13-FinalReport.pdf

Team 13 – All for Angkor Final Report

Team 13: All for Angkor

Final Design Report

ENGR 339/340

5/12/06

Katie Anderson Brad Jansen Jon Larsen Andy Lynch Kirk Starnes

Team 13 – All for Angkor Final Report

© 2006 Calvin College & Katie Anderson, Brad Jansen, Jon Larsen, Andy Lynch, Kirk Starnes

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 2. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 2

2.1. Purpose ........................................................................................................................................ 2 2.2. Description .................................................................................................................................. 2 2.3. Background.................................................................................................................................. 2

3. Challenge.............................................................................................................................................. 5 3.1. Design Norms.............................................................................................................................. 5

3.1.1. Cultural Appropriateness .................................................................................................... 5 3.1.2. Stewardship......................................................................................................................... 6 3.1.3. Justice ................................................................................................................................. 6 3.1.4. Integrity............................................................................................................................... 7 3.1.5. Trust .................................................................................................................................... 7 3.1.6. Caring ................................................................................................................................. 7

3.2. Meteorology and Geology ........................................................................................................... 8 3.2.1. Geography........................................................................................................................... 8 3.2.2. Climate................................................................................................................................ 9 3.2.3. Soil Types ......................................................................................................................... 11 3.2.4. Building Use ..................................................................................................................... 12

3.3. External Dependency................................................................................................................. 13 3.4. Design Considerations............................................................................................................... 13

3.4.1. Team Knowledge.............................................................................................................. 13 3.4.2. Building Practices ............................................................................................................. 14

3.4.2.1. Building Materials.................................................................................................... 14 3.4.2.2. Building Methods..................................................................................................... 15

3.4.3. Units and Codes ................................................................................................................ 16 3.4.4. Economics......................................................................................................................... 17

4. Solution .............................................................................................................................................. 17 4.1. Schedule .................................................................................................................................... 17 4.2. Loads and Codes........................................................................................................................ 18 4.3. STAAD.Pro ............................................................................................................................... 18 4.4. Floor Slab Design ...................................................................................................................... 22 4.5. Beam and Girder Design ........................................................................................................... 24 4.6. Column Design.......................................................................................................................... 27 4.7. Foundation Design..................................................................................................................... 32 4.8. Land Development .................................................................................................................... 34 4.9. Plan Set...................................................................................................................................... 36 4.10. Promotional Material ............................................................................................................ 36

5. Cost Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 36 5.1. Project Budget ........................................................................................................................... 37 5.2. Construction Budget .................................................................................................................. 37 5.3. Engineering Fees ....................................................................................................................... 40

6. Discussion .......................................................................................................................................... 40 7. Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................... 41 8. Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 41 9. Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................ 43 10. Resources ....................................................................................................................................... 44 11. Appendices..................................................................................................................................... 45

i Team 13 – All for Angkor Final Report

Table of Figures

Figure 2.3.1 The Angkor Wat temple ........................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3.2.1 Map of Cambodia showing Siem Reap location ...................................................................... 8 Figure 3.1.2 Topographical map of Siem Reap area showing AGU site ...................................................... 9 Figure 3.2.3 Monthly temperature ranges for Phnom Penh, Cambodia...................................................... 10 Figure 3.2.4 Average monthly precipitation for Siem Reap, Cambodia..................................................... 10 Figure 3.4.1 Picture of a Cambodian building under construction ............................................................. 16 Figure 3.4.2 Picture of clay bricks used in construction of concrete frame buildings ................................ 16 Figure 4.3.1 Model of structural members within STAAD.Pro.................................................................. 19 Figure 4.3.2 STAAD.Pro rendering showing the relative sizes of each structural member ....................... 20 Figure 4.3.3 Visualization of linearized loads applied to the roof structure ............................................... 21 Figure 4.5.1 Beam and girder floor system................................................................................................. 24 Figure 4.5.2 T-beam as part of a floor system ............................................................................................ 25 Figure 4.5.3 Moment graph of beam........................................................................................................... 26 Figure 4.5.4 Shear graph of beam............................................................................................................... 27 Figure 4.6.1 Interaction diagram for the 2nd floor exterior column............................................................. 29 Figure 4.6.2 Typical column detail ............................................................................................................. 31 Figure 4.7.1 Standard footing detail............................................................................................................ 33

Table of Tables

Table 3.2.1 Load table for proposed building in Siem Reap, Cambodia .................................................... 11 Table 3.2.2 Soil properties for local soil types ........................................................................................... 12 Table 3.4.1 Material costs according to U.S. Standards ............................................................................ 14 Table 3.4.2 Building material decision table .............................................................................................. 15 Table 4.4.1 General slab design choices ..................................................................................................... 23 Table 4.6.1 Summary table of column dimensions and reinforcing sizes for AGU building ..................... 32 Table 4.7.1 Summary table of footing dimensions ..................................................................................... 33 Table 5.1.1 Project budget .......................................................................................................................... 37 Table 5.2.1 Project construction cost estimate............................................................................................ 39 Table 5.3.1 Professional engineering fees .................................................................................................. 40

ii Team 13 – All for Angkor Final Report

1. Executive Summary

Team 13, comprised of Katie Anderson, Brad Jansen, Jon Larsen, Andy Lynch, and Kirk Starnes,

has been working in conjunction with architectural students from Handong Global University

(HGU) in South Korea to design the first academic building for Angkor Global University (AGU)

in the Siem Reap region of Cambodia.

The design for this building consists of two parts: the structural design of the building and the

design of the site on which the building will be located. The structural design consists of a

concrete frame including concrete slabs, columns, beams, girders, and spread footings. The site

design that fell within the scope of the project included designing a stormwater retention system,

a grading layout, and a layout for future and present utilities.

The final products of this project include a set of construction documents for the building, a cost

estimate for engineering fees as well as construction costs, a physical 3-D model, and computer

renderings including a walkthrough video of the building and still-shots of both the interior and

exterior of the building.

1 Team 13 – All for Angkor Final Report

2. Introduction

2.1. Purpose

“Angkor Global University will be the ‘Global Christian University’, educating twenty-first

century leaders for Cambodia and the world who embody excellence in both academics and

Christian moral character”. This is the vision statement that is driving the design of a Christian

university in Siem Reap, Cambodia. For senior design, team All for Angkor has been be working

in conjunction with graduate architecture students from Handong Global University (HGU) in

South Korea to complete the basic land development and structural design for the first building of

the new university. The first structure will be a building for the agricultural school and will be the

first step in making the vision of Angkor Global University into a reality.

2.2. Description

This design project includes two aspects: the structural design of the building and the design of

the site on which the building will be located. The structural design consists of a concrete frame

including concrete slabs, columns, beams, girders, and spread footings. Also, the preliminary site

design which fell within the scope of this project includes the design of a stormwater retention

system, a grading layout, and a layout for future and present utilities.

The main goal of this project has been to provide a culturally appropriate building that will fulfill

the needs of the university for years to come. It is the belief of Team 13 that this goal has been

achieved through the chosen design.

2.3. Background

On April 17, 1975, the Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot, invaded Cambodia and took power in the

capital of Phnom Penh. During Pol Pot’s rule, all institutions were prohibited including schools,

religion, and family. All of the people living in the cities were required to move to the

countryside and were forced into labor camps. Children were separated from their parents and

were made into soldiers or forced laborers. According to Yale University’s Cambodia Genocide


Program, an estimated 1.7 million people died from torture, execution, and starvation. This was

approximately 21% of the population of Cambodia at the time.

One of the main reasons that people were killed was if they were educated. The Khmer Rouge

saw educated persons as a threat to their rule. Children, as well as adults, were questioned by

soldiers and if they appeared to be educated, they were killed immediately. As a result of the

mass killings in Cambodia during the late 1970s, as well as other social economic reasons, nearly

30% of Cambodians are illiterate.

Not only did the Khmer Rouge have implications as far as education, it also had repercussions on

family and community life. Families were split apart and communities were basically

demolished. Many children grew up as orphans and thus did not learn basic family values. This

affects the way Cambodians relate within a village. Furthermore, they do not know how to create

healthy communities. It is the belief of Professor Hakchul Kim of Handong Global University

and Team 13 that education will help with the solution of all of these problems. Through

education, the Cambodians will learn how to sustain themselves through physical means and

create stronger family and communal attachments.

Since the early 1990’s, Cambodia has gone through a series of changes that will forever transform

the country of Cambodia. In 1993, Cambodia for the first time became a constitutional

monarchy. Not only did this transformation have political implications, but it had influences in

the economy and tourism. For the first time in many years, the temple of Angkor Wat, seen in

Figure 2.3.1, opened its doors to the public.


Figure 2.3.1 The Angkor Wat temple

This temple is known as one of the great mysteries of the ancient world. As a result of this,

tourism to the Siem Reap area has drastically increased. Hundreds of hotels, restaurants, and

shops have been built around the Angkor Wat temples.

With this new wave of tourism, there is a great opportunity for the local Cambodians to prosper.

Currently, 40% of the country lives below the poverty line. For this project, the goal is to disrupt

the current Cambodian culture as little as possible while still increasing the quality of living by

giving Cambodians the means to support themselves. The goal of Angkor Global University is to

meet this need. Initially, Angkor Global University will be an agricultural school where it will

meet the immediate needs of the Cambodian people by supplying them with the knowledge of

how to support themselves through agriculture. Currently, the majority of Cambodians are

subsistent farmers. Since Cambodia has a wet season and a dry season, this poses a problem for

farmers who must grow food year round. AGU’s first mission is to solve this problem. Later,

Angkor Global University plans to open a School of Business and Tourism Management. This

will allow Cambodians to profit from the growing tourism and keep the wealth in the country.

The land that Angkor Global University will be built on was donated by Governor Oung Oeun of

Siem Reap. Governor Oung Oeun visited Handong Global University in South Korea and was

pleased with the community and educational system he witnessed. Even though Governor Oung

Oeun is Buddhist, he decided he wanted a Christian University in his province.


The design and construction of Angkor Global University will be completed with a number of

different participating parties. As previously stated, Calvin College will be working in

cooperation with Handong Global University in South Korea. In January 2005, the NIBC (New

International Builder’s Community) was established. Currently the NIBC, also known as “Not I

But Christ”, is working to establish kindergarten schools throughout the country, as well as

Angkor Global University in Siem Reap.

3. Challenge

As with any project, obstacles and challenges are expected. While completing the design for this

project some of the challenges that were encountered and overcome include designing with the

design norms in mind, geographical constraints, and limited structural design knowledge among

team members. These challenges and how they were overcome are discussed in the following

sections.

3.1. Design Norms

Design norms are moral principles that should be considered in the design process in order to

ensure an appropriate balance between technical and ethical concerns. When working on a

design project, it is easy to focus too heavily on the functional aspect of the project. The design

norms are important for remembering the project’s relation to people, society, and Christian

calling. The chief design norms that were considered in this project are cultural appropriateness

and stewardship.

3.1.1. Cultural Appropriateness

A culturally appropriate design is one that focuses on how the design fits into the society in which

it is placed. This includes materials used, project scale, social impact, and aesthetics. As

mentioned above, this is especially important for this project. As American engineering students

working with South Korean architecture students building a structure in Cambodia, it was

difficult to ensure that the structure fits with the Cambodian culture. One way that cultural

appropriateness is taken into account in the design is that the building has been designed as an


open structure. Because of the warm temperatures and the lack of climate controls systems, an

open structure will provide additional ventilation for the building.

Not only must the actual structure be considered but the construction methods and materials used

to build the structure. The methods used in the United States for construction projects of a similar

scale are likely to be different than those implemented in Cambodia. The construction methods

that will be implemented in the future construction of the building are likely to involve more

manual labor and less machinery. The materials used to construct the building may also be

different than those used in the United States. In order to appear similar to Cambodian

architecture, the building will be constructed using a concrete frame with clay brick walls. These

materials are readily available and similar to materials currently used.

3.1.2. Stewardship

Stewardship includes not only careful use of environmental resources but also appropriate use of

human and economic resources. This is important for this senior design project primarily for two

reasons. First of all, there is a classroom budget that must be considered. This covers any costs

that may be incurred by Team 13 throughout the course of the year, including software license

costs and the cost of presentation materials. The second reason that stewardship must be

incorporated into the design is the actual construction of the building. In order to make the design

a viable option for Siem Reap, the building must be economically feasible. In Cambodia, labor is

cheap while materials are very expensive. As a result of the above factors, material usage will be

minimized in both the classroom modeling and the design for the actual construction.

One specific example of how stewardship was considered in the project was in the design of the

university parking lot. The original design for the parking lot included an asphalt paved parking

lot. This design however has been improved to be a gravel parking lot. This design is not only

more culturally appropriate but it also greatly reduces the cost of the project. Furthermore, this

will increase infiltration of stormwater, in turn decreasing the stormwater runoff. Thus the

change proved to be stewardly in relation to both finances and the environment.

3.1.3. Justice


Justice is considering the rights of those that are affected by the design. For the project, this

includes students and professors at Handong Global University, NIBC, future students of Angkor

Global University, and those who live in the area around the future university. In order to make a

just design, the design must have limited negative repercussions on those surrounded by it. In

order to limit the negative effects that Angkor Global University has on its surroundings, studies

were completed to determine site runoff volumes. Adequate detention methods were then

designed to eliminate the negative impact of this runoff.

Another way that the design incorporates justice is by providing a means for food production. As

stated previously, a large portion of Cambodians are farmers and are unable to farm during the

dry season. By building an agricultural school, the design will further justice by decreasing the

number of starving citizens of Cambodia.

3.1.4. Integrity

Integrity refers to the project as a whole and its complete implementation. This includes how

different aspects of the design affect the others as well as how the design as a whole affects the

surrounding. Integrity of a design should be considered before the design is completed. In the

design, this included how the building will impact the proposed university site. As a result of

this, future expansion was incorporated into the design. The site grading and utilities were

designed in order to eliminate interference in future construction. This includes grading the site

in such a manner as to not have large amounts of stormwater runoff ponding on other parts of the

university site.

