Structural Systems Structural Systems

Team No. 03-2013

contents

Introduction

Project Overview

Owner Profile & Project Goals

Executive Summary

Building Loads

Dead Loads

Live Loads

Snow Loads

Wind Loads

Seismic Loads

Structural Systems

Geotechnical Report

Foundation System

Framing System

Gymnasium/Shelter Design

Natatorium Design

Analysis of Façade Strength

Conclusion

02

03

15

01

Building Fast Facts

Three-Story Elementary School

87,000 Sq. Ft.

$19.7 Million

Building Systems Summary

Hybrid Geothermal System

Steel Frame w/ Shear Walls & Braced Frames

Brick & Aluminum Panel Façade

Add-Alternates:

Separate Natatorium

Hardened First Floor Envelope

Existing School Usage

Location Fast Facts

Reading, PA

Southeast Pennsylvania

Urban Site

88,000 residents

Poorest City in America*

One of the Highest Crime Rates in

America*

District is in Bottom 10% for

Academic Performance in PA*

Highest Poverty Rate of School

Districts in PA*

31.5 % High School Dropout Rate*

6.7% of Reading Residents have a

Bachelor’s Degree or Higher*

*Refer to ‘Building Systems Integration

Supporting Documents’ Bibliography

Team No. 03-2013

06

03

Project Overview. This proposal is for a new

elementary school for the Reading School District in

Reading, PA (Figure 1 on next page). The enclosed

design is a high-performance building that

integrates energy conservation, environment, safety,

security, durability, accessibility, cost-benefit,

productivity, sustainability, functionality, and

operational considerations.

02

introduction 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 concerns and overall design

enhancement. In addition, a 15,000 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.

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: ◊ 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

Owner Profile. Upon reviewing the competition

guidelines and researching the Reading area, the design team assembled an owner profile for the Reading School District School Board:

◊ 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

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

Team No. 03-2013

E xecutive Summary. The intent of

this report is to give a summary of the

structural design of the new Reading Area

Elementary School located in Reading,

Pennsylvania. Contained in this report includes a

description of the design intent, the calculations

and reasoning behind the loads used by the

structural engineers, and an overview of all

structural systems designed in the building. Also

included in this report is an appendix containing

necessary sample calculations, plans, sections, and

elevations needed to supplement the information

found in the report.

Considering that it is the intent of the school

district to have a school’s lifespan range from 50-

100 years, the designers used loads that allow

maximum flexibility for future renovations. The

designers did this to allow the school to evolve as

they see fit to keep up with the ever changing

class sizes, technology, and teaching methods

inherent in any education programs including that

of the Reading Area School District.

The Reading area is a relatively

impoverished area with a very high crime rate.

Considering this, the structural designers felt it was

pertinent to include in this report an analysis of the

façade strength when struck by projectiles from

outside the school. In lieu of recent events, the

design team thought it was pertinent to perform an

analysis on how the project team could provide

safety for the school. The intent of this analysis and

the design presented was to give the school district

the option to strengthen the façade given the

engineer’s recommendations if they see fit for an

add-alternate.

The design of the elementary school

includes many features including: green roofs,

exposed classroom ceilings for educational

purposes, a natatorium to be used by the

community, a stage capable of supporting a full

theatrical production, and a Gymnasium designed

to act as a shelter for the community in the case of

an emergency or natural disaster.

All designs included in this report were

performed based on the Reading Area governing

codes which is a slightly modification to IBC 2009.

For the design of the new school several references

were used:

◊ ASCE 7-05

◊ AISC 360-10[1]

◊ ACI 318-11[2]

B 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

considerations was the idea of a future-proof

design. The idea of future-proofing a building is

rather open ended, and this design team defines

future-proofing as a design that does not limit

03 Proposed Natatorium

Accessible Green Roof

Team No. 03-2013

flexibility of the building to allow the ability for the

building to evolve as the state of education

changes in the future.

Having considered the idea of future-

proofing, many of the loads included in the design

of this structure go beyond the code requirements

for a typical elementary school. The designers

made this decision considering various scenarios

that may involve renovation of the elementary

school, but hopefully minimal improvements/

changes to the main structural system throughout

the life of the building.

Dead Loads. All the different dead loads were

considered throughout the different area of the

building. Table 1 lists all of the different dead loads

used in the design of the elementary school.

As mentioned earlier, one of the features of

the new elementary school is the inclusion of green

roofs. To account for that, the structural engineers

used a method used in a report done by Matthew

Jones for NCSU on Green Roof Structural Design[4]

to calculate the dead load of the green roofs used.

Figure 2 shows the construction of the green roofs

used on the elementary school.

Live Loads. The determination of live loads is

where the majority of the future-proofing of the

structural design ideas were facilitated. The Live

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

04

Figure 2 Isometric of Green Roof Construction[3]

Soil=50 PSF

Shallow rooted native

plants =2 PSF

Drainage and

Vapor Barrier = 3 PSF

Roofing=10 PSF

Figure 1 Exterior Rendering

Existing (Occupied)

Elementary School

Aluminum Accent Panels

Load Type Load

(PSF)

Descrip�on

Floor Dead Load

60 2” metal deck with 3.5” concrete topping and MEP allowances

Roof Dead Load

30 1.5” Roof Deck + MEP allowances and roofing mat’l.

Green Roof Dead Load

65 See Figure 1

Table 1 Typical Dead Loads

Team No. 03-2013

as the entire floor live load. Live Load reduction

was not used throughout the building because in

most areas it was not possible, while other areas it

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

goals was the elementary school is a center of the

community. The stage live load includes 50 PSF

and 25% of the stage roof dead load. The 50 PSF

includes allowances for typical equipment such as;

props, stage lights, sound systems, and various

rigging systems associated with this equipment. The

25% of the deal load added to this is used to

account for impact caused by counterweights

used to hoist large props and backdrops. These

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. By using the loads discussed,

Table 2 Live Loads used throughout building

the project team feels they allow the community

the opportunity to hold theatrical productions

beyond what the elementary school would typically

put on and further involves the community in their

new elementary school.

