PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT REPORT: MONROE COUNTY HURRICANE SHELTER AT THE GRAHAM CENTER AT FIU

Transcription

1 A Resource for the State of Florida HURRICANE LOSS REDUCTION FOR HOUSING IN FLORIDA: PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT REPORT: MONROE COUNTY HURRICANE SHELTER AT THE GRAHAM CENTER AT FIU A Research Project Funded by The State of Florida Department of Community Affairs Through Contract # 05RC PREPARED BY THE INTERNATIONAL HURRICANE RESEARCH CENTER FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

2 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The firm Pistorino & Alam Consulting Engineers, Inc. was retained by the International Hurricane Research Center at the Florida International University (FIU) to perform the preliminary structural engineering assessment of the original building and additions conforming the Ernest R. Graham Center (EGC), in order to establish the adequacy of building to meet structural requirements established for a hurricane evacuation shelter. This study also includes cost effective retrofit propositions for the structural systems, non-structural components and for the hardening of the building envelope as well as a benefit cost analysis. The EGC is located at the Florida International University, University Park, SW 8 th Street Miami, Florida and it will serve as a recovery shelter for the for the people of the Monroe County. The building can be effectively converted and improved to function as a temporary hurricane shelter. The hardening costs for providing internal partitions that isolate sections as well as protection for exterior glazing/glass wall openings is approximately $1,500,000. Up grading the building frame and roof openings and roof mounted mechanical equipment will also be necessary, and the budget estimated is approximately $1,750,000 depending on the actual retrofit requirements. The detailed engineering assessment will cost $150,000. Ernest R. Graham Center Main Entrance Pistorino & Alam Consulting Engineers, Inc. Proj. #05-235

3 2.0 INTRODUCTION The EGC has been previously evaluated as a potential public hurricane evacuation shelter in the year 2004 by the Florida Department of Community affairs (DCA). At that time DCA requested a more detailed phase I architectural and engineering study to further evaluate the building. Findings of the DCA evaluation are included in Appendix A. Least Risk Decision Making: ARC 4496 Guidelines Summary. The purpose of this study in the preliminary assessment of the structural systems in the EGC building in order to obtain the critical analytical data for estimating the adequacy of the building to withstand the wind loads associated with the performance criteria for a hurricane shelter. It will also serve to establish the need for more detailed assessment and to provide cost effective retrofits for the structural systems and the exterior envelope of the selected areas of the EGC to be part of the shelter. 2.1 OCCUPANCY The EGC is currently being used as the recreational center for the students of FIU. Some areas of the center are leased to private parties for commercial use precluding them to be considered available for public use. In the event of a hurricane the selected areas of the building must function as a public shelter for the evacuees at its maximum occupancy. From the structural point of view the building is considered as a whole. The total square footage of areas analyzed is approximately square feet. However this figure does not represent the total area of the shelter. Subsequent refined selection of the areas within the proposed shelter must be made based on their availability for public use, in order to determine the maximum shelter capacity. When doing so, adequate space must be set aside for registration, health services and safety and fire considerations in addition to the space requirements for the shelter residents. ARC uses the planning guidelines of 40 square feet of space per shelter resident and per persons working with disaster health services as well. FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 3

4 3.0 REVIEWED DOCUMENTS FIU Facilities Management/Operations provided Pistorino & Alam Consulting Engineers, Inc. with the following documents for review. These documents along with the observations made during our reconnaissance walk through the facilities are the basis for the assumptions in this study. Provided Documents: Project Number Dated11/21/72. Student Services Building Florida International University Tamiami Trail Miami, Florida by Grove/Haack & Associates, Inc. State Project Number BR-866. Dated 3/27/89. University House Remodeling and Addition Florida International University Tamiami Campus by the Russel Partnership, Inc. State Project Number BR-808. Dated 12/13/1993. Ernest R. Graham Center Remodeling and Addition Florida International University Miami, Florida by Lemus Ramos and Associates, Inc. PROJECT Number Dated 05/07/01. Bookstore Addition/Renovation Florida International University Bookstore Miami, Florida by Bridgeport Design Group. State Project Number BR-806. Dated 11/15/2003. Florida International University Graham Center Renovations and Additions University Park Miami, Florida by MCHarris Associates. Threshold Inspector Special Inspector s Inspection Plan by Martinez Engineering Group, Inc. 4.0 LOADING AND PERFORMANCE CRITERIA The standards adopted for the selection and evaluations of the existing facilities are: US Department of Energy, Natural Phenomena Hazards Design and Evaluation Criteria for Department of Energy Facilities, DOE-STD , January American Red Cross, Standards for Hurricane Evacuation Shelter Selection, ARC 4496, January FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 4

5 Department of Community affairs, Consultive Guidance for Implementation of Public Shelter Design Criteria, EHPA, 2004 State Emergency Shelter Plan. American Society of Civil Engineers Guidelines for Structural Conditions Assessment of Existing Buildings, ANSI/ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE Florida Building Code EXISTING FACILITIES The EGC as it stands today consist of several buildings that have been added on to the original Student Services Building during different periods dating back to the year 1972 with the most recent addition in the year These buildings have different structural framing systems that have been designed according to the current codes at the time of execution of the projects. Furthermore, the center has been the subject of constant renovations throughout its life in order to accommodate for its changing needs. For intentions of this study, the EGC has been divided into eight areas. They have been located with respect to the original Students Services Building and identified as following. Also graphic representation of the areas is included in Appendix B: Floor plans of the Ernest R. Graham University Center: Area A A1 B B1 C C1 C2 D E F G H Locations Inner Core, 1 st Level Inner Core, 1 st Level North East, 1 st Level East, 1 st Level North West, 1 st Level North West, 1 st Level North, 1 st Level South, 1 st Level South East, 1 st Level Inner Core, 2 nd Level North West, 2 nd Level Inner Core, 3 rd Level FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 5

6 6.0 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS AND CLADDINGS 6.1 ORIGINAL STUDENT SERVICES BUILDING This building is identified with areas A, A1, F, H and Project Number 3371 dated, 11/21/72. Based upon the layout of the different buildings that conform the EGC, the inner core of the shelter will be the original Student Services Building. However, the information on the drawings for this three-story structure is very limited. The building is formed by two adjacent structures separated by a one-inch expansion joint running in the North South direction and the structural system is a reinforced concrete cast-in-place flexural frame. Student Services Building West Façade Cast-in-place slab on pre-cast joists and cast-in-place beams FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 6

