TMBFRAME

HEIFER INTERNATIONAL CENTER
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
SCHREYER HONORS COLLEGE

DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING

SIKANDAR PORTER-GILL
SPRING 2014

A thesis submitted in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for a bachelor degree in Architectural Engineering
with honors in Architectural Engineering

Reviewed and approved* by the following:

Thomas Boothby
Professor
Thesis Supervisor

Richard Mistrick
Associate Professor
Honors Advisor

*Signatures are on file in the Schreyer Honors College
SIKANDAR PORTER-GILL | STRUCTURAL
ADVISOR: DR. THOMAS BOOTHBY
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/thesis/portfolios/2014/ssp5095/index.html
HEIFER INTERNATIONAL CENTER
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS
GENERAL BUILDING DATA
Construction dates | February 2004 to January 2006
Construction method | Construction Management at Risk
Height | 4 stories, 65 f.
Size | 98,000 GSF
Cost | $18 million
Ventilation units provide outside air
VAV Underfoor Air Delivery for heating and
cooling system on all foors, at 14,500 CFM
High efcient underfoor system due to
limited pressure required
MEP controlled by temperature, humidity,
carbon dioxide and pressure sensors
STRUCTURE
MEP SYSTEMS
Te semi-circular shape is infuenced by Heifer Internationals goal to reduce world hunger and help communities in
need. Te circular form stems from the ripple efect produced from a community helped by the charitys donation
of livestock. Te LEED Platinum Building occupies a previously contaminated industrial site, that reclaimed
wetland areas. An open foor plan maximizes day lighting gain and minimizes energy usage through light and
occupancy sensors. Te unique form of the roof diverts water to a fve-story 20,000 gallon rainwater retention tank.
Geopier Foundation System, with traditional piers
and grade beams, supporting a slab on grade
Framing consists mostly of 2-0 diameter HSS,
supporting a 2 concrete slab on 3 composite deck,
supported by a beam and girder system
Wind and seismic loading is resisted by a steel plate
shear wall system acting in both directions, for both
the foor and roof diaphragms
ARCHITECTURE
Building provided with 480Y/277V system,
with a total of 2000A.
1600A transferred to MDP, running at 3-
phase, 4 wire
Te L/E systems save approximately 57%
over conventional buildings, due to:
Natural day lighting
Space occupancy sensors
T5 lamps
LIGHTING/ELECTRICAL
CROMWELL
LEED Platinum Building

Final Report | Heifer International Center Page | iii
ABSTRACT
Heifer International Center is located in Little Rock, Arkansas, and is the primary
headquarters for Heifer International, a non-profit whose goal is to reduce world hunger
and poverty. The architect wishes to pursue a new aesthetic look through the use of a
different structural material, as the system is exposed. The new hybrid system of glulam
and steel causes a reclassification of the building as Type IV, per the International
Building Code 2009 602.4, and prevents the use of the current Underfloor Air
Distribution System. This obstacle leads to a new overhead VAV system, with new
sizing of the supply and return ductwork required. A thermal bridge on the fourth level
was also extensively studied and eliminated in a redesign involving new structural and
wall components.

An architectural study was performed on the new exposed structural system. A guideline
was established to aide with the design of not just the architectural components of the
building, but to also positively lead the design of the engineering systems of the building.
The desire to enhance the architecture by changing the structural material influenced
mechanical, electrical and the interior aesthetic of the building. The use of glulam in the
design provided a unique opportunity to investigate a queen post truss, which lends to
integration between the mechanical and structural disciplines. Mechanical and electrical
equipment was also incorporated into and hung from the truss.

The non-profits goal is to reduce world hunger and help communities in need. This
astonishing, semi-circular glass clad building is four stories high and roughly 490 feet by
62 feet wide, with a 98,000 gross square footage. It overlooks downtown Little Rock and
the Arkansas River. The semi-circular shape of the building stems from the ripple
effect produced from a community helped by the charitys donation of livestock. Heifer
International Center is one of the few Platinum Certified LEED Buildings in the Southern
United States. The building is oriented in the east-west direction, to maximize natural
lighting. An inverted roof is used to divert rainwater to a five story tower, capable of
storing 20,000 gallons of water. An additional goal of the project was to infuse the non-
profits core beliefs into the redesigned engineering systems.

Final Report | Heifer International Center Page | iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... iii
Index of Figures ...................................................................................................................... vii
Index of Tables .......................................................................................................................... x
Index of Key Words ................................................................................................................. xi
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... xii
Chapter 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction to the Building .................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Existing Structural Information ............................................................................................. 3
Foundation System ........................................................................................................................................ 4
Gravity Systems .............................................................................................................................................. 5
Lateral System ................................................................................................................................................. 8
Joint Details ................................................................................................................................................... 10
1.3 Materials ...................................................................................................................................... 13
Concrete .......................................................................................................................................................... 13
Steel .................................................................................................................................................................. 13
Other Material .............................................................................................................................................. 13
1.4 Determination of Design Loads ........................................................................................... 14
National Code for Live Load and Lateral Loads .............................................................................. 14
Gravity Loads ................................................................................................................................................ 14
Snow Loads .................................................................................................................................................... 14
Rain Loads ...................................................................................................................................................... 14
Lateral Loads ................................................................................................................................................. 14
Load Paths ...................................................................................................................................................... 14
1.5 Gravity Loads ............................................................................................................................. 16
1.6 Lateral System and Loads Simplified Model ................................................................ 17
ETABS Model ................................................................................................................................................. 18
Seismic Loading ........................................................................................................................................... 22
Wind Loading ................................................................................................................................................ 27
Torsional Irregularities ............................................................................................................................ 32
Overturning Moment ................................................................................................................................. 33
Energy/Virtual Work Diagram .............................................................................................................. 35
Lateral System Spot Checks .................................................................................................................... 36
Lateral System Conclusion Simplified Model ............................................................................... 42
1.7 Problem Statement .................................................................................................................. 43
1.8 Proposed Solution .................................................................................................................... 44
Breadth Topics ............................................................................................................................................. 45
MAE Coursework Requirement ............................................................................................................ 46
Schreyer Honors College Requirement .............................................................................................. 46
1.9 Conclusion to Proposed Solution ........................................................................................ 47
Chapter 2 .................................................................................................................................. 48
2.1 Gravity System Redesign ....................................................................................................... 49
Considerations of the Typical Bay Layout ........................................................................................ 50
Composite Decking Selection ................................................................................................................. 50
Beam Design of Typical Floor and Roof ............................................................................................. 51
Queen Post Girder Design ........................................................................................................................ 54
General Framing Plan ................................................................................................................................ 57
Fire Rating ...................................................................................................................................................... 58

Final Report | Heifer International Center Page | v
Column Design ............................................................................................................................................. 58
Foundation Consideration ....................................................................................................................... 58
Comparison of Gravity Systems ............................................................................................................ 59
2.2 Lateral System Redesign ........................................................................................................ 63
Computer Modeling Input ....................................................................................................................... 63
Torsional Irregularities ............................................................................................................................ 67
Loads Applied to Model ............................................................................................................................ 71
Building Overturning Moment............................................................................................................... 72
Understanding Load Paths ...................................................................................................................... 73
Shear Wall Design ....................................................................................................................................... 74
Seismic Joint .................................................................................................................................................. 74
2.3 Comparison of Existing and Redesigned Systems......................................................... 76
2.4 MAE Requirements .................................................................................................................. 80
Chapter 3 .................................................................................................................................. 81
3.1 Mechanical and Envelope Breadth ..................................................................................... 82
Preliminary Duct Sizing ............................................................................................................................ 82
Thermal Bridge Elimination ................................................................................................................... 83
Chapter 4 .................................................................................................................................. 91
4.1 Architecture Breadth .............................................................................................................. 92
Impacts from Structural Redesign ....................................................................................................... 93
Architectural Design Guidelines ........................................................................................................... 94
Chapter 5 ................................................................................................................................ 105
5.1 Composite Wood-Concrete Floor System....................................................................... 106
Design Standards of TCC ....................................................................................................................... 107
Types of TCC Systems ............................................................................................................................. 108
Cyclic Loading Effects to TCC .............................................................................................................. 112
Conclusion to TCC .................................................................................................................................... 113
Additional References ............................................................................................................................ 113
Chapter 6 ................................................................................................................................ 114
6.1 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 115
References and Work Cited .............................................................................................. 116
Appendix A ............................................................................................................................. 119
Appendix A.1 - Existing Lateral System Modeling .............................................................. 120
Evolution of the ETABS Model ............................................................................................................ 120
Elevations of Shear Walls...................................................................................................................... 121
ETABS SPSW to Concrete Conversion ............................................................................................. 122
Controlling Case Data Output .............................................................................................................. 125
Appendix A.2 - Existing Seismic and Wind Analysis .......................................................... 127
Seismic Loading Calculations .............................................................................................................. 127
Seismic Amplification Factor ............................................................................................................... 128
Wind Loading Calculations................................................................................................................... 129
Appendix B ............................................................................................................................. 133
Appendix B.1 - Typical Office Beam Design .......................................................................... 134
Loading ......................................................................................................................................................... 135
Flexure and Reactions ............................................................................................................................ 135
Computer Analysis Data ........................................................................................................................ 136

Final Report | Heifer International Center Page | vi
Member Sizing ........................................................................................................................................... 137
Appendix B.2 - Queen Post Design Hand Calculation ....................................................... 139
Appendix B.3 - Typical Office Queen Post Design .............................................................. 149
Loading ......................................................................................................................................................... 149
Axial Cable and Girder Forces ............................................................................................................. 149
Top Chord Member Sizing .................................................................................................................... 152
Tension Cable Sizing ............................................................................................................................... 158
Steel Square HSS Sizing ......................................................................................................................... 160
Deflection Check ....................................................................................................................................... 161
Appendix B.4 - Roof Beam Design ............................................................................................ 162
Loading ......................................................................................................................................................... 162
Member Sizing ........................................................................................................................................... 164
Appendix B.5 - Roof Queen Post Design ................................................................................ 168
Loading ......................................................................................................................................................... 168
Axial Cable and Girder Forces ............................................................................................................. 168
Top Chord Member Sizing .................................................................................................................... 171
Member Summary, Tension Cable and Steel Square HSS Sizing .......................................... 178
Deflection Check ....................................................................................................................................... 180
Appendix B.6 - Summary of Beam Sizes ................................................................................ 181
Appendix B.7 - Typical Office Perimeter Beam ................................................................... 182
Appendix B.8 - SAP2000 Queen Post Model ......................................................................... 183
Original Model ........................................................................................................................................... 183
Member Releases ..................................................................................................................................... 183
Loading ......................................................................................................................................................... 183
Axial Loading.............................................................................................................................................. 183
Appendix B.9 Column Sizing ................................................................................................... 184
Appendix C ............................................................................................................................. 185
Appendix C.1 HSS24x0.5 Column .......................................................................................... 186
Appendix C.2 Seismic and Wind Loading ........................................................................... 187
Seismic ASCE 7-10 ................................................................................................................................... 187
Wind ASCE 7-10 ........................................................................................................................................ 197
Appendix C.3 Torsional Irregularity and Seismic Amplification Factor ................. 202
Appendix C.4 Building Overturning Check ........................................................................ 206
Appendix C.5 Lateral System Hand Checks ....................................................................... 208
Appendix C.6 Trace Locations ................................................................................................ 213
Appendix D ............................................................................................................................. 214
Appendix D.1 Thermal Bridge Study ................................................................................... 215
Column Design .......................................................................................................................................... 215
Worst Case Thermal Gradient ............................................................................................................. 217
Middle Case Thermal Gradient ........................................................................................................... 218

Final Report | Heifer International Center Page | vii
INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Exterior view of Heifer International Center ..................................................... 2
Figure 2: Interior view of Heifer International Center ....................................................... 2
Figure 3: Typical floor plan ............................................................................................... 3
Figure 4: Comparison of typical framing layout................................................................ 5
Figure 5: Interior composite decking detail ....................................................................... 6
Figure 6: Photograph during erection of HSS framing ...................................................... 6
Figure 7: Roof tree-flare connection detail ........................................................................ 7
Figure 8: Detail connection of roof wide flange to T&G .................................................. 7
Figure 9: Typical SPSW elevation, section and plan ......................................................... 8
Figure 10: Typical shear connection ................................................................................ 10
Figure 11: Typical moment connection supporting ......................................................... 10
Figure 12: Typical balcony section .................................................................................. 11
Figure 13: Seismic joint detail ......................................................................................... 12
Figure 14: Photograph of seismic joint ............................................................................ 12
Figure 15: 3D view of ETABS model ............................................................................. 18
Figure 16: ETABS shell stress distribution diagram ....................................................... 19
Figure 17: Inherent torsional force formed in walls ........................................................ 19
Figure 18: 3D view of shear transfer (seismic y-direction) ............................................. 20
Figure 19: Elevation showing shear decrease on ground floor ........................................ 20
Figure 20: Center of mass and center of rigidity from ETABS ....................................... 20
Figure 21: Shear wall pier labeling convention for east side of the building .................. 21
Figure 22: Seismic loading distribution ........................................................................... 22
Figure 23: Wind loading distribution ............................................................................... 27
Figure 24: Wind analysis, Case 1, NS and EW ............................................................... 27
Figure 25: Wind analysis, Case 2, NS ............................................................................. 28
Figure 26: Wind analysis, Case 2, EW ............................................................................ 28
Figure 27: Wind analysis, Case 3, NS and EW ............................................................... 29
Figure 28: Wind analysis, Case 4, NS ............................................................................. 30
Figure 29: Wind analysis, Case 4, EW ............................................................................ 30
Figure 30: 3D view of member utilization, x-direction loading ...................................... 35
Figure 31: Member utilization of Shear Wall 13 at 12, y-direction loading.................... 35
Figure 32: Basic Combinations for ASCE 7-1998 .......................................................... 36
Figure 33: Diagram showing location of joints referenced ............................................. 40
Figure 34: Heifer International Education and Visitor Center ......................................... 43
Figure 35: Potential queen post options ........................................................................... 44
Figure 36: Typical floor plan ........................................................................................... 49
Figure 37: Simplified floor plan ...................................................................................... 49
Figure 38: Beams, girders and perimeter beams of typical office ................................... 51
Figure 39: Beams, girders and perimeter beams of roof .................................................. 52
Figure 40: Load path of queen post ................................................................................. 54
Figure 41: Simplified hinge queen post girder ................................................................ 54
Figure 42: Computer model of queen post girder ............................................................ 55
Figure 43: Connection detail for cable of queen post girder ........................................... 55
Figure 44: Glulam top chord is eccentrically loaded due to the cable ............................. 56
Figure 45: Conceptual design with holster plate and held with a clevis .......................... 56

Final Report | Heifer International Center Page | viii
Figure 46: Conceptual design with plate penetration wood glulam beam and held with a
clevis ................................................................................................................................. 56
Figure 47: Isometric view of general framing plan ......................................................... 57
Figure 48: Plan view of general framing plan (East side) ............................................... 57
Figure 49: Comparison of existing and redesigned gravity systems ............................... 59
Figure 50: Existing structural system isometric in view .................................................. 60
Figure 51: Redesigned structural system isometric in view ............................................ 60
Figure 52: Existing system typical bay (with dimensions) .............................................. 61
Figure 53: Redesigned system typical bay (with dimensions)......................................... 61
Figure 54: Redesigned structural system and potential mechanical and electrical .......... 62
Figure 55: LFRS of east end of building ......................................................................... 64
Figure 56: LFRS of east end of building from RAM SS ................................................. 64
Figure 57: LFRS of west end of building ........................................................................ 65
Figure 58: LFRS of west end of building from RAM SS ................................................ 65
Figure 59: ASCE-7 10 Figure 12.8-1 Torsional Amplification Factor ............................ 67
Figure 60: Type 5 Nonparallel System Irregularity ......................................................... 69
Figure 61: Load path diagram of building ....................................................................... 73
Figure 62: SW-13 at column line 12 section ................................................................... 74
Figure 63: East end of the Heifer International Center .................................................... 75
Figure 64: West end of the Heifer International Center .................................................. 75
Figure 65: High capacity girder hangers for glulam ........................................................ 76
Figure 66: 3D isometric of floor plan highlighting walls to be redesigned ..................... 78
Figure 67: Construction photo with no evident LFRS ..................................................... 78
Figure 68: Exterior shot of columns ................................................................................ 83
Figure 69: Columns exposed on exterior and interior ..................................................... 83
Figure 70: Worst case heat travel ..................................................................................... 84
Figure 71: Worst case thermal gradient ........................................................................... 85
Figure 72: Middle condition thermal gradient ................................................................. 85
Figure 73: Phase 1 - Column Construction ...................................................................... 86
Figure 80: Final column design to prevent thermal bridge .............................................. 89
Figure 81: Building section of redesigned column .......................................................... 90
Figure 82: Interior aesthetic changes due to gravity redesign ......................................... 92
Figure 83: Interior aesthetic from existing gravity system .............................................. 92
Figure 84: Site circulation of the Heifer International campus........................................ 95
Figure 85: Primary and secondary circulation through Heifer International campus ...... 96
Figure 86: Local aggregate to match color and texture ................................................... 97
Figure 87: Porous pavement used in parking areas ......................................................... 97
Figure 88: Pedestrian and vehicular activity accommodated in parking lot .................... 97
Figure 89: Integration of walkways and incorporation of drainage system..................... 98
Figure 90: Indigenous plantings used on the campus ...................................................... 98