Snow Loads. The Municipality of Reading

decided not to adopt the snow load that IBC 2009

stipulated. Instead, Reading requires a ground snow

load of 35 PSF as compared to 25 PSF. The

structural designers decided to use this 35 PSF roof

snow load. This decision was made based on

Reading’s history of heavy snow fall and high

frequency of ice storms in the winter. The structural

engineers found the roof snow load will exceed the

design load required by using the method of

calculating it stipulated in ASCE 7, but will not

exceed the 35 PSF ground snow load including

issues associated with snow drift.

Wind Loads. When calculating the wind

loads on the structure, the designers simplified the

calculation by using three different zones which

can be seen in Figure 3.

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

05

Load Types Load (PSF)

Floor LL 100

Roof LL 20

Stage Roof LL* 58

Figure 3 Key plan of zones used to

calculate wind forces

*Stage LL=50PSF + .25(DL)

Team No. 03-2013

was found that the forces for the main wind force-

resisting system are below that required for seismic

except for certain components described later in

this submittal.

Seismic Loads. Reading, Pennsylvania has

higher seismic risk than most areas in Pennsylvania.

As in the previous section of the report it was found

that seismic loads control the design of the lateral

system. Because of the owner’s requirements that

the gym double as a FEMA shelter for the

community, the structural engineers were required

to calculate the seismic loads of the gym separate

from the main structure. This was done by isolating

the gym structure from the rest of the building

through the use of expansion joints between the

gym roof and floor diaphragms and the main

school roof and floor roof and floor diaphragms.

To calculate the seismic forces, information

was compiled from a geotechnical report done by

GEO Group Inc. at the project site, and using USGS

seismic design maps, found at www.USGS.gov, to

calculate the loads needed. In the Tables 3 and 4,

you can see the seismic base shear calculated for

the main structure (Table 3) and the gym (Table 4)

based on ASCE 7-05. The total base shear

calculated under seismic conditions was 910 kips.

The seismic lateral condition produced a load 16.7%

larger than the wind loads.

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. The

design team was made up of 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

Report.

The design team worked as a whole to

create a building they feel is economical,

innovative, and meets all of the requirements laid

out by the owner. Many factors came into play

during the decision making process, i.e. economics,

coordination with other disciplines, and the type of

environment the designers were trying to create.

This next portion of the report will go through each

system chosen, how the decision was made, and

includes sample calculations to support the

decisions made.

Geotechnical Report. According to the

geotechnical report done by GEO Group Inc., the

area in which the new building will be placed

06

Occ. Cat. III

Importance Factor

1.25

Site Class C

R factor Ord. Reinf. Conc. Shear walls

5

Seismic Design

Category

B

Building Wt. (k) 17500

Base Shear (k) 910

Main School

Occ. Cat. IV

Importance

Factor

1.5

Site Class C

R factor Ind.

Comp.

Moment Frame

5

Seismic Design

Category

C

Building Wt. (k) 1328

Base Shear (k) 65

Gym/Shelter

Table 3 Main School

Seismic Load Data

Table 4 Gym/Shelter

Seismic Load Data

*Complete seismic load calculations can be found in

the supplemental information at the end of the sub-

mittal along with the USGS Seismic Design Maps men-

tioned above.

Team No. 03-2013

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.

The report was based on the testing of the

soil conditions using 14 test borings, and the report

recommended three different types of feasible

foundations; compaction grouting, excavation and

replacement, and driven piles. The subsurface

conditions below the proposed structure include fill

materials overlying native soils on limestone

bedrock. In Table 5, the geotechnical design

parameters are stated.

The project team ultimately decided to use

driven piles as the main foundation type. 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

construction and throughout the life span of the

building. Given the fact that bedrock was found

within 25-40 feet of the first floor, driven piles will

not be burdensome on the schedule of the project,

and mechanical compaction could be done in

locations where grade beams, retaining walls, or

shallow footings are to be used.

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

steel pipe piles be used with a minimum diameter

of 10 inches and a minimum wall thickness of .2

inches. The piles will use pile caps to connect to

other piles, grade beams, and the columns. A

minimum of three piles is recommended for each

column by Geo Group Inc. Grade beams were

designed to support exterior walls and span

between interior columns. All interior floor slabs will

bear on existing fill materials that will be

compacted and proof-rolled to ensure proper

bearing capacity in accordance with the

stipulations of the geotechnical report. [7]

Pile and Pile Cap Design. Given the symmetrical

nature of the building, the project team will only use

one pile cap size using a maximum column load of

223 kips. The pile configuration recommended by

the geotechnical report have sufficient capacity to

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 10-

15 kips between column loads in the school

building. A typical pile cap detail can be found in

the supporting documents later in the submittal.

Calculations supporting the pile and pile

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

building structure require five piles.

Grade Beam Design. Three different grade beam

types were designed for the building: GB1 for

exterior walls, GB2 for interior walls, and GB-B for the

basement retaining walls. The designers felt it best

07

Parameter Value

Allowable Bearing Pressure after Compaction (PSF) 3000

Angle of Internal Friction for Soil, φ (degrees) 30

Moist Unit Wt. of Soil, (PCF) 130

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

Table 5 Geotechnical Design Parameters

Courtesy of GEO Group Inc.

Team No. 03-2013

to limit the number of grade beams used in the

building to limit the amount of changes in

excavation pit sizes. Table 6 shows the loads

experienced by the grade beams from the walls

they are supporting, and Table 7 lists the dimensions

and rebar included in each grade beam section.

Full calculations of the grade beam sizes and

reinforcement can be found in the supplemental

information portion of the report.

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

used to raise the recess area above street level and

minimize the amount of excavation needed around

the building. This creates a safer environment for

the students and is more economical, easier to

construct, and more aesthetic than poured

concrete.

Framing System. When deciding on the

main framing system of the building, the design

team looked at two different systems. Reinforced

concrete and structural steel. The decision to use

structural steel was made considering several

options. Some common sizes of structural steel in

the building are:

◊ W8x28

◊ W18x40

◊ W21x44

◊ W30x99

The primary reason was the expedited

08

Grade

Beam

Wall Type Grade Beam

Span (feet)

Uniform

Load (KLF)

GB-1 Brick cavity wall with

metal stud backup 41 1.2

GB-2 Metal stud wall with

Gyp. Board both side 39 .53

GB-B 12” Reinforced

Concrete Walls 32 2.1

Grade

Beam

Depth

(ft)

Width

(ft)

Top

Reinf.

