Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Summary
This report presents the design of a pedestrian skywalk bridge between a pair of four-
story condominium buildings. The intent of such a design was to connect the similar uses of two
buildings without requiring occupants to exit to ground level. An efficient solution was obtained
by comparing several alternatives against four important civil engineering goals: cost,
aesthetics, safety, and ease of construction. The final design satisfies these criteria while
project, the land development firm Building Blocks Engineering required a bridge for a mixed-
use site in order to connect the indoor pool of one building with the fitness area of another.
These facilities were both located at the fourth story, thus motivating the use of a skywalk
bridge. This solution prevents occupants from traveling to ground level, minimizing pedestrian
travel time.
Two noted disadvantages of skywalks include pedestrian detachment from the outdoors
and low-pedestrian activity at ground-level retail shops (Healy). The first issue was solved using
a structural system of transparent curtain walls and roofing, allowing the entrance of natural
light. Building Blocks Engineering solved the second drawback by moving retail shops in the
level.
Besides providing a connection between similar amenities, the skybridge must also
conform to four important factors: safety, aesthetics, ease of construction, and cost. These
represent the needs of a design team consisting of the structural engineer, architect,
construction manager, and client. Throughout the design process, alternatives will be checked
The main assumption dealt with the height of building stories. The first three stories of both
condominiums are ten feet in height, with the fourth level being fifteen feet high to
accommodate the height of the skywalk. The main constraint on the project was the span
The main purpose of these phases was to evaluate alternatives based on the four factors
mentioned previously. These evaluations were in turn based on structural design, construction
seven alternatives were created, each grouped within three distinct categories. Category 1
bridges connected a single story with either rectangular, diamond, or twisted polygonal cross-
sections. Category 2 skywalks involved a rectangular cross-section bridge with a lounge area
either in the skywalk center or spanning the whole bridge length. The last category, Category 3,
consisted of skywalks connecting two floors simultaneously. These would make use of either
escalators and stairs or ramps compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Phase 2 – Choose Two Alternatives Based on Four Factors
The second phase involved a conceptual selection of two alternatives using a process of
elimination. In other words, if an alternative failed to meet any one of the four important
Category 3 alternatives were not pursued since their large size would not allow efficient
comparison with the other single-story alternatives. Additionally, the weight of a large structure
containing mechanical devices would greatly increase construction difficulty and building
stresses. As a result, one alternative was chosen from among the two remaining categories.
The twisted polygon bridge from Category 1 was chosen since it provided a higher
aesthetic value than the rectangular or diamond skywalks. In Category 2, the center lounge area
was chosen in order to reduce steel requirement costs and break the dullness of the single
the software SAP2000 provided by the company CSi Berkeley. The framing of the twisted
polygon bridge resembles a cork-screw, achieved by connecting end nodes as shown in Figure
2. Due to this complex shape, the difficulty of applying line loads to the bridge was anticipated.
Therefore, area elements were created between members using a new glass material
definition, allowing loads to be properly distributed to the frame. The framing of the lounge
bridge represents a more traditional structural steel design. The initial floor system, shown in
Figure 4, consists of simply supported joists framing into simply supported girders, which then
frame into columns. For this alternative, an area element of concrete was placed at the floor
The structural analysis of the two alternatives began with determining proper load cases
as defined by ASCE 7-05: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. The main
categories of load cases included in the design were dead, live, snow, and wind. For all load
cases, load assignments were placed as either area loads, line loads, or point loads. Calculations
components. Table 1 shows examples of these components and their corresponding weights.
Polycarbonate/Framing 1
Total 10
Live loading is broken down into floor and roof requirements. According to ASCE 7-05,
the minimum floor live loading for assembly areas with movable seats and corridors is 100
pounds per square foot (psf). Either loading can be justified since the lounge area is an
assembly area and a skywalk could serve as a corridor in case of fire. These loadings were not
reduced as per Section 1607.9.1.3 the 2006 International Building Code (IBC2006), which states
live loads of 100psf or less shall not be reduced in public assembly occupancies. The roof was
analyzed with a live load of 20psf, as required by ASCE 7-05 for ordinary flat, pitched, and
curved roofs.
Snow loads on the roof were determined using ground snow load requirements
obtained from Fairfax County as well as equations and procedures obtained from ASCE 7-05.
SAP2000 using the auto-lateral load function, based on ASCE7-02. This process is outlined in
Appendix B.
Once all load cases were defined and all loads assigned, the next step of structural
analysis was to create load combinations as required by AISC 360-05: Specifications for
Structural Steel Buildings. The most important of these combinations are shown in Table 2.
Since the alternatives were symmetrical, only the wind direction from one direction in both x
DSTL2 1.2Dead+1.6Live
DSTL3 1.2Dead+1.6Live+1.2Wind-x
DSTL5 1.2Dead+1.6Live+1.2Wind-y
Snow ------------
The final structural analysis step involved running the model of both structures. The
outputs of this process were the deflections produced by the previously mentioned load
combinations. These were then compared with the maximum allowable deflections given in
Table 1604.3 of IBC2006. Using this measure of effectiveness, the steel frame design of both
structures began.
Figure 3. The lounge bridge alone required an approximately 14 runs, the bulk of them dealing
with the floor system. The initial floor system shown in Figure 4 generated large deflections
when analyzed, spurring the creation of a second iteration. This used a warren truss space
frame type system added to the bridge as shown in Figure 5. This reduced the deflections by a
small amount, about 0.1”, not justifying the use of extra steel.
entire length of the bridge, as shown in Figure 6, with fixed connections on both ends. This
reduced deflections by as much as 1.31 inches in the center of the skywalk. A summary of all
final member sections and all max deflections for the lounge bridge from each pertinent load
combination is shown in Table 3 and Table 4 respectively. All deflections are well under the
maximum allowed by Table 1604.3 of IBC2006. As an example, the lowest possible floor
member deflection allowed under a combined dead load and live load case is L/240. The 84
foot continuous joists achieve a maximum vertical deflection of 0.60 inches, well under the
(84’x12”/’)/240 = 4.2 inches allowed. This limits the sensation of movement experienced by the
Columns W33x130
Table 4 – Final Max Deflections by Load Combination for Lounge Bridge
Load Combination X-Deflection (in) Y-Deflection (in) Z-Deflection (in)
DSTL1 0 0 0.37
DSTL2 0 0 0.60
DSTL5 0 0 0.43
Snow 0 0 0.21
The twisted polygon bridge was analyzed in the same way as the lounge bridge, but
without changing the floor system. Tables 5 and 6 contain information on final member cross-
skywalks were judged based on the four factors of safety, aesthetics, ease of construction, and
cost. Both alternatives were more than adequate in addressing safety and aesthetic needs.
They were well under maximum requirements for deflections and utilized extensive transparent
wall and roof systems. However, in terms of the remaining factors, the twisted polygonal
The twisted bridge had a number of construction flaws. The complex shape of the glass
curtain walls would create a hassle in fabrication, as well as in assembly and attachment to the
steel frame. Additionally, member lengths of the bridge varied greatly, with as much as twenty-
six different sizes represented. Many of these contained only two members out of a total of
140. On the other hand, the lounge bridge had five different member lengths out of 92 total
members. This makes it easier to install the beams since the labor team would perform
replicable tasks.
