upstate cancer center - pennsylvania state university · 2011-10-19 · upstate cancer center suny...

Upstate Cancer Center

SUNY

Syracuse, New York

Michael Kostick | Structural Option

Technical Report 2

Evaluation of Alternative Floor Systems

Faculty Advisor: Dr. Richard Behr

October 19, 2011

Michael Kostick SUNY Upstate Cancer Center Structural Option Syracuse, New York Advisor: Dr. Richard Behr Technical Report 1

Page 1

Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4

Structural Systems ........................................................................................................................................ 5

Geometric Key Plan ................................................................................................................................... 5

Foundation ................................................................................................................................................ 5

Framing System ......................................................................................................................................... 7

Floor System.............................................................................................................................................. 8

Roof System .............................................................................................................................................. 8

Lateral System ........................................................................................................................................... 9

Design Codes and Standards ....................................................................................................................... 11

Materials ..................................................................................................................................................... 12

Building Loads ............................................................................................................................................. 13

Dead Load ............................................................................................................................................... 13

Live Load ................................................................................................................................................. 14

Floor System Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 15

Composite Steel Deck on Composite Beams and Girders ...................................................................... 16

Description .......................................................................................................................................... 16

Advantages .......................................................................................................................................... 17

Disadvantages ..................................................................................................................................... 17

Pre‐Cast Hollow Core Planks on Steel Framing ....................................................................................... 18

Description .......................................................................................................................................... 18

Advantages .......................................................................................................................................... 19

Disadvantages ..................................................................................................................................... 19

Two‐Way Flat Slab with Drop Panels ...................................................................................................... 20

Description .......................................................................................................................................... 20

Advantages .......................................................................................................................................... 21

Disadvantages ..................................................................................................................................... 21

One‐Way Pan Joist and Beam ................................................................................................................. 22


Page 2

Description .......................................................................................................................................... 22

Advantages .......................................................................................................................................... 23

Disadvantages ..................................................................................................................................... 23

Floor System Summary ............................................................................................................................... 24

Additional Consideration ............................................................................................................................ 25

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 26

Appendix A: Composite Steel Deck on Composite Beams & Girders ........................................................ 27

Appendix B: Pre‐Cast Hollow Core Plank on Structural Steel Framing ...................................................... 33

Appendix C: Two‐Way Flat Slab with Drop Panels ..................................................................................... 35

Appendix D: One‐Way Pan Joist and Beam ................................................................................................ 39

Appendix E: Miscellaneous Data ................................................................................................................ 44


Page 3

Executive Summary The intent of this report is to investigate three proposed alternative floor systems that could possibly be implemented to the SUNY Upstate Cancer Center in Syracuse, New York. Originally the building was designed using a composite system, made up of composite steel deck atop composite beams and girders. Three alternative systems, pre‐cast hollow core concrete planks, two‐way flat slab with drop panels, and one‐way pan joists and beams were designed to the constraints of a typical interior bay between column lines K’‐L’ and 3’‐4’, located in the Central Tower. Each of the four systems, including the existing composite system, was compared against each other on the basis of system cost, weight, and overall depth. In addition, each system’s effect on construction, the existing building’s architecture and structural system, and serviceability was also accounted for. After summarizing advantages and disadvantages of each system, one assembly was chosen as the most feasible alternative to the existing floor system. It was decided, after careful consideration, that the two‐way flat slab with drop panels was the most feasible alternative to the existing composite steel system. In general comparison, the two‐way flab slab is less expensive than the composite steel system and provides an overall system depth of nearly half the composite system. However, the weight of the flat slab system is more than twice that of the composite steel system. This characteristic raises issues concerning the existing structural system of the Upstate Cancer Center. As it stands now, the superstructure of the Upstate Cancer Center is composed of steel. In order to accommodate a two‐way flat slab with drop panels, the superstructure will need to be converted to an all concrete system. Bay sizes will be able to remain constant, but the existing lateral, gravity, and foundation systems will need to be completely redesigned. Because the building is going to be completely designed out of concrete, the columns and subsequently the foundation will need to be resized / altered to accommodate the new weight of the structure. The conversion to a concrete superstructure also affects the lateral forces applied to the structure due to seismic activity. Existing braced frames will have to be exchanged with poured concrete shear walls in an attempt to add more lateral resistance to the building’s structure to counter‐act the amplified lateral forces due to the increase in building mass. Although the other two systems, pre‐cast hollow core plank and one‐way pan joist and beam, may be theoretically possible for the design of the typical bay inside the Upstate Cancer Center, they were not as practical as the two‐way flat slab system. In summary, the pre‐cast hollow core plank system was too expensive and raised concerns about its structural efficiency in relation to the lateral system. The one‐way pan joist and beam system was similar to the two‐way flat slab system; however, it was slightly more expensive, had a deeper overall system depth, and required more labor and construction time to accomplish. By analyzing each system and summarizing their characteristics, it was determined that the two‐way flat slab with drop panels was the most practical and feasible alternative floor system to the existing composite system for the SUNY Upstate Cancer Center.

Michael KStructuraAdvisor: D

Introd ThUniversityhome to tan existinUniversityregion’s pbut also liGamma KHospital. Uof the rooservices, tfor medicand five wcontainingcenter an Thstud backvertical batransitionat the thrfacing façaesthetica

Figure 2 ExtEwingCole)

Kostick l Option Dr. Richard B

duction he State Univy, located in Sthe new Upstg parking lot y Hospital, thepremiere outpink the univerKnife Center, a(See Figure 1pon its compoftop parapetthe radiologyal oncology wwill consist of g electrical trd the existinghe building isk up. This metands of glazin floor levels, ee‐story, norade is enclosally pleasing v

erior rendering

ehr

versity of NewSyracuse, Newtate Cancer Ceto the northwe new centerpatient adult rsity’s Regionand the Upsta1) pletion, the fivts, and encomy department,while the thirdshell space inransformers ag ROC. (See Fs primarily clatal paneling ing. These banhiding mechatheast facinged by a full hview. (See Fig

of northeast ent

w York’s Upstaw York will seenter. Takingwest of the Ur will not onlyand pediatricnal Oncology Cate Medical U

ve‐story buildmpass 90,000, as well as ind floor will bentended for fand a full mecFigure 1 – higad in a soothins rather haphnds consist ofanical space a entrance atreight, glazed gure 2)

try façade. (Cou

ate Medical rve as the g the place ofpstate Medicy serve as the c cancer centeCenter (ROC),University

ding will rise 7square feet. tra operativee devoted entuture outfit achanical spacehlighted greeng white insuhazardly disruf both vision aand the structrium. Featuricurtain wall w

rtesy of

Figure 1(Courtes

f cal

er, ,

72 feet to the Floor one wie suites. The tirely for pedand expansione serves as linen) ulated metal pupted by varyand spandreltural floor. Tng a custom which provid

Upproviding aits patientsmeditationapparel, anhealing garserve as a to reduce tUpstate CaUpstate’s gSilver certiConstructiocenter begaexpected toof 2013.

