search

OpeningDesign / Sports_Complex

A Sports Complex in Southern Wisconsin
8 stars 8 forks source link

Foundation Plan for Pricing #39

Closed theoryshaw closed 9 years ago

theoryshaw commented 9 years ago

Toby, @kraut34

Here's ntrive's foundation plan for pricing... https://www.dropbox.com/s/dal7lk8uvum6cz7/Foundation%20Layout.pdf?dl=0

Let us know if you have any questions.

Thanks, Ryan

ping: @alexcalixto @stevenuecke @bausk

theoryshaw commented 9 years ago

Gentlemen (@stevenuecke @alexcalixto @andyeck1), (cc @bausk, @kraut34)

Here's a few comments on your pricing foundation plan. (click on the 'Raw' button to download)

Also, please review the latest RVT and this PDF for updated gridline layout that is being coordinated with Foremost's gridline layout.

smilliecraig commented 9 years ago

Ryan why are the footings down 3''2 not 4'? And why are we dropping all the walls so we have to ring everything for slab? I think all walls should be 3' at least.

theoryshaw commented 9 years ago

Hey Craig, did you see the comments on this PDF: https://github.com/OpeningDesign/Sports_Complex/blob/05555d575bd049996b1fb64475a637ec184f2073/Transfer/20150521%20-%20foundation%20questions%20%26%20comments/20150521%20-%20XSC%20-%20foundation%20questions%20%26%20comments.pdf

Click on 'Raw' to download.

Per those comments, which ntrive acknowledged and will pick up, the exterior footing will go down 4ft below grade.

You'll also see we're eliminating that 'slab overhang' as well.

Let me know if you have any other questions. Thx.

smilliecraig commented 9 years ago

On the none future we could pour wall at 100 and drop piers 8 inchs. Why do we need a slab over hang?

theoryshaw commented 9 years ago

We're removing the slab overhang, it will look like the red section sketch on the left below...

image

smilliecraig commented 9 years ago

Is there a reason why we have to cap the wall?

theoryshaw commented 9 years ago

I see what your saying. I would like @andyeck1 to chime in here, but i believe there will be rebar (24"X24", #4 REBAR @ 24" O.C.) from the frost wall into the slab.

Craig, Let me know if you have another approach that would accommodate this rebar.

Thanks.

smilliecraig commented 9 years ago

Call me at 920 988 6372

theoryshaw commented 9 years ago

Gentlemen... @andyeck1, @kraut34, @smilliecraig

If possible, let's have a conference call today at 2pm: Phone: 302.202.5900 Conference ID: 796-554-157

Let me know if that works for everyone. Thanks

andyeck1 commented 9 years ago

@theoryshaw We posted the updated foundation progress set here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/rv46bfslmgdlq6y/Sports%20Complex%20Foudation_15-06-05_Progress%20Set.pdf?dl=0

Please note that this is a progress set, but this should help for pricing.. There are a few known items that are not coordinated (for example, the piers details are not showing the adjoining foundation walls and the door detail is cut opposite hand on plan). Also, we will have to re-coordinate the foundations and piers for the updated reactions.

andyeck1 commented 9 years ago

A couple of observations on our progress set: The frost wall/pier concrete strength is 4000 psi. On S-100, delete CONCRETE note 17. The slab on grade control joints spacing can be increased from 12'-0" oc to 18'-0" oc max. On S-100, delete REINFORCING FOR CONCRETE note 6 and 9.

theoryshaw commented 9 years ago

Thanks Andy, when you get a chance, can you push your Revit & PDF files to the github repo? Thanks.

theoryshaw commented 9 years ago

Thanks @andyeck1. Having reviewed your progress set, things are looking good.

Only had a quick question. Created a new issue here: #45

kraut34 commented 9 years ago

I have not had a chance to look at the foundation plan, however, concrete guy says there are no pier sizings yet. If this is the case can we at least try to get close to finished sizes. On Jun 8, 2015 1:15 PM, "Ryan Schultz" notifications@github.com wrote:

Thanks @andyeck1 https://github.com/andyeck1. Having reviewed your progress set, things are looking good.

Only had a quick question. Created a new issue here: #45 https://github.com/OpeningDesign/Sports_Complex/issues/45

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/OpeningDesign/Sports_Complex/issues/39#issuecomment-110095962 .

andyeck1 commented 9 years ago

The pier schedule and plan details are on S-100. The column locations have footing and pier tags that refer to the schedule. Based on the preliminary reactions, we do not have piers at the interior column locations. Please take a look and let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Andy Eck, SE, PE

Ntrive – Structural Engineering

Office Number: 630-318-1725 x701

Mobile Number: 630-886-4688

280 Shuman Blvd, Suite 270

Naperville, IL 60563

-Check out our website at: http://ntrive.com/ ntrive.com

From: kraut34 [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 1:48 PM To: OpeningDesign/Sports_Complex Cc: Andy Eck Subject: Re: [Sports_Complex] Foundation Plan for Pricing (#39)

I have not had a chance to look at the foundation plan, however, concrete guy says there are no pier sizings yet. If this is the case can we at least try to get close to finished sizes. On Jun 8, 2015 1:15 PM, "Ryan Schultz" <notifications@github.com mailto:notifications@github.com > wrote:

Thanks @andyeck1 https://github.com/andyeck1. Having reviewed your progress set, things are looking good.

