• Robert Whitaker

• Structural ~ Parfitt
• Parkview at
Structural Technical Proposal Bloomfield Station
By Robert Whitaker • Bloomfield, NJ
• 12-12-05

Executive Summary
The current structural system for Parkview at Bloomfield Station is composed of
a light gage roof spaced 2’ on center (oc) spanning front to back and panelized bearing
light gage walls 4” and 6” wide continuously capped with a steel tube for load
distribution purposes. These walls not only hold the 16” deep D500 Hambro® floor
system but also act as the main lateral force resisting system for the building. Thin cross
bracing straps attached to the light gage bearing walls give these walls the lateral capacity
required. There are a total of 38 shear walls in the building: 17 in the North-South
direction, 17 in the East-West direction, and 4 concrete masonry unit (cmu) stair towers
that resist load mainly in the East-West direction. The precast garage is structurally
separate, and only the 4” building separation will be considered for story drift in the
lateral review.

Structural Proposal
This proposal covers the analysis and design of a steel braced frame as a
replacement for the current light gage bearing wall system. Two different framing
orientations for the bar joist floor will be investigated, and analyzed for efficiency and
compatibility with the redesigned system. The use of the braced frame system will
require less braced frames throughout the building than the current system, creating the
use of leaning column frames at some unit separations. There are a total of 22 braced
frames in the building: 12 in the North-South direction, and 10 in the East-West direction,
along with 4 concrete masonry unit (cmu) stair towers that resist load mainly in the East-
West direction.

Calculation Overview
Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) will be used in all spot checks. The
analysis will be performed on structural components in the building using RAM, a finite
element based analysis program. This program performs lateral load calculations,
including seismic and wind from three directions, and will be used to compute the loads
for the shear walls in the building. The results from previous Technical Reports will be
used and verified in the proposed redesign. A building drift limit is to be computed using
the RAM program, and the members will be sized using the Manual of Steel Construction
~ 3rd Edition. Finally, a Portal Frame analysis will be used to spot check calculated end
reactions in specific frame members.
 • Robert Whitaker
• Structural ~ Parfitt
• Parkview at
Structural Technical Proposal Bloomfield Station
By Robert Whitaker • Bloomfield, NJ
• 12-12-05

Building Overview

Parkview at Bloomfield Station is a uniquely shaped Garage: 152,748 ft2

six story residential condominium building located in Building: 300,725 ft2
Bloomfield, NJ. The building is most noticeable for its long Per Floor: 50,121 ft2
sprawling irregular footprint. The building also wraps around Total: 453,473 ft2
a precast parking garage that is only visible from the train
station side. The building is nestled between the Second River to the south, Washington
St. to the west, a tree filled lot in the east, and a train station for the Midtown Line to the
north. There are 197 condominium units and 330 parking spaces included in the design of
this building. Numerous storage facilities are located in the parking garage and an
exercise room is also included, located above the lobby area. A drop off circle, located
just off of the tree lined entry drive, allows for easy access for visitors and taxi services.

Structural Overview

The structural system for Parkview at Bloomfield Station is composed of a light

gage roof spaced 2’ on center (oc) spanning front to back with some hip conditions
incorporated, bearing on exterior and corridor walls, and girder trusses at hip roof
conditions. The bearing walls are panelized bearing light gage steel stud walls 4” and 6”
wide continuously capped with a steel tube, HSS 4x4x5/16” and HSS 6x4x5/16”
respectively, for load distribution purposes. Beams and transfer beams provide bearing
points for the floor system, columns, and roof trusses. A 16” deep Hambro® D500™

1
floor system makes up
the composite rigid floor
diaphragm and consists
of joists spaced at 4’ oc
connected to a 3”
concrete floor (3000psi).
The 16” joists span the
short direction of the
living units (typically
30’) and Hambro RTC Hambro Floor System
Note: Typical bearing walls are light gage walls (not those shown above)
joists (top cord only
joists) span the corridor (typically 6’). The total ceiling to floor depth is 21” and allows
the mechanical duct work to pass through the open webs of the joists.

