The EdwarPrinc

ce William Cord L Ke

Thesi

ounty Selly Lea

Ryas Consu

TechniOctob

School adership Cent

istratioter

an Pletultant - D

cal Repo

ber 29, 20

Admin

tz r. Hanag

ort 2 007

on Centter

gan

Executive Summary Purpose

The intent of this technical report is to report on the investigations of alternative floor systems for the Edward L Kelly Leadership Center. Each floor system that was investigated contains advantages, disadvantages, and conclusions about the system. A comparative matrix is provided as a summary of the comparisons of all five systems. The systems of interest in this report include:

• Non-composite steel/joist framing, moment connections (Existing) • Composite steel framing • 2-way concrete flat plate slab with drop panels • Post-tensioned concrete slab • Waffle slab - 2-way concrete joists

Conclusions

All the different systems each provide their own advantages and disadvantages. The existing system has a very easy to construct steel frame consisting of beams and filler joists. Joists are a very lightweight and cost-effective solution that also provides a means for passage of mechanical systems. However, moment connections as the lateral resisting systems are very laborious and costly.

The first alternative, steel composite framing, seems to be the best alternative system. The concrete is able to work with the steel to resist loads, reduce vibration, and reduce the size of the overall system. A new lateral system is likely to be considered, if possible, in this design.

The concrete systems added a great deal of dead load because of the heavy mass of the concrete. This is of great advantage when considering vibration. The total system depth is dramatically reduced compared to steel systems. The original steel system, for example, has a depth of 32” while the concrete systems have depths of 13” or 8.5”. The two-way flat slab investigated will require drop panels to resist punching shear around columns. The waffle slab and two-way slab will require a new column layout for various reasons, which may be very disadvantageous. Post-tensioned systems are difficult to construct and require much attention to detail.

The steel composite framing is the only system that is relatively simple to construct and will meet the needs of the building. The waffle slab, however, although a new layout of columns will need to be done, seems to also be a good alternative. The preliminary investigation of the column layout revealed possibilities of additional columns in the east-west direction.

 

Table of Contents  

Existing Structural System ................................................ 1

Codes and Loading ........................................................... 2

Existing Non-Composite Steel Moment Framing .............. 3

Alternate One: Composite Steel Framing ........................ 5

Alternate Two: 2-way Concrete Slab

with Drop Panels ...................................... 7

Alternative Three: Post-tensioned Concrete Slab ............ 8

Alternative Four: Waffle Slab ......................................... 10

Comparative Matrix ......................................................... 11

Overall Conclusions ........................................................ 11

Ryan Pletz

Technical  

  

ExistFOUNDA A shallowstrip wallbearing cReinforce(11)#7 TO4’-0”x4’-0Interior cthree-stotypically The strenslab on g COLUMN All columcolumns Typical scolumns shapes inexterior. FLOOR A Three-stoBuilt up Wtypically girders. wide andused to smost comis approxthe roof, asymmettypically One-storThis partcovers a one part story pormuch lonbecome onto the areas of

z 

Report 2 

ting StATIONS:

w foundation footings. T

capacity of thement for spOP & BOT f0” to 6’-0”x6’column footinory interior co2’-0” wide angth of the cgrade is 350

NS:

mns in the strinclude W12

shapes incluare, again, tnclude W14x

AND ROOF

ory portion: W21 shapesused for beaThe size of

d span approspan inside tmmon joist inximately 4’ owhere, to actric loads of W18x35 and

ry portion: t of the buildgood portioof this platfo

rtion are typinger distanceincreasinglylower roof inthe one-stor

tructur

n type is useThe geotechnhe soil is 30pread footingfor the 11’-0”’-0” in the onngs in the onolumn footinnd 1’-0” thic

concrete use0 psi and co

ructural syst2x79 and Wde HSS8x6xtypically W-sx68 and W1

FRAMING:

s with HSS2½ams while Wthe bays are

oximately 30the bays. 28n the framing

on center. Joccount for thmechanical

d girders W2

ing containsn of the foot

orm and 24Kcally slightlye of around

y closer to ean addition to ry roof frami

ral Sys

ed for this bunical enginee00 PSF. Thgs range from”x11’-0” footne-story portne-story portngs are 9’-0”xk. Reinforce

ed for foundaontains 6x6-W

tem are steeW10x68. Exte

x1/4 in the oshapes for th4x82 for the

½ (TOP) areW24 are usede generally 20’. Steel jois8K8 joists arg. Typical soists also frahe heavy and

equipment,21x44.