3.1.5. Trust

Trust is important in every aspect of life but it is especially important when working on a design

project. It is important that project stakeholders know that project updates and the final design

are trustworthy. This includes being truthful about the progress of the design as well as what the

final outcome will be. To exercise the design norm of trust, team All for Angkor has periodically

updated project participants as to the project status.

3.1.6. Caring


Through the design of the structure, it is important to show caring to those affected here, as well

as overseas. Particularly in the design of a university, it is necessary to consider how the design

will affect those living in the area of Siem Reap. The future Angkor Global University will have

several positive impacts on the Siem Reap inhabitants including an increased food supply,

increased economic prosperity, and education.

3.2. Meteorology and Geology

3.2.1. Geography

Siem Reap is a province located by the Tonle Sap Lake in the northwest region of Cambodia (see

Figure 3.2.1).

Figure 3.2.1 Map of Cambodia showing Siem Reap location

The total area of Siem Reap covers approximately 10,300 km2 with nearly 700,000 inhabitants (as

of 1998). As seen in Figure 3.2.2 below, the area of Siem Reap, including the site of Angkor


Global University, AGU, is mostly low, flat plains. The elevation contour lines on the below map

are at 10 meter intervals. The location of AGU is designated by a red rectangle.

Figure 3.1.2 Topographical map of Siem Reap area showing AGU site

As of 2005, only 3.1% of the population is 65 years of age or older. The median age of

Cambodia is approximately 20 years old. 95% of Cambodians are Buddhist while 5% claim other

religious beliefs. Currently the educational system is centered around the Buddhist temples

located throughout Cambodia.

3.2.2. Climate

The climate in Siem Reap, Cambodia is drastically different from any in the United States.

Cambodia is located a mere 11° north of the equator, which has implications on many aspects of

the design.

First, Cambodia experiences very little seasonal temperature variation. Because of this, the

building could be designed to passively maintain a comfortable temperature without furnaces and

air conditioners. The yearly temperature in Cambodia ranges from 21°C to 35°C as can be seen

in Figure 3.2.3. This meant that the building had to be designed with ventilation in mind in order

to keep the ambient temperatures within a comfortable range.


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Janu

ary

Februa

ryMarc

hApri

lMay

June Ju

ly

Augus

t

Septem

ber

Octobe

r

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

Tem

pera

ture

(o C

)

Min Temperature

Max Temperature

Figure 3.2.3 Monthly temperature ranges for Phnom Penh, Cambodia

Second, Cambodia primarily has two seasons: a wet season and a dry season. The wet, monsoon

season is typically from May to November while the dry, arid season is from December to April.

According to the research of Matti Kumma from the Helsinki University of Technology, Figure

3.2.4 shows the average monthly rainfall in Siem Reap. A typical year in Cambodia brings with

it between 900 mm and 1800 mm of precipitation, with a mere 12% taking place during the five

month long dry season.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Janu

ary

Februa

ryMarc

hApri

lMay

June Ju

ly

Augus

t

Septem

ber

Octobe

r

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

Ave

rage

Mon

thly

Rai

nfal

l (m

m)

Wet SeasonDry Season Dry

Figure 3.2.4 Average monthly precipitation for Siem Reap, Cambodia


These issues brought to light the need to consider the loads that precipitation and winds will exert

on the building. According to the Siem Reap Weather Station, the average monthly wind speed

varies from the wet to the dry season. Average wind speeds range from 1.93 m/s to 2.58 m/s with

a yearly average speed of 2.52 m/s in the Angkor area. However, in order to ensure a structurally

sound building, a wind speed of 16 m/s was used for the wind calculations. This value is the

maximum wind speed seen in the nearby capital of Phnom Penh while the maximum wind speed

seen in Siem Reap is less than 10 m/s. This should guarantee more than adequate wind

consideration in the design of the building. As seen in Table 3.2.1, these rainfall and wind values

were used to approximate the natural exterior loads that will be exerted on the building. Rain

loads are calculated based on the maximum values seen over the past 35 years. While

consideration of rain loads was not necessary for the structural design, the calculations were

completed for the case of a future roof gutter system.

Table 3.2.1 Load table for proposed building in Siem Reap, Cambodia

Load Type Load Value (kN/m2)

Wind 1.325

Rain 0.7448

3.2.3. Soil Types

The soil types in Cambodia had to be considered in order to determine many aspects of the

design. Everything from foundation design to drainage considerations were affected by the type

of soil found on site. Without soil borings it was impossible to determine the exact bearing

strength of the soil, and therefore required that assumptions be made. As a result of this, a

bearing capacity of 2000 lb/ft2 was employed for the design, which is in accordance with

international building codes.

The soil on site is comprised primarily of either red-yellow podzol or alluvial lithosol, depending

on the exact site location. Currently the land is being used to grow southwest wet season rice,

which will prove beneficial since the building is intended to be an agricultural building and the

surrounding land is fertile.

Red-yellow podzol is a type of soil which is made up of numerous layers of varying properties. It

gets its name from the mixing of yellow, bleached soil and red, “rusty” soils. Podzol is formed


by the leaching of nutrients from the upper layer to the lower layers, leaving only quartz grains on

the surface. This type of soil is commonly found in wet climates, which explains the nutrient

leaching.

Alluvial lithosol is a soil type which is high in alluvium, or soils deposited by flowing water such

as rivers. Alluvial lithosol is often clayey, rich in nutrients, and has much more structural

stability than red-yellow podzol. As can be seen in Table 3.2.2, it is desired for the building site

to be located on this type of soil due to the structural and consistency properties of the two soils.

Table 3.2.2 Soil properties for local soil types

© 1997 Cambodia-IRRI-Australia Project

Surface Red-Yellow Podzol Alluvial Lithosol

Depth 15 - 40 cm 10 - 30 cm

Texture Sandy Clay

Color Dry: pale brown or grey with pinkish tinge

Moist: light brown to light grey

Dry: dark grey or black

Moist: black

Consistency Dry: hard but loose

Moist: loose

Dry: very hard

Moist: firm

Structure None Crumb or blocky

Subsoil

Texture Loamy or Clay Clay

Color Dry: light brown to light grey

Moist: light brown to grey

Dry: grey to light grey

Moist: grey

Consistency Dry: firm to very hard

Moist: firm to hard

Dry: very hard

Moist: firm

Structure A hard ironstone layer may occur Crumb or blocky

3.2.4. Building Use

The first building of Angkor Global University will be used as an administrative and educational

building. Because of this mixed usage, it was important to consider how to best integrate both of

the building’s uses. When determining building usage, the number of occupants, number of

rooms, air flow, and any other requirements (considerations for agricultural education, etc.) were


considered. The building will consist of many offices, lecture rooms, and a few laboratories, all

of which have different applied loads according to the ASCE 7.

The first floor of the building will be comprised mainly of laboratories, offices, and research

resource rooms. The second floor of the building consists primarily of classrooms and meeting

rooms. The third floor has a reduced floor area and will be used primarily for storage. To see the

architectural floor layouts for each floor, see drawings A1.1-A1.3 in Appendix B.

The standard hallways in the building are proposed to be 2.6 meters wide, which should provide

for comfortable flow of air and will be wide enough for numerous people to comfortably

navigate. Most rooms have two windows and two doors. This abundance of windows and doors

will create a very comfortable and relaxing atmosphere.

3.3. External Dependency

The external interdependancy of this project also proved to be a challenge. In order to proceed

with the structural design of the building, it was necessary to first receive preliminary

architectural information and plans. As a result of this, progress was initially slow. After

architectural plans were received, maintaining frequent communication with the architecture

students also proved difficult. This seemed to result from varying academic calendars and the

twelve hour time difference between Grand Rapids and South Korea. Consequently, while many

decisions were made by collaboration between the engineering and architectural students, some

assumptions had to be made without the input of the architectural students in South Korea.

3.4. Design Considerations

3.4.1. Team Knowledge

The engineering course work at Calvin College only includes two structural related courses:

Structural Analysis and Structural Design. Consequently, all members of Team All for Angkor

had limited experience in structural design, specifically reinforced concrete design. This resulted

in a large opportunity for the growth of engineering knowledge. The level of knowledge proved

to be sufficient for completing the prelimary structural design. It did however require


assumptions to be made in areas where the necessary information was not readily available.

Nevertheless, it is the belief of Team 13 that the design will result in a structurally sound

building.

3.4.2. Building Practices

3.4.2.1. Building Materials

There are multiple types of building materials that would be possible for use in this project. The

primary building materials that are used in global commercial construction are concrete, steel,

and wood. In order to determine the most appropriate material to use for this project two

elements were considered: cost and availability of the material.

The cost of the materials was a primary driving consideration because one of the goals of the

project was to keep the final project budget to a minimum in order to keep it financially feasible.

Since cost information from Cambodia is limited, the United States cost information was used to

make a preliminary decision. Table 3.4.1 shows the three building materials mentioned as well as

the cost of each.

Table 3.4.1 Material costs according to U.S. Standards Building Material Material Cost

Concrete Block Foundation Wall $1,810 / Ton

Steel $1,975 / Ton

Wood $811 / M.S.F.

The availability of materials in the Siem Reap area is limited in many ways. On the other hand, it

is known that many large international companies have moved to the country because of the

growing tourism as a result of the opening of the Angkor Wat temples. Based upon this growth it

was apparent that steel and concrete are readily available in the area. It is also known that lumber

is available because of its use in the construction of the kindergarten buildings. However, due to

the large amount needed and the limitations in structural stability for a building this large, it was

safe to assume that lumber would not be the optimum choice. Furthermore, the use of lumber is

frowned upon because of the large amounts of recent deforestation.


Based on the above information, the best choice for building material is concrete. This decision

was made by analyzing the three materials in a decision table similar to Table 3.4.2. As is seen in

the table, three questions were asked for each material and a conclusion was determined. Based

on the table, the optimum material that should be used is concrete. This is the least expensive

material, is readily available, and it fulfills all of the structural requirements. Furthermore,

concrete is a culturally appropriate material for the region in which the building will be

constructed. Thus a concrete frame was chosen for the final building design.

Table 3.4.2 Building material decision table Building Material Is it the least

expensive?

Is it available? Does it fulfill the

requirements?

Concrete Yes Yes Yes

Steel No Yes Yes

Lumber No Yes No

3.4.2.2. Building Methods

The standard Cambodian building method for a structure of the size that is required for this

project is a concrete frame and brick wall building. The first task that is performed in this process

is placing the footings for the building foundation. After the foundation has been laid, reinforced

concrete columns are poured to support the floor of the first level. With the columns in place, the

first floor is poured into a form which is support by numerous bamboo shoots. This can be seen

in Figure 3.4.1 which shows typical Cambodian construction.


Figure 3.4.1 Picture of a Cambodian building under construction

This illustrates the concrete frame design being supported by bamboo network

Once the concrete frame is in place, clay bricks are laid to form the walls of the building. A

picture of these clay bricks can be seen in Figure 3.4.2. From this image it is observed that the

bricks are similar to those used in the United States.

Figure 3.4.2 Picture of clay bricks used in construction of concrete frame buildings

3.4.3. Units and Codes

In the United States of America, standard English units are very typical for civil engineering

design purposes. However, since the agricultural building will be located in Cambodia, metric


units were used for all construction documents. As a result of this, while many of the structural

calculation were orginally computed using English units, the final dimensions and bar sizes were

converted to their metric equivalent. This will allow for easy use of the structural plans during

building construction.

Standardized building codes for Cambodia do not currently exist. Because of this, international

building codes were used for the design and analysis of this project. The codes which were used

are the ACI 318-05 metric and English versions. While regional building codes would allow a

more efficient design of the building, the ACI 318-05 will provide the necessary information to

design a more than adequately safe building. The international building code was also

supplemented by the ASCE Bulletin 7-98 for load calculations.

3.4.4. Economics

As with any project, finances always must be considered. In order to make the building

financially feasible for AGU, efforts had to be made to reduce all possible costs. In Cambodia,

labor is relatively inexpensive in comparison with material costs. In the United States, the

opposite is true. Thus in the United States, efforts are made to reduce labor costs by simplifying

design while possibly at the expense of additional material. On the contrary, material useage for

the agricultural building has been reduced where possible in order to most effectively keep the

cost of the building to a minimum.

For additional information related to the project and construction budgets, refer to section 5 –

Cost Analysis.

4. Solution

4.1. Schedule

In order to ensure the timely completion of the design project, a project schedule was created and

maintained throughout the course of the project. This schedule tracked the progress and

completion of tasks such as project research, structural design, and creation of a 3-D computer

model. Throughout the year, the schedule was updated to reflect significant changes in the

timeline of the project. To see the final project schedule, reference Appendix C. This schedule,

as well as weekly status reports, helped to keep the project on track all the way to completion. In


fact, according to the final schedule, the project should be completed by the 12th of May. With

proper task management, Team 13 completed the design and all deliverables one week ahead of

schedule.

4.2. Loads and Codes

When designing a building, the first calculations made have to do with “the loads and the code.”

As previously stated, the codes used for this design were the ASCE 7 and the ACI318-05. Load

calculations are of great importance for the design of a building. The material and thickness of

structural members is dependant on the loads they will need to withstand.

Because of the location of Angkor Global University, there were several environmental

considerations that had to be accounted for in the load calculations. First of all, because of the

warm climate with little variance in temperature, snow loads were not considered in the design.

Secondly, while a rain load was calculated, this will also not play a factor in design because all of

the rainfall on the roof is designated to simply run off the roof with no gutter system.

Accordingly, the roof was designed with a large overhang to avoid rainwater from falling into the

building. The third environmental consideration that played a large role in our design was wind.

The wind speed used in the design was 16 m/s which is the maximum wind speed observed in the

neighboring city of Phnom Penh.

For more details on load calculations, see Appendix A-1.

4.3. STAAD.Pro

In order to design the structural members of the building, moment, shear, and deflection values

needed to be calculated based on the anticipated loading seen in the building. Due to the

complexity of the structure, the program STAAD.Pro was used to calculate the necessary values

for each member. STAAD.Pro is a widely used structural analysis program capable of analyzing

hundreds of structural members under dozens of different loading scenarios. But before using

any of the STAAD.Pro results, hand calculations were made in order to verify the accuracy of

certain values and ensure that the program was working properly.


