Juliette Peyroux
Katie McIntyre
Travis Corigliano
Trent Tinney
Sam Probert
Table of Contents
Project Overview.................................................................................................................. 7
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
Structural Systems.......................................................................................................... 12
2.0
2.1
2.2
3.0
Loads .................................................................................................................................. 17
3.1
3.2
3.3
Snow Loads..................................................................................................................... 19
3.4
3.5
4.0
Materials ............................................................................................................................ 27
5.0
5.8
6.0
7.0
8.0
8.1
8.2
8.3
9.0
8.3.1
8.3.2
8.3.3
8.3.4
List of Tables
Table 1: Soil Properties ................................................................................................................. 16
Table 2: Initial Foundation Criteria ............................................................................................... 17
Table 3: Dead Loads ...................................................................................................................... 18
Table 4: Live Loads ........................................................................................................................ 18
Table 5: Exposure Factor, Ce (ASCE705) ...................................................................................... 19
Table 6: Thermal Factor, Ct (ASCE705) ........................................................................................ 20
Table 7: Importance Factor, I (ASCE705) ..................................................................................... 20
Table 8: Internal Pressure Coefficient for Enclosed Buildings (ASCE705) ................................... 21
Table 9: Wall Pressure Coefficients (ASCE705) ........................................................................... 22
Table 10: Importance Factors for Wind Loads (ASCE705) ........................................................... 22
Table 11: Site Coefficient, Fa (ASCE705)...................................................................................... 24
Table 12: Site Coefficient, Fv (ASCE705)...................................................................................... 24
Table 13  Foundation Demands. .................................................................................................. 27
Table 14  5x4 Allowable Axial Load ............................................................................................. 32
Table 15  3x3 Allowable Axial Load ............................................................................................. 32
Table 16  2x2 Allowable Axial Load ............................................................................................. 32
Table 17  Axial Load: Demand vs. Capacity ................................................................................. 32
Table 18  5x4 Allowable Uplift Load ............................................................................................ 33
Table 19  3x3 Allowable Uplift Load. ........................................................................................... 33
Table 20  2x2 Allowable Uplift load. ............................................................................................ 33
Table 21  Uplift Load: Demand vs. Capacity. ............................................................................... 33
Table 22 Pile Distances from the Centroid and Moments of Inertia ......................................... 34
Table 23  Pile Loads ..................................................................................................................... 35
Table 24  Longitudinal and Lateral Reinforcement. .................................................................... 37
Table 25  Temperature and Shrinkage Reinforcement. .............................................................. 38
Table 26: Superimposed Live Loads (psf) for Metal Decking Designs (Wheeling Corrugating) ... 45
Table 27: Allowable Uniform Total Loads for Roof Decking Design (Wheeling Corrugating) ...... 46
Table 28: Final Member Sizes and Their Deflection Checks ......................................................... 49
Table 29: Summary of Floor and Roof connections for BeamGirder, BeamColumn, and GirderColumn .......................................................................................................................................... 64
List of Figures
Figure 1: Site and Building Dimensions........................................................................................... 7
Figure 2: Architectural Elevation with Building Use ....................................................................... 8
Figure 3: Proposed Changes to the Ground Floor Garage Entrance ............................................. 9
Figure 4: Proposed Increase in Lease Space on the First Floor .................................................... 10
Figure 5: Proposed Loading Dock Adjustments ............................................................................ 11
Figure 6: The Architectural Layout of the Fourth Floor (provided) .............................................. 12
Figure 7: Structural Layout of the 4th Floor (initial layout) .......................................................... 13
Figure 8: EBF Frame Example........................................................................................................ 13
Figure 9: Structural Layout of the Fourth Floor with the EBF Frame ........................................... 14
Figure 10: Longitudinal Soil Profile ............................................................................................... 15
Figure 11: Lateral Soil Profile ........................................................................................................ 15
Figure 12: Ground Snow Load (ASCE705) .................................................................................... 19
Figure 13: Wind Speed for Washington State (ASCE705) ........................................................... 21
Figure 14: Wind Loading on the Short Span of the Building......................................................... 23
Figure 15: Wind Loading on the Long Span of the Building.......................................................... 23
Figure 16: Seismic Loading ............................................................................................................ 26
Figure 17: Three Dimensional SAP2000 Office Building Model with Seismic Loading ................. 26
Figure 18  Shear Load vs. Lateral Deflection for Restrained Head Condition in Sand ................ 29
Figure 19  Moment Load vs. Lateral Deflection for Restrained Head Condition in Sand............ 30
Figure 20  Critical Sections for Shear Checks ............................................................................... 34
Figure 21: Typical pile to pile cap connection .............................................................................. 38
Figure 22  5x4 Pile Layout, Reinforcement, and PileCap Connections for EBF .......................... 39
Figure 23  3x3 Pile Layout, Reinforcement and PileCap Connections........................................ 40
Figure 24  2x2 Pile Layout, Reinforcement and PileCap Connections........................................ 41
Figure 25: Section Drawing of Grade Beam with Reinforcement................................................. 43
Figure 26: Final Pile Layout ........................................................................................................... 44
Figure 27: Typical Metal Decking Proposed for Building (Wheeling Corrugating) ....................... 45
Figure 28: Roof Decking Design Proposed for Building (Wheeling Corrugating) ......................... 46
Figure 29: First Floor Layout ......................................................................................................... 50
Figure 30: Column Schedule for Gridline A................................................................................... 52
Figure 31: Interior Column Splice on Floor 3 ................................................................................ 53
Figure 32: Interior Column Splice on Floor 5 ................................................................................ 54
Figure 33: Sample Base Plate Design Dimensions ........................................................................ 56
Figure 34: Sample Base Plate Design Dimensions ........................................................................ 56
Figure 35: Interior Base Plate Design with Anchor Bolts .............................................................. 58
Figure 36: Typical Shear Tab Arrangement (photo from Australian Steel Institute) .................... 58
Figure 37: EBF Anchor Bolts and Base Plate Design ..................................................................... 60
Figure 38: Potential Anchor Bolt Failure Paths. Concrete Breakout (left) and Uplift (right)........ 61
Figure 39: EBF Anchor Bolt Design with Shear Key....................................................................... 61
Figure 40: Example Structural Drawing for Connection Detail ..................................................... 64
Figure 41: Unfactored Shear from the Earthquake Load (kip) ..................................................... 66
5
Figure 42: Axial Force for Load Case (1.2+0.2SDS)D + 0.5L + 0.2S + E (kips) .............................. 67
Figure 43: Moment for Load Case (1.2+0.2SDS)D + 0.5L + 0.2S + E (ink) .................................. 68
Figure 44: Eccentrically Braced Frame with Final Member Sizing ................................................ 73
Figure 45: Brace to Beam Connection on the First Floor.............................................................. 75
Figure 46: Brace to Beam Connection on the Roof ...................................................................... 75
Figure 47: Brace and Beam Connection to Column on the First Story ......................................... 81
Figure 48: Brace and Beam Connection to Column on the Roof .................................................. 82
Figure 49: Tributary Area of the Second Floor Acting on the Transfer Truss ............................... 83
Figure 50: Transfer Truss Initial Concept Design .......................................................................... 84
Figure 51: Whitmore Width .......................................................................................................... 86
Figure 52: Detailed Inner Truss Connection ................................................................................. 86
Figure 53: Final Truss Design with Member Sizes and Spacings................................................... 87
Figure 54: Seated Angle Design for Transfer Truss Construction ................................................. 89
Figure 55: End Plate Connection Details....................................................................................... 90
For this project, Emerald City Consulting Engineers (ECCE) was asked to redesign a building
previously designed by KPFF Consulting Engineers. The building is to be located at a latitude
and longitude of 47.65276 and 122.304421, with building dimensions within available site
dimensions, as seen in Figure 1. About half of the buildings ground floor will be used as a
parking garage to serve the offices that fill floors one through five. The rest of the ground floor
will be used as a bank branch and coffee shop. Note that for this report, the bottom level of the
building will be referred to as the ground floor, while the floor directly above this one will be
called the first floor and so on. Early on in the project, it was believed that the bottom floor
would be partly underground, making the first elevated floor at grade. However, after looking
through the building design and the site conditions surrounding the building, it was decided that
the soil would be excavated so that what had previously been a basement was now a ground floor
at grade. Since this change came during the design process, the floor names were not changed.