The cost of both bridges was conceptually quantified using the total tonnage of steel in
each project. Tables 7 and 8 outline the weights for the twisted alternative and the lounge
alternative respectively. According to R.S. Means Facilities Construction Cost Data, economies
of scales can reduce the costs for large projects if a large quantity of similar material is used.
Consequently, small projects like the 40 ton twisted bridge with custom member lengths can
see materials and labor costs increase by 30% and 10% respectively (R.S. Means). The lounge
bridge would therefore be a more cost-friendly approach. For the above reasons, the lounge
W33X130 130 12
project began. The company Buildsoft provided their connection design software
PowerConnect free of charge in order to check the strength of various connection types. The
strengths were checked against maximum member reaction forces exported from SAP2000,
As shown in the attached detail drawings, all girders are simply connected to continuous
joists using bolts, all continuous joists are rigidly connected to building columns using welding,
and all bridge columns are rigidly connected to the continuous joists by welds. Rigid
connections were used in order to avoid using lateral bracing in the structure, which would
obstruct the view of the pedestrians looking through the curtain walls. Welds were chosen
since they require the smallest amounts of steel and have the most attractive looking joints in
case any framework is to be exposed in the architectural design. One important aspect of the
connections is that the same bolt and connecting angle system is used on all roof and floor
girders, increasing construction efficiency and maintaining the benefit of reduced costs outlined
in phase four. Appendix E contains summary tables from PowerConnect outlining total strength
of connections.
Phase 6 – Finalize Design (Floor System, Curtain Walls & Roofing, Drainage)
The final phase in the design process was to consider final building systems, such as floor
decking, curtain walls and roofing, and drainage. The floor system of the lounge bridge consists of
composite steel decking, providing tensile reinforcement for a concrete slab. In order for the
decking and steel framing to act as a single system, shear studs connected both using welds. In
order to determine which deck thickness and height were required to support the live loads on
the structure, a table provided by the company James River Steel was used, similar to that
shown in Table 9. The concrete slab depth was also obtained from Table 9, ultimately changing
the assumed value of five inches to four inches. A model of the floor system was placed in
SAP2000 using a two layer shell element, using a process outlined in Appendix B.
In light of the difficulties posed by glass outlined in phase four, the curtain wall and roof system
material was changed to polycarbonate. The benefits of this replacement include improved impact
resistance, a fifty percent reduction in weight, and the ability to greatly reduce incoming heat
from direct and indirect sunlight exposure (General Electric Company) (CO-EX Corporation). The
design of polycarbonate wall and roof systems will be left to a company that specializes in that
task. The system will be attached to the lounge bridge using tees, brackets, angle clips, and/or
shim plates, as deemed necessary by both the structural engineer and the design company
(Ching).
The drainage of the bridge will be conducted by roof outlets, connected to the storm
drain system of the two condominiums. Since the area of the roof is 1,960 square feet, a
minimum of two roof drains are required. Using conductor heads and leaders, rainwater or
melted snow can be carried to a storm or combined sewer at ground level as designed by the
Conclusion
The lounge pedestrian skywalk meets all the important factors outlined in the beginning
of the report. In relationship to aesthetics, the polycarbonate system provides an excellent view
of site surroundings while providing natural daylight without excessive heat penetration. The
structural system is easy to construct due to a standardized bolt connection system and
uniform member lengths. The deflections of the structure are well under requirements,
satisfying the safety criterion. Lastly, as a direct result of construction simplicity and large
CO-EX Corporation. "Polycarbonate Multiwall Panel System." 2007. CO-EX Corp. February 2007
<http://www.co-excorp.com/system.html>.
General Electric Company. "Lexan*Exell*D Sheet Product Datasheet." April 2006. GE Plastics - Specialty
Grades/GradeServlet?search=Search&prdid=1002003467#searchresults>.
Healy, Patrick O'Gilfoil. "Decades old, skywalk idea doesn't seem to fly anymore." The New York Times
August 2005.
James River Steel. Corrugated Stainless Steel roof, floor panels, decking, floor, siding. 2007. April 2007
<http://jamesriversteel.com/comp1.htm>.
R.S. Means. Facilities Construction Cost Data. Kingston, MA: Construction Publishers and Consultants,
2004.
Appendix A
Load Justifications and Calculations
Dead2
Self-weight of members calculated in SAP2000
o Thickness of concrete deck = 4” according to steel deck charts
o Steel Deck thickness = 1.5”
o Modeled in SAP2000 using a two-layered shell
Add’l Dead Load on Roof = 10 psf
o Steel Deck = 2 psf
o Thermal Insulation (rigid) = 1 psf
o Built-up roof system (5-ply felt + gravel) =6 psf
o Polycarbonate/Framing = 1 psf
o Inner Roof Joists = 10 psf × 6.66 ft = 66.67 lb/ft
o Shared Roof Joists = 10 psf × 5.83 ft = 58.33 lb/ft
o Outer Roof Joists (Corridor) = 10 psf × 3.33 ft = 33.33 lb/ft
o Outer Roof Joists (Lounge) = 10 psf × 2.5 ft = 25 lb/ft
Add’l Dead not needed since glass actually placed on model
Wind1
V = 90 mph, according to 2003 IRC3
Exposure B6
Importance Factor 1.00 (Category II)6
Calculated in SAP2000
Live1
Assembly areas and theaters: Movable seats = 100 psf
Corridors, except as otherwise indicated = 100 psf
Ordinary flat, pitched, and curved roofs = 20 psf
1607.9.1.3 Special occupancies. Live loads of 100 psf or less shall not be reduced in public
assembly occupancies.
LINE LOADS examples(taking into account tributary area of different joists)
o Corridor Joists = 0.1ksf * 4ft = 0.4 k/ft
o Lounge Joists = 0.1ksf * 3ft = 0.3 k/ft
o Inner Roof Joists = 0.02ksf * 20/3ft = 2/15 k/ft
o Outer Roof Joists = 0.02ksf * (2.5+3.33)ft = 7/60 k/ft
Roof live not needed – serviced by crane
Snow2
For Fairfax County ground snow load = 25psf
Flat-roofed snow loads, 𝑝𝑓 = 0.7𝐶𝑒 𝐶𝑡 𝐼𝑝𝑔 ≥ 20𝐼
o 𝑝𝑓 = 0.7 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 25psf ≥ 20 × 1.0
o 𝑝𝑓 = 17.5psf ≥ 𝟐𝟎 psf
Sloped-roof snow loads, 𝑝𝑠 = 𝐶𝑠 𝑝𝑓 = 1 × 20psf = 𝟐𝟎 psf
Inner Roof Joists = 20 psf × 6.66 ft = 133.33 lb/ft
Shared Roof Joists = 20 psf × 5.83 ft = 116.67 lb/ft
Outer Roof Joists (Corridor) = 20 psf × 3.33 ft = 66.67 lb/ft
Outer Roof Joists (Lounge) = 20 psf × 2.5 ft = 50 lb/ft
Sources
1. International Building Code (2006)
2. ASCE 7-05
Appendix B
SAP2000 Procedures
84'
Continu.
