You are on page 1of 25

Advanced Structural Design

Parking Facility Capstone Design Project 2

Group 3: Kevin Gabrielson, Nick Knepp, Chris Lazration, Kyle Terry Spring 2014

Table of Contents
Section page number

1. Introduction and Problem Statement ............................................................................. 2 2. Facility General Layout, Traffic Flow, and Space Allocation ........................................... 3 3. Facility Elevations and Aesthetic Design ......................................................................... 5 4. Structural Framing Plan and MWFRS .............................................................................. 8 5. Foundation Plan ............................................................................................................ 10 6. Load Estimates .............................................................................................................. 12 7. Main Wind Force Resisting System Wind Loads ........................................................... 13 8. Deck Member Design (Double T) .................................................................................. 15 9. Interior Girder Design ................................................................................................... 17 10. Shear Wall Design ....................................................................................................... 20 11. Summary and Conclusions .......................................................................................... 22 Appendix Map of Garage Location ................................................................................ 25

Introduction and Problem Statement

This project is the design of a parking facility on the corner of Bellevue Street and Mack Avenue in Detroit, Michigan. It is being constructed to provide parking for employees working at the Nissan Motors Co. facility located across the street. The parking deck will be made primarily of precast and prestressed concrete. The dimensions of the parking deck are 180x384 with 5 stories. The problem statement is to design a parking deck that accommodates at least 1,000 passenger vehicles on a lot sized at approximately 215x500. The facility must be entirely designed which includes the layout, traffic flow, parking spaces, elevations, member design, foundation plan, and MWFRS. The facility must be energy neutral meaning all required power must be generated on site. There also has to be considerations for the aesthetic design of the structure. The design must adhere to these constraints as well as specifications from ASCE 7 for loading and ACI for concrete member design. A major design change came after the first submission. The span limit of IT and L beams was not known when the initial layout was designed. For this reason, additional columns had to be placed just 12-0 away from exterior columns on the short dimension of the facility to reduce the span of these beams to below their upper limits. This was changed by making the column spacing in the long direction a consistent 48-0, including the end sections, where it was 60-0. This reduced the number of beams and columns needed to be designed while also keeping the number of spaces above 1,000.

General Facility Layout, Traffic Flow, and Space Allocation

The layout of the facility was developed with the goals of maneuverability, accessibility, and simplicity in mind for the people using it. The facility also needed to be designed with the structural framing plan in mind so excessive structural design problems wont arise. For the conceptual design, PCI Parking Structures: Recommended Practice for Design and Construction was referenced frequently for parking space size, ramp layout, entrance and exit locations, etc. Given that this parking facility is being constructed primarily (but not exclusively) for the Nissan Motor Co. Facility across the street, preference was given to their employees when considering handicap parking space location and stair and elevator locations.

The conceptual design of the facility began with the ground floor layout. Considerations for the entrance and exit locations followed the PCI Parking Structures: Recommended Practice for Design and Construction recommendations of not having these entrances and exits within 100 of an intersection. The two primary entrances (one for each direction of traffic) are on Mack Ave because it has a higher volume of traffic than Bellevue Street. An exit and additional entrance are provided on Bellevue Street. The facility is set back approximately 61 from Mack Ave so that vehicles can turn into the facility without disrupting traffic while waiting to enter/receive tickets for the facility. It is setback 25 from Bellevue Street because less space is needed for the exit, and the entrance on this side is not the primary one. These setbacks provide ample space for the foundation and for construction. The handicap spaces are all located on the ground floor near the entrance so handicap people do not have to travel as far to exit the facility. There is a staircase and elevator located at the north-east corner and south-east corner of the facility. The north-east corner was picked for several reasons: this corner is setback from the road already (providing enough room), it is close to the Nissan Motor Co. Facility (priority given to these employees), and it is close to an intersection, allowing people to cross at traffic lights and head in any direction they need. The south-east corner is on the opposite side of the facilitys long dimension and also has access to the street. The ground floor layout was designed concurrently with the overall layout in consideration. For the layout a 4 bay, side by side layout with one way traffic was utilized. This layout was picked because the ramp is aligned with the long dimension of the lot and it allows for easy utilization of the ground floor. One way traffic is preferred for parking decks in which a high volume of vehicles enter and/or exit around the same time (such as people going to and leaving work at the same time). The ramps are all 288-0 long (horizontal) and the grades are 3.53% from the first (ground) to second floor, and 3.47% for all the other ramps. The first ramp is steeper because the first floor requires a greater height to meet 4

