Design Report

5/10/2016 Design Report 1 of 39
Design Report
Tesla Motors Three Story Luxury Car Dealership & Showroom Project
Date: May 11, 2016

This page intentionally left blank

Table of Contents
Page
1.0 Problem Background ..........................................................................................6
2.0 Planning Reflection ............................................................................................6
2.1 Site Information........................................................................................6
2.2 Selection Criteria ......................................................................................7
2.3 Selection Explanation................................................................................7
2.4 Site Plan ..................................................................................................8
3.0 Design Description.............................................................................................8
3.1 Architectural Constraints ...........................................................................9
3.2 Structural Constraints................................................................................9
3.3 Loading Data............................................................................................9
3.4 Strength Data .........................................................................................10
4.0 Project Feasibility.............................................................................................10
5.0 Loading...........................................................................................................11
5.1 Load Assumptions ..................................................................................11
5.2 Load Combinations.................................................................................13
6.0 Building Design ...............................................................................................16
7.0 Design schedule ...............................................................................................17
8.0 Cost Estimate...................................................................................................18
8.1 Summary of Project Cost Estimates ..........................................................18
8.2 Materials................................................................................................19
8.3 Labor.....................................................................................................20
8.4 Projected Future Costs.............................................................................23
9.0 References.......................................................................................................23
10.0 Conclusion & Recommendations .......................................................................24

APPENDIX A TABLES
Table 2.1: Information on the property
Table 5.1: Loading Criteria
Table 5.2: Beam Loadings
Table 5.3: Girder Loadings
Table 5.4: Loadings
Table 5.5: Footing Loadings
Table 10.1: Cross-sectional Summary
APPENDIX B FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Site Location
Figure 2.2: Site Plan
Figure 5.1: Load Pattern on Beam
Figure 5.2: Load Pattern on Girder
Figure 5.3: Load Pattern on Frame Direction YZ
Figure 5.4: Load Pattern on Frame Direction XZ
Figure 7.1: Design Schedule
Figure 8.1: Project Cost Estimates
Figure 8.2: Material Costs
Figure 8.3: Labor Costs
Figure 8.4: Project Life and Future Costs and Predictions
Figure 9.1: References
APPENDIX C DOCUMENTS
APPENDIX D DRAWINGS

1.0 PROBLEM BACKGROUND
The goal of this project is to design a three story luxury car dealership in the city of Santa Clara.
The key components to this project included a planning stage and a design stage. The Planning
Stage consisted of a site selection, preliminary site planning, document preparation, initial cost
estimations, a scope of work and a project schedule. The Design Stage consisted of detailed
designs for the beams, girders, columns, slabs, and footings, as well as a detailed cost estimate,
and a complete schedule.
The problem statement for this project is as follows:
To provide project planning, and design for a multi-story structure that can be used for a small
car dealership in the City of Santa Clara. Complete designs shall be facilitated mindful of city
and state limitations and regulations as well as owner design constraints.
2.0 PLANNING REFLECTION
It was important to identify the minimum site requirements of an auto dealership before a site
was chosen. Santa Clara categorizes auto dealerships under “Thoroughfare Commercial Zoning
Districts”. Chapter 18 in the Santa Clara City Code Compliance gave all the requirements needed
for this site. All site layout requirements were based off this classification. The “General
Requirements for Accessible Parking” form determined how many accessible parking spots are
needed for this site.
2.1 Site Information
During the planning portion of this project, Rock Hard Slabs performed a site selection that
ultimately chose the following location. The site is located at 4795 Stevens Creek Blvd. in Santa
Clara, California. This site is currently a Nissan Dealerships’ used car lot, and is currently zoned
as Thoroughfare Commercial. This site is situated in an excellent location, being near over a
dozen other car dealerships, several of them being high end dealerships. This lot is also ideal due
to the fact that it is currently a car dealership with a pre-existing building that could easily be
replaced. Table 2.1 shown below, offers a more detailed breakdown of the cost and some further
information on the location. Figure 2.1 shows a satellite image of the property layout and
location.
Property Information:
Address 4795 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Zoning Thoroughfare Commercial (CT)
Lot Size 49,658 SF
Demolition Estimate $139,500
Land Valuation $1,649,212
Property Valuation $380,117
Total Lot Valuation $2,029,329

2.2 Selection Criteria
When choosing a site for this project, a strict set of criteria were followed. The site had to be
zoned as Thoroughfare Commercial by the City of Santa Clara and the site had to have a
minimum area of 34,900 square feet. There were also several criteria that were followed by the
teams in order to produce each proposed site; the site should be in an economically sound
location, the site should be easily accessible, having a pre-existing car dealership lot would be
ideal, and the lot size should be at least 10,000 square feet larger than the minimum for the sale
of cars at the dealership.
2.3 Selection Explanation
The selection of the site for this specific project was extremely important and all of the factors
listed in the following section played a part in deciding which site was ultimately the best site for
this project. Proposed site number three was the site chosen for this project. Site three met all of
the critical criteria and all of the surplus criteria. Site three is already zoned as Thoroughfare
Commercial, it has over 15,000 square feet of extra space available, it is located in an extremely
economically sound location being near other car dealerships on Stevens Creek Blvd., and the
site is very accessible being located on a main thoroughfare and being located on a corner lot.
Another key aspect considered with this property was that it was fairly cheap in cost, at

