AJC Consulting, Inc.
Advanced Structural DesignCE 448 - Section 2An Integrated
Capstone Design Project #1Industrial/Office Building Final Project
Submittal3/26/2015
The Pennsylvania State UniversityDepartment of Civil and
Environmental EngineeringSpring 2015
Ayo Battles - ManagerJake McTavishColin Barbish
Table of Contents
Section Page Number1. Introduction and Problem Statement..62.
Facility General Layout, Traffic Flow, and Space Allocation...73.
Facility Elevations and Aesthetic Design94. Structural Framing Plan
and MWFRS115. Foundation Plan.156. Load
Estimates.................................................337. Main
Wind Force Resisting System Wind Loads.....488. Deck Member Design
(Double T)869. Interior Girder Design....9910. Shear Wall
Design.......10911. Summary and Conclusions.124 Appendix - Map of
Garage Location
1. Introduction and Problem StatementAJC Consulting, Inc.,
consisting of Jake McTavish, Ayo Battles, team manager, and Colin
Barbish has been tasked with designing a parking garage structure
to accommodate the newly designed manufacturing facility in Flint
City, Michigan. This facility will be located just south of the
4227 Van Slyke Road location. The final product will consist of
45,000 sq. feet of manufacturing space, 19,500 sq. feet of office
space, and 18,000 sq. feet of material handling space.
Additionally, there will be area designated for future expansion of
the facility, and it is anticipated that a parking garage will be
constructed on the south side of the project site in the
future.
2. Introduction and Problem Statement
The project site is designed to accommodate trucks maneuvering
through the material handling area. The main truck entrance is
located on the southeast corner of the project site connecting with
Van Slyke Road, and a separate entrance, also connecting with Van
Slyke Road, will be located on the northeast corner of the site.
The manufacturing building will serve as the centerpiece of the
site with the office space attached to its southeast corner, and
shipping and receiving space attached on its west, hidden from the
Van Slyke Road view. Just east of the manufacturing building will
be a small visitor/handicap parking area, and to the north is a
large truck parking area. Both the material handling and
manufacturing sections of the building will be one-story 35 foot
tall buildings with metal side paneling. The office space is
designated as a two-story 30 foot tall building with a brick
exterior.The office building will be supported on a steel frame. In
the design process, ASCE 7: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
Other Structures2 provided the basis to all loading approximations.
All codes and requirements related to the structural steel of the
building were supported from the American Institute of Steel
Construction1. Additionally, all codes and requirements related to
concrete properties, including the office floors and footings, were
based off of ACI 11-14 Concrete code3. Several key factors
including building size, location, and functionality were all taken
into consideration while making vital project decisions. The
project site specifications, detailed in this report, have been
determined to provide a feasible and economical solution to the
owners request.MWFRS wind loading analysis was run on the building
to optimize the lateral force resisting systems. This analysis
considered everything from components, cladding, bracing, sag rods,
girts, horizontal systems, and vertical systems. The most
constructible and efficient solution was reached by running through
this analysis.Additionally, the 2nd floor of the office building
was designed primarily for constructability. All beams were
designed to meet required specifications. Some beams were slightly
overdesigned with the sole purpose for an efficient construction of
the building. Overall, this will ensure cost savings to the owner
by cutting down labor costs.The Roof Framing design for all
required beams and girders was again based off of AISC code.
Several different types of roof framing elements were designed
based on different loading scenarios including snow, HVAC, and
building section. In order to accommodate the shipping and handling
portion needs of the building, the crane girders were designed to
support the weight of our selected 25-ton capacity, 4370 lb. crane.
All column design calculations were again derived from AISC code,
while majority of the foundation design was based off of ACI code.
All components described in this report are validated through
either the calculation portions or the attached drawings.
Throughout the overall design process, AJC feels confident that it
maintained good ethics and created a structurally integral building
that will fit the owners needs.
