MWG_Structural Inspec.Report.12.22.2020_0002.pdf

P H O E N I X | 3 2 4 0 E U N I O N H I L L S D R . , S U I T E 1 4 5 | 4 8 0 . 3 8 2 . 7 3 7 0 T U C S O N | 3 5 0 1 E A S T S P E E D W A Y B L V D . , S U I T E 2 2 5 | 5 2 0 . 3 2 7 . 9 4 9 1

Emailed to: Heath.Barger@sealaska.com

December 22, 2020

Heath Barger, Senior Project Manager Sealaska Construction Solutions, LLC 1200 6th Avenue, Suite 800 Seattle, WA 98101

Re: White Mountain Apache Correctional Facility Facility Structural Integrity Analysis

MWG: 20043.00

Dear Heath, We are pleased to submit this report for the White Mountain Apache Correctional Facility Structural Assessment.

The site visit was performed on October 19, 2020 by Andy DiLeo, P.E. & Luca Fusato P.E. of Martin White & Griffis Structural Engineers and by Justin Heinecke of Western Technologies Inc. Reports by Both MWG and Western Tech are attached to this cover letter.

Our general conclusion is that the structure of the facility is in good condition, however there are a number of items noted in the report for repair to prevent degradation of the structure.

Please contact us with any questions.

Sincerely, Prepared By: Andy DiLeo, P.E Supervised By: Warren White, P.E.

Principal Principal

P H O E N I X | 3 2 4 0 E U N I O N H I L L S D R . , S U I T E 1 4 5 | 4 8 0 . 3 8 2 . 7 3 7 0 T U C S O N | 3 5 0 1 E A S T S P E E D W A Y B L V D . , S U I T E 2 2 5 | 5 2 0 . 3 2 7 . 9 4 9 1

1.0 Structural Scope

This report contains the findings, assessment and conclusions resulting from a site visit and existing document review of the White Mountain Apache Tribe Department of Correctional Facility, Whiteriver, performed by Martin, White & Griffis Structural Engineers (MWG). This report is prepared to document the structural condition of the existing building and is focused on checking the adequacy, structural integrity and soundness of structures and their components. The assessment also evaluated the structure’s conformance to current building codes.

The facility is within Navajo County located off Fairground Road in Whiteriver. The approximate geographic coordinates are 33°48’13.89” North and 109°58’56.29” West. The existing Detention/Correctional Facility was constructed in 2010. Total square footage of the facility is 29,490 square feet. The building is a two-story masonry structure supported by conventional shallow spread footings with slab-on grade flooring. The exterior walls are concrete masonry units (CMU). Control joints were observed in the CMU at approximately thirty-feet intervals. Steel columns and masonry lintels are used to support the floor and roof structure.

Interior walls are CMU and metal framing with gypsum board wall/ceilings, acoustical lay-in ceiling at non-secure areas and pre-cast concrete cell blocks. Second level floors are precast concrete planks or metal deck with concrete topping supported by CMU bearing walls and steel beams and columns.

The facility houses 79 inmates, 37 administrative/kitchen staff, and 123 maximum intake use resulting in a total occupancy of 239.

The Google Earth image below depicts the site.

The onsite investigation was a building walk-through and was non-destructive in nature and limited to those areas of the structure which were exposed and readily observable. No surface materials were removed, no destructive testing undertaken, nor any furnishings moved. Visual observations of both the interior and exterior of the structure were performed on elements readily accessible at the date and time of our investigation. We are not responsible for conditions that could not be seen or were not within the scope of our service at the time of the inspection.

P H O E N I X | 3 2 4 0 E U N I O N H I L L S D R . , S U I T E 1 4 5 | 4 8 0 . 3 8 2 . 7 3 7 0 T U C S O N | 3 5 0 1 E A S T S P E E D W A Y B L V D . , S U I T E 2 2 5 | 5 2 0 . 3 2 7 . 9 4 9 1

This structural assessment and recommendations herein include the following scope of work:

1) Site visit on October 19, 2020. Visual observations were made of the existing facility conditions to evaluate any evidence of building movement, distress, and deterioration of building components.

Photographs during the site visit have been taken to document existing conditions.

2) The existing documents were reviewed. These include the original construction drawings dated 1/15/08 prepared by Merry Carnell Schlecht Architects, the original geotechnical report prepared by Terrane Engineering Corporation dated 8/29/2005, and a prior structural assessment report prepared by T.H.A.T Consultants dated 5/17/2019.

3) A condition assessment of the slabs, framing, columns, and walls was performed.

4) The existing geotechnical report was reviewed by Western Technologies, Inc. and visit the facility to observe site conditions and areas of suspected foundation settlement. See the attached report by Western Tech.

5) The structural assessment of the facility and conclusions of the investigation are summarized in this report. Recommendations for repairs and methods to stabilize the structure, are also included.

6) Construction drawings and details for structural repairs are beyond the scope of this report.

7) Cost estimate for repairs will be provided by Sealaska Construction and is not included in MWG’s scope of work.

The scope of this investigation and report does not include an investigation for mold, environmental investigations, indoor air quality analysis, municipal regulatory compliance, subsurface investigations or records research related to this building.

The opinions and conclusions developed by this investigation are based on sound engineering knowledge and judgement and are consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession. No other representation, expressed, or implied, and no warranty is included or intended.

P H O E N I X | 3 2 4 0 E U N I O N H I L L S D R . , S U I T E 1 4 5 | 4 8 0 . 3 8 2 . 7 3 7 0 T U C S O N | 3 5 0 1 E A S T S P E E D W A Y B L V D . , S U I T E 2 2 5 | 5 2 0 . 3 2 7 . 9 4 9 1

2.0 Site Visit and Observations

On October 19, 2020, MWG personnel Andy DiLeo P.E., S.E. and Luca Fusato P.E., S.E. conducted a site visit accompanied by BIA and WMAT DOC personnel. In general, the structural elements of the facility appear to be in good condition. The first-floor plan of the facility is shown below.

The following observations were made:

2.1 Lose/Broken masonry material at intersection with non-bearing walls

In the detention pod areas, where roof joists pass through non-bearing concrete masonry walls, we observed broken or missing masonry material.

The original structural detail 230 specifies that a void should be left in these walls around the roof joist and then filled with compressible material. This compressible material is intended to allow the roof joist to naturally move without putting stress on the wall. It appears that the voids around the joists were filled with masonry material which is resisting movement of the roof joists and stressing the masonry material until it cracks and becomes lose. The original design and detailing of this condition appear to be in conformance with building codes and standard engineering practice.

For location and details refer to the photos and key plan in Appendix A.

Photos 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30 and 33.

P H O E N I X | 3 2 4 0 E U N I O N H I L L S D R . , S U I T E 1 4 5 | 4 8 0 . 3 8 2 . 7 3 7 0 T U C S O N | 3 5 0 1 E A S T S P E E D W A Y B L V D . , S U I T E 2 2 5 | 5 2 0 . 3 2 7 . 9 4 9 1

2.2 Significantly distressed CMU at Door #104A

A significant amount of cracking was observed in the CMU at the east jamb of Door #104A. On the exterior side of the jamb a number of the CMU face shells have fallen away exposing the steel column embedded within the CMU wall. While embedding steel columns in the cells of CMU is typical practice, this five inch square column is a very tight fit and left no room for construction tolerances. While Detail 108 of the original drawings called for solid grouting the cells containing steel columns, no evidence of grouting was seen at this location. If this grout had been installed it may have prevented the face shells from falling off after cracking occurred.

