Structural Systems
Team No. 03-2013
introduction
contents
02
Introduction
Project Overview
Owner Profile & Project Goals
Building Fast Facts
Project Overview.
elementary school for the Reading School District in
Three-Story Elementary School
Reading, PA (Figure 1 on next page). The enclosed
87,000 Sq. Ft.
design
$19.7 Million
integrates energy conservation, environment, safety,
security,
03
03
Executive Summary
Dead Loads
Live Loads
Separate Natatorium
Location Fast Facts
Reading, PA
Southeast Pennsylvania
Urban Site
Foundation System
88,000 residents
Framing System
Poorest City in America*
America*
District is in Bottom 10% for
Academic Performance in PA*
Districts in PA*
15
sustainability,
cost-benefit,
functionality,
and
operational considerations.
31.5 % High School Dropout Rate*
6.7% of Reading Residents have a
The building is three stories and approximately
87,000 Sq. Ft. Some of the room areas have been
modified from the original architectural design for
constructability
enhancement.
concerns
In
and
addition,
a
overall
15,000
design
Sq.
Ft.
natatorium design is included as an add-alternate
for the owner’s review. The proposed building site is
located on N. 13th Street and Robeson Street which
will provide the necessary access and utilities for the
project.
Upon reviewing the competition
◊ Cost is important but not the only driving
factor
◊ Open to innovative ideas
◊ Long-lasting and durable building
◊ Willing to spend upfront to achieve lifecycle
savings
◊ Lifecycle savings will be reinvested
in curriculum
◊ Prefers construction of new building affect existing
operations for only one school year
Project Goals.
For the assumed owner
profile, the project team was able to develop a set
of goals to guide the design of this project. These
goals are not meant to add cost, but instead
provide additional value to the school district and
building occupants.
◊ Promote active learning through effective design
◊ Maximize indoor environmental quality
◊ Create a community center without impacting
student learning
◊ Create a secure environment for learning
◊ Flexible design for future adaptability and change
◊ Sustainable school as a teaching tool
Structural Goals:
One of the Highest Crime Rates in
Highest Poverty Rate of School
Conclusion
productivity,
accessibility,
that
guidelines and researching the Reading area, the
design team assembled an owner profile for the
Reading School District School Board:
Geotechnical Report
Analysis of Façade Strength
durability,
building
Add-Alternates:
Existing School Usage
Natatorium Design
high-performance
Owner Profile.
Wind Loads
Gymnasium/Shelter Design
a
Brick & Aluminum Panel Façade
Hardened First Floor Envelope
Structural Systems
is
Steel Frame w/ Shear Walls
& Braced Frames
Snow Loads
Seismic Loads
06
Building Systems Summary
Hybrid Geothermal System
Building Loads
This proposal is for a new
Owner Goals:
◊
◊
◊
◊
◊
◊
Improve student performance
Student and teacher satisfaction & comfort
School as a center of the community
Future-proof facility
Safety and security of students
Sustainable
Bachelor’s Degree or Higher*
◊ Provide an efficient, economical, and lasting
design
◊ Maximize flexibility, conducive to the ever
changing educational environment
◊ Maximize ceiling space to minimize clashes with
Mechanical designers
◊ Design the building to support the community and
its activities
◊ Increase safety of occupants through design
*Refer to ‘Building Systems Integration
Supporting Documents’ Bibliography
01
Team No. 03-2013
Team No. 03-2013
02
E
xecutive Summary.
The intent of
this report is to give a summary of the
engineer’s recommendations if they see fit for an
flexibility of the building to allow the ability for the
Shallow rooted native
add-alternate.
building to evolve as the state of education
plants =2 PSF
Soil=50 PSF
Drainage and
The
structural design of the new Reading Area
Elementary School located in Reading,
design
of
the
elementary
includes many features including:
Having
green roofs,
the
idea
of
future-
proofing, many of the loads included in the design
classroom
description of the design intent, the calculations
a
and reasoning behind the loads used by the
community, a stage capable of supporting a full
for a typical elementary school.
structural
all
theatrical production, and a Gymnasium designed
made this decision considering various scenarios
Also
to act as a shelter for the community in the case of
that may involve renovation of the elementary
an emergency or natural disaster.
school,
engineers,
and
an
overview
structural systems designed in the building.
of
included in this report is an appendix containing
necessary sample calculations, plans, sections, and
elevations needed to supplement the information
found in the report.
natatorium
to
be
educational
considered
purposes,
Contained in this report includes a
for
changes in the future.
exposed
Pennsylvania.
ceilings
school
used
by
the
All designs included in this report were
performed based on the Reading Area governing
codes which is a slightly modification to IBC 2009.
Considering that it is the intent of the school
district to have a school’s lifespan range from 50-
they see fit to keep up with the ever changing
◊
ACI 318-11[2]
Load Type
façade strength when struck by projectiles from
considerations was the idea of a future-proof
outside the school. In lieu of recent events, the
design.
design team thought it was pertinent to perform an
rather open ended, and this design team defines
analysis on how the project team could provide
future-proofing as a design that does not limit
relatively
impoverished area with a very high crime rate.
Considering this, the structural designers felt it was
used a method used in a report done by Matthew
All the different dead loads were
Jones for NCSU on Green Roof Structural Design[4]
to calculate the dead load of the green roofs used.
Live Loads.
Table 1 Typical Dead Loads
pertinent to include in this report an analysis of the
a
roofs. To account for that, the structural engineers
used in the design of the elementary school.
B
is
the life of the building.
the new elementary school is the inclusion of green
used on the elementary school.
AISC 360-10[1]
area
changes to the main structural system throughout
As mentioned earlier, one of the features of
Figure 2 shows the construction of the green roofs
◊
Reading
improvements/
building. Table 1 lists all of the different dead loads
designers did this to allow the school to evolve as
The
minimal
considered throughout the different area of the
ASCE 7-05
of the Reading Area School District.
hopefully
Figure 2 Isometric of Green Roof Construction[3]
were used:
◊
inherent in any education programs including that
but
The designers
For the design of the new school several references
The
class sizes, technology, and teaching methods
Roofing=10 PSF
of this structure go beyond the code requirements
Dead Loads.
100 years, the designers used loads that allow
maximum flexibility for future renovations.
Vapor Barrier = 3 PSF
uilding Loads.
The loads chosen
below were used to facilitate the intent
of the design team as a whole. As can
be read in more detail in the Building
Integration Report, one of the overarching design
Load
(PSF)
Descripon
Floor Dead
Load
60
2” metal deck with 3.5” concrete
topping and MEP allowances
Roof Dead
Load
30
Green Roof
Dead Load
65
The determination of live loads is
where the majority of the future-proofing of the
structural design ideas were facilitated.
1.5” Roof Deck + MEP allowances
and roofing mat’l.
Loads shown on the following page in Table 2 were
calculated in accordance with ASCE 7[5].
As the
reader may notice, the structural designers chose
to use a corridor live load throughout the building
See Figure 1
Existing (Occupied)
Elementary School
The idea of future-proofing a building is
safety for the school. The intent of this analysis and
The Live
Accessible Green Roof
the design presented was to give the school district
the option to strengthen the façade given the
Aluminum Accent Panels
03
Proposed Natatorium
Team No. 03-2013
Team No. 03-2013
Figure 1 Exterior Rendering
04
the project team feels they allow the community
was found that the forces for the main wind force-
you can see the seismic base shear calculated for
was not used throughout the building because in
the opportunity to hold theatrical productions
resisting system are below that required for seismic
the main structure (Table 3) and the gym (Table 4)
most areas it was not possible, while other areas it
beyond what the elementary school would typically
except for certain components described later in
based
put on and further involves the community in their
this submittal.
calculated under seismic conditions was 910 kips.
as the entire floor live load.
Live Load reduction
Table 2 Live Loads used throughout building
new elementary school.
Load (PSF)
Floor LL
100
Snow Loads.
The Municipality of Reading
higher seismic risk than most areas in Pennsylvania.
Roof LL
20
decided not to adopt the snow load that IBC 2009
As in the previous section of the report it was found
Stage Roof LL*
58
stipulated. Instead, Reading requires a ground snow
that seismic loads control the design of the lateral
load of 35 PSF as compared to 25 PSF.
system. Because of the owner’s requirements that
was felt it could inhibit future renovations.
ASCE 7 allows the use of a lower live load in
the classrooms, but the design team decided using
the higher corridor live load throughout the building
gave the school district more options when they
decided to renovate in the future. The use of this
live load allows for the addition or relocation of
corridors in the event classrooms are added or
removed, or if the district wishes to add different
types of spaces throughout the building.