7 The framing plan at roof level is mainly one-way slab on precast joists and cast-inplace beams. The third and second floor level framing plans are two-way waffle slab monolithic with beams. Foundations consist of group piles and pile caps. The story height is 12 feet and the predominant bay span is 30 feet with the span ratio close to one. The structure is regular in plan and the load paths are well defined for vertical as well as for lateral loads Windows on the first and second level are small and scarce. On the other hand big glass doors and windows are present in the third floor. Most of the exterior walls of this building are pre-cast concrete panels mechanically attached to the beams and/or slabs. Except for the walls of the auditorium to the left bottom corner of area A identified as room 140, which are made of stack bond concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls. Student Services Building East Façade Mechanical Equipment and Aggregate Built-up Roofing FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 7

8 The roof level is the most vulnerable; the roof covering is aggregate surfaced builtup roof (BUR). Flying aggregate has been the caused of much damage in past hurricanes. Additionally, metal flashing, gutters and lighting protection systems (LPS) cables are not properly secured. Also there are three clear plastic skylights and numerous mechanical equipments, ventilations intakes, exhaust and air conditioning ducts are minimally secured to the roof. 6.2 NORTH EAST ADDITION Areas B and B1 are part of this building and they correspond to Project Number BR-566 dated, 03/27/89. The structural system framing system for this one story reinforced concrete building consists of cast in-place, one way concrete slab on precast joists, cast-in-place beams and columns. The foundations are isolated spread footings. Also there is a retaining wall footing on the South and South West of the building. The architectural and structural drawings for the North East part of these additions are complete. Structural members are well documented in the drawings except for the pre-cast joists. However, for the Central East part of this addition, areas B1, there are no structural drawings available so the structure is being described based on observations made during our site visits. This structure is irregular in plan and mixed structural systems occur at one level. The load path for the lateral loads must be established. North East Addition East Façade FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 8

9 The exterior walls to the North are CMU walls with extensive glass windows. The South and part of the East facades of area B are also CMU walls but with almost no windows. Precast panels make for walls at the East façade North East Addition North Façade North East Addition South Façade The curve walls of area B1 are a combination of CMU, precast panels and glass block walls with large windows. Some mechanical equipment is present in the roof. FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 9

10 East Façade Area B1 North East Addition Roof Level FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 10

11 6.3 NORTH WEST ADDITION C, C1, C2 and G are the areas corresponding to Project Number BR-860 dated, 11/15/2003. The structural framing system for this two-story reinforced concrete building consists mainly of precast joists on soffit beams and in some areas flat one and two way solid slabs, cast-in-place concrete. The roof framing for the multi function courtyard and the retail space, Areas C1 and C2 have reinforced concrete slab over metal deck spanning on steel joists. Foundations are isolated spread footing. This is the most recent and best-documented addition. Structural and architectural drawings are complete, threshold special inspector s inspection report is available and shop drawing for curtain wall and window and doors are also included. Even though this building is quite irregular in plan and in elevation, it is the most recent and consequently it was designed to more stringent codes, ASCE 7-98 and the FBC North West Addition West Façade North West Addition North Façade Areas C1 and C2 FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 11

12 North West Addition South Façade This addition has an extensive curtain wall along the curved exterior of area C1 and also large windows are present on area C2. Shop drawings for the impact resistant curtain wall and windows are available. The rest of the exterior walls are mainly precast panels, some CMU walls and some load bearing concrete walls. Again, mechanical equipment on the rooftop is present. North West Addition Roof Level Mechanical Equipment FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 12

13 6.4 SOUTH ADDITIONS The two additions to the South areas D and E correspond to the Project BR-808 and Project dated, 12/13/1993 and 05/07/01 respectively. The roof framing in these additions consists of Vulcraft metal deck over steel joists and there is no concrete slab on top of the metal deck specified in the drawings. In the past this lightweight roof frame system has performed poorly when subjected to uplift pressure from wind loads, and unless uplift test are performed to evaluate the capacity of the roof system, the structural adequacy of this building cannot be assumed. Furthermore, most of the ground floors are private leases. No further considerations are given to these two areas D and E in regards to the shelter. South Additions East Façade South Additions South Façade FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 13

14 7.0 STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS AND DESIGN CRITERIA 7.1 EXISTING STRUCTURES DESIGN PHILOSOPHY The design philosophy applied to the structural system of the EGC buildings are the requirements established on the applicable codes at the time of their design, and the design criteria were corresponding to the nature of their occupancy as an educational building. The performance of these buildings under dead and live loads is unquestionable. The structural systems and non-structural components are in good service conditions with no signs of structural distress, no large deflection, no cracks or spalling concrete and no rusting steel. Even more, this facilities have been very well maintained and there is no history of mayor failures during past hurricanes. 7.2 PUBLIC SHELTER DESIGN CRITERIA According to Public Shelter Design Criteria also known as EHPA criteria, the Structural Requirements for a public hurricane shelter must be such that not only the structural frame resists collapse in a Category 3 or greater hurricane, but that the exterior envelope components, cladding materials and assemblies remain sufficiently intact to protect the building occupants and preserve the mass care function. 7.3 WIND LOAD PERFORMANCE The wind load performance objective of a shelter is more stringent than that of an educational building, that is: a building functioning as a shelter must be such that under wind load the structural system remains stable and would not collapse. Furthermore, localized damage or breach of the structural envelope and flow of the water through the building and water damage are not acceptable if the building is to maintain its mars care functions as an essential facility. Public shelters are to be designed according to wind load provisions ASCE 7-98 using an important factor (I) for a category III or IV (essential facility) building occupancy. However, the EHPA code provisions recommend increasing by 40 miles per hour the ASCE 7-98 map wind speed with an important factor of DCA also recommends the 40 mile per hour increase in base wind speed. This increment is consistent with the Department of Energy DOE-STD-1020 criteria by adjusting the wind speed design up to about 1,000+ year recurrence levels. FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 14

