Adam Kaczmarek Structural Option Spring 2011, Hanagan Cambria Suites CONSOL Energy Center Pittsburgh, PA Cambria Suites Hotel Pittsburgh, PA Adam Kaczmarek | Structural Option Dr. Linda Hanagan

Adam Kaczmarek Structural Option Spring 2011, Hanagan Cambria Suites CONSOL Energy Center Pittsburgh, PA Cambria Suites Hotel Pittsburgh, PA I.Project Background II.Scope of Work III.Structural Depth Study i.Gravity System ii.Lateral Force Resisting System iii.Impact on Foundation IV.Architectural/Façade Breadth V.Construction Management Breadth VI.Summary of Conclusions VII.Acknowledgments Adam Kaczmarek | Structural Option Dr. Linda Hanagan

Adam Kaczmarek Structural Option Spring 2011, Hanagan Cambria Suites CONSOL Energy Center Pittsburgh, PA I.Project Background II.Scope of Work III.Structural Depth Study i.Gravity System ii.Lateral Force Resisting System iii.Impact on Foundation IV.Architectural/Façade Breadth V.Construction Management Breadth VI.Summary of Conclusions VII.Acknowledgments PRESENTATION OUTLINE Project Background Location: 1320 Centre Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA Building Statistics: 120,000 SF 7 stories above grade Overall height of 102’-2” Project Statistics: $25 Million Design-Bid-Build delivery method Nov – Dec. 2010

Adam Kaczmarek Structural Option Spring 2011, Hanagan Cambria Suites CONSOL Energy Center Pittsburgh, PA I.Project Background II.Scope of Work III.Structural Depth Study i.Gravity System ii.Lateral Force Resisting System iii.Impact on Foundation IV.Architectural/Façade Breadth V.Construction Management Breadth VI.Summary of Conclusions VII.Acknowledgments PRESENTATION OUTLINE Project Background Existing Structural System Foundation : 4” slab on grade Cast in Place Concrete Caissons 30”, 36”, & 42” diameters Spaced 15’-0” to 30’-0” apart 4000 PSI concrete End bearing capacity of 15 ton/SF Grade Beams: 30”-48” in width 36”-48” in depth 3000 PSI concrete

Adam Kaczmarek Structural Option Spring 2011, Hanagan Cambria Suites CONSOL Energy Center Pittsburgh, PA I.Project Background II.Scope of Work III.Structural Depth Study i.Gravity System ii.Lateral Force Resisting System iii.Impact on Foundation IV.Architectural/Façade Breadth V.Construction Management Breadth VI.Summary of Conclusions VII.Acknowledgments PRESENTATION OUTLINE Project Background Existing Structural System Gravity System: 10” precast hollow-core concrete plank Exterior CMU load bearing walls Interior steel frame Lateral Force Resisting System: Reinforced concrete masonry shear walls Typically 8” or 12” thick CMU walls

Adam Kaczmarek Structural Option Spring 2011, Hanagan Cambria Suites CONSOL Energy Center Pittsburgh, PA I.Project Background II.Scope of Work III.Structural Depth Study i.Gravity System ii.Lateral Force Resisting System iii.Impact on Foundation IV.Architectural/Façade Breadth V.Construction Management Breadth VI.Summary of Conclusions VII.Acknowledgments PRESENTATION OUTLINE Scope of Work Problem Statement : Existing structural system currently the most efficient and economical Design equally effective and efficient building system High overall building weight Problem Solution: Design lighter structural system Girder-Slab Composite Steel and Precast System Specially designed D-Beams Concentrically Braced Frames

Adam Kaczmarek Structural Option Spring 2011, Hanagan Cambria Suites CONSOL Energy Center Pittsburgh, PA I.Project Background II.Scope of Work III.Structural Depth Study i.Gravity System ii.Lateral Force Resisting System iii.Impact on Foundation IV.Architectural/Façade Breadth V.Construction Management Breadth VI.Summary of Conclusions VII.Acknowledgments PRESENTATION OUTLINE Scope of Work Project Goals Structural Depth Study : Reduce overall building weight Optimize gravity and lateral systems Impact on foundation Architectural/Façade Breadth Study : Research façade options for building redesign Address thermal effects of exterior facades Construction Management Breadth Study : Impact on construction schedule and cost