GB-1 2’-0” 1’-6” (2)#9

GB-2 1’-6” 1’-3” (2)#6

GB-B 2’-6” 1’-6” (2)#9

Bottom

Reinf.

(4)#9

(3)#6

(3)#9

Shear

Reinf.

#3 @ 9”

#3 @ 7”

#3 @ 7”

Table 7 Grade Beam Sizes and Reinforcing

Table 6 General Grade Beam information

Figure 5 Elevated Recess Area

Figure 4 Basement retaining wall detail

Team No. 03-2013

schedule and construction sequence and cost of

the structure. It was the goal of the team to have

the project only effect one school year structural

steel was more conducive to that goal. The

project team also found using steel to be 10%

cheaper than reinforced concrete for the design.

Another goal was safety of the students, because

of the proximity of the original school to the new

school, 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

accelerated schedule described in detail in the

Construction Management submittal. Therefore the

project team decided steel was to be used for the

structure.

The following sections will summarize the

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

09

calculations of how the floor beams and girder

designs can be found in the supporting

documentation section of the submittal. All of the

floors were initially designed for gravity load, then

composite action was checked assuming one

shear stud every 12” along each beam,

optimization was conducted to confirm the beam

and girder capacities and beams and girders were

downsized as appropriate.

Gravity columns carry loads from the floors

to the foundation. The following list shows the range

used in the building:

◊ HSS16X12X5/16

◊ W12x56

◊ W10x49

Note: Tube steel was used in the gym to counteract

slenderness issues.

One feature of the design decided early on

in the process was how the corridors were to be

framed. The mechanical engineers notified the

structural engineers that the main duct runs would

be in the corridors and they would need as much

space as they could possibly be given. 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.

Figure 7 shows how the corridors were laid

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

come together. By doing this early in the process it Figure 6 Typical bay

Team No. 03-2013

made coordination of the disciplines and planning

much simpler.

Roof System. The project team decided to use

Vulcraft Steel Joists and wide flange girders[8] for

the roof structure. This was done because of the

relatively light loads experienced by the roof

structure, and it was determined to be more

economical than using wide flange beams

throughout. The maximum span for any of the roof

joists is 28’-2” and the maximum spacing between

joists is 6’-0”.

The one issue the project team ran into with

the use of steel joists was at the green roof.

Originally it was believed to be cheaper and more

feasible to use wide flange beams to support the

green roof. Upon further analysis, however the

design team determined it was less expensive and

easier to construct if non composite long span joists

were used. Under the green roofs they are 20LH5

long span joists at 6’-0” on center. One worry was if

deflection would be an issue, and it was found the

10

Figure 7 Structural plan of corridor (Red depicts

corridor walls)

joists provided the necessary stiffness without being

too deep or expensive.

Lateral System. As mentioned previously in the

report, seismic forces control the design of the

lateral system. With the geometry of the building

and the requirement that the gym be an

emergency shelter, it was decided the gym and

the main school would be designed separately.

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

seismic base shear of 910 kips. The building

occupancy category, R value, and other

information used in the calculation of the seismic

forces can be found in the seismic load section of

the report. Figure 9 shows the individual story forces

as a result of the calculated base shear (see Table

3) that were used in the ETABS model of the

structure. Table 8 shows the building modal results

of the ETABS model.

Figure 8 Section cut through corridor

Figure 9 Lateral Loads on Building Structure

Team No. 03-2013

The project team

decided the stairwells and

the elevator shaft/

mechanical spaces be

used as shear walls, as

seen in red in Figure 10.

The shear walls are 12”

thick reinforced concrete

walls, and coupling

beams were designed to

transfer the loads over the

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.

This shear wall does somewhat hinder the

school district’s ability to renovate by adding a

partially permanent wall at column line O, but

because of its short length the effect on the future-

proof design of the building layout is minimal. The

11

other option was to add a braced frame. This

posed several problems. The primary reason for

using a concrete shear wall is because of the cost

of the special detailing a braced frame would

require, and because concrete shear walls are

being used elsewhere. The second reason for this

decision was because the shear wall at column line

O allows for the same flexibility to the design seen

through the other classroom areas in the building.

A similar approach was taken when

designing the gym. As was discussed earlier, the

occupancy category of the gym was higher than

the school which resulted in a higher importance

factor. To avoid not having to design the entire

building structure to have and occupancy

category of IV, the project team decided to split

the two buildings and have them connected via

an expansion joint between diaphragms.

The gym structure includes a steel frame

around the exterior of the building with grouted

CMU block walls infilling the frame. The results of

the ETABS model resulted in the conclusion that an

expansion joint that was at least 1/2” wide was to

be used. This was determined to also allow for

thermal expansion of the building, as well as to

Figure 10 Shear

wall layout (left) &

detail of the shear

wall at column line

O (above)

Shear Wall Detail @ Column Line O

Team No. 03-2013

T1 Y-dir. .19s

T2 X-dir. .18s

T3 Torsional .07s

Displ. X-dir. .25 in.

Displ. Y-dir. .30 in.

Main Building Model

Information and

Displacements

Table 8 ETABS output

data

allow for the lateral movement of the building in the

case of an earthquake.

Gymnasium/Shelter Design. The

gymnasium acts not only as the gym, but also the

auditorium, cafeteria, and an emergency shelter to

the school. The gymnasium was designed using

steel columns with steel beams at half the height of

the columns for lateral stability, and long span steel

joists spanning the entire width of the gym to

support the roof. The gymnasium design also

consists of a stage designed to be able to hold a

high school level theatrical production (Figure 11).

The project team realizes that high school

caliber productions will not be put on by the

elementary school students, but the school is meant

to be a center of the community. The gymnasium is

one of the main areas where the community can

become more involved in their school. By designing

the stage to support this sort of production this

provides the opportunity for new community

programs to be started that can get kids and adults

more involved. The loads seen by a stage are

different than normal building areas and are

explained thoroughly in the building loads section

of this submittal, but because of the extra load over

the stage the roof structure was designed using

wide flange beams and girders.

The gymnasium structure was designed to

be isolated from the rest of the building due to a

stipulation in the project program that the gym be

able to be used as a shelter in case of emergency.

Because of this the occupancy category of the

gym is IV opposed to the occupancy category of III

used in the rest of the school design.

