RE: Cox Library Structural Design

To whom it may concern:

Please find attached the Technical Report describing the schematic design of Cox Library. This
document describes the methods used by SYLS, Inc. to produce the schematic design including
decision planning and calculations.

This report acts as a supplement to the Schematic Design plan set dated November 2nd, 2018
attached in Appendix B. The schematic design presents the layout of columns and major beams
that will be used in the final design. Final member sizing, slab and foundation design, and
connection design will be completed according to this layout. Calculations supporting the
schematic design may be found in the Appendices.

Please respond to the technical report with any questions or concerns you may have regarding
the structural design. Additionally, please provide to the design team any additional constraints
or conditions that may impact the structural system as shown. The project proposal addressing
future work on the Cox Library is forthcoming.

Thank you,

Jordan Scully, Alina Yang, Jaqui Liu, & Adam Schulz

SYLS, Inc.
 Schematic Design
Technical Report

Cox Library, Cabell County West Virginia

Submission Date: November 9, 2018

Prepared By: SYLS, Inc.

Jordan Scully, Alina Yang, Jaqui Liu, Adam Schulz
Executive Summary
The following document provides supporting data for the schematic design of the Cox
Library in Cabell County, West Virginia. This preliminary design was developed using minimum
design loads procured from ASCE 7 including wind, seismic, snow, and occupancy. The
schematic design will be used in the development of construction documents with a higher level
of detail including final member sizing and connection details.
Three main key elements were considered: the foundation, the gravity system, and the
lateral system. Piles, isolated footings, and a continuous footing were considered as alternative
options for the foundation. Gravity system alternatives included wood, concrete, and steel beam
and column systems. A braced frame, moment frame, and shear wall were considered for the
lateral system.
Loads were determined per the relevant provisions of ASCE 7. The American
Technology Council’s Hazards by Location utility was used to determine the site-specific
hazards including ground snow load and basic wind speed, as well as the site response
coefficients for seismic conditions. The building was deemed Risk Category III due to its nature
as a public gathering place.
Computer modelling and research were used to characterize the performance of the
design alternatives according to several criteria, which varied for each key element. Specific
types of members were modelled or designed to characterize their performance under identical
conditions. This included different lateral systems as well as gravity members. The structure was
modelled in SAP2000 for structural analysis, including the determination of the controlling load
case for each critical system. The decision matrices presented in Appendix A show the specific
breakdown of points for each alternative organized by key element. It was determined the
foundation system would be primarily isolated footings. The gravity system will be designed
using steel beams and columns while the lateral system will consist of steel braced frames.
The plan set presented in Appendix C shows the layout of the key elements of the
superstructure. Sheet S0.1 includes information about the team and organizational materials.
Sheet S0.2 includes the general notes describing the design criteria and governing code
provisions in more detail. The S1 sheet shows the foundation plan, while the S2 series of sheets
show the low roof framing plan and the high roof framing plan. Finally, sheets under the S3 and
S4 heading show key elevations and additional details, respectively. These sheets will be
populated in greater detail during the design development phase.
Table of Contents
1. Project Background ................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Key Elements and Alternatives ................................................................................................................. 1
2.1 Foundation Alternatives ...................................................................................................................... 1
2.2 Lateral System Alternatives ................................................................................................................ 1
2.3 Gravity System Alternatives ............................................................................................................... 2
3. Evaluation Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 2
3.2 Criteria ................................................................................................................................................ 3
3.2.1 Foundation ................................................................................................................................... 3
3.2.2 Gravity System............................................................................................................................. 3
3.2.3 Lateral System ............................................................................................................................. 3
3.2.5 Weighting ..................................................................................................................................... 4
4. Loads ......................................................................................................................................................... 4
4.1 Load Determination ............................................................................................................................ 4
4.1.1 Wind............................................................................................................................................. 4
4.1.2 Seismic ......................................................................................................................................... 5
4.1.3 Snow ............................................................................................................................................ 5
4.1.4 Occupancy & Dead Loads ........................................................................................................... 5
5. Modelling .................................................................................................................................................. 5
6. Foundation Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 6
6.1 Size...................................................................................................................................................... 6
6.2 Constructability ................................................................................................................................... 6
6.3 Cost ..................................................................................................................................................... 7
6.4 Relative Bearing.................................................................................................................................. 7
7. Gravity System Analysis........................................................................................................................... 8
7.1 Constructability ................................................................................................................................... 9
7.2 Weight ................................................................................................................................................. 9
7.3 Cost ..................................................................................................................................................... 9
7.4 Concealability ..................................................................................................................................... 9
7.5 Stiffness............................................................................................................................................. 10
8. Lateral System Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 10
8.1 Constructability ................................................................................................................................. 10
8.2 Stiffness............................................................................................................................................. 11
 8.3 Weight ............................................................................................................................................... 11
8.4 Cost ................................................................................................................................................... 11
8.5 Concealability ................................................................................................................................... 11
10. Recommendations ................................................................................................................................. 12
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................................... 1
APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................................... 1
APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................................... 1
APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................................................... 1
APPENDIX E ............................................................................................................................................... 1
APPENDIX F................................................................................................................................................ 1
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Revit renders of an isolated (left) and continuous (right) foundation systems ............................ 6
Figure 2: Revit render of a pile foundation showing below grade piles, pile caps, and columns ................ 7
Figure 3: Revit renders of the concrete (left) and steel (right) gravity configurations ................................ 8
Figure 4: Moment frame, braced frame, and shear wall modelled in SAP with deflected shapes............. 10
List of Tables
Table 1: Base shear and moment due to wind forces ................................................................................... 4
Table 2: Architectural dead loads ................................................................................................................ 5
Table A1: Decision matrices used to objectively compare alternatives ..................................................... A2
1. Project Background
Phase 1 of the Cox Library design process focuses on the schematic structural design of
the new branch. This phase will result in a design package that approximates the final design
pending final member sizing and structural detailing. The Cox Library is a 5,000 square foot
facility serving the citizens of Cabell County, West Virginia near Lesange. The library
incorporates an open design philosophy as well as a sloped roof continuing to a cantilevered
window shade over the front elevation. The project has a budget of $850,000.
This report will document the schematic design of the Cox Library. It will discuss the
different key elements that will make up the structural system and will present the alternatives
the team considered for each key element. The report will then detail the evaluation methodology
used to decide between the different alternatives. The scoring process will be discussed for each
of the key elements. The report will culminate in the design team’s recommendation to the owner
regarding the schematic structural system and future work on the project.