Final Report | Heifer International Center Page | ix
Figure 91: Central and secondary walkways ................................................................... 98
Figure 92: Circular form of campus................................................................................. 99
Figure 93: Circular form of building ............................................................................... 99
Figure 94: Inverted sloped roof...................................................................................... 100
Figure 95: Water collection system tower (far left) and local wetland (front right) ...... 100
Figure 96: Covered entrance to building ....................................................................... 100
Figure 97: Natural daylighting in interior of building ................................................... 101
Figure 98: Exterior shot of natural daylighting penetrating building faade ................. 101
Figure 99: Interior natural lighting ................................................................................ 102
Figure 100: Exterior view of interior artificial light ...................................................... 102
Figure 101: Interior spacious environment .................................................................... 102
Figure 102: Reference point on plan to mark circular center ........................................ 103
Figure 103: Plan of tree columns ................................................................................... 104
Figure 104: Inspiration for tree column canopy ............................................................ 104
Figure 105: Plan detail of tree column connection ........................................................ 104
Figure 106: Section detail of tree column connection ................................................... 104
Figure 107: The Vihantasalmi Bridge of Finland .......................................................... 106
Figure 108: Semi-prefabricated TCC floor system in New Zealand (Yeoh et al.) ........ 107
Figure 109: Shear connector and wire mesh (Clouston et al.) ....................................... 108
Figure 110: Shear key connection, longitudinal view (Fragiacomo et al.) .................... 108
Figure 111: Shear key connection, cross section, (Fragiacomo et al.) .......................... 109
Figure 112: Hilti dowel cross section (Gutkowski et al.) .............................................. 109
Figure 113: Glued composite, stress and strain distribution (Henrique et al.) ............. 110
Figure 114: Bending test of glued composite member (Henrique et al.) ...................... 110
Figure 115: Custom lag bolt system (Swenson et al.) ................................................... 111
Figure 116: Tested beam before failure (Swenson et al.) .............................................. 111
Figure 117: Shear failure of wood notch (Balogh et al.) ............................................... 112
Figure 118: Midspan flexural failure (Balogh et al.) ..................................................... 112

Final Report | Heifer International Center Page | x
INDEX OF TABLES
Table 1: Concrete properties used in original design ....................................................... 13
Table 2: Steel properties used in original design ............................................................. 13
Table 3: Other material properties used in original design .............................................. 13
Table 4: Live loads used in original design ..................................................................... 16
Table 5: Dead loads used in original design .................................................................... 16
Table 6: Breakdown of floor dead loads used in original design .................................... 16
Table 7: Seismic Forces for Entire Building.................................................................... 22
Table 8: NS Regular earthquake loading (positive moment)........................................... 23
Table 9: NS Reverse earthquake loading (negative moment) ......................................... 23
Table 10: EW Regular earthquake loading (positive moment) ....................................... 23
Table 11: EW Reverse earthquake loading (negative moment) ...................................... 23
Table 12: Existing seismic story drift .............................................................................. 25
Table 13: ASCE 7-1998 Table 9.8.2.8 for maximum story drift ..................................... 26
Table 14: Wind analysis, Case 1 ...................................................................................... 27
Table 15: Wind analysis, Case 2, NS ............................................................................... 28
Table 16: Wind analysis, Case 2, EW.............................................................................. 28
Table 17: Wind analysis, Case 3, NS and EW ................................................................. 29
Table 18: Wind analysis, Case 4, NS ............................................................................... 30
Table 19: Wind analysis, Case 4, EW.............................................................................. 30
Table 20: Existing wind building drifts ........................................................................... 31
Table 21: ASCE 7-1998 Table 9.5.2.3.2 Plan Structural Irregularities ........................... 32
Table 22: Steel plate shear wall deflection check (seismic) ............................................ 40
Table 23: Steel plate shear wall deflection check (wind) ................................................ 41
Table 24: Floor system comparison ................................................................................. 50
Table 25: IBC 2009 Construction type classification summary ...................................... 53
Table 26: Comparison of existing and redesigned gravity systems ................................. 59
Table 27: Summary of west end seismic forces............................................................... 71
Table 28: Summary of east end seismic forces ................................................................ 71
Table 29: Summary of west end wind forces................................................................... 72
Table 30: Summary of east end wind forces .................................................................... 72
Table 31: SW-13 at column line 12 rebar design summary ............................................. 74
Table 32: Air handling unit summary .............................................................................. 82
Table 33: TRANE Ductulator sizing ............................................................................... 82
Table 34: Redesigned HSS envelope ............................................................................... 84
Table 35: Existing HSS envelope .................................................................................... 84
Table 36: Glass faade envelope...................................................................................... 84

Final Report | Heifer International Center Page | xi
INDEX OF KEY WORDS
A
Accidental Torsional Moment, 68
B
batt insulation, 84
Bentley RAM Structural System, 46
Building drift, 72
C
cable, 54
CMU masonry back wall, 8
composite deck, 5
composite wood-concrete, 106
construction sequence, 86
Cracked sections, 66
CSi ETABS 2013, 18
Custom lag bolt system, 111
D
Dan West, 2
E
Education and Visitor Center, 43
Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis, 68
expansive clays, 4
Extreme Torsional Irregularity (Type 1b), 67
F
fire rating, 58
G
Geopiers, 4
Glued composite members, 110
glulam, 49
H
hanger, 76
Hilti and shear key connection, 109
HSS shapes, 6
I
indeterminate structure, 54
inverted roof, 3
L
Little Rock, Arkansas, 3
N
neutral axis, 106
Nonparallel System Irregularity Type 5, 69
O
orthogonal combination procedure, 69
overhead ductwork system, 82
overhead VAV system, 43
overturning moment, 72
P
Passing on the Gift, 94
post, 54
Q
Queen Post, 54
R
RAM Concrete, 66
RAM Frame, 66
Revit, 57
Rigid diaphragm, 66
S
SAP2000, 55
Seismic Design Category, 22
Seismic drifts, 71
seismic joint, 12
Shear connector and wire mesh, 108
Shear key connection, 108
shear wall system, 63
steel plate shear wall, 8
T
thermal bridge, 82
thermal bridges, 45
thermal gradient, 85
timber-concrete composite, 106
top chord, 54
Torsional Irregularity (Type 1a), 67
TRANE Ductulator
, 82
tree-column, 6
Type IIIB, 43
Type IV Construction, 43
U
underfloor air distribution system, 82
U-value, 84

Final Report | Heifer International Center Page | xii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to take a moment to express my gratitude towards the many people that took time
out of their busy professional lives to help me with my thesis project. Of special
importance, with without this project would not be possible are Heifer International, Polk
Stanley Wilcox Architects and Cromwell Architects Engineers, Inc.

Additionally, the hours of dedication from the Pennsylvania State Universitys
Architectural Engineering faculty warrants huge thanks. Especially,
o Dr. Thomas Boothby
o Prof. Heather Sustersic
o Dr. Walter G. M. Schneider III
o Prof. Kevin Parfitt
o Dr. Linda Hanagan
o Mr. Issa J. Ramaji
o Dr. Ryan Solnosky
o Dr. Richard Mistrick

Moreover, my friends whom inspired me to continue my work; as we each helped each
other through the hardest parts of thesis,

Natasha Beck Macenzie Ceglar
Chris Cioffi Angela Mincemoyer
Kristin Sliwinski Alyssa Stangl
John Vais

In addition, I would like to thank Chelsea Billotte, Kieran Carlisle, Jeff Martin, Matt Neal
and Faye Poon for their valuable input and patience throughout the semester.

Lastly, I would like to thank Prof. Moses Ling, Dr. Andrs Lepage, Prof. Robert Holland
and Mr. Corey Wilkinson who encouraged me and dealt with my many questions over
the past several years.

Heifer International Polk Stanley Wilcox Architects Cromwell Architects Engineers, Inc.

Final Report | Heifer International Center Page | 1

CHAPTER 1

THE HEIFER INTERNATIONAL CENTER

1.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE BUILDING
Heifer Internationals headquarters mirrors Heifers goal of reaching out to a community
in need. Heifer International wished their headquarters to match what they were teaching
to the world. The shape of the building and campus were inspired by Heifer
Internationals founder Dan West who expressed, In all my travels around the world, the
important decisions were made where people sat in a circle, facing each other as equals.
This was extended to show the ripple effect Heifer has on needy communities, through
their donation of livestock. These communities agree to pass on the offspring of the
animal to othersthus creating a ripple effect throughout the community.
Heifer International Center, shown in Figure 1, is a four-story office building, standing 65
feet tall, with 98,000 square feet. It was constructed between February 2004 and January
2006, at a cost of approximately $18 million. The design team from Polk Stanley Wilcox
Architects and Cromwell Architects Engineers, Inc. were faced with the large challenge
of providing an open office plan, in a semi-circular shape, while concurrently offering
educational and visual interactions, and sustainable features that would express Heifer
Internationals mission of ending world hunger and poverty. This was certainly a
challenge for the design teamexpressing the abstract meanings of the charity through
the physical form of the building.

Heifer International Center continues Heifers mission of teachingthe public is allowed
access to the facility through tours provided by Heifer personnel, showcasing the
sustainable features of the office
building. This form of
interaction with the building not
only educates the community
about sustainability, but attracts
volunteers and workers to Heifer
International aiding in their
desire to help needy
communities.

The building has an open floor
plan that allows natural light to
penetrate to the center of each
level, provides views of the river
and cityscape, and offers
extensive community exchange
Figure 1: Exterior view of Heifer International Center
Figure 2: Interior view of Heifer International Center
Photo courtesy Timothy Hursley

points with easy access to exterior balconies on each level. This is shown in Figure 2.

A unique feature of the building includes the use of a custom tree-column design that
supports the inverted roof at both exterior and interior points. The tree column allows the
inverted roof to cantilever over the fourth floor office. The roof is inverted for two
reasons. The first is to direct rainwater toward the large silo-tower for storage and
greywater use, while the second is to provide the ideal angle for a possible future solar
panel array.

Heifer International Center is placed in an industrial section of Little Rock, Arkansas,
that is currently being revitalized. This led to many advantages that the design team used
to the building and sites benefit. The site that Heifer International Center occupies was
contaminated with industrial waste, and through land reclamation, the soil was removed
from the site and taken to a facility to be treated and used elsewhere in the Arkansas
region. The site offered more than just the ability to help reclaim natural landmany
bricks and other materials were found during the cleanup process. Most of these
reclaimed materials were incorporated into the landscape, and a few were crushed down
and used in the footings for the building. The industrial section of the city also housed
the steel mill that manufactured Heifer Internationals steel structureAFCO Steel Inc. is
located only a few blocks away from Heifers site. Additionally, the mostly glass-clad
building is built using Ace Glass Co Inc. as the fabricator of the glass, located less than
100 yards from the building.
1.2 EXISTING STRUCTURAL INFORMATION
Heifer International Center is a four story steel structure that is laterally supported by
steel plate shear walls. The floor system is a composite decking system, which is
supported with large HSS pipes for the framing system. The framing system bears onto a
system of piers and footings. Grade beams also bear onto the system of piers and
footings but support the slab-on-grade instead. A section of the Ground Level is recessed
into the ground 2-0 to accommodate a larger mechanical room.
Figure 3: Typical floor plan

Foundation System
Geotechnical Report
Grubbs, Hoskyn, Barton & Wyatt, Inc. performed a geotechnical survey of the site in
January of 2003. The survey
1
encountered expansive clays on the east side of the
building and soft and compressible soils on the west side of the building. Expansive
clays expand when they gain water, and contract when they lose waterpotentially
heaving, or raising, the site elevation four and eight inches. On the east side, the report
recommended that the weak soils should be undercut during site gradingapproximately
4-0 to 6-0. Undercutting involves removing the soil to the specified depth and
replacing it with compacted engineered soil. The soil removed would be replaced with
low-plasticity clayey sand, sandy clay or gravelly clay. The geotechnical engineer stated
that undercutting would allow the use of a slab-on-grade system; however, the use of two
potential systems to increase the bearing capacity of the soil would have to be
implemented.

The geotechnical engineer recommended either Rammed Aggregate Piers or Drilled
Piers, for the foundation system. A Rammed Aggregate Pier
(RAP) System by Geopier

Foundation Company, Inc., is used to mechanically improve the soil conditions of the
site. The RAP system uses vertical ramming energy to add layers of crushed aggregate
to the site. Generally, Geopiers are formed by drilling 30-inch diameter holes and
ramming aggregate into the hole, until a very stiff, high-density aggregate pier[s] are
formed. This crushed aggregate increased the soils capacity to between 5 to 7 ksf for the
Heifer International Center. Additional Geopiers were provided per structural
drawings, due to larger loads or the higher potential for uplift at certain sections of the
building. The geotechnical engineer stated, Total settlement of shallow footings on
Geopier elements would be expected to be less than about 1.0 inch and differential
settlement less than about 0.5 inch.

Foundation Design
The design teams chose a RAP
System, which allowed the use of conventional slab-on-

grade, footings and grade beams. The RAP
System had the added benefit of increasing

the bearing capacity and decreasing the size of the footing.

Heifer International Center also is provided with grade beams to distribute loads to
column piers and footings. These grade beams support the slab and prevent the slab from
deflecting or settling. The design uses various sizes of grade beam, which are reinforced
using #4 stirrups at 24 O.C. #5 and #8 longitudinal reinforcing bars are also used.

1
Geotechnical survey provided by Polk Stanley Wilcox Architects with permission from owner.

Gravity Systems
Floor System
Heifer International Centers floor system is composed of girders and beams supporting
composite steel deck filled with a concrete slab. The greater part of the beams supporting
the floor system are W16x26s and W14x22s, shown in yellow and orange in Figure 4.
Each beam has a camber ranging from to 1. The framing nearer the center of the
building is irregular due to the large interior architectural opening, walkway bridge and
lobby space, shown in blue on Figure 4. The framing at each end of the building, on the
east and west, is also irregular due to the large mechanical spaces, cantilevered balconies
and stairwells, shown in blue on Figure 4. The mechanical spaces are generally
supported by W16 beams.

Each floor of the Heifer International Center has a similar layout to that shown in the
half-plan in Figure 4 above.

A typical bay is 20-0 x 30-0, where the floor is supported by a system of beams and
girders. The beams and girders collect the loads of the 3VLI 20 gauge composite deck
with 2 of normal weight concrete topping for a total thickness of 5 . The decking
compositely acts with the framing members to take advantage of concrete in compression
and steel in tension. A detail showing the composite deck configuration with a wide-
flange is shown in Figure 5. In addition, at the edges of the building (or the interior
sections that are open to below) the composite deck is ended with a bent edge plate.

Figure 4: Comparison of typical framing layout

It should be noted that all of the floor slabs,
although they are supported by the composite
decking, are also reinforced with #4 at 6
O.C. in order to control cracks that occur
naturally over the girders. This cracking
occurs when the slab tries to take tension to
make the beam continuous over the girder. A
reason for the insertion of this reinforcement
is to reduce the magnitude of the deflection
occurring at each level due to the use of
under-floor air distribution plenums for the
mechanical system.
Framing System
The framing system consists of large round
HSS shapes, which continue from the ground
level to the fourth floor. Originally concrete
columns were considered; however, the
contractor and steel fabricator where
particularly concerned about tolerances maintaining tolerances on concrete columns, and
the attendant difficulty of connecting to the beams. Due to these concerns, the design was
changed to round steel, HSSs, which vary from 10 to 24 in diameter. A photograph of
the HSS during the erection process is shown in Figure 6.
Roof System
The roof-framing plan varies from the floor framing plansdue to the tree-column
designs that flare out on the fourth level and attach to the roof girders. These girders
support steel beams, which in turn support a timber wood roof deck. The roof cantilevers
approximately 8-0 beyond the edge of
the building, while simultaneously
inverting the roof to form a valley. A
Thermoplastic Membrane topped with a
4 glued laminated wood decking makes
up the first two layers of the roof, Figure
8. The wood decking has a tongue-and-
groove assembly and is connected to 3
of continuous wood lumber using 8d nails
at 6 O.C. This system is bolted to the
top flange of the roof steel members. The
roof system is shown in Figure 8 and
connects to the flare connection shown in
Figure 7.

