RISENc) INCORPORATED Preliminary Engineering Report ‘Old Dominion University Health Sciences Building ‘APRIL 2017RISENc) INCORPORATED April 24,2017 To: Dr. Gary Schafran (14 Dominion University 129 Kaufinan Hall, Norfolk, VA 23529 gschafra@odu.edu RE: Old Dominion University Health Sciences Building Preliminary Engineering Report Dr. Gary Schafran, RISEng is proud to presen the design for the New Health Sciences Building a Old Dominion University. The design is constructed to align with Old Dominion University’s vision and meet the high demands and grovah ofits occupants. Detailed inthis report is a conceptual ste mode influenced by architectural, structuril, ‘environmental, stormwater management, transportation, geotechnical, and ullity consideration. ach section is accommodated with visuals, calculations, and regulations available fer review. Recommendations and fsa cost estimate are also readily available within the contents ofthis report. RISEng strives for excellence and quality in our work, and we value the opportunity serve Old Dominion University. We hope to continue our professional relationship by moving forward ‘with the final design and with other services. Ifyou have any questions or require mere information regardingy@he report, please do not hesitate to contact us, Respectlly, RISEng Inc. Micelle Pasco Project Manager mpaicO03@ode edzRISENc INCORPORATED. Old Dominion University Health Sciences Building Preliminary Engineering Report April 2017 ‘Team Members: Michelle Pasco Rachel Martin Joseph Krallinger Grace Havely Robert McElhinny Nicholas Petrella Marie Salvas ‘Charles Royce Sims lan Uliane‘Table of Contents ect SUM nn Approved Se0p60f Wolk enn Background Seton A~Pretimiary Environment ite Analysis. Section B= Arcitetire Desig sn ae Site Li Z Bulding Deg nn ss Balding Foci 7 Building Design 7 Exteto. - ‘Asstecua Elements Cone bo 7 Ieror Building Design. : ‘Space Alloeston an O50) ns Water Clos, eo Cling Height... - : levator : Halluays co Arcitertiral Colson and Resim enn Seton C~ Stross Analysis an Desig, 7 Geter Building Description and Ape Loads Bulldieg Geometry os ss Wind Force. 7 Sse Foren Roof, Flor, and Wall Loss. ‘Roof Menber Design and Seletion ee a Roof DEIN Sele ROD nn SSEruSEetCenenteecene ‘Selection of Roof Beas for Mechanical Ara Selection of Roof Beams slang Ostde Ege of Bung ‘Selecon of Roof Beams alone Tero of Bling nnn ‘Seleston of Roof Heamsalang he Noni ides of the Mechanic Are,Flo Member Design and Selection. a ‘Selection of lneror Compose Floor Beans Running North-South. : 2 Selection of Edge Bears Ring North-South eee 2 ‘Scleson of Edge Gidrs Rung East Wee. eee eee eee eae eee Selecon of Eas-Wet Inter Gide. sn 3 Columa Design and Selection br Gravity Colmes. ee 33 (Colum Loais rm Roo. eae eae f 3 Colum Loads from Flor 2 Colum Load Summary sn en) Column Design a7 sero Leaning Clu Design sr Interior Leaning Column Design sr ‘Typical Building Bracing Des sete 88 COMPLE ABS een 9 STAD Peo Ansys. z = 38 RISAD Ant $84 nce vn a References 7 6 Seton D - GeteshnicalInvestption and Foundation Design “6 Soil Investigation and Analysis 46 Boring Logs. : ee ae Standud Penetration Test ($7) Data - nl Cone Penetration Test Das Pe Pe ue Web Sai Survey E ee a Subsutice Conon enn Eerie At Pile Design SI Pile Cap Design - 3 Group Pies. i ite Ccontetion Resommetdaton nanisaaeats 56 Tes Pls, 7 56 Pe nals nn sesessnesabetis cen 8 References 7 0 Section E Ste ili noon ss ities Background so Esising Utes. eee eee Design Cera & Caen nn cea 9 Preneeet te eee eee co 3Hydra, Fie Serv Litton Double Cesk Deter Assen, ie Deparment Connect. Domestic Demand abort Den nnn “ata Water Demon BckfOW Preven Mater Se. ie Santry Ser RB nn ‘Sovitary Sewer Lin Sizing, Canin Referees Section F~Stonmvater Manageme iO Background... Pre Developme Site nnn Peat Development Sten PreDesign Runoff Caffe Caeulaton ‘Best Management Practices Cesierions, Permeable Pavement Blorsenton ‘Uiban Blortenton itera Biortntion Design Consider nnnns Desig Oia nnn eign Option. — Design Opin 7 Design Option van nninnnnnnn Design Options. Design Desens nnn Dsign Dells Deails Of Design -Bioteteions.... Sih. Pipe Cong ei 7 vnOption 7 Bl Onions z Z oe) Dello Design ~Pamesble avert ss oe 3 Fil Design Recommendaion ne Referens, z cee as Sesion G —Trnspotsion 7 a6 eden Te Qe 0 mel Parking Demands nsonnnnnnn ei teeter Podestian Sa x on . a8 Trac Asses : 90 Loading Doth ae nn so Ca Z a Referees, pon - = Secon H— Preliminary Cos Estimation eee 92 Basisof Cost z 92 [AECOM PACES 1.2 : Be 92 Building Template - a 92 C0 o 98 Sesion I~ Leadership in Exergy and Envtonmenta Design (LEED). “ anaes LEED Requirement mn PEE eee ects Location nd Trspot0n 96 Susana $65. H : 97 ergy an AtmOsphe cnen elec 98 Mater and Resources, oy Rec eeeeece beet Indoor Enviroment! Qu nnn a) LEED Credit Suman : 8 References 7 100 Conclusion.