Dalhousie Parking Project Final Report

Dalhousie University (Sexton Campus) Department of Civil & Resource Engineering

CIVL4802 Capstone Project FINAL REPORT

DALHOUSIE PARKING PROJECT

TEAM 13

Andrew Eagen - B00607513 Christopher Wallace - B00579178

Ian Milne - B00605397 Kenzie MacDonald - B00534747

Submitted to: Andrea Doncaster, P.Eng.

Faculty Advisor

Colin Dickson, MBA, FEC, P.Eng. Farid Taheri, P.Eng.

Client:

Nathan Rogers, Assistant Director, Capital Planning

April 4th, 2016

EXECTIVE SUMMARY

WEMM Engineering has completed a full analysis of the parking needs and supply at

Dalhousie University. The key goal of this study is to develop an understanding of parking

at Dal and to cultivate a solution to the parking deficit faced by the University. This project

can be broken down into three main components. The assessment of Dalhousie’s current

parking infrastructure, the development and optimisation of sustainable strategies to

reduce the number of individuals taking personal vehicles to campus, and finally, the

design of an on-campus parking structure to increase the number of parking stalls on

University property.

This report will quantify Dalhousie’s parking resources and requirements and it will

outline four strategies to lower the number of cars coming to campus. It will then outline

the need for a parking structure and evaluate four potential locations on-campus. The

report will take the reader through the analysis of these potential sites and make a

suggestion toward the optimal location. Proceeding site selection, the report will evaluate

different functional design considerations for parking structures and suggest the best

options for a Dalhousie parkade. The report will then explain detailed structural designs

and members for the structure, it will also outline the work to be done in relation to site

preparation. Finally, a comprehensive cost estimate and investment recovery plan for the

structure will be outlined. This report defines the parking problem at Dalhousie University

and provides a comprehensive, multi-faceted solution.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................. v

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1. Scope of Work ....................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Site Location .......................................................................................................................................... 2

2. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1. Literature Review ................................................................................................................................ 4

2.2. Initial Conditions – Parking ............................................................................................................. 5

2.3. Initial Conditions – Possible Structure Sites ............................................................................. 7

2.4. Constraints ............................................................................................................................................. 9

3. DESIGN PROCESS ...................................................................................................................................... 11

3.1. Parking Structure Site Selection ................................................................................................. 12

3.2. Building Material Selection ........................................................................................................... 13

3.3. Design Loads ...................................................................................................................................... 14

4. DETAILS OF FINAL DESIGN .................................................................................................................. 16

4.1. Sustainable Solution Strategies ................................................................................................... 16

4.2. Parking Structure Functional Design ........................................................................................ 19

4.3. Parking Structure Structural Design ......................................................................................... 22

4.4. Preliminary Hydrological Considerations .............................................................................. 24

4.5. Foundation Considerations .......................................................................................................... 24

4.6. Cost Summary .................................................................................................................................... 26

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 29

ii

APPENDIX A – Division of Labour......................................................................................................... A-1

APPENDIX B – Supporting Calculations ............................................................................................. B-1

APPENDIX C – Gantt Chart of Project Progress ................................................................................ C-1

APPENDIX D – Potential Site Maps ....................................................................................................... D-1

APPENDIX E – TDM Significant Findings ............................................................................................ E-1

APPENDIX F– Detailed Site Selection Information.......................................................................... F-1

APPENDIX G – NBC of Nova Scotia as it Pertains to Parking Structures................................ G-1

APPENDIX H – Test Pit Logs .................................................................................................................... H-1

APPENDIX I – Functional Parking Structure Design ........................................................................ I-1

APPENDIX J – Site Preparation Cut and Fill Quantities .................................................................. J-1

APPENDIX K – Structure Drawings and Details .............................................................................. K-1

APPENDIX L – K-Wall S-Frame Analysis under Governing Earthquake Load ...................... L-1

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.2-1: Canadian University Parking Comparison ......................................................................... 6

Table 2.3-1: Initial Conditions of Potential Sites ...................................................................................... 9