An elevated view of the architectural drawings with the floor names and regional building uses
can be seen in Figure 2.
5th Floor
4th Floor
3rd Floor
2nd Floor
1st Floor
Ground Floor
1.2
Design Changes
For the design, ECCE was assigned Site Profile P, which is a much flatter plot of land than what
the building was originally designed for. Since the site profile, did not line directly up with the
architectural drawings, our firm was decided to make some alterations to the original
architectural drawings. In the original design, the building had the parking garage structure
almost completely below grade. With the new site profile, ECCE proposes to place the parking
level directly on the ground floor, which would eliminate the parking ramp originally needed for
cars to travel from the at grade road to the below grade parking. If the parking garage is left at
grade, an entrance straight off of the street will result in a simpler design. Our proposed garage
entrance is still in the original location, it will just be moved down one story. This design change
can be seen in Figure 3.
Proposed Garage
Entrance/Exit on
Ground Floor
This change will also increase the lease space on the first floor, where the ramp was to be
located. The extra space from our proposed changes will make this area available for use as
office or retail space and can be seen in Figure 4.
Add Wall
Proposed Lease
Space
10
The last design change proposed by our firm is to place the loading dock on the ground story.
Originally the loading dock was located between the first and third floors because of the sloping
site, but with an excavated ground profile, the loading dock would fit well between the ground
and second floors. This change would make the loading dock much more accessible for the large
trucks which will be loading and unloading goods in this location because it would eliminate the
need for a ramp to the first story. A view of the architectural drawings showing the original
location of the loading dock and our proposed changes can be seen in Figure 5.
11
1.3
Structural Systems
A structural steel system was chosen as the buildings main gravity frame. This system was
chosen because our firm specializes in steel structures. Using the architectural floor layouts, the
column locations were finalized and the beam and girder systems were sketched into place. An
example of the fourth floor architectural drawing can be seen in Figure 6. For the layouts, our
engineers decided to have the girders span along the short direction of the building leaving the
beams to run along the long direction of the building, which would make the beams span 32 ft, as
is typical in steel. The beam and girder layout can be seen in Figure 7. With the structural layouts
established, the architectural drawings were examined to find the best location for the lateral load
resisting system.
12
EBFs resist lateral loading, like earthquake and wind, by a combined action from the beam and
frame, with ductility coming from the inelastic action found in the links. The links are purposely
made to be the weakest element of the frame so they will fail before any other element or
connection in the lateral resistance frame.
Our firm decided that the EBFs would be placed near the stairwells and at the center of the
building in order to minimize the restrictions to the lease space views and uses. Having a
centralized lateral bracing system will also reduce the torsional effects from eccentric lateral
loads. Each selected EBF frame was carefully checked for conflicts with hallways and doorways
so that neither of these would be constrained by the EBF locations. A view of the fourth floor
structural plan with the EBF frames acknowledged by a large X can be seen in Figure 9.
Figure 9: Structural Layout of the Fourth Floor with the EBF Frame
14
15
2.1
Our firm was given information from the borings about the soil types according to USCS and
some of the moisture contents of the soil. SPT tests were conducted and we received the blow
count values from the testing lab. Using this information, typical unit weights for the soil were
estimated to calculate total vertical stress. The friction angle was found using a correlation found
in the Foundation Engineering Handbook and soil properties are summarized in Table 1:
Depth
(ft)
B3
B1
B8
B3
B8
B3
B8
B3
B1
B8
B1
B3
B8
B3
B8
B8
3
3.5
4
8
9
13
14
18
18
19
23
23.5
24
28.5
29
34
16
= 18 70 + 15
70
70%
USCS
Moisture
9
ML
very moist
14
ML
12.2 %
11
ML
moist
38 SM/ML
moist
25
SM
moist
43
ML
moist
68
SM
moist
22
ML
moist
28 SM/ML
25.4 %
>50
SM
moist
53
ML
26.1 %
45
ML
moist
83
SM
moist
56
ML
moist
50
ML
moist
75
ML
moist
Hardness
medium stiff
medium stiff
mediumdense
dense
mediumdense
hard
very dense
hard
medium dense
very dense
hard
hard
hard
hard
hard
hard
Typical Unit
Weight
(lbs/ft3)
100
100
115
110
120
120
120
120
110
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
z'
(lb/ft2)
'
300
350
407.5
847.5
967.5
1322.7
1442.7
1922.7
1922.7
2067.7
2647.7
2720.2
2792.7
3445.2
3517.7
4242.7
37
42
38
50
43
49
57
37
40
48
47
44
54
45
44
48
2.2
Foundation Recommendations
Uniformly across the site, within at least 25 feet of the surface there is hard, densely packed soil.
This strength will be used to support the building. Design is to use augercast piles because they
do not need to be driven. This is a cheaper and quieter solution to driven piles; it also prevents
potential damage to piles during driving and greatly reduces any issues faced with seepage.
Toe bearing values were calculated using the following correlation specific to AugerCast Piles.
= 3800 60 2
60 60% ()
Side friction was calculated using the following equations:
= 0
= 1 = 1
0
18inch diameter piles will be used. 3diameter spacing will be used for a total of 4 6 on center.
Due to potential error in extrapolation and correlations in our geotechnical calculations, a factor
of safety of 3.5 has been chosen in order to minimize risk of failure.
Table 2: Initial Foundation Criteria
Diameter (in) Pile Spacing (in)
Factor of Safety
18
54
3.5
Allowable load is now calculated for specific depths in a table. Depths and pile groups will be
determined from column loads.
3.0 Loads
For loads, four different kinds will be considered for the office building: gravity, snow,
earthquake, and wind. General conditions for all loadings will be Construction Type IIB with
occupancy groups B, M, and S2. Using ASCE705, dead loads other than the structural system
can be seen in Table 4 and were determined using the structural drawings.