As can also be seen in Table 2, the stage
roof uses a live load of 58 PSF instead of the typical
roof live load. A main point in the design team’s
Seismic Loads.
The
the
snow load.
This decision was made based on
community, the structural engineers were required
Reading’s history of heavy snow fall and high
to calculate the seismic loads of the gym separate
frequency of ice storms in the winter. The structural
from the main structure. This was done by isolating
engineers found the roof snow load will exceed the
the gym structure from the rest of the building
design load required by using the method of
through the use of expansion joints between the
calculating it stipulated in ASCE 7, but will not
gym roof and floor diaphragms and the main
exceed the 35 PSF ground snow load including
school roof and floor roof and floor diaphragms.
issues associated with snow drift.
double
as
a
FEMA
shelter
for
To calculate the seismic forces, information
When calculating the wind
GEO Group Inc. at the project site, and using USGS
loads on the structure, the designers simplified the
seismic design maps, found at www.USGS.gov, to
calculation by using three different zones which
calculate the loads needed. In the Tables 3 and 4,
can be seen in Figure 3.
The stage live load includes 50 PSF
Table 3 Main School
Table 4 Gym/Shelter
Seismic Load Data
Seismic Load Data
Main School
and 25% of the stage roof dead load. The 50 PSF
includes allowances for typical equipment such as;
Occ. Cat.
props, stage lights, sound systems, and various
III
IV
Importance
1.5
25% of the deal load added to this is used to
Site Class
C
Site Class
C
R factor Ord.
Reinf. Conc.
Shear walls
5
R factor Ind.
5
Seismic Design
B
account for impact caused by counterweights
loads are typical of a high school auditorium’s
stage
[6].
In
the
preliminary
design
phases
the
decision to use the loads associated with a typical
high school theater seemed extreme.
However,
the project team felt that in an area with high
crime rates like Reading, the community needed
the opportunity to create new programs and extra
curricular activities.
05
By using the loads discussed,
Figure 3 Key plan of zones used to
calculate wind forces
The simplified procedure laid out in ASCE 7
was used to calculate all wind forces, and for each
zone the structural engineers found Case 1 to
control.
Detailed
calculations
and
further
description on the method used can be found in
the supplement information section. The total base
shear the project team found for the wind load is
758 kips. Upon further calculation of lateral loads, it
Team No. 03-2013
1.25
Occ. Cat.
Importance
Factor
These
7-05.
The
total
base
shear
S
tructural Systems.
The structural
systems section of this report summarizes
the different systems chosen by the design
team.
The primary goal of the structural
engineers on the project was to design a building
that was safe for occupancy throughout its entire
lifespan.
On this project, the structural engineers
were part of a larger design team though.
design
team
was
made
up
of
The
Mechanical
Engineers, Construction Managers, BIM Designers, as
well as the Structural Engineers.
With this being
considered, safety was not the only goal of the
design team.
Decisions made about the structural system
were
made
only
after
the
entire
team
was
consulted and other ideas were thought through to
ensure that the team’s goals and, more importantly,
the owner’s goals were met.
This process is
explained in more detail in the Building Integration
The design team worked as a whole to
create
a
building
they
feel
is
economical,
innovative, and meets all of the requirements laid
Factor
Category
larger than the wind loads.
Report.
Gym/Shelter
rigging systems associated with this equipment. The
used to hoist large props and backdrops.
the
was compiled from a geotechnical report done by
goals was the elementary school is a center of the
community.
gym
Reading, Pennsylvania has
structural designers decided to use this 35 PSF roof
Wind Loads.
ASCE
The seismic lateral condition produced a load 16.7%
Load Types
*Stage LL=50PSF + .25(DL)
on
out by the owner.
Many factors came into play
during the decision making process, i.e. economics,
Comp.
coordination with other disciplines, and the type of
Moment Frame
environment the designers were trying to create.
Seismic Design
C
This next portion of the report will go through each
system chosen, how the decision was made, and
Category
Building Wt. (k)
17500
Building Wt. (k)
1328
Base Shear (k)
910
Base Shear (k)
65
includes
sample
calculations
to
support
the
decisions made.
*Complete seismic load calculations can be found in
Geotechnical Report.
the supplemental information at the end of the sub-
geotechnical report done by GEO Group Inc., the
mittal along with the USGS Seismic Design Maps mentioned above.
Team No. 03-2013
According to the
area in which the new building will be placed
06
consists of, “a very broad, moderately dissected
valley with a gently undulating surface with the
southern half having Karst Terrain.”[7] Considering
the Karst Topography, the site is very prone to
sinkholes.
In fact, there are already 15 sinkholes
mapped throughout the site.
to limit the number of grade beams used in the
shallow footings are to be used.
building
Foundation
Design.
As
mentioned
previously, the design team chose to use driven
piles
as
the
main
foundation
type.
The
geotechnical report stipulates that concrete filled
The report was based on the testing of the
steel pipe piles be used with a minimum diameter
soil conditions using 14 test borings, and the report
of 10 inches and a minimum wall thickness of .2
inches. The piles will use pile caps to connect to
Table 5 Geotechnical Design Parameters
other piles, grade beams, and the columns.
Courtesy of GEO Group Inc.
A
3000
Angle of Internal Friction for Soil, φ (degrees)
30
between interior columns. All interior floor slabs will
Moist Unit Wt. of Soil, (PCF)
130
bear
Active Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient
.33
Passive Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient
3
At-rest Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient
.5
Coefficient of Sliding Friction
.4
Minimum Frost Depth (inches)
36
Seismic Site Class
C
Mod. Of Vert. Subgrade React. (psi)
100
designed
bearing
bedrock.
native
soils
The subsurface
on
limestone
In Table 5, the geotechnical design
walls
materials
and
that
will
capacity
in
accordance
with
The project team ultimately decided to use
This
decision was made due to the belief of the design
team and the geotechnical engineers that it would
be the most economical method. Furthermore, the
design team felt driven piles were the safest way to
reduce the effects of potential sinkholes during
information portion of the report.
Table 6 General Grade Beam information
GB-1
GB-2
Wall Type
Grade Beam
Uniform
Span (feet)
Load (KLF)
41
1.2
39
.53
32
2.1
Brick cavity wall with
metal stud backup
Metal stud wall with
Gyp. Board both side
the
12” Reinforced
GB-B
Concrete Walls
Figure 4 Basement retaining wall detail
Given the symmetrical
nature of the building, the project team will only use
Table 7 Grade Beam Sizes and Reinforcing
one pile cap size using a maximum column load of
Grade
Depth
Width
Top
Bottom
Shear
223 kips. The pile configuration recommended by
Beam
(ft)
(ft)
Reinf.
Reinf.
Reinf.
the geotechnical report have sufficient capacity to
GB-1
2’-0”
1’-6”
(2)#9
(4)#9
#3 @ 9”
GB-2
1’-6”
1’-3”
(2)#6
(3)#6
#3 @ 7”
GB-B
2’-6”
1’-6”
(2)#9
(3)#9
#3 @ 7”
support the loads used in the design. The decision
to use only one pile cap size throughout the
building was made due to a fluctuation of only 1015 kips between column loads in the school
building. A typical pile cap detail can be found in
the supporting documents later in the submittal.
cap design can be found in the supplemental
information at the end of the submittal. Due to the
expansion joints isolating the gymnasium from the
rest of the building; pile caps along the expansion
joint support both columns from the gymnasium
and the main building.
The pile caps that are
shared between the gymnasium and the main
construction and throughout the life span of the
building structure require five piles.
building.
Grade Beam Design.
Given the fact that bedrock was found
in
reinforcement can be found in the supplemental
be
[7]
changes
Full calculations of the grade beam sizes and
span
Calculations supporting the pile and pile
parameters are stated.
driven piles as the main foundation type.
fill
Pile and Pile Cap Design.
conditions below the proposed structure include fill
overlying
existing
exterior
stipulations of the geotechnical report.
foundations; compaction grouting, excavation and
materials
support
compacted and proof-rolled to ensure proper
recommended three different types of feasible
replacement, and driven piles.
on
to
of
and rebar included in each grade beam section.
Beam
Allowable Bearing Pressure after Compaction (PSF)
amount
they are supporting, and Table 7 lists the dimensions
Grade
Grade beams were
the
experienced by the grade beams from the walls
column by Geo Group Inc.
Value
limit
excavation pit sizes. Table 6 shows the loads
minimum of three piles is recommended for each
Parameter
to
Three different grade beam
Retaining Wall Design. There were only two areas
that
require
retaining
walls
on
the
site.