Table 3.3-1: Dead Loads of Precast Members ......................................................................................... 14

Table 4.6-1: Cost Estimation Data ............................................................................................................... 27

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.2-1: Site Location, Halifax, NS ......................................................................................................... 2

Figure 1.2-2: Site Location, Dalhousie University Halifax Campus .................................................... 3

Figure 1.2-3: Site Location, LSC Parking Lot .............................................................................................. 3

Figure 2.2-1: Dalhousie Halifax Campuses Parking ................................................................................. 5

Figure 2.3-1: Site Location, Dunn Parking Lot ........................................................................................... 7

Figure 2.3-2: Site Location, Hancock Parking Lot..................................................................................... 8

Figure 2.3-3: Site Location, Wickwire Field ................................................................................................ 8

Figure 2.3-4: Site Location, LSC Parking Lot .............................................................................................. 8

Figure 2.4-1: Dalhousie Zoning ........................................................................................................................ 9

Figure 3-1: Design Process ............................................................................................................................. 11

Figure 3.1-1: Site Evaluation Results.......................................................................................................... 13

Figure 4.1-1: Transit Routes on Dalhousie Campus ............................................................................. 17

Figure 4.1-2: Bicycle Racks at Dalhousie .................................................................................................. 18

Figure 4.2-1: Isometric Floor Layout .......................................................................................................... 20

Figure 4.2-2: Structure Rendering............................................................................................................... 21

Figure 4.2-3: Structure within Campus Setting ...................................................................................... 22

v

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

CIP = Cast in place

HOV = High occupancy vehicle

I.S. = Individual System

LSC = Life Sciences Centre

m = Metres

mm = Millimetres

PCI = Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute

TDM = Transportation Demand Management

1 | P a g e

Final Report

1. INTRODUCTION

The client has requested that WEMM Engineering evaluate the parking situation at

Dalhousie University. As Dalhousie grows and expands its services, it is seeking to alleviate

parking congestion on-campus and to consolidate surface parking in a central location. This

parking plan needs to fit into the campus master plan of Dalhousie.

1.1. Scope of Work

Parking Analysis

The primary goals of this report are to take an inventory of all parking spots on

Dalhousie’s three campuses. A separate analysis must be completed to determine the

parking needs at Dalhousie. These two values will be compared to each other to establish a

quantifiable insufficiency of parking on Dalhousie campus. This report will also compare

parking at Dalhousie to other large Canadian Universities and determine what changes

need to be made to compete with them in terms of parking stalls per student/staff member.

Sustainable Strategy Optimisation and Development

To successfully combat the parking insufficiencies at Dalhousie University, a long

term, sustainable strategy must be implemented to reduce the number of personal vehicles

frequenting campus. Dalhousie already offers several programs that provide alternative

options for commuters. WEMM Engineering has evaluated the effectiveness of these

programs and will provide expansion and optimisation strategies that will enable students

and staff to benefit even further from these services.

Structure Design

Once parking insufficiencies have been established, and it has been determined that

a structure is necessary not only to supply the University with its immediate need for more

parking, but to consolidate parking in a central location for future campus optimisation.

The first step is to determine which location best serves the Dalhousie population as a

whole. All potential sites need to be established eliminating those that do not meet size or

zoning restrictions. Once a list of possible sites is established, they must be objectively

2 | P a g e

Final Report

scored and the optimum site must be chosen using a specified evaluation criteria. Upon

final decision of the optimal site, a site investigation needs to be completed to determine

the grade of the area as well as the soil information. Once all necessary data is obtained, a

structure must be designed. The material for said structure must be decided upon, and

functional parking structure design must be reviewed and tailored specifically to Dalhousie

University in every aspect. Once functional design criteria are chosen, detailed designs of

the parking structure must be developed taking into consideration calculated structural

loads. Once site preparation and structural designs have been established, a comprehensive

cost estimate must be developed.

1.2. Site Location

This Project is going to take place in Halifax Nova Scotia, shown in Figure 1.2-1.