Adam Kaczmarek Structural Option Spring 2011, Hanagan Cambria Suites CONSOL Energy Center Pittsburgh, PA I.Project Background II.Scope of Work III.Structural Depth Study i.Gravity System ii.Lateral Force Resisting System iii.Impact on Foundation IV.Architectural/Façade Breadth V.Construction Management Breadth VI.Summary of Conclusions VII.Acknowledgments PRESENTATION OUTLINE Structural Depth Study Girder-Slab System Composite Steel and Precast System Mid to High-Rise Residential Structures Light Weight Offers Rapid Construction Reduces Building Height Requires Minimum Fireproofing Meets Required Sound (STC) Ratings

Adam Kaczmarek Structural Option Spring 2011, Hanagan Cambria Suites CONSOL Energy Center Pittsburgh, PA I.Project Background II.Scope of Work III.Structural Depth Study i.Gravity System ii.Lateral Force Resisting System iii.Impact on Foundation IV.Architectural/Façade Breadth V.Construction Management Breadth VI.Summary of Conclusions VII.Acknowledgments PRESENTATION OUTLINE Structural Depth Study Framing Plan D-Beams limited in availability Typical bay is 18’-0” x 27’-6” Columns aligned with room partition walls Precast planks span East/West D-Beams span North/South

Adam Kaczmarek Structural Option Spring 2011, Hanagan Cambria Suites CONSOL Energy Center Pittsburgh, PA I.Project Background II.Scope of Work III.Structural Depth Study i.Gravity System ii.Lateral Force Resisting System iii.Impact on Foundation IV.Architectural/Façade Breadth V.Construction Management Breadth VI.Summary of Conclusions VII.Acknowledgments PRESENTATION OUTLINE Structural Depth Study

Adam Kaczmarek Structural Option Spring 2011, Hanagan Cambria Suites CONSOL Energy Center Pittsburgh, PA I.Project Background II.Scope of Work III.Structural Depth Study i.Gravity System ii.Lateral Force Resisting System iii.Impact on Foundation IV.Architectural/Façade Breadth V.Construction Management Breadth VI.Summary of Conclusions VII.Acknowledgments PRESENTATION OUTLINE D-Beam Design Initial Load – Precomposite M DL = k-ft. < 84 ft-k = M all Total Load – Composite M tot = ft-k S req = 60.6 in 3 < 68.6 in 3 = S t Δ SUP = 0.5 in. < 0.6 in. = Δ LL Check Compressive Stress on Concrete F c = 2.25 ksi > 2.16 ksi = f c Check Bottom Flange Tension Stress F b = 45 ksi > 28 ksi = f b Check Shear F v = 20 ksi > 15.6 ksi = f v DB 9x46 Properties Steel Section: I s = 195 in 4 S t = 33.7 in 3 S b = 50.8 in 3 M all = 84 ft-k t w = in. Transformed Section: I t = 356 in 4 S t = 68.6 in 3 S b = 80.6 in 3 B = 5.75 in. Structural Depth Study

Adam Kaczmarek Structural Option Spring 2011, Hanagan Cambria Suites CONSOL Energy Center Pittsburgh, PA I.Project Background II.Scope of Work III.Structural Depth Study i.Gravity System ii.Lateral Force Resisting System iii.Impact on Foundation IV.Architectural/Façade Breadth V.Construction Management Breadth VI.Summary of Conclusions VII.Acknowledgments PRESENTATION OUTLINE Column Design Comply with LRFD methods and AISC Steel Construction Manual Optimal members designed by RAM Resist gravity loads only Spliced above 2 nd and 5 th floor levels Sizes range from W10x33 to W12x87 Structural Depth Study

Adam Kaczmarek Structural Option Spring 2011, Hanagan Cambria Suites CONSOL Energy Center Pittsburgh, PA I.Project Background II.Scope of Work III.Structural Depth Study i.Gravity System ii.Lateral Force Resisting System iii.Impact on Foundation IV.Architectural/Façade Breadth V.Construction Management Breadth VI.Summary of Conclusions VII.Acknowledgments PRESENTATION OUTLINE Lateral Force Resisting System General Assumptions and Considerations: Only lateral members were modeled Floor diaphragms modeled as rigid area elements Gravity loads applied as additional area masses Accidental and inherent torsion considered Braced Frame Assumptions and Considerations: Columns pinned at base Columns in braced frames were fixed Beams and braces pinned P-Delta effects taken into account Structural Depth Study