Floor levelness testing performed by Western Tech during our site visit indicated that the floor slab slopes down as much as an inch in this area. The wall cracking combined with the sloping floor suggest that localized settling of foundations may be occurring in this area. MWG does not believe that the conditions observed represent an impending structural failure, but the cause of settlement should be determined, and efforts should be made to ensure that no further settlement occurs.

Water infiltration and/or poor soils in place during construction are common causes of foundation settlement. A source of water infiltration has not been readily identified in the area. At MWG’s recommendation, another party was hired to investigate the drain pipes of the facility with camera scopes.

No leaking pipes in the area of Door 104 were identified but two damaged pipes were identified in other areas. No apparent exterior source of water infiltration was found. Exterior pavement is present in the area and there are no adjacent roof downspouts.

Further investigation into the cause of settlement may require truck mounted soil sampling equipment to access the adjacent exterior area of the building which would require partial demolition of the sallyport fencing and pavement. This further investigation could represent a significant cost and impact to the operations of the facility.

Photos 6, 7, 9, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44.

2.3 Warped door frame at Door #104

Warping and cracking was observed in the frame of door #104A. A 16-inch steel beam serves as a door lintel according to the original construction documents. Because the steel column was immediately adjacent to door 104A the lintel was attached to the column for support. The distress of this door frame is another indication that localized settlement is occurring.

Photos 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15.

2.4 Cracks at interior and exterior walls

Multiple locations on the interior and exterior walls exhibit minor cracking that range from hairline cracks to 1/16 inch in width. Cracks of this magnitude are typical of masonry construction and do not represent a structural concern. This minor cracking could be caused by a small degree of foundation settlement, thermal effects, or shrinkage. Masonry control joint spacing is not specified in building codes and can vary between design office standards. It is the opinion of MWG that the relatively large spacing between masonry control joints in the walls of this facility probably contributed to the observed amount of cracking.

A condition was found for the exterior wall between narrow windows in the Dayroom 319, where the crack pass through the total thickness of the wall. This should be tucked and pointed by a qualified mason to prevent infiltration of water.

Photos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 16, 17, 18, 19, 28, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36 and 37

P H O E N I X | 3 2 4 0 E U N I O N H I L L S D R . , S U I T E 1 4 5 | 4 8 0 . 3 8 2 . 7 3 7 0 T U C S O N | 3 5 0 1 E A S T S P E E D W A Y B L V D . , S U I T E 2 2 5 | 5 2 0 . 3 2 7 . 9 4 9 1

2.5 Cracks at Control Room floor

The floor of the Central Control Room on Level 2 is constructed of concrete topping on metal deck. WMAT personnel present during the inspection indicated that the deck in this area failed during the construction process and had to be reinstalled. During our site visit, cracks were observed in the concrete slab propagating over the supporting walls in the center of the room and over the supporting beam and at the entrance. According to WMAT personnel, the cracks appeared shortly after construction. This cracking typically occurs in topping slabs where added reinforcing was not placed over supports. While unsightly, these cracks do not represent a structural concern. If patched with brittle material these cracks may open again as personal and/or equipment are moved within the room.

Photos 20 and 21.

2.6 Rough exposed concrete in Dayroom 315

In the Dayroom 315 a rough concrete surface was observed on the floor slab adjacent to the base of the wall. While identified in a report by others as the top of a foundation, this is probably not the case because the original drawings indicate that the foundation should be bearing at an elevation of two feet below the finished floor and the width of the foundation is not consistent with this rough area. This rough concrete surface is not a structural concern, but the facility may wish to repair this surface for other reasons.

Photo 38.

2.7 Exterior site condition

Roof drainage from the building is via scuppers that discharge into downspouts. These downspouts discharge directly onto the landscaping or sidewalk areas. In a number of locations water is not able to drain away from the building. Significant spalling and cracking of the sidewalks was observed at the main entry. This could have been caused by the roof drain downspout discharging directly onto the sidewalk since the original construction. This spalling has created an uneven surface not conducive to the heavy foot traffic at the main entry. It is likely the depressions in the concrete created by the spalling retain water and freeze during cold temperatures which may result in a slipping hazard.

In the Electric Yard Area, hot water was observed pouring from a pipe coming from the Mechanical Room

219. The WMAT personnel stated that this was a one-time occurrence on the day of the inspection, but we suggest confirming that the leaking has stopped and the pipe has been repaired to avoid the possibility of future soil settlement or erosion.

Cracking in the surface soil was observed along the external wall of the Chase Room 322 which suggests that the soil in this area is routinely saturated and dried. No signs of foundation settlement or cracking of the building wall was found in the area, but cracking was seen for the footing of the fence.

Photos 39, 45, 46, 47 and 48

P H O E N I X | 3 2 4 0 E U N I O N H I L L S D R . , S U I T E 1 4 5 | 4 8 0 . 3 8 2 . 7 3 7 0 T U C S O N | 3 5 0 1 E A S T S P E E D W A Y B L V D . , S U I T E 2 2 5 | 5 2 0 . 3 2 7 . 9 4 9 1

3.0 Structural Recommendations & Repairs

These structural recommendations are based on the preceding observations.

3.1 Lose/Broken masonry material at joist intersection with non-bearing walls

MWG believes that there is no risk of this condition causing a greater structural failure of the walls or roof of the building. We suggest that the masonry fill material is removed and replaced with a compressible material as originally detailed. This will allow the joists to naturally move and prevent any further cracking or loosening of masonry material at these locations.

3.2 Significantly distressed CMU at Door #104A

It is the opinion of MWG that foundation or soil settlement is the cause of the distressed CMU at Door #104A. We do not believe that the distress observed is a result of a flaw in the original building design.

Calculations supporting this conclusion were prepared by MWG. These calculations verify the capacity of the adjacent steel beams and column are included in Appendix B. We are aware of the solution proposed by T.H.A.T. Consultants in a previous report, but we are not in agreement and do not suggest replacing or moving the existing steel column.

The first step to repairs in this area should be to prevent any future settlement. This could include the use of helical piers, push piers, or pressure grouting. The soil testing and installation procedures involved with these solutions have the potential to significantly impact the operation of the facility. A qualified geotechnical engineer should be consulted to have discussions with the owner and contractor to determine the best way to proceed.

Once the settlement has been mitigated the damaged CMU around the column can be removed and replaced. The masonry cell containing the steel column should be solid grouted and veneer ties could be used to create a positive connection between the column and the masonry to prevent face shells from falling off in the future. The adjacent masonry control joint should be filled with a compressible material and the flashing on top of the parapet should be correctly installed to prevent water from entering at the junction of the shorter and taller wall areas.

3.3 Warped Door Frame at Door #104

Once the foundation settlement has been stopped the door frame should not experience any further distress. However, the observed cracking of the frame may allow water infiltration and corrosion of the frame. Replacement of the frame should be considered.

3.4 Cracks in interior and exterior building walls

The small cracks observed in interior and exterior masonry walls throughout the facility can be tucked and pointed by a qualified mason then painted to match the existing walls.

3.5 Cracks at Control Room Floor

As noted, these cracks are not a structural concern. Any cosmetic patches should be made with flexible material because we expect the floor to naturally flex as personnel and equipment are moved in the area.

