Green Roof Feasibility Study College of Engineering

Transcription

1 Green Roof Feasibility Study College of Engineering Course led by Prof. Paul Hanley Emily Hannan Jacob Preuscl Pillip Gregory In partnersip wit te City of Sioux City

2 Tis project was supported by te Iowa Initiative for Sustainable Communities (IISC), a program of te Provost s Office of Outreac and Engagement at te University of Iowa tat partners wit rural and urban communities across te state to develop projects tat university students and faculty complete troug researc and coursework. Troug supporting tese projects, te IISC pursues a dual mission of enancing quality of life in Iowa wile transforming teacing and learning at te University of Iowa. Researc conducted by faculty, staff, and students of Te University of Iowa exists in te public domain. Wen referencing, implementing, or oterwise making use of te contents in tis report, te following citation style is recommended: [Student names], led by [Professor s name]. [Year]. [Title of report]. Researc report produced troug te Iowa Initiative for Sustainable Communities at te University of Iowa. Tis publication may be available in alternative formats upon request. Iowa Initiative for Sustainable Communities Provost s Office of Outreac and Engagement Te University of Iowa 111 Jessup Hall Iowa City, IA, iisc@uiowa.edu Website: ttp://iisc.uiowa.edu/ Te University of Iowa proibits discrimination in employment, educational programs, and activities on te basis of race, creed, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, pregnancy, disability, genetic information, status as a U.S. veteran, service in te U.S. military, sexual orientation, gender identity, associational preferences, or any oter classification tat deprives te person of consideration as an individual. Te University also affirms its commitment to providing equal opportunities and equal access to University facilities. For additional information contact te Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity, (319)

3 Sioux City Rooftop Garden May 6, 2016 Pillip Gregory, Emily Hannan, and Jacob Preuscl UNIVERSITY OF IOWA DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING Project Design & Management (CEE:3084:0001) Final Design Report - spr2016 1

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Cover Page p. 1 Table of Contents..p. 2 Executive Summary..p. 3 Part 1: Introduction...p. 5 Part 2: Problem Statement....p. 5 Part 3: Design Objectives. p. 5 Part 4: Approaces....p. 5 Part 5: Constraints.....p. 6 Part 6: Callenges.....p. 6 Part 7: Societal Impacts.p. 7 Part 8: Preliminary Development of Alternative Solutions...p. 8 Part 9: Selection Process. p. 12 Part 10: Final Design Details... p. 13 Part 11: Cost and Construction Estimates... p. 15 Part 12: Conclusions...p. 16 Part 13: Bibliograpy...p. 17 Appendix A: Structural Design Model and Calculations....p. 18 Appendix B: Construction Cost Estimate Details...p. 30 Appendix C: Supplemental Drawings...p. 31 2

5 Executive Summary We are, a student group at te University of Iowa tasked wit determining if te Discovery Parking Garage in downtown Sioux City, IA was capable of andling a green roof on top of te structure. We are appreciative for te opportunity to analyze te structure and explore rain garden designs in an effort to be a cog in te larger green initiative in Sioux City. Tis project is part of a larger initiative by te city to create more green space in its downtown area. Te discovery parking garage was tabbed as te best option due to its central location, low usage of te parking spots on te top floor, and connectivity to te city s skywalk system. Te design procedure included modeling te structure, designing a rain garden based on te floor plan of te garage, and converting tat garden to applicable loads in te structural model to see if te structure ad enoug capacity to andle te designed garden and loads. Our first garden design included terraces wit plants and buses native to Sioux City as well as areas of turf wit bences and picnic tables and walkways. To protect te roof, a system is needed between te growing media for te plants and grasses and te roof. Tis system includes a waterproofing membrane directly on te roof, a drainage layer, and a filter layer to keep roots and soil from infiltrating te drainage layer. To see if te structure could andle te design, we compiled te weigt of tese components and grouped tem wit live loads due to foot traffic and estimated wind loads and applied tem to te structural model. On te model we cecked a critical section were te slab, beam, and columns would experience te greatest forces and moments. We obtained te largest bending moment for te beams and computed te strengt of te section. We determined tat based off te flexural strengt of te section and te maximum bending moment in te beam, te beams would not be able to andle te weigt of te designed garden. We explored a variety of options to find a suitable solution to te design objective. Structural modification suc as fiber-reinforcement around te beam could ave been a feasible option, except te direction of te maximum moment would cause failure in te top of te beam wic is inaccessible. Anoter option was to construct more columns on te level below te roof to give te beam more support and tus more strengt to support a garden, but tat would take anoter floor of te parking garage out of service. Tis option is also very costly based on materials needed in a complete structural modification as well as labor due to te pysical constraints making construction difficult. Finally, we cecked te strengt of te slab on te roof and found tat te slab could not andle te load eiter. Slabs are more difficult to structurally modify. After consulting wit structural engineering professor at te University of Iowa, it was deemed virtually not feasible to restructure te slab, deeming a roof garden not feasible for tis structure. Since te parking garage could not andle te garden we designed, we developed a new design tat only consisted of turf, walkways, and te tinnest layer of soil based on various industry accepted standards. Tis design option represented te smallest load tat a rooftop garden would require. We reiterated te process based on te new design; calculated te loads, calculated te bending moments and extreme forces in te beams and slab, and cecked tese values against te strengt of te critical sections. We reaced a similar solution to te first design, tat te beams and slabs cannot andle te weigt of te simplest garden. Wile te Discovery Garage is not a viable option for a roof garden, te designs we developed are a very appealing option for a building wit te capacity to support it. Te first 3

6 garden design offers interactive areas for community members to sare and enjoy. Te picnic tables offer a place for community members to ave lunc. Te location of tis garage make it accessible based on its proximity to te ospital, downtown, and skywalk system. Tere is an area wic we left open to give an opportunity for a piece of local art. Tis as te opportunity to become a local landmark, and giving te community an opportunity to ave say in te aestetic of te space will give tem a sense of ownersip wic will yield a better taken care of space. Tere is also a multipurpose area wic could be used by local restaurants for dining or for public or private events. Te native plants will demand little maintenance and were cosen for teir ability to witstand cold winters, ot summers, and intense wind conditions tat we would expect to see on top of a parking garage in te Midwest. Tis will lower te city s cost of upkeep and could bring in foot traffic to local businesses for te summer, spring, and fall monts. Beyond te economic benefits, a green roof on a suitable building would create cleaner runoff, efficient drainage, and increased green space in urban areas ave been sown to increase air quality and cool urban ot spots. Te second alternative offers similar benefits, wile lacking some of te flasier design components like terracing and multipurpose areas. Tis could still act as an interactive space for a future design and would be easily applied if designed for based on te reduced loading and ease of construction. Te modifications metods mentioned above would be costly and are not explored in dept in te report below based on teir lack of feasibility and cost compared to benefits for te intended purpose of contributing a lot cost garden to te series of green projects being developed in te Sioux City area. would like to tank you again for te opportunity to contribute to a truly great movement taking place in Sioux City. Wile a garden may not be feasible for te designated structure, te described designs would bot be valid for future green roof projects on suitable structures. 4

7 1. Introduction Tis report was written in response to te City of Sioux City s request for a structural analysis of te Discovery parking garage and subsequent design for a rooftop garden. In tis report we will discuss te background of te project along wit design objectives, approaces using applicable manuals, standards, constraints, callenges, and societal impacts. Te preliminary development of alternatives will be touced on and afterwards, te selection process for te best alternative and final design details wit cost and construction estimates. 2. Problem Statement In an effort to create a greener environment in an urban area, te City of Sioux City as created a project to turn locations around te city into green spaces. One of tese proposed locations is te rooftop of a 753 spot parking garage located in te middle of downtown. Planners favored tis structure because it is in a central location downtown and across te street from a large medical facility tat as close to no green space of its own. One issue wit te location is tat te planning committee is not sure if te structure can witstand te extra applied loads from te soil, vegetation, and any oter design elements. Te design objective for was to analyze te parking garage to determine te maximum load associated wit a rooftop garden tat te structure can carry. Once te maximum load is found, can design a suitable green space witin te maximum tresold. 3. Evaluation and Design Objectives Te specific design objectives include creating a green space tat te community will utilize and is structurally sound, functional in te Midwestern climate, and economically viable. Wit tese objectives in mind, te design was focused primarily on engineering a structurally viable garden design to compliment te ongoing green initiative in Sioux City. Te aestetics and functionality, wile critical to success and effectiveness of te project, were secondary objectives. To make a successful garden design applicable, we needed to create an accurate and usable structural model to yield successful analysis. Te structural capacity of te parking structure was te governing task. Te objectives of te analysis was to accurately model te structure, identify critical sections, and to yield easily communicable results based on te success or failure of te applied loadings from te garden design. Te codes used to make tis structural analysis possible are discussed below. 4. Design Standards ASTM is te American Society of te International Association for Testing and Materials. We utilized teir standards for living systems wen developing te rooftop garden. ASTM is widely accepted in te United States. We also used te German FLL Green Roof Guidelines Standard, wic similarly elped develop our garden to a standard (Breuning & Yanders, 2012). Specifically, ASTM standard E2397 is te Standard Practice 5