s an elevatedtprint of this K3/26K4 spay larger than47’. The str

ach other. Twindward d

ng to accou

stem 

ilding. Founer for the pro

he top of the m (4)#5 BOTtings. Exterition and 7’-0tion are typicx9’-0” to 11’ement for strations is 300W1.4xW1.4

el. In the oneerior column

one-story buihe interior a

e interior and

e d for 24’ ts are re the pacing

ame d KCS joists

d area that ssection. Th

anning 16’/19 the 3-story ructural planThis is due todrift. A few snt for unique

W2

ndations conoject indicatfootings are

T bars for thor column s

0”x7’-0” in thecally 6’-0”x6-0”x11’-0”. Trip footings a

00 psi. The cWWF at mid

e-story buildns are often ilding. In thend HSS sha

d circular HS

are common

serves as ane “floor joist9’ respectivebuilding (28

ns show an ao the higher special joistse loading. T

1 with HSS2½ 

nsist of spreated that the ae set at (-2’-0e 3’-0”x3’-0”pread footine three-story’-0” to 8’-0”xThe strip waare (3) conticoncrete stred-depth.

ding, some tyrectangular e three-storyapes for the eSS12.75x0.3

nly found. R

n equipment ts” are 26K9 ely. Roof joi8K10) since tarea where troof causing

s (KSP) are uThis is gener

AE 4

October 29,

ad footings aallowable 0”) from grad” footings to

ngs are typicy portion. x8’-0”. The all footings anuous #5 baength for the

ypical interioHSS shapes

y building, exterior. Ty

375 for the

Roof beams a

platform. Itspanning 30

sts in the onthey span a the joists g snow to drused in certaally where th

481W

 2007 

1

and

de.

ally

re ars. e 4”

or s.

pical

are

t 0’ in

ne-

rift ain here

 

Ryan Pletz    AE 481W   

Technical Report 2    October 29, 2007  

  

2

are folding partitions, causing heavy concentrated loading at points, in meeting rooms such as the School Board Meeting room. LATERAL SYSTEM: Tm

he lateral forces, such as wind and seismic forces, in the building are resisted entirely through oment frames. The engineer chose to implement a moment frame to resist these horizontal

moment frame, meaning that all of the steel frames are forces. The particular frame is a spaceused in the moment frame system.

 Codes and Loading The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (VUSBC), 2000 edition was used for the design of the Edward L Kelly Leadership Center. This code absorbs much of its code from the International Building Code (IBC). IBC2000 will be used when referencing the original design of this building. In addition to IBC, the following codes and specifications were also implemented into the design. ASCE 7-98, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures ACI 530-99, Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures With Commentary AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, Allowable Stress Design and Plastic Design AISC Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings and Bridges Steel Deck Institute Design Manual for Composite Desks, Form Decks, and Roof Decks AISI Specification for the Design of Cold Formed Steel Structural Members 

 

Live Loads IBC 2006 Snow Load

Meeting Rooms 50 + 20 PSFOffice Space 50 + 20 PSF1st Floor Corridors 100 PSFCorridors above 1st Floor 80 PSFStairwell 100 PSFMechanical Rooms 150 PSFStorage 125 PSFFlat Roof 21 PSFSloped Roof 21 PSF

Floor ‐ Superimposed Dead Loads Roof ‐ Superimposed Dead Loads

Mechanical 4 PSF Roofing / Insulation 5 PSFElectrical / Lighting 3 PSF Mechanical 4 PSFSprinklers 3 PSF Electrical / Lighting 3 PSFDrop Ceiling 5 PSF Sprinklers 3 PSF

Drop Ceiling 5 PSFTotal 15 PSF

Total 20 PSF

Ryan Pletz    AE 481W

Technical Report 2    October 29, 200

   

7  

  

3

Existing Non‐Composite Steel Moment Framing 

The existing floor framing consists of non-composite steel W-shapes and joists filling in between the bays. All steel beam-to-beam connections are moment-resisting connections.