P H O E N I X | 3 2 4 0 E U N I O N H I L L S D R . , S U I T E 1 4 5 | 4 8 0 . 3 8 2 . 7 3 7 0 T U C S O N | 3 5 0 1 E A S T S P E E D W A Y B L V D . , S U I T E 2 2 5 | 5 2 0 . 3 2 7 . 9 4 9 1

3.6 Rough exposed concrete in Cell Block

If the owner desires to repair this rough area in the floor, MWG suggests chipping the area down and applying an overlayment material such as Ardex. The depth of chipping should be coordinated with the manufacturer of the selected overlayment material.

3.7 Exterior Site Conditions

On the north side of the building where positive drainage away from the building is not achieved by the existing grade, an underground storm drain should be constructed to carry discharge from the roof downspouts away from the building. The pavement at the north entry should them be replaced.

3.8 Broken Pipes

The two broken pipes identified in investigations by others should be repaired. MWG does not believe that these conditions are contributing to the current settlement described in this report at because they’re not close to Door 104A. However, if left uncorrected water will continue to infiltrate below the building and future settlement may occur in other areas.

4.0 Conclusion

Based on the evidence visible at the time of the inspection, MWG considers the structure of the White Mountain Apache Tribe Department of Correctional Facility to be in good condition. We have not observed any conditions of significant structural concern. Nevertheless, the locations and items noted in Part 3 of this report do require some degree of repair/improvement to prevent continued deterioration. Such deterioration could ultimately pose significant structural concerns in the future and involve more complicated and disruptive methods of repairs. In our investigation of the original structural drawings MWG did not find any items that represent a building code violation or a deviation from what we consider standard structural engineering practice.

This report has been prepared in strict confidence with you as our client. No reproduction or re-use of this report for the benefit of others is permitted without expressed written consent, except as required by real estate regulation. Further, except as required by real estate regulation, we will not release this report to anyone without your permission.

P H O E N I X | 3 2 4 0 E U N I O N H I L L S D R . , S U I T E 1 4 5 | 4 8 0 . 3 8 2 . 7 3 7 0 T U C S O N | 3 5 0 1 E A S T S P E E D W A Y B L V D . , S U I T E 2 2 5 | 5 2 0 . 3 2 7 . 9 4 9 1

Appendix A Key Plans & Photos

PHOTO KEY PLAN 1

PHOTO KEY PLAN 2

PHOTO KEY PLAN 3

Location: Photo Taken by: Date:

White Mountain Apache Tribe Andy DiLeo, P.E., S.E. October 28, 2019 Department of Correctional Facility Luca Fusato, S.E.

Whiteriver, AZ

Description:

Cracked masonry wall near door 212A on corridor 304 side

Photo Number

Description:

Cracked masonry wall near door 112B on the corridor 304 side

Department of Correctional Facility Luca Fusato, S.E.

Whiteriver, AZ

Description:

Cracked masonry wall near door 112B wall near door 212A on kitchen 212 side

Department of Correctional Facility Luca Fusato, S.E.

Whiteriver, AZ wall near door 212A on kitchen 212 side – closer view

Broken CMU at the base of the steel column near door 104A

Department of Correctional Facility Luca Fusato, S.E.

Whiteriver, AZ

Description:

Broken CMU at the top of the steel column near door 104A

Warped door frame at door 104A

Department of Correctional Facility Luca Fusato, S.E.

Whiteriver, AZ

Description:

Cracked masonry from inside at the steel column near door 104A and evidence of previous repair where the steel beam W18x50 is supported by masonry block above steel lintel at door 104A

Department of Correctional Facility Luca Fusato, S.E.

Whiteriver, AZ

Description:

View from inside of where the steel beam W18x50 is supported by masonry block above steel lintel at door 104A (View 1)

View from inside of where the steel beam W18x50 is supported by masonry block above steel lintel at door 104A – (View 2)

Department of Correctional Facility Luca Fusato, S.E.

Whiteriver, AZ

Description:

View from inside of where the steel beam W18x50 is supported by masonry block above steel lintel at door 104A and steel beam W24x55 connects to the steel column (View 1)

View from inside of where the steel beam W18x50 is supported by masonry block above steel lintel at door 104A and steel beam W24x55 connects to the steel column (View 2)

Department of Correctional Facility Luca Fusato, S.E.

Whiteriver, AZ

Description:

Steel beam W24x68 and W24x55 connection to steel column near electric water cooler at Juv.

Booking Room

Cracks at the CMU wall corner in the Sallyport

Department of Correctional Facility Luca Fusato, S.E.

Whiteriver, AZ

Description:

Cracks at the CMU wall corner in the Sallyport

Cracked CMU on the external side of the Sallyport 303 above door

Department of Correctional Facility Luca Fusato, S.E.

Whiteriver, AZ

Description:

Cracks at the CMU wall corner in the Multi- Purpose Room 311 near door 311

Cracking of the concrete slab of the 2nd floor in the Central Control Room 455

Department of Correctional Facility Luca Fusato, S.E.

Whiteriver, AZ

Description:

Cracking of the concrete slab of the 2nd floor at the entrance of the Central Control Room 455, Door 455

Lose masonry material where roof joist pass through non-bearing concrete masonry wall above door 413

Department of Correctional Facility Luca Fusato, S.E.

Whiteriver, AZ

Description:

Lose masonry material where roof joist pass through non-bearing concrete above door 411 material where roof joist pass through non-bearing concrete above door 410

Department of Correctional Facility Luca Fusato, S.E.

Whiteriver, AZ

Description:

Lose masonry material where roof joist pass through non-bearing concrete masonry wall which separate the cells area to the Shell Space 403 material where roof joist pass through non-bearing concrete masonry wall which separate the

Department of Correctional Facility Luca Fusato, S.E.

Whiteriver, AZ

Description:

Lose masonry material where roof joist pass through non-bearing concrete masonry wall which separate the

CMU wall corner in the Chase Room

Department of Correctional Facility Luca Fusato, S.E.

Whiteriver, AZ

Description:

Lose masonry material where roof joist pass through non-bearing concrete masonry wall between door 448 and 449 material where roof joist pass through non-bearing concrete above door 451

Department of Correctional Facility Luca Fusato, S.E.

Whiteriver, AZ

Description:

Cracks at the CMU wall corner in the Cell 451

CMU wall corner in the Cell 451

Department of Correctional Facility Luca Fusato, S.E.

Whiteriver, AZ

Description:

Lose masonry material where roof joist pass through non-bearing concrete above door 454

Cracked CMU between narrow windows in the Dayroom 319 View from the outside

Department of Correctional Facility Luca Fusato, S.E.

Whiteriver, AZ

Description:

Cracked CMU between narrow windows in the Dayroom 319 Zoomed view from outside

Cracked CMU between narrow windows in the Dayroom 319 View from the inside

Department of Correctional Facility Luca Fusato, S.E.

Whiteriver, AZ

Cracked CMU in the Dayroom 319 at steel column location

Exposed footing in Dayroom 315

Department of Correctional Facility Luca Fusato, S.E.

Whiteriver, AZ

Description:

Hot water leaking in the Electric Yard Area from pipe coming from Mechanical Room

CMU at the interface between the tall and the short building in the Electric Yard Area

Department of Correctional Facility Luca Fusato, S.E.

Whiteriver, AZ

Description:

Cracking of the CMU at the interface between the tall and the short building in the Circulation Area 101A at the top of the short wall

CMU at the interface between the tall and the short building in the Circulation Area 101A

Department of Correctional Facility Luca Fusato, S.E.

