W

ith a few notable exc e p t i o n s, tilt-up con-

s t ruction methods have traditionally been
applied to buildings of one or two stori e s.
Howe ve r, the economies that are possible
using conventional tilt-up construction methods are re-
a l i zed to an even greater degree in multistory applica-
tions where panel heights may exceed 50 feet. Since the
wall panels extend to the full height of the building as a
single piece, interior stru c t u ral framing pro g re s s e s
rapidly and the building is quickly under roof. Ha v i n g
the roof membrane in place allows interior trades to be-
gin on an earlier schedule and reduces interference be-
cause the heavy structural work is complete to the roof.
Since 1979 three distinct generations of multistory tilt-
up office buildings have been designed and constru c t e d
in Dayton, Oh i o. The differences from one generation to
the next we re the result of the design/build teams effort
to employ different arc h i t e c t u ral treatments with each
s u c c e s s i ve building type.
Li ght wei ght concret e exposed aggregat e panel s
In June 1979, ground was broken for a 45,000-square -
foot 4-story office building, Co r p o rate Center I. It was
built using full-height, load-bearing tilt-up wall panels.
The interior stru c t u re was constructed with conve n t i o n-
al steel columns and beams and with open-web steel
joists and concrete floor slabs. The walls we re designed
to support the perimeter roof and floor loads as well as
to act as shear walls for the lateral building loads. Bo t h
roof and floors act as diaphragms with shear connec-
tions at the walls.
Ex t e rior wall panel finishes we re to be a combination
of smooth concrete and exposed 2-inch limestone ag-
g regate (see photo). The tilt-up panels we re 47 feet 2
inches high, 12 feet 8 inches wide, 1 foot 2 inches thick
on the smooth perimeter and 7 inches thick on the ex-
posed aggregate interi o r. They we re constructed with
l i g h t weight concrete and weighed 51,000 pounds each.
T h e re we re no window openings in these panels.
The exposed aggregate finish was achieved by placing
a 4-inch thickness of aggregate on a sand bed and care-
fully pouring the stru c t u ral concrete over the aggre g a t e.
A 4-inch thickness was used to ensure a uniform ap-
p e a rance of the exposed aggregate surf a c e. With a thin-
ner layer of aggre g a t e, concrete sometimes penetrates all
the way through to the sand bed and creates a blotchy
s u rf a c e. With the thicker laye r, about 40 percent of the
a g g regate is left in the form when the panel is lifted and
t h e re is little exposed concre t e.
The panels we re erected on 19-foot centers aro u n d
the building perimeter with site-cast insert panels span-
ning between the full-height stru c t u ral panels. The 5-
inch-thick insert panels support floor loads between the
main panels and are set in blockouts at the inside edges
of the main panels.
The high ratio of wall area to floor area for this build-
ing re q u i red careful planning by the tilt-up contra c t o r. In
laying out the panels on the limited floor area, he first
made sure there was access for ready mix trucks to place
c o n c rete for all of the panels. Next he had to consider the
Tilt-up goes multistor y
Varying architectural treatments give a distinctive
look to 4-story tilt-up buildings
BY ROBERT P. FOLEY, P.E.
CON/ STEEL DESIGN SYSTEMS
DAYTON, OHIO
Fi gure 1. Layi ng out panel s on t he l i mi t ed fl oor area requi res
careful pl anni ng t o ensure ef fi ci ent erect i on. Not e t hat some
of t he t i l t -up panel s are st ack cast and t hat t he fl oor sl ab
has been ext ended i n spot s t o make room for t he t al l
panel s.
e rection sequence, wall brace cleara n c e, and crane re a c h
and maneuve rability needed to erect panels efficiently.
To gain more areas for casting beds, some panels we re
stack cast and the building slab on grade was extended
at some locations (Fi g u re 1). The slab extensions we re
only 3 inches thick and we re easily re m oved using a
backhoe after the panels had been tilted up. Because of
his careful planning, the contractor was able to erect 26
tilt-up panels in only two days.
Co r p o rate Center I took just 7 months to pro g re s s
f rom foundation construction to a re a d y- f o r- o c c u p a n c y
status; during the following year a twin building was
c o n s t ructed in the same amount of time.
Achi evi ng hori zont al bui l di ng l i nes
A second generation multistory tilt-up building, ere c t-
ed in 1981, had the same floor area and was built with
the same construction methods used for Co r p o rate Ce n-
ters I and II. Howe ve r, it differed radically in appeara n c e.
The architect challenged the tilt-up teams ingenuity by
offsetting wall lines and designing hori zontal lines for
the wall elevations (Fi g u re 2) instead of the ve rtical lines
used in the first buildings.
The design/build team employed essentially the same
c o n s t ruction concept in this building as it had in the ear-
lier ones. But to achieve hori zontal building lines, 2
1
2-
inch-thick bands of polystyrene we re attached to the
c o n c rete and a stucco finish was applied over the bands.
