AJC Consulting, Inc.

Advanced Structural Design

CE 448 - Section 2
An Integrated Capstone Design Project #1
Industrial/Office Building Final Project Submittal
3/26/2015

The Pennsylvania State University

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Spring 2015

Ayo Battles - Manager

Jake McTavish
Colin Barbish

Table of Contents
Section

Page Number

1. Introduction and Problem Statement..6

2. Facility General Layout, Traffic Flow, and Space Allocation...7
3. Facility Elevations and Aesthetic Design9
4. Structural Framing Plan and MWFRS11
5. Foundation Plan.15
6. Load Estimates.................................................33
7. Main Wind Force Resisting System Wind Loads.....48
8. Deck Member Design (Double T)86
9. Interior Girder Design....99
10. Shear Wall Design.......109
11. Summary and Conclusions.124
Appendix - Map of Garage Location

1.

Introduction and Problem Statement

AJC Consulting, Inc., consisting of Jake McTavish, Ayo Battles, team manager,
and Colin Barbish has been tasked with designing a parking garage structure to
accommodate the newly designed manufacturing facility in Flint City, Michigan. This

facility will be located just south of the 4227 Van Slyke Road location. The final product
will consist of 45,000 sq. feet of manufacturing space, 19,500 sq. feet of office space,
and 18,000 sq. feet of material handling space. Additionally, there will be area
designated for future expansion of the facility, and it is anticipated that a parking garage
will be constructed on the south side of the project site in the future.

2. Introduction and Problem Statement

The project site is designed to accommodate trucks maneuvering through the

material handling area. The main truck entrance is located on the southeast corner of
the project site connecting with Van Slyke Road, and a separate entrance, also

connecting with Van Slyke Road, will be located on the northeast corner of the site. The
manufacturing building will serve as the centerpiece of the site with the office space
attached to its southeast corner, and shipping and receiving space attached on its west,
hidden from the Van Slyke Road view. Just east of the manufacturing building will be a
small visitor/handicap parking area, and to the north is a large truck parking area. Both
the material handling and manufacturing sections of the building will be one-story 35
foot tall buildings with metal side paneling. The office space is designated as a two-story
30 foot tall building with a brick exterior.
The office building will be supported on a steel frame. In the design process,
ASCE 7: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures 2 provided the basis
to all loading approximations. All codes and requirements related to the structural steel
of the building were supported from the American Institute of Steel Construction 1.
Additionally, all codes and requirements related to concrete properties, including the
office floors and footings, were based off of ACI 11-14 Concrete code 3.
Several key factors including building size, location, and functionality were all
taken into consideration while making vital project decisions. The project site
specifications, detailed in this report, have been determined to provide a feasible and
economical solution to the owners request.
MWFRS wind loading analysis was run on the building to optimize the lateral
force resisting systems. This analysis considered everything from components,
cladding, bracing, sag rods, girts, horizontal systems, and vertical systems. The most
constructible and efficient solution was reached by running through this analysis.

Additionally, the 2nd floor of the office building was designed primarily for
constructability. All beams were designed to meet required specifications. Some beams
were slightly overdesigned with the sole purpose for an efficient construction of the
building. Overall, this will ensure cost savings to the owner by cutting down labor costs.
The Roof Framing design for all required beams and girders was again based off
of AISC code. Several different types of roof framing elements were designed based on
different loading scenarios including snow, HVAC, and building section.
In order to accommodate the shipping and handling portion needs of the building,
the crane girders were designed to support the weight of our selected 25-ton capacity,
4370 lb. crane. All column design calculations were again derived from AISC code,
while majority of the foundation design was based off of ACI code.
All components described in this report are validated through either the
calculation portions or the attached drawings.
Throughout the overall design process, AJC feels confident that it maintained
good ethics and created a structurally integral building that will fit the owners needs.

