Pilecap Report

Final Design Report
June 9th, 2011
Juliette Peyroux
Katie McIntyre
Travis Corigliano
Trent Tinney
Sam Probert
Table of Contents
Project Overview.................................................................................................................. 7
1.0
1.1
Building Location and Occupants ..................................................................................... 7
1.2
Design Changes ................................................................................................................ 9
1.3
Structural Systems.......................................................................................................... 12
2.0
Subsurface Conditions ....................................................................................................... 14
2.1
Engineering Properties of the Soil.................................................................................. 16
2.2
Foundation Recommendations ...................................................................................... 17
3.0
Loads .................................................................................................................................. 17
3.1
Dead Loads ..................................................................................................................... 18
3.2
Live Loads ....................................................................................................................... 18
3.3
Snow Loads..................................................................................................................... 19
3.4
Wind Loads ..................................................................................................................... 21
3.5
Seismic Loads ................................................................................................................. 24
4.0
Materials ............................................................................................................................ 27
5.0
Foundation Design ............................................................................................................. 27
5.1 Lateral Load Capacity .......................................................................................................... 28

5.2 Axial Load Capacity.............................................................................................................. 31
5.3 Uplift Capacity ..................................................................................................................... 32
5.4 Pile Cap Design .................................................................................................................... 34
5x4 Pile Group example:........................................................................................................ 34
Factored shear at the critical section: ................................................................................... 35
Check deep beam shear in short direction:........................................................................... 36
Design reinforcement in short direction: .............................................................................. 36
Design reinforcement in long direction:................................................................................ 36
5.5 Temperature/Shrinkage Reinforcement ............................................................................. 37
5.6 Pile Reinforcement .............................................................................................................. 38
5.7
Grading Beam ................................................................................................................. 42
5.8
Final Pile Layout with Grade Beam ................................................................................ 44
6.0
Composite Deck Design ..................................................................................................... 45
7.0
Beam and Girder Design .................................................................................................... 46

2
8.0
Column Design ................................................................................................................... 51
8.1
Column Splice Design ..................................................................................................... 53
8.2
Base Plate Design ........................................................................................................... 54
8.3
Anchor Bolt Design (Column Base Plates to Pile Caps) .................................................. 57
9.0
8.3.1
Non-EBF Connections Number of Bolts Needed .................................................... 57
8.3.2
EBF Connections: Bolts + Shear key ........................................................................ 58
8.3.3
Base Plates Anchor Bolt Embedment Depths ......................................................... 60
8.3.4
Column-Pile Cap Connections Summary ................................................................ 61
Connection Design ............................................................................................................. 62
10.0 Eccentrically Braced Frame (EBF) ...................................................................................... 65

10.1 EBF Analysis .................................................................................................................... 65
10.2 EBF Link Design............................................................................................................... 69
10.3 EBF Beam Design ............................................................................................................ 70
10.4 EBF Brace Design ............................................................................................................ 71
10.5 EBF Column Design......................................................................................................... 71
10.6 EBF Brace to Link Connection......................................................................................... 74
10.7 EBF Brace and Beam to Column Connection ................................................................. 76
11.0
Loading Dock Transfer Truss ............................................................................................. 82
11.1 Truss Loads ..................................................................................................................... 83

11.2 Truss Design: Top and Bottom chord ............................................................................. 84
11.3 Truss Design: Internal Brace and Gusset Plate Design ................................................... 85
11.4 Truss Design: Seated Angle for Construction Design ..................................................... 88
11.5 Truss Design: Full Truss Column Connection Design................................................... 89
12.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 91
13.0 References ......................................................................................................................... 91
List of Tables
Table 1: Soil Properties ................................................................................................................. 16
Table 2: Initial Foundation Criteria ............................................................................................... 17
Table 3: Dead Loads ...................................................................................................................... 18
Table 4: Live Loads ........................................................................................................................ 18
Table 5: Exposure Factor, Ce (ASCE7-05) ...................................................................................... 19
Table 6: Thermal Factor, Ct (ASCE7-05) ........................................................................................ 20
Table 7: Importance Factor, I (ASCE7-05) ..................................................................................... 20
Table 8: Internal Pressure Coefficient for Enclosed Buildings (ASCE7-05) ................................... 21
Table 9: Wall Pressure Coefficients (ASCE7-05) ........................................................................... 22
Table 10: Importance Factors for Wind Loads (ASCE7-05) ........................................................... 22
Table 11: Site Coefficient, Fa (ASCE7-05)...................................................................................... 24
Table 12: Site Coefficient, Fv (ASCE7-05)...................................................................................... 24
Table 13 - Foundation Demands. .................................................................................................. 27
Table 14 - 5x4 Allowable Axial Load ............................................................................................. 32
Table 17 - Axial Load: Demand vs. Capacity ................................................................................. 32
Table 18 - 5x4 Allowable Uplift Load ............................................................................................ 33
Table 19 - 3x3 Allowable Uplift Load. ........................................................................................... 33
Table 20 - 2x2 Allowable Uplift load. ............................................................................................ 33
Table 21 - Uplift Load: Demand vs. Capacity. ............................................................................... 33
Table 22 Pile Distances from the Centroid and Moments of Inertia ......................................... 34
Table 23 - Pile Loads ..................................................................................................................... 35
Table 24 - Longitudinal and Lateral Reinforcement. .................................................................... 37
Table 25 - Temperature and Shrinkage Reinforcement. .............................................................. 38
Table 26: Superimposed Live Loads (psf) for Metal Decking Designs (Wheeling Corrugating) ... 45
Table 27: Allowable Uniform Total Loads for Roof Decking Design (Wheeling Corrugating) ...... 46
Table 28: Final Member Sizes and Their Deflection Checks ......................................................... 49
Table 29: Summary of Floor and Roof connections for Beam-Girder, Beam-Column, and GirderColumn .......................................................................................................................................... 64
List of Figures
Figure 1: Site and Building Dimensions........................................................................................... 7
Figure 2: Architectural Elevation with Building Use ....................................................................... 8
Figure 3: Proposed Changes to the Ground Floor Garage Entrance ............................................. 9
Figure 4: Proposed Increase in Lease Space on the First Floor .................................................... 10
Figure 5: Proposed Loading Dock Adjustments ............................................................................ 11
Figure 6: The Architectural Layout of the Fourth Floor (provided) .............................................. 12
Figure 7: Structural Layout of the 4th Floor (initial layout) .......................................................... 13
Figure 8: EBF Frame Example........................................................................................................ 13
Figure 9: Structural Layout of the Fourth Floor with the EBF Frame ........................................... 14
Figure 10: Longitudinal Soil Profile ............................................................................................... 15
Figure 11: Lateral Soil Profile ........................................................................................................ 15
Figure 12: Ground Snow Load (ASCE7-05) .................................................................................... 19
Figure 13: Wind Speed for Washington State (ASCE7-05) ........................................................... 21
Figure 14: Wind Loading on the Short Span of the Building......................................................... 23
Figure 15: Wind Loading on the Long Span of the Building.......................................................... 23
Figure 16: Seismic Loading ............................................................................................................ 26
Figure 17: Three Dimensional SAP2000 Office Building Model with Seismic Loading ................. 26
Figure 18 - Shear Load vs. Lateral Deflection for Restrained Head Condition in Sand ................ 29
Figure 19 - Moment Load vs. Lateral Deflection for Restrained Head Condition in Sand............ 30
Figure 20 - Critical Sections for Shear Checks ............................................................................... 34
Figure 21: Typical pile to pile cap connection .............................................................................. 38
Figure 22 - 5x4 Pile Layout, Reinforcement, and Pile-Cap Connections for EBF .......................... 39
Figure 23 - 3x3 Pile Layout, Reinforcement and Pile-Cap Connections........................................ 40
Figure 24 - 2x2 Pile Layout, Reinforcement and Pile-Cap Connections........................................ 41
Figure 25: Section Drawing of Grade Beam with Reinforcement................................................. 43
Figure 26: Final Pile Layout ........................................................................................................... 44
Figure 27: Typical Metal Decking Proposed for Building (Wheeling Corrugating) ....................... 45
Figure 28: Roof Decking Design Proposed for Building (Wheeling Corrugating) ......................... 46
Figure 29: First Floor Layout ......................................................................................................... 50
Figure 30: Column Schedule for Gridline A................................................................................... 52
Figure 31: Interior Column Splice on Floor 3 ................................................................................ 53
Figure 32: Interior Column Splice on Floor 5 ................................................................................ 54
Figure 33: Sample Base Plate Design Dimensions ........................................................................ 56
Figure 34: Sample Base Plate Design Dimensions ........................................................................ 56
Figure 35: Interior Base Plate Design with Anchor Bolts .............................................................. 58
Figure 36: Typical Shear Tab Arrangement (photo from Australian Steel Institute) .................... 58
Figure 37: EBF Anchor Bolts and Base Plate Design ..................................................................... 60
Figure 38: Potential Anchor Bolt Failure Paths. Concrete Breakout (left) and Uplift (right)........ 61
Figure 39: EBF Anchor Bolt Design with Shear Key....................................................................... 61
Figure 40: Example Structural Drawing for Connection Detail ..................................................... 64
Figure 41: Unfactored Shear from the Earthquake Load (kip) ..................................................... 66
5
Figure 42: Axial Force for Load Case (1.2+0.2SDS)D + 0.5L + 0.2S + E (kips) .............................. 67
Figure 43: Moment for Load Case (1.2+0.2SDS)D + 0.5L + 0.2S + E (in-k) .................................. 68
Figure 44: Eccentrically Braced Frame with Final Member Sizing ................................................ 73
Figure 45: Brace to Beam Connection on the First Floor.............................................................. 75
Figure 46: Brace to Beam Connection on the Roof ...................................................................... 75
Figure 47: Brace and Beam Connection to Column on the First Story ......................................... 81
Figure 48: Brace and Beam Connection to Column on the Roof .................................................. 82
Figure 49: Tributary Area of the Second Floor Acting on the Transfer Truss ............................... 83
Figure 50: Transfer Truss Initial Concept Design .......................................................................... 84
Figure 51: Whitmore Width .......................................................................................................... 86
Figure 52: Detailed Inner Truss Connection ................................................................................. 86
Figure 53: Final Truss Design with Member Sizes and Spacings................................................... 87
Figure 54: Seated Angle Design for Transfer Truss Construction ................................................. 89
Figure 55: End Plate Connection Details....................................................................................... 90
1.0 Project Overview

1.1
Building Location and Occupants
For this project, Emerald City Consulting Engineers (ECCE) was asked to re-design a building
previously designed by KPFF Consulting Engineers. The building is to be located at a latitude
and longitude of 47.65276 and -122.304421, with building dimensions within available site
dimensions, as seen in Figure 1. About half of the buildings ground floor will be used as a
parking garage to serve the offices that fill floors one through five. The rest of the ground floor
will be used as a bank branch and coffee shop. Note that for this report, the bottom level of the
building will be referred to as the ground floor, while the floor directly above this one will be
called the first floor and so on. Early on in the project, it was believed that the bottom floor
would be partly underground, making the first elevated floor at grade. However, after looking
through the building design and the site conditions surrounding the building, it was decided that
the soil would be excavated so that what had previously been a basement was now a ground floor
at grade. Since this change came during the design process, the floor names were not changed.
An elevated view of the architectural drawings with the floor names and regional building uses
can be seen in Figure 2.
Figure 1: Site and Building Dimensions
5th Floor
4th Floor
3rd Floor
2nd Floor
1st Floor
Ground Floor
Figure 2: Architectural Elevation with Building Use
1.2
Design Changes
For the design, ECCE was assigned Site Profile P, which is a much flatter plot of land than what
the building was originally designed for. Since the site profile, did not line directly up with the
architectural drawings, our firm was decided to make some alterations to the original
architectural drawings. In the original design, the building had the parking garage structure
almost completely below grade. With the new site profile, ECCE proposes to place the parking
level directly on the ground floor, which would eliminate the parking ramp originally needed for
cars to travel from the at grade road to the below grade parking. If the parking garage is left at
grade, an entrance straight off of the street will result in a simpler design. Our proposed garage
entrance is still in the original location, it will just be moved down one story. This design change
can be seen in Figure 3.
Proposed Garage
Entrance/Exit on
Ground Floor
Figure 3: Proposed Changes to the Ground Floor Garage Entrance
This change will also increase the lease space on the first floor, where the ramp was to be
located. The extra space from our proposed changes will make this area available for use as
office or retail space and can be seen in Figure 4.
Add Wall
Proposed Lease
Space
Take Out Wall
Figure 4: Proposed Increase in Lease Space on the First Floor
10
The last design change proposed by our firm is to place the loading dock on the ground story.
Originally the loading dock was located between the first and third floors because of the sloping
site, but with an excavated ground profile, the loading dock would fit well between the ground
and second floors. This change would make the loading dock much more accessible for the large
trucks which will be loading and unloading goods in this location because it would eliminate the
need for a ramp to the first story. A view of the architectural drawings showing the original
location of the loading dock and our proposed changes can be seen in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Proposed Loading Dock Adjustments
11
1.3
Structural Systems
A structural steel system was chosen as the buildings main gravity frame. This system was
chosen because our firm specializes in steel structures. Using the architectural floor layouts, the
column locations were finalized and the beam and girder systems were sketched into place. An
example of the fourth floor architectural drawing can be seen in Figure 6. For the layouts, our
engineers decided to have the girders span along the short direction of the building leaving the
beams to run along the long direction of the building, which would make the beams span 32 ft, as
is typical in steel. The beam and girder layout can be seen in Figure 7. With the structural layouts
established, the architectural drawings were examined to find the best location for the lateral load
resisting system.
Figure 6: The Architectural Layout of the Fourth Floor (provided)
12
Figure 7: Structural Layout of the 4th Floor (initial layout)