8 for Determination of Dead Loads and Live Loads associated wit Green Roof Systems ("ASTM E2397/E2397M - 15: Standard Practice for Determination of Dead Loads and Live Loads Associated wit Vegetative (Green) Roof Systems", 2015). ASTM also utilizes te FLL-guidelines in teir standards. Te supplier we contacted for our cost estimate and design loadings, Rooflite, used FLL as a design tool for any living roof system, eco roof, granular drainage system, drainage board system, modular green roof system or for selecting green roof plants. Te wind loads were calculated using te standards found in ASCE 7. Wen modeling te parking garage, we used LRFD load combinations to apply factors to te dead, live, and wind loads. Tese factors cange service loads so tey are comparable to ultimate member strengt wic adds a safety factor. Of te seven load combination equations, combination four was te only one used and is sown in Appendix A. Once te stresses and moments in te beams, columns, and slabs using te model, te strengt of te section was cecked using American Concrete Institute, ACI, standards and procedures. Te standards and procedures developed by ACI sow ow to determine te strengt of beams, columns, slabs, and oter concrete sections in flexure, compression, tension, torsion, and axial force. Witin te terraced garden design tere are retaining walls to create te terracing effect. To create a more aestetically pleasing appearance, interlocking landscaping blocks from VERSA-LOK will be used. Tese blocks will be placed on a compressed sand pad at a sort dept beneat te surface of te soil. Te dimensions of te retaining wall were cecked for te factor of safety against overturning and sample calculations can be found in Appendix A. 5. Constraints Tis project ad few restrictions and guidelines concerning te potential design. Tere were no budget limitations, but as wit any project, limiting te cost as muc as possible is favorable. Since te objective was to create green space were tere previously was not one, tere are little to no negative environmental considerations except for emissions from equipment used during construction. Tere were also few negative societal impacts tat needed to be take into account, especially since te top floor of te parking garage is rarely used in its current state. One main limitation was te load tat te garage can andle. Since te garage is already built, and as sustained weatering and damage te extra load it can support may be limited. Tis inibited te breadt of garden design tat was available. Te lack of structural capacity was a constraint because modifying te structural components of te garage is not feasible bot from a structural and cost stance. Anoter constraint was te inability to cange te footprint of te garage. We ad to take te floor plan and slopes as given wic limited our design due to lack of space. Tis pysical constraint limited design options and tus creativity to implement some potential purposes te garden could serve to te community of Sioux City. 6. Callenges Callenges tat came about during te design process included te ability to make te design cost effective, constructability based on pysical limitations, complimenting te 6

9 engineering demands wit aestetics tat would create an appealing space for a diverse community, and finding suitable design standards. Te callenges by no means limit te feasibility of our design, but instead caused loopoles to jump troug to deliver Sioux City a satisfying product. Wile tere were no budgetary constraints, cost effectiveness was always a part of te design so as to make te design more appealing to te municipality of Sioux City and not take momentum away from te community-wide green initiative by using a majority of te city funds. Material cost and constructability put a bind on cost effectiveness, as te closest supplier for te garden system and soil we ad contact wit was located in Cicago, Illinois. To limit costs future maintenance costs, we used native plant species found on te Sioux City website ("Recommended Rain Garden Native Plants", 2014) tat are known to be earty and drougt-resistant. To limit costs we also cose not to modify te existing structural components of te garage. Tis would potentially allow for a larger, more diverse garden, but for te extreme cost and difficulty in construction, we decided not to pursue tis alternative. Constructability is a callenge because of te pysical constraints of te location of te garage. For spreading and andling of soil, a front loader will not be able to travel to te top floor because of te clearance in te garage. Tis would introduce te callenge of getting a crane downtown to deliver te soil and plant materials. Since te roadways are narrow, urban roadways, tere would need to be detours developed for te duration of its use. If no eavy macinery would be able to be used for moving soil, te soil and plants would ave to be placed by and by a landscaping crew wic would take more time and tus a far greater expense. Aestetics also became a problem due to te orientation of te beams on te sevent level. Te beams ad limited structural capacity, so te eavier areas of our design needed to be located on beams tat ad more capacity. Tis altered wat could ave been a more functional or aestetically pleasing garden. A design objective was to make te space appealing to a wide range of community members because of its location next to businesses downtown, te ospital, and connection to te skywalk system. Engineering a safe yet functional space became a callenge, but certainly did not stop us from implementing te strategies discussed in te meetings wit te University of Iowa Urban Planning group and Sioux City representatives. It was also difficult to find suitable and accepted design standards wen it came to designing te rooftop garden. Up until about a decade ago, rooftop gardens were not very common in te United States. Tey ave been building rooftop gardens for decades, but finding explicit standards was difficult. 7. Societal Impacts Some negative societal impacts tis project migt include te inconvenience of construction on te community and users of te garage. Since tis project is located in an urban area, tere will be a lot of traffic trougout te day to te local areas of commerce. Construction on te roof of tis garage could sut down traffic lanes for deliveries, causing inconveniences as well as potential noise to te local community. Traffic flow in te garage could also be disrupted. Anoter negative impact will be te decreased revenue caused by 7

10 refunctioning a floor of te parking garage. Tis will take away parking spots and subsequently potential public revenues. Positive societal impacts are more plentiful and revolve around increased green space for te community. Tis will serve as a public area and could become a piece of a larger green space initiative tat revitalizes and invigorates te spirit of public spaces for tis community. Green spaces like tese can become monuments and create more closely knit communities. Oter positive impacts on te local community include te potential to subcontract work wit local businesses to construct te garden. Tis will bring in local dollars and jobs for a sort period of time, and maintenance will create jobs and work in te long term. Having a space to eat lunc for people in te community could also increase te foot traffic troug nearby restaurants. Environmentally, green roofs ave been proven to create clean runoff, control drainage, and cool ot spots tat occur in urban areas. 8. Development of Alternative Solutions Te City of Sioux City, Iowa commissioned to perform a structural analysis on te Discovery Parking Garage to determine te garage s ability to support a rooftop green space. Te rooftop green space is a part of a larger plan to make downtown Sioux City more inviting and green. Te Discovery parking garage is located in te eart of downtown Sioux City on Jones Street as sow in Figure 3. Te Discovery garage is connected to te Sioux City Hotel complex, as well as a system of skywalks tat runs trougout downtown Sioux City. A site visit was conducted to visually inspect te parking structure to familiarize ourselves wit te structure in relation to te given plans. was provided a conditions report tat was conducted in Te conditions report stated tat tere are no major structural issues. Te visual inspection yielded similar results supporting te conditions report. After te site visit, te analysis began. First, determined te maximum loading te parking structure could safely support. Tis was done by constructing a model on Autodesk Robot as sow in Figures 1 and 2. Next te rooftop garden was designed including soil type, tickness and aestetic design. Wit te garden designed te loads were calculated and applied to te model. Tis acted as a double ceck ensuring te structure can safely witstand te additional loads applied by te rooftop garden. Te model analyzed tree critical components of te parking structure wic included an exterior column, a corner column and an interior beam. Tese components were analyzed for sear, flexural and axial strengt wic was in turn cecked against te capacities of tose components. used te accepted design standards laid out in te ACI R97 Guide for te Design of Durable Parking Structures and PCI Parking Structures: Recommended Practice for Design and Construction to analyze te parking structure. Wile developing te structural model, a preliminary garden design was drafted. Tis is sown below in option one. It includes terrace features and a designated area for small community events and potentially local art. Wen applying te loads for te preliminary design, it was determined tat te structure did not ave te capacity for te extra features. We ten developed a second, more minimalistic alternative tat could still function as a green space but not include more alluring features. Tis alternative is given below as option 2. Bot alternatives will be discussed in dept as well as te decision 8