3. Basic Load Determination

Determining accurate loading estimations is a paramount step within the

beginning stages of the project. Improper loading estimates can lead to project delays,

unnecessary costs, or an unsafe structure. Initial load approximations were divided up

into four categories: Dead, Live, Wind, and Snow. Basic dead load combinations were
either given in the project statement or approximated using engineering sources. All live
loading approximations were based off of ASCE 7: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings
and Other Structures2. Snow load calculations were based off ASCE 7 Section 7.3: Flat
Roof Snow Loads. All wind calculations were derived from ASCE 7 Chapters 26-30.
Final load estimations can be found within the Load Determination pages. All loading
combinations were taken into consideration and were based off the following LRFD
equations:
11. 1.4D
12. 1.2D + 1.6L + 0.5(Lr or S or R)
13. 1.2D + 1.6(Lr or S or R) + (L or 0.5W)
14. 1.2D + 1.0W + L + 0.5(Lr or S or R)
15. 1.2D + 1.0E + L + 0.2S
16. 0.9D + 1.0W
17. 0.9D + 1.0E
Different loading combinations were deemed appropriate in different areas of the design
process, and are appropriately referred to in all calculation documents.

4. Conceptual Design Development

Preliminary conceptual design decisions for the manufacturing and shipping

space were based off typical accepted one story building design specifications.
Similarly, the office area conceptual design was aimed towards ensuring building

integrity while maintaining a cost feasible construction. The project site location and
surrounding area structures also played a role into preliminary design decisions.
The largest portion of the building is designated as manufacturing area. The
manufacturing space occupies 45,000 square feet in a 225 by 200 foot floor plan.
Exterior columns are spaced 25 feet apart in each direction, which was estimated to
ensure both the vertical loading capacity and any lateral direction forces can be
compensated for. Project specifications called for a minimum clear height of 28 feet in
the manufacturing area, while maintaining 18 inches between the bottom of the steel
framing and finished ceiling. The conceptual design calls for 30 feet of clear height, and
a 35 foot roof height, leaving a substantial 3.5 feet of space for the beams and girders to
occupy. Beams and girders are oriented from south to north and west to east,
respectively. In the manufacturing area, beams span 50 feet in 5 foot increments, while
the truss girders span 75 feet in increments of 50 feet.
The material handling portion of the facility will be constructed similar to the
manufacturing plan. The floor plan designates an area of 200 by 90 feet (18,000 square
feet) for shipping and receiving purposes. For constructability and simplicity purposes,
the roof height, and orientation of beams and girders are designed to mirror that of the
manufacturing area. Provided with the dimensions of the shipping facility, the exterior
columns in the east-to-west direction will span 25, 25, and 40 feet. The larger 40 foot
span will allow installation of two delivery truck entrances on both the south and north
side of the shipping area. From south to north, the exterior columns will continue to
span 25 feet, similar to the manufacturing area. Within the interior of the shipping space,
beams span 50 feet while the truss girders span the entire 90 feet. Project specifications

call for a minimum crane bridge span of 65 feet, but not exceeding 100 feet. Positioning
the crane columns 5 feet inside of each shipping exterior column places the crane
columns 80 feet apart, therefore governing the length of the crane support girders. The
crane itself required at minimum a 25-ton capacity, and therefore the 25 ton capacity,
4370 lb crane was chosen.
The office area conceptual design as seen in drawing S-2 figure 1, displays
exterior office columns to be spaced at 25, 15, and 25 feet along column line A. In the
other direction, column line 1, the exterior columns are spaced evenly in increments of
25 feet. Given the required minimum clear height in the office spaces of 9 feet, the clear
height was adjusted to 10 feet for each floor. For constructability purposes, the
orientation of the beams will continue to run in the north-south direction while the girders
run in the east-west direction.
Overall, the conceptual design aimed to simplify the coordination and
construction of beams, girders, and columns throughout the entire facility while
maintaining the structural capacity necessary to support the loading.
The design of this building was based on some major assumptions and decisions
made by the design team of A.J.C. Consulting LLC. These decisions and assumptions
were decided by trying to achieve the highest quality facility for the owner. The team
determined how the space will be utilized while conforming to the owners requirements.
Constructability and efficiencies of the structure were taken into consideration as well.
To utilize the space in each part of the building the design team started by
determining the overall layout of three parts of the facility. The team decided that to
make operations run smoother, the office would be located on the south side of the