Adam Kaczmarek Structural Option Spring 2011, Hanagan Cambria Suites CONSOL Energy Center Pittsburgh, PA I.Project Background II.Scope of Work III.Structural Depth Study i.Gravity System ii.Lateral Force Resisting System iii.Impact on Foundation IV.Architectural/Façade Breadth V.Construction Management Breadth VI.Summary of Conclusions VII.Acknowledgments PRESENTATION OUTLINE Controlling Load Combinations (ASCE 7-05) Wind - North/South direction 1.2D W Y + 1.0L + 0.5L r Seismic – East/West direction 0.9D + 1.0E X Structural Depth Study Design Wind and Seismic Loads Design wind and seismic load cases were calculated Loads manually applied to ETABS model

Adam Kaczmarek Structural Option Spring 2011, Hanagan Cambria Suites CONSOL Energy Center Pittsburgh, PA I.Project Background II.Scope of Work III.Structural Depth Study i.Gravity System ii.Lateral Force Resisting System iii.Impact on Foundation IV.Architectural/Façade Breadth V.Construction Management Breadth VI.Summary of Conclusions VII.Acknowledgments PRESENTATION OUTLINE Structural Depth Study Frame 2

Adam Kaczmarek Structural Option Spring 2011, Hanagan Cambria Suites CONSOL Energy Center Pittsburgh, PA I.Project Background II.Scope of Work III.Structural Depth Study i.Gravity System ii.Lateral Force Resisting System iii.Impact on Foundation IV.Architectural/Façade Breadth V.Construction Management Breadth VI.Summary of Conclusions VII.Acknowledgments PRESENTATION OUTLINE Structural Depth Study Relative Story Stiffness Frame C: 49.25%Frame 2: 58.7% Frame O: 40.8%Frame 8: 41.3% Frame M & M.2: 9.95% C 2 M M.2 O 8

Adam Kaczmarek Structural Option Spring 2011, Hanagan Cambria Suites CONSOL Energy Center Pittsburgh, PA I.Project Background II.Scope of Work III.Structural Depth Study i.Gravity System ii.Lateral Force Resisting System iii.Impact on Foundation IV.Architectural/Façade Breadth V.Construction Management Breadth VI.Summary of Conclusions VII.Acknowledgments PRESENTATION OUTLINE Drift and Displacement Wind Seismic Structural Depth Study

Adam Kaczmarek Structural Option Spring 2011, Hanagan Cambria Suites CONSOL Energy Center Pittsburgh, PA I.Project Background II.Scope of Work III.Structural Depth Study i.Gravity System ii.Lateral Force Resisting System iii.Impact on Foundation IV.Architectural/Façade Breadth V.Construction Management Breadth VI.Summary of Conclusions VII.Acknowledgments PRESENTATION OUTLINE Impact of Lateral Loads Structural Depth Study

Adam Kaczmarek Structural Option Spring 2011, Hanagan Cambria Suites CONSOL Energy Center Pittsburgh, PA I.Project Background II.Scope of Work III.Structural Depth Study i.Gravity System ii.Lateral Force Resisting System iii.Impact on Foundation IV.Architectural/Façade Breadth V.Construction Management Breadth VI.Summary of Conclusions VII.Acknowledgments PRESENTATION OUTLINE Structural Depth Study Impact on Foundation Stress Due to E/W Seismic Loads 1.6% of the Dead Load Stress Due to N/S Lateral Loads 1.5% of Dead Load Concrete Caissons Lighter building weight Reduced loads to foundation Foundation expected to reduce amount of concrete and reinforcement

Adam Kaczmarek Structural Option Spring 2011, Hanagan Cambria Suites CONSOL Energy Center Pittsburgh, PA I.Project Background II.Scope of Work III.Structural Depth Study i.Gravity System ii.Lateral Force Resisting System iii.Impact on Foundation IV.Architectural/Façade Breadth V.Construction Management Breadth VI.Summary of Conclusions VII.Acknowledgments PRESENTATION OUTLINE Architectural/Façade Breadth Analyze thermal effects of alternative facades Compare construction cost and time ASHRAE Fundamentals Handbook R-values T x = T outdoor + (T indoor – T outdoor )(ΣR o-x / Σ R o-i ) Façade alterations on North façade only

Adam Kaczmarek Structural Option Spring 2011, Hanagan Cambria Suites CONSOL Energy Center Pittsburgh, PA I.Project Background II.Scope of Work III.Structural Depth Study i.Gravity System ii.Lateral Force Resisting System iii.Impact on Foundation IV.Architectural/Façade Breadth V.Construction Management Breadth VI.Summary of Conclusions VII.Acknowledgments PRESENTATION OUTLINE Thermal Gradients Architectural/Façade Breadth