SUNY UpstSyT

1 Aerial map locsy of Google Ma

e roof level, 9ill house admsecond floor iatric oncologn. A two‐stornkage betwee

paneling withying widths an glazing, whicThe exterior fafrit pattern, tes solar shad

pstate is comma comforting s, providing an room, a bound a four‐searden. These grefreshing oathe cooling coancer Center,goal of achievfication. Preon on the 74 an in March oo be complet

tate Cancer Cyracuse, NewTechnical Rep

P

cating the buildinaps)

90 feet to the ministration will be reservgy. Floors foury central plaen the cancer

h cold form mnd heights of ch is used to açade culminthe northeasting as well as

mitted to environmentamenities sucutique for giftson roof top gardens not oasis, but also hosts for the adding to ving USGBC Lliminary million dollarof 2011 and isted by Septem

Center w York port 1

Page 4

ng site.

top

ved ur nt r

metal

ates t s an

t for h as a ts and

only help

EED

r s mber


Page 4

Structural Systems

Structural Key Plan In an attempt to better understand the building geometries, a key plan overview of the site has

been created. Main divisions of the building were divided and designated based on the location of

expansion joints. Included in this reference diagram are basic dimensions, story counts, roof elevations,

and primary building function or name. These building names will apply to data, calculations, and

descriptions later in this report.

Central Tower 5 stories + Rooftop

Mechanical

Central Plant 2 stories

Green Roof

Imaging Building 1 story

Rooftop Healing Gardens

Diagram Key / Roof Elevations

Central Tower – 72’-0”

Central Plant – 30’-0”

Public Access Corridor – 30’-0”

Imaging Building – 16’-0”

Elevator Core Shafts – 86’ 6”

Covered Entry Walkway

Figure 3 Building key plan showing main building divisions, dimensions, and description. Diagram key

given below.


Found AsubsurfacsubsurfacSeveral bominimumtop soil an(brick andto 28 feetgypsum, a Adeep founallowableATL recombedrock.

Fograde beacompressreinforcinand in widuse of numwith someA typical g


ation

tlantic Testince and geotecce soil and grooring tests, lo depth of 12 nd asphalt, md ash); and wet at different and dolostoneTL’s discoverndation systee rock bearingmmends a mi

ollowing thesams (4000 psisive strength) ng was specifidth from 18 tmber three oe areas up to grade beam s

ehr

g Laboratoriechnical evaluaound water coocations specifeet througho

mainly consisteeathered gypboring locatioe deposits. ies resulted inm consisting g capacity of tnimum pier d

se recommeni minimum cowith a poureed as ASTM Ao 116 inches.r number foutwelve inchesection is show

Figure(Court

es (ATL), at thation of the ponditions at tified by architout the site. ed of silty, grasum. Weathons. Beneath

n their recomof drilled piethe specified diameter of 3

dations, Ewinompressive sted slab on graA615 Grade 6. Typical longur stirrups. Thes thick, reinfown below. (F

e 5 Typical gratesy of EwingC

he request of roject site. Tthe site, and atect/engineeSubsurface savelly, sand; ered bedrockh the weather

mmendation ors (caissons) bedrock was 0 inches drille

ngCole designtrength) restinade (4000 psi 60. Grade beagitudinal barshe slab on graorced with nuigure 5)

de beam sectioCole)

Upstate MedTesting purpoassess their er EwingCole, oil compositisilty clay andk was discovered rock lies b

of using a strubearing on thassessed at 4ed a minimum

ned a foundatng on drilled minimum coams range in s are number ade is most cumber four to

on from sheet

SUNY UpstSyT

dical Universitses were to dengineering siwere performon beneath t clayey silt, oered at depthbedrock that

uctural slab suhe dolostone 40 kips per sqm of 24 inche

tion consistincaissons (500

ompressive stdepth from 1eights to numommonly a do number six

S3.4


P

ty, conducteddetermine theignificance. med by ATL, tthe initial layerganic silt; des ranging fromconsists of sh

upported by abedrock. Thequare foot (40es into the

ng of cast‐in‐p00 psi minimurength). All 16 to 66 inchember tens witdepth of six inlongitudinal


Page 6

d a e

to a ers of ebris m 12 hale,

a e 0 ksf).

place um

es th nches bars.


Framin

Thwide flangand spliceheight of Aevenly at designed center linto compeW16x31’sW30x90’sframing p


ng System

he superstrucge steel shaped at a height14 feet with a typical bay sa distance ofcompositely e of the memnsate for excs with the mos with the moplan for floors

Figure 6 Typ

ehr

m

cture of the Ues. Columns t of 36 feet, ma ground flooize throughof 10’‐0” on cewith the floo

mbers. In addessive deflectost common sost common ss two through

pical framing la

Upstate Canceare almost ex

mid‐way throuor height of 16ut the buildinnter, spanninr system throition to this, tion. On a tysize being a Wsize being a Wh four.

ayout (Central

er Center is coxclusively sizeugh floor thre6 feet. Columng measures 3ng 30’‐0” fromough use of ¾infill beams wpical floor, be

W16x26. GirdW24x68 on a t

Tower) Floors

omposed of sed as W12’s wee. This provimn weights va30’‐0” by 30’‐m girder to gir¾” by 5 inch lowere generalleams range iners range in stypical floor.

two – four (Co

SUNY UpstSyT

structural ASTwith a few exides a typicalary from 24 lb‐0” with infill rder. Beams ong shear stuy designed wn size from Wsize from W1Figure 6 show

ourtesy of Ewin


P

TM A992 GR xceptions, W1 floor to floorb/ft to 210 lbbeams spaceand Girders wds welded on

with a ¾” camW12x14’s to 8x35’s to ws a typical f

ngCole)