According to the FEMA Shelter Design Guide[9], tornadoes and hurricanes are the two most

prominent natural disasters that could compromise

the structure’s integrity in this area. The wind loads

the gym is required to resist are significantly larger

than those calculated using ASCE 7. Further analysis

found the wind pressure on the gym to be 124 PSF,

but is still less than the seismic load requirements.

However, even though the frame was designed for

the seismic load, certain components were required

to be able to resist wind forces this extreme.

Therefore, the roof slab was thickened to a 5” thick

concrete slab on 3”deep metal deck rather than

the same roof deck used throughout the rest of the

building, and the roof joists were changed to

52DLH15 joists to be able to resist uplift and suction

forces caused by the design wind pressures. The

roof/floor diaphragm is isolated from the rest of the

building diaphragms by using expansion joints

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.

Natatorium Design. The natatorium consists

of a simple structural design. Using a very similar

structure to the gymnasium the design team was

able to come up with a relatively inexpensive

design for the owner to review. A detailed estimate

of the natatorium design can be found in the

Construction Management submittal.

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

Figure 11 3D View of the Gymnasium Structure

Team No. 03-2013

Long span roof joists were used because of how

light they are and their ability to span the required

86.5 foot width of the natatorium building. The

designers wanted to span the entire width of the

building to minimize the number of interior columns

needed and to maximize a spectator’s view when

attending a swim meet. When designing the lateral

system of the building, it was found that wind

forces will control the design of the natatorium

building opposed to the school building where

seismic controlled. After further evaluation of the

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

the four areas shown in the three dimensional view

of the natatorium structure in Figure 12. Table 9 lists

the size of the cross

braces in each brace

type (labeled 1-4), and

calculations of the

natatorium lateral load

a l o n g w i t h t h e

calculations for the brace

members can be found

in the supplemental

information section of the

report.

Analysis of Façade Strength. Considering the extremely high crime rate in

Reading, Pennsylvania, as previously mentioned,

the structural engineers decided it was necessary

to analyze the strength of the façade being used.

A decision was made to come up with an add-

alternate for the owner to review as well as

recommendations 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

13

building, but more of an accidental incident.

Other features are included in the design that

consider an attack more deliberate in nature, and

those features are explained in more detail in the

building integration submittal.

There are many methods for providing

security for a structure depending on the building’s

purpose and environment. Given the conditions of

the surrounding area the engineers assumed the

most likely danger was that of stray bullets. Given

what is readily available to civilians, the engineers

decided to design a façade capable of

withstanding a .44 magnum round, one of the

largest rounds found on the market, and used with

handguns which are easy to obtain and conceal.

The Unified Facilities Criteria Guide 4-023-07[10] was the standard used. According to this guide,

a .44 Magnum round ranks the elementary school

at a low threat level. After looking at the

recommendations made by the UFC, the engineers

designed a stronger façade.

The façade of the elementary school

consists of brick veneer on metal stud and

aluminum panels in some areas as well as a

significant amount of glazing. It is the opinion of

the project team that only the first floor façade be

strengthened because any projectiles shot towards

Brace

Frames

Cross Brace Size

1 HSS7X4X3/16

2 HSS7X4X3/16

3 HSS7X2X1/4

4 HSS8X6X5/8

Figure 12 3D View of the Natatorium Structure

with Braced Frames.

Team No. 03-2013

Table 9 Cross Brace

Members in the

Natatorium

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

made to modify the first floor façade. Instead of

using the typical brick size, the first floor would

require 5 1/2” deep brick, any glazing on the first

floor would be made out of level 3A ballistics-

resistant glass, and anywhere there are aluminum

panels at the first floor 7/16” ballistics-resistant

fiberglass panels will be added. A detail of the first

floor façade with the larger brick and bullet resistant

glass can be seen in Figure 13. Figure 14 shows the

bullet resistant fiberglass that will be behind any

aluminum panels on the first floor.

Having taken into consideration the added

dead load of the materials, and have made

changes to the design in the case the owner

decides this is the proper route to take. With a

heavier structure, bullet resistant glass, and other

security measures; the project team realized the

cost implications this may have, so the

strengthening of the entire first-floor façade will be

presented as an add-alternate of $470,000 to the

owner.

In light of current events, the project team

has included several features in the design to

enhance security regardless of the add-alternate.

Specific areas will have bullet resistant glass, 24-

hour CCTV surveillance, and a silent alarm

throughout the entire building, some of which can

be seen in Figure 15.

These features are deemed necessary to

ensure the safety of the students and other

occupants regardless of the costs associated with

14

Figure 14 Ballistic Resistant fiberglass panels

behind aluminum panels[11]

Figure 13 Detail of Strengthened Façade

Figure 15 Administration area security features

Team No. 03-2013

them. More information on the security measures

included in the design can be found in the Building

Systems Integration submittal.

C onclusion. For the structural

design team, the goals laid out in the

introduction were:

◊ Provide an efficient, economical and lasting

design

◊ Provide maximum flexibility, conductive to the

ever changing educational environment

◊ Provide maximum ceiling space to minimize

clashes with Mechanical designers

◊ Design the building to support the community

and its activities

◊ Provide options to increase the safety of the

occupants

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

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

owner by separating the gymnasium structurally

and housing the natatorium space in an entirely

separate facility.

In light of current events, we understand the

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

of the project team, the structural design team

has made sure the structure could support the

extra burden of ballistics-resistant architectural

features.

The design laid out in this report not only

meets the goals of the structural engineers, but it

also meets the goals of the project team and

the owners. Through a collaborative process the

structural engineers, along with the other team

members, was able to solve design problems

expediently and create a high quality building

that meets the requirements of the Reading

Area School District and will act as a center of

the community for many years to come.

Team No. 03-2013

Structural Systems Supporting Documentation

Team No. 03-2013

contents

Appendix A

Wind Load Calculations

Appendix B

Seismic Load Calculations

USGS Seismic Design Reports

Building Weight

Base Shear Calculations

Appendix C

Frame Systems

Foundation Design Calculations

Gravity System Calculations

Bibliography

02

01

Building Fast Facts

Three-Story Elementary School

87,000 Sq. Ft.

