SOW Att 4 - JBER H21 FP Upgrade (29Sep22).pdf

Alaska Air National Guard Hangar 21 Fall Protection Upgrades (Revision 1)

Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson

Hangar 21

Fall Protection Upgrades, Revision 1

800 F Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501

(907) 276-6664

Coffman Project #210502

FINAL REPORT – 29 September 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Scope 1

Site Visit 1

Existing Fall Protection System 2

Recommended Fall Protection System Upgrades 3

Conclusion 7

Appendix A: Analysis of Existing W12x22 Ceiling Grid Members for Fall Protection System Loading

Appendix B: Select Record Drawings for Reference

Scope

Coffman was asked by the Alaska Air National Guard (AANG) to research options for upgrading the existing fall protection systems in the east and west bays of Hangar 21 on Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER).

Both bays have fall protection systems configured for C-17 aircraft, but AANG wishes to potentially replace the fall protection systems. AANG also wishes to add a system to protect personnel maintaining a C-130 in one of the bays. Coffman was asked to consider the C-130 dimensions and determine the optimal overhead position of the new fall protection infrastructure, as well as provide suggestions for connecting the system to the existing structure.

The following objectives are desired by AANG:

Base Bid In the west bay (Corrosion Control Hangar [CCH] which has a paint booth), add a non-proprietary fall protection system that will provide protection for personnel maintaining a C-130. The CCH currently has a proprietary fall protection system in place above the fuselage and wings of a C-17. As such, the new C- 130 system need only be positioned above the wings of a C-130.

Additive Alternate 1 In the east bay (Home Station Check [HSC] hangar), demolish the existing proprietary fall protection system and replace it with a non-proprietary fall protection system. The existing fall protection system is configured to provide protection for personnel maintaining the fuselage, wings, and tail of a C-17. The new fall protection system will provide fall protection over the same general areas as the existing system.

However, the new system will provide improved extents of protection above the C-17 wings, and provide more continuous travel at the C-17 tail.

Additive Alternate 2 In the west bay (CCH), demolish the existing proprietary fall protection system that is currently above the wings and fuselage of a C-17. Install a non-proprietary system over the wings and fuselage of a C-17.

The base bid and additive alternates are discussed in greater detail later in the report. We understand that the AANG intends to include this report in a forthcoming Design-Build (D-B) Request for Proposal (RFP). As such, the D-B contractor’s Architect-Engineer (A-E) team will be responsible for the final design of the new fall protection systems discussed in this report.

Site Visit

Two site visits were conducted by AANG and Coffman personnel. The first was conducted on 5 March 2021 and focused on the CCH, at a time when only the base bid was being considered. The second site visit was conducted on 25 May 2022 after the AANG decided on a non-proprietary system and the add Additive Alternates 1 and 2. As such, the second site visit focused on the HSC hangar.

During the first site visit, and the existing CCH fall protection system was viewed from slab level while a C-17 was parked inside. At the low ceiling area (between grids L and X), the interstitial space between the paint booth ceiling and the roof structure was observed. Lastly, C-130s were observed in a separate hangar.

During the second site visit, the HSC hangar roof structure was observed from slab level while a C-17 was parked inside. Hangar 12 was also visited to observe the non-proprietary fall protection system the AANG wishes to mimic at the HCC and HSC hangar.

Existing Fall Protection System

The existing proprietary fall protection systems in the CCH and HSC hangar consist of two parallel fixed overhead tracks with movable trolley tie-off points. In the CCH, the tracks are positioned above a parked C-17’s fuselage and wingspan. There is no fall protection system above the C-17 tail in the CCH because tail access in the CCH is provided by a telescoping mast platform. In the HSC hangar, the tracks are positioned above a parked C-17’s fuselage, wings, and tail. The parallel tracks allow personnel working in a common area to pass by one another. The systems were designed by Flexible Lifeline Systems (FLS) and were installed during the hangar’s original construction. The systems’ tracks are FLS’s proprietary “FlexRail” product, complete with FLS’s proprietary steel wheel trolley and FlexRail end stops.