Joists -42/100 -48/44 -2/2 -2/24 -503
Frame Station OutputCase Axial V2 V3 M2 M3
Text ft Text Kip Kip Kip Kip-ft Kip-ft
261 0 DSTL1 -33 -10 0 0 -275
261 84 DSTL1 -33 10 0 0 -282
261 0 DSTL2 -41 -11 0 0 -348
261 84 DSTL2 -42 11 0 0 -357
261 0 DSTL3 -26 -9 0 -1 -263
261 84 DSTL3 -26 9 1 -2 -270
261 0 DSTL5 -33 -9 0 0 -271
261 84 DSTL5 -33 9 0 0 -278
267 0 DSTL1 -33 -10 0 0 -275
267 84 DSTL1 -33 10 0 0 -282
267 0 DSTL2 -41 -11 0 0 -348
267 84 DSTL2 -42 11 0 0 -357
267 0 DSTL3 -39 -9 0 -1 -278
267 84 DSTL3 -40 9 0 -1 -285
267 0 DSTL5 -33 -9 0 0 -271
267 84 DSTL5 -33 9 0 0 -278
343 0 DSTL1 78 -39 0 0 -399
343 84 DSTL1 75 36 0 0 -381
343 0 DSTL2 100 -48 0 0 -503
343 84 DSTL2 96 44 0 0 -481
343 0 DSTL3 75 -37 2 23 -381
343 84 DSTL3 73 34 -2 23 -364
343 0 DSTL5 78 -38 0 0 -392
343 84 DSTL5 74 35 0 0 -375
344 0 DSTL1 78 -39 0 0 -399
344 84 DSTL1 75 36 0 0 -381
344 0 DSTL2 100 -48 0 0 -503
344 84 DSTL2 97 44 0 0 -480
344 0 DSTL3 80 -39 2 22 -404
344 84 DSTL3 77 36 -2 21 -385
344 0 DSTL5 78 -38 0 0 -392
344 84 DSTL5 74 35 0 0 -375
358 0 DSTL1 0 -26 0 0 -372
358 84 DSTL1 0 26 0 0 -372
358 0 DSTL2 0 -32 0 0 -444
358 84 DSTL2 0 32 0 0 -444
358 0 DSTL3 -1 -25 2 23 -358
358 84 DSTL3 -1 25 -2 23 -358
358 0 DSTL5 0 -25 0 0 -358
358 84 DSTL5 0 25 0 0 -358
359 0 DSTL1 0 -26 0 0 -372
359 84 DSTL1 0 26 0 0 -372
359 0 DSTL2 0 -32 0 0 -444
359 84 DSTL2 0 32 0 0 -444
359 0 DSTL3 0 -25 2 24 -358
359 84 DSTL3 0 25 -2 24 -358
359 0 DSTL5 0 -25 0 0 -358
359 84 DSTL5 0 25 0 0 -358
448 0 DSTL1 -19 -9 0 0 -291
448 84 DSTL1 -18 9 0 0 -294
448 0 DSTL2 -25 -11 0 0 -402
448 84 DSTL2 -25 11 0 0 -407
448 0 DSTL3 -17 -9 0 1 -301
448 84 DSTL3 -17 9 0 1 -304
448 0 DSTL5 -19 -9 0 0 -297
448 84 DSTL5 -19 9 0 0 -301
449 0 DSTL1 -16 -9 0 0 -307
449 84 DSTL1 -16 9 0 0 -308
449 0 DSTL2 -23 -10 0 0 -436
449 84 DSTL2 -22 10 0 0 -438
449 0 DSTL3 -17 -9 0 1 -317
449 84 DSTL3 -16 9 0 1 -318
449 0 DSTL5 -16 -9 0 0 -317
449 84 DSTL5 -16 9 0 0 -318
450 0 DSTL1 -19 -9 0 0 -291
450 84 DSTL1 -18 9 0 0 -295
450 0 DSTL2 -25 -11 0 0 -401
450 84 DSTL2 -25 11 0 0 -407
450 0 DSTL3 -20 -9 0 1 -293
450 84 DSTL3 -20 9 0 1 -297
450 0 DSTL5 -19 -9 0 0 -297
450 84 DSTL5 -19 9 0 0 -301
28'
Continu.
Joists -7/8 -8/7 -1/1 -3/3 -27/1
Frame Station OutputCase Axial V2 V3 M2 M3
Text ft Text Kip Kip Kip Kip-ft Kip-ft
85 0 DSTL1 6 -5 0 1 1
85 28 DSTL1 4 -1 -1 2 -8
85 0 DSTL2 7 -5 0 2 1
85 28 DSTL2 4 -1 -1 3 -10
85 0 DSTL3 4 -4 0 0 0
85 28 DSTL3 3 -1 -1 2 -7
85 0 DSTL5 6 -4 0 1 0
85 28 DSTL5 3 -1 -1 2 -8
281 0 DSTL1 5 -1 1 2 -3
281 28 DSTL1 6 5 0 1 -1
281 0 DSTL2 5 -1 1 3 -5
281 28 DSTL2 7 5 0 2 0
281 0 DSTL3 5 -1 1 3 -5
281 28 DSTL3 8 4 -1 2 0
281 0 DSTL5 4 -1 1 2 -3
281 28 DSTL5 6 4 0 1 -1
345 0 DSTL1 -6 -7 0 0 -25
345 28 DSTL1 -6 7 0 -1 -22
345 0 DSTL2 -6 -8 0 0 -27
345 28 DSTL2 -6 7 0 -1 -24
345 0 DSTL3 -4 -7 1 2 -23
345 28 DSTL3 -4 6 -1 2 -20
345 0 DSTL5 -5 -7 0 0 -23
345 28 DSTL5 -5 6 0 -1 -21
347 0 DSTL1 -6 -7 0 -1 -22
347 28 DSTL1 -6 7 0 0 -24
347 0 DSTL2 -6 -7 0 -1 -24
347 28 DSTL2 -6 7 0 0 -26
347 0 DSTL3 -6 -6 -1 -3 -21
347 28 DSTL3 -7 7 1 -3 -23
347 0 DSTL5 -5 -6 0 -1 -21
347 28 DSTL5 -5 7 0 0 -22
- -
Columns -29/49 109/108 -3/4 -33/30 606/623
Frame Station OutputCase Axial V2 V3 M2 M3
Text ft Text Kip Kip Kip Kip-ft Kip-ft
5 0 DSTL1 29 -60 0 0 -267
5 10 DSTL1 27 -60 0 0 337
5 0 DSTL2 41 -79 -1 0 -345
5 10 DSTL2 39 -79 -1 9 441
5 0 DSTL3 28 -58 1 1 -258
5 10 DSTL3 27 -58 1 -11 325
5 0 DSTL5 30 -60 0 0 -266
5 10 DSTL5 28 -60 0 3 336
6 0 DSTL1 29 -60 0 0 -268
6 10 DSTL1 27 -60 0 0 337
6 0 DSTL2 41 -79 1 0 -346
6 10 DSTL2 39 -79 1 -9 441
6 0 DSTL3 31 -62 1 1 -274
6 10 DSTL3 30 -62 2 -16 348
6 0 DSTL5 30 -60 0 0 -266