building site close to the anticipated parking garage. To also make the building be more
visually appealing the shipping/handling section of the building is located on the west
side of the manufacturing building to hide it from the road, since it will be the least
visually appealing facility to the public eye from Van Slyke Road. Inside the building the
office space is divided into two levels. The columns and layout of the building will
provide very wide hallways in the center of the office building while providing
comfortably high ceilings, located at an elevation of 15. This meets and exceeds the
owners requirements. The overall office building has a very typical layout that is similar
to one of a classroom facility, which will make the constructability of this section of the
building very standard.
The manufacturing area is laid out so that the owner has considerable space
inside the building to move equipment and materials with ease. The column spacing for
for this part of the building provides 12 bays that are 50 - 0 by 75 - 0. This gives the
owner a variety of options for their equipment placement upon their move-in date. This
part of the building should be fairly easily constructible, because of its 12 similar bays.
The only difficulties that the construction might encounter would be the wind sway
bracing on the roof.
The shipping/handling area is set up to maximize storage of material while
providing easy access to trucks that will be driving through the facility. This portion of the
building is 90 - 0 wide by 200 - 0 long and is divided into 4 separate bays. 40- 0 of
the width of the building is set aside for truck maneuverability inside the building. The
other 50 - 0 of the building will be used for storage of materials and goods of the
owner. This will be a 10,000 sq foot storage area. The constructability of this part of the

building will be very similar to the manufacturing building and will require some of the
same sections of steel. The one challenge of this part of the building is to span 90 feet
for the girders. This will have to be done most likely with a truss system.
The team utilized Revit modeling to set up a design grid for all parts of the
building. In doing this the columns, beams and girts were easily modified and placed in
proper locations where they can be modified in future submittals with ease. Using this
new technology will save the owner money by efficiently using the design teams time.
The team will consider the challenges of girders spanning 90 - 0 with a truss system.

5. Main Wind Force Resisting System and Component Cladding

In order to maintain its structural integrity, the building was designed to resist
horizontal wind loading. ASCE 7-10 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures provided the basis for calculating the MWFRS capacity.

Wind analysis calculations were performed in the East/West direction. The office
and manufacturing/shipping areas were considered separately such that each building
will be sufficiently braced. The office building as well as the manufacturing/shipping
building MWFRS was based on wind blowing parallel to the long direction. Based on
ASCE 7-10 Figure 26.5-1A, Flint City basic wind speed is recorded at 115 mph. The
building qualifies as Risk Category II, and Exposure B. K zt, Kd, and G were assumed to
be 1.0, 0.85, and 0.85, respectively. In the manufacturing and shipping area, found on
Wind Calculations Page 1a, the end force on both braces was calculated as 56 kips, or
28 kips per brace. Similar assumptions were applied to the office area wind calculations
(Wind Calculations Page 2) to determine a force of 4.61 kips per brace at 30 feet of
elevation, and 13.3 kips of force at 22.5 feet.
Calculating the horizontal wind forces allowed for the design of the MWFRS
trusses. The vertically oriented manufacturing/shipping wind truss system located in
between column line C and column line D, and also in between column line L and
column line K, was designed based off the wind parallel to the long side of the building.
All sections designed to resist horizontal wind loading were made of A36 material and
the U, DB, and N were assumed to be 0.85, 1, and 1. Located on Wind Bracing Design
Page 4, the vertical truss system in the manufacturing area is designed for 1.5
diameter rod sections. Due to the identical system and loading in the shipping area, it is
also designed as 1.5 diameter rod sections. The design of the horizontal truss system
atop the structure was also based on the wind load parallel to the long side of the
building. Pages 6 and 7 detail the tension calculations deriving the L3X2X1/4 sections
atop the manufacturing building and the L2X2X1/8 sections atop the shipping portion.

