Project ULA 120D Snow-0 Seis-IV

Similar documents
DESIGN & ENGINEERING GUIDE

Florida Structural Engineers

FLAT TILE HOOK SPAN CHART

Name: McNaughton - McKay Elec. Designed by JMadrid. Address: None RM-BALLASTED FLAT ROOF. City, State: Unknown, Watt Panels

Structural Technical Report #1 By Robert Whitaker

APPENDIX. WOOD JOIST/RAFTER MAXIMUM SPANS ( for 16 o.c. spacing) WITH SINGLE ROW OF PV PANELS AT MIDSPAN (ft.) AND PANEL SUPPORT AT 32 o.c.

AIA St. Louis January 4 th, 2017 Phillip Shinn, PE Jacobs Engineering Washington University in St. Louis, Sam Fox School of Design and Visual Arts

CALCULATING WIND LOADS ON LOW-RISE STRUCTURES PER 2015 WFCM ENGINEERING PROVISIONS (STD342-1)

90% Design Submittal Structural Calculations Parking Garage CDRL

Analysis and Design of One-way Slab System (Part-I)

calculated with factor of safety of 2.5 for bending stress, 3.0 for shear stresses and deflection limitation of L/180.

CH. 9 WOOD CONSTRUCTION

CVEN 483. Structural System Overview

John Corini - PE. Key To Successful Tower Installations: Under Stack And Over Guy

NATIONAL HARBOR BUILDING M OXON HILL, MARYLAND. Ryan Sarazen Structural Option Technical Report 3 Faculty Consultant: Dr.

Considerations for Outof-Plane. Design

DIVISION: METALS SECTION: STEEL DECKING REPORT HOLDER: EPIC METALS CORPORATION 11 TALBOT AVENUE RANKIN, PENNSYLVANIA 15104

SJI Code of Standard Practice

Structural Technical Report 1 Structural Concepts / Structural Existing Conditions Report

Appendix I ESTIMATED DESIGN WIND PRESSURE AND STRENGTHS OF CONNECTIONS OF JOPLIN HOME DEPOT BUILDING

2012 Wood Frame Construction Manual: Wind Speed and Design Pressure Determination According to ASCE 7 10

Structural Technical Report 3 Lateral System Analysis and Confirmation Design

Structural Technical Report 1 Structural Concepts / Existing Conditions

LPI 56 Technical Guide

FASTRAK Composite Beam Design

Weill Cornell Medical Research Building 413 E. 69 th Street New York, NY

Design Example 2 Reinforced Concrete Wall with Coupling Beams

CODE OF STANDARD PRACTICE

THE FORENSIC MEDICAL CENTER

80 Fy (ksi)= 50 2 nd Floor = 61. Length (ft) Plan View. Penthouse

ADAPT-PTRC 2016 Getting Started Tutorial ADAPT-PT mode

ADAPT-PT 2010 Tutorial Idealization of Design Strip in ADAPT-PT

ENGINEERED POWER SOLUTIONS

PEER Tall Building Seismic Design Guidelines

Originally Issued: 03/10/2017 Revised: 03/30/2019 Valid Through: 03/31/ Design

fifteen steel construction: materials & beams ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURES: FORM, BEHAVIOR, AND DESIGN DR. ANNE NICHOLS SUMMER 2016 lecture

Suspended Metal lath and Cement Plaster. Coverings Rigid Insulation, 1/2 - in 0.75 psf. Floor Fill Lightweight Concrete, per inch 8 psf

LVL Portal Frame Design. Warwick Banks Technical Manager

Drift Compatibility of Corner Joints. NEES Webinar #2 December 12, 2014

SJI Updates Expanded Load Tables for Noncomposite Joists / Joist Girders and Development of New Composite Joist Series

Allowable Loads for Round Timber Poles

ECMC Skilled Nursing Facility

LVL Product Guide 2.0E LVL 1.5E LVL

WIND & SEISMIC 2008 EDITION ASD/LRFD WITH COMMENTARY. American Forest & Paper Association. American Wood Council ANSI/AF&PA SDPWS-2008

Precast Concrete Bearing Wall Panel Design (Alternative Analysis Method) (Using ACI )

Supplemental Structural Correction Sheet Steel Brace Frame Design (2017 LABC)

INTRODUCTION DISCLAIMER

PV Mounting System 2703 SERIES 200 UL GROUND MOUNT SYSTEM. SnapNrack Residential PV Mounting Systems Code Compliant Installation Manual

Structural System. Design Criteria Fire Resistance Concrete designed for 2 HR rating (worst case) Geotechnical Report Allowable Bearing Capacity

Patio Cover Manufacturers and other Interested Parties

ADVANCED FRAMING LUMBER

Design of Reinforced Concrete Slabs

One-Way Wide Module Joist Concrete Floor Design

LAMINATED VENEER LUMBER

Parapet/railing terminal walls shall be located on the superstructure.

SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW PASSENGER EQUIPMENT CARS PREFACE

William W. Wilkins Professional Building

Masonry Wall Bracing. A Simplified Approach To Bracing Masonry Walls Under Construction. Masonry Bracing Task Force.

Structural Redesign Gravity System

Mark L. Reno, P.E. September 11, 2015

Numerical Modeling of Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction in Bridges with HP Driven Piles

DESIGN CALCULATIONS INSTA-FOOTING LOAD BEARING CAPACITIES ON CONCRETE SLAB. January 14, 2017 Rev -

4.2 Tier 2 Analysis General Analysis Procedures for LSP & LDP

111 MORGAN ST. Ryan Friis

3.5 Tier 1 Analysis Overview Seismic Shear Forces

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF MOMENT RESISTING MIDWALL BY THE STEEL NETWORK, INC.

Tables with Allowable ASD Seismic Values For Design at R = 6.5. Special Moment Frame MF1-12

UNIVERSITY OF BOLTON WESTERN INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FZE. BEng (HONS) CIVIL ENGINEERING SEMESTER ONE EXAMINATION 2015/2016

SAMPLE TC6K Elevator Design Summary. Order No PO-47201

AASHTOWare BrDR 6.8 Steel Tutorial STL6 Two Span Plate Girder Example

LOCKWOOD PLACE BALTIMORE, MARYLAND TECHNICAL REPORT 1

BEAMS: COMPOSITE BEAMS; STRESS CONCENTRATIONS

MECHANICAL BRIDGING AND BRIDGING ANCHORAGE OF LOAD BEARING COLD-FORMED STEEL STUDS. Paul E. Lackey, EIT Nabil A. Rahman, Ph.D.

Supplemental Structural Correction Sheet Steel Moment Frame Design (2017 LABC)

Anchor bolts ASTM F1554, Gr. 36 Wide flange beams ASTM A992, Fy = 50 ksi Misc. structural steel ASTM A36, Fy = 36 ksi

Release Notes for RISA-3D

This is a preview. Some pages have been omitted. Copyrighted by NCEES. For permission to reuse,

Structural vs Nonstructural Members. Roger LaBoube, Ph.D., P.E. Wei-Wen Yu Center for Cold-Formed Steel Structures

HILLCREST MANOR Palo Verde, California

CHAPTER 2: CONCRETE POST-TENSIONED REDESIGN

PEER/CSSC Tall Building Design Case Study Building #1. J. Andrew Fry John Hooper Ron Klemencic Magnusson Klemencic Associates

Lateral Design of Mid- Rise Wood Structures

Chapter. Masonry Design

Contents. Tables. Notation xii Latin upper case letters Latin lower case letters Greek upper case letters Greek lower case letters. Foreword.

WIND SPEED AND DESIGN CRITERIA FOR FLEXIBLE FACE SIGNS CONSTRUCTED OF ABC EXTRUSIONS

CHAPTER 23 PILES TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS. 23.TOC Table of Contents... 30Jan Introduction... 30Jan2018

DECORATIVE INTERIOR WALL PANEL FACING SYSTEM

Loads and Load Paths. "Architecture is inhabited sculpture." -Constantin Brancusi

Reinforced Concrete Design. A Fundamental Approach - Fifth Edition

Lightweight Steel Framing. Composite DeltaStud Load Tables

Heel Blocking Requirements and Capacity Analysis. Overview Revised 3/22/2017

Seismic Behaviour of RC Shear Walls

Composite Beam Design Manual. AISC-ASD89 Specification

Diaphragms 2. Design Process. Design Process. Diaphragms are the roofs and floors of the upper stories

SDPWS. Special Design Provisions for Wind & Seismic 2015 EDITION

Global Village Rochester Institute of Technology Rochester, New York

Light Steel Framing Members. Table of Contents

KINETICS Pipe & Duct Seismic Application Manual

REINFORCING TABLES INSTALLATION MANUAL

Sheetpile Wall Report

Transcription:

ULA Geometry Module Specification Sub-Array Configuration ULA Totals # Rows: 4 Column N-S Length (in): 6 # SubArrays: N-S Dim (in): 40 N-S Spacing (in): 0.25 # Columns: 5 Array E-W Dimension (in): 326 Total Modules: 20 E-W Dim (in): 65 E-W Spacing (in): 0.25 SubArray Modules: 20 Array N-S Projection (in): 42 ULA Power Rating (kw): 3.6 Thickness (in):.5 Power Rating (W): 80 Rails Per Module: 2 Orientation: L Weight (lbs): 40 Extended Rail (in): 3 58.7 0 Front Leg Height B A Front Edge Height F Rail Length Rail Span Rail Span 30.00 Tilt Angle N-S Brace Length N-S Brace Angle C G Rail Overhang D Rear Leg Height Rear Edge Height Member Description Variables Standard Rail Length (in): AD 64 Tilt Angle (deg): θ 30.00 Rail Span: BC 98.4 Rail Overhang: AB, CD 32.8 Front Edge Height: AE 24 Rear Edge Height: DH 06 Front Leg Length: BF 40.4 Rear Leg Length: CG 89.6 Revised Units 64 in 30.00 degrees 98.4 in 32.8 in 24 in 06 in 40.4 in 89.6 in 42.0 42.0 N-S Leg 85.2 Spacing N-S Array Projection 24.00 N-S Cross Brace Length: BG 47.66 N-S Cross Brace Angle: β 5.88 N-S Leg Spacing: FG 42.03 94.3 25.36 85.22 in degrees in Tuesday, November 08, 20 Engineering Report - Page of

Wind Load Calculations Wind Load Variables ASCE 7-05 Open Building Unobstructed Wind Flow Coefficients, Cn Tilt Angle (deg): 30.00 Array Height above ground: 0 Exposure Category: D Basic Wind Speed, V (mph): 20.00 Importance Factor: 0.87 Roof Zone Multiplier: MWFRS Wind Load Calculation q h = 0.00256K K z zt K d V 2 I( lb / Adjustment Factor for height and Exposure Category ft 2 ) Kz:.03 Load Case A Load Case B Load Case A Load Case B Front Leg -.8-0.6 2. 2.7 Rear Leg -.8-2.4 2.2. Average -.8 -.5 2.5.9 Topographic Factor (assumed to be for level ground) Kzt: Directionality Factor Kd: 0.85 Wind Load (psf) qh: 28.08 ASCE 7-05 MWFRS Open Buildings Wind Load Gust Effect Factor (G): 0.85 p = q Maximum Loads (psf) Load Case A Load Case B Load Case A Load Case B Uplift Down Force Cn (Front Leg): -42.96 -.93 50.2 62.06 Front Leg: -42.96 Front Leg: 62.06 Cn (Rear Leg): -42.96-59.67 50.2 23.87 h GCn Rear Leg: -59.67 Rear Leg: 50.2 Cn (Avg): -42.96-35.8 50.2 42.96 Tuesday, November 08, 20 Engineering Report - Page 2 of

Combination Load Analysis Load Combination Variable (psf) Front Leg Load Combinations (psf) Dead Load: 6.06 Assumed Snow Load: 0 Max Load Results (psf) Down Force Uplift Front Leg: 69.06-38.76 Rear Leg: 57.2-55.47 Load Case (downforce): Load Case 2 (downforce): Load Case 3 (downforce): Max Downforce: Wind Load Case A 7 57.2 44.59 Wind Load Case B 7 69.06 53.55 57.2 69.06 Max (Absolute): 57.2 Load Case 4 (uplift): -38.76-7.73 Load Combination Factors Rear Leg Load Combinations (psf) Load Case (downforce): Load Case 2 (downforce): Load Case 3 (downforce): Load Case 4 (uplift): Dead Load 0.6 Snow Load 0 0.75 Wind Load 0 0.75 Load Case (downforce): Load Case 2 (downforce): Load Case 3 (downforce): Max Downforce: Wind Load Case A 7 57.2 44.59 Wind Load Case B 7 30.87 24.9 57.2 30.87 Load Case 4 (uplift): -38.76-55.47 Tuesday, November 08, 20 Engineering Report - Page 3 of