17
3.1
Dead Loads
Dead loads were determined from ASCE705 Table C31 Minimum Design Dead Loads. The
description of the loads can be seen in Table 3.
Table 3: Dead Loads
Load Type
Roof
Amount
20 psf
Floor
25 psf
Wall
Wall
40 plf
10 plf
Included
Tiling/Slab, Acoustical Fiber Board, Mechanical
Duct, Suspended Metal Lath and Cement Plaster
Acoustical Fiber Board, Mechanical Duct,
Suspended Metal Lath and Cement Plaster, Tiling
Brick Veneer
Glass Windows
The estimated weight of the structure was determined from adding up the weight of the assumed
columns, girders, beams, and braces to establish the weight of steel. The weight of concrete was
then established by adding up the concrete weight of flooring, ceiling, and roofing for each floor
and multiplying it by six for the six story building. The area of the glass and brick veneer for the
outside walls was calculated and multiplied by the appropriate area weight to determine the
weight of the walls. The weight of steel, concrete, and wall systems were added and a building
weight of 15,125 kips was finalized. Once our system was modeled using a three dimensional
SAP2000 model with unfactored dead loads, this estimated weight was relatively accurate.
3.2
Live Loads
Similarly, live loads were determined from the ASCE705 manual for typical buildings and can
be seen in Table 4.
Table 4: Live Loads
Load Type
Garage
Retail
Office
Roof
Stairs
Corridors
Amount
40 psf
125 psf
50 psf
20 psf
100 psf
100 psf
Since corridor locations are yet unknown, live loads were assumed as 100 psf in areas where
they would have otherwise been lower, for example in the lease space and office areas.
18
3.3
Snow Loads
Snow loads were determined similarly using a ground map of the area, see Figure 12, and table
values for the calculations. Calculations were done in compliance with Chapter 7 of ASCE705.
19
Our final snow load (pf) was found to be 16.8 psf using an I of 1.0, a Ce of 1.0, a Ct of 1.2 and
the equation from ASCE705 below:
pf = .7CeCtIpg ,
where pg is the ground snow load and taken to be 20 lb/ft2.
20
3.4
Wind Loads
Wind loading calculations were based on a regular shaped enclosed building with a flat roof, as
seen in the architectural drawings. The basic wind speed for the area was determined from
Chapter 6 in the ASCE705 manual, which can be seen as 85 mph in Figure 13 below. This
speed was used to determine the velocity pressure exposure coefficient used to calculate the wind
force for each side of the building.
21
Additionally, table values were used to determine the velocity pressure exposure coefficients, Kh
and Kz, and the wind directionality factor, Kd.
22
The wind loading on the short and long span of the building are shown below in Figures 14 and
15.
23
3.5
Seismic Loads
For earthquake loading, values were determined for the building location using Chapter 11 in
ASCE705. Since the soil is made up of stiff clay and silt, the soil was determined to be Site
Class D. Using a Seattle location, Ss (the mapped MCE spectral response acceleration) and S1
(the mapped MCE spectral response acceleration at a period of 1 second) were determined to be
1.15g and 0.45g, respectively, for all seismic calculations. Using the Table 11 and Table 12, the
Site Coefficients, Fa and Fv were found to be 1.04 and 1.55, respectively. The long period of the
build will be 6 seconds for the area of Washington it is located within. Seismic design will be
done using the ASCE Seismic Design Manual.
Table 11: Site Coefficient, Fa (ASCE705)
24
After Ss, S1, Fa, and Fv were determined, the MCE spectral response accelerations were adjusted
for Site Class effects. Short period, SMS, and 1 second period, SM1, accelerations were calculated
using the equations below. The design earthquake spectral response acceleration parameters at a
short period (SDS) and at one second (SD1) were also found using the following equations.
=
1 = 1
2
= 3
2
1 = 3 1
Next, the approximate fundamental period (Ta) was calculated using the following equation with
1
a total height (ht) of 763 feet.
Where Ct and x are period parameters and were found to be 0.03 and 0.75, respectively, for
eccentrically braced steel frames using ASCE 705 Table 12.82.
The seismic response coefficient, Cs, was determined using ASCE 705s procedure in section
12.8.1.1 using the following equations:
Equation 12.83 ended up limiting so the final seismic response coefficient was determined to be
0.08 with an R of 7.5 for EBFs. This resulted in a seismic base shear, using Equation 12.81 in
ASCE705 of V=CsW (W being the effective seismic weight), of 1320 kips. A similar procedure
was used to determine the seismic shear forces for each floor (the coefficients varied slightly per
floor depending on the height of the floor above the ground).
25
Figure 17: Three Dimensional SAP2000 Office Building Model with Seismic Loading
26
4.0 Materials
The two main materials for the building will be steel and concrete. The main building frame, as
well as the EBF we will be using to oppose lateral forces from wind and earthquakes, will be
made from steel sections. Columns will be sized from W14s and W12s and girders will be
designed mainly from W18s and W24s, while beams will range from W16s to W18s. The
elastic modulus of steel will be taken as 29,000,000 psi. All main sections will be composed of
Grade 50 steel, while plates will either be Grade 50 if they are within an EBF or base plate
connection, and A36 otherwise. The floor system will consist of composite decks made with
5000 psi lightweight concrete poured on 20 gauge steel ribs. For the foundation pile caps and
auger cast piles, an fc of 3000 psi was chosen. The following list describes the materials used:
The thirteenth edition of the AISC Steel Construction Manual and ACI 31808 Building Code
Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary were used in all steel and concrete
design.
Axial (k)
1450
1250
500
Uplift (k)
900
200
100
Shear (k)
420

EBF pile groups must be designed for lateral, axial and uplift capacity. NonEBF interior and
exterior groups are designed for only axial capacity and uplift.
27
3
=
(50 )
2
= 2 45 +
2
For concrete foundation:
= 57,000
2
Where:
Vc = characteristic shear load
Mc = characteristic moment load
= a dimensionless parameter dependent on the soils stressstrain behavior
B = diameter of foundation
E = modulus of elasticity of foundation
fc= 28day compressive strength of concrete
RI = moment of inertia ration (dimensionless)
p = representative passive pressure of soil
50 = axial strain at which 50 percent of the soil strength is mobilized
m,n = exponents from table
= effective friction angle of soil (deg) from ground surface to a depth of 8 B
Cp = passive pressure faction = /10
= unit weight of the soil from ground surface to depth of 8 B
The leading row of piles carries more than a proportionate share of the load, so a method of
distribution is to assign two shares of the shear load to each pile in the leading row and one share
to all the other piles. The lateral load design for all the piles was based on the load acting on
those in the leading row.
28
Total number of shares is 25 because 2*(5) + 5x3*(1) and leading pile gets 2 shares so shear in
one of the leading piles is:
=
2
25
Using Vc and Mc, ratios and are calculated. Using Figures 18 and 19 and multiplying by B
Figure 18  Shear Load vs. Lateral Deflection for Restrained Head Condition in Sand
29
Figure 19  Moment Load vs. Lateral Deflection for Restrained Head Condition in Sand
With a 5x4 pile group:
= 0.012
= 0.01
B = 18in
yt = 0.75in
Okay
A depth of 35 ft was chosen to increase skin friction and thus reduce uplift, as well as resist
lateral forces.