$19.7 Million

Building Systems Summary

Hybrid Geothermal System

Steel Frame w/ Shear Walls & Braced Frames

Brick & Aluminum Panel Façade

Add-Alternates:

Separate Natatorium

Hardened First Floor Envelope

Existing School Usage

Location Fast Facts

Reading, PA

Southeast Pennsylvania

Urban Site

88,000 residents

Poorest City in America*

One of the Highest Crime Rates in

America*

District is in Bottom 10% for

Academic Performance in PA*

Highest Poverty Rate of School

Districts in PA*

31.5 % High School Dropout Rate*

6.7% of Reading Residents have a

Bachelor’s Degree or Higher*

*Refer to ‘Building Systems Integration

Supporting Documents’ Bibliography

Team No. 03-2013

04

07

20

02

appendix a

Wind Load Sample Calcula�ons Zone A:

height (�.) Kz V (mph) I q q(GCp) (psf) qi(GCp) (psf) p (psf)

0-30 0.7 90 1.15 16.69 11.35 9.18 20.53

40 0.76 90 1.15 18.12 12.32 9.97 22.295

Zone A

GCpi P @ 0-30� (psf) P @ 40 � (psf)

Orienta*on N-S W-E N-S W-E N-S W-E

L/B 1.3 0.76 1.3 0.76 1.3 0.76

Windward 0.8 0.8 20.5 20.5 22.3 22.3

Leeward -0.44 -0.5 -15.50 -15.94 -16.74 -17.66

side wall -0.7 -0.7 -19.24 -19.24 -20.74 -20.74

Case 1 Case 2

Orienta*on N-S W-E Orienta*on N-S W-E

Load (kips) Py Px Load (kips) Py My Px Mx

1st Floor 39.59 30.62 1st Floor 29.69 699.60 22.96 413.34

2nd Floor 79.18 61.2 2nd Floor 59.39 1399.32 45.9 826.2

3rd Floor 79.18 61.2 3rd Floor 59.39 1399.32 45.9 826.2

Roof 42.89 33.6 Roof 32.16 757.90 25.2 453.6

base shear: 240.83 186.62 base shear: 180.62 4256.14 139.96 2519.34

Team No. 03-2013

Appendix a details an example of how wind loads were calculated for the elemen-

tary school. As mentioned in the seismic section of the structural systems report, seismic loads

control for the design of the lateral systems. Below is the calculation of wind loads for sec-

tion A of the elementary school detailed in figure 4 of the structural systems report.

03

Case 4

Orienta*on N-S W-E

Load (kips) Py Px Mt Py Px Mt

1st Floor 22.29 26.16 1141.47 17.24 17.24 620.57

2nd Floor 44.58 52.31 2283.03 34.46 34.46 1240.40

3rd Floor 44.58 52.32 2283.30 34.46 34.46 1240.40

Roof 24.14 26.16 1185.23 18.92 18.92 681.00

base shear: 135.59 156.94 6893.03 105.07 105.07 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

Team No. 03-2013

Case 3

Orienta*on N-S W-E

Load (kips) Py Px Py Px

1st Floor 29.69 34.84 22.96 22.96

2nd Floor 59.39 69.68 45.9 45.9

3rd Floor 59.39 69.7 45.9 45.9

Roof 32.16 34.84 25.2 25.2

base shear: 180.62 209.07 139.96 139.96

04

appendix b Appendix b shows in detail the calculations and design values the structural design team

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.

USGS Seismic Design Maps-Detailed Reports

*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.

Team No. 03-2013

05

Floor Weights

Level floor area

Floor

Wts.

Steel

Wts

1 36362 60 11 3614383

2 26956 60 20 3019072

3 33691 60 20 3773392

Roof 36362 37 16 2698060

13104.91 kips

Wall Weights

Level Area Wall

1 19628 70

19235

44

2 18494 70

18124

12

3 9408 50

65856

0

4394.

516 kips

Bldg. Wt. 17499.42 k

Calcula�on of the Building Weights (School Only) for Seismic

Team No. 03-2013 06 Team No. 03-2013

Seismic Base Shear Calculations

Main Elementary School

If T < TL R = 5

I = 1.25 Design Category III

Gymnasium

R = 5

I = 1.5 Design Category IV

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.

Foundation Calculations

Pile Cap Design

Shear at d/2 from column

allowable shear stress:

Try d=32in

07

appendix c

Team No. 03-2013

X N.G.

1228k > 1113.6k O.K.

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

Calculating flexure in accordance with ACI 7.12 and 10.5[9]

ACI 7.2

ACI 10.5

08 Team No. 03-2013

Use (8) # 8’s @ 11.25 in. on center

Pile Cap Shear: One way deep beam

09 Team No. 03-2013

O.K.

Redo flexural reinforcement calculations

Max bar size: #6

.

10 Team No. 03-2013

Use 3 rows of (7) #6’s @ 3in. o.c.

Grade Beam Sample Calcula�on

Wall Weight: 1.2klf

Long Span: 41ft.

Shear

11 Team No. 03-2013

min

min

@ 9” O.C. Use

(2) # 5

(4) # 9

Basement Wall Calcula�on

12 Team No. 03-2013

12” Reinforced Concrete

♦ Gravity forces supported by

columns and pedestals

♦ Design Basement Wall

12’ thick reinforcement con-

crete beam

♦ Use unit strip method

♦ Basement Wall designed as

cantilever retaining wall

Basement Wall Calcula�on Con�nued

13 Team No. 03-2013

max

Wall must have minimum flexural reinforcement of

Use # 6’s @ 12 in o.c. flexural reinforcement

Design reinforcement for shrinkage and temperature

1/2 @ Each face

Use # 6 @ 24 in o.c. Use #3 @ 12 in o.c.

Sample Beam and Girder Calcula�on

Check of Composite Ac�on

Partially composite beams

♦ Beam W21X44

14 Team No. 03-2013

3/8 7.18 201

1/2 12.3 358

5/8 19.9 557

3/4 28.7 803

Stud diameter (in.) Qn (kips) ΣQn (kips)

O.K.

Length: 28ft

28 Studs

♦ Beam: W18X40

Length: 27ft.

27 Studs

Beam: W21X44

Length: 37.5ft

37 Studs

Roof Design Calculations Area A Classroom joists: Classrooms across from gym

15 Team No. 03-2013

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)

O.K.