Whiteriver, AZ

Description:

Cracking and evidence of previous repair of the CMU at the interface between the tall and the short building in the Electric Yard Area at the top of the short wall

CMU at the interface between the tall and the short building in the Electric Yard Area

Department of Correctional Facility Luca Fusato, S.E.

Whiteriver, AZ

Description:

Exterior view of the building from the entrance side

Roof drainage on the entrance side of the building

Department of Correctional Facility Luca Fusato, S.E.

Whiteriver, AZ

Description:

Soil settlement along the Chase Room 322

Soil settlement and cracked concrete footing along the external wall of the Chase Room 322

P H O E N I X | 3 2 4 0 E U N I O N H I L L S D R . , S U I T E 1 4 5 | 4 8 0 . 3 8 2 . 7 3 7 0 T U C S O N | 3 5 0 1 E A S T S P E E D W A Y B L V D . , S U I T E 2 2 5 | 5 2 0 . 3 2 7 . 9 4 9 1

Appendix B Supporting Calculations

Steel Beam MARTIN, WHITE & GRIFFIS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, INC.Lic. # : KW-06002641

DESCRIPTION: W18x50

Software copyright ENERCALC, INC. 1983-2020, Build:12.20.8.17 File: 20043_Apache.ec6

Project Title: Glandale Oasis Clarifier Engineer:

Project ID:

Project Descr:Angle Design

CODE REFERENCES

Calculations per AISC 360-10, IBC 2015, CBC 2016, ASCE 7-10 Load Combination Set : ASCE 7-16 Material Properties

Analysis Method :

ksi

Bending Axis : Major Axis Bending Completely Unbraced Allowable Strength Design Fy : Steel Yield : 50.0 ksi

Beam Bracing : E: Modulus : 28,000.0

.Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations.Applied Loads Beam self weight calculated and added to loading Load for Span Number 1

Varying Uniform Load : D= 0.7680->0.0, L= 0.320->0.0 k/ft, Extent = 0.0 -->> 22.0 ft, Trib Width = 1.0 ft, (Floor)

Uniform Load : D = 1.170 k/ft, Tributary Width = 1.0 ft, (Wall)

.Design OKDESIGN SUMMARY Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = 0.937 : 1

Load Combination +D+L+H

Span # where maximum occurs Span # 1 Location of maximum on span 10.434ft

21.399 k Mn / Omega : Allowable 114.232 k-ft Vn/Omega : Allowable

W18x50Section used for this span

Span # where maximum occurs Location of maximum on span

Span # 1

Load Combination +D+L+H

127.80 k

Section used for this span W18x50 Ma : Applied

Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0.167 : 1

0.000 ft

107.002 k-ft Va : Applied

0 <360

Ratio = 0 <180

Maximum Deflection Max Downward Transient Deflection 0.038 in 6,965Ratio = >=360 Max Upward Transient Deflection 0.000 in Ratio = Max Downward Total Deflection 0.417 in Ratio = >=180 Max Upward Total Deflection 0.000 in

.Maximum Forces & Stresses for Load Combinations

Span # Summary of Moment ValuesLoad Combination Summary of Shear ValuesMax Stress Ratios

M V Mmax -Mmax + Rm VnxMa Max Mnx/Omega Cb Va MaxMnx Vnx/OmegaSegment Length +D+H

Dsgn. L = 22.00 ft 1 0.852 0.149 97.20 97.20 190.60 114.13 1.14 1.00 19.05 191.70 127.80 +D+L+H

Dsgn. L = 22.00 ft 1 0.937 0.167 107.00 107.00 190.77 114.23 1.14 1.00 21.40 191.70 127.80 +D+Lr+H

Dsgn. L = 22.00 ft 1 0.852 0.149 97.20 97.20 190.60 114.13 1.14 1.00 19.05 191.70 127.80 +D+S+H

Dsgn. L = 22.00 ft 1 0.852 0.149 97.20 97.20 190.60 114.13 1.14 1.00 19.05 191.70 127.80 +D+0.750Lr+0.750L+H

Dsgn. L = 22.00 ft 1 0.916 0.163 104.55 104.55 190.60 114.13 1.14 1.00 20.81 191.70 127.80 +D+0.750L+0.750S+H

Dsgn. L = 22.00 ft 1 0.916 0.163 104.55 104.55 190.60 114.13 1.14 1.00 20.81 191.70 127.80 +D+0.60W+H

Dsgn. L = 22.00 ft 1 0.852 0.149 97.20 97.20 190.60 114.13 1.14 1.00 19.05 191.70 127.80 +D+0.750Lr+0.450W+H

Dsgn. L = 22.00 ft 1 0.852 0.149 97.20 97.20 190.60 114.13 1.14 1.00 19.05 191.70 127.80 +D+0.750S+0.450W+H

Dsgn. L = 22.00 ft 1 0.852 0.149 97.20 97.20 190.60 114.13 1.14 1.00 19.05 191.70 127.80 +0.60D+0.60W+0.60H

Dsgn. L = 22.00 ft 1 0.511 0.089 58.32 58.32 190.60 114.13 1.14 1.00 11.43 191.70 127.80

DESCRIPTION: W18x50

Software copyright ENERCALC, INC. 1983-2020, Build:12.20.8.17 File: 20043_Apache.ec6

Project Title: Glandale Oasis Clarifier Engineer:

Project ID:

Project Descr:Angle Design

Span # Summary of Moment ValuesLoad Combination Summary of Shear ValuesMax Stress Ratios

M V Mmax -Mmax + Rm VnxMa Max Mnx/Omega Cb Va MaxMnx Vnx/OmegaSegment Length +D+0.70E+0.60H

Dsgn. L = 22.00 ft 1 0.852 0.149 97.20 97.20 190.60 114.13 1.14 1.00 19.05 191.70 127.80 +D+0.750L+0.750S+0.5250E+H

Dsgn. L = 22.00 ft 1 0.916 0.163 104.55 104.55 190.60 114.13 1.14 1.00 20.81 191.70 127.80 +0.60D+0.70E+H

Dsgn. L = 22.00 ft 1 0.511 0.089 58.32 58.32 190.60 114.13 1.14 1.00 11.43 191.70 127.80

Location in SpanLoad CombinationMax. "-" Defl Location in SpanLoad Combination Span Max. "+" Defl Overall Maximum Deflections

+D+L+H 1 0.4171 10.874 0.0000 0.000

Location in SpanSpanMax. Downward Defl Location in SpanLoad Combination Span Max. Upward Defl Maximum Deflections for Load Combinations

+D+H 1 0.3792 10.937 0.0000 0.000 +D+L+H 1 0.4171 10.874 0.0000 0.000 +D+Lr+H 1 0.3792 10.937 0.0000 0.000 +D+S+H 1 0.3792 10.937 0.0000 0.000 +D+0.750Lr+0.750L+H 1 0.4076 10.937 0.0000 0.000 +D+0.750L+0.750S+H 1 0.4076 10.937 0.0000 0.000 +D+0.60W+H 1 0.3792 10.937 0.0000 0.000 +D+0.750Lr+0.450W+H 1 0.3792 10.937 0.0000 0.000 +D+0.750S+0.450W+H 1 0.3792 10.937 0.0000 0.000 +0.60D+0.60W+0.60H 1 0.2275 10.937 0.0000 0.000 +D+0.70E+0.60H 1 0.3792 10.937 0.0000 0.000 +D+0.750L+0.750S+0.5250E+H 1 0.4076 10.937 0.0000 0.000 +0.60D+0.70E+H 1 0.2275 10.937 0.0000 0.000 D Only 1 0.3792 10.937 0.0000 0.000 L Only 1 0.0379 10.623 0.0000 0.000

Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 Vertical Reactions Support notation : Far left is #1 Values in KIPS

Overall MAXimum 21.399 17.409 Overall MINimum 2.347 1.173 +D+H 19.052 16.236 +D+L+H 21.399 17.409 +D+Lr+H 19.052 16.236 +D+S+H 19.052 16.236 +D+0.750Lr+0.750L+H 20.812 17.116 +D+0.750L+0.750S+H 20.812 17.116 +D+0.60W+H 19.052 16.236 +D+0.750Lr+0.450W+H 19.052 16.236 +D+0.750S+0.450W+H 19.052 16.236 +0.60D+0.60W+0.60H 11.431 9.742 +D+0.70E+0.60H 19.052 16.236 +D+0.750L+0.750S+0.5250E+H 20.812 17.116 +0.60D+0.70E+H 11.431 9.742 D Only 19.052 16.236 L Only 2.347 1.173 H Only

.Steel Section Properties : W18x50

R xx =

1.650 in

Depth = 18.000 in

R yy =

7.380 in Sw = 34.900 in^4 K1 = 0.813 in Zy = 16.600 in^3 Kdesign = 0.972 in

J = 1.240 in^4

Flange Width = 7.500 in Flange Thick

0.570 in Zx = 101.000 in^3

Area

14.700 in^2 Weight = 50.000 plf

I xx = 800.00 in^4 S xx

88.90 in^3 Cw = 3,040.00 in^6Web Thick = 0.355 in

I yy = 40.100 in^4 S yy = 10.700 in^3 Wno = 32.700 in^2

Qf = 17.700 in^3 rts = 1.980 in Qw = 49.900 in^3 Ycg = 9.000 in

DESCRIPTION: W18x50

Software copyright ENERCALC, INC. 1983-2020, Build:12.20.8.17 File: 20043_Apache.ec6

Project Title: Glandale Oasis Clarifier Engineer:

Project ID:

Project Descr:Angle Design

DESCRIPTION: W18x50

Software copyright ENERCALC, INC. 1983-2020, Build:12.20.8.17 File: 20043_Apache.ec6

Project Title: Glandale Oasis Clarifier Engineer:

DESCRIPTION: Lintel W16x26

Software copyright ENERCALC, INC. 1983-2020, Build:12.20.8.17 File: 20043_Apache.ec6

Project Title: Glandale Oasis Clarifier Engineer:

Project ID:

Project Descr:Angle Design

CODE REFERENCES

Calculations per AISC 360-10, IBC 2015, CBC 2016, ASCE 7-10 Load Combination Set : ASCE 7-16 Material Properties

Analysis Method :

ksi

Bending Axis : Major Axis Bending Completely Unbraced Allowable Strength Design Fy : Steel Yield : 50.0 ksi

Beam Bracing : E: Modulus : 28,000.0

.Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations.Applied Loads Beam self weight calculated and added to loading

Uniform Load : D = 0.350 k/ft, Tributary Width = 1.0 ft, (Wall)

Point Load : D = 15.690, L = 1.170 k @ 4.0 ft, (Reaction from W18x50)

.Design OKDESIGN SUMMARY Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = 0.333 : 1

Load Combination +D+L+H

Span # where maximum occurs Span # 1 Location of maximum on span 4.000ft

9.934 k Mn / Omega : Allowable 110.279 k-ft Vn/Omega : Allowable

W16x26Section used for this span

Span # where maximum occurs Location of maximum on span

Span # 1

Load Combination +D+L+H

70.509 k

Section used for this span W16x26 Ma : Applied

Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0.141 : 1

0.000 ft

36.728 k-ft Va : Applied

0 <360

Ratio = 0 <180

Maximum Deflection Max Downward Transient Deflection 0.003 in 37,358Ratio = >=360 Max Upward Transient Deflection 0.000 in Ratio = Max Downward Total Deflection 0.041 in Ratio = >=180 Max Upward Total Deflection 0.000 in

.Maximum Forces & Stresses for Load Combinations

Span # Summary of Moment ValuesLoad Combination Summary of Shear ValuesMax Stress Ratios

M V Mmax -Mmax + Rm VnxMa Max Mnx/Omega Cb Va MaxMnx Vnx/OmegaSegment Length +D+H

Dsgn. L = 8.00 ft 1 0.312 0.133 34.39 34.39 184.17 110.28 1.30 1.00 9.35 117.75 70.51 +D+L+H

Dsgn. L = 8.00 ft 1 0.333 0.141 36.73 36.73 184.17 110.28 1.30 1.00 9.93 117.75 70.51 +D+Lr+H

Dsgn. L = 8.00 ft 1 0.312 0.133 34.39 34.39 184.17 110.28 1.30 1.00 9.35 117.75 70.51 +D+S+H

Dsgn. L = 8.00 ft 1 0.312 0.133 34.39 34.39 184.17 110.28 1.30 1.00 9.35 117.75 70.51 +D+0.750Lr+0.750L+H

Dsgn. L = 8.00 ft 1 0.328 0.139 36.14 36.14 184.17 110.28 1.30 1.00 9.79 117.75 70.51 +D+0.750L+0.750S+H

Dsgn. L = 8.00 ft 1 0.328 0.139 36.14 36.14 184.17 110.28 1.30 1.00 9.79 117.75 70.51 +D+0.60W+H

Dsgn. L = 8.00 ft 1 0.312 0.133 34.39 34.39 184.17 110.28 1.30 1.00 9.35 117.75 70.51 +D+0.750Lr+0.450W+H

Dsgn. L = 8.00 ft 1 0.312 0.133 34.39 34.39 184.17 110.28 1.30 1.00 9.35 117.75 70.51 +D+0.750S+0.450W+H

Dsgn. L = 8.00 ft 1 0.312 0.133 34.39 34.39 184.17 110.28 1.30 1.00 9.35 117.75 70.51 +0.60D+0.60W+0.60H

Dsgn. L = 8.00 ft 1 0.187 0.080 20.63 20.63 184.17 110.28 1.30 1.00 5.61 117.75 70.51 +D+0.70E+0.60H

DESCRIPTION: Lintel W16x26

Software copyright ENERCALC, INC. 1983-2020, Build:12.20.8.17 File: 20043_Apache.ec6

Project Title: Glandale Oasis Clarifier Engineer:

Project ID:

Project Descr:Angle Design

Span # Summary of Moment ValuesLoad Combination Summary of Shear ValuesMax Stress Ratios

M V Mmax -Mmax + Rm VnxMa Max Mnx/Omega Cb Va MaxMnx Vnx/OmegaSegment Length Dsgn. L = 8.00 ft 1 0.312 0.133 34.39 34.39 184.17 110.28 1.30 1.00 9.35 117.75 70.51

+D+0.750L+0.750S+0.5250E+H Dsgn. L = 8.00 ft 1 0.328 0.139 36.14 36.14 184.17 110.28 1.30 1.00 9.79 117.75 70.51

+0.60D+0.70E+H Dsgn. L = 8.00 ft 1 0.187 0.080 20.63 20.63 184.17 110.28 1.30 1.00 5.61 117.75 70.51

Location in SpanLoad CombinationMax. "-" Defl Location in SpanLoad Combination Span Max. "+" Defl

Overall Maximum Deflections

+D+L+H 1 0.0412 4.023 0.0000 0.000

Location in SpanSpanMax. Downward Defl Location in SpanLoad Combination Span Max. Upward Defl Maximum Deflections for Load Combinations