$2,029,329, while the dealerships nearby were in the $20,000,000 range and higher, thus offering
a greater chance to increase the property value.
2.4 Site Plan
The site plan that was developed by Rock Hard Slabs consisted of the proposed structure with a
building footprint of 6,434 SF, and the proposed structure gross square footage at 20,100 SF,
additionally there would roughly 6,000 SF devoted to landscaping. There would be 4
handicapped spaces, 32 compact spaces, and 51 regular parking spaces to add up to 87 total
parking spaces. The full site plan is drawn up below in Figure 2.2.
3.0 DESIGN DESCRIPTION
The building design consisted of several constraints that had to be followed in order to properly
design the building to be compliant. These constraints were broken into two different categories,
architectural and structural constraints.

3.1 Architectural Constraints
The architectural constraints were as follows:
Architectural Constraints
1. Max top of slab to next slab/roof height is 14 ft.
2. Max allowable girder depth is 30 in.
3. Location of elevator shafts is fixed.
4. Floors are constrained to the dimension of the building shown in
given figures.
5. Columns are only allowed along column gridlines; & are to be
added if needed.
6. Adequate roof drainage is required. Refer to ASCE 7 code for rain
load design.
Table 6.1: Architectural Constraints
All of these constraints were followed in order to complete the architectural portion of this
project.
3.2 Structural Constraints
The structural constraints were as follows:
Structural Constraints
1. All slabs shall be designed as one-way slabs; Identify areas where
the slab cannot be designed as a one-way slab piece; and, indicate in
your design report how to mitigate non-one way slab areas in
structural design of this building.
2. Code requirements must be met for structural design of the
building. (The design must be in compliance with the following
codes: ACI 318, IBC, ASCE 7, and other local & city codes, and
fire safety requirements.
3. Allowable loading strengths and data are given.
Table 6.2: Structural Constraints
All of these constraints were followed in order to complete the structural portion of this project.
3.3 Loading Data
The loading data is constrained by the minimum design loads for building & other structures
from ASCE 7, the international building code, and all other applicable mechanical, fire, &
plumbing codes.

The roof loads consist of:
 Dead load
 Roof live load
 Rain load
The floors/slab loads consist of:
 dead load
 live load
 specialty areas
 storage areas
 corridor loads.
The wall loads consist of:
 Storefront, mullions, & glass
 Cast-in-place concrete
 Architectural panels (façade)
 Masonry walls (if used)
 Parapet walls (light-gauge)
It was not required to analyze nor design for lateral, earthquake, and/or wind loading on this
building structure. Only “gravity” structural design is within the scope of this term project.
3.4 Strength Data
There were several strength criteria that were given as constrains for this project, these were
given to us for the following:
 Strength of concrete at f’c = 5,000 psi
 Steel yield strength at Fy = 60,000 psi
 Soil-bearing capacity at qa = 5,000 psf
These values were used for all footings, slabs, girders, beams, columns and all other structural
elements for this structure.
4.0 PROJECT FEASIBILITY
The projects feasibility had to be analyzed in order to determine how effect, if effective at all the
implementation of this project would be. To do this, the common project management method of
T.E.L.O.S. was used.

 T → Technical - Is the project technically possible?
 Yes, the project is technically possible, using extensive design procedures in order
to create a building and plan that will allow the project to be completed.
 E → Economic - Can the project be afforded?
 Yes, the project can be afforded, and has a 15% contingency to account for any
unexpected problems that may arise, by current projections it will come under
budget by $454,164.
 L → Legal - Is the project legal?
 Yes, the project is legal, all proper permits were gathered and all necessary
regulations & codes will be followed.
 O → Operational - How will the current operations support the change?
 At this moment there are no current operations, so the building and site were
designed to support the future operations of this building.
 S → Scheduling - Can the project be done in time?
 Yes, all project planning and designs are complete, and at current projections the
construction should also be finished by the time the specified on the current
schedule.
After following this system to check the feasibility of this project, it was determined that the
project is in fact feasible.
5.0 LOADING
There were several loading criteria and assumptions that were involved with each component of
the design. The following section addresses these areas.
5.1 Load Assumptions
When figuring the loadings that were going to be taken into consideration, the first thing that was
needed was the list of the materials that would be placed per floor. The following table indicates
the weights of the materials used in the structure:
Loading Criteria
Dead
2nd
& 3rd
Floors
Floor Tile 10 Psf
.25" Interior Glass Wall 3.3 psf
Exterior Glass Wall 18 psf
Concrete Exterior Wall 48 psf