Advantages:

• Fast construction • Cheaper materials (Joists) • Long spans

The use of steel framing enables a fast construction time. In addition, the use of non-composite steel framing (without the use of shear studs) allows more expeditious erection. Steel joists are relatively inexpensive compared to other framing systems. The long spans enabled by the steel framing is advantageous to the “open-office” type of architectural layout. In addition, steel framing fairs relatively well with vibration issues.

Disadvantages:

• Expensive and laborious connections • Fire proofing needed • Deep sections • Vibration problems

Conclusions:

All steel beam-to-beam connections are moment connections. It is difficult to find good, quality welders to perform the connections which are very intricate and time-consuming to produce. Therefore, it is likely that cost and time savings from the lack of shear studs will be consumed by the time and money for moment connections. Also, because the concrete slab does not have composite action with the steel beams, the beams will tend to be of deeper section and heavy weight. The beams are not as much a factor in the depth of the system as much as the joists. Each joist has a section 28” deep. However, joists are very advantageous as they enable the passage of mechanical and electrical systems. Fireproofing of steel members is also necessary. Steel joists, in particular, are more difficult to fireproof.

Ryan Pletz    AE 481W   

Technical Report 2    October 29, 2007  

  

4

 

Typical Bay 24’‐0” x ≈31’‐6” 

   

Ryan Pletz    AE 481W   

Technical Report 2    October 29, 2007  

Alternate One:  Composite Floor Framing Composite steel framing consists of steel beams or steel joists “compositely” intercwith the concrete floor slab. By comparison, non-composite framing consists of be

  

5

onnected ams or joists

with steel decking that merely serves as formwork for the above concrete floor slab. In composite decking, the decking contains perforations and deformations that allow a mechanical connection to the concrete slab. Even more, steel studs are welded to the steel beams or joists and provide further mechanical fastening to the slab, allowing the slab and beam to act together to resist loading. Steel joists were used in the original design and can be used to provide a composite connection; however, this alternative design will consist of steel beams only acting compositely with the floor slab. The steel sections were able to be reduced from W21 (d=21.1”, weight = 68 plf) to W16 (d=15.7”, weight = 16 plf) resulting in significant cost and space savings. The slab thickness increases by only 0.5” from 4” to 4.5”.

Advantages:

• Light-weight sections compared to concrete • Vibration control • Greater economy/efficiency

Again, steel construction can be performed very quickly and relatively easy. Long bays can be designed by the use of composite construction much more than non-composite construction. Because the concrete acts in addition to the steel alone, more load can be carried overall. The steel beams need not carry as much load and, therefore, beams will be smaller in depth and weight per linear foot. Composite construction also allows better control of vibrations.

Disadvantages:

• Increased labor to add shear studs • More expensive than concrete • Fire protection needed

The use of shear studs will add labor to construction. As with all exposed steel, fireproofing is necessary. Cost of composite materials and labor is slightly more than non-composite construction. It is likely that alternative lateral resisting systems will be investigated for use with this system.

Conclusions:

Composite steel construction has many advantages and seems to be a very good solution for the floor system.

Ryan Pletz    AE 481W   

Technical Report 2    October 29, 2007  

  

6

   

Composite Floor Framing ‐ RAM Structural System Output 

Ryan Pletz    AE 481W   

Technical Report 2    October 29, 2007  

Alternate Two:  2‐way Concrete Flat Slab with Drop Panels 

Concrete structural systems are good alternatives if a small slab thickness is required. However, 2-way systems generally perform better when bays span less than about 25 feet. Because the original design called for dimensions of 24’-0” x 31’-6”, the dimensions needed to be dropped down. This required an additional column in the N-S direction and made the dimensions approximately 24’-0” x 21’-0”. The slab thickness is governed by deflection and is set at 9”. Due to punching shear around columns, drop panels were added at an addition thickness of 4”. The total depth of the system is 13”. 2‐way Flat Slab with Drop Panels

Advantages:

The use of concrete offers several advantages over the existing steel construction. Overall, the structural floor system is generally decreased with mildly-reinforced concrete slabs. However, there are other considerations that need to be accounted for. Drop panels and column capitals could be a necessary part of the design, increasing the depth of the structural system at certain locations. Fireproofing is also a non-issue with concrete construction because fire protection for structural concrete. Vibrations and sound transmissions are also limited due to the solid mass that is required for the floor.