3. Basic Load Determination
Determining accurate loading estimations is a paramount step
within the beginning stages of the project. Improper loading
estimates can lead to project delays, unnecessary costs, or an
unsafe structure. Initial load approximations were divided up into
four categories: Dead, Live, Wind, and Snow. Basic dead load
combinations were either given in the project statement or
approximated using engineering sources. All live loading
approximations were based off of ASCE 7: Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures2. Snow load calculations were based
off ASCE 7 Section 7.3: Flat Roof Snow Loads. All wind calculations
were derived from ASCE 7 Chapters 26-30. Final load estimations can
be found within the Load Determination pages. All loading
combinations were taken into consideration and were based off the
following LRFD equations:11. 1.4D12. 1.2D + 1.6L + 0.5(Lr or S or
R)13. 1.2D + 1.6(Lr or S or R) + (L or 0.5W)14. 1.2D + 1.0W + L +
0.5(Lr or S or R)15. 1.2D + 1.0E + L + 0.2S16. 0.9D + 1.0W17. 0.9D
+ 1.0E
Different loading combinations were deemed appropriate in
different areas of the design process, and are appropriately
referred to in all calculation documents.
4. Conceptual Design Development
Preliminary conceptual design decisions for the manufacturing
and shipping space were based off typical accepted one story
building design specifications. Similarly, the office area
conceptual design was aimed towards ensuring building integrity
while maintaining a cost feasible construction. The project site
location and surrounding area structures also played a role into
preliminary design decisions. The largest portion of the building
is designated as manufacturing area. The manufacturing space
occupies 45,000 square feet in a 225 by 200 foot floor plan.
Exterior columns are spaced 25 feet apart in each direction, which
was estimated to ensure both the vertical loading capacity and any
lateral direction forces can be compensated for. Project
specifications called for a minimum clear height of 28 feet in the
manufacturing area, while maintaining 18 inches between the bottom
of the steel framing and finished ceiling. The conceptual design
calls for 30 feet of clear height, and a 35 foot roof height,
leaving a substantial 3.5 feet of space for the beams and girders
to occupy. Beams and girders are oriented from south to north and
west to east, respectively. In the manufacturing area, beams span
50 feet in 5 foot increments, while the truss girders span 75 feet
in increments of 50 feet. The material handling portion of the
facility will be constructed similar to the manufacturing plan. The
floor plan designates an area of 200 by 90 feet (18,000 square
feet) for shipping and receiving purposes. For constructability and
simplicity purposes, the roof height, and orientation of beams and
girders are designed to mirror that of the manufacturing area.
Provided with the dimensions of the shipping facility, the exterior
columns in the east-to-west direction will span 25, 25, and 40
feet. The larger 40 foot span will allow installation of two
delivery truck entrances on both the south and north side of the
shipping area. From south to north, the exterior columns will
continue to span 25 feet, similar to the manufacturing area. Within
the interior of the shipping space, beams span 50 feet while the
truss girders span the entire 90 feet. Project specifications call
for a minimum crane bridge span of 65 feet, but not exceeding 100
feet. Positioning the crane columns 5 feet inside of each shipping
exterior column places the crane columns 80 feet apart, therefore
governing the length of the crane support girders. The crane itself
required at minimum a 25-ton capacity, and therefore the 25 ton
capacity, 4370 lb crane was chosen. The office area conceptual
design as seen in drawing S-2 figure 1, displays exterior office
columns to be spaced at 25, 15, and 25 feet along column line A. In
the other direction, column line 1, the exterior columns are spaced
evenly in increments of 25 feet. Given the required minimum clear
height in the office spaces of 9 feet, the clear height was
adjusted to 10 feet for each floor. For constructability purposes,
the orientation of the beams will continue to run in the
north-south direction while the girders run in the east-west
direction.Overall, the conceptual design aimed to simplify the
coordination and construction of beams, girders, and columns
throughout the entire facility while maintaining the structural
capacity necessary to support the loading.The design of this
building was based on some major assumptions and decisions made by
the design team of A.J.C. Consulting LLC. These decisions and
assumptions were decided by trying to achieve the highest quality
facility for the owner. The team determined how the space will be
utilized while conforming to the owners requirements.