11 making process PWW went troug to make conclusions and recommendations. Figure 1: Discovery parking garage Robot model: isometric view Figure 2: Discovery parking garage Robot model: sout elevation view 9

12 Figure 3: Te Discovery parking garage in downtown Sioux City, Iowa Option 1: Full Garden Design Our first option includes walkways from eac entrance to te roof (tree stairwells and one combined stairwell and elevator entrance) wrapping around in a circular fasion. Te annotated plan view is sown below in Figure 4. Tis design offers an additional area for people to park on te ramp from te sixt floor to te roof and ave easy access to te garden. Tere are areas for picnics on te west end, norteast, and souteast corners of te rooftop. Tere is terracing wrapping around te nort and sout traffic barriers between te ramps. Eac terrace will require a 2 foot tall retaining wall structure. Te terraces will be constructed of inter-locking landscaping blocks tat conform to te aestetics and old back te load created by soil beind it. On te east end of te garage tere is a communal multipurpose area. Tis could be used for local restaurants to old events, or could be rented by te public for similar events. It could also serve as extra seating for lunc goers and community members looking to enjoy te view. Tere is also an opportunity for a small piece of local art just west of te multipurpose area. Te reason we made many of te design decisions we did was to make te area as functional and interactive as possible. By giving te public opportunities to old events, make memories, and influence te way it looks, tey will be more attaced to te space and it as a greater cance to ave a lasting impact on te community. Te parking spaces leading up to te garden make it easy to access, wic would encourage te community to utilize te space for more activities. Te separated dining areas will encourage multiple groups of lunc goers or picnickers to be encouraged to sare te space wile still aving teir own space. Te design decision to add terracing came from a suggestion at a conference wit te University of Iowa Urban Planning group. Tis offered an area to include native perennial plants tat could add variety of colors and 10

13 style to te aestetics. Te multipurpose area was cosen to encourage local businesses to interact wit te new garden. Having tis area will offer a supplemental opportunity for summer, spring, and early fall programs to bring in more business. Tere was also a small area west of te multipurpose area tat could be utilized by a small piece of local art. Tis could be a keystone piece and could greatly increase public input to te success of te garden. Te design decisions were made in an effort to create opportunity for te community to interact, wile also taking pride in a new green area. We want to offer as muc space to be functional, aestetics to be appealing, and opportunity to encourage a sustained sense of ownersip. Figure 4: View of Proposed Garden Design, Option 1 Option 2: Minimal Garden Design Tis design option as te same walkway style and layout as well as te same grasses as te first design option. Te difference in tis option is tat tere will be no terracing or multipurpose area, instead tere will be turf in place. Tis is to reduce te loads on te garage in areas were te loads were previously extreme and potentially unsafe based on te structural model we are analyzing. Tis alternative still offers multiple spaces for lunc and picnics and even more green space. Tis design is simpler, but acieves te design objectives of creating a functional space for te community wile being cost effective and incorporating native, low maintenance plant species into te aestetics. Tis will offer opportunities for te community to include different types of local art into te design. Some options include murals on te large concrete facades of te stairwells or exterior traffic barriers. Tis will also create a sense of ownersip for te community and can deter graffiti in some cases. 11

14 9. Selection Process Figure 5: Plan View of Proposed Garden Design, Option 2 Te selection process was governed by te feasibility and structural strengt of te garage. Option 1 was ideal because of te interactive features it offered, but ran into problems wit te structural model. Option 2 offered a minimalistic, yet functional, version to give a design tat can be proven structurally viable based on our modeling and analyses. Option 1 and option 2 bot offered a variety of native wild life to te Sioux City area tat will require little to no maintenance. Tis makes bot alternatives appealing economically and functionality-wise so tat te plants will be essentially self-sustaining in an environment exposed to extreme eat in te summers, extreme cold in te winters, and ars winds trougout. Tis resilience was critical in our design to sow tat te green initiative won t put a large demand on te city in sustained funding. Te ultimate deciding factor was te structural strengt of te critical component, or te weakest component of te garage. After completing te designs of bot garden options te loads were calculated and applied to te Robot model. Te results of tis model were ten compared to te strengt capacity of te slab. Te applied loads from bot Option 1 and Option 2 were unfortunately too great for eiter te slab or beams in flexure. Wile te question was to see if a garden could be built on te structure as it is, we still explored te option to structural modify te garage to try to reac a solution. Tis option proved too costly and ardly viable based on pysical constraints and scope of te project. Te cost of te strategies greatly outweiged te benefits. Based on tese findings, we decided tat te Discovery garage is not suitable for a roof garden, but te designs tat we 12

15 created would still be great coices for a new garage built to ave enoug capacity for a garden. Te design details sown below describe execution option 1 for a new garage. Wile option 1 offered a variety of extra components, it could not be built based on our structural evaluation of te garage. Option 2 offers a functional, simplistic, and open space tat offers a lot of similar areas for te community tat option 1 did, only at a lower cost and assurance of success. Tere will be areas for lunc, overlooking te city, and green spaces tat will attract potential consumers to te nearby businesses. 10. Design Details Te preferred garden design is option 1 wic consists of a walkway circling te entire top level bordered by plants and terraces on te sloped lengts. A drawing of te design can be seen above in figure 4. Tis offers more features and if a garage could be built to ave enoug capacity to support tis garden, it would be preferred over option 2. Eac terrace contains native grasses and plants suc as prairie smoke, black-eyed Susan, and little bluestem. Native, earty plants were cosen because tey are te most resilient and require less maintenance ("Recommended Rain Garden Native Plants", 2014).Wile te cosen plant species function in te space for aestetic purposes, tere are many engineering and cost benefits of te design. Prairie smoke was cosen for its use as a good border. It will only grow to 1 foot tall and can separate te walkways from turf areas witout being blown away by ars winds on top of te garage. Tis will save maintenance costs in te long term and benefit te space by bringing color and creating separate spaces. Black eyed Susan is a larger, more vibrant plant tat can create some excitement for garden goers. It is biennial, so wile it won t create useful space year round, it will be a more special occasion wen tey bloom and bring a brigt feel to te space aside from te deeper colors of te prairie smoke and little blue stem. Little bluestem is our most functional coice, as it is a native grass tat lasts all winter. Tis will encourage people to use te garden later into te fall and earlier into te spring. Mulc will be spread around te plants to inder weed growt to furter reduce maintenance. It will also slow moisture evaporation, break down into te underlying soil gradually and tereby improve te soil's texture, and elps moderate soil temperatures. Tis will increase te quality of te soil, te success of plant growt and yield, and will pay for itself over time. Te functions of muc of te planting strategies is to lower costs, and by designing te plants in te arrangement tat we did, create a more effective garden in relation to te ultimate design objectives wile limiting cost in te long term. Eac terrace will require a 2 foot tall retaining wall. Te terraces will be constructed of inter-locking landscaping blocks tat conform to te aestetics of te garden and stone walkways. Te ramp leading to te lower level will also ave multiple terraced sections as seen in te plan drawing. At te lower elevation landing tere is turf wit picnic tables and bences for people to sit, relax, eat lunc, or enjoy te atmospere. At te iger elevation landing tere is a multipurpose area wic is a very functional space. It will ave stone floor, same aestetic as te walkways and landscaping bricks, and will ave areas to eat and serve to function as a venue for local restaurants or small public or private events. Te rooftop garden system consists of multiple layers to protect te current structure, provide adequate drainage, and be conducive to growing earty plants. Te general components can be seen in Figure 6. Te layer separating te concrete deck and te 13

