DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Advanced Steel Design I

CE 5311

TERM PROJECT
Design of Four-story Steel Building

By: Shams Abbas Naqvi

Submission Date: 4th May 2020

Instructor: Dr. Raad Azzawi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION I .......................................................................................................................................................................6
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................................6
1.1 Problem Statement ..............................................................................................................................................7
1.1.1 Codes ................................................................................................................................................................7
1.1.2 Software............................................................................................................................................................7
1.1.3 Building Layout .................................................................................................................................................7
1.2 Location ...............................................................................................................................................................8
SECTION II ......................................................................................................................................................................9
DETERMINATION OF LOADS ..........................................................................................................................................9
2.1 Dead Loads (ASCE 7-16) .......................................................................................................................................9
2.2 Live Loads.............................................................................................................................................................9
2.3 Wind Loads ..........................................................................................................................................................9
2.3.1 Design Procedure for Wind Loads Calculation (IBC 1603.1.4 Wind design data) .........................................9
2.4 Snow Load ..........................................................................................................................................................10
2.5 Seismic Load ......................................................................................................................................................10
2.6 Load Combinations ............................................................................................................................................10
SECTION III ...................................................................................................................................................................11
ETABS ANALYSIS AND DESIGN .....................................................................................................................................11
3.1 ETABS Modeling .................................................................................................................................................11
3.1.1 Defining Material ........................................................................................................................................12
3.1.2 Initial Sections .............................................................................................................................................12
3.2 Analysis ..............................................................................................................................................................13
3.2.1 Unbraced Frame Structure .........................................................................................................................14
3.2.2 Braced Frame Structure ..............................................................................................................................16
3.3 Design of Critical Sections ..................................................................................................................................18
3.3.1 Critical Beam ...............................................................................................................................................18
3.3.2 Cantilever Beam..........................................................................................................................................20
3.3.3 Critical Column ............................................................................................................................................21
3.3.4 Composite Deck ..........................................................................................................................................23
3.4 Detailing .............................................................................................................................................................25
SECTION IV ...................................................................................................................................................................27
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................27
SECTION V ....................................................................................................................................................................28
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................................28
APPENDIX A .................................................................................................................................................................29
Manual Calculations ....................................................................................................................................................29
APPENDIX B .................................................................................................................................................................32
Design Reports .............................................................................................................................................................32
2
 B.1 Critical Beam ......................................................................................................................................................33
B.2 Cantilever Beam Design .....................................................................................................................................35
B.3 Critical Column ..................................................................................................................................................37
B.4 Composite Deck Design .....................................................................................................................................39
APPENDIX C..................................................................................................................................................................40
MISCELLANEOUS..........................................................................................................................................................40

3
 LIST OF FIGURES

Fig.- 1.1.1– Plan View of Building……………………………………..……………….….…….7

Fig - 1.1.2 – Elevation View of Building…………………………………………………...…….7
Fig - 1.2.1 – City of Chicago…………………………………………………………….………..8
Fig - 1.2.2 – Clarendon Hills, DuPage County, Chicago…………………………………………8
Fig - 3.1.1 – ETABS PLAN and 3D Model……………………………………………………..11
Fig - 3.1.2 – Initial sections assigned to the model…………………………………….………..12
Fig – 3.2.1 Finite element analysis (Stresses on the structure)…………………………………..13
Fig - 3.2.2 Wall Claddings……………………………………………………………………….13
Fig – 3.2.3 Axial forces on Columns (Unbraced)…………………………………………..……14
Fig – 3.2.4 Bending moment diagram for beams…………………………………………..……15
Fig – 3.2.5 Depicting the deflection of the structure…………………………………………….15
Fig – 3.2.6 Braced frame structure (Rendered Model)…………………………………………..16
Fig – 3.2.7 Deflected shape of the braced structure along with the values………………...……17
Fig – 3.2.8 Axial loads in columns (Braced frames)…………………………………………….17
Fig – 3.3.1 Critical sections…………………………………………………………………...…18
Fig - 3.3.2 Critical Beam Analysis…………………………………………………………...….19
Fig - 3.3.3 Cantilever Beam Analysis……………………………………………………………20
Fig - 3.3 5 Bending Moment Diagram…………………………………………………………...21
Fig - 3.3.6 Composite Deck Design………………………………………………………..…….23
Fig - 3.4.1 Details of the floor plans…………………………………………………….……….25

4
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Superimposed Dead Load…………………………………………………………………………9

Table 2.2: Live Load…………………………………………………………………………………………9
Table 3.1. Initial section………………………………………………………………………………...…..12
Table 3.4 Critical Beam Design……………………………………………………………………………..19
Table 3.5: Cantilever Beam Design…………………………………………………………………...…….20
Table 3.6: Critical Column Design…………………………………………………………………...……..22
Table 3.7 Composite Deck Design………………………………………………………………………….24
Table 3.8 Final sections …………………………………………………………………………………….26