The remainder of the concrete panel was painted with a
t e x t u red paint to match the color of the stucco.
Large wi ndow areas requi re speci al t reat ment
In June 1983, a third generation of four- s t o ry tilt-up
was begun. Arc h i t e c t u ral re q u i rements called for a
much larger ratio of window area to wall area than had
been used in the previous buildings. Wi n d ow areas 7
feet high by 15 feet wide we re to be provided at all four
floor elevations in panels only 20 feet wide. And the ru s-
tication treatment required the wall panel section to be
thinner between windows than it was above and below
the window s. This re s t ricted the stru c t u ral concrete sec-
tion and subjected the panels to severe bending stress-
es during erection and construction bracing. Po s t - t e n-
sioning and the use of stiffbacks we re two solutions
studied. But the construction method selected was a
two-stage panel erection.
The first-stage panels we re three stories high and
weighed 50,000 pounds. They we re erected and bra c e d
in traditional tilt-up fashion (Fi g u re 3). The second-stage
panels we re 15 feet 7 inches high and we re cast while the
i n t e rior stru c t u ral framing was being erected. They we re
placed on top of the first panels (Fi g u re 4) and braced to
the fourth-floor slab until the roof framing was attached
to complete the interior building fra m e.
The first- and second-stage panels we re securely con-
nected by steel plates bolted to steel angles embedded
in the concrete. This permitted the two separate panels
to act as a single load-bearing shear wall that func-
tioned in a fashion similar to the wall panels in pre v i o u s
buildings.
The thin and narrow concrete sections adjacent to
each window opening presented a problem. For appear-
ance re a s o n s, tilt-up panels are usually designed to lim-
it bending stresses during tilt-up erection, there by
a voiding cracks in the concrete panel. This uncra c k e d -
section design wasnt possible for the first-stage panels
on this project because of the thin sections. Instead, the
panels we re allowed to crack in controlled locations.
Fi gure 2. Hori zont al bui l di ng l i nes for t hi s t i l t -up bui l di ng
were achi eved by at t achi ng bands of pol yst yrene ont o t he
concret e. A st ucco fi ni sh was appl i ed over t he bands.
Text ured pai nt on t he remai nder of t he panel mat ched t he
st ucco.
Fi gure 3. A l arge rat i o of wi ndow t o wal l area i n t hese 3-
st ory panel s made i t necessary t o use cracked-sect i on
desi gn. The panel s were al l owed t o crack i n cont rol l ed
l ocat i ons, rei nforced t o reduce crack wi dt h. Rust i cat i on
st ri ps conceal ed t he cracks whi ch vi rt ual l y di sappeared
aft er t he panel was erect ed.
Chamfer stri p s, 3/4 inch deep, we re located at areas of
high stress in the thin window sections. The strips fur-
ther reduced the concrete section and induced cra c k i n g .
Location of the strips was coordinated with the ove ra l l
a rc h i t e c t u ral rustication and the cracked section was ad-
ditionally re i n f o rced to limit the width of the cra c k .
Cracks virtually disappeared after the panel was in its
e rected position.
Ex t e rior panel surfaces we re sandblasted to pro d u c e
an exposed aggregate finish and painted bands beneath
the windows provided a distinctive accent (Fi g u re 5).
Because a wide range of arc h i t e c t u ral treatments was
used in designing the buildings described here, each
building is unique in appeara n c e. Yet the tilt-up tech-
niques employed we re nearly identical on each of the
j o b s. Economies that are possible with tilt-up design
d o nt have to be re a l i zed at the expense of building ap-
p e a ra n c e. At t ra c t i ve multistory office buildings can be
built efficiently and occupied quickly by taking adva n-
tage of tilt-up technology.
Credits
Developer: Miller-Valentine Group, Dayton, Ohio
Contractor: Allcon Building Company, West Carrollton, Ohio
Engineer: Lockwood, Jones & Beals, Inc., Dayton, Ohio
Architect: Edge and Tinney Architects, Dayton, Ohio
Fi gure 4. Two-st age panel erect i on was needed here
because t emporary braci ng of 4-st ory panel s woul d have
been t oo di f fi cul t t o achi eve. The second-st age panel s were
braced t o t he four t h-fl oor sl ab unt i l t he roof frami ng was
at t ached. The whi t e mark on t he panel surface i s spackl i ng
pl ast er used t o fi l l a crack i n t he t emporary cast i ng bed.
Fi gure 5. The compl et ed t wo-st age t i l t -up bui l di ng has a
sandbl ast ed fi ni sh and pai nt ed bands beneat h wi ndows t o
provi de a di st i nct i ve accent .
P U B L I C AT I O N# C 8 6 0 0 9 7
Copyright 1986, The Aberdeen Gro u p
All rights re s e r v e d