6 10 DSTL5 28 -60 0 -3 336
7 0 DSTL1 35 59 0 0 269
7 10 DSTL1 33 59 0 -3 -321
7 0 DSTL2 48 77 -1 0 348
7 10 DSTL2 47 77 -1 6 -419
7 0 DSTL3 34 57 1 1 260
7 10 DSTL3 33 57 2 -13 -311
7 0 DSTL5 36 59 0 0 267
7 10 DSTL5 34 59 0 0 -320
8 0 DSTL1 35 59 0 0 270
8 10 DSTL1 34 59 0 3 -324
8 0 DSTL2 49 77 1 0 349
8 10 DSTL2 47 77 1 -5 -424
8 0 DSTL3 37 61 1 1 276
8 10 DSTL3 36 61 2 -13 -333
8 0 DSTL5 36 59 0 0 268
8 10 DSTL5 35 59 0 0 -324
181 0 DSTL1 1 0 0 0 0
181 10 DSTL1 -1 0 0 0 0
181 0 DSTL2 1 0 0 0 0
181 10 DSTL2 -1 0 0 0 0
181 0 DSTL3 1 0 0 -1 0
181 10 DSTL3 -1 0 0 -1 0
181 0 DSTL5 1 0 0 0 0
181 10 DSTL5 -1 0 0 0 0
185 0 DSTL1 -16 -86 0 0 -366
185 10 DSTL1 -18 -86 0 -1 489
185 0 DSTL2 -18 -109 0 0 -469
185 10 DSTL2 -20 -109 0 2 623
185 0 DSTL3 -14 -82 0 0 -351
185 10 DSTL3 -16 -82 1 -6 468
185 0 DSTL5 -15 -85 0 0 -362
185 10 DSTL5 -16 -84 0 0 482
191 0 DSTL1 -7 -6 3 1 -24
191 10 DSTL1 -9 -6 3 -30 31
191 0 DSTL2 -7 -6 3 1 -26
191 10 DSTL2 -9 -6 3 -29 36
191 0 DSTL3 -7 -5 3 0 -23
191 10 DSTL3 -8 -5 4 -33 31
191 0 DSTL5 -7 -5 3 1 -22
191 10 DSTL5 -8 -5 3 -27 29
192 0 DSTL1 -8 -6 -3 -1 -25
192 10 DSTL1 -9 -6 -3 30 32
192 0 DSTL2 -8 -6 -3 -1 -27
192 10 DSTL2 -9 -6 -3 29 37
192 0 DSTL3 -7 -5 -3 -1 -23
192 10 DSTL3 -8 -5 -2 21 29
192 0 DSTL5 -7 -5 -3 -1 -23
192 10 DSTL5 -8 -5 -3 27 29
195 0 DSTL1 -1 0 0 -2 -2
195 10 DSTL1 -3 0 0 -3 1
195 0 DSTL2 1 0 -1 -2 -2
195 10 DSTL2 0 0 -1 6 1
195 0 DSTL3 0 0 1 -1 -1
195 10 DSTL3 -2 0 1 -11 0
195 0 DSTL5 0 0 0 -2 -1
195 10 DSTL5 -2 0 0 0 -1
196 0 DSTL1 -1 0 0 2 -2
196 10 DSTL1 -3 0 0 3 1
196 0 DSTL2 1 0 1 2 -2
196 10 DSTL2 0 0 1 -6 0
196 0 DSTL3 0 0 1 2 -2
196 10 DSTL3 -2 0 2 -11 2
196 0 DSTL5 0 0 0 2 -1
196 10 DSTL5 -2 0 0 0 -1
200 0 DSTL1 -7 5 3 1 22
200 10 DSTL1 -9 5 3 -29 -32
200 0 DSTL2 -7 6 3 1 24
200 10 DSTL2 -9 6 3 -27 -36
200 0 DSTL3 -7 5 3 0 21
200 10 DSTL3 -8 5 4 -32 -30
200 0 DSTL5 -6 5 3 1 21
200 10 DSTL5 -8 5 3 -26 -31
201 0 DSTL1 -7 5 -3 -1 22
201 10 DSTL1 -9 5 -3 29 -32
201 0 DSTL2 -7 6 -3 -1 24
201 10 DSTL2 -9 6 -3 28 -36
201 0 DSTL3 -6 5 -2 -1 20
201 10 DSTL3 -8 5 -2 19 -30
201 0 DSTL5 -7 5 -3 -1 21
201 10 DSTL5 -8 5 -3 26 -31
387 0 DSTL1 1 0 0 0 0
387 10 DSTL1 -1 0 0 0 0
387 0 DSTL2 1 0 0 0 0
387 10 DSTL2 -1 0 0 0 0
387 0 DSTL3 1 0 0 -1 0
387 10 DSTL3 -1 0 0 -1 0
387 0 DSTL5 1 0 0 0 0
387 10 DSTL5 -1 0 0 0 0
389 0 DSTL1 -23 84 0 0 369
389 10 DSTL1 -25 84 0 2 -475
389 0 DSTL2 -27 108 -1 0 473
389 10 DSTL2 -29 108 -1 6 -606
389 0 DSTL3 -21 81 0 0 355
389 10 DSTL3 -23 81 1 -4 -456
389 0 DSTL5 -22 83 0 0 365
389 10 DSTL5 -23 84 0 3 -470
392 0 DSTL1 1 0 0 0 0
392 10 DSTL1 -1 0 0 0 0
392 0 DSTL2 1 0 0 0 0
392 10 DSTL2 -1 0 0 0 0
392 0 DSTL3 1 0 0 -1 0
392 10 DSTL3 -1 0 0 -1 0
392 0 DSTL5 1 0 0 0 0
392 10 DSTL5 -1 0 0 0 0
394 0 DSTL1 -16 -86 0 0 -366
394 10 DSTL1 -17 -86 0 1 489
394 0 DSTL2 -18 -109 0 0 -469
394 10 DSTL2 -20 -109 0 -2 623
394 0 DSTL3 -15 -87 0 0 -373
394 10 DSTL3 -17 -87 1 -6 498
394 0 DSTL5 -15 -85 0 0 -362
394 10 DSTL5 -16 -84 0 0 482
397 0 DSTL1 1 0 0 0 0
397 10 DSTL1 -1 0 0 0 0
397 0 DSTL2 1 0 0 0 0
397 10 DSTL2 -1 0 0 0 0
397 0 DSTL3 1 0 0 -1 0
397 10 DSTL3 -1 0 0 -1 0
397 0 DSTL5 1 0 0 0 0
397 10 DSTL5 -1 0 0 0 0
399 0 DSTL1 -23 84 0 0 370
399 10 DSTL1 -25 84 0 -2 -475
399 0 DSTL2 -27 108 1 0 473
399 10 DSTL2 -29 108 1 -6 -606
399 0 DSTL3 -23 86 1 0 376
399 10 DSTL3 -24 86 1 -9 -483
399 0 DSTL5 -22 83 0 0 366
399 10 DSTL5 -24 84 0 -3 -470
Appendix E
PowerConnect Results
CORRIDOR
AREA
General Notes:
1. Design stresses are in accordance with the Manual of Steel
Construction for allowable stress design as adopted by the
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Latest Edition.