The vertically oriented wind bracing system in the office, also located in between
column line C and column line D, was designed according to wind parallel to the long
side of the office space. All sections designed to resist horizontal wind loading were
made of A36 material and the U, DB, and N were assumed to be 0.85, 1, and 1. As
seen in the Wind Bracing Design Section (Page 1), a diameter rod section was
chosen for the 2nd floor bracing system, and a diameter rod section for the 1st floor.
Similarly, the design of the horizontal system atop the office structure was based on the
wind load calculated in the Wind Calculations Page 3. This particular loading warranted
single angle L2X2X1/8 sections to support the wind loading.
Components and cladding calculations were also based off ASCE 7. The building
is considered Risk Category 2, with an Exposure Class B. Wind speed is again based
on the 115 mph value. Kd and Kzt values of 0.85 and 1.0 were used. Given that the
building is considered partially enclosed, GCp i is assigned a value of +/-0.55. In the
manufacturing/shipping space, given the 35 foot roof, two 25 foot corner wind girts were
designed equally spaced at 118 from the roof, from each other, and from the floor.
Based on the maximum moment, Mu,Cb of 1.01, sag rods spaced at 84, the desired
channel was to be made of A36 material, and Using Table 3-11 of AISC, a channel size
of C9X15 was selected. The sag rods were used to counter any vertical deflection due
to the vertical load, and therefore the deflection was assumed to be less than L/360.

6. Composite Office Area Floor Framing Design

In designing the office area second floor framing, several factors played a role
into the design of each beam and girder. Ultimately an interior girder, interior beam, and

exterior beam were designed and reflected accordingly in the beam schedule. Owner
requirements, AISC codes and safety requirements, and constructability all played
significant roles in choosing section sizes.
The office typical interior beam, B1, was designed (as shown on Beam Design
Page 1) based on Load Combination #2 (1.2D + 1.6L). B1 spans 25 feet with a tributary
area of 2.5 feet on each side (5 feet total spacing). The ultimate moment was calculated
at 80.0ft-k. Based off AISC Table 3-2, and a Zx value of 21.33 in3, a section W10X19 was
chosen. The beam then passed various testing requirements as seen on Beam Design
Pages 3 and 4, and was determined to be adequate.
The office typical exterior beam, B2, was also designed based on Load
Combination #2. B2 also spans 25 feet with a tributary area half that of the interior beam
plus an additional 12 inches on the exterior of the building. Its ultimate moment was
found to be 48.0ft-k. A Zx value of 12.8 in3 allowed the selection of a W8X15 beam. Again,
all checks and regulations were passed and the beam was deemed adequate.
The interior girder, G1, was again based on Load Combination 2. All design and
calculation work can be found on Beam Design Pages 9-12. Given an ultimate moment
of 345ft-k, and a Zx of 92 in3, a W21X44 section was selected based on Table 3-2. It is
expected for the interior girder to have a larger section due to its larger tributary width,
and the numerous beams sitting atop of it in the forms of point loads. In order to test the
deflection of this girder, it was analyzed in SAP2000 and found to deflect roughly half an
inch.
All W shapes were established as A992 material. All beam and girder sections
were chosen as a resultant of their structural integrity and constructability.

7. Snow Loading and Roof Framing Design

Snow loading calculations were based off of ASCE-7 for a flat roof design. The
differences in roof elevations, 35 in the manufacturing/shipping area, and 30 in the
office space, accounted for different snow loadings on each area of the building.