Disadvantages:

The use of concrete will add considerable weight to the structure. At 150 PCF for normal weight concrete, the self-weight of the system increase by 12.5 pounds per square foot for each inch of floor thickness. The self-weight of the slab is increased from 4.5 inches (composite alternate) to 9 inches which increases the self-weight of the slab by 56.25 pounds per square foot. Subtracting the weight of the steel, the net increase will still be increased by about 45 PSF. Seismic loads will therefore need to be investigated further. Changes in the original column layout will be necessary to complete a design in a two-way concrete system. These columns may interfere with the architectural goals of the project. A new lateral system will need to be investigated. The lead time of the project will need to be adjusted because of the time-consuming labor involved in installing and removing formwork during the curing of the concrete.

Conclusions:

Due to the fact that the original spans cannot likely be reproduced with a two-way flat plate design, this design does not seem like a likely alternative.   

  

7

Ryan Pletz    AE 481W   

Technical Report 2    October 29, 2007  

Alternate Three:  Post‐tensioned Concrete Slab  This prestressed concrete system will enable a significantly reduced slab thickness. The slab thickness, however, will be based on deflection characteristics and not strength issues. An 8.5” slab compares to the original design of about 32”. Lightweight concrete was used in the design in order to keep loading down. As shown in Appendix A, a preliminary analysis with NWC and f’c= 4000 psi yields failing results of concrete stresses. Research indicated that f’c= 6000 psi is more appropriate, but still not the solution. It seemed that the loading would need to be dramatically decreased. The 6000 psi concrete was maintained and the NWC was replaced with LWC of 110 PCF. Results were adequate. Other design changes can be made, but involves changing the column layout, which is undesirable in the N-S direction under preliminary

Advantages:

investigation.

ans

ability to remove formwork early

spans when compared with a typical 2-way system. Therefore, the original design of the column grid, which

e

experience •

owledgeable and familiar with the system. Experienced contractors can be difficult to find and will be looked into if this system continues to be a considered alternative.

Diagram of Tendon Layout

• Long sp• Slim slab thickness • Quick construction /

A Post-tensioned concrete system offers the advantage of creating larger

includes bays approximately 32’ in length, will not necessarily have to be altered. The system will offer the opportunity for significantly reduced floor depths as well. The system has the potential to be reduced from 2’-8” down to 8.5”. Formwork is generally removed earlier in the construction process after only a few days, allowing a faster project schedule. Also, becausthis is a mass concrete system, sound and vibrations will deaden quickly.

Disadvantages:

• Necessary Potential material cost savings

Post-tensioning requires contractors kn

  

8

Ryan Pletz    AE 481W   

Technical Report 2    October 29, 2007  

  

9

Conclusions:

Aowner. The original design called for

lthough the system will provide a much thinner slab, this does not seem to be of concern to the 28” joists with 4” non-composite slab. With a floor-to-floor

4” and a drop ceiling at 11’-0”, it seems that reducing the system thickness is a distance of 15’-non-issue. This system will be studied further to determine the effects of using lightweight concrete in a prestressed situation. If it will work, this system seems to be an acceptable alternative.