3/8 7.18 265

1/2 12.3 474

5/8 19.9 736

3/4 28.7 1062

Stud diameter (in.) Qn (kips) ΣQn (kips)

N.G. This beam needs to go fully

composite

Stage Design Calculations Roof

16 Team No. 03-2013

Span: 28.5 ft.

Spacing: 6 ft.

From Vulcraft Steel Catalog[12]

Use 24 kg

WTL=3.4 klf

Green Roof Structure Design Calculations

17 Team No. 03-2013

Roofing 10 PSF

Drainage 8 PSF

Plants 2 PSF

Soils 96’ thick) 50 PSF

(saturated) 65 PSF

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

Moment of inertia of a joist is

Green Roof Structure Design Calculations Span = 62 ft

Spacing = 5 ft.

18 Team No. 03-2013

DL = 30 psf

S = 35 psf

LL = 20 psf

Girders

Use W21X50

O.K.

O.K.

O.K.

19 Team No. 03-2013

Gymnasium Shelter Conditions

Gymnasium required hurricane/tornado region

Use a 52DLH15 long span joist

Bibliography

[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. Amer-

ican 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.

20 Team No. 03-2013

12

11

8

I

JK

M

N

O

P

Q

6

5

9

10

13

7

L

CW

P.5

R

9.1

V

W

X

Z

22' - 3 1/4"

56' - 6 1/2"

28' - 4 3/4"

122' - 5 7/8"

29' -

1 1

/4"

6' - 6"

2' -

10"

0' -

9"

#6's @ 8" EA. WAY

1' - 9" 3' - 0" 1' - 9"

1' -

9"3'

- 0"

1' -

9"

10" DIA. STEEL PIPE PILEDRIVEN TO REFUSAL ANDGROUTED SOLID

First Floor365' - 0"

Basement Floor353' - 4"

9

PILE CAPSEE DETAIL

GB-B

#5 DOWELS

#6 @ 12" O.C. VERT.

#6 @ 8" O.C. HORIZ.BOTH FACES

#3 @ 12" O.C. VERT

SLAB-ON-GRADE

SLAB-ON-GRADE

3.5" CONC. SLAB ON2" COMP. METAL DECK

TEAM NO. 03-2013

S100

BASEMENT FOUNDATION PLANSCALE: 3/32"=1'-0"

TYPICAL PILE CAP DETAILThe geotechnical report called recommended the useof driven piles supporting pile caps. As mentioned inthe structural report, there was very little fluctuation incolumn loads so only one size pile cap was used. Thisdecision was made for constructability reasons, and thisfoundation type is being used to reduce risk of sink holes.

BASEMENT RETAINING WALL DETAILThe exterior basement walls were designing as cantilevered retaining walls.They were designed this way to all backfilling before the first floor slab iscompleted.

17

16

15

14

12

11

8

1

2

3

4

A B E H

I

JK

M

N

O

P

QS T

6

5

9

10

13

C F

7

30' -

0 1

/2"

8' -

9 3/

4"61

' - 7

"

3' - 6 3/4" 10' - 11" 56' - 4 3/4" 28' - 2 3/4"

9' -

7 1/

2"31

' - 0

"31

' - 5

1/2

"18

' - 8

1/8

"14

' - 3

7/8

"33

' - 0

"

8' - 2 1/8"

13' - 5 1/2"

14' - 3 1/4"

28' - 0"

28' - 0"

28' - 0"

28' - 0"

26' - 9 3/4"

D G

U

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W27X84

W27X84

W27X84

W27X84

L

CW

P.5

R

9.1

W27X84

W12X22

W12X22

W12X22

W12X22

W12X22

W24X62

W24X62

W24X62

W24X62

W24

X62

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W12X22

W12X22

W16X31

W16X31

W16X31

W16X31

W21

X50

W21

X50

W14X30

W14X30

W14X30

W14X30

W12X16

W12X22W

12X22W12X22

W12X22

W12X22

W12X16

W12X16

W12X16

W12X16

W33X130

W33X130

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

F.8

3.8

3.4

82.48°

V

W

X

Y

Z

W12X22

3S106

TEAM NO. 03-2013

S101

FIRST FLOOR FRAMING &FOUNDATION PLAN

SCALE: 3/32"=1'-0"

EXPANSION JOINT-To design the gym structure separatelyfrom the school structure an expansionjoint between the gym roof and first floordiaphragms and the third floor and first floordiaphragms in the school. This was donebecause of the requirement of the gym todouble as an emergency shelter.

SLAB ON GRADE-Designed to span between grade beams.The slab on grades are 8" thick reinforcedconcrete.

GYM ROOF STRUCTURE-Primary roof structure is long spanroof joists.-The stage roof structure uses wide flanges.This was done to be able to support highschool caliber theatrical productions on the stage.The decision to do this was made to allow thecommunity to start new programs to get communitymembers involved.

ROOF SCREEN-Used to hide the gym mechanical system.

17

16

15

14

12

11

8

1

2

3

4

A B E H

I

JK

M

N

O

P

QS T

6

5

9

10

13

C F

7

D G

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

28' - 2 3/4"28' - 2 3/4"28' - 2 3/4"28' - 2 3/4"28' - 2"

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W30

X99

W30

X99

W30

X99

W30

X99

W30

X99

W30

X99

W24X68

U

31' -

0"

33' -

0"

33' -

0"

27' - 0"

W24

X84

W24

X84

W24

X84

W24

X84

W24

X84

W24

X84

W24

X84

W18

X35

W18

X35

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

31' -

5 1

/2"

W8X18

W8X18

39' - 0"

28' - 0"

28' - 0"

28' - 0"

28' - 0"

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W33X130

W33X130

W33X130

W33X130

W33X130

W33X130

28' - 6"

28' - 0"

28' - 0"

28' - 0"

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W21X44

W21X44

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W21X44

11' - 9 1/8"

L

CW

W12X22

W12X22

W12X22

W12X22

W12X22

W12X22

W12X22

27' - 0"