5" Partition Walls 8.5 psf
Bathroom 21 psf
Ceiling
Acoustical fiber tile 1 psf
Mechanical duct allowance 4 psf
Suspended steel channel system 2 psf
Miscellaneous Mechanical Loading 10 psf
Roof
6" Concrete Slab Roof Deck 75 psf
Bitumous, Smooth Surface Waterproof
Membrane
1.5 psf
Fiberboard Insulation 1.5 psf
Draining & Storage Area 2 psf
Bitumous, Gravel Covered 5.5 psf
Live
Office 50 psf
When considering which beam was going to be used as a reference, four beams were analyzed
per floor. These beams that were analyzed were beams that had different amounts of loadings
that they subjected based on their respective location in the floorplan. Since the pounds per
square foot of each material used were already determined in the prior table, they had to be
converted into linear loads along the beams. To determine this, the tributary area of each material
was found and converted into a linear kip per foot.
Beam Loadings
Beam Loading Dead Load Live Load
Beam 1 1.70 k/ft 0.55 k/ft
Beam 2 1.782 k/ft 0.55 k/ft
Beam 3 1.913 k/ft 0.55 k/ft
Beam 4 2.534 k/ft 0.55 k/ft
Based on the loadings that were generated, beam 4 was the highest loading that any of the beams
saw, however the tributary used for beam 4 included the cantilever, and so the next highest
column loading was used.

For the girder loading, the process was similar to the beams. The only difference was that instead
of taking the linear weight of the materials that each girder would be experiencing, the point
loads from the beams acting on the girders were used. These point loads coming from the beams
would converted to linear loads acting on them. Since the beams were already taking into
consideration the tributary area of the girder, the only thing that would be expected to be added
would be the self-weight of the girders and the live load experienced. The following table
indicates the loadings used for the girders.
Girder Loadings Dead Load Live Load
5 k/ft 2 k/ft
5.2 Load Combinations
The loading combinations that were used for the design analysis portion were as followed:
Loadings
Loadings K/ft
DLGIRDER 5
DLBEAM 1.913
DLROOF 3.96
LLBEAM (LB1=LB2=LB3) 0.55
LLGIRDER (LG1=LG2=LG3) 2
RL (RL1=RL2=R3) 0.561
Table 5.4: Loadings
Beams:
It was determined that the worst case scenario came from three different live load scenarios, one
simply acting on the first span, one on just the second span, and the third on the final span. The
dead load of the beams was assumed to be there the entire time; it was included in every loading
case.
 1.2 DLBEAM + 1.6 LLBEAM 1

Girders:
It was determined that the worst case scenario came from three different live load scenarios, one
simply acting on the first span and another on the second span. The dead load of the beams was
assumed to be there the entire time; it was included in every loading case.
 1.2 DLGIRDER + 1.6 LL GIRDER 1
 1.2 DLGIRDER + 1.6 LL GIRDER 2
Columns:
To determine the analysis of a column, there were two completely different loading scenarios
that had to be looked at. The first case was looking at a side view of the building. On the roof
there were three different loading patterns that analyzed. For the live loads, the same process was
used that was used in for the roof.
 1.2 DLGIRDER + 1.2 DLROOF + 1.6 LLGIRDER 1 + 1.6 RLROOF 1
The second loading pattern that was used was looking at the front view of the building. The same
loading patterns were used as the side view profile.

Once the loading combinations were complete, they were combined, with their respective
member section, into a moment envelope and then analyzed.
Footings:
The footing analysis considered the design for supporting a single column. The column
considered was the heaviest loaded column. This was determined through software modeling.
The footing design considered is classified under “isolated footings” as they are not combined.
The footing was designed to safely resist the pressure from the soil reaction pushing up from the
ground in combination with the building loading pushing down.
The analysis of the loading was determined through software modeling and analysis of the
building from the Y-Z and X-Z directions in order to find the heaviest loaded column. The
primary function of the footing is to resist the axial, shear, and moment loading, and in this case,
the maximum values of our modeling were used.
The first step is to design for the dimensions of the footing. From there, the depth, required
amount of reinforcement, and appropriate design requirements can be calculated to ensure safety
and appropriate overcompensation.

The following loading assumptions were taken into consideration during calculation, design and
analysis:
PU 731.708 K
qa 5000 Psi
f'C 5000 Psi
fy 60000 Psi
λ 1.0
β1 0.8
WCOLUMN 24 In
LCOLUMN 24 In
D 4 Ft
Surcharge 75 Psf
h 33 In
d 28 in
Slabs:
For analysis of the slabs, determination of which slab to design for began as to which floor
would have the maximum loading occurring on the slab region. Based on the loading criteria, it
was determined that only the dead load and live load were needed for design of the slab. The
following load pattern was used for the analysis of the slabs.
 1.2 DL+ 1.6 LL
From this loading criteria the moment of the slab was calculated using a theoretical 6-inch slab to begin
preliminary design.
6.0 BUILDING DESIGN
For the general building design, a typical beam, girder, column and footing were designed. These
designs came from assuming the worst case scenario loading that any member would be
subjected to. The raw data, analysis and calculations for these members are in Appendix C, and
the designs for the members are in Appendix D. For future references, all members would be
designed based on their respective loadings, however given the general overview of this project,
designing for the worst case scenario was the optimal choice.
The building design was contingent on the loading patterns established for the type of building
desired to be constructed, the typical dead and live loads associated with the type of building,
and the structural designs of the particular building that determine the paths that the loading will
travel. This is designed in such a way to be as structurally stable as possible. Additionally, in
order to ensure the maximum safety and durability of the structure, the loading patterns that were

