Possible solution to past CM examination question

Question 1 - April 1987

Nuclear Laboratory

by Dr Peter Gardner

The information provided should be seen as an interpretation of the brief and a possible solution to a past question offered by
an experienced engineer with knowledge of the examiners’ expectations (i.e. it's an individual's interpretation of the brief
leading to one of a number of possible solutions rather than the definitive "correct" or "model" answer).
First impressions

This structure is a very geometrically simple building but of significant proportions. Buildings of
this size are probably outside most young engineer's experience but it's really only a matter of scale,
albeit that "normal" section sizes will not be appropriate. It is a very useful question to illustrate
what is required, because when we've finished we will have two very clear "distinct and viable"
solutions, which have application for many questions, and we do not get too bogged down in detail
(as can happen with more geometrically complex questions), which can cloud the bigger picture.

The sheer size of the structure belies its simplicity and for candidates who are not daunted, it is
actually a very straightforward question. As with many of the questions there are a few issues that
may not be immediately apparent; part of the skill is to recognise tricky areas early on. There are
two significant issues, both connected with the doors that would cause problems if they were
missed.

At this point you are advised to read the question and make your assessment of the brief.
Endeavour to understand every aspect of the description, diagrams and data. When you have done
this, read on.

The key aspects of the question are:

• large spans and heavy loads

• a clear internal space (my advice here would be to treat this as an absolute requirement (not
even a light knee brace at the very highest level - if you infringe any specific requirement,
you run the risk of being judged "not to have met the brief", which is generally an
automatic fail, so why take the risk),
• a complex set of loads many of which are intermittent,
• the doors
• and reasonable ground two metres down (with poor ground above).

It is evident from the outset that there are going to be significant loads, and large sections.

The question clearly states that the building is "clad in concrete panels", but it does not state how
much they weigh, and although it doesn't specifically say so, it is clear that the roof, and more
importantly the doors, are also concrete clad. Over the years some candidates have suggested that
either the roof or the doors are not clad in concrete, but I cannot see any logic in that conclusion.
The building is a nuclear facility and is subject to blast pressures, the concrete cladding would
therefore be specified to resist blast and/or contain radiation. There is little point in cladding three
sides of the building with concrete, if the doors are clad in a lightweight material. It's unusual for a
question to need this sort of lateral thinking to establish the basic parameters, but a little thought
brings one to the natural conclusion that all four sides and the roof are concrete clad. Because of the
weight, this has significant implications for follow-on design.

Although the basic question is very straightforward, the doors are a complicating factor that may
not be entirely apparent on the first read-through. The doors are of significant size, and the question
clearly states that they are top hung. As we have the top hung doors of substantial weight, you
should be starting to conclude that there are structurally important issues to be resolved in this area.

There is a complex set of loads that cannot be combined by simple addition. Some of the loads
produce downward vertical forces on the roof and/or negative pressure in the building, and others
produce up-lift on the roof and/or positive pressure in the building. It's also highly unlikely that all
the loads would be experienced at the same time, making load combinations an issue. Although the
question doesn't specifically say so, the central point load is likely to be crane load and the doors are
clearly a “dominant opening” in terms of wind. Therefore design loads are likely to be a
combination of dead load, plus crane, blast and wind (with various combinations of wind direction
and doors being open or shut). It could be argued that there is a significantly lower probability of
maximum up-lift, maximum wind and maximum crane loads occurring at the same time, and it
could also be argued that it is impossible to generate the maximum blast pressure when the doors
are open. All these issues need to be resolved, probably resulting in a maximum uplift/pressure and
a maximum downward load/suction.

At this point you are advised to stop reading these notes and devise your own " distinct and viable
schemes" that fully meet the brief. Once you have done this, continue to see my attempt.

Functional framing, load transfer and stability, resulting in two distinct and viable structural
solutions

The first issue is to get a feel for the overall size of the elements, and a likely construction
arrangement. Span depth ratios are invaluable in this situation. Using a ratio of 1:10 gives us a
construction depth of five metres. This effectively precludes any standard steel sections and
therefore leads us to steel lattice construction.