Within STAAD.Pro, a set of nodes are defined, each node representing the intersection of two or

more structural members. Once each node has been defined in three-dimensional space, the

structural members are laid out between the nodes. Next, support conditions are applied where

necessary, which, in this design, are fixed supports at the base of each column. Figure 4.3.1

shows the STAAD.Pro model including all structural members and supports.

Figure 4.3.1 Model of structural members within STAAD.Pro

From this point, each member is given a material definition (concrete, aluminum, steel, etc.) and a

geometric shape, the sum total of which is shown in Figure 4.3.2.


Figure 4.3.2 STAAD.Pro rendering showing the relative sizes of each structural member

Finally the loads are applied to each member. Included within this aspect of the model are

different loads representing the selfweight of the members, building dead loads, building live

loads, and wind loads. In order to calculate the load applied to each member, tributary widths for

each member were calculated and used to determine the force per unit length which would be

applied to each member. This approach was used for dead loads, live loads, and selfweight loads.

One hundred thirty different loads in all were applied to the building. From these loads, a half-

dozen load cases were defined based on ASCE load factoring, and the load case which generated

the highest moments and deflections was used as the design case. Figure 4.3.3 shows the dead

loads and selfweight loads applied to the roof structure of the building.


Figure 4.3.3 Visualization of linearized loads applied to the roof structure

In addition to this first model, a ‘cracked’ model was generated within STAAD.Pro. This model

was created to simulate the effects of long-term loading on the concrete frame and the cracks

which would form as a result of creep and settling. In order to calculate the moment distribution

and deflections of the cracked structure, a new moment of inertia had to be calculated for each

structural member.

When a concrete structural member is under load, cracks will form in the areas of the member

which are in tension, as concrete has negligible tensile strength. Therefore the moment of inertia

of each member will be decreased by a certain amount. This reduction is a function of the

member’s initial geometry, the strength of the concrete, the strength of the reinforcing steel, and

the amount of reinforcing steel within the member. Once the ‘cracked’ moment of inertia had

been calculated, the new section properties were applied to the STAAD.Pro model and the

structure was reanalyzed. The resulting data showed that there would be negligible changes in

both the moment distribution and deflection of the structure, which verified the integrity of the

model. Once both models were complete, STAAD.Pro analyzed them and returned moment,

shear, deflection, and rotation values for each member within the structure.

In order to make use of this data, a spreadsheet was created in Excel which would parse the

thousands of lines of data from STAAD.Pro and display a graph showing the moment or shear

along any given continuous beam, girder, or column. This spreadsheet greatly expedited the


process of retrieving the necessary data from STAAD.Pro, and allowed for quickly viewing

snapshots of the building in order to see how changes made to the model affected the final

moment and shear distribution.

For figures and details regarding the Excel spreadsheet, refer to section 4.5 – Beam and Girder

Design.

4.4. Floor Slab Design

The floors of the agricultural building were designed using a system of continuous one-way slabs.

When designing a slab, it is typical to assume that it will act as a series of strips of slab with a

standard width of 1-ft. The required depth of each floor slab was based on Table 9.5(a) from the

ACI 318-05 code. The table provides a minimum thickness based on the distance the slab is

required to span. According to the code, a slab with one end continuous should have a minimum

thickness of ( ), where l is the span of the slab. Once these minimum slab thicknesses were

calculated, the slab’s serviceability was evaluated based on the maximum moment and shear

forces the slab would have to withstand. For a more detailed account of slab design calculations,

see Appendix A-2. After it was determined that the depth of the slabs was adequate, the

reinforcement for the slab was designed.

24/l

The thickness of the slab is important not only to resist the necessary forces but also for

determining the fire rating of a structure. According to Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics and

Design, the fire rating of a floor slab is the number of hours necessary for the temperature of the

unexposed surface to rise by a given amount, generally 250oF (MacGregor, pg 383). According

to this, the slabs designed for the agricultural building have a fire rating of at least 3-hours.

A concrete slab has flexural reinforcement in both the positive and negative moment areas (the

top and bottom of the slab) in order to minimize deflection. The size and spacing of the

reinforcement is based on a minimum area of steel per foot of slab required by the ACI Code.

Concrete slab reinforcement differs from other structural concrete elements in that slabs require

shrinkage and temperature reinforcement perpendicular to the primary flexural reinforcement.

Because a slab’s depth is less than that of the supporting beams, the concrete in the slab will


shrink at a greater rate than the concrete in the beams. This may lead to shrinkage cracks in the

slab. Shrinkage reinforcement will minimize cracking that would otherwise result.

Another aspect of slab design that was considered was the minimum concrete cover necessary

over the reinforcement. Cover is necessary to develop a bond between the steel reinforcement

and the concrete as well as to provide a wearing surface, corrosion resistance, and fire resistance

(MacGregor, pg 383). According to the ACI Building Code, a 40 mm cover is required for slabs

exposed to the weather and a 20 mm cover is required for slabs that are not exposed to the

weather. Thus, 40 mm of cover was used when designing the roof slab and 20 mm cover was

used to design the interior slabs.

Given the previous design requirements and considerations, Table 4.4.1 shows the general design

choices that were used for design. For more design details, see Appendix A-2 for slab

calculations and Appendix B for slab design schedules.

Table 4.4.1 General slab design choices 1st and 2nd Floor Slab

Thickness (mm): 165

Reinforcement:

Negative (top): Use No. 4 @ 270 mm

Positive (bottom): Use No. 4 @ 400 mm

Temp & Shrinkage: Use No. 4 @ 400 mm

3rd Floor Slab

Thickness (mm): 205

Reinforcement:




Upper and Lower Roof Slab

Thickness (mm): 195

Reinforcement:





4.5. Beam and Girder Design

There are two options for beam and girder design in a building as large as the agricultural

building at AGU: steel and concrete. The agricultural building will be constructed entirely of

concrete and as such, the beams and girders were designed with that in mind. A reinforced

concrete design is the clear choice in this situation as it is culturally appropriate and was specified

by the architects. The design was accomplished using Building Code Requirements for Structural

Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318M-05) along with other reference materials.

Once reinforced concrete was chosen as the design material the next step was to decide if the slab

would be supported by a one-way or a two-way system. A one-way slab is supported on two

opposite sides so that bending occurs in only one direction. It has the advantages of being the

most basic design as well as the most common. A two-way system is supported along all four

edges and has bending in two directions perpendicular to each other. Since a one-way slab is

much easier to design and construct, the design initially proceeded with a one-way system and

was later confirmed as a legitimate design decision.

The specific one-way system designed for the agricultural building is called a beam and girder

system. The beams and girders are placed monolithically with the slab. An example of a beam

and girder systems can be seen in Figure 4.5.1.

Figure 4.5.1 Beam and girder floor system

In this system the slab is supported by beams and girders, which are in turn supported by

columns. Other systems do exist, but they often make use of precast concrete which would be


much less economical in this situation. Continuous T-beams, as seen in Figure 4.5.2, are chosen

because of the monolithic nature of the floor slab and the multiple gaps along the line of nearly

every beam that must be spanned. There are three major stages in the design of a continuous

beam: design for flexure, design for shear, and design of bar details.

Figure 4.5.2 T-beam as part of a floor system

The first step in the design process is to choose a beam depth and width. For aesthetic and

convenience purposes, the depths of all beams and girders have been set at a standard depth. The

first, second, and third floors have been set at 600 mm and the roof beams and girders have been

set at 450 mm. The final sizes are available in the beam and girder schedules in the final plan set

and can also be seen in Appendix B.

Next the moments must be calculated to determine the effects of flexure on the beams and

girders. In order to greatly simplify the process as well as ideally eliminate human error in the

calculations, STAAD.Pro was used to compute the moments along every beam and girder in the

building. The data from STAAD.Pro was then put into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet which

provides graphs such as the sample graph seen in Figure 4.5.3. Once provided with the moments,

the total area of reinforcing steel can be determined.


-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

6000 9.6 19.2 28.8 38.4 48Dist (m)

Figure 4.5.3 Moment graph of beam

Determining the necessary reinforcing steel was one part of the design where engineering

judgment proved crucial. The calculated required area of steel was only the minimum amount of

steel required. This area of steel does not indicate which size of bars to satisfy the required area,

nor the number of bars. The goal of the structural engineer is to meet the minimum reinforcing

requirements, thus creating a safe and sturdy building, while at the same time minimizing the

amount of required material to make the design as cost effective as possible. There were several

guidelines followed in the decision-making process. Bar sizes should be at least two sizes apart

so that the construction crew can visually tell them apart and not get them mixed up during the

building phase. The bars must be able to fit within the specified width of the beam so extremely

large bars cannot be used in every case. Finally, two bars must run continuously on both the top

and bottom of each beam in order to support the stirrups, so choosing too large of a bar is a waste

of materials. For the design of the agricultural building, only #19 and #29 bars were used to keep

the design as simple as possible. Using a combination of these two bars sizes, it was possible to

attain an area of steel close to the required minimum in nearly every case.

Looking again at Figure 4.5.3, each beam has negative and positive moments. The negative

moments occur at the supports of the beam and the positive moments occur over the mid-span of

each beam. Additional reinforcing steel may be necessary at points of tension, but unnecessary at

points of compression. The additional steel may be cutoff at flexural cutoff points. The practice

of cutting off extra reinforcing not only saves materials, but extending it into compression zones

can have a negative effect on the strength of the beam.


Besides being designed for flexural forces, shear forces must also be taken into consideration in

the design of a beam. Like the moment values, STAAD.Pro, in combination with the Excel

spreadsheet mentioned earlier, provided a graph, as seen in Figure 4.5.4, of the values for shear

through the beams and girders.

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

4000 9.6 19.2 28.8 38.4 48Dist (m)

Figure 4.5.4 Shear graph of beam

The shear values were used to determine if stirrups were required, and if so at what spacing they

must be placed. The most commonly used stirrup size is a #10 which was chosen for this project.

The selected stirrup type is a single-loop stirrup which is generally satisfactory for beam widths

600 mm and under. Multiple stirrup spacings in a single beam can be used in cases where a very

small spacing is required for only a small section of the beam. By increasing the stirrup spacing

when the shear is sufficiently reduced, large quantities of materials can be saved.

This design process strictly follows the Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and

Commentary (ACI 318M-05). Appendices A-3 and A-4 have examples of the spreadsheet used

to design the beams and girders for the agricultural building. The spreadsheet was created using

an example from Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics and Design which incorporated relevant

sections of the structural concrete code.

4.6. Column Design

The primary variables used to design concrete columns are the axial loads going into the columns

as well as the moments at the top and bottom of the column. In order to find the loads being


carried by the column, the loading on the beams and the girders first had to be determined. The

loads in the beams and girders represent the tributary area of floor space that is carried by an

individual column which consists of both the dead and live loads. Because this load is applied on

each floor, the columns are expected to increase in size as each floor is added. This being said,

the top floor will have the smallest column dimensions and then the floor below will increase

slightly due to the additional loads being applied as well as the loads from the floor above.

Since there are a large number of variables to be considered in determining the loading of the

columns, it was decided to use STAAD.Pro to analyze the reactions the columns were subjected

to, due to its simplicity and accuracy. This was also a benefit to the team because STAAD.Pro

performed the necessary moment and deflection calculations required to complete the necessary

column design calculations.

The calculation of a concrete column consists of two primary parts, the column dimensions and

the required reinforcing. In order to calculate the column design, example 11-1 in Reinforced

Concrete: Mechanics and Materials was used in supplement to the ACI code. This example

analyzes column dimensions and reinforcing information under different strain conditions to

create points on an interaction diagram, which graphically shows the relationship of axial loading

and moments on the specified column. These five points form an “envelope” curve on the

interaction diagram that illustrates the structural limits of the specified column. The five points

represent the load for the axial loaded, for the balanced failure condition (εs1 = -εy), for z equal to

-2, for z equal to -4, and for the axial tension condition. An example of an interaction diagram

produced from these five points can be seen in Figure 4.6.1.


2nd Floor Exterior Column Interaction Diagram

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Moment, Mn and φMn [ft*kips]

Axi

al L

oad,

Pn

and φ

Pn [k

ips]

φPn, φMnPn, MnφPn (max)Design Points

Figure 4.6.1 Interaction diagram for the 2nd floor exterior column

From the figure it is noted that there are in fact two curves and one straight line. The green curve,

or the curve labeled “Pn, Mn”, represents the maximum limits of the specified column. The blue

line shows similar characteristics to the green line and that is because it represents 70% of the

capacity for the column. The 30% reduction from the maximum column capacity is an industrial

standard for a factor of safety and is specified in the ACI codebook. This factored curve is the

curve that the column must be designed for. The final line on the interaction diagram is the

maximum allowable axial load that can be carried by the column. This is calculated by applying

the same 30% reduction factor to the maximum load on the blue line.

The actual design of the columns is based solely on the interaction diagram. For the agricultural

building, the columns on every floor were arranged into two groups based on similar loading

conditions. It turned out that these two groups were the interior columns and the exterior

columns. This can be explained by the fact that the interior columns had to carry dead loads and

live loads that came from all four sides of the column, whereas the exterior columns primarily

carried loads from the interior face. Once the columns were grouped together, the loads into each


column were obtained from STAAD.Pro, and the moment used in each column was the maximum

moment between the top and bottom of the column. The column’s individual loading conditions

were then graphed on the respective group interaction diagram (for Figure 4.6.1 the column group

is the 2nd story exterior columns). The final part of the column design was to change the column

dimensions and reinforcing in Excel until all of the column information fell within the factored

loading capacity curve (the blue curve).

Once the dimensions of the column and the reinforcing size and quantity are determined, the ACI

code requires that some additional factors be determined. One such variable is to determine if the

building represents a sway or non-sway frame. This factor is determined by finding out if the

columns are “slender” or not. The slenderness test can be found in the ACI 10.12.2. The

slenderness test compares the length of the beam and the radius of gyration against the ratio of the

moments acting at the top and bottom of the column. This test can be found in the accompanying

Calculation Notebook under the column section. The results of the test proved that every column

group was slender except for the third floor exterior group. In order to keep calculations uniform

the building was calculated as a sway building which only applies an additional factor of safety to

the group of non-slender columns.