In the HCC, the existing fall protection system is hung from the paint booth ceiling grid that support the ceiling panels, foam generators, lighting, draft curtain, and other mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) equipment and distribution systems. The grid structure consists of W12x22 beams spanning perpendicular to and suspended from the HCC’s open-web steel girder trusses (reference record drawings Z315, Z703, and Z704, and Figure 2 below). Each pair of parallel FlexRail tracks are attached to the bottom of a w-beam. The beam is secured to the W12 ceiling grid members with steel angles fabricated into u-shape assemblies that penetrate the paint booth ceiling panels and connect to the top and web of the W12 grid members (reference record drawings Z705 through Z711 and Figure 3 below). The design of the fall protection system and its connections to the W12 ceiling grid was done by FLS.

Figure 1 – Photo of interstitial space between paint booth ceiling and roof structure in the CCH

In the HSC hangar, the low roof and fuselage rails are hung from the bottom chords of the open-web steel girder trusses (see record drawings Z702 and Z712). The high roof tail rails span between the W33 wide-flange beams and pass through the webs of the open-web steel joists (see record drawings Z702, Z727, and Z728). There are overhead bridge cranes present in the HSC hangar low and high roof areas.

The existing fall protection systems’ rails are installed above the path of travel of the bridge cranes.

Figure 2 – Way in which the existing CCH fall protection system is connect to the existing W12 ceiling grid members. A similar detail, at the discretion of the D-B contractor’s SEOR, may be feasible for installing the new non-proprietary fall protection system(s).

Recommended Fall Protection System Upgrades

It was expressed to Coffman that the AANG desires to use non-proprietary fall protection systems in Hangar 21. As such, the D-B contractor should use an off-the-shelf beam trolley with rollers that rest on the bottom flange of a standard hot-rolled structural steel member. The basis of design is a 3M DBI-SALA beam trolley, model number 210314. This is designed to be installed on a wide-flange beams with flanges three to eight inches wide and a maximum of 11/16 inches thick. Attached to the beam trolley will be a self-retracting lifeline. The basis of design is a 3M DBI-SALA Ultra-Lok, model number 3504480. A carabiner (basis of design: 3M DBI-SALA Saflok, model number 2000112) is needed to connect the self-retracting lifeline to the beam trolley. The D-B contractor shall furnish and install the trolley beams, beam trolley, carabiner, and self-retracting lifeline at each wing, tail (where applicable), and fuselage locationh (see Figure 3). The bases of design apply to the base bid, Additive Alternate 1, and Additive Alternate 2.

The AANG desires that the new fall protection system(s) have “pass-by” capabilities, allowing for two persons connect to the same fall protection system to pass by one another. To accomplish this, Coffman’s recommendation is that two parallel wide-flange beams be installed adjacent to each other, with a beam trolley hung from both beams. Each beam should have only one beam trolley per client request. This is a departure from the existing C-17 fall protection systems, which have multiple trolleys on each wing track.

Base Bid In the CCH, we recommend adding two parallel W6x15 beams, one beam pair over each C-130 wing, perpendicular to the existing fall protection system that aligns with a parked plane’s fuselage. The new beams should extend approximately 60 ft in both directions from grid 6. Less than 60 ft may result in deficient fall protection coverage near the C-310 wing tips. More than 60 ft will likely conflict with existing foam generators. The optimal position for the new C-130 fall protection beams appears to be along grid ~U.7, directly under and parallel to existing W12x22 ceiling grid members. The A-E team’s structural engineer of record (SEOR) may opt to position the new fall protection system slightly to the north of grid ~U.7 to distribute its weight amongst multiple existing W12 ceiling grid members. This location allows the new system to be installed far enough to the south to avoid crossing paths with the existing diagonal C- 17 wing fall protection tracks. Additionally, the proposed location will position the C-130 tail far enough south so that it does not obstruct the designated travel space for the CCH’s telescopic mast platform.

Please reference Figure 3 and Figure 4 below.