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Abstract (14 Dominion University strives forthe most efficient lesming communities on campus. Recently, the University has been working on improving each of the colleges to ensure that their leaming cnvironments are up to date and possess potential for students fo grow. The current College of| Health Sciences Building is located on the comer of Hampton Boulevard and 46" Street and is one cof the many buildings in need of improvement. Since the College of Health Sciences is constantly expanding, the building is unable to keep up with the standards thatthe programs must offer, thus limiting the learning potential ef the students. Rise Engineering, also known as RISEng, has been selected to create a preliminary engineering report forthe New Health Sciences Building, The new facility will be located on the comer of Hampton Boulevard and 41* Stret. This preliminary ‘engineering report includes all engineering aspects of design required to satisfy the current and future needs ofthe Collegeof Health Sciences. Please refer to the Scope of Work fora summary ‘of the level of engineering design performed, Conclusion ‘The preliminary report focwied on several aspects: environmental impact, site utilities, ‘geotechnical desig, structural Jesign, stormwater management, transportation operations, LEED certification, and preliminary cost analysis. The following tasks are recommended to improve the finalized design of the New Health Sciences Building: ‘© On-site Geotechnical investigation further analysis on structural components (beams, columns ec) ‘+ Off-site best practice management (BMP) aterative ‘+ Additonal crosswalks implementation and sidewalk improvements Utilizing the above recommendations will ensure cost efficiency ofthe design and provide a safer learning environment for degres-secking students at Old Dominion University within the College ‘of Health Sciences,Approved Scope of Work. DATE: 26 January 2017 LOCATION: SW Corner of Hampton BLVD and 41* Street Background (Old Dominion University was feunded on September 12th, 1930, as the Norfolk Division of The College of Wiliam and Mary, Located in the Larchmont Area, a suburb ofthe downtown locale, the iitst purpose was to serve a single building higher learning center forthe less wealthy, but bbegan to expand as Virginia Tosh sleo bogan offering classes within the came year. Precideat Franklin Roosevelt who had initiated the “New Deal, allowed funds to be allocated from the Public Works Administration in oder to build the frst school owned facility, Rollins Hall, Inthe many decades that have followed, Old Dominion has become an expansive and quintessential institution of Norfolk, serving as an academic hub as well as a research facility for graduate level education, “The curent Health Sciences Building functions asthe comerstone for numerous academic majors involving health and human based studies/practces, but the curent location and square footage of the facility itself isnot ideal to meet the needs ofthe school. A replacement Health Sciences “building is proposed to be builtin the lot atthe southeast comer of 4st Street and Hampton Boulevard, This new building will serve to be the new College of Health Sciences, as well as “various general education classrooms, lecture halls, and laboratories. ‘This scope of work details the preliminary derign for the new Health Science structure and ‘surrounding improvement. This scope details the requirements needed to generate a preliminary ‘engineering report, including storm/wastewater, environmental impact reports, structuralarchitectural design, feundetion design, wilty placement, and updated transportation ‘operations.A, SCOPE OF WORK, 1. PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT CONTENT + Basis of design narative Conceptual site model Oral presentation Work schedule Costestimation Preliminary drawings Calculations References 2. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ‘+ Develop a preliminary footprint design forthe rest ofthe project team to build off of. Thee gill be at least two concepts developed to explore available options wit BFojec team. ‘+ Develop a eral flor pian for each level ofthe building ‘© Incorporate architectural features preferred by the university that comply with applicable building codes ‘+ Incorporate achievable design criteria that _meet the minimum point requirements to obtain LBED Silver status. ahion 3. SITE DEVELOPMENT oY ‘+ Ullty services are to be connected from the sifrounding area to service the building. Our preliminary engineering report will consist of detail up to the rough-in stage of construction. ‘© Domestic water lines and fire wat lines will be designed for the building according to their respective cos and city standards the building perth requirements se forth ‘ommission, VDH and all city and sate sewers will be designed to handle the maximum daily loads of the building ‘© Gas, electricity, and telecommunication line placement will be determined 4, STRUCTURAL DESIGN Determine relevant loadings ‘+ Form the basic frame of the proposed building based on architectural footprint and number of stories required. ‘+ Design the individual beams, columns, and other structural members of the building ‘Integrate the building frame with the other components of the structure.5. GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN Utilize geotechnicel reports of surrounding construction areas and existing buildings to determine subsurface conditions at our site. Interpolation will be used to determine the depth and order ofthe sol layers. Design a suitable foundation, accounting for expected loading and sol ype. 6, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Determine whi water technical criteria apply to this project and develop a sto meat plan, Utilize the stofm drain system criteria steps of the city of Norfolk which includes the design of inlets, pipes, and culverts as well as determine the hydraulic grade line for design year storm. Review land disturbance requirements as well a the erosion and sediment control plan forthe city and design accordingly. Storm sewers willbe designed to follow the current campus drainage area and adhere to the design codes set forth by the city and state. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN ‘Thoroughly investigate applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements foran environmentally sound structure Utilize regulations and standards to develop a building plan with minimal environmental impact, Generate an Environmental Impact Report 8, TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS DESIGN Determine the increase of trafic and pedestrians during construction Determine the increased flow of vehicles and pedestrians once building ‘becomes operational Design safe crossings for pedestrians from the 41st garage Determine parking needs of facility and investigate if more parking is needed, Design additional parking onsite if required. Design an ares for loading and unloading of people and equipment. Design ADA compliant acess from parking areas to buildin. 9. COST ESTIMATION Determine the area cost factor forthe building, Determine the price escalation overtime, Determine any and all location modification factorsB. EXCLUSIONS 1, Detailed drawings for fire protection 2, Detailed architectural drawings — finishes, nondoor openings, insulation, Furniture 5, Detailed mechanical / electrical / communications / plumbing drawings 4. Building systems and equipment checklist 5. Virginia Cost Review Questionnaire (form CR-2) 6 Independent cost estimate 7. Access control plan Prepared by: R. McElhinay Reviewed by: M. PascoSection A — Preliminary Environmental Site Analysis To better determine the feasibility of uilzing the proposed site locaton forthe construction of @ new buildin forthe Collegeof Health Sciences, an intial anlysis ofthe environment and surrounding area was conducted. A site visit and desktop search were completed inorder to compile an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The FIR takes int acount the mast significant considerations thet may prevent the building from being built on tis site. After a full analysis was conducted, the site was determined 1 be suitable forthe propesed building. There were no findings of significant environmental impact that prohibited the eonpletion of a prliminary engineering report. ‘The EIR can be found in Appendix A. References City of Norfolk (2017), [Interactive map of flooding). FIRM: Flood Insurance Rate Map. (014 Dominion University Campus Map. (2017). [Map data from Google Maps] ‘Topographic Map. (2017), [Map of elevations, map data from Google Maps) Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). (2017). (Map to geographically ‘how endangered species) Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service (VAFMIS) Virginia Department 0° Historic Resources. (2016). (Map to find places of historic and ‘archeological significance). Virginia Cultural Resource Information System (VCRIS).Section B~ Architectural Design Site Location “The proposed location forthe New Health Sciences Building t Old Dominion University lies fo the eas of Hampton Blvd. beoween 40" and 41 streets (Figure BY). The lot is 240 fet lng from north to south and 600 feet wide fom eas west. Is primarily open and empty with the exception of an apartment complex in the mil, lying along 41" Sweet (Figure B12). The apartment complex i not expected tobe abandoned before or during the design or coastrucion of the New Health Science Building and was onsidrec in the site design. The site is curently zoned by the City of Norfolk Departmen of City Planning as a Conidor Commercial Distict (C-2). A zoning clasiiaton change 10 Insitionl Campus Disvist (1C-2) is requted prior to onstruction and final occupancy of the buildingHampton Boulevard igure BI-2: Overhead view of th shown. Google Earth. Ns. Deborah Bauman, Assistant Dean of the College of Health Sciences, conducted a tour ofthe current Health Sciences Building with the project éelivery team. She identified inajor spaces of the building that are required in the new ‘aclity, such as the Dental Clinic, the Hospital Simulation Laboratory, the Nurse's Cline, and the physical therapy spaces. There are also multiple laboratory spaces within the current foclity ranging from, basic chemistry labs, to dental labs, cyrotechnology labs, and nuclear medicine labs. The key issues with the curent facility include inadequate leaming space, storage space, large ‘multi-functional space, laboratory space, and clinica-simulation space. (Ns. Bauman specifically mentioned spaces listed inthe flor plan during the tour of the current facility. She specifically mentioned larger learning spaces, more student collaboration spaces, multi-functional spaces, as well a8 more storage, all 10 secommodate @ growing program. Ms. Bauman was also concemed with the locker room. spuce for students and faculty. Due tothe clinie and laboratory hours, most stadens and ficulty ae inthe facility for Ionger-then-normal hours. The current locker room spaces. ae small, outdated, and donot include equally sized fcilities for men and women (men. hve signticanly smaller spaces). Additionally, there is no formal lounge, forcing, ssudents and staff to walk across Hampton Boulevard to Wetb Center orto sit in nearby restaurants for breaks, Vo Yn Bechon Moai to Have adder rey St dues t (ead tke vowlé kp in Sik LocationBuilding Design Building Footprint ‘The New Health Science Building isto be the frst phase of the project with additonal buildings on the same site to come inthe future. The curent university master plan calls, for two new Health Sciences buildings to be built on the site, one at each end, with a patking garage inthe center (Figure B1-3) The first building is to be located on the