T.C.

WILLIAMSHIGHSCHOOL
ALEXANDRIA,VA

CHRISTOPHERB.DEKER
STRUCTURALOPTION

TECHNICALREPORT#1
05OCTOBER2007
FACULTYCONSULTANT:PROFPARFITT

TABLEOFCONTENTS

EXECUTIVESUMMARY..3

STRUCTURALSYSTEMOVERVIEW4

CODES6

LOADS7

ANALYSESANDCONCLUSION.8

SEISMICANNALYSIS.9

WINDANNALYSIS16

APPENDENCES.19
SPOTCHECK..23

COMPOSITEBEAM.25
COMPOSITEGIRDER.26

COLUMN28

LATERALFORCEDISTRIBUTION..29
LATERALSYSTEM30
PICTURES.31

Deker2of31

EXECUTIVESUMMARY
Thepurposeofthistechnicalreportistoresearchandanalyzetheexisting
conditionsandstructuralproceduresusedinthedesignofT.C.WilliamsHigh
SchoolinAlexandria,VA.TheprimarycodesusedinthisreportareIBC2006,and
ASCE705.TheschoolwasoriginallydesignedwiththeVirginiaStateBuilding
Code,whichatthetimereferencedIBC2000,andASCE799.

BUILDINGDESCRIPTION

T.C.Williamsisa3Story461,000SFhighschoolinAlexandria,VA,designed
toaccommodate2,500students.Itwasbothdesignedarchitecturallyand
engineeredbyMoseleyArchitects,andlaterconstructedbyHenselPhelps.
ConstructionwascompletedduringtheSummerof2007,andlateropenedinthe
Fallof2007.

Thebuildingutilizesacompositeslabwithdeckingonsteelframe
construction.Duetothelargesizeoftheschool,itwasseparatedintosix
differentbuildings.Alltogetherthesesixbuildingshave4differentlateral
resistingsystems,themostcommonbeingSteelConcentricallyBracedFrames.
TheothersincludeSteelMomentResistingFrames,andbothOrdinaryand
IntermediateMasonryShearWalls.

TheoriginaldesignoftheschoolwasdoneusingASD,whilethistechnical
reportfocusesonthedesignusingLRFD.Duetoboththedifferenceindesign
methods,andthedifferenceinbuildingcodesused,smalldiscrepanciesbetween
mycalculationsandthoseoftheengineerareexpected.Innowaydoesthis
reportmaketheclaimthatanyofthedesignersapproaches,assumptions,
calculations,orresultingdesignsareincorrectorunsuitable.

Deker3of31

STRUCTURALSYSTEMOVERVIEW
ROOFSYSTEM
ThetypicalflatroofsystemonT.C.WilliamsHighSchoolconsistsprimarily
ofaThermoplasticPolyolefin(TPO)Membranesystemon122gaugesteelroof
deck,supportedbyKSeriesSteelJoistswhicharetypicallyspaced5O.C.The
typicalslopedroofingsystemissimilartotheflatroofingsystemexceptinsteadof
theTPOMembranesystemthereisastandingseammetalroof.
Thetypicalroofingsystemoverlargerspanareassuchasthegymnasium
andtheauditoriumconsistof320gaugesteelroofdeck,supportedbyDLHSteel
Joiststypicallyspaced12O.C.

FLOORSYSTEM

Thetypicalfloorisacompositesystemconsistingofa3concreteslabon
118gaugesteelcompositedeck,supportedbySteelBeamstypicallyspaced8
O.C.TheconcreteslabismadeofNormalWeightConcrete(145PCF)andhasa
minimum28daycompressivestrength(Fc)of4000PSI.ThemosttypicalSteel
BeamisaW18x35spanningamaximumof34withsteelstudsspacedat12
O.C.,buttherangeofsteelbeamsmayvarygreatlydependingonspecificroom
requirements;generallyranginganywherefromaW16x26toaW21x44.The
steelstudscreatingthecompositeactionareindiameterand3long.