The existing C-17 fall protection system, the tracks, and the beams supporting them are oriented either perpendicular or diagonal to the existing W12 ceiling grid members. This means that the existing C-17 fall protection system’s self-weight is distributed amongst multiple adjacent W12s. With the proposed C-130 system, however, the self-weight of the new system will be more heavily exerted on one or two existing W12s (along grid ~U.7). Coffman performed a preliminary analysis of the existing W12x22 ceiling grid members along grid ~U.7 (refer to Appendix A). We conservatively assumed that the new system will be hung from a single row of existing W12s. Two live load conditions on the W12s were considered. The first condition incorporated the full distributed live load from the interstitial space above, plus a concentrated live load from one person falling. The second condition considered the concentrated live load from two people falling simultaneously, with the interstitial space distributed live load omitted. The locations of the concentrated live loads were selected such that they produced the most severe loading effects on the W12.

Our analysis revealed that, at select areas, the existing W12 has inadequate residual capacity to resist the dynamic loading effects from a fall arrest event. So, some reinforcement of the existing W12s, such as hangers installed mid-span that connect to the roof structure above, may be necessary. If hangers are provided, it is recommended they are designed and installed to avoid imparting a concentrated load on the existing truss chords away from panel points. In lieu of installation of hangers to reduce the W12's span, the D-B contractor could consider reinforcing the W12 by welding on additional steel (e.g. flange plates or channels) to increase W12 section properties, or provide additional compression flange bracing of the W12s. Preliminary calculations show that the existing W12s have adequate capacity with full bracing of the compression flange. The as-built condition only provides compression flange bracing at approximately 1/3 points of the W12 span length. The final design of the fall protection system upgrades, including analysis of its effects on the existing structure and required retrofits, shall be the responsibility of the D-B contractor’s SEOR.

Figure 3 – Proposed location for CCH new fall protection beams for C-130

Figure 4 – Photo of proposed location in CCH for new fall protection system for C-130

Additive Alternate 1 A complaint from end users of the HSC hangar fall protection system is that the existing system’s wing rails are not adequately centered above a parked C-17’s wings (see Figure 6 below). As such, the system does not serve its intended function near the wing tips. The D-B contractor will be responsible for adequately centering the new fall protection system above a parked C-17’s wings.

The end users have another complaint regarding the HSC hangar’s tail fall protection system. As discussed previously, the rails of the existing system pass through the webs of the existing open-web steel joists (OWSJs). The trollies in the rails cannot travel the full length of the rails, since they conflict at every OWSJ.

Consequently, the existing tail rails have a trolley between each adjacent OWSJ. Personnel attached to the current system must reconnect to a new lifeline every time they want to travel beyond an existing OWSJ, or every 10 feet. The existing tail fail protection rails were presumably installed at their current elevations to avoid the overhead bridge crane below.

Figure 5 – In the HSC hangar, the existing rails are not adequately centered above a parked C-17’s wings

The AANG desires an HSC hangar tail fall protection system with continuous beam on either side of the C- 17 tail. This will require the D-B contractor to connect the fall protection beams to the underside of the OWSJ, while having the new system (beam, trolley, and self-retracting lifeline) be shallow enough to avoid the path of travel of the overhead bridge crane. The D-B contractor’s SEOR may need to select beams shallower that those to be used elsewhere. Instead of wide-flange beams, WT sections may be required.

Refer to record drawing S146 for the high roof framing plan; record drawings Z401, Z404, Z405, and Z406 for bridge crane information; and record drawings Z702, Z727, and Z728 for existing tail fall protection information.

For ease of installation of the new system, it is assumed that the D-B contractor will demolish the existing fall protection beams/rails to accommodate the new beams. The new beams should be approximately the same size (if not smaller) as the demolished beams. As such, no preliminary analysis was performed by Coffman of the existing roof structure, since the Additive Alternate 1 work will be more-or-less an in-kind replacement. The final design of the Additive Alternate 1 fall protection system replacement, including analysis of the effects on the existing structure and required retrofits, shall be the responsibility of the D- B contractor’s SEOR.

Additive Alternate 2 Similar to the HSC Hangar, the AANG reports that the existing fall protection wing rails in the CCH are not adequately centered above a parked C-17’s wings. The D-B contractor will be responsible for adequately centering the new fall protection system above a parked C-17’s wings.