west, fené of the site slong Hampton Boulevard, Ms, Jean Kennedy-Sleeman, ODU's Department Architect for Design and Construction requested that the New Health consist of five stories each with 28,000 square feet for a total of 140,000 gross square feet. Ms. Kennedy-Sleeman also requested that the design incorporate a curved element tothe building, preferably on the front or atthe entrance ‘Curved entrances are an architectural feature found on many buildings across the campus ‘anc would be necessary in keeping with the similar architectural theme. Other elements, taken into consideration are the location of a large truck-accessible ground service ‘entrance and the concealment of the mechanical equipment required to service the new building 0 Hampton Boulevard Figure BI-3: University Masterplan for the ‘est, existing apartment and proposed par Sci ‘Three building footprints were proposed. They all shared similar elements including a ‘curved front and a service entrance located along 41* Stret, Placing the service entrance slong 41* Street was chosen duc to the additional width of the stest, thee lanes, ‘compared to two lanes on 40" Street, The wider street would allow for greater ease for ‘trucks entering and leaving the service entrance without having to widen or modify the existing street c, ith Health Science Phase I to the ing garage in the center, and Health ie9 Phang I the exwre BI-4: Desi Design 1 featured the front entrance facing Hampton Blvd with the comers being curved. “The serve entrance was located on the side along 41st St adjacent to the existing duplex. ¢ “This was the simplest design and had a square SCO“ footage 0f27,779 59, feet a Figure BI-S: Design 2 Design 2 had a curved entrance atthe comer of Hampton Blvd. and 4st Stand a service ‘enirance located on the side on lst St adjacent to the existing duplex. This footprint was tke most complex and had square footage 10F 28,266 sq feet Figure Bi-6: Design 3 Design 3 is similar to design 1 with the entrance located on the font along Hampton Blvd. and service entrance on the side on 41st ‘St. The comers ofthe front face were indented and angled and the center ofthe front side was. slightly curved, The square footage was 28,410 \ 54. feet coke ne ire Figures B1-4 through BI-6 show the three proposed foot print designs The main lleences in te footprint designs derive rom the location ofthe main entrance, Design 1 and Design 3 placed the main entrance along Hampton Boulevard, similar to the Ted Constant Convocation Center (The TED) and the University Theater, which lie to the north, Design 2 had the main entrance placed in the comer of Hampton Boulevard and 44" Strer, which fs srilar tothe New Education Building across the seeDesign 2 was choren forthe footprint of the New Health Science Building. Having the main entrance at the comer of Hampton Boulevard and 41% Street had several advantages, one being that it faced to the northwest, which isthe location of the main ‘campus. This was ideal as most of the pedestrian traffi would come down from the main ‘campus and from the parking garage across 41” Street, Ths footprint, unlike the others proposed, extended behind the existing apartment building (Figure BI-7). v Se Final Site Layout ‘The New Health Science Building is set back 40 fect from Hampton Boulevard and 30 ‘bet from 40* and 41" streets in accordance with City of Novflk Municipal Code, Secton 10-36, All existing sidewalks and driveway aprons ae to be removed and new sidewalks tobe installed, Sidewalk widths are required to be a minimun of S-feet wide by the City of Norfolk Design Siandards. The site is designed to have T-eet wide sidewalks slong. 49! and 41" streets and a 9-feet wide sidewalk along Hanpton Boulevard. Handicap. sccessible ramps will be located at the comers of the site along, Hampton Boulevard o- access the crosswalks.Building Design Exterior ements from Old Dominion’s main eampus were incorporated within both the proposed building footprint and external design (Figures BI-8 and B19). Large glass curtain ‘walls for natural day lighting and the signature “ODU Brick” wee included in the model below, Mechanical equipment was included on the roof ofthe structure (Figure BI-10) Architectural Elements Considered Figure BI-9: Engineering and Computational Sciences Building (ECSB) on Elkhorn Ave Ina meeting with Dale Feltes, of the ODU Department of Design and Construction, and with Jean Kennedy-Sleeman, ODU Department Architect, they expressed the desire 10 maintain the ODU architectural theme. Many architectural elements were inspired by ‘ober buildings, specifically the recently opened Education Building and the Engineering: snd Computational Sciences Building (ECSB) on Elkhom Avenue. The front entrance was largely inspired by the ECSB, being fully covered in glss from bottom to top and bing indented into the building rather than extruding out (Figure B1-10 and BI-1). Behind the large glass-covered wall isa two-story lobby areaon the ground floor. Higher ors incorporate large open aveas for sonlent studying, a much-needed fesure asrecommended from those currently in the College of Health Sciences. The western side ‘oF the building slong Hampton Boulevard and the souther side along 40* Street are largely covered in windows (Figure B1-12 and BI-13). The sides ofthe building facing, te loading area have smaller windows (Figure BI-14) Reo. View bakin to Figure BI-I1: Northern ‘side of the building facing Figure BI-12: Western side of the building looking fromTe or co H uy Gg Figure 1-13; Southern Side of the