30
Where:
fS x AS
F. S.
2
=
4
=
. . = = 3.5
This allowable load is for one pile, to find the capacity of the pile group:
Where:
=
=
= = 1
And:
( 1) + ( 1)
90
=
=
= tan1
= = 18
= = 3 = 54
31
AS
(ft2)
2.4
23.6
4.7
23.6
qt' (lbs/ft2)
fs (lbs/ft2)
227,430.0
341,145.0
341,145.0
341,145.0
1,096.2
1,074.5
1,074.5
1,074.5
qt' x AT
(lbs)
401,902
602,853
602,853
602,853
fs x AS
(lbs)
76,391
101,708
106,771
132,089
Pag
(kips)
2,249
3,313
3,337
3,456
qa (kips)
137
201
203
210
Pag (kips)
401,902
fs x AS
(lbs)
76,391
137
1,012
29
AS
(ft2)
2.4
34
23.6
341,145.0
1,074.5
602,853
101,708
201
1,491
35
4.7
341,145.0
1,074.5
602,853
106,771
203
1,501
40
23.6
341,145.0
1,074.5
602,853
132,089
210
1,555
Depth (ft)
qt' (lbs/ft2)
fs (lbs/ft2)
qt' x AT (lbs)
227,430.0
1,096.2
AS
(ft2)
2.4
23.6
4.7
23.6
qt' (lbs/ft2)
fs (lbs/ft2)
227,430.0
341,145.0
341,145.0
341,145.0
1,096.2
1,074.5
1,074.5
1,074.5
qt' x AT
(lbs)
401,902
602,853
602,853
602,853
fs x AS
(lbs)
76,391
101,708
106,771
132,089
qa (kips)
Pag (kips)
137
201
203
210
Axial Demand
(k)
1450 <
1250 <
500 <
Axial Capacity
(k)
3300
1500
660
Okay
Okay
Okay
32
450
663
667
691
() =
+ fS x AS
F. S.
= (150 )
Depth (ft)
29
34
35
40
fs (lbs/ft2)
1,096.2
1,074.5
1,074.5
1,074.5
fs x A S
(lbs)
76,391
101,708
106,771
132,089
Volume
(ft3)
459.5
577.3
582.0
699.8
Volume
(ft3)
459.5
577.3
582.0
699.8
Wf (k)
68.9
86.6
87.3
105.0
Pa (upward)
(k)
41.5
53.8
55.4
67.7
Pag (upward)
(k)
683
885
912
1,115
AS (ft2)
fs (lbs/ft2)
fs x AS (lbs)
2.4
23.6
4.7
23.6
1096.2
1074.5
1074.5
1074.5
76,390.7
101,708.0
106,771.4
132,088.7
Wf (k)
68.9
86.6
87.3
105.0
AS
(ft2)
2.4
23.6
4.7
23.6
fs (lbs/ft2)
1,096.2
1,074.5
1,074.5
1,074.5
fs x AS
(lbs)
76,390.7
101,708.0
106,771.4
132,088.7
Volume
(ft3)
459.5
577.3
582.0
699.8
Wf (k)
68.9
86.6
87.3
105.0
Pa (upward)
(k)
41.5
53.8
55.4
67.7
Pag (upward)
(k)
136.6
177.1
182.5
222.9
33
<
<
<
Okay
Okay
Okay
34
dx10
Ix
27
dx20
72,900
81
dy10
Iy
108
dy20
116,640
108
Where:
+
+
=
=
Assuming a pile cap of 3'6" depth, the top of pile is at 6" above bottom of pile cap and the
reinforcement is at 2" above top of pile, the effective depth is d = 34 in. Since the effective depth
d is less than 4 ft, direct shear was checked in the longitudinal direction:
Table 23  Pile Loads
Pu1
204.1
Pu11
204.1
Pu2
205.4
Pu12
205.4
Pu3
206.8
Pu13
206.8
Pu4
208.2
Pu14
208.2
Pu5
209.6
Pu15
209.6
Pu6
204.1
Pu16
204.1
Pu7
205.4
Pu17
205.4
Pu8
206.8
Pu18
206.8
Pu9
208.2
Pu19
208.2
= (4 + 9 + 14 + 19 ) (54 7) +
(5 + 10 + 15 + 20 ) 15 7 = 74,500
2
35
Okay
Pu10
209.6
Pu20
209.6
54
7 +
2
54
(6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 ) 7 = 97,000
2
= = 54 7 = 47
= 0.85 3.5 2.5
1.9 + 0.1
= 2,200 > 2070 !
Reinforcement ratio:
= 0.072
0.92
= 23.5
0.85
1
2
= 0.00122
= 1 1
4
= = 0.0016 < 0.002 0.002
3
Area of Reinforcement:
= = 14.28 2
36
= 41,000
= 0.189
0.92
= 23.5
0.85
Reinforcement ratio:
1
2
= 1 1
= 0.00328
4
= = 0.0044 > 0.002 0.0044
3
Area of Reinforcement:
40  #8 = 31.4 in2
= = 31.2 2
Same methods were used for 3x3 pile and 2x2 pile.
Table 24  Longitudinal and Lateral Reinforcement.
Column Types
EBF
Long Reinforcement
40#8
Short Reinforcement
19#8
Interior
Exterior
14#8
16#6
14#8
16#6
= (21 )
37
Area (in2)
5544
4410
3276
2142
As (in2)
22.6
18.0
13.3
8.7
Design
23 #6
18 #6
14 #6
9 #6
Where Fy = 60 Ksi
This equation gave a splice length needed of only 3. This value was so low that constructability
governed the lap splice length as the dowels needed to be securely fastened to the number 11
bars in the piles in order to stick up into the foundation. Because of this the dowels are to be tied
24 inches into the auger cast pile cages. The dowels do not directly need to transfer any of the
sheer forces from the pile cap to the piles because the piles and their spiral reinforcement are
extruded 6 inches into the bottom of the pile cap. This extrusion can be seen in Figure 21 along
with a typical dowel bar layout.
Figure 22  5x4 Pile Layout, Reinforcement, and PileCap Connections for EBF
39
40
41
5.7
Grading Beam
According to the Uniform Building Code (UBC) section 1807.2, foundations under seismic loads
need to be connected with grading beams to increase the lateral stiffness of the system. The
grading beam is required to have an axial capacity of 10% of the axial load in the column. The
formulas for the axial and flexural capacity of our beam are shown below.
Compressive Capacity:
= .80[ + .85 ]
Flexural Capacity:
= = ( 2)
o =
o =
.85
Note: The ultimate moment, Mu, was calculated using a factored distributed load of the self
weight of the beam and a distributed load from the soil.
Since pile caps under the lateral bracing system were only ten feet apart, the grading beams were
not expected to have flexural problems. Additionally, with little moment at the ends, our firm
was able to design the beam as a short column to get an axial capacity design. With 10% of the
column axial load being only 125 kips, the required beam section was very slender. Slenderness
checks failed for our initial 8x8 section, so our firm decided to increase the size to a 12x12.