5
 SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
Steel structures are widely used in the construction industry today. This is because of their several
benefits, some of which include high resistance of loads such as wind, earthquake, snow and heavy
rain. These benefits stem from one of the most important characteristics of steel which is its high
tensile strength accompanied by its light weight. This makes steel structures very durable and low
maintenance. In addition to the structural related benefits of steel, it is also a highly sustainable
material as it is environmentally friendly and can be recycled; 80 million tons of steel are recycled
each year, making it the world's most recycled product. When combined with other design
enhancements, steel buildings are incredibly energy efficient.
Steel usage for residential construction has evolved widely over the past years. This is most likely
due to the numerous benefits of steel as a construction material as previously mentioned. Putting
all the complicated engineering hacks aside, one may question why contractors would choose to
use steel framing for their residence. To the regular man, steel structures are highly aesthetically
appealing. Construction is fast, efficient and resourceful and steel structures tend to be more
spacious.
On the design aspect, some of the main reasons steel is used as the preferred construction material
are because of its high strength, elasticity, ductility and toughness. Steel behaves closer to design
assumptions than most other materials because it follows Hooke’s Law up to fairly high stresses.
One of the main drawbacks of steel as a construction material is its susceptibility to corrosion. This
is usually an issue when the structure is continuously exposed to harsh environmental effects and
water. In this report, structural steel (A992) will be used to design a four-story residential building
in Chicago. Chicago is home to several famous sky scrapers and outstanding structures, several of
them being constructed with steel framing. Details of the design of the most critical members will
be provided in this report. The design will focus on the critical column, beam and slab. The column
will be designed to resist any buckling effects and the beam will be designed for flexure, shear and
deflection.

6
1.1 Problem Statement

The objective of this project is to design a four-story residential steel building in Chicago,
Illinois. The following tasks will be conducted:
1- Loading calculation
2- Modelling assumptions
3- Design for the most critical members in the structure (columns, beams, floor)
4- Sketch the details of the section for each member (cross section and dimensions)

1.1.1 Codes

The following codes will be used for this design:

• AISC-2015
• IBC-15
• ASCE7-16
• AASHTO

1.1.2 Software

ETABS will be used for modelling of the structure and it will also illustrate all aspects of design
and identify the most critical members.

1.1.3 Building Layout

Fig. 1.1.1– Plan View of Building Fig. 1.1.2 – Elevation View of Building

A B C D

15 17 11 12

7
1.2 Location

This residential project is situated in Clarendon Hills in DuPage County, Chicago. Clarendon Hills
is a suburb of Chicago with a population of 8,711. Clarendon Hills is in DuPage County and is one
of the most attractive places to live in Illinois. Clarendon Hill has a dense population and Living
in Clarendon Hills offers residents a suburban feel and most residents own their homes. In
Clarendon Hills there are a lot of restaurants, coffee shops, and parks. To suit the culture of
Clarendon Hills, this design of this residential building was customized accordingly.

Fig. 1.2.1 – City of Chicago

Fig. 1.2.2 – Clarendon Hills, DuPage County, Chicago

8
 SECTION II
DETERMINATION OF LOADS
2.1 Dead Loads (ASCE 7-16)

Table 2.1: Superimposed Dead Load

Member Load (psf)

Suspended Ceilings 2.5
Hardwood floor 4
Miscellaneous (electrical/mechanical) 20
Partition Walls 3.5
Total Dead Load 30

2.2 Live Loads

Table 2.2: Live Load

Code Reference Occupancy Load

IBC-15 Table 1607.1 Residential 100 psf

2.3 Wind Loads

ASCE-7 was used calculate the wind load. These calculations were done by hand and by the
software. Wind loads on every building or structure shall be determined in accordance with
Chapters 26 to 30 of ASCE 7. The wind data as per the location of the steel structure is stated
below:
2.3.1 Design Procedure for Wind Loads Calculation (IBC 1603.1.4 Wind design
data)
1. Ultimate design wind speed, Vult, (3-second gust), miles per hour (km/hr) and nominal
design wind speed, Vasd, as determined in accordance with Section 1609.3.1.
o Vult = 120 mph
2. Risk category.
o Risk Category III (Table 1604.5)
3. Wind exposure. Applicable wind direction if more than one wind exposure is utilized.
o Wind Exposure = Category B
4. Design wind pressures to be used for exterior component and cladding materials not
specifically designed by the registered design professional responsible for the design
of the structure, psf. Found from Table 1609.6.2.
Kd = 0.85
Kz = 2.01 (15/Zg)2/α , α=7.0,Zg = 1200
ASCE 7-10, Kh = 0.57

9
2.4 Snow Load

Ground Snow load as per ASCE 7-16 = 25 lb./sq. ft

2.5 Seismic Load

Address: Chicago, IL, USA

Coordinates: 41.8781136, -87.6297982
Elevation: 600 ft
Timestamp: 2020-03-28T23:32:35.588Z
Hazard Type: Seismic
Reference Document: ASCE7-16
Risk Category: III
Site Class: B-estimated

The complete document with all the calculated parameters is attached towards the end in the
appendix.

2.6 Load Combinations

Load combinations using strength design or load and resistance factor design.

1.4(D +F)
1.2(D + F) + 1.6(L + H) + 0.5(Lr or S or R)
1.2(D + F) + 1.6(Lr or S or R) + 1.6H + (ƒ1L or 0.5W)
1.2(D + F) + 1.0W + ƒ1L + 1.6H + 0.5(Lr or S or R)
1.2(D + F) + 1.0E + ƒ1L + 1.6H + ƒ2S
0.9D+ 1.0W+ 1.6H
0.9(D + F) + 1.0E+ 1.6H

The load combinations were calculated and the maximum load combination due to dead, live,
wind, snow and roof loads were used in the design.

10
 SECTION III
ETABS ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

3.1 ETABS Modeling

The structure was designed and modeled using ETABS Software. The frame structure is shown in
fig. 3.1. ETABS provided the most optimized sections shown in section 3.2 for an economic
design, as well as all design properties as depicted in Appendix B, Design Reports. The structure
was analyzed, and the most critical members were determined.