An eccentrically braced frame (EBF) lateral resistance system was chosen to be used in the
building. An EBF is a type of lateral load resisting steel frame that includes complex beams,
columns, and braces. Each brace is connected to an isolated segment of a beam, called a link, as
seen in Figure 8.
Figure 8: EBF Frame Example

13
EBFs resist lateral loading, like earthquake and wind, by a combined action from the beam and
frame, with ductility coming from the inelastic action found in the links. The links are purposely
made to be the weakest element of the frame so they will fail before any other element or
connection in the lateral resistance frame.
Our firm decided that the EBFs would be placed near the stairwells and at the center of the
building in order to minimize the restrictions to the lease space views and uses. Having a
centralized lateral bracing system will also reduce the torsional effects from eccentric lateral
loads. Each selected EBF frame was carefully checked for conflicts with hallways and doorways
so that neither of these would be constrained by the EBF locations. A view of the fourth floor
structural plan with the EBF frames acknowledged by a large X can be seen in Figure 9.
Figure 9: Structural Layout of the Fourth Floor with the EBF Frame
2.0 Subsurface Conditions

The soil is comprised primarily of low plasticity silts, with a few layers of sandy silt. In the
South West corner of the site, borings displayed denser soils at higher elevations, so ECCE chose
to build the office building in this location. Although silty-sands present a risk for liquefaction,
our site is not located in a risk area according to Liquefaction Hazard maps. Additionally, a
majority of the soil contains low plasticity silts, which lowers the risk of liquefaction. Monitoring
wells on site place the water table between 10-15 feet, so for calculations, the water table was set
at 11 ft below grade. Longitudinal and lateral soil profiles can be seen in Figures 10 and 11.
14
Figure 10: Longitudinal Soil Profile
Figure 11: Lateral Soil Profile
15
2.1
Engineering Properties of the Soil
Our firm was given information from the borings about the soil types according to USCS and
some of the moisture contents of the soil. SPT tests were conducted and we received the blow
count values from the testing lab. Using this information, typical unit weights for the soil were
estimated to calculate total vertical stress. The friction angle was found using a correlation found
in the Foundation Engineering Handbook and soil properties are summarized in Table 1:
Table 1: Soil Properties

Borings
Depth
(ft)
B3
B1
B8
B3
B8
B3
B8
B3
B1
B8
B1
B3
B8
B3
B8
B8
3
3.5
4
8
9
13
14
18
18
19
23
23.5
24
28.5
29
34
16
= 18 70 + 15

70
70%
USCS
Moisture
9
ML
very moist
14
ML
12.2 %
11
ML
moist
38 SM/ML
moist
25
SM
moist
43
ML
moist
68
SM
moist
22
ML
moist
28 SM/ML
25.4 %
>50
SM
moist
53
ML
26.1 %
45
ML
moist
83
SM
moist
56
ML
moist
50
ML
moist
75
ML
moist
Hardness
medium stiff
medium stiff
medium-dense
dense
medium-dense
hard
very dense
hard
medium dense
very dense
hard
hard
hard
hard
hard
hard
Typical Unit
Weight
(lbs/ft3)
100
100
115
110
120
120
120
120
110
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
z'
(lb/ft2)
'
300
350
407.5
847.5
967.5
1322.7
1442.7
1922.7
1922.7
2067.7
2647.7
2720.2
2792.7
3445.2
3517.7
4242.7
37
42
38
50
43
49
57
37
40
48
47
44
54
45
44
48
2.2
Foundation Recommendations
Uniformly across the site, within at least 25 feet of the surface there is hard, densely packed soil.
This strength will be used to support the building. Design is to use auger-cast piles because they
do not need to be driven. This is a cheaper and quieter solution to driven piles; it also prevents
potential damage to piles during driving and greatly reduces any issues faced with seepage.
Toe bearing values were calculated using the following correlation specific to Auger-Cast Piles.
= 3800 60 2
60 60% ()
Side friction was calculated using the following equations:
= 0
= 1 = 1
0
18-inch diameter piles will be used. 3-diameter spacing will be used for a total of 4 6 on center.
Due to potential error in extrapolation and correlations in our geotechnical calculations, a factor
of safety of 3.5 has been chosen in order to minimize risk of failure.
Table 2: Initial Foundation Criteria
Diameter (in) Pile Spacing (in)
Factor of Safety
18
54
3.5
Allowable load is now calculated for specific depths in a table. Depths and pile groups will be
determined from column loads.
3.0 Loads
For loads, four different kinds will be considered for the office building: gravity, snow,
earthquake, and wind. General conditions for all loadings will be Construction Type II-B with
occupancy groups B, M, and S-2. Using ASCE7-05, dead loads other than the structural system
can be seen in Table 4 and were determined using the structural drawings.
17
3.1
Dead Loads
Dead loads were determined from ASCE7-05 Table C3-1 Minimum Design Dead Loads. The
description of the loads can be seen in Table 3.
Table 3: Dead Loads
Load Type
Roof
Amount
20 psf
Floor
25 psf
Wall
Wall
40 plf
10 plf
Included
Tiling/Slab, Acoustical Fiber Board, Mechanical
Duct, Suspended Metal Lath and Cement Plaster
Acoustical Fiber Board, Mechanical Duct,
Suspended Metal Lath and Cement Plaster, Tiling
Brick Veneer
Glass Windows
The estimated weight of the structure was determined from adding up the weight of the assumed
columns, girders, beams, and braces to establish the weight of steel. The weight of concrete was
then established by adding up the concrete weight of flooring, ceiling, and roofing for each floor
and multiplying it by six for the six story building. The area of the glass and brick veneer for the
outside walls was calculated and multiplied by the appropriate area weight to determine the
weight of the walls. The weight of steel, concrete, and wall systems were added and a building
weight of 15,125 kips was finalized. Once our system was modeled using a three dimensional
SAP2000 model with unfactored dead loads, this estimated weight was relatively accurate.
3.2
Live Loads
Similarly, live loads were determined from the ASCE7-05 manual for typical buildings and can
be seen in Table 4.
Table 4: Live Loads
Load Type
Garage
Retail
Office
Roof
Stairs
Corridors
Amount
40 psf
125 psf
50 psf
20 psf
100 psf
100 psf
Since corridor locations are yet unknown, live loads were assumed as 100 psf in areas where
they would have otherwise been lower, for example in the lease space and office areas.
18
3.3
Snow Loads
Snow loads were determined similarly using a ground map of the area, see Figure 12, and table
values for the calculations. Calculations were done in compliance with Chapter 7 of ASCE7-05.
Figure 12: Ground Snow Load (ASCE7-05)

Table values for the exposure factor, thermal factor, and importance factor are shown below.
Exposure B and Occupancy Category II were assumed. The office building is fully exposed.
Table 5: Exposure Factor, Ce (ASCE7-05)
19
Table 6: Thermal Factor, Ct (ASCE7-05)
Table 7: Importance Factor, I (ASCE7-05)
Our final snow load (pf) was found to be 16.8 psf using an I of 1.0, a Ce of 1.0, a Ct of 1.2 and
the equation from ASCE7-05 below:
pf = .7CeCtIpg ,
where pg is the ground snow load and taken to be 20 lb/ft2.
20
3.4
Wind Loads
Wind loading calculations were based on a regular shaped enclosed building with a flat roof, as
seen in the architectural drawings. The basic wind speed for the area was determined from
Chapter 6 in the ASCE7-05 manual, which can be seen as 85 mph in Figure 13 below. This
speed was used to determine the velocity pressure exposure coefficient used to calculate the wind
force for each side of the building.
Figure 13: Wind Speed for Washington State (ASCE7-05)

The following tables from ASCE7-05 show the tables used for wind load calculations. The
building is enclosed and assumed to have an Occupancy Category of II.
Table 8: Internal Pressure Coefficient for Enclosed Buildings (ASCE7-05)
21
Table 9: Wall Pressure Coefficients (ASCE7-05)
Table 10: Importance Factors for Wind Loads (ASCE7-05)
Additionally, table values were used to determine the velocity pressure exposure coefficients, Kh
and Kz, and the wind directionality factor, Kd.
22
The wind loading on the short and long span of the building are shown below in Figures 14 and
15.
Figure 14: Wind Loading on the Short Span of the Building
Figure 15: Wind Loading on the Long Span of the Building
23
3.5
Seismic Loads
For earthquake loading, values were determined for the building location using Chapter 11 in
ASCE7-05. Since the soil is made up of stiff clay and silt, the soil was determined to be Site
Class D. Using a Seattle location, Ss (the mapped MCE spectral response acceleration) and S1
(the mapped MCE spectral response acceleration at a period of 1 second) were determined to be
1.15g and 0.45g, respectively, for all seismic calculations. Using the Table 11 and Table 12, the
Site Coefficients, Fa and Fv were found to be 1.04 and 1.55, respectively. The long period of the
build will be 6 seconds for the area of Washington it is located within. Seismic design will be
done using the ASCE Seismic Design Manual.
Table 11: Site Coefficient, Fa (ASCE7-05)
Table 12: Site Coefficient, Fv (ASCE7-05)
24
After Ss, S1, Fa, and Fv were determined, the MCE spectral response accelerations were adjusted
for Site Class effects. Short period, SMS, and 1 second period, SM1, accelerations were calculated
using the equations below. The design earthquake spectral response acceleration parameters at a
short period (SDS) and at one second (SD1) were also found using the following equations.
=
1 = 1
2
= 3
2
(ASCE 7-05 Eqn 11.4-1)

(ASCE 7-05 Eqn 11.4-2)
(ASCE 7-05 Eqn 11.4-3)
1 = 3 1
(ASCE 7-05 Eqn 11.4-4)
(ASCE 7-05 Eqn 12.8-7)
Next, the approximate fundamental period (Ta) was calculated using the following equation with
1
a total height (ht) of 763 feet.
Where Ct and x are period parameters and were found to be 0.03 and 0.75, respectively, for
eccentrically braced steel frames using ASCE 7-05 Table 12.8-2.
The seismic response coefficient, Cs, was determined using ASCE 7-05s procedure in section
12.8.1.1 using the following equations:
But not exceeding:
(ASCE 7-05 Eqn 12.8-2)
(ASCE 7-05 Eqn 12.8-3)
Equation 12.8-3 ended up limiting so the final seismic response coefficient was determined to be
0.08 with an R of 7.5 for EBFs. This resulted in a seismic base shear, using Equation 12.8-1 in
ASCE7-05 of V=CsW (W being the effective seismic weight), of 1320 kips. A similar procedure
was used to determine the seismic shear forces for each floor (the coefficients varied slightly per
floor depending on the height of the floor above the ground).
25
The seismic loads on the building are shown in Figure 16.
Figure 16: Seismic Loading

The SAP2000 model with area and seismic loading that we used to calculate design loads on
frame elements is shown below in Figure 17.
Figure 17: Three Dimensional SAP2000 Office Building Model with Seismic Loading
26
4.0 Materials
The two main materials for the building will be steel and concrete. The main building frame, as
well as the EBF we will be using to oppose lateral forces from wind and earthquakes, will be
made from steel sections. Columns will be sized from W14s and W12s and girders will be
designed mainly from W18s and W24s, while beams will range from W16s to W18s. The
elastic modulus of steel will be taken as 29,000,000 psi. All main sections will be composed of
Grade 50 steel, while plates will either be Grade 50 if they are within an EBF or base plate
connection, and A36 otherwise. The floor system will consist of composite decks made with
5000 psi lightweight concrete poured on 20 gauge steel ribs. For the foundation pile caps and
auger cast piles, an fc of 3000 psi was chosen. The following list describes the materials used:
Structural Steel Shapes

Steel Pipe Rail
Steel Tubing
Steel Rod
Steel Deck
Bolts
Welds, Structural Steel
Welded Headed Studs
Headed Concrete Anchors
Gusset Plates, Shear Tabs, Base Plates
EBF Gusset Plates and Base Plates
ASTM A992, Grade 50