W8X18

W12X16

W8X18

W8X18

W8X18

W8X18

W8X18

W8X18

P.5

R

9.1

W12X22W

12X22

W12X22W

12X22

W12

X22

W12

X22

W12

X22

W24X62

W24X62

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W30X99

W27X84

W27X84

W27X84

W27X84

W24X62

W24X62

W24

X62

W12X22

W12X22

W12X22

W12X22

W12X22

W12X22

W12X22

W16X31

W16X31

W16X31

W16X31

W16X31

W21

X50

W21

X50

W12X16

W12X16

W12X16

W12X16

W12X16

W12X16

W14X22

W14X22

W14X22

W14X22

W12X30

W12X30

W12X30

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W12X87

W12X16

W12X16

W12X16

W12X16

W14X30

W14X30

W14X30

W14X30

W24

X68

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W12X79

W12X35

F.8

W21X44

W18X40

W16X31

W16X31

W12X22

W12X22

W12X22

W12

X22

W18X40

W18X40

W14X22

W24

X68

W24

X68

W24

X68

3.8

3.4

72.8

2°

W12X35

W14X22

W8X28

W8X28

W8X

18

W8X

18

W8X

18

W8X

18

W8X

18

W8X

18

V

W

X

Y

Z

W16X31

W24X68W24X68W24X68W24X68

W24

X68

W24

X68

W24

X68

W24X68 W24X68 W24X68 W24X68 W24X68

W16X31W16X31W16X31

W8X13

W8X13

W18

X35

W18

X35

W10X12

W10X12

W10

X12

W10

X12

CORRIDOR WALLS-Column lines located at the corridorwalls allowed the structural engineersto minimize beam depths in thecorridors.

W12

EXTERIOR WALLS-Brick Veneer on 6" metal studs

BASEMENT RETAINING WALL CORRIDOR CEILING-Various coordination issues causedthe project team to use a drop ceilingin the corridors.

CLASSROOM CEILINGS-Classroom celings are exposed tohelp the project team acheive the LEEDpoints for the building as a teaching tool.Included in the integration report is apossible lesson plan utilizing the buildingdesign to help teach.

TEAM NO. 03-2013

S102

SECOND FLOOR FRAMING PLANSCALE: 3/32"=1'-0"

The primary structural system is wide flange beams and girders. The beamsizes range from W8x18-W30x130. The only area with depth restrictionswas the corridors. Main duct, pipe, and conduit runs are located in thecorridors and they branch off into the classrooms. To account for this thestructural engineers restricted beams in the corridors to W12's. To be ableto do this column lines were located along the corridor walls.

3D SECTION OFFIRST FLOOR CLASSROOMS

17

16

15

14

12

11

8

1

2

3

4

A B E H

I

JK

M

N

O

P

QS T

6

5

9

10

13

C F

7

D G

28' - 2" 28' - 2 3/4" 28' - 2 3/4" 28' - 2 3/4" 28' - 2 3/4"

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W24X68

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W24X68 W24X68 W24X68

W30

X99

W30

X99

W30

X99

W30

X99

W30

X99

U

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W33X130

W33X130

W33X130

W33X130

W33X130

W33X130

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W27X84

W27X84

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W27X84

W30X99

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W18X40

W27X84

L

CW

P.5

R

9.1

W12X22

W12X22

W12X22

W12X22

W12X22

W12X22

W12X22

W12X22

W12X22

W12X22

W12X22

W12X22

W12X22

W24X62

W24X62

W24X62

W24X62

W24

X62

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W27X84

W21

X50

W12X22

W12X22

W12

X22

W16X31

W16X31

W16X31

W16X31

W12

X22

W12

X22

W16X31

W21

X50

W21X44

W12X16

W14X22

W14X30

W14X30

W14X30

W14X30

W12X16

W12X16

W12X16

W12X16

W14X22

W14X22

W14X22

W12X30

W12X30

W12X30

W12X16

W12X16

W12X16

W12X16

W12X16W12X87

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21

X44

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W12X35

W12X79

W12X22

F.8

F.9

20LH05

20LH05

20LH05

20LH05

20LH05

20LH05

20LH05

20LH05

20LH05

20LH05

20LH05

20LH05

20LH05

20LH05

20LH05

20LH05

20LH05

20LH05

20LH05

20LH05

20LH05

20LH05

20LH05

20LH05

W24

X68

W24

X68

W24

X68

W24

X68

W24

X68

W24

X68

W24

X68

W24

X68

3.8

3.4

52D

LH15

52D

LH15

52D

LH15

52D

LH15

52D

LH15

52D

LH15

52D

LH15

52D

LH15

52D

LH15

52D

LH15

52D

LH15

52D

LH15

52D

LH15

52D

LH15

52D

LH15

52D

LH15

52D

LH15

52D

LH15

52D

LH15

52D

LH15

W24X68

W24X68 W24X68 W24X68W24X68

W24

X68

W24

X68

W24

X68

W16X31

W16X31

W16X31

W16X31

W16X31

W16X31

W16X31

W16X31

W16X31

W24

X68

W24

X68

W24

X68

W16

X31

W18

X35

W18

X35

74.9

8°

80.0

0°

73.5

9°

W8X

18

W8X

18

W8X

18

W8X18

W8X18

W8X18

W8X18

W8X18

W8X18

W8X18

W8X18

W8X18

W8X18

W8X

18

V

W

X

Y

Z

W8X

18

W16X31 W16X31 W16X31 W16X31 W16X31

W8X28W8X28

W12X16

W14X22

W8X13

W8X13

W18

X35

W18

X35

W18

X35

W18

X35

TEAM NO. 03-2013

S103

THIRD FLOOR FRAMING PLANSCALE: 3/32"=1'0"

GREEN ROOF STRUCTURE-The project team wanted the schoolto be able to utilize the green roof foroutdoor instruction.-20LH05 roof joists are used to supportthe added load of the green roof and thepotential for classes to be held on theroof.