+D+H 1 0.0386 4.023 0.0000 0.000 +D+L+H 1 0.0412 4.023 0.0000 0.000 +D+Lr+H 1 0.0386 4.023 0.0000 0.000 +D+S+H 1 0.0386 4.023 0.0000 0.000 +D+0.750Lr+0.750L+H 1 0.0405 4.023 0.0000 0.000 +D+0.750L+0.750S+H 1 0.0405 4.023 0.0000 0.000 +D+0.60W+H 1 0.0386 4.023 0.0000 0.000 +D+0.750Lr+0.450W+H 1 0.0386 4.023 0.0000 0.000 +D+0.750S+0.450W+H 1 0.0386 4.023 0.0000 0.000 +0.60D+0.60W+0.60H 1 0.0232 4.023 0.0000 0.000 +D+0.70E+0.60H 1 0.0386 4.023 0.0000 0.000 +D+0.750L+0.750S+0.5250E+H 1 0.0405 4.023 0.0000 0.000 +0.60D+0.70E+H 1 0.0232 4.023 0.0000 0.000 D Only 1 0.0386 4.023 0.0000 0.000 L Only 1 0.0026 4.000 0.0000 0.000

Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 Vertical Reactions Support notation : Far left is #1 Values in KIPS

Overall MAXimum 9.934 9.934 Overall MINimum 0.585 0.585 +D+H 9.349 9.349 +D+L+H 9.934 9.934 +D+Lr+H 9.349 9.349 +D+S+H 9.349 9.349 +D+0.750Lr+0.750L+H 9.788 9.788 +D+0.750L+0.750S+H 9.788 9.788 +D+0.60W+H 9.349 9.349 +D+0.750Lr+0.450W+H 9.349 9.349 +D+0.750S+0.450W+H 9.349 9.349 +0.60D+0.60W+0.60H 5.609 5.609 +D+0.70E+0.60H 9.349 9.349 +D+0.750L+0.750S+0.5250E+H 9.788 9.788 +0.60D+0.70E+H 5.609 5.609 D Only 9.349 9.349 L Only 0.585 0.585 H Only

.Steel Section Properties : W16x26

R xx =

1.120 in

Depth = 15.700 in

R yy =

6.260 in Sw = 10.000 in^4 K1 = 0.750 in Zy = 5.480 in^3 Kdesign = 0.747 in

J = 0.262 in^4

Flange Width = 5.500 in Flange Thick

0.345 in Zx = 44.200 in^3

Area

7.680 in^2 Weight = 26.000 plf

I xx = 301.00 in^4 S xx

38.40 in^3 Cw = 565.00 in^6Web Thick = 0.250 in

I yy = 9.590 in^4 S yy = 3.490 in^3 Wno = 21.100 in^2

Qf = 6.950 in^3 rts = 1.380 in Qw = 21.600 in^3 Ycg = 7.850 in

DESCRIPTION: Lintel W16x26

Software copyright ENERCALC, INC. 1983-2020, Build:12.20.8.17 File: 20043_Apache.ec6

Project Title: Glandale Oasis Clarifier Engineer:

DESCRIPTION: Lintel W16x26

Software copyright ENERCALC, INC. 1983-2020, Build:12.20.8.17 File: 20043_Apache.ec6

Project Title: Glandale Oasis Clarifier Engineer:

DESCRIPTION: W24x55

Software copyright ENERCALC, INC. 1983-2020, Build:12.20.8.17 File: 20043_Apache.ec6

Project Title: Glandale Oasis Clarifier Engineer:

Project ID:

Project Descr:Angle Design

CODE REFERENCES

Calculations per AISC 360-10, IBC 2015, CBC 2016, ASCE 7-10 Load Combination Set : ASCE 7-16 Material Properties

Analysis Method :

ksi

Bending Axis : Major Axis Bending Completely Unbraced Allowable Strength Design Fy : Steel Yield : 50.0 ksi

Beam Bracing : E: Modulus : 28,000.0

.Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations.Applied Loads Beam self weight calculated and added to loading

Uniform Load : D = 2.390, L = 1.360 k/ft, Tributary Width = 1.0 ft, (Total)

.Design OKDESIGN SUMMARY Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = 0.712 : 1

Load Combination +D+L+H

Span # where maximum occurs Span # 1 Location of maximum on span 8.000ft

30.440 k Mn / Omega : Allowable 170.995 k-ft Vn/Omega : Allowable

W24x55Section used for this span

Span # where maximum occurs Location of maximum on span

Span # 1

Load Combination +D+L+H

167.461 k

Section used for this span W24x55 Ma : Applied

Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0.182 : 1

0.000 ft

121.760 k-ft Va : Applied

0 <360

Ratio = 0 <180

Maximum Deflection Max Downward Transient Deflection 0.053 in 3,602Ratio = >=360 Max Upward Transient Deflection 0.000 in Ratio = Max Downward Total Deflection 0.149 in Ratio = >=180 Max Upward Total Deflection 0.000 in

.Maximum Forces & Stresses for Load Combinations

Span # Summary of Moment ValuesLoad Combination Summary of Shear ValuesMax Stress Ratios

M V Mmax -Mmax + Rm VnxMa Max Mnx/Omega Cb Va MaxMnx Vnx/OmegaSegment Length +D+H

Dsgn. L = 16.00 ft 1 0.458 0.117 78.24 78.24 285.56 171.00 1.14 1.00 19.56 279.66 167.46 +D+L+H

Dsgn. L = 16.00 ft 1 0.712 0.182 121.76 121.76 285.56 171.00 1.14 1.00 30.44 279.66 167.46 +D+Lr+H

Dsgn. L = 16.00 ft 1 0.458 0.117 78.24 78.24 285.56 171.00 1.14 1.00 19.56 279.66 167.46 +D+S+H

Dsgn. L = 16.00 ft 1 0.458 0.117 78.24 78.24 285.56 171.00 1.14 1.00 19.56 279.66 167.46 +D+0.750Lr+0.750L+H

Dsgn. L = 16.00 ft 1 0.648 0.166 110.88 110.88 285.56 171.00 1.14 1.00 27.72 279.66 167.46 +D+0.750L+0.750S+H

Dsgn. L = 16.00 ft 1 0.648 0.166 110.88 110.88 285.56 171.00 1.14 1.00 27.72 279.66 167.46 +D+0.60W+H

Dsgn. L = 16.00 ft 1 0.458 0.117 78.24 78.24 285.56 171.00 1.14 1.00 19.56 279.66 167.46 +D+0.750Lr+0.450W+H

Dsgn. L = 16.00 ft 1 0.458 0.117 78.24 78.24 285.56 171.00 1.14 1.00 19.56 279.66 167.46 +D+0.750S+0.450W+H

Dsgn. L = 16.00 ft 1 0.458 0.117 78.24 78.24 285.56 171.00 1.14 1.00 19.56 279.66 167.46 +0.60D+0.60W+0.60H

Dsgn. L = 16.00 ft 1 0.275 0.070 46.94 46.94 285.56 171.00 1.14 1.00 11.74 279.66 167.46 +D+0.70E+0.60H

Dsgn. L = 16.00 ft 1 0.458 0.117 78.24 78.24 285.56 171.00 1.14 1.00 19.56 279.66 167.46 +D+0.750L+0.750S+0.5250E+H

Dsgn. L = 16.00 ft 1 0.648 0.166 110.88 110.88 285.56 171.00 1.14 1.00 27.72 279.66 167.46