Constructability and efficiencies of the structure were taken into
consideration as well.To utilize the space in each part of the
building the design team started by determining the overall layout
of three parts of the facility. The team decided that to make
operations run smoother, the office would be located on the south
side of the building site close to the anticipated parking garage.
To also make the building be more visually appealing the
shipping/handling section of the building is located on the west
side of the manufacturing building to hide it from the road, since
it will be the least visually appealing facility to the public eye
from Van Slyke Road. Inside the building the office space is
divided into two levels. The columns and layout of the building
will provide very wide hallways in the center of the office
building while providing comfortably high ceilings, located at an
elevation of 15. This meets and exceeds the owners requirements.
The overall office building has a very typical layout that is
similar to one of a classroom facility, which will make the
constructability of this section of the building very standard. The
manufacturing area is laid out so that the owner has considerable
space inside the building to move equipment and materials with
ease. The column spacing for for this part of the building provides
12 bays that are 50 - 0 by 75 - 0. This gives the owner a variety
of options for their equipment placement upon their move-in date.
This part of the building should be fairly easily constructible,
because of its 12 similar bays. The only difficulties that the
construction might encounter would be the wind sway bracing on the
roof. The shipping/handling area is set up to maximize storage of
material while providing easy access to trucks that will be driving
through the facility. This portion of the building is 90 - 0 wide
by 200 - 0 long and is divided into 4 separate bays. 40- 0 of the
width of the building is set aside for truck maneuverability inside
the building. The other 50 - 0 of the building will be used for
storage of materials and goods of the owner. This will be a 10,000
sq foot storage area. The constructability of this part of the
building will be very similar to the manufacturing building and
will require some of the same sections of steel. The one challenge
of this part of the building is to span 90 feet for the girders.
This will have to be done most likely with a truss system. The team
utilized Revit modeling to set up a design grid for all parts of
the building. In doing this the columns, beams and girts were
easily modified and placed in proper locations where they can be
modified in future submittals with ease. Using this new technology
will save the owner money by efficiently using the design teams
time. The team will consider the challenges of girders spanning 90
- 0 with a truss system.
5. Main Wind Force Resisting System and Component Cladding
In order to maintain its structural integrity, the building was
designed to resist horizontal wind loading. ASCE 7-10 Minimum
Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures provided the basis
for calculating the MWFRS capacity.Wind analysis calculations were
performed in the East/West direction. The office and
manufacturing/shipping areas were considered separately such that
each building will be sufficiently braced. The office building as
well as the manufacturing/shipping building MWFRS was based on wind
blowing parallel to the long direction. Based on ASCE 7-10 Figure
26.5-1A, Flint City basic wind speed is recorded at 115 mph. The
building qualifies as Risk Category II, and Exposure B. Kzt, Kd,
and G were assumed to be 1.0, 0.85, and 0.85, respectively. In the
manufacturing and shipping area, found on Wind Calculations Page
1a, the end force on both braces was calculated as 56 kips, or 28
kips per brace. Similar assumptions were applied to the office area
wind calculations (Wind Calculations Page 2) to determine a force
of 4.61 kips per brace at 30 feet of elevation, and 13.3 kips of
force at 22.5 feet. Calculating the horizontal wind forces allowed
for the design of the MWFRS trusses. The vertically oriented
manufacturing/shipping wind truss system located in between column
line C and column line D, and also in between column line L and
column line K, was designed based off the wind parallel to the long
side of the building. All sections designed to resist horizontal
wind loading were made of A36 material and the U, DB, and N were
assumed to be 0.85, 1, and 1. Located on Wind Bracing Design Page
4, the vertical truss system in the manufacturing area is designed
for 1.5 diameter rod sections. Due to the identical system and
loading in the shipping area, it is also designed as 1.5 diameter
rod sections. The design of the horizontal truss system atop the
structure was also based on the wind load parallel to the long side
of the building. Pages 6 and 7 detail the tension calculations
deriving the L3X2X1/4 sections atop the manufacturing building and
the L2X2X1/8 sections atop the shipping portion. The vertically
oriented wind bracing system in the office, also located in between
column line C and column line D, was designed according to wind
parallel to the long side of the office space. All sections
designed to resist horizontal wind loading were made of A36
material and the U, DB, and N were assumed to be 0.85, 1, and 1. As
seen in the Wind Bracing Design Section (Page 1), a diameter rod
section was chosen for the 2nd floor bracing system, and a diameter
rod section for the 1st floor. Similarly, the design of the
horizontal system atop the office structure was based on the wind
load calculated in the Wind Calculations Page 3. This particular
loading warranted single angle L2X2X1/8 sections to support the
wind loading.Components and cladding calculations were also based
off ASCE 7. The building is considered Risk Category 2, with an
Exposure Class B. Wind speed is again based on the 115 mph value.