requirements for handicap van height. The ramps end at the interior columns 2C, 2I, 3C, and 3I.To account for finished floor to ceiling height, a beam depth (double T) of 30 was estimated. Each ramp is 58-0 wide (24 isle, and (2) 17 parking spaces). The ramps are located directly in the middle of the structure, with equal distances to the exterior walls on opposite sides. 90 degree parking spaces were used and they are arranged on every wall (interior, exterior, and both sides of ramp). Each parking space is 8-6 wide (center to center) and 17-0 long, per PCI recommendations. Although 90 degree parking is not recommended for one way traffic flow, an isle width of 24 is used, which makes it easier to pull into and exit these spaces. Using this layout for spaces, there are a total of 1,133 parking spaces available. The breakdown is 180 spaces per floor (not including ground floor) and 68 spaces per ramp (34 on each side). The ground floor has only 122 spaces because the entrance and exit areas take up additional spaces. Parking spots obviously could not be located in the corners because they would overlap (another reason the stairs and elevator are located here).

Facility Elevations, Exterior Wall Sections, and Aesthetic Design

This section was a logical next step stemming from the overall layout. The elevations were after the depths of beams had been estimated. The PCI Parking Structures: Recommended Practice for Design and Construction was again referenced throughout the decision making process and the PCI Design Handbook was used in the estimation of beam depths. Exterior wall sections were developed concurrently with the structural framing plan. For aesthetic design surrounding buildings were observed.

The elevations were determined by using the required floor to ceiling height and adding the estimated beam depth to it. Beam height estimations were developed based on information from the PCI Design Handbook using the spans and loads each beam has. The first floor has a higher height requirement because it must allow access for handicap vans. Each upper level floor is identical in dimensions and height because their floor plans are identical. There is a roof on the top floor for a few reasons: It eliminates the potential for snow to inhibit parking on the top floor and it provides space for the solar panels (which will be used to keep the site energy neutral). Initial estimates for beam depth were low but later adjusted. These adjustments could be made without major consequence at this stage because the grade of the ramp is variable and was adjusted as needed. The exterior wall sections consist of a double tee or inverted tee framing into L shaped exterior girders. On top of the L shaped girder is an exterior spandrel. These L shaped girders frame into columns that distribute the force to the foundation. The shear walls were placed approximately at midspan of the walls on the sides of the building that do not face the street to keep the building more aesthetically pleasing. For aesthetic design a brick faade was used. This is a classic look and it matches the faade of the office building across the street.

Structural Framing Plan

The framing plan was already in mind when designing the elevations and general layout. Here, it all came together and was fully developed. The PCI Parking Structures: Recommended Practice for Design and Construction was referenced for suggested practices and design considerations to avoid. ACI 318-11 and PCI Design Handbook were also referenced for estimating the size of structural members.

For the framing plan a module of 12-0 was used. Columns were spaced 48-0 on the interior of the long direction, 60-0 at the edges, and 60-0 in the short direction. Because PCI only specifies inverted tee beams and L shaped beams up to 50-0 additional columns had to be added between the end of the ramp and the closest wall. These columns were 12-0 set in from the edge and reduces the span length to 48-0 for the inverted tee beams and L beams for this section. After further inspection, the 12 intermediate columns were removed and the walls were brought in. This reduced the number of spots present in the structure but wasnt a factor because the number of spots still exceeded the minimum. The primary beam type used to support live load was the double tee. There are 2 predominant and 5 total DT beams used for the upper level floors. Their spans were all close (60-0 1-0) because isle and park space length were the same on ramps and floors. Their widths vary, but range from 11-0 to 14-2. Then L shape beams were used to support these DT beams at walls and along the ramp. The web of the DT beam sits on the leg of the L beam. These L beams also support the exterior spandrels that sit above them. The L beams frame into columns that distribute the force to the foundation. Inverted tee shaped girders, ITs, were required at the end of the ramps to support the DTs beyond the ramp. The ITs keeps the span of the DTs consistent. The ITs frame into columns on the edge of the short dimension and into columns at the end of the ramp. Since this distance is the same on each side of the structure and they support the same number and type of DT beams, only one IT girder needs to be designed. The roof was simple to design because the ramp was not a consideration. Since the column spacing is constant only one DT beam, one IT girder, and two L beams need to be designed. These roof members will not be as deep as the members on the floors below because they do not support the live load of the vehicles. 9