DESCRIPTION: W24x55

Software copyright ENERCALC, INC. 1983-2020, Build:12.20.8.17 File: 20043_Apache.ec6

Project Title: Glandale Oasis Clarifier Engineer:

Project ID:

Project Descr:Angle Design

Span # Summary of Moment ValuesLoad Combination Summary of Shear ValuesMax Stress Ratios

M V Mmax -Mmax + Rm VnxMa Max Mnx/Omega Cb Va MaxMnx Vnx/OmegaSegment Length +0.60D+0.70E+H

Dsgn. L = 16.00 ft 1 0.275 0.070 46.94 46.94 285.56 171.00 1.14 1.00 11.74 279.66 167.46

Location in SpanLoad CombinationMax. "-" Defl Location in SpanLoad Combination Span Max. "+" Defl Overall Maximum Deflections

+D+L+H 1 0.1491 8.046 0.0000 0.000

Location in SpanSpanMax. Downward Defl Location in SpanLoad Combination Span Max. Upward Defl Maximum Deflections for Load Combinations

+D+H 1 0.0958 8.046 0.0000 0.000 +D+L+H 1 0.1491 8.046 0.0000 0.000 +D+Lr+H 1 0.0958 8.046 0.0000 0.000 +D+S+H 1 0.0958 8.046 0.0000 0.000 +D+0.750Lr+0.750L+H 1 0.1358 8.046 0.0000 0.000 +D+0.750L+0.750S+H 1 0.1358 8.046 0.0000 0.000 +D+0.60W+H 1 0.0958 8.046 0.0000 0.000 +D+0.750Lr+0.450W+H 1 0.0958 8.046 0.0000 0.000 +D+0.750S+0.450W+H 1 0.0958 8.046 0.0000 0.000 +0.60D+0.60W+0.60H 1 0.0575 8.046 0.0000 0.000 +D+0.70E+0.60H 1 0.0958 8.046 0.0000 0.000 +D+0.750L+0.750S+0.5250E+H 1 0.1358 8.046 0.0000 0.000 +0.60D+0.70E+H 1 0.0575 8.046 0.0000 0.000 D Only 1 0.0958 8.046 0.0000 0.000 L Only 1 0.0533 8.046 0.0000 0.000

Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 Vertical Reactions Support notation : Far left is #1 Values in KIPS

Overall MAXimum 30.440 30.440 Overall MINimum 10.880 10.880 +D+H 19.560 19.560 +D+L+H 30.440 30.440 +D+Lr+H 19.560 19.560 +D+S+H 19.560 19.560 +D+0.750Lr+0.750L+H 27.720 27.720 +D+0.750L+0.750S+H 27.720 27.720 +D+0.60W+H 19.560 19.560 +D+0.750Lr+0.450W+H 19.560 19.560 +D+0.750S+0.450W+H 19.560 19.560 +0.60D+0.60W+0.60H 11.736 11.736 +D+0.70E+0.60H 19.560 19.560 +D+0.750L+0.750S+0.5250E+H 27.720 27.720 +0.60D+0.70E+H 11.736 11.736 D Only 19.560 19.560 L Only 10.880 10.880 H Only

.Steel Section Properties : W24x55

R xx =

1.340 in

Depth = 23.600 in

R yy =

9.110 in Sw = 35.800 in^4 K1 = 1.000 in Zy = 13.300 in^3 Kdesign = 1.010 in

J = 1.180 in^4

Flange Width = 7.010 in Flange Thick

0.505 in Zx = 134.000 in^3

Area

16.200 in^2 Weight = 55.000 plf

I xx = 1,350.00 in^4 S xx

114.00 in^3 Cw = 3,870.00 in^6Web Thick = 0.395 in

I yy = 29.100 in^4 S yy = 8.300 in^3 Wno = 40.500 in^2

Qf = 19.300 in^3 rts = 1.720 in Qw = 66.100 in^3 Ycg = 11.800 in

DESCRIPTION: W24x55

Software copyright ENERCALC, INC. 1983-2020, Build:12.20.8.17 File: 20043_Apache.ec6

Project Title: Glandale Oasis Clarifier Engineer:

DESCRIPTION: W24x55

Software copyright ENERCALC, INC. 1983-2020, Build:12.20.8.17 File: 20043_Apache.ec6

Project Title: Glandale Oasis Clarifier Engineer:

Steel Column

DESCRIPTION: Column Check

Software copyright ENERCALC, INC. 1983-2020, Build:12.20.8.17 File: 20043_Apache.ec6

Project Title: Glandale Oasis Clarifier Engineer:

Project ID:

Project Descr:Angle Design

.Code References Calculations per AISC 360-10, IBC 2015, CBC 2016, ASCE 7-10 Load Combinations Used : ASCE 7-16 General Information

Steel Stress Grade Top & Bottom PinnedAnalysis Method :

, A500, Grade B, Fy = 46 ksi, Carbon Steel

12.0Overall Column Height ft

Top & Bottom FixityAllowable Strength

Fy : Steel Yield ksi29,000.0 ksi

Steel Section Name : HSS5x5x5/16

46.0 ft

E : Elastic Bending Modulus Y-Y (depth) axis :

X-X (width) axis :

Unbraced Length for buckling ABOUT Y-Y Axis = 12.0 ft, K = 1.0

Unbraced Length for buckling ABOUT X-X Axis = 12.0 ft, K = 1.0

Brace condition for deflection (buckling) along columns :

.Applied Loads Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations.

Column self weight included : 228.960 lbs * Dead Load Factor

AXIAL LOADS . . .

From Lintel: Axial Load at 8.0 ft, D = 9.250, L = 0.590 k From W24x55: Axial Load at 12.0 ft, D = 19.120, L = 10.880 k

.DESIGN SUMMARY

PASS Max. Axial+Bending Stress Ratio = 0.4070

Location of max.above base 0.0 ft

40.069 k

98.451 k

0.0 k-ft

Load Combination +D+L+H

Load Combination 0.0

21.026 k-ft

Bending & Shear Check Results

PASS Maximum Shear Stress Ratio =

0.0 k

0.0 : 1

Location of max.above base 0.0 ft At maximum location values are . . .

: 1

At maximum location values are . . .

k

21.026 k-ft

0.0 k-ft

Pa : Axial Pn / Omega : Allowable Ma-x : Applied Mn-x / Omega : Allowable Ma-y : Applied Mn-y / Omega : Allowable

Va : Applied Vn / Omega : Allowable

Maximum Load Reactions . .

(see tab for all)

Top along X-X 0.0 k Bottom along X-X 0.0 k Top along Y-Y 0.0 k Bottom along Y-Y 0.0 k

Maximum Load Deflections . . .