Figure 1.2-1: Site Location, Halifax, NS

The parking investigation portion of this project will be performed on the three Halifax

Dalhousie campuses outlined in Figure 1.2-2.

3 | P a g e

Final Report

Figure 1.2-2: Site Location, Dalhousie University Halifax Campus

The building design portion of this project is going to be performed for the LSC parking lot

seen in Figure 1.2-3 located on the North-West end of Studley Campus between the

University of King’s College and the LSC.

Figure 1.2-3: Site Location, LSC Parking Lot

4 | P a g e

Final Report

2. BACKGROUND

2.1. Literature Review

Dalhousie Transportation Demand Management Plan – IBI Group (2011)

This document outlines a study into the transportation patterns of Dalhousie

students and staff and explores their commuting patterns in depth. It evaluates the

benefits of alternative methods of travel to driving and suggests sustainable

transportation programs that can be introduced at Dal. Some of its most relevant

findings can be found in Appendix E.

Dalhousie Campus Parking Study – Morrison Hershfield (2013)

This report is the product of a study done after the TDM plan was established. It

develops a parking inventory of Dal’s three campuses and suggests possible building

sites on Dal property and evaluates them for both parking and alternative uses.

Precast Concrete Design Manual – CPCI (2007)

This design manual gives member strengths and design procedures and examples

for precast, pre-stressed concrete structures. It was used to determine member

sizes for the parking structure design.

Mitigating the Campus Parking Problem: 5 Town-Grown Solutions - Spenser Havlick (2013)

This document presents multiple solutions to having a shortage of parking spaces

on-campus. It was used as a source for the section of the report on alleviating the

parking issue alternative to building a parking structure.

Precast/Prestressed Concrete Parking Structures: Recommended Practice for Design and

Construction – PCI (1997)

This is a summary of the general recommendations and processes involved in

designing and constructing parking structures using precast concrete. This was

useful during the early stages of design.

5 | P a g e

Final Report

Nova Scotia Building Code 2010

The Nova Scotia Building code provides technical requirements that need to be met

in order to ensure stability, safety, and efficiency of the structure. It contains

guidelines specific to parking structures that are included in Appendix G.

Dalhousie University Campus Master Plan Framework Plan

This document outlines the goals of Dalhousie for the future and is an important

resource to abide by when developing new infrastructure at Dalhousie.

2.2. Initial Conditions – Parking

Dalhousie currently has 2,228 parking spaces distributed among the 3 Halifax

Campuses as shown in Figure 2.2-1. The parking lots distributed around the campuses can

be seen as grey squares.

Figure 2.2-1: Dalhousie Halifax Campuses Parking

There are currently 18,564 students and 6,000 faculty and staff at Dalhousie.

According to The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) survey done by an external

consulting group, 11% of students and 39% of staff drive to campus each day. To

accommodate this many vehicles, Dalhousie would need to have a total of 4,257 parking

spaces, which is 2,029 more spaces than what’s currently available. However, this is not the

number of spaces that needs to be provided due to the fact that all these individuals do not

6 | P a g e

Final Report

frequent campus at the same time. These individuals are also spread over the three

campuses, two of which (Sexton and Carleton) rarely reach capacity. This is demonstrated

by TDM studies, results of which are found in Appendix E, which shows the capacity of lots

around campus at different times of day in September and April.

The TDM study in Appendix E indicates that there is clearly still a lack of spots as

demonstrated by the lots consistently at capacity on Studley Campus. WEMM Engineering

has come to the conclusion, based off how often it reaches capacity, that the center of the

parking issues at Dalhousie revolve around Studley campus, and therefore established that

that is where changes need to be made.

To establish the insufficiency of Studley campus’ parking, WEMM Engineering

compared Dalhousie to other large Canadian universities. As shown by Table 2.2-1,

Dalhousie has a high ratio of people per parking space in relation to comparable

universities.