16 garden is te waterproofing layer made of a tick PVC membrane. Tis layer protects te structure from water infiltration wic will eventually wear te concrete and reduce its structural capacity. Tis could lead to failure, so te waterproofing membrane is a critical step. Overall a roof garden will mitigate te current ponding problems on te roof and sould lengten te life span of te garage, but only if te waterproofing effectively separates te garden from te deck. Next is te drainage layer. Tis layer allows water to percolate troug te soil and ten be transported to te garage s existing drainage system. Te drainage layer, based on te systems Rooflite Supply offer, includes pervious soils and aggregates tat will effectively let water percolate to te drains and tey also offer 1 ½ cannel drains. Cannel drains are a triangular pat tat will act as a guide for water to travel troug so it doesn t sit in te soil during eavy storm events. Above te drainage layer is te separation fabric wic lets water troug but separates te growing media from te drainage layer so as to contain root growt. It is made of one or two layers of nonwoven geotextile and includes a root inibitor like copper or a mild erbicide. Tese base layers will also run underneat te walk way stones and wic will act as a permeable paver system. Tis continuation of te drainage layer will ensure full drainage trougout te wole roof. Finally, above te filter layer is te growing media. Tis area is different tan regular soil because of its ric mineral content to encourage ealty plant growt and sustained life in toug conditions. For turf areas tis layer will be about 6 inces and for te perennials and taller grasses it will be about 16 inces (Wark, 2003). Te permeability of te drainage layer is at least 100 in/min and tat of te growing medium is 2.83 in/min, so te drainage layer as more tan enoug capacity for te water tat will be filtering troug te soil. 14

17 Figure 6: General components garden cross section 11. Cost and Construction Estimates For te design option 1, te total construction cost was estimated at $451,500. To reference te details of te estimate, see Appendix C. Wile tis design is te most costly, it is also te most involved wen it comes to construction due to its various components. Since neiter design option could be feasible built on te cosen structure, tis cost estimate represents te cost of building design option 1 on a new garage structure wit sufficient capacity. Te supplier we referenced in cost and load estimation offers two variations of soil delivery and application to rooftop. Tey described a bulk material delivery were a crane could raise te blocks to te top of te structure and a loose material delivery wic included pneumatic placement of soil into designated areas. Te loose delivery metod was more feasible as it would be a callenge to fit a crane downtown due to pysical constraints, and could cause problems for traffic for te duration of te loading. Te rates given in Appendix B include te cost of equipment, labor for spraying, and cost of materials. Te rest of te materials given are based on areas from te AutoCAD model given above in Figure 4, and rates based on te most logical references and suppliers based in nearby Nortwestern Iowa or Eastern Nebraska. Labor was estimated assuming tat te construction team would include four laborers and one supervisor at any given time. Tere 15

18 are pysical restrictions wen it comes to getting eavy equipment on te roof of te garage, so we assumed tat te components will be created by and based on small deliveries via work trucks. Wile tis will increase te labor costs due to longer ours, it will save on rental costs of eavy macinery, costs of creating and signing a detour for downtown traffic, and te potential of permanently damaging te roof by overloading it. Te pay rates for labor were derived from work experience in a similar market. Te total cost of labor was calculated as te total team ours per task multiplied by te rate of te five person team working one our. In terms of construction pasing, te project sould be fairly linear and able to be completed andily wit five workers at a time. Waterproofing of te roof of te garden will need to take place first. Tis is independent of oter processes and governs all oter progress. Te soil cannot be placed witout te membrane being in place, neiter can te components be built. Once te waterproof membrane is in place, te soil can be sprayed into place using pneumatic placing. Tis sould be a relatively quick process, as te supplier delivers te soil and sprays it based on te specifications given. After te soil is settled, te components can begin being placed. Te terracing sould be built first, so tat te soil as time to settle and be fully compacted before te walkways and grasses are laid into place. Te terracing blocks can be delivered to te roof via maintenance truck and set in place by te laborers one block at a time. Tis will be tedious, but overall more feasible tan prefabricating te terraces or ordering macinery. Once te terraces are in place, te sequence of events is not limited. Te stone walkways could be laid before or after te laying of plants, grasses, seeding, and mulc. Te last step to construction would be placing te amenities including picnic tables, bences, and watever is to be laid in te multipurpose area. Option 2 will include similar cost estimate strategies, but te pasing will be even simpler by taking out te various components offered in option 1. Tis will lower labor costs and drastically lower te material costs. Wit tese lower costs and loads, different construction strategies may be employed suc as larger teams working at te same time, or possibly small macinery to make te processes more efficient. 12. Conclusions Based on our in dept structural model and analysis of te Discovery Parking Garage and design loads for a developed and minimalistic garden, we recommend tat a roof garden not be built on top of tis structure. Bot alternatives were explored, analyzed, and were proven to fail based on te current condition of te structure. Wile te designs are not feasible on tis structure, tey are fully functioning designs to be employed on a future garage tat as te structural capacity to carry te calculated loads. Te design objectives and requests were met in te structural analysis and garden design realms in te delivered calculations, figures, and narratives. We ope te insigt provided can be useful in Sioux City decision making and can offer constructive conclusions tat can forward te current green initiative and urban planning in te community as a wole. 16

19 Bibliograpy Anderson, McRae. "Design and Development of a Roof Garden." McCaren Designs, Inc., n.d. Web. 14 Apr <ttp:// "ASTM E2397/E2397M - 15: Standard Practice for Determination of Dead Loads and Live Loads Associated wit Vegetative (Green) Roof Systems." ASTM (2015): n. pag. ASTM Compass. ASTM International, July Web. 5 Apr Breuning, Jorg, and Andrew C. Yanders. "Introduction to te FLL Guidelines for te Planning, Construction and Maintenance of Green Roofing."Green Roofing Guideline (2008): n. pag. Green Roof Tecnology. Jörg Breuning & Green Roof Service LLC, 6 Feb Web. 1 Apr "Recommended Rain Garden Native Plants." Sioux City. City of Sioux City, Web. 14 Apr "Separation Fabric/Filter Fabric." Rooflite Certified Green Roof Media. Rooflite, Sept Web. 11 Apr <ttp:// CATIONS/PDF%20Versions/rooflite-separation-fabric.pdf>. "Specifications: Rooflite Drain." Rooflite Certified Green Roof Media. Rooflite, Sept Web. 11 Apr <ttp:// CATIONS/PDF%20Versions/rooflite-drain.pdf>. "Specifications: Rooflite Semi-intensive." Rooflite Certified Green Roof Media. Rooflite, Sept Web. 11 Apr <ttp:// CATIONS/PDF%20Versions/rooflite-semi-intensive.pdf>. Wark, Cristoper G., and Wendy W. Wark. "Green Roof Specifications and Standards: Establising an Emerging Tecnology." Te Construction Specifier 56.8 (2003): n. pag. Te Construction Specifications. Web. 11 Apr

20 Appendix A Structural Design Model and Calculations LRFD Load Combination DDDDDDDD LLLLLLLL WWWWWWWW LLLLLLLL LLLLLLLL LLLLLLLL For loads along te critical beam analyzed in alternative 1: Te dead load consists of te load from te terraced soil and roof garden system, te turf soil and roof garden system, te retaining wall and te slab weigt wic are all multiplied by te tributary area between beams. DDDDDDDD = 117 llll llll ssss ssss + 52 llll llll ssss ssss llll ffff ssss llll llll ffff ssss ffff llll kkkkkk ffff 19 ffff = cccc ffff Te live load accounts for te uman traffic on te garden and is mutliplied by te tributary area between beams. LLLLLLLL = 50 llll kkkkkk 19 ffff = ssss ffff Te wind load is a standard value, but is converted to a point load wic acts at te end of te beam. It is converted to a point load by mulitplying by te tributary area between beams and also te tributary area between floors. WWWWWWWW = 40 llll 19 ffff 5ffff = 3.8 kkkkkk ssss Because te wind load is a point load, it cannot be added directly to te dead and live loads, but it is still multiplied by te load factor. WWWWWWWW = kkkkkk = 6.08 kkkkkk DDDDDDDD aaaaaa LLLLLLLL = kkkkkk ffff kkkkkk ffff = 5 kkkkkk ffff Retaining Wall Sample Calculations (Retaining Wall between Terraces) Active Pressure of Backfill 18

21 Weigt per Unit Lengt of Eac Component PP aa = 0.5 γγ bbbb HH 2 PP aa = llll cccc ( ffff )2 = llll ffff ww = γγ aaaaaaaa xx = xx dddddddddddddddd tttt cccccccccccccccc oooo aaaaaaaa (Tere is a w and xx for te soil beind te retaining wall, te stem of te retaining wall, and te base) Moment Driving Overturning ww1 = 78 llll llll 0.25ffff ffff = 26 cccc ffff xx 1 = 0.25 ffff + 1 ffff ffff = ffff 2 MM DD = PP aa HH 3 MM DD = llll ffff ffff = llll ffff ffff Moment Resisting Overturning MM RR = ww 1 xx 1 + ww 2 xx 2 + ww 3 xx 3 MM RR = 26 llll llll llll llll ffff 1.325ffff ffff ffff = ffff ffff ffff ffff Factor of Safety Against Overturning FFFF OO = llll ffff ffff 51.6 llll ffff ffff FFFF OO = MM RR MM DD = 3.55 > 3 (Design is sufficient) 19