Additionally, snow drift played a role into the total snow loading distributed force. The
ultimate snow loading for the flat roof was based off P f=0.7*Ce*Ct*Is*Pg. Pg, the base
snow loading, was based off the geographic location of Flint City and read as 30lb/ft 2. Ct
was determined from Table 7-3 as 1.0 and Is was determined from Table 1.5-2 as 1.0.
The value of Ce is based off Table 7-2 and differs from the office space to the
manufacturing/shipping. The office space Ce was recorded as 1.0 while the
manufacturing/shipping space Ce was read as 0.9 off the table. Final Pf calculated at
18.9psf in the manufacturing/shipping, and 21psf in the office space. Based off the
minimum value of 20*Is, or 20psf, the manufacturing/shipping snow load was controlled
at 20psf. More calculations (referenced in Snow Loading pg. 1-2) yielded a triangular
shaped distributed load with a maximum intensity of 85psf on the office space in
addition to the base 21psf load. Therefore the maximum load at the shared wall is equal
to 106psf.
All roof framing design was again based off AISC code. The first beam designed,
designated as B8 and located on Roof Framing Design Pages 1-5, is a typical roof
framing beam/purlin. This interior beam was designed for the manufacturing space and
spans 50 feet with a tributary area of 2.5 on each side, totaling 5. This beam is subject
to a snow and live load of 20psf each. The dead load consisted of 6psf for roofing and
insulation, 3psf for decking, and 15psf for Mechanical and Electrical Allowance. The
controlling load combination was determined as L.C. #2: 1.2D + 1.6L + 0.5S. The
distributed load on the beam was calculated as 0.378k/ft, resulting in an ultimate shear
of 9.45k and ultimate moment of 118-k. A Zx value of 31.5in3 governed the selection of a
W14X22 beam through the use of AISC Table 3-2. The beam passed various testing

requirements as seen in the Roof Framing Design Pages, and was determined to be
adequate.
The next design located on Pages 6-9 is a typical roof girder. This interior roof 25
girder, G3, is located in the office space roofing section and supports loadings from B7
and B9 beams on either side. The total load at each beam spacing of 5 was determined
as 6.6k, resulting in a ultimate shear of 13.2 k, and ultimate moment of 99-k. Based off a
Zx value of 26.4in3, a W12X22 beam was chosen to support the loading. All checks and
requirements were tested and met, therefore verifying the stability of this section.
Additionally, a roof member supporting a snow drift was designed. An office beam
connecting the office space to the manufacturing space was concluded to support a
snow drift, and therefore this 25 beam, B5, was selected for design. Again, a live load of
20psf was used in addition to a 21psf snow load. However, on top of this snow load was
another triangular snow load distribution with an 85psf maximum value. The dead load
was estimated as 16 psf in the office space, due to the lighter mechanical and electrical
allowance (4psf). The controlling load combination was again found to be L.C. #2 which
resulted in a distributed load of 0.333k/ft plus an additional 212.5plf triangular distributed
load over the entire length of the beam. The actual value of w was calculated as 23.6,
just 1.4 shy of the 25 span, and therefore this triangular load was conservatively
rounded to 25 for additional safety precaution and ease of calculation purposes. The
ultimate shear force was calculated at 5.93k while the ultimate moment yielded 34.4 -k. A
Zx value of 9.17 in3 justified the use of a W12X16. Ultimately, the W12X16 beam was
slightly over designed, but the lighter beams chosen failed in local buckling tests. Again,
all checks were passed and the section was deemed appropriate.

Two separate trusses, T1, a 90 foot truss in the shipping area, and T2, a 75 foot
truss in the manufacturing area, were both designed in place of a typical girder in order
to meet the extreme loading resultant. T1 was designed with 17 beams resting across it
spaced at 5 feet apart, each contributing a 9.45 k point load. These loads were previous
calculated through AISC LRFD, which consisted of dead loads of the beams and roof,
live loads, and snow loads. The depth of this truss was established as 6. The ultimate
moment was calculated in SAP2000 as 1914 -k. A Pu of 319k governed a bottom tension
cord section of WT6X36, and top compression cord of WT4X33.5. All cross members
were designed as L3.5X3X5/16 angle sections in order to meet the structural capacity
requirements.
The second truss, T2, was designed with 15 beams resting across it spaced at 5
feet apart, each contributing a 18.9k point load. The ultimate moment was calculated in
SAP2000 as 2646-k. A Pu of 529.2k governed both a bottom tension cord section of
WT8X44.5, and top compression cord of WT8X44.5. All cross, in-between members
were designed as L4X4X5/16 sections in order to ensure the structural capacity
required. All truss design work can be found within the Roof Framing Design section as
well.
HVAC units also played a role into the roof framing design. Four separate 20,000
pound HVAC units were positioned strategically across the entire structure, including 1
above the office space, two above the manufacturing area and 1 above the material
handling area. Each HVAC unit is 8 feet wide by 20 feet long by 9 feet high, and the 20 k
weight is supported along each of the 20 sides. In order to appropriately compensate
for this HVAC weight, the beam tributary widths were adjusted to position two beams