Page 7

50 14’s, r /ft. ed were n the ber

loor


Page 8

Floor System All elevated floors of the cancer center utilize a composite flooring system working integrally with the structural framing members discussed in the previous section. A typical floor assembly is comprised of 3 inch 20 gage galvanized steel deck with 3 ¼ inch lightweight concrete topping (110 pcf, 3000 psi minimum compressive strength), a total thickness of 6 ¼ inches. The deck is reinforced with ASTM A185 6x6 welded wire fabric (WWF). On the fifth floor, a 60’‐0” by 30’‐0”, two bay, section of floor reserved for a future MRI or PET‐CV unit, uses a larger topping thickness of 5 ¼ inches. The floor assembly for this particular area results as 3 inch 20 gage galvanized steel deck with 5 ¼ inch lightweight concrete topping, a total thickness of 8 ¼ inches, and ASTM A185 6x6 welded wire fabric. All decking is specified as a minimum of two span continuous. The typical span length is approximately 10’‐0” spanning perpendicular to the infill beams, typically W16x26’s. In the two story central plant, housing the center’s mechanical equipment, typical deck spans decrease to approximately 6’‐0” to 7’‐0”. The decrease of span length allows the floor system to support a larger superimposed load, i.e. mechanical and electrical equipment.

Roof System The Upstate Cancer Center uses three separate roofing assemblies; metal roof deck; concrete roof deck; and a green roof. The metal roof deck is the most commonly used assembly of the three and consists of a 60 mil EPDM membrane, 5/8 inch cover board, 4 inch minimum rigid insulation, and a gypsum thermal barrier. This composition is used in combination with a 3 inch 18 gage galvanized metal roof deck atop the five story central tower, and with a 1 ½ inch 18 gage galvanized metal roof deck atop the second floor public access corridor spanning from the Upstate Cancer Center to the Upstate Medical University Hospital. In place of the metal deck and gypsum thermal barrier, the concrete roof deck assembly employs a poured concrete deck with a minimum of 2 inches of concrete topping. This assembly is used in one location, the lower level roof supporting auxiliary mechanical equipment. Green roofing systems have been incorporated into the design of the Upstate Cancer Center for both aesthetic and energy saving purposes. The typical green roof assembly consists of native plants grown in approximately 12 inches of top soil. Beneath the soil surface is a composition of a drainage boards, rigid insulation, a root barrier, as well as roofing membrane. All of this is supported by a composite 3 inch 20 gage galvanized steel deck with 3 ¼ inch lightweight concrete topping, making a total thickness of 6 ¼ inches, reinforced with ASTM A185 6x6 welded wire fabric. The green roof assemblies are located atop the two story central plant as well as the single story imaging building.


Latera Laframes ruframes gelocated, sframing li c

A

The diagolevels. Sizwere not


l System

ateral forces nning in the enerally run thurrounding tnes. (See Fig

ll columns usonal memberszes of these mdetailed for s

Figure 7

ehr

acting on theEast‐West anhe full heighthe elevator cgure 7 for brac

ed in the bras used for themembers rangseismic resist

Location of br

e building are d North‐Soutt of the buildiores, along thced frame loc

ced frames ae frames are gge from W8x3ance and the

aced frames in

mainly oppoth directions ng, from grouhe exterior wcations, highl

re W12’s rangenerally W1031 to W10x88refore a resp

n the central to

sed by a serieinside the cenund level to twall of the buiighted in blue

ging in size fr0’s with W8’s8. The boltedponse modific

ower. (Courtes

SUNY UpstSyT

es of ordinaryntral tower. he roof. Braclding, and aloe)

rom a W12x1s being used ad connectionscation factor o

sy of EwingCole


P

y steel bracedThese bracedced frames arong interior

06 to a W12xat the upper s for the framof 3.0 was us

e)


Page 9

d d re

x210.

mes ed


for calculathe brace Bframes in direction frames rulines. Theto be utilibrace framdescribedmoment cshop.

Siresisting sthe locaticentral pl

Figure 9 Flooshowing bracand moment frames locaticentral plant and imaging b(right). (Courtesy of


ation purposed frame locatraced framesthe central palong the extn in the Norte moment frazed for the mme compositid previously. connection w

imilar bracedsystem withinon of braced ant as well as

or plans ced (blue) (red) ons in the (above) building

EwingCole)

ehr

es. Figure 8 bted long grid s are used in cplant. Bracedterior walls ofh‐South direcames allow fomovement of ion for the ceThe typical m

with most wel

frames are un the imaging(blue) and ms the imaging

below displayline I’ betweeconjunction w frames run if the buildingction along inr more accesmechanical eentral plant is moment frameding prefabri

used as the mg building. Figoment (red) fbuilding.

ys an elevatioen lines 4’ anwith moment n the East‐Wg, while momenterior framinsible floor spequipment. Tsimilar to thae uses a boltecated in the

ain lateral gure 9 displayframes in the

n of d 5’.

est ent ng ace The at ed

ys e

Figuregrid lin(Court

SUNY UpstSyT

e 8 Braced framne I’ between ltesy of EwingCo


Pa

me elevation aines 4’ & 5’ ole)


age 10

long


Page 11

Design Codes and Standards Referencing sheet G.2.1, the following codes were applicable in the design of the Upstate Cancer Center:

2007 Building Code of New York State (Based on IBC 2003) IBC 2003 ‐ International Building Code, 2003 Edition ASCE 7‐02 – Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, 2002 Edition

1997 Life Safety Code (NFPA 101) Sprinkler Code – NFPA 13‐02 National Electrical Code, 2005 Edition 2007 Plumbing Code of New York State (Based on the 2003 IPC) 2007 Fire Code of New York State (Based on the 2003 IFC) 2007 Energy Conservation Construction Code of New York State 2007 Mechanical Code of New York State (Based on the 2003 IMC) 2007 Fuel Gas Code of New York State (Based on the 2003 IFGC) Accessibility – ICC/ANSI A117.1‐03 1997 AIA Guidelines for Design & Construction of Healthcare Facilities Health Care – NFPA 99‐1996 Fire Alarm Code – NFPA 72‐02 (Amended) AISC Manual of Steel Construction, Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)

Calculations and analyses included within this report have been carried out with use of the following codes and standards:

IBC 2009 – International Building Code, 2009 Edition ASCE 7‐10 – Minimum Design Loads for Building and Other Structures, 2010 Edition AISC Manual of Steel Construction, 14th Edition, Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) ACI 318‐08 – Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary Vulcraft Steel Roof and Floor Deck 2008

*NOTE: References made to 2007 Building Code of New York State for special case items.