University Undergraduate Graduate Staff Total Parking Spaces

People/Space

University of Guelph

18,000 2,500 3,000 23,500 5,281 4.45

University of Alberta

31,161 7,572 8200 46,933 7,393 6.35

Queen’s University

17,413 3,768 6000 27,181 2,604 10.44

UBC 41,365 10,820 14,212 66,397 8,000 8.30

Average 7.4

Dalhousie 14,650 3,914 6000 24,564 2,228 11.03

Table 2.2-1: Canadian University Parking Comparison

For Dalhousie to meet the average ratio of these other schools, 3319 parking spaces

need to be provided. That is an increase of 1091 parking spots. Therefore, Dalhousie either

needs to keep this many people from driving, or add this many spots to solve their parking

problem. WEMM Engineering proposes a combination of both which will be outlined later

in the report.

To increase the number of parking spaces at Dalhousie, it is important to consider

the Facilities Management Master Plan Framework Plan available through Dalhousie’s

7 | P a g e

Final Report

website. A key aspect of the goals Dalhousie has outlined includes achieving a higher level

of campus density so that an improved level of services can be offered to both students and

staff. This “build up rather than out” model will lead to easier accessibility to the services

and facilities being provided because they will be located geographically close to one

another.

The problem of lack of parking therefore takes on a broader definition than simply

accommodating current parking demand. The solution must be one which both alleviates

current parking strain and which contributes positively to the future growth of the school.

In order for Dalhousie to achieve higher campus density in the future, the land currently

used for surface parking needs to be freed up so that it can be developed into spaces or

facilities which better serve the community. Additionally it must be possible to

accommodate the increase in parking demand associated with higher density land use.

To achieve an adequate parking supply, WEMM proposes that stacked parking

facilities be utilized. These facilities serve as a solution to Dalhousie’s problem in that they

both increase the parking supply on-campus, and free up valuable land for future

development. It is therefore necessary that Dal build a large on-campus parking structure.

2.3. Initial Conditions – Possible Structure Sites

Dunn Parking Lot

The Dunn Lot is located on the North-West side of the Studley Campus. It is situated in

between the Dunn Building and Howe Hall. Access to the lot is provided through Castine

Way.

Figure 2.3-2: Site Location, Dunn Parking Lot

Hancock Parking Lot

The Hancock parking lot is located in the North-West corner of Dalhousie’s Studley Campus

on the backside of King’s Campus. This lot is accessed off of Coburg Road.

8 | P a g e

Final Report

Figure 2.3-3: Site Location, Hancock Parking Lot

Wickwire Field

Wickwire field is located on the south side of the Dal Campus. It is home to several varsity

teams as well as countless intramurals. It is potentially accessible from South Street or

Alumni Crescent. The proposed structure would be a single storey installed underneath the

field.

Figure 2.3-4: Site Location, Wickwire Field

LSC Parking Lot

The LSC parking lot, located at the North-West end of Studley Campus is adjacent to King’s

Campus and Dalhousie’s Life Science Center. This lot can be accessed through either Lord

Dalhousie Drive to the East, or Castine Way to the North.

Figure 2.3-5: Site Location, LSC Parking Lot

Table 2.3-1 on page 9 shows the specific details for each of the above potential sites.

9 | P a g e

Final Report

Site Dunn Hancock Wickwire LSC Number of

Spots 199 139 0 72

Footprint (m2)

3100 2100 13,000 2800

Zoning U-2 U-2 U-2 U-2

Height Restrictions

(m) 16.76 16.76 16.76 none

Setback Restrictions

(m)

15.24 on one side

15.24 on two sides

15.24 on one side

none

Slope (m)

3.05-0 from North to South

3.05-0 from East to West

1.52-0 from South to North


none

2.13-0 from South to North


Table 2.3-2: Initial Conditions of Potential Sites

2.4. Constraints

Zoning: All of Dalhousie is classified as either zone U-1 (low density university) or U-

2 (high density university) as seen in Figure 2.4-1. U-2 is the darker blue and U-1 is

the lighter blue. A parking structure can only be built on U-2 zoning.