   

Ryan Pletz

Technical  

  

AlterWaffle sl“dome” foabove 10depth of there areoption sebays to 3produce preliminaarchitectdepth ins

Advanta

• M• L• C• G

Waffle sllong spasquare vdecreasevibrations

Disadva

• H• D• T• D• L

Conclus

Althoughdimensiowork duevery diffic

z 

Report 2 

rnate Fabs are a 2-orm used wi0” ribs servin13”. In preli

e some optioeems to be in30’ which woa relatively s

ary investigaural layout ospection will

ages:

Medium to loightweight

Carries heavyGood vibratio

abs can spans designedoids where ie in dead loas to a minim

ntages:

High formworDeeper slab sTime-consumDeeper sectio

ittle deflectio

sions:

h long spansons on all side to the fact tcult and time

Four:  W-way concrell be 30” x 3

ng as the joisiminary inve

ons for additincreasing th

ould eliminatsquare bay (

ations do notof the space;

need to be

ng spans

y loading on character

an long distad. The waffleit is not needads. Firepro

mum.

rk costs / incsystem

ming construon relative toon

can be creades of the bathat the baye-consuming

Wafflete joist sla0” and hav

b e

sts, resultingstigations, itional columnhe E-W dimete 2 bays alto(30’x31’-6”).t seem to im; however, aconducted.

istics

ances, whiche is efficient ded. Thus, t

oofing is a no

creased labo

ction o other conc

ated, the ideay. The colus are long ag because o

e Slabsystem. Th

e a 3” slab g in a systemt seems thatns. The besension of theogether and These pose on the

a more in-

h is advantagin utilizing o

there will beon-issue and

or

crete system

eal system foumn grid willnd rectanguf the difficult

e

m t t

e d

geous for thionly the usab considerab

d this system

ms

or a waffle sl need to be

ular. Construt, domed for

s project witble concretele material s

m is very goo

ab has the saltered for t

uction of thisrmwork to cr

AE 4

October 29,

th the alreade by creatingsavings and od at keeping

same his design tos type of slabeate individu

481W

 2007 

10

dy g

g

o b is ual

 

Ryan Pletz    AE 481W   

Technical Report 2    October 29, 2007  voids. More investigation will need to be made regarding a new column layout for this to viable alternative.

Comparative Matrix and Overall Conclusions 

be a

Structural SystemNon-Composite

Steel Beam/Joist Moment Frame

Composite Steel Frame

2-way Flat Plate w/ Drop Panels

Post-tensioned Slab

2-way Concrete Joists (Waffle

Slab)

System Depth 32" 25.5" 13" 8.5" 13"

Maximum Self Weight 67 64 162.5 78 162.5

Difficulty of Construction Hard Medium Medium Hard Medium

Vibration Poor Good Better Better Best

Fireproofing Required Required Not Required Not Required Not Required

Changes to Lateral System NA Likely Yes Yes Yes

Changes to Column Grid NA No Yes No Yes

Costs -

Material Cost 9.40$ 9.95$ 6.90$ 7.93$ 10.05$

Labor Cost 4.98* 4.87$ 8.05$ 10.97$ 9.60$

System Cost (per SF) 14.38$ 14.82$ 14.95$ 18.90$ 19.65$ Feasible NA Yes No Yes Yes

*Cost of moment connections not included in data

Overall Conclusions:

The matrix clearly shows how all five systems each have individual qualities that are beneficial. The key is to decide which factors are desired in the design that is reflected by the architect. Clearly, the Edward L Kelly Leadership center is not meant to pack as many floors as possible into the space. The building is three stories tall to fit the needs of the owner and is certainly not cramped for space. Future expansion was incorporated to the site design, but, as for now, the building provides adequate space. There are also no height restrictions in the area. The building floor-to floor height is 15’-4” with 11’-0” drop ceiling heights. There is certainly no need to limit the system depth for a reason other than cost. The current system provides adequate space for mechanical systems and other conduit though the use of open web steel joists. The 2-way concrete flat plate slab is eliminated based upon the severe impact to the column layout. The waffle slab also requires rearrangement of the column layout in the form of additional columns. It seems likely that additional columns in the east-west direction would not severely impact the architectural goals and would nearly make 30’-0” x 30’-0” bays. Overall, the system that stands out and seems most worthy of additional study is the composite steel framing. The system offers a low cost, reduction is depth, good vibration characteristics, and would not impact the column grid.