FOUNDATION

Allmainbuildingfoundationsareconstructedonsubgradesoilsimproved
bytheinstallationofaGeopierRammedAggregatePierSoilReinforcement
systemandaredesignedtobearonstratacapableofsustainingaminimum
bearingpressureof6,000PSF.TheslabongradeconsistsofNormalWeight
Concrete(145PCF)andhasaminimum28daycompressivestrength(Fc)of3,500
PSI.Theslabis4thickandisreinforcedwith6x6W1.4xW1.4WWFatmid
depth.AllspreadandstripfootingsconsistofNormalWeightConcrete(145PCF)
andhaveaminimum28daycompressivestrength(Fc)of3,000PSI.
Deker4of31

LATERALSYSTEM

TheT.C.WilliamsHighSchoolisseparatedinto6differentbuildings
throughtheuseofFireWalls.Bothclassroomtowersarelaterallysupported
withordinarysteelconcentricallybracedframesinboththeNSandEW
directions.The3storyareaconnectingthe2threestoryclassroomtowersis
laterallysupportedwithordinarysteelmomentframesinboththeNSandEW
directions.Thegymnasiumandauditoriumareasaresupportedbyintermediate
reinforcedmasonryshearwalls,inalldirections.Therestofthebuildingwhich
includestheareabetweenthegymnasiumandauditoriumsectionsislaterally
supportedbyordinaryreinforcedmasonryshearwalls,inalldirections.

COLUMNS

Thecolumnsaretheprimarygravityresistingmemberofthebuilding.They
consistofGrade50ASTMA992wideflangeshapes,grade46ASTMA500
rectangularHSSshapes,andgrade42ASTMA500roundHSSshapes.Thewide
flangeshapesgenerallyrunfromaW10x49toaW10x68,andistheprimary
supportformostofthebuilding.TheRoundHSSshapesarefoundconnectingthe
twoclassroomwingsandunderthegreenroof,theygenerallyrunfroma
HSS12.750x.375toaHSS16x.500.

Deker5of31

CODES
ORIGINALDESIGNCODES:

VirginiaStateBuildingCode(VUSBC),2000Edition
InternationalBuildingCode(IBC),2000Edition

AmericanSocietyofCivilEngineers(ASCE7),1999Edition
BuildingCodeRequirementsforStructuralConcrete(ACI31895)
StandardSpecificationsforStructuralConcrete(ACI30196)
AISCCodeofStandardPracticeforSteelBuildings,2000Edition
AISCSpecificationforStructuralSteelBuildings,AllowableStressDesign
andPlasticDesign,1989Edition

THESISDESIGNCODES:

InternationalBuildingCode(IBC),2006Edition

AmericanSocietyofCivilEngineers(ASCE7),2005Edition

AISCSteelConstructionManual,LRFD,13thEdition

THESISDEFLECTIONCRITERIA:

TOTAL=L/240

LIVE=L/360

CONSTRUCTION=L/360

MASONRYWALLS=L/600
Deker6of31

LOADS
TYPICALROOFDEADLOAD

THESISDESIGN

TPOMembrane/S.S.metalRoof
4"6"RigidInsulation
1
1 /2"3"GalvanizedSteelDeck

3psf
2.5psf
2psf

KSeriesSteelJoists
CeilingFinishes
Mechanical/Electrical
Sprinklers
TOTAL

3.5psf
5psf
6.5psf
2.5psf
25psf

TYPICALFLOORDEADLOAD

THESISDESIGN

3"NWCSlab(145pcf)
18gauge11/2"CompositeDeck

38psf
3psf

SteelBeams
CeilingFinishes
Mechanical/Electrical
Sprinklers
TOTAL

5psf
5psf
6.5psf
2.5psf
60psf

TYPICALROOFLIVELOAD
MinimumRoofLL
GroundSnowLoad(Pg)
ImportanceCategoryIII
ExposureFactor
ThermalFactor
FlatRoofSnowLoad
Drift

THESISDESIGN

CODEREFERENCE

20psf
25psf
Is=1.10
Ce=1.0
Ct=1.0
19.25psf+Drift
Varies

ASCE705Section4.9.1
IBCFigure1608.2
IBCSection1604.5
IBCTable1608.3.1
IBCTable1608.3.2
IBCSection1608.3
ASCE705Section7.7