There are two obvious structural forms, one of which is to utilise portal action via a lattice
moment-resisting frame that would have inherent stability in the plane of the frame, and need
bracing in the other direction. We have already established that five metres would seem a
reasonable depth for the roof, and this could be reduced to say four metres for the columns, or
perhaps taken as five metres for roof and columns. The portal frame itself would be more effective
with fixed column bases, but with a building of this size, fixed bases will generate significant
moments in the foundations, which may be difficult to resist, so pinned foundations are proposed.

The bracing arrangement needs to be thought about, but with a grid spacing of say five metres,
there is plenty of room to provide adequate roof braces (at both ends of the building) transferring
loads into vertical braces at each corner. As the building is clad in concrete, there is also the
possibility of using the cladding as a diaphragm (you should always be looking for two possible
ways of dealing with any particular problem).

The alternative scheme would be to use a beam and stick arrangement, sacrificing the inherent
stability of a portal frame and providing stability with a second set of bracing, again using five
metre deep lattice rafters, and five metre deep lattice columns.
Figure 1 - Scheme 1
Figure 2 - Scheme 2
My recommendation would be to select the second scheme on the basis of simplicity and ease of
construction (having the major advantage that it is far more straightforward to design when you get
to part 2c of the question!).

They are a few other possible alternatives including vertical cantilevers supporting simply
supported lattice roof beams, a 3D space frame supported on four large corner columns, or an
arrangement utilising towers and tensile members supporting the roof with forces taken back to the
tower. Although I would strongly recommend the two solutions proposed above, an initial
appraisal of an even wider range of options can do nothing but impress the examiners by illustrating
that you can see various solutions that you have honed down to two formal proposals.

Specific elements

Cladding planks

These are a critical component, and certainly should be categorised as a principal element. They are
important for two reasons, firstly they set the grid spacing and secondly are a significant factor in
the overall weight of the structure. They are likely to be simply supported concrete panels,
reinforced in both faces (due to load reversal).

Door support mechanisms

Although the question specifically excludes the design of the doors, it does not exclude the
influence the doors have on the supporting structure, and as mentioned already they have a
significant impact. We have already established that the doors are top hung and made of concrete
and this immediately suggests a deflection issue.

There is also the issue of supporting the doors when they are open. Assuming there are two separate
20 metre leaves, when they are open the doors will protrude beyond the building line and thus need
a separate support mechanism. This can be overcome by having four ten-metre doors supported on
two tracks, meaning that the doors will be contained within the overall building envelope when
they are open. This has the added benefit of halving the load on the supporting structure (ie two
door-support structures). By utilising the maximum depth available (10 metres from the top of the
door to the underside of the roof plus an additional five metres construction depth) we end up with
a 15 metre deep door support structure, spanning 40 metres, which should be capable of dealing
with the loads without excessive deflection (it's the thinking process, recognising that defection
could be an issue and proposing appropriate solutions that's required - this will be well rewarded
with marks if it is thought through).

The other issue relates to the reaction at the top of the doors which becomes a significant horizontal
force applied 10m below the roof level. This needs to be dealt with, probably with a horizontal
girder or a series of knee braces (but not positioned in the “clear internal space”).
Foundations

There is really no choice as far as foundations are concerned. It is not realistic to found above the
chalk, and there is nothing of any better quality below, therefore the proposal is pads founded on
the chalk.

Ground floor slab

This is potentially problematic, because there is a high ground floor load on weak soil (silt). It is
therefore not appropriate to support the ground floor directly on the soil, but equally it is unrealistic
to remove the silt (it is 2m deep) to found on the chalk. This suggests a more engineered solution,
possibilities using mini piles, ground improvement etc. If for instance a mini piled solution was
proposed, the piles, associated ground beams and the slab would have to be designed. Probably the
most appropriate solution is a grid of trench-fill foundations laid across the whole site with a
two-way spanning slab on top. This gives an easy to construct and simple to design solution.

Summary

Although on the surface this question looks daunting, it is actually very straightforward once your
mind has acclimatised to the size and high loads. The only slightly problematic issue is the
significance of the doors and their interaction with the rest of the structure, which although routine,
may not be fully appreciated on the first read-through.

It's easy to produced two distinct and viable schemes that have application across many questions
(which is why I use this particular question on preparation courses).