22 Column Strengt Calculations To calculate te strengt capacity of a column a five point interaction diagram was constructed. First te critical column was identified troug a Robot analysis of a frame. Te critical column was identified as te exterior column A-2. Column A-2 Strengt Calculations: Figure 7: Robot Analysis of Column A-2 Material Properties UUUUUUUU WWWWWWWWtt oooooooooott WWWWWWWWtt CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC (wwww), wwww = 115 pppppp 28 dddddd CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC SSSSSSSSSSSSSS oooo CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC (ffffff), ffffff = 4000 pppppp YYYYYYYYYY SSSSSSSSSSSS oooo ttee RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR SSSSSSSSSS (ffff), ffff = 60,000 pppppp YYYYYYYYYY ss MMMMMMMMMMMMMM oooo SSSSSSSSSS (EEEE), EEEE = 29,000,000 pppppp YYYYYYYYgg ss MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM SSSSSSSSSS (EEEE), EEEE = 33 wwww 1.5 ffffff pppppp RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR FFFFFFFFFFFF (φφ), φφ =.9 Column Dimensions CCCCCCCCCCCC WWWWWWWW (bb), bb = 20 iiii CCCCCCCCCCCC dddddddd (), = 20 iiii CCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCC SSSSSStttttttttttt AAAAAAAA (AAAA1), AAAA1 = bb iiii 2 Figure 8: Column A-2 Reinforcement Cross Section Reinforcement Data DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD oooo bbbbbb gggggggggg AA, BB, CC (DDDDDD1), DDDDDD1 = iiii DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD oooo ttee TTTTTTTT (dddd), dddd =.5 iiii CCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCC (cccc), cccc = 1.5 iiii CCCCCCCCCC (cc0), cc0 = cccc + dddd +.5 DDDDDD1 iiii Distances and Area s DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD ffffffff ttee bbbbbbbbbbbb tttt ttee EEEEEEEEEEEEEE NNNNNNNNNNNNNN AAAAAAAA (yyyyyyyy), yyyyyyyy = 10 iiii DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD ffffffff ttee bbbbbbbbbbbb tttt ttee cccccccccccccccc oooo ttee ffffffffff rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (yyyy1), yyyy1 = cc0 iiii 20

23 yyyyyyyy + cc0 "" ssssssssssss rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (yyyy2), yyyy2 = iiii 2 "" ttiiiiii rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (yyyy3), yyss3 = yyyyyyyy iiii ( cc0) + yyyyyyyy "" ffffffffff rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (yyyy4), yyyy4 = iiii 2 "" ffffffff rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (yyyy5), yyyy5 = cc0 iiii AAAAAAAA oooo SSSSSSSSSS iiii ttee ffffffffff aaaaaa ffffffff rrrrrrrr (AAAA1), AAAA1 = AAAA5 = iiii 2 AArrrrrr oooo SSSSSSSSSS iiii ttee ssssssssssss, ttiiiiii aaaaaa ffffffffff rrrrrrrr (AAAA2), AAAA2 = AAAA3 = AAAA4 = 4.5 iiii 2 TTTTTTTTTT AAAAAAAA oooo SSSSSSSSSS RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR iiii ttee CCCCCCCCCCCC (AAAAAA), AAAAAA = (2 AAAA1) + (3 AAAA2) iiii 2 Calculation of te Interaction Diagram Point A, Axial Loading Only Rectangular Column Eccentricity Reduction FFFFFFFFFFFF (eeeeeeeeeeeeee), eeeeeeeeeeeeee =.8 UUUUUUUU tttt DDDDDDDDDDDD ttee EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR SSSSSSSSSSSS BBBBBBBBBB (ββ), ββ =.85 DDDDDDDD oooo ttee EEEEEEEEEEEEEE NNNNNNNNNNNNNN AAAAAAAA ffffffff ttee cccccccccccccccccccccc ffffffff (cc), cc = 10 iiii EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR SSSSSSSSSSSS BBBBBBBBBB DDDDDDDD (aa), aa = ββ cc iiii FFFFFFFFFF oooo CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC (FFFF1), FFFF1 =.85 ffffff AAAA1 kkkkkk DDDDDDDDDDDD FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF SSSSSSSSSSSSSS aaaa PPPPPPPPPP AA (φφφφφφφφ), φφφφφφφφ = 0 kkkkkk ffff DDDDDDDDDDDD AAAAAAAAAA SSSSSSSSSSSSSS aaaa PPPPPPPPPP AA (φφφφφφφφ), φφφφφφφφ eeeeeeeeeeeeee φφ (FFFF1 + (AAAAAA ( ffff +.85 ffcccc))) = kkkkkkkk 1000 Calculation of Point B, setting te strain in te bottom most row of rebar to 0 UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU ssssssssssss oooo cccccccccccccccc (eeeeee), eeeeee =.03 iiii/iiii CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC ssssssssssss aaaa ttee tttttt (ee), ee = eeeeee iiii/iiii SSSSSSSSSSSS iiii ttee bbbbbbbbbbbb mmmmmmmm rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (eeee), eeee = eeee1 = 0 iiii/iiii eeee ee yyyy1 TTTTTTTTTTTTTT SSSSSSSSSSSS aaaa ttee bbbbbbbbbbbb (ee0), ee0 = iiii/iiii yyyy1 UUUUUUUU tttt DDDDDDDDDDDD ttee EEEEEEiiiiiiiiiiiiii RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR SSSSSSSSSSSS BBBBBBBBBB (ββ), ββ =.85 DDDDDDDD oooo ttee EEEEEEEEEEEEEE NNNNNNNNNNNNNN AAAAAAAA ffffffff ttee cccccccccccccccccccccc ffffffff (cc), cc = ee ee ee0 iiii EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR SSSSSSeessss BBBBBBBBBB DDDDDDDD (aa), aa = ββ cc iiii FFFFFFFFFF oooo CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC (FFFF1), FFFF1 =.85 ffffff AAAA1 kkkkkk SSSSSSSSSSSS iiii ttee ssssssssssss rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (eeee2), eeee2 = ee0 yyyy2 + ee yyyy2 iiii/iiii SSSSSSSSSSSS iiii ttee ffffrrrr rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (eeee4), eeee4 = ee0 yyyy4 + ee yyyy4 iiii/iiii SSSSSSSSSSSS iiii ttee ffffffff rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (eeee5), eeee5 = ee0 yyyy5 + ee yyyy5 iiii/iiii rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr = ssssssss(εεεε, ii) (MMMMMM[AAAAAA(EEEE εεεε, ii), ffff] IIII[εεεε, ii < 0, 0.85 ffffff, 0]) kkkkkk/iiii 2 FFFFFFFFFF oooo ttee ffffffffff rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (FFFF1), FFFF1 = AAAA1 rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr[eeee1, EEEE, ffff, ffffff] kkiiii FFFFFFFFFF oooo ttee ssssssssssss rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (FFFF2), FFFF2 = AAAA2 rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr[eeee2, EEEE, ffff, ffffff] kkkkkk FFFFFFFFFF oooo ttee ffffffff rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (FFFF4), FFFF4 = AAAA4 rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr[eeee4, EEEE, ffff, ffffff] kkkkkk FFFFFFFFFF oooo ttee ffffffff rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (FFFF5), FFFF5 = AAAA5 rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr[eeee5, EEEE, ffff, ffffff] kkkkkk 21