Figure 5: Interior composite decking detail
Figure 6: Photograph during erection of HSS framing
Photo courtesy Meredith Parks


Figure 7: Roof tree-flare connection detail
Figure 8: Detail connection of roof wide flange to T&G

Lateral System
Heifer International Center is a four story steel structure and is laterally supported by
steel plate shear walls. The floor system is a composite decking system, which is
supported with large HSS pipes for the framing system. The framing system bears onto a
system of piers and footings. A section of the Ground Level is recessed into the ground
2-0 to accommodate a larger mechanical room.

A typical steel plate shear wall (SPSW) is shown in Figure 9, which shows the
continuous shear plates that are installed into the wall system. For clarity, the shear
plates are shown in red, in both section and plan. These plates are reinforced with C-
channels spaced at 24 O.C., welded perpendicular to the shear plates attached to the
wall. The C-channels are shown in blue in Figure 9 below. Several shear walls along the
ground floor use a composite steel plate shear wall and CMU masonry back wall, which
is approximately 6 thick.

Figure 9: Typical SPSW elevation, section and plan

Lateral stability is ensured in part by the floor deck, which acts as a rigid diaphragm
spanning between SPSWs. SPSWs resist horizontal shear, and effectively act as a
vertical girderthe columns act as the flanges and the steel plate acts as the web. The
SPSWs span from the foundation to the bottom of the fourth floor. The floor slab is also
reinforced with additional #6 at 5 O.C. to assist with diaphragm action of lateral loads
during a seismic event. According to the design team, this reinforcement is very
important around floor openingsanalogous to reinforcing openings in the flange of a
beam.

Lateral loads at the roof are collected by the roof deck diaphragm and then transferred to
the round steel columns, passing through the flare out connections of the tree-columns.
This lateral load from the columns is transferred to the fourth floor diaphragm, and the
lateral load is collected by the SPSWs.

Due to the irregularities of the buildings shape and the 440-0 length, the semi-circular
building was divided into two approximately even sections with a seismic joint. These
two halves were analyzed separately for lateral loads, using both static and dynamic
methods. Essentially, two separate structures, with separate lateral systems, are joined
together to act as one unit. For this technical report, only the east side of the building was
analyzed.

Joint Details
Bolted Connections
Most of the connections are shear connections in Heifer International Center, and are
bolted in three or four rows. This is shown in Figure 10 below.

Moment Connections
Small, cantilevered balconies are anchored to the building using moment connections,
which is shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11: Typical moment connection supporting
Figure 10: Typical shear connection

East and West End Balconies
Heifer International Center has large balconies on the east and west that use a shear
connection to attach to the building. These balconies are also supported by tension
members, HSS pipes. Figure 12 shows a detail section of how the balcony is supported
by the shear connection and pipes.

Figure 12: Typical balcony section

Seismic J oint
Due to Heifer International Centers semi-circular shape and the extreme length of the
building, a seismic joint was installed at each level between the second and fourth stories.
A seismic joint is placed between the abutments of the two halves of the buildingin
order to moderate damage during an earthquake. A seismic joint is similar to an
expansion joint; however, it can accommodate movement in both perpendicular and
parallel directions. The design for the seismic joint used at each level is shown in Figure
13 and the actual seismic joint during construction is shown in Figure 14.

Figure 13: Seismic joint detail
Figure 14: Photograph of seismic joint

1.3 MATERIALS
Heifer International Center used the following materials. Their respective stress and
strength properties are provided below.
Concrete

Minimum
Strength (ksi)
Air
Entraining
Water Reducing
Admix Required
Reinforced Footing 3 None Yes
Reinforced Walls, Grade
Beams and Columns
4 5% AIR Yes
Interior Slab on Grade 3 None Yes
Typical Floor Slab 3 None Yes
Walkway 3 5% AIR Yes
Precast Column, Plank 5 5% AIR Yes

Table 1: Concrete properties used in original design
Steel

Shape ASTM Grade Fy (ksi)
Beams and Girders A992 or A572 50 50
Hollow Round Columns A252 3 45
Columns A992 or A572 50 50
Tube Members A-500 B 46
Plates A-36 5% 36
Misc. Steel A-36 None 36
Connection Bolts A325-SC - -

Table 2: Steel properties used in original design
Other Material

Material ASTM Notes
Concrete Masonry Units C-90 Lightweight, Type I
Moisture Controlled
f
m
= 1500 psi
Mortar C-270 Type S
f
m
= 1800 psi
Grout f
c
= 2500 psi
Reinforcing Bars A-615 Fy = 60

Table 3: Other material properties used in original design

1.4 DETERMINATION OF DESIGN LOADS
This piece of the report reviews the loads used in the design of Heifer International
Center, and other local Arkansas laws that influenced the design and construction. It
should be noted that these may not be the same values used in the redesign of the
building, discussed further in the report.
National Code for Live Load and Lateral Loads

Live Load ASCE-7 1998 Chapter 4
Wind Load ASCE-7 1998 Chapter 6
Gravity Loads
Live Loads
Live loads used in the design of Heifer International Center were referenced using
ASCE-7 1998 Chapter 4.
Dead Loads
Dead load allowances were assumed for the typical floor at 95 PSF and roof at 30 PSF.
The 95 PSF floor load takes into account the composite decking, potential ponding of
concrete, computer technology, mechanical and sprinkler infrastructure.
Snow Loads
Ground snow loads for Pulaski County Arkansas are 10 PSF, according to ASCE-7 1998
Chapter 7; however, the timber roof loads increased the design load to 30 PSF due to the
high possibility of snow drift into the valley of the roof.
Rain Loads
Rain loads were calculated for Heifer International Center using ASCE-7 1998 Chapter 8.
Lateral Loads
Wind Loads
Loads due to wind were calculated using ASCE 7 1998 Chapter 6. The design team used
an Exposure Category C ( 6.5.6.1), with a 90mph wind speed.
Seismic Loads
The geotechnical report states that the site is located in Seismic Zone 1, according to
the Pulaski County Arkansas State criteriaan area of low anticipated seismic damage.
The design team referenced ASCE-7 1998 Chapter 9 and the Arkansas Act 1100, Zone 1,
of 1991.
Load Paths
Gravity Load Path
The composite deck will carry a load on a floor and transfer it to the beams and girders
framing each level. As the floor system collects the load, the load is shifted to the
framing system composed of large HSS pipes. This is transferred down to the ground

level and is resolved onto piers, footings and grade beams. The foundation system
dissipates this load into the soil that has been engineered using Geopier technology.

Roof loads follow a similar path, except the roof diaphragm is composed of wood timber
instead of a concrete composite deck. The timber transfers the loads to steel beams and
girders, which in turn distribute the loads to tree-column connections. These intricate
connections dissipate the energy down to the foundation using the large HSS pipes that
compose the framing system.
Lateral Load Path
The faade of the building picks up the distributed load of the wind and transfers this to
the floor diaphragm. The steel plate shear wall collects this horizontal force from the
diaphragm and generates a vertical force down, towards the foundation system. The
foundation system is then allowed to dissipate the base shear generated by the lateral
loads.

1.5 GRAVITY LOADS
The dead and live load used in the original design are tabulated below in Table 4 and
Table 5, and were taken from the structural drawings. Table 5 references the total dead
load used on the project. During analysis and redesign portions of this project, it was
advantageous to have a breakdown of the floor dead loads. This breakdown is shown in
Table 6
2
.

Live Loads
Occupancy or Use Load (psf)
Floors (typical) 80
Balcony 100
Stairs 100
Mechanical 150
Sidewalk 250
Roof Minimum 20
Snow Load 10
Ground Snow Load 10
Table 4: Live loads used in original design

Table 5: Dead loads used in original design

Table 6: Breakdown of floor dead loads used in original design

2
Breakdown of floor dead loads provided by Cromwell Architects Engineers, Inc.
Dead Loads
Floors (typical) 95
Roof 30
Breakdown of Floor Dead Loads
Concrete and steel deck 63
Concrete ponding 8
Computers 12
Lights 4
Mechanical 4
Sprinkler 3
Miscellaneous 1

1.6 LATERAL SYSTEM AND LOADS SIMPLIFIED MODEL
The Heifer International Center is laterally supported by steel plate shear walls. Due to
the irregularities of the buildings shape and the roughly 440-0 length, the semi-circular
building was divided into two approximately even sections with a seismic joint. These
two halves were analyzed separately for lateral loads, using both static and dynamic
methods. Essentially, two separate structures, with separate lateral systems, are joined
together to act as one unit. For this technical report, only the east side of the building was
analyzed.

Lateral stability is ensured in part by the floor deck, which acts as a diaphragm spanning
between SPSWs. SPSWs resist horizontal shear, and effectively act as a vertical girder
the columns act as the flanges and the steel plate acts as the web. The SPSWs span from
the foundation to the bottom of the fourth floor. The floor slab is also reinforced with
additional #6 at 5 O.C. to assist with diaphragm action of lateral loads during a seismic
event. According to the design team, this reinforcement is very important around floor
openingsanalogous to reinforcing openings in the flange of a beam.

Lateral loads at the roof are collected by the roof deck diaphragm and then transferred to
the round steel columns, passing through the flare out connections of the tree-columns.
This lateral load from the columns is transferred to the fourth floor diaphragm, and the
lateral load is collected by the SPSWs.

Please see Lateral System on page 8 for further details.

ETABS Model
The lateral system for Heifer International Center was modeled in CSi ETABS 2013.
This structural modeling program was introduced in AE 530, Computer Modeling of
Buildings. The complex geometry of the building was modeled in ETABS, and found to
incorrectly execute. The building was simplified to a rectangle 64-0 x 225-0 long.
The full length of the building was not used because of the seismic joint that splits the
building at approximately its midpoint. It should be noted that in the redesign section of
this project a model was developed which accounted for the full shape of the building.

Figure 15: 3D view of ETABS model
Effective Steel Plate Shear Wall Depth
Steel plate shear walls were converted to an effective depth of concrete, due to an
instability error that occurred in the model. The simplified rectangular building was
modeled with concrete shear walls, which were 2.98 thick. This workaround was
possible using the stiffness equation for a shear wall that is assumed fixed-fixed at the top
and bottom.

Equation 1: Stiffness equation for fixed-fixed shear wall
The stiffness of the SPSW was calculated for the various base dimensions, and converted
into an effective depth of a concrete shear wall (assuming ). These
calculations can be found in Appendix A.1 - Existing Lateral System Modeling.

Computer Modeling Assumptions
The gravity system of the building was not modeled in this technical report, only the
lateral system. The floors were modeled as rigid diaphragms, to transfer the lateral load
applied at each level. Heifer International Center has a composite deck and slab floor

system, making it a good approximation of a rigid diaphragm performance. The base
condition of the columns and walls were pinned, based on structural documents.

Structural documents indicated that the columns supporting the steel plate shear walls
assisted with lateral interactions. An ETABS link was established between the modeled
walls and columns, which were able to ensure the column and wall acted as one. A link
was established between each column and floor, at each story level.

ETABS Model Validity
The ETABS model proved to calculate forces that where within reasonable engineering
judgment. This was based on the transfer of shear forces through the model, for a
dummy load of 1000 kips at the top level, in the x-direction. The observed deflections
and forces in each of the walls were realistic. This was further established using a built in
ETABS shell stress distribution diagram, shown in Figure 16 below.

The dummy load is acting along the length of the building, in the x-direction. This is
causing a tensile stress on the left side of the buildings shear walls, and a compressive
force on the right side of the shear walls.

Figure 16: ETABS shell stress distribution diagram

The validity of the model was further confirmed by the inherent torsion formed in the
shear walls, after a more detailed examination of the forces and the respective direction
of force in each wall. Figure 17 depicts the inherent torsional force formed in the three
vertical walls, with a dummy 1000 kip x-direction loading.

Figure 17: Inherent torsional force formed in walls

Seismic and wind loads also followed a conventional load path, further confirming the
validity of the model. For a seismic load applied on the y-direction of the model, the
shear forces increased as the load transferred down the buildingsupportive of normal
shear transfer in buildings. This is shown in the 3D view of the building to the right, in
Figure 18.

A decrease in shear was found in one of the walls, that is explained by the increase in the
number of shear walls on this floor. This can be seen on the ground floor of the
elevation below, Figure 19, where the shear decreases in the larger shear wall, and is
instead picked up by the smaller shear wall offset from the main shear wall on the ground
story.

The center of mass and center of rigidity were calculated by the computer, and are shown
in Figure 20 below.

Figure 20: Center of mass and center of rigidity from ETABS

Figure 18: 3D view of shear transfer (seismic y-direction) Figure 19: Elevation showing shear decrease
on ground floor

The ETABS model was programmed using pier labeling, and used the convention of
Figure 21in referencing shear walls. This pier labeling convention is used throughout this
report.

Figure 21: Shear wall pier labeling convention for east side of the building


Seismic Loading
Heifer International Center is located in Little Rock, Arkansas in Seismic Design
Category C. The seismic forces experienced by the entire building are summarized
below, calculated in compliance with ASCE 7-1998.

Level w (kips) w*h
k
C
vx
Story Forces
Stair Tower Top 45 4025 0.008 12
Roof Story 2126 148691 0.307 425
Story 4 3436 161535 0.334 462
Story 3 3358 106928 0.221 306
Story 2 3358 56404 0.117 161
Story 1 3225 6529 0.013 19

Table 7: Seismic Forces for Entire Building
The entire seismic forces were divided by two, to conservatively distribute the forces to
the east side of the building, due to the seismic joint. Stair Tower Top, Roof Story and
Story 4 each are transferred to the top of the lateral system, which only spans to the base
of the fourth floor, as previously discussed in past Technical Assignments. The loads
were then analyzed in ETABS 2013 to calculate forces that would be distributed
throughout the lateral system. Calculation of the North-South and East-West Seismic
Loading can be found in Appendix A.2 - Existing Seismic and Wind Analysis, as well as
calculation of inherent and accidental torsions, and the incorporation of amplification
factors.

Seismic forces and initial torsional moments, assuming
, were programed into

the computer. Deflections at each level were determined for each of the four seismic
cases and used to calculate the amplification factor for each respective case. The new
amplified torsional moments were then set into the ETABS model, and used to calculate
the final shear and moment in each shear wall of the building.

Figure 22: Seismic loading distribution

North-South Seismic Loading

Regular Earthquake Loading
(Positive Moment)
Forces Moments
X Y
Center of Rigidity
Story 3 449 11026.7 68.0288 17.6914
Story 2 153 3752.0 69.0701 18.2824
Story 1 81 1979.2 68.933 18.5144
A 2.40 amplification factor has been applied to these loads
Table 8: NS Regular earthquake loading (positive moment)

Reverse Earthquake Loading
(Negative Moment)
Forces Moments
X Y
Center of Rigidity
Story 3 449 17592.8 68.0288 17.6914
Story 2 153 5986.2 69.0701 18.2824
Story 1 81 3157.7 68.933 18.5144
Table 9: NS Reverse earthquake loading (negative moment)
East-West Seismic Loading

Regular Earthquake Loading
(Positive Moment)
Forces Moments
X Y
Center of Rigidity
Story 3 449 1437.3 68.0288 17.6914
Story 2 153 489.1 69.0701 18.2824
Story 1 81 258.0 68.933 18.5144
Table 10: EW Regular earthquake loading (positive moment)
Reverse Earthquake Loading
(Negative Moment)

Forces Moments
X Y
Center of Rigidity
Story 3 449 1437.3 68.0288 17.6914
Story 2 153 489.1 69.0701 18.2824
Story 1 81 258.0 68.933 18.5144
Table 11: EW Reverse earthquake loading (negative moment)

Analysis of Seismic Results
It was found that the regular earthquake loading in the y-direction had the largest shear
development in a steel plate shear wall, particularly; SW-13 at column line 12, with a
shear of 546.403 kips. Calculations also showed that overturning due to earthquake
controlled the design. An overturning moment of 24,276 kip-ft was found in both
directions, because of the same story forces used in both directions.

Seismic drift was calculated by ETABS, and compared to the maximum allowable drift
by code. Each inter-story drift, for each seismic load direction, passed. A tabulation of
these results can be found on page 25.

Seismic Story Drift
Drift induced by seismic loading was tabulated in ETABS, and compared to the
maximum allowable drift, per ASCE 7-1998.

Seismic story drift from the computer model was amplified using the Deflection
Amplification Factor, C
d
, and the importance factor, I
e
, using 9.5.3.7.1. This was then
compared to the maximum allowable inter-story drift, calculated from Table 9.5.2.8.
Each story, for each seismic load case, passed the allowable drift.