Fig. 3.1.1 – ETABS PLAN and 3D Model

The model was created on ETABS using the layout assigned and with the assigned dimensions
which can be observed in the plan view of Fig 3.1.1. The model was created with six grid lines in
the x-direction and three grids in the y-directions this will help us to get a complete section view
of the model. This is a four-story building with the floor to floor height of 12ft and plus elevator
shaft which tends to extend over the 4th story with a height of 8ft.

11
3.1.1 Defining Material
The Grade of steel selected for the design is A992 with the yield stress (Fy) of 50 ksi and
tensile stress (Fu) of 65 ksi. The initial sections are selected based on engineering
judgements but to optimize the design all the initial sections selected are wide flange
section which are easily available in markets and have the best sections properties for a
residential building construction.

3.1.2 Initial Sections

Table 3.1. Initial section

Beam section W12x106

Column section W12x106

Composite beam section W12x106

Filled deck (reinforced concrete) 3.5 inches

Fig 3.1.2 – Initial sections assigned to the model

12
3.2 Analysis

Complete analysis was carried out on ETABS and two different models were analyzed: -
1. Building without cross bracings.
2. Building with cross bracings.

Fig – 3.2.1 Finite element analysis (Stresses on the structure)

Wall Claddings were added to the building as shown in the Fig - 3.2.2 to apply the wind loads and
get the maximum effects of the winds on the structure as it will behave as a closed structure.
This method of applying wall cladding was used as there will be brick or block walls since it is a
residential building. As we have taken wind and earthquake load into considerations wall cladding
is a necessary step and analysis was carried out using both braced and unbraced frame structures,
since these loadings will act transverse to the structure.

Fig - 3.2.2 Wall Claddings

13
3.2.1 Unbraced Frame Structure
In Fig – 3.1.1, it can be observed that the frame structure is completely unbraced, and it
will behave as a sway frame. An analysis was carried out on this structure assuming the
initial section assigned all the loads acting on the bottom of the column was calculated and
stresses in each member was analyzed. In Fig – 3.2.3 axial forces acting on the column can
be observed this will help us in selecting the optimized section for the design of columns.

Fig – 3.2.3 Axial forces on Columns (Unbraced)

After calculating the axial loads of the columns further analysis was carried out to check
the bending moment diagrams for the assigned beams that includes the Girder beams and
secondary composite beams. In Fig – 3.2.4 it can be observed that the color in the yellow
is showing the negative bending moment and the color in red is showing the positive
bending moment after closely observing the bending moment diagrams it can be concluded
that the analysis conducted by the software is correct, because the Girder beam is behaving
as a continuous beam creating a positive and negative moment while the secondary
composite beam is only creating negative moment.

14
 Fig – 3.2.4 Bending moment diagram for beams

After closely analyzing the structure for axial loads and bending moments based on the
load combinations further analysis for deflection was carried out based on the transverse
loadings the earthquake and winds. These parameters have always been an important factor
for analysis in the area of Chicago. As the wind blows at a very high speed in Chicago. In
Fig – 3.2.5 it can be observed the deflected shape of the building based on wind and seismic
analysis. In the following figures it can be observed that there is a huge deflection, but
deflection is over exaggerated in the structure for the better view of the observer.

Fig – 3.2.5 Depicting the deflection of the structure

After completing the analysis another model was created with bracings to check the
stability of the structure.

15
3.2.2 Braced Frame Structure
A braced frame is a structural system commonly used in structures subject to lateral loads
such as wind and seismic pressure. The members in a braced frame are generally made of
structural steel, which can work effectively both in tension and compression.

The beams and columns that form the frame carry vertical loads, and the bracing system
carries the lateral loads. The positioning of braces, however, can be problematic as they
can interfere with the design of the façade and the position of openings. Buildings adopting
high-tech or post-modernist styles have responded to this by expressing bracing as an
internal or external design feature

An X- type bracing is used in our structure to check the stability against these transverse
loading as shown in Fig – 3.2.6

Fig – 3.2.6 Braced frame structure (Rendered Model)

After creating a model with X-bracing the structure was analyzed and axial load at the
bottom of the structure was observed closely.
In Fig – 3.2.8 the axial loads are comparatively higher than the axial loads depicted in the
structure without the bracing. Since our goal is to design an economical structure the
bracing will definitely help in the deflection but with extra use of material and with excess
loading we will have to use a higher weight of the structure leading to increase in the cost
of the building.
In the below Fig- 3.2.7 it can be observed that the deflection is greatly reduced but on the
contrary in the Fig- 3.2.8 the loads have increased to a significant amount.

16
 Fig – 3.2.7 Deflected shape of the braced structure along with the values
Along with the increase in axial force for the braced structure there was also increase in
torsion in the beam which can be observed below in the figure.

Fig – 3.2.8 Axial loads in columns (Braced frames)

After considering the economic impact and calculating the drift based upon both the
process it was concluded that the design must be carried out based upon Unbraced Frame
structure.

17
3.3 Design of Critical Sections

The overall objectives of structural design are basically threefold:

(1) The structure must meet functional requirements,
(2) it must support load and provide stiffness, and
(3) it must satisfy economical requirements. It may be that in the past the strictly load carrying
aspects have been overemphasized, and this comes into focus when one considers the real function
of a structure.