ASTM A53, Grade B
ASTM A500, Grade B
ASTM A36
4-1/2 Composite Floor Deck
ASTM A325N and A325X
AWS D1.1, E70XX weld electrodes
ASTM A108, AWS D1.1
ASTM A108, AWS D1.1
A36 (Fy = 36 KSI)
ASTM A572, Grade 50
The thirteenth edition of the AISC Steel Construction Manual and ACI 318-08 Building Code
Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary were used in all steel and concrete
design.
5.0 Foundation Design

Structural engineers provided the required column loads that will transfer to our piles. Table 13
summarizes these needs.
Table 13 - Foundation Demands.
Column Types
EBF
Interior
Exterior
Axial (k)
1450
1250
500
Uplift (k)
900
200
100
Shear (k)
420
-
EBF pile groups must be designed for lateral, axial and uplift capacity. Non-EBF interior and
exterior groups are designed for only axial capacity and uplift.
27
5.1 Lateral Load Capacity

Lateral load capacity governs the number of piles in our EBF pile group. Piles are not allowed a
lateral deflection greater than an inch and this check calculates how much lateral deflection will
be caused by the shear and moment transferred by the EBF system.
Evans and Duncan defined the characteristic shear load, Vc, and the characteristic moment load,
Mc, as follows:

(50 )
= 2

3
=
(50 )
For solid circular cross sections:

= 1.00
For plastic clay and sand:
= 1.00
For sand:
2
= 2 45 +
2
For concrete foundation:
= 57,000
2
Where:
Vc = characteristic shear load
Mc = characteristic moment load
= a dimensionless parameter dependent on the soils stress-strain behavior
B = diameter of foundation
E = modulus of elasticity of foundation
fc= 28-day compressive strength of concrete
RI = moment of inertia ration (dimensionless)
p = representative passive pressure of soil
50 = axial strain at which 50 percent of the soil strength is mobilized
m,n = exponents from table
= effective friction angle of soil (deg) from ground surface to a depth of 8 B
Cp = passive pressure faction = /10
= unit weight of the soil from ground surface to depth of 8 B
The leading row of piles carries more than a proportionate share of the load, so a method of
distribution is to assign two shares of the shear load to each pile in the leading row and one share
to all the other piles. The lateral load design for all the piles was based on the load acting on
those in the leading row.
28
Total number of shares is 25 because 2*(5) + 5x3*(1) and leading pile gets 2 shares so shear in
one of the leading piles is:
=
2
25
Using Vc and Mc, ratios and are calculated. Using Figures 18 and 19 and multiplying by B
lateral deflection, yt, can be calculated.
Figure 18 - Shear Load vs. Lateral Deflection for Restrained Head Condition in Sand
29
Figure 19 - Moment Load vs. Lateral Deflection for Restrained Head Condition in Sand
With a 5x4 pile group:
= 0.012
= 0.01
B = 18in
yt = 0.75in
Okay
A depth of 35 ft was chosen to increase skin friction and thus reduce uplift, as well as resist
lateral forces.
30
5.2 Axial Load Capacity

Axial Load Capacity was found using the following procedure:
Where:
fS x AS
F. S.
2
=
4
=
. . = = 3.5
This allowable load is for one pile, to find the capacity of the pile group:
Where:
=
=
= = 1
And:
( 1) + ( 1)
90
=
=
= tan1
= = 18
= = 3 = 54
31
Table 14 - 5x4 Allowable Axial Load

Depth (ft)
29
34
35
40
AS
(ft2)
2.4
23.6
4.7
23.6
qt' (lbs/ft2)
fs (lbs/ft2)
227,430.0
341,145.0
341,145.0
341,145.0
1,096.2
1,074.5
1,074.5
1,074.5
qt' x AT
(lbs)
401,902
602,853
602,853
602,853
fs x AS
(lbs)
76,391
101,708
106,771
132,089
Pag
(kips)
2,249
3,313
3,337
3,456
qa (kips)
137
201
203
210

qa (kips)
Pag (kips)
401,902
fs x AS
(lbs)
76,391
137
1,012
29
AS
(ft2)
2.4
34
23.6
341,145.0
1,074.5
602,853
101,708
201
1,491
35
4.7
341,145.0
1,074.5
602,853
106,771
203
1,501
40
23.6
341,145.0
1,074.5
602,853
132,089
210
1,555
Depth (ft)
qt' (lbs/ft2)
fs (lbs/ft2)
qt' x AT (lbs)
227,430.0
1,096.2

Depth (ft)
29
34
35
40
AS
(ft2)
2.4
23.6
4.7
23.6
qt' (lbs/ft2)
fs (lbs/ft2)
227,430.0
341,145.0
341,145.0
341,145.0
1,096.2
1,074.5
1,074.5
1,074.5
qt' x AT
(lbs)
401,902
602,853
602,853
602,853
fs x AS
(lbs)
76,391
101,708
106,771
132,089
qa (kips)
Pag (kips)
137
201
203
210
Table 17 - Axial Load: Demand vs. Capacity

Column Types
EBF
Interior
Exterior
Axial Demand
(k)
1450 <
1250 <
500 <
Axial Capacity
(k)
3300
1500
660
Okay
Okay
Okay
5.3 Uplift Capacity

Due to seismic and wind loads building will rock putting one side in compression and one side in
tension. This tension can cause uplift in the piles and this section describes the check that our
piles have enough capacity to resist the uplift demands.
32
450
663
667
691
() =
+ fS x AS
F. S.
= (150 )
Group effects are applied as with Axial Load:
Table 18 - 5x4 Allowable Uplift Load

AS
(ft2)
2.4
23.6
4.7
23.6
Depth (ft)
29
34
35
40
fs (lbs/ft2)
1,096.2
1,074.5
1,074.5
1,074.5
fs x A S
(lbs)
76,391
101,708
106,771
132,089
Volume
(ft3)
459.5
577.3
582.0
699.8
Volume
(ft3)
459.5
577.3
582.0
699.8
Wf (k)
68.9
86.6
87.3
105.0
Pa (upward)
(k)
41.5
53.8
55.4
67.7
Pag (upward)
(k)
683
885
912
1,115
Table 19 - 3x3 Allowable Uplift Load.

Depth
(ft)
29
34
35
40
AS (ft2)
fs (lbs/ft2)
fs x AS (lbs)
2.4
23.6
4.7
23.6
1096.2
1074.5
1074.5
1074.5
76,390.7
101,708.0
106,771.4
132,088.7
Wf (k)
68.9
86.6
87.3
105.0
Pa (upward) Pag (upward)

(k)
(k)
41.5
307.5
53.8
398.4
55.4
410.6
67.7
501.6
Table 20 - 2x2 Allowable Uplift load.

Depth (ft)
29.0
34.0
35.0
40.0
AS
(ft2)
2.4
23.6
4.7
23.6
fs (lbs/ft2)
1,096.2
1,074.5
1,074.5
1,074.5
fs x AS
(lbs)
76,390.7
101,708.0
106,771.4
132,088.7
Volume
(ft3)
459.5
577.3
582.0
699.8
Wf (k)
68.9
86.6
87.3
105.0
Pa (upward)
(k)
41.5
53.8
55.4
67.7
Pag (upward)
(k)
136.6
177.1
182.5
222.9
Table 21 - Uplift Load: Demand vs. Capacity.

Column Types
EBF
Interior
Exterior
33
Uplift Demand (k)

900
200
100
<
<
<
Uplift Capacity (k)

910
410
180
Okay
Okay
Okay
5.4 Pile Cap Design

The pile cap was designed for direct shear, punching shear and deep beam shear. Figure 20
below shows the critical sections for the different types of shear. In this figure, d is effective
depth from the top of the foundation to the centroid of the reinforcement and for our pile caps, d
is 34 inches. For direct shear, the critical section is one d from the face of the column or pile. For
punching shear, its d/2 from the pile or column. Deep beam must be checked if the distance from
the center of the pile to the face of the column is less than d.
Figure 20 - Critical Sections for Shear Checks
5x4 Pile Group example:

Table 22 Pile Distances from the Centroid and Moments of Inertia
dx1 dx2 dx3 dx4 dx5
-81
-81
-81
-81
-81
dx11 dx12 dx13 dx14 dx15
27
27
27
27
27
dy1 dy2 dy3 dy4 dy5
-108
-54
0
54
108
dy11 dy12 dy13 dy14 dy15
-108
-54
0
54
108
34
dx6 dx7 dx8 dx9

-27
-27
-27
-27
dx16 dx17 dx18 dx19
81
81
81
81
dy6 dy7 dy8 dy9
-108
-54
0
54
dy16 dy17 dy18 dy19
-108
-54
0
54
dx10
Ix
-27
dx20
72,900
81
dy10
Iy
108
dy20
116,640
108
Where:
+
+
=
=
Assuming a pile cap of 3'6" depth, the top of pile is at 6" above bottom of pile cap and the
reinforcement is at 2" above top of pile, the effective depth is d = 34 in. Since the effective depth
d is less than 4 ft, direct shear was checked in the longitudinal direction:
Table 23 - Pile Loads
Pu1
204.1
Pu11
204.1
Pu2
205.4
Pu12
205.4
Pu3
206.8
Pu13
206.8
Pu4
208.2
Pu14
208.2
Pu5
209.6
Pu15
209.6
Pu6
204.1
Pu16
204.1
Pu7
205.4
Pu17
205.4
Pu8
206.8
Pu18
206.8
Pu9
208.2
Pu19
208.2
Factored shear at the critical section:

= 4 + 9 + 14 + 19 + 5 + 10 + 15 + 20 = 1,671
The factored moment at one d from the face of the column:
= (4 + 9 + 14 + 19 ) (54 7) +
(5 + 10 + 15 + 20 ) 15 7 = 74,500
2
Shear strength of the pile cap:
= 0.85 1.9 + 0.1 = 20,700 > 1,671
35
Okay
Pu10
209.6
Pu20
209.6
Check deep beam shear in short direction:

= 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 = 2,070
= (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 ) 54 +
54
7 +
2
54
(6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 ) 7 = 97,000
2
= = 54 7 = 47

= 0.85 3.5 2.5
1.9 + 0.1
= 2,200 > 2070 !
Design reinforcement in short direction:

= 97,000
=
Reinforcement ratio:
= 0.072
0.92
= 23.5
0.85
1
2
= 0.00122
= 1 1
Check Minimum Reinforcement:
4
= = 0.0016 < 0.002 0.002
3
Area of Reinforcement:
19-#8 = 14.9 in2
= = 14.28 2
Design reinforcement in long direction:
36
= 41,000
= 0.189
0.92
= 23.5
0.85
Reinforcement ratio:
1
2
= 1 1
= 0.00328
Check Minimum Reinforcement:
4
= = 0.0044 > 0.002 0.0044
3
Area of Reinforcement:
40 - #8 = 31.4 in2
= = 31.2 2
Same methods were used for 3x3 pile and 2x2 pile.
Table 24 - Longitudinal and Lateral Reinforcement.
Column Types
EBF
Long Reinforcement
40-#8
Short Reinforcement
19-#8
Interior
Exterior
14-#8
16-#6
14-#8
16#6
5.5 Temperature/Shrinkage Reinforcement

ACI 318-08 says that for Grade 60 deformed steel the reinforcement ratio is 0.0018. Our lateral
and longitudinal reinforcement will resist the temperature and shrinkage in the bottom of the
pile, however in order to prevent shrinkage in the top of our pile cap reinforcement must be
placed.
= 0.0018
= (21 )
37
Table 25 - Temperature and Shrinkage Reinforcement.