2. Key Elements and Alternatives

Three key elements were devised for the Cox Library: the foundation, the lateral system,
and the gravity system. These three elements capture the load resisting behavior of the finished
structure. They are described in more detail below.

2.1 Foundation Alternatives

The first key element under consideration is the foundation. The foundation of the Cox
Library is the element that will ultimately transmit the forces applied to the building to the
ground. It must provide enough bearing to transmit gravity loads, provide enough weight to resist
uplift and overturning, and provide enough base shear to prevent the building from sliding.
An isolated spread footing will be considered for the foundation. A spread footing is a
reinforced concrete footing placed under a single vertical gravity member to spread the column
load and transmit it to the ground. The rough size of the spread footing must be known for the
schematic design.
A continuous footing – a below-grade wall under the load bearing walls and columns of
the building – could be used to transmit loads into the soil. The width of the continuous footing
as well as the tributary length should be known for the schematic design.
Piles are the last alternatives being considered for the foundation. Piles are vertical
members driven into the ground that tie into the vertical gravity members above grade. These
members can be concrete or steel and several different geometries are feasible. A preferred
geometry and an estimated depth are required if this alternative is chosen for the schematic
design.

2.2 Lateral System Alternatives

The lateral system is another key element considered by the design team. The lateral
system provides stiffness to the building and prevents it from collapsing when lateral loads such
as wind or earthquake acceleration are applied. This system prevents relative motion between the
top and bottom diaphragms.