Along with the bearing light gage walls, there are two braced frame systems at
the drive aisles that pass under the building. The upper floors in these sections are
supported by a series of one or two story columns that are part of this W18 braced frame
system. All 6 floors of the building have mainly the same floor plans with the exception
of 4 locations: an entry/lobby unit, a 2 story drive aisle, a 1 story drive aisle, and a 1st
floor exit route. In these areas, transfer beams are utilized requiring much larger beam
sizes. The two story braced frame system Precast Garage
used in the 2 story drive aisle consists of (not included)

Drive Aisle
nineteen W18 columns placed along bearing
lines. There is a similar system at the one
story drive aisle consisting of twelve columns.
While these braced frames act as the lateral
force resisting system in these two unique
Lobby
areas, the main lateral force resisting system
Unit
for the building is a shear wall system 2 Story Drive Aisle
provided by thin steel cross bracing straps
attached to the light gage shear walls.

The precast garage located at the center of the building, consists of precast
double-T planks bearing on load bearing elements. The vertical elements in the garage
transfers its’ load to pile caps encompassing 100 ton H piles drilled to bedrock (ranging
from 42-53 ft below the slab-on-grade surface). The precast garage is structurally
separated from the main building by a 4” air gap and by 4” expansion joints at building
connection points. Because of this the garage will not be considered in this building
proposal and will remain as is.

Finally, continuous 2’-6” wide footings make up most of the building bearing
wall support under the 4” slab-on-grade foundation. However, larger spread footings
(typically 4’x4’) are utilized below leaning column point loads. The spread footings at
the drive aisle’s braced frames merge together and resemble larger single spread footings.
The precast garage's footings are separate from that of the main building and encompass
a deep foundation system rather than the buildings shallow footing system.

2
Problem Statement

The original Hambro floor system performed better than any of the alternate
system designs that were analyzed in Technical Report #2. The computer results of
Technical Report #3 were somewhat vague due to the number of lateral force resisting
elements and size of the building. The hand analysis did indicate that the original design
performed adequately based on the lateral loadings; however, there were a few areas of
failing performance established by the computer generated model. It was assumed that
these inadequacies were a result of user input and modeling errors, not a negative
reflection on the design of the lateral system. The aspect of the original structural design
best suited for further investigation is the lateral force resisting system due to this
analytical uncertainty.

Furthermore, due to the nature of the structure, it must be erected by specialized

contractors not only for the light gage walls but also for the Hambro flooring system.
Finding certified contractors for both of these specialized systems are hard to locate in
some areas and may slow the speed of the project, increasing the overall cost of the
project per Means Building Construction Cost Data (RS Means).

Proposed Solution

The proposed alternative to the light gage shear walls will be a braced steel frame.
This new frame will necessitate less shear walls throughout the building while still
maintaining the same architectural layout. The braced steel frame will allow more lateral
strength capacity with less lateral force resisting members. The red lines in figure 1
below are the existing shear walls and the dark lines represent the braced frame.

Lateral Force Resisting Elements

Braced Steel Frame
Leaning Column Frame
CMU Stair Tower

Figure 1

3
 The dark lines on figure 2 below represent the new steel braced frame locations in
the building. The other unit separation locations (remaining red lines) are frames
consisting of leaning columns, or the concrete masonry unit (cmu) stair tower.