Page 12

Materials Structural Steel

Item Grade Strength, fy (ksi)

Wide Flange Structural Shapes A992 GR 50 50

Base Plates / Moment Plates / Spice Plates

ASTM 572 GR 50 50

Hollow Structural Steel ASTM A 500 GR B 46

Angles / Channels / Other Plates A36 36

Concrete Item Weight (pcf) Strength, f'c (psi)

Piers / Caissons Normal Weight (145) 5000

Slab on Grade (SOG) Normal Weight (145) 4000

Walls / Beams / Equipment Pads / Sidewalks Normal Weight (145) 4000

Lower Mechanical Roof Slab Deck Normal Weight (145) 3500

Typical Slab Deck Light Weight (110) 3000

Masonry Item Grade Strength (psi)

Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) ASTM C 90 1900

Type S Mortar ASTM C 270 1800

Fine Grout ‐‐ 3000

Cold Formed Metal Framing Item Grade Strength (ksi)

6" Cold Form Metal Framing ASTM 653 50 Table 1 Compilation of building materials used in the design and construction of the Upstate

Cancer Center.


Page 13

Building Loads The following sections convey the various loads that were tabulated for the Upstate Cancer Center and used to spot check selected member sizes and design. Loads considered acting on the structure were dead, live, snow, wind, and seismic. Values were verified against provided data for accuracy where given.

Dead Load

Dead load was calculated for the building accounting for loading that was considered permanent over the life of the building. Items that were included in the dead load determination consisted of framing members (beams and girders); columns; floor assemblies (metal deck, concrete slab, etc.); exterior wall assemblies (façade weights); mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) equipment; ceiling and floor finishings; and any permanent equipment that was specified. Values for weights of common building materials were either gathered from literature or assumed based on engineering judgment. In cases of uncertainty, values were always calculated conservatively. Because the building is separated into three separate pieces, loads were tabulated individually for each piece. Discrepancies between listed weights are most likely due to different assumptions of superimposed dead loads. The table below (Table 2) lists typical values for various components of the structural system. It should be noted that MEP equipment, ceiling and floor finishings are considered in one category, superimposed dead load. Also, any weights particular to a specific floor, such as air handling units or medical equipment, are not included.

Dead LoadsDescription Load

Beams / Girders 6.5 psf Columns 2.25 psf Floor Systems: 1‐1/2" Metal Roof Deck 13.74 psf 3" Metal Roof Deck 14.56 psf 3" Composite Deck w/ 3‐1/4" LW Topping 46 psf 3" Composite Deck w/ 5‐1/4" LW Topping 64 psf Green Roof 154.5 psf Facades: Curtain Wall Glazing 15 psf Insulated Metal Paneling 21 psf Brick Veneer 45 psf Super Imposed Dead Load: Central Tower / Imaging Building 25 psf Central Plant 60 psf

Table 2 Break down of typical dead loads. Note: Central Plant Superimposed Dead Load considers the weight of unaccounted mechanical equipment.


Page 14

In order to determine the weight of individual floors and subsequently the total weight of the building, individual assembly weights were taken by their appropriate area and summed.

Live Load Design live loads were specified on sheet SG.1 in accordance with the 2007 New York State Building Code. The loads given were not descriptive of their classification, but simply were listed as “Typical Floor Live Load,” etc. To produce accurate and comparable loads, assumptions were made with engineering judgment regarding usage of spaces as well as future changes. Because floors four and five are left unoccupied for future expansion, they will be designed to the highest live load found on the remaining three floors to compensate for the uncertainty of occupancy. Live load values were obtained from the International Building Code, 2009 edition, using Table 1607.1, and cross‐referenced with ASCE 7‐10 using Table 4‐1. Table 3 below summarizes the comparison of live load values chosen for design versus the live load values used for analyses in this report.

Live Loads

Occupancy Type Design Live Load (psf) Analysis Live Load (psf)

Comments N. Y. State Building Code (2007) IBC 2009 / ASCE 7‐10

Public Space / Typical Floor 100 100

Use of higher load to account for undesigned core floors

four and five Corridors 100 100 Mechanical Building Spaces 250 250

Heavy manufacturing areas used for comparison

Typical Roof 45 20 Snow Load may control over roof live load Rooftop Gardens 100 100 Rooftop Mechanical Locations

150 125 Light manufacturing areas used for comparison

Table 3 Live load comparison between initial design and loads used in analyses in this report


Floor

Stby 30’‐0”.purposes.beams anCancer Ce

Ea

disadvantcost, consand architbase) All the four fsystem ar


System tructural bays. A typical ba. (See Figure d girders, waenter. The flo

• Compos• Pre ‐Cast• Two‐Wa• One‐Wa

ach flooring stages. Systemstructability, stectural featufloor systemsloor systems re included in

Figu(Co

ehr

Analysiss of the Upstay was picked 10) The origas analyzed anoor systems t

ite Steel deckt Concrete Hoy Flat Slab wiy Pan Joist an

system is detams were evaluserviceabilityures. (NOTE: s were designcan be found the appropri

ure 10 Typicalurtesy of Ewin

s ate Cancer Cebetween colinal floor connd compared hat were cho

k on Composiollow Core Plith Drop Panend Beam Syst

ailed in the fouated based o, as well as thAll cost data ned and assesd in Table 4. Ciate Appendic

Bay (highlightngCole)

enter are rathumn lines K’ nstruction, coamong three

osen for analy

te Steel Beamanks on Strucels em

ollowing section the assemheir effects onwas obtainedssed solely unCalculations pces.

ted in blue) bet

her regular w‐ L’ and 3’ ‐ 4mposite steee proposed floysis are as foll

ms and Girderctural Steel Fr

ions noting thbly weight, on the buildingd from RS Mender gravity lopertaining to

tween column

SUNY UpstSyT

ith a typical b4’ for design ael deck on comoor systems flows:

rs raming

heir advantagverall systemg’s existing steans CostWoroading. A sumthe design of

n lines K’‐L’ and


Pa

bay size of 30and analysis mposite steel for the Upsta

ges and m depth, assemructural systerks Online datmmary compf each floor

d 3’‐4’.


age 15

’‐0”

te

mbly ems ta paring


Compo Descriptio ThcompositecalculatedTechnical inch 20 gaof 6 ¼ incinches of applied lohour fire r Suwhich tie through tBeams anadequaterequiremecompositethe system


osite Stee

on

he existing floe system cond spot checksReport 1, anage composithes. Utilizinglightweight coading, and israting as specupporting theinto the largehe use of ¾” nd girders wer to carry morents for unshe beams and m.