under each end of the unit, therefore spaced at exactly 8 feet apart. This adjusted the
tributary area from the previous 5 feet to 5.75 feet of width for each beam, designated
as B4. Load combination 2 yielded a Dead + Live + Snow Load of 421.5 plf over the
entire 50 foot span, with an additional dead HVAC load of 600 plf centered over 20 feet.
The ultimate shear force was calculated at 16.5 k and the ultimate moment was
calculated at 251-k. The final Zx used to design the beam was 66.9in3, and ultimately a
W18X35 beam was selected to support the HVAC units and passed all required checks.
Finally, an edge girder was to be designed. This girder, designated G4, was
designed for the shipping building space with a span of 25 with 5 beam bracing points.
The load on the girder from each beam is roughly 6k, resulting in an ultimate shear of
9.03k and an ultimate moment of 60.2-k. A Zx of 16.05 in3 was used to select a beam
section of W12X16 based off of AISC Table 3-2. Again, all checks and requirements
were tested and met, deeming the girder structurally adequate.

8. Crane Channel and Wide Flange Combination Girder Analysis and Design

Another design challenge associated with the project was the use of a crane in
the shipping portion of the building. In order to support the weight of the crane, a crane
girder was designed as a W-Beam, C-Channel combination. The crane required a
minimum capacity of 25-tons. The bridge spans 80 feet and has an additional 13-2

wheel span. Also, the runway girder spans 25 The bridge itself weighs 38.15 kips and
the trolley is an additional 4.370 kips. Without impact, the max wheel load is estimated
at 35.1 kips. Loading Case 2 controlled and resulted in a final moment estimate of
Mux=646.7-k and Muy=42.1-k. Ix,req and Iy,req based off deflection were calculated as 1789
in4, and 92 in4, respectively. Based off of AISC Table 1-19, a W21X62 beam plus a
C12X20.7 channel was initially selected to provide an I x of 1800 in4 and an Iy of 186 in4;
however, after failing in the Biaxial Bending Check, H1-1b, a new section was selected.
Again from Table 1-19 a W21X68 + C15X33.9 was selected based on its I x and Iy
capacities. After passing checks including Lateral Torsional Buckling and Tension
Flange Yielding, the new section passed the Biaxial Bending Check by achieving a
value of 1.0 based off of H1-1b. Additionally, the beam passed in sides-way buckling,
therefore deeming it adequate for use. It should be noted that in the side-sway buckling
check, it was assumed that the wheel load from one wheel was sufficient to calculate
Rn.

9. Column Design

The design of all horizontal steel members within the structure allowed for the
design of the vertical steel columns. Column design is integral to the structural
sufficiency of the entire building, as it supports all vertical loadings and ultimately allows
the building to remain standing. In order to meet owner requirements, three different