C)20psf roof snow load as calculated by ASCE 7-05 methods drawn by:
using Fairfax county criteria.
Nouri Hacene-Djaballah
D)44-48psf wind loads as determined from ASCE 7-03
methods using Fairfax county criteria.
April 30, 2007
3. All polycarbonate curtain walls and roofing are to be designed
separately by a company specializing in such systems, in order to
resist the loads as outlined above, and will be connected to the
1"=4' steel frame using tees, brackets, angle clips, and/or shim plates.
Pedestrian Skywalk
Mixed-Use Team
LOUNGE CORRIDOR LOUNGE
AREA AREA AREA
1
1"=2' 1"=4'
1"=4'
1"=5"
Type J1 or J2 (W24x370)
Type J1 or J2 (W24x370)
L3.5
x3.5
x0.5
Type G3
(W8x18) L3.5 Type G3
x3.5 (W8x18)
Type C1 (W33x130)
x0.5
drawn by:
Nouri Hacene-Djaballah
April 30, 2007
1"=4"
L3.5x3.5x0.5
Type J1 or J2
(W24x270)
1"=2"
Pedestrian Skywalk
Mixed-Use Team
Building Column
2
1"=2" 1"=6"
PEDESTRIAN ARCH BRIDGE
STRUCTURAL REPORT
Prepared By: Jamal Naser
StrucTech, Inc.
April 27, 2007
1
Summary
This report presents the design of a pedestrian arch bridge. The proposed bridge spans 180 feet
long and 10 feet wide over Accotink Creek. The superstructure of the bridge includes
reinforced concrete deck, joists supporting the deck, floor beams supporting the joists. The
super structure is supported by vertical columns where columns transfer all the applied loads to
the arch. This structure was selected to meet the needs of the client. The structure was
selected to meet the requirements for safety, efficiency, serviceability and elegancy. An
evaluation of the site conditions indicated that an Arch structure was suitable for the proposed
site. The evaluation and recommendation presented in this report is based on the computer
software analysis known as SAP 2000 and STAAD. The ultimate limit states and
serviceability limit states are based on the criteria spelled out explicitly in the International
Building Code (IBC), American Concrete Institute (ACI), and American Institute of Steel
Construction (AISC). The design of all steel elements is based on the latest edition of
allowablestress design (ASD) specification of (AISC). This design satisfies all safety and
serviceability criteria.
Due to the unique characteristics of the Arch Bridge and limited resources available on
designing such structure, more time was devoted to the research fraction in order to understand
the structural behavior. A comprehensive research was crucial to understand the careful
detailing of connections to ensure economic use of materials. The arch is fixed at both ends of
spring line (see figure). The arch is skewed 81 0 degree from the global Xaxis of coordinate
system.
Designing of an arch, involved a repeated stages of member design. This was particularly
important since the structure was undetermined in which the approximation for shears,
moments, and thrusts were necessary.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. ARCH
BRIDGE………………………………………………………………………………….
7
1.1 Bridge geometry and
material…..…………………………………………………………7
1.2 Beam geometry and section
property…..………………………………………………..7
1.3 Loading…………………………………………………………………………………
……..7
2. INTRODUTION…………….………………..……………………………………………
……4
3. DEVELOPING AN ARCH
MODEL.………………………………………………….…….4
4. ANALYSIS……..…………………………………………………………………………
……..4
5. DESIGN OF
MEMBERS…..…………………………………………………………………..5
APPENDIX A DESIGN OF CONCRETE
SLAB……………………………………………..5
APPNDIX B DESIGN OF STANDART BOLTED FRAMED CONNECTION…….....
6
APPENDIX C Computer Program Results (STAAD)
Input...………………………………7
3
ARCH BRIDGE
Bridge geometry and materials (Parabolic skewed arch)
Spans: 12 spans at 15 ft. each
Width: 10’ – 0” total
Railings: Steel Type…Parapets, 1’ – 0” wide at base
Floor beam spacing: 15’ – 0”
Joist type: Wide flange Ibeam
Overhang: Varies
Bridge substructure geometry
Arch pier: Multicolumn bent (12 column spaced at 15’)
Materials
Concrete strength
4
Reinforced steel
Picture of bridge crosssection
Floor geometry and section properties and loadings
Basic beam section properties
Depth = 12.12 in.
Thickness of web = 0.390 in.
Area, A g = 19.1 in 2 .
Moment of Inertia, I g = 4060 in 4.
Joist length, L = 15 ft.
Depth = 7.93 in.
Thickness of web = 0.245
Area, A g = 7.08 in 2 .
Moment of Inertia, I g = 82.8 in 4 .
Interior beam composite section properties
5
Effective slab width = 12 in.
Deck slab thickness = 2 in.
Loadings
Live load = 85 psf
Wind load = 25 psf
Dead load (misc.) = 21 psf
Introduction
This report presents the design of a pedestrian Arch bridge to span a 180 feet over the
Accotink Creek, Lorton, Virginia. The design was requested by the client Triple Jam land
development Inc. The first stage of design involved planning with respect to the selecting a
suitable structure to meet the client’s needs for efficiency and aesthetic. In addition it was
essential for the design to meet the requirements of the spanned opening, clearance
requirements, rise, span, loading, architecture, and aesthetics. Two alternatives of the bridge
types were presented the client: An arch bridge and a truss bridge. The basic objectives of
this design were to create a design that is economic efficient, easy to construct with less time
and aesthetically pleasing. In this an arch bridge compared to a truss bridge was preferable.
The second stage involved the determination of the general shape and approximate of the
design moments, shears, and thrusts from which cross sections are determined. To obtain
these design parameters, structural analysis software such as SAP 2000 and STAAD were
utilized. Finally, the member sizes were obtained.
Developing an Arch model
For ease of setting out and construction, the arch was chosen to a parabolic shape skewed 81 o
from positive xaxis. Since the arch was nonvertical ribs, the structure had a much higher
6
redundancy and hence required greater attention to detail in regard to the releases. This
structure was modeled in Autocad drafting soft ware since neither SAP 2000 nor STAAD had
the capability of creating such geometry. Much time was spent on how to skew the arch since
it required a high knowledge of 3D cad use. Utilizing ingenuity, it was possible to skew the
arch ribs. The Important reason for skewing the arch was to reduce the use of horizontal ties
between arch ribs and to save cost. After the model was developed, it was transferred to the
structural analysis software for analysis and design.