The
Construction Management submittal goes into more
detail about how the grading and excavation
required throughout the site.
The basement walls are designed as 12”
reinforced concrete retaining walls as can be seen
in the detail shown in Figure 4. The other area
where a retaining wall is located is at the raised
playground area which is shown in Figure 5.
This
retaining wall is a five foot segmental retaining wall
concrete and structural steel. The decision to use
structural
steel
was
W18x40
◊
W21x44
◊
W30x99
exterior walls, GB2 for interior walls, and GB-B for the
the students and is more economical, easier to
and mechanical compaction could be done in
basement retaining walls. The designers felt it best
construct,
and
more
concrete.
Team No. 03-2013
aesthetic
than
poured
considering
several
the building are:
◊
types were designed for the building: GB1 for
made
options. Some common sizes of structural steel in
minimize the amount of excavation needed around
not be burdensome on the schedule of the project,
Team No. 03-2013
team looked at two different systems. Reinforced
W8x28
This creates a safer environment for
When deciding on the
main framing system of the building, the design
◊
the building.
07
Framing System.
used to raise the recess area above street level and
within 25-40 feet of the first floor, driven piles will
locations where grade beams, retaining walls, or
Figure 5 Elevated Recess Area
The primary reason was the expedited
08
schedule and construction sequence and cost of
calculations of how the floor beams and girder
the structure. It was the goal of the team to have
designs
the project only effect one school year structural
documentation section of the submittal. All of the
steel was more conducive to that goal.
The
floors were initially designed for gravity load, then
project team also found using steel to be 10%
composite action was checked assuming one
cheaper than reinforced concrete for the design.
shear
Another goal was safety of the students, because
optimization was conducted to confirm the beam
of the proximity of the original school to the new
and girder capacities and beams and girders were
school,
downsized as appropriate.
the
project
team
wanted
major
construction erection to be away from the existing
school and playgrounds once school is in session.
A concrete structure would not allow for the
sequencing
of
erection
required
by
the
can
stud
be
every
found
12”
Construction Management submittal. Therefore the
◊
W12x56
◊
W10x49
different parts of the structure including the floor
and gravity system, the roof system, and the lateral
system used in the building.
Full structural plans
and typical details beyond what is illustrated here
can be found in the supplemental information at
the end of the submittal.
Floor/Gravity System. The floor system throughout
the building is structural steel framing supporting
3.5” concrete topping on 2VLI18 composite metal
deck. The first floor is a slab on grade . A typical
bay can be seen in Figure 6 along, and sample
each
beam,
Figure 7 Structural plan of corridor (Red depicts
used in the building:
HSS16X12X5/16
The following sections will summarize the
supporting
to the foundation. The following list shows the range
◊
structure.
along
the
Gravity columns carry loads from the floors
accelerated schedule described in detail in the
project team decided steel was to be used for the
in
Figure 8 Section cut through corridor
corridor walls)
Note: Tube steel was used in the gym to counteract
slenderness issues.
made coordination of the disciplines and planning
joists provided the necessary stiffness without being
much simpler.
too deep or expensive.
Roof System. The project team decided to use
Vulcraft Steel Joists and wide flange girders
the roof structure.
[8]
for
This was done because of the
Lateral System. As mentioned previously in the
report, seismic forces control the design of the
lateral system.
With the geometry of the building
One feature of the design decided early on
relatively light loads experienced by the roof
in the process was how the corridors were to be
and
structure, and it was determined to be more
framed.
emergency shelter, it was decided the gym and
economical
the main school would be designed separately.
The mechanical engineers notified the
than
using
wide
flange
beams
structural engineers that the main duct runs would
throughout. The maximum span for any of the roof
be in the corridors and they would need as much
joists is 28’-2” and the maximum spacing between
space as they could possibly be given.
joists is 6’-0”.
The
corridors are the only locations where beam
depths needed to be restricted because no utilities
will run between rooms, and with the classroom
ceilings exposed there is room for the smaller
ductwork and utility pipes branching off of the
corridor.
Therefore, in all other areas, beam and
girder sizes were chosen based on the most
economical weight. This resulted in deeper beams
and girders but a lighter less expensive structure
without causing any coordination issues.
The one issue the project team ran into with
the
requirement
that
the
gym
be
an
To design the lateral system, ETABS was used
to run a dynamic analysis of the building.
The
model was created after using the Equivalent
Lateral Force Method from ASCE7 to get the
the use of steel joists was at the green roof.
seismic base shear of 910 kips.
Originally it was believed to be cheaper and more
occupancy
feasible to use wide flange beams to support the
information used in the calculation of the seismic
green roof. Upon further analysis, however the
forces can be found in the seismic load section of
design team determined it was less expensive and
the report. Figure 9 shows the individual story forces
easier to construct if non composite long span joists
as a result of the calculated base shear (see Table
were used. Under the green roofs they are 20LH5
3) that were used in the ETABS model of the
long span joists at 6’-0” on center. One worry was if
structure. Table 8 shows the building modal results
deflection would be an issue, and it was found the
of the ETABS model.
Figure 7 shows how the corridors were laid
category,
R
value,
The building
and
other
out in plan with column lines at each corridor wall
which created a short span over the corridors
resulting in a typical top of floor to bottom of steel
height of approximately 12.5 feet which was ample
room for the needs of the mechanical engineers.
Figure 8 shows a section cut through a corridor and
how the ductwork, ceiling panels, and structure
Figure 6 Typical bay
09
come together. By doing this early in the process it
Team No. 03-2013
Figure 9 Lateral Loads on Building Structure
Team No. 03-2013
10
Main Building Model
Information and
Displacements
The project team
other option was to add a braced frame.
This
decided the stairwells and
posed several problems.
the
using a concrete shear wall is because of the cost
el evator
sha ft/
The primary reason for
allow for the lateral movement of the building in the
case of an earthquake.
be isolated from the rest of the building due to a
stipulation in the project program that the gym be
T1 Y-dir.
.19s
mechanical
be
of the special detailing a braced frame would
Gymnasium/Shelter
T2 X-dir.
.18s
used as shear walls, as
require, and because concrete shear walls are
T3 Torsional
.07s
seen in red in Figure 10.
being used elsewhere. The second reason for this
gymnasium acts not only as the gym, but also the
Displ. X-dir.
.25 in.
The shear walls are 12”
decision was because the shear wall at column line
Displ. Y-dir.
.30 in.
thick reinforced concrete
O allows for the same flexibility to the design seen
walls,
through the other classroom areas in the building.
Table 8 ETABS output
spaces
and
coupling
data
openings into the stairwells
and elevator shaft.
These walls including the
coupling beams were modeled in ETABS and the
floor structure was simplified to act as a rigid
diaphragm.
The
structural
designers, after
an
initial
analysis of the lateral system did not feel the
building had sufficient torsional stability with only
the use of these shear walls.
To provide the
structure with the necessary torsional stiffness, a
reinforced concrete shear wall was added at
column line O which can be seen in green in
Figure 10. A detail of the shear wall along column
line O is shown below in Figure 10. All beams will
bear on the shear walls using imbeds.
Design.
The
auditorium, cafeteria, and an emergency shelter to
the school.
The gymnasium was designed using
gym is IV opposed to the occupancy category of III
used in the rest of the school design.
steel columns with steel beams at half the height of
According to the FEMA Shelter Design Guide
joists spanning the entire width of the gym to
prominent natural disasters that could compromise
support the roof. The
also
the structure’s integrity in this area. The wind loads
occupancy category of the gym was higher than
consists of a stage designed to be able to hold a
the gym is required to resist are significantly larger
the school which resulted in a higher importance
high school level theatrical production (Figure 11).
than those calculated using ASCE 7. Further analysis
A
similar
approach
designing the gym.
factor.
was
taken
when
As was discussed earlier, the
gymnasium design
, tornadoes and hurricanes are the two most
found the wind pressure on the gym to be 124 PSF,
To avoid not having to design the entire
occupancy
but is still less than the seismic load requirements.
category of IV, the project team decided to split
However, even though the frame was designed for
the two buildings and have them connected via
the seismic load, certain components were required
an expansion joint between diaphragms.
to be able to resist wind forces this extreme.
building
structure
to
have
and
Therefore, the roof slab was thickened to a 5” thick
The gym structure includes a steel frame
concrete slab on 3”deep metal deck rather than
around the exterior of the building with grouted
CMU block walls infilling the frame.
the same roof deck used throughout the rest of the
The results of
building, and the roof joists were changed to
the ETABS model resulted in the conclusion that an
52DLH15 joists to be able to resist uplift and suction
expansion joint that was at least 1/2” wide was to
be used.
forces caused by the design wind pressures. The
This was determined to also allow for
roof/floor diaphragm is isolated from the rest of the
thermal expansion of the building, as well as to
building diaphragms by using expansion joints
Figure 11 3D View of the Gymnasium Structure
school district’s ability to renovate by adding a
partially permanent wall at column line O, but
The project team realizes that high school
because of its short length the effect on the future-
caliber productions will not be put on by the
elementary school students, but the school is meant
Shear Wall Detail @ Column Line O
to be a center of the community. The gymnasium is
one of the main areas where the community can
capable of allowing the movement the gym and
main building will experience during an earthquake.