15 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1 AVAILABLE AREAS SUITABLE FOR OCCUPATION The structural systems of the original Student Services Building, the North West Addition and the North East Additions are very likely to support higher wind loading provided with the necessary enhancements and retro fits. These buildings have low slenderness ratios, robust structural members and heavy roof systems (approximately 50psf). They are fairly regular in the plans and elevations and the load paths for lateral loads can be clearly delineated. Based upon the assumed criteria, the available information on the reviewed documents and the observations from our site visits, areas A, B, B1, C, F, G and H have been selected to be part of the shelter. Area A1 has been excluded due to previous flooding occurrence, its floor level is below grade. Likewise area C1 has also been banned due to the extensive curtain wall. 8.2 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT A detailed assessment is required for the purpose of determining the adequacy of the structural systems to satisfy the requirement of the EHPA performance criteria. Given the absence of data regarding most of the existing members in the original Student Services Building, a survey to determine their dimensions and geometric is required. In the same order, to obtain material properties, it is necessary to perform non-destructive tests of the concrete and to obtain representative samples of the reinforcement. The strength evaluation of the selected areas will be based on the as-built conditions, measured dimensions and the determined material properties. Only after the detailed evaluation based upon the new wind loading is complete, the required retrofit for the existing structural systems can be determined. It is estimated such activities will cost $150, EXTERIOR ENVELOPE REQUIREMENTS Hardening of the exterior envelope is essential and irrelevant of the findings from the detailed assessments regarding the structural systems. Since most of the exterior walls are precast concrete and considering that most connections of precast concrete have little continuity, evaluation of the existing connectors is essential in order to define the load paths for the lateral loads. CMU walls need to be explored to confirm the existing reinforcement and retrofitted with the mandatory vertical and horizontal reinforcing bars. FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 15

16 8.3.1 Wall Openings All windows and doors must be protected against flying debris by installing barriers such as accordion shutters, heavy coiling doors, roll-downs and hollow metal exterior doors. The adequacy of the supporting walls must be confirmed or otherwise provided by the required retrofit. The following tabulation quantifies the areas requiring protection and the associated costs. Building Area Cost Opening Quantity # of Exterior Openings A Entry right end 1 Entry right end 1 Entry north 1 Entry north 1 Entry north 1 Entry north 1 $150,000 West entry 1 North entry 1 Quantity of accordion 4 openings Double hollow metal 6 replacement doors 6 Building Area Cost Opening Quantity # of Exterior Openings B Glass block at stair tower 4 Wd at loading dock 1 Wd type 2 8 Louver 2 Louver 1 Wd type 3 6 West end side Wd 2 $165,000 Door type A1 1 Door type B1 1 Quantity of accordion 6 openings Single hollow metal 4 replacement doors Double hollow metal 7 replacement doors 24 FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 16

17 8.3.1 Wall Openings Continued Building Area Cost Opening Quantity # of Exterior Openings B1 Wd A 8 Wd B 6 Glass block 2 $50,000 Door type 1 1 Door type 2 1 Quantity of accordion 3 openings Double hollow metal 1 replacement doors 16 Building Area Cost Opening Quantity # of Exterior Openings C Wd type A 5 Wd type B 12 Wd type C 5 Wd type D 8 $90,000 Single hollow metal replacement doors Double hollow metal replacement doors North entry Building Area Cost Opening Quantity # of Exterior Openings C1 Wd type A 161 Wd type B 14 Quantity of accordion 1 openings 175 $320,000 FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 17

18 8.3.1 Wall Openings Continued Building Area Cost Opening Quantity # of Exterior Openings C2 Quantity of accordion 5 openings Wd N1 1 North door N2 1 Wd N3 1 Wd W1 1 Wd W2 1 0 $19,000 Building Area Cost Opening Quantity # of Exterior Openings F Corner Wd 1 Corner Wd 1 Louver 1 Louver 1 West by stairs 1 West wd 1 $60,000 6 Building Area Cost Opening Quantity # of Exterior Openings G Wd A 10 Wd B 2 Wd C 1 Wd D 1 Wd E 1 Wd F 3 Wd G 2 Wd H 3 Door 1 1 Door 2 1 Sq. feet, accordions 281 $120,000 Single hollow metal replacement doors Interior install heavy cooling doors FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 18

19 8.3.1 Wall Openings Continued Building Area Cost Opening Quantity # of Exterior Openings H Ribbon 5 Ribbon 1 Ribbon 1 Ribbon 1 Ribbon 1 Louver 1 Adjacent clearstory 1 Adjacent clearstory 1 $105,000 Panther suite 1 Panther suite Interior Partitions Additionally, interior partitions defining the limits of the shelter between area A and areas D, E, and A1 and between area C1 and areas C and G are necessary. The cost of these partitions has been included in the previous tables, corresponding to each area. Please refer to sketch 1 in Appendix B Roof Mechanical Equipment Given the variety and the scattered location of the existing mechanical equipments in the rooftop, further assessment is recommended to evaluate their adequacy to sustain high up lift forces. Similarly, every opening on the roof and on any exterior wall, for the mechanical equipment must be protected in such a way that the integrity of the exterior envelope is maintained while allowing for the different equipment to function properly. Estimated Cost $250, COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS The cost of hardening the envelope will be a fair amount of the total cost of retrofitting the existing facilities. Based on the proposal for providing shutters for all windows and doors and interior partitions, and allowing for the replacement of the skylights, the approximate amount of $1,500,000 should be allocated to this respect. FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 19

20 The engineering assessment of the structure includes four phases, the survey of the structural members, the determination of the material properties thru testing, the structural analysis of the existing members and the design of any required retrofits, if any. This assessment has an approximate cost of $150,000. Depending on the actual design requirements, the cost of the retrofits for the structural and non-structural components should be budgeted as $1,500,000. However, only after the detailed assessment is completed and depending on the results an exact estimation of the mitigation cost for the structures can be made. The cost of up grading the mechanical equipment has been estimated to be $250,000. Note: Projected costs for the exterior wall openings have been estimated by HPI (Hurricane Protection Industries, Inc.) SUFFICIENCY This report is based primarily on the visual observations of the exposed building elements. To the best of our knowledge and our ability, this report represents an accurate appraisal of the present condition of the building, based on the observed exposed conditions, to the extent reasonably possible. Nothing in this report shall be construed directly or indirectly as a guarantee of any portion of the structure. Submitted by, Pistorino & Alam Consulting Engineers, Inc. John C. Pistorino, P.E., President Leonor Ortega, E.I., Attachments: Appendix A, Least Risk Decision Making. ARC 4496 Guidelines Summary Appendix B, Floor Plans for the Ernest R. Graham University Center FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 20

21 Report Submitted to the International Hurricane Research Center: Pistorino & Alam Consulting Engineers, Inc S.W. 62 nd Avenue, 4 th Floor Miami, Florida Phone: (305) Fax: (305) FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 21

22 APPENDIX A Least Risk Decision Making ARC 4496 Guidelines Summary FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 22