Figure 2.4-6: Dalhousie Zoning

10 | P a g e

Final Report

Minimum size for structure: for design of a parking structure to function, a

minimum footprint size of 2000 m2 is required. All sites smaller than this must be

eliminated from consideration.

Traffic accommodation: The surrounding area needs to be able to absorb peak hour

traffic flows into and out of the parkade to avoid congestion of neighboring street.

Setback and height restrictions as outlined in Table 2.3-1.

11 | P a g e

Final Report

3. DESIGN PROCESS

Figure 3-1: Design Process

12 | P a g e

Final Report

3.1. Parking Structure Site Selection

Four potential parking structure sites were obtained by studying all available land

on Dalhousie’s Studley campus. The sites not zoned for a parking structure (U-1 zoning)

and the sites too small to house a functional parkade (less than 2000 m2) were eliminated,

and the sites deemed acceptable were the Dunn parking lot, The Hancock parking lot,

underneath Wickwire field, and the LSC parking lot. The initial conditions of these sites are

outlined in section 2.3 of this report and maps of each site with access streets and five

minute walking radius outlined can be seen in Appendix D.

The criteria used as site selection guidelines for this project came from a

combination of both quantitative transportation needs and qualitative future goals for the

university with regards to development and growth. In the short term it is the

transportation demand which needs to be addressed. To achieve this in a way that will

benefit the university in the future, more than just the immediate transportation needs had

to be considered. In order to fully evaluate the feasibility of a parking structure on-campus

the context of each site has been evaluated with regards to its surroundings to determine

which site fits best into the overall campus framework. This perspective is required to

address the current and future need of Dalhousie and to begin to arrive at a solution that

works for both the short and long term.

The criteria for each site was broken down and evaluated in terms of four key

aspects: relative gain of parking spaces available (potential number of future spots sample

calculation can be found in Appendix B), the distance to major buildings on-campus, the

accessibility for vehicle traffic, and the impact on existing infrastructure in the immediate

vicinity as well as potential implications for future development. These aspects of site

consideration were further broken down into related sub-categories that were weighted

based on perceived importance. The results of the evaluation are shown in Figure 3.1-1 and

the full breakdown can be found in Appendix F.

13 | P a g e

Final Report

Figure 3.1-2: Site Evaluation Results

The relative parking gain seen at the bottom of the legend in Figure 3.1-1 was

deemed the most important criteria, and the weightings decrease as you move up the list,

until the least important criteria: construction access. The criteria weightings were

assigned in line with the aspects deemed important in the Dalhousie master plan. Each site

was awarded a score out of 10 which was then weighted out of 100. A perfect score is a

score of 1000. Shown above, the LSC site was found to be the ideal choice to host an on-

campus parking structure, and therefore all the structure designs were based on this

location.

3.2. Building Material Selection

The choice of building material is an important factor to decide upon when

designing a structure. The primary building material should be cost effective, aesthetically

pleasing, durable, and have minimal maintenance costs throughout the life of the building.

The available building materials include steel and concrete, with concrete being sub

divided into pre cast and cast in place (CIP).

WEMM Engineering has eliminated steel as a viable building material for this

parking garage due mainly to its limitations with respect to corrosion resistance; which

makes it a more expensive option considering the increased maintenance costs throughout

the lifespan of the building. The industry standard for stand-alone parking garages is to

14 | P a g e

Final Report

build concrete structures, so WEMM Engineering evaluated the two concrete construction

methods: CIP and precast.

Precast concrete was deemed a better option for this project for several reasons, the

most notable of which is the increased speed of construction. The precast members are

fabricated off site, keeping the mess of concrete forming and pouring at the precast facility

and off Dalhousie property. The concrete members are then transported to the project

location and can be quickly assembled. Since Dal already has limited parking, and

throughout the construction of this structure even more will be inaccessible, it is crucial

that the construction process be as fast as possible. Precast concrete members can also be

sourced locally from Strescon Ltd. which has multiple years of experience designing

precast concrete parking structures. Precast concrete is the building material for the

majority of standalone parking garages in Halifax for good reason and this structure will

not be an exception.