Since the building was determined to be a sway frame, an additional calculation was required by

the code. This calculation is called a P-Delta analysis and was performed by STAAD.Pro. What

this additional condition does in the STAAD.Pro model is that it applies the moments from

loading variations to the columns which cause a slight deflection at the top of the columns. Next

STAAD.Pro applies the loads to the already deflected columns which increases the moment

slightly since the column is offset from its center of gravity. In order to get an accurate result,

STAAD.Pro was instructed to perform this process ten times which increased moments in many

columns, therefore increasing the column dimensions and reinforcing size.

With the final column sizes determined, the last two variables required by the ACI code are the

lap splice length and the tie spacing. The lap splice is the height that the reinforcing from the

floor below must continue into the column of the floor above. The tie spacing is the required

spacing that stirrups must be placed around the reinforcing in each column. Both of these

variables are pictured in Figure 4.6.2 where the lap splice is called out and the tie spacing is

shown as the variable P. The lap splice length conditions are found in ACI 12.17 and are based

on the diameter of the reinforcing and the loading properties of the steel and concrete. The tie


spacing conditions are found in ACI 7.10.5.2 and are determined by finding the smallest spacing

from three conditions. The results of the lap splice and tie spacing for each column group can be

found in the Calculation Notebook under the column section.

Figure 4.6.2 Typical column detail

Rather than designing each individual column with its own unique dimensions and reinforcement,

columns were grouped together to maintain a certain degree of simplicity for construction. This

was done in order to help ensure that the correct rebar sizes and concrete forms will be used in the

column construction since it will reduce the complexity of the building. A summary table that

displays the resulting column sizes and reinforcing size from the Calculation Notebook can be

seen in Table 4.6.1.


Table 4.6.1 Summary table of column dimensions and reinforcing sizes for AGU building Column Group

Exterior Interior

Support Columns

Dimension [mm] 460 540

Bar Sizing #25 #25

Number of bars 8 8

First Floor Columns


Bar Sizing #25 #25

Number of bars 8 8

Second Floor Columns


Bar Sizing #29 #19

Number of bars 8 4

Third Floor Columns


Bar Sizing #25 #19

Number of bars 8 4

4.7. Foundation Design

Because the building is going to essentially be built upon concrete pilings, a spread footing

needed to be designed for the base of each column. The vertical support reaction at the base of

each column was calculated with STAAD.Pro, and was used as the design load for the spread

footing. Due to the symmetry of the building about both ground axes, there were essentially only

four different magnitudes of loads being applied by the columns, and therefore required the

design of only four footings. For simplicity, square footings were designed in every instance.

Figure 4.7.1 shows the standard footing detail, with the applicable dimensions being found in

Table 4.7.1. For sample calculations and complete footing specifications, see Appendix A-6.


Figure 4.7.1 Standard footing detail

Table 4.7.1 Summary table of footing dimensions Footing Dimension (mm)

A B C D E F G H

F0.1 5000 340 76 600 485 510 390 230

F0.2 6000 650 76 700 560 600 390 230

F0.3 6600 530 76 750 610 650 390 230

F0.4 7250 470 76 850 710 750 390 230

In accordance with international building codes, a soil bearing pressure of 2000 psf was used for

the design due to lack of specific site information from Cambodia. Also, a concrete strength of

3500 psi was used for calculations, which is significantly lower than the 5000+ psi used in

commercial concrete buildings in the United States. Aside from these two educated assumptions,

the design of the spread footings is based on calculated data. All footings were designed

following the ACI code along with example calculations.

Determining the size of the spread footing is a very simple calculation of dividing the loads

applied to the footing by the soil bearing pressure. This yields an area, which is used to calculate

the length of a side of the square footing. Next, the magnitude of punching shear from the

column needed to be calculated and compared to the strength of the footing in order to determine

whether the footing would be strong enough to support the column. In one instance, the size of

the column needed to be increased in order to prevent excessive punching shear being applied to

the foundation. Next, the reinforcing steel needed to be calculated and defined. Calculations

from the ACI code yielded a minimum required area of steel which needed to be present along


the bottom of the footing in each direction. This area was used to determine a size and number of

reinforcing rods which would satisfy this requirement. Throughout the design of the spread

footings, only bar sizes 19, 29, and 43 were used in order to make for a more efficient and simple

construction. Finally, the reinforcement between the column and the footing was calculated,

including minimum development lengths with calculations to verify that the footing was large

enough to be able to have the specified development length.

4.8. Land Development

For this portion of the design project, it was Team 13’s goal to produce a general site plan for the

location of the proposed agricultural facility that clearly conveys the design of necessary sanitary

sewer and watermain systems, as well as necessary stormwater management. In general, this

process requires both the knowledge of regional design guidelines and detailed topographic

information. However, since this building is to be constructed in an area of the country where

such information has not previously been in great demand, it is in turn not readily available for

the purpose of such design. Due to this lack of site-specific information, some significant

assumptions were required for the completion of the site development.

The first assumption that was made dealt with grading the proposed site in order to effectively

handle surface runoff and protect the proposed building from the dangers of flooding. Since there

was no detailed, site specific topographic information with which to complete the design, it was

assumed that the surrounding terrain was essentially flat, and any grading was completed using

the elevation of the building corners as a datum. This assumption was made with some measure

of confidence given the evidence that was observed from regional topographic information, as

well as the account of Professor De Rooy, who has personally visited the site of the proposed

building and provided testimony to its flat nature.

Some other design features relating to site grading include a proposed gravel parking facility

located along the northwest and northeast faces of the building, a two-meter wide concrete

walkway around the entirety of the building with an adjacent gravel infiltration area designed to

handle runoff from the roof of the building, and a vegetated swale to the northeast and northwest

of the parking lot to handle any parking lot runoff. The gravel parking lot was designed with a

capacity of approximately one hundred cars to provide for the parking needs of the faculty and

any prospective students. Both the parking lot and sidewalk were designed with a two percent


slope away from the building to provide for the necessary conveyance of stormwater runoff. Also

of note is the fact that a gravel parking lot was chosen over the previous idea of an asphalt

parking area. A gravel surface will allow for greater infiltration rates than asphalt, and does away

with the need for stormwater collection features including curb and gutter, catchbasins, manholes,

storm sewer piping, and detention storage. Gravel is also a more economically feasible choice for

the proposed project. A five percent slope on the sides of the building opposite the parking lot

also provide for necessary stormwater conveyance away from the base of the building. The

relatively sandy soil in the area of the proposed building will aid a great deal in the handling of

excess runoff produced by the proposed building.

Another important design decision that was made was to assume that it would be unreasonable to

have sanitary sewer extended to the site, and to rather design a sanitary system for the building

that includes the installation of two septic tanks and the necessary piping for a leach field. The

volume requirements of the proposed septic system were calculated given figures for water

consumption provided in Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse, Third

Edition, by Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. Based on a capacity of one hundred individuals, using

approximately ten gallons per day each, and an average retention time of five days the septic

tanks were sized to hold a volume of five thousand gallons. For purposes of redundancy and

contingency storage, two septic tanks, each with a volume of three thousand gallons were called

for in the design. The associated sanitary sewage disposal field was also designed following an

example laid out in Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse. Based on a

conservative assumption for the soil’s percolation rate, these calculations resulted in the need for

four thirty-five meter trenches to be placed perpendicular to the assumed groundwater flow

direction, which was to the south toward the Tonle Sap Lake. (Please refer to Appendix A-7 for

septic system calculations) Team 13 is confident that this design is sufficient to meet the sanitary

sewage needs of the proposed building.

With regard to other utilities such as water, electricity, phone, and internet, there is little

information available as to the existing infrastructure in the area of the proposed building.

Research has shown that a power grid does exist within somewhat close proximity the site with

the capacity to extend to the site, but it is unknown if there are plans to extend service to the site

in the near future. It is also unknown whether the same can be said regarding any sort of

watermain within reach of the site. The use of a well would be necessary in the event that such


access is unavailable. Whatever the specific case may be, approximate water, electric, phone, and

internet connections have been shown as a part of our site plan.

4.9. Plan Set

In order to clearly display the structural design as well as the land development for Angkor

Global University, Team 13 developed a set of drawings of the building and the surrounding area.

This set includes four different drawing categories. The first section of the plan set includes the

civil drawings. This consists of a site layout, a grading plan, and a layout for proposed utilities.

Following the civil drawings are the architectural drawings. These drawings show floor plans

that dictate room usage. Along with the the floor layouts, the architectural drawings include

section cuts through the building with elevations shown for each floor level. The next drawing

category is foundation drawing. This includes the foundation plan as well as the foundation

schedule. The final drawings are the structural plans. This includes the framing plans, structural

schedules, and details. Structural schedules were utilized for clear communication of structural

members.

4.10. Promotional Material

As the design of a building consists nearly entirely of a set of drawings supported by calculations,

it was apparent that something needed to be created for presentation purposes. A physical 3-D

model was created with the help of Pete VanDyk in order to give a scale representation of the

building, and a virtual walkthrough was generated using SketchUp to give a feel to how the

building will look when finally constructed. In addition to these two models, posters and

pamphlets were created to tell the general public more about this team and what it is that has been

created, as well as how it ties into the future of Siem Reap and Cambodia in general. Materials

such as these will help to give the general public an idea of what exactly has been designed,

without making any sort of assumptions as to their understanding of structural drawings and

schedules.

5. Cost Analysis


This project consisted of two separate budgets. The first was the budget of the team, and the

second was that of the actual proposed agricultural building. The classroom budget was set at

approximately $300.00 and could be used for items that were necessary to complete the project.

The total construction budget will be an estimate of the cost to construct the building as designed

by Team 13.

5.1. Project Budget

The material cost to complete the design of the building was well below the $300 limit. Nearly

all the design work was accomplished with software licensed to Calvin College. SketchUp was

the only software used during the project for which a license had to be purchased, for a cost of

only $39 for single computer usage. Materials purchased for the physical scale model of the

agricultural building totaled $64.58. A three-hole punch and binder were purchased for $10.23

and the binding of the final report and calculation notebook only cost $2. A summary table of the

project budget can be seen in Table 5.1.1.

Table 5.1.1 Project budget Item Description Item Cost

Three-hole Punch / Binder $ 10.23

Binding $ 2.00

SketchUp $ 39.00

Model Materials $ 64.58

Dividers for Calc. Notebook $ 23.31

Total Cost $ 139.12

5.2. Construction Budget

A final estimate of the construction costs has been determined for the new agricultural building

for AGU. It is based on construction labor and material prices in the United States. In order to

give AGU a sense of the cost, the final cost will be converted to the Cambodian Riel (KHR),

which is the currency used in Cambodia. To give the reader a point of reference, the national

average household income for a Cambodian was $106 United States Dollars (USD) per month in

1999.


The items in the estimate are based on the architectural, structural, and site drawings as well as

known construction techniques in the Siem Reap region of Cambodia. The estimate assumes that

the entire footprint area of the building will be excavated to a depth of 3.5 meters. The values for

the necessary volume of concrete were quite accurately determined based on the structural

drawings. The reinforcing steel was included in the overall cost of reinforced concrete. With

only limited architectural drawings, it is difficult to accurately estimate the interior construction

costs. Only large cost items were estimated for the interior construction costs, which still gives a

fairly accurate picture of the total cost. Mechanical and electrical costs were also difficult to

estimate since the design of both were not parts of the project. Only items that are necessary to

the function of the building were included in the estimate. A 20% contingency has been applied

to the final project budget because of the uncertainty associated with electrical and mechanical

portions of the building. The estimated unit costs were taken from Building Construction Cost

Data from 2002. Since cement is a known industry in Cambodia, it was assumed that the cost of

concrete would be comparable to that of the United States. A 15% material cost increase was

assessed to other materials such as glass that would be more difficult to obtain. The total

estimated cost of construction for the project is about $2.01 million USD or $8.05 billion KHR

(see Table 5.2.1 for detailed budget).


Table 5.2.1 Project construction cost estimate

Category Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Cost Foundation Footing and Foundation Poured Concrete and Footings C.M. 815 $ 214.50 $ 110,135.03

Excavation and Backfill Site Preparation for Concrete and Footings C.M. 7100 $ 4.16 $ 1,476.80

Structure

First and Second Floor Reinforced Concrete - One-way Beam and Slab C.M. 955 $ 843.63 $ 507,569.99

Third Floor Reinforced Concrete - One-way Beam and Slab C.M. 165 $ 843.63 $ 87,695.34

Roof Reinforced Concrete - One-way Beam and Slab C.M. 460 $ 844.63 $ 244,773.77

Super Structure Foundation Column - Minimum Reinforcement C.M. 30 $ 810.93 $ 15,326.58 First Floor Column - Minimum Reinforcement C.M. 35 $ 810.93 $ 17,881.01 Second Floor Column - Minimum Reinforcement C.M. 30 $ 810.93 $ 15,326.58 Third Floor Column - Minimum Reinforcement C.M. 25 $ 810.93 $ 12,772.15 Exterior Closure Walls Clay Brick S.M. 2250 $ 12.00 $ 18,711.00 Doors Glass Entry Door EA 6 $4,100.00 $ 17,047.80 Doors Second Floor Balcony Door EA 8 $ 375.00 $ 2,079.00 Windows Glass EA 64 $ 300.00 $ 13,305.60 Large Entryway Window Glass S.M. 135 $ 121.09 $ 11,328.57 Roofing Roof Coverings Red Clay Tile S.M. 1800 $ 81.80 $ 102,037.32 Wood Sheathing Plywood S.M. 1800 $ 11.52 $ 14,370.05 Roofing Felt Asphalt Felt S.M. 1800 $ 0.93 $ 1,160.08 Interior Construction Partitions Clay Brick S.M. 2560 $ 12.00 $ 21,288.96 Partitions Toilet Compartments EA 32 $ 286.00 $ 6,342.34 Wall Finishes Paint S.M. 7370 $ 4.41 $ 22,523.68 Wall Finishes Mortar S.M. 7370 $ 38.97 $ 199,035.77 Interior Doors Wood EA 70 $ 73.00 $ 3,541.23 Floor Carpet S.M. 3400 $ 47.84 $ 112,720.61 Stairs Concrete L.M. 25 $ 113.19 $ 1,961.02 Ceiling Tile S.M. 3400 $ 10.76 $ 25,352.71 Mechanical Plumbing Urinal EA 20 $ 500.00 $ 11,500.00 Plumbing Toilet EA 32 $ 430.00 $ 15,824.00 Plumbing Sink EA 16 $ 200.00 $ 3,680.00 Fire Protection 4 Section Alarm EA 1 $1,200.00 $ 1,380.00 Electrical Lighting Fluorescent EA 280 $ 136.00 $ 43,792.00 Site Work Utilities Septic Tank - 5750 L EA 4 $4,000.00 $ 18,400.00 Overhead Contingency 20% $ 336,067.79

Total $2,016,406.76


5.3. Engineering Fees

The engineering fees are presented in Table 5.3.1. Engineering wages of $30 per hour were

assumed, as was an indirect labor multiplier of 1.8 that was used to calculate the indirect labor

overhead cost. A total cost of $140,355.60 was calculated for the design of this project.