Lateral Force Resisting Elements

Braced Steel Frame
Leaning Column Frame
CMU Stair Tower

Figure 2

The braced steel frame will only extend as far as the

corridor and will have W18 columns. The W18 shape columns
will be equal to or smaller than a W18x71 (bf = 7.64) allowing
them to fit within the 11” unit separation wall. The additional
room needed in these walls to frame out around the columns
will be taken out of the 6’ corridor space, boxing out at column
locations, and by extensions to the overall building length if
necessary. The existing corridors are 1’-0” greater than
required by the International Building Code (IBC) 2000 and
therefore a reduction of up to 1’ is allowed. The cross bracing,
making up the lateral force resisting system, will be composed
of C15x50 (bf = 3.72) and bolted to the columns. This will
allow for back to back attachment while remaining within the
width of the column flange, see figure 3.
Figure 3
The beams will span the depth of the unit (typically 31’) and cantilever the width
of the corridor. The beams the throughout the building will be W18x65 beams and will
require a 2” bulkhead to cover their extension below the ceiling line. These beams will
support 16K5 steel bar joists at 2’-0” oc with 3 rows of bridging. The joists are topped
with 5½” concrete over composite metal decking to act as the floor system. This floor
system will have a ceiling to floor depth of 23½” which is approximately the same as the
existing Hambro system’s depth. The floor to floor height will increase by 2 inches to
10’-8”, which will not interfere with any code restrictions. Gravity floor loads and lateral
loads will be checked with loads calculated from chapters 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9 of ASCE 7-05
as opposed to the ASCE 7-98 code that was originally used. Using this updated code
with higher strength requirements will be accommodated for in the deeper floor system
and the more robust steel braced frame used to resist lateral loads.

4
Solution Method

Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)

will be used to verify adequacy of the W18 trial sizes
stated above through a truss analysis method. The
design of the steel braced frame will be based mainly
on chapters 3-5 (Tension, Columns, and Beams) in
the Manual of Steel Construction ~ 3rd Edition
(LRFD Manual). The trial sizes for the columns and
cross bracing will be checked for adequacy based on
beam/column interactions found in chapter 6 of the
LRFD Manual.

The bar joist system will be analyzed for

structural strength capacity based on manufacturer’s
data. Likewise, the 5½” concrete and composite
metal decking will be checked using load tables
created by the deck manufacturer. Along with the Figure 4
calculations for the floor system, the uplift at the Truss Analysis
exterior corridor wall will need to be checked to see if ~Lateral Loading
the cantilevered beam will require camber.

Story drift will be spot checked using

virtual work method and common braced frame
assumptions outlined in the introduction to steel
course at Penn State. The trial sizes will be
inputted into RAM to compute interactions
between gravity and lateral loadings over the entire
building and compute the effects of live load
patterns through a finite element analysis program.
This data will then be checked with the hand spot
check calculations to verify critical loadings and
locations in the building. The torsion on the lateral
system will be checked by the RAM model and
will be used to determine the adequacy of the
Figure 5 braced frame system.
Virtual Work Method
~Story Drift

5
Tasks and tools to be used in each solution

Braced Frame Alternative

Task 1. Establish Trial Member Sizes

a. Determine beam sizes based on a 38’ max span and 21” ceiling height
requirements. Determine if the use of shear studs as outlined in
chapter 5 of the LRFD Manual are required for span and loading
requirements.
b. Establish if 5½” thickness of concrete and composite deck meets
strength and vibration requirements based on manufacturer’s data.
Check for adequacy of three hour fire requirements based on
Underwriter Laboratories (UL) testing.
c. Determine the most economical floor framing direction. There are 2
options for framing directions: 31’ in the North-South direction or 38’
in the East-West direction bearing on steel beams that cantilever across
the corridor, see figure 6 below. The systems will be compared by
costs found in RS Means.
d. Verify that the exterior corridor cantilever is adequate for loading.
Corridor
38’-0” Typical
Framing Direction
30’-0”±1’-0”

Alternate Bar Joist Bearing on Cantilevered Beams

Bar Joist
5’-6”
Deck

Figure 6

Task 2. Determine Floor Loadings

a. Find factored self weight based on member selections from Task 1.
b. Establish superimposed dead loads based on building plans and use.
c. Verify gravity loads established in Technical Report #2 with ASCE 7-
98 chapters 3, 4, and 7.
d. Verify lateral loads established in Technical Report #2 with ASCE 7-
98 chapters 6 and 9.

6
Task 3. Complete Computer Analysis
a. Input the steel braced frame members into a 3D RAM finite element
analysis program.
b. Assign lateral and gravity loading to the model based on the loads
calculated in task 2. Set the computer analysis to analyze full and
partial live load conditions to establish live load patterns on the
structure.
c. Verify adequacy of member sizes based on lateral loads occurring at
cardinal directions and at 45 degree angles to the structure.
d. Compare results for member sizes, loading on the footing, and story
drift with the results of the hand calculations.