Kd and Kzt values of 0.85 and 1.0 were used. Given that the
building is considered partially enclosed, GCpi is assigned a value
of +/-0.55. In the manufacturing/shipping space, given the 35 foot
roof, two 25 foot corner wind girts were designed equally spaced at
118 from the roof, from each other, and from the floor. Based on
the maximum moment, Mu,Cb of 1.01, sag rods spaced at 84, the
desired channel was to be made of A36 material, and Using Table
3-11 of AISC, a channel size of C9X15 was selected. The sag rods
were used to counter any vertical deflection due to the vertical
load, and therefore the deflection was assumed to be less than
L/360.
6. Composite Office Area Floor Framing Design
In designing the office area second floor framing, several
factors played a role into the design of each beam and girder.
Ultimately an interior girder, interior beam, and exterior beam
were designed and reflected accordingly in the beam schedule. Owner
requirements, AISC codes and safety requirements, and
constructability all played significant roles in choosing section
sizes.The office typical interior beam, B1, was designed (as shown
on Beam Design Page 1) based on Load Combination #2 (1.2D + 1.6L).
B1 spans 25 feet with a tributary area of 2.5 feet on each side (5
feet total spacing). The ultimate moment was calculated at
80.0ft-k. Based off AISC Table 3-2, and a Zx value of 21.33 in3, a
section W10X19 was chosen. The beam then passed various testing
requirements as seen on Beam Design Pages 3 and 4, and was
determined to be adequate.The office typical exterior beam, B2, was
also designed based on Load Combination #2. B2 also spans 25 feet
with a tributary area half that of the interior beam plus an
additional 12 inches on the exterior of the building. Its ultimate
moment was found to be 48.0ft-k. A Zx value of 12.8 in3 allowed the
selection of a W8X15 beam. Again, all checks and regulations were
passed and the beam was deemed adequate. The interior girder, G1,
was again based on Load Combination 2. All design and calculation
work can be found on Beam Design Pages 9-12. Given an ultimate
moment of 345ft-k, and a Zx of 92 in3, a W21X44 section was
selected based on Table 3-2. It is expected for the interior girder
to have a larger section due to its larger tributary width, and the
numerous beams sitting atop of it in the forms of point loads. In
order to test the deflection of this girder, it was analyzed in
SAP2000 and found to deflect roughly half an inch.All W shapes were
established as A992 material. All beam and girder sections were
chosen as a resultant of their structural integrity and
constructability.
7. Snow Loading and Roof Framing Design
Snow loading calculations were based off of ASCE-7 for a flat
roof design. The differences in roof elevations, 35 in the
manufacturing/shipping area, and 30 in the office space, accounted
for different snow loadings on each area of the building.
Additionally, snow drift played a role into the total snow loading
distributed force. The ultimate snow loading for the flat roof was
based off Pf=0.7*Ce*Ct*Is*Pg. Pg, the base snow loading, was based
off the geographic location of Flint City and read as 30lb/ft2. Ct
was determined from Table 7-3 as 1.0 and Is was determined from
Table 1.5-2 as 1.0. The value of Ce is based off Table 7-2 and
differs from the office space to the manufacturing/shipping. The
office space Ce was recorded as 1.0 while the
manufacturing/shipping space Ce was read as 0.9 off the table.