Table 5.3.1 Professional engineering fees

Task Time Raw Labor Indirect Labor Overhead

Professional Fees Total

Meeting 266.75 $ 8,002.50 $ 14,404.50 $ 2,240.70 $ 24,647.70 Research 95.00 $ 2,850.00 $ 5,130.00 $ 798.00 $ 8,778.00

Budget/Business Plan 29.75 $ 892.50 $ 1,606.50 $ 249.90 $ 2,748.90 PPFS 153.50 $ 4,605.00 $ 8,289.00 $ 1,289.40 $ 14,183.40

Promotional Materials 52.25 $ 1,567.50 $ 2,821.50 $ 438.90 $ 4,827.90 Presentations 58.00 $ 1,740.00 $ 3,132.00 $ 487.20 $ 5,359.20

Land Development 46.50 $ 1,395.00 $ 2,511.00 $ 390.60 $ 4,296.60 Calculations 325.50 $ 9,765.00 $ 17,577.00 $ 2,734.20 $ 30,076.20

3D Walkthrough 135.50 $ 4,065.00 $ 7,317.00 $ 1,138.20 $ 12,520.20 AutoCAD 202.50 $ 6,075.00 $ 10,935.00 $ 1,701.00 $ 18,711.00 STAAD 86.25 $ 2,587.50 $ 4,657.50 $ 724.50 $ 7,969.50

Final Report 67.50 $ 2,025.00 $ 3,645.00 $ 567.00 $ 6,237.00

Total (hr): 1519.00 $45,570.00 $ 82,026.00 $ 12,759.60 $140,355.60

6. Discussion

As is seen in the above final design, the structural design and land development for this project

have been completed. The final structural design consists of a three-story concrete frame

building. Because of this design, none of the walls have been designed to be load bearing.

Structural member dimensions and reinforcement have been standardized wherever possible to

help ensure a smooth construction process. The final deliverables for this project include a

calculation notebook with the final calculations, a design report offering explanations of the

design, a set of structural drawings, a physical 3-D model, and a 3-D video model which shows a

complete walkthrough of the building. These components are useful not only for the actual

design process but also for presentation purposes.

Sample calculations for all structural members can by found in Appendix A. For a complete set

of structural calculations, reference the supplemental Calculation Notebook.


7. Conclusion

The final construction drawings for the agricultural building can be found in Appendix B. The

objectives of this project included completing the structural design and basic land development

for the first building of Angkor Global University. Team 13 was able to accomplish these tasks

in a culturally appropriate manner. This was done by taking into account local building

architecture and common local construction materials. The estimated construction budget for the

agricultural building is roughly $2.02 milllion USD. This design will provide a building which

will fulfill all of the needs of the university, while remaining within the design norms discussed

earlier.

Due to the turbulent past of Cambodia, the country is currently in need of the education that was

purged from the people during the Pol Pot massacres. This building design is one of many

attempts currently underway to aid in the restoration and education of the country of Cambodia.

This building will also serve to glorify God while promoting His good word into a region of the

world where Christianity is scarce. This project has tremendous potential to do a lot of good for

many people.

8. Recommendations

There were many challenges that resulted from completing a design for a country several

thousand miles away. Many of the issues that arose as a result of the distance could have been

reduced or possibly eliminated by a site visit. Much of the site information such as soil bearing

capacity and exact elevation of the site had to be assumed because of the lack of specific

information. Thus, a site visit would have been very profitable to the project. Not only would it

make the design of the building more accurate but it would also reduce the final cost of the

building.

Another challenge that resulted from the distance was inconsistent communication with the

architechture students from HGU. The main form of communication for this project was email.

While attempts were made to use a internet phone service, such as Gizmo, this type of

communication was never utilized. Thus, in hindsight, this would have been very valuable to the

timely completion of our project.


One recommendation that Team 13 would make for the future construction of the building is to

make the building handicap-accessible. Currently, the architectural layout of the building

includes stairs at all entrances. As a result of this, it is not possible for those with physical

impairments to access the building. Since the architectural design was not within the scope of our

project, this issue was not addressed within our design. However, it is the recommendation of

Team 13 that this problem be addressed before the actual construction of the building.


9. Acknowledgements

As a team, we would like to acknowledge those who have helped us along the way. Your

expertise and assistance were invaluable to our project.

Handong Architecture Students (Netty and Billy) Professor Sang Ki Lee, Handong Global University Professor Hakchul Ezra Kim, Handong Global University Professor David Wunder, P.E., Team Advisor Professor Leonard P. De Rooy P.E., Project Consultant Roger Lamer, P.E., Industrial Consultant Pete VanDyk – for his help on the physical model JD Schaumberg – for landscape design assistance The members of Team 15 – for sharing valuable information


10. Resources

ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI318-02) and Commentary (ACI 318R-02). : , 2002.

ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary

(ACI318M-05): , 2005. "Cambodia." The World Factbook. 1 Nov. 2005. CIA. 21 Nov. 2005 <www.cia.gov>. Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute. CRSI Handbok 1992. 7 ed. Schaumburg: CRSI, 1992. Coutsoukis, Photius. "Cambodia Geography 2000." Cambodia. 2000. 21 Nov. 2005

<www.photius.com>. Fanella, David A., and Basile G. Rabbat, ed. Notes on ACI 318-02 Building Code Requirements For

Structural Concrete. 8 ed. Skokie: PCA, 2002. Kummu, Matti. "The Natural Environment and Historical Water Management of Angkor, Cambodia."

Department of Water Resources, Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland. 08 Dec. 2005 http://users.tkk.fi/~mkummu/publications/WAC5_paper_kummu.pdf.

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.. Wastewater Engineering. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1991. MacGregor, James G. Reinforced Concrete Mechanics and Design. 3 ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice

Hall, 1997. Packard, Robert T., ed. Architectural Graphic Standards. 7 ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1981. "Septic Tank - Soil Absorbtion Systems." Decentralized Systems Technology Fact Sheet. Sept 1999.

EPA. 7 Dec. 2005 <http://epa.gov>. "Siem Reap." Wikipedia. 21 Nov. 2005 <http://en.widipedia.org>. Spiegel, Leonard, and George F. Limbrunner. Reinforced Concrete Design. 5 ed. Upper Saddle River:

Prentice Hall, Inc., 2003. Takahashi, Yukio. "Country Study for Japan's ODA to the Kingdom of Cambodia." Section 7. The

Environment. 08 Dec. 2005 http://www.jica.go.jp/english/resources/publications/study/country/pdf/cambodia_15.pdf.

Wang, Chu-Kia, and Charles G. Salmon. Reinforced Concrete Design. 6 ed. New York: Addison

Wesley, 1998. White, P.F. . "The Soils Used for Rice Production in Cambodia." 1997. Cambodia-IRRI-Australia

Project. 08 Dec. 2005 http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/regionalSites/cambodia/docs/Soils%20Used%20In%20Cambodia.pdf.


www.cia.gov

www.photius.com

http://users.tkk.fi/%7Emkummu/publications/WAC5_paper_kummu.pdf

http://epa.gov/

http://en.widipedia.org/

http://www.jica.go.jp/english/resources/publications/study/country/pdf/cambodia_15.pdf

http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/regionalSites/cambodia/docs/Soils%20Used%20In%20Cambodia.pdf

http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/regionalSites/cambodia/docs/Soils%20Used%20In%20Cambodia.pdf

11. Appendices

A. Sample Calculations (For complete design calculations, please reference the Calculation Notebook)

A-1. Load Calculations

A-2. Slab Calculations

A-3. Beam Calculations

A-4. Girder Calculations

A-5. Column Calculations

A-6. Foundation Calculations

A-7. Land Development Calculations

B. Drawing Set

C. Project Schedule


A-1. Load Calculations

46

A-1. LOAD CALCULATIONS

1. Classification of Buildings and Other Structures for Flood, Wind, Snow, and Earthquake Loads

Classified as a Type III building:

Buildings and other structures that represent a substantial hazard to human life in the event of

failure inclusing, but not limited to:

> Buildings and other structures where more than 300 people congregate in one area

> Buildings and other structures with a capacity greater than 500 for colleges or adult education

facilities

While these standards are most likely higher than the actual requirements, because of limited information,

currently, we will design to meet this building type.

Tributary Length [m] = 10

2. Combinations of Loads

Load Values [kN/m2] Lower Roof [kN/m] Upper Roof [kN/m]

Dead Loads, D: 5.279 0.5279 0.5279

Earthquake Load, E: 0 0 0

0 0

0 0

Flood Load, Fa: 0 0 0

0 0

0 0

Live Load, L: 4.79 0.479 0.479

Roof Live Load, Lr: 0.576 0.0576 0.0576

Rain Load, R: 0.7448 0.07448 0.07448

Snow Load, S: 0 0 0

Self-straining force, T: 0 0 0

Wind load, W: 0.100 0.010015347 0.010015347

Basic Load Combinations:

1. 1.4(D+F) 7.3906 0.73906 0.73906

2. 1.2(D+F+T)+1.6(L+H)+0.5(Lr or S or R) 14.3712 1.43712 1.43712

3. 1.2D+1.6(Lr or S of R)+(0.5L or 0.8W) 7.60660278 0.760660278 0.760660278

4. 1.2D+1.6W +0.5L +0.5(Lr or S or R) 9.262445559 0.926244556 0.926244556

5. 1.2D+1.0E+0.5L+0.2S 8.7298 0.87298 0.87298

6. 0.9D+1.6W+1.6H 4.911345559 0.491134556 0.491134556

7. 0.9D+1.0E+1.6H 4.7511 0.47511 0.47511

Greatest Load Combination:

See following pages for calculations of above mentioned loads.

Load Calculations Using ASCE 7

Load due to fluids with well-defined pres.

and max heights F:

Load due to lateral earth pres., ground

water pres., or pres. of bulk materials, H:

0

0

47


DEAD LOADS:

Min Densities for Design LoadsMin Design Loads

[kN/m3] [kN/m

2]

Interior Walls

Wood Studs, 51 x 102, Plastered 2 Sides 0.96

Floor:

Concrete, reinforced (slag) 21.7

Thickness (m) 0.17 3.689

Misc:

Subflooring 0.14

Linoleum or Asphalt Tile 0.05

Drop Ceiling 0.1

Mechanical 0.24

Erroneous 0.1

TOTAL DEAD LOAD: 5.279

Roof: [kN/m2]

Asphalt shingles 0.3

1.5" metal deck (acoustical), 18 gage 0.14

2 layers 12 mm plywood 0.144

Mech/elect 0.2

Miscellaneous: 0.2

total roof: 0.984

Walls 3

Wall Thickness (m) 0.2

Linear DL from EXTERIOR Walls (kN/m) 0.6

48


LIVE LOADS:

Roof Live Loads: Lr=0.96*R1*R2 0.576 kN/m2

for A>55.74 m2 R1=.6 0.6

for F<4 R2=1 1

F 3.22

First tier W 51

L 45

W1 28.3

L1 22.3

At 1663.91 m2

Second tier W 30.3

L 24.3

W1 14

L1 7.8

At 627.09 m2

Interior Live Loads: Load, [kN/m2]

Laboratories: 4.79

Libraries: 2.87

Classrooms: 1.92

Offices: 2.4

Courtyard: 4.79

Conference Room: 4.79

Computer Room: 2.87

First Floor Corridors: 4.79

Second Floor Corridors: 3.83

Exterior Balconies: 4.79

Rest Rooms: 2.87

Live Load Element Factor, K LL

(would be used for live load reduction factor)

L=Lo(0.25+4.57/(KLLAT).5)

49


RAIN LOADS:

Design Storm: 180 mm/hr

A (largest drainage area, single drain): 232.815 [m2]

Q 0.023300 [m3/s]

dh (based on 152 mm drain): 76 [mm]

ds: 0 [mm]

R=0.0098*(ds+dh) 0.7448 [kN/m2]

WIND LOADS:Walls:

z Kz: qz [N/m2]:

0 0.85 153.40

6.1 0.9 162.42

7.6 0.94 169.64

9.1 0.98 176.86

12.2 1.04 187.69

13.1 1.06 191.30

h 10.6 m (mean roof height)

Kz: 1.009 Table 6.5

Kzt: 1 flat ground

V: 16 m/s

I: 1.15 Type III

windward, q=q z :

design wind pressure for windward wall, p: Exterior P (N/m2) Interior P1 (N/m

2) Interior P2 (N/m

2) Net P1 (N/m

2) Net P2 (N/m

2)

p0-4.6 104.310 100.153 -100.153 4.157 204.464

p6.1 110.446 100.153 -100.153 10.292 210.599

p7.6 115.355 100.153 -100.153 15.201 215.508

p9.1 120.263 100.153 -100.153 20.110 220.417

p12.2 127.626 100.153 -100.153 27.473 227.780

p13.1 130.081 100.153 -100.153 29.927 230.234

Exposure C

qh: 182.097 value at mean roof height

G: 0.85 for rigid structure

Cp: 0.8

GCpi for partially enclosed : 0.55 -0.55

Exterior P (N/m2) Interior P1 (N/m

2) Interior P2 (N/m

2) Net P1 (N/m

2) Net P2 (N/m

2)

design wind pressure for leeward wall, p: -77.391 100.153 -100.153 -177.545 22.762