For ease of installation of the new system, it is assumed that the D-B contractor will demolish the existing fall protection beams/rails to accommodate the new beams. The new beams should be approximately the same size (if not smaller) as the demolished beams. As such, no preliminary analysis was performed by Coffman of the existing roof structure, since the Additive Alternate 1 work will be more-or-less an in-kind replacement. The final design of the Additive Alternate 1 fall protection system replacement, including analysis of the effects on the existing structure and required retrofits, shall be the responsibility of the D- B contractor’s SEOR.

The D-B contractor shall be responsible for reinstating the architectural assemblies/elements affected by work in the CCH. If connection details similar to the existing FLS details are used (see Figure 3), then the existing paint booth ceiling panels will need to be penetrated and re-sealed. It may be worth considering welding connections to the exposed bottom flange of the W12 ceiling grid members. This could allow the system to be bolted without modifying the paint booth enclosure, but would require touch-up painting of the beams’ white finish.

Conclusion

In summary, the AANG desires, at a minimum, to have a non-proprietary fall protection system added to the CCH to protect personnel maintaining a C-130. The AANG additionally desires to have the C-17 proprietary fall protection systems replaced with non-proprietary systems in the CCH and HSC hangar. In the CCH, the beams need to be positioned such that they are adequately centered over a parked C-17’s wings. In the HSC hangar, the beams need to be positioned such that they are adequately centered over a parked C-17’s wings, and the tail fall protection beam needs to provide continuous beam trolley travel.

For the base bid work in the CCH, we recommend that the new fall protection system over the C-130 wings be installed along or near gridline ~U.7, as illustrated in Figure 3 and Figure 4 above. All new systems shall incorporate two parallel beams with one trolley per beam. Bolting or welding to the existing CCH paint booth ceiling grid structure may be pursued, but the A-E team’s design should consider constructability and the required rework of affected interior finishes. Depending on the final fall protection system beam locations, the existing paint booth ceiling grid structure may require reinforcement to adequately resist the system’s self-weight plus the dynamic live loading during a fall arrest event.

Appendix A

Analysis of Existing W12x22 Ceiling Grid

Members for Fall Protection System

Loading

Note: The following calculations were valid for the previous version of this report, when the approach was to install a proprietary track-like fall protection system in the CCH for a C-130. The following calculations determined that some reinforcement/retrofit of the existing CCH ceiling grid is likely. The updated approach is to install a non-proprietary system, which will be heavier because it uses two beams instead of one beam. Since the new fall protection system is assumed heavier than that of the previous approach, some reinforcement/retrofit of the existing CCH ceiling is, by inspection, likely.

Consistent with uninhabitable attics with storage or storage areas above ceilings per ASCE 7. While the ceiling space isn't intended for storage, due to its accessibility and height from ceiling surface to structure above makes 20psf a more reasonable code interpretation than an uninhabitable attic w/o storage with 10psf.

Steel Beam COFFMAN ENGINEERSLic. # : KW-06003501

DESCRIPTION: Check (e) W12x22 at paint booth ceiling grid (3 spans) - Condition 1

Coffman Engineers, Inc.

800 F Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501

(907) 276-6664

Software copyright ENERCALC, INC. 1983-2020, Build:12.20.6.27 File: Hangar 21 fall protection.ec6

Project Title: Hangar 21 Fall Protection Upgrades Engineer: DAM Project ID: 210502

Printed: 8 APR 2021, 12:31PM

Project Descr:

CODE REFERENCES

Calculations per AISC 360-10, IBC 2012, CBC 2013, ASCE 7-10 Load Combination Set : ASCE 7-16 Material Properties

Analysis Method :

ksi

Bending Axis : Major Axis Bending Beam bracing is defined Beam-by-Beam Allowable Strength Design Fy : Steel Yield : 50.0 ksi

Beam Bracing : E: Modulus : 29,000.0

Unbraced Lengths Span # 1, Defined Brace Locations, First Brace at ft, Second Brace at 18.938 ft, Third Brace at 10.938 ft Span # 2, Defined Brace Locations, First Brace at ft, Second Brace at 20.0 ft, Third Brace at 12.0 ft Span # 3, Defined Brace Locations, First Brace at ft, Second Brace at 20.0 ft, Third Brace at 12.0 ft