considered were that of the “worst case scenario”. In order to do this, the structure was analyzed
and the highest loaded members were located. From there, every other similar member was
assumed to be under the same conditions. This ensured safety through designing for the
maximum loading. Once the loading of the structure was determined, the detailing was able to be
accomplished. This was done by finding how much reinforcement is needed in each member.
The first step of the process was to design the beams. This was done in order to find the initial
loading to the structure. The same was done for the girders. These were done first as they are
what support each floor, take the initial loading, and transfer them to the appropriate locations.
Once this was determined, the process of continuing the loading evaluations could be
accomplished.
The next step was to analyze and design the columns. These are the essential backbone of the
building. They were calculated and designed in order to receive and transfer the loading from the
members it supported. In particular, the beams and girders.
Next was the design of the footing. These were designed in order to stabilize the building on the
designated site. Not only did the footings have to ensure that the soil did not fail under the
weight of the building, but they also had to be designed to ensure that the loading from the
building was appropriately transferred to the earth under it. It was key to ensure that the footing
members were reinforced enough in order to not fail under the pressure and loading from both
directions.
Finally, the slabs were calculated. They were designed in order to provide an even and sturdy
surface for the various floors of the building. In particular, the slab was also designed to properly
support the various loading combinations that could potentially be placed on it. Again, the slabs
were also designed under the “worst case scenario” in order to ensure overcompensation and
safety.
All members were designed to overcompensate for the planned loading. This was to ensure
safety and reliability as well as the option to improve the building in the future if desired.
Additionally, after the initial calculations were done by hand, they were then put into various
modeling software and simulations were run in order to ensure the structure stability.
7.0 DESIGN SCHEDULE
Scheduling for the design process began with the dead and live load calculations. Once the team
determined loading criteria was reasonable for the proposed building, Rock Hard Slabs began
design of a 3D model and an analysis of moment and shear calculations of beams and girders of
the structure. Once the model was complete, design of girders, beams, slabs, columns, and
footings was done for the structure.

Rock Hard Slabs attention to detail meant that every design element was back checked by
another team member to ensure the design was sound. In total, Rock Hard Slabs has allocated a
total of 113days to create complete structural design documentation for ownership.
8.0 COST ESTIMATE
Throughout the phases of this project cost estimates were performed in order to accurately
predict the total cost of the project. The first cost estimate was performed during the initial
planning stage and only consisted the price of the property.
8.1 Summary of Project Cost Estimates

As stated early the first cost estimates were performed during site selection, taking into account
the cost of the property. As the project progressed, more and more factors were taken into
consideration, including the following:
 Property Purchase
 Removal of Hazardous Materials
 Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
 Traffic Impact Study (TIS)
 Demolition of Existing Structure
 Architectural Design
 Structural Design
 Material Costs
 Electrical & Mechanical Costs
 Labor Costs
By the Preliminary (30%) phase, all project initiations items were taken as fixed amounts. By the
Preliminary (30%) phase, architectural and structural design were taken into account and were
estimated to be $157,500 and $312,500 respectively. A rough estimate of materials, electrical &
mechanical, and labor costs were estimated, these values changed very little over the life of the
project. Using an industry standard, a 15% contingency was added onto the construction costs in
order to account for any unexpected fees, accidents, or costs that could arise on a project of this
type. There was also a 15% contingency added onto the entire project to safeguard against any
other larger costs that could be charged to any of the phases. It was deemed that these values
were necessary in order to give a more accurate cost estimate that would not go over the
allowable budget.
8.2 Materials
Initial (10%) Preliminary (30%) Project Overview (60%) Detailed (90%)
Project Initiation: Project Initiation: Project Initiation: Project Initiation: Project
Property Purchase: 2,029,329.00$ 2,029,329.00$ 2,029,329.00$ 2,029,329.00$ $
Removal of Potential Hazardous Materials: 45,000.00$ 45,000.00$ 45,000.00$ 45,000.00$ $
Enviornmental Impact Report (EIR): -$ 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ $
Traffic Impact Study (TIS): -$ 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ $
Demolition of Existing Structure: 139,500.00$ 139,500.00$ 139,500.00$ 139,500.00$ $
Project Initiation Total: 2,213,829.00$ 2,253,829.00$ 2,253,829.00$ 2,253,829.00$ $
Design: Design: Design: Design: Design
Architectural Design: -$ 187,500.00$ 750,000.00$ 772,500.00$ $
Structural Design: -$ 312,500.00$ 1,250,000.00$ 1,249,850.00$ $
Design Total: -$ 500,000.00$ 2,000,000.00$ 2,022,350.00$ $
Construction: Construction: Construction: Construction: Constr
Materials: 4,500,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,071,146.30$ $
Electrical & Mechanical: -$ 1,500,000.00$ 1,500,000.00$ 1,500,000.00$ $
Labor: -$ 3,000,000.00$ 4,000,000.00$ 4,000,000.00$ $
Construction Contingency (15%): 675,000.00$ 1,125,000.00$ 1,275,000.00$ 1,285,671.94$ $
Construction Total: 5,175,000.00$ 8,625,000.00$ 9,775,000.00$ 9,856,818.24$ $