Adam Kaczmarek Structural Option Spring 2011, Hanagan Cambria Suites CONSOL Energy Center Pittsburgh, PA I.Project Background II.Scope of Work III.Structural Depth Study i.Gravity System ii.Lateral Force Resisting System iii.Impact on Foundation IV.Architectural/Façade Breadth V.Construction Management Breadth VI.Summary of Conclusions VII.Acknowledgments PRESENTATION OUTLINE Architectural/Façade Breadth Cost/Time Comparison

Adam Kaczmarek Structural Option Spring 2011, Hanagan Cambria Suites CONSOL Energy Center Pittsburgh, PA I.Project Background II.Scope of Work III.Structural Depth Study i.Gravity System ii.Lateral Force Resisting System iii.Impact on Foundation IV.Architectural/Façade Breadth V.Construction Management Breadth VI.Summary of Conclusions VII.Acknowledgments PRESENTATION OUTLINE Construction Management Breadth Construction Schedule Existing Structural System Start Date – January 6, 2010 Finish Date – August 10, 2010 Redesigned Structural System Start Date – January 6, 2010 Finish Date – May 31, 2010 Existing Construction Schedule Redesigned Construction Schedule

Adam Kaczmarek Structural Option Spring 2011, Hanagan Cambria Suites CONSOL Energy Center Pittsburgh, PA I.Project Background II.Scope of Work III.Structural Depth Study i.Gravity System ii.Lateral Force Resisting System iii.Impact on Foundation IV.Architectural/Façade Breadth V.Construction Management Breadth VI.Summary of Conclusions VII.Acknowledgments PRESENTATION OUTLINE Cost of Structural Systems Costs unaccounted for: Foundation Steel Connections Construction Management Breadth Cost Comparison

Adam Kaczmarek Structural Option Spring 2011, Hanagan Cambria Suites CONSOL Energy Center Pittsburgh, PA I.Project Background II.Scope of Work III.Structural Depth Study i.Gravity System ii.Lateral Force Resisting System iii.Impact on Foundation IV.Architectural/Façade Breadth V.Construction Management Breadth VI.Summary of Conclusions VII.Acknowledgments PRESENTATION OUTLINE Gravity System Redesign Girder-Slab Composite Steel and Precast System Sufficiently designed for strength and serviceability requirements Reduced overall building weight Framing plan conformed easily to existing floor layout Maintained floor-to-ceiling height Lateral Force Resisting System Redesign Concentrically Braced Frames Lighter weight Fast construction Economical Limit drift and displacement Impact on Foundation Reduced overturning moment Reduced base shear Reduce size of foundation Architectural/Façade Breadth Brick veneer system is most efficient Construction Management Breadth Reduced schedule Minimal increase in cost If a minimal cost increase and minor architectural layout changes were not a concern, the redesigned structural system could be implemented as an alternative design. Summary of Conclusions

Adam Kaczmarek Structural Option Spring 2011, Hanagan Cambria Suites CONSOL Energy Center Pittsburgh, PA I.Project Background II.Scope of Work III.Structural Depth Study i.Gravity System ii.Lateral Force Resisting System iii.Impact on Foundation IV.Architectural/Façade Breadth V.Construction Management Breadth VI.Summary of Conclusions VII.Acknowledgments PRESENTATION OUTLINE Acknowledgements Atlantic Engineering Services Chris Kim Andy Verrengia Tim Jones Horizon Properties Group, LLC J.P. Morgan DLA + Architecture & Interior Design Joe Sepcic Snavely Development Company Greg Osborne The Pennsylvania State University Dr. Linda Hanagan Prof. Robert Holland Prof. Kevin Parfitt The entire AE faculty and staff All my friends, family, and classmates for their unconditional support and encouragement

Adam Kaczmarek Structural Option Spring 2011, Hanagan Cambria Suites CONSOL Energy Center Pittsburgh, PA I.Project Background II.Scope of Work III.Structural Depth Study i.Gravity System ii.Lateral Force Resisting System iii.Impact on Foundation IV.Architectural/Façade Breadth V.Construction Management Breadth VI.Summary of Conclusions VII.Acknowledgments PRESENTATION OUTLINE Cambria Suites Hotel Questions & Comments