Figure 11 T(30’‐0” by 3

ehr

el Deck o

oor system ussisting of com were performd have been ed deck with g the Vulcraft oncrete topp sufficient forcified by Undee floor assemer W24x68 codiameter, 5 ire evaluated re than the reored construgirders can b

Typical bay lay30’‐0” betwee

n Compo

sed for the elmposite metamed for this preferenced fo3 ¼ inches ofSteel Roof an

ping meets thr unshored coerwriter’s Labbly are W16xomposite girdnch long sheafor strength aequired loadinction. Detailbe found in Ap

yout for Compon column lines

osite Beam

evated floorsl deck atop coparticular sysor use in this f lightweight nd Floor Decke specified reonstruction. boratory. x26 compositeders. These frar studs weldand serviceabng, are withined calculationppendix A. Fi

osite Steel Decs K’‐L’ and 3’‐4’

ms and G

s of the Upstaomposite beastem in the prtechnical repconcrete topk 2008 cataloequirements, In addition, t

e infill beamsraming elemeded along the bility requiremn acceptable dns for the comigure 11 illust

ck on Composit’) (Modeled in

SUNY UpstSyT

Girders

ate Cancer Ceams and girderevious technport. Deckingpping, makingog, a 3VLI20 dis capable ofhis assembly

s spaced at 10ents achieve ccenter line oments. The mdeflection limmposited steetrates a typica

te Beams and Revit Structur


Pa

enter is a ers. Hand nical report, g is specified ag a total thickeck with 3 ¼ f carrying the provides a tw

0’‐0” on centecomposite acof the membemembers are mits, and meeel deck on al bay layout

Girders. re)


age 16

as 3 ness

wo‐

er ction ers.

et

for


Page 17

Advantages

A composite steel system provides an effective and efficient design utilizing the strengths of both concrete in compression and steel in tension. This dual action allows the beam depths to be much less than those of a traditional non‐composite steel system. Subsequently a composite steel system could provide longer span lengths and carry a larger load. Formwork is minimal for this system simply because the concrete is poured directly onto the metal deck; this allows for a quickened construction pace. This system in particular does not require shoring during construction, once again cutting down on construction time and cost. In addition to having shallower, lighter framing members, normal weight concrete has been substituted for lightweight concrete further reducing the weight of the system. Disadvantages

In order to achieve the composite action desired by the design of a composite steel system, shear studs need to be installed onto the framing members, requiring more labor and inspections for proper installment. Adding shear studs also drives up the cost of the assembly. It is generally taken that the cost of one shear stud is approximately equal to ten pounds of steel. Although the assembly meets a two‐hour fire rating, the underside of the deck as well as framing members must be protected by some sort of fireproofing, adding extra cost to the system. Even though beam depths are shallower in a composite system, girder sizes can sometimes be rather deep causing issues coordinating other disciplines throughout the building.


Pre‐Ca

Descriptio

Psystem fohollow co4’‐0” wideaccommosolution wtypical baof the bui RSpancretesuperimptopped w Gagainst livattempt tper detailcast hollo


ast Hollowon

re‐cast hollowor the SUNY Uore planks wee plank, the Nodate a wholewas to modifyy size changeilding remain eferencing Spe Hollow Coreosed load. Thith 2 inches oirders spannive load and too minimize th HL‐31 (Figurw core plank

Figure 12 T20’‐0” betw

ehr

w Core Pl

w core planksUpstate Cancere selected toNorth‐South be number of py their lengthes from 30’‐0”the same. pancrete’s Pree Plank with 1hese planks wof concrete foing the 30’‐0”otal load deflehe overall syse 13) provide alternative f

Typical bay layween adjusted

anks on S

s supported ber Center. Coo span 30’‐0”bays of the Upplanks withous to 20’‐0”, al” by 30’‐0” to

e‐Cast Hollow1 ¾” strand cowould containor floor levelin” direction weection. The astem depth, ted by Spancreloor system c

yout for Pre‐Ca column lines K

Steel Fram

by steel framimmon plank in the East‐Wpstate Cancerut altering thellowing five po 30’‐0” by 20

w Core Plank Cover, would bn the strand cng purposes.ere sized for tappropriate sihe hollow coete. All calculcan be found

ast Hollow CoreK’‐L’ and 3’‐4’)

ming

ng was selectwidths are n

West directionr Center had e overall dimeplanks to fit si0’‐0” (See Figu

Catalog, a 4’‐be sufficient tconfiguration

the appropriaize was calcure planks woulations pertaiin Appendix

e Plank on Stee (Modeled in R

SUNY UpstSyT

ted as the firsormally 4’‐0”n of the buildto be adjusteension of theide by side. Aure 12), the o

‐0” wide by 8”to carry the reof 1.75D‐871

ate loading anlated to as a uld be connening to the dB.

el Framing. (30Revit Structure


Pa

st alternative ” or 8’‐0”. Thding. Selectined in order to building. ThAlthough the overall dimens

” deep, Standequired 12T, and wou

nd checked W30x90. In acted to the gesign of the P

0’‐0” by e)


age 18

floor e g the

o e

sions

dard

uld be

an irders Pre‐


Advantag

Chollow coerection tshoring wThe weighaddition, between fthe expos Disadvant

Thconnectinconcrete, lateral loapossibly nto carry thsame as torder to athe Upstaand locatiplanks geirregular o


ges

onstruction tore concrete pthe planks wowould not be rht of the systethe pre‐cast hfloors. Fireprsed framing m

tages

his system is ng to steel girit is unclear wads to the exineed to be imhe load of thehe compositeaccommodateate Cancer Ceion of grade bnerally requiror curved per

Figure 13 Spancrete

ehr

ime for this splanks would ould be coverrequired, alloem is greatly hollow core proofing wouldmembers wou

essentially coders by meanwhether the sting lateral splemented ine planking, the steel systeme the preformnter, ultimatebeams in the re a long leadrimeters.