The critical sections are those sections on which the maximum loading will occur. These sections
have the maximum impact due to various loads. Based on our analysis we have found out critical
section for beams, columns and floors.
In the figure below the location of the most critical sections have been marked.

Fig – 3.3.1 Critical sections

3.3.1 Critical Beam
A beam is a structural member that is subjected primarily to transverse loads and negligible
axial loads. The transverse loads cause internal shear forces and bending moments in the
beams as shown in Fig – 3.3.2 below. These internal shear forces and bending moments
cause longitudinal axial stresses and shear stresses in the cross-section. Bracing are added
at three points 0.25L, 0.5L and 0.75L respectively.

18
 The following conditions are considered for a successful design of beams:
• Steel beams are designed for the factored design loads. The moment capacity, i.e.,
the factored moment strength (φbMn) should be greater than the moment (Mu)
caused by the factored loads.
• The following values of deflection are typical maximum allowable total (service
dead load plus service live load) deflections. − Plastered floor construction – L/360
− Unplastered floor construction – L/240 − Unplastered roof construction – L/180
• - Compact section if all elements of cross-section have λ ≤ λp - Non-compact
sections if any one element of the cross-section has λp ≤ λ ≤ λr - Slender section if
any element of the cross-section has λr ≤ λ
• (1) Local buckling of the individual plates (flanges and webs) of the cross-section
before they develop the compressive yield stress σy. (2) Lateral-torsional buckling
of the unsupported length of the beam / member before the cross-section develops
the plastic moment Mp.

Fig. 3.3.2 – Critical Beam Analysis

Table 3.4 Critical Beam Design
Beam No Calculated From ETABS Member Chosen
1 B24 𝜙𝑀𝑛 =105.1226 k-ft Mu = 75.0195 k-ft W16x31

2 B24 Δ𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 1.23 in Δ𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.059 in W16x31

19
 3.3.2 Cantilever Beam

Fig. 3.3.3 – Cantilever Beam Analysis

Table 3.5: Cantilever Beam Design

Beam No Calculated From ETABS Member Chosen

1 B4 𝜙𝑀𝑛 = 70.125 𝑘 − 𝑓𝑡 Mu =10.2479 k-ft W10x17

20
3.3.3 Critical Column
• Compression Members: Structural elements that are subjected to axial compressive
forces only are called columns. Columns are subjected to axial loads thru the
centroid.
• Bending moments cannot be neglected if they are acting on the member. Members
with axial compression and bending moment are called beam-columns.
• Consider a long slender compression member. If an axial load P is applied and
increased slowly, it will ultimately reach a value Pcr that will cause buckling of the
column. Pcr is called the critical buckling load of the column.
• The critical buckling load Pcr for columns is theoretically given by
Pcr = π2EI/(Kl)2
where,
I = moment of inertia about axis of buckling
K = effective length factor based on end boundary conditions
• The effective length of the column depends upon the bracings provided.

Analysis of column is like that of beams, since we have axial force as well as bending
acting upon the structure as shown in Fig – 3.3.4 and Fig – 3.3.5 a complete analysis
have been considered as mentioned in chapter H of AISC code.

Fig. 3.3.4 – Critical Column Analysis

21
 Fig - 3.3 5 Bending Moment Diagram

Table 3.6: Critical Column Design

Column No Calculated From ETABS Member Chosen
1 C5 𝜙𝑀𝑛 =0.5016 k-ft Mu = 8.6142 k-ft W18x50

2 C5 𝜙𝑃𝑛𝑐 = 590.647𝑘𝑖𝑝 𝑃𝑢 =258.3 kip W18x50

22
3.3.4 Composite Deck
Composite steel deck-slabs, referred to hereafter as composite slabs, have been
successfully used without supplemental reinforcing in buildings with relatively short spans
and typical design loads. As slab spans become longer or slab design loads become heavier,
adding reinforcing bars is an effective alternative to making the composite slabs deeper
and the steel decks thicker. Properly designed supplemental reinforcing allows for light,
slender composite slabs that can span longer distances and results in large open interior
spaces. This is in addition to the benefits of conventional composite slabs, such as
reductions in construction time and cost.

This report discusses an economical design considering a 100 % Composite action between
beam and concrete slab. As we design a composite slab, we consider a fully braced frame
which helps in avoiding any kind of buckling to the member.

In Fig 3.3.6 we can observe the equivalent reaction forces, shear force, moment and
deflection of the beam.

Fig. 3.3.6 – Composite Deck Design

additional composite slab deflection due to concrete shrinkage and creep shall be taken into
consideration. The 2015 IBC also requires the long-term deflection of floors due to
concrete shrinkage and creep be considered in the composite slab design. Deflection
requirements rarely govern the design of conventional composite slabs with relatively short
23
 spans and typical design loads. For slender, long-span composite slabs, deflection control
is a primary design consideration that often governs composite slab design. Research on
the long-term behavior of composite slabs is limited, but the available experimental studies
clearly show that deflections of composite slabs increase over time under constant loads
due to concrete shrinkage and creep, similarly to deflections of reinforced concrete
members.

The deflection can be controlled in composite design by providing Camber to the frame
structure. In our design as all the parameters clearly passed as shown in the appendix of
the Deck design there was no need to provide any camber.

