x120 columns. The analysis was found to be very close to the existing structural system components only varying by the number of studs. System Summary
• Slab: Vulcraft 3VLI18 – 3¼�� lightweight concrete slab on a 3�� metal (18-gage) decking • Beam: W16x31 [+24] • Girder: W24x62 [+50] girders • Bay Size: 29��-3�� x 33��-4��
Advantages Light Weight Concrete on Composite Deck has a very low self-weight. The low composite slab weight reduces steel member sizes which further reduces the total self-weight. This system is also easy to construct as there is no need for shoring and no formwork is needed since the decking itself acts as a formwork. The slab has a fire rating of 2 hours and also provides a reasonable total floor thickness. Disadvantages The cost of the floor system is more expensive given it contains steel. The steel also affects architectural designs and serviceability. Since spray-on fire proofing is needed, the structure is usually not left exposed which constricts aesthetic designs. Spray-on fire proofing also increases the cost and construction time. Serviceability could also become a concern, although not in this structure, due to deflections and if the building has vibratory concerns.

Page 15
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 14 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE
Pre-Cast Hollow Core Planks on Steel Framing
Hollow Core Planks on Steel Framing was the first alternative system to be analyzed. Hollow Core concrete slabs are precision-manufactured pre-stressed planks produced with normal-weight high strength concrete, see
Figure 7. The planks were sized using the Nitterhouse
Concrete Products Catalog with a 2-hour fire rating and a 2��concrete topping. A 2�� topping was used to create a more rigid system. The typical bay size was changed to 30��- 0�� x 32��-0�� in order to accommodate a whole plank count. A superimposed service load of 110 psf (LL + SDL) and a span of 30��-0�� were then used to find an 8�� thick x 4��-0�� wide plank with (7) ½��ø strands, see Table 3. The plank chosen has a capacity of 114 psf and has a weight of 86.25 psf. The system has no beams but is, however, supported by girders spanning perpendicular to the planks. A W21x201 girder was sized by calculating the required moment of inertia for live load and total load deflections. The girder was then picked out of other possible wide-flanges to create the lowest floor depth. System Summary
• Slab: 8�� thick x 4��-0�� wide plank with (7) ½��ø strands and a 2�� concrete topping • Girder: W21x201 • Bay Size: 30��-0�� x 32��-0��
Advantages Hollow Core slabs offer the advantages of being pre-cast. The planks are constructed under controlled conditions and can be erected at full strength in various weather conditions. Due to this and the fast installation time, the construction process is accelerated. The system, including the girders, is also on the lighter side but still offers superior durability, low maintenance, and natural sound attenuation.
Figure 7: Hollow Core Plank connection on a steel beam detail. Courtesy of Nitterhouse Concrete Products. Table 3: Table used to size Hollow Core Plank Slab. Courtesy of Nitterhouse Concrete Products.

Page 16
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 15 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE Disadvantages The greatest disadvantage of Hollow Core is the very high cost. It has the highest material and total cost out of all the floor systems since it is pre-cast. This floor type also has the greatest total floor thickness which brings a concern to the total height of the building given zoning requirements. This might force the ceiling height to be lower which may be unpleasing. In this case, the thickness only varies by 1�� from the existing system so the difference in the ceiling height would be nearly unperceivable. The fact that Hollow Core is pre-cast also constricts the bay sizes into 4��-0�� increments. For this case, the bay size needed to be changed from a 30��-0�� x 34��-0�� bay to a 30��-0�� by 32��-0�� bay. Architectural designs are further constricted due to fireproofing as in the existing system.

Page 17
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 16 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE
Two-Way Flat Plate (Without Drop Panels)
The second alternative to be analyzed was a Two-Way Flat Plate. A Flat Plate differs from a Flat Slab by not having drop panels, see Figure 8. This system has a two-way slab with reinforcing spanning orthogonally in two directions supported only by columns. The Direct Design Method was used to design the slab reinforcing on a 30��-0�� x 34��-0�� bay. A summary of the reinforcement needed in each direction is shown in Figure 9. The controlling factor in this analysis was punching shear. The minimum thickness of the slab was found to be 12�� by code but a slab thickness of 17�� was needed to have the adequate punching shear capacity. Assumptions in this analysis include the use of normal-weight concrete, 24�� square columns, #5 rebar, story height of 12��-0��, and a compressive concrete strength of 4,000 psi. The loads used include the dead and live loads given in the design loads section of this report: superimposed DL, MEP, partitions, self DL (212.5 psf for this system), and live load. System Summary
• Slab: 17�� thick with reinforcement shown in Figure 8 below • Bay Size: 30��-0�� x 34��-0��
Figure 8: Two-Way Flat Plate floor construction. Courtesy of RSMeans. Figure 9: Summary of #5 rebar reinforcement needed in each direction. Drawing not to scale.