Typical Hollow. (Courtesy of

system wouldbe manufacted with a topwing construreduced dueplank assembd not be requuld still need p

onstructed byns of a weldedplanks togethsystem. Addin order to addhe connectionm. Bay sizes inmed plank widely leading tofoundation. d time to prod

w Core Plank toSpancrete)

d be greatly retured beforehpping for finisction to prog to the voidedly would alsouired to proteprotection, pe

y laying thesed plate. Althoher would havtional resistadress this issun detail allowen the North‐Sdths. This woo changes in tIn terms of cduce, and are

o Girder conne

educed due tohand at a pre‐shing purposegress above thd cores alongo reduce sounect the underserhaps a cem

e preformed bough they areve enough rignce, in the foue. Althoughed the overalSouth directioould change ththe location oonstructabilite not very use

ection detail (H

SUNY UpstSyT

o the fact tha‐cast concretes. During cohe recently ing the length ond and heat trside of the plmetitious spra

beams acrosse topped withgidity to transorm of braced deeper girdell system depon would havhe existing coof caissons as ty, the pre‐caeful for applic

HL‐31) specified


Pa

at the pre‐case plant. Aftenstruction, nstalled levelsof the planks. ransmission anks; howevey.

an open spah a two inchesfer the applid framing, couers were needth to remain ve to be altereolumn layout well as the s

ast hollow corcations includ

d by


age 19

st r

s. In

er,

n es of ed uld ded the ed in of ize re ing


Two‐W

Descriptio

Thway flat sresulting would neesquare meaccordingconstruct AMethod. concrete wanalysis isand midd TwThe analysystem. Aused due as prescridimensiontwo‐way f


Way Flat Son

he second altlab with droppunching sheed to be excheasuring 24 ing to ACI 318‐0ion, a depth occording to AAll reinforcinwas taken to s equal in botle strips is idewo‐way sheaysis resulted inAn analysis cato the ease obed by ACI 31n. The floor sflat slab with

Figure 14between

ehr

Slab with

ternative floop panels. Droear. In order thanged with cnches by 24 i08 Section 9.5of 9 ½” was uACI 318‐08 Seng steel was tahave a compth dimensionsentical for botr, or punchinn a failure, suarried out usinof constructab18‐08. In accsystem configdrop panels

4 Typical bay lacolumn lines K

Drop Pa

or system for top panels werto employ a fcast‐in‐place cnches. A min5.3.2, assuminused for the rection 13.6.1 taken to have pressive strens, the reinforcth directions.g shear, was upporting theng a 6 inch drbility. The 6 ¼ordance withguration can balternative flo

ayout for Two‐K’‐L’ and 3’‐4’)

nels

the SUNY Upre assumed toflat slab with concrete colunimum slab thng an interioremaining calcthe flat slab wa yield strenggth of 4,000 cement requi. checked at th earlier claimrop was succe¼ drop is wellh code, all drobe seen in Figooring system

‐Way Flat Slab (Modeled in R

state Cancer o be needed ddrop panels, umns. These hickness of 9.r slab with droculations. was able to begth of 60,000psi. Because ired to resist

he columns wm about the neessful; howevl beyond the op panels willgure 14. All cm can be foun

with Drop PanRevit Structure

SUNY UpstSyT

Center was ddue to the larthe existing scolumns wer.33 inches waop panels. Fo

e design by th0 psi, and all c the typical bthe moments

without the useed for drop ver, a drop ofminimum del have a 10’‐0alculations pend in Append

nels. (30’‐0” by)


Pa

designed as a rge live load asteel columnsre estimated as determinedor ease of

he Direct Descast‐in‐place bay used for s in the colum

se of drop papanels in thisf 6 ¼ inches wpth of 2.38 in0” by 10’‐0” ertaining to tix C.

y 30’‐0”


age 20

two‐and s as d

ign

mn

nels. s will be nches

he


Page 21

Advantages

One of the most appealing aspects of the two‐way flat slab with drop panels floor system is the ability to create a low story height. Because there is no limitation to the overall height of the Upstate Cancer Center, this system could be used to create a higher story height while keeping the total building height the same. Formwork used to construct this system is relatively simplistic and it could possibly be reused for pouring other floors. The simplicity of the formwork also allows for ease of construction decreasing the erection time of the building. In general, poured concrete flooring systems, such as the flat slab with drop panels, offer more mass and intern provide better vibration control over that of a steel floor system. The drop panels located around the columns not only provide strength to prevent punching shear but also increase the systems stiffness further improving its rigidity and vibratory resistance. Because the entire superstructure is composed of concrete, no additional fire protection needs to be added, so long as proper cover is provided. Disadvantages

Although the flat slab with drop panels system offers many benefits, it suffers from some key drawbacks. One of the main concerns of using this system is the need for future core drilling. Because the system is designed to carry moment in both directions, penetrating the slab for future renovation or tenant purposes could severely hamper the structural integrity of the system. Similarly drilling through the drop panels could result in a two‐way shear failure. Because the cancer center is owned and is part of the Upstate Medical University, its use and occupancy has been accounted for, and will most likely remain the same over the life of the building. Converting from a steel superstructure to a concrete superstructure, will increase the overall mass of the building significantly. As a result, lateral forces attributed to seismic activity will increase from the original design values. This will result in an entire redesign of the lateral system of the building. Most likely, poured concrete shear walls will replace the braced frames as the lateral resisting elements of the structure. It should also be noted that due to the increase in building weight, alterations to the foundation would also need to be made in order to effectively carry the load of the building.


One‐WDescriptio

Asystem fosizes, andrunning insystem coconvertedof 24 inchcenter‐to‐system is beam gird Uand was s08 Table 9chosen, mbars for nwas calcureinforcemFigure 15 floor syste


Way Pan Jon

one‐way panor the Upstate was widely pn one directioonsists of castd to concretehes by 24 inch‐center of the4 ½ inches. Tder, measurinsing the supespecified as (19.5(a). Since making the ovegative momlated similarlment was speillustrates them. Calculati

Figure 1column

ehr

oist and

n joist and bee Cancer Centpopular for heon, monolithict‐in‐place con. Once again,hes. A 30 inche joists 35 incThis depth alsng 36 inches aerimposed loa1) #3 bar. Joisthe resulting verall depth oment, and (1) #y to the joist ecified as (10)e layout of a ions pertainin

15 Typical bay lines K’‐L’ and

Beam

am system wter. This systeealthcare concally with a wncrete membe, the concreteh pan size witches apart. A so provides a across. ads, reinforcest depth was value was caf the system #7 bar for posassuming it h) # 9 bars, whtypical bay eng to this syst

layout for One 3’‐4’) (Modele

was chosen asem was chosenstruction in pwide beam, ruers, the steel e column sizeth a 5 inch witypical slab dtwo hour fire

ement was derequired to m

alculated to b20.5 inches. sitive momenhad the samehile the positivmploying thetem can be fo

e‐Way Pan Joised in Revit Stru

s the third anden because itprevious yearunning norma superstructues were assumdth joist was depth for a one rating. The

esign for the smeet a minime 15.4 inchesJoist reinforcnt. Reinforcee 16 inch deptve moment re one‐way panound in Appe

st and Beam (3ucture)

SUNY UpstSyT

d final alternat is often usedrs. The systemal to the joistsure of the buimed square w used for desne‐way pan jojoists frame

slab assumingmum value spes, a joist deptcing was specement was fouth. Negative reinforcemenn joist and bendix D.