With the design of the gymnasium done the way it
is the structure is sufficient to withstand what may
be seen in a natural disaster, and allows this space
to be used by the public as a shelter if need be.
become more involved in their school. By designing
Natatorium Design.
The natatorium consists
the stage to support this sort of production this
of a simple structural design.
Figure 10 Shear
provides
community
structure to the gymnasium the design team was
wall layout (left) &
programs to be started that can get kids and adults
able to come up with a relatively inexpensive
detail of the shear
more involved.
The loads seen by a stage are
design for the owner to review. A detailed estimate
wall at column line
different than normal building areas and are
of the natatorium design can be found in the
O (above)
explained thoroughly in the building loads section
Construction Management submittal.
the
opportunity
for
new
of this submittal, but because of the extra load over
the stage the roof structure was designed using
wide flange beams and girders.
11
Because of this the occupancy category of the
the columns for lateral stability, and long span steel
This shear wall does somewhat hinder the
proof design of the building layout is minimal. The
able to be used as a shelter in case of emergency.
[9]
beams were designed to
transfer the loads over the
The gymnasium structure was designed to
Team No. 03-2013
Team No. 03-2013
Using a very similar
The natatorium structure consists of long
span roof joists, wide flange columns on piles and
pile caps, and a slab on grade for the floor slab.
12
Long span roof joists were used because of how
require 5 1/2” deep brick, any glazing on the first
light they are and their ability to span the required
floor would be made out of level 3A ballistics-
86.5 foot width of the natatorium building.
The
resistant glass, and anywhere there are aluminum
designers wanted to span the entire width of the
panels at the first floor 7/16” ballistics-resistant
building to minimize the number of interior columns
fiberglass panels will be added. A detail of the first
needed and to maximize a spectator’s view when
floor façade with the larger brick and bullet resistant
attending a swim meet. When designing the lateral
glass can be seen in Figure 13. Figure 14 shows the
system of the building, it was found that wind
bullet resistant fiberglass that will be behind any
forces will control the design of the natatorium
aluminum panels on the first floor.
building opposed to the school building where
seismic controlled.
Having taken into consideration the added
After further evaluation of the
dead load of the materials, and have made
wind loads, the structure was required to resist a
factored lateral wind force of approximately 67
kips.
To resist this braced frames were located in
changes to the design in the case the owner
decides this is the proper route to take.
Figure 12 3D View of the Natatorium Structure
With a
heavier structure, bullet resistant glass, and other
with Braced Frames.
security measures; the project team realized the
the four areas shown in the three dimensional view
building, but more of an accidental incident.
cost
of the natatorium structure in Figure 12. Table 9 lists
Other features are included in the design that
strengthening of the entire first-floor façade will be
cross
consider an attack more deliberate in nature, and
presented as an add-alternate of $470,000 to the
brace
those features are explained in more detail in the
owner.
the
Table 9 Cross Brace
size
braces
of
in
the
each
Members in the
type (labeled 1-4), and
Natatorium
calculations
Brace
2
may
have,
so
the
In light of current events, the project team
the
There are many methods for providing
lateral
load
has included several features in the design to
security for a structure depending on the building’s
the
enhance security regardless of the add-alternate.
purpose and environment. Given the conditions of
HSS7X4X3/16
calculations for the brace
the surrounding area the engineers assumed the
HSS7X4X3/16
members can be found
most likely danger was that of stray bullets. Given
in
throughout the entire building, some of which can
what is readily available to civilians, the engineers
be seen in Figure 15.
Cross Brace Size
natatorium
along
3
HSS7X2X1/4
4
HSS8X6X5/8
the
with
supplemental
information section of the
decided
report.
withstanding a .44 magnum round, one of the
to
design
a
façade
capable
Figure 13 Detail of Strengthened Façade
of
Analysis
of
Fa ç ade
Strength.
[10]
the structural engineers decided it was necessary
a .44 Magnum round ranks the elementary school
to analyze the strength of the façade being used.
at
A decision was made to come up with an add-
recommendations made by the UFC, the engineers
alternate for the owner to review as well as
designed a stronger façade.
based
on
the
engineers
calculations.
The purpose of this analysis was to help
provide an environment to promote learning that
was safe from the dangers of the surrounding
community.
The purpose of this analysis was not
necessarily done considering a direct attack on the
CCTV
surveillance,
and
a
silent
alarm
students and other
occupants regardless of the costs associated with
The Unified Facilities Criteria Guide 4-023-07
Reading, Pennsylvania, as previously mentioned,
recommendations
hour
These features are deemed necessary to
handguns which are easy to obtain and conceal.
Considering the extremely high crime rate in
Specific areas will have bullet resistant glass, 24-
ensure the safety of the
largest rounds found on the market, and used with
13
this
of
Frames
1
building integration submittal.
implications
was the standard used. According to this guide,
a
low
The
consists
of
threat
façade
brick
level.
of
After
the
veneer
looking
elementary
on
metal
at
the
school
stud
and
aluminum panels in some areas as well as a
significant amount of glazing.
It is the opinion of
Figure 14 Ballistic Resistant fiberglass panels
behind aluminum panels[11]
the upper floors of the building would be shot at an
angle that would be lodged into the ceiling above
without endangering the students.
Therefore, several design decisions were
the project team that only the first floor façade be
made to modify the first floor façade.
strengthened because any projectiles shot towards
using the typical brick size, the first floor would
Team No. 03-2013
Team No. 03-2013
Instead of
Figure 15 Administration area security features
14
them.
More information on the security measures
owner by separating the gymnasium structurally
included in the design can be found in the Building
and housing the natatorium space in an entirely
Systems Integration submittal.
separate facility.
C
In light of current events, we understand the
onclusion.
For
the
structural
design team, the goals laid out in the
introduction were:
need for increased safety in our schools. The
structural
design
team
was
tasked
with
producing several provisions that would create a
secure
environment
where
students
and
teachers could feel safe. Along with other facets
◊
◊
◊
Provide an efficient, economical and lasting
of the project team, the structural design team
design
has made sure the structure could support the
Provide maximum flexibility, conductive to the
extra burden of ballistics-resistant architectural
ever changing educational environment
features.
Provide maximum ceiling space to minimize
meets the goals of the structural engineers, but it
clashes with Mechanical designers
◊
Design the building to support the community
also meets the goals of the project team and
the owners. Through a collaborative process the
and its activities
◊
The design laid out in this report not only
Provide options to increase the safety of the
occupants
structural engineers, along with the other team
members, was able to solve design problems
expediently and create a high quality building
The structure is one of the most costly
aspects of the building as a whole so it is
important to make the structure as economical
as we could. Leaving the ceiling exposed in the
that meets the requirements of the Reading
Area School District and will act as a center of
the community for many years to come.
classrooms allowed us extra room to pick more
economical
choices
for
beams
while
still
providing space for the mechanical systems. The
choice of gypsum wall board on metal stud and
corridor loading throughout the building allows
for the most variance in floor layout and
anticipates
changes
in
technology
and
educational techniques in the future.
The project team has always sought out to
make
the
school
an
active
part
of
the
surrounding community. As the structural design
team, many considerations were meant for the
structural system. The design of the natatorium
facility and strengthening of the gymnasium for
both community theatre and as a shelter made
sure that the school could be facilitated by the
community. The structural design team also
sought to limit the economic burdens on the
15
Team No. 03-2013
Structural Systems
Supporting Documentation
Team No. 03-2013
appendix a
contents
Appendix a details an example of how wind loads were calculated for the elemen-
02
Appendix A
Wind Load Calculations
04
Appendix B
Building Fast Facts
Three-Story Elementary School
USGS Seismic Design Reports
Building Weight
Base Shear Calculations
07
Building Systems Summary
Steel Frame w/ Shear Walls
& Braced Frames
Brick & Aluminum Panel Façade
Add-Alternates:
Foundation Design Calculations
Gravity System Calculations
Hardened First Floor Envelope
Existing School Usage
Reading, PA
Urban Site
88,000 residents
20
height (.)