Analysis
Design of members
Design of an arch involves a succession of stages each representing a refinement of the
previous one. After the analysis was performed, the design feature of the software was
executed. The final design of an arch comprises of final analysis to verify the preliminary
design under different load combinations of dead loads, live loads, temperature loads, wind
loads, shrinkage and rib shortening. The first trial of the design indicated that some of the
elements did not pass the requirements for moments, shear and stresses. The design was
refined and ran through all the elements again; the design was not satisfactory. The design
went trough a several refinements stages until a satisfactory cross section were produced. It
was determined that for loading combinations involving temperature change, shrinkage, rib
7
shortening, etc., an increase in permissible stress is allowed by the various codes. The final
member cross sections obtained are tabulated in figure (…).
Design of concrete slab
The deck of bridge was designed as a continuous oneway slab supported by simply supported
beams. The dead load DL (does not include the weight of the slab, 4 psf. Railing, 85 psf. Live
load LL. Use f ’ c = 3,000 psi (normalweight concrete) and f y = 40,000psi.
8
Design procedures:
The procedures are outlined below:
1. The slab thickness was determined. The slab was designed to satisfy the ACI
minimum thickness requirements from Table 9.5(a) of the code and this thickness
will be used to estimate the slab weight.
2. The dead load was determined.
3. The moments and shears were determined using the ACI moment equations.
Similarly, the shears were determined using the ACI shear equations.
4. The slab was designed assuming the slab thickness, the approximate d value was
found.
5. Assumed bar size for main steel and cover for the bars in the slab.
6. The reinforcing steel was designed and point of maximum moment was selected.
The maximum moment is the negative moment which occurs in the end span at the
first interior support.The shear strength was checked to be adequate which occurs at
the face of support.
7. The main steel was selected using Table A4 of reference […].
8. The temperature and shrinkage reinforcement was determined to be satisfactory.
9. The calculations are shown in Appendix (A).
9
DESIGN OF STANDARD BOLTED FRAMED CONNECTION
The connection designed for its intended purpose is a double angle (L) shape. This connection
connects joist to girders and resists shear force only. Figure (…) shows a connection between
beams with framed connection. This type of connection consists of a pair of flexible web
angles usually are shopconnected to the web of supported beam and fieldconnected to the
supporting floor beam. The bolted connection was selected using standard tables of the
allowablestress design (ASD) specification of the American Institute of Steel Construction
latest edition. The angles used are rather thin (5/8 in. is the arbitrary maximum thickness used
in the ASD manual) so they will have the some flexibility. The angle will develop some small
moments not more than 20 percent of full fixedend conditions, but they are neglected in
design. The supported beam section was designed utilizing the SAP 2002 and STAAD
structural design softwares. The crosssection was known to be W8X24. The total dead load
including the member’s dead load and live load were calculated and were applied on the
supported beam. These loads were used to determine the end reactions of the simply supported
beam spanning 15 feet in the direction perpendicular to the direction of concrete slab. Using
the factored load of Wu = 0.384 kip/ft, the end reactions of the beam were determined to be
2.88 kips. Given the beam section of W8X 24, web thickness of Wt = 0.24 in, steel type
ASTM A36 (Fy = 36 ksi), bolt diameter of 3/4" ASTM A325 HS, the standard angle was
selected to be (2 < 4 X 31/2 X 5/16 X 51/2 ASTM A36.
Calculations are shown in Appendix (B).
Conclusion
The report presented the design of pedestrian bridge for residential development. The bridge
spans 180 ft long over the Accotink Creek located at Lorton, VA. The firs stage in designing
the bridge was to develop model. The model was developed using Auto Cad. From Auto cad
the model was transferred to the STAAD software for structural analysis. The third stage was
10
to calculate all applied loads. The loads were calculated using the International Building Codes
(IBC). All the members were designed based on the Allowable Stress Design (ASD) method
specified in the 1989 AISC,. 9 th edition. The site topographic indicated a valley where a
stream was passing trough. Based on different alternative explored, the suitable structure was
to be built was a steel arch bridge. The steel was preferred over the steel since steel is light in
weight and can be constructed with more ease. The structure analysis was performed and the
values for moments, shears and stresses were found to be within permissible range. Design
was ran and the cross sections were determined to be satisfactory and economical efficient.
The structure was to be designed 32 feet above the ground due to the flood plain concerns.
The arch structure was to be designed as fixed supports. It is three degrees indeterminate. It is
relatively rigid and slightly more economical than other types of arch support. The depth to
span ratio was chosen in order to accommodate the high temperature stresses. The super
structure members were designed as W shapes. The arch, verticals and horizontal ties between
arch ribs were designed to be circular Hollow Steel Tubes (HSS). The bridge was planned to
be constructed as three broken pieces of 60 feet longitudinal planer structure prefabricated in
shop. Two of the end pieces will be installed using cranes and the middle piece will be
installed using a helicopter. Once the two ends of structures were installed, the middle piece
will be connected to the two end pieces. The cost of the construction was estimated to be
estimate of the Gateway Arch Bridge Nashville, Tennessee designed by the American Bridge
Corporation. The design meets the objectives spelled out in the introduction. If time
11
permitted, other types of arch structures would be analyzed to further optimize the efficiency
of the structure.
12
APPENDIX (A)
Beam cross section picture
General Beam Elevation
DESIGN OF ONE WAY SLAB
ACI 318 – 89 Design
Section Step Description Aid
9.5 Given The deck system shown in Figure () consists of a
1. Preliminary continuous oneway slab supported by simple floor beams.
work The dead load DL (does not include the weight of the slab,
4 psf. Railing, 85 psf. Live load LL. Use f c = 3,000 psi
(normalweight concrete) and f y = 40,000psi.
Determine the slab thickness. The slab will be designed to
satisfy the ACI minimum thickness requirements. This
thickness will be used to estimate slab weight.
Slab weight:
2. Flexural With both end continuous,
design
Min. h = 1/28 l n = 1/28 (2.5’) (12”) = 1.07 in.
With one end continuous,
Determine the load:
13
Slab dead load = 2/12(150) = 25 lb/ft 2
Total (DL slab + DL railing ) = 45 lb/ ft 2
Because we are designing a slab segment that is 12 in.
wide, the forgoing loading is the same as 190 Ib/ft or 0.19
k/ft.
Determine the shear and moments
In the end span at the face of the first interior support,
ACI
V u = 1.15 W u L n = 1.15 (0.19) (2.5)/2 = Section
2 8.3.3
= 0.682 kip.
Whereas at the other supports,
14
= 0.237 kips.
ACI
Design the slab Section
Using the assumed slab thickness of 2in., find the 1.5.5.1(a)
approximate d. assume No. 3 bars for main steel and ¾ in.
cover for the bars in the slab, thus
d = 20.750.185 = 1.065 in.
Design the steel reinforcing
Select the point of the maximum moment. This is the
negative which occurs in the end span at the first interior
support and.
ØM n = Ø b d 2 k
Since the steel area required at all other points will be less,
the preceding process will be repeated for the other points.