23 DRAFT2 Least-Risk Decision Making: ARC 4496 Guideline Summary Survey Date: June 30, 2004 County: Miami-Dade Facility Name: FIU-Engineering Center Address: W. Flagler St. (Hurricane Shelter spaces surveyed are located in 1 st story classrooms & corridor) City: Miami State: FL Zip Code: Coordinates: Latitude: ' Longitude: ' CRITERIA PREFERRED MARGINAL Investigation/ Mitigation req d 1. Storm Surge Inundation 2. Rainfall Flooding / Dam Considerations 3. Hazmat and Nuclear Power Plant Considerations 4. Lay-down Hazard Exposure Building and access routes located outside Category 5 inundation zone (FF elev. 10.0' msl) Building and access route located in FIRM Zone X (unshaded) No NPP within ten miles There is a history of minor grounds flooding Per SERC data, FIU is inside VZ for one (1) Hazmat Sec. 302 facility (#30957) -- Per Miami-Dade EM, risk & effects of release during major hurricane should be low Minor lay-down hazards were observed near the facility; primarily palm trees and other small trees that do not appear to be large enough to breach the building s envelope 5. Wind and Debris Exposure Limited wind exposure (ASCE 7 FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 23

24 Exposure B/C), 8 miles from Biscayne Bay; minor exposure to large windborne debris sources (tree branchs); east side near parking area that may present roll-over hazard due to parked vehicles* 6. Wind Design Verification Designed & constructed ca. 1978; design code = SFBC, wind design, importance factor & exposure not specified 7. Construction Type / Loadpath Verification 8. Building Condition / Wind Damage History Three story heavy weight MR steel frame with reinforced concrete floor and roof decks Good condition, no observable or known structural deterioration; no history of wind damage 9. Exterior Wall Construction 10. Fenestrations / Window Protection Unreinforced 8" CMU walls; reinforcement details inconclusive on available A/S drawings Unprotected ANSI Z-97.1 safety glass (Note: metal panel shutters may be available) 11. Roof Construction / Roof Slope Moderate weight (~40 psf) flat slope 3"concrete on composite 20 ga metal deck w/ builtup roof cover & FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 24

25 gravel typical; no significant overhang present 12. Roof Open Span Moderate weight (~40 psf) roof w/typical ~32' 13. Roof Drainage / Ponding 14. Interior Safe Space Drainage confining parapets present w/scuppers; no significant roof ponding reported N/A - Typical interior partitions are GWB on metal stud or unreinforced masonry 15. Life Safety / Emergency Power Generator present; Life safety inspection not performed as part of this survey CMU-Concrete Masonry Unit; NPP-Nuclear Power Plant; GWB-Gypsum Wall Board * - Vehicles should not be parked within 50 feet of building perimeter during high wind events; vehicle stand-off is considered a mitigating factor. ** - Recommend evaluation of CMU wall system by professional structural engineer for certification to meet the wind load requirements according to ASCE 7-98, Category IV. FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 25

26 FIU - Engineering Center Estimate of Potential Hurricane Shelter Area and Spaces Room #(s) Gross Floor Area, s.f. Approx. Use Factor Usable Area, s.f , , W2 1, ,162 Potential Total Usable Floor Area 7,765 Potential Hurricane Shelter 20 sq.ft. per space 388 As-Is ARC 4496 Hurricane Shelter Spaces 0 FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 26

27 DRAFT2 Least-Risk Decision Making: ARC 4496 Guideline Summary Survey Date: June 29, 2004 County: Miami-Dade Facility Name: FIU-Eng. & Computer Science Address: SW 8 th St (Hurricane Shelter spaces located in 1 st story corridors & east wing classrooms) City: Miami State: FL Zip Code: Coordinates: Latitude: ' Longitude: ' CRITERIA PREFERRED MARGINAL Investigation/ Mitigation req d 1. Storm Surge Inundation Building and access routes located outside Category 5 inundation zone (FF elev. 10.0' msl) 2. Rainfall Flooding / Dam Considerations 3. Hazmat and Nuclear Power Plant Considerations 4. Lay-down Hazard Exposure No NPP within ten miles Building and access route located in FIRM Zone X (shaded); there is a history of minor grounds flooding Per SERC data, FIU is inside VZ for one (1) Hazmat Sec. 302 facility (#30957) -- Per Miami-Dade EM, risk & effects of release during major hurricane should be low Minor lay-down hazards were observed near the facility; primarily palm trees and other small trees that do not appear to be large enough to breach the building s envelope FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 27

28 5. Wind and Debris Exposure 6. Wind Design Verification Sheltered wind exposure (ASCE 7 Exposure B), 8 miles from Biscayne Bay; Minor exposure to large windborne debris sources (primarily tree branchs) Adjacent to parking lot that may present roll-over hazard due to parked vehicles* Designed & constructed ca. 1987; design code = SFBC 7. Construction Type / Loadpath Verification 8. Building Condition / Wind Damage History 9. Exterior Wall Construction Two story w/ partial four story heavy weight monolithic reinforced concrete frame with reinforced concrete floor and roof decks Good condition, no observable or known structural deterioration; no history of wind damage Two story tiecolumn & beam reinforced CMU wall bearing structure with reinforced concrete floor and roof decks Unreinforced 8" CMU walls; infilled to ~16' o.c. w/ 3" fluted masonry veneer 10. Fenestrations / Window Protection Windows covered by jalousie-type metal shutters; impact test performance unknown 11. Roof Construction / Roof Slope Heavy weight (~50 psf) monolithic roof; 4" reinforced concrete flat slope roof deck w/ built-up roof cover & gravel typical; no significant FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 28

29 overhang present 12. Roof Open Span Heavy weight (~50 psf) monolithic reinforced concrete roof w/typical ~40' 13. Roof Drainage / Ponding 14. Interior Safe Space Drainage confining parapets present w/scuppers; no significant roof ponding observed Interior corridor: Partially reinforced masonry w/ tiecolumn ~13.5' o.c. w/ 4" reinforced concrete floor overhead 15. Life Safety / Emergency Power Generator present; Life safety inspection not performed as part of this survey CMU-Concrete Masonry Unit; NPP-Nuclear Power Plant; GWB-Gypsum Wall Board * - Vehicles should not be parked within 50 feet of building perimeter during high wind events; vehicle stand-off is considered a mitigating factor. ** - Recommend evaluation of loadpath and tie-column & beam wall system components by professional structural engineer for certification to meet the wind load requirements according to ASCE 7-98, Category IV. FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 29

30 FIU - Engineering and Computer Science Bldg Estimate of Potential Hurricane Shelter Area and Spaces Room #(s) Gross Floor Area, s.f. Approx. Use Factor Usable Area, s.f W1 1, , W2 1, ,183 Potential Total Usable Floor Area 5,370 Potential Hurricane Shelter 20 sq.ft. per space 268 Corridor 100W1 & 100W2 as-is spaces 118 FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 30