0-30
40
Kz
V (mph) I
0.7
90
0.76
90
q
1.15
1.15
q(GCp) (psf) qi(GCp) (psf) p (psf)
16.69
11.35
9.18
20.53
18.12
12.32
9.97
22.295
Zone A
GCpi
Orienta*on
L/B
Windward
Leeward
side wall
N-S
1.3
0.8
-0.44
-0.7
W-E
0.76
0.8
-0.5
-0.7
P @ 0-30 (psf)
N-S
W-E
1.3
0.76
20.5
20.5
-15.50
-15.94
-19.24
-19.24
P @ 40 (psf)
N-S
W-E
1.3
0.76
22.3
22.3
-16.74
-17.66
-20.74
-20.74
Poorest City in America*
One of the Highest Crime Rates in
America*
District is in Bottom 10% for
Academic Performance in PA*
Bibliography
Wind Load Sample Calculaons Zone A:
Separate Natatorium
Southeast Pennsylvania
Frame Systems
tion A of the elementary school detailed in figure 4 of the structural systems report.
$19.7 Million
Location Fast Facts
Appendix C
control for the design of the lateral systems. Below is the calculation of wind loads for sec-
87,000 Sq. Ft.
Hybrid Geothermal System
Seismic Load Calculations
tary school. As mentioned in the seismic section of the structural systems report, seismic loads
Highest Poverty Rate of School
Districts in PA*
31.5 % High School Dropout Rate*
Case 1
Orienta*on
Load (kips)
1st Floor
2nd Floor
3rd Floor
Roof
Case 2
N-S
Py
W-E
Px
39.59
79.18
79.18
42.89
30.62
61.2
61.2
33.6
240.83
186.62
Orienta*on
Load (kips) Py
1st Floor
2nd Floor
3rd Floor
Roof
N-S
My
29.69
59.39
59.39
32.16
Px
699.60
1399.32
1399.32
757.90
W-E
Mx
22.96
413.34
45.9
826.2
45.9
826.2
25.2
453.6
6.7% of Reading Residents have a
Bachelor’s Degree or Higher*
base shear:
base shear:
180.62
4256.14
139.96
2519.34
*Refer to ‘Building Systems Integration
Supporting Documents’ Bibliography
01
Team No. 03-2013
Team No. 03-2013
02
appendix b
Case 3
Orienta*on
Load (kips)
1st Floor
2nd Floor
3rd Floor
Roof
Py
base shear:
N-S
W-E
Px
Py
Px
29.69
34.84
22.96
59.39
69.68
45.9
59.39
69.7
45.9
34.84
25.2
32.16
180.62
209.07
139.96
Appendix b shows in detail the calculations and design values the structural design team
22.96
45.9
45.9
25.2
used for the design of the structure of the elementary school and natatorium. As mentioned in the
Seismic Loads section of the Structural Systems Report, the design team found that the seismic
loads controlled for the design of the lateral system for the main elementary school building.
139.96
USGS Seismic Design Maps-Detailed Reports
Case 4
Orienta*on
Load (kips)
1st Floor
2nd Floor
3rd Floor
Roof
base shear:
N-S
Py
Px
22.29
44.58
44.58
24.14
135.59
W-E
Mt
Py
26.16 1141.47
52.31 2283.03
52.32 2283.30
26.16 1185.23
156.94
6893.03
Px
Mt
17.24
34.46
34.46
18.92
17.24
34.46
34.46
18.92
620.57
1240.40
1240.40
681.00
105.07
105.07
3782.37
Worst Case Scenario Zone A
Py:
290 k @ 23.5' off center
Px:
274 k on center
Worst Case Scenario Zone B
Py
229 k on center
Px
319 k @ 13.5' off center
Worst Case Scenario Zone C
Py
57.6 k on center
Px
149 k on center
*From the values given above for the new Reading Area Elementary School, it
was found that the Seismic Design Category for the building is B.
03
Team No. 03-2013
Team No. 03-2013
04
Seismic Base Shear Calculations
Main Elementary School
If T < TL
R =5
I = 1.25
Design Category III
Calculaon of the Building Weights (School Only) for Seismic
Floor Weights
Floor
Steel
floor area Wts.
Wts
Level
1
36362
60
11
3614383
2
26956
60
20
3019072
3
33691
60
20
3773392
36362
37
16
2698060
Roof
13104.91 kips
Gymnasium
Wall Weights
Level
Area
Wall
1
19628
2
18494
3
9408
19235
44
18124
70
12
65856
50
0
4394.
516 kips
70
Bldg. Wt.
05
R =5
I = 1.5
Design Category IV
17499.42 k
Team No. 03-2013
Team No. 03-2013
06
appendix c
Appendix c shows calculations for the frame systems including foundation design calculations and
gravity systems for the elementary school as mentioned in the structural systems section of the
main report. below calculations for the design of pile caps, grade beams as well as calculations
for the stage, pool, classroom and green roof calculations.
Pile Cap Reinforcement
Pile embedment minimum: 6 in.
Minimum cover: 3 in
Spacing of piles: 3 ft. on center
Spacing from edge to center of pile: 30 in.
Flexural reinforcement
Foundation Calculations
Pile Cap Design
Shear at d/2 from column
allowable shear stress:
Calculating flexure in accordance with ACI 7.12 and 10.5[9]
ACI 7.2
X N.G.
Try d=32in
1228k > 1113.6k
O.K.
ACI 10.5
Use (8) # 8’s @ 11.25 in. on center
07
Team No. 03-2013
Team No. 03-2013
08
Pile Cap Shear: One way deep beam
Max bar size: #6
Use 3 rows of (7) #6’s @ 3in. o.c.
.
O.K.
Redo flexural reinforcement calculations
09
Team No. 03-2013
Team No. 03-2013
10
Basement Wall Calculaon
Grade Beam Sample Calculaon
12” Reinforced Concrete
Wall Weight: 1.2klf
Long Span: 41ft.
♦
Gravity forces supported by
columns and pedestals
♦
Design Basement Wall
12’ thick reinforcement concrete beam
Shear
♦
Use unit strip method
♦
Basement Wall designed as
cantilever retaining wall
(2) # 5
(4) # 9
min
min
Use
11
@ 9” O.C.
Team No. 03-2013
Team No. 03-2013
12
Basement Wall Calculaon Connued
Sample Beam and Girder Calculaon
max
Wall must have minimum flexural reinforcement of
Use # 6’s @ 12 in o.c. flexural reinforcement
Check of Composite Acon
Partially composite beams
♦
Beam W21X44
Length: 28ft
28 Studs
Design reinforcement for shrinkage and temperature
Stud diameter (in.)
Qn (kips)
ΣQn (kips)
3/8
7.18
201
1/2
12.3
358
5/8
19.9
557
3/4
28.7
803
O.K.
1/2 @ Each face
Use #3 @ 12 in o.c.
13
Use # 6 @ 24 in o.c.
Team No. 03-2013
Team No. 03-2013
14
♦
Span: 28.5 ft.
Beam: W18X40
Spacing: 6 ft.
Length: 27ft.
27 Studs
From Vulcraft Steel Catalog[12]
Use 24 kg
Stud diameter (in.)
Qn (kips)
ΣQn (kips)
3/8
7.18
194
1/2
12.3
346
5/8
19.9
537
3/4
28.7
774
Stud diameter (in.)
Qn (kips)
ΣQn (kips)
3/8
7.18
265
1/2
12.3
474
Stage Design Calculations
5/8
19.9
736
Roof
3/4
28.7
1062
WTL=3.4 klf
O.K.
Beam: W21X44
Length: 37.5ft
37 Studs
N.G. This beam needs to go fully
composite
Roof Design Calculations
Area A Classroom joists: Classrooms across from gym
15
Team No. 03-2013
Team No. 03-2013
16
Green Roof Structure Design Calculations
Span = 62 ft
DL = 30 psf
Spacing = 5 ft.
S
= 35 psf
LL = 20 psf
Green Roof Structure Design Calculations
Roofing
10 PSF
Drainage
8 PSF
Plants
2 PSF
Soils 96’ thick)
50 PSF
(saturated)
65 PSF
Girders
The joist picked was 20LH05
The moment of inertia for this joist is 296 in4
The moment of inertia needed is 187.7 in4
The joist is adequate for deflection
Use W21X50
O.K.
O.K.
Moment of inertia of a joist is
O.K.