24 MMMMMMMMMMMM cccccccccccc bbbb ttee cccccccccccccccc (mmmmmmmmmm), mmmmmmmmmm = FFFF1 yyyyyyyy aa kkkkkk ffff 2 MMMMMMMMMMMM cccccccccccc bbbb ttee ffffffffff rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (mmmmmmmmmm1), mmmmmmmmmm1 = FFFF1 (yyyyyyyy yyyy1) kkkkkk ffff MMMMMMMMMMMM cccccccccccc bbbb ttee ssssssssssss rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (mmmmmmmmmm2), mmmmmmmmmm2 = FFFF2 (yyyyyyyy yyyy2) kkkkkk ffff MMMMMMMMMMMM cccccccccccc bbbb ttee ffffffff rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (mmmmmmmmmm4), mmmmmmmmmm4 = FFFF4 (yyyyyyyy yyyy4) kkkkkk ffff MMMMMMMMMMMM cccccccccccc bbbb ttee ffffffff rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (mmmmmmmmmm5), mmmmmmmmmm5 = FFFF5 (yyyyyyyy yyyy5) kkkkkk ffff φφ (FFFF1 + FFFF1 + FFFF2 + FFFF4 + FFFF5) φφφφφφφφ = kkkkkk 1000 φφ (mmmmmmmmmm + mmmmmmmmmm1 + mmmmmmmmmm2 + mmmmmmmmmm4 + mmmmmmmmmm5) φφφφφφφφ = kkkkkk ffff Calculation of Point C, setting te strain in te bottom most row of rebar to fy/es UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU ssssssssssss oooo cccccccccccccccc (eeeeee), eeeeee =.03 iiii/iiii CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC ssssssssssss aaaa ttee tttttt (ee), ee = eeeeee iiii/iiii SSSSSSSSSSSS iiii ttee bbbbbbbbbbbb mmmmmmmm rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (eeee), eeee = eeee1 = ffff EEEE iiii/iiii eeee ee yyyy1 TTTTTTTTTTTTTT SSSSSSSSSSSS aaaa ttee bbbbbbbbbbbb (ee0), ee0 = iiii/iiii yyyy1 UUUUUUUU tttt DDDDDDDDDDDD ttee EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR SSSSSSSSSSSS BBBBBBBBBB (ββ), ββ =.85 DDDDDDDD oooo ttee EEEEEEEEEEEEEE NNNNNNNNNNNNNN AAAAAAAA ffffffff ttee cccccccccccccccccccccc ffffffff (cc), cc = ee ee ee0 iiii EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR SSSSSSSSSSSS BBBBBBBBBB DDDDDDDD (aa), aa = ββ cc iiii FFFFFFFFFF oooo CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC (FFFF1), FFFF1 =.85 ffffff AAAA1 kkkkkk SSSSSSSSSSSS iiii ttee ssssssssssss rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (eeee2), eeee2 = ee0 yyyy2 + ee yyyy2 iiii/iiii SSSSSSSSSSSS iiii ttee ffffffff rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (eeee4), eeee4 = ee0 yyyy4 + ee yyyy4 iiii/iiii SSSSSSSSiiii iiii ttee ffffffff rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (eeee5), eeee5 = ee0 yyyy5 + ee yyyy5 iiii/iiii ffff, ii = ssssssss(εεεε, ii) (MMMMMM[AAAAAA(EEEE εεεε, ii), ffff] IIII[εεεε, ii < 0, 0.85 ffffff, 0]) kkkkkk/iiii 2 FFFFFFFFFF oooo ttee ffffffffff rrrrrr ooff rrrrrrrrrr (FFFF1), FFFF1 = AAAA1 rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr[eeee1, EEEE, ffff, ffffff] kkkkkk FFFFFFFFFF oooo ttee ssssssssssss rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (FFFF2), FFFF2 = AAAA2 rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr[eeee2, EEEE, ffff, ffffff] kkkkkk FFFFFFFFFF oooo ttee ffffffff rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (FFFF4), FFFF4 = AAAA4 rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr[eeee4, EEEE, ffff, ffffff] kkkkkk FFFFFFFFFF oooo ttee ffffffff rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (FFFF5), FFFF5 = AAAA5 rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr[eeee5, EEEE, ffff, ffffff] kkiiii MMMMMMMMMMMM cccccccccccc bbbb ttee cccccccccccccccc (mmmmmmmmmm), mmmmmmmmmm = FFFF1 yyyyyyyy aa kkkkkk ffff 2 MMMMMMMMMMMM cccccccccccc bbbb ttee ffffffffff rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (mmmmmmmmmm1), mmmmmmmmmm1 = FFFF1 (yyyyyyyy yyyy1) kkkkkk ffff MMMMMMeeeeee cccccccccccc bbbb ttee ssssssssssss rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (mmmmmmmmmm2), mmmmmmmmmm2 = FFFF2 (yyyyyyyy yyyy2) kkkkkk ffff 22

25 MMMMMMMMMMMM cccccccccccc bbbb ttee ffffffff rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (mmmmmmmmmm4), mmmmmmmmmm4 = FFFF4 (yyyyyyyy yyyy4) kkkkkk ffff MMMMMMMMMMMM cccccccccccc bbbb ttee ffffffff rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (mmmmmmmmmm5), mmmmmmmmmm5 = FFFF5 (yyyyyyyy yyyy5) kkkkkk ffff φφ (FFFF1 + FFFF1 + FFFF2 + FFFF4 + FFFF5) φφφφφφφφ = kkkkkk 1000 φφ (mmmmmmmmmm + mmmmmmmmmm1 + mmmmmmmmmm2 + mmoooooooo4 + mmmmmmmmmm5) φφφφφφφφ = kkkkkk ffff Calculation of Point D, setting te strain in te bottom most row of rebar to.005 UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU ssssssssssss oooo cccccccccccccccc (eeeeee), eeeeee =.03 iiii/iiii CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC ssssssssssss aaaa ttee tttttt (ee), ee = eeeeee iiii/iiii SSSSSSSSSSSS iiii ttee bbbbbbbbbbbb mmmmmmmm rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (eeee), eeee = eeee1 =.005 iiii/iiii eeee ee yyyy1 TTTTTTTTTTTTTT SSSSSSSSSSSS aaaa ttee bbbbbbbbbbbb (ee0), ee0 = iiii/iiii yyyy1 UUUUUUUU tttt DDDDDDDDDDDD ttee EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR SSSSSSSSSSSS BBBBBBBBBB (ββ), ββ =.85 DDDDDDDD oooo ttee EEEEEEEEEEEEEE NNNNNNNNNNNNNN AAAAAAAA ffffffff ttee cccccccccccccccccccccc ffffffff (cc), cc = ee ee ee0 iiii EEEEEEEEEEEEllllllll RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR SSSSSSSSSSSS BBBBBBBBBB DDDDDDDD (aa), aa = ββ cc iiii FFFFFFFFFF oooo CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC (FFFF1), FFFF1 =.85 ffffff AAAA1 kkkkkk SSSSSSSSSSSS iiii ttee ssssssssssss rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (eeee2), eeee2 = ee0 yyyy2 + ee yyyy2 iiii/iiii SSSSSSSSSSSS iiii ttee ffffffff rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (eeee4), eeee4 = ee0 yyyy4 + ee yyyy4 iiii/iiii SSSSSSSSSSSS iiii ttee ffffffff rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (eeee5), eeee5 = ee0 yyyy5 + ee yyyy5 iiii/iiii ffff, ii = ssssssss(εεεε, ii) (MMMMMM[AAAAAA(EEEE εεεε, ii), ffff] IIII[εεεε, ii < 0, 0.85 ffffff, 0]) kkkkkk/iiii 2 FFFFFFFFFF oooo ttee ffffffffff rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (FFFF1), FFFF1 = AAAA1 rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr[eeee1, EEEE, ffff, ffffff] kkkkkk FFFFFFFFFF oooo ttee ssssssssssss rroooo oooo rrrrrrrrrr (FFFF2), FFFF2 = AAAA2 rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr[eeee2, EEEE, ffff, ffffff] kkkkkk FFFFFFFFFF oooo ttee ffffffff rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (FFFF4), FFFF4 = AAAA4 rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr[eeee4, EEEE, ffff, ffffff] kkkkkk FFFFFFFFFF oooo ttee ffffffff rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (FFFF5), FFFF5 = AAAA5 rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr[eeee5, EEEE, ffff, ffffff] kkkkkk MMMMMMMMMMMM cccccccccccc bbbb ttee cccccccccccccccc (mmmmmmmmmm), mmmmmmmmmm = FFFF1 yyyyyyyy aa kkkkkk ffff 2 MMMMMMMMMMMM cccccccccccc bbbb ttee ffiirrrrrr rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (mmmmmmmmmm1), mmmmmmmmmm1 = FFFF1 (yyyyyyyy yyyy1) kkkkkk ffff MMMMMMMMMMMM cccccccccccc bbbb ttee ssssssssssss rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (mmmmmmmmmm2), mmmmmmmmmm2 = FFFF2 (yyyyyyyy yyyy2) kkkkkk ffff MMMMMMMMMMMM cccccccccccc bbbb ttee ffffffff rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (mmmmmmmmmm4), mmmmmmmmmm4 = FFFF4 (yyyyyyyy yyyy4) kkkkkk ffff MMMMMMMMMMMM cccccccccccc bbbb ttee ffffffff rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (mmmmmmmmmm5), mmmmmmmmmm5 = FFFF5 (yyyyyyyy yyyy5) kkkkpp ffff φφ (FFFF1 + FFFF1 + FFFF2 + FFFF4 + FFFF5) φφφφφφφφ = kkkkkk