30’‐0” by 30’‐0”


Pa

ative flooringd in larger bam casts the jos. Since the lding must bewith a dimensign, making toist and beaminto the wide

g one‐way acecified by ACh of 16 inchecified as (2) # und for the bmoment t was (7) #9 beam alternativ

” between


age 22

g y oists,

e sion the m e

ction, I 318‐es was 6 eam

bars. ve


Page 23

Advantages

One‐way pan joist and beam systems allow for the use of longer spans and wider spaced columns, which is beneficial for the layout of the Upstate Cancer Center. This system is also are fitted to carry larger live loading, as in the case of the Upstate Cancer Center. Although the voids from the pans reduce the dead load of the system, overall the structure is very massive, which is useful when considering vibration dampening. Voids formed by the pans can also be used to house electrical, mechanical, and plumbing equipment such that there is no need to increase the depth of the ceiling cavity to accommodate such equipment. Because the formwork is repetitive for this system it can be reused to cast additional floors and bays, cutting down on construction cost. However, the formwork is a bit more complicated than that of the previous flat slab with drop panels, leading to a slightly higher labor cost and slightly longer erection time. Once again, because the superstructure is composed of concrete, the need for additive fireproofing is unnecessary, further reducing the cost of the building as compared to other systems. The one‐way pan joist and beam system does allow for easier future renovations as compared to the flat slab system. Disadvantages

Some of the drawbacks of the two‐way flat slab with drop panels floor system also plague the one‐way pan joist and beam floor system. As stated earlier, a switch from a steel superstructure to a concrete superstructure will significantly change the mass of the building. Ultimately, considerable changes or a complete redesign of both the lateral resisting system and foundation system of the Upstate Cancer Center will be necessary. Also stated previously, the cost of formwork for this system is slight more expensive than that of the flat slab system, and requires a bit more skill and labor to form and remove.


Page 24

Floor System Summary

The chart provided below is a simple summary recapping key strengths and weaknesses of each of the four systems described prior. The final row is base on personal opinion about whether the system is worthwhile to implement as an alternative floor design for the SUNY Upstate Cancer Center.

Systems

Precast Hollow Core Planks on Steel Girder

Two‐Way Flat Slab with Drop Panels

One‐Way Pan Joist System

10" 9.5"20.5"

104.8 psf

Increase Girder Size ‐ Resize Columns Due to

Altered Bay Sizes

Alternatives

30'‐0" x 30'‐0"2 HR ‐ UL Assembly

Requires Additional Fireproofing for Underside

of Deck & Framing Members

No Change

Existing

Composite Steel Deck on Composite Beams &

Girders

6.25"20.04 $/sf

4.5"18.33 $/sf

30'‐0" x 30'‐0"2 HR

17.44 $/sf

30'‐0" x 30'‐0"2 HR

Increase in Floor to Floor Height

Superstructure Changes to Concrete

25.96 $/sf

30'‐0" x 20'‐0"2 HR ‐ Unrestrained

Fireproofing Needed for Exposed Framing Members

Change in Bay Size

Assembly Cost

Bay Size

Increase in Floor to Floor Height

Superstructure Changes to Concrete

Joists w/ Wide Beam Girders ‐ Concrete Columns

Change From Braced Frames to Shear Walls

Increase Foundation Size to Carry Larger Building

Weight

No Beams/Girders ‐ Concrete Columns w/ Drop

Panels

Change From Braced Frames to Shear Walls

Increase Foundation Size to Carry Larger Building

Weight

Possible Addition of Braced Frames

Alter Size and Location of Caissons & Grade Beams

No Change

No Change

Formwork Required Minimal None Yes Yes

General Information

Architectural

Structural

Consideration

Overall Depth 30" 30" 15.75"Weight 50.9 psf 91 psf 127.7 psf

Fire Rating

Other

Gravity System Alterations

Lateral System Alterations

Foundation Alterations

Slab Depth

Constructability Slightly Moderate Easy Moderate Slightly DifficultLead Time Moderate Long Moderate Moderate

YES YES

Vibration Control Moderate Slightly Moderate Good Great

Construction

Serviceability

Feasible YES NO

Table 4 Summary comparing existing floor system and three proposed alternative systems.

(NOTE: Cost data obtained from RS Means CostWorks Online Database)


Page 25

Additional Consideration

It should be brought to attention that this report has discussed floor system design based on a typical bay located within the Central Tower of the Upstate Cancer Center. Although this design covers the majority of the floor area throughout the cancer center, irregular bays do exist within the structure. In particular, on the fifth floor of the Central Tower lie two adjacent 30’‐0” by 30’‐0” bays that have been designed and reserved for future MRI space. The floor structure in this location, as mentioned in previous reports, contains a thicker slab on deeper, heavier members. This change in construction is most likely to account for floor vibrations due to the MRI machinery. Although it was out of the scope of this technical assignment, there has been interest in studying these two bays and determining if a different floor system could be implemented to better dampen vibrations from the machine. If so, further research would be made to see if the system would be cost effective and practical to use throughout the remainder of the building. The goal of attempting such a feat would be to increase sound and vibration dampening, improving the quality inside the building from a serviceability stand point. This topic could provide motive for a possible thesis proposal.


Page 26

Conclusion

In summary, the intention of this report was to investigate three alternative flooring systems that could be implemented for the SUNY Upstate Cancer Center in Syracuse, New York. In addition to the existing floor system, composite steel deck on composite steel beams and girders, a pre‐cast hollow core plank system, a two‐way flat slab system, and a one‐way pan joist system were selected for analysis and comparison. The four systems were compared on the basis of system weight, depth, cost, construction facts and information, alterations to the existing building architecture and structural systems, as well as serviceability issues. Overall the goal of this assignment was to determine the most feasible alternative floor system from the three systems that were proposed. After carefully considering the strengths and weaknesses of each system, it was decided that if the SUNY Upstate Cancer Center was not to be designed using a composite deck and composite framing system, the next best option would be the two‐way flat slab with drop panels. This system has the least cost of all the systems, maintains the original bay sizes, and cuts the original system depth nearly in half. The main issues with selecting the two‐way flat slab system are that the gravity and lateral systems will need to be completely redesigned.