17
Team No. 03-2013
Team No. 03-2013
18
Bibliography
Gymnasium Shelter Conditions
Gymnasium required hurricane/tornado region
[1] American Institute of Steel Construction (2011) Steel Construction Manual 14th Edition, American Institute
of Steel Construction, CA
[2] American Concrete Institute Committee 318 (2011) Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
and Commentary. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
[3] City Atlas New York (2013). “Green Roofs 101”. Web. 08 November 2012.
[4] Jones, Matthew, “Green Roof Structural Design”, BAE Stormwater Engineering Design Group
[5]American Society of Civil Engineers (2006) Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and other Structures. American Association of Civil Engineers, Reston
[6] Nolan, Shawn, P.E. (2008) “Structural Design Requirements for Entertainment Venues: the Impact of Stage
Rigging Loads” Structure Magazine, 27-31
[7] Geo Group Inc. (2008) “Geotechnical Engineering Report for the Proposed New Elementary School”,
Reading PA
[8] Vulcraft Steel Joists and Joist Girders. Lawrenceville, GA: Nucor Vulcraft Group, Steel Joist Institute, 2007.
[9] Federal Emergency Management Agency (2008) “Design and Construction Guidance for Community
Safe Rooms Second Edition” FEMA P-361, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
[10] Unified Facilities Criteria (2008) “Design to Resist Direct Fire Weapons Effects”, UFC4-023-07, Department
of Defense, Washington D.C.
[11] C.R. Laurence Co., Inc. (2013). CRL Level 3 Panels. Web. 14 December 2012.
[12]Vulcraft Steel Roof and Deck. Lawrenceville, GA: Nucor Vulcraft Group, Steel Deck Institute, 2008.
Use a 52DLH15 long span joist
19
Team No. 03-2013
Team No. 03-2013
20
9
TEAM NO. 03-2013
R
Q
P.5
P
3.5" CONC. SLAB ON
2" COMP. METAL DECK
7
SLAB-ON-GRADE
8
X
9.1
O
29' - 1 1/4"
First Floor
365' - 0"
L
N
K
J
#3 @ 12" O.C. VERT
I
56'
M
22'
6
#6 @ 8" O.C. HORIZ.
BOTH FACES
"
1/2
11
/4"
31
#6 @ 12" O.C. VERT.
12
Z
CW
'-5
122
7/8
"
SLAB-ON-GRADE
#5 DOWELS
5
6
Basement Floor
353' - 4"
GB-B
9
PILE CAP
SEE DETAIL
V
28'
/4"
43
1' - 9"
10
3' - 0"
W
1' - 9"
BASEMENT RETAINING WALL DETAIL
The exterior basement walls were designing as cantilevered retaining walls.
They were designed this way to all backfilling before the first floor slab is
completed.
13
1' - 9"
3' - 0"
1' - 9"
BASEMENT FOUNDATION PLAN
6' - 6"
#6's @ 8" EA. WAY
0' - 9"
2' - 10"
SCALE: 3/32"=1'-0"
10" DIA. STEEL PIPE PILE
DRIVEN TO REFUSAL AND
GROUTED SOLID
TYPICAL PILE CAP DETAIL
The geotechnical report called recommended the use
of driven piles supporting pile caps. As mentioned in
the structural report, there was very little fluctuation in
column loads so only one size pile cap was used. This
decision was made for constructability reasons, and this
foundation type is being used to reduce risk of sink holes.
S100
TEAM NO. 03-2013
R
Q
S
T
U
P.5
8' - 2 1/8"
/4"
93
7
D
E
F
F.8 G
K
H
N
0"
6
J
3' - 6 3/4"
10' - 11"
56' - 4 3/4"
W16X31
W21X44
22
2X
W1
I
28'
M
28' - 2 3/4"
0"
22
2X
W1
40
8X
W1
40
8X
W1
/4"
31
40
8X
W1
40
8X
W1
30
4X
W1
W
30
14X
CW
40
8X
W1
30
14X
44
1X
W2
30
4X
W1
W
11
22
12X
22
2X
W1
22
2X
W1
12
40
8X
W1
Z
40
8X
W1
40
8X
W1
14
40
8X
W1
84
7X
W2
61' - 7"
W
84
7X
W2
3.8
40
8X
W1
40
8X
W1
W16X31
44
W21X
40
8X
W1
31' - 5 1/2"
13'
/2"
51
40
8X
W1
40
8X
W1
84
7X
W2
14'
0"
22
2X
W1
84
7X
W2
28'
84
7X
W2
4
W16X31
W21X44
22
2X
W1
40
8X
W1
10
W16X31
2
W24X6
33' - 0"
C
28'
3.4
15
44
1X
W2
44
1X
W2
31' - 0"
130
3X
W3
8' - 9 3/4"
16
2X
W1
3
S106
44
1X
W2
6
2X1
W1
16
2X
W1
2
22
2X
W1
22
2X
W1
22
2X
W1
22
2X
W1
22
2X
W1
22
2X
W1
3
X
82
.4
8°
W21X50
A B
L
W24X62
5
9.19
8
14' - 3 7/8"
O
62
4X
W2
- 0"
28'
W24X62
W24X62
18' - 8 1/8"
26'
W21X50
P
16
2X
W1
130
3X
W3
30' - 0 1/2"
16
2X
W1
44
1X
W2
44
1X
W2
9' - 7 1/2"
V
16
44
1X
W2
17
Y
1
W
FIRST FLOOR FRAMING &
FOUNDATION PLAN
SCALE: 3/32"=1'-0"
GYM ROOF STRUCTURE
-Primary roof structure is long span
roof joists.
-The stage roof structure uses wide flanges.
This was done to be able to support high
school caliber theatrical productions on the stage.
The decision to do this was made to allow the
community to start new programs to get community
members involved.
SLAB ON GRADE
-Designed to span between grade beams.
The slab on grades are 8" thick reinforced
concrete.
ROOF SCREEN
-Used to hide the gym mechanical system.
EXPANSION JOINT
-To design the gym structure separately
from the school structure an expansion
joint between the gym roof and first floor
diaphragms and the third floor and first floor
diaphragms in the school. This was done
because of the requirement of the gym to
double as an emergency shelter.
S101
13
TEAM NO. 03-2013
R
Q
S
T
U
P.5
P
7
W18X40
W30X99
W30X99
W30X99
W30X99
W21X44
33' - 0"
W24X84
W12X22
33' - 0"
W24X84
W18X35
31' - 5 1/2"
W24X84
W24X84
W18X40
W18X40
W8X18
W18X40
27' - 0"
W18X40
W8X18
44
1X
W2
31' - 0"
W
15
44
21X
W24X84
44
1X
W2
44
1X
W2
W18X40
W
44
21X
W18X40
W8X18
44
1X
W2
V
W18X40
W8X18
W24X84
W24X68
W24X68
W8X18
W8X18
W8X18
W8X18
W8X18
W8X18
W30X99
W30X99
W21X44
44
1X
W2
14
W18X40
44
1X
W2
W8X28
W21X44
W18X40
44
1X
W2
44
1X
W2
28
8X
Z
W8X18
44
1X
W2
44
1X
W2
16
W8X18
17
W21X44
A B
C
D
E
F
W10X12
W10X12
W10X12
W
W10X12
G
H
SECOND FLOOR FRAMING PLAN
W12
SCALE: 3/32"=1'-0"
The primary structural system is wide flange beams and girders. The beam
sizes range from W8x18-W30x130. The only area with depth restrictions
was the corridors. Main duct, pipe, and conduit runs are located in the
corridors and they branch off into the classrooms. To account for this the
structural engineers restricted beams in the corridors to W12's. To be able
to do this column lines were located along the corridor walls.
CORRIDOR WALLS
-Column lines located at the corridor
walls allowed the structural engineers
to minimize beam depths in the
corridors.
CLASSROOM CEILINGS
-Classroom celings are exposed to
help the project team acheive the LEED
points for the building as a teaching tool.
Included in the integration report is a
possible lesson plan utilizing the building
design to help teach.
BASEMENT RETAINING WALL
3D SECTION OF
FIRST FLOOR CLASSROOMS
EXTERIOR WALLS
-Brick Veneer on 6" metal studs
CORRIDOR CEILING
-Various coordination issues caused
the project team to use a drop ceiling
in the corridors.