FLOORLIVELOADS
Classroom
FirstFloorCorridor
AboveFirstFloorCorridor
Offices
Light'Storage
Mechanical
GreenRoof
LibraryStacks

THESISDESIGN

ORIGINALDESIGN

ASCE705MINVALUE

50psf
100psf
80psf
50psf
125psf
150psf
100psf
150psf

50psf
100psf
80psf
50psf
125psf
150psf
100psf
150psf

40psf
100psf
80psf
50psf
125psf
n/a
n/a
150psf

Deker7of31

ANALYSESANDCONCLUSIONS
SEISMIC
NormallyseismicforceswouldntbemuchofaprobleminAlexandria,VA,butdueto
extremelypoorsoilconditions,andsmallRvaluesforthelateralresistingelements,
seismicprovedtobeamuchbiggerfactorthanatfirstthought.TheseRvaluesdiffer
greatlyfromwhattheengineerhadoriginallyintended.Whenthisbuildingwas
designed,thereweremuchmorelenientdesigncodesforseismic,butsincethenthe
newerversionsofthecodesuchasASCE705havegreatlyreducedtheseRValues.
Usingtheequivalentlateralforcemethod,Iobtainedabaseshearof488kipsfor
buildingA,and246kipsforbuildingE.Ibelievethesetwobuildingsbestrepresentthe
others.WhencalculatingtheweightofthebuildingIincluded100%ofthebuildings
deadload,alongwith25%ofstoragerooms,and100%ofequipmentoperatingweightif
available.IncludedintheDeadloadwas,interiorCMUpartitions,exteriorwalls,andthe
deadloadweightofthefloorsystem.

WIND
AfterexaminingtheseismicresultsofbuildingA,Iknewwindwasntgoingtobeahuge
factor.IknewseismicwouldgovernintheNSdirectionofbuildingA,butcompleteda
windanalysistoseehowwindwouldcomparetoseismicintheEWdirection.
UsingMethod2TheAnalyticalProcedure,forbuildingA,Iobtainedabaseshearof88
kipsintheNSdirection,whichIoriginallyexpectedduetotheshapeofthebuilding.In
theEWdirectionIobtainedabaseshearof244kips.ForbuildingB,Iobtainedabase
shearof173kipsintheNSdirection,and147kipsintheEWdirection.

SEISMICVSWIND
ComparingseismicdesignbaseshearofbuildingA(488kips)towinddesignbaseshear
(244kips),givesaclearideathatseismichasalwaysgoverned.However,comparing
seismicdesignbaseshearofbuildingE(246kips)towinddesignbaseshear(173kips)
lendsmoreinterestingresults.Frominspectionitsdifficulttotellwhatoriginally
governedthelateraldesign.Thebuildingmayhavebeencontrolledbywind,butdueto
thenewercodeswithstricterseismicdesignstheseismicdesignbaseshearwillgovern.
Deker8of31

SEISMICANALYSIS
SEISMICANALYSIS
AnalysisProcedure
ImportanceCategory
ImportanceFactor(IE)
SeismicCategory
SiteClass
SpectralAccelerationforShortPeriods(Ss)
SpectralAccelerationfor1SecondPeriods(S1)
SiteCoefficient,Fa
SiteCoefficient,Fv
SMS
SM1
SDS
SD1
SeismicDesignCategory
StructuralSystemBuilding'A'
StructuralSystemBuilding'B'
StructuralSystemBuilding'C'

StructuralSystemBuilding'D'
StructuralSystemBuilding'E'
StructuralSystemBuilding'F'
RFactorBuilding'A'
RFactorBuilding'B'
RFactorBuilding'C'
RFactorBuilding'D'
RFactorBuilding'E'
RFactorBuilding'F'
DeflectionModificationFactorBuilding'A'
DeflectionModificationFactorBuilding'B'
DeflectionModificationFactorBuilding'C'
DeflectionModificationFactorBuilding'D'
DeflectionModificationFactorBuilding'E'
DeflectionModificationFactorBuilding'F'