Pile Cap
5x4 long
5x4 short
3x3 both
2x2 both
Area (in2)
5544
4410
3276
2142
As (in2)
22.6
18.0
13.3
8.7
Design
23 #6
18 #6
14 #6
9 #6
5.6 Pile Reinforcement

The pile to pile cap connection was designed to transfer all of the forces from pile caps into the
piles below. A connection that allowed for easy construction was also considered in the design.
The final design was found using ACI chapter 12 guidelines. The embedment length of the
dowels into the pile cap was governed by potential tensile uplift failure and was determined to be
2-6. These dowels had leg lengths of 12*Db, or 12 inches for the number 8 bars. These number
8 bars were able to be lap spliced to the number 11 bars according to 12.14.2.1 in ACI. The lap
splice length for the number 8 bars into the auger cast piles was governed by the compression
forces according to ACI 12.16.1. The lap splice length was found using the following equation:
Length = .0005FyDb
Where Fy = 60 Ksi
This equation gave a splice length needed of only 3. This value was so low that constructability
governed the lap splice length as the dowels needed to be securely fastened to the number 11
bars in the piles in order to stick up into the foundation. Because of this the dowels are to be tied
24 inches into the auger cast pile cages. The dowels do not directly need to transfer any of the
sheer forces from the pile cap to the piles because the piles and their spiral reinforcement are
extruded 6 inches into the bottom of the pile cap. This extrusion can be seen in Figure 21 along
with a typical dowel bar layout.
Figure 21: Typical pile to pile cap connection

38
Figure 22 - 5x4 Pile Layout, Reinforcement, and Pile-Cap Connections for EBF
39
Figure 23 - 3x3 Pile Layout, Reinforcement and Pile-Cap Connections
40
Figure 24 - 2x2 Pile Layout, Reinforcement and Pile-Cap Connections

Please refer to sheets S.2 to S.3 in the drawing set to find these figures.
41
5.7
Grading Beam
According to the Uniform Building Code (UBC) section 1807.2, foundations under seismic loads
need to be connected with grading beams to increase the lateral stiffness of the system. The
grading beam is required to have an axial capacity of 10% of the axial load in the column. The
formulas for the axial and flexural capacity of our beam are shown below.
Compressive Capacity:
= .80[ + .85 ]
Flexural Capacity:
= = ( 2)
o =
o =
.85
Note: The ultimate moment, Mu, was calculated using a factored distributed load of the self
weight of the beam and a distributed load from the soil.
Since pile caps under the lateral bracing system were only ten feet apart, the grading beams were
not expected to have flexural problems. Additionally, with little moment at the ends, our firm
was able to design the beam as a short column to get an axial capacity design. With 10% of the
column axial load being only 125 kips, the required beam section was very slender. Slenderness
checks failed for our initial 8x8 section, so our firm decided to increase the size to a 12x12.
Finally, for constructability, the sections depth was increased to 3-6 so that the beam could be
poured monolithically with the pile caps since the depth would be the same and slenderness
limits were checked again for the new size. Though this is an overly conservative height, it
greatly increases the constructability of the foundation. Also, since the load on the grade beam
was minimal, minimum reinforcement governed the reinforcing design. The minimum
reinforcement ratio for lightly loaded spread footings (grade beams) is 0.0018. The final
reinforcement of the beam includes 4 #6 bars and #4 stirrups at 18 on center (see Figure 25).
Please refer to drawing S.3 in the drawing set for the figure. A concrete cover of 3 was used for
concrete cast against and permanently exposed to earch according to ACI 7.7.1.
Slenderness Limits according to ACI 10.10.1:
42
22
= 0.05
= 42.0"
3
= =
12
Figure 25: Section Drawing of Grade Beam with Reinforcement

Please refer to page S.3 in the drawing set to find the above figure.
43
5.8
Final Pile Layout with Grade Beam
Figure 26: Final Pile Layout
44
6.0 Composite Deck Design

The composite floor system was designed for the maximum beam-beam spacing found in the
building and a superimposed live load of 100 psf. The maximum span, found in the center of
each floor, is 11 feet. To span this length, a fairly deep rib in the metal decking was needed to
transfer the load of the wet concrete to the beams. Using a typical catalog from Wheeling
Corrugated, a deck was chosen based on the characteristics needed. The chosen deck consists of
2 inch ribs with a total concrete height of 4.5 inches. This set up is load rated to span 11-7,
which meets our span needs, and can handle 158 psf of superimposed live load. To improve the
fire proofing of the floors, lightweight concrete with a weight of 115 pcf will be used as the deck.
The typical 2 deck chosen from Wheeling Corrugated is shown in Figure 27.
Figure 27: Typical Metal Decking Proposed for Building (Wheeling Corrugating)
Table 26 shows the span rating and the available superimposed live load capacity for this design
Table 26: Superimposed Live Loads (psf) for Metal Decking Designs (Wheeling Corrugating)
45
The roof decking was designed with no concrete slab. Instead the roof decking will be covered
with sheathing or some other roofing material. This is possible because the total uniform load on
the roof is only 70 psf where each floor has a live load of 100 psf. The propped roof deckcan be
seen in Figure 28. This deck will be composed of 18 gauge metal with a yield strength of 33ksi.
Table 27 shows that for a maximum span length of 11 feet, the allowable uniform total load is 72
psf which is larger than our demand load of 20 psf.
Figure 28: Roof Decking Design Proposed for Building (Wheeling Corrugating)
Table 27: Allowable Uniform Total Loads for Roof Decking Design (Wheeling Corrugating)
7.0 Beam and Girder Design

Initial sizes for the beams, girders, and framing elements throughout the building were designed
based on the wet weight of concrete and a 50 psf constructin live load. Sections were selected
based on their flexural strengths. Using the Zx tables (Table 3-2) in the AISC manual, each
section was picked so that the capacities exceeded the demand. The moment demands for the
beams and framing elements were determined using the following equation assuming a simply
supported span:
M= w L2 / 8
46
In this equation, w is the factored load from 1.2 Dead + 1.6 Live, which was our governing load
case, and L is the length of the beam. For girders, a collapse mechanism approach was used to
determine the maximum moment demand. This approach assumes plastic hinges are created in
the members before failure and equates internal work within the member to external work from
the loads to check the sections capacities.
After the initial member sizing, composite sections capacities had to be checked against the full
loads expected to act on the building. The first step in checking the composite strength of the
steel beams with the concrete deck was finding the limiting effective width. In all cases the
limiting factor was the center to center spacing of the beams. The center to center spaces checked
were 8 ft and 11 ft, the two bounds of beam spacing within the building design. With the
effective widths of concrete established, the composite sections were checked for the following:
1. concrete crushing above the section
2. steel yielding of the wide flange section
3. shear failure of the shear studs
The design moment was established as 333 K-ft for all beams except for the 5th floor beams that
had 2 HSS column sections acting in the span of the beam. For these sections the design demand
was 370 K-ft. Demand loads were checked against composite flexural capacity using Table 3-19
in the AISC manual. In this table Y2, the distance from the top of the steel to the neutral axis of
the concrete, was determined by the following equations:
Qn is the Minimum of
Fs As
n Qn
0.85 fc Ac,
Where Fs is the strength of the steel, As is the area of steel, n is the number of shear stud
connectors, Qn is the shear capacity of the studs, fc is the strength of the concrete and Ac is the
area of the concrete.
a = Qn / ( 0.85 fc b)
Where b is the effective width of the concrete.
Y2 = Ycon a/2
Where Ycon is the height of the concrete.
After checking the initial sections against these demands it became apparent that the initial beam
size of W14x26 was not sufficient. Even with full composite action, which was achieved with
one 1 diameter shear stud every 12, this beam size could only sustain 314 k-ft, less than the
333 k-ft demand. Although 3/4 shear studs are typically used, to reach full composite action two
studs would have been needed every 12. The 1 shear studs chosen decreased the total
number of studs by 50% reducing labor and costs. With the 1 shear studs, the steel yielding
47
became the governing property so a deeper section was needed. A W 16X26 was chosen. This
section with the 1 diameter shear studs every 12 had a capacity of 340 K-ft, which was
sufficient for the main beams; however, the 5th floor HSS affected beams needed even more
capacity than this. With this new beam size the shear stud capacity became the limiting factor, so
two 1 diameter studs every 12 were added before the capacity was sufficient (396K-ft > 370
K-ft). For girders parallel to the decking, it was assumed that they would also have 1 diameter
studs at 12 on center to prevent buckling of the members. All of the initial girder sizes satisfied
the composite strength checks.
Once the composite sections were checked for strength, the last step in the beam and girder
design was checking deflections. Initial deflections, caused by the dead weight of the concrete
before it has gained strength, were checked first. Deflections were determined using the
following equation:
= 5 w L4 / (384 E I)
In this equation, w is the factored distributed load, L is the length of the beam or girder, E is the
modulus of elasticity, and I is the moment of inertia of the section. For just the dead load, the
maximum allowable deflection is L/240.
Next, deflections were checked for the composite members under dead and live load was within
the allowable deflection of L/360. For the composite sections it was necessary to calculate the
effective moment of inertia, Ilb, for the steel and concrete acting together as part of the section.
Tabulated values for Ilb were found in Table 3-20 of the AISC Manual using the Y2 calculated
above. Once Ilb was determined, it could be used in the above deflection equation with the
distributed dead and live load.
48
For both deflection checks, the W16x26 beams did not satisfy the deflection requirements. Table
28 summarizes the final beam designs and their deflections. The beam section chosen after the
deflection checks was a W18x30. This section satisfied all strength and deflection requirements
of the beam and was finalized. The girders also did not satisfy the deflection requirements. The
deflections and sizes chosen for the girders can also be seen in Table 28.
Table 28: Final Member Sizes and Their Deflection Checks
After allowable deflections were compared to the calculated deflections and the sizes were
updated, it was clear that deflections governed all of the member sizes. This made sense because
the spans for the members were long. To control the dead load deflection it was decided to
camber every section by 3/4. With this camber, sections will remain under the allowable
deflection limits after creep and shrinkage of the concrete deck cause additional deflections
assuming that there would not be more than 1/2 of additional deflection for the 4.5 total deck
depth. An example floor plan is shown in Figure 29.
Note: Outer girders were designed with tighter tolerances because of the masonry cladding.
Instead of the allowable L/360 deflection, masonry is allowed L/600 deflection. This decrease in
deflection caused the outer girders member sizes to be very similar to the inner girders, so the
same size was used to ease constructability.
49
Figure 29: First Floor Layout

Please refer to sheets S.5-S.9 for better quality and the rest of the floor plans.
50
8.0 Column Design

Our column sections were designed based on the AISC compressive strength for flexural
buckling design equations and the ASCE 7-05 load cases. Loads were divided by floor including
snow specifications for the roof. Interior, exterior and corner columns were designed separately
based on their tributary areas. Live load reductions were taken based on the specifications in
section 4.8.1 of ASCE 7-05.
If
4.71 , we used = [0.658 ] (AISC 13th Edition, Eqn E3-2),
where K is the effective length factor, L is the laterally unbraced length of the member (in), r is
the governing radius of gyration (in), E is the module of elasticity, Fy is the yield strength of the
steel, Fcr is the flexural buckling strength, and Fe is that the elastic critical buckling stress defined
by the equation below.
=
2
)
(AISC 13th Edition, Eqn E3-4)
Otherwise, we used = 0.877
Live Load Reduction was taken from ASCE 7-05 chapter 4 where = (0.25 +
15
) and
= 0.4 , where L is the reduced design live load per ft2, L0 is the unreduced design live
load per ft2, KLL is the live load element factor, and AT is the tributary area in ft2.
Columns were design so that corner and exterior columns are W12s, interior columns are W14s,
and the small columns on the top floor are HSS5.5s. An example column schedule for gridline
A is shown in Figure 30, and the rest can be found in the structural drawings on pages S.10 to
S.13.
51
Figure 30: Column Schedule for Gridline A
52
8.1
Column Splice Design
Column Splices were designed using Table 14-3 Typical Column Splices from the 13th edition of
the AISC Steel Manual. Splices were designed to be a combination of bolted and welded column
splices between columns with depths du and dl nominally the same (Case VI). When checking
the design, the weld electrode strength was assumed to be 70 ksi and plates were specified to be
ASTM A36 steel. Three-quarter inch ASTM A325-N bolts were found to have ample capacity.
The phi factor was taken to be 0.75. Depending on the difference of du and dl, column splice case
VI-A, VI-B, or VI-C was used. The available bearing strength of the contact area of the splice
was determined from equation J7-1, shown below:
= 1.8 (AISC Eqn J7-1)
Where Fy is the specified minimum yield strength in ksi and Apb is the projected bearing area in
square inches. An example of the final dimensions and weld sizes of the interior splices can be
seen in Figures 31 and 32 and are on sheets S.15 and S.16.
Figure 31: Interior Column Splice on Floor 3
53
Figure 32: Interior Column Splice on Floor 5
8.2
Base Plate Design
Base plates were designed based on the procedure described in Chapter 14 of the 13th edition of
the AISC Steel Manual. The steel used for the design was A36 steel and the concrete has an fc
of 3 ksi. A base plate was designed for the exterior columns using the required strength used to
design the exterior column sizes and another base plate was designed for the interior columns
using the required strength used to design the interior column sizes. The area of the base plate
(A1) in square inches was calculated using the maximum of the following three equations:
A1 =
1
Pu
[
]
A2 . 6(. 8f c )
A1 = [
Pu
]
. 6(1.70f c )
A1 = d bf
Pu = Total factored load of the column (kips)