Page 18
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 17 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE Advantages The Two-Way Flat Plate provides a thinner and lower costing floor than the other floor types analyzed. Since concrete is the main material, cost of materials is very cheap. Although the slab is very thick, there are no beams or girders that add to the depth which has a positive effect on floor-to-floor heights. If a Flat Plate floor is used instead of the existing system, the ceiling height could be increased by over a foot or the total height of the building could be decreased. Other benefits of using a Flat Plate are that they offer flat ceilings which reduce ceiling finishing and they provide a relatively stiffer system. Disadvantages The main concern of using a Flat Plate is the large dead load or total weight of the structure. When comparing the weight between this system and the existing system, the total weight is more than four times greater. This can seriously affect the foundation design. For this building, strip footings were used. If the floor system was changed to a Flat Plate, the foundation design would probably need to be changed.

Page 19
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 18 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE
Solid One-Way Slab with Beams
Solid One-Way Slab with Beams was the final alternative system analyzed, see Figure 10. The slab was designed using the 2008 CRSI Design Handbook, 10th Edition. A minimum slab thickness of 4�� was first found using Table 9.5a in ACI 318-08, see Table 5. The beam spacing in the 30��-0�� x 34��-0�� bay was determined to be 8��-6�� to make values correspond to those in the CRSI tables (4 @ 8��-6�� = 34��-0��), see Figure 11. The design loads here consist of: superimposed DL, MEP, partitions, and live load. The reinforcement was found on page 7-7 in the CRSI Handbook using these values with grade 60 bars and a compressive concrete strength of 4,000 psi. From Table 6, the slab has a capacity of 224 psf and a weight of 50 psf at �� = .0050. Crack control was also checked and considered to be adequate. Beams and girders were also found using the CRSI Handbook with relatively the same procedure as the slab. For the beam, a minimum beam height was found to be 18��. Using page 12-59 with a span of 28��- 0�� and a loading of 2.28 k/ft, a beam width of 12�� and a capacity of 2.56 k/ft was found. The design moment strengths for this beam are +��Mn = 125 ft-k and -��Mn = 182 ft-k, see Table 7. For the girder, a minimum height was found to be 20�� but would not be used since that height would not have an adequate capacity under any width. Instead, the height and width were found by finding the first cross section that had a capacity greater than 6.75 k/ft under a 32��-0�� span. From page 12-61, a girder that has a height of 26�� and a width of 20�� has a capacity of 7.55 k/ft. The design moment strengths for this girder are +��Mn = 482 ft-k and -��Mn = 735 ft-k, see Table 8.
Figure 10: One-Way Slab with Beams floor construction. Courtesy of RSMeans.

Page 20
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 19 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE System Summary A summary which includes reinforcement sizes for the slab, beams, and girders on a 30��-0�� x 34��-0�� bay can be found in Table 4 below
Summary of Sizes and Reinforcement found from CRSI Handbook
Component ln (ft) Loading t or h (in) b (in) Bottom Reinforcement Top Reinforcement Stirrups (each side)
Slab 8.5 208 psf 4 - #4 @ 12�� #3 @ 12�� - Beam 28 2.28 k/ft 18 12 (2) #9 (2) #11 (19) #3: 1@2��, 18@7�� Girder 32 6.75 k/ft 26 20 (2) #10 (2) #10 (4) #14 (17) #5: 1@2��, 4@8��, 12@11��
Advantages The Solid One-Way Slab with Beams provides a reasonable cost and floor thickness compared to the other floor systems. Since concrete is the main material, cost due to materials is cheap similar to that of the Flat Plate. Another benefit of the structure being comprised of all concrete is that no fireproofing is needed which allows for different aesthetic designs. Compared to the existing floor system, the total floor thickness is essentially the same and therefore can be considered to have no effect on floor-to- floor heights. Disadvantages As in the Flat Plate, the drawback of using a concrete structure is that the weight is almost double that of the existing system. This may have an effect on the soil capacity and therefore a new foundation design may have to be created. Out of all the systems, a One-Way Slab with Beams has the highest labor construction cost and the longest construction time. This is due to the concrete since weather and other factors slow down the construction process.
Table 4: Summary of sizes and reinforcement found from 2008 CRSI Handbook, 10th Edition

Page 21
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 20 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE
Figure 11: Framing used for the Solid One-Way Slab with Beams. Drawing not to scale. Table 6: Table from CRSI Handbook used to calculate slab reinforcement. Courtesy of Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute. Table 5: Table 9.5a from ACI 318-08 used to calculate minimum slab, beam, and girder thickness. Courtesy of American Concrete Institute.

Page 22
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 21 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE
Table 7: Table from CRSI Handbook used to calculate beam size and reinforcement. Courtesy of Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute. Table 8: Table from CRSI Handbook used to calculate girder size and reinforcement. Courtesy of Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute.

