|
General Description:
The Capstone Project Electronic Portfolio (CPEP) is a web‐based project and information center. It contains material produced for a year‐long Senior Thesis class. Its purpose, in addition to providing central storage of individual assignments, is to foster communication and collaboration between student, faculty consultant, course instructors, and industry consultants. This website is dedicated to the research and analysis conducted via guidelines provided by the Department of Architectural Engineering. For an explanation of this capstone design course and its requirements click here. |
|
User Note:
While great efforts have been taken to provide accurate and complete information on the pages of CPEP, please be aware that the information contained herewith is considered a work‐in‐progress for this thesis project. Modifications and changes related to the original building designs and construction methodologies for this senior thesis project are solely the interpretation of Rachel Gingerich. Changes and discrepancies in no way imply that the original design contained errors or was flawed. Differing assumptions, code references, requirements, and methodologies have been incorporated into this thesis project; therefore, investigation results may vary from the original design. |
|
|
Technical Assignments |
| |
|
|
| |
Executive Summary |
|
| |
In this report, the existing structure has been analyzed by describing the structure and its components based on the contract documents. From this analysis of the structure, the loading of the building was determined. |
|
| |
Spot checks of the gravity and lateral systems were also performed. It was found that the gravity system appeared to be over designed slightly, which is most likely due to value engineering, selecting a deeper member of the same weight to gain capacity with the same weight of steel. |
|
| |
As for the lateral system, the results were very different which can be attributed to mainly a difference in the Model Codes for determining lateral loads. Also, the 9th edition ASD Manual was most likely used in design versus 13th edition LRFD steel manual, which could have an effect upon the available strength of the material. It was found that the columns, based on the calculations in the spot check, would fail under the combined axial and bending load, although the columns were designed to hold an extra floor that was later eliminated from the design. However this was not enough to counteract the effect of the higher lateral forces. The beams in the lateral system were also below the required capacity due to the same reasoning of Model Code difference and the difference in ASD vs. LRFD. |
|
| |
Click on the thumbnail below to see the full report.
| |
| |
|
|
| |
Technical Assignment 2 |
|
| |
Executive Summary |
|
| |
Five systems were analyzed in this report to determine comparatively which floor system is most adequate to meet the requirements and needs of a typical floor framing bay of the Duncan Center, an office building in Dover, DE. The five systems analyzed were as follows: |
|
| |
1. Existing floor system of steel framing with composite metal deck
2. Two-way flat plate concrete slab
3. Two-way post-tensioned concrete slab
4. Steel framing with precast hollowcore planks
5. Steel and open web steel joist framing with composite metal deck |
|
| |
The systems were compared and contrasted on many different aspects such as cost, depth, deflection, system weight, and any constraints that the specific system required. Of the systems researched in this preliminary analysis, the existing system of steel framing with composite metal deck and the two-way flat plate concrete slab were found to be the most feasible. The two-way flat plate system therefore is a good candidate for further research and more in depth study in order to form a thesis proposal. |
|
| |
Click on the thumbnail below to see the full report. |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Technical Assignment 3 |
|
| |
Executive Summary |
|
| |
This report is an in depth analysis of the Lateral Load Resisting System for the Duncan Center in Dover, DE. Wind and seismic lateral loads are resisted by this six story building’s moment frames. The moment frames were analyzed to determine the systems performance due to lateral loads, drift, overturning, and torsion. These analyses were carried out through a RAM Structural System model and checked by hand calculation through spot checks of the models strength analyses.
|
|
| |
It was found that the system performed satisfactorily, especially considering a code change of an increase in wind speeds by 20 mph since its original design. In terms of strength the building only had approximately 25% of the lateral beams in the North-South direction overstressed, probably due to the previously mentioned increase in wind speeds. The East-West direction lateral beams and lateral columns were found capable of carrying this increased load. |
|
| |
Drift analysis of the building revealed that the building on average is experiencing a total drift of 50% over the allowed H/600, again probably due to the increase in wind speeds. The story drift values were comparable and could resist the increased loads most likely due to the sizable columns, which were initially designed for a seventh floor that was removed later on in the design process. |
|
| |
Failure of the building by overturning is not a matter of concern due to the approximate 10 times available resistance to overturning of the building by weight. Similarly, torsion is not a substantial factor due to the building’s symmetry. Inclusion of 5% accidental torsion in design more than aptly accounts for any torsion created by building irregularities. |
|
| |
Finally, the spot checks performed to confirm the model’s accuracy were successful and validated the use of results for other analyses besides strength analysis. |
|
| |
Click on the thumbnail below to see the full report. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