  

11

Appendix A  

Typical Framing Plans ................................... A1

Alternate 1: Composite Framing ................... A2

Alternate 2: 2-way Flat Slab .......................... A4

Alternate 3: Post-tensioned Slab .................. A8

Alternate 4: Waffle Slab .............................. A16

Cost Analysis Data ...................................... A18

Ryan Pletz 

Technical Report 2 

  AE 481W   

  October 29, 2007  

Typical Plans 

A1  

Ryan Pletz 

Technical Report 2 

  AE 481W   

  October 29, 2007  

Composite Framing 

 

A2  

Ryan Pletz    AE 481W   

Technical Report 2    October 29, 2007  

 A3 

 

 

 

   

Ryan Pletz 

Technical Report 2 

  AE 481W   

  October 29, 2007  

2‐way Flat Slab  Output from PCA Slab 

East‐West Reinforcement 

 

 

 

A4  

Ryan Pletz    AE 481W   

Technical Report 2    October 29, 2007  

 A5 

 

 

   

Ryan Pletz    AE 481W   

Technical Report 2    October 29, 2007  

 A6 

Output from PCA Slab  

North‐South Reinforcement 

 

Ryan Pletz    AE 481W   

Technical Report 2    October 29, 2007  

 A7 

 

 

   

y

N of'.. I'" AL. WE:!~tt1 CbN{..,;:elE: I C::>O Pc.. r= \Ic. :: L/D(){) P$/

r, t c, ;;; 3 DO PSI

Sl<:I -;. (JOO{P

I~ 'Do, .,),s', I~ {b..;> C€t:>

~\?..,v\. IA~L.l<=' '/z " A-=- O. \ <;;3 'i'> 2­

+P\J~' 2. 10 I<SI CAcI 1 9.(..,)p IS" 5).,-~~ Les.S = \:;- '?5,

I/~ \(6\ A,CI IE!.S",IJI'::'e'= 0, -('"" (1.1 ') .- IS" ~Sl-~

'-PI.: ~ -=- A 'f. tSt:... "-- 0, 1~3 (n vi ) " 2(0· 4? ~ I T~ NC~I \

\,,,, ·C. L IllS­"',~ '3\.5",)('\ ILl$'" ~ &,-/ .ncl·.s

\.) L::. 5 \&" '( '(1/ 1~ (.j .,. -= (B '~ )( I~D Pc. \~) -::.. \ 0 \{;>' '?. S­

: \ V\..-.::. \ '6'" \;J 5. j ­lL-::. 70 PS~ (<:;;0 l"SI~ 0'::';:""& -f-"t-.;.- i""rt ...... I'"TIi,lN f~L.L-·'-""~NUL )

-;:--.

31'-l,f"

.rl!L- __----,~-----,,j<:-----.v ..... .... i' ......;1 2-{'-c" '2.'-l'-v" ...-{',;'./I

\'0 \-1 "- - "I' -:.. "i f. ..... b

fr- b "'0 ,,'0 L~,S-'J:. 2 '1 1/''':'

S:.. hz' (.,:: t./or:,(€>·<;")1../I.o-= '3 (~'6

.­A -,- \ iV\,<: \ Act ,'!'' -:'5 ) I '0' I, I(

1 '. ) ­

.: IScQ F l~ O· \t, \ ~; ::

"3 ~f0Z.: ;.

\" e-i =­I' N

''J I ­

i I ;;:. 'i0t.X::> - S,\

c, "" -:. -' O' 'It:;;; ,

, (.. 'jaao ) 2 'S.

I -i'- ~IC'::' ::: to· (,,­ 0;,.~ ,J '\ ~ :>0

Av 12 til-I (I " , lAc I I , I , "/

PIA ~ 12 / (fN

'3. ~ f )/

r y

Se L' I V - 1./ 7

(), 7~ (ID'-o' 2 ")

12-"iT

\.:: r f·

T P

~,cc Lce, '11:>/ Cf-V" '" r-I 't ..> ' •

q /IL\, 'Zo::.- ((-..1 -)

I, -S- " 0,7,· " :: 1,.1S+ ~ ,S I, tl, _C - C, it:;;; - 7,

c1 l, ') " ,.. " ''l- "- i 'li'

e 1..\ L<:;' ( I..J A ")

::.Oi. .~o =

F- ( <2- I Pi J :. I, ~z. K./P.V\! 'b ~ &

(I \ "- k.?~ Ii b -J ,- (09'3-B ~1'JI':l

..,.. T ( 0/ T

A UI l.