The amount of materials calculated for this project were calculated out by first using the
architectural drawings for this project and tallying up components that would be installed during
construction. Next all structural drawings were considered to find the linear feet of steel in each
major component of the structure, these were then multiplied total number of these members in
the structure. All unit prices were taken from industry standards and were in some cases assumed
to be more expensive than standard items due to the client being Tesla Motors. After performing
a detailed cost estimate for this project, the total came out to slightly more than the previous cost
estimate at roughly $70,000 over.
8.3 Labor
Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Total
Materials:
Custom Interior Doors 14.00 LS 1,000.00$ 14,000.00$
Rebar #3 23,276.00 LF 0.34$ 7,913.84$
Rebar #4 73,576.00 LF 0.47$ 34,580.72$
Rebar #5 4,752.00 LF 0.66$ 3,136.32$
Rebar #6 11,621.40 LF 0.84$ 9,761.98$
Rebar #7 3,633.42 LF 1.02$ 3,706.09$
Rebar #8 144.00 LF 1.25$ 180.00$
Rebar #9 15,279.30 LF 1.53$ 23,377.33$
Grass 250.00 SF 0.60$ 150.00$
Fill Material 16,552.66 CY 6.50$ 107,592.29$
Landscaping Top Soil 4,040.00 CY 15.00$ 60,600.00$
Trees 4.00 LS 300.00$ 1,200.00$
Plants 400.00 LS 20.00$ 8,000.00$
Custom Exterior Glass Doors 2.00 LS 2,000.00$ 4,000.00$
Interior Paint 25.00 Gal 60.00$ 1,500.00$
Exterior Paint 22.00 Gal 70.00$ 1,540.00$
Asphalt 23,441.56 SF 5.00$ 117,207.80$
Elevators 2.00 LS 109,500.00$ 219,000.00$
Insulation 33,624.00 SF 0.65$ 21,855.60$
Custom Exterior Window Panes 5,445.00 SF 211.00$ 1,148,895.00$
Fire Protection System 20,100.00 SF 3.66$ 73,566.00$
Flooring 20,100.00 SF 25.00$ 502,500.00$
Flag Pole 1.00 LS 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$
Dry Wall 9,549.00 SF 1.50$ 14,323.50$
Other Assorted Materials 40,000.00 LS 1.00$ 40,000.00$
Striping Paint 87.00 LS 10.00$ 870.00$
Custom Interior Window Panels 1,372.50 SF 211.00$ 289,597.50$
Ready-Mix Concrete 2,019.41 CY 150.00$ 302,911.50$
Sub-base 1,391.55 CY 18.00$ 25,047.90$
Concrete Forms & Finishings 14,649.00 SF 2.00$ 29,298.00$
Wire Mesh Reinforcement 6,116.44 SF 0.30$ 1,834.93$
3,071,146.30$Materials Total:

The labor for this project was split between the architectural and structural designs. Each one
took into consideration the overhead for the company, as well as the salary for the employees,
which is why the salaries seem so high, but are around industry standards for a consulting
contract. The number of hours is based on the total length of the project and what would be
estimated for the completion of this project, they are not the total number of hours to date. It is
expected that these hours could decrease as the project progresses.

Description Postion Hours Hourly Rate Total
Architectural Design:
Building Design Senior Architect 150 400.00$ 60,000.00$
1st Floor Design Senior Architect 130 400.00$ 52,000.00$
1st Floor Design Junior Architect 110 350.00$ 38,500.00$
2nd Floor Design Senior Architect 120 400.00$ 48,000.00$
2nd FloorDesign Junior Architect 110 350.00$ 38,500.00$
3rd Floor Design Senior Architect 140 400.00$ 56,000.00$
3rd Floor Design Junior Architect 110 350.00$ 38,500.00$
Roof Design Junior Architect 120 350.00$ 42,000.00$
Surveying Surveyor 100 400.00$ 40,000.00$
Exterior Design Senior Architect 140 400.00$ 56,000.00$
Site Plan Junior Architect 140 350.00$ 49,000.00$
Logistics Intern 120 250.00$ 30,000.00$
HVAC Design Junior Architect 110 350.00$ 38,500.00$
Electrical Design Senior Architect 110 400.00$ 44,000.00$
BIMModeling Senior Architect 100 400.00$ 40,000.00$
Elevation Plans Junior Architect 90 350.00$ 31,500.00$
Structural Details Junior Architect 120 350.00$ 42,000.00$
Foundation Plans Junior Architect 80 350.00$ 28,000.00$
772,500.00$
Structural Design:
Beam Calculations Principle Engineer 110 500.00$ 55,000.00$
Beam Design Senior Engineer 150 450.00$ 67,500.00$
Beam Calculations Associate Engineer 180 400.00$ 72,000.00$
Beam Calculations Junior Engineer 70 350.00$ 24,500.00$
Beam Analysis Project Engineer 190 400.00$ 76,000.00$
Girder Calculations Senior Engineer 175 450.00$ 78,750.00$
Girder Calculations Associate Engineer 135 400.00$ 54,000.00$
Girder Design Junior Engineer 120 350.00$ 42,000.00$
Girder Analysis Project Engineer 170 400.00$ 68,000.00$
Girder Design Associate Engineer 110 400.00$ 44,000.00$
Column Calculations Senior Engineer 258 450.00$ 116,100.00$
Column Design Junior Engineer 140 350.00$ 49,000.00$
Column Calculations Principle Engineer 150 500.00$ 75,000.00$
Column Analysis Project Engineer 150 400.00$ 60,000.00$
Column Analysis Junior Engineer 170 350.00$ 59,500.00$
Column Design Associate Engineer 150 400.00$ 60,000.00$
Slab Calculations Principle Engineer 140 500.00$ 70,000.00$
Slab Calculations Senior Engineer 130 450.00$ 58,500.00$
Slab Design Associate Engineer 120 400.00$ 48,000.00$
Slab Analysis Project Engineer 105 400.00$ 42,000.00$
1,249,850.00$
Architectural Design Total:
Structural Design Total:

8.4 Projected Future Costs
It was also suggested based on industry standard practices that projected future cost estimates
would have calculated in order to give a picture of what the possible costs would be by the end
of the project. This was performed by projecting a 2% increase over each the construction and
post construction phases of the project. These total costs were then used to back calculate all of
the individual components of each phase, except for the Project Initiation phase, which was taken
by this point as fixed costs.
9.0 REFERENCES
All references for this portion of the project came from the City of San Jose and MWH Global
during a trial run presentation at the San Jose Santa Clara Waste Water Facility. The following
references asked questions, gave suggestions, and gave comments in regards to the Rock Hard
Slabs design presentation.
Name: Company:
Geoffrey Carthew MWH Global
Akira Kaku City of San Jose Department of Public Works
Su-yui Chou City of San Jose Department of Public Works
James Watson City of San Jose Environmental Services Department
Initial (10%) Preliminary (30%) Project Overview (60%) Detailed (90%) Construction Post Construction
Cost Estimate Total: 6,713,829.00$ 11,378,829.00$ 14,028,829.00$ 14,132,997.24$ 14,091,304.90$ 14,373,131.00$
Contingency (15%): 1,007,074.35$ 1,706,824.35$ 2,104,324.35$ 2,119,949.59$ 2,113,695.73$ 2,155,969.65$
Cost Estimate with Contingency: 7,720,903.35$ 13,085,653.35$ 16,133,153.35$ 16,252,946.83$ 16,578,005.76$ 16,909,565.88$
17,250,000.00$ 17,250,000.00$ 17,250,000.00$ 17,250,000.00$ Estimated Estimated
54% 23% 1% 2%
15,000,000.00$
2,250,000.00$
17,250,000.00$
Project Budget:
Project Contingency (15%):
Project Budget with Contingency:
$-
$2,000,000.00
$4,000,000.00
$6,000,000.00
$8,000,000.00
$10,000,000.00
$12,000,000.00
$14,000,000.00
$16,000,000.00
$18,000,000.00
Project Life Cost Estimates
Project Budget:$17,250,000.00
Estimate Projections

These people were extremely helpful with recommendations and concerns that they brought
forward at our trail run presentation.
10.0 CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
The above report culminated is a detailed explanation for Rock Hard Slab’s in determining how
valuable the construction of this project is. This report includes floor plans for the first, second,
third and roof floor plans to help indicate the loadings that were taken into consideration when
calculating the loadings per members. The explanation for the loading criterion and the loading
combinations were all derived from taking the weights of the materials used and converting them
into a linear load along beams, girders, columns and slabs. In order to model and analyze the
loads on the members, SAP2000 was used. However, when it came to analyzing the compressive
reinforced concrete model, ADAPT was used.
Using the two previously stated software, values were generated to determine the ultimate loads
that members would be subjected to. These values found were then analyzed for different
loading combinations to determine the worst case scenario through the use of a moment
envelope. The moment envelope diagrams helped to generate the maximum and minimum
moments and shear that members should be designed for. Once the reactions of the beams and
girders were determined, the same process was then used to find the ultimate load that a column
would be undergoing, and thereafter the footing. The following chart indicates the dimensions
that were used per member:
Beams Girders Columns Footings Slab
12" x 24" 16" x 30" 24" x 24" 13.5' x 13.5' 6"
To try and make this project more feasible, determining the highest positive and negative
moment and shear and designing for them seemed the most optimal choice for this project. This
also played a huge role in the reduction of the cost, since instead of having to use multiple bar
sizes, there were only a handful of sizes to choose from.

5/10/2016 REPORT | Design Report
APPENDIX A – TABLES

Property Information:
Address 4795 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Zoning Thoroughfare Commercial (CT)
Lot Size 49,658 SF
Demolition Estimate $139,500
Land Valuation $1,649,212
Property Valuation $380,117
Total Lot Valuation $2,029,329
Architectural Constraints
1. Max top of slab to next slab/roof height is 14 ft.
2. Max allowable girder depth is 30 in.
3. Location of elevator shafts is fixed.
4. Floors are constrained to the dimension of the building shown in
given figures.
5. Columns are only allowed along column gridlines; & are to be
added if needed.
6. Adequate roof drainage is required. Refer to ASCE 7 code for rain
load design.
Table 6.1: Architectural Constraints
Structural Constraints
1. All slabs shall be designed as one-way slabs; Identify areas where
the slab cannot be designed as a one-way slab piece; and, indicate in
your design report how to mitigate non-one way slab areas in
structural design of this building.
2. Code requirements must be met for structural design of the
building. (The design must be in compliance with the following
codes: ACI 318, IBC, ASCE 7, and other local & city codes, and
fire safety requirements.
3. Allowable loading strengths and data are given.
Table 6.2: Structural Constraints
Loading Criteria
Dead
2nd
& 3rd
Floors