31 DRAFT2 Least-Risk Decision Making: ARC 4496 Guideline Summary Survey Date: June 29, 2004 County: Miami-Dade Facility Name: FIU-E.R. Graham Center, Part A Address: SW 8 th St City: Miami State: FL Zip Code: Coordinates: Latitude: ' Longitude: ' CRITERIA PREFERRED MARGINAL Investigation/ Mitigation req d 1. Storm Surge Inundation Building and access routes located outside Category 5 inundation zone (FF elev ' msl) 2. Rainfall Flooding / Dam Considerations 3. Hazmat and Nuclear Power Plant Considerations 4. Lay-down Hazard Exposure No NPP within ten miles Building and access route located in FIRM Zone X (shaded); there is a history of minor grounds flooding Per SERC data, FIU is inside VZ for one (1) Hazmat Sec. 302 facility (#30957) -- Per Miami-Dade EM, risk & effects of release during major hurricane should be low Minor lay-down hazards were observed near the facility; primarily palm trees and other small trees that do not appear to be large enough to breach the building s envelope FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 31

32 5. Wind and Debris Exposure 6. Wind Design Verification 7. Construction Type / Loadpath Verification 8. Building Condition / Wind Damage History Sheltered wind exposure (ASCE 7 Exposure B), 8 miles from Biscayne Bay One story w/ partial three story heavy weight monolithic reinforced concrete frame with reinforced concrete roof decks Good condition, no observable or known structural deterioration; no history of wind damage Facility is adjacent to parking lot that may present rollover hazard due to parked vehicles*; Minimal exposure to large windborne debris sources (tree branches) Designed & constructed ca. 1989; design code (probably SBC), importance factor & exposure not available 9. Exterior Wall Construction 10. Fenestrations / Window Protection Unreinforced 8" CMU walls; all nonbearing masonry infilled to ~22' o.c.; note that some portions of wall are stack bond Unprotected ANSI Z-97.1 safety glass 11. Roof Construction / Roof Slope Heavy weight (~50 psf) monolithic roof; 4" reinforced concrete flat slope roof deck w/ built-up roof cover & gravel FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 32

33 typical; no significant overhang present 12. Roof Open Span Heavy weight (~50 psf) monolithic reinforced concrete roof w/typical spans of ~19' to 26' 13. Roof Drainage / Ponding Heavy weight (~50 psf) monolithic reinforced concrete roof w/max. ~70' Drainage confining parapets present w/scuppers; no significant roof ponding reported 14. Interior Safe Space N/A - Typical interior partitions are GWB on metal stud or unreinforced masonry 15. Life Safety / Emergency Power Generator present; Life safety inspection not performed as part of this survey CMU-Concrete Masonry Unit; NPP-Nuclear Power Plant; GWB-Gypsum Wall Board * - Vehicles should not be parked within 50 feet of building perimeter during high wind events; vehicle stand-off is considered a mitigating factor. ** - Recommend evaluation of CMU wall system by professional structural engineer for certification to meet the wind load requirements according to ASCE 7-98, Category IV. FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 33

34 FIU - E.R. Graham Center, Part A Estimate of Potential Hurricane Shelter Area and Spaces Room #(s) Gross Floor Area, s.f. Approx. Use Factor Usable Area, s.f. 100 ~ W1 ~ W8-north ~ 4, , W6 ~ 4, , W1 ~ 1, , (114* & 119*) ~ 6, , ~ 2, , W3 ~ W5 ~ 2, , W1 ~ 2, , W1* ~ 1, , W3* ~ 1, Potential Total Usable Floor Area 23,988 Potential Hurricane Shelter 20 s.f. per space 1,199 As-Is ARC 4496 Hurricane Shelter Spaces TBD * - Note: Spaces currently under construction or scheduled for renovation. FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 34

35 DRAFT2 Least-Risk Decision Making: ARC 4496 Guideline Summary Survey Date: June 29, 2004 County: Miami-Dade Facility Name: FIU-E.R. Graham Center, Part B Address: SW 8 th St City: Miami State: FL Zip Code: Coordinates: Latitude: ' Longitude: ' CRITERIA PREFERRED MARGINAL Investigation/ Mitigation req d 1. Storm Surge Inundation Building and access routes located outside Category 5 inundation zone (FF elev ' msl) 2. Rainfall Flooding / Dam Considerations 3. Hazmat and Nuclear Power Plant Considerations 4. Lay-down Hazard Exposure No NPP within ten miles Building and access route located in FIRM Zone X (shaded); there is a history of minor grounds flooding Per SERC data, FIU is inside VZ for one (1) Hazmat Sec. 302 facility (#30957) -- Per Miami-Dade EM, risk & effects of release during major hurricane should be low Minor lay-down hazards were observed near the facility; primarily palm trees and other small trees that do not appear to be large enough to breach the building s envelope FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 35

36 5. Wind and Debris Exposure Sheltered wind exposure (ASCE 7 Exposure B), 8 miles from Biscayne Bay Facility is adjacent to parking lot that may present rollover hazard due to parked vehicles* ; Minimal exposure to large windborne debris sources (tree branches) 6. Wind Design Verification Designed & constructed ca. 1989; design code = mph, design importance factor & exposure not specified (record drawings available) 7. Construction Type / Loadpath Verification One story heavy weight monolithic reinforced concrete frame with reinforced concrete roof decks 8. Building Condition / Wind Damage History Good condition, no observable or known structural deterioration; no history of wind damage 9. Exterior Wall Construction 5" precast concrete east-wall Partially reinforced 8" CMU; north-wall infilled to ~6'8" o.c. w/ veneer Unreinforced 8" CMU walls; all other non-bearing masonry infilled to ~22' o.c. w/ veneer 10. Fenestrations / Window Protection Unprotected ANSI Z-97.1 safety glass 11. Roof Construction / Roof Slope Heavy weight (~50 psf) monolithic roof; 4" reinforced concrete flat slope roof deck w/ built-up roof cover & gravel typical; no significant overhang present FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 36

37 12. Roof Open Span Heavy weight (~50 psf) monolithic reinforced concrete roof w/typical spans of ~19' to 26' 13. Roof Drainage / Ponding Heavy weight (~50 psf) monolithic reinforced concrete roof w/max. ~70' Drainage confining parapets present w/scuppers; no significant roof ponding reported 14. Interior Safe Space N/A - Typical interior partitions are GWB on metal stud or unreinforced masonry 15. Life Safety / Emergency Power Generator present; Life safety inspection not performed as part of this survey CMU-Concrete Masonry Unit; NPP-Nuclear Power Plant; GWB-Gypsum Wall Board * - Vehicles should not be parked within 50 feet of building perimeter during high wind events; vehicle stand-off is considered a mitigating factor. ** - Recommend evaluation of CMU wall system by professional structural engineer for certification to meet the wind load requirements according to ASCE 7-98, Category IV. FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 37