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

Uniform Load on ALL spans : D = 0.010, L = 0.020 ksf, Tributary Width = 6.031 ft

Load for Span Number 2 Uniform Load : D = 0.0360 k/ft, Tributary Width = 1.0 ft, (Fall Protection System)

Load for Span Number 3 Uniform Load : D = 0.0360 k/ft, Tributary Width = 1.0 ft, (Fall Protection System)

Point Load : L = 3.60 k @ 23.250 ft, (Fall Arrest Event, 1 Person)

.Design N.G.DESIGN SUMMARY Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = 1.412 : 1

Load Combination +D+L+H

Span # where maximum occurs Span # 3 Location of maximum on span 23.290ft

6.295 k Mn / Omega : Allowable 31.161 k-ft Vn/Omega : Allowable

W12x22Section used for this span

Span # where maximum occurs Location of maximum on span

Span # 2

Load Combination +D+L+H

63.960 k

Section used for this span W12x22 Ma : Applied

Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0.098 : 1

33.917 ft

43.993 k-ft Va : Applied

0 <360

Ratio = 2479 >=180

Maximum Deflection Max Downward Transient Deflection 0.000 in 0Ratio = <360 Max Upward Transient Deflection 0.000 in Ratio = Max Downward Total Deflection 1.499 in Ratio = >=180 Max Upward Total Deflection -0.164 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 = 10.74 ft 1 0.131 0.016 6.37 6.37 81.04 48.53 1.39 1.00 1.03 95.94 63.96 Dsgn. L = 8.11 ft 1 0.127 0.008 6.51 4.89 6.51 85.25 51.05 1.04 1.00 0.52 95.94 63.96 Dsgn. L = 14.03 ft 1 0.174 0.030 4.89 -10.46 10.46 100.47 60.16 2.50 1.00 1.89 95.94 63.96 Dsgn. L = 11.98 ft 2 0.143 0.030 3.70 -10.46 10.46 122.08 73.10 2.48 1.00 1.89 95.94 63.96 Dsgn. L = 7.91 ft 2 0.090 0.007 4.64 3.70 4.64 85.99 51.49 1.03 1.00 0.47 95.94 63.96 Dsgn. L = 14.02 ft 2 0.245 0.038 3.73 -14.40 14.40 97.98 58.67 2.44 1.00 2.43 95.94 63.96 Dsgn. L = 11.98 ft 3 0.202 0.038 6.24 -14.40 14.40 119.17 71.36 2.39 1.00 2.43 95.94 63.96

DESCRIPTION: Check (e) W12x22 at paint booth ceiling grid (3 spans) - Condition 1

Coffman Engineers, Inc.

800 F Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501

(907) 276-6664

Software copyright ENERCALC, INC. 1983-2020, Build:12.20.6.27 File: Hangar 21 fall protection.ec6

Project Title: Hangar 21 Fall Protection Upgrades Engineer: DAM Project ID: 210502

Printed: 8 APR 2021, 12:31PM

Project Descr:

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 = 7.91 ft 3 0.187 0.016 10.55 6.24 10.55 94.12 56.36 1.12 1.00 1.01 95.94 63.96 Dsgn. L = 14.02 ft 3 0.347 0.025 10.57 10.57 50.83 30.44 1.27 1.00 1.58 95.94 63.96

