Possible solution to past CM examination question

Question 2 - April 2005

Office Building

by Bob Wilson

The information provided should be seen as an interpretation of the brief and a possible solution to a past question offered by
an experienced engineer with knowledge of the examiners’ expectations (i.e. it's an individual's interpretation of the brief
leading to one of a number of possible solutions rather than the definitive "correct" or "model" answer).
QUESTION 2/2005 OFFICE BUILDING
This question is cleverly summed up in the first line of the Client’s requirements:

• A five-storey office building,

• A curved roof,
• On reclaimed land near a tidal river estuary.

Clearly, these three requirements must all be addressed fully in each of the two proposals. The remaining
‘bells and whistles’ add specific detail in order to limit the scope of the problems or tasks. They must not be
left out: but, in general, they do not add to the problem – just direct you towards an answer. For example,
Requirements #2, #3, #4 and #5 – together with the diagrams of the plan and section – limit the form of the
office building. Again, Site Conditions #8 relate to the ground conditions – and what horrible ground
conditions they are! The Imposed Loading – Item #6 – and the wind loading (Site Conditions #7) – will
apply once the general form of the building and its foundations have taken shape in your mind.

I suggest that you start with a general column grid. My grid started with two rows of external columns,
though the back wall and service core need not be framed but could be load-bearing masonry or concrete.
Requirement #2 places a very definite requirement on the front elevation – you may wish to illustrate this
with a sketch – of a fully-glazed portion between two metal-clad vertical walls. I have assumed that these
are not interrupted with windows (Requirement #2 as applies to the gable ends). It seems to me that these
metal-clad walls form a visual ‘frame’ around the large ‘window’. The lengths of these walls (see the plan)
seem to direct that a column can be placed beside the ‘window’.

At this point I directed my attention to the central row of columns allowed by Requirement #3. The
minimum spacing of 5.5m conflicts with the position of the frontal framing columns but I do not think this
presents a problem – just defines the longest span of the frontal edge beams which becomes 7.4m, thereby
becoming one of the design elements that may need to be considered in Section 2c – calculations. The
length between the penultimate frames can then be divided into four equal spans of 5.9m. If the back
elevation is framed these dimensions are carried over to this line of columns. Three columns are set into the
front elevation and the service core is set into the rear elevation. I do not see any problem with the
requirement that the internal columns must be at least 5.5m (c/c) from any external column – but perhaps I
have missed something?

This arrangement gives me four corner columns; two window-framing columns and three external-
intermediate columns on the front elevation; four external-intermediate columns along the back elevation
with a service core mid-way between them; and seven columns along the longitudinal centre line – one in
the ‘northern’ gable frame and one at the centre point of the projecting curved bay forming a ‘southern’
gable frame. The perimeter of the curved bay would be divided equally by five ‘mullions’. A pair of
columns would be added each side of the curved bay and incorporated into the ‘southern’ gable frame.

Some assumption needs to be made about the amount of inset that the external columns have because of the
cladding. Arbitrarily I set this as 200mm on both elevations and gables – this is to say that the column
centre lines are inset 200mm inside the outline shown on the plan. I expect that the corner columns will fit
inside a 300mm square shape, allowing 50mm cladding thickness on two sides.

All these details are best shown on a diagram of the plan. I have drawn my column grid freehand in good
proportion and shown the dimensions. I would not draw these plans to scale at the concept stage as it would
take up too much time and would not score any additional marks. In this question, once the basic grid has
been fixed the alternative framing can be shown on two half-plans – one showing longitudinal steel
principal beams and transverse secondary steel beams; with longitudinally spanning floor slabs. The
column orientations should be shown as well as the service core. The other half-plan shows concrete slabs
spanning transversely over a central spine beam, frontal edge beams and a concrete wall along the full
length of the back elevation with the service core incorporated at mid-length. These provide two distinct
and viable solutions. Initial sizes can now be added to the principal members.
The initial sizes will start in your mind’s eye from your general experience and intuition. Of course you
will justify these sizes by using rule-of-thumb guidelines such as span/depth ratios and published data as
found in “Concrete Buildings Scheme Design Manual” (brand new!) and “Economic Concrete Frame
Elements” (1997) – both available from the Concrete Centre. I do not know of equivalent references for
steel although the Steel Construction Institute (SCI) and BCSA have a large selection of published advisory
booklets. While you are doing this preliminary sizing you need to draw sections and ensure that you
comply with the Requirements #4 – clear floor-to-ceiling height of 2.7m, ceiling and raised floor zones. I
have convinced myself that I can have a 625mm thick structural zone and a clear SFL to SSL (structural
floor level to structural soffit level) of 3250mm for a grade-supported ground floor and four suspended
floors.