A2 = Full cross sectional area of concrete support (in2)
fc = Specified compressive strength of concrete (ksi)
54
d = depth of column (in)

bf = flange width of column (in)
The dimensions of the base plate (N and M) were determined using the equation below:
N = A1 + >
B=
where = .5(.95d-.80bf).
A1
> bf
N
The load contributory to the area enclosed by the column (P0) was found using the equation
below which was used to calculate the area of the H-shaped region, AH.
P0 =
0
Pu
bd
BxN f
. 6(.852 /
0
. 6(1.7
The dimension c (shown in Figure 34) was found using the following equation, where tf is the
flange thickness of the column.
=
1
4
[ + ( + )2 4( ]
The thickness of the base plate, tp, was calculated as the largest of the following 3 equations
where Fy is the specified minimum yield strength of steel in ksi.
=
=
2
. 9
2
. 9
20
=
. 9
The calculated variables and dimensions can be seen in a general column base plate design in
Figure 33 and Figure 34.
55
Figure 33: Sample Base Plate Design Dimensions

AH
t /2
f
tf/2
Figure 34: Sample Base Plate Design Dimensions
56
The exterior base plates (using a Pu of 496 kips and a W12x72 section) were found to have
dimensions N of 18, B of 13, m of 3.16, n of 1.7, AH of 62 in2, c of 1.3, and a plate
thickness of 1.5. Interior base plates (using a Pu of 1242 in2 and a 14x145 section) were found to
have dimensions N of 22, B of 16, m of 4, n of 1.3, AH of 200 in2, c of 4.6, and a plate
thickness of 2.5. Base plates underneath EBF columns (using a Pu of 1426 kips) were calculated
to have dimensions N of 25, B of 22, m of 5.14, n of 4.72, AH of 155 in2, c of 2.72, and a
plate thickness of 2.5. Two inches on each end was added to the original calculated N value
dimension to allow ample room for the required anchor bolts. An example base plate design is
shown can be found on sheet S.4 of the drawing set.
8.3
Anchor Bolt Design (Column Base Plates to Pile Caps)
8.3.1 Non-EBF Connections Number of Bolts Needed

With the pile caps and base plates designed, anchor bolts were chosen to connect the two
adjacent components. Two different connections were designed, one for the EBF columns and
one for the non-EBF columns. The non-EBF anchor bolts were designed in accordance to section
D.6 of ACI 318. Because of the soft soil properties near the surface and the potential for some of
the pile caps to be unlevel, the anchor bolts were designed to extend past the pile cap concrete
enough to allow for a leveling nut and washer underneath the base plate along with a washer and
tightening nut above the base plate. Once in place, the gap between the bottom of the base plate
and the top of the pile cap will be gone because of the leveling nut will be grouted solid.
However, a reduction in the strength of the bolt is still necessary to account for this construction
process and the moment this eccentricity places on each bolt must also be checked. Each
connection was designed to resist the shear at the base of the column as well as any uplift the
columns may see. It was determined that the reduction in strength due to the eccentricity was not
large in the non-EBF connections. The reduction in strength for these bolts was .8; with this
reduction the shear demand governed the design. For the non-EBF frames the shear demand was
50 Kips.
Based on the code and experience in the field, it was necessary to have at least 4 anchor bolts
connecting the base plate to the pile cap for stability. Knowing this, the capacities of different
diameter bolts were calculated using the nominal strength check within ACI 318 D.6. For a
(3/4) diameter bolt the capacity was found to be 18.3K/bolt, for a 1 diameter bolt the capacity
was found to be 33.2 K/bolt, and for a 1.5 diameter bolt the capacity was found to be
76.6K/bolt. Using these numbers it was established that for the non-EBF columns 4-(3/4)
diameter bolts would be the best choice (73.2K > 50 K). There were other combinations that
would work, but this one was chosen for its simplicity of construction. Figure 35 shows an
exterior base plate with the calculated dimensions and anchor bolt locations and anchor bolt
design can be found on page S.2 and S.4 of the drawing set.
57
Figure 35: Interior Base Plate Design with Anchor Bolts

8.3.2 EBF Connections: Bolts + Shear key
For the EBF frames, the shear demand was 420 Kips. This large shear demand meant that the
reduction in strength due to the bending of the bolts was to large to make a straight bolted
connection feasible. The formula used for checking the moment acting on the bolts due to the
eccentricity caused by the grout and plate thickness can be seen below.
where N = # of bolts present, L = eccentricity, and V = shear demand

For the EBF connections, it was determined that a shear key would be needed to transfer the
force into the pile cap. In order to design the shear key, the pile cap design had to be slightly
altered so a block out could be placed where the shear key was to be inserted. It was determined
that 6-(3/4) diameter bolts would be used to resist the uplift of the column, but the shear key
would be designed to transfer the shear and moment to the pile cap. A picture of a general base
plate with a shear key arraignment can be seen in Figure 36.
Figure 36: Typical Shear Tab Arrangement (photo from Australian Steel Institute)
58
To design the shear key, the Australian Institute of Steels Design of Pinned Column Base
Plates was consulted. This document laid out a way to calculate the capacities of the shear key
for several different failure possibilities. The failure modes checked were the following:
1. Concrete bearing failure of the shear key
2. Pull out of the shear tab from the concrete
3. Shear capacity of the shear key based on its moment capacity
4. Shear capacity of the weld between the shear key and base plate.
The equations that went along with these failure methods were as follows:
Vs=(Vs.c; Vs.cc; Vs.b; Vs.w)min V* (111)
where:
Vs= design shear capacity of the shear key
1: Vs.c= concrete bearing capacity of the shear key
Vs.c=0.85fcLs(bs tg)
=.6
2: Vs.cc=Pull out capacity of shear tab in concrete

Vs.cc=0.33 fc*Apsk Vs.c
=.7
3: Vs.b= shear capacity of the shear key based on its section moment capacity
. 9( 2 )
(
. =
=.9
+ ) 2
4: Vs.w= shear capacity of the weld between the shear key and the base plate
=.75
After going through the calculations, it was determined that failure mode one governed the shear
tab length and depth of embedment, while failure mode three governed the shear key thickness.
Therefore, the weld was sized based on failure mode four. The equation for the was set equal to
the shear demand of 420 Kips. Assuming a shear key length of 12 inches and a grout depth of 1
inch, the concrete bearing capacity equation was solved for bs, where Ls = key length, bs = key
depth, and tg = grout depth. This produced a key depth of 15 inches needed. Taking this key
length and depth to equation 3 and solving for the key thickness ts produced a required thickness
of 4 inches. This information was then used in equation 4 to find the required weld size. It was
determined that the weld capacity needed to be 144 K/in and a 5/16 in weld on all sides of the
plate was determined to meet this capacity. One important note in the shear key design was that
59
the key was designed to be made out of a 50 ksi plate rather than a 36 ksi plate to make the
thickness more manageable. Figure 37 shows the EBF anchor bolt layout and Figure 39 shows
the shear key and anchor bolt design, which is on page S.4 of the drawing set.
Figure 37: EBF Anchor Bolts and Base Plate Design
8.3.3 Base Plates Anchor Bolt Embedment Depths

With the number of bolts established for the two base plate designs, the concrete breakout and
concrete pry out strengths had to be checked for shear and tension(D 6.2 and 6.3 of ACI 318).
The following failures were checked:
1. Tensile pull out due to uplift
2. Concrete pry out due to shear/moment
3. Concrete blow out due to shear/moment
A view of several potential concrete blow outs can be seen in Figure 38. Again, the shear forces
governed. The bolt depths were established using a guess and check procedure. After several
iterations, it was found that strength-wise, the non-EBF bolts needed to be embedded 4.5 for
tensile capacity and 18 for shear (moment reduced) capacity. The EBF bolts needed to be
embedded 10 for tensile capacity and 24 for shear (moment reduced) capacity. The concrete
breakout strength did not govern for either design, which was logical since the base plate is in the
center of the pile caps. This location puts the anchors over 50 inches away from the edge, and in
terms of the ACI code for anchors far from the edge, D 6.2 usually will not govern (ACI RD
6.2.1). The concrete pry out strength was then looked at. For the non-EBF columns it was found
that the pry out strength of the four anchors was 230 K, which was far greater than the 50 K
demand. The pry out strength of the EBF column bolt design was also found to be sufficient
(440K > 420K demand). With the EBF bolt designs capacities so close to the demands, a shear
tab connected to the bottom of the column base plate extending into the pile cap could be looked
60
at, but for our time constraints this was not considered since the capacity is greater than the
demand. Figure 39 shows the embedment length of the EBF anchor bolts.
Figure 38: Potential Anchor Bolt Failure Paths. Concrete Breakout (left) and Uplift (right)
Figure 39: EBF Anchor Bolt Design with Shear Key
8.3.4 Column-Pile Cap Connections Summary

For the non-EBF frames, it was determined that 4-3/4 diameter anchor bolts embed 18 into the
concrete pile cap would b sufficient.
For the EBF frames, it was determined that 6-3/4 diameter bolts along with a shear key would
be needed to transfer the forces to the pile cap. The shear key, with dimensions of 12x15x4, is
to be welded to the base of the base plate with 5/16 welds all the way around the key. A view of
the pile cap with the block outs for the key can also be seen in Figure 39. Note that this block out
61
and the entire area around the shear key is to be fully grouted along with the area beneath the
base plate once it is set in place. In order to ensure the grout fills the shear key cavity, holes will
be drilled in the base plate, away from the bolt holes, as necessary. Two grouting holes should be
sufficient to ensure that the full shear key area is grouted.
9.0 Connection Design

With the beams, girders, framing elements, and columns all finalized, connections were designed
to hold all of the pieces together. This section does not address the connections specially
designed for the EBF affected regions, but will address the rest of the building. For floors one
through five, the beams all relatively experience the same loads, as do the girders, so the worst
case region was established and detailed connections were created for these regions and used
throughout the floors. In real practice, with more time and more attention to cost, some
connection sizes could be reduced, but the money saved by keeping everything the same for easy
construction would probably balance out these adjustments. Each of these separate sets consisted
of the following connections: beam-girder, girder-column, and beam-column.
All connections were based on single shear tab connections with A 325 N bolts. Guidelines for
the shear tab design can be found in the AISC Steel Manual chapter 10. For these single plate
connections, the potential failure mechanisms consist of the following:
1. Bolt shear
2. Block shear rupture
3. Bolt bearing
4. Plate shear yielding
5. Plate shear rupture.
6. Weld shear
None of the connections had more than 10 bolts therefore eccentricity of the bolt groups was
ignored. Also, plate buckling was not considered because with this conventional configuration, it
would not control according to AISC. The connections were subject to several limitations
established by AISC. Some of these limitations included the following:
A bolt number between two and twelve
A distance from weld line to bolt line less than 3.5 (3 was used)
The edge distance equal to or greater than two times the diameter of the bolt
All limitations and checks were considered and addressed in the design of each connection. To
help for quick design of the connections, Table 10-9a in the AISC Steel Manual was used for
initial design and back checked.
For all cases the Table 10-9a value was determined to be acceptable and was used. Some
adjustments to the table values were made when looking at weld sizing. The table used a value of
(5/8)*plate thickness to assign the weld sizes, but for the actual design each weld was
individually calculated. Table 10-9a had the following important assumptions:
the steel plate strengths were assumed to be Fy =36 Ksi
62
the edge distance was taken as 2*Db

the bolt spacing was 3 center to center
the distance from weld line to bolt line was taken as 3
This table also checked all of the potential failure cases established for this type of connection
and produced the strength as the lowest case scenario. The tabulated values were created for
bolts of diameters 3/4, 1, and 1.5, changing for plate thicknesses of (1/4) through (9/16) and
adjusting per number of bolts between 2 and 12. For all non EBF connections, 3/4 diameter
bolts were used and the plate thickness and bolt number were adjusted to meet strength.
The specifications of the different designs, as well as their capacities can be found in Table 29
and an example layout of the structural drawing can be seen in Figure 40. Connections are shown
in the drawing set on page S.14.
63
Table 29: Summary of Floor and Roof connections for Beam-Girder, Beam-Column, and Girder-Column
Plate
thickness
(in)
Plate
length
(in)
Bolt
Diameter
(in)
Number
of Bolts
Leh
(in)
Lev
(in)
Weld
Size
Beam - Girder
Beam Column
Girder Column
(5/16)
8.5
(3/4)
1.5
1.25
(3/16)
Weld
length
per side
(in)
5
(1/4)
8.5
(3/4)
1.5
1.25
(3/16)
(1/4)
14.5
(3/4)
1.5
1.25
Beam - Girder
Beam Column
Girder Column
(1/4)
5.5
(3/4)
1.5
(1/4)
5.5
(3/4)
(1/4)
5.5
(3/4)
Connection
Summary
Floors
Roof
Figure 40: Example Structural Drawing for Connection Detail
64
ECCE
Shear
Demand
(K)
Shear
Capacity
(K)
39
47.7
35
38.3
(3/16)
61
65
1.25
(3/16)
9.4
24.5
1.5
1.25
(3/16)
24.5
1.5
1.25
(3/16)
18.7
24.5
10.0 Eccentrically Braced Frame (EBF)