1
 The first alternative for the lateral system is a braced frame. A braced frame is a frame
structure with pinned connections at each joint that utilizes a diagonal cross brace to prevent
relative lateral motion between the top and bottom horizontal members. The size of the vertical
and horizontal elements as well as the braces will be determined for the schematic design.
A moment frame could also be used to resist lateral loads. This lateral system is a frame
structure with fixed connections; it can resist lateral motion without utilizing a cross brace. A
material must be chosen for the moment frame. The size of the vertical and horizontal members
under worst case loading must be known for feasibility analysis.
A shear wall – a solid wall or sheathing that transmits lateral loads- could be used for the
lateral system. This wall may be concrete, wood, or possibly masonry. The required size of the
wall should be known as well as the weight so that the designers can judge where in the structure
the system may be applied.

2.3 Gravity System Alternatives

The third key element considered by the designers was the gravity system. The gravity
system transmits loads caused by gravity down the structure and into to the ground. Loading
handled by the gravity system includes both environmental loads like snow and rain as well as
dead and live loads from occupancy.
Wood members could be used to gather area loads on the roof and transmit them to the
vertical gravity members. Wood columns may be used as the vertical members. The size and
capacity of wood members should be known for specification in the schematic design.
Similar to the previous alternative, steel beams could be used to collect gravity loads at
the roof. Steel columns could be used to transmit the gravity loads to the foundation. Again,
maximum sizing should be determined to evaluate the feasibility of using steel gravity members
in the schematic design.
Concrete beams and one- or two-way slabs could be used to transmit gravity loads
horizontally to the vertical concrete members. The level of detail required for the schematic
design includes rough sizing, prestressing, and what kind of section is being considered (i.e. T or
Double-T beams, or separate slab and beams).

3. Evaluation Methodology
The structural alternatives developed for the Cox Library were refined and selected.
Decision matrices were developed to evaluate the alternatives for each key element. These
matrices, attached in Appendix A, are unique for each key element. Columns in the decision
matrices are included for the alternatives while rows contain the criteria used to judge each
alternative. Context for the numerical scores awarded by the design team will be provided in the
body of this report.
Each alternative received a score from one to ten for each criterion. These raw scores
were multiplied by weighting factors corresponding to the relative importance of the criterion.
The team selected the design alternative with the largest cumulative score to be used in the
structure.
Research and design were the primary strategies used to assign scores. Existing
information including cost estimates and construction practices provided a general understanding

2
of the merit of each alternative. Preliminary design of building elements was used to tune each
option to the specific needs of the Cox Library. Using the ASCE-7 loads calculated by the team,
different solutions were designed to satisfy the same requirements. Open communication with
the consultants and project owner helped to guide scoring, ensuring the final decision was
suitable for the structural design.

3.2 Criteria
3.2.1 Foundation
Constructability, cost, relative bearing, and size were considered in the evaluation of the
foundation system.
Constructability is a holistic descriptor of how easy each alternative will be to construct.
This includes consideration of the labor needed to construct the foundation (including placement
and preparation of the site), as well as the difficulty of attaching the vertical members to the
foundation.
Cost was considered for all elements, including the foundation. The Cox Library has a
budget of $850,000. This budget must not be exceeded or the owner will not be able to construct
the design. A lower cost corresponded to a higher score in the matrix.
The bearing strength of each foundation alternative was evaluated through design.
Bearing strength impacts the feasibility of each foundation alternative as it relates to load path - a
higher bearing strength will allow the foundation to support more load and will help to mitigate
uncertainty about the soil on site. A higher bearing strength corresponded to a higher score in the
matrix.
The size of the foundation will also be considered. Size will determine where in the plan
the element may be placed. Smaller, more discrete options will receive a higher score in the
matrix.