12
W18X40
W18X35
W24X68
W24X68
W24X68
W21X44
130
3X
W3
W21X44
Y
W21X44
W21X44
130
3X
W3
W21X44
130
3X
W3
1
W21X44
22
2X
W1
W
22
2X
W1
W21X44
16
2X
W1
16
2X
W1
130
3X
W3
W21X44
W21X44
- 0"
W21X44
W21X44
44
1X
W2
44
21X
44
1X
W2
44
1X
W2
W18X40
44
1X
W2
44
21X
44
21X
39'
W21X44
W21X44
16
12X
44
21X
44
1X
W2
44
1X
W2
W
130
3X
W3
W21X44
W21X44
W
44
21X
6
2X1
W1
22
4X
W1
W21X44
W
30
12X
W
0"
44
1X
W2
11
W18X40
W8X18
44
1X
W2
44
1X
W2
44
1X
W2
4
1X4
W2
0"
W12X35
W21X44
22
2X
W1
W21X44
2
2X2
W1
W21X44
28'
130
3X
W3
2
W21X44
W
16
2X
W1
28
W
W18X40
W16X31
44
1X
W2
- 0"
28'
44
1X
W2
"
'-0
22
2X
W1
W21X44
W12X87
28' - 2 3/4"
W
"
1/8
W16X31
28' - 2 3/4"
28'
-9
W16X31
28' - 2 3/4"
11'
W16X31
28' - 2 3/4"
22
2X
W1
W16X31
28' - 2"
30
2X
W1
44
1X
W2
44
1X
W2
22
2X
W1
W24X68
22
2X
W1
W24X68
30
2X
W1
16
2X
W1
W21X44
30
4X
W1
22
14X
16
12X
5
2X3
W1
W24X68
W
W
CW
40
8X
W1
22
4X
W1
16
2X
W1
44
W21X
- 6"
X44
W21
16
12X
79
2X
W1
3
W24X68
44
1X
W2
W24X68
W
22
14X
44
1X
W2
44
1X
W2
W
30
14X
44
1X
W2
44
1X
W2
W
40
8X
W1
84
7X
W2
22
4X
W1
16
2X
W1
3.4
W
30
14X
22
2X
W1
44
1X
W2
40
8X
W1
84
7X
W2
W
22
14X
40
8X
W1
28'
40
18X
3
X1
W8
W
3
X1
W8
3.8
30
4X
W1
40
8X
W1
31
6X
W1
40
8X
W1
22
2X
W1
22
12X
W12X16
W18X35
W24X68
W24X68
W
W
22
2X
W1
31
6X
W1
40
18X
W16X31
X44
W21
22
2X
W1
40
8X
W1
99
0X
W3
28
W
"
'-0
40
18X
W21X44
22
2X
W1
22
2X
W1
W18X40
W18X35
W12X22
W24X68
40
8X
W1
10
W16X31
22
2X
W1
W24X68
W
40
18X
84
7X
W2
W24X68
28'
22
2X
W1
W
- 0"
22
2X
W1
40
18X
W18X40
W8X18
W12X22
M
40
8X
W1
W24X68
W
22
12X
W12X22
40
8X
W1
22
W12X
W24X68
W
W21X44
22
12X
W21X50
I
- 0"
W16X31
84
7X
W2
28'
27' - 0"
W21X50
6
N
K
J
4
2
W24X6
72
.82
°
F.8
W18X40
W16X31
5
L
W8X18
W24X62
X
W24X84
62
4X
W2
O
9.19
W24X62
W24X62
8
S102
13
TEAM NO. 03-2013
R
Q
S
T
U
P.5
P
7
20LH05
40
8X
W1
W24X68
W18X35
W24X68
52DLH15
52DLH15
52DLH15
52DLH15
52DLH15
52DLH15
52DLH15
52DLH15
52DLH15
52DLH15
52DLH15
52DLH15
52DLH15
52DLH15
52DLH15
52DLH15
52DLH15
52DLH15
52DLH15
52DLH15
W24X68
00°
74
.98
°
W16X31
80.
W8X18
W8X18
W8X18
W8X18
W30X99
W30X99
W30X99
W30X99
W8X18
W21X44
W24X68
W24X68
W30X99
W21X44
8
X2
W8
1
W21X44
W21X44
W21X44
YW21X44
W21X44
W21X44
W21X44
W21X44
W21X44
THIRD FLOOR FRAMING PLAN
SCALE: 3/32"=1'0"
44
21X
W24X68
W24X68
44
1X
W2
20LH05
44
1X
W2
W
44
21X
W8X18
44
1X
W2
20LH05
20LH05
20LH05
15
20LH05
20LH05
44
21X
W
44
21X
44
21X
W8X18
20LH05
W
44
21X
W8X18
44
21X
44
1X
W2
W8X18
W21X44
W
14
20LH05
W8X28
V
20LH05
W8X18
20LH05
44
1X
W2
W
130
3X
W3
W21X44
16
2X
W1
44
21X
44
1X
W2
44
1X
W2
W
16
2X
W1
130
3X
W3
W21X44
130
3X
W3
W21X44
W21X44
130
3X
W3
W21X44
W21X44
22
4X
W1
W21X44
W21X44
44
21X
13
Z
W8X18
44
21X
W
W12X16
W
W
20LH05
44
1X
W2
44
21X
44
1X
W2
44
1X
W2
6
2X1
W1
16
2X
W1
W21X44
22
2X
W1
30
12X
44
1X
W2
12
20LH05
44
21X
44
1X
W2
130
3X
W3
W21X44
W
4
1X4
W2
130
3X
W3
W21X44
W
W8X18
20LH05
44
21X
22
2X
W1
28' - 2 3/4"
2
2X2
W1
W16X31
28' - 2 3/4"
6
2X1
W1
30
2X
W1
44
1X
W2
44
1X
W2
20LH05
20LH05
44
1X
W2
44
1X
W2
22
2X
W1
W21X44
W12X87
W
22
2X
W1
W21X44
W16X31
28' - 2 3/4"
W24X68
84
7X
W2
W21X44
W16X31
28' - 2 3/4"
W24X68
16
12X
W
11
20LH05
W16X31
W
W
W
22
2X
W1
2
W16X31
28' - 2"
W24X68
40
8X
W1
30
2X
W1
16
12X
40
8X
W1
40
8X
W1
22
4X
W1
16
12X
W
44
1X
W2
W16X31
W24X68
W21X44
W
30
4X
W1
CW
40
18X
22
4X
W1
79
2X
W1
W24X68
W16X31
X44
W21
16
12X
5
2X3
W1
3
X44
W21
44
1X
W2
W16X31
W
44
1X
W2
W
44
1X
W2
W16X31
W
22
4X
W1
16
2X
W1
3.4
30
14X
30
4X
W1
22
14X
4
7X 8
W2
3
X1
W8
W16X31
W16X31
W
40
8X
W1
20LH05
W24X68
W
40
18X
40
8X
W1
22
2X
W1
W16X31
3.8
3
X1
W8
30
4X
W1
40
8X
W1
22
2X
W1
W
40
18X
40
8X
W1
99
0X
W3
W16X31
W
40
18X
W
22
2X
W1
22
12X
22
2X
W1
W16X31
W
40
18X
W
W8X18
22
12X
W24X68
W16X31
W18X35
W24X68
W24X68
W24X68
44
W21X
22
2X
W1
4
W24X68
84
7X
W2
W24X68
W
22
12X
W24X68
W
40
18X
20LH05
W16X31
W24X68
M
W16X31
W21X44
W24X68
22
2X
W1
20LH05
W18X35
W
40
18X
84
7X
W2
F.9
I
20LH05
W24X68
22
2X
W1
W8X18
W21X50
J
W16X31
W21X44
W12X22
N
W18X35
K
6
W18X35
H
10
20LH05
16
W18X35
L
F.8 G
2
W24X6
W12X22
F
5
W21X50
E
X
20LH05
W16X31
W12X22
D
8
W8X18
°
C
9.19
20LH05
W24X62
73
.59
A B
62
4X
W2
O
W24X62
W24X62
17
GREEN ROOF ACCESS
GREEN ROOF STRUCTURE
-The project team wanted the school
to be able to utilize the green roof for
outdoor instruction.
-20LH05 roof joists are used to support
the added load of the green roof and the
potential for classes to be held on the
roof.