10.1 EBF Analysis
The lateral bracing required for the office building was calculated by hand and checked
against a two dimensional frame model in SAP2000. The dead, live, snow, and earthquake loads
were factored and applied as necessary to each element in the EBF frame. The load case
(1.2+0.2SDS)D + 0.5L + 0.2S + E (kips) was found to govern most frequently. For this load case
SDS was taken as 1 and as 1.3 for the Site Profile D building.
Once the initial shear loads were determined, eccentric loading from the locations of the
braces were taken into consideration. A torsional analysis was done by comparing the center of
gravity to center of rigidity; additional loads from torsion were added to the seismic loading so
there was at least 5% eccentricity added to each braced frame. The final shear loads from the
unfactored seismic loading are shown in Figure 41 and range from 51.77 kip on the roof to
263.28 kips on the first floor in the EBF link. As shown by the figure, the shear in the frame is
mostly in the link. Axial load and moment were also included in the frame analysis; these values
can be viewed in Figures 42-43. Through the analysis it became apparent that the elements
outside of the link would take most of the axial loading while the link would take most of the
moment.
65
ECCE
Figure 41: Unfactored Shear from the Earthquake Load (kip)
66
ECCE
Figure 42: Axial Force for Load Case (1.2+0.2SDS)D + 0.5L + 0.2S + E (kips)
67
ECCE
Figure 43: Moment for Load Case (1.2+0.2SDS)D + 0.5L + 0.2S + E (in-k)
68
ECCE
10.2 EBF Link Design

For the eccentrically braced frame, all portions of the frame were assumed to be fixed
connections with fixed column bases. The Seismic Design Manual was used to design all of the
eccentrically braced frame elements. Links for the braces were assumed using the following
equations where e is the link length:
Vp = 0.6 Fy ( d 2 tf ) tw
Mp = Z F y
e 1.6 Mp / Vp
Fy is the yield strength of the steel, d is the depth of the link, tf is the thickness of the link flange,
tw is the thickness of the link web, and Z is the plastic modulus of the link section. Limiting the e
to the 1.6 ratio causes the link to fail in shear rather than in flexural providing more strength,
ductility and stiffness to the overall system. The equations were checked so that Vu < Vn, and
were also checked for the following:
Slenderness
o Flange compactness for seismic design
o Web compactness for seismic design
Drift
o a = 0.020 hsx
hsx is the story height
o x = Cd xe / I
I is 1
Cd is 4
xe is the interstory drift from the SAP2000 elastic analysis
o x < a
Link rotation angle
o p = L/e p 0.08 rad
L is the length of the beam
p = p /h
p is the plastic story drift
h is the story height
Stiffeners were sized for minimum width and thickness using the following equations:
wmin = (bf-2tw) / 2
tmin = 0.75 tw 3/8 in,
69
ECCE
where bf is the length of the beam flange. The number of stiffeners was determined by
interpolating the maximum distance between stiffeners from a link with a rotation angle of 0.02
and 0.08 radians. The number of stiffeners ranged from 3 to 6 depending on the connection. Two
examples of the stiffener layouts can be seen in Figure 45 and 46.
Link lengths of 4.5 ft were determined sufficient to induce shear failure and limit the link
rotation angle to under 0.08 radians. Link sections ranged from W18x86 on the roof level to
W18x175 on the ground story.
10.3 EBF Beam Design

The rest of the bracing structure was designed so that it would not fail before the link reached its
plastic moment capacity. The beams outside of the link were assumed to be the same sections as
the link and had to resist gravity forces and 1.1 times the expected shear strength of the link. Ry
was taken as 1.1 for a wide flange section and Vn was the nominal shear strength in the link. The
equation to find the ultimate shear the beams were designed for was the following:
Vult =1.1 Ry Vn
From this ultimate shear, an over-strength factor was calculated by dividing the ultimate shear in
the beam by the seismic forces in the link.
Factor = 1.1 Ry Vn / VQe
This factor was used to increase seismic loads in the governing load cases to determine a new
axial, shear, and flexural demand on the members. Beam slenderness, second order effects, and
combined loading were also checked before the link and beam sizes were finalized.
The second order effect and combined loading equations are shown below:
1 =
Cm
Pe1 =
1Pr/Pe1
EI 2
(KL)2
Pr = 2 Pu
Mrx = 1 Mu
Pr
Pc
70
ECCE
pPr
Ry
1
2 = 1.0
Cm = 1.0
K = 1.0
Pu is the axial demand
Mu is the moment demand
p is from Table 6-1 in AISC, Ry is 1.1
8 Mrx
9 Mcx
bxMrx
bx is from Table 6-1 in AISC
Ry
pPr + bxMrx 1
When the last equation is satisfied, the section is adequate to resist combined moment and axial
loads. Iterations were run until this occurred for all EBF members.
10.4 EBF Brace Design

The diagonal bracing for the EBF was selected using a similar method, except the ultimate shear
in the brace was determined by multiplying the expected shear strength in the link by 1.25
instead of 1.1. An over-strength factor was again used to increase the earthquake loads in the
governing load combination.
Vult =1.25 Ry Vn
Factor = 1.25 Ry Vn / VQe
After brace slenderness was checked for web and flange compactness, the second order effects
from combined loading were examined in a manner similar to that above. For these cases, Cm
was taken as 0.6 and Ry was 1.25 for braces. Shear capacity of the braces were also checked
against the shear demands using the equation:
Vn = 0.6 Fy Aw Cv,
Where Cv was taken as one and Aw is the area of the brace web. Final brace sections, meeting
all of the required checks, ranged from W18x119 on the roof to W18x192 on the bottom level.
10.5 EBF Column Design

To size the columns needed in the frame, the required column strength was determined using the
axial loads and moments acting on the frames in both the x and y directions. The effects from
amplified seismic loading were also taken into consideration. Like the brace design, second order
effects and combined loading governed the selection of the columns. For the second order
checks, both the x and y directions of the column sections were checked using the following:
1x =
1y =
71
ECCE
Cm
1Pr/Pe1x
Cm
1Pr/Pe1y
Cm = 1.0
Cm = 1.0
Pe1x =
Pe1y =
EIx 2
EIy 2
(KL)2
Pr = 2 Pu
Mrx = 1 Mux
Mry = 1 Muy
Pr
Pc
= pPr
8 Mrx
9 Mcx
8 Mry
9 Mcy
K = 1.0
(KL)2
= bxMrx
= byMry
K = 1.0
2 = 1.0
Pu is the axial demand

Mu is the moment demand
p is from Table 6-1 in AISC, Ry is 1.1
bx is from Table 6-1 in AISC

by is from Table 6-1 in AISC
pPr + bxMrx + byMry 1
The final columns sizes ranged from W14x74 to W14x193 and were spliced every other floor.
The final EBF member sizes for the links, braces, and columns, are all shown in Figure 44 and
this figure can be found on drawing sheet S.17.
72
ECCE
Figure 44: Eccentrically Braced Frame with Final Member Sizing
73
ECCE
10.6 EBF Brace to Link Connection

The two important connections in the eccentrically braced frame were connecting the brace to
the beam at the top of each story, and connecting the brace and beam to the column at the bottom
corner of each story. For the beam to brace connection, first the brace flange and web forces
were determined using factored axial and shear loads Pf and Vw respectively.
Pf = Pfa + Pff
Pfa = Pu / 2
Pff = Mu / (d-tf)
Vw = Vu
The following step by step procedure was used to design the connections:
1. Checking the yield strength of the base material (brace flange)
Rn = 0.90 Fy bf tf
Rn > Pf
2. Checking Web Local Yielding at Brace Flange Connection
Rn = 1.0(5k +N) Fyw tw
N length of bearing
k distance from outer face of flange to web toe of the fillet
Vf = Pf*Lbrace / h
Rn > Vf
3. Checking Web Crippling at Brace Flange Connection
E Fyw t f
N tw
Rn = 0.80t w 2 [1 + 3( )( )1.5 ]
d tf
tw
4. Sizing Beam Web Stiffeners

Load:
Ps = (Vf - Rn)
Maximum Width:
b = (bf tw)
Minimum Thickness: tmin = Ps / (0.90 Fy b)
Beam web stiffeners ranged from 3/8 x 4-3/4 to 3/4 x 4-3/4 depending on the connection.
5. Designing Stiffener Welds
L= d + 2 (tf +1in)
Dmin = Ps / (1.392 kips/in * L)
74
ECCE
The EBF beam to brace connections for the roof frame and the first floor frame, the two most
extreme connections, can be seen in Figures 45 and 46. The other four connections have
stiffeners and welds ranging between the two and can be viewed in the drawing set on sheets
S.18-S.23.
Figure 45: Brace to Beam Connection on the First Floor
Figure 46: Brace to Beam Connection on the Roof
75
ECCE
10.7 EBF Brace and Beam to Column Connection

The beam-brace to column connections required larger connections because they transfer the
entire load from the braces and beams into the columns.
The following procedure was used to design the connection and two example connections are
shown at the end:
1. Determining loads in the brace using
Pu = (1.2+0.2SDS)D + 0.5L + 0.2S + E
2. Determining loads in the beam outside of the link using
Vu= (1.2+0.2SDS)D + 0.5L + 0.2S + E
3. Determining the required strength in the brace to gusset connection
Ru = (Vu2 + Pu2)
4. Determining the number of 1 diameter A325X bolts
Nmin = Ru / rn where rn is 70.7 kips/bolt
The number of bolts ranged from 10 to 14 bolts for the gusset to brace connection.
5. Checking bearing of the gusset plate
a. Guess bolt spacing and edge distance
b. Guess initial gusset thickness
c. Use Manual Table 7-5 for tabulated bearing strength at bolt holes
d. Use Manual Table 7-6 for tabulated bearing strength at bolt holes based on edge
distance
e. Multiply strengths by number of bolts for each and add together to get Rn which
must be larger than Ru
6. Checking block shear rupture strength of gusset plate
Rn = (0.6 Fu Anv + Ubs Fu Ant 0.6 Fy Agv + Ubs Fu Ant) > Ru
Anv net area subject to shear
Agv gross area subject to shear
Ant net area subject to tension
Ubs 1.0 for uniform tension stress
0.75
7. Checking the compression buckling strength of the gusset
a. Determine KL/r
K 0.65
L average unbraced length of the gusset
r = tgp / 12, tgp is the thickness of the gusset
76
ECCE
b. Use the equation:

Pn = Fcr Ag
Fcr = Fy
Ag = Lw tgp, Lw is the Whitmore Width
Final gusset plate sizes ranged from 24-3/4 x 24-1/4 to 30 x 29 and were all 1 thick and
made of ASTM A572 Grade 50 plates.
8. Selecting trial connection between gusset and brace: pair of bolted WT sections
9. Checking tension yielding strength of WTs
Rn = 0.90 Fy Ag
Rn > Ru
10. Checking tension rupture of WTs
Net Area: An = 2 (Ag 2 db tf),
db is the nominal diameter of the bolt
Shear Lag Factor: U = 1 x/L Manual Table D3.1
Effective Area: Ae = U Ag 0.85 Ag
Rn = 0.75 Fu Ae
11. Checking element slenderness of the WTs
a. Checking flange width-thickness limit
b. Checking web width thickness limit
12. Checking compression strength of the WTs
a. Determine KL/r
K 0.65
L unbraced length of WT
r in Manual Table 1-1
b. Use the equation:
Pn = Fcr Ag
Fcr = 0.942 Fy
Pn > Ru
13. Checking bearing strength of the WTs, same procedure as above
14. Checking block shear rupture strength of the WTs, same procedure as above
The final sizes of the WT sections ranged from WT9x59.5 to WT9x87.5 depending on the
connection.
15. Checking bearing strength of the brace web, same procedure as above
16. Checking block shear rupture strength of the brace web, same procedure as above
77
ECCE
17. Checking shear lag rupture strength of brace