columns were designed, one exterior office column, one interior manufacturing column,
and one exterior manufacturing/shipping column. All design specifications were based
off of AISC code, and the team of AJC Consulting is confident all required design
checks were met.
The interior manufacturing column, denoted CX1, was designed with respect to
several unique challenges. This column was determined to have the largest supporting
tributary area out of all those designed, at 25 by 75 (1875 square feet). Additionally, the
self weight of the truss played a significant role into the axial loading on this interior
column. LRFD load combination #2 yielded a 152.25 kip total while ASD load
combination #4 yielded a 117.5 kip total. Based on AISC Table 4-1 for compression
members, a W12X65 column was chosen to support this load. All buckling checks were
passed and the column was deemed adequate.
The exterior manufacturing/shipping column, denoted CX2, was also designed
with a unique set of challenges. This exterior column was subject to dead, live, snow,
and wind loadings, and therefore every loading combination was analyzed. This
particular column is subject to horizontal wind forces distributed through 2 evenly
spaced wind girts. The horizontal wind force created an ultimate moment of 121 -k. The
controlling ASD load combination #4 yielded an axial force of 35.4 kips while the LRFD
load combination #2 yielded an axial force of 46.2 kips. Through the use of Table 4-1, a
W8X31 column was chosen. Upon passing flexure, shear, drift, etc. checks (as seen on
Steel Column Design pages 3-7), the column was deemed adequate.
The exterior office column, denoted CX3, was designed in a similar manner to
that of the interior column. All horizontal forces were designed to be supported by the

exterior beams located at the second floor level, and therefore no wind force dictated
the controlling load combination. A controlling LRFD load of 98.74 k and a ASD load of
71.5k yielded a selection of W8X31 again, which works in favor of constructability.

10. Foundation Analyses and Framing Design

Upon completion of all steel columns, the foundation was designed to support all
loading and steel members within the overall structure. For each designed column, a
substantial base plate, pedestal, and foundation was designed. Within this section of

calculations, the American Concrete Institute 318-08 manual was utilized for concrete
based sections.
Column C1Xs base plate was designed to support the W12X65 section. The
LRFD load combination yielded a 155k load including the self weight of the column.
Practical design calculations governed a 20X20 base plate, while the thickness of the
plate was calculated at a required 0.8 rounded up to a full inch for construction
simplicity. Overall, the 20X20X1 A36 steel plate was deemed adequate. The next step
of the process was to design a supporting pedestal. In order to reach the frost line, the
height of the pedestal was set at 36, while the length and width both measure 24. The
axial strength and shear tests were passed, and ultimately, 8#8 bars were chosen with
#3 ties. Utilizing a MS Excel spreadsheet, the footing itself was designed as a 36 in
height, and 6 by 6 in a square shape. All checks including one-way shear, two-way
shear, flexural, and area of steel were passed and the footing was deemed adequate.
Column C2Xs base plate was designed to support its W8X31 section. The LRFD
load combination yielded roughly a 243.7 kip load. Practical design calculations
governed a 16X16 base plate, while the thickness of the plate was calculated at a
required 1.72 rounded up to 1 inch for construction simplicity. Overall, the
16X16X1.75 A36 steel plate was deemed adequate within Base Plate Design 2 MS
Excel Spreadsheet. Again, in designing the pedestal, in order to reach the frost line, the
height of the pedestal was set at 36, while the length and width both measure 20. The
axial strength and shear tests were passed, and ultimately, 8#8 bars were chosen with
#3 ties. Utilizing a MS Excel spreadsheet, the footing itself was designed as a 36

height, 6 by 6 square shape. All checks including one-way shear, two-way shear,
flexural, and area of steel were passed and the footing was deemed adequate.
Column C3Xs base plate was also designed to support the W8X31 section. The
LRFD load combination yielded roughly a 99 kip load. Practical design calculations
governed a 16X16 base plate, while the thickness of the plate was calculated at a
required 0.74 rounded up to a inch for construction simplicity. Overall, the
16X16X0.75 A36 steel plate was deemed adequate. Again, in designing the pedestal,
in order to reach the frost line, the height of the pedestal was set at 36, while the length
and width both measure 20. The axial strength and shear tests were passed, and
ultimately, 4#9 bars were chosen with #3 ties. Utilizing a MS Excel spreadsheet, the
footing itself was designed as a 36 in height, and 6.5 by 6.5 in a square shape. All
checks including one-way shear, two-way shear, flexural, and area of steel were passed
and the footing was deemed adequate.

