final thesis presentation - penn state … d=3.03 in 44lh17 d=1.38 in 26lh13 d=1.35 in

ICE ARENA

FINAL THESIS PRESENTATION

HALEY MCCLERNON STRUCTURAL OPTION

BU

ILD

IN

G

IN

TR

OD

UC

TIO

N

LOCATIONsouth bend, indiana

OCCUPANCYarena

SIZE203,000SF

COST$50million

MAX HEIGHT61’-00’’’

CONST.may2010-october2011

INTRODUCTION . THESIS GOALS . STRUCTURALDEPTH . ARCHITECTURALBREADTH . SYSTEMCOMPARISON . CONCLUSIONS

structural

engineer

owner

MEP

engineer

LEED engineer

Project Team

architect

design-builder

BU

ILD

IN

G

IN

TR

OD

UC

TIO

N

OWNER: University of Notre Dame

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:

SDI Structures

AUDIO ENGINEER: Acoustic Dimesions LEED ENGINEER: Heapy Engineering

MEP ENGINEER:

Peter Basso Associates

CODE ENGINEER: FP & C


Cast stone façade

Interior gothic vernacular

Full size collegiate arena

Olympic sized arena

5000 spectator seats

Locker rooms, lounges, classrooms,

and study areas, as well as offices,

conference areas and media space BU

ILD

IN

G

IN

TR

OD

UC

TIO

N


EX

ISTIN

G

STR

UC

TU

RA

L

SY

STEM

Floor System

Partially Composite beams

3’’ 18gage metal deck

Lightweight concrete topping


Roof Systems

1-1/2’’ 18gage type B wide rib metal

Vapor retarder

Rigid Roof Insulation

Single ply roofing membrane

Roof Framing

W36x210 Bottom Chord

W14x176 Top Chord

W8x35 web members

Supplemental Framing:

W21x44’ and curved W12x16’s

EX

ISTIN

G

STR

UC

TU

RA

L

SY

STEM

156’=0’’

Max Height: 15’-3’’


Thesis

G

oals

Current roof system designed for

Economy: Comparatively

inexpensive roof system.

GOAL: design alternative roof

system

Architectural requirement to fit

landscape of University

Primary Structural Feature: Long

Span Roof System


Architectural Study:

Explore impacts of new system and account for changes in floor plans and structural layout

Structural Depth

Redesign structural roof design to incorporate Table Top Truss System

Design for Gravity loads Re-evaluate and re-design lateral

system

Construction Management Study:

Evaluate effects of new truss system on erection procedure and constructability

Thesis

G

oals


Structural

D

epth

What is the

Table Top Truss?

Rectangular Box Truss

Four Leg Trusses

Supercolumn supports

at corners


Structural

D

epth

Operating Coordination

“Form Follows Function”

Truss system pulled in over ice sheet

Aligned with catwalk and rigging grid

Provides simplified access to both


Span Length: 156’

Structural

D

epth System

Geometry

Constraints

Complete bowl span=156’

Rakers Supported by columns

at lines J,V, 10 & 25


Structural

D

epth System

Geometry

Goals

Avoid interference with existing

structure

Columns clear concourse level

Maintain adequate sightlines

Minimize seat loss at club level

concourse

club


Structural

D

epth System

Geometry NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS

Columns supporting rakers end

at concourse level

Columns at lines F and Y shifted

to center of arena

Exterior columns adjusted to

carry additional load

concourse

club

Shifted columns Columns cut at concourse


Structural

D

epth Truss

Design Design Loads

d < l / 180

Designed as four truss types

W14 chords

2L web members


Structural

D

epth

dmax=3.64’’

Truss Design A

W14x109 chords

Horizontals: 2L6x6x5/8 typ. Verticals: 2L8x8x1

Design Loads

d < l / 180 = [168’-8’’(12)]/180

dmax=11.24’’


Structural

D

epth

dmax=3.78’’

Truss Design B

Design Loads

d < l / 180 = [188’-0’’(12)]/180

dmax=12.53’’

W14x193 chords

Horizontals: 2L8x8x5/8x3/8 typ. Verticals: W14x68


Structural

D

epth

dmax=1.57’’

Truss Design C

Design Loads

d < l / 180 = [91’-8’’(12)]/180

dmax=6.11’’

W14x90 chords

Horizontals: 2L7x4x3/8x3/8 Verticals: 2L8x8x1


Structural

D

epth

dmax=1.84’’

Truss Design D

Design Loads

d < l / 180 = [110’-0’’(12)]/180

dmax=7.33’’

W14x90 chords

Horizontals: 2L7x4x3/8x3/8 Verticals: 2L8x8x1


Structural

D

epth

KNUCKLE JOINT

CONNECTION

(plan view)

Leg Trusses

W14x211 chord members

W14x43 web members

10’’ tubes frame into columns


Structural

D

epth Leg

Trusses

Maximum Lateral Displacement: 1.97’’ Axial Load @ Column Supports: 549k

POT BEARINGS

at truss bases

• Perform as fixed support • Allow translation in X and Y Direction • Absorbs rotations with elastomer pad