The assembly weight of the flat slab with drop panels is more than twice as much as the existing composite steel system. A concrete superstructure would have to take the place of the existing steel superstructure. Foundation sizes would need to be increased to carry the additional load and provide a stable base for the structure. The lateral system would need to account for the concrete superstructure, perhaps using concrete shear walls in place of braced frames. In addition, lateral forces due to seismic activity would need to be reevaluated due to the increase in building mass.

The additional systems did not seem as practical as the two‐way flat slab with drop panel. Pre‐cast hollow core planks proved to be considerably higher in price and raised concerns about structural issues related to the lateral system. Although the one‐way pan joist and beam system is comparable to the two‐way flat slab with drop panels, it is slightly more expensive and requires more labor and construction time to accomplish.

From the research gathered from this report, the two‐way flat slab with drop panels floor system will be further investigated as an alternative floor system for the SUNY Upstate Cancer Center.


Appen


ndix A: Co

ehr

ompositee Steel Deeck on Coomposite

SUNY UpstSyT

Beams &


Pa

& Girders


age 27

s


Kostick l Option Dr. Richard Behr

SUNY UpstSyT


Pa


age 28



SUNY UpstSyT


Pa


age 29



SUNY UpstSyT


Pa


age 30



SUNY UpstSyT


Pa


age 31



SUNY UpstSyT


Pa


age 32


Appen


ndix B: Pr

ehr

re‐Cast Hollow Core Plank on Struct

SUNY UpstSyT

tural Stee


Pa

el Framin


age 33

ng



SUNY UpstSyT


Pa


age 34


Appen


ndix C: Tw

ehr

wo‐Way FFlat Slab with Droop Panels

SUNY UpstSyT


Pa


age 35



SUNY UpstSyT


Pa


age 36



SUNY UpstSyT


Pa


age 37



SUNY UpstSyT


Pa


age 38


Appen


ndix D: O

ehr

ne‐Way PPan Joist and Beamm

SUNY UpstSyT


Pa


age 39



SUNY UpstSyT


Pa


age 40



SUNY UpstSyT


Pa


age 41



SUNY UpstSyT


Pa


age 42



SUNY UpstSyT


Pa


age 43


Appen


ndix E: M

ehr

iscellaneeous Dataa

SUNY UpstSyT


Pa


age 44



SUNY UpstSyT


Pa


age 45



SUNY UpstSyT


Pa


age 46



SUNY UpstSyT


Pa


age 47



SUNY UpstSyT


Pa


age 48

CoverTechnical Report 2Technical Report 1Technical Report 2

upstate cancer center - pennsylvania state university · 2011-10-19 · upstate cancer center suny...

Documents

LISA A. CICO, MSN, NP UPSTATE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY BREAST & ENDOCRINE SURGERY COORDINATOR THYROID CANCER PROGRAM SURGICAL COORDINATOR BREAST CANCER PROGRAM

Version 166343 2 REAPPORTIONMENT Reply Memo re MPIredistricting.lls.edu/files/HI kostick 20120508 reply.pdfjoseph kostick, kyle mark takai, david p. brostrom, larry s. veray, andrew

KM C224e-20151216112824Tim Kostick, 21 W. 345 Peterson Avenue, Lombard, Illinois 60148. Dwayne Hogan asked Mr. Kostick what he would like to do this evening. Mr. Kostick that he wants

update - Upstate Medical University | SUNY Upstate Medical

Head Teacher Bernice Kostick / Deputy Head Teacher …nrhs.mancd.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2017-Summer-newsletter... · Head Teacher Bernice Kostick / Deputy Head Teacher Gill

Michael Kostick SUNY Upstate Cancer Center 1...Michael Kostick SUNY Upstate Cancer Center Structural Option Syracuse, New York Advisor: Dr. Richard Behr Technical Report 1 Page 3 Figure

Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Older Adults with Lung Cancer · Ajeet Gajra MD FACP Upstate Cancer Center, SUNY Upstate Medical University Syracuse, NY. Introduction: Early Stage NSCLC

Alu UPSTATE MEDICALmniJOURNAL

Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Older Adults with Lung … Chemotherapy in Older Adults with Lung Cancer Ajeet Gajra MD FACP Upstate Cancer Center, SUNY Upstate Medical University Syracuse,

Travel Upstate Magazine

Discover Upstate Magazine

Upstate Freshwater Inst

Upstate Scenic Portfolio

- redistricting.lls.eduredistricting.lls.edu/files/HI kostick 20121001 ps msj.pdf · joseph kostick, kyle mark takai, david p. brostrom, larry s. veray, andrew walden, edwin j. gayagas

SUNY Upstate Cancer Center: Syracuse, NY

Upstate Fracking Survey

By Dennis S. Kostick

Conor Kostick and Francis Ludlow Medieval History ... · Conor Kostick and Francis Ludlow Medieval History, Explosive Volcanism, and the Geoengineering Debate Abstract1: One of the

El Test de Kostick

Upstate Game Day

Head Teacher Bernice Kostick / Deputy Head Teacher Gill ...nrhs.mancd.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2018-Summer-newsletter.pdf · Head Teacher Bernice Kostick / Deputy Head Teacher

HELPING KIDS FIGHT CANCER one trip at a time...Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Strong Memorial Hospital University of Rochester Medical Center Upstate Golisano Children’s

94258213 Papi Kostick

Golf Upstate Magazine

79898865 Tabla Test Kostick PAPI Personal Id Ad

Kostick, 1963

UPSTATE PR TRIP

We Love Upstate

Seniors - Upstate Edition

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY …redistricting.lls.edu/files/HI kostick 20121119 pls reply.pdf · JOSEPH KOSTICK, KYLE MARK TAKAI, DAVID P. BROSTROM, LARRY S. VERAY,

Upstate Territory Org

outlook Upstate

Upstate 2006 Monitoring and Analysis ProfileREPORT DETERMINATIONS -- TIMELINESS 2006 UPSTATE N % REPORT DETERMINATION TIMELINESS: 43,359 45.6 DAYS TO REPORT DETERMINATION: UPSTATE

Upstate Cancer Center News

UPSTATE PEDIATRIC UROLOGY - Upstate Medical … · Upstate Pediatric Urology is part of Upstate’s . ... as SUNY Upstate in 2014. ... of the National Association of Pediatric Nurse