38 FIU - E.R. Graham Center, Part B Estimate of Potential Hurricane Shelter Area and Spaces Room #(s) Gross Floor Area, s.f. Approx. Use Factor Usable Area, s.f. 118 ~ 2, , ~ 1, , A, B & C ~ 7, ,549 Potential Total Usable Floor Area 10,111 Potential Hurricane Shelter 20 s.f. per space 505 As-Is ARC 4496 Hurricane Shelter Spaces TBD FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 38

39 DRAFT2 Least-Risk Decision Making: ARC 4496 Guideline Summary Survey Date: June 29, 2004 County: Miami-Dade Facility Name: FIU-E.R. Graham Center, Part C Address: SW 8 th St City: Miami State: FL Zip Code: Coordinates: Latitude: ' Longitude: ' CRITERIA PREFERRED MARGINAL Investigation/ Mitigation req d 1. Storm Surge Inundation Building and access routes located outside Category 5 inundation zone (FF elev ' msl) 2. Rainfall Flooding / Dam Considerations 3. Hazmat and Nuclear Power Plant Considerations 4. Lay-down Hazard Exposure No NPP within ten miles Building and access route located in FIRM Zone X (shaded); there is a history of minor grounds flooding Per SERC data, FIU is inside VZ for one (1) Hazmat Sec. 302 facility (#30957) -- Per Miami-Dade EM, risk & effects of release during major hurricane should be low Minor lay-down hazards were observed near the facility; primarily palm trees and other small trees that do not appear to be large enough to breach the building s envelope FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 39

40 5. Wind and Debris Exposure 6. Wind Design Verification 7. Construction Type / Loadpath Verification 8. Building Condition / Wind Damage History 9. Exterior Wall Construction Sheltered wind exposure (ASCE 7 Exposure B), 8 miles from Biscayne Bay Designed & constructed ca. 1994; design code = SBC/ANSI mph One story w/ partial two story reinforced masonry wall bearing structure with interior ordinary steel frame and light metal roof decks Good condition, no observable or known structural deterioration; no history of wind damage Reinforced CMU 48" o.c.) infilled to tie-column & beam system w/ stucco veneer Facility is adjacent to parking lot that may present rollover hazard due to parked vehicles* ; Minimal exposure to large windborne debris sources (tree branches) Design importance factor & exposure not specified 10. Fenestrations / Window Protection Unprotected ANSI Z-97.1 safety glass 11. Roof Construction / Roof Slope Light weight (~10 psf) flat slope 22 ga metal deck w/ builtup roof cover & gravel typical; no significant overhang present 12. Roof Open Span Light weight (~10 psf) roof w/typical ~28' FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 40

41 13. Roof Drainage / Ponding 14. Interior Safe Space Drainage confining parapets present w/scuppers; no significant roof ponding reported N/A - Typical interior partitions are GWB on metal stud or unreinforced masonry 15. Life Safety / Emergency Power Generator present; Life safety inspection not performed as part of this survey CMU-Concrete Masonry Unit; NPP-Nuclear Power Plant; GWB-Gypsum Wall Board * - Vehicles should not be parked within 50 feet of building perimeter during high wind events; vehicle stand-off is considered a mitigating factor. ** - Recommend certification by professional structural engineer that structure meets the wind load requirements according to ASCE 7-98, Category IV. FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 41

42 FIU - E.R. Graham Center, Part C Estimate of Potential Hurricane Shelter Area and Spaces Room #(s) Gross Floor Area, s.f. Approx. Use Factor Usable Area, s.f. 100W8-south ~ 4, , W ~ 3, , A, 271B, 273A, 273B, 275A, 275B ~ 2, , , 274, 276 ~ 1, , A, 278B ~ 1, , 279A, 279B ~ 2, , ~ 1, A, 283B ~ 1, , 287A, 287B ~ 2, , , 288 ~ 1, ~ W2 ~ 1, , W3 ~ W4 ~ W7 ~ Potential Total Usable Floor Area 20,057 Potential Hurricane Shelter 20 s.f. per space 1,002 As-Is ARC 4496 Hurricane Shelter Spaces TBD FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 42

43 DRAFT2 Least-Risk Decision Making: ARC 4496 Guideline Summary Survey Date: June 29, 2004 County: Miami-Dade Facility Name: FIU-Golden Panther Arena Address: SW 8 th St (Hurricane Shelter spaces located in 1 st story-south classrooms & corridor) City: Miami State: FL Zip Code: Coordinates: Latitude: ' Longitude: ' CRITERIA PREFERRED MARGINAL Investigation/ Mitigation req d 1. Storm Surge Inundation Building and access routes located outside Category 5 inundation zone (FF elev. 9.0' msl) 2. Rainfall Flooding / Dam Considerations 3. Hazmat and Nuclear Power Plant Considerations 4. Lay-down Hazard Exposure No NPP within ten miles Building and access route located in FIRM Zone X (shaded); there is a history of minor grounds flooding Per SERC data, FIU is inside VZ for one (1) Hazmat Sec. 302 facility (#30957) -- Per Miami-Dade EM, risk & effects of release during major hurricane should be low Minor lay-down hazards were observed near the facility; primarily palm trees and other small trees that do not appear to be large enough to breach the building s envelope FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 43

44 5. Wind and Debris Exposure 6. Wind Design Verification Limited wind exposure (ASCE 7 Exposure B/C), 8 miles from Biscayne Bay; minor exposure to large windborne debris sources (tree branchs); east side near parking area that may present roll-over hazard due to parked vehicles* Designed & constructed ca. 1984; design code, importance factor and exposure not available 7. Construction Type / Loadpath Verification 8. Building Condition / Wind Damage History One story with partial three story heavy weight reinforced concrete frame with reinforced concrete floor decks Good condition, no observable or known structural deterioration; no history of wind damage Very long span, deep steel truss roof structure with 26 ga metal roof deck 9. Exterior Wall Construction 1 st story north, south and east typical walls: Partially reinforced 8" CMU non-loadbearing wall; CMU infilled to ~12.5' o.c. w/ stucco veneer 1 st story west typical wall: Unreinforced 8" CMU infilled to ~21' o.c. w/stucco veneer Upper stories: light weight insulated metal panels, ga. not available 9.a. Exterior Wall Construction (1 st story-southside classroom area) 12" reinforced concrete shear walls at east and west walls Partially reinforced 8" CMU; south-wall infilled to tiecolumn & ~12.5' o.c. w/ stucco Partition main gym: unreinforced CMU infilled to tiecolumn & FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 44