Along Y-Y 0.0 in at 0.0 ft above base for load combination :

Along X-X 0.0 in at 0.0 ft above base for load combination :

0.0

Maximum Axial + Bending Stress Ratios Maximum Shear Ratios Load Combination Stress Ratio Location Stress Ratio Status LocationStatus

Load Combination Results

Cbx Cby KxLx/Rx KyLy/Ry +D+H PASS PASS0.00 0.000 0.00 ftft0.290 1.00 1.00 75.79 75.79 +D+L+H PASS PASS0.00 0.000 0.00 ftft0.407 1.00 1.00 75.79 75.79 +D+Lr+H PASS PASS0.00 0.000 0.00 ftft0.290 1.00 1.00 75.79 75.79 +D+S+H PASS PASS0.00 0.000 0.00 ftft0.290 1.00 1.00 75.79 75.79 +D+0.750Lr+0.750L+H PASS PASS0.00 0.000 0.00 ftft0.378 1.00 1.00 75.79 75.79 +D+0.750L+0.750S+H PASS PASS0.00 0.000 0.00 ftft0.378 1.00 1.00 75.79 75.79 +D+0.60W+H PASS PASS0.00 0.000 0.00 ftft0.290 1.00 1.00 75.79 75.79 +D+0.750Lr+0.750L+0.450W+H PASS PASS0.00 0.000 0.00 ftft0.378 1.00 1.00 75.79 75.79 +D+0.750L+0.750S+0.450W+H PASS PASS0.00 0.000 0.00 ftft0.378 1.00 1.00 75.79 75.79 +0.60D+0.60W+0.60H PASS PASS0.00 0.000 0.00 ftft0.174 1.00 1.00 75.79 75.79 +D+0.70E+0.60H PASS PASS0.00 0.000 0.00 ftft0.290 1.00 1.00 75.79 75.79 +D+0.750L+0.750S+0.5250E+H PASS PASS0.00 0.000 0.00 ftft0.378 1.00 1.00 75.79 75.79 +0.60D+0.70E+H PASS PASS0.00 0.000 0.00 ftft0.174 1.00 1.00 75.79 75.79 k k-ft

Note: Only non-zero reactions are listed.

Load Combination X-X Axis Reaction Y-Y Axis ReactionAxial Reaction

@ Base @ Top@ Base @ Base @ Top

Maximum Reactions

@ Base @ Base@ Top @ Top Mx - End Moments My - End Moments

+D+H 28.599

Steel Column

DESCRIPTION: Column Check

Software copyright ENERCALC, INC. 1983-2020, Build:12.20.8.17 File: 20043_Apache.ec6

Project Title: Glandale Oasis Clarifier Engineer:

Project ID:

Project Descr:Angle Design k k-ft Note: Only non-zero reactions are listed.

Load Combination X-X Axis Reaction Y-Y Axis ReactionAxial Reaction

@ Base @ Top@ Base @ Base @ Top

Maximum Reactions

@ Base @ Base@ Top @ Top Mx - End Moments My - End Moments

+D+L+H 40.069 +D+Lr+H 28.599 +D+S+H 28.599 +D+0.750Lr+0.750L+H 37.201 +D+0.750L+0.750S+H 37.201 +D+0.60W+H 28.599 +D+0.750Lr+0.750L+0.450W+H 37.201 +D+0.750L+0.750S+0.450W+H 37.201 +0.60D+0.60W+0.60H 17.159 +D+0.70E+0.60H 28.599 +D+0.750L+0.750S+0.5250E+H 37.201 +0.60D+0.70E+H 17.159 D Only 28.599 Lr Only L Only 11.470 S Only W Only E Only H Only k k-ft Item

X-X Axis Reaction Y-Y Axis ReactionAxial Reaction @ Base @ Top@ Base @ Base @ Top

Extreme Reactions

Extreme Value @ Base @ Base@ Top @ Top Mx - End Moments My - End Moments

MaximumAxial @ Base 40.069 Minimum" MaximumReaction, X-X Axis Base 28.599 Minimum" 28.599 MaximumReaction, Y-Y Axis Base 28.599 Minimum" 28.599 MaximumReaction, X-X Axis Top 28.599 Minimum" 28.599 MaximumReaction, Y-Y Axis Top 28.599 Minimum" 28.599 MaximumMoment, X-X Axis Base 28.599 Minimum" 28.599 MaximumMoment, Y-Y Axis Base 28.599 Minimum" 28.599 MaximumMoment, X-X Axis Top 28.599 Minimum" 28.599 MaximumMoment, Y-Y Axis Top 28.599 Minimum" 28.599

.Maximum Deflections for Load Combinations Max. X-X Deflection Max. Y-Y Deflection DistanceLoad Combination Distance

+D+H 0.0000 0.000 0.000 ftft inin 0.000 +D+L+H 0.0000 0.000 0.000 ftft inin 0.000 +D+Lr+H 0.0000 0.000 0.000 ftft inin 0.000 +D+S+H 0.0000 0.000 0.000 ftft inin 0.000 +D+0.750Lr+0.750L+H 0.0000 0.000 0.000 ftft inin 0.000 +D+0.750L+0.750S+H 0.0000 0.000 0.000 ftft inin 0.000 +D+0.60W+H 0.0000 0.000 0.000 ftft inin 0.000 +D+0.750Lr+0.750L+0.450W+H 0.0000 0.000 0.000 ftft inin 0.000 +D+0.750L+0.750S+0.450W+H 0.0000 0.000 0.000 ftft inin 0.000 +0.60D+0.60W+0.60H 0.0000 0.000 0.000 ftft inin 0.000 +D+0.70E+0.60H 0.0000 0.000 0.000 ftft inin 0.000 +D+0.750L+0.750S+0.5250E+H 0.0000 0.000 0.000 ftft inin 0.000 +0.60D+0.70E+H 0.0000 0.000 0.000 ftft inin 0.000 D Only 0.0000 0.000 0.000 ftft inin 0.000 Lr Only 0.0000 0.000 0.000 ftft inin 0.000

LOAD TABLES

ASD - LH-SERIES

Joist Approx. Wt Depth Max Designation in Lbs. Per in Load

Linear Ft. inches (plf) (Joists only) < 29 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

24LH03 11 24 401 342 339 336 323 307 293 279 267 255 244 234 224 215 207 199

235 226 218 204 188 175 162 152 141 132 124 116 109 102 96

24LH04 12 24 491 419 398 379 360 343 327 312 298 285 273 262 251 241 231 222

288 265 246 227 210 195 182 169 158 148 138 130 122 114 107

24LH05 13 24 526 449 446 440 419 399 380 363 347 331 317 304 291 280 269 258

308 297 285 264 244 226 210 196 182 171 160 150 141 132 124

24LH06 16 24 708 604 579 555 530 504 480 457 437 417 399 381 364 348 334 320

411 382 356 331 306 284 263 245 228 211 197 184 172 161 152

24LH07 17 24 777 665 638 613 588 565 541 516 491 468 446 426 407 389 373 357

452 421 393 367 343 320 297 276 257 239 223 208 195 182 171

24LH08 18 24 829 707 677 649 622 597 572 545 520 497 475 455 435 417 400 384

480 447 416 388 362 338 314 292 272 254 238 222 208 196 184

24LH09 21 24 976 832 808 785 764 731 696 663 632 602 574 548 524 501 480 460

562 530 501 460 424 393 363 337 313 292 272 254 238 223 209

24LH10 23 24 1031 882 856 832 809 788 768 737 702 668 637 608 582 556 533 511

596 559 528 500 474 439 406 378 351 326 304 285 266 249 234

24LH11 25 24 1087 927 900 875 851 829 807 787 768 734 701 671 642 616 590 567

624 588 555 525 498 472 449 418 388 361 337 315 294 276 259

< 34 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

28LH05 13 28 415 337 323 310 297 286 275 265 255 245 237 228 220 213 206 199

219 205 192 180 169 159 150 142 133 126 119 113 107 102 97

28LH06 16 28 552 448 429 412 395 379 364 350 337 324 313 301 291 281 271 262

289 270 253 238 223 209 197 186 175 166 156 148 140 133 126

28LH07 17 28 623 505 484 464 445 427 410 394 379 365 352 339 327 316…