Final Pf calculated at 18.9psf in the manufacturing/shipping, and
21psf in the office space. Based off the minimum value of 20*Is, or
20psf, the manufacturing/shipping snow load was controlled at
20psf. More calculations (referenced in Snow Loading pg. 1-2)
yielded a triangular shaped distributed load with a maximum
intensity of 85psf on the office space in addition to the base
21psf load. Therefore the maximum load at the shared wall is equal
to 106psf. All roof framing design was again based off AISC code.
The first beam designed, designated as B8 and located on Roof
Framing Design Pages 1-5, is a typical roof framing beam/purlin.
This interior beam was designed for the manufacturing space and
spans 50 feet with a tributary area of 2.5 on each side, totaling
5. This beam is subject to a snow and live load of 20psf each. The
dead load consisted of 6psf for roofing and insulation, 3psf for
decking, and 15psf for Mechanical and Electrical Allowance. The
controlling load combination was determined as L.C. #2: 1.2D + 1.6L
+ 0.5S. The distributed load on the beam was calculated as
0.378k/ft, resulting in an ultimate shear of 9.45k and ultimate
moment of 118-k. A Zx value of 31.5in3 governed the selection of a
W14X22 beam through the use of AISC Table 3-2. The beam passed
various testing requirements as seen in the Roof Framing Design
Pages, and was determined to be adequate.The next design located on
Pages 6-9 is a typical roof girder. This interior roof 25 girder,
G3, is located in the office space roofing section and supports
loadings from B7 and B9 beams on either side. The total load at
each beam spacing of 5 was determined as 6.6k, resulting in a
ultimate shear of 13.2k, and ultimate moment of 99-k. Based off a
Zx value of 26.4in3, a W12X22 beam was chosen to support the
loading. All checks and requirements were tested and met, therefore
verifying the stability of this section.Additionally, a roof member
supporting a snow drift was designed. An office beam connecting the
office space to the manufacturing space was concluded to support a
snow drift, and therefore this 25 beam, B5, was selected for
design. Again, a live load of 20psf was used in addition to a 21psf
snow load. However, on top of this snow load was another triangular
snow load distribution with an 85psf maximum value. The dead load
was estimated as 16 psf in the office space, due to the lighter
mechanical and electrical allowance (4psf). The controlling load
combination was again found to be L.C. #2 which resulted in a
distributed load of 0.333k/ft plus an additional 212.5plf
triangular distributed load over the entire length of the beam. The
actual value of w was calculated as 23.6, just 1.4 shy of the 25
span, and therefore this triangular load was conservatively rounded
to 25 for additional safety precaution and ease of calculation
purposes. The ultimate shear force was calculated at 5.93k while
the ultimate moment yielded 34.4-k. A Zx value of 9.17 in3
justified the use of a W12X16. Ultimately, the W12X16 beam was
slightly over designed, but the lighter beams chosen failed in
local buckling tests. Again, all checks were passed and the section
was deemed appropriate. Two separate trusses, T1, a 90 foot truss
in the shipping area, and T2, a 75 foot truss in the manufacturing
area, were both designed in place of a typical girder in order to
meet the extreme loading resultant. T1 was designed with 17 beams
resting across it spaced at 5 feet apart, each contributing a 9.45k
point load. These loads were previous calculated through AISC LRFD,
which consisted of dead loads of the beams and roof, live loads,
and snow loads. The depth of this truss was established as 6. The
ultimate moment was calculated in SAP2000 as 1914-k. A Pu of 319k
governed a bottom tension cord section of WT6X36, and top
compression cord of WT4X33.5. All cross members were designed as
L3.5X3X5/16 angle sections in order to meet the structural capacity
requirements.The second truss, T2, was designed with 15 beams
resting across it spaced at 5 feet apart, each contributing a 18.9k
point load. The ultimate moment was calculated in SAP2000 as
2646-k. A Pu of 529.2k governed both a bottom tension cord section
of WT8X44.5, and top compression cord of WT8X44.5. All cross,
in-between members were designed as L4X4X5/16 sections in order to
ensure the structural capacity required. All truss design work can
be found within the Roof Framing Design section as well.HVAC units