East-West (EQ_X)
Level Drift (in) Story Height (ft)
Maximum Drift
Allowed (in) Delta*Cd/I Pass
Story3 0.451619 14 3.36 1.354857 PASS
Story2
0.351024
14 3.36 1.053072 PASS
Story1 0.175374 14 3.36 0.526122 PASS

East-West (EQ_X_REVERSE)
Maximum Drift
Story3 0.449367 14 3.36 1.348101 PASS
Story2
0.349253
14 3.36 1.047759 PASS
Story1 0.174545 14 3.36 0.523635 PASS

*Drift calculated using ETABS Model Joint 14, UX Direction

North-South (EQ_Y)
Maximum Drift
Story3 0.045525 14 3.36 0.136575 PASS
Story2
0.030472
14 3.36 0.091416 PASS
Story1 0.016139 14 3.36 0.048417 PASS

North-South (EQ_Y_REVERSE)
Maximum Drift
Story3 0.190831 14 3.36 0.572493 PASS
Story2
0.144547
14 3.36 0.433641 PASS
Story1 0.062941 14 3.36 0.188823 PASS

*Drift calculated using ETABS Model Joint 14, UY Direction

Table 12: Existing seismic story drift


The maximum drift allowed was calculated using the following table for ASCE 7-1998,
for seismic loading.

Table 13: ASCE 7-1998 Table 9.8.2.8 for maximum story drift

Wind Loading
Wind loading on Heifer International Center was calculated using ASCE 7-1998, and
simplified to a large rectangle that was 64-0 x 491-0. The four story building, with
stair tower, results in several distributed loads along the height of the building. These
loads can be resolved into point loads at each level. Once again, the Stair Tower, Roof
and Fourth story are added to the lateral force on the top of the third story lateral system.
ASCE 7-1998 requires tests of the four main wind cases, which are shown below.

Figure 23: Wind loading distribution

Case 1
A distributed load on each face is applied in the windward and leeward directions. These
distributed loads were resolved into a single force in ETABS, for both directions.

North-South, Y-Direction Loading East-West, X-Direction Loading
Figure 24: Wind analysis, Case 1, NS and EW

North-South, Y-Direction East-West, X-Direction
Forces X Y Forces X Y
Story3 71.46 112.519 32 130.80 112.519 32
Story2 20.03 112.519 32 38.13 112.519 32
Story1 18.65 112.519 32 34.99 112.519 32

Table 14: Wind analysis, Case 1

Case 2
An unbalanced distributed load on each face was separated into two separate forces,
acting in the X and Y directions. Only the worst case torsional effect on the building was
tested. These distributions are shown below.

North-South, Y-Direction Loading
Figure 25: Wind analysis, Case 2, NS
North-South, Y-Direction
1.0P
W
and 1.0P
L
0.75P
W
and 0.75P
L

Story3 192.22 56.25 32 144.17 168.8 32
Story2 52.40 56.25 32 39.30 168.8 32
Story1 47.52 56.25 32 35.64 168.8 32
Table 15: Wind analysis, Case 2, NS

East-West, X-Direction Loading
Figure 26: Wind analysis, Case 2, EW
East-West, X-Direction
1.0P
W
and 1.0P
L
0.75P
W
and 0.75P
L

Story3 71.46 112.5 16 53.60 112.5 48
Story2 20.03 112.5 16 15.02 112.5 48
Story1 18.65 112.5 16 13.99 112.5 48
Table 16: Wind analysis, Case 2, EW

Case 3
Similar to Case 1, a distributed load on each face is applied in the windward and leeward
directions. These distributed loads were resolved into a single force in ETABS, for both
directions.

North-South, Y-Direction Loading East-West, X-Direction Loading
Figure 27: Wind analysis, Case 3, NS and EW

Table 17: Wind analysis, Case 3, NS and EW

North-South, Y-Direction East-West, X-Direction
Story3 144.17 112.5 32.0

53.60 112.5 32.0
Story2 15.02 112.5 32.0

15.02 112.5 32.0
Story1 13.99 112.5 32.0

13.99 112.5 32.0

Case 4
Case 4 is similar to Case 2. An unbalanced distributed load on each face was separated
into two separate forces, acting in the X and Y directions. Only the worst case torsional
effect on the building was tested. These distributions are shown below.

North-South, Y-Direction Loading
Figure 28: Wind analysis, Case 4, NS

North-South, Y-Direction
0.75P
W
and 0.75P
L
0.56P
W
and 0.56P
L

Story3 53.60 112.5 32.0

144.17 112.5 32.0
Story2 15.02 112.5 32.0

39.30 112.5 32.0
Story1 13.99 112.5 32.0

35.64 112.5 32.0
Table 18: Wind analysis, Case 4, NS

East-West, Y-Direction Loading
Figure 29: Wind analysis, Case 4, EW

East-West, X-Direction
0.75P
W
and 0.75P
L
0.56P
W
and 0.56P
L

Story3 64.26 112.5 16
40.02 112.5 48
Story2 17.84 112.5 16
11.22 112.5 48
Story1 16.46 112.5 16
10.45 112.5 48
Table 19: Wind analysis, Case 4, EW

Analysis of Wind Results
Analysis of the four cases determined that case 2, in the y-direction would control the
design of the lateral system. SW-13 at column line 12 experienced the largest shear, at
208.07 kips. ETABS calculated the drift of the highest level, for each wind case. These
drift values were compared to the maximum drift allowed, of
. Each wind case

passed the maximum drift. These results are tabulated below.

While overturning moment was not controlled by wind, it was found the largest moment
experienced by the buildings base would be 17,860.22 kip-ft due to wind case 2, in the
y-direction.
Wind Building Drift

Load Case Drift (in)
Maximum Drift
Allowed (in) Pass
WIND_C1_X
0.258939
1.95 PASS
WIND_C1_Y
0.444476
1.95 PASS
WIND_C2_X 0.452212 1.95 PASS
WIND_C2_Y
1.027321
1.95 PASS
WIND_C3_X 0.194217 1.95 PASS
WIND_C3_Y 0.484402 1.95 PASS
WIND_C4_X 0.376172 1.95 PASS
WIND_C4_Y 0.767836 1.95 PASS
Table 20: Existing wind building drifts

Torsional Irregularities
Table 9.5.2.3.2 states that if the maximum story drift is more than 1.2 times the average
drift of a particular story, irregularity in the building will exist. It was found the torsional
irregularities existed in the Seismic Design Category C structure; however, due to the
simplified modeling of the building, this may in fact not be true. Torsional irregularity
will be studied more in depth in the future.

Table 21: ASCE 7-1998 Table 9.5.2.3.2 Plan Structural Irregularities

Overturning Moment
The overturning moment of the building was calculated by ETABS for each of the
seismic and wind cases tested. The resisting moment that is created by the weight of the
building was conservatively calculated using the following assumptions:

1. The weight of the building, 15,549 kips, acted at the Center of Mass of the
building, not at the geometric center of the building
2. The shortest moment arm of 13-2 was used in the resisting moment calculation
3. Worst case moment, seismic loading of 24,279 kip-ft acts in either direction and
must be resisted by the weight of the building

With these assumptions, a minimum resisting moment of approximately 136,000 kip-ft
was calculated. Comparing this to the worst case overturning moment that the building
may experience, a factor of safety of 5.6 exist between the worst case overturning
moment and the lowest possible resisting moment. The calculation of the overturning
moment and resisting moment can be found on the following page.

Foundation Impact
The overturning moment check confirmed that the foundation was adequate for both
wind and seismic loading. Uplift was not considered in these calculations and will have
to be explored in more detail in the future.

Overturning Moment Calculations

O
v
e
r
t
u
r
n
i
n
g

M
o
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r
W
i
n
d

B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

a
n
d

O
v
e
r
t
u
r
n
i
n
g

M
o
m
e
n
t
X

=

1
1
3
.
8
2
9
2
f
e
e
t
w

=

1
5
5
4
9
k
i
p
Y

=

1
3
.
1
5
3
3
f
e
e
t
V
x

(
k
i
p
)
V
y

(
k
i
p
)
M
x

(
k
i
p
-
f
t
)
M
y

(
k
i
p
-
f
t
)
E
Q
_
X
-
6
8
3
0
0
-
2
4
2
7
6
E
Q
_
X
_
R
E
V
E
R
S
E
-
6
8
3
0
0
-
2
4
2
7
6
2
2
5
f
e
e
t
E
Q
_
Y
0
-
6
8
3
2
4
2
7
6
0
E
Q
_
Y
_
R
E
V
E
R
S
E
0
-
6
8
3
2
4
2
7
6
0
W
i
n
d

B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

a
n
d

O
v
e
r
t
u
r
n
i
n
g

M
o
m
e
n
t
6
4
f
e
e
t
V
x

(
k
i
p
)
V
y

(
k
i
p
)
M
x

(
k
i
p
-
f
t
)
M
y

(
k
i
p
-
f
t
)
W
I
N
D
_
C
1
_
X
-
1
1
0
.
1
4
0
0
-
3
8
2
3
.
2
6
W
I
N
D
_
C
1
_
Y
-
2
0
3
.
9
2
-
2
2
9
4
4
.
8
7
5
7
0
5
1
.
1
0
W
I
N
D
_
C
2
_
X
-
1
9
2
.
7
5
0
0
-
6
6
9
0
.
8
8
W
I
N
D
_
C
2
_
Y
0
-
5
1
1
.
2
5
1
7
8
6
0
.
2
2
0
W
I
N
D
_
C
3
_
X
-
8
2
.
6
1
0
0
-
2
8
6
7
.
6
2
W
I
N
D
_
C
3
_
Y
0
-
2
1
9
.
1
1
7
6
5
4
.
5
0
W
I
N
D
_
C
4
_
X
-
1
6
0
.
2
5
0
0
-
5
5
7
0
.
1
8
W
I
N
D
_
C
4
_
Y
0
-
3
8
2
.
7
1
1
3
3
6
9
.
7
2
0
2
4
,
2
7
6
.
0
0

k
i
p
-
f
t
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
d

b
y

b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

(
a
s
s
u
m
e

w
o
r
s
t

c
a
s
e

m
o
m
e
n
t

i
n

e
i
t
h
e
r

d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
)
1
3
6
,
3
4
6
.
9
3

k
i
p
-
f
t
f
r
o
m

t
h
e

w
e
i
g
h
t

o
f

t
h
e

b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

(
a
s
s
u
m
i
n
g

s
m
a
l
l
e
s
t

m
o
m
e
n
t

a
r
m

a
n
d

f
a
c
t
o
r

o
f

s
a
f
e
t
y

o
f

1
.
5
)
P
A
S
S
F
a
c
t
o
r

o
f

S
a
f
e
t
y

=

5
.
6
2
C
e
n
t
e
r

o
f

M
a
s
s
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

W
e
i
g
h
t
M
a
x
i
m
u
m

M
o
m
e
n
t

=

R
e
s
i
s
t
i
n
g

M
o
m
e
n
t

=

O
v
e
r
t
u
r
n
i
n
g

M
o
m
e
n
t
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r
L
o
a
d

C
a
s
e
L
o
a
d

C
a
s
e
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r
O
v
e
r
t
u
r
n
i
n
g

M
o
m
e
n
t

Energy/Virtual Work Diagram
The ETABS computer model was able to calculate the utilization of each member, for
each load case. Figure 30 and Figure 31 illustrate how the steel plate shear wall is
employed more in resisting lateral loads closer to the base of the building. It should be
noted that in Figure 30 the SPSW utilization drops on the first floor, because of the
additional shear wall offset on this floor, next to Shear Wall 3.

Figure 30: 3D view of member utilization, x-direction loading
Figure 31: Member utilization of Shear Wall 13
at 12, y-direction loading

Lateral System Spot Checks
The shear in each steel plate shear wall was calculated and compared, for each seismic
and wind load case. The largest shear value was tabulated, and this shear wall was
analyzed for shear capacity and deflection. This shear wall, SW-13 at column line 12
was controlled by seismic loads.

The ASCE 7-1998 was referenced for the load combinations, which are shown below in
Figure 32.

The worst case load combination controlling was load case 5. Load case 7 was
eliminated due to the lack of soil loads on Heifer International Centers lateral system.
Load case 5 was calculated and applied to the shear walls. These detailed calculations are
found on the following pages.
Figure 32: Basic Combinations for ASCE 7-1998

SPSW Load Combinations


SPSW Shear Capacity

SPSW Deflection Check
Deflection of the steel plate shear walls were checked at two joints, on each seismic and
wind load case. These two joint locations passed the maximum allowed drift for seismic
and wind loads. These results are tabulated below, with drift shown with respect to the
direction of loading. Please refer to Figure 33 for the location of the two joints measured.

Figure 33: Diagram showing location of joints referenced
Seismic Loading
Joint 19 at Shear Wall 3
Level Drift (in)* Story Height (ft)
Maximum Drift
Allowed (in) Pass
East-West (EQ_X) 1.64307 14 3.36 PASS
1.6392
14 3.36 PASS
North-South (EQ_Y)
0.40581
14 3.36 PASS
North-South (EQ_Y_REVERSE) 0.710209 14 3.36 PASS

Joint 28 at Shear Wall 13@12
Maximum Drift
Allowed (in) Pass
East-West (EQ_X) 1.6305 14 3.36 PASS
1.63101
14 3.36 PASS
North-South (EQ_Y)
2.8103
14 3.36 PASS
North-South (EQ_Y_REVERSE) 1.10398 14 3.36 PASS

*Drift with respect to direction of loading

Table 22: Steel plate shear wall deflection check (seismic)
Joint 19
Joint 28

Wind Loading
Joint 19 at Shear Wall 3
Maximum Drift
Allowed (in) Pass
WIND_C1_X 0.235866 14 1.95 PASS
WIND_C1_Y 0.182638 14 1.95 PASS
WIND_C2_X 0.3346 14 1.95 PASS
WIND_C2_Y 0.483166 14 1.95 PASS
WIND_C3_X 0.189796 14 1.95 PASS
WIND_C3_Y 0.199211 14 1.95 PASS
WIND_C4_X 0.369934 14 1.95 PASS
WIND_C4_Y 0.361898 14 1.95 PASS

Joint 28 at Shear Wall 13@12
Maximum Drift
Allowed (in) Pass
WIND_C1_X 0.255909 14 1.95 PASS
WIND_C1_Y 0.444476 14 1.95 PASS
WIND_C2_X 0.447805 14 1.95 PASS
WIND_C2_Y 1.027321 14 1.95 PASS
WIND_C3_X 0.191944 14 1.95 PASS
WIND_C3_Y 0.484402 14 1.95 PASS
WIND_C4_X 0.372965 14 1.95 PASS
WIND_C4_Y 0.767836 14 1.95 PASS

*Drift with respect to direction of loading

Table 23: Steel plate shear wall deflection check (wind)

Lateral System Conclusion Simplified Model
Computer modeling of the lateral system of Heifer International Center was performed
for the building. Though the ETABS model of the curved office complex did not
properly execute, a simplified version of the building was used in the analysis of the
lateral system. Half of the building was modeled in ETABS due to the seismic joint that
splits the building at approximately its midpoint. Spot checks on lateral elements were
performed, and the existing lateral system was found to be adequate for the loads
anticipated on the structure.

Seismic loading in the North-South direction controlled the design, with a maximum base
shear of 550 kips. The controlling case for wind loading was the y-direction, using Case
2, at a base shear of 210 kips. The 550 kip lateral force was used in the verification of the
shear capacity of the steel plate shear wall. This maximum lateral force on the ground
level, that the steel plate shear wall must endure, passed with over 400 kips of reserve
shear capacity. Each shear wall in the model is the same thickness, thus all shear walls in
the building are adequate. Deflection of the shear wall was also tested, and found to pass
for both seismic and wind loading. The existing lateral system was found to be sufficient
for lateral loads for the Heifer International Center.

Inter-story drift and building drift were found to be within the ASCE 7-1998 maximum
allowable drift. Furthermore, the overturning moment was found to have no impact on
the foundation system.

A more all-inclusive and definitive computer model was developed later in the report,
which can be found in section
2.2 Lateral System Redesign, which more accurately modeled the building and its
reaction to various lateral loadings.

1.7 PROBLEM STATEMENT
The Heifer International Center is currently framed in steel with a composite deck;
however, the architect wishes to consider a hybrid system of glulam and steel. Their
intention is to see if the architectural features of the Education and Visitor Center, a
smaller building next door, may also be applied to the Heifer International Center. In
addition, a floor system will need to be researched, compared and selected.

The previous Technical Reports II and IV analyzed the existing buildings gravity and
lateral systems, under ASCE 7-1998. Technical Report III analyzed alternative floor
systems using ASCE 7-2010. Each phase of the redesign will reference ASCE 7-2010.

The redesign will affect mechanical and architectural characteristics of the Heifer
International Center. Their affects will need to be considered in a systems investigation
through the use of two breadths. Due to the use of combustible material, the glulam, as
the structural framing, the new classification of the building is Type IV Construction per
the International Building Code 2009 602.4 (existing structure is classified as Type
IIIB). This classification negates the use of the current Underfloor Air Distribution
System and a new overhead VAV system will be used. Exposed structural members will
be changed and these new features will need to be considered in the revised glulam
design.