Task 4. Complete Hand Spot Checks

(To be used to verify specific members as needed)
a. Using the Tributary Area Method for lateral loads, select the steel
braced frame with the largest tributary area and calculate the seismic
and wind story forces. Apply story forces to nodes and uniform
gravity loads to horizontal beams.
b. Adapting the Shear Wall Analysis excel spreadsheet created in
Technical Report #3, calculate the axial and torsional loads on each
braced frame in the system.
c. Using the Truss Analysis, calculate axial and bending moments.
d. Determine nodal loads using Portal Frame Analysis
e. Select critical members within the truss and verify size using chapter 6
of the LRFD Manual based on interaction of the member’s axial and
bending loads.
f. Determine story drift by the use of Virtual Work Method, as illustrated
in the introduction to steel class at Penn State.
g. Calculate new forces that are transferred to the foundation and size the
foundation system based on the Terzaaghi or Meyerhof Bearing
Capacity Methods.

Task 5. Final Analysis

a. Design a cross brace-to-column connection capable of transferring the
maximum calculated force. The connections chapter of the LRFD
Manual and course notes from the Penn State master’s connection
course will be used to evaluate the connections. Calculate column to
column splice connections for the frame in the same manner.
b. Establish the final steel braced frame based on the RAM model.
c. Verify that all calculated member and footing sizes in the final design
of the structure correspond with the greatest loading of the structure.
d. Prepare updated plans reflecting these changes to the structure.

7
 Project Schedule

Task Weeks Description Exact Dates

Week of December 04, 2005 ¾ Breadth topic research (EFIS) •
Week of December 11, 2005 ¾ Finals week •
¾ Review of steel and steel connections • Dec. 13-16
Week of December 18, 2005 ¾ Break •
Week of December 25, 2005 ¾ Break •
Week of January 01, 2005 ¾ Break •
1 Week of January 08, 2005 ¾ Classes begin • Jan. 9
¾ Review of steel • Jan. 9-10
¾ Determine best framing direction based • Jan. 9-12
on criteria from task 1
¾ Calculate gravity loadings • Jan. 9-14
¾ Determine preliminary member sizes • Jan. 9-14
2 Week of January 15, 2005 ¾ Adapt excel spreadsheet for braced • Jan. 16-21
frame lateral loads
3 Week of January 22, 2005 ¾ Construct RAM model • Jan. 23-28
Week of January 29, 2005 ¾ Complete RAM model • Jan. 30-
Feb 2
Week of February 05, 2005 ¾ Run computer analysis and process • Feb. 6-11
results
Week of February 12, 2005 ¾ Update ram finite element building model • Feb 13-17
using sizes established by calculations
B ¾ Construct system sequencing diagram • Feb 13-18
for the braced frame system and
compare with the light gage system
4 Week of February 19, 2005 ¾ Spot check typical foundation sizes using • Feb. 20-22
Terzaaghi or Meyerhof bearing capacity
method
B ¾ Conduct cladding analysis to create • Feb. 22-25
weather resistance for the EFIS system
5 Week of February 26, 2005 ¾ Finish hand spot checks and finalize any • Feb. 27-28
unresolved issues
Week of March 05, 2005 ¾ Spring break •
Week of March 12, 2005 ¾ Update building plans to reflect typical • March 13-18
changes
Week of March 19, 2005 ¾ Begin typing final report • March 20-25
Week of March 26, 2005 ¾ Assemble and print reports • March 27-31
Week of April 02, 2005 ¾ Final report due • April 5
¾ Prepare presentation • April 6-8
Week of April 09, 2005 ¾ First round of presentations • April 10-12
Week of April 16, 2005 ¾ Correct and update presentation • April 17-19
Week of April 23, 2005 ¾ Second round / jury presentations • April 28

8
Project Timeline