An = Ag 2(db + 1/16 in) tw
U = 1 x/L
Ae = U Ag
18. Determining gusset-to-beam column connection interface forces
19. Designing the weld at the gusset/beam interface
Length of weld: lw = lgp 1 in 3/4 in,
where lgp is the length of the gusset and a 3/4 thick end plate and 1 corner clip
are assumed
fv = Hub / lw where Hub is the shear force at the interface
fa = Vub / lw where Vub is the axial force at the interface
fpeak = (( fa)2 +( fv)2)
= tan-1 (Vub / Hub)
rn = 1.392 kips/in ( 1.0 + 0.50 sin1.5())
Dmin = fpeak / (2 rn)
Check that Dmin exceeds minimum weld size with Manual Table J2.4
20. Checking yielding of the gusset
Rn = 0.6 Fy t lw > Ru
21. Checking beam web local yielding
Rn = 1.0(2.5k +N) Fy tw
N length of bearing
k distance from outer face of flange to web toe of the fillet
Rn > Vub
22. Checking beam web crippling
Rn > Vub
Rn = 0.80t w 2 [1 + 3(
3N t w 1.5 E Fyw t f
)( ) ]
d tf
tw
23. Designing the weld between the gusset and the end plate
78
ECCE
fv = Vuc / lw where Vuc is the shear force at the interface

fa = Huc / lw where Huc is the axial force at the interface
fpeak = 1.25 (( fa)2 +( fv)2), where 1.25 is the weld distribution factor
= tan-1 (Huc / Vuc)
rn = 1.392 kips/in ( 1.0 + 0.50 sin1.5())
Dmin = fpeak / (2 rn)
Check that Dmin exceeds minimum weld size with Manual Table J2.4
24. Checking yielding of the gusset
Rn = 0.6 Fy t lw > Ru
25. Designing the weld between the beam and end plate
Vu = Vub - Vu beam
D Vu / (2*1.392 kips/in*Tbeam), where T is tabulated in Manual Table 1-1
26. Checking beam rupture at weld
Rn = 0.75* 0.6 Fu tw Tbeam > Ru
27. Checking beam flange rupture at weld
Rn = 0.75* Fu tf bf > Ru
28. Designing end plate bolts
Vu = (Vuc + Vub - Vu beam) / Nb, where Nb is the number of bolts
Tu = Pu /Nb rnv1 (
Vu 2
)
rnt
The design shear and tensile strength per bolt are in Manual Tables 7-1 and 7-2,
respectively
Pu is the axial force in the beam outside of the link.
The number of bolts needed in the end plate ranged from 16 to 22 bolts per plate, with two plates
per connection.
29. Selecting end plate thickness
Tu = Huc / Nb
rt = r nt 1 (
Vuc /Nb 2
)
rnv
Prying action in the bolts adjacent to the gusset plate and beam flange:
b = (s 0.75in) / 2, where s is bolt horizontal spacing
b = b - db /2
a = (wp s) /2, where wp is the width of the plate
79
ECCE
a = a - db /2
= 1- db / p, where db is db + 1-1/16 in and p is the vertical bolt spacing
= b/ a
rt
= 1/ (
Tu
1) > 1
4.44
=
(1+ )
30. Checking bearing strength of end plate

31. Checking the bearing strength of the column flange
32. Checking shear yielding strength of the end plate
Rn = 0.90*2*0.6 Fy tp > Ru
33. Checking end plate fracture at beam web weld
Rn = 0.75*2*0.6 Fu tp > Ru
34. Checking end plate fracture at beam flange weld
Rn = 0.75*0.6 Fu tp bf > Ru
35. Checking end plate shear fracture at bolt line
Rn = 0.75*0.6 Fu An > Ru
End plates for the six connections were all 11 wide and 3/4 thick on both sides of the gusset
and beam to column connection.
36. Checking column web local yielding
Rn = 1.0(5k +N) Fy tw
37. Checking column web crippling
N
Rn = 0.80t w 2 [1 + 3( d )( tw )1.5 ]
f
E Fyw tf
38. Checking column local flange buckling
tw
39. Checking column shear (Manual J10.6)

Pr/ Pc 0.4, Rv = 0.90*0.6 Fy dc tw
Pr/ Pc > 0.4, Rv = 0.90*0.6 Fy dc tw ( 1.4 Pr/Pc) ,
Where Pr is the required column strength and Pc = Py
80
ECCE
The connections for the second floor and roof are shown in Figures 47 and 48 with the
other four connections similar in design and shown in the drawing set on sheets S.18 to S.23.
Figure 47: Brace and Beam Connection to Column on the First Story
81
ECCE
Figure 48: Brace and Beam Connection to Column on the Roof
11.0
Loading Dock Transfer Truss
On the back face of the building, a loading dock is needed. The loading dock requires a gap in
the structural system running from lines 4 through 6 on the architectural drawing, a space 64 feet
in length. This means that the column at point D-5 must be removed from the ground floor up to
the second floor, a height of 26-4. Above the 2nd floor, this column is placed in the building
giving each floor above that the typical column layout. The main issue with this part of the
system is the column along D-5 carries its load down to the 2nd floor, but there is no column
82
ECCE
below that point to continue carrying the load to the ground and foundations below. In order to
successfully transfer this load, as well as the load from the 2nd floor slab, without excess
deformation, a large transfer truss is needed.
The constraints set on the truss for initial design were as follows:
Height of loading dock at least 14 tall (therefore truss 10 deep or less)
Live load deflection no more than a quarter of an inch
Camber the truss for full dead load deflection
Overall deflection (D+L) no more than L/360
11.1 Truss Loads

With these constraints, the loads acting on the truss were established. The full loading came from
a combination of distributed loads from the 2nd floor slab connected to the truss and a single
point load from the column acting at the middle of the truss. To find the point load from the
columns above the 2nd floor, the dead and live loads of the tributary areas acting on those
columns were calculated and added together going down the building. For these calculations,
live load reduction was considered. The tributary area for the column alone was assumed to be
32 by 17 for each of the floors above the second. The tributary area for the second floor was
slightly larger as it also included the 4 strip adjacent to the truss. This tributary area can be seen
in Figure 49. The dashed lines in this figure are the beams, while the solid lines are the girders.
Figure 49: Tributary Area of the Second Floor Acting on the Transfer Truss
The 32 by 17 regions produced a tributary area of 544 sq ft acting on each of the columns
above the transfer truss. Using 65 psf dead load and 50 psf live load (using a conservative
reduced live load), gave column point loads of 170 Kips for dead load and 75 kips for live load.
The second floor tributary area was then calculated and distributed evenly over the 64 span.
This led to distributed loads of 525 lb/ft for live load and 683 lb/ft for dead load. These loads
were placed in an isolated truss model within sap to check the deflections of the truss. The truss
83
ECCE
model with the dead loads shown can be seen in Figure 50. There are a few key things to note
about the truss design. First, both the top and bottom chord were stretched all the way to the
column face. This was done for ease of construction, as a seated angle connection was designed
for the bottom chord to rest on before the truss is fully connected to the columns. Second, the
location where the top chord connects to the column was considered fixed in the X-Y directions
since that will be a node with beams and girders connected in each plane. While there may be
some movement at that joint, very little is expected since it is braced in each direction. For the
bottom chord, a spring restraint was input in order to account for some of the extra strength that
area will feel from the full structural system being in place. With these assumptions in place, the
truss was designed using an iterative process where first the members were checked for strength,
and then the system was checked for deflections. This procedure was iterated until a design
meeting both strength and deflection criteria was established.
Figure 50: Transfer Truss Initial Concept Design
11.2 Truss Design: Top and Bottom chord

Early on in the iterative process, it was concluded that compression would govern the top chord,
while flexure would govern the bottom chord. Because of this, the top chord was designed using
W14s while the bottom chord was designed with W36s. With these depths established and a ten
foot total height guideline, it was calculated that the depth of the truss from center of top chord to
the center of the bottom chord would be 95 inches. 96 inches, or 8 feet, was used for ease of
calculations. Initially, the inside brace design consisted of V shaped braces at 45 degree angles.
This resulted in 8 braces spanning across the 64 truss. This design, which only braced the top
and bottom chord every 16 as a result of the V shape, was sufficient for the bottom chord
bracing but not for the top chord. To keep the top chord, which was under compression
84
ECCE
controlled loading, from buckling or having larger local deflections, an extra brace was needed
every 8. This is where the straight up and down braces seen in Figure 50 came from.
Using the depths and bracing locations established, the SAP model was run to find the forces
going into the top and bottom chords; once the forces acting on the top and bottom chords were
calculated, the chords were designed using the Steel Manual guidelines and checked with the
SAP model. The top chord was run through the compression checks of chapter E (compression)
in the Steel Manual while the bottom chord was checked through chapter F (bending). After
several iterations it was determined that a top chord of W14X139 (demand = 84% of
compression capacity) and a bottom chord of W36X150 (demand = 85% of tension capacity)
would meet both strength and deflection requirements. With the sizes in place, a composite
check was ran and it was found that they system would be limited by the shear transfer of the
shear studs. A moment check was also run on the truss with composite action on from the
decking. It was determined that one 1 stud every 12 on center would be sufficient for the
composite system to reach the moment demand, in fact the moment capacity of the truss-deck
system was 1926 K-ft while the demand was only 1346 K-ft. One note on this composite system,
the system needs at least 3 feet of compression effective width otherwise the system is
compression limited rather than shear limited. It was determined that they effective width would
be 4; however, that is close to the threshold so this would need to be looked at in more detail if
the building was actually to be constructed.
11.3 Truss Design: Internal Brace and Gusset Plate Design

The next step in the design was sizing these braces. The sap model was used to find the loads
acting through each of the braces. It was determined that 315 kips were going through each of
the angled braces while 50 kips were going through the straight up and down braces.
Brace sizing was done using the demand loads and using Manual Table 4-3 for available strength
of axial compression in rectangular HSS tubes. Using a K of 1 and the lengths of the members,
HSS 10x6x3/8 was selected for the diagonal braces and HSS 4x4x1/4 was chosen for the
straight braces.
For the connection design of the braces to the top and bottom chords of the truss, first web local
yielding and crippling of the top and bottom chords were checked for the larger 315 kip load.
Then, a gusset plate thickness of 3/4 was selected and the tension yield equation was used to
determine a suitable Whitmore Width with a gusset plate tensile strength, Fy, of 36 ksi and Ag
being the gross area of the gusset (see Figure 51).
Rn = 0.9 Fy Ag (AISC J4-1)
85
ECCE
Figure 51: Whitmore Width
Once the gusset plate size and necessary length of the member were determined, the welds could
be sized. The following equation was used to determine the required thickness of the fillet weld.
Rn is taken as the 315 kips, Fw is 0.6Fexx where Fexx is 70 ksi, and Aw is the effective length of
the weld taking into account all four welding locations on the front and back of the gusset plate.
Rn = 0.8 Fw Aw (AISC J2-3)
An example of a detailed connection can be seen in Figure 52.
Figure 52: Detailed Inner Truss Connection

The final design of the truss with member sizes and spacing can be seen in Figure 53.
86
ECCE
Figure 53: Final Truss Design with Member Sizes and Spacings
This figure along with structural drawings related to the truss can be found on pages S.24 to S.25 of the drawing set.
87
ECCE
11.4 Truss Design: Seated Angle for Construction Design

With the truss members and internal connections fully designed, attention was turned to
connecting the truss to the rest of the gravity system. As soon as the columns were added into the
sap model, which can be seen in Figure 53, it was clear that the W12x57s that had been
designed for the outside bottom columns were not going to be sufficient. In order to handle the
extra loads and bending put on these columns, the size had to be increased to W14X90. These
columns were able to handle all of the new loading demands, so the connections between the
truss and columns could be designed.
When first thinking about the connections, the question arose about how this piece would be
constructed. The truss, being 64 long, could be prefabricated and shipped in as either one piece
or two. Assuming the truss comes in as one big piece, that would mean a 64 long member
weighing 60 kips would need to be suspended in the air, swinging from a crane, while workers
try to attach the truss to the columns. As this seems to pose potential for danger and destruction,
it was decided that a seated angle connection would be designed for the full 60 kips to go under
the bottom chord and hold the truss in place while workers connected it to the columns.
This seated angle was checked for the following states assuming a 4 inch outstanding leg, Fy =
36 Ksi for the angle, and a 1/2 offset from the column to the edge of the truss:
1. Shear yielding and flexure of the angle leg
2. Local yielding and crippling of the beam web
3. Bolt shear and bolt yielding
4. Weld shear and yielding
Using Table 10-5 in the Steel Manual as a design aide, it was determined that a 12 long
4x3.5x3/8 angle would be sufficient (capacity = 31.8 K > 30 K demand per side). Along with
this angle, two 3/4 inch diameter A325 N bolts in a type A connection were needed to meet the
limit states. A picture of the type A connection can be seen in the Steel Manual on page 10-84.
Once the top chord of the truss has been fully connected, this seated angle will no longer be
necessary; however, it is recommended that the connection be left in place to serve as a safety
measure in case the truss load ever exceeds what is expected. The final seated angle design can
be seen in Figure 54.
88
Figure 54: Seated Angle Design for Transfer Truss Construction
11.5 Truss Design: Full Truss Column Connection Design