3.2.2 Gravity System

Constructability and cost were considered in the gravity system decision matrix similar
to the foundation. Constructability in the gravity system dealt more with connections and
erection rather than the earthwork required in foundation placement.
Self-weight influenced the design of the building. Self-weight represents a directly
applied uniform load on each gravity member. This uniform load can significantly increase
flexural stresses in horizontal members, limiting the span length and design live loads. Higher
scores were awarded to lighter alternatives. Additionally, the gravity system was limited by the
envelope provided by the architect. Concealability was therefore considered for the gravity
system: a more concealable system received a higher score in the final matrix. Finally, stiffness
was considered for the gravity system. A stiffer material provides better serviceability as
deflections are reduced, allowing more design live load to be applied. More rigid systems
received a higher score in the matrix.

3.2.3 Lateral System

The lateral system was subject to constructability, concealability, and cost examination in
much the same way as the gravity system.

3
 Stiffness was considered for the lateral system as it was for the gravity system. Side sway
– lateral deflection of the building – must be prevented by the lateral system. A stiffer system
will produce a positive serviceability impact. Therefore, a higher stiffness increased the score of
the lateral system. As in the gravity system, self-weight will be considered for the lateral system.
The overall weight of the building affects the loads due to earthquakes. Reducing loads
whenever possible will help smooth the design process. Lower weights corresponded to higher
scores for lateral system alternatives.

3.2.5 Weighting
The relative importance of each criterion is defined by a weight factor. These weights
were determined through team discussion, research, and the council of consultants. A general
philosophy was devised to rank the criteria. Criteria that had a life-safety or serviceability impact
were weighted higher than other criteria. Bearing strength for the foundation, for example, has a
direct impact on the safety of the structure, while the stiffness of materials and systems
determined building serviceability. Criteria that impacted the ease of design, such as
concealability, were ranked next. Finally, criteria involving construction – constructability and
cost – had the lowest weights. The weights of each criteria can be found in the decision matrices
in Appendix A.

4. Loads
Loads were determined according to ASCE 7 and information from the American
Technology Council’s “Hazards by Location” utility. Wind and seismic lateral loadings were
considered in addition to gravity loads due to occupancy and snow. Load determination
calculations for wind, seismic, and snow conditions may be found in Appendix D.

4.1 Load Determination

4.1.1 Wind
Wind loads were determined per ASCE 7. The basic wind speed was 114 MPH and the
building was exposure class C due to the open spaces surrounding it. The directionality factor
was 0.85. The internal pressure coefficient was +/- 0.18. The windward pressure was 23 psf and
the leeward wind pressure was 12 psf for both the North-South and East-West projections.
Roof pressures were also calculated. Wind was assumed to act normal to the roof in
accordance with the directional procedure for wind loadings presented in ASCE 7. The
maximum pressure on the sloped roof was 21 psf, while the maximum pressure on the flat roof
was 20 psf. Table 1 below shows the base shear and moment caused by wind forces in the North-
South and East-West directions.
Table 1: Base shear and moment due to wind forces

Shear (k) Moment (k-ft)

North-
18.9 398
South
East-
24.6 516
West

4
4.1.2 Seismic
Seismic loads were calculated assuming Site Class D and the local seismic conditions in
accordance with ASCE 7. For preliminary design, an R value of 3 was assumed and the main
seismic resisting system was categorized as “other.” These assumptions were made to generate
conservative loading values that would lead to a feasible schematic design. The total building
weight was 403 kips. The seismic base shear was 27.1 kips, approximately 7% of the building
weight. Since the building is one story, all base shear was assumed to act on the roof diaphragm.
Seismic forces were distributed to the different diaphragms based on weight.

4.1.3 Snow
The ATC Hazards by Location resource provided a 20 psf ground snow load for the
project site in accordance with data provided in ASCE 7. Using this value, the sloped roof snow
load and drifting diagrams were generated. The coefficient of slope for the 5° sloped roof was
multiplied by the ground snow load to determine the sloped roof snow load, 30.24 psf. Using
ground snow load, the drift loads were found to be 16.6 psf. Leeward and windward drifts were
calculated using the height of the sloped roof over the low roof. The maximum drift snow load
was 57.22 psf.