Horizontal Pipe Design Pipe Design Inputs Pipe Design Loads (psf) 326 Pipe Span (E-W Leg Spacing): 50 Front Leg (psf): 69.06 C C Number of Leg Pairs: 7 Horizontal Pipe Overhang (in): 3 0 Rear Leg (psf): 57.2 Maximum absolute value of Load Combination Loads E-W Overhang B E-W Leg Spacing B 64 N-S Projection E-W Overhang Pipe Material Specifications Description Front Horizontal Pipe Rear Horizontal Pipe Pipe Selection: 2 in. Schedule 40 Max Revised Max Revised Max Distributed Load (plf): 463.28 463.28 383.8 383.8 Modulus of Elasticity, E (psf): 4.8E+09 Pipe Span (in): 55.67 50 55.67 50 Moment of Intertia, I (ft^4): 0.0000302 Section Modulus, Z (ft^3): 0.00043 Yield Stress, Fy (psf): 5040000 Array Width (in): 326 Allowable Bending Moment (lb-ft): 246.42 Actual Bending Moment (lb-ft): 246.33 Actual/Allowable Moment: 00% Allowable Total Deflection L/70 (in): 0.8 Actual Deflection (in): 0.27 246.42 005.38 8% 0.7 0.7 246.42 030.84 83% 0.8 0.22 246.42 83.55 67% 0.7 0.4 Rail Length (in): 64 Actual/Allowable Deflection: 34% 24% 28% 20% Tuesday, November 08, 20 Engineering Report - Page 4 of

Rail Bending Rail Design Variables Rail Length (in): 64 Rail Overhang (in): 32.8 Rail Span (in): 98.4 Rail Distributed Load Calculation Maximum Average Design Load (psf): 57.2 Module Dim Perpendicular to Rails (in): 65 Rails Per Module: 2 Distributed Load (plf): 54.7 Rail Material Specifications Rail Selection: SolarMount HD Rail Bending Calculations Allowable Bending Moment (lb-ft): 428.9 Actual Bending Moment (lb-ft): 300.25 E (psf):.45e+09 Actual/Allowable Moment: 9% I (ft^4): 0.0000697 Z (ft^3): 0.000522 Fy (psf): 2736000 Allowable Deflection (in):.4 Actual Deflection (in):.08 Actual/Allowable Deflection: 77% Tuesday, November 08, 20 Engineering Report - Page 5 of

Force Analysis Angles Tilt Angle (deg): 30.00 Design Loads Downforce Cross Brace Angle (deg): 25.36 Front Leg (psf / kip): 69.06.97 E-W Leg Spacing) 50 Rail Length: 64 Rear Leg (psf / kip): 57.2.63 Uplift -38.76 -. -55.47 -.58 Maximum Component Forces (kips) Down Force Uplift Force in Front Leg:.7-0.95 Force in Front Cap: 3.68 -.5 Shear Force Front Cap:.97 Max Magnitude Axail Force in Rear Leg:.4 Force in Rear Cap: 0.59 Shear Force Rear Cap: 0.82 Shear Force Rear Foot:.97 Force in N-S Brace:.97 Resultant Shear N-S Brace:.78 Resultant N-S Brace: 0.84 Force Rail: 0.82 Resultant Shear Rail: 0.4 Resultant Rail: 0.7 -.37-0.58 Max Magnitude Max Magnitude -0.55 Max Magnitude -0.24-0.79 Max Magnitude -0.68 Tuesday, November 08, 20 Engineering Report - Page 6 of

Column Buckling Analysis Front Leg Design Rear Leg Design Rail Design N-S - Cross Brace Design Pipe Selection: 2 in. Schedule 40 Pipe Selection: 2 in. Schedule 40 Rail Selection: SolarMount HD Cross Brace Selection: 2" x 2" Aluminum Square Tube E (ksi): 29 Fy (ksi): 35 E (ksi): 29 Fy (ksi): 35 E (ksi): 0. Fy (ksi): 9 r (in):.679 E (ksi): 0. Fy (ksi): 9 r (in): 0.79 r (in): 0.79 Rails per EW Leg:.53 r (in): 0.7672 Front Leg Column Calculations Rear Leg Column Calculations Rail Column Calculations Cross Brace Column Calculations Length: 40.4 Length: 89.6 Length: 98.4 Length: 94.3 Eff. Column Len. Fac: Eff. Column Len. Fac: Eff. Column Len. Fac: Eff. Column Len. Fac: Eff. Column Length: 40.40 Eff. Column Length: 89.60 Eff. Column Length: 98.40 Eff. Column Length: 94.3 Slenderness Ratio: 5.07 Slenderness Ratio: 3.27 Slenderness Ratio: 84.25 Slenderness Ratio: 22.93 Critical Force: 8.34 Critical Force: 0.88 Critical Force: 7.62 Critical Force: 3.6 Actual Force:.7 Actual Force:.4 Actual Force: 0.82 Actual Force:.97 Ratio To Allowable: 9.32% Ratio To Allowable: 2.96% Ratio To Allowable: 0.76% Ratio To Allowable: 62.34% Tuesday, November 08, 20 Engineering Report - Page 7 of

