1. Introduction Joshua Castillo Construction Management Center for Creative and Performing Arts High School (CAPA High School) Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

2. Agenda General Project Information Existing Building Systems Foundation Analysis Site Plan Analysis “Astrovision” Video Screen Analysis Conclusions

3. General Project Information Existing Site and Old Building –Downtown Pittsburgh –Adjacent to Allegheny River –Donation of Site and part of Existing Building –Existing Building Usage Bar and Lounge 1 st Floor Jazz Club 2 nd and 3 rd Floors CAPA use Floors 4-6 Unoccupied 7 th and 8 th Floors Residence on 9 th Floor Penthouse

4. General Project Information New CAPA Building –Approximately 120,000 SF, 7 Stories –Full- Functioning High School Including: Classrooms and Labs Staff and Faculty Offices Cafeteria and Gym Below Grade Parking Lot –Focus in Creative and Performing Arts 5,500 SF Theater 4 Studios RENDITION OF CAPA BUILDING

5. Existing Building Systems Foundation System –Caissons with spanning Grade Beams –Slab on Grade and CIP Concrete Walls Below Grade Framing System –A36 Steel Framing and Details Mechanical systems –Complete with 2 AHU, air Distribution Ducts, Diffusers, Registers, Dampers, and Grilles Electrical systems –Dry-Type Distribution Transformers –Low Volt Distribution Switch Boards –Light and Power Panel Boards for Wiring

6. Existing Building Systems Façade Systems –East Side: CMU on Entire Side adjacent to Feiser Building –West Side: Brick and Aluminum Windows –South Side: Same as West other than Building Connection to Existing –North Side: Glass Curtain Wall Spanning Height “Astrovision” Video Display Screen Brick and Aluminum Windows Connection to Existing Building

7. Foundation Analysis CAPA Originally Designed with Caissons –Caisson Construction Methods Drill Holes Reinforce Walls to Prevent Collapsing Pump Water Out Place Steel Reinforcing Place Concrete

8. Foundation Analysis Problems with Using Caissons –Difficult to Construct in unstable Soil Conditions High Water Table Steel Casing as Hole Wall supports Pump Water or use Tremie Method to Place Concrete –Variable Construction Eight Sizes of Caisson Diameters Ranging from 2 ½ ft to 6 ½ ft across the site

9. Foundation Analysis Problems with Using Caissons –Duration of Installation Time to Install Steel Casing Time to Pump Water Drill, Reinforce Hole Walls, Place Steel Reinforcing, then Pour Concrete

10. Foundation Analysis Auger Cast Piles (ACP’s) as an Alternative –Auger Cast Pile Construction Method Drill Hole Concrete Placed as Drill Bit is Removed Steel Reinforcing Placed after Concrete is Placed ACP’s used in a Cluster require a Pile Cap to tie them together 1.Drill Bit 2.Pressurized Concrete 3.Auger Cast Pile

11. Foundation Analysis Using ACP’s as an Alternative Foundation –General Benefits of Using ACP’s Speed of Installation Less Material Costs Bearing Capacity Overall Reduced Costs –Problems with Using ACP’s Susceptible to Variability More ACP’s Required than Caissons

12. Foundation Analysis Comparing the Two Foundation Systems Caissons VS Auger Cast Piles –Structural Bearing Capacity –Cost differences in Material and Construction –Constructability and Length of Time to Install

13. Foundation Analysis General Bearing Capacity Q Ultimate = Q P + Q S = A P (CN C + ЧLN q + ЧN Ч ) + Σ∆L(A S )S Surface-Friction per Unit Area S = K S σ Tan∂ where: K S = Ave. Coeff. of Earth Pressure on Pile Shaft Steel Lined Caissons  K S =1.1 Concrete Alone  K S =1.5 * ACP’s can have 36% more Surface-Friction Bearing Capacity than Steel lined Caissons

14. Foundation Analysis Q Ultimate = A P (CN C + ЧLN q + ЧN Ч ) + A S F S Average Unit Surface-Friction F S = C+ ½ K S (Ч-G) L (tan Ø) Assumptions: Ø = 12° C = 6 KN/m^2 Ч = 18 KN/m^3

15. Foundation Analysis Ultimate Bearing Capacity Comparison –Average Length of 50 Feet –24” Diameter Surface-Friction Comparison Caissons  F S = 20.5 KN/m^2 ACP’s  F S = 25.85 KN/m^2