THESISDESIGN

CODE

EquivalentLateralForceProcedure
III
1.25
II
D
15.30%
5.00%
1.6
2.4
0.2448
0.12
0.1632
0.08
B
OrdinarySteelConcentricallyBraced
Frames
OrdinarySteelConcentricallyBraced
Frames
OrdinarySteelMomentFrames

ASCE7Section12.8
ASCE7Table11
ASCE7Table11.51
ASCE7Section11.6
IBCTable1613.5.2
IBCFigure1615(1)
IBCFigure1615(2)
ASCE7Table11.41
ASCE7Table11.42
ASCE7Section11.4.3
ASCE7Section11.4.3
ASCE7Section11.4.4
ASCE7Section11.4.4
ASCE7Table11.61,2
ASCE7Table12.21

OrdinaryReinforcedMasonryShear
Walls
IntermediateReinforcedMasonry
ShearWalls
IntermediateReinforcedMasonry
ShearWalls
3.25
3.25
3.5
2.0
3.5
3.5
3.25
3.25
3.0
1.75
2.25
2.25

ASCE7Table12.21

Deker9of31

ASCE7Table12.21
ASCE7Table12.21

ASCE7Table12.21
ASCE7Table12.21
ASCE7Table12.21
ASCE7Table12.21
ASCE7Table12.21
ASCE7Table12.21
ASCE7Table12.21
ASCE7Table12.21
ASCE7Table12.21
ASCE7Table12.21
ASCE7Table12.21
ASCE7Table12.21
ASCE7Table12.21
ASCE7Table12.21

Deker10of31

Deker11of31

Deker12of31

Deker13of31

Deker14of31

SEISMICSUMMARY
Weight,W

TotalDL

25%StorageLL(ifavailable)

PartitionLoads(ifavailable)

EquipmentOperatingWeight(ifavailable)

20%FlatRoofSnowLoadifPf>30psf

BaseShear(BuildingA)

V=Cs*W

Cs=0.052

W=9,390kips

V=0.052*9,390k=488kips

BaseShear(BuildingE)

V=Cs*W

Cs=0.057

W=4,320kips

V=0.057*4,320k=246kips

Deker15of31

WINDANALYSIS
WINDANALYSIS
ImportanceCategory
ImportanceFactor,Iw
BasicWindSpeed,V
DirectionalityFactor,Kd
ExposureCategory
TopographicFactor,Kzt
GustFactor,G
ResonantResponseFactor
MeanRoofHeight
EnclosureClassification
InternalPressureCoefficient,GCpi
ReductionFactor,Ri

THESISDESIGN
III
1.15
90mph
0.85*
B
1.0
0.85
1.0
45'
Enclosed
0.18
1.0

CODE
ASCE7Table11
ASCE7Table11.51
ASCE7Figure61C
ASCE7Table64
ASCE7Section6.5.6.3
ASCE7Figure64
ASCE7Section6.5.8
ASCE73.5.8.2
n/a
ASCE7Section6.5.9
ASCEFigure6.5
ASCE7Section6.5.11.1.1

*Kdisonlypermittedtobeusedincombinationwithloadcases
ExternalPressureCoefficients,Cp
Windward
EWLeewardBuilding'A'
NSLeewardBuilding'A'
EWLeewardBuilding'E'
NSLeewardBuilding'E'
SideWall

0.8
0.5
0.2875
0.472
0.5
0.7

z
015
30
45

kz
0.57
0.7
0.785

qz
13.59
16.69
18.72

PRESSURE
NSBuildingA
WINDWARD
LEEWARD
h(ft)
P(psf)
h(ft)
P(psf)
015
12.6
015
1.2
30
14.7
30
1.2
45
16.1
45
1.2

EWBuildingA
WINDWARD
LEEWARD
h(ft)
P(psf)
h(ft)
P(psf)
015
12.6
015
4.6
30
14.7
30
4.6
45
16.1
45
4.6