26 φφφφφφφφ = φφ (mmmmmmmmmm + mmmmmmmmmm1 + mmmmmmmmmm2 + mmmmmmmmmm4 + mmmmmmmmmm5) kkkkkk ffff Calculation of Point E, setting te strain in te bottom most row of rebar to.02 UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU ssssssssssss oooo cccccccccccccccc (eeeeee), eeeeee =.03 iiii/iiii CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC ssssssssssss aaaa ttee tttttt (ee), ee = eeeeee iiii/iiii SSSSSSSSSSSS iiii ttee bbbbbbbbbbbb mmmmmmmm rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (eeee), eeee = eeee1 =.02 iiii/iiii eeee ee yyyy1 TTTTTTTTTTTTTT SSSSSSSSSSSS aaaa ttee bbbbbbbbbbbb (ee0), ee0 = iiii/iiii yyyy1 UUUUUUUU tttt DDDDDDDDDDDD ttee EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR SSSSSSSSSSSS BBBBBBBBBB (ββ), ββ =.85 DDDDDDDD oooo ttee EEEEEEEEEEEEEE NNNNNNNNNNNNNN AAAAAAAA ffffffff ttee cccccccccccccccccccccc ffffffff (cc), cc = ee ee ee0 iiii EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR SSSSSSSSSSSS BBBBBBBBBB DDDDDDDD (aa), aa = ββ cc iiii FFFFFFFFFF oooo CCCCCCCCCCCCtttt (FFFF1), FFFF1 =.85 ffffff AAAA1 kkkkkk SSSSSSSSSSSS iiii ttee ssssssssssss rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (eeee2), eeee2 = ee0 yyyy2 + ee yyyy2 iiii/iiii SSSSSSSSSSSS iiii ttee ffffffff rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (eeee4), eeee4 = ee0 yyyy4 + ee yyyy4 iinn/iiii SSSSSSSSSSSS iiii ttee ffffffff rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (eeee5), eeee5 = ee0 yyyy5 + ee yyyy5 iiii/iiii ffff, ii = ssssssss(εεεε, ii) (MMMMMM[AAAAAA(EEEE εεεε, ii), ffff] IIII[εεεε, ii < 0, 0.85 ffffff, 0]) kkkkkk/iiii 2 FFFFFFFFFF oooo ttee ffiiiiiiii rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (FFFF1), FFFF1 = AAAA1 rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr[eeee1, EEEE, ffff, ffffff] kkkkkk FFFFFFFFFF oooo ttee ssssssssssss rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (FFFF2), FFFF2 = AAAA2 rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr[eeee2, EEEE, ffff, ffffff] kkkkkk FFFFFFFFFF ooff ttee ffffffff rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (FFFF4), FFFF4 = AAAA4 rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr[eeee4, EEEE, ffff, ffffff] kkkkkk FFFFFFFFFF oooo ttee ffffffff rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (FFFF5), FFFF5 = AAAA5 rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr[eeee5, EEEE, ffff, ffffff] kkkkkk MMMMMMMMMMMM cccccccccccc bbbb ttee cccccccccccccccc (mmmmmmmmmm), mmmmmmmmmm = FFFF1 yyyyyyyy aa kkkkkk ffff 2 MMMMMMMMMMMM cccccccccccc bbbb ttee ffffffffff rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (mmmmmmmmmm1), mmmmmmmmmm1 = FFFF1 (yyyyyyyy yyyy1) kkkkkk ffff MMMMMMMMMMMM cccccccccccc bbbb ttee ssssssssssss rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (mmmmmmmmmm2), mmmmmmmmmm2 = FFFF2 (yyyyyyyy yyyy2) kkkkkk ffff MMMMMMMMMMMM cccccccccccc bbbb ttee ffffffff rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (mmmmmmmmmm4), mmmmmmmmmm4 = FFFF4 (yyyyyyyy yyyy4) kkkkkk ffff MMoooooooooo cccccccccccc bbbb ttee ffffffff rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (mmmmmmmmmm5), mmmmmmmmmm5 = FFFF5 (yyyyyyyy yyyy5) kkkkkk ffff φφ (FFFF1 + FFFF1 + FFFF2 + FFFF4 + FFFF5) φφφφφφφφ = kkkkkk 1000 φφ (mmmmmmmmmm + mmmmmmmmmm1 + mmmmmmmmmm2 + mmmmmmffss4 + mmmmmmmmmm5) φφφφφφφφ = kkkkkk ffff

27 Interaction Diagram and Summary of Points Calculated Figure 9: Summary of te Point Calculated A-E Figure 10: Interaction Diagram of Column A-2 : Beam Strengt Calculations Beam in Negative Moment Region Line 2 Sample Calculation Dimensions of te beam bb = 15 iiii, = 36 iiii, cccccccccc (cccc) = 2 iiii, cccccccccc oooo oooooooooooooooooooo rrrrrr (cccccc) = 1.5 iiii Number of #10 rebar and dimensions nnnnnnnnnnnn oooo rrrrrrrrrrrr (nn) = 7, aaaaaaaa ooff eeeeee #10 rrrrrrrrrr = 1.27 iiii 2 tttttttttt aaaaaaaa oooo rrrrrrrrrr (AAAA) = 8.89 iiii 2 Concrete and rebar properties cccccccccccccccc ssssssssssssss (ffffff) = 4,000 pppppp, mmmmmmmmmmmmmm ssssssssssss oooo cccccccccccccccc (eeeeee) = rrrrrrrrrr ssssrrrrrrrrrr (ffff) = 60,000 pppppp, YYYYYYYYgg ss mmmmmmmmmmmmmm oooo ssssssssss (EEEE) = 29,000,000 pppppp Procedure to find te maximum design moment for a reinforced concrete beam dddddddd (dd) = cccc = 36 iiii 2 iiii = 34 iiii dddddddd tttt bbbbbbbbbbbb mmmmmmmm rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (dddd) = cccccc = 36 iiii 1.5 iiii = 34.5 iiii FFFFFFFFFF iiii ttee ssssssssss (FFFF) = AAAA ffff = 8.89 iiii 2 60,000 pppppp = 533,400 llll 25

28 EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE ssssssssssss bbbbbbbbbb dddddddd (aa) = = iiii FFFF 0.85 ffffff bb = 533,400 llll ,000 pppppp 15 iiii YYYYYYYYYY ssssssssssss oooo ssssssssss (eeeeee) = ffff EEEE = 60,000 pppppp 29,000,000 pppppp = PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP tttt dddddddddddd ttee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ssssssssssss bbbbbbbbbb (ββ) = 0.85 DDiiiiiiiiiiiiii ffffffff ssssssss iiii cccccccccccccccccccccc tttt nnnnnnnnnnnnnn aaaaaaaa (cc) = aa ββ SSSSSSSSSSSS iiii ttee rrrrrrrrrr (eeee) = eeeeee (dddd cc) cc = = iiii (34.5 iiii iiii) iiii = iiii = NNNNNNNNNNNNNN ffffffffffffffff ssssssssssssss (MMMM) = FFFF (dd aa 2 ) iiii 533,400 llll (34 iiii = 2 ) = kkkkkk ffff SSSSSSSSSSSSSS rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ffffffffffff (φφ) = 0.9 DDDDDDDDDDDD FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF SSSSSSSSSSSSSS (MMMM) = φφ MMMM = kkkkpp ffff = kkkkkk ffff Figure 11: Robot Analysis of Critical Beam EB5 located on te 2nd floor Slab Strengt Calculations To calculate te strengt capacity of te slab, first te slab was catorized between one and two way action. Next, a one foot widt of slab in te direction of one-way load transfer was taken and ten applied wit a uniformally distributed factored load. Te maximnm applied sear, positive and negative moment were found using ACI coefficents. Tis value was ten compared 26