building, facing, 40” Street, Figure BI-14; Eastern side of the building. The loading ‘area and the apartment complex can be seen,Interior Building Design Space Allocation and Occupancy ‘The building is clasified as “B” Business, and includes spaces categorized as “A-3” ‘Assembly and Busines using the International Building Code 2015 (IBC), Sections 303, 4304, and 1003 (Appendix B-2). Office spac, classrooms, student collaboration spaces, ‘and laborstories are organized throughout the facility. The Dean's office, executive suites, and conference rooms are located on the fifth flor. ‘Spatial allocation and sizing were based off the recently completed New Education Building, the recently completed Engineering Systems Building, a well as observations from the current Heath Science Building and input ffor current and former students and. faculty of the College of Health Sciences, The floor plans incorporate spaces requested bby Ms, Bauman concaming size, storage, and location of the spaces. Per her request, this, facility will function as a shared-use facility and will partner withthe EVMS training program. This facility will also serve to entertain possible investors by hosting small ‘conferences and ceremonies, Bureau Capital Oulay Management (BCOM) incorporates by reference the states Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC) Chapter 3, which incorporates by reference JBC Chapisr 10, According to IBC 2015, Table 1004.12, spaces included in the floor plans were categorized as “B — Business" and “A-3 Assembly (non-fixed chairs, and tables) (Appendix B-2). Business spaces were allocated one oceupant per every 100 square fet and A Assembly spces were allocated one occupant for every 15 square 2 fet. Pe deere ert ee 9h the man cp enh Ra eed below eae he Fistor Ha pesons ~ neh AT 8 bod pron Second Foor 1143 persons Eig ‘Third Flor: 767 persons ak Feuth Fo peent ge ks ith For: 78 persons gle ths Tol Maximum Oia 46 pean sity. fae eermes appear bo oa tps ap mie (fornia Cayckiora\ Space. Se lg ga igall ished He a wt bivstnie Tors Spoul cl K geno Yor your report bly? hort tyWater Cores con itll) Water lose gizng was determined ulizing the 2012 Virginia Plumbing Code, Chapter 4, Table 081 "Minimum manber of Ftres" Using clesifeation "Busnes ~ 3, “able BUA species that two wae lott are required for the ist $0 persona and one per 50 pesos fr remainder ofthe oscipants (Table B2-1). Using the maxinam eupancy tale above there should be afta of 92 water costs in thie faiity (Gopendic 82) Aika fae ace OA ese ns x \ RY 49 Re ge face el les) RA pre 5 OS?! Tn 9/9 ar oa Lai / We fae 3) ty (MN At resto locaton ae speed in ascodance wih 2012 Virginia Phimbing Coe, PS Saxon 403.33 and donot xsee he maximum S00-et distance (Appendix B-2). SOAR se arcs si! ot) tl i swith Aron oe vi ‘wth Disabilter det, 2010 (ADA): Chapter 6 Figure 604.3 1. The minimum wast ai D6 pinay 38 qn Ape Coe ON ne Height va WS rtos ‘one trough four have a uniform floor-to-flor height of 13.5 feet, with the fifth Oo s \ level floor-to-roof- height is 14.5 feet. According to the 2015 International Building " Cade - Section 1003.2 Ceiling Height, the means of egress ceiling height requirement is 42 Te fit tic ls ni op eng once oveen wes By \and will maintain egress compliance (Appendix B-2). Ww at oI Elrtors “he building conins two elevator bays of a 400 uae ft cach consisting of to elevators per bay. Both eleva Eee ses te intention offing oii fishing and materia well sie of chee products forte laborer, Bath levator wll hive a centred door et the enim termes detailed in ADA Table 40741) (Append Bo) a at 7[Entrances and Exits ‘The chosen footprint design has four handicap-accessible exits in sccordance with IBC. 1006,3.1. The primary entranceexit is located atthe northwest comer ofthe building and leads into the front atrium, The south side of the building has an additional two exits of ‘the main hallway that exit on to 40® Steet. A final exit is located onthe eastside of the building atthe end ofthe hallway and are designed in accordance with JBC 2015, Table 1017.2 (Appendix B-2). Hallways, [All allways within the design are 10 feet wide to allow forthe beter flow of occupants and transport of equipment and exceed the 20/2 IBC Section 1020.2 6 feet minimum. (appendix B22). Stairways ‘BCOM incorporates by reference the 2010 ADA, which incorporates by reference the JBC 2015. The building contains three stairways, one in the front atrium and two stairwells along the southern end next tothe exits. Stairways are 48 inches wide in accordance with IRC 1005.1 and the two on the southern side of the building are roof accessible (appendix B-2), Architectural Conclusion and Recommendations ‘There are a few recently completed facilites on campus that have elements that should be incorporated into the extemal design including the large, curved entrance of the Education Building, the large glass curtain walls of the Engineering Systems Building and the TED. andthe open-concept, multiple functionality of al thee. The College of Health Scienod requires larger spaces for students and faculty to grow together within one facility. Colsolidating these spaces under both Phase I (this design) and Phase I (pending) are crucial tothe succes ofall programs within the CollegeSection C — Structural Analysis and Design GENERAL BUILDING DESCRIPTION AND APPLIED LOADS, Building Geometry ‘The designed structure, the New Health Sciences Building, isa proposed, S-story, 141,330 gross square foot building on the campus of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, VA. The