45 veneer 19' oc; 4' deep stored wood bleacher assembly may be mitigating factor 10. Fenestrations / Window Protection Unprotected ANSI Z-97.1 safety glass; > south face (~ 6%) 11. Roof Construction / Roof Slope 2 nd Floor deck: Heavy weight (~60 psf) monolithic roof; 4.5" reinforced concrete flat slope floor deck w/ wood floor covering (~ 140 s.f. of window area) Main-roof: Flat slope light weight concrete on 26 ga metal deck (~10) w/ built-up roof cover & gravel typical; no significant overhang present 12. Roof Open Span 2 nd Floor deck: Heavy weight (~60 psf) monolithic reinforced concrete floor deck w/typical ~28' Main-roof: Maximum roof ~125' (based on Trusses T-1, T-1A, T-1B & T-2) 13. Roof Drainage / Ponding 14. Interior Safe Space Main-roof: Drainage confining parapets present w/scuppers; no significant roof ponding reported N/A - Typical interior partitions are GWB on metal stud or unreinforced masonry 15. Life Safety / Emergency Power Generator present; Life safety inspection not performed as part of this survey CMU-Concrete Masonry Unit; NPP-Nuclear Power Plant; GWB-Gypsum Wall Board * - Vehicles should not be parked within 50 feet of building perimeter during high wind events; vehicle stand-off is considered a mitigating factor. ** - Recommend evaluation of CMU wall system by professional structural engineer for certification to meet the wind load requirements according to ASCE 7-98, Category IV. FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 45

46 FIU - Golden Panther Arena, 1 st floor-south classroom area Estimate of Potential Hurricane Shelter Area and Spaces Room #(s) Gross Dimensions, ft Approx. Use Factor Usable Area, sq.ft , , W Potential Total Usable Floor Area 3,932 Total Potential Hurricane Shelter 20 sq.ft. per space 196 Corridor 100W2 & Classrooms 113, 117 and 123 as-is spaces 110 FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 46

47 DRAFT2 Least-Risk Decision Making: ARC 4496 Guideline Summary Survey Date: June 29, 2004 County: Miami-Dade Facility Name: FIU-Labor Center/ELI Address: SW 8 th St (Hurricane Shelter spaces surveyed are located in 1 st story classrooms & corridor) City: Miami State: FL Zip Code: Coordinates: Latitude: ' Longitude: ' CRITERIA PREFERRED MARGINAL Investigation/ Mitigation req d 1. Storm Surge Inundation Building and access routes located outside Category 5 inundation zone (FF elev. 10.0' msl) 2. Rainfall Flooding / Dam Considerations 3. Hazmat and Nuclear Power Plant Considerations 4. Lay-down Hazard Exposure No NPP within ten miles Building and access route located in FIRM Zone X (shaded); there is a history of minor grounds flooding Per SERC data, FIU is inside VZ for one (1) Hazmat Sec. 302 facility (#30957) -- Per Miami-Dade EM, risk & effects of release during major hurricane should be low Minor lay-down hazards were observed near the facility; primarily palm trees and other small trees that do not appear to be large enough to breach the building s envelope FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 47

48 5. Wind and Debris Exposure 6. Wind Design Verification Limited wind exposure (ASCE 7 Exposure B/C), 8 miles from Biscayne Bay; minor exposure to large windborne debris sources (tree branches); east side near parking area that may present roll-over hazard due to parked vehicles* Designed & constructed ca. 1992; design code = mph, design importance factor & exposure not specified 7. Construction Type / Loadpath Verification 8. Building Condition / Wind Damage History Three story heavy weight monolithic reinforced concrete frame with reinforced concrete floor and roof decks Good condition, no observable or known structural deterioration; no history of wind damage 9. Exterior Wall Construction 10. Fenestrations / Window Protection Unreinforced 8" CMU nonloadbearing walls**; CMU infilled to ~18' o.c. w/ 5" precast concrete panels or 3" fluted masonry veneer Unprotected ANSI Z-97.1 safety glass; > east face (~ 9%) FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 48

49 (~ 90 s.f. of window area, and ~144 s.f. of door area)**** 11. Roof Construction / Roof Slope Heavy weight (~50 psf) monolithic reinforced concrete roof; 3"+ reinforced concrete flat slope roof deck w/ built-up roof cover & gravel typical; no significant overhang present*** 12. Roof Open Span Heavy weight (~50 psf) monolithic reinforced concrete roof w/typical ~44' 13. Roof Drainage / Ponding 14. Interior Safe Space Drainage confining parapets present w/scuppers; no significant roof ponding observed N/A - Typical interior partitions are GWB on metal stud or unreinforced masonry 15. Life Safety / Emergency Power Generator present; Life safety inspection not performed as part of this survey CMU-Concrete Masonry Unit; NPP-Nuclear Power Plant; GWB-Gypsum Wall Board * - Vehicles should not be parked within 50 feet of building perimeter during high wind events; vehicle stand-off is considered a mitigating factor. ** - Recommend evaluation of CMU wall system by professional structural engineer for certification to meet the wind load requirements according to ASCE 7-98, Category IV. *** - 8' wide covered 3 rd floor level was considered an independent structure with negligible impact as a roof overhang. **** - Recommend enclosing 1 st story covered walkway on north side of building to provide access to restroom facilities. Enclosure should span between columns 2A to 1B to 1F to 2G 1 inclusive, less elevator space. FIU - Labor Center/ELI Estimate of Potential Hurricane Shelter Area and Spaces Room #(s) Gross Floor Area, s.f. Approx. Use Factor Usable Area, s.f. FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 49

50 A & B 1, W W Potential Total Usable Floor Area 2,954 Potential Hurricane Shelter 20 sq.ft. per space 147 As-Is ARC 4496 Hurricane Shelter Spaces 0 FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 50

51 DRAFT2 Least-Risk Decision Making: ARC 4496 Guideline Summary Survey Date: June 30, 2004 County: Miami-Dade Facility Name: FIU-new Rec Center, Part A Address: SW 8 th St City: Miami State: FL Zip Code: Coordinates: Latitude: 30 09' 36" Longitude: 85 39' 54" CRITERIA PREFERRED MARGINAL Investigation/ Mitigation req d 1. Storm Surge Inundation Building and access routes located outside Category 5 inundation zone (FF elev. not available; probably ~10' msl) 2. Rainfall Flooding / Dam Considerations 3. Hazmat and Nuclear Power Plant Considerations 4. Lay-down Hazard Exposure No NPP within ten miles Building and access route located in FIRM Zone X (shaded); there is a history of minor grounds flooding Per SERC data, FIU is inside VZ for one (1) Hazmat Sec. 302 facility (#30957) -- Per Miami-Dade EM, risk & effects of release during major hurricane should be low Minor lay-down hazards were observed near the facility; primarily palm trees and other small trees that do not appear to be large enough to breach the FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 51