4.1.4 Occupancy & Dead Loads

The occupancy and dead loads were determined according to ASCE 7-16 and the
architect’s plan. Based on the architect’s plan and legends, the dead loads of ceiling systems,
walls, floor were determined and are shown in Table 2 below. The architectural plan set
specified different uses for different areas of the building. However, to accommodate possible
future changes, the slab will be designed assuming the entire floor area will be used as library
stacks. ASCE 7 dictates a dead load of 150 psf for stack rooms. A 20 psf live lad was applied to
the roof.
Table 2: Architectural dead loads

Loads (psf)
Roof System 19
Curtain Walls 15
Glazing 15

5. Modelling
Loads were applied to the preliminary building model for structural analysis
approximating final load conditions. A screenshot of the SAP2000 layout can be seen in Figure
B1 in Appendix B. Wind loads and uniform gravity loads were applied to the building as
pressures distributed one way to the frame elements. Seismic loads were distributed to each of
the diaphragms according to their relative weight. Snow loads were applied as line loads to
individual frame elements based on their tributary area to account for drifting.
Different load combinations were considered to determine the critical state of a
representative key element. The critical lateral assembly was 12 feet tall and 21 feet wide and
carried a lateral load of 80 kips. The critical column carried 60 kips along its 20 foot height,

5
while the critical beam carried a 1.78 kip per foot distributed load over its 36 foot span. The
maximum vertical reaction at the base was 70 kips. Members representative of each key element
were designed using to these maximum values and their properties were compared according to
the criteria.

6. Foundation Analysis
Three alternatives were considered for the foundation: isolated footings, continuous strip
footings, and piles. Revit renders of possible isolated footing and continuous footing
configurations can be seen in Figure 3 below.

Figure 1: Revit renders of an isolated (left) and continuous (right) foundation systems

6.1 Size
Using the 70 kip maximum vertical reaction found using the SAP2000 model, the size of
the largest necessary foundation was determined for each alternative. Piles would not have an
appreciable change in size in plan view based on different load conditions; piles were the most
compact option considered for the foundation. The size of the pile cap could potentially interfere
with the architectural design, however. Piles were assigned a score of 9 for size. To support a 70
kip load on soil with a 2000 psf bearing pressure, a square isolated footing would have to be
approximately six feet on each side. By contrast, a three-foot wide continuous footing would
need approximately twelve feet of tributary length to spread the same load. Further
complications arise with continuous footings at corners of the building where the load would be
applied eccentric to the center of area of the foundation. Therefore, the continuous footing was
assigned a score of 6 for size, as it would be more complicated to design to fit within the
architectural constraints. The isolated footing was assigned a score of 8.

6.2 Constructability
The placement of the foundation alternatives was the main factor in constructability
scoring. The complexity of column attachment details was also considered to a lesser degree.
Piles were the least constructible of the three options. The piles themselves would need to be

6
drilled or driven for placement, requiring additional equipment and site preparation. Pile caps
would need to be placed for column attachment. Because of these shortcomings, piles were
assigned a constructability score of 1. Isolated footings and continuous footings could use the
same attachment details, and the placement difficulty would be roughly the same. While
continuous footings may require more formwork by length, the isolated footings would require
more individual formwork layouts. The two concrete options were assigned scores of 8 for
constructability.

6.3 Cost
Cost was roughly equivalent for each of the concrete options. Reinforced concrete was
estimated at $125 per cubic yard based on discussion with consultants. This cost was inflated by
200% to account for placement costs. The total cost of isolated footings would be $12,500
assuming all 25 were the maximum size. The total cost of 3 foot by 1.5 foot strip footings would
be $20,750 if they were pathed under the perimeter and north-south internal gridlines as shown
in Figure 3 on the previous page. Piles were assumed to be the most expensive option because
the cost of the pile caps shown in Figure 2 below would be equivalent to that of isolated footings.
On top of this expense, then, would be significant labor and material costs associated driven deep
foundations. Isolated footings received a cost score of 10, while continuous footings received a
cost score of 8. Piles, as the most expensive option, received a score of 1.