Table 3.7 Composite Deck Design

Combo Factored Design Ratio Pass

Shear at Ends (kip) UDCmpS2 7.285 49.191 0.148 ✓
Construction UDCmpC1 12.7863 46.9044 0.273 ✓
Bending (kip-ft)
Positive Bending UDCmpS2 20.0347 46.9044 0.427 ✓
(kip-ft)

24
3.4 Detailing

Structural steel detailing is a critical process of structural engineering and demands near-99%
accuracy. Even a tiny error can lead to a loss of valuable time and money. Structural steel detailing
is an important and mandatory process in all types of manufacturing and construction activities,
such as erection of residential and commercial buildings, factories and institutes, as well as
shipbuilding. The process of steel detailing is a vital 'communications link' that connects key
professionals such as engineers, architects, contractors, fabricators and others all of whom are
individually and collectively responsible for the highest levels of accuracy at each stage.

In Fig - 3.4.1 a complete detail of the floor plan can be observed with all the necessary dimensions
and beam to be constructed.

Fig - 3.4.1 Details of the floor plans

25
 Table 3.8 Final sections
Beam Section W16X31
Cantilever Beam section W10X17
Column section W18X50
Composite beam section W10X12
Filled deck (reinforced concrete) 3.5 in

26
 SECTION IV
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Frames with flexible joints have no internal resistance against the horizontal load/force and
external bracing must be provided for this purpose. So overall purpose of bracing is to provide
additional safety against the external loads in comparable self-building.
The main function of the bracing in steel structures that the lateral forces due to wind, earthquake
and crane surge etc. are transmitted efficiently to the foundation of the building.
A system of lateral or diagonal bracing is provided to prevent the building from twisting under the
action of wind.
Column in the braced frame in a tall building would accumulate great axial forces from both
gravity and lateral loads imparted on structures. In tall buildings large percentage of frame drift is
caused by flexural deformation, also known as chord drift. With smaller deformation higher axial
force can caused shear deformations. To only control deflection care must be taken for proportion
column size and bracings. As the bracing increases rather than counteracting for the axial force a
huge amount of axial force is increased at the bottom leading to large column sizes.
For economic purpose proper analysis should be carried out for the lateral as well as gravity
loadings. In our structure the governing loads were the gravity loads hence there was no need of
bracings. Which tends to increase the column sizes.

27
 SECTION V

REFERENCES

1. AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction). 2015. Steel Construction Manual. AISC
325-15

2. ASCE. 2010. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. ASCE/SEI
Standard 7-10.

3. ICC (International Code Council). 2015a. International Building Code. 2015 IBC. ICC:
Country Club Hills, IL.

28
 APPENDIX A

Manual Calculations

29
30
31
APPENDIX B

Design Reports

32
B.1 Critical Beam

ETABS Steel Frame Design

AISC 360-10 Steel Section Check (Strength Summary)

Element Details
Level Element Unique Name Location (in) Combo Element Type Section Classification
Story5 B24 236 90 UDStlS2 Special Moment Frame W16X31 Compact

LLRF and Demand/Capacity Ratio

L (in) LLRF Stress Ratio Limit
180.0000 1 0.95

Analysis and Design Parameters

Provision Analysis 2nd Order Reduction
LRFD Direct Analysis General 2nd Order Tau-b Fixed

Stiffness Reduction Factors

αPr /Py αPr /Pe τb EA factor EI factor
0.002 4.205E-04 1 0.8 0.8

Design Code Parameters

Φb Φc ΦTY ΦTF ΦV ΦV-RI ΦVT
0.9 0.9 0.9 0.75 0.9 1 1

Section Properties
A (in²) J (in⁴) I33 (in⁴) I22 (in⁴) Av3 (in²) Av2 (in²)
9.13 0.46 375 12.4 4.87 4.37

Design Properties
S33 (in³) S22 (in³) Z33 (in³) Z22 (in³) r33 (in) r22 (in) Cw (in⁶)
47.17 4.48 54 7.03 6.4089 1.1654 741.03

Material Properties
E (lb/in²) fy (lb/in²) Ry α
29000000 50000 1.1 NA

Stress Check forces and Moments

Location (in) Pu (kip) Mu33 (kip-ft) Mu22 (kip-ft) Vu2 (kip) Vu3 (kip) Tu (kip-ft)
90 -0.737 75.0195 -0.002 -7.232 0.001 -1.765E-05

Axial Force & Biaxial Moment Design Factors (H1.3b,H1-2,M)

L Factor K1 K2 B1 B2 Cm
Major Bending 0.932 1 1 1 1 1
Minor Bending 0.25 1 1 1 1 1

Parameters for Lateral Torsion Buckling

33
 Lltb Kltb Cb
1 1 1.238

Demand/Capacity (D/C) Ratio Eqn.(H1.3b,H1-2,M)

D/C Ratio = (Mr33 /Cb Mc33 )
0.714 = 0.714

Axial Force and Capacities

Pu Force (kip) ϕPnc Capacity (kip) ϕPnt Capacity (kip)
0.737 205.072 410.85

Moments and Capacities

Mu Moment (kip-ft) ϕMn (kip-ft) ϕMn No LTB (kip-ft) ϕMn Cb=1 (kip-ft)
Major Bending 75.0195 105.1226 202.5 84.8791
Minor Bending 0.002 26.3625

Shear Design
Vu Force (kip) ϕVn Capacity (kip) Stress Ratio
Major Shear 7.232 131.175 0.055
Minor Shear 0.001 131.393 6.05E-06

End Reaction Major Shear Forces

Left End Reaction (kip) Load Combo Right End Reaction (kip) Load Combo
59.056 UDStlS23 60.119 UDStlS23