The expression required ,
15
Required K = M u (12)/ 0.9 (12)(1.605) 2 = M u /1.02
Where M u must be in kipsft. In the usual manner, the
required steel ratio ρ and the required steel area A s may
then be determined. Te results of these calculations are
listed in Table (1).
Slab Steel Area Requirements
Recall that maximum spacing allowed is the smallest of 5h
or 18 in. Since 5h = 5(7) = 35 in., the 18in. would control
and the spacing is acceptable.
16
Check the Strength
Maximum Vu = 1.32 kips at the face of support. A check
of shear at the critical section which is at a distance equal to
the effective depth of the member from the face of the
support is conservative. Slabs are not normally reinforced
for shear, Therefore,
0.85(2(3000)^1/2)(12)(1.065) / 1000 = 1.189 kips
Select the main steel
Determine the shrinkage and temperature reinforcement
Picture
Prepare the design sketches. The final design sketch for the
slab is shown in Figure 67. For clarity, the interior and
spans are shown separately.
17
APPENDIX Connection design
(B)
Load calculations:
Dead load (slab) = (slab thickness ) (Effective length)(Weight
of the concrete)
= (2 in) ((2.5 ft x 12in) – 6.495 in)) (0.150 k/ft 3 ) =
0.0490 k/ft
psf)/1000) = 0.029 k/ft
0.1667 k/ft
Total DL = 0.098 k/ft
Total LL = 0.1667 k/ft
= 0.384 k/ft
18
Connection design
Given: Beam: W8X24 (Web = 0.24 in)
ASTM A36 steel (F y = 36 ksi)
Bolts: 3/4 ’’ Ө ASTM A36 HS bolts
Table ID.
Shear P 45
Reaction: 2.88 kips
Solution: From Table I of latest ASD steel design manual
edition, it can be seen that the least number of rows
appropriate to 8 in. beam is 2. Table 1A for the 2 row
connection 26.5 kips, which is satisfactory for shear.
Entering corresponding 2 row Table IB in the column
headed 3/4 in., opposite F y = 36 ksi, the value of 72.8
kips is found. Multiplying this by the decimal thickness of
the web, the bearing capacity is found to be (0.245)(72.8)
= 17.83 kips, which is greater than the reaction and
therefore adequate.
Detail data: 2∟4 X 3 ½ X 5/16 X 5 ½ ASTM A36.
Friction type connection or bearing type with threads in
19
shear planes
20
21
22
23
Thursday, April 12, 2007, 11:43 PM
PAGE NO. 1
****************************************************
* *
* STAAD.Pro *
* Version 2005 Bld 1001.US *
* Proprietary Program of *
* Research Engineers, Intl. *
* Date= APR 12, 2007 *
* Time= 23:36:27 *
* *
* USER ID: *
****************************************************
P R O B L E M S T A T I S T I C S
-----------------------------------
STEEL TAKE-OFF
--------------
151. FINISH
************************************************************
* For questions on STAAD.Pro, please contact *
* Research Engineers Offices at the following locations *
* *
* Telephone Email *
* USA: +1 (714)974-2500 support@reiusa.com *
* CANADA +1 (905)632-4771 detech@odandetech.com *
* CANADA +1 (604)629 6087 staad@dowco.com *
* UK +44(1454)207-000 support@reel.co.uk *
* FRANCE +33(0)1 64551084 support@reel.co.uk *
* GERMANY +49/931/40468-71 info@reig.de *
* NORWAY +47 67 57 21 30 staad@edr.no *
* SINGAPORE +65 6225-6015/16 support@reiasia.net *
* INDIA +91(033)2357-3575 support@calcutta.reiusa.com *
* JAPAN +81(03)5952-6500 eng-eye@crc.co.jp *
* CHINA +86(411)363-1983 support@reiasia.net *
* *
* North America support@reiusa.com *
* Europe support@reel.co.uk *
* Asia support@reiasia.net *
************************************************************
Initial efforts focused on loadings for the roof, such as dead loads, live loads, snow loads,
and wind loads. The resulting loadings can be seen in the accompanying tables. After all
loads were established, work focused on the most critical component: the conference
center roof. After brief analysis of alternative roofing frameworks, a six foot tall truss
was designed in SAP2000 utilizing wide flange beams. The basis of the conference
center roofing system is a series of seven trusses that are each two hundred feet long.
Upon researching roofing materials and finalizing loads, it was determined that a ten foot
spacing between joists was an efficient compromise between the metal roof decking and
the number of joists required in the roofing system. All conference center joists are
W8x31 wide flange steel shapes, simply supported with a 25 foot span length between
trusses. Final steel beam selections can be seen on the accompanying tables.
After the roof framework was completed, the remaining building structure was designed.
Upon review of wall construction methods, a single-wythe concrete masonry wall was
chosen for its well balanced cost, look, performance, and available resources. The
masonry walls were designed using the Structural Masonry Design System Version 4.0
software, distributed by the National Concrete Masonry Association. This is a popular
design choice for buildings of this size (roughly equivalent to Home Depot® stores in
appearance and height). As shown in the accompanying software printouts, all walls
feature 12” concrete masonry units. Reinforcement consisted of #6 steel reinforcement
bars, with spacing that ranges from 32 inches on center to 48 inches on center, in
accordance with the illustration below. It was assumed that the first six cells would be
grouted on each wall, resulting in an So value of 48 inches, as shown in the illustration
below. Due to the unique design properties of masonry walls, moment resistance to out
of plane loading increases when axial loadings increase. Thus, the walls with the least
amount of reinforcement are the walls bearing the most loading, which are the two truss
bearing walls.
Due to the much smaller and less critical layout of the attached administration building,
its roofing system was the last major aspect to be designed. As shown in the attached
drawings, a simple roofing framework solely consisting of open web steel joists was
designed for this building. The 42nd edition of Standard Specifications was consulted for
the administration building roof design, which is published by the Steel Joist Institute.
Joists in the administration building roof span in the same direction, as those in the
conference center. Because similar roof loadings and materials were utilized in the
conference center and administration building, joist spacing is constant at 10 feet
throughout both buildings. However, due to the administration building layout, joist
spans range from a minimum 39 feet to a maximum of 64 feet. While this is well within
the allowable range for steel joists, this did require the use of “Longspan”, or LH Series
joists. Joist depths range between 24 inches and 32 inches, with deeper joists being used
in the center section, where spans are the longest.
After the building walls and roof systems were designed, minor aspects of design such as
door and window openings (with corresponding lintels) and connection details remained.
Door and window openings were coordinated with Primavera Engineering to create a
balanced look that was favorable to the surrounding site uses. Because this is a highly
secure facility, one entire side of the building features no openings at all. Most door and
window openings are very generic, with the exception of the revolving door at the front
of the administration building, and the large loading bays featuring roll-up doors in the
rear of the conference center. Precast concrete lintels were designed for all openings
using the same masonry design software that was utilized in design of the masonry walls.
Printouts from the masonry design software identifying section properties and
reinforcements for all lintels are attached.