Cp: -0.5

Exterior P (N/m2) Interior P1 (N/m

2) Interior P2 (N/m

2) Net P1 (N/m

2) Net P2 (N/m

2)

design wind pressure for side walls, p: -108.348 100.153 -100.153 -208.501 -8.194

Cp: -0.7

Roof: p, N/m2

p, N/m2

design wind pressure for windward roof, p: -177.545 22.762

h/L: 0.220833333

Cp: -0.5

q=qh

p, N/m2

p, N/m2

design wind pressure for leeward roof, p: -177.545 22.762

Cp: -0.5

q=qh

50

A-2. Slab Calculations

51

A-2. SLAB CALCULATIONS

1st and 2nd Floor Slab Design:

PSI kN/m2

CONVERSIONS:

fc'= 3500 24132 1 kN/m2= 0.145 psi

fy= 60000 413685 1 kN/m2= 20.886 psf

1 m= 3.280 ft

m ft

Span Length: 4.3 14.104

(1) Compute minimum h:

Clear Span: Ln= 12.854 ft

For 1 end continuous:

min h= L/24 6.427 in


min h= L/28 5.51 in

Assume:

h= 6.427 in

d= 5.427 in

(2) Calculate weight of slab & compute factored load

slab wght: 0.0803 kip/sq-ft

width: 12 inches

wD= 0.128 kpf

+ wL= 0.160 kpf (LL=4.79 kN/m2 or 100 psf)

= wU= 0.288 kpf unfact'd w: 0.207 kpf

unfact'd M: 4.2718

Since wL is less than three times wD, use the ACI moment coefficients to calculate moments:

(3) Compute Moment:

Check whether slab thickness chosen is adequate if ρ≤0.01

ω=ρ(fy/fc) = 0.171

φKn= 485.38

continuous over two or more spans:

pos. M Mu= wl2/14 discontinuous end integral with support.

3.401 ft-kips

neg. M Mu= wl2/10 at exterior face of first interior support

4.762 ft-kips

Max Moment: 4.76 ft-kips

52


Solve for bd2 based on max moment:

bd2= 117.727 in

3

Solve for d using b=12 in

d= 3.132 in

Is slab OK for flexure? YES

Since d=5.4 in exceeds this value, the slab will be OK for flexure.

(4) Check if thickness is adequate for shear:

Shear Reinforcement is required if Vu>φVc. (ACI 11.5.5.1a)

typical support: Vu=1.15*wu*ln/2

2130.14 lb/ft

φVc=.85(2√fcbd)

6549.74 lb/ft

Is Vu<φVc? YES

Since Vu<φVc, the slab chosen is adequate for shear.

(5) Reinforcement Ratio:

Reinforcement Ratio:ρt= 0.015805 (from table 6-1, supplement to ACI code)

Set Rein. Ratio: ρ= 0.007903 (half ρt)

(6) Coeff. Of Resistance: k-bar

Rn= 436.37 psi

(7) Calculate effective depth d:

Req'd d= 3.48 in

(8) Calculate Required Area of Steel for Flexural Reinforcement (neg. moment):

Assuming no. 5 bars:

cover (in)= 0.75

req'd h= 4.54 in

USE h= 6.427 in (for fire code)

AND d= 5.36 in

Req'd negative moment reinforcement:

Rn= 183.86 psi

ρ~ 0.0033

-As (min) = 0.138823 in2/ft (ACI 7.12)

-As (req'd) = ρbd = 0.21 in2/ft

REQ'D AS= 0.21

Select main steel (neg. moment):

Use No. 4 @ 11 in (As=0.22 in2/ft)

53


(9) Calculate Required Area of Steel for Flexural Reinforcement (pos. moment):

Req'd positive moment reinforcement:

Mu/φfcbd2= 0.0375

(use table 7-1)

ω~ 0.039

ρ= ωfc/fy = 0.002275

+As (req'd) = ρbd = 0.1465 in2/ft

Select main steel (pos. moment):

Use No. 4 @ 16 in (As=0.15 in2/ft)

(10) Shrink and Temperature Steel:

grade 60: As=.0018bh (ACI, 7.12.2.1, b)

0.139 in2

Select Shrink and Temperature Steel:

Use No. 4 @ 16 in (As=0.15 in2/ft)

(11) Main Steel > Temperature Steel

Is main steel greater than temperature steel?

YES

Slab design is adequate for all loadings

CALCULATED BY: KTA

CHECKED BY: BAJ

54


3rd Floor Slab Design:

PSI kN/m2

CONVERSIONS:

fc'= 3500 24132 1 kN/m2= 0.145 psi

fy= 60000 413685 1 kN/m2= 20.886 psf

1 m= 3.280 ft

m ft





min h= L/24 8.067 in


min h= L/28 6.91 in

Assume:

h= 8.067 in

d= 7.067 in


slab wght: 0.1008 kip/sq-ft

width: 12 inches

wD= 0.153 kpf

+ wL= 0.160 kpf (LL=4.79 kN/m2 or 100 psf)


unfact'd M: 7.3972

Since wL is less than three times wD, use the ACI moment coefficients to calculate moments:

(3) Compute Moment:


ω=ρ(fy/fc) = 0.171

φKn= 485.38



5.816 ft-kips


8.143 ft-kips


55



bd2= 201.305 in

3


d= 4.096 in


Since d=7 in exceeds this value, the slab will be OK for flexure.




2901.91 lb/ft

φVc=.85(2√fcbd)

8529.02 lb/ft

Is Vu<φVc? YES






Rn= 436.37 psi


Req'd d= 4.55 in



cover (in)= 0.75

req'd h= 5.62 in

USE h= 8.067 in

AND d= 7.00 in


Rn= 184.40 psi

ρ~ 0.0033

-As (min) = 0.174247 in2/ft (ACI 7.12)


REQ'D AS= 0.28


Use No. 4 @ 8 in (As=0.30 in2/ft)

56




Mu/φfcbd2= 0.0376

(use table 7-1)

ω~ 0.039

ρ= ωfc/fy = 0.002275

+As (req'd) = ρbd = 0.1912 in2/ft


Use No. 4 @ 12 in (As=0.20 in2/ft)


grade 60: As=.0018bh (ACI, 7.12.2.1, b)

0.174 in2


Use No. 4 @ 13 in (As=0.18 in2/ft)



YES

CALCULATED BY: KTA

CHECKED BY: BAJ

57


Roof Slab Design:(See ACI Code and MacGregor Concrete, P 388)

PSI kN/m2

CONVERSIONS:

fc'= 3500 24132 1 kN/m2= 0.145 psi

fy= 60000 413685 1 kN/m2= 20.886 psf

1 m= 3.280 ft

m ft





min h= L/24 7.6685 in


min h= L/28 6.57 in

Assume:

h= 7.67 in

d= 5.92 in


slab wght: 0.0959 kip/sq-ft WIND:

width: 12 inches kN/m2

psf kpf

0.3 6.266 0.006

wD= 0.123 kpf

+ wL= 0.010 kpf


unfact'd M: 3.1938

Since wL is not three times wD, use the ACI moment coefficients to calculate moments:

(3) Compute Moment:


ω=ρ(fy/fc) = 0.171

φKn= 485.38



2.232 ft-kips


3.125 ft-kips


58



bd2= 77.258 in

3


d= 2.537 in


Since d=5.92 in exceeds this value, the slab will be OK for flexure.




1171.59 lb/ft

φVc=.85(2√fcbd)

7142.90 lb/ft

Is Vu<φVc? YES






Rn= 436.37 psi


Req'd d= 2.82 in OK



cover (in)= 1.5 ACI 7.7.1b for concrete exposed to earth or weather

req'd h= 4.63 in (No. 5 bar and smaller)

USE h= 7.668 in (for fire code)

AND d= 5.86 in


Rn= 101.25 psi

ρ~ 0.0018

-As (min) = 0.166 in2/ft (ACI 7.12)


REQ'D= -As= 0.17 in2/ft


Use No. 4 @ 13 in (As=0.18 in2/ft)

59




Mu/φfcbd2= 0.0207

(use table 7-1)

ω~ 0.021

ρ= ωfc/fy = 0.001225

+As (req'd) = ρbd = 0.0861 in2/ft

REQ'D= +As= 0.17 in2/ft


Use No. 4 @ 13 in (As=0.18 in2/ft)


grade 60: As=.0018bh (ACI, 7.12.2.1, b)

0.166 in2


Use No. 4 @ 13 in (As=0.18 in2/ft)



YES

CALCULATED BY: KTA

CHECKED BY: BAJ

60

A-3. Beam Calculations

61

A-3. BEAM CALCULATIONS

Design of a Continuous T Beam (1-1):Using Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics & Design, MacGregor: pgs:396-413

PSI kN/m2

Conversions:

fc'= 3500 24132 1 kN/m2= 0.145 psi

fy= 60000 413685 1 kN/m2= 20.886 psf

1 m= 3.280 ft

m ft

Clear Span: 8.7 28.536

Trib. Width: 9.6 31.488

(1) Compute the Trial Factored Loads on the Beam:

a) Area of Influence over positive moment:

4.8.1 in ASCE 7-98: Can reduce live loads in design of members with AI ≥ 400 ft2

Dimensions:

span: 28.54 ft

width: 28.21 ft

AI= 804.94 ft2

Since the Area is greater than 400 ft2, can use a reduced live load:

L=Lo(.25+15/√(AI))

Lo= 100 psf

L= 77.87 psf

b) Area of Influence over negative moment:

Dimensions:

span: 57.07 ft

width: 28.21 ft

AI= 1609.89 ft2


L=Lo(.25+15/√(AI))

Lo= 100 psf

L= 62.38 psf

Use moment with smallest influence area:

use L= 62.38 psf

c) Loads:

Without the portion of the beam stem below the slab:

DL: 6.5 psf (extra)

20 psf (walls)

16.5 psf (beams)

81 psf (slab)

124 psf

LL: 62.38 psf (reduced)

wu= 1.2*DL+1.6*LL

wu= 248.6155 psf

Factored Load per Foot:

7828.40 lb/ft = 7.83 kips/ft

Estimation of weight of beam stem:

(1) Factored Load of stem approx. 10-20% of other factored loads

10% 0.783 kips/ft

20% 1.566 kips/ft

62


(2) Depth of beam: h ≈ 8-10% of ln and bw ≈ .5h

h= 28 - 34 in

bw= 18 - 17 in

0.525 kips/ft 0.611 kips/ft

ASSUME: 1.045 kips/ft

Total Trial Load Per Foot: 8.874 kips/ft

(2) Choose Actual Size of Beam:

a) ACI Table 9.5(a) (Table A-14)

min h ≈ l/18.5 18.510 in (one-end continuous)

b) Determine Minimum Depth:

(based on moment at first interior support)

Mom. ≈ wl2/10 274.30 ft-kips

ρ= 0.0169 (Table A-5)

From Table A-3:

φk= 609

Thus, bd2/12000=M/φk = 0.45

bd2= 5404.87

Possible Choices:

b= 13.51 in d= 20.0 in

b= 10.22 in d= 23.0 in

b= 12.13 in d= 21.1 in

Select last option:

h= 23.6 in

TRY a 12X24 with d=21.1 in

c) Check the Shear Capacity of the Stem:

Vu=φ(Vc+Vs)

From ACI 11.3.1.1, Vc=2√(fc)bwd, Vs=8√(fc)bwd

φ= 0.85

Vu=φ(2+8)*(√fcbwd)

Maximum Vu: 145.60 kips

Minimum bwd: 289.54 in

If bw = 12.12625 in

Then min d = 23.88 in

Shear governs.

(3) Compute the Dead Load of the Stem and Recompute the Total Load Per Foot:

Weight per ft of stem below slab = 0.204 kip/ft

Total factored load = 8.07 kips/ft

(4) Calculate the Flange Width for Positive Moment Region

(ACI 8.10.2)

The effective width of the flange is the smallest of:

63


1) 0.25*Ln 85.61 in

2) bw+2*(8*slab thickness) 116.13 in

3) bw+1/2 the clear distance 183.3 in

Effective width of flange: 85.61 in

(5) Compute the Moments and (6) Design Reinforcement

EE1 1st Span IE1 IE2 2nd Span EE2

Line

1. Mu (from STAAD) -206.27 253.12 -274.30 234.49 -157.53

2. As coefficient 0.0121 0.0118 0.0121 0.0118 0.0121

3. As(req'd), in2

2.48 2.80 3.30 2.60 1.90

4. As(min), in2

0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76

4. As > As(min), in2

YES YES YES YES YES

5. Bars Selected 3 #9 3 #9 3 #9 3 #9 2 #9

1 #6

6. As provided, in2

3.00 3.00 3.44 3.00 2.00

7. bw OK - YES - YES -

(7) Check the Distribution of the Reinforcement

a) Positive Moment Region

(Must satisfy ACI 10.6.3 & 10.6.4)

Check at section with the smallest # of positive moment bars - 3 #9 Bars

Diameter of Selected Bar 1.0 in

Centriod of Bar d c = 2.375 in

Area Per Bar = 19.20 in2

z = fs(dcA)1/3

= 128.61 kips/in

For interior exposure, z cannot exceed 175 kips/in

Bar Spacing Adequate

b) Negative Moment Region

Using 3 #9 and 1 #6 Bars


Area of Selected Bar 1 in2


Equivalent No. #9 Bars 3.44

Max Area = 47.10 in2

s = A/(2d c ) = 9.66

Thus within 47.1 in we must place 4 bars and they must not be spaced farther apart than 9.66 in

According to ACI 10.6.6 "part" of longitudinal reinforcement must be distributed over the effective flange

width or over (1/10)span, which ever is smaller. These will be in the slab (arbitrarily 5 in outside beam).