For the full truss to column connection, it was determined that a welded-bolted endplate would
be the easiest method of construction. The end plate was designed to extend from the top of the
top chord down to the bottom of the gusset plate attached to the top chord. Therefore, the total
depth of the endplate was established as 31 inches (top chord depth = 14.7, gusset plate depth =
16). This end plate would be shop welded into place ensuring good welds between the end
plate and the truss members. The first step in the connection design was finding the demands
placed on them from the truss. Using the hand calculations and the SAP model, it was
determined that 230 kips shear load would be placed on each side of the transfer truss. The weld
capacity was then set to 230 kips, the weld length was set to 20 inches, and the number of sides
for the weld was set to 2, so the weld size could be found. The weld equation used was:
Rn=1.392*D*l*n
This equation resulted in a weld size of 5/16 needed for the full 20 inch length called for. The 20
inches of weld was split up evenly between the top chord and the gusset plate leaving 10 inches
of weld for each on both sides of their webs. Back solving with the 5/16 weld size, it was
determined that only 16.5 inches of weld length was needed so the weld length can be anywhere
from 8.5 per side on the top chord and the gusset plate to 10 per side of the two members.
The next part of the connection to be designed was the bolts needed to attach the end plate to the
column. Since the column was to be oriented with its flanges being connected to the end plate,
there were no special concerns with fitting the end plate and the column together. Only the top
chord was designed for this connection since the bottom chord was already braved by the seated
angle, but also due to the orientation of the internal braces, most of the force in the truss was
89
transferred to the column through the top chord. The limit states checked for the connection
between the columns and the end plate were as follows:
1. Bolt shear and bolt bearing
2. Shear yielding and shear rupture of the plate
3. Block shear of the plate
Using table 10-4 in the Steel Manual as a design aide, several connection possibilities were
established. The most efficient and symmetrical of the options was using 8 1 diameter A325N
bolts with a 5/16 inch thick plate. This provided a capacity of 237 kips which was greater than
the demand of 230 kips. A design using only seven 1 diameter bolts was also efficient;
however, the seven bolts left the connection a little eccentric. This would most likely be fine as 4
bolts would be connecting the top chord where most of the force would be transferred between
the members, but for ease of construction and simplicity the 8 bolt design was chosen. With this
design, 4 bolts are to be spread out inside the W 14s flanges and 4 bolts are to be located next to
the gusset plate. The final connection design can be seen in Figure 55.
Figure 55: End Plate Connection Details

90
12.0 Conclusion
Thank you for considering our design for the Seattle office building. After providing you with
details about the load analysis and the column, beam, girder, base plate, connection, EBF, and
truss design, ECCE hopes this report has been thorough enough for you to make the decision to
choose ECCE to work with you on this project. Please contact us with any questions or if you
need any additional information.
13.0 References
AISC Seismic Design Manual. American Institute of Steel Construction, 2006. 3-107 to 3-161.
Print.
Bowles, Joseph. Foundation Analysis and Design. 5th. Peoria: McGraw Hill, 1996. Print.
Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary.
Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute, 2009. Print.
Coduto, Donald. Foundation design: principles and practices. 2nd. Upper Saddle River: Prentice
Hall, 2001. Print.
"Design of Pinned Column Base Plates." Journal of the Australian Steel Institute 36.2 (2002): n.
pag. Web. 7 Jun 2011. <http://www.scribd.com/doc/2353073/Pinned-base-plates>.
Gunaratne, Manjriker. The Foundation Engineering Handbook. Boca Raton: CRC/Taylor &
Francis, 2006. Print.
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. American Society of Civil
Engineers, 2007. Print.
Steel Construction Manual. 13th. American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., 2005. Print.
Wheeling Corrugating. 2009. Web. 03 June 2011. <http://www.wheelingcorrugating.com/>.
91
Juliette Peyroux
Katie McIntyre
Sam Probert
Trent Tinney
Travis Corigliano
Steel Six Story

Building
Eccentrically
Braced Frame
Auger Cast Pile
Foundation
Photo Courtesy of Daily Journal of Commerce
Foundation System (S.1-S.4)

Site Details
Soil Details
Pile Design
Pile Cap
Grade Beam
Steel Gravity System (S.5-S.17)
Design Loads
Composite Decking
Beam, Girder and Column
Design
Typical Connections, Base
Plates and Splices
Lateral Bracing System (S.17S.23)

Design Loads
EBF Element Design
Connection Design
Loading Dock Truss (S.24-S.25)
Proposed Loading Dock

Adjustments
Member Design
Connections

Site Details
Soil Details
Pile Design
Pile Cap
Grade Beam
Design Loads
Composite Decking
Design
Plates and Splices

Design Loads
EBF Element Design
Connection Design

Adjustments
Member Design
Connections
Lateral Soil Profile
Longitudinal Soil Profile
We chose to place our building in the SE corner to

maximize site and pile efficiencies.
Engineering Properties found from correlations

High factor of safety to compensate
Deep boring data very limited, extrapolation
governs.
Longitudinal Soil Profile
Lateral Soil Profile
Auger Cast Piles chosen because they are quiet, non

corrosive, relatively cheap and undamaged in dense soils.
Lateral Capacity governed the size of the pile groups under

the EBF.
35 ft depth was chosen to increase skin friction to provide

extra uplift and lateral capacity
Columns
Required Load
(kips)
Number of Rows
Piles per Row
Depth (ft)
Pag (kips)
Exterior
500
35
667
Interior
1250
35
1501
EBF
1450
35
3337
Designed for direct, punching and deep beam shear.
Pile cap designed for a depth of 3 feet 6 inches.
Pile Cap Bottom Reinforcement
Top Steel: Temperature/Shrinkage Reinforcement
2x2 Exterior Pile Cap
Section A-A Reinforcement
Designed for flexure and axial

capacity
Checked slenderness and

minimum reinforcement

Site Details
Soil Details
Pile Design
Pile Cap
Grade Beam
Design Loads
Composite Decking
Design
Plates and Splices

Design Loads
EBF Element Design
Connection Design

Adjustments
Member Design
Connections
Dead and Live Loads calculated from ASCE7-05

Dead:
Live:
Snow load = 16 PSF < Roof Live
Steel Decking: 20
gauge (Fy = 50 ksi)
2 of decking
4.5 Slab Depth
Lightweight
Concrete: 115pcf
Wheeling
Corrugating
Steel Decking: 18
gauge (Fy = 33 ksi)
3 of decking
No Concrete
Wheeling
Corrugating
Moment demand determined using:

M= w L2 / 8
Assumed Composite Action
Governing load case: 1.2D + 1.6L
Deflections determined using:
Deflections governed all sections sizes
Deflections checked using a max of L/240 for just
dead and L/360 for D + L
Columns designed using AISC compressive

strength for structural design equations
Interior, exterior, and corner columns designed

individually based on tributary area
Live Load Reduction (Section 4.8.1 ASCE7-05)
L0 Unreduced Design Live Load

KLL Live Load Element Factor
AT Tributary Area
Used AISC Table 14-3 Typical Column Splices

Bolted and Welded Splices (Case IV)
Checked capacity using Equation J7-1

Rn = 1.8FyApb
Rn = available bearing strength
Fy = 50 ksi
Apb= projected bearing area
Connection design based on single shear tab

connections with A325N bolts and a steel plate
with Fy = 36 ksi
Failure mechanisms checked:
Bolt Shear
Block Shear Rupture
Bolt Bearing
Plate Shear Yielding

Plate Shear Rupture
Weld Shear
Design based on procedure in Chapter 14 in

AISC
A36 steel for plate
fc = 3000 psi
Designed for exterior, interior, and EBF columns
Used Section D.6 of ACI 318

Designed to extend past pile cap concrete
because of soft soil properties
Four diameter bolts connect base plate to pile

Site Details
Soil Details
Pile Design
Pile Cap
Grade Beam
Design Loads
Composite Decking
Design
Plates and Splices
Design Loads
EBF Element Design

Connection Design

Adjustments
Member Design
Connections
Wind loads
Method 2 Analytical Procedure in ASCE7-05
Seismic loads
Seismic Design Category D
Response Modification Factor of 7.5 (EBF)
Design Base Shear = 612 Kips per brace

Governed by Seismic
Link Design
Shear Controlled
e 1.6 Mp / Vp
e chosen to be 4.5
Drift
a = 0.020 hsx
x = Cd xe / I
I is 1, Cd is 4
xe is the interstory drift from SAP2000 elastic
analysis
Beam Design*
Brace Design*
Vult = 1.1RyVn (Ry = 1.1 for Wide Flange)

Vult = 1.25RyVn (Ry = 1.1 for Wide Flange)
Column Design*
*Governed by combined loading
Lateral Forces for Two Braces
Shear Forces in Links
Governed By
Web Crippling
Connection Design
Single Plate
Complete Joint Penetration Welds
Gusset Design:
Bolt Shear
Strength
Block Shear
Rupture
Gusset Plate
WTs
Brace Web
End Plate Design:

Bolt Tensile &
Shear
Bearing Strength
Shear Yielding
Prying Action
Shear Key needed for shear load transfer

The failure modes checked were the following:
Concrete bearing failure of key (length and embedment)
Pull out of the shear tab
Shear capacity of key based on moment capacity (thickness)
Shear capacity of weld between key and plate

Site Details
Soil Details
Pile Design
Pile Cap
Grade Beam
Design Loads
Composite Decking
Design
Plates and Splices

Design Loads
EBF Element Design
Connection Design

Adjustments
Member Design
Connections
A transfer truss was designed for the long unsupported span

over the proposed loading dock location above.
Constraints:
Height of loading dock 14
Live load deflection
Overall deflection L/360
Truss loading:
From the tributary area highlighted above the point loads were 170k
dead and 75k live
Distributed loads were 683 lb/ft dead and 525 lb/ft live from 2nd floor slab
Final Truss Design with member sizes and spacing
Demand loads for bracing:

Diagonal bracing: 315k
Select HSS 10x6x3/8

Vertical bracing: 50k
Select HSS 4x4x1/4
gusset chosen and tension yield equation used to find

suitable Whitmore Width.
End Plate Connection from top chord to column

Pilecap Report

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Pilecap Report

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Final Design Report

June 9th, 2011

Building Location and Occupants ..................................................................................... 7

Design Changes ................................................................................................................ 9

Subsurface Conditions ....................................................................................................... 14

Engineering Properties of the Soil.................................................................................. 16

Foundation Recommendations ...................................................................................... 17

Dead Loads ..................................................................................................................... 18

Live Loads ....................................................................................................................... 18

Wind Loads ..................................................................................................................... 21

Seismic Loads ................................................................................................................. 24

Foundation Design ............................................................................................................. 27

5.1 Lateral Load Capacity .......................................................................................................... 28

Grading Beam ................................................................................................................. 42

Final Pile Layout with Grade Beam ................................................................................ 44

Composite Deck Design ..................................................................................................... 45

Beam and Girder Design .................................................................................................... 46

Column Design ................................................................................................................... 51

Column Splice Design ..................................................................................................... 53

Base Plate Design ........................................................................................................... 54

Anchor Bolt Design (Column Base Plates to Pile Caps) .................................................. 57

Non-EBF Connections Number of Bolts Needed .................................................... 57

EBF Connections: Bolts + Shear key ........................................................................ 58

Base Plates Anchor Bolt Embedment Depths ......................................................... 60

Column-Pile Cap Connections Summary ................................................................ 61

Connection Design ............................................................................................................. 62

10.0 Eccentrically Braced Frame (EBF) ...................................................................................... 65

Loading Dock Transfer Truss ............................................................................................. 82

11.1 Truss Loads ..................................................................................................................... 83

1.0 Project Overview

Building Location and Occupants

Figure 1: Site and Building Dimensions

Figure 2: Architectural Elevation with Building Use

Figure 3: Proposed Changes to the Ground Floor Garage Entrance

Take Out Wall

Figure 4: Proposed Increase in Lease Space on the First Floor

Figure 5: Proposed Loading Dock Adjustments

Figure 6: The Architectural Layout of the Fourth Floor (provided)

Figure 7: Structural Layout of the 4th Floor (initial layout)

Figure 8: EBF Frame Example

2.0 Subsurface Conditions

Figure 10: Longitudinal Soil Profile

Figure 11: Lateral Soil Profile

Engineering Properties of the Soil

Table 1: Soil Properties

Figure 12: Ground Snow Load (ASCE7-05)

Table 6: Thermal Factor, Ct (ASCE7-05)

Table 7: Importance Factor, I (ASCE7-05)

Figure 13: Wind Speed for Washington State (ASCE7-05)

Table 9: Wall Pressure Coefficients (ASCE7-05)

Table 10: Importance Factors for Wind Loads (ASCE7-05)

Figure 14: Wind Loading on the Short Span of the Building

Figure 15: Wind Loading on the Long Span of the Building

Table 12: Site Coefficient, Fv (ASCE7-05)

(ASCE 7-05 Eqn 11.4-1)

(ASCE 7-05 Eqn 11.4-4)

(ASCE 7-05 Eqn 12.8-7)

But not exceeding:

(ASCE 7-05 Eqn 12.8-2)

(ASCE 7-05 Eqn 12.8-3)

The seismic loads on the building are shown in Figure 16.

Figure 16: Seismic Loading

Structural Steel Shapes