Commercial Structure
Loading Report
Commercial Structural Loading Report
Ref : Page : Section
1:9:4.1 Roof Live Load
Maintenance Load
1:13:T4-1 Workers Point Live Load= 300 lb (min)
Equipment
Material
1 At <= 200ft^2
1:10:4.9.1 R1 = 1.2 - 0.001*At 200 ft^2 < At < 600cft^2
0.6 At >= 600 ft^2
1 F <= 4
1:11:4.9.1 R2 = 1.2 - 0.05*F 4 < F < 12
0.6 F >= 12
Wind Loads
1:25:6.5.6.3 Determine Exposure Category Exposure B
1:77:T6-1 Determine Important Factor, I I = 1.15
1:3:T1-1 Building & Structural Catergories Cat III
1:21:6.1.4.1 Minimum Wind Load WL = 10 lb/ft^2 (min)
1:36:F6-1C Determine Basic Wind speed, Pv Pv = 90 mph (VA)
2:172:T1609.7(4) Determine Pressure Expose Coefficient, Kz & Kh
h (ft) Kz Kh
0-15 0.37
20 0.42
25 0.46
30 0.5 0.5
Wind Load Cont…
h (ft) Gh
0-15 1.65
20 1.59
25 1.54
30 1.51
Cp
Windward 0.8
Leeward -0.5
Side -0.7
Cp
Windward -0.7
Leeward -0.7
Cont. I 0.25
-0.25
Pv = 20.7
I= 1.15
Kh = 0.5
Cp = -0.5
GCpi GCpi
0.25 -0.25
h (ft) Gh P P
0-15 1.65 -12.8 -6.8
20 1.59 -12.4 -6.5
25 1.54 -12.1 -6.2
30 1.51 -12.0 -6.0
Pv = 20.7
I= 1.15
Kh = 0.5
Cp = -0.7
GCpi GCpi
0.25 -0.25
h (ft) Gh P P
0-15 1.65 -16.7 -10.8
20 1.59 -16.2 -10.3
25 1.54 -15.8 -9.9
30 1.51 -15.6 -9.6
Wind Load @ Wall (0-15 ft) = 16.7 psf
1:81 Snow Load Wind Load @ Roof (30 ft) = 15.6 psf
Dock Lintel
Main Door Lintel
Window Lintel
CONFERENCE CENTER TRUSS FRAMING SYSTEM (1 = 10")
(1/2" = 1')
(1" = 1')
(1" = 1')
JOIST FRAMING SYSTEM ADMIN/CONF. BUILDING (1/8" = 1')
(1" = 1")
(1" = 1")
Commercial Structure
Section Inventory
LONGSPAN JOIST MEMBER, ADMIN BUILDING
Joists
Trib. Area Trib Area Linear Load Design Load
# Length (ft) Width (ft) (ft^2) Total Load (psf) (lbs/ft) LH-Series Joists (lbs/ft) Span (ft) Depth (in)
1 39.375 10 393.75 83.6 836 24LH09 994 39 24
2 43.416 10 434.16 83.6 836 28LH10 937 45 28
3 47.458 10 474.58 83.6 836 28LH10 864 47 28
4 51.500 10 515.00 83.6 836 32LH11 870 51 32
5 55.536 10 555.36 83.6 836 32LH12 897 55 32
6 59.578 10 595.78 83.6 836 32LH13 900 59 32
7 63.395 10 633.95 83.6 836 32LH15 924 63 32
8 64.218 10 642.18 83.6 836 32LH15 895 64 32
9 64.218 10 642.18 83.6 836 32LH15 895 64 32
10 64.218 10 642.18 83.6 836 32LH15 895 64 32
11 64.218 10 642.18 83.6 836 32LH15 895 64 32
12 64.218 10 642.18 83.6 836 32LH15 895 64 32
13 63.619 10 636.19 83.6 836 32LH15 924 63 32
14 59.578 10 595.78 83.6 836 32LH13 900 59 32
15 55.536 10 555.36 83.6 836 32LH12 897 55 32
16 51.500 10 515.00 83.6 836 32LH11 870 51 32
17 47.458 10 474.58 83.6 836 28LH10 864 47 28
18 45.416 10 454.16 83.6 836 28LH10 937 45 28
19 39.375 10 393.75 83.6 836 24LH09 994 39 24
Phone: 703-788-8324
Client Needs
Client Requirements
The design of the recycling center was performed to meet the required
specifications of the client. The building dimensions, as specified by the client, are 200
feet long, 100 feet wide and 35 feet high. The building will require an opening, 15 feet
wide by 14 feet tall, to be used as an entrance and exit for vehicles which will be
unloading recycling materials. A loading area, 25 feet wide by 14 feet tall, will also be
required for vehicles removing sorted recycling from the building. The building will
require an entrance for employees which will be 10 feet wide by 7 feet tall. This entrance
will lead to an office area, which is 50 feet wide by 40 feet long. The office area is to
include 2 offices, a break/conference room, and a locker room with showers.
The structural design of the building will take these considerations into account to
meet the client’s needs. StrucTech was not requested to design of the office area. The
design of the office area will only be taken into account for the structural design of the
building.
Design Considerations
A major consideration of the design will be the structural integrity of the building.
This is not only important for the structural stability of the building, but also for the
safety on the employees inside the building. Various loads and load combinations will be
used during for the analysis of the building. The following loads will be taken into
account to ensure the stability of the building:
Dead Loads
Material Loads
Live Loads
Wind Loads
Snow Loads
The cost of the building was also an important factor which was considered for
the design. The use of standard construction practices will be implemented when
applicable throughout the design to reduce construction time.
Building Alternatives
Creating multiple designs to be analyzed will ensure that StrucTech will provide
our client with the most efficient design possible. This will ensure that excessive building
materials will not be used in the construction of the building. The varying factors which
were used the designs were the number of roofing members and the number of columns.
Based on these factors, the following 3 models were created:
Models 1 and 2 can be compared to determine whether less roofing members can
be used for the building. This will reduce the cost of the building materials and will
reduce construction costs by requiring fewer connections. Models 1 and 3 can be
compared to determine whether additional columns will reduce the size of beam and
column elements. A reduction of beam sizes will reduce material cost and will lessen the
loads of the building.
Additional beams will be attached between exterior columns at 7 foot vertical
intervals for wind loads. Bracing elements will also be added to support for wind loads.
The number of bracing elements required will be determined during the analysis of the
design.
The building models were designed and created using AutoCAD. These models
were then imported into SAP, which was used to analyze the models. All loads for the
building were added, where appropriate, to each model, and were analyzed using various
loading combinations. Once the analysis is complete, the software will automatically
provide the required beam and column sizes which will meet the design strengths.
Load Requirements
The load considerations to be taken into account for the structural design of the
recycling facility are dead, materials, live, wind and snow. Dead loads for all structural
members are calculated with the SAP software, which were determined during the
analysis of the models. The material loads that were considered for the building were:
All materials load were applied to the entire roof area, except for the siding
materials which are applied to beams used for wind loads. All other loads were
determined using the ASCE 7-05 minimum design loads for buildings, as published by
the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Roofing Materials
Siding Materials
Analysis Results
Connection Design
Cost Estimate