also played a role into the roof framing design. Four separate
20,000 pound HVAC units were positioned strategically across the
entire structure, including 1 above the office space, two above the
manufacturing area and 1 above the material handling area. Each
HVAC unit is 8 feet wide by 20 feet long by 9 feet high, and the
20k weight is supported along each of the 20 sides. In order to
appropriately compensate for this HVAC weight, the beam tributary
widths were adjusted to position two beams under each end of the
unit, therefore spaced at exactly 8 feet apart. This adjusted the
tributary area from the previous 5 feet to 5.75 feet of width for
each beam, designated as B4. Load combination 2 yielded a Dead +
Live + Snow Load of 421.5 plf over the entire 50 foot span, with an
additional dead HVAC load of 600 plf centered over 20 feet. The
ultimate shear force was calculated at 16.5k and the ultimate
moment was calculated at 251-k. The final Zx used to design the
beam was 66.9in3, and ultimately a W18X35 beam was selected to
support the HVAC units and passed all required checks. Finally, an
edge girder was to be designed. This girder, designated G4, was
designed for the shipping building space with a span of 25 with 5
beam bracing points. The load on the girder from each beam is
roughly 6k, resulting in an ultimate shear of 9.03k and an ultimate
moment of 60.2-k. A Zx of 16.05 in3 was used to select a beam
section of W12X16 based off of AISC Table 3-2. Again, all checks
and requirements were tested and met, deeming the girder
structurally adequate.
8. Crane Channel and Wide Flange Combination Girder Analysis and
Design
Another design challenge associated with the project was the use
of a crane in the shipping portion of the building. In order to
support the weight of the crane, a crane girder was designed as a
W-Beam, C-Channel combination. The crane required a minimum
capacity of 25-tons. The bridge spans 80 feet and has an additional
13-2 wheel span. Also, the runway girder spans 25 The bridge itself
weighs 38.15 kips and the trolley is an additional 4.370 kips.
Without impact, the max wheel load is estimated at 35.1 kips.
Loading Case 2 controlled and resulted in a final moment estimate
of Mux=646.7-k and Muy=42.1-k. Ix,req and Iy,req based off
deflection were calculated as 1789 in4, and 92 in4, respectively.
Based off of AISC Table 1-19, a W21X62 beam plus a C12X20.7 channel
was initially selected to provide an Ix of 1800 in4 and an Iy of
186 in4; however, after failing in the Biaxial Bending Check,
H1-1b, a new section was selected. Again from Table 1-19 a W21X68 +
C15X33.9 was selected based on its Ix and Iy capacities. After
passing checks including Lateral Torsional Buckling and Tension
Flange Yielding, the new section passed the Biaxial Bending Check
by achieving a value of 1.0 based off of H1-1b. Additionally, the
beam passed in sides-way buckling, therefore deeming it adequate
for use. It should be noted that in the side-sway buckling check,
it was assumed that the wheel load from one wheel was sufficient to
calculate Rn.
9. Column Design
The design of all horizontal steel members within the structure
allowed for the design of the vertical steel columns. Column design
is integral to the structural sufficiency of the entire building,
as it supports all vertical loadings and ultimately allows the
building to remain standing. In order to meet owner requirements,
three different columns were designed, one exterior office column,
one interior manufacturing column, and one exterior
manufacturing/shipping column. All design specifications were based
off of AISC code, and the team of AJC Consulting is confident all
required design checks were met. The interior manufacturing column,
denoted CX1, was designed with respect to several unique
challenges. This column was determined to have the largest
supporting tributary area out of all those designed, at 25 by 75
(1875 square feet). Additionally, the self weight of the truss
played a significant role into the axial loading on this interior
column. LRFD load combination #2 yielded a 152.25 kip total while
ASD load combination #4 yielded a 117.5 kip total. Based on AISC
Table 4-1 for compression members, a W12X65 column was chosen to
support this load. All buckling checks were passed and the column
was deemed adequate. The exterior manufacturing/shipping column,
denoted CX2, was also designed with a unique set of challenges.