At this point it is as well to look ahead to Section 1b – the “Letter”. In this question the client proposes to
‘raise’ the building by 500mm. You need to ask yourself what this might mean. Does it mean that the
columns are made longer – i.e. a stilt-like effect, or does it mean that the ground floor is raised by 500mm
but the overall height of the building remains as shown in Figure Q2?

In this later case the thickness of the suspended floors would have to be reduced by 500/4 = 125mm – fine
if you have anticipated and your design still fits! So, although it appears that you have a sufficient 625mm
Structural Zone you may prefer to limit yourself to 500mm! Is it a coincidence that both numbers finish
with 25mm? Generally, in real life, you will not be able to anticipate this sort of change. However, in the
examination you are allowed the privilege of foresight!

You need to sketch (in good proportion) all four elevations. This is so that you can show that you have
understood Requirement #2, where the end or gable elevations have a 1.5m high band of continuous
glazing at each floor. I am inclined to think that this requirement is to see what you do about bracing within
the gable frame. Clearly, the bracing will show through the windows – more so at the ground floor than
higher up. However, I do not think it warrants the total removal if bracing and the expense of a moment
frame. It does prevent you using solid shear walls, especially each side of the curved bay. The masonry-
clad rear elevation will need movement joints. The front elevation, fully glazed, will need some details at
the head and base of the glass, window-cleaning facilities, some appropriate modesty panels and hand
railing inside the façade to protect the glass and possibly some tinting or screening from sunlight. I could
not provide much detail myself, but I can identify these needs and draw attention to them – and so should
you (in the examination). Rainwater disposal will need gutters and ‘downpipes’. Will these be outside the
elevations, or concealed (but accessible) somehow inside the building? There does not seem to be any
snow-retention features to protect people near the building from falling snow.

This has carried me onto the roof. The curved shape can be provided in two ways: curved steel rafters
supporting longitudinal purlins and insulated sheeting, or a thin barrel vault in concrete. In the examination
this feature, having been mentioned in Requirements #1, must be fully explored.

The sooner you look at the ground conditions and possible effects of building on this site the better. I have
taken the trouble to draw the boreholes to scale, show the length of the building and the bulb of pressure
under a raft – depth 1.5B. This goes well down into the silt and silty sand. It also shows-up the rock as an
anomaly – a hard spot in an ocean of ‘squish’! I think that this has been put in to trap the unwary into
hoping that there is a bearing on rock when in fact it is an embedded boulder. I suggest that you play safe
and ignore it for bearing purposes!

By contrast, the bulb of pressure for a narrow strip footing 3.0m wide barely reaches the geotextile on the
original ground level.

Consider the construction of both a raft and strip footings: the raft needs to be of cellular construction to
obtain depth without weight: the strip footings could run transversely or longitudinally under the three lines
of columns. Both will be shallow because excavation in the compacted crushed rock and clay fill will be
difficult. The thickness of the ‘crusty fill’ is its strength – both ‘c’ and ‘N’ can be assumed to improve with
depth until the geotextile is reached. I do not think that the answer is in piling. Consult both Mitchell’s
Building Construction, Volume 5 – The Structure and Tomlinson’s Foundation Design and Construction
for ideas and details.
You must check the bearing pressures – both at contact with the foundation and at a depth of 1.5B – against
the values given under Site Conditions #8. In order to do this you need to asses the weight of the building
and the column loads. Now, you cannot afford the time to be too precise about this and you need to take
into account any shear transfer to the central columns that is inherent to your framing. For your numbers to
be understandable you will need to draw freehand sketches of the detail that you think is appropriate,
especially for the curtain wall, back wall and gable walls. There is no time for you to re-invent building
details and you should refer to your personal handbook where you have already sketched these typical
details – or something very like them – and noted appropriate weights, etc.