Finally, for constructability, the sections depth was increased to 36 so that the beam could be
poured monolithically with the pile caps since the depth would be the same and slenderness
limits were checked again for the new size. Though this is an overly conservative height, it
greatly increases the constructability of the foundation. Also, since the load on the grade beam
was minimal, minimum reinforcement governed the reinforcing design. The minimum
reinforcement ratio for lightly loaded spread footings (grade beams) is 0.0018. The final
reinforcement of the beam includes 4 #6 bars and #4 stirrups at 18 on center (see Figure 25).
Please refer to drawing S.3 in the drawing set for the figure. A concrete cover of 3 was used for
concrete cast against and permanently exposed to earch according to ACI 7.7.1.
Slenderness Limits according to ACI 10.10.1:
42
22
= 0.05
= 42.0"
3
= =
12
43
5.8
44
Figure 27: Typical Metal Decking Proposed for Building (Wheeling Corrugating)
Table 26 shows the span rating and the available superimposed live load capacity for this design
Table 26: Superimposed Live Loads (psf) for Metal Decking Designs (Wheeling Corrugating)
45
The roof decking was designed with no concrete slab. Instead the roof decking will be covered
with sheathing or some other roofing material. This is possible because the total uniform load on
the roof is only 70 psf where each floor has a live load of 100 psf. The propped roof deckcan be
seen in Figure 28. This deck will be composed of 18 gauge metal with a yield strength of 33ksi.
Table 27 shows that for a maximum span length of 11 feet, the allowable uniform total load is 72
psf which is larger than our demand load of 20 psf.
Figure 28: Roof Decking Design Proposed for Building (Wheeling Corrugating)
Table 27: Allowable Uniform Total Loads for Roof Decking Design (Wheeling Corrugating)
46
In this equation, w is the factored load from 1.2 Dead + 1.6 Live, which was our governing load
case, and L is the length of the beam. For girders, a collapse mechanism approach was used to
determine the maximum moment demand. This approach assumes plastic hinges are created in
the members before failure and equates internal work within the member to external work from
the loads to check the sections capacities.
After the initial member sizing, composite sections capacities had to be checked against the full
loads expected to act on the building. The first step in checking the composite strength of the
steel beams with the concrete deck was finding the limiting effective width. In all cases the
limiting factor was the center to center spacing of the beams. The center to center spaces checked
were 8 ft and 11 ft, the two bounds of beam spacing within the building design. With the
effective widths of concrete established, the composite sections were checked for the following:
1. concrete crushing above the section
2. steel yielding of the wide flange section
3. shear failure of the shear studs
The design moment was established as 333 Kft for all beams except for the 5th floor beams that
had 2 HSS column sections acting in the span of the beam. For these sections the design demand
was 370 Kft. Demand loads were checked against composite flexural capacity using Table 319
in the AISC manual. In this table Y2, the distance from the top of the steel to the neutral axis of
the concrete, was determined by the following equations:
Qn is the Minimum of
Fs As
n Qn
0.85 fc Ac,
Where Fs is the strength of the steel, As is the area of steel, n is the number of shear stud
connectors, Qn is the shear capacity of the studs, fc is the strength of the concrete and Ac is the
area of the concrete.
a = Qn / ( 0.85 fc b)
Where b is the effective width of the concrete.
Y2 = Ycon a/2
Where Ycon is the height of the concrete.
After checking the initial sections against these demands it became apparent that the initial beam
size of W14x26 was not sufficient. Even with full composite action, which was achieved with
one 1 diameter shear stud every 12, this beam size could only sustain 314 kft, less than the
333 kft demand. Although 3/4 shear studs are typically used, to reach full composite action two
studs would have been needed every 12. The 1 shear studs chosen decreased the total
number of studs by 50% reducing labor and costs. With the 1 shear studs, the steel yielding
47
became the governing property so a deeper section was needed. A W 16X26 was chosen. This
section with the 1 diameter shear studs every 12 had a capacity of 340 Kft, which was
sufficient for the main beams; however, the 5th floor HSS affected beams needed even more
capacity than this. With this new beam size the shear stud capacity became the limiting factor, so
two 1 diameter studs every 12 were added before the capacity was sufficient (396Kft > 370
Kft). For girders parallel to the decking, it was assumed that they would also have 1 diameter
studs at 12 on center to prevent buckling of the members. All of the initial girder sizes satisfied
the composite strength checks.
Once the composite sections were checked for strength, the last step in the beam and girder
design was checking deflections. Initial deflections, caused by the dead weight of the concrete
before it has gained strength, were checked first. Deflections were determined using the
following equation:
= 5 w L4 / (384 E I)
In this equation, w is the factored distributed load, L is the length of the beam or girder, E is the
modulus of elasticity, and I is the moment of inertia of the section. For just the dead load, the
maximum allowable deflection is L/240.
Next, deflections were checked for the composite members under dead and live load was within
the allowable deflection of L/360. For the composite sections it was necessary to calculate the
effective moment of inertia, Ilb, for the steel and concrete acting together as part of the section.
Tabulated values for Ilb were found in Table 320 of the AISC Manual using the Y2 calculated
above. Once Ilb was determined, it could be used in the above deflection equation with the
distributed dead and live load.
48
For both deflection checks, the W16x26 beams did not satisfy the deflection requirements. Table
28 summarizes the final beam designs and their deflections. The beam section chosen after the
deflection checks was a W18x30. This section satisfied all strength and deflection requirements
of the beam and was finalized. The girders also did not satisfy the deflection requirements. The
deflections and sizes chosen for the girders can also be seen in Table 28.
Table 28: Final Member Sizes and Their Deflection Checks
After allowable deflections were compared to the calculated deflections and the sizes were
updated, it was clear that deflections governed all of the member sizes. This made sense because
the spans for the members were long. To control the dead load deflection it was decided to
camber every section by 3/4. With this camber, sections will remain under the allowable
deflection limits after creep and shrinkage of the concrete deck cause additional deflections
assuming that there would not be more than 1/2 of additional deflection for the 4.5 total deck
depth. An example floor plan is shown in Figure 29.
Note: Outer girders were designed with tighter tolerances because of the masonry cladding.
Instead of the allowable L/360 deflection, masonry is allowed L/600 deflection. This decrease in
deflection caused the outer girders member sizes to be very similar to the inner girders, so the
same size was used to ease constructability.
49
where K is the effective length factor, L is the laterally unbraced length of the member (in), r is
the governing radius of gyration (in), E is the module of elasticity, Fy is the yield strength of the
steel, Fcr is the flexural buckling strength, and Fe is that the elastic critical buckling stress defined
by the equation below.
=
2
)
Live Load Reduction was taken from ASCE 705 chapter 4 where = (0.25 +
15
) and
= 0.4 , where L is the reduced design live load per ft2, L0 is the unreduced design live
load per ft2, KLL is the live load element factor, and AT is the tributary area in ft2.
Columns were design so that corner and exterior columns are W12s, interior columns are W14s,
and the small columns on the top floor are HSS5.5s. An example column schedule for gridline
A is shown in Figure 30, and the rest can be found in the structural drawings on pages S.10 to
S.13.