+D+L+H Dsgn. L = 10.74 ft 1 0.348 0.042 17.14 17.14 82.26 49.26 1.41 1.00 2.69 95.94 63.96 Dsgn. L = 8.11 ft 1 0.353 0.018 17.77 14.57 17.77 84.02 50.31 1.02 1.00 1.14 95.94 63.96 Dsgn. L = 14.03 ft 1 0.379 0.062 14.57 -21.38 21.38 94.29 56.46 2.35 1.00 3.99 95.94 63.96 Dsgn. L = 11.98 ft 2 0.294 0.056 4.27 -21.38 21.38 121.31 72.64 2.44 1.00 3.57 95.94 63.96 Dsgn. L = 7.91 ft 2 0.100 0.018 5.32 2.39 5.32 89.01 53.30 1.06 1.00 1.18 95.94 63.96 Dsgn. L = 14.02 ft 2 0.736 0.098 2.39 -37.66 37.66 85.45 51.17 2.13 1.00 6.29 95.94 63.96 Dsgn. L = 11.98 ft 3 0.535 0.098 20.61 -37.66 37.66 117.48 70.35 2.36 1.00 6.29 95.94 63.96 Dsgn. L = 7.91 ft 3 0.667 0.054 40.29 20.61 40.29 100.91 60.42 1.20 1.00 3.43 95.94 63.96 Dsgn. L = 14.02 ft 3 1.412 0.085 43.99 43.99 52.04 31.16 1.30 1.00 5.41 95.94 63.96

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

Overall Maximum Deflections

+D+L+H 1 0.6446 14.903 0.0000 0.000 +D+L+H+D+H 2 0.0971 15.828 -0.1642 27.586

+D+L+H 3 1.4994 19.446 0.0000 27.586

Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 Support 3 Support 4 Vertical Reactions Support notation : Far left is #1 Values in KIPS

Overall MAXimum 2.685 10.8277.558 5.409 Overall MINimum 1.035 4.5533.561 1.582 +D+H 1.035 4.5533.561 1.582 +D+L+H 2.685 10.8277.558 5.409

DESCRIPTION: Check (e) W12x22 at paint booth ceiling grid (3 spans) - Condition 2

Coffman Engineers, Inc.

800 F Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501

(907) 276-6664

Software copyright ENERCALC, INC. 1983-2020, Build:12.20.6.27 File: Hangar 21 fall protection.ec6

Project Title: Hangar 21 Fall Protection Upgrades Engineer: DAM Project ID: 210502

Printed: 8 APR 2021, 12:42PM

Project Descr:

CODE REFERENCES

Calculations per AISC 360-10, IBC 2012, CBC 2013, ASCE 7-10 Load Combination Set : ASCE 7-16 Material Properties

Analysis Method :

ksi

Bending Axis : Major Axis Bending Beam bracing is defined Beam-by-Beam Allowable Strength Design Fy : Steel Yield : 50.0 ksi

Beam Bracing : E: Modulus : 29,000.0

Unbraced Lengths Span # 1, Defined Brace Locations, First Brace at ft, Second Brace at 18.938 ft, Third Brace at 10.938 ft Span # 2, Defined Brace Locations, First Brace at ft, Second Brace at 20.0 ft, Third Brace at 12.0 ft Span # 3, Defined Brace Locations, First Brace at ft, Second Brace at 20.0 ft, Third Brace at 12.0 ft

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

Uniform Load on ALL spans : D = 0.010 ksf, Tributary Width = 6.031 ft

Load for Span Number 2 Uniform Load : D = 0.0360 k/ft, Tributary Width = 1.0 ft, (Fall Protection System)

Load(s) for Span Number 3 Point Load : L = 7.20 k @ 23.250 ft, (Fall Arrest Event, 2 People Simultaneously)

Uniform Load : D = 0.0360 k/ft, Tributary Width = 1.0 ft, (Fall Protection System)

.Design N.G.DESIGN SUMMARY Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = 1.765 : 1

