Joshua Castillo

1
Introduction
Center for Creative and Performing Arts High
School (CAPA High School) Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

• Joshua Castillo
• Construction Management

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 1st Floor
• Jazz Club 2nd and 3rd Floors
• CAPA use Floors 4-6
• Unoccupied 7th and 8th Floors
• Residence on 9th 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 (ACPs) as an Alternative
• Auger Cast Pile Construction Method
• Drill Hole
• Concrete Placed as Drill Bit is Removed
• Steel Reinforcing Placed after Concrete is Placed
• ACPs 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 ACPs as an Alternative Foundation
• General Benefits of Using ACPs
• Speed of Installation
• Less Material Costs
• Bearing Capacity
• Overall Reduced Costs
• Problems with Using ACPs
• Susceptible to Variability
• More ACPs 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
• QUltimate QP QS
• AP(CNC ?LNq ?N?) S?L(AS)S
• Surface-Friction per Unit Area
• S KS s Tan?
• where KS Ave. Coeff. of Earth Pressure on
  Pile Shaft
• Steel Lined Caissons ? KS1.1
• Concrete Alone ? KS1.5
• ACPs can have 36 more Surface-Friction Bearing
  Capacity than Steel lined Caissons

14
Foundation Analysis

• QUltimate AP(CNC ?LNq ?N?) ASFS
• Average Unit Surface-Friction
• FS C ½ KS(?-G) L (tan Ø)
• Assumptions Ø 12
• C 6 KN/m2
• ? 18 KN/m3

15
Foundation Analysis

• Ultimate Bearing Capacity Comparison
• Average Length of 50 Feet
• 24 Diameter
• Surface-Friction Comparison
• Caissons ? FS 20.5 KN/m2
• ACPs ? FS 25.85 KN/m2

16
Foundation Analysis

• Ultimate Bearing Capacity Comparison
• QUltimate AP(CNC ?LNq ?N?) ASFS
• Caissons QUlt QP QS
• 140.3 598.6 738.9 KN
• 168 kips
• ACPs QUlt QP QS
• 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 Analysis

• Foundation Cost Comparison
• System Estimates Using
• Means Cost Guides
• Walkers 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
Caissons 60 work days
Auger Cast Piles 40 work days
Difference 20 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

• 1st 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

• 2nd 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
• ACPs have Better Surface-Friction making their
  Bearing Capacity higher than Steel Lined Caissons
  in the right soil conditions.
• Using ACPs 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?