Foundation Plan

For the foundation, concrete caissons were used. They were required because the soil did not have the proper bearing capacity to hold up the structure. The caissons were drilled 25ft into the soil to reach a suitable soil with a bearing capacity of 8000psf. Wall footings were placed in between the caissons and only carried weight from the first floor spandrel. They were design to extend into the frost depth.


To design the caissons, the dead, live, and snow loads were determined. The dead load consisted of loads on 5 floors, a roof load and the column load. The self-weight of the structural elements were estimated and determined from PCI Edition 7. The column size was estimated since they have not been designed yet. The live load was taken across all 5 floors also while the snow was only taken on the roof. Once the loads were determined, the ASD loading patterns were considered and L.C.2 controlled in all situations. After Pu was determined the area was found by dividing Pu by the soil bearing capacity (8000psf). Because the caissons are circular, the required diameter was determined. The area varied upon the caissons due to the fact that they have different tributary areas and different structural elements within the tributary area..


Load Estimates
All load estimates came from ASCE 7 and the PCI Design Handbook. The primary load on each floor was the live load from the cars and pedestrians, which was 40 psf. Each floor also had some electrical/mechanical dead load for lights, security cameras, etc. The roof had snow load, and dead load for the solar panels. The wind load is 115 mph. The structural dead load estimates were determined using the PCI Design Handbook.

Loads Roof Loads Dead Loads Solar Panels Mechanical/electrical Structural DT IT Total Dead Snow Load Floor Loads Live Load Mechanical/electrical Structural DT IT Wall Loads Wind Structural

4 15 667 1467 19 30

psf psf plf plf psf psf

40 3 667 1467 115 5.64

psf psf plf plf mph plf


Main Wind Force Resisting System Wind Loads

The main wind force resisting system loads were calculated according to ASCE 7-10. The directional procedure was used for this. Since the exterior is all concrete and brick, no components and cladding analysis was done. The height of the structure was needed before the wind loads could be determined, so the prestressed beams and girders were designed before this analysis. Although only one shear wall was designed, a full wind load analysis was completed (all directions).



The wind loads were higher than initially anticipated, and this is due to the enclosed building classification. Despite having large openings on each floor of the parking deck, it did not put it in the open enclosure or partially enclosed category. The openings in the walls could not be neglected, so it was treated as closed. Most of the classifications (risk, exposure, gust factor, etc.) were the same as the manufacturing facility because they are located very close to each other. The stairs and elevator shafts were neglected in this analysis because they were not designed here and it was assumed they would independently resist the wind load acting on them. So for the parking deck structure the wind acted on all faces. It could have been neglected at faces were the stairs were, but it was included to be conservative and simplify calculations. The roof was decided to have no parapet (a setback safety fence was used instead) so the roof level loads were significantly less than every other floor. Each direction the wind pressures were the same, with the exception of the leeward forces by direction because of the length/base ratio difference.


Deck Member Design (Double T)

To design the structural framing plan of this parking structure, the floor slabs were designed as prestressed Double Tee members. The members were designed with a concrete compression strength of 5000psi, a initial concrete compressive strength of 3500psi, and are 12ft wide by 28in deep, with no topping, and 61ft in length. The members are supported on two stems per Double Tee and carry the load from self-weight, additional dead load, and live load. The concrete compressive strength is lower then what was stated in assignment, but these values were taken directly from PCI Design Handbook 7th Edition. The prestressing strands used were 270ksi low relaxation strands with a diameter of 1/2in.