The gravity system of Heifer International Center will be redesigned in glulam and the
current layout of the lateral system will be kept. However, in order to better understand a
wider variety of lateral force resisting systems, a concrete shear wall will be studied. It is
important to understand why a steel plate shear wall was selected in the original design
and examine whether it was crucial for the design.
Figure 34: Heifer International Education and Visitor Center
Photo courtesy Polk Stanley Wilcox Architects

1.8 PROPOSED SOLUTION
The selection of the glulam redesign for the gravity system leaves five potential floor
systems that must be considered.

1. Tongue and groove wood plank
2. Concrete floor system
3. Composite concrete and wood system
4. Steel decking and concrete system
5. Post tensioned slab system

These five floor systems will be researched and the most practical floor system for the
Heifer International Centers glulam beam gravity redesign will be chosen. The glulam
beams will be reinforced with tension cables; in a queen post truss design. This advanced
modification to a glulam beam may prove beneficial in integration between the structural,
mechanical and architectural disciplines. Due to aesthetics and the ease of connection of
the glulam beams, the current HSS columns will be kept in the redesign.

Figure 35 shows two potential designs of the queen post truss. Each design relies on
posts which hold the tension cable out and away from the primary beam. This queen post
truss increases the strength of the system and can be designed to add a slight camber into
the primary beam. The queen post truss will be analyzed using SAP2000 with a
combination of hand calculations.

Figure 35: Potential queen post options

The lateral system will be redesigned to incorporate concrete shear walls. This new
design will be compared to a steel plate shear wall to determine the utility of the steel
plate shear wall used in the current building. Due to difficulties previously experienced
in Technical Report IV, a RAM Structural System model will be developed for the
computer modeling aspect of the project.

Due to the use of combustible framing material, the building must be reclassified as Type
IV Construction. This new classification will negate the use of the current Underfloor
Air Distribution System because the use of concealed spaces is excluded from Type IV
Construction of the International Building Code 2009 602.4. Exposed structural
members will be changed, and these new features will need to be considered in the
revised glulam design.

Furthermore, the use of an architectural guideline will aide in the proper development of
structural and mechanical systems, in order to respect and expand upon the architectural
characteristics of the Visitor and Education Center.
Breadth Topics
Mechanical and Envelope
A glulam beam system will be used in the redesign of Heifer International Center. Due
to the updated construction type, the Underfloor Air Distribution System will be negated.
The mechanical system will have to be changed to a new overhead ductwork system.
This new system will need to be hung from the ceilingand it is important that it is
incorporated into the revised structural system so it will visually respect other
engineering options. The mechanical system will be able to integrate into the queen post,
option 1 or 2, previously discussed in this report.

The mechanical breadth will involve generally sizing the buildings supply and return
ducts and ensuring that the ducts are able to fit through the designed queen post. Due to
the open office plan of Heifer International Center, careful consideration will need to be
taken in the placement of ductwork and its architectural influence. A study will be
performed to understand the new structural systems impact on the thermal envelope, and
what may be done to reduce the number of thermal bridges in the current design.
Architectural
Due to the drastic change in structural building materials an architectural study will be
performed to understand how the glulam redesign changes the Heifer International
Center. The lateral system redesign should not have an effect on architectural
considerations. The Education and Visitor Center next door to the Heifer International
Center will be used as a design guide to develop architectural characteristics that should
be considered during the duration of the structural redesign. This design guide will
influence both structural and mechanical disciplines. Revit and AutoCAD will be used to
produce renderings of the new architectural features, and the final effect they have on the
design.

MAE Coursework Requirement
Coursework of the Graduate School of the Pennsylvania State University will be
incorporated into the redesign of the Heifer International Center. AE 530 Advanced
Computer Modeling of Building Structures will be referenced to develop an advanced
Bentley RAM Structural System model of the office building. Additionally, a CSi
SAP2000 model may be used to analyze, in detail, the potential queen post that will be
used in the redesign. In addition, AE 538 Earthquake Resistant Design of Buildings
will be integrated into the design of the lateral force resisting system.
Schreyer Honors College Requirement
This thesis work will be submitted in order to fulfill requirements set by the Schreyer
Honors College and the Department of Architectural Engineering. An in depth literature
review will be performed of a composite concrete and wood floor system. The intent of
this research review will be to gain professional experience as a future Engineering of
Record having to specify a floor system not referenced in the International Building
Code. The Engineer of Record would have to perform an examination of the proposed
system, a composite concrete and wood system, to ensure that it will be safe in the
building. This will provide a challenging, in depth examination, of a complex system and
reference the work of Dr. Walter G.M. Schneider.

1.9 CONCLUSION TO PROPOSED SOLUTION
A scenario has been created, in which the architect is requesting an alternative material
for the structure of the Heifer International Center. The architect wishes to explore a
different structural material, for aesthetic purposes, due to the fact that the existing
system is exposed. A new hybrid system of glulam and steel will be chosen and will
provide a unique opportunity to investigate a queen truss. This will lead to integration
between the mechanical and structural disciplines. The building will be reclassified as
Type IV, per the International Building Code 2009 602.4, and will prevent the use of the
current Underfloor Air Distribution System. This obstacle will lead to a new overhead
system, general sizing of ductwork and the careful placement of this ductwork to respect
their aesthetic appearance. A study will be performed to understand the new structural
systems impact on the thermal envelope, and how this will in turn affect the mechanical
system. Mechanical and electrical equipment can be incorporated into and hung from the
queen post truss.

The lateral system of the Heifer International Center will be redesigned using concrete
shear walls. This new design will be compared to a steel plate shear wall at the end of the
spring semester, to determine the utility of the steel plate shear wall used in the current
building.

Furthermore, an architectural study will be performed on the new exposed structural
system, comparing the designed system to the architectural intent of the Visitor and
Education Center, next door to the Heifer International Center.

This project will present a challenging and in depth investigation of a complex structural
gravity and floor system, while also expanding the mechanical and architectural breadths.
These two breadths will be directly influenced by the designed structural system, and will
pose a unique integration between the three disciplines. For this to be evaluated, an
architectural model will be created to compare the exiting and redesigned office building.

Graduate level course work will be referenced from AE 530 Advanced Computer
Modeling of Building Structures to develop an advanced CSi ETABS model or a Bentley
RAM model of the office building. Knowledge gain in AE 538 Earthquake Resistant
Design of Buildings will be integrated into the design of the lateral force resisting system.


CHAPTER 2

STRUCTURAL DEPTH

2.1 GRAVITY SYSTEM REDESIGN
This section summarizes the gravity system redesign of the Heifer International Center,
in which the primary structural material changed from steel to glulam. Glulam beams
were used in conjunction with an engineered queen post girder, specifically designed for
the Heifer International Center. The gravity system redesign encompassed a combination
of 2D hand calculations and computer analysis, with the additional aide of Microsoft
Excel. One of the primary goals of the gravity redesign was to minimize changes to the
layout of the Heifer International Center, while still adding a new architectural feature to
the interior space. Each skewed bay of the curved building, Figure 37, was idealized as
25-0 x 29-0 rectangular bays, shown in Figure 36. With the selection of glulam as the
primary gravity structural material, five potential floor systems were investigated.

Figure 37 shows the layout of regular glulam beams in green, the designed queen post
girder in red and the exterior perimeter beams in orange. The existing HSS24x0.5
columns remained in the redesign and are indicated in black. The conservatively sized
25-0 x 29-0 bay was used for the calculation of loads and in the design of member
sizes.

Figure 36: Typical floor plan
Figure 37: Simplified floor plan

Considerations of the Typical Bay Layout
The redesign concentrated on the typical bays of the office and roof, with the objective of
integrating the mechanical, electrical and architectural elements of the building. Due to
the complexity of the building, a typical office bay was chosen, which extends from the
second to the fourth levels, as well as a typical roof bay. Five potential floors systems
were investigated and are summarized in Table 24,

Potential Floor System

Advantages and Disadvantages
Tongue and groove wood plank - Spacing will be an issue

Concrete floor system - Additional weight may be of concern
- Would not match architectural style of building

Composite concrete and wood system - Intricate calculations required

Steel decking and concrete system + In use in existing building
+ Would match redesign of building

Post tensioned slab - Not an economical solution
- Would have to span in the short distance thus
decreasing the utility of the post tensioning
Table 24: Floor system comparison

After thorough examinations of these floor systems, the steel decking and concrete
system was chosen, due to its ability to match up closely with the intended architectural
style. This system also offered the possibility of reduced cost by using an industry
standard composite decking material.

The preliminary design of a typical office bay only included beams running between
columns, with a clear span of 25-0 between beams. It was found that floor decking
would not be able to span this distance, even with the aide of shoring. Intermediary
beams had be added to adequately support the decking, causing the beam running
between the columns to be converted to a girder. This girder became the queen post that
would later be designed to have mechanical and electrical equipment pass through it.
Composite Decking Selection
A 3VLI 20 gauge composite deck with 2 of normal weight concrete topping, making
a total thickness of 5 , was chosen as the decking to span in the 29-0 direction. The
decking will not compositely act with the framing members, due to the lack of shear studs
and wide flanges. For this reason the decking is unable to take advantage of concrete in
compression and steel in tension (Nucor Corporate, 2013).

Beam Design of Typical Floor and Roof
The beams spanning between the queen post girders must support a tributary area of
approximately 10-0 of dead and live load, highlighted in yellow on Figure 38. The
beam members being designed are in green. This significant load must be carried by the
newly designed glulam beam. The final design of the beams called for the two items
below,

Typical Office Bay 10 x 19 30F-2.1E SP

Typical Roof Bay 8 x 12 30F-2.1E SP

Calculations for sizing the beam can be found in Appendix B.1 - Typical Office Beam
Design. These members were designed primarily for bending, per Table 5A of the
National Design Standard Supplement. Each of these member sizes will have to be
produced by a qualified manufacturer and the final member will be subjected to an
additional approval by an accredited inspection agency
3
. While the depth of the typical
floor bay beam is rather large, it should be noted that the floor to floor height is 14-0,
leaving approximately 9-6 clear distance when considering the 28 deep clearance
space for mechanical and electrical equipment and a 5 deep decking. The beams

3
Note 8 page 61 National Design Standard Supplement (American Wood Council, 2013)
Figure 38: Beams, girders and perimeter beams of typical office

supporting the roof are sized in Appendix B.4 - Roof Beam Design and are shown in
Figure 39. The same roof decking used in the original design was used in the redesign.

Figure 39: Beams, girders and perimeter beams of roof

The perimeter beams of the typical office bay were designed in both glulam and steel. It
was found that the depth of the steel section designed was almost 0-6 less than the
glulam beam sized. These calculations can be found in Appendix B.7 - Typical Office
Perimeter Beam, and are shown in orange in Figure 38 and Figure 39 above. The two
potential beam size depths vary, allowing more natural light to penetrate the building if
the steel wide flange typical office perimeter W14x22 beam is used.

Typical Office Perimeter Beam

Glulam 10 x 17 30F-2.1E SP

Steel W14x22

The cantilevered section extending past the exterior of the building, on the North and
South sides of the typical roof bay were not designed in this exercise. It should be noted
that the selection of steel as the perimeter beam material will change the classification of
the construction type of the building from Type IV Heavy Timber (HT) to Type IIIB
construction, per 602 (International Code Council, 2009).

A reclassification of the buildings construction type occurred during the redesign phase
and is summarized in Table 25.

Existing Structure
Redesign
(with glulam perimeter)
Redesign
(with steel perimeter)
IBC Code 2000 2009 2009
Occupancy Type Business Group B Business Group B Business Group B
Construction Type IIB IV IIIB
Max. Height 75-0 65-0 75-0
Max. Stories 5 5 4
Max. Allowable
Area Per Floor
53,438 SF 36,000 SF 60,648 SF
Fire Rating 0 hours Min. HT
4
0 hours
Table 25: IBC 2009 Construction type classification summary

4
The minimum width and depth per IBC 2009 was referenced in the design of the HT members.

Queen Post Girder Design
Several iterations were considered for the queen post girder design. The basic principle
of an inverted queen post is to reduce the amount of flexure on the member, thus
reducing the required size of the member. This is accomplished by transferring a
significant portion of the shear, blue on Figure 40, through a post or posts located along
the length of the member. This shear is converted into axial compression in the post,
shown in red, which in turn is transferred as tension through the cable, shown in green.
This tension force in the cable is transferred up into the top chord of the queen post as an
axial force, yellow. This causes the top chord member to act primarily in axial
compression, but reduces the moment by approximately one-tenth.

Figure 40: Load path of queen post

A queen post is an indeterminate structure, and was conservatively assumed to be hinged
at the post locations. For the design of the queen post, the top chord was composed of
glulam, the middle posts were made of square hollow structural steel members, and the
bottom chord consisted of several sections of tension cables.

Figure 41: Simplified hinge queen post girder

The assumption of the hinge, shown in Figure 41, allowed for the calculation of the axial
load on the posts, the tension in the cables, and the axial load applied to the top chord
member. Due to the setup of the typical office and roof bays, each queen post had two
point loads acting along its length. To reduce flexure induced by loading, the posts were
placed where the incoming beams would frame into the queen post girder. This
significantly reduces the moment on the beam and transfers a majority of the loading into
the HSS posts.

The sizes chosen for the queen post girders are shown below.

Typical Office Bay 8 x 19 Stress Class 50 Visual SP
3 x 3 x Square HSS Post
(2) M56 Macalloy 460 Bars

Typical Roof Bay 8 x 12 Stress Class 50 Visual SP
3 x 3 x Square HSS Post
(2) M16 Macalloy 460 Bars

Appendix B.2 - Queen Post Design Hand Calculation and Appendix B.3 - Typical Office
Queen Post Design shows calculations for the design of the queen post. In addition,
Appendix B.2 - Queen Post Design Hand Calculation walks through a hand calculation of
the first iteration of the queen post design of the typical office floor. At the end of this
iteration it was found that the queen post design failed due to the interaction between
axial and bending on the member. A combination of 2D computer analysis and
Microsoft Excel were used to compute the HSS post axial loads, the tension in the cable
and the axial load applied to the top chord glulam member. These values were then
adapted into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet that was developed to quickly and accurately
arrive at an economical member size of the top chord. Hand calculations were used to
size the HSS post and the tension cable (Macalloy Bar & Cable Systems, 2014).

Figure 42: Computer model of queen post girder

A similar iteration was completed for
the Typical Roof Bay, shown in
Appendix B.5 - Roof Queen Post
Design. A SAP2000 model was also
developed to confirm the post and
cable forces. This data is found in
Appendix B.8 - SAP2000 Queen
Post Model and shows that an
acceptable amount of error was
incurred in the assumption of the
hinged queen post (Schneider III,
2014).

Figure 43: Connection detail for cable of queen post girder

Due to an eccentricity which would exist in the design if the cable met the extreme
bottom fiber of the top chord glulam member, several conceptual designs were
considered for the connection of the cable and glulam, shown in Figure 44, Figure 45 and
Figure 46.

Figure 44: Glulam top chord is eccentrically loaded due to
the cable
Figure 46: Conceptual design with plate penetration wood glulam
beam and held with a clevis
Figure 45: Conceptual design with holster plate and held with a
clevis

General Framing Plan
A general framing plan was developed for the east side of the building using Revit. This
is shown below in Figure 47 and Figure 48.

Figure 47: Isometric view of general framing plan

Figure 48: Plan view of general framing plan (East side)

Fire Rating
Although a fire rating for the building was not required, it was important to understand
how long the structure would remain structurally sound during a fire. In order to
calculate the fire resistance time, the assumption was made that the queen post girder
would act purely in axial compression, such as a column. The fire was assumed to occur
on 4 sides of the column, and a fire resistance of approximately 1 hour and 15 minutes
was calculated (APA - The Engineered Wood Association, 2009).

[
]
Equation 2: Fire rating for a column with a 4 side fire
Column Design
Due to aesthetics and the ease of connection of the glulam beams, the current HSS
columns will be kept in the redesign. The HSS column sizes are confirmed in Appendix
B.9 Column Sizing

Foundation Consideration
With the completion of the design of the building, it was found that the axial loads
through the columns were reduced, due to the use of glulam. While the design of a new
foundation system was not a part of the proposed solution for this thesis project, the
foundation system should be considered. Due to the reduced loading, the existing
foundation is sufficient to support the building and prevent overturning. This is further
investigated in 2.2 Lateral System Redesign and supporting calculations can be found in
Appendix C.4 Building Overturning Check.