'/I :..

'::>f'," ..J 'T..., C ~ ~,

C,.:. L ,: /lJ,.1'.\ -, I . e,. " I

><-/{-\~0 Lo D tv\OO\. E' .,.-::> : 1~1. -z.S- ~~ X :=,1. S- / oVO ~ 3.7'1

• I

2·$1 '2 I -, -z.. ...v ~, 1I~ ( 31.S­

---1 1 l "7 ~ .(C

,; -' .c;+ vl1v

Co 1'1I'-J\.;1;:1,..~ S A~

(II\\)lv\(.I\l' C E;;FF-l (.1 N

1G . en ( " : 267 '<.:. ...I-'~o\\t;Jtv\,'\- ~ , 0 • C, \.- L 1 470 .,,,

\"\\0'" C.\':.~

I'v\e- -=:. 1\

, )C.Ltv ... L • I' ''v\"t.. 1" - :, I . I," '0

1\<'/I ~L(

Jl ~

c.

I<;;-::'.S;- IlLN\l\;o (J. 0-' (Z,lot'3) ';; .,rv\~ ~ o. 'zS' ( I 1 :: ::. 27"')

lie

I 2>. I\:. ~.~ ... - '-­

13 J~L I (,1 r-.) ~ C( '1 v~ ~ 1.e1L. 'If'

13 I ( 2..( LA) ~ I, 'I (31·S) ~

1-[_J r T 1CJ 0 , l?.­:.

A C'-'~Q,

;:>'-'\

1 ':3 ~(D.DI (tCl 0":). 1"2-1 133, 310 ': ­\A ­, \ f3 : \ I"Z~ (\ O~. \'2. \ :: ZH)· ,

(, '. 13~, ~

I -STlZ lvl -rE"L I F- ( <:"; a. coo­0

S€"5 50' ~

[ T 7..,f"'-= &- )'v(,o' +- Iv\. :' j... ') Js - "I.,:;.

f3 ( I' DL - 1V\'3 '-- /s {P<

.('.,.."p = .,."

[(­0 .

2 'n

c'

-t

;

\'3 '1 ) ( z.) ( \OQ0'

I goe.; CJ I

3 '1 ~ <0 - z e 1 - -70 .

01 -

-

[( 1.-5'7 - \::.'1)C z.. )(l~,o<..) S'-i

I ~2,(gO <.. 3,f{[., ::: \---'1 P

'C

1

- Z­

0""­

- LI 10 1- '1.- '3 I j ( \1.- I C<J o' / :S ../ J:) t) -"2 e 3

-ID82.?> < \Ill"-\ ~ ., op = 3m: ..

. 'V171 , [ ~17 D - z'~ ) ( I '2. J (I U"u ) / J '"I Ii; ~ - z.. e> :?>

"-- <;""1~.3

t\.I:>L - r ..../.. -t 1"1/:" ~

+ /(.,( 1:) '- 1- 1\.1 '- ,+ L

,(~ '07 - /'04..L I""'.:, 1) ( l.. LIQI.>Q I ~ ~l ':. -\2. ....\ \.~ < o.~I<;' 'e.$ / ~Ob 01"-­

''30i - ('2- S-, + \ <1 - l ~ '-I ) { I 1.. ~ ( 100 <> ) '& 'B '2-.,>

-~ 107 ~,S- > ~.JK., ?, 1"1.5" OIC-

r~ 0 I" '- (- ~\ 1 D - '2- " "'I 'to 7_ ~~ )( I <. J ( I C; () 0 / ~ ,,) 1./ 8 - "Z '0 3 ::. - '2. 0 -; (>. '-\ > (:) YIT """ 3) 'I , ~ "! 0T oj::.