building is comprised of a maximum of 7 bays in the north-south direction and a maximum of 7 bays inthe east-west direction. The floor-to-loor height forthe first through fourth floors is 13 % fet. The ‘oor-t-roof height forthe fh floor is 14% fet. “The exterior of the building i a ribbon window system with brick spandrels that is supported and back-braced with steel and metal suds, A parapet wall will extend 2 feet above the base roof elevation on all edges of the exterior building wall “The roof system isa | ach metal deck on bar joists. The roo wil dan via interior oof drains ‘with minimum slope of“ inch nd a maximum slope of inch The center af he oo wil house ‘the mechanical HVAC components that will be surrounded by a 6feetereen wall. The mechanical ‘equipment will be supported by steel beams in cu of sel jists, 1, ‘A basic building layout is located in Appendix C-1. ‘Wind Forces ‘The wind loads forthe building were calculated using the Main Wind Force Resisting System (MWERS) method as outlined in American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-10 Chapter 27. This design followed the Directional Procedure for wind speed which utilizes extemal pressure coefficients based on wind tunnel model testing. The City of Norfolk Ordinance Chapter 1.1-4.] states that all exposed structures or parts of structures shall be designed to resist the pressures de to wind in any disctio asset fol i applicable sections of the Uniform Stare Bulling Code (USBC), based on a minimum sustained (one-minute measured wind) wind speed of 100 mph. However, as ASCE 7-10 procedures and load combinations are used, the equivalent ASCE 7-10 ‘wind speed must be used fr the same geographical region, Therefore 130 mph wind speeds were used for the design of the building. As the ste is located in an urben area with closely spaced ‘obstructions, ASCE 7-10 26.7.3 dictates that the building will be analyzed as Wind Exposure Category B. As this building can be categorized as an institutional occupancy (Risk Category Il according to ASCE 7-10 Table .5-1, the wind importance factor is 1.0 according to ASCE 7-10 Table .5-2, All velocity pressure coefficients were caleulted using interpolation of the values provided in ASCE 7 Table 26.11-1. A summary of the caleulated loads is located below in Table ci.“Table C10 Summary of Applied Wind Loads ‘Wind Load Determination Height, | Windward Force, ——eEE—— EEE Parapet/Screen wal] 705.745 436 324 Roof 5, 219 96. Sth Floor sé 256. 196 4th Floor 205, 208 296 3rd Floor 2 8 198 2nd Floor 35 204 296. ast Floor ° 201 196 Aen re Wind Ld Dentin ye odin RUBE len fect Gor eine? Clap 1S aap Sic pues rego] SN ope According tothe Nat Gonnraton Sri RCS) Se ay mine tom detained wt egy 8 agcording to ASCE 7-10 Figures 22-1 and 22-, te Hampton Roads rexlon buss shor period 5 = 0105 anda one-second period S.- 060g. The seismic importance factor is 1.25 ssconding to ASCE 7-10 Table 15-2 a based on Risk Category IL. A. summary ofthe calculated lateral lads on each lor canbe found below in Table C11. Seismie Forces Table C11 Summary of Applied Wind Loads Calculated Seismic toads w, | oe | want eae Zone tt (itos)_| tps) oot asso | 685 108230] 0376] 126.2 ‘th Floor 37s] sa) 2or7m| 03302384 ath Floor a7ss|_aos| aszov7s| 087] _a73, 3rd Floor a7ss| 27) ao13es ons] 1182 and floor a7ss| 135) sosszs| one2| soa ase 16800) 615155 nz ‘All calculations forthe Seismic Loads may be found in Appendix C-2.Roof, Floor, and Wall Lords Roof Loads Accorting othe City of orf Ordinance Chapter 11-4, the ground snow lek (Pi 10 pounds pe quae fot (sn adition tothe sow load the City of Nofalk alo specifies a oot live load of 20 psf. According to ASCE 7-10 7.10, athe slope ofthe rot docs aot exces inch foo, 8S pst aia-on-srw surcharge load wll be considered. The ro wil be designe to an Exposure factor of 09 acceding o ASCE 7-10 Table 7-2. smmary ofthe eat roof load ane found in Table C24-C2.2. Floor Loads: ‘According to ASCE 7-19 Table 4-1, te basic live load for ground floor lobby/coridor is 100 pst and the live load for coridors above the first loor is 80 psf. For simpliciy of design, all floors were designed for 80 psf above the first floor. A summary ofthe calculated roof loads canbe found, in Table C3.0-C3.1, Wall Loads ‘A wall load of $5 psf is applied on the exterior ofthe building to account for the brick veneer, supporting steel, and metal sud backing, A wall oad of 15 pst is used forthe ribbon wincow lazing system. aRoof Member Desig a Selection ‘The following isa exleulation ofthe roof Toads: “Table C2.0Summary of Rot Dead Loads Dead Lond ForRoof Type Description Load Roofing Liquid Roof Coating 5 pst sulaton “Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) 2| per Decking Wite Rib Metal Decking 2 pst [seams ‘Steal Beams | al pet Soins Steel Joists | 3 | pst Mise [ 5| pt Tout 20 pst Table C2 Summary of Roof Snow Loads Snow Load For Root Type Description Losd Snow City of Norfolk Ordinance Chapter 111-4 10] pst Rainon Snow | ASCE 7-10 7.10 Slt oral 15 | pst Table €2.2 Summary of Roof Live Loads SE: “Live Load For Root Type Description Load Live Load Ci of Norfolk Ordinance Chaptes 1.4 20] pst Tot 20 pstRoof Decking ‘The metal deck chosen is 1 % inch, wide rib, 22-gage roof deck placed in a pattern of three continuous spans minimum. Referencing AISC, typical joist spacing is 6 fet on center. Therefore, 416 foot on center, the deck has an allowable total load capacity of 96 psf according to New Millennium Building Systems Roof Deck Catalog page 172 Selection of Roof Joists ‘After analyzing the 30 feet