34
B.2 Cantilever Beam Design

ETABS Steel Frame Design

AISC 360-10 Steel Section Check (Strength Summary)

Element Details
Level Element Unique Name Location (in) Combo Element Type Section Classification
Story2 B5 284 41.9 UDStlS1 Special Moment Frame W10X17 Compact

LLRF and Demand/Capacity Ratio

L (in) LLRF Stress Ratio Limit
48.0000 1 0.95

Analysis and Design Parameters

Provision Analysis 2nd Order Reduction
LRFD Direct Analysis General 2nd Order Tau-b Fixed

Stiffness Reduction Factors

αPr /Py αPr /Pe τb EA factor EI factor
1.086E-04 0 1 0.8 0.8

Design Code Parameters

Φb Φc ΦTY ΦTF ΦV ΦV-RI ΦVT
0.9 0.9 0.9 0.75 0.9 1 1

Section Properties
A (in²) J (in⁴) I33 (in⁴) I22 (in⁴) Av3 (in²) Av2 (in²)
4.99 0.16 81.9 3.56 2.65 2.42

Design Properties
S33 (in³) S22 (in³) Z33 (in³) Z22 (in³) r33 (in) r22 (in) Cw (in⁶)
16.22 1.78 18.7 2.8 4.0513 0.8446 84.63

Material Properties
E (lb/in²) fy (lb/in²) Ry α
29000000 50000 1.1 NA

Stress Check forces and Moments

Location (in) Pu (kip) Mu33 (kip-ft) Mu22 (kip-ft) Vu2 (kip) Vu3 (kip) Tu (kip-ft)
41.9 -0.027 -10.2479 0.0004 4.388 -2.363E-05 0.1006

Axial Force & Biaxial Moment Design Factors (H1-1b)

L Factor K1 K2 B1 B2 Cm
Major Bending 0.873 1 1 1 1 1
Minor Bending 0.25 1 1 1 1 0.988

Parameters for Lateral Torsion Buckling

35
 Lltb Kltb Cb
0.25 1 1.021

Demand/Capacity (D/C) Ratio Eqn.(H1-1b)

D/C Ratio = (Pr /2Pc ) + (Mr33 /Mc33 ) + (Mr22 /Mc22 )
0.146 = 6.169E-05 + 0.146 + 3.62E-05

Axial Force and Capacities

Pu Force (kip) ϕPnc Capacity (kip) ϕPnt Capacity (kip)
0.027 219.541 224.55

Moments and Capacities

Mu Moment (kip-ft) ϕMn (kip-ft) ϕMn No LTB (kip-ft) ϕMn Cb=1 (kip-ft)
Major Bending 10.2479 70.125 70.125 70.125
Minor Bending 0.0004 10.5

Shear Design
Vu Force (kip) ϕVn Capacity (kip) Stress Ratio
Major Shear 4.388 72.72 0.06
Minor Shear 2.363E-05 71.458 0

End Reaction Major Shear Forces

Left End Reaction (kip) Load Combo Right End Reaction (kip) Load Combo
58.077 UDStlS23

36
B.3 Critical Column

ETABS Steel Frame Design

AISC 360-10 Steel Section Check (Strength Summary)

Element Details
Level Element Unique Name Location (in) Combo Element Type Section Classification
Story1 C8 48 46.1 UDStlS2 Special Moment Frame W18X50 Compact

LLRF and Demand/Capacity Ratio

L (in) LLRF Stress Ratio Limit
60.0000 0.537 0.95

Analysis and Design Parameters

Provision Analysis 2nd Order Reduction
LRFD Direct Analysis General 2nd Order Tau-b Fixed

Stiffness Reduction Factors

αPr /Py αPr /Pe τb EA factor EI factor
0.351 0.05 1 0.8 0.8

Design Code Parameters

Φb Φc ΦTY ΦTF ΦV ΦV-RI ΦVT
0.9 0.9 0.9 0.75 0.9 1 1

Section Properties
A (in²) J (in⁴) I33 (in⁴) I22 (in⁴) Av3 (in²) Av2 (in²)
14.7 1.24 800 40.1 8.55 6.39

Design Properties
S33 (in³) S22 (in³) Z33 (in³) Z22 (in³) r33 (in) r22 (in) Cw (in⁶)
88.89 10.69 101 16.6 7.3771 1.6516 3043.98

Material Properties
E (lb/in²) fy (lb/in²) Ry α
29000000 50000 1.1 NA

Stress Check forces and Moments

Location (in) Pu (kip) Mu33 (kip-ft) Mu22 (kip-ft) Vu2 (kip) Vu3 (kip) Tu (kip-ft)
46.1 -258.3 0.5016 8.6142 -0.408 -3.771 0.0001

Axial Force & Biaxial Moment Design Factors (H1-1a)

L Factor K1 K2 B1 B2 Cm
Major Bending 0.785 1 1 1 1 0.412
Minor Bending 0.785 1 1 1 1 0.327

Parameters for Lateral Torsion Buckling

37
 Lltb Kltb Cb
0.785 1 2.255

Demand/Capacity (D/C) Ratio Eqn.(H1-1a)

D/C Ratio = (Pr /Pc ) + (8/9)(Mr33 /Mc33 ) + (8/9)(Mr22 /Mc22 )