16. Foundation Analysis Ultimate Bearing Capacity Comparison Q Ultimate = A P (CN C + ЧLN q + ЧN Ч ) + A S F S Caissons Q Ult = Q P + Q S = 140.3 + 598.6 =738.9 KN =168 kips ACP’s Q Ult = Q P + Q S = 140.3 + 753 = 893.3 KN =200 kips

17. Foundation Analysis Pile Cap Design –Based on # of Piles / Cluster –All Pile Caps used were 49” deep –Four different pile layouts –Four different size pile caps

18. Foundation Analysis

19. Foundation Cost Comparison –System Estimates Using: Means Cost Guides Walker’s Building Estimating General Contractor Consulting

20. Foundation Analysis Means Cost Guide Results Total Cost Caissons System$900,000 Auger Cast Pile System$500,000 Difference$400,000

21. Foundation Analysis Duration of Foundation Construction –Foundation System Duration Estimates Using: Means Cost Guides General Contractor Consulting

22. Foundation Analysis Means Cost Guide Duration Results Total Duration Caissons60 work days Auger Cast Piles40 work days Difference20 work days/ 4 Weeks

23. Site Plan Modification A Discrepancy Affecting the Site Layout –Location of Existing Sanitary Sewer Line Located 5 Feet closer to Building than shown on Drawings Changes that were Made –Redesign of shoring system –Hand Excavation

24. Site Plan Modification Location of Foundation Problem –West Side Caissons are too Close to Sewer Line

25. Site Plan Modification 1 st Possibility –Reduce Width of Entire Vault Area 1-2 ft –Leave Caissons/Piles at the edge

26. Site Plan Modification Effects of Reducing Vault Area Width –Positive Effects Less Congestion for Foundation Installation No Change in Building Superstructure –Negative Effects Vault Area Will be More Congested Vault is Pre-cast Concrete

27. Site Plan Modification 2 nd Possibility –Move West Side Caissons/Piles East 5 ft

28. Site Plan Modification Effects of Partial Foundation Relocation –Positive Effects Less Congestion for Foundation Installation Building Superstructure Stays the Same –Negative Effects Located in the Central Axis of the Vault Area Creates 1 to 1 Cantilever on Grade Beams

29. Site Plan Modification Solution –Move West Side Foundation Piers 5ft East –Move Entire Vault Area 10 ft South

30. “Astrovision” Video Display Screen Analysis What is it? –22ft X 37ft Video Screen –112 Individual Modules

31. “Astrovision” Video Display Screen Analysis Problem With Screen Design –No Outlet to Disperse Heat Generated Could Cause Damage to the Screen Could Cause Excess Heat in Building Possible Solution –Add Louvers to Disperse Heat

32. “Astrovision” Video Display Screen Analysis Effects of Adding Louvers –Screen is Able to be Cooled Eliminates Potential Damage to Itself Better Chance of Lasting Expected Lifetime Eliminates Excess Heat Exposure of Building –Reduced Screen Size to Account for Louvers Loss of 3 Lines of Screen Modules (21 Modules)

33. “Astrovision” Video Display Screen Analysis Effects of Adding Louvers –Reduced Screen Size Loss in Aesthetical Quality of Screen Overall Cost of Screen is Reduced –Added Cost of Louvers

34. “Astrovision” Video Display Screen Analysis Change in Cost With Louvers Total Cost 21 Screen Modules$200,000 Louvers$10,000 Difference$190,000

35. Conclusions Foundation Analysis PROS –ACP’s have Better Surface-Friction making their Bearing Capacity higher than Steel Lined Caissons in the right soil conditions. –Using ACP’s Would Save Money and Time CONS –More potential for Displacement –Increased Chance of Variability in the Shafts Site Plan Modification –Resizing the Vault Area Would Not be a Practical solution –Relocating the Foundation Caissons Reduces the Structural Integrity of the Vault Area –Move Entire Vault Area away from Potential Traffic Loads Screen Redesign with Louvers –Saves Money in Initial and Repair Costs –Loss in Aesthetical Quality

36. Summary of Costs Caisson Foundation System…………………………………………………$901,442 ACP Foundation System…………………………………………………….$445,701 Savings…………………………..$455,741 Original "Astrovision" Design………………………………………………..$1,500,000 Reduced Size "Astrovision" With Louvers…………………………………$1,299,800 Savings…………………………$200,200 Total Cost Savings …………………$655,941 Duration of Foundation Systems Caisson Foundation System…………………………………………………63 Work Days ACP Foundation System…………………………………………………….43 Work Days Total Time Savings…………………20 Work Days

37. AE Faculty Mascaro Construction –Tom Weber –Marc Delrossi – Project Engineer Family and Friends

38. Questions?