This exterior column was subject to dead, live, snow, and wind
loadings, and therefore every loading combination was analyzed.
This particular column is subject to horizontal wind forces
distributed through 2 evenly spaced wind girts. The horizontal wind
force created an ultimate moment of 121-k. The controlling ASD load
combination #4 yielded an axial force of 35.4 kips while the LRFD
load combination #2 yielded an axial force of 46.2 kips. Through
the use of Table 4-1, a W8X31 column was chosen. Upon passing
flexure, shear, drift, etc. checks (as seen on Steel Column Design
pages 3-7), the column was deemed adequate. The exterior office
column, denoted CX3, was designed in a similar manner to that of
the interior column. All horizontal forces were designed to be
supported by the exterior beams located at the second floor level,
and therefore no wind force dictated the controlling load
combination. A controlling LRFD load of 98.74k and a ASD load of
71.5k yielded a selection of W8X31 again, which works in favor of
constructability.
10. Foundation Analyses and Framing Design
Upon completion of all steel columns, the foundation was
designed to support all loading and steel members within the
overall structure. For each designed column, a substantial base
plate, pedestal, and foundation was designed. Within this section
of calculations, the American Concrete Institute 318-08 manual was
utilized for concrete based sections.Column C1Xs base plate was
designed to support the W12X65 section. The LRFD load combination
yielded a 155k load including the self weight of the column.
Practical design calculations governed a 20X20 base plate, while
the thickness of the plate was calculated at a required 0.8 rounded
up to a full inch for construction simplicity. Overall, the 20X20X1
A36 steel plate was deemed adequate. The next step of the process
was to design a supporting pedestal. In order to reach the frost
line, the height of the pedestal was set at 36, while the length
and width both measure 24. The axial strength and shear tests were
passed, and ultimately, 8#8 bars were chosen with #3 ties.
Utilizing a MS Excel spreadsheet, the footing itself was designed
as a 36 in height, and 6 by 6 in a square shape. All checks
including one-way shear, two-way shear, flexural, and area of steel
were passed and the footing was deemed adequate. Column C2Xs base
plate was designed to support its W8X31 section. The LRFD load
combination yielded roughly a 243.7 kip load. Practical design
calculations governed a 16X16 base plate, while the thickness of
the plate was calculated at a required 1.72 rounded up to 1 inch
for construction simplicity. Overall, the 16X16X1.75 A36 steel
plate was deemed adequate within Base Plate Design 2 MS Excel
Spreadsheet. Again, in designing the pedestal, in order to reach
the frost line, the height of the pedestal was set at 36, while the
length and width both measure 20. The axial strength and shear
tests were passed, and ultimately, 8#8 bars were chosen with #3
ties. Utilizing a MS Excel spreadsheet, the footing itself was
designed as a 36 height, 6 by 6 square shape. All checks including
one-way shear, two-way shear, flexural, and area of steel were
passed and the footing was deemed adequate. Column C3Xs base plate
was also designed to support the W8X31 section. The LRFD load
combination yielded roughly a 99 kip load. Practical design
calculations governed a 16X16 base plate, while the thickness of
the plate was calculated at a required 0.74 rounded up to a inch
for construction simplicity. Overall, the 16X16X0.75 A36 steel
plate was deemed adequate. Again, in designing the pedestal, in
order to reach the frost line, the height of the pedestal was set
at 36, while the length and width both measure 20. The axial
strength and shear tests were passed, and ultimately, 4#9 bars were
chosen with #3 ties. Utilizing a MS Excel spreadsheet, the footing
itself was designed as a 36 in height, and 6.5 by 6.5 in a square
shape. All checks including one-way shear, two-way shear, flexural,
and area of steel were passed and the footing was deemed
adequate.