3.3. Design Loads

All design load calculations can be found in Appendix B. Dead loads for the structure

were calculated using data obtained from Strescon Ltd. regarding their specific structural

members and from the Precast Concrete Design Manual – CPCI (2007) which lists unit

weights for various member sizes. Dead loads of structural elements that were not

explicitly listed in either of those sources were calculated using a density of concrete of

24kN/m3. The dead load forces attributed to each individual structural member is

summarised in Table 3.3-1 below.

Member Dead Load per Member (kN)

Pre-Topped Double Tee Beams 270

Spandrel 190

Column (per storey) 34

K-Wall (per storey) 175

Litewall (per storey) 803

Table 3.3-1: Dead Loads of Precast Members

15 | P a g e

Final Report

A live load of 2.4kPa was used and was obtained from the NBCC 2010 – Part 4. This

value is typical for garages built for vehicles not exceeding 4000kg.

Snow loads were calculated according to Commentary G of the NBCC 2010. In

calculating the snow load it was assumed that snow would not accumulate around the

litewall as much as it would around a solid wall of the same height due to the slots in the

litewall that would allow air to flow through. The snow load for the roof was found to be

1.94 kPa for the majority of the roof, and 2.76 kPa within 2.14 m of the parapet.

Wind loads were calculated according to Commentary I of the NBCC 2010. The loads

resulting from the factored wind pressure and wind suction were calculated by assuming

that approximately half of the structure is open in terms of square meter area of any of the

exterior walls. The largest wind load acting on the structure was found to be 0.98 kPa

Seismic loading was determined in accordance with the NBCC 2010 – Part 4. The

seismic lads for floors 4, 3, 2, and 1 were found to be 1790 kN, 1342 kN, 895 kN, and 224

kN respectively.

16 | P a g e

Final Report

4. DETAILS OF FINAL DESIGN

4.1. Sustainable Solution Strategies

When considering the problem of the current parking shortage on-campus, there

are two types of possible solutions that are necessary to consider. The first is decreasing

parking demand, and the second is increasing parking supply. This section discusses

several strategies related to decreasing parking demand.

If less people found it necessary to drive to school or work, the need for available

parking would decrease. Decreasing the demand for parking can be done multiple ways,

including relying on increased transit ridership, offering rideshare incentives to limit single

occupancy vehicle use, implementing strategies geared to growing the number of bicycle

commuters, and instituting walking promotion campaigns. This section of the report will

explain each of these four strategies and how they will lower the number of cars on-

campus.

1) Increase Transit Ridership:

Dalhousie currently offers a UPass to students at a cost of $150 for an eight month

semester (cost of $560 for non-students) and an EPass to employees at a 25% reduction off

cost. These passes allow for unlimited transit ridership during the school year from

September to April. Since a higher percentage of staff drive than students, it would

decrease the number of cars on-campus significantly if Dalhousie could offer the same sort

of price reduction on transit passes for staff as they do for students. By decreasing the price

even further than a 25% savings, it increases the appeal of taking the bus over personal

vehicles significantly.

Future trends indicate that transit ridership is likely to increase as transit services

offered by Halifax improve. Additionally, all three campuses are already served well by

numerous routes, with multiple stops around the perimeter of the campuses, as shown in

Figure 4.1-1. It’s becoming easier and easier to commute by bus and that will decrease the

number of people parking on-campus over time.

17 | P a g e

Final Report

Figure 4.1-1: Transit Routes on Dalhousie Campus

2) Increase Rideshare Participation

There is currently a rideshare program offered through Dalhousie, however only a

small percentage of students and employees know about and utilize the service. If

Dalhousie put more effort into marketing the program, participation would increase. Dal

could also add in more “car pool reserved” parking spaces to the 3 campuses to increase

the appeal.