ACI 10.6.6 also requires "some" reinforcement in the slab outside this band. We shall assume that the

shrinkage and temperature steel will satisfy this requirement.

(8) Design the Shear Reinforcement

EE-1 IE-1 IE-2 EE-2

64


Line

1. Cv 1 0.15 1.15 1 0.089 1

2. Vu 35.64 5.35 -45.57 40.56 3.59 -32.09

3. Vn = Vu/φ, kip 39.60 5.94 50.64 45.07 3.99 35.66

a) Exterior End - 1

Vu/φ at d = 35.45 kips

ACI 11.5.5.1 requires stirrups if Vn ≥ Vc/2

Vc=2√fcbwd 30.29 kips

Vc/2= 15.15 kips

Is Vn>Vc/2? YES

Stirrups are Required

TRY - No. 3 Grade 40 double-leg stirrups with a 90o hook enclosing a No. 4 stirrup support bar.

fy= 40000 PSI

Maximum spacing is smaller of the following:

d/2= 10.56 in (ACI 11.5.4.1)

Av= 0.22

s=Avfy/(50bw) 14.51 in (ACI 11.5.5.3)

MAX spacing: 10.6 in

The spacing required to support the shear force is:

s= 36.0 in

Compute Vu/φ where s=36 in.

s= 36 in

Vu/φ = 35.45 kips

This occurs at: 21.11 in

Compute Vu/φ where s=10.6 in.

s= 10.6 in

Vu/φ = 47.82 kips

This occurs at: -41.78 in

At EE use No. 3 grade double-leg stirrups: 1 at 3 in. and 15 at 10.6 in. on centers.

b) Interior End - 1

Vu/φ = 45.12


s= 12.53 in


s= 12.53 in

65


Vu/φ = 45.12 kips



s= 10.6 in

Vu/φ = 47.82 kips



c) Interior End - 2

Vu/φ = 40.00


s= 19.13 in


s= 19.13 in

Vu/φ = 40.00 kips



s= 10.6 in

Vu/φ = 47.82 kips



d) Exterior End - 2

Vu/φ = 31.75


s= 127.29 in


s= 127.29 in

Vu/φ = 31.75 kips



s= 10.6 in

Vu/φ = 47.82 kips


66



(9) Check the Development Lengths and Design Bar Cutoff

a) Perform the Preliminary Calculations for Positive Moment

12d b (12 x bar diameter)

No. 6 = 0.75 in

12d b = 9 in

No. 9 = 1.128 in

12d b = 13.54 in

ln/16 = 21.40

Therefore, ln/16 always exceeds 12d b

b) Select Cutoffs for Positive Moment Steel in First Span

(end section)

Reinforcement for midspan is 3 #9

Flexural Cutoff 71.91 in. from exterior end (From Fig A-3 in MacGregor bk)

89.03 in. from interior end

ld/d = 50.7

ld for No. 6= 38.0

ld for No. 8= 57.2

Rule 1. Bar must extend 21.1 in. past flexural cutoff points

Exterior Cutoff 50.80 in. from exterior end

Interior Cutoff 67.92 in. from interior end

Rule 2. Distance from midspan on exterior end 120.42

Distance from midspan on interior end 103.30

Rule 3. One-fourth of bars must hook into support at A and lapped spliced at D

2 #9 will have 90o hooks and lap splices at supports (girders)

Rule 2. Bars must extend ld past the actual cutoff points of adjacent bars.

Are rule 1 numbers greater than ld?

YES

Rule 4. At positive moment points of inflection, the bars must satisfy the following:

ld≤Mn/Vu+la

Pos. Moment Inflection Points: 0.098ln = 33.56 in from exterior end

(from fig. A-3) 0.146ln = 50.00 in from interior end

At these pts, have 2 #9

Area of one Bar: 1.00 in

Mn = 2503.4 in-kips

Check at the exterior end.

Vu/φ = 33.01 kips

67


la= smaller of actual extension, that exceeds 33.56 in, or d or 12 db

la= 21.11

Therefore,

Mn/Vu+la = 105.39 OK

c) Select Cutoffs for Positive Moment Steel in Second Span

Selected Bars for Span: 3 #9

Run 2 #9 Bars into the support and cutoff the remaining #9 bars

Area of 2 Bars: 2 in2

As, Remaining: 0.33 times the original

.215ln = 73.62 in from face of support

Rule 1. Bar must extend d past flexural cutoff point



Rule 2. Distance from midspan on exterior end 118.71 in

Distance from midspan on interior end 118.71 in

Rule 3. Must lap splice the bars a length of ld = 57.2


ld≤Mn/Vu+la

Positive moment points for inflection are .146*ln from the supports

.146*ln = 50.00 in from exterior end



Mn = 2503.4 in-kips


Vu/φ = 33.07 kips


21.1

Therefore,


d) Perform the Preliminary Calculations for Negative Moment

(ACI 12-5)

No. 6 = 0.75 in

12d b = 9 in

lbh = 15.21 x 0.7 = 10.65

No. 9 = 1.128 in

12d b = 13.536 in

lbh = 22.88 x 0.7 = 16.02

These can be multiplied by .7 since the side cover exceeds 25 in.

68


e) Select Cutoffs the Negative Moment Steel at the Exterior End


Extend all bars past the negative moment point of inflection

.108ln = 36.98 in (Fig. A-3)

Rule 6. One-third of bars must extend the longer of d, 12db, or ln/16 past the point of inflection

Cutoff at 58.4 in. from the face of the support

Rule 2. Bars must extend ld from the face of the support

38.03 in. OK

f) Select Cutoffs for the Negative Moment Steel at Interior End - 1

Selected Bars for Span: 3 #9 1 #6

Cutoff 2 #9 and 1 #6 bars when no longer needed and extend 2 #9 bar .67As past the negative moment point of inflection


.065ln = 22.26 in (MacGregor Fig. A-3)

Rule 1. Bar must extend 43.4 in. from the face of the support


57.20 in. OK

Cutoff 2 #9 bars 57.20 in. from exterior face of support

Extend remaining bars entire length of beam

.224ln = 76.70 in


Cutoff at 97.8 in. from the face of the support OK

Rule 2. Bars must extend ld past actual cutoff

40.62 in. NO

Cutoff bars at 114.4 in. from exterior face of support

g) Select Cutoffs for the Negative Moment Steel at Interior End - 2


Extend 2 #9 bars the entire length of the beam


Rule 6. Bars must extend the longer of d, 12db, or ln/16 past the point of inflection



64.52 in. OK

Cutoff bars at 103.6 in. from the face of the support

CALCULATED BY: BAJ

CHECKED BY: KTA

69

A-4. Girder Calculations

70

A-4. GIRDER CALCULATIONS

Design of a Continuous T Beam (1-1):Using Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics & Design, MacGregor: pgs:396-413

PSI kN/m2

Conversions:

fc'= 3500 24132 1 kN/m2= 0.145 psi

fy= 60000 413685 1 kN/m2= 20.886 psf

1 m= 3.280 ft

m ft

Clear Span: 8.7 28.536

Trib. Width: 9.6 31.488

(1) Compute the Trial Factored Loads on the Beam:

a) Area of Influence over positive moment:

4.8.1 in ASCE 7-98: Can reduce live loads in design of members with AI ≥ 400 ft2

Dimensions:

span: 28.54 ft

width: 28.21 ft

AI= 804.94 ft2


L=Lo(.25+15/√(AI))

Lo= 100 psf

L= 77.87 psf

b) Area of Influence over negative moment:

Dimensions:

span: 57.07 ft

width: 28.21 ft

AI= 1609.89 ft2


L=Lo(.25+15/√(AI))

Lo= 100 psf

L= 62.38 psf

Use moment with smallest influence area:

use L= 62.38 psf

c) Loads:

Without the portion of the beam stem below the slab:

DL: 6.5 psf (extra)

20 psf (walls)

16.5 psf (beams)

81 psf (slab)

124 psf

LL: 62.38 psf (reduced)

wu= 1.2*DL+1.6*LL

wu= 248.6155 psf

Factored Load per Foot:

7828.40 lb/ft = 7.83 kips/ft

Estimation of weight of beam stem:

(1) Factored Load of stem approx. 10-20% of other factored loads

10% 0.783 kips/ft

20% 1.566 kips/ft

71


(2) Depth of beam: h ≈ 8-10% of ln and bw ≈ .5h

h= 28 - 34 in

bw= 18 - 17 in

0.525 kips/ft 0.611 kips/ft

ASSUME: 1.045 kips/ft

Total Trial Load Per Foot: 8.874 kips/ft

(2) Choose Actual Size of Beam:

a) ACI Table 9.5(a) (Table A-14)

min h ≈ l/18.5 18.510 in (one-end continuous)

b) Determine Minimum Depth:

(based on moment at first interior support)

Mom. ≈ wl2/10 274.30 ft-kips

ρ= 0.0169 (Table A-5)

From Table A-3:

φk= 609

Thus, bd2/12000=M/φk = 0.45

bd2= 5404.87

Possible Choices:

b= 13.51 in d= 20.0 in

b= 10.22 in d= 23.0 in

b= 12.13 in d= 21.1 in

Select last option:

h= 23.6 in

TRY a 12X24 with d=21.1 in

c) Check the Shear Capacity of the Stem:

Vu=φ(Vc+Vs)

From ACI 11.3.1.1, Vc=2√(fc)bwd, Vs=8√(fc)bwd

φ= 0.85

Vu=φ(2+8)*(√fcbwd)

Maximum Vu: 145.60 kips

Minimum bwd: 289.54 in

If bw = 12.12625 in

Then min d = 23.88 in

Shear governs.

(3) Compute the Dead Load of the Stem and Recompute the Total Load Per Foot:

Weight per ft of stem below slab = 0.204 kip/ft

Total factored load = 8.07 kips/ft

(4) Calculate the Flange Width for Positive Moment Region

(ACI 8.10.2)

The effective width of the flange is the smallest of:

72


1) 0.25*Ln 85.61 in

2) bw+2*(8*slab thickness) 116.13 in

3) bw+1/2 the clear distance 183.3 in

Effective width of flange: 85.61 in

(5) Compute the Moments and (6) Design Reinforcement

EE1 1st Span IE1 IE2 2nd Span EE2

Line

1. Mu (from STAAD) -206.27 253.12 -274.30 234.49 -157.53

2. As coefficient 0.0121 0.0118 0.0121 0.0118 0.0121

3. As(req'd), in2

2.48 2.80 3.30 2.60 1.90

4. As(min), in2

0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76

4. As > As(min), in2

YES YES YES YES YES

5. Bars Selected 3 #9 3 #9 3 #9 3 #9 2 #9

1 #6

6. As provided, in2

3.00 3.00 3.44 3.00 2.00

7. bw OK - YES - YES -

(7) Check the Distribution of the Reinforcement

a) Positive Moment Region

(Must satisfy ACI 10.6.3 & 10.6.4)

Check at section with the smallest # of positive moment bars - 3 #9 Bars



Area Per Bar = 19.20 in2

z = fs(dcA)1/3

= 128.61 kips/in

For interior exposure, z cannot exceed 175 kips/in

Bar Spacing Adequate

b) Negative Moment Region

Using 3 #9 and 1 #6 Bars


Area of Selected Bar 1 in2


Equivalent No. #9 Bars 3.44

Max Area = 47.10 in2

s = A/(2d c ) = 9.66

Thus within 47.1 in we must place 4 bars and they must not be spaced farther apart than 9.66 in

According to ACI 10.6.6 "part" of longitudinal reinforcement must be distributed over the effective flange

width or over (1/10)span, which ever is smaller. These will be in the slab (arbitrarily 5 in outside beam).

ACI 10.6.6 also requires "some" reinforcement in the slab outside this band. We shall assume that the

shrinkage and temperature steel will satisfy this requirement.

(8) Design the Shear Reinforcement

EE-1 IE-1 IE-2 EE-2

73


Line

1. Cv 1 0.15 1.15 1 0.089 1

2. Vu 35.64 5.35 -45.57 40.56 3.59 -32.09

3. Vn = Vu/φ, kip 39.60 5.94 50.64 45.07 3.99 35.66

a) Exterior End - 1

Vu/φ at d = 35.45 kips

ACI 11.5.5.1 requires stirrups if Vn ≥ Vc/2

Vc=2√fcbwd 30.29 kips

Vc/2= 15.15 kips

Is Vn>Vc/2? YES

Stirrups are Required

TRY - No. 3 Grade 40 double-leg stirrups with a 90o hook enclosing a No. 4 stirrup support bar.

fy= 40000 PSI

Maximum spacing is smaller of the following:

d/2= 10.56 in (ACI 11.5.4.1)

Av= 0.22

s=Avfy/(50bw) 14.51 in (ACI 11.5.5.3)

MAX spacing: 10.6 in


s= 36.0 in

Compute Vu/φ where s=36 in.

s= 36 in

Vu/φ = 35.45 kips



s= 10.6 in

Vu/φ = 47.82 kips



b) Interior End - 1

Vu/φ = 45.12


s= 12.53 in


s= 12.53 in

74


Vu/φ = 45.12 kips



s= 10.6 in

Vu/φ = 47.82 kips



c) Interior End - 2

Vu/φ = 40.00


s= 19.13 in


s= 19.13 in

Vu/φ = 40.00 kips



s= 10.6 in

Vu/φ = 47.82 kips



d) Exterior End - 2

Vu/φ = 31.75


s= 127.29 in


s= 127.29 in

Vu/φ = 31.75 kips



s= 10.6 in

Vu/φ = 47.82 kips


75



(9) Check the Development Lengths and Design Bar Cutoff

a) Perform the Preliminary Calculations for Positive Moment

12d b (12 x bar diameter)

No. 6 = 0.75 in

12d b = 9 in

No. 9 = 1.128 in

12d b = 13.54 in

ln/16 = 21.40

Therefore, ln/16 always exceeds 12d b

b) Select Cutoffs for Positive Moment Steel in First Span

(end section)

Reinforcement for midspan is 3 #9

Flexural Cutoff 71.91 in. from exterior end (From Fig A-3 in MacGregor bk)

89.03 in. from interior end

ld/d = 50.7

ld for No. 6= 38.0

ld for No. 8= 57.2

Rule 1. Bar must extend 21.1 in. past flexural cutoff points



Rule 2. Distance from midspan on exterior end 120.42

Distance from midspan on interior end 103.30

Rule 3. One-fourth of bars must hook into support at A and lapped spliced at D

2 #9 will have 90o hooks and lap splices at supports (girders)

Rule 2. Bars must extend ld past the actual cutoff points of adjacent bars.