29 to te slab strengt, wic was calculated using te ACI equivalent rectangular stress block for concrete compression at ultimate metod listed in ACI Sections and Slab Strengt Calculations Material Properties UUUUUUUU WWWWWWWWtt oooooooooott WWWWWWWWtt CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC (wwww), wwww = 115 pppppp 28 dddddd CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC SSSSSSSSSSSSSS oooo CCCCCCCCCCeeeeee (ffffff), ffffff = 4000 pppppp YYYYYYYYYY SSSSSSSSSSSS oooo ttee RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR SSSSSSSSSS (ffff), ffff = 60,000 pppppp YYYYYYYYYY ss MMMMMMMMMMMMMM oooo SSSSSSSSSS (EEEE), EEEE = 29,000,000 pppppp YYYYYYYYgg ss MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM SSSSSSSSSS (EEEE), EEEE = 33 wwww 1.5 ffffff pppppp Dimensions of te Slab and Beams BBBBBBBB oooo ttee bbbbbbbb (bbbb), bbbb = 14 iiii HHHHHHHHtt oooo ttee bbbbbbbb (bb), bb = 36 iiii TTiiiiiiiiiiiiii oooo ttee SSSSSSSS (tttt), tttt = 8 iiii AAAAAAAAAAAAAA SSSSSSSSSSSSSS oooo ttee bbbbbbbbbb (bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb), bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb = 18 ffff BBBBBBBB SSSSSSSS, (LL1), LL1 = 59 ffff CCeeeeeeeeeeee ffffff 1 wwwwww aaaaaaaaaaaa: LL1 2, TTTTTTTT tteeeeeeeeeeeeee iiii iiii aa oooooo wwwwww ssssssss 20 CCCCCCCCCC SSSSSSSSSS: 18 ffff ssssssss (LLLL18) = 18 bbbb 12 = ffff (aaaaaaaa dddddddd ffffff ttee 17 aaaaaa 20 ffffffff ssssssssss) Reinforcement Data DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD oooo bbbbbb gggggggggg BB, CC (bbbbbb4dddddd), bbbbbb4dddddd =.5 iiii DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD oooo ttee TTTTTTTT (dddd), dddd =.5 iiii CCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCC (cccc), cccc = 1.5 iiii CCCCCCCCCC (cc0), cc0 = cccc +.5 bbbbbb4dddddd iiii dddddddd oooo rrrrrrrrrr (dd), dd = bb cc0 iiii Calculate te Flexural Strengt of te Slab dddddddd (dd) = tttt cccc = 8 iiii 1.5 iiii = 6.25 iiii dddddddd tttt bbbbbbbbbbbb mmmmmmmm rrrrrr oooo rrrrrrrrrr (dddd) = tttt cccccc = 8 iiii 1.5 iiii = 6.25iiii uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu bbbbbb4aaaaaaaa AAAAAAAA oooo SSSSSSSSSS rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr (AAAA) = AAAA = bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb = iiii 2 /12 in widt of slab FFFFFFFFFF iiii ttee ssssssssss (FFFF) = AAAA ffff = iiii 2 60,000 pppppp = 8000 llll 27

30 EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE ssssssssssss bbbbbbbbbb dddddddd (aa) = = iiii FFFF 0.85 ffffff bb = 8000 llll ,000 pppppp 12 iiii YYYYYYYYYY ssssssssssss oooo ssssssssss (eeeeee) = ffff EEEE = 60,000 pppppp 29,000,000 pppppp = PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP tttt dddddddddddd ttee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ssssssssssss bbbbbbbbbb (ββ) = 0.85 DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD ffffffff ssssssss iiii cccccccccccccccciiiiii tttt nnnnnnnnnnnnnn aaaaaaaa (cc) = aa ββ SSSSSSSSSSSS iiii ttee rrrrrrrrrr (eeee) = eeeeee (dddd cc) cc = = iiii (6.25 iiii iiii) iiii = iiii = iiii/iiii NNNNNNNNNNNNNN ffffffffffffffff ssssssssssssss (MMMM) = FFFF (dd aa 2 ) iiii 8000 llll (6.25 iiii = 2 ) = kkkkkk ffff SSSSSSSSSSSSSS rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ffffffffffff (φφ) = 0.9 PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP DDDDDDDDDDDD FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF SSSSSSSSSSSSSS (MMMMMMMMMM) = φφ MMMM = kkkkkk ffff = kkkkkk ffff NNNNNNaaaaaaaaaa DDDDDDDDDDDD FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF SSSSSSSSSSSSSS (MMMMMMMMMM) = φφ MMMM = kkkkkk ffff = kkkkkk ffff Calculate te Sear Strengt of te Slab λλ = 1 2 λλ ffffff 12 dd SSeeeeee RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR oooo ttee CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC ssssssss, VVVV = = 9.49 kkkkkk 1000 SSeeeeee RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr cceeeeee, VVVV <.5 VVVV, TTTTTTTT, TTeeeeeeeeeeeeee nnnn sseeeeee rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr iiii rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. LRFD Design Load Applied to te Slab Calculations Calculate te Uniformly Distributed Factored Load sssssssssssssssstt = tttt 8 wwww = 115 = pppppp SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS LLLLLLLL LLLLLLLL, llll = 61.7 pppppp DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDD LLLLLLLL, wwww = (sssssssssssssssstt) 1 =.0767 kkkkkk/fftt 1000 DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD LLLLLLLL LLLLLLLL, wwww = llll 1 =.0617 kkkkkk/ffff

31 DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF LLLLLLLLLLLLLL, wwww = 1.2 wwww wwww kkkkkk/ffff Use te ACI coefficients to determine te Design Moments and Sear Force MMMMMMMMmmmmmm aaaaaaaaaaaaaa pppppppppppppppp mmmmmmmmmmmm, MMMMMMMMMM = wwww MMMMMMMMMMMMMM aaaaaaaaaaaaaa pppppppppppppppp mmmmmmmmmmmm, MMMMMMMMMM = wwww MMMMMMMMMMMMMM aaaaaaaaaaaaaa sseeeeee ffffffffff, VVVV = 1.15 wwww = 4.35 kkkkkk ffff = 5.64 kkkkkk ffff 12 = 1.74 kkkkkk Figure 12: ACI Design Sear and Moment Coefficients LRFD Design Load Applied to te Slab Calculations 29

32 Appendix B Construction Cost Estimate Details Materials Item Quantity Unit Cost Estimate ($) per unit Total Material Cost ($) Loose Soil Material and Delivery* 1,350 CY $ $202,500 Prairie Smoke 1,000 SF $0.02 $20 Black-eyed Susan 5,000 SF $0.02 $100 Little Bluestem 10,000 SF $0.02 $200 Turf 12,000 SF $0.80 $9,600 Mulc 150 CY $30.00 $4,500 PVC Waterproofing Membrane 40,000 SF $1.50 $60,000 Stone walkway 9,755 SF $4.00 $39,020 Landscaping Bricks (retaining Wall) 5,700 Per $4.50 $25,650 Landsaping caps 1,300 Per $4.23 $5,499 Base of Multipurpose area 2,000 SF $5.00 $10,000 Picnic Tables 6 Per $ $1,800 Bences 6 Per $ $2,490 $361,379 Labor (time based on crew and days spent)** Item Quantity Unit Cost Estimate ($) per unit Total Labor Cost ($) Waterproofers 80 Team rs 365 $29,200 Planting (Plants / grasses / mulc) 8 Team rs 365 $2,920 Laying Stone 60 Team rs 365 $21,900 Assembling Terraces 95 Team rs 365 $34,675 Installing tables / bences 4 Team rs 365 $1,460 $90,155 TOTAL SUBCOST $451,534 TOTAL COST W/ 15% CONTINGENCY $519,264 *includes cost of pnuematic placement **Assuming 4 Laborers and 1 Supervisor working at $70 and $85 per our respectively 30

33 Appendix C Supplemental Drawings Figure 13: Retaining Wall structure between end terraces and turf areas Figure 14: Retaining wall structure between terrace levels 31

34 Figure 15: Garden Design Alternative 1 Figure 16: Garden Design Alternative 2 32