52 5. Wind and Debris Exposure 6. Wind Design Verification 7. Construction Type / Loadpath Verification 8. Building Condition / Wind Damage History 9. Exterior Wall Construction Sheltered wind exposure (ASCE 7 Exposure B), 8 miles from Biscayne Bay Designed 2002 & constructed 2004; design code = FBC (ASCE mph, importance factor I=1.15 and exposure C One story w/ partial two story combination of heavy weight monolithic reinforced concrete frame and reinforced masonry wall bearing structure with reinforced concrete floor & roof decks Under construction/new condition, no observable or known structural deterioration; no history of wind damage 8" or 12" reinforced masonry walls (reinforcement spacing varies from 16" to 32" oc) building s envelope Adjacent to parking lot that may present roll-over hazard due to parked vehicles*; Minor exposure to large windborne debris sources (tree branches) 10. Fenestrations / Window Protection Window types and protective assemblies not given in A/S drawings; per architect s rep, window and door assemblies will meet FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 52

53 FBC HVZ large missile impact criteria*** 11. Roof Construction / Roof Slope Heavy weight (~50 psf) monolithic roof; 4"+ reinforced concrete flat slope roof deck w/ built-up roof cover & gravel typical; no significant overhang present 12. Roof Open Span FBC design heavy weight (~50 psf) monolithic reinforced concrete roof w/max. ~59' 13. Roof Drainage / Ponding 14. Interior Safe Space Drainage confining parapets present w/scuppers; new construction, no known roof ponding conditions N/A - Typical interior partitions are GWB on metal stud or masonry 15. Life Safety / Emergency Power Generator not present; Life safety inspection not performed as part of this survey CMU-Concrete Masonry Unit; NPP-Nuclear Power Plant; GWB-Gypsum Wall Board * - Vehicles should not be parked within 50 feet of building perimeter during high wind events; vehicle stand-off is considered a mitigating factor. ** - Recommend certification by professional structural engineer that structure meets the wind load requirements according to ASCE 7-98, Category IV. *** - Recommend that window and door assemblies be certified or documented to meet or exceed large missile windborne debris impact requirements of FBC HVZ. FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 53

54 FIU - new Recreation Center, Part A Estimate of Potential Hurricane Shelter Area and Spaces Room #(s) Net Floor Area, s.f. Approx. Use Factor Usable Area, s.f , , , , , ,547 Potential Total Usable Floor Area 7,223 Potential as-is Hurricane Shelter 20 sq.ft. per space 361 FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 54

55 DRAFT2 Least-Risk Decision Making: ARC 4496 Guideline Summary Survey Date: June 30, 2004 County: Miami-Dade Facility Name: FIU-new Rec Center, Part B Address: SW 8 th St City: Miami State: FL Zip Code: Coordinates: Latitude: 30 09' 36" Longitude: 85 39' 54" CRITERIA PREFERRED MARGINAL Investigation/ Mitigation req d 1. Storm Surge Inundation Building and access routes located outside Category 5 inundation zone (FF elev. not available; probably 11.65' msl) 2. Rainfall Flooding / Dam Considerations 3. Hazmat and Nuclear Power Plant Considerations 4. Lay-down Hazard Exposure No NPP within ten miles Building and access route located in FIRM Zone X (shaded); there is a history of minor grounds flooding Per SERC data, FIU is inside VZ for one (1) Hazmat Sec. 302 facility (#30957) -- Per Miami-Dade EM, risk & effects of release during major hurricane should be low Minor lay-down hazards were observed near the facility; primarily palm trees and other small trees that do not appear to be large enough to breach the FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 55

56 5. Wind and Debris Exposure 6. Wind Design Verification 7. Construction Type / Loadpath Verification 8. Building Condition / Wind Damage History 9. Exterior Wall Construction 10. Fenestrations / Window Protection Sheltered wind exposure (ASCE 7 Exposure B), 8 miles from Biscayne Bay; Designed 2002 & constructed 2004; design code = FBC (ASCE mph, importance factor I=1.15 and exposure C One story reinforced masonry wall bearing structure with reinforced concrete roof deck Under construction/new condition, no observable or known structural deterioration; no history of wind damage 8" or 12" reinforced masonry walls (reinforcement spacing varies from 16" to 32" oc) Window types and protective assemblies not given in A/S drawings; per architect s rep, window and door assemblies will meet FBC HVZ large missile impact criteria*** building s envelope Adjacent to parking lot that may present roll-over hazard due to parked vehicles*; Minor exposure to large windborne debris sources (tree branches) 11. Roof Construction Heavy weight (~50 FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 56

57 / Roof Slope psf) 4"+ reinforced concrete flat slope roof deck on composite 20 ga. metal deck w/ builtup roof cover & gravel typical; no significant overhang present 12. Roof Open Span FBC design heavy weight (~50 psf) reinforced concrete roof w/max. ~92' 13. Roof Drainage / Ponding 14. Interior Safe Space Drainage confining parapets present w/scuppers; new construction, no known roof ponding conditions N/A - Typical interior partitions are GWB on metal stud or masonry 15. Life Safety / Emergency Power Generator not present; Life safety inspection not performed as part of this survey CMU-Concrete Masonry Unit; NPP-Nuclear Power Plant; GWB-Gypsum Wall Board * - Vehicles should not be parked within 50 feet of building perimeter during high wind events; vehicle stand-off is considered a mitigating factor. ** - Recommend certification by professional structural engineer that structure meets the wind load requirements according to ASCE 7-98, Category IV. *** - Recommend that window and door assemblies be certified or documented to meet or exceed large missile windborne debris impact requirements of FBC HVZ. FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 57

58 FIU - new Recreation Center, Part B Estimate of Potential Hurricane Shelter Area and Spaces Room #(s) Net Floor Area, s.f. Approx. Use Factor Usable Area, s.f , ,753 Potential Total Usable Floor Area 8,753 Potential as-is Hurricane Shelter 20 sq.ft. per space 437 FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 58

59 APPENDIX B Floor Plans of the Ernest R. Graham University Center FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 59

60 FIU/IHRC Final Report Year 5: Pistorino & Alam GC Report 60