11. Additional Design Beyond Minimum Requirements
Despite limited resources within a three person group, AJC
Consulting successfully modeled all project plans within advanced
Autodesk Revit software. This software allowed for the team to
build and view building and structure components in three
dimensional view, allowing for easy communication not only within
the team during the design process, but also with the project owner
and those interested in viewing the final plans.
12. Final Engineering Plans, Sections, Elevations, and
DetailsAll supporting drawing documents including plan drawings,
sections, elevations, details, etc. can be located in the C and S
Sheets. All drawings were constructed in Autodesk Revit and they
are presented in the following order:Sheet C1: Civil Site PlanSheet
S1: Foundation PlanSheet S2: Foundation Details, Schedules, and
associated notesSheet S3: Roof Framing PlansSheet S4: Sway Frame
PlanSheet S5: Office Floor and Roof Framing and Project
SchedulesSheet S6: Building ElevationsSheet S7: Truss
ElevationsSheet S8: 3D Steel RenderingSheet S9: Wall Sections and
Crane Girder Framing Plan
All drawings included are supported through calculations and/or
this report. AJC Consulting believes it has created clear,
efficient project drawings.
13. Overall Summary and Conclusions
AJC Consulting believes the proposed design will satisfy and
exceed all owner requirements and serve an appropriate role to the
community of Flint, Michigan. The final project will consist of
45,000 sq. feet manufacturing space, 19,500 sq. feet of office
space and 18,000 sq. feet of material handling space. In addition,
the building will anticipate a future parking garage on the south
side of the building and will have area for future expansion on the
north side of building. The site has been positioned in such a
manner that will optimize the amount of space and accommodate the
facilitys function, including large truck traffic, while
maintaining a visually appeasing look. The site was also laid out
in such a way to anticipate the future parking garage plans,
allowing for a relatively easy walk to work from the employees
perspective. All calculations involved in the design process are
supported by accredited engineering institutes and sources. All
loading combinations taken into consideration were based off LRFD
and ASD equations. The building design is optimal for wind loading
through MWFRS Wind Loading Analysis (ASCE 7-10). Through the use of
vertical and horizontal bracing systems, all challenges associated
with wind loadings were accounted for. The office-flooring plan
utilized selective beams and columns that provided ample office
space while also maintaining a spacious hallway/common area. The
beams in the 2nd floor office were designed to reduce cost while
maintaining a high level of constructability. Additionally, all
roof framing was designed in accordance with all different types of
loadings while maintaining a safety and constructability friendly
attitude. Constructability was factored heavily into the teams
decisions in all beam and girder selections in order to ensure that
construction deadlines will be met on time. Column design was also
governed according to AISC code. Within the process of choosing
structurally supportive columns, the same principles applied to the
beam design process played a role in column selection. Finally, the
design of the columns allowed for the final structural design
plans, including all base plates. pedestals, and footings. This
part of the process was found most satisfactory among the AJC
Consulting members. Seeing the entire process come together for the
final design of foundations gave a sense of accomplishment to the
team. The process as a whole was a tremendous learning experience
for all members of the team. The opportunity to design the three
sections of building gave the team the opportunity to work first
hand on a project design process. Through use of applications
including AutoCAD, AutoDesk Revit, and SAP 2000, the team
effectively applied engineering practices to produce a substantial
final product. Challenges involved in being a three-person team
were overcome by im and a high level of communication within the
group. AJC Consulting prides itself on designing high quality,
efficient and constructible buildings.While the firm is confident
that the structural integrity of the building is beyond safe, it
also feels it has created a relatively simple construction process.
The firm believes that all drawing specifications have been
effectively communicated within the report and drawing sections,
and that the final product will meet and exceed owner expectations.
Overall, the general consensus of the team is that the process ran
smoothly, and AJC Consulting would be interested in working with
the owner again on future projects.
References1. ASCE 7-05: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA,
2005.2. ACI 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete, American Concrete Institute, latest edition.