Figure 2: Revit render of a pile foundation showing below grade piles, pile caps, and columns

6.4 Relative Bearing

Based on the SAP2000 analysis of the structure, the largest vertical reaction at the
foundation was 70 kips. Piles driven to an appropriate depth would provide the most bearing
force of the three alternatives due to the soil friction and direct bearing contact at the bottom of

7
the shaft and could easily be designed to support this maximum load if they were chosen.
Therefore, piles received a score of 10. Isolated and continuous footings both have a bearing
force directly proportional to their tributary area. The soil on site has a bearing pressure of 2000
psf; either shallow footing option could reasonably be designed to support the necessary load.
Both options were assigned a score of 8.

7. Gravity System Analysis

The Cox Library features a wide central bay, requiring a span of approximately 36 feet.
From the SAP model, the maximum reactions at each end of a centrally located beam within this
span were 32 kips. Since the span was simply supported, the joint loads were assumed to result
from a uniformly distributed load over the length of the beam with a value of 1.78 kips per foot.
The critical column was found to carry 60 kips and was 20 feet tall, with bracing points on both
axes at 12 feet. In order to compare the gravity system alternatives, columns and girders were
designed out of steel, reinforced concrete, and wood. The minimum satisfactory steel beam
section was a W21x44 while the minimum steel column was a W12x35. The minimum concrete
beam had dimensions 12”x26”. The minimum concrete column had dimensions 12” x 12”.
Typical wood construction – featuring bearing stud walls – would be difficult to integrate with
the architectural plan as shown. Therefore, monolithic columns and beams were designed for
comparison with the other alternatives. The minimum wood column was 12” x 12” and the
minimum wood beam was 4” x 12”. Figure 3 below shows renders of the concrete and steel
gravity systems. The wood system is similar to the concrete system but features smaller gravity
members. A possible infill member configuration is shown for steel.

Figure 3: Revit renders of the concrete (left) and steel (right) gravity configurations

Decision matrix scores were assigned below. The steel beam and column was ultimately
considered the most viable option for this project. Design calculations for the different gravity
systems may be found in Appendix E.

8
7.1 Constructability
All four of the gravity system alternatives could reasonably be constructed. Concrete
would require the greatest construction effort due to placement procedures and the cost of
transporting prefabricated concrete sections. Concrete beam and column construction was given
a score of 4 for this criterion. A steel system would require less construction shoring, but would
still need specialized equipment and laborers to place and connect members. Steel was assigned
a score of 6. Finally, wood construction would require the least additional equipment and almost
no skilled laborers. However, wood joist construction requires a larger volume of members and
connections. For these reasons, wood construction was assigned a score of 8 for constructability.

7.2 Weight
The self-weight of the system was also a criterion for evaluation. The total weight of each
gravity system was calculated. The concrete gravity system weighed a total of 109 tons,
assuming normal weight concrete. The steel beam and column option weighed 17 tons, while the
wood gravity system weighed 9.5 tons. Note that these weights do not include nonstructural
elements or infill members. The lightest option, wood, was assigned a score of 10 while the
heaviest option, concrete, was assigned a score of 1. The weight score for steel was linearly
interpolated between the two other options. Steel received a score of 9.

7.3 Cost
The total cost for each alternative was determined based on weight. Per the project
owner, steel can be sourced at $4,000 per installed ton, resulting in a total cost of $67,500 for the
columns and major girders. Assuming a unit cost of $125 per cubic yard for reinforced concrete,
the concrete system would have a total material cost of $8,000. Cost was inflated by 400% to
account for installation, resulting in a total cost of $32,000. Less data was available for wood
construction; a cost of $25 per square foot was assumed. The total cost of the building with this
assumption was $125,000. For direct comparison with the other alternative, it was assumed that
three quarters of this cost was material and labor costs associated with infill members and
bearing walls, neither of which were considered in this cost analysis. The adjusted cost for
comparison was $31,250. None of the alternatives had a cost considered restrictive. Therefore, a
base score of 5 was assumed. The most expensive alternative, steel, received a score of 5 while
the cheapest alternative, wood, received a score of 10. Concrete received a score of 9.5 for cost.