Page 23
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 22 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE
Floor System Summary
Table 9 below summarizes the results and compares the different floor systems to various criteria.
Floor System
Existing: Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Alternative 3: Composite Steel Pre-Cast Hollow Core Planks Two-Way Flat Plate One-Way Slab with Beams
Bay Size 29��-3�� x 33��-0�� 30��-0�� x 32��-0�� 30��-0�� x 34��-0�� 30��-0�� x 34��-0�� System Cost $25.64 / S.F.
$29.55 / S.F.
$16.69 / S.F.
$22.23 / S.F. System Weight
50.91 psf
92.95 psf
212.5 psf
94.56 psf System Depth 29.95��
31��
17��
30�� Slab Depth 6¼�� 8��
17��
4��
Foundation Impact
No
Yes Yes Yes
Vibratory Control Average
Fair
Average
Good
Constructability
Good Good
Average
Fair
Schedule Impact N/A
Speed Up
Slow Down Slow Down
Fire Protection Method Spray-On Spray-On N/A N/A Fire Rating 2 Hour 2 Hour > 2 Hour 2 Hour Formwork No No Yes Yes Main Material Steel Concrete / Steel Concrete Concrete Feasible: N/A
No
Yes
Yes
* All costs are calculated using RSMeans Assemblies Cost Data 2012 which carries an approximate error of �� 15%. Costs include materials, installation, and labor.
Table 9: Comparison of the four floor systems to various criteria

Page 24
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 23 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE
Conclusion
Technical Report 2 compared the existing floor system of Global Village Building 400 at RIT with three alternative floor types. Upon completion of designing each floor system, an analysis was done to test if each was a feasible alternative to the existing system. The comparison table, Table 9, shows that the Flat Plate system is the most viable alternative but a One-Way Slab with Beams is also feasible. Pre-Cast Hollow Core Plank was the only system that was found to be inadequate. Although the constructability is good and has the closest weight to the existing system, this floor type has the highest cost and system depth. Since this is a campus building, there is a budget and this type of floor might be too expensive. Due to 4��-0�� wide planks being pre-cast, the bay size needed to be changed by 2��-0�� in the long direction. This along with the larger floor depth could have an architectural impact on the building. This system was therefore rejected, and will not be considered as an alternative. The Two-Way Flat Plate was considered to be the most viable option due to its cost, preservation of bay sizes, and ability to maintain or even increase ceiling heights. The drawback of using this type of floor is that the weight of structure may be four times greater than the existing structure. This could have serious impacts on the foundation design which needs to be further explored. Although lateral loads are not taken into account in this report, this system may need shear walls which would drive up cost and further impact the buildings overall weight. One-Way Slab with Beams is another feasible alternative design due to its great vibratory control and ability to preserve the bay size. However, it was not selected to be the most viable since there are really no standout features. The cost, weight, and system depth are in between the other floor types. For this reason and a longer construction time, a One-Way Slab is not the most viable alternative but should still be further investigated. From the information gathered in this report, it was determined that the One-Way Slab with Beams and Two-Way Flat Plate systems shall be further investigated as alternative floor systems for Global Village Building 400.

Page 25
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 24 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE
Appendix A: 2nd Floor Framing Plan

Page 26
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 25 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE
Appendix B: Existing Composite Steel

Page 27
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 26 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE

Page 28
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 27 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE

Page 29
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 28 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE

Page 30
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 29 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE

Page 31
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 30 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE

Page 32
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 31 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE

Page 33
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 32 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE

Page 34
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 33 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE

Page 35
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 34 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE

Page 36
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 35 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE
Appendix C: Hollow Core Plank

Page 37
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 36 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE

Page 38
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 37 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE

Page 39
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 38 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE
Appendix D: Two-Way Flat Plate

Page 40
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 39 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE

Page 41
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 40 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE

Page 42
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 41 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE

Page 43
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 42 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE

Page 44
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 43 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE

Page 45
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 44 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE

Page 46
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 45 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE

Page 47
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 46 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE
Appendix E: One-Way Slab with Beams

Page 48
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 47 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE

Page 49
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 48 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE

Page 50
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 49 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE

Page 51
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 50 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE

Page 52
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 51 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE

Page 53
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 52 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE
Appendix F: System Analysis

Page 54
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 53 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE

Page 55
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 54 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE

Page 56
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 55 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE

Page 57
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 56 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE

Page 58
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 57 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE

Page 59
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 58 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE

Page 60
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 59 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE

Page 61
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 60 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE

Page 62
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 61 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE

Page 63
Technical Report 2
Christopher VandeLogt Structural Option
Page 62 October 19, 2011 RIT GLOBAL VILLAGE
Search more related documents:Floor System Exploration (Tech 2)

Set Home | Add to Favorites

All Rights Reserved Powered by Free Document Search and Download

Copyright © 2011
This site does not host pdf,doc,ppt,xls,rtf,txt files all document are the property of their respective owners. complaint#nuokui.com
TOP