51
52
8.1
Column Splices were designed using Table 143 Typical Column Splices from the 13th edition of
the AISC Steel Manual. Splices were designed to be a combination of bolted and welded column
splices between columns with depths du and dl nominally the same (Case VI). When checking
the design, the weld electrode strength was assumed to be 70 ksi and plates were specified to be
ASTM A36 steel. Threequarter inch ASTM A325N bolts were found to have ample capacity.
The phi factor was taken to be 0.75. Depending on the difference of du and dl, column splice case
VIA, VIB, or VIC was used. The available bearing strength of the contact area of the splice
was determined from equation J71, shown below:
= 1.8 (AISC Eqn J71)
Where Fy is the specified minimum yield strength in ksi and Apb is the projected bearing area in
square inches. An example of the final dimensions and weld sizes of the interior splices can be
seen in Figures 31 and 32 and are on sheets S.15 and S.16.
53
8.2
Base plates were designed based on the procedure described in Chapter 14 of the 13th edition of
the AISC Steel Manual. The steel used for the design was A36 steel and the concrete has an fc
of 3 ksi. A base plate was designed for the exterior columns using the required strength used to
design the exterior column sizes and another base plate was designed for the interior columns
using the required strength used to design the interior column sizes. The area of the base plate
(A1) in square inches was calculated using the maximum of the following three equations:
A1 =
1
Pu
[
]
A2 . 6(. 8f c )
A1 = [
Pu
]
. 6(1.70f c )
A1 = d bf
where = .5(.95d.80bf).
A1
> bf
N
The load contributory to the area enclosed by the column (P0) was found using the equation
below which was used to calculate the area of the Hshaped region, AH.
P0 =
0
Pu
bd
BxN f
. 6(.852 /
0
. 6(1.7
The dimension c (shown in Figure 34) was found using the following equation, where tf is the
flange thickness of the column.
=
1
4
[ + ( + )2 4( ]
The thickness of the base plate, tp, was calculated as the largest of the following 3 equations
where Fy is the specified minimum yield strength of steel in ksi.
=
=
2
. 9
2
. 9
20
=
. 9
The calculated variables and dimensions can be seen in a general column base plate design in
Figure 33 and Figure 34.
55
tf/2
Figure 34: Sample Base Plate Design Dimensions
56
The exterior base plates (using a Pu of 496 kips and a W12x72 section) were found to have
dimensions N of 18, B of 13, m of 3.16, n of 1.7, AH of 62 in2, c of 1.3, and a plate
thickness of 1.5. Interior base plates (using a Pu of 1242 in2 and a 14x145 section) were found to
have dimensions N of 22, B of 16, m of 4, n of 1.3, AH of 200 in2, c of 4.6, and a plate
thickness of 2.5. Base plates underneath EBF columns (using a Pu of 1426 kips) were calculated
to have dimensions N of 25, B of 22, m of 5.14, n of 4.72, AH of 155 in2, c of 2.72, and a
plate thickness of 2.5. Two inches on each end was added to the original calculated N value
dimension to allow ample room for the required anchor bolts. An example base plate design is
shown can be found on sheet S.4 of the drawing set.
8.3
57
Figure 36: Typical Shear Tab Arrangement (photo from Australian Steel Institute)
58
To design the shear key, the Australian Institute of Steels Design of Pinned Column Base
Plates was consulted. This document laid out a way to calculate the capacities of the shear key
for several different failure possibilities. The failure modes checked were the following:
1. Concrete bearing failure of the shear key
2. Pull out of the shear tab from the concrete
3. Shear capacity of the shear key based on its moment capacity
4. Shear capacity of the weld between the shear key and base plate.
The equations that went along with these failure methods were as follows:
Vs=(Vs.c; Vs.cc; Vs.b; Vs.w)min V* (111)
where:
Vs= design shear capacity of the shear key
1: Vs.c= concrete bearing capacity of the shear key
Vs.c=0.85fcLs(bs tg)
=.6
=.75
After going through the calculations, it was determined that failure mode one governed the shear
tab length and depth of embedment, while failure mode three governed the shear key thickness.
Therefore, the weld was sized based on failure mode four. The equation for the was set equal to
the shear demand of 420 Kips. Assuming a shear key length of 12 inches and a grout depth of 1
inch, the concrete bearing capacity equation was solved for bs, where Ls = key length, bs = key
depth, and tg = grout depth. This produced a key depth of 15 inches needed. Taking this key
length and depth to equation 3 and solving for the key thickness ts produced a required thickness
of 4 inches. This information was then used in equation 4 to find the required weld size. It was
determined that the weld capacity needed to be 144 K/in and a 5/16 in weld on all sides of the
plate was determined to meet this capacity. One important note in the shear key design was that
59
the key was designed to be made out of a 50 ksi plate rather than a 36 ksi plate to make the
thickness more manageable. Figure 37 shows the EBF anchor bolt layout and Figure 39 shows
the shear key and anchor bolt design, which is on page S.4 of the drawing set.
at, but for our time constraints this was not considered since the capacity is greater than the
demand. Figure 39 shows the embedment length of the EBF anchor bolts.
Figure 38: Potential Anchor Bolt Failure Paths. Concrete Breakout (left) and Uplift (right)
and the entire area around the shear key is to be fully grouted along with the area beneath the
base plate once it is set in place. In order to ensure the grout fills the shear key cavity, holes will
be drilled in the base plate, away from the bolt holes, as necessary. Two grouting holes should be
sufficient to ensure that the full shear key area is grouted.
This table also checked all of the potential failure cases established for this type of connection
and produced the strength as the lowest case scenario. The tabulated values were created for
bolts of diameters 3/4, 1, and 1.5, changing for plate thicknesses of (1/4) through (9/16) and
adjusting per number of bolts between 2 and 12. For all non EBF connections, 3/4 diameter
bolts were used and the plate thickness and bolt number were adjusted to meet strength.
The specifications of the different designs, as well as their capacities can be found in Table 29
and an example layout of the structural drawing can be seen in Figure 40. Connections are shown
in the drawing set on page S.14.