So you will end up with the weight of a steel frame and another concrete frame, complete with roof, walls
and foundations, and a foundation area. The load divided by the area will be the contact pressure, and the
contact pressure divided by 5 (i.e. 20%) will be the pressure along the ‘bulb of pressure’ at 1.5B. This is
where it is generally assumed that the added pressure from the foundations has dissipated sufficiently to
have no significant effect on the effective pressure within the soil.

Draw your conclusions about both schemes – evaluate them in a dispassionate way that can be explained to
both your colleagues and the Client. A numerical rating can be useful in this context.

I concluded:

• A steel frame is lighter (as expected) and therefore the raft area can be 35m x 16m and has a deep
influence.

• Concrete floors are 27% heavier and therefore the raft area needs to be 37m x 18m and has an
even deeper influence.

• The steel frame will be more flexible and this will have an effect on the glass curtain wall.

• The steel frame may need hold-downs to resist negative wind loads (uplift).

• Strip footings and/or pad bases will have only a shallow influence.

Among the details I investigated were a copper clad, concrete barrel-vault that spans from corner to corner.
The curved shape of the vault works in the manner of a beam, spanning from end to end of the building –
compression in the top of the barrel and tension along the bottom edges: the lever arm being the depth of
the vault. Diaphragms are needed at each gable to tie the transverse corners together. There is no central
support under the roof: this allows the top floor to be column-free. The initial design can be done using
design-aid tables – see “Non-planar concrete roofs” by Terrington and Turner, an old book in the “Concrete
Series”, probably out of print but available from the Institution Library or the Concrete Society Library.

I also investigated roof cladding, the metal cladding for the walls (asked for in the question), and the glazed
curtain wall – particularly the fixings. I looked into the various movements that could take place:
differential settlement, elastic deflections of the structure, sidesway of the building, thermal movements of
the roof and cladding, and in respect of the glazed curtain wall the panel sway and bow and the panel warp
at the corners. I feel that the examiner would want to know that you were aware/sensitive to all these
movements even if you do not estimate their quantities.

I hope that I have covered the “Concept Design” aspects of Section 1a of the paper. I have deliberately not
included any sketches. If, during your reading through of this note you have said to yourself “I wish this
was clearer”, or “I wish he had sent me a sketch” then I have succeeded in drawing your attention to the
importance of communication that includes drawings and sketches. At this stage of the examination most of
these sketches can be done freehand but in good proportion. I will show you my sketches when we meet.
In Section 2 (C) the candidate is required to prepare (i.e. in a regular, office format) sufficient design
calculations to establish the form and size of all the principal structural elements, including the foundations.
In this question the foundations are the real problem because of the very specific allowable bearing
pressures and expected long-term settlement. In order to prepare calculations for the foundations the loads
have to be determined – gravity loads, wind loads and their overturning effects.
Another principal structural element is the curved roof and its overhangs (310 in the front: 2.0 at the
back).
A third principal element is – in the widest sense – is the composite effect of core and bracing necessary
to make the structure stable.

Hence, five calculations can be identified:

• Wind loads and overturning moments.
• Magnitude and disposition of gravity loads, effects of combining loads and push-pull reactions.
• The curved roof.
• Soil-structure interaction and resolution of the foundation problem.
• Overall aspects of general stability.

As there are only 20 marks for the whole of Section 2 (c), these five calculations can expect a mean
allocation of only 4 marks each – not much for the potential effort. Consequently, the candidate’s skill and
experience are searchingly tested – where the calculation must be reduced to its bare essentials – the critical
limit state.
• Main overturning force due to wind.
• Uplift force on roof and tie-down requirements.
• Determination of minimum gravity load and the combination with push-pull loads.
Does uplift occur – and hence instability?
• Design of bracing and/or torsional forces in the Service Care – secondary stresses combining with
primary.
• Contact bearing pressures, effects of the long-term settlement, and detailing of the foundation
elements.