Load Combination +D+L+H

Span # where maximum occurs Span # 3 Location of maximum on span 23.290ft

5.973 k Mn / Omega : Allowable 32.171 k-ft Vn/Omega : Allowable

W12x22Section used for this span

Span # where maximum occurs Location of maximum on span

Span # 3

Load Combination +D+L+H

63.960 k

Section used for this span W12x22 Ma : Applied

Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0.093 : 1

33.917 ft

56.793 k-ft Va : Applied

0 <360

Ratio = 1183 >=180

Maximum Deflection Max Downward Transient Deflection 0.000 in 0Ratio = <360 Max Upward Transient Deflection 0.000 in Ratio = Max Downward Total Deflection 1.774 in Ratio = >=180 Max Upward Total Deflection -0.344 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 = 10.74 ft 1 0.131 0.016 6.37 6.37 81.04 48.53 1.39 1.00 1.03 95.94 63.96 Dsgn. L = 8.11 ft 1 0.127 0.008 6.51 4.89 6.51 85.25 51.05 1.04 1.00 0.52 95.94 63.96 Dsgn. L = 14.03 ft 1 0.174 0.030 4.89 -10.46 10.46 100.47 60.16 2.50 1.00 1.89 95.94 63.96 Dsgn. L = 11.98 ft 2 0.143 0.030 3.70 -10.46 10.46 122.08 73.10 2.48 1.00 1.89 95.94 63.96 Dsgn. L = 7.91 ft 2 0.090 0.007 4.64 3.70 4.64 85.99 51.49 1.03 1.00 0.47 95.94 63.96 Dsgn. L = 14.02 ft 2 0.245 0.038 3.73 -14.40 14.40 97.98 58.67 2.44 1.00 2.43 95.94 63.96 Dsgn. L = 11.98 ft 3 0.202 0.038 6.24 -14.40 14.40 119.17 71.36 2.39 1.00 2.43 95.94 63.96

DESCRIPTION: Check (e) W12x22 at paint booth ceiling grid (3 spans) - Condition 2

Coffman Engineers, Inc.

800 F Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501

(907) 276-6664

Software copyright ENERCALC, INC. 1983-2020, Build:12.20.6.27 File: Hangar 21 fall protection.ec6

Project Title: Hangar 21 Fall Protection Upgrades Engineer: DAM Project ID: 210502

Printed: 8 APR 2021, 12:42PM

Project Descr:

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 = 7.91 ft 3 0.187 0.016 10.55 6.24 10.55 94.12 56.36 1.12 1.00 1.01 95.94 63.96 Dsgn. L = 14.02 ft 3 0.347 0.025 10.57 10.57 50.83 30.44 1.27 1.00 1.58 95.94 63.96

+D+L+H Dsgn. L = 10.74 ft 1 0.157 0.018 7.90 7.90 83.95 50.27 1.44 1.00 1.18 95.94 63.96 Dsgn. L = 8.11 ft 1 0.169 0.006 8.42 7.57 8.42 83.11 49.77 1.01 1.00 0.37 95.94 63.96 Dsgn. L = 14.03 ft 1 0.169 0.024 7.57 -5.77 7.57 74.99 44.91 1.87 1.00 1.53 95.94 63.96 Dsgn. L = 11.98 ft 2 0.079 0.019 0.39 -5.77 5.77 122.08 73.10 2.74 1.00 1.21 95.94 63.96 Dsgn. L = 7.91 ft 2 0.071 0.018 0.21 -5.17 5.17 122.08 73.10 2.21 1.00 1.15 95.94 63.96 Dsgn. L = 14.02 ft 2 0.825 0.082 -0.00 -32.87 32.87 66.53 39.84 1.66 1.00 5.24 95.94 63.96 Dsgn. L = 11.98 ft 3 0.480 0.082 21.43 -32.87 32.87 114.44 68.53 2.30 1.00 5.24 95.94 63.96 Dsgn. L = 7.91 ft 3 0.751 0.060 47.97 21.43 47.97 106.69 63.89 1.27 1.00 3.82 95.94 63.96 Dsgn. L = 14.02 ft 3 1.765 0.093 56.79 56.79 53.73 32.17 1.34 1.00 5.97 95.94 63.96

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

Overall Maximum Deflections

+D+L+H 1 0.3346 15.561 0.0000 0.000 +D+L+H2 0.0000 15.561 -0.3441 23.742

+D+L+H 3 1.7735 19.672 0.0000 23.742

Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 Support 3 Support 4 Vertical Reactions Support notation : Far left is #1 Values in KIPS

Overall MAXimum 1.178 8.0463.561 5.973 Overall MINimum 1.035 4.5532.736 1.582 +D+H 1.035 4.5533.561 1.582 +D+L+H 1.178 8.0462.736 5.973

Appendix B

Select Record Drawings for Reference