7.4 Concealability
Concealability was compared using the relative sizes of the different gravity options.
Larger columns and deeper beams were considered less concealable. The deepest beam was
concrete at 26 inches. Wood and steel had the same beam depth at 12 inches. The concrete and
wood columns had the same 12-inch by 12-inch size. The steel column was the most compact at
4 inches square. All beam systems were considered concealable as they would fit above the drop
ceiling shown on the architectural plan. The concrete and wood columns would be difficult to
conceal as they would not easily fit within an interior wall assembly. For this reason, concrete
and wood were assigned scores of 5 for concealability, while steel was assigned a score of 10.

9
7.5 Stiffness
While deflection will be controlled in the final design, the relative deflection of the
members designed with equivalent strength was a valuable tool to compare alternatives. Only
beam deflections were calculated, column deflections were not considered. The steel beam had a
deflection of 3.25 inches at the midspan. The wood member had a maximum deflection of 14
inches, while the concrete beam under the cracked condition deflected only 0.075 inches.
Concrete likely had the least deflection because strain is implicitly related to failure. By this
metric, a concrete system would be the easiest to design for deflection, followed by steel and
wood. Therefore, concrete was assigned a score of 10, steel was scored 7.5, and wood received
the lowest score of 1.

8. Lateral System Analysis

Three lateral system alternatives were considered: moment frame, braced frame, and
shear wall. One of each different lateral system was designed for strength only to resist the
maximum lateral load of 80 kips. Figure 4 on the next page shows each alternative with the
corresponding deflected shape from the maximum lateral load. The two frames were designed
using AISC steel shapes and procedures. The shear wall was assumed to be a 12” thick section of
4000 psi concrete. The shear wall received a final weighted score of 4.9, less than the score of
6.95 assigned to the moment frame. A braced frame system will be used in the schematic design
because it received a weighted score of 8.5, the highest of the lateral system alternatives. Design
calculations for the moment frame and braced frame may be found in Appendix F.

Figure 4: Moment frame, braced frame, and shear wall modelled in SAP with deflected shapes

8.1 Constructability
The relative ease of construction was considered for each of the lateral systems. The
shear wall was considered the least constructible of the three lateral system alternatives due to

10
the effort required in the field to create formwork, lay out rebar, and place and finish the
concrete. This effort would be compounded by any openings in the shear wall. The braced frame
and moment frame were considered equal in terms of constructability: the marginal effort needed
to place a diagonal brace or manufacture moment connections is small relative to the overall
steel erection effort. The two frames received a score of 10, while the shear wall received a score
of 5.

8.2 Stiffness
The output of the SAP model in Figure 4 above was used to compare the stiffness of each
of the systems. The shear wall and the braced frame had deflections of less than L/1200. These
two alternatives were assigned equal scores of 10. The moment frame deflected more than L/240
and was assigned a score of 2 based on the ratio between its deflection and deflection of the two
other alternatives.

8.3 Weight
After each system was designed, weights were calculated based on material information.
The shear wall was the heaviest alternative at 40,000 pounds. The moment frame was the next
heaviest option at 4,000 pounds. The weight of the braces in the braced frame did not outweigh
the heavier construction of the moment frame; the braced frame was the lightest option at 2500
pounds. The shear wall was scored a 1, the moment frame was scored a 6, and the braced frame
was scored a 10 based on the ratio of their weights.

8.4 Cost
The labor and material costs for the lateral system were considered. The shear wall,
similar to the concrete gravity system, would require significant formwork and shoring.
Therefore, the $125 per cubic yard material cost was inflated by 400% for a total cost of $4,700
for the critical shear wall. Steel was again priced at $4,000 per installed ton. This resulted in a
cost of $8,000 for the moment frame and $5000 for the braced frame.
Due to the similar low costs for each alternative, scores were assigned based on the
percent difference from the cheapest alternative, the shear wall, which had a score of 10. The
braced frame received a score of 9.5 while the moment frame received a score of 3.