Are rule 1 numbers greater than ld?

YES


ld≤Mn/Vu+la

Pos. Moment Inflection Points: 0.098ln = 33.56 in from exterior end

(from fig. A-3) 0.146ln = 50.00 in from interior end



Mn = 2503.4 in-kips


Vu/φ = 33.01 kips

76



la= 21.11

Therefore,


c) Select Cutoffs for Positive Moment Steel in Second Span


Run 2 #9 Bars into the support and cutoff the remaining #9 bars

Area of 2 Bars: 2 in2

As, Remaining: 0.33 times the original

.215ln = 73.62 in from face of support

Rule 1. Bar must extend d past flexural cutoff point



Rule 2. Distance from midspan on exterior end 118.71 in

Distance from midspan on interior end 118.71 in

Rule 3. Must lap splice the bars a length of ld = 57.2


ld≤Mn/Vu+la

Positive moment points for inflection are .146*ln from the supports

.146*ln = 50.00 in from exterior end



Mn = 2503.4 in-kips


Vu/φ = 33.07 kips


21.1

Therefore,


d) Perform the Preliminary Calculations for Negative Moment

(ACI 12-5)

No. 6 = 0.75 in

12d b = 9 in

lbh = 15.21 x 0.7 = 10.65

No. 9 = 1.128 in

12d b = 13.536 in

lbh = 22.88 x 0.7 = 16.02

These can be multiplied by .7 since the side cover exceeds 25 in.

77


e) Select Cutoffs the Negative Moment Steel at the Exterior End



.108ln = 36.98 in (Fig. A-3)




38.03 in. OK

f) Select Cutoffs for the Negative Moment Steel at Interior End - 1


Cutoff 2 #9 and 1 #6 bars when no longer needed and extend 2 #9 bar .67As past the negative moment point of inflection



Rule 1. Bar must extend 43.4 in. from the face of the support


57.20 in. OK

Cutoff 2 #9 bars 57.20 in. from exterior face of support

Extend remaining bars entire length of beam

.224ln = 76.70 in


Cutoff at 97.8 in. from the face of the support OK

Rule 2. Bars must extend ld past actual cutoff

40.62 in. NO

Cutoff bars at 114.4 in. from exterior face of support

g) Select Cutoffs for the Negative Moment Steel at Interior End - 2


Extend 2 #9 bars the entire length of the beam


Rule 6. Bars must extend the longer of d, 12db, or ln/16 past the point of inflection



64.52 in. OK

Cutoff bars at 103.6 in. from the face of the support

CALCULATED BY: BAJ

CHECKED BY: KTA

78

A-5. Column Calculations

79

A-5. COLUMN CALCULATIONS

Support Interior Column Design TableFollowing Example 11-1 in Reinforced Concrete Mechanics and Materials

f'c [ksi] 3.5

fy [ksi] 60

Es [ksi] 29000

φ 0.65

Tie dia [in] 0.38

Number of Bars 4

Bar # #8

b [in] 21.26 540

h [in] 21.26 540

As2 [in2] 3.16

As1 [in2] 3.16

ρt 0.014

L [ft] 13.78 4.20

Cover [in] 1.50 Interaction Diagram Curve Data

d [in] 19.76

d' [in] 2.38 Mn [ft*kips] Pn [kips] Mn [kN*m] Pn [kN]

dt [in] 18.88 0.00 1705.04 0.00 7584.38

β1 0.8 563.16 583.02 763.53 2593.42

εy 0.00207 420.39 395.26 569.97 1758.20

εu 0.003 331.66 200.19 449.66 890.50

0.00 -379.20 0.00 -1686.77

1.Concentric Axial Load Capacity and Maximum Axial Load Capacity

φMn [ft*kips] φPn [kips] φMn [kN*m] φPn [kN]

P0 [kips] 1705.04 0.00 1193.53 0.00 5309.06

φ 0.70 394.21 408.12 534.47 1815.39

φP0 [kips] 1193.53 353.71 332.56 479.56 1479.31

φPn,max [kips] 954.82 298.49 180.17 404.69 801.45

φPn,max [kN] 4247.25 0.00 -341.28 0.00 -1518.09

2. Compute φP n and φM n for the General Case Mn [ft*kips] φPn,max [kips] Mn [kN*m] φPn,max [kN]

0 954.82 0.00 4247.25

3. Compute φP n and φM n for the Balanced Failure (ε s1 = - ε y ) 100 954.82 135.58 4247.25

c [in] 11.18 200 954.82 271.16 4247.25

εs2 0.00236 300 954.82 406.74 4247.25

εs1 -0.00207 400 954.82 542.32 4247.25

fs2 [ksi] 68.51

a [in] 8.94

Cc [kips] 565.5

Fs1 [kips] -189.60

Fs2 [kips] 207.10

Pn [kips] 583.02

Mn [ft*kips] 563.16

φPn [kips] 408.11611

φMn [ft*kips] 394.21

4. Compute φP n and φM n for Z= -2

c [in] 7.94

εs2 0.00210

εs1 -0.00414

fs2 [ksi] 60.97

a [in] 6.35

Cc [kips] 401.6

Fs1 [kips] -189.60

Fs2 [kips] 183.26

Pn [kips] 395.26

Mn [ft*kips] 420.39

φ 0.8413793

φPn [kips] 332.56


h d

b

d'

dt

80

A-5. COLUMN CALCULATIONS

5. Compute φP n and φM n for Z= -4

c [in] 5.02

εs2 0.00158

εs1 -0.00828

fs2 [ksi] 45.88

a [in] 4.02

Cc [kips] 254.2

Fs1 [kips] -189.60

Fs2 [kips] 135.57

Pn [kips] 200.19

Mn [ft*kips] 331.66

φ 0.9

φPn [kips] 180.17


6. Compute the Capacity in Axial Tension

Pnt [kips] -379.2

φ 0.9

φPnt [kips] -341.28

Slenderness test

k 1.2

M1 [kN*m] 99.9

M2 [kN*m] 220.9

Slender Colum? Yes *ACI 10.11.2

Design the lap splices

Column w/ max Pn 2.2

Pn [kN] 3831.371

Column w/ max Mn 3.4

Mn [kN*m] 220.891

Pn [kips] 861.33

Mn [ft*kips] 162.92

Pu / bh 1.239 *check Figs. A-6 and A-7 for stress in bars adjacent to the tension face

Mu / bh2

0.011 *check ACI Sec 12.17.2.2 and 12.17.2.3 to see if splice is Class A or Class B

Stress in bars 0.2 *check ACI Sec. 12.17.2.2, stress must be less then 0.5f y

α 1.00 *obtained from ACI Sec 12.2.4

β 1.00

λ 1.00

ld [in] 50.709 *we will assume that all of the bars are spliced at the same location

1.3ld [in] 65.922 *if this approaches half of column height then reduce reinforcing size and inc. number of bars

1.3ld [m] 1.675

Select the ties

Selected tie diameter 3 *if the bar is smaller then a #10 then the smallest tie that can be used is a #3

Condition #1 [in] 16 *16 logitudinal bar diameters

Condition #2 [in] 18 *48 tie diameters

Condition #3 [in] 21 *least dimension of the column

Required spacing [in] 16 *the required spacing is the smallest of the previous conditions

Required spacing [m] 0.407

CALCULATED BY: JAL

CHECKED BY: KLS

81

A-6. Foundation Calculations

82

A-6. FOUNDATION CALCULATIONS

Design for Base Area of Footing (F0.1)Service DL [kips] 0

Service LL [kips] 0

Service Surcharge [ksf] 0.1

Allowed Soil Pressure [ksf] 2

Column Dimesion [in] 18.11 460

Depth [ft] 3

Strength of Concrete [kips] 3.5

Strength of Steel [kips] 60

Determin Base Area

Af [ft2] 262 24.36

Min Square Footing Side Length [ft] 16.20 4.938

Design Square Footing Side Length [ft] 16.21 4.940

Factored Loads and Soil Reaction

Pu [kips] 395.87 1761

qs [ksf] 1.51

Design for Depth of Footing

f'c [psi] 3500

Pu [kips] 395.87

qs [ksf] 1.51

Assumptions

Footing Thickness [in] 23.62 0.6

Average Effective Thickness, d [in] 17.72 0.45 Assume a .15m difference between Footing Thickness

and Average Effective Thickness

Wide Beam Action

bw [ft] 16.2

Trib. Area [ft2] 95.2

Vu [kips] 143

Φ 0.75

ΦVn [kips] 306 OK

Two-way Action

Trib. Area [ft2] 253.8

Vu [kips] 382

bo [in] 143.3 40 for interior columns

βc 1.5 30 for edge columns

bo / d 8.09 20 for corner columns

αs 40

2 + 4 / βc 4.651113468

(αs*d) / bo + 2 6.95

4 4

Governing Value [min] 4

ΦVc [kips] 451 OK

Design for Footing Reinforcement

Critical section for moment on face of column

Mu [ft-kips] 659.63

f'c [psi] 3500

fy [psi] 60000

Compute required A s assuming tension-controlled section

Φ 0.9

Rn [psi] 144.08

Avg. Weight of Soil & Conc. Above Footing Base

[kcf]0.13

L

Depth

Surcharge

P

d

v v v v v v v v v v v

83


ρ 0.0025

p (gross area) 0.00185

ρmin 0.0018 OK

As [in2] 11.46

Chosen As [in2] 11.78

No. Bars 15

Diameter of Bars [in] 1

Check net tensile strain

a 1.22

β1 0.85

c 1.44

εt 0.034

Check development of reinforcement

Clear cover (bott. and side) [in] 3

Center-to-center bar spacing [in] 13.4

Clear cover + bar dia. 3.5

Bar spacing / 2 6.7

c (Governing Value [min]) 3.5

Ktr 0 0 no transverse reinforcement

(c + Ktr) / db 3.50

2.50 <- use 2.5 if ((c + Ktr) / db) > 2.5

α 1 =1.0 if less than 12" concrete below bars

β 1 =1.0 for uncoated reinforcement

αβ 1 OK

γ 1 =1.0 if larger than No. 7 bars

λ 1 =1.0 for normal weight concrete

ld [in] 30.4 OK

Max. available for development 85.19129449 OK

Design for Transfer of Force at Base of Column

f'c (column) [psi] 3500

f'c (footing) [psi] 3500

fy [psi] 60000

Pu [kips] 395.8728

ΦPnb [kips] 633.9079079 OK

Bearing Strength Increase Factor

A1 [in2] 327.8127514

A2 [in2] 12677.36132

sqrt(A2/A1) 6.218727299

if ^ greater than 2, use 2 2

ΦPnb [kips] 1267.815816 OK

Required dowel bars btw column and footing

As (min) [in2] 1.64

Chosen As [in2] 1.77

No. Bars 4

Diameter of Bars [in] 0.750

In Column

ldc [in] 15.21 Governs

ldc (min) 13.5

In Footing

ldc [in] 15.21 Governs

ldc (min) 13.5

Available length for development in footing

Tension controlled, assumption OK

84


17.87 OK

Dimensions m

A 4.94

B 0.34

C 0.0762

D 0.60

E 0.486

F 0.511

G 0.39

H

CALCULATED BY: AJL

CHECKED BY: JAL

85

A-7. Land Development Calculation

86

A-7. LAND DEVELOPMENT CALCULATIONS

Using Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse By Metcale and Eddy, Inc

Septic Tank Sizing:

Using pg 19, Table 2-4

User Unit Range Typical

School, day

w/o cafeteria or gym

To size the septic tank, the typical value of 10 gal/student*day was chosen.

At this point, the exact occupancy of the proposed building is unknown.

Currently, the septic tanks will be designed for use by 100 students.

Total water-use value:

100 students @ 10 gal/student*day = 1000 gal/day

For an average retention time in the tank of 5 days, the septic tanks will

need to be able to hold a total of 5000 gals

In order to account for redundancy, several tanks will be chosen instead of

one large tank.

Design for: 2 tanks 3000 gal

This will be able to hold 6000 gals. This accounts for present needs,

contingency, and room for expansion.

3000 gals = 11.356 m3

CALCULATED BY: KTA

CHECKED BY: KLS

Disposal Field For Septic Tank Effluent Design:

Given the average daily flowrate and septic tank volume calculated above, the

average detention time in the septic tank at peak flow is calculated as follows:

*Assume 30% of the volume is lost because of sludge and scum accumulations

*Daily peaking factor of 3 is used based on average flow

Detention Time = [(Septic Tank Volume)*(0.30)]/[(Peaking Factor)*(Daily Flow)]

Detention Time = 1.4 days (min of 0.5; ok)

*Assume maximum trench depth and width to be 5 ft. and 1 ft.m, respectively

*Assume maximum depth in trenches below the distribution pipe is 4 ft.

*Allowable hydraulic loading rate of 0.3 gal/ft^2*d assumed (from Table 14-13)

Sanitary Sewer System Calculations:

Flow, gal/unit*d

5-15 10student

87

A-7. LAND DEVELOPMENT CALCULATIONS

Percolation Capacity = 2.4 gal/ft. of trench

Required Trench Length = Daily Flow/Percolation Capacity

Trench Length = 417 ft. (use 130 m)

*Since 140m is quite long, divide trench into shorter sections; use 4 separate

trenches, each 35 meters in length.

CALCULATED BY: KLS

CHECKED BY: KTA

88

B. Drawing Set

89

C. Project Schedule

Date post:	14-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	rajendra-kamble
View:	10 times
Download:	1 times

13-FinalReport.pdf

Documents