The first thing that needed to be determined for this member was the loads present. The loads applied to this member were all distributed loads and consisted of the beams self-weight, an additional 10psf of dead load, and 40psf of live load (Taken from ASCE 7). Once the unfactored loads were determined, the moment was taken at .5L and .4L; this is considered the critical section. In this case, the controlling stress to overcome was present at .4L under all loads. A member size was estimated, 12DT28, and the effective prestressing force needed was calculated. Next the losses were calculated through an iterative process and the required area of prestressing steel was determined. The number of bars needed had to be an even number because there are two stems. From here, the stresses at .5L at the time of transfer, .4L under sustained loads only, and .4L under all loads were determined. These stresses included the axial force from the prestressing strands, the moment caused by the prestressing strands, and the moments caused by dead and live load. This calculation was determined under service loads so the loads were not multiplied by a factor. The stresses were then compared to the stress limits listed in ACI 318-11 and all stresses were within the limits. After the member was designed under service loads, the ultimate moment was calculated and compared to the moment caused by LRFD loads. In order to do this, the neutral axis was first calculated for the Double Tee. The stress in prestressing strands were determined depending on factors such as the ratio of prestressed reinforcement to concrete, the ratio of non-prestress reinforcement to concrete, and the distances from the point of extreme compression to the centroid of reinforcement. To determine the ultimate moment of the Double Tee, Mn was calculated as .9fpsAps(dp-a). After the ultimate moment was calculated and exceeded the required moment, shear reinforcement was determined. For this member, the shear capacity of the member limited by the upper limit, 5fcbwdp. Although the capacity was limited to the upper bound, .5Vc was still larger than Vu and therefore shear reinforcement was not required. 16

Inverted Tee Design

For the Inverted Tee design, the same parameters were used for the Double Tee. They consisted of prestressed concrete with a concrete compressive strength of 5000psi and an initial strength of 3500psi. The strength of the strands were 270ksi and the diameter was 1/2in. The length of the Inverted Tee was 48ft and carried point loads from the Double Tees every 6ft, except for at the end where the load was only 3ft from the support. The loads used in determining a member size were service loads and were once again unfactored.


The design for the Inverted Tees was also similar to that of the Double Tee. The loads present on the Double Tee were tabulated and present point loads on the Inverted Tee. Because of this loading pattern, the shear and moment calculations were different from that of the Double Tee. Once the required moment was determined, the stresses in the top and bottom of the beam were calculated. From there the effective prestressing force was determined. Next the loses and required number of prestressing bars were determined. Finally the stresses at .5L at transfer, .4L under sustained loads, and .4L under all loads were determined at the top and bottom of the beam. These stresses were compared to the limits present in ACI-318-11 and all passed. After the member was designed under service loads, the ultimate moment was calculated similarly to the Double Tee. The neutral axis of the beam was found along with the stress in the prestressing strands. The design moment was calculated as .9fpsAps(dp-a). Once this passed, shear reinforcement was designed. For the Inverted Tee, the shear capacity was taken at the support, .25L and .4L to determine if shear reinforcement was required. The capacity of the beam changed because the ratio of Vu/Mu varied and this is why reinforcement was needed along the entire beam. Two loading patterns were checked, one with full live load and one with only half live load. The shear caused by the full live load was the controlling case. For all three cases, Vu was larger than .5Vc and therefore shear reinforcement was needed. A bar size was selected and spacing was determined. After the required spacing was determined, the minimum area of steel was determined, and for this member controlled. Because this controlled, the spacing of the welded wire fabric was reduced to meet the minimum area of steel. Finally, the shear capacity of the steel was determined and compared to the upper bound of


4fcbwd and passed. Finally the maximum spacing was determined and was larger than the spacing selected.


Shear Wall Design

The shear wall designed was for the wind loads hitting the short dimension (180-0) of the structure. The wind loads were from the Main Wind Force Resisting System Wind Loads section were used here. The shear wall is non-load bearing. The wall was regular (non-prestressed) concrete. It was designed according to ACI318-11 standards.