11. Additional Design Beyond Minimum Requirements

Despite limited resources within a three person group, AJC Consulting

successfully modeled all project plans within advanced Autodesk Revit software. This
software allowed for the team to build and view building and structure components in
three dimensional view, allowing for easy communication not only within the team during
the design process, but also with the project owner and those interested in viewing the
final plans.

12. Final Engineering Plans, Sections, Elevations, and Details

All supporting drawing documents including plan drawings, sections, elevations,

details, etc. can be located in the C and S Sheets. All drawings were constructed in
Autodesk Revit and they are presented in the following order:
Sheet C1: Civil Site Plan
Sheet S1: Foundation Plan
Sheet S2: Foundation Details, Schedules, and associated notes
Sheet S3: Roof Framing Plans
Sheet S4: Sway Frame Plan
Sheet S5: Office Floor and Roof Framing and Project Schedules
Sheet S6: Building Elevations
Sheet S7: Truss Elevations
Sheet S8: 3D Steel Rendering
Sheet S9: Wall Sections and Crane Girder Framing Plan
All drawings included are supported through calculations and/or this report. AJC
Consulting believes it has created clear, efficient project drawings.

13. Overall Summary and Conclusions

AJC Consulting believes the proposed design will satisfy and exceed all owner
requirements and serve an appropriate role to the community of Flint, Michigan. The
final project will consist of 45,000 sq. feet manufacturing space, 19,500 sq. feet of office
space and 18,000 sq. feet of material handling space. In addition, the building will
anticipate a future parking garage on the south side of the building and will have area
for future expansion on the north side of building. The site has been positioned in such
a manner that will optimize the amount of space and accommodate the facilitys
function, including large truck traffic, while maintaining a visually appeasing look. The
site was also laid out in such a way to anticipate the future parking garage plans,
allowing for a relatively easy walk to work from the employees perspective. All
calculations involved in the design process are supported by accredited engineering
institutes and sources. All loading combinations taken into consideration were based off
LRFD and ASD equations. The building design is optimal for wind loading through
MWFRS Wind Loading Analysis (ASCE 7-10). Through the use of vertical and
horizontal bracing systems, all challenges associated with wind loadings were
accounted for. The office-flooring plan utilized selective beams and columns that
provided ample office space while also maintaining a spacious hallway/common area.
The beams in the 2nd floor office were designed to reduce cost while maintaining a high
level of constructability. Additionally, all roof framing was designed in accordance with all
different types of loadings while maintaining a safety and constructability friendly
attitude. Constructability was factored heavily into the teams decisions in all beam and
girder selections in order to ensure that construction deadlines will be met on time.
Column design was also governed according to AISC code. Within the process of

choosing structurally supportive columns, the same principles applied to the beam
design process played a role in column selection. Finally, the design of the columns
allowed for the final structural design plans, including all base plates. pedestals, and
footings. This part of the process was found most satisfactory among the AJC
Consulting members. Seeing the entire process come together for the final design of
foundations gave a sense of accomplishment to the team.
The process as a whole was a tremendous learning experience for all members
of the team. The opportunity to design the three sections of building gave the team the
opportunity to work first hand on a project design process. Through use of applications
including AutoCAD, AutoDesk Revit, and SAP 2000, the team effectively applied
engineering practices to produce a substantial final product. Challenges involved in
being a three-person team were overcome by im and a high level of communication
within the group.
AJC Consulting prides itself on designing high quality, efficient and constructible
buildings.While the firm is confident that the structural integrity of the building is beyond
safe, it also feels it has created a relatively simple construction process. The firm
believes that all drawing specifications have been effectively communicated within the
report and drawing sections, and that the final product will meet and exceed owner
expectations. Overall, the general consensus of the team is that the process ran
smoothly, and AJC Consulting would be interested in working with the owner again on
future projects.

References

1. ASCE 7-05: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society
of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2005.
2. ACI 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, American Concrete Institute,
latest edition.