Only had a quick question. Created a new issue here: #45 https://github.com/OpeningDesign/Sports_Complex/issues/45

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/OpeningDesign/Sports_Complex/issues/39#issuecomment-110095962 .

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/OpeningDesign/Sports_Complex/issues/39#issuecomment-110104791 . https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AL66hxey1NoAbGCUX3wQ0tln54ziHeGOks5oRdrXgaJpZM4EZxJx.gif

theoryshaw commented 9 years ago

Noticed that dropbox link above was broken.

Here's ntrive's progress set here

Click on 'Raw' button to download.

Thanks, Ryan

kraut34 commented 9 years ago

Thanks Andy.

After looking at the plan, I noticed that the footings for the front walls (single story walls) are larger than the footings for the large field house walls. At a quick glance that seems odd. I would think the load on the field house footing would be a lot larger. Please let me know if I am missing something.

Thanks,

Toby Krause Krause Custom Builders 920-285-6490

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Andy Eck notifications@github.com wrote:

The pier schedule and plan details are on S-100. The column locations have footing and pier tags that refer to the schedule. Based on the preliminary reactions, we do not have piers at the interior column locations. Please take a look and let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Andy Eck, SE, PE

Ntrive – Structural Engineering

Office Number: 630-318-1725 x701

Mobile Number: 630-886-4688

280 Shuman Blvd, Suite 270

Naperville, IL 60563

-Check out our website at: http://ntrive.com/ ntrive.com

From: kraut34 [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 1:48 PM To: OpeningDesign/Sports_Complex Cc: Andy Eck Subject: Re: [Sports_Complex] Foundation Plan for Pricing (#39)

I have not had a chance to look at the foundation plan, however, concrete guy says there are no pier sizings yet. If this is the case can we at least try to get close to finished sizes. On Jun 8, 2015 1:15 PM, "Ryan Schultz" <notifications@github.com <mailto: notifications@github.com> > wrote:

Thanks @andyeck1 https://github.com/andyeck1. Having reviewed your progress set, things are looking good.

Only had a quick question. Created a new issue here: #45 https://github.com/OpeningDesign/Sports_Complex/issues/45

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub < https://github.com/OpeningDesign/Sports_Complex/issues/39#issuecomment-110095962

.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub < https://github.com/OpeningDesign/Sports_Complex/issues/39#issuecomment-110104791> . < https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AL66hxey1NoAbGCUX3wQ0tln54ziHeGOks5oRdrXgaJpZM4EZxJx.gif>

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/OpeningDesign/Sports_Complex/issues/39#issuecomment-110105608 .

andyeck1 commented 9 years ago

The footings are larger at those locations because there is not much vertical force and we used the footing size to resist overturning/sliding caused by the lateral force at the column base. Please note that our approach to resisting the lateral force was to design the footings to resist all of the vertical and lateral load.

An alternate method would be to use hairpins into the slab. This method relies on the slab weight and friction to the subbase to resist the lateral force. The disadvantages of this systems include: -the slab could be cut (and subsequently the bars) in the future.
-the joints in the slab will interrupt the rebar, which is required to connect enough slab area to resist the lateral force.
-Also ACI recommends that if a slab shall be used to transmit lateral force, then a higher level of design is required and the use of a light layer of WWF may not be sufficient for shrinkage reinforcement.

Another alternative would be to run tierods in a thickened slab/small concrete beam to columns on the opposite side of the frame. With the bay sizes that we were using, we thought that it would cost more to provide this structure as compared to larger footing. We would also have to consider elongation in the rebar and the potential effects on the building.

Do you want us to investigate either of the alternative methods?

kraut34 commented 9 years ago

Thanks for your in depth explanation. That makes sense. Let's stick with the current plan. On Jun 8, 2015 5:19 PM, "Andy Eck" notifications@github.com wrote:

The footings are larger at those locations because there is not much vertical force and we used the footing size to resist overturning/sliding caused by the lateral force at the column base. Please note that our approach to resisting the lateral force was to design the footings to resist all of the vertical and lateral load.

An alternate method would be to use hairpins into the slab. This method relies on the slab weight and friction to the subbase to resist the lateral force. The disadvantages of this systems include: -the slab could be cut (and subsequently the bars) in the future.

-the joints in the slab will interrupt the rebar, which is required to connect enough slab area to resist the lateral force.

-Also ACI recommends that if a slab shall be used to transmit lateral force, then a higher level of design is required and the use of a light layer of WWF may not be sufficient for shrinkage reinforcement.

Another alternative would be to run tierods in a thickened slab/small concrete beam to columns on the opposite side of the frame. With the bay sizes that we were using, we thought that it would cost more to provide this structure as compared to larger footing. We would also have to consider elongation in the rebar and the potential effects on the building.

Do you want us to investigate either of the alternative methods?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/OpeningDesign/Sports_Complex/issues/39#issuecomment-110161225 .

theoryshaw commented 9 years ago

Thank you Andy