0.561 = 0.437 + 0.001 + 0.123

Axial Force and Capacities

Pu Force (kip) ϕPnc Capacity (kip) ϕPnt Capacity (kip)
258.3 590.647 661.5

Moments and Capacities

Mu Moment (kip-ft) ϕMn (kip-ft) ϕMn No LTB (kip-ft) ϕMn Cb=1 (kip-ft)
Major Bending 0.5016 378.75 378.75 378.75
Minor Bending 8.6142 62.25

Shear Design
Vu Force (kip) ϕVn Capacity (kip) Stress Ratio
Major Shear 0.408 191.7 0.002
Minor Shear 3.771 230.85 0.016

Joint Design
Continuity Plate Area (in²) Load Combo Doubler (in) Load Combo
0.38 UDStlS23 0.0055 UDStlS22

Beam/Column Capacity Ratios

Major Ratio Load Combo Minor Ratio Load Combo
0.264 UDStlS16 0.727 UDStlS16

38
 B.4 Composite Deck Design

Story: Story3 Beam B43 Length: 11 ft Trib. Area: 41.25 ft²

Location: X= 3.75 ft Y= 21.5 ft 4 0.75 in Ø studs
A992Fy50 W10X12 No camber

Composite Deck Properties

Deck Cover wc f'c Ribs beff Ec (S) Ec (D) Ec (V)
(in) (pcf) (ksi) (in) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi)
At Left, at Right Deck1 3.5 150 4 ⊥ 16.5 3605 3605 4867

Loading (UDCmpS2 combo)

Constr. Dead SDL Live NR Factored
Line Load (kip/ft) 0 ft→11 ft 0.000 0.604 0.000 0.375 1.325

End Reactions
Constr. Dead SDL Live NR Combo Factored
I end, J end (kip) 0.000 3.321 0.000 2.063 UDCmpS2 7.285

Strength Checks
Combo Factored Design Ratio Pass
Shear at Ends (kip) UDCmpS2 7.285 49.191 0.148 ✓
Construction Bending (kip-ft) UDCmpC1 12.7863 46.9044 0.273 ✓
Positive Bending (kip-ft) UDCmpS2 20.0347 46.9044 0.427 ✓

Constructability and Serviceability Checks

Actual Allowable Ratio Pass
Constr. Dead Defl. (in) 0.1247 No Limit N/A N/A
Post-concrete Defl. (in) 0.0774 0.55 0.141 ✓
Live Load Defl. (in) 0.0774 0.3667 0.211 ✓
Total Defl. (in) 0.2021 0.55 0.367 ✓
Walking Acceleration ap /g (β = 0.025 Po = 65) 0.00004 0.005 0.008 ✓

Section Properties
PNA Area Sbot I ΦMn
(in) (in²) (in³) (in⁴) (kip-ft)
Steel fully braced 4.935 3.54 10.9 53.8 46.9044
Vibrations Check (Ec = 4867) 3.6061 29.97 N/A 373.61 N/A

Vibration Frequency Values

Element L beff Loading Ieff D B W Δ fn
(ft) (ft) (in⁴) (in⁴/ft) (ft) (kip) (in) (Hz)
Slab 46 3.75 161.02+4+11lb/ft² 114.91 114.91/3.75 32
Beam 11 3.75 0.66kip/ft 373.61 373.61/3.75 2*8.1918 1.5*31.723 0.0196 25.248
Girder B24 15 6 3*7.591kip + 0.198kip/ft 3278.49 3278.49/11 1.8*11.4056 1*61.274 0.0105→0.0096 34.499
Panel 52.089 0.0301 20.375

39
 APPENDIX C

MISCELLANEOUS

40
3/28/2020 ATC Hazards by Location

Hazards by Location

Search Information
Address: Chicago, IL, USA
600 ft
Coordinates: 41.8781136, -87.6297982

Elevation: 600 ft

Timestamp: 2020-03-28T23:32:35.588Z

Hazard Type: Seismic

Reference ASCE7-16
Report
Map data a map
©2020 error
Google
Document:

Risk Category: III

Site Class: B-estimated

MCER Horizontal Response Spectrum Design Horizontal Response Spectrum

Sa(g) Sa(g)

0.10
0.06
0.08

0.06 0.04

0.04
0.02
0.02

0.00 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Period (s) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Period (s)

Basic Parameters

Name Value Description

SS 0.116 MCER ground motion (period=0.2s)

S1 0.063 MCER ground motion (period=1.0s)

SMS 0.116 Site-modified spectral acceleration value

SM1 0.063 Site-modified spectral acceleration value

SDS 0.077 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2s SA

SD1 0.042 Numeric seismic design value at 1.0s SA

Additional Information

Name Value Description

SDC A Seismic design category

Fa 1 Site amplification factor at 0.2s

Fv 1 Site amplification factor at 1.0s

https://hazards.atcouncil.org/#/seismic?lat=41.8781136&lng=-87.6297982&address=Chicago%2C IL%2C USA 1/2

3/28/2020 ATC Hazards by Location
CRS 0.954 Coefficient of risk (0.2s)

CR1 0.886 Coefficient of risk (1.0s)

PGA 0.058 MCEG peak ground acceleration

FPGA 1 Site amplification factor at PGA

PGAM 0.058 Site modified peak ground acceleration

TL 12 Long-period transition period (s)

SsRT 0.116 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion (0.2s)

SsUH 0.121 Factored uniform-hazard spectral acceleration (2% probability of

exceedance in 50 years)

SsD 1.5 Factored deterministic acceleration value (0.2s)

S1RT 0.063 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion (1.0s)

S1UH 0.071 Factored uniform-hazard spectral acceleration (2% probability of

exceedance in 50 years)

S1D 0.6 Factored deterministic acceleration value (1.0s)

PGAd 0.5 Factored deterministic acceleration value (PGA)

The results indicated here DO NOT reflect any state or local amendments to the values or any delineation lines made during the building code
adoption process. Users should confirm any output obtained from this tool with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction before proceeding with
design.