Structural

D

epth Supplemental

Framing

Deflections: d=l/360

60DLH16 d=3.03 in 44LH17 d=1.38 in 26LH13 d=1.35 in

Interior joists rotated 90° at exterior to evenly distribute loads to truss

Joist girder used to effectively take joist loads 100G10N19F


Structural

D

epth Lateral

System

WIND

Story Height(in) Story Drift Ratio Story Drift

Concourse 192 0.000712 0.136704 0.48

Club 392 0.000769 0.301448 0.98

Roof 740 0.000779 0.57646 1.85

Wind Story Displacement

FloorDisplacement (in) Allowable

Displacement (in)

Load Case Used: D + .5L + .7W Story Drift Limit: H/400

Section Level KL P bx by P Mx My Capacity Check

w10x45 1(X) 16 3.27 5.19 11.70 71.25 1.91 88.49 1.12

w10x45 2 16 3.27 5.19 11.70 33.14 0.26 54.69 0.68

w10x45 3 29 10.70 7.82 11.70 0.09 0.07 24.37 0.30

w10x45 1(T) 16 3.27 5.19 11.70 70.13 1.14 72.40 0.93

w10x45 2 16 3.27 5.19 11.70 33.07 0.27 23.19 0.31

w10x45 3 29 10.70 7.82 11.70 0.18 0.00 26.89 0.33

BF8

Lateral Column Checks


Structural

D

epth Lateral

System

SEISMIC


Cd I Cd/I Story Drift Ratio Story Drift(in)

Roof 0.46 3.25 1.25 2.6 0.001153 0.0029978

Club 0.5 3.25 1.25 2.6 0.001565 0.004069

Concourse 0.48 3.25 1.25 2.6 0.001624 0.0042224

Seismic Story Drift East-West Direction

Story

Story Drift

Acceptable (in)

Story Drift(ETABS)

LevelStory

Force(k) Story Shear (k)

Overturning

Moment(k-ft)

Event Level 0 970.7 0

Concourse Level 201.91 970.70 15531.20

Club level 413.52 768.79 24832.06

Roof Level 355.28 355.28 21671.85

970.7

62035.11Total Overturning Moment

Total Base Shear:

• Change in Roof Weight: additional 2,891 lbs.

Architectural

B

readth

Major Modifications

• Introduction of super columns

• Column Shifts for structural layout

• Roof height at Main Arena

Super

Columns

Locoation Typical Seat Handicap Seat

Northeast Corner 16 2

South East Corner 17 3

South West Corner 21 3

North West Corner 21 3

TOTAL 75 11

Typical corner section

(club level)

Maximum column span

for worst case seat

displacement


Architectural

B

readth

Major Modifications

• Introduction of super columns

• Column Shifts for structural layout

• Roof height at Main Arena


Architectural

B

readth

Major Modifications

Introduction of super columns

Column Shifts for structural layout

Roof height at Main Arena


System

C

om

parison

TOTAL $287,611.55

PER TRUSS $74,191.29

QUANTITY 7

TOTAL $519,339.03


QUANTITY 1

TOTAL $99,213.32

GRAND TOTAL $906,163.90Exis

tin

g H

igh

Ro

of

Fram

ing SUPPLEMENTARY FRAMING MEMBERS

BARRELL TRUSS (TYPICAL)

BARRELL TRUSS (END)

Economy

Breakdown

Total 391946.3667


QUANTITY 2

TOTAL $68,273.87


QUANTITY 2

TOTAL $56,263.55


QUANTITY 2

TOTAL $165,217.73


QUANTITY 2

TOTAL $74,087.16

TOTAL $40,700.09

TOTAL $55,052.81


QUANTITY $4.00

TOTAL $183,347.79

GRAND TOTAL $979,836.55

Ta

ble

To

p T

russ

SUPPLEMENTAL FRAMING MATERIALS

Truss D

Truss C

Truss B

Truss A

TOP CHORD BRACING

BOTTOM CHORD BRACING

Leg Truss

Exterior columns downsized Building functions syncronized positive and dramatic architectural

presence Fits the existing structure Framing system more expensive Loss of seating Connection and erection difficulties


Conclusions

Effective system: carries gravity and lateral loads, accomplishes long span

Inefficient at this building size System capacity underutilized

174’ total span vs. 348’

Performance venue: greater hanging loads


THANK YOU….

AE Faculty Dennis Wittry at Walter P. Moore University of Notre Dame Family Friends

ICE ARENA INTRODUCTION . THESIS GOALS . STRUCTURALDEPTH . ARCHITECTURALBREADTH . SYSTEMCOMPARISON . CONCLUSIONS

final thesis presentation - penn state … d=3.03 in 44lh17 d=1.38 in 26lh13 d=1.35 in

Documents