side joists spaced 6 fet on center, it was determined thatthe optimum. joists for all 30 fect sections is the 14KCS2 joist. The jist was selected using the Steel Joist Institute load table page 62. Ths joist has an allowable moment of 40.5 kips!foo, an allowable shear of 5.1 kps, a gross inertia of 7Tinch*, and weighs & 0 pounds per linear foot pl). Selection of Roof Beams for Mechani Area Prior to design, an assumption was made thatthe mechanical equipment and screen wall could weigh up to as much as 40 psf. Therefore, a 40 psf dead load was added tothe existing 20 psf dead load. The beams in the mechanical area are spaced 6 feet on center. Per Table 1604.3 in the “nernational Building Code, dead and lve loads cannot exceed a deflection of more than 1240 for roof equipment. The roof beams span 30 feet in total length. Therefore, using AISC Manual Table 3-2 beams W14326 were chosen to support the mechanical equipment. Selection of Roof Beams Along Outside Edges of Building ‘The beams along the ends of the building will cary the brick loads as well as smaller sections of| the roof loads. As recommended by AISC Design Guide 14.1, dead and live load should be limited 0 1/600 oF 3/8 inch (whichever is smaller to account for the supported brick and glass. Therefore, ‘max defletion of 3/8 inch was used. For the eastwest sides ofthe roof, the design was based, off of using the longest beam in the easvwest side, the 30 feet span. For the norhisouth sides of the roof, the design was based off of using the longest beam in the north/south side, the 30 feet, span, Also to be mentioned, the norvsouth ends were assumed to be part of a moment frame: therefore, they were designed as being fixed at both ends. Utilizing load and deflection considerations, WZIXSS beams were chosen Tor the east and west sides oF the building root ‘W2ix44 beams were designed to support the building roof along the north and south ses ofthe building. Selection of Roof Beams along the Interior of Building ‘The beams along the interior of the building run east to west and suppor the 30 feet long stel joists, Loads fr the interior beams were calculated using the tibutary method for determining load, Per Table 1604.3 inthe International Building Code, dead and live loads cannot exceed 3 deflection of more than 1/240 forthe roof beams, The interior roof beams span 30 feet in total, length. Utilizing load and deflection considerations, 21x44 beams were designed forall interior sections ofthe building roofthe Mechanical Area Selection of Roof Beams along the north/south Sides. ‘The beams along the northouth sides ofthe mechanical area were designed using the tributary area method. These beams will support both the end reactions ofthe mechanical area beams as well asthe end reactions ofthe stel joists. Using the AISC Manual Table 3-2 beams W21XS5. ere chosen to support the rorth and south ends of the mechanical area. ‘All calculations and plans skets forthe Roof Member design canbe found in Appendix C-3 and Appendix C-1 respectively.Floor Member Design and Selection “The Novs decking will ea Ueps 3 iacles of wal weigh eoucicte at fe" 4 hips por square inch on3 inch, 20 gage, galvanized composite decking. The total depth ofthe sab wil be 6 inches. “The decking willbe laid ou in a pater of3 continuous spans. From the New Millennial Decking Catalog, decking Type 3.0CD was chosen for his design. The floor beams will be lai out 10 fet ‘on center. At 10 fect on center, this deck has an allowable lve load capacity of 234 psf, thus satisfying ASCE 7-10 section 4.4 and Table 4-1 for minimum uniformly distributed live loads, ‘The following is a calculation of th roof loads: [pp cairn eee lbs and Desk New Millennial Decking 3. 00CD 56] pst eum | pt Mise. Cling. Mechanial, 10 pat (Total 74 | psf ‘Table C3.1 Summary of Floor Live Loads vlan Fa oon Re ae PS pee Ue || Live Lod Per ASCE 710 0 pst Tul 0 pr‘Selection of Interior Composite Floor Beams (Running North-South) “The interior floor beams were designed to handle the placement ofthe wet concrete as well as a ‘construction live load of 20 pf. Faced 10 feet on center and running north to south, the composite ‘loor beams wil support the mete decking and concrete flooring, Beams were designed forthe 30, ‘feet spans. ‘Using the AISC Manual Table 3-2 forthe 30 feet beams, W16x26 composite beams were chosen, for all 30 feet spans. For all W16x26 floor beams 30 fet in length, 1.25 inches of camber is ‘specified. For each W16x26 bear, 12 shear studs are recommended, Selection of Edge Beams Running North-South ‘Beams along the edges ofthe building running north o south wil cary the wall dead loads as well, 18 the oor live loads. All edge teams running north to south were designed fora maximum span. of 30 feet using the AISC Manucl Table 3-2 forthe 30 feet beams, W24x68 beams were chosen for all 30 feet spans and smaller. Selection of Edge Girders Runaing East-West ‘Beams along the edges of the building running east to west wil carry the wall dead loads floor ive loads as well as the interior composite floor beams running north to south. Alledge beams running cast to west were designed for a maximum span of 30 feet using the AISC Manual Table 3-2 for the 30 feet beams, W21x44 beams were chosen forall 30 feet spans and smaller. Selection of East-West Interior Girders “The girders running east to west within the structure will cary the end reactions ofthe north to south runaing steel beams. The girders wil also consequentally carry portions of the floor live load, The interior floor beams were designed to handle