TOTAL

13.8
15.9
17.3

TOTAL

17.2
19.3
20.7

PRESSURE
NSBuildingE
WINDWARD
LEEWARD
h(ft)
P(psf)
h(ft)
P(psf)
015
12.6
015
4.6
30
14.7
30
4.6

EWBuildingE
WINDWARD
LEEWARD
h(ft)
P(psf)
h(ft)
P(psf)
015
12.6
015
4.1
30
14.7
30
4.1

Deker16of31

TOTAL

17.2
19.3

TOTAL

16.7
18.8

DESIGNBASESHEAR
BUILDINGA

V=AVGWINDOVERAREAOFWALL

VA,NS=(13.8psf*15*130)+((15.9+13.8)/2psf*15*130)+((17.3+15.9)/2psf*15*130)
VA,NS=88kips
VA,EW=(17.2psf*15*293)+((17.2+19.3)/2psf*15*293)+((19.3+20.7)/2psf*15*293)
VA,EW=244kips
VE,NS=(17.2psf*15*325)+((19.3+17.2)/2psf*15*325)
VE,NS=173kips
VE,EW=(16.7psf*15*285)+((18.8+16.7)/2psf*15*285)
VE,EW=147kips

Deker17of31

Deker18of31

APPENDICES

Deker19of31

Deker20of31

Deker21of31

Deker22of31

SPOTCHECKS
Aftercompletingthecalculations,Ifoundafewdiscrepanciesbetweenmydesignsandthatof
theengineers.Thesediscrepanciescouldhappenforanumberofreasons.Forexample;
differenceinthedesignmethodused(LRFDvs.ASD),Codechangesfrom20002006,
simplifiedassumptions,andtheneedtostandardizeadesigntomaketheconstructionprocess
easier.Innowaydothesecalculationstrytomaketheclaimthatanyofthedesigners
approaches,assumptions,calculations,orresultingdesignsareincorrectorunsuitable.

COMPOSITEBEAM,B1

WhendesigningatypicalbeamIwassurprisedtohaveanearlyequaldesignasthatof
theengineer.ThemajordifferencewasIfoundthebeamtoonlyrequire18studs,whilethe
engineerdesignedforstudsspaced12O.C.whichequatesto34studs.Lookingovertheother
designsinthebuildingIwasabletoobservethatnearlyallofthecompositebeamshadstuds
spaced12O.C.,whichcouldbeoneofthepossiblereasonsfortheoverdesign.Themain
controlfactorinthedesignwasforthecriteriaoftheMasonrywallssupportedbythebeam.
TheyrequireaLiveLoad+wallweightDeflectionofL/600,topreventunwantedcracking.

COMPOSITEGIRDER,G1

WhendesigningatypicalgirderIfoundmyfirstmajordiscrepancybetweenmydesign
andthatoftheengineers.ThroughtheuseofthecodesusedinthistechreportIfounda
requiredgirdersizeofW21x44with16studs.Theengineerhaddesignedthegirdertobea
W21x50withstudsspaced12O.C.whichwouldprovide23studs.Againthemaincontrolling
factorinthedesignwasthecriteriaofthemasonrywalldeflectionofL/600.

COLUMN,C1

WhendesigningatypicalcolumnIagainfoundasmalldiscrepancybetweenmydesign
andthatoftheengineers,butagainthatwastobeexpected.IfoundaW10x49tobesufficient
tocarrytheloadswhiletheengineercalledforaW10x54,whichwouldbethenextsizeup.

CONCLUSION
Giventheresultsofthefewspotchecksdone,Imabletoeasilystatethattheengineers
designsareslightlymoreconservativethanmyown,beitduetocode,orstandardizingof
materials.However,allofthesedesignswhererelativelyclosetothoseofmyown,therefore
ImabletoconcludethattheEngineersdesignsnearlymatchmyown,whichiswhatIwas
hopingtoexamineinthistechreport.
Deker23of31

Deker24of31

Deker25of31

Deker26of31

Deker27of31

Deker28of31

Deker29of31

Deker30of31

ADDITIONALPICTURES

Deker31of31