8.5 Concealability
The lateral system must not conflict with the architectural plan. Wall openings present the
greatest concealability challenges for the lateral system. Windows and doors must be placed as
shown in the architect’s plan and cannot be intersected by the lateral system. In this respect, a
shear wall is the least concealable of the three options: an effective shear wall is a solid plane.
Openings decrease the effectiveness of the shear wall and make the design process more
difficult. The shear wall alternative received a score of 1 for concealability.
Braced frames include a cross bracing member but are mostly open. In the preliminary
design modelling stage, braced frames were modelled that would not interfere with any wall
openings. This constraint did result in several non-ideal braced frames (i.e. long, single braces
crossing a wall panel), so the braced frame received a score of 6 for this criterion.

11
 A moment frame is ideal for concealability because it is made up of purely vertical and
horizontal members. It received a score of 10 for concealability because it could be applied
anywhere.

10. Recommendations
Based on the decision matrix results, the superstructure of the Cox Library will be
designed with steel and should utilize braced frames as the primary lateral load resisting system.
Isolated footings will be used for the foundation system.
Isolated footings excelled in all criteria and had no major shortcomings. Considering the
soil bearing pressure on site, isolated pad footings would need to be, at most, six feet square.
This is a feasible size that could be reasonably placed where needed on the plan without
interfering with architectural elements. A poured foundation would be easily constructible and
would not incur an excessive cost.
Steel beams and columns proved to be compact and easily designed for the loads
considered on this project. While steel construction would require more specialized labor than
wood construction, the difficulty of erection was not considered a major drawback. Material cost
was higher per member than some alternatives, but the performance advantages with respect to
stiffness are expected to provide cost relief on the building scale. As mentioned previously, steel
members – columns especially – could be designed to have no impact on the architectural plan.
Other gravity system alternatives could not easily be concealed within interior walls.
Braced frames provided the most lateral stiffness to the structural system without the
drawbacks of shear wall. While the braced frame presents challenges with geometric design,
especially at the full glass front elevation, its performance advantages will provide a more ideal
response profile. There is little additional construction effort associated with the braced frame
considering the steel gravity system, the cost is not prohibitive.
The attached plan set shows the schematic design of the library reflecting these design
decisions. The forthcoming proposal for future work will outline the details that will be included
in the final product.

12
 APPENDIX A
DECISION MATRICES

A1
 Table A1: Decision matrices used to objectively compare alternatives

Foundation
Terms
Criteria Weight
Isolated Continuous Piles
Constructability 0.1 8 8 1
Cost 0.2 10 10 1
Bearing(Relative) 0.4 8 8 10
Size 0.3 8 6 9
Total 1 8.4 7.8 7

Gravity
Terms
Criteria Weight
Wood Beam/Column Concrete Beam/Column Steel Beam/Column
Constructability 0.1 8 4 6
Weight 0.25 10 1 8
Cost 0.2 10 9.5 5
Concealability 0.2 5 5 10
Stiffness 0.25 1 10 7.5
Total 1 6.55 6.05 7.5

Lateral System
Terms
Criteria Weight
Braced Frame Moment Frame Shear Wall
Constructability 0.1 10 10 5
Stiffness 0.3 10 2 10
Weight 0.15 8 9 2
Cost 0.2 9.5 3 10
Concealability 0.25 6 10 1
Total 1 8.6 6.05 6.1

A2
 APPENDIX B
SAP2000 MODEL

B1
Figure B1: Preliminary SAP2000 model of the Cox Library including braced frame locations

B2
 APPENDIX C
SCHEMATIC PLAN SET

C1
C2
 APPENDIX D
LOAD CALCULATIONS

D1
D2
 APPENDIX E
REPRESENTATIVE GRAVITY MEMBER DESIGN

E1
E2
 APPENDIX F
REPRESENTATIVE LATERAL MEMBER DESIGN

F1
F2
B1