Comparison of Gravity Systems
The change of the structural material to glulam from steel gave the ability to add an
aesthetic characteristic to the building, while still adequately supporting the weight of the
floors and roof. Below in Table 26 is a comparison of the existing structural system with
the redesigned structural system.
Existing Redesign
Steel Wide
Flanges
Glulam and Queen
Post
System Weight 56 psf 60 psf
Slab Depth 5.5 5.5
Height
Floor to Floor 14-0 14-0
Option 1 12-0 12-5
5

Option 2 8-6
6
10-0
7

Constructability Easy Medium
Fire Protection None None
Fire Rating - 1.25 hours
MEP Coordination Underfloor Air
Distribution
(UFAD) System
@ 18 depth
MEP runs through the structural queen
post girders
Table 26: Comparison of existing and redesigned gravity systems

5
This height is measured from the floor level to the bottom of the structural beams.
6
This height is measured from the floor level to the bottom of the existing luminaire fixtures.
7
This height is measured from the floor level to the bottom of the queen post girders cable.
Figure 49: Comparison of existing and redesigned gravity systems

Existing System Rendering

Figure 50: Existing structural system isometric in view

Redesigned System Rendering

Figure 51: Redesigned structural system isometric in view

Existing System Dimensions

Figure 52: Existing system typical bay (with dimensions)
Redesigned System Dimensions

Figure 53: Redesigned system typical bay (with dimensions)

A close up of a potential mechanical and electrical layout is shown in Figure 54.

Figure 54: Redesigned structural system and potential mechanical and electrical

2.2 LATERAL SYSTEM REDESIGN
The redesign of the gravity system in glulam lessens the likelihood of the use of a steel
plate shear wall system. Instead, a cast-in-place concrete shear wall system was designed
as the lateral force resisting system of the Heifer International Center. The shear walls
kept the same layout as the existing building and were initially designed using the
minimum thickness of walls designed by the empirical design method, per 14.5.3.1
(American Concrete Institute, ACI-318, 2011). The building layout was modeled in
RAM Structural System (RAM SS) and the shear walls were designed based on the
computer generated seismic and wind loadings.
Computer Modeling Input
The Heifer International Center has a seismic joint at approximately the midpoint of the
building, requiring that both sections be modeled separately. The two sections of the
building are shown in Figure 55, Figure 56, Figure 57 and Figure 58. Figure 56 and
Figure 58 show an isometric of each side of the building from RAM SS. Moreover, the
lateral force resisting system does not extend to the fourth level of the building, but
instead relies on the fourth level columns and roof diaphragm to transfer lateral load. All
mass of the fourth level and roof were applied at the fourth level due to this arrangement.


Figure 55: LFRS of east end of building

Figure 56: LFRS of east end of building from RAM SS


Figure 57: LFRS of west end of building

Figure 58: LFRS of west end of building from RAM SS

The concrete shear walls were designed as non-bearing shear walls and each level was
programmed with the office buildings dead and live loads previously calculated in 2.1
Gravity System Redesign. The dead load mass was used in the calculation of computer
generated seismic loads. A preliminary size of 8 was chosen using the conservative
assumption of a bearing wall which shall have a thickness not less than 1/25 the
supported height or length, whichever is shorter, nor less than 4 in. Each shear wall
spans a height of 14-0 so would have to be a minimum of 6.72, or 8 if a traditional
shear wall depth is used (American Concrete Institute, ACI-318, 2011).

The openings in the shear wall were programmed based on the original steel plate shear
wall configuration; however, adjustments were made due to the change in the mechanical
system. Concrete columns were added at the edges of the shear wall core for stability
purposes. In addition, concrete beams were added at the base of the shear walls on level
2, due to a discontinuity of the lateral force resisting system on the ground level.

The following assumptions were made during the modeling process:
The concrete core wall was modeled as a C-shape (three walls) and a
discontinued wall as the fourth wall due to program limitations that do not allow
the connection of all four walls.
o This is a conservative assumption that will make the system less stiff in
the computer program, than when compared to the actual monolithic
construction pour on the actual site.
Rigid diaphragm was assumed due to use of composite decking.
Cracked sections were assumed for the shear walls, per 10.10.4.1, and were
assigned moment of inertia property modified of
(American Concrete
Institute, ACI-318, 2011).

These general steps were used to model the lateral system in RAM Structural System:
Grid was imported into RAM SS from Autodesk Revit.
The perimeter of the building was lined with steel beam elements in order for the
program to extrapolate an edge of slab.
o It should be noted that beam self-weight was disabled and did not affect
lateral calculations.
Steel HSS columns were modeled using the HSS24x0.5 of the existing building.
This was accomplished by overriding the Master Steel Table of RAM SS and
programming in a new HSS size and corresponding properties, seen in Appendix
C.1 HSS24x0.5 Column.
Shear walls were modeled using the existing building layout.
RAM Frame was used to program site-specific seismic and wind loads, seen in
Appendix C.2 Seismic and Wind Loading and the two separate sections of the
building were then analyzed.
RAM Concrete was used in the design of the concrete shear walls.

Torsional Irregularities
Vertical and Horizontal Structural Irregularities had to be considered for the design of the
Heifer International Center, per Table 12.3-1 and 12.3-2 of 12.3.2 (ASCE-7 10,
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures)

It was possible that a Torsional Irregularity (Type 1a) or Extreme Torsional Irregularity
(Type 1b) existed in the structure. After the initial programming and verification of the
RAM Structural System model, the torsional amplification factor was calculated and
irregularity in each direction was tested. This was achieved by calculating the average
and maximum drifts of each floor, at transverse locations of the building, shown in the
simplified diagram of Figure 59. Appendix C.6 Trace Locations visually show the two
locations used to test irregularity on each section of the building.

Due to the seismic joint, the two sections of the building were analyzed separately. Both
the x-direction and y-directions were tested for the two sections of the building, east and
west sides. The east side of the building was found to have a Type 1b torsional
irregularity for all three levels for the x-direction and y-direction. On the other hand, the
west side of the building did not have any torsional irregularities in the y-direction;
however, had Type 1b irregularity on all levels in the x-direction. This was calculated
using Equation 3 below and making a comparison of 1.2
avg
and 1.4
avg
. These results
are shown in Appendix C.3 Torsional Irregularity and Seismic Amplification Factor.

Equation 3: Average drift of story

Figure 59: ASCE-7 10 Figure 12.8-1 Torsional Amplification Factor

Type 1b is an Extreme Torsional Irregularity and the design of such a building must
follow code requirements outlined in Table 12.3-1. These stipulations are summarized
below, which are applicable to a Seismic Design Category C building (ASCE-7 10,
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures).

Structural Modeling 12.7.3
o A 3D computer model incorporating a minimum of three dynamic degrees
of freedom was produced for this project.

Amplification of Accidental Torsional Moment 12.8.4.3
o The amplification factor, where required, was applied to the accidental
torsional moment. Calculations are shown in Appendix C.3 Torsional
Irregularity and Seismic Amplification Factor and references Equation 4.

Story Drift Limit 12.12.1
o The design story drift of the building was maintained below the allowable
story drift,
a
, provided in Equation 5. Supporting calculations are shown
in the Seismic Story Drift section of Appendix C.2 Seismic and Wind
Loading.

Table 12.6-1
o The Seismic Design Category C building was analyzed using the
Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis procedure.

Modeling 16.2.2
o Similar stipulations as 12.7.3 above.

Equation 4: Amplification Factor

Equation 5: Allowable story drift

In addition to torsional horizontal irregularities, Nonparallel System Irregularity Type 5
existed due to the lateral force resisting system not aligning with the orthogonal
application for seismic forces, for both the east and west sides. Type 5 requires the
following conditions to be met for Seismic Design Category C and is shown in Figure 60
(ASCE-7 10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures).

12.5.3
o The orthogonal combination procedure was used in the analysis of the
building, requiring 100% of the force in one direction to be combined with
30% of the forces in the orthogonal direction.

Structural Modeling 12.7.3
o A 3D computer model incorporating a minimum of three dynamic degrees
of freedom was produced for this project.

Table 12.6-1
o The Seismic Design Category C building was analyzed using the
Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis procedure.

Structural Modeling 12.7.3 and 16.2.2
o Please see Type 1b Extreme Torsional Irregularity.

Figure 60: Type 5 Nonparallel System Irregularity

Seismic Design Category C has the potential to qualify for two types of vertical
irregularity, per Table 12.3-2: In-Plane Discontinuity in Vertical Lateral Force-Resisting
Element Irregularity Type 4, and Type 5b Discontinuity in Lateral Strength-Extreme
Weak Story Irregularity. Type 4 irregularity was eliminated because there was no shear
wall that was discontinuous from the below levels. Type 5b also did not apply to the
Heifer International Center, which does not have any levels that have 65% less lateral
strength than the levels above.

Loads Applied to Model
The original analysis of the building used ASCE 7-98; however, the redesign of the
building used ASCE 7-10. Due to the drastic change in code requirements only the
seismic and wind loadings generated by the computer were used, based on ASCE 7-10.
The most up to date wind and seismic data was programmed into the computer and used
to generate the loading on each half of the building. The input data can be found in
Appendix C.2 Seismic and Wind Loading. It was previously found in 1.6 Lateral
System and Loads of the simplified analysis of the structure, seismic controlled. This
was verified for both sections of the building, which were each controlled by a load
combination involving seismic loads.

Seismic Loads
Seismic loads were applied to the building and displacements were extracted from the
program. These displacements were then used to test if torsional irregularities existed in
the building. If Type 1a or Type 1b Horizontal Irregularity existed, the building was
checked against and compared to the requirements set forth in Table 12.3-1. In addition,
the seismic loads were amplified per the calculated amplification factor. This is shown in
Appendix C.3 Torsional Irregularity and Seismic Amplification Factor and is discussed
in greater detail in the Torsional Irregularities section. The torsional moment was first
calculated using the original story shear and amplification factor, and then was then
resolved into a shear with an eccentricity. This was completed because RAM Frame did
not have a function to accept torsional moments, only shear forces.

Seismic drifts were calculated and found to be below the maximum drift allowances for
inter-story drift, per 12.12.1 (ASCE-7 10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
Other Structures). Seismic forces are summarized below in Table 27 and
Table 28.

Seismic Shear Summary - West End
Level
V
x

(kips)
V
y

(kips)
Level 3 191.97 185.64
Level 2 290.03 282.97
Level 1 341.03 331.21

Table 27: Summary of west end seismic forces
Seismic Shear Summary - East End
Level
V
x

(kips)
V
y

(kips)
Level 3 221.73 180.16
Level 2 329.23 274.77
Level 1 347.62 325.55

Table 28: Summary of east end seismic forces

Wind Loads
The basic wind speed increased from 90 mph to 115 mph, by changing from ASCE 7-98
to ASCE 7-10. Although this increased wind loads, loads still remained below seismic
forces. Building drift was calculated and was compared to the industry accepted drift
limit of

. These findings are summarized in the Wind Building Drift section of

Appendix C.2 Seismic and Wind Loading. Wind forces are summarized below in
Table 29 and Table 30.

Wind Shear Summary - West End
Level
V
x

(kips)
V
y

(kips)
Level 3 35.04 53.91
Level 2 67.36 103.94
Level 1 63.31 98.15

Table 29: Summary of west end wind forces
Wind Shear Summary - East End
Level
V
x

(kips)
V
y

(kips)
Level 3 35.04 47.25
Level 2 67.36 91.1
Level 1 63.31 86.02

Table 30: Summary of east end wind forces

Building Overturning Moment
The overturning moment of the building was calculated using output from RAM Frame
and Microsoft Excel, for wind and seismic cases. This was performed separately for the
two sides of the building.

The weight of each side of the building was approximately 4000 kips. The shortest
moment arm was calculated to the edge of the building, from each respective side of the
buildings center of mass, and used in the calculation of the resisting moment. The use of
the shortest distance would yield the lowest resisting moment that would prevent the
building from overturning. A factor of safety of 1.5 was applied to the calculation of the
resisting moment. The worst case moment was calculated for wind and seismic, for both
sections of the building and compared to the resisting moment. An overall factor of
safety was then calculated for the design, and found to be 5.5 and 3.7, for the west and
east ends, respectively. These calculations are shown in Appendix C.4 Building
Overturning Check. Both sides of the building passed for overturning.

Understanding Load Paths
Due to the Heifer International Centers irregular shape it is important to understand how
lateral loads travel through the buildings rigid diaphragm and react with the lateral
system and are subsequently transferred to the foundation. The west side of the building
was visually analyzed for the application of a wind load (this could also apply to seismic
loads, too). Fortunately, the layout of the levels and lateral force resisting system are
similar for each level, reducing the likelihood of load transfer through the diaphragm
creating issues. This is shown below in Figure 61.

Figure 61: Load path diagram of building

Shear Wall Design
RAM Concrete was used in the design of the concrete shear walls. The shear wall
originally checked, SW-13 @ column line 12, in the Lateral System Spot Checks section
of 1.6 Lateral System and Loads, was checked against concrete shear wall requirements.
The final design from RAM Concrete for SW-13 @ column line 12 is summarized in
Table 31 and shown in Figure 62.

#4 @ 18 O.C. Horizontal

#5 @ 15 O.C. Vertical

Table 31: SW-13 at column line 12 rebar design summary

This shear wall design was manually hand checked using the stipulations outlined for
concrete shear walls and reinforcement requirements. These hand checks are shown in
Appendix C.5 Lateral System Hand Checks (American Concrete Institute, ACI-318,
2011), and the RAM Structural System design was found to pass.

The lateral force resisting system concrete shear walls are shown in Figure 63 and Figure
64, which were designed in RAM Structural System. These are shown on the next page.
All shear walls in the building were designed to be 8 thick.

Seismic Joint
Analysis of the maximum deflections from each section of the building verified that the
existing 4 seismic joint was adequate for the building deflections. Additional
information can be found on the seismic joint in the Seismic Joint section of 1.2 Existing
Structural Information.

Figure 62: SW-13 at column line 12 section


Figure 63: East end of the Heifer International Center

Figure 64: West end of the Heifer International Center

2.3 COMPARISON OF EXISTING AND REDESIGNED SYSTEMS
A comparison can be drawn between the existing and redesigned gravity and lateral
systems. Each system has advantages over the other system; however, each also has
disadvantages. The redesigned gravity system kept the floor-to-floor height the same and
also was able to provide over a foot of additional space, immediately over the offices.
Space over the girder location, which the typical office level beams frame into, was
reduced because of the increased depth of the queen post girder. It should be noted that
most of the depth of the queen post girder is for the space between the bottom of the
glulam beam and the steel cable. The space is used for mechanical equipment,
integrating the structural and mechanical systems in the redesigned queen post.

The main drawback of the redesigned gravity system is cost. The expense of the special
order glulam beams and custom made queen post girder will be highdue to materials
and labor. However, if the owner and architect wish to achieve the aesthetic look of the
glulam and integration of the mechanical and electrical systems into the structural
systemthen the redesigned gravity is a decent choice. Moreover, the ability to
prefabricate the queen post members and ship them to the site, also adds several
environmental, cost and labor advantages to the redesigned system. If prefabricated off
site, the members can be shipped onto the site and quickly moved into its respective place
in the building. There is a disadvantage because the wood is not located as close as the
steel manufacturer.

Next the lateral system redesign will be considered. Due to the use of glulam for the
gravity redesign, it was found that a concrete shear wall system would be best for the
lateral force resisting system in the Heifer International Center. The concrete shear walls
were thought to be the best material to connect the glulam beams that would frame into a
portion of the shear walls. In addition, the concrete shear wall system would be
constructible, due to its ubiquitous use throughout the building industry. After the
redesign of the gravity and lateral
systems, a connection system between
the two was researched. A Simpson
Strong-Tie system of High Capacity
Girder Hangers for Concrete and Glulam
was studied and found to be a potential
system to use in the Heifer International
Center. This hanger is shown in Figure
65. It was found that the existing
industry standard hangers would not be
sufficient to support the beams framing
into the concrete shear wall assembly;
however, if a small portion of the
gravity system was redesigned in the
future, it would be conceivable to use
the Simpson Strong-Tie hangers.
Referencing the Due to an eccentricity
which would exist in the design if the
Figure 65: High capacity girder hangers for glulam

cable met the extreme bottom fiber of the top chord glulam member, several conceptual
designs were considered for the connection of the cable and glulam, shown in Figure 44,
Figure 45 and Figure 46.

General Framing Plan of 2.1 Gravity System Redesign and the supporting calculations of
Appendix B.1 - Typical Office Beam Design, it is possible to increase the number of
beams over the typical bay near shear walls, from three to four or five. If this was
completed, then the bearing at the end of the beam would decrease; allowing the use of
the High Capacity Girder Hangers for Concrete and Glulam. The hangers are currently
capped at approximately 20 kips of downward load; while the system designed calculated
a bearing of 21.5 kips. This slight change in the floor plan, highlighted in Figure 66
below, would allow for the use of the Simpson Strong-Tie hanger system (Simpson
Strong-Tie, 2014). It is important to prevent contact between the glulam and concrete
and provide lateral and uplift resistance to the glulam member. In addition, a slotted
connection between the hanger and glulam should be considered to allow longitudinal
movement (Showalter, 2012).