63
Table 29: Summary of Floor and Roof connections for BeamGirder, BeamColumn, and GirderColumn
Plate
thickness
(in)
Plate
length
(in)
Bolt
Diameter
(in)
Number
of Bolts
Leh
(in)
Lev
(in)
Weld
Size
Beam  Girder
Beam Column
Girder Column
(5/16)
8.5
(3/4)
1.5
1.25
(3/16)
Weld
length
per side
(in)
5
(1/4)
8.5
(3/4)
1.5
1.25
(3/16)
(1/4)
14.5
(3/4)
1.5
1.25
Beam  Girder
Beam Column
Girder Column
(1/4)
5.5
(3/4)
1.5
(1/4)
5.5
(3/4)
(1/4)
5.5
(3/4)
Connection
Summary
Floors
Roof
64
ECCE
Shear
Demand
(K)
Shear
Capacity
(K)
39
47.7
35
38.3
(3/16)
61
65
1.25
(3/16)
9.4
24.5
1.5
1.25
(3/16)
24.5
1.5
1.25
(3/16)
18.7
24.5
65
ECCE
66
ECCE
Figure 42: Axial Force for Load Case (1.2+0.2SDS)D + 0.5L + 0.2S + E (kips)
67
ECCE
Figure 43: Moment for Load Case (1.2+0.2SDS)D + 0.5L + 0.2S + E (ink)
68
ECCE
Slenderness
o Flange compactness for seismic design
o Web compactness for seismic design
Drift
o a = 0.020 hsx
hsx is the story height
o x = Cd xe / I
I is 1
Cd is 4
xe is the interstory drift from the SAP2000 elastic analysis
o x < a
Link rotation angle
o p = L/e p 0.08 rad
L is the length of the beam
p = p /h
p is the plastic story drift
h is the story height
Stiffeners were sized for minimum width and thickness using the following equations:
wmin = (bf2tw) / 2
tmin = 0.75 tw 3/8 in,
69
ECCE
where bf is the length of the beam flange. The number of stiffeners was determined by
interpolating the maximum distance between stiffeners from a link with a rotation angle of 0.02
and 0.08 radians. The number of stiffeners ranged from 3 to 6 depending on the connection. Two
examples of the stiffener layouts can be seen in Figure 45 and 46.
Link lengths of 4.5 ft were determined sufficient to induce shear failure and limit the link
rotation angle to under 0.08 radians. Link sections ranged from W18x86 on the roof level to
W18x175 on the ground story.
1 =
Cm
Pe1 =
1Pr/Pe1
EI 2
(KL)2
Pr = 2 Pu
Mrx = 1 Mu
Pr
Pc
70
ECCE
pPr
Ry
1
2 = 1.0
Cm = 1.0
K = 1.0
Pu is the axial demand
Mu is the moment demand
8 Mrx
9 Mcx
bxMrx
Ry
pPr + bxMrx 1
When the last equation is satisfied, the section is adequate to resist combined moment and axial
loads. Iterations were run until this occurred for all EBF members.
1x =
1y =
71
ECCE
Cm
1Pr/Pe1x
Cm
1Pr/Pe1y
Cm = 1.0
Cm = 1.0
Pe1x =
Pe1y =
EIx 2
EIy 2
(KL)2
Pr = 2 Pu
Mrx = 1 Mux
Mry = 1 Muy
Pr
Pc
= pPr
8 Mrx
9 Mcx
8 Mry
9 Mcy
K = 1.0
(KL)2
= bxMrx
= byMry
K = 1.0
2 = 1.0
The final columns sizes ranged from W14x74 to W14x193 and were spliced every other floor.
The final EBF member sizes for the links, braces, and columns, are all shown in Figure 44 and
this figure can be found on drawing sheet S.17.
72
ECCE
73
ECCE
Beam web stiffeners ranged from 3/8 x 43/4 to 3/4 x 43/4 depending on the connection.
5. Designing Stiffener Welds
L= d + 2 (tf +1in)
Dmin = Ps / (1.392 kips/in * L)
74
ECCE
The EBF beam to brace connections for the roof frame and the first floor frame, the two most
extreme connections, can be seen in Figures 45 and 46. The other four connections have
stiffeners and welds ranging between the two and can be viewed in the drawing set on sheets
S.18S.23.
75
ECCE
76
ECCE
77
ECCE
Ae = U Ag
18. Determining gussettobeam column connection interface forces
19. Designing the weld at the gusset/beam interface
Length of weld: lw = lgp 1 in 3/4 in,
where lgp is the length of the gusset and a 3/4 thick end plate and 1 corner clip
are assumed
fv = Hub / lw where Hub is the shear force at the interface
fa = Vub / lw where Vub is the axial force at the interface
fpeak = (( fa)2 +( fv)2)
= tan1 (Vub / Hub)
rn = 1.392 kips/in ( 1.0 + 0.50 sin1.5())
Dmin = fpeak / (2 rn)
Check that Dmin exceeds minimum weld size with Manual Table J2.4
20. Checking yielding of the gusset
Rn = 0.6 Fy t lw > Ru
21. Checking beam web local yielding
Rn = 1.0(2.5k +N) Fy tw
N length of bearing
k distance from outer face of flange to web toe of the fillet
Rn > Vub
22. Checking beam web crippling
Rn > Vub
Rn = 0.80t w 2 [1 + 3(
3N t w 1.5 E Fyw t f
)( ) ]
d tf
tw
23. Designing the weld between the gusset and the end plate
78
ECCE
Tu = Pu /Nb rnv1 (
Vu 2
)
rnt
The design shear and tensile strength per bolt are in Manual Tables 71 and 72,
respectively
Pu is the axial force in the beam outside of the link.
The number of bolts needed in the end plate ranged from 16 to 22 bolts per plate, with two plates
per connection.
29. Selecting end plate thickness
Tu = Huc / Nb
rt = r nt 1 (
Vuc /Nb 2
)
rnv
Prying action in the bolts adjacent to the gusset plate and beam flange:
b = (s 0.75in) / 2, where s is bolt horizontal spacing
b = b  db /2
a = (wp s) /2, where wp is the width of the plate
79
ECCE
a = a  db /2
= 1 db / p, where db is db + 11/16 in and p is the vertical bolt spacing
= b/ a
rt
= 1/ (
Tu
1) > 1
4.44
=
(1+ )
Rn = 0.80t w 2 [1 + 3( d )( tw )1.5 ]
f
E Fyw tf
tw
80
ECCE
The connections for the second floor and roof are shown in Figures 47 and 48 with the
other four connections similar in design and shown in the drawing set on sheets S.18 to S.23.
Figure 47: Brace and Beam Connection to Column on the First Story
81
ECCE
11.0
On the back face of the building, a loading dock is needed. The loading dock requires a gap in
the structural system running from lines 4 through 6 on the architectural drawing, a space 64 feet
in length. This means that the column at point D5 must be removed from the ground floor up to
the second floor, a height of 264. Above the 2nd floor, this column is placed in the building
giving each floor above that the typical column layout. The main issue with this part of the
system is the column along D5 carries its load down to the 2nd floor, but there is no column
82
ECCE
below that point to continue carrying the load to the ground and foundations below. In order to
successfully transfer this load, as well as the load from the 2nd floor slab, without excess
deformation, a large transfer truss is needed.
The constraints set on the truss for initial design were as follows:
Height of loading dock at least 14 tall (therefore truss 10 deep or less)
Live load deflection no more than a quarter of an inch
Camber the truss for full dead load deflection
Overall deflection (D+L) no more than L/360
Figure 49: Tributary Area of the Second Floor Acting on the Transfer Truss
The 32 by 17 regions produced a tributary area of 544 sq ft acting on each of the columns
above the transfer truss. Using 65 psf dead load and 50 psf live load (using a conservative
reduced live load), gave column point loads of 170 Kips for dead load and 75 kips for live load.
The second floor tributary area was then calculated and distributed evenly over the 64 span.