The shear wall designed was for the short dimensions wind loads, making it on the long dimension of the building. First the loads were divided by two because the wall being designed will go on each side of the parking deck. The walls are placed on both sides of the ramps. The shear wall was also non-load bearing - it only supports its self weight. The height of the shear wall for each floor was predetermined from the height of each floor of the parking deck. The length and width needed to be determined. To do this, several factors were considered. The minimum length needed to resist the shear force was calculated, as well as the minimum length needed for the case with no shear reinforcement. Neither of these lengths were used, rather one in between their values were. The width was set at 8. This was decided upon because of the high bending moment throughout the wall, but especially at the base. Having a thicker width would allow for a shorter length, but a shorter length would require more flexural reinforcing. So for this reason the width was set at 8 and the length was 8-0. For vertical and horizontal minimum required reinforcement #4 bars were used at max spacing (12). The flexural reinforcement was #9 bars throughout, with bars being terminated as the height increased (and flexural load decreased). This was done (opposed to changing bar sizes as height increased) to minimize the amount of lap splices and cut bars needed. For flexural rebar calculations, a spreadsheet derived from CE348 DP1 was used. This was checked against hand calculations and the results matched.


Summary and Conclusions

The idea of this project was to design a parking structure across from the previously designed manufacturing warehouse. The design parameters were that the structure was to contain a minimum of 1000 parking spots and be erected from prestressed precast concrete. The structure also had to be energy neutral which means that all of the energy is renewable. To do this, solar panels were installed across the roof and they will supply energy to the lights, elevators, and ticket machines and gates. One major design decision was to decide where to place the parking structure in relation to the surrounding roads and where to place the entrances and exits. Because the entrances and exits need to be 75ft away from any intersection, the structure was placed adjacent to Bellevue Street and Mack Ave with the entrances and exits off centered. The decision was made to have 2 entrances, one on Mack Ave and one on Bellevue Street while having one exit on Bellevue Street. The reason for only one exit is because it is not favorable to have an exit onto a high volume street due to back-ups and because it is along Bellevue Street, traffic should be able to exit the structure smoothly. The entrance however is favorable to have on a high volume road for easy access to the parking structure. The decision was made to have automated tickers because this saves money by not having to pay an individual and the power supplied to them in renewable and comes from the structure itself. Another major decision that needed to be made was the circulation pattern of the structure. The initial thought was to have angled parking and a one way circulation pattern, but was later changed to straight in parking and two way circulation pattern. This allowed for more spots to be placed per floor and made it easier for people to maneuver through the structure. The stairs and elevators were located strategically around the structure to give easy access to the road. One stairwell and elevator was placed on the corner of Mack Ave and Bellevue Street to encourage people to cross at the intersection and grants the ability to cross either street. The other stairwell and elevator was placed along Bellevue Street towards the southern end of the structure to give easy access to pedestrians that parked at this end of the structure. All 22

handicapped parking spaces were placed near the entrance on the first floor so that only one level had to be raised to meet the minimum height for handicapped spots. The dimensions were governed by the dimensions of the lot and the number of spots required. The initial design was a 4 story parking structure that was 420ft by 180ft but was later changed to a 5story 384ft by 180ft parking structure. The reason was because the spot criterion wasnt met so altercations were needed. The structural framing plan consisted of double tees, inverted tees, L-beams, and spandrel walls. To design the double tees and the inverted tees a spread sheet was constructed and the ultimate moment and shear reinforcement were calculated by hand. Another major change in the design was floor height. Initially, the 2nd-5th floors were designed to be 10-6 to allow for 36 inches of beam depth, but were changed to 11-6 because the depth required for the inverted tee was 48. This was the case for the 1st floor also, but with a slightly higher roof height due to the handicap spots. This didnt cause too much of a problem except for the shear wall. Because the height of each floor was raised, it caused the roof of the structure to be raised and this caused a higher wind load on the shear wall. The foundation requirements for this project were similar to that of the manufacturing warehouse, it was across the street, and deep foundations were required. Because the foundation didnt have to be fully designed, concrete caissons were used to simplify the calculations and keep the parking garage free of structural steel. Another reason was because no one in the group had any experience in concrete caissons so the decision was made to broaden the knowledge on deep foundations. The toughest part of the project was deciphering the prestressed spread sheet. Enough knowledge was not granted and this caused the project to be pushed back a couple days. Once the


spread sheet was decoded, the project flowed quite easily. Problems arose in figuring out where some of the values were obtained from but were later solved due to the building officials help.