Seismic Design and Analysis Seismic Analysis Inputs Seismic Analysis Results E-W - Cross Brace Design Latitude: 0 Longitude: 0 ASCE7-05 Methodology Sms:. Sm: 0 Eq # 6-37 Eq # 6-38 Cross Brace Selection: 2" x 2" Aluminum Square Tube E (ksi): 0. Site Class: D Sds: 0.73 Eq # 6-39 Fy (ksi): 9 Importance Factor: 0.87 Sd: 0 Eq # 6-40 r (in): 0.7672 Roof Height: 8 Ap, Rp:.0,.5 Table 3.6 - Area (sq in): 0.9375 Component Height: 8 Fp LRFD: 0.5 Eq 3.3 - Cross Brace Column Calculations Ss: Mapped Accel. Parameter Fp ASD: 0.36 per 3..7 Max CB Length: 02.6 S: 0 Mapped Accel. Parameter Eff. Column Len. Fac: 2 Fa:. Table 63.5.3() Eff. Column Length: 205.22 Fv: 0 Table 63.5.3(2) Slenderness Ratio: 33.75 - OR - Seismic Zone: Direct Methodology Fp ASD: 0.36 Critical Force: 3.6 Kip Cross Brace Pairs: Array Weight: 2599 Total Force: 935.62 lbs Actual Force: 0.47 Margin Ratio: 4.9% Kip Tuesday, November 08, 20 Engineering Report - Page 8 of

Footing Design Footing Design Inputs Footing Diameter: 36 in. Footing Depth: 42 in. Concrete Density: 0.5 Kcf Soil Density: 0.06 KcF Footing Design Calculations Max Uplift Force:.37 Kip Safety Factor:.67 Required Resisting Force: 2.29 Kip Concrete Volume: 24.74 cf Concrete Weight: 3.7 Kip Soil Volume: 96.59 cf Soil Weight: 0.97 Kip Total Weight: 4.68 Kip Margin Ratio: 48.89% Pier Diameter Footing guideline only. Your footing will vary depending on many factors, such as your soil density. Consult a geotechnical engineer for recommended footing configuration Pier Height Tuesday, November 08, 20 Engineering Report - Page 9 of

Cap and Foot Design Front Cap Design Cap Selection: Aluminum- 2" Front Cap Pipe Selection: 2 in. Schedule 40 Rear Cap Design Cap Selection: Aluminum- 2" Front Cap Compression Tension Shear Compression Tension Shear Allowable: 7.272-2.4 2.424 Allowable: 7.272-2.4 2.424 Actual: 3.68 -.5.97 Actual:.4 -.37 0.82 Margin Ratio: 50.6% 62.50% 8.27% Margin Ratio: 9.39% 57.08% 33.83% Front Foot Design Rear Foot Design Compression Tension Shear Compression Tension Actual: 3.68 -.5 0 Actual:.4 -.37.97 Shear Tuesday, November 08, 20 Engineering Report - Page 0 of

Design Margin Ratios Design Specifications and Ratios Horizontal Pipe: 2 in. Schedule 40 Rail Specification, Beam and Column Design Ratios Rail Selection: SolarMount HD Front Pipe Moment: 8% Pipe Deflection: 24% Rear Pipe Moment: 67% Pipe Deflection: 20% Rail Bending Moment: 9% Rail Bending Deflection: 77% Rail Buckling: 0.76% Vertical Pipe Specifications and Column Design Ratios Front Leg Buckiling: 9.32% Rear Leg Buckiling: 2.96% N-S Brace Buckling: 62.34% Seismic Design Ratios Margin Ratio: 4.9% Footing Design Ratios Margin Ratio: 48.89% Connection Specifications and Design Ratios Cap Selection: Aluminum- 2" Front Cap Front Compression: 50.6% Tension: 62.50% Shear: 8.27% Rear Compression: 9.39% Tension: 57.08% Shear: 33.83% Tuesday, November 08, 20 Engineering Report - Page of