This led to distributed loads of 525 lb/ft for live load and 683 lb/ft for dead load. These loads
were placed in an isolated truss model within sap to check the deflections of the truss. The truss
83
ECCE
model with the dead loads shown can be seen in Figure 50. There are a few key things to note
about the truss design. First, both the top and bottom chord were stretched all the way to the
column face. This was done for ease of construction, as a seated angle connection was designed
for the bottom chord to rest on before the truss is fully connected to the columns. Second, the
location where the top chord connects to the column was considered fixed in the XY directions
since that will be a node with beams and girders connected in each plane. While there may be
some movement at that joint, very little is expected since it is braced in each direction. For the
bottom chord, a spring restraint was input in order to account for some of the extra strength that
area will feel from the full structural system being in place. With these assumptions in place, the
truss was designed using an iterative process where first the members were checked for strength,
and then the system was checked for deflections. This procedure was iterated until a design
meeting both strength and deflection criteria was established.
84
ECCE
controlled loading, from buckling or having larger local deflections, an extra brace was needed
every 8. This is where the straight up and down braces seen in Figure 50 came from.
Using the depths and bracing locations established, the SAP model was run to find the forces
going into the top and bottom chords; once the forces acting on the top and bottom chords were
calculated, the chords were designed using the Steel Manual guidelines and checked with the
SAP model. The top chord was run through the compression checks of chapter E (compression)
in the Steel Manual while the bottom chord was checked through chapter F (bending). After
several iterations it was determined that a top chord of W14X139 (demand = 84% of
compression capacity) and a bottom chord of W36X150 (demand = 85% of tension capacity)
would meet both strength and deflection requirements. With the sizes in place, a composite
check was ran and it was found that they system would be limited by the shear transfer of the
shear studs. A moment check was also run on the truss with composite action on from the
decking. It was determined that one 1 stud every 12 on center would be sufficient for the
composite system to reach the moment demand, in fact the moment capacity of the trussdeck
system was 1926 Kft while the demand was only 1346 Kft. One note on this composite system,
the system needs at least 3 feet of compression effective width otherwise the system is
compression limited rather than shear limited. It was determined that they effective width would
be 4; however, that is close to the threshold so this would need to be looked at in more detail if
the building was actually to be constructed.
85
ECCE
Once the gusset plate size and necessary length of the member were determined, the welds could
be sized. The following equation was used to determine the required thickness of the fillet weld.
Rn is taken as the 315 kips, Fw is 0.6Fexx where Fexx is 70 ksi, and Aw is the effective length of
the weld taking into account all four welding locations on the front and back of the gusset plate.
Rn = 0.8 Fw Aw (AISC J23)
86
ECCE
Figure 53: Final Truss Design with Member Sizes and Spacings
This figure along with structural drawings related to the truss can be found on pages S.24 to S.25 of the drawing set.
87
ECCE
88
transferred to the column through the top chord. The limit states checked for the connection
between the columns and the end plate were as follows:
1. Bolt shear and bolt bearing
2. Shear yielding and shear rupture of the plate
3. Block shear of the plate
Using table 104 in the Steel Manual as a design aide, several connection possibilities were
established. The most efficient and symmetrical of the options was using 8 1 diameter A325N
bolts with a 5/16 inch thick plate. This provided a capacity of 237 kips which was greater than
the demand of 230 kips. A design using only seven 1 diameter bolts was also efficient;
however, the seven bolts left the connection a little eccentric. This would most likely be fine as 4
bolts would be connecting the top chord where most of the force would be transferred between
the members, but for ease of construction and simplicity the 8 bolt design was chosen. With this
design, 4 bolts are to be spread out inside the W 14s flanges and 4 bolts are to be located next to
the gusset plate. The final connection design can be seen in Figure 55.
12.0 Conclusion
Thank you for considering our design for the Seattle office building. After providing you with
details about the load analysis and the column, beam, girder, base plate, connection, EBF, and
truss design, ECCE hopes this report has been thorough enough for you to make the decision to
choose ECCE to work with you on this project. Please contact us with any questions or if you
need any additional information.
13.0 References
AISC Seismic Design Manual. American Institute of Steel Construction, 2006. 3107 to 3161.
Print.
Bowles, Joseph. Foundation Analysis and Design. 5th. Peoria: McGraw Hill, 1996. Print.
Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 31808) and Commentary.
Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute, 2009. Print.
Coduto, Donald. Foundation design: principles and practices. 2nd. Upper Saddle River: Prentice
Hall, 2001. Print.
"Design of Pinned Column Base Plates." Journal of the Australian Steel Institute 36.2 (2002): n.
pag. Web. 7 Jun 2011. <http://www.scribd.com/doc/2353073/Pinnedbaseplates>.
Gunaratne, Manjriker. The Foundation Engineering Handbook. Boca Raton: CRC/Taylor &
Francis, 2006. Print.
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. American Society of Civil
Engineers, 2007. Print.
Steel Construction Manual. 13th. American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., 2005. Print.
Wheeling Corrugating. 2009. Web. 03 June 2011. <http://www.wheelingcorrugating.com/>.
91
Juliette Peyroux
Katie McIntyre
Sam Probert
Trent Tinney
Travis Corigliano
Design Loads
Composite Decking
Beam, Girder and Column
Design
Typical Connections, Base
Plates and Splices
Member Design
Connections
Design Loads
Composite Decking
Beam, Girder and Column
Design
Typical Connections, Base
Plates and Splices
Member Design
Connections
Columns
Required Load
(kips)
Number of Rows
Depth (ft)
Pag (kips)
Exterior
500
35
667
Interior
1250
35
1501
EBF
1450
35
3337
Design Loads
Composite Decking
Beam, Girder and Column
Design
Typical Connections, Base
Plates and Splices
Member Design
Connections
Live:
Steel Decking: 20
gauge (Fy = 50 ksi)
2 of decking
4.5 Slab Depth
Lightweight
Concrete: 115pcf
Wheeling
Corrugating
Steel Decking: 18
gauge (Fy = 33 ksi)
3 of decking
No Concrete
Wheeling
Corrugating
Design Loads
Composite Decking
Beam, Girder and Column
Design
Typical Connections, Base
Plates and Splices
Design Loads
Member Design
Connections
Wind loads
Method 2 Analytical Procedure in ASCE705
Seismic loads
Seismic Design Category D
Response Modification Factor of 7.5 (EBF)
Link Design
Shear Controlled
e 1.6 Mp / Vp
e chosen to be 4.5
Drift
a = 0.020 hsx
x = Cd xe / I
I is 1, Cd is 4
xe is the interstory drift from SAP2000 elastic
analysis
Beam Design*
Brace Design*
Column Design*
Governed By
Web Crippling
Connection Design
Single Plate
Complete Joint Penetration Welds
Gusset Design:
Bolt Shear
Strength
Block Shear
Rupture
Gusset Plate
WTs
Brace Web
Design Loads
Composite Decking
Beam, Girder and Column
Design
Typical Connections, Base
Plates and Splices
Member Design
Connections
Constraints:
Height of loading dock 14
Live load deflection
Overall deflection L/360
Truss loading:
From the tributary area highlighted above the point loads were 170k
dead and 75k live
Distributed loads were 683 lb/ft dead and 525 lb/ft live from 2nd floor slab