Disclaimer
Hazard loads are provided by the U.S. Geological Survey Seismic Design Web Services.

While the information presented on this website is believed to be correct, ATC and its sponsors and contributors assume no responsibility or
liability for its accuracy. The material presented in the report should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent
examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability and applicability by engineers or other licensed professionals. ATC does not intend that the
use of this information replace the sound judgment of such competent professionals, having experience and knowledge in the field of practice, nor
to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the results of the report provided by this website.
Users of the information from this website assume all liability arising from such use. Use of the output of this website does not imply approval by
the governing building code bodies responsible for building code approval and interpretation for the building site described by latitude/longitude
location in the report.

https://hazards.atcouncil.org/#/seismic?lat=41.8781136&lng=-87.6297982&address=Chicago%2C IL%2C USA 2/2

3/28/2020 ATC Hazards by Location

Hazards by Location

Search Information
Address: Chicago, IL, USA
600 ft
Coordinates: 41.8781136, -87.6297982

Elevation: 600 ft

Timestamp: 2020-03-28T22:41:39.986Z

Hazard Type: Snow

Report
Map data a map
©2020 error
Google

ASCE 7-16 ASCE 7-10 ASCE 7-05

Ground Snow Load 25 lb/sqft Ground Snow Load 25 lb/sqft Ground Snow Load 25 lb/sqft

The results indicated here DO NOT reflect any state or local amendments to the values or any delineation lines made during the building
code adoption process. Users should confirm any output obtained from this tool with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction before
proceeding with design.

Disclaimer
Hazard loads are interpolated from data provided in ASCE 7 and rounded up to the nearest whole integer.

While the information presented on this website is believed to be correct, ATC and its sponsors and contributors assume no responsibility
or liability for its accuracy. The material presented in the report should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without
competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability and applicability by engineers or other licensed professionals. ATC does
not intend that the use of this information replace the sound judgment of such competent professionals, having experience and knowledge
in the field of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the results of the
report provided by this website. Users of the information from this website assume all liability arising from such use. Use of the output of
this website does not imply approval by the governing building code bodies responsible for building code approval and interpretation for the
building site described by latitude/longitude location in the report.

https://hazards.atcouncil.org/#/snow?lat=41.8781136&lng=-87.6297982&address=Chicago%2C IL%2C USA 1/1

3/28/2020 ATC Hazards by Location

Hazards by Location

Search Information
Address: Chicago, IL, USA
600 ft
Coordinates: 41.8781136, -87.6297982

Elevation: 600 ft

Timestamp: 2020-03-28T22:39:06.509Z

Hazard Type: Wind

Report
Map data a map
©2020 error
Google

ASCE 7-16 ASCE 7-10 ASCE 7-05

MRI 10-Year 74 mph MRI 10-Year 76 mph ASCE 7-05 Wind Speed 90 mph

MRI 25-Year 80 mph MRI 25-Year 84 mph

MRI 50-Year 85 mph MRI 50-Year 90 mph

MRI 100-Year 92 mph MRI 100-Year 96 mph

Risk Category I 100 mph Risk Category I 105 mph

Risk Category II 107 mph Risk Category II 115 mph

Risk Category III 114 mph Risk Category III-IV 120 mph

Risk Category IV 119 mph

The results indicated here DO NOT reflect any state or local amendments to the values or any delineation lines made during the building
code adoption process. Users should confirm any output obtained from this tool with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction before
proceeding with design.

Disclaimer
Hazard loads are interpolated from data provided in ASCE 7 and rounded up to the nearest whole integer. Per ASCE 7, islands and coastal
areas outside the last contour should use the last wind speed contour of the coastal area – in some cases, this website will extrapolate past
the last wind speed contour and therefore, provide a wind speed that is slightly higher. NOTE: For queries near wind-borne debris region
boundaries, the resulting determination is sensitive to rounding which may affect whether or not it is considered to be within a wind-borne
debris region.

Mountainous terrain, gorges, ocean promontories, and special wind regions shall be examined for unusual wind conditions.

While the information presented on this website is believed to be correct, ATC and its sponsors and contributors assume no responsibility
or liability for its accuracy. The material presented in the report should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without
competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability and applicability by engineers or other licensed professionals. ATC does
not intend that the use of this information replace the sound judgment of such competent professionals, having experience and knowledge
in the field of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the results of the
report provided by this website. Users of the information from this website assume all liability arising from such use. Use of the output of
this website does not imply approval by the governing building code bodies responsible for building code approval and interpretation for the
https://hazards.atcouncil.org/#/wind?lat=41.8781136&lng=-87.6297982&address=Chicago%2C IL%2C USA 1/2
3/28/2020 ATC Hazards by Location
this website does not imply approval by the governing building code bodies responsible for building code approval and interpretation for the
building site described by latitude/longitude location in the report.

https://hazards.atcouncil.org/#/wind?lat=41.8781136&lng=-87.6297982&address=Chicago%2C IL%2C USA 2/2