GREEN ROOF ACCESS

17

16

15

14

12

11

8

1

2

3

4

A B E H

I

JK

M

N

O

P

QS T

6

5

9

10

13

C F

7

D G

U

L

CW

P.5

R

9.1

F.8

F.9

W21X4424K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

W16X31

W21X4424K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6 24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6W21X44

W16X31 W16X31

W21X4424K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6 24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6W21X44

W12X87

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44W21X44

14K1

14K1

14K1

14K1

14K1

14K1

W12X35

14K1

14K1

14K1

14K1

14K314K3

14K314K3

14K314K3

14K314K3

14K314K3

14K314K3

14K3

18K4

18K4

18K4

18K4

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

12K1

12K1

12K1

12K1

12K1

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

24K6

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W24X62

W24X62

W24X62

18K4

18K4

18K4

18K4

18K4

18K4

18K4

W12X22

W12X22W

12X22

W12X22

W12X22

W12X22

W12X22

W12X22

W12X22

W12X22W

12X22W12X22

W12

X22

W12

X22

W24

X62

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W12X22

W12X22

W21X44

W21X44

W30

X99

W30

X99

W30

X99

W30

X99

W30

X99

W30

X99

W24X62

W24X62

W24X62

W24X62

W24X62

W24X62

W24X62

W24X62

W24

X62

W24

X62

W24X62

W30X99

W24X62

W24X62W

21X44

W21X44

W12X79

W12X35

W21X44

W21

X44

3.8

3.4

82.71°

72.2

9°

W21X44

W21X44

W21X44

W16X31

W8X

13

W 8

X13

W 8

X13

W 8

X13

W 8X13

W 8X13

W12X16

W8X13

W8X13

W8X

13

V

W

X

Y

Z

W16X31

W21X44

W 8

X13

ROOF STRUCTURE-The roof structure consists of K-series joistssupported on wide flange girders. This decisionwas made because of the light weight of the joistsand to potential cost savings.-Joist sizes range from: 12K1-24K6 except underthe green roof.

CORRIDOR ROOF STRUCTURE-The framing in the corridors uses wide flangeslike the lower floors. This was done because therequired size of joists to support the loads overthe corridor is deeper than the depth required tosupply the mechanical engineers the ceiling spacerequired.

TEAM NO. 03-2013

S104

ROOF FRAMING PLANSCALE: 3/32"=1'-0"

TEAM NO. 03-2013

S105

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 equipmentroom as mentioned in the report.

SHEAR WALL-As mentioned previously in the report,more lateral support was required in the torsionaldirection. To account for this a 12" thickshear wall was designed and located at column lineO near the exterior of the wall.

PRIMARY ROOF STRUCTURE-The primary roof structure is K-series joists

GRAVITY FRAMING SYSTEM-The primary gravity training system of the first, second, and thirdfloors is composite wide flange beams and girders with 2VLI18Composite Metal Deck. with 3.5" normal weight concrete topping.

GYM ROOF STRUCTURE-52DLH15 roof joists-5.5" thick concrete roof slab to counteractuplift from FEMA regulations to allow gym to be usedas an emergency shelter

STAGE ROOF STRUCTURE-Uses wide flange beams and girders-Uses a higher roof live load that includesallowance for impact loads associated withhigh school caliber theatrical productions.

GREEN ROOF STRUCTURE-As mentioned earlier utilizes long span joists.-The joist deflection was chekced to ensureadded weight of the green roof did not exceedserviceability limits.

POOL STRUCTURE-The roof uses 52DLH17 joists-Columns are W10x49

POOL LATERAL SYSTEM-Lateral stability of the pool structure isacheived using HSS members asmentioned in the structural report

3D STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS VIEW

331 SF

WORK ROOM113

TOILET112 235 SF

RECEPTION110

176 SF

COMMUNITY111

529 SF

CLERICAL109

226 SF

PRINCIPALOFFICE

108

VESTIBULE100

ENTRY115A

GIRLS115

BOYS117

CUST.116

741 SF

CLASSROOM134

LOBBY101

M.D.F118

Entry117A

?

??

CORR114

ELEV. 1E1

First Floor365' - 0"

Second Floor379' - 0"

5 1/2" NORMANBRICK VENEER

6" METAL STUDS@ 16" O.C. TYP.

2" THERMAL INSULATION TYP.

1" GYPSUM BOARD TYP.

MASONRY ANCHOR TYP.

CONCRETE SILL

EXTERIOR LIGHT SHELFINTERIOR LIGHTSHELF

HSS LINTEL W/ ANGLEFOR BRICK LEDGE

LEVEL 3A BALLISTICSRESISTANT GLASS

2" THERMAL INSULATION TYP.

1" GYPSUM BOARD TYP.

GRADE BEAM

5" SLAB ON GRADE

5 1/2" NORMANBRICK VENEER

TEAM NO. 03-2013

S106

PARTIAL PLAN OFADMINISTRATION AREA

DETAIL OF STRENGTHENEDFIRST FLOOR FACADE

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 onlythe first floor because any round shot toward the upper floors would not endangerany 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 strengthexplained in the report was acheived by using 5.5" thick Norman Brick veneer, Level3A bullet-resistant glazing, and bullet-resistant fiberglass behind aluminum panels.

BULLET-RESISTANT DOORS AND GLAZING-The curtain walls, walls, doors, and glazingin the administration area were designed towithstand a .44 magnum bullet shot at pointblank range.

LARGE PLANTERS-Capable of stopping most vehiclestraveling at 25 mph.-Meant to increase security and beaesthetically 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 gainingadmittance into the school.

WAITING ROOM-Visitors must sign in here first-The receptionist sits behind bullet-resistant glassand has a hidden button to trigger the silent alarmin case of an emergency.

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

PA

P8

P1.9

3AP100

88' - 7 3/8"

149' - 0 5/8"

128' - 10 1/8"

28' - 0"

A2003

13

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

PA

P8

P1.9

52DLH17

52DLH17

52DLH17

52DLH17

52DLH17

52DLH17

52DLH17

52DLH17

52DLH17

52DLH17

52DLH17

52DLH17

52DLH17

52DLH17

52DLH17

52DLH17

52DLH17

52DLH17

52DLH17

52DLH17

52DLH17

52DLH17

52DLH17

52DLH17

52DLH17

52DLH17

52DLH17

52DLH10

52DLH11

20LH05

44LH9

W18X55

W16X77

W16X77

W 16X77

W 16X77

W16X77

W16X77

W16X77

W 16X77

W 16X77

W 16X77

W12X87

W16X77

W16X77

3AP100

5' - 0"5' - 0"

5' - 0"

25' - 0"

25' - 0"

30' - 1"

23' - 2 1/8"

20' - 2 1/2"

24' - 7"

86' - 5"

TEAM NO. 03-2013

SP 100POOL FIRST FLOORFOUNDATION PLAN

SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"

POOL ROOF FRAMING PLANSCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"