Figure 66: 3D isometric of floor plan highlighting walls to be redesigned
One major question which arose during the project was why the original project used
steel plate shear walls. While concrete shear walls are common place in construction, the
materials were readily available during the design and construction phases due to a steel
manufacturer physically
close to the building,
making it more economical
to use a steel plate shear
wall system in the building.
In addition, it is possible
that the inherent lateral
stability of the gravity
framing did not require a
lateral force resisting
system during construction.
If this is so, evident by
photographs from the time
of the construction shown in
Figure 67, then it would
have been easier to install a
Figure 67: Construction photo with no evident LFRS

steel plate shear wall into the erected structure (Robinson & Ames, 2000).

Another reason why steel plate shear walls may have been chosen is for their utility. It
may not have made sense due to the geometrical shape and layout of the building to use
concrete shear wallsin other words, an overdesigned system. It was revealed in
ETABS SPSW to Concrete Conversion of Appendix A.1 - Existing Lateral System
Modeling that the existing steel plate shear walls were equal to approximately 3 of
concrete. By code the minimum concrete shear wall thickness would have been 6.72a
large jump from the equivalent 3 concrete shear wall used for the steel plate shear
wall.

The lateral force resisting system of the Heifer International Center was redesigned in
concrete and found to sufficiently pass code and industry standards. This was achieved
without hindering the current layout of the building and also producing an achievable
design that can be unified with the redesigned gravity system.

2.4 MAE REQUIREMENTS
The Graduate School curriculum of the Pennsylvania State University wase incorporated
into the redesign of the Heifer International Center. Course work of graduate level
courses was referenced from AE 530 Advanced Computer Modeling of Building
Structures to develop an advanced Bentley RAM Structural System model of the office
building. The powerful design and analysis tools which RAM Structural System offers
were used for the lateral design of the building. The gravity system of the Heifer
International Center was mostly designed by hand, but was verified using a computer
model of the primary structural member, the queen post girder. A CSi SAP2000 model
was used to analyze, in detail, the queen post girders. In addition, AE 538 Earthquake
Resistant Design of Buildings was integrated into the design of the lateral force resisting
system and the advanced torsional checks required by ASCE 7-10.


CHAPTER 3

MECHANICAL AND ENVELOPE

3.1 MECHANICAL AND ENVELOPE BREADTH
The redesign of the Heifer International Center in glulam led to the removal of the
existing underfloor air distribution system. Instead, an overhead ductwork system was
introduced and incorporated into the queen post girder designed in section 2.1 Gravity
System Redesign. In addition, a thermal bridge was eliminated on each external column
of the fourth floor of the office building, by redesigning the fourth floor column.
Preliminary Duct Sizing
Using provided mechanical drawings, the air handling units for the Heifer International
Center were analyzed for an alternative ductwork system. A TRANE Ductulator
was
used to preliminary size the ductwork for the new system, using the existing air handling
units maximum air supply to the various sections of the building. This work is
summarized in Table 32 and Table 33. The most important aspect of this research was
the determination of the depth of the ductwork. The maximum practical ductwork depth
was 25, so the queen post girder was designed at a depth of 28 to easily accommodate
the rectangular ductwork.

Table 32: Air handling unit summary

Table 33: TRANE Ductulator sizing
Mark Location Services Type
Max Supply
(CMU)
Min Outside
Air (CMU)
Return Air
(CMU)
AHU-1E 1st East HOR2 6544 2452 4092
AHU-1W 1st West HOR2 8920 1715 7205
AHU-2E 2nd East HOR2 11122 1655 9467
AHU-2W 2nd West HOR2 14403 2839 11564
AHU-3E 3rd East HOR2 11400 1655 9745
AHU-3W 3rd West HOR2 14842 2839 12003
AHU-4E 4th East HOR2 10355 2620 7736
AHU-4W 4th West HOR2 12503 2811 9692
OSA-1E - East HOR2 8400 8400 -
OSA-1W - West HOR2 10200 10200 -
Mark
Ductulator
Size (in)
Alternative Ductulator
Size (in)
AHU-1E 25x30 20x38
AHU-1W 25x36 20x48
AHU-2E 25x42 20x55
AHU-2W 25x50 20x70
AHU-3E 25x42 20x55
AHU-3W 25x55 20x75
AHU-4E 25x40 20x50
AHU-4W 25x50 20x65
OSA-1E 25x32 20x42
OSA-1W 25x40 20x50

Thermal Bridge Elimination
The fourth floor of the office building has several
columns that are exposed on the exterior and
interior of the building, shown in Figure 68 and
Figure 69. This is a direct link between the
outside and inside of the building that may cause
thermal discomfort in the interior space. In order
to eliminate the thermal bridge through the
structure, the HSS column, which is continuous
from the first to fourth floors, was terminated at
the third floor. A wide flange was designed for
the fourth floor, which is supported by the
concrete-filled HSS below.

The final design of the wide flange to support roof
and girder loads was a W12x40. It should be
noted that a smaller wide flange could have been
used; however, smaller wide flanges more easily
buckle due to their square shape. These shapes
were not considered for the final design. The
wide flange would then be covered with an architectural faade, for example aluminum
sheathing, on the exterior to give the aesthetic look of the HSS. The cavity would then be
filled with insulation and covered on the interior of the building. Calculations for sizing
the wide flange can be found in Appendix D.1 Thermal Bridge Study.

Figure 68: Exterior shot of columns
Figure 69: Columns exposed on exterior and interior

Thermal Productivity
A comparison of coefficient of thermal conductivity was drawn between the redesigned
system, Table 34 and existing systems, Table 35. The glass faade is summarized in
Table 36 and was used for the existing and redesigned
systems. The low total U-value of the new system is an
improvement over the existing, providing more resistance
to temperature change across the system. The worst-case
heat travel was considered and is shown in Figure 70.

Material Depth (in) R (BTU-in/h-ft
2
-
o
F) U (1/R)
Outside Air Film - 0.17 5.88
Aluminum Composite 0.5 0.06 15.86
Batt Insulation
8
3 11.45 0.09
Aluminum Composite
9
0.5 0.06 15.86
Inside Air Film - 0.68 1.47

Sum 12.43 0.08
Table 34: Redesigned HSS envelope

2
-
o
F) U (1/R)
Outside Air Film - 0.17 5.88
HSS Steel 0.5 2.24 0.45
Air 23 0.00125 802.57
HSS Steel 0.5 2.24 0.45
Inside Air Film - 0.68 1.47

Sum 5.33 0.19
Table 35: Existing HSS envelope

2
-
o
F) U (1/R)
Glass - 3.45 0.29

Sum 3.45 0.29
Table 36: Glass faade envelope

An approximate 140% increase can be observed between the redesigned and existing
systems; showing the added benefit of the redesigned column with batt insulation.

8
Thermal Batt FIBERGLAS Insulation (Owens Corning Insultating Systems, LLC, 2007)
9
Almaxco ACP Mechanical Properties (Almaxco, 2012)
Figure 70: Worst case heat travel

A thermal gradient was developed for the new column-wall system and is shown below
in Figure 71, worst case, and Figure 72, middle condition. These calculations are
summarized in Worst Case Thermal Gradient and Middle Case Thermal Gradient of
Appendix D.1 Thermal Bridge Study.

Figure 71: Worst case thermal gradient

Figure 72: Middle condition thermal gradient

Construction Sequence
A construction sequence for the new design was thoroughly considered and is explained
below between Figure 73 and Figure 79.

Figure 73: Phase 1 - Column Construction

Construction will begin with the finishing
of the fourth floor slab.


A base plate will be installed over the third
floor concrete filled HSS column.

The W12x40 will be installed to the base
plate.


Installation of inverted roof and tree
column connection. The same tree column
connection was used as the existing
building a
base plate and (2)

flange plates.

Glass faade installation.



The aluminum faade sheathing will be
placed next, integrating with the glass
faade manufacturers mullion design for
easy installation.

The void between the aluminum sheathing
and wide flange is filled with batt
insulation, to properly break the thermal
bridge of the original design.

The final design of the new column to prevent the thermal bridge is seen Figure 80.

Figure 80: Final column design to prevent thermal bridge


A final rendering of a section of the building is seen below in Figure 81 (level 2 to 4) and
also shows a comparison between the existing and redesigned gravity systems. The
aluminum faade is shown floating in front of the building to show the new wide flange
design.

Figure 81: Building section of redesigned column


CHAPTER 4

ARCHITECTURE

4.1 ARCHITECTURE BREADTH
The drastic change in building materials led to a completely new aesthetic to the interior
of the building. Besides the slight change in insulating properties of the fourth level, no
other faade changes were made to the envelope. The interior changes can be viewed
below in Figure 82, while the existing interior can be seen in Figure 83.

Figure 82: Interior aesthetic changes due to gravity redesign

Figure 83: Interior aesthetic from existing gravity system

Impacts from Structural Redesign
A primary goal while examining and redesigning the structural depth of the Heifer
International Center was to leave the existing layout of the building the same. This was
accomplished through an exhaustive design process for the new hybrid glulam and steel
gravity systems, and the new cast-in-place concrete lateral force resisting system. The
interior aesthetic of the building was successfully changed and fully integrated with the
mechanical and structural disciplines of the building. The new structural queen post
girders provide the opportunity for occupants to better connect with the building and
visually see the elements that are supporting the floors and the engineering systems
which interconnect with building, as well as provide comfort to the occupants.

Architectural Design Guidelines
The following design guideline was established at the inception of the structural depth to
aide with the design of, not just the architectural components of the building, but to also
positively lead the design of the engineering systems of the building. The desire to
enhance the architecture by changing the structural material influenced mechanical,
electrical systems and the interior appeal of the building.

These guidelines will aid in the basis for future development of the Heifer International
Campus and surrounding area. The standards set forth do not seek to constrain
architectural and engineering creativity, but rather to encourage a variety of designs
within certain attributes that will ensure to harmonize the campus and encourage public
interaction.

The goals of developing these guidelines are:
1. Promote design solutions that lend themselves to educational and visual
interactions
2. Express the abstract meanings of charity through the physical form of the building
and Heifer International Campus
3. Develop architectural characteristics that should be followed during the duration
of the design
4. Lay the foundation for the expansion of the campus in the future and define
architectural attributes that should be promoted and which should be discouraged
History of Heifer I nternational
Dan West founded Heifer International almost 70 years ago and the charity has worked
tirelessly in the effort to end hunger and poverty throughout the world. By giving power
to families to provide for themselves, the organization empowers communities to
sustainably support themselves both agriculturally and commercially. This form of
dependable food and income is the fundamental ideal of Heifer International, known as
Passing on the Gift (Heifer International, 2014).

Character of the Campus
Site Circulation
Pedestrian paths, bicycle paths and personal and commercial vehicular movement will be
promoted through the site. East 3
rd
Street acts as a main street to guide pedestrian and
vehicular movement, while World Avenue and Shall Avenue will act as secondary
streets. The site is conveniently located near a city light rail station and city bus stop. In
addition, an exit off Interstate 30 is located approximately one-third of a mile away from
the site. This is shown in Figure 84 below.

Figure 84: Site circulation of the Heifer International campus

Photo courtesy Google Earth

Primary movement through the site will act along East 3
rd
Avenue, and will be the focal
point for pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular entrance into the site. From here pedestrians
will be able to move through the accessible campus, seen below in Figure 85.

Figure 85: Primary and secondary circulation through Heifer International campus

Photo courtesy Google Earth

Movement on the Site
Buildings should create a defined outdoor space and encourage existing views of the
landscape. There should be accessibility between existing and proposed buildings and a
uniformity imposed on the campus. The following should be used to accomplish this:
Roads and Parking Areas
o Local aggregate to match color and texture of existing drive, Figure 86
o Porous pavement system shall be used in parking areas, and bioswales
shall be used to promote local plant and animal life, Figure 87
o Parking areas shall accommodate pedestrians and vehicular circulation,
Figure 88

Figure 86: Local aggregate to match color and texture

Figure 87: Porous pavement used in parking areas

Figure 88: Pedestrian and vehicular activity accommodated in parking lot

Photo courtesy Meredith Parks Photo courtesy Meredith Parks


Integrate site drainage into walkways, Figure 89
Design of site and campus plantings responsibility of landscape architect
Specify plants indigenous to central Arkansas to promote plant growth and habitat
rehabilitation, Figure 90
Pedestrian Paths, Figure 91
o Central Walkway: 13-6 wide
o Secondary Walkways: 10 wide
o Wetland Walkways: 8-0 wide, concrete and heavy timber

Figure 89: Integration of walkways and incorporation
of drainage system

Figure 90: Indigenous plantings used on the campus

Figure 91: Central and secondary walkways

Photo courtesy Meredith Parks Photo courtesy Meredith Parks

Character of Buildings
Typology
o Building profile should incorporate vision of Dan West

Figure 92: Circular form of campus

Figure 93: Circular form of building

In all my travels around the world, the important
decisions were made where people sat in a circle, facing
each other as equals. Dan West
Photo courtesy Bing Maps

Roofs
o Inverted roof system with a slope ranging from 1/12 to 1/6 shall be used,
shown in Figure 94
o Water collection system shall be designed to capture rainfall for use to
offset potable water usage, Figure 95
o Overhangs shall be at the discretion of the architecture, Figure 96
Entrances and Bridges
o Weather protected entry way, Figure 96

Figure 94: Inverted sloped roof

Figure 95: Water collection system tower (far
left) and local wetland (front right)

Figure 96: Covered entrance to building
Photo courtesy Timothy Hursley Photo courtesy Timothy Hursley

Walls and Windows
o Glazing system shall promote connection with outdoors and maximize
natural day lighting on all floors of the building, Figure 97 and Figure 98

Figure 97: Natural daylighting in interior of building

Figure 98: Exterior shot of natural daylighting penetrating building faade


Character of the I nterior Space
Fenestration
o Glazing system shall promote connection with outdoors and maximize
natural day lighting, Figure 99 and Figure 100

Spacious interior
o Large flexible environment for a variety of public and private events,
Figure 101

Figure 99: Interior natural lighting Figure 100: Exterior view of interior artificial light
Figure 101: Interior spacious environment
Photo courtesy Polk Stanley Wilcox Architects Photo courtesy Polk Stanley Wilcox Architects
Photo courtesy Polk Stanley Wilcox Architects

Structural elements
o Materials
Structural materials should focus on glulam, steel and concrete,
with the objective of creating a comfortable and homey
environment
o Structural bays
A radius should be established and a degree of separation between
major structural bays should remain fairly constant
A reference point should be located on plans for each circular
center, Figure 102

o Beams
3 to 4 beam proportions (or sizes) should be used on the project in
order to keep a consistent pattern on the gravity system
Glulam and steel should be used in the gravity system
Steel should be painted with a nature-green color

Figure 102: Reference point on plan to mark circular
center

o Columns
An airy atmosphere should be created by the floor to floor heights
Steel tree column
Representation of trees in wetlands surrounding the
building and a shelter for each of the charitys employees,
Figure 103 and Figure 104
Supports inverted roof for rainwater collection
2-0 wide round columns (steel or concrete material), Figure 105
and Figure 106

Figure 105: Plan detail of tree column connection

Figure 103: Plan of tree columns Figure 104: Inspiration for tree column canopy
Figure 106: Section detail of tree column connection


CHAPTER 5

AN INVESTIGATION OF WOOD-CONCRETE COMPOSITE
FLOORING SYSTEMS

A thesis submitted in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for a bachelor degree in Architectural Engineering
with honors in Architectural Engineering

Schreyer Honors College

5.1 COMPOSITE WOOD-CONCRETE FLOOR SYSTEM
A composite wood-concrete system is well matched for the redesigned glulam gravity
system of the Heifer International Center. A composite wood-concrete system, also
known as a timber-concrete composite (TCC) structure, can be well adapted to the glulam
beam and queen post girder system designed for the Heifer International Center. TCC is
very useful for restoration work (Gelfii, Giuriani, & Marini, 2002), bridge construction
(Yeoh, Fragiacomo, Franceschi, & Boon, 2011) and for new building design and
construction. The main advantages of TCC are cost savings and the ability of replacing
nonrenewable resource based concrete and steel with a manageable renewable resource,
and reduced energy of material production and construction carbon dioxide emissions.
In addition there are technical advantages of using wood and concrete, such as increased
fire and acoustical ratings (Gutkowski, Balogh, & To, 2010; Clouston & Schreyer, 2008).

The fundamental design criterion for a TCC system is to keep the neutral axis of the
composite cross section close to the boundary of the timber-concrete interfaceensuring
that the concrete acts purely in compression and that the timber is mostly subjected to
tensile stresses. In addition, a strong and stiff connection system must be in place in
order to transfer the shear forces properly and provide an effective cross area for
composite action. Lastly, the design criterion calls for a strong timber section, in order to
resist bending tensile stresses induced by gravity loads (Yeoh, Fragiacomo, Franceschi, &
Boon, 2011).