Floor Tile 10 Psf
.25" Interior Glass Wall 3.3 psf
Exterior Glass Wall 18 psf
Concrete Exterior Wall 48 psf
5" Partition Walls 8.5 psf
Bathroom 21 psf
Ceiling
Acoustical fiber tile 1 psf
Mechanical duct allowance 4 psf
Suspended steel channel system 2 psf
Miscellaneous Mechanical Loading 10 psf
Roof
6" Concrete Slab Roof Deck 75 psf
Bitumous, Smooth Surface Waterproof
Membrane
1.5 psf
Fiberboard Insulation 1.5 psf
Draining & Storage Area 2 psf
Bitumous, Gravel Covered 5.5 psf
Live
Office 50 psf
Beam Loadings
Beam Loading Dead Load Live Load
Beam 1 1.70 k/ft 0.55 k/ft
Beam 2 1.782 k/ft 0.55 k/ft
Beam 3 1.913 k/ft 0.55 k/ft
Beam 4 2.534 k/ft 0.55 k/ft
Girder Loadings Dead Load Live Load
5 k/ft 2 k/ft
Loadings
Loadings K/ft

DLGIRDER 5
DLBEAM 1.913
DLROOF 3.96
LLBEAM (LB1=LB2=LB3) 0.55
LLGIRDER (LG1=LG2=LG3) 2
RL (RL1=RL2=R3) 0.561
Table 5.4: Loadings
PU 731.708 K
qa 5000 Psi
f'C 5000 Psi
fy 60000 Psi
λ 1.0
β1 0.8
WCOLUMN 24 In
LCOLUMN 24 In
D 4 Ft
Surcharge 75 Psf
h 33 In
d 28 in
Name: Company:
Geoffrey Carthew MWH Global
Akira Kaku City of San Jose Department of Public Works
Su-yui Chou City of San Jose Department of Public Works
James Watson City of San Jose Environmental Services Department
Beams Girders Columns Footings Slab
12" x 24" 16" x 30" 24" x 24" 13.5' x 13.5' 6"

APPENDIX B – FIGURES

Initial (10%) Preliminary (30%) Project Overview (60%) Detailed (90%)
Project Initiation: Project Initiation: Project Initiation: Project Initiation: Project
Property Purchase: 2,029,329.00$ 2,029,329.00$ 2,029,329.00$ 2,029,329.00$ $
Removal of Potential Hazardous Materials: 45,000.00$ 45,000.00$ 45,000.00$ 45,000.00$ $
Enviornmental Impact Report (EIR): -$ 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ $
Traffic Impact Study (TIS): -$ 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ $
Demolition of Existing Structure: 139,500.00$ 139,500.00$ 139,500.00$ 139,500.00$ $
Project Initiation Total: 2,213,829.00$ 2,253,829.00$ 2,253,829.00$ 2,253,829.00$ $
Design: Design: Design: Design: Design
Architectural Design: -$ 187,500.00$ 750,000.00$ 772,500.00$ $
Structural Design: -$ 312,500.00$ 1,250,000.00$ 1,249,850.00$ $
Design Total: -$ 500,000.00$ 2,000,000.00$ 2,022,350.00$ $
Construction: Construction: Construction: Construction: Constr
Materials: 4,500,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 3,071,146.30$ $
Electrical & Mechanical: -$ 1,500,000.00$ 1,500,000.00$ 1,500,000.00$ $
Labor: -$ 3,000,000.00$ 4,000,000.00$ 4,000,000.00$ $
Construction Contingency (15%): 675,000.00$ 1,125,000.00$ 1,275,000.00$ 1,285,671.94$ $
Construction Total: 5,175,000.00$ 8,625,000.00$ 9,775,000.00$ 9,856,818.24$ $

Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Total
Materials:
Custom Interior Doors 14.00 LS 1,000.00$ 14,000.00$
Rebar #3 23,276.00 LF 0.34$ 7,913.84$
Rebar #4 73,576.00 LF 0.47$ 34,580.72$
Rebar #5 4,752.00 LF 0.66$ 3,136.32$
Rebar #6 11,621.40 LF 0.84$ 9,761.98$
Rebar #7 3,633.42 LF 1.02$ 3,706.09$
Rebar #8 144.00 LF 1.25$ 180.00$
Rebar #9 15,279.30 LF 1.53$ 23,377.33$
Grass 250.00 SF 0.60$ 150.00$
Fill Material 16,552.66 CY 6.50$ 107,592.29$
Landscaping Top Soil 4,040.00 CY 15.00$ 60,600.00$
Trees 4.00 LS 300.00$ 1,200.00$
Plants 400.00 LS 20.00$ 8,000.00$
Custom Exterior Glass Doors 2.00 LS 2,000.00$ 4,000.00$
Interior Paint 25.00 Gal 60.00$ 1,500.00$
Exterior Paint 22.00 Gal 70.00$ 1,540.00$
Asphalt 23,441.56 SF 5.00$ 117,207.80$
Elevators 2.00 LS 109,500.00$ 219,000.00$
Insulation 33,624.00 SF 0.65$ 21,855.60$
Custom Exterior Window Panes 5,445.00 SF 211.00$ 1,148,895.00$
Fire Protection System 20,100.00 SF 3.66$ 73,566.00$
Flooring 20,100.00 SF 25.00$ 502,500.00$
Flag Pole 1.00 LS 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$
Dry Wall 9,549.00 SF 1.50$ 14,323.50$
Other Assorted Materials 40,000.00 LS 1.00$ 40,000.00$
Striping Paint 87.00 LS 10.00$ 870.00$
Custom Interior Window Panels 1,372.50 SF 211.00$ 289,597.50$
Ready-Mix Concrete 2,019.41 CY 150.00$ 302,911.50$
Sub-base 1,391.55 CY 18.00$ 25,047.90$
Concrete Forms & Finishings 14,649.00 SF 2.00$ 29,298.00$
Wire Mesh Reinforcement 6,116.44 SF 0.30$ 1,834.93$
3,071,146.30$Materials Total:

Description Postion Hours Hourly Rate Total
Architectural Design:
Building Design Senior Architect 150 400.00$ 60,000.00$
1st Floor Design Senior Architect 130 400.00$ 52,000.00$
1st Floor Design Junior Architect 110 350.00$ 38,500.00$
2nd Floor Design Senior Architect 120 400.00$ 48,000.00$
2nd FloorDesign Junior Architect 110 350.00$ 38,500.00$
3rd Floor Design Senior Architect 140 400.00$ 56,000.00$
3rd Floor Design Junior Architect 110 350.00$ 38,500.00$
Roof Design Junior Architect 120 350.00$ 42,000.00$
Surveying Surveyor 100 400.00$ 40,000.00$
Exterior Design Senior Architect 140 400.00$ 56,000.00$
Site Plan Junior Architect 140 350.00$ 49,000.00$
HVAC Design Junior Architect 110 350.00$ 38,500.00$
Electrical Design Senior Architect 110 400.00$ 44,000.00$
BIMModeling Senior Architect 100 400.00$ 40,000.00$
Elevation Plans Junior Architect 90 350.00$ 31,500.00$
Structural Details Junior Architect 120 350.00$ 42,000.00$
Foundation Plans Junior Architect 80 350.00$ 28,000.00$
772,500.00$
Structural Design:
Beam Calculations Principle Engineer 110 500.00$ 55,000.00$
Beam Design Senior Engineer 150 450.00$ 67,500.00$
Beam Calculations Associate Engineer 180 400.00$ 72,000.00$
Beam Calculations Junior Engineer 70 350.00$ 24,500.00$
Beam Analysis Project Engineer 190 400.00$ 76,000.00$
Girder Calculations Senior Engineer 175 450.00$ 78,750.00$
Girder Calculations Associate Engineer 135 400.00$ 54,000.00$
Girder Design Junior Engineer 120 350.00$ 42,000.00$
Girder Analysis Project Engineer 170 400.00$ 68,000.00$
Girder Design Associate Engineer 110 400.00$ 44,000.00$
Column Calculations Senior Engineer 258 450.00$ 116,100.00$
Column Design Junior Engineer 140 350.00$ 49,000.00$
Column Calculations Principle Engineer 150 500.00$ 75,000.00$
Column Analysis Project Engineer 150 400.00$ 60,000.00$
Column Analysis Junior Engineer 170 350.00$ 59,500.00$
Column Design Associate Engineer 150 400.00$ 60,000.00$
Slab Calculations Principle Engineer 140 500.00$ 70,000.00$
Slab Calculations Senior Engineer 130 450.00$ 58,500.00$
Slab Design Associate Engineer 120 400.00$ 48,000.00$
Slab Analysis Project Engineer 105 400.00$ 42,000.00$
1,249,850.00$
Architectural Design Total:
Structural Design Total:

Initial (10%) Preliminary (30%) Project Overview (60%) Detailed (90%) Construction Post Construction
Cost Estimate Total: 6,713,829.00$ 11,378,829.00$ 14,028,829.00$ 14,132,997.24$ 14,091,304.90$ 14,373,131.00$
Contingency (15%): 1,007,074.35$ 1,706,824.35$ 2,104,324.35$ 2,119,949.59$ 2,113,695.73$ 2,155,969.65$
Cost Estimate with Contingency: 7,720,903.35$ 13,085,653.35$ 16,133,153.35$ 16,252,946.83$ 16,578,005.76$ 16,909,565.88$
17,250,000.00$ 17,250,000.00$ 17,250,000.00$ 17,250,000.00$ Estimated Estimated
54% 23% 1% 2%
15,000,000.00$
2,250,000.00$
17,250,000.00$
Project Budget:
Project Contingency (15%):
Project Budget with Contingency:
$-
$2,000,000.00
$4,000,000.00
$6,000,000.00
$8,000,000.00
$10,000,000.00
$12,000,000.00
$14,000,000.00
$16,000,000.00
$18,000,000.00
Project Life Cost Estimates
Project Budget:$17,250,000.00
Estimate Projections

APPENDIX C – DOCUMENTS

APPENDIX D – DRAWINGS

Design Report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to Design Report

Similar to Design Report (20)

Design Report