I j .... L. ~"\) /"') ( .,,,,) / :I 'b f)

<... (). '1 5 m -- i Bc() f2.!::

Pe.,

e = 1.:/ A 1" e.x 7 .:.., I", ~ ~ iJ 1"='012 .,

= 1,S;-l.j,2.. I( -- '3.2-$""

/87· '-IZ­

5 II yJ A L '(

I~ I

\2/'1.S )-\-\~~llS"LI) -l (y\t.(g) -:. <;;"7'0,)

I\'~\{lv) ;. _...,(-Z7 1- s-,". '" -=0.. '\

7;/

112 _ ,..."t.<:£. I.:; tJ I

B,- '3. 00 ) "}(+ / (.{+ t:.)

Iv~ 0 ... ':1.. ! s 'f. 0 S -;.. '/ )£.Az..

-:: (2.. S 7 .. \ N ) I ~'"l '1' v· 't ./ ('Z.\-I)(I L,..)

-- O.'2,B~- ;,,?"-! ~

/2 ,Yj 0<:..

f'v\ \ 10 \ ,,-,\ V '''\ Ler-.) \ c. '- IL· '- S 1"/""1

c~ •....., . I N I· I 7 '" I I:; I ( (Z .... ,/..;)')

s '" '0 '" ~'" ~ 8· - I- ~ =z.... 7. 8As ..,.." ..., ." O • 00' ') ;'.\ .... '!-\c.(~ Go."" -J ......

-::. () ,000' 7 ('N.J ~ y.J X/Z '''1/.1:. "l. I )ll Z­

:. -I. -a-g,b' iY"'t

..u.. '1 =- "L·O {n~(IV)uSe: ­

.,\11,0 C<"~Me. -;;pA' 1;'" ~ I Pc cJ 5.1.1'f \ '.:>1' SPAN ,v.. IN \ f . '" " \ O~

l- I...J<:. i lBA 12eQ. i::>I"'- 'IN ",/<'1. '71

PI.. ~ 70r /b4litS 'IV/,N 'IV r-- 1l-C'Vl :;''Jf'P<,J~ 1 "1 ""S- \.- 'I ~~ I," ('t>.~) . 2. , S'

12- -- 7."""

[

\ I

rf'!.:' r~e +- 10000 -lCr~ cJ)/300t4p 00fL s~ I~S > '--I -:.. 17"/000"1 I0<.70c. + ('1rJO'OY-'l'1'{.IL'l.d\/boo ~ "3."17t:ll

-:: I '6'-/000 -+ \\"':;'1..oocJl ' I "t :>. w(

~ I '1 ~v + V) (D S-' ~ d

ex -cc A ~~ --\- Ar.~ ~f" (), e.; r~ 6

1G\ I 5/ /

-", I "I i 2 1 \. 7 S- p~ I

I Ie.

>

Ryan Pletz    AE 481W   

Technical Report 2    October 29, 2007  

 A16 

Waffle Slab  

 

Ryan Pletz    AE 481W   

Technical Report 2    October 29, 2007  

 A17  

Ryan Pletz 

Technical Report 2 

  AE 481W   

  October 29, 2007  

Cost Analysis Data • Composite Floor System 

 

 

 

Total System Cost:  $14.82 

   

A18  

Ryan Pletz    AE 481W   

Technical Report 2    October 29, 2007  

 A19 

• 2‐way Flat Slab with Drop Panels 

 

 

 

 

Total System Cost:  $14.95 

   

Ryan Pletz    AE 481W   

Technical Report 2    October 29, 2007  

 A20 

• Post‐tensioned Slab 

For this cost analysis, a 2‐way flat slab will be used for the base cost.  The tendon strands will be added for the final cost. 

2‐way flat slab 

 

The slab thickness used is 8.5” despite the bay size, so a cost of $13.40 is used as the base cost. 

 

$5.50 is used at the cost for the post‐tensioned tendons 

 

Total System Cost:  $18.90 

   

Ryan Pletz    AE 481W   

Technical Report 2    October 29, 2007  

 A21 

• Waffle Slab 

 

 

 

 

Total System Cost:  $19.65 

   

Ryan Pletz    AE 481W   

Technical Report 2    October 29, 2007  

 

• Existing System – Non‐composite steel beam/joist 

 

 

Total System Cost:  $14.38** 

Significant cost will be added for the moment connections 

A22