Due to a shortage of steel in Europe after World War I and World War II, TCC systems
began to develop and become popular alternatives in restoration projects of older
historical buildings. The
existing floor systems of
historical buildings were
inadequate for sound
insulation and fire
resistance, and were
updated using TCC. This
mostly European system
expanded throughout the
last half century for use in
highway bridges and new
building construction. As
an example, the
Vihantasalmi Bridge of
Finland was built in 1999
and spans 168 meters.
The bridge spans 14
meters wide, 11 meters for
the road and 3 meters for a sidewalk. The Vihantasalmi Bridge is shown in Figure 107
10
.

10
Used with permission through the GNU Free Documentation License
Figure 107: The Vihantasalmi Bridge of Finland
Photo courtesy Antii Bilund

Design Standards of TCC
TCC bridges were considered as far back as 1944 with the specification of the American
Association of State Highway Official. TCC is not addressed in most standards
throughout the world, except the Eurocode 5, Part 2 for timber bridges. Because the
interlayer shear connection is not fully rigid, the assumption of plane sections remaining
plane does not apply to this type of composite section. The slip between the bottom fiber
of concrete and the upper fiber of timber does not allow for the method of transformed
sections.

A designer must be aware that partial composite action is possible due to the flexibility of
the shear connection and that there are time-dependent properties of the composite
materials. A semi-prefabricated TCC floor system is shown in Figure 108
11
, and had to
consider these design phenomena (Yeoh, Fragiacomo, Franceschi, & Boon, 2011;
European Committee for Standardization, 2004).

Figure 108: Semi-prefabricated TCC floor system in New Zealand (Yeoh et al.)

A thorough literature review was conducted, limited to the years of 2000 to 2014, to
better understand a TCC system and how it may apply to the Heifer International Center.
Research of TCC systems have led to the summary of five main systems:
1. Shear connector and wire mesh
2. Shear key connection
3. Hilti and shear key connection
4. Glued composite members
5. Custom lag bolt system

11
Used with permission from Dr. David Yeoh, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
([email protected])

Types of TCC Systems
Shear connector and wire mesh
A continuous steel mesh is used in conjunction with a shear connector to join wood and
concrete components. One half of a shear connector is embedded in a wood beam, while
the other is embedded in concrete (Clouston, Bathon, & Schreyer, 2005), and is shown in
Figure 109
12
. This causes composite action between the two materials. This system has
been tested in static push-out tests and full scale bending tests, with a span of
approximately 33-0. The wire mesh aids with the composite action, and has performed
satisfactorily in adding ductility to the shear connector, but still keeping a stiff connection
between the two materials. No design guidelines exist in the United States for TCC
systems; however, Eurocode 5 provides formulas which aide in the estimation of design
parameters for composite systems with
shear connectors (European Committee for
Standardization, 2004). Clouston et al.
was able to predict failures of the two load
test performed on the shear connector and
wire mesh composite system using the
design parameters of Eurocode 5. Through
several iterative tests, it was found that
composite action was nearly achieved
97% effective stiffness and 99% strength
of that of a beam with full composite
action.

Shear key connection
A second TCC system comprises a construction technique which uses a keyed wood
member, shown in the cross section of Figure 110
13
. The beam specimens were
monitored during the construction process, and for an overall period of 133 days after the
application of the service load. Using a finite element model developed by Department
of Civil Engineering of the University of Canterbury, a research team was able to
theoretically extend the composite structure through a service life.

Figure 110: Shear key connection, longitudinal view (Fragiacomo et al.)

12
Used with permission from Dr. Peggi Clouston, University of Massachusetts ([email protected])
13
Used with permission from Dr. Massimo Fragiacomo, University of Sassari ([email protected])
Figure 109: Shear connector and wire mesh (Clouston et al.)

It was found that an increase in moisture from bleeding of the concrete into the timber
was not an issue for the durability of the wood deck and that the type of construction
(shored or unshored) does not affect the structural performance of the system
(Fragiacomo, Gutkowski, Balogh, & Fast, 2007). Figure 111
13
shows a cross section of
the shear key connection.

Figure 111: Shear key connection, cross section, (Fragiacomo et al.)
Hilti and shear key connection
The Hilti and shear connection system is very similar to the shear key connection system
just discussed; however, the system uses the proprietary system of Hilti, Inc., and is
shown in Figure 112
14
. The construction of
offices, hotels and apartments does not
typically use light frame wood floor
construction. Instead the industry tends
towards cast-in-place reinforced concrete
slabs or steel composite decking, as
previously discussed. Research of this
system has been conducted so that the
formwork for the traditional concrete slab can
be left in place. This allows for the
development of composite action (Gutkowski,
Balogh, & To, 2010).

Research has shown that medium to high composite action is possible for shear key
connection solid wood-concrete beam systems. This involves several tests:
Withdrawal tests of the anchor connector
Interlayer load-slip tests of the interlayer connection specimens
Preliminary flexural tests of layered solid wood-concrete beam
Tests of full scale wood-concrete floors
These tests involved nominal dimension lumber (Brown, Gutkowki, Natterer, & Shigidi,
2008).

14
Figure from Gutkowski et al. 2010
Figure 112: Hilti dowel cross section (Gutkowski et al.)

Glued composite members
The interface of the concrete and wood can be glued. Henrique et al. studied both cast-
on-site and prefabricated composite timber-concrete beams, which were produced to
simulate the possibility of a partial or full prefabrication composite construction. The
glued interface composite members were
compared to shear connector timber-concrete
beams. A glued interface beam is shown in
Figure 113
15
.

Results show that strength is similar between the
three groups tested and that a greater stiffness was
achieved in the glued composite timber-concrete
beams. Due to greater stiffness, less deflection
developed in the beam. Under stabilized and dry
conditions, the prevailing mode of failure is
tension in timber and, when shear failure occurs,
it is mostly conditioned by the shear strength of
the concrete or timber, not by the adhesive glue.
A bending test is shown in Figure 114
15
.

Gluing the two sections of the composite wood and concrete beam appear to be a good
alternative to a shear connector. The mean and characteristic values of strength are
similar for both cases, the glued elements show a
stiffer behavior, albeit a small difference under
service load. The system was found to have similar
results, glued and not glued, for on-site and
prefabricated concrete.

Prefabricated beams were governed by flexural
tension and in the fresh cast on-site concrete the
interface shear prevailed as the failure mode, but the
observation of the beams has shown that the collapse
was dictated by the concrete, not by the adhesive
material or timber (according to the author this is odd
behavior for the material). Improvement of stiffness
and strength is more than 100% compared to a plain
solid timber beam. This leads to the conclusion that
the system is reliable; however, long-term behavior
and the effect of cyclic loads require a further study
(Henrique Jorge de Oliveira Negro, Miguel Maia de
Oliveira, Alexandra Leito de Oliveira, & Barreto
Cachim, 2010).

15
Used with permission from Prof. Joo Negro, University of Coimbra ([email protected])
Figure 114: Bending test of glued
composite member (Henrique et al.)
Figure 113: Glued composite, stress and
strain distribution (Henrique et al.)

Custom lag bolt system
The last system which will be discussed is a custom lag bolt system. This project for the
Federal Center South Seattle District Headquarters of the United States Army Corps of
Engineers involved reclaiming a substantial amount of wood beams. When paired with
reclaimed decking a composite
system of timber and concrete
could be produced; however,
required the use of a lag bolt to
sufficiently link the two
materials. The lag bolt had to
be custom made for the project,
increasing costs. The custom
lag bolt system is shown in
Figure 115
16
. Test assemblies
were developed to test load
durations and load capacity of
the system.

In order for the design to pass inspection, it had to hold twice the design live load for 24
hours. At the end of the 24 hour period, the deflection of the system would be measured,
and then was unloaded. It was required to recover 75% of the measured deflection within
the next 24 hour time period. Each test system passed the test. The experiment
continued to test failure. It was also found that the system could hold well over 400% of
the design dead load and around 550% of the design dead load, with no visible sign of
distress to the system. It was not until around 650% of the design live load did cracks
appear and cracking sounds were heard. After approximately 10 minutes of holding
the load at 650% above design live load, the beam failed in flexure, and is shown in
Figure 116
16
(Swenson & Black, 2013).

16
Used with permission from Mr. Jim Swenson, KPFF Consulting Engineers ([email protected])
Figure 115: Custom lag bolt system (Swenson et al.)
Figure 116: Tested beam before failure (Swenson et al.)

Cyclic Loading Effects to TCC
Repeated and sustained loading have been briefly researched for wood-concrete
composite systems. Balogh et al. performed cyclic loading to imitate live loading over a
30 year period for composite beams used for buildings and bridges. After the cyclic
imitation loading, the beams were ramp loaded to failure. According to their findings
live load cyclic loading led to an irrecoverable increase in deflection at the end of the
21,600 load cycles on average equal to 18% of the initial elastic deflection. A steady
state deflection was almost reached that was comparable to the number of cycles
experienced by a major highway bridge. It was found that two types of failures
mechanisms formed on the composite beams:
Shear in the wood between the exterior notch and beam end, Figure 117
17

Flexure at midspan of wood member, Figure 118
17

Shear was characterized by a split from the notch to the end of the beam. This was
always followed by bending failure at the midspan. The cyclic loading of the beam
increased deflection by 18% and decreased beam stiffness by 9% (on average). Balogh et
al. stated that the decrease in stiffness is due to the progressive damage occurring in the
connection detail (Balogh, Fragiacomo, Gutkowski, & Fast, 2008; Clouston, Bathon, &
Schreyer, 2005).

17
Used with permission from Dr. Jeno Balogh, Metropolitan State University of Denver
([email protected])

Figure 117: Shear failure of wood notch (Balogh et al.)
Figure 118: Midspan flexural failure (Balogh et al.)

Conclusion to TCC
A timber-concrete composite system offered a unique floor system to study with the new
gravity glulam system of the Heifer International Center. While calculations into the
design of the floor system were not explored due to time constraints and the challenging
design process of TCC systems, a better understanding of the various TCC systems that
exist in research and industry was obtained. If the Heifer International Center was in the
design phase and a large amount of reclaimed timber was locally available, it should be
truly considered as floor system for the building.
Additional References
The following references were also used in the development of this section of the report.

Loulou, L., Car, S., Le Roy, R., & Bornert, M. (2010). Damage of Wood-Concrete
Composite subjected to variable hygrometric conditions. EDP Sciences, 6(28002).
Nawari, N. (2012, June). BIM Standardization and Wood Structures. Computing in Civil
Engineering, 293-300.
Schneider III, W. G. (2005). Shear Stud Connection Development for Steel Stringer
Highway Bridges with Hardwood Glulam Timber Deck. The Graduate School,
Special Individualized Interidsciplinary Doctoral Majors. The Pennsylvania State
University.


CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION

6.1 CONCLUSION
Both the gravity and the lateral systems of the Heifer International Center were chosen
for redesign. Glulam was used instead of the original steel structure and a cast-in-place
concrete shear wall system instead of the steel plate shear wall system. Conceivable
systems were devised that could fulfill the request of the architect to explore different
structural materials for aesthetic purposes and achieve an integration among the
engineering systems. While the potential cost of the system may be greater than the
originally designed steel structure, the incorporation of the breadth studies aided with the
understanding of how the architectural components of the building could directly tie to
the structural, mechanical and electrical systems of the building.

The glulam queen post girder proved to be extremely beneficial to the design, allowing
integration between the structural, mechanical, electrical and architectural disciplines.
The queen post girder was able to enhance the architectural characteristic of the building
by providing a direct visual link between the occupant and the designed engineering
systems. Moreover, the floor-to-floor height was unchanged between the existing and
redesigned system, which is important to allow for the sense of the open office
atmosphere.

The redesigned lateral system, the cast-in-place concrete shear walls, does not impose
any variations to the building layout. A potential connection between the glulam gravity
beams and the cast-in-place concrete shear walls was studied. Seismic and wind analyses
were completed and found to properly pass. Torsional irregularity was studied in depth
in this project and was found to not be a significant issue based on the concrete lateral
redesign.

It was important to the structural engineer to not impose any changes to the faade
system, while still improving the insulating properties of the wall assembly. This was
accomplished through a restructuring of the fourth floor columns, which were exposed to
the exterior and interior. The U-value of the faade was greatly improved over the
existing system, and yet aesthetically appears the same as the existing system.

Overall, the architect was pleased with the results to the redesign as the goals of Mr. Dan
West were incorporated and respected. The redesign added a new sense of openness and
strength to the building and will allow for the continuation of the charitys Passing on the
Gift.

REFERENCES AND WORK CITED
Almaxco. (2012). Aluminum Composite Panels. Singapore: Maxgrow Pte Ltd.
American Concrete Institute, ACI-318. (2011). Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete and Commentary. Farmington Hills, MI.
American Institute of Steel Construction. (2011). Steel Construction Manual (Fourteenth
ed.). American Institute of Steel Construction.
American Society of Civil Engineers. (2010). ASCE-7 10, Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures. Reston, VA.
American Wood Council. (2013). National Design Specification (NDS) for Wood
Construction with Commentary 2012 Edition. Leeburg, VA.
APA - The Engineered Wood Association. (2009). Calculating Fire Resistance of
Glulam Beams and Columns. Tacoma.
Balogh, J., Fragiacomo, M., Gutkowski, R. M., & Fast, R. S. (2008, March). Inuence of
Repeated and Sustained Loading on the Performance of Layered WoodConcrete
Composite Beams. Journal of Structural Engineering, 134(3), 430-439.
Brown, K., Gutkowki, R., Natterer, J., & Shigidi, A. (2008, June). Laboratory tests of
composite wood-concrete beams. Construction and Building Materials, 22(6),
1059-1066.
Clouston, P., & Schreyer, A. (2008, November). Design and Use of WoodConcrete
Composites. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, 13(4),
167-174.
Clouston, P., Bathon, L. A., & Schreyer, A. (2005, September). Shear and Bending
Performance of a Novel WoodConcrete Composite System. Journal of
Structural Engineers, 131(9), 1404-1412.
European Committee for Standardization. (2004). EN 1995: Design of timber structures.
European Committee for Standardization.
Fragiacomo, M., Gutkowski, R. M., Balogh, J., & Fast, R. S. (2007, September). Long-
Term Behavior of Wood-Concrete Composite Floor/Deck Systems with Shear
Key Connection Detail. Journal of Structural Engineering, 133(9), 1307-1315.

Gelfii, P., Giuriani, E., & Marini, A. (2002, December). Stud Shear Connection Design
for Composite Concrete Slab and Wood Beams. Journal of Structural
Engineering, 128(12), 1544-1550.
Gutkowski, R. M., Balogh, J., & To, L. G. (2010, June). Finite-Element Modeling of
Short-Term Field Response of Composite Wood-Concrete Floors/Decks. Journal
of Structural Engineering, 136(6), 707-714.
Heifer International. (2014). Heifer International | Charity Ending Hunger and Poverty.
Retrieved from Heifer International: http://www.heifer.org/
Henrique Jorge de Oliveira Negro, J., Miguel Maia de Oliveira, F., Alexandra Leito de
Oliveira, C., & Barreto Cachim, P. (2010, October). Glued Composite Timber-
Concrete Beams. II: Analysis and Tests of Beam Specimens. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 136(10), 1246-1254.
International Code Council. (2009). International Building Code. International Code
Council.
Macalloy Bar & Cable Systems. (2014, February 6). Macalloy Tensile Structure Systems.
Sheffield, South Yorkshire S25, United Kingdom.
Nucor Corporate. (2013). Vulcraft Deck Catalog. Retrieved from Vulcraft:
http://www.vulcraft.com/
Owens Corning Insultating Systems, LLC. (2007). Thermal Batt FIBERGLAS Insulation.
Toledo: Owens Corning.
Robinson, K., & Ames, D. (2000, January). Steel Plate Shear Walls: Library Seismic
Upgrade. Modern Steel Construction.
Schneider III, W. G. (2014). BE 462 - Design of Wood Structures. The Pennsylvania
State University.
Showalter, J. (2012). Connection Solutions for Wood-frame Structures. The American
Institute of Architects Continuing Education Systems. American Wood Council.
Simpson Strong-Tie. (2014). LGU/MGU/HGU/HHGU High Capacity Girder Hangers
for Glulam. Retrieved from Simpson Strong-Tie: http://www.strongtie.com/
Swenson, J. O., & Black, J. (2013, April). A Worthy Wager. STRUCTURE magazine, pp.
26-29.

U.S. Geological Survey. (2013, July). U.S. Seismic Design Maps. Retrieved from U.S.
Geological Survey: http://www.usgs.gov/
Yeoh, D., Fragiacomo, M., Franceschi, M., & Boon, K. (2011, October). State of the Art
on Timber-Concrete Composite Structures: Literature Review. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 137(10), 1085-1095.

TMBFRAME

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TMBFRAME

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TMBFRAME

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HEIFER INTERNATIONAL CENTER

LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS

(RAP) System by Geopier

System, which allowed the use of conventional slab-on-

System had the added benefit of increasing

, were programed into

. Each wind case

. These findings are summarized in the Wind Building Drift section of

base plate and (2)

You might also like