S103
TEAM NO. 03-2013
R
Q
S
T
U
P.5
P
7
F
F.8 G
H
K
1
12K
J
1
12K
6
24K
M
W21X44
W 8X13
Z
6
24K
6
24K
6
24K
6
24K
15
6
24K
6
24K
6
24K
6
24K
6
24K
6
24K
1
14K
6
24K
1
14K
W30X99
W30X99
W30X99
W30X99
W30X99
W 8X13
W 8X13
W 8X13
W8X13
62
4X
W2
62
4X
W2
62
4X
W2
W30X99
12
6
24K
6
24K
6
24K
62
4X
W2
W8X13
22
2X
W1
22
2X
W1
22
2X
W1
22
2X
W1
6
24K
18K4
14
6
24K
6
24K
18K4
1
14K
24K6
24K6
2
2X2
W1
24K6
44
21X
6
24K
44
1X
W2
6
24K
6
24K
6
24K
1
14K
44
1X
W2
11
W12X22
6
24K
6
24K
6
24K
62
4X
W2
24K6
1
14K
24K6
24K6
22
2X
W1
24K6
24K6
W
3
14K
44
21X
4
1X4
W2
22
2X
W1
24K6
24K6
24K6
3
14K
W12X35
W21X44
24K6
22
2X
W1
24K6
24K6
3
14K
62
4X
W2
24K6
W21X44
24K6
3
14K
16
2X
W1
24K6
W21X44
24K6
3
14K
79
2X
W1
2
W21X44
24K6
3
14K
3
14K
3
14K
1
14K
W16X31
W12X87
3
14K
1
14K
W21X44
44
1X
W2
22
2X
W1
X44
W21
6
24K
3
14K
1
14K
5
2X3
W1
W21X44
24K6
W16X31
44
1X
W2
W16X31
W16X31
W16X31
3
X44
W21
62
4X
W2
W
44
1X
W2
3.4
1
14K
62
4X
W2
W
4
18K
44
1X
W2
1
14K
CW
W
22
12X
44
21X
44
1X
W2
22
2X
W1
13
8X
13
8X
3
14K
3
14K
44
1X
W2
6
24K
6
24K
1
12K 22
2X
W1
6
24K
6
24K
6
24K
4
18K
3
14K
99
0X
W3
W
6
24K
4
18K
W
3.8
1
12K
6
24K
6
24K
6
24K
4
W21X4
W
6
24K
18K4
18K4
22
2X
W1
6
24K
4
18K
62
4X
W2
6
24K
18K4
4
W21X4
1
12K
6
24K
4
4
W21X4
62
4X
W2
F.9
44
21X
72
.29
°
6
N
I
18K4
W24X62
E
L
6
24K
16
3
X1
W8
W8X13
1
24K6
24K6
24K6
24K6
24K6
24K6
Y24K6
24K6
24K6
24K6
X
10
18K4
2
W24X6
8
W12X22
D
5
82
.7
1°
W24X62
C
W24X62
W12X22
A B
62
4X
W2
O
9.19
W24X62
W24X62
V
17
W
ROOF FRAMING PLAN
SCALE: 3/32"=1'-0"
CORRIDOR ROOF STRUCTURE
-The framing in the corridors uses wide flanges
like the lower floors. This was done because the
required size of joists to support the loads over
the corridor is deeper than the depth required to
supply the mechanical engineers the ceiling space
required.
ROOF STRUCTURE
-The roof structure consists of K-series joists
supported on wide flange girders. This decision
was made because of the light weight of the joists
and to potential cost savings.
-Joist sizes range from: 12K1-24K6 except under
the green roof.
S104
13
TEAM NO. 03-2013
GRAVITY FRAMING SYSTEM
-The primary gravity training system of the first, second, and third
floors is composite wide flange beams and girders with 2VLI18
Composite Metal Deck. with 3.5" normal weight concrete topping.
SHEAR WALL
-As mentioned previously in the report,
more lateral support was required in the torsional
direction. To account for this a 12" thick
shear wall was designed and located at column line
O near the exterior of the wall.
POOL STRUCTURE
-The roof uses 52DLH17 joists
-Columns are W10x49
GYM ROOF STRUCTURE
-52DLH15 roof joists
-5.5" thick concrete roof slab to counteract
uplift from FEMA regulations to allow gym to be used
as an emergency shelter
POOL LATERAL SYSTEM
-Lateral stability of the pool structure is
acheived using HSS members as
mentioned in the structural report
PRIMARY ROOF STRUCTURE
-The primary roof structure is K-series joists
REINFORCED CONCRETE SHEAR WALLS
-The shear walls are 12" thick reinforced concrete walls
-Shear walls are located at each of the rectangular stariwells,
and in the central part of the building at the elevator equipment
room as mentioned in the report.
GREEN ROOF STRUCTURE
-As mentioned earlier utilizes long span joists.
-The joist deflection was chekced to ensure
added weight of the green roof did not exceed
serviceability limits.
STAGE ROOF STRUCTURE
-Uses wide flange beams and girders
-Uses a higher roof live load that includes
allowance for impact loads associated with
high school caliber theatrical productions.
3D STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS VIEW
S105
TEAM NO. 03-2013
PARTIAL PLAN OF
ADMINISTRATION AREA
BULLET-RESISTANT DOORS AND GLAZING
-The curtain walls, walls, doors, and glazing
in the administration area were designed to
withstand a .44 magnum bullet shot at point
blank range.
PRINCIPAL
OFFICE
108
226 SF
GIRLS
115
?
?
CLERICAL
109
?
529 SF
TOILET
112
CORR
114
ENTRY
115A
CLASSROOM
134
VESTIBULE
100
741 SF
RECEPTION
110
CUST. BOYS
117
116
Entry
117A
235 SF
WORK ROOM
113
COMMUNITY
111
331 SF
176 SF
LOBBY
101
M.D.F
118
ELEV. 1
E1
2" THERMAL INSULATION TYP.
1" GYPSUM BOARD TYP.
Second Floor
379' - 0"
WAITING ROOM
-Visitors must sign in here first
-The receptionist sits behind bullet-resistant glass
and has a hidden button to trigger the silent alarm
in case of an emergency.
LARGE PLANTERS
-Capable of stopping most vehicles
traveling at 25 mph.
-Meant to increase security and be
aesthetically pleasing as well.
MAIN ENTRANCE
-This door is the only point of entry for visitors during school hours
-To enter you must be buzzed in by the waiting room receptionist.
-Interior vestibule door is locked once the school day begins.
-People must enter waiting room to sign in before gaining
admittance into the school.
5 1/2" NORMAN
BRICK VENEER
HSS LINTEL W/ ANGLE
FOR BRICK LEDGE
INTERIOR LIGHT
SHELF
EXTERIOR LIGHT SHELF
DETAIL OF STRENGTHENED
FIRST FLOOR FACADE
LEVEL 3A BALLISTICS
RESISTANT GLASS
The project team felt it was necessary, given the high crime rate in Reading,
to analyze the strength of the facade. The structural engineers looked at only
the first floor because any round shot toward the upper floors would not endanger
any occupants. The design is presented as an add-alternate because of the high
$470,000 cost to improve the facade strength at the first floor. The strength
explained in the report was acheived by using 5.5" thick Norman Brick veneer, Level
3A bullet-resistant glazing, and bullet-resistant fiberglass behind aluminum panels.
CONCRETE SILL
6" METAL STUDS
@ 16" O.C. TYP.
5 1/2" NORMAN
BRICK VENEER
MASONRY ANCHOR TYP.
2" THERMAL INSULATION TYP.
1" GYPSUM BOARD TYP.
5" SLAB ON GRADE
First Floor
365' - 0"
GRADE BEAM
S106
TEAM NO. 03-2013
P8
PA
P8
86' - 5"
PA
88' - 7 3/8"
P1
P1
52DLH17
24' - 7"
W16X77
52DLH17
W16X77
52DLH17
52DLH17
P1.9
P1.9
P2
W 16X77
52DLH17
52DLH17
P2
W16X77
52DLH17
25' - 0"
52DLH17
W 16X77
52DLH17
P3
5' - 0"
W 16X77
P3
5' - 0"
52DLH17
5' - 0"
52DLH17
52DLH17
25' - 0"
52DLH17
3
3
AP100
W 16X77
AP100
52DLH17
52DLH17
W 16X77
149' - 0 5/8"
8"
128' - 10 1/
P4
P4
52DLH17
13
52DLH17
52DLH17
3
A200
30' - 1"
W12X87
52DLH17
52DLH17
W16X77
52DLH17
P5
P5
52DLH17
52DLH17
23' - 2 1/8"
52DLH17
W16X77
W16X77
52DLH17
52DLH17
P6
P6
52DLH17
20' - 2 1/2"
52DLH10
52DLH11
P7
28
'-
18
X5
5
W16X77
W
20LH05
44LH9
P7
0"
POOL FIRST FLOOR
FOUNDATION PLAN
SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
POOL ROOF FRAMING PLAN
SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
SP 100