the placement of the wet concrete as well ‘a ¢ construction live load of 20 psf. In total, the girders that run east to west will span atoal of 30 feet using the AISC Manual Table 3.2 forthe 30 fest beams, W21x44 beams were chosen. A ‘minimum of 16 shear studs is recommended forall girders. All calculations and plans sheets fr the Floor Member design can be found in Appendix C-4 and Appendix C-1 respectively.All columns were designed using the tributary area method for load calculations. Columns were broken up and designed according to their lous and locations on the structure. Please reference Appendix C-1 for column location and orientation. Column Loads from Roof As previously determined, the dead load on th roofs 20 ps, the lve load is 20 psf and the snow load is 15 psf. The load from the mechanical sea results in an additional 40 psf to account for the ‘mechanical equipment and the sereen wall, ‘Column Loads from Floor ‘As previously determined, the dead load on the floor is 74 pst and the required live load is 80 ps. However, according to ASCE 7 section 4.72, the live load may be reduced if greater than 0.4 times the origina required live load of 80 psf. To account for the brick and glass facade, a previously calculated dead load of 0.503 kip/eet is included forall exterior supporting columns. Column Load Summary ‘This summary includes the total loads on the column as a result ofthe roof loads end fourth floor Joads to account forthe 2%, 3% 4, and S* floors. The summary also incudes the LRFD ultimate load on the column as expressed as PoL2DL+L 6LL*05SL. Di: Dead Load LL: Live Losd SL: Snow Load ‘The load calculations for tie columns can be found below in Tables C4.0-C4.3,Caray Goa RTT teetos [couma| rom | rate | reo | BEBUMaae fee To TST a ia a i i S| vi es a le rag eee Eau i a | eas £ low ws] 6) a 2 [ane 53 35. 10 2 in am : ‘Table C40 Maximum Uimate Design Load for Exterior Wall Supporting Columns? 381.8 kipe‘Coluonn Load Summary (eludes Roof Loads and 4 Floors) Lat [mn] rane | rem) | steam | HED ! ee ae = > la ao 7 ri i i ec as 15 Son ei Pil ss = [nis a 289. ims a as os| 19 “sss | ; a = fino fas |r 7 a = la 396 4 06 os ole 50.2 235 08 98.2 Take Ca Marna Ute Design onl Eto oes Supporting Columns: 212.1 kips: a _ =a tocaton Coun] roe | aire | ree | HeeDthinat fe ae Fs | ope ls ins) es 6 ams FE las i 7 a 8 [w sos| aes 43 aa 83 [as aaa a i ant | Ee EIS 199 a9 38. 1974 |B las es a 7 ae L? lie joes | 30 a ‘Table C42 Maximum timate Design Load for Exterior Wall Supporting Columns: 292.2 kips 3sP live) ‘Column Load Summary (ncludes Roof Loads and 4 Floors) P@ead) P(Sn0») ‘LRED Ukimate in x wo] ms 1 2512 rs zs] 1 a 2992 Dr wore] 783 43 aes © wil ues 20 10 nar] 42 us sse2 ® 157) 69 88 aus » vss] 1073 19 su cu 207] ast a ss Flt asa] 1620 Bs wz a nual 180 Bs ora mt mua) sna bo sso lt a8] 1060 2 ses Boos 27] 1st a ssi 2 [ns mosal 80 Bs iso 2 ous sora] 1982.0 bs eas hs mal 180 “Bs iso us| ain) as ors as] 1060 ou mo] 1099 ris ms| 1827 ws so2a| 1620 18 wia| 120 Lu msss| 1620 ov m2) 18s 7 so] 93 wr ww] ie7 m wees] 187 Li was] 92 3 sn Table C4.3 Maximum Ultimate Design Load for Exterior Wall Comer Columns: 628.8 kips‘Column Design Forall columns supporting the exterior walls, the largest ultimate design load recorded from Table (C40 was 351.8 kips. For all columns supporting the exterior comers, the largest ultimate design Toad recorded from Table C4.1 was 212.1 kips, For all columns supporting the building interior, the largest ultimate design load recorded from Table C4.2 was 628.8 kips, Finally, forall colurans supporting the building interior along the stairwell and elevator bays, the largest ultimate design Toad recorded from Table 4.3 was 292.2 kips. To simplify, all columns located within theit respected locations will be designed to the aforementioned desi loads, Using the AISC Manual Table 4-1, with an effective length of 13.5 feet, the lightest I beam was chosen for each location based off the required load Exterior Leaning Colamn Design For all columns supporting the exterior walls, W12x4S columns were chosen. A 12-inch column was selected for ease o” erection of framing beams (bolted double-angle connections can be used without bolt staggering). For all columns supporting the exterior comers, W12x40 columns were chosen, Interior Leaning Column Design For all columns supporing the building interior, W12x65 columns were chosen. For all columns ‘supporting the building interior slong the stairwell and elevator bays, WI2x40 columns were ‘chosen, ‘Column design calculations may be found in Appendix C-S, ”‘Typical Bull ‘To calculate the required size of each brace member, windward wind loads were applied tothe building on the north ani wes sides and leeward wind loads were applied tc the south and east sides ofthe building. The wind loads were distributed to each brace using the Tributary Area Method for each supporting brace. After the analysis of the wind loads on the building, itis ‘recommended that ll building braces be supported by HSS6x6x1/2 tubular stel supports. Braces hhave been designed and placed throughout the structure to avoid key architectural features such as ‘windows und doorways. With the addition of braces, the structure canbe classified as non-sway. ‘Shown below in Table 80 is atypical chevron bracing detail for the building. The recommended bracing locations can be found in the building framing plan located in Appendix C-1. All ns for sing the bracing forthe building canbe found in Appendix C-6. caleulat Table C5.9 Typical Chevron Brace 134 68} Zo 133 a 1 133 a susine) soos ”