A large portion of people opt out of rideshare programs because they like to have

their car available should an unexpected situation arise. For example if they need to pick up

a child, or they feel sick and want to go home early. Dalhousie currently offers a

“guaranteed ride home” program, which offers rideshare participants up to five free taxi

fares a year from the university in the case of an unexpected need to leave before or after

your rideshare’s scheduled time. This program encourages people who wouldn’t have

normally participated to take part in the program.

18 | P a g e

Final Report

Bicycle Commuter Promotion

The third sustainable approach to keep students and staff from driving to work is to

make it easy for people to commute by bicycle. You can see on the map in Figure 4.1-2 that

there are quite a few bike racks on-campus already, if Dalhousie increased the number of

racks even further and improved the end of trip facilities for cyclists (end of trip facilities

include sheltered bike storage, lockers, and showers) then more and more people would

start to bike.

Figure 4.1-2: Bicycle Racks at Dalhousie

Currently, none of the major surrounding campus streets have bike lanes, and the

campus is uninviting to bicycle traffic. In order for bike ridership to increase significantly, a

better campus-wide bicycle network should be implemented. This would encourage more

cautious bikers to start cycling.

A final strategy to increase the number of bicycle commuters is Dalhousie could

organize an event in partnership with a local bike shop and get them to come onto campus

and provide free demos of popular commuter bikes. This would give students and staff an

19 | P a g e

Final Report

opportunity to test bicycles for free and perhaps encourage them to purchase one and start

commuting by bike. Through the implementation of these pro-cycle strategies, more and

more people will begin cycling rather than driving.

4) Walking Promotion

A final method Dalhousie could use to get people out of their cars is by encouraging

them to start walking to work. The university could implement a program where they

partner with a company like Fitbit (a company that manufactures advanced pedometers)

and start holding weekly competitions. The competitions would involve distributing Fitbits

to individuals on a weekly basis and monitoring the number of steps they take. At the end

of the week, the winning contestant would receive a prize. Not only would this promote a

healthy, active lifestyle, but it would also make individuals realize that there are more

options than simply driving to campus.

While the four options above represent potential for decreasing the demand for

parking on-campus, they are long term, slow acting solutions which cannot necessarily be

counted on to work right away. Based on the nature of the issue and the fact that Dalhousie

cannot force anyone to opt for alternate modes of transportation, WEMM Engineering has

concluded that there is still a need for increased parking capacity that can only be met by a

parking structure. The sustainable solutions, and parking structure solution will work

together over time to provide an improved Dalhousie campus. In the future, as the

sustainable solution decreases the need for parking spots more and more, having

consolidated parking in a structure will allow for the removal of surface parking to be used

for more desirable facilities.

4.2. Parking Structure Functional Design

All design decisions for this parking structure were geared to making it as functional

as possible. WEMM Engineering determined which aspects of parking structures pertain to

their functionality and tailored the design of this structure specifically to the needs of

Dalhousie. The functional qualities of a parkade and how they pertain to Dal can be found

in Appendix I. All designs were completed in accordance with the National Building Code of

20 | P a g e

Final Report

Nova Scotia as it pertains to stand alone parking structures. All relevant clauses from this

code can be found in Appendix G.

The parking structure we have designed is 36.5 m wide by 73.2 m long with

alternating slopes in the middle section. This design was developed after a site visit to

Strescon Ltd. Their standard double tee beams are precast at 18 m long, 4 m wide. Four

double tee beams tied together make up one bay. The structure is composed of 10 bays (5

long and 2 wide). This can be seen in the plan view of the structure which can be found in

Appendix K. The two end bays are flat whereas the 3 middle bays make up the sloping,

single helix ramping system seen in Figure 4.2-1. The ramps climb a half storey per run

leading to a 4.4% grade. Our original design consisted of one ramp per floor which had a

slope of 8.8%. However, according to the PCI Recommended Practice for Design and

Construction handbook, the max allowable slope that allows parking spaces is 6%.

Figure 4.2-3: Isometric Floor Layout

In can be seen in Figure 4.2-1 that the stalls are oriented at 90° to the drive aisles,

each stall is 2.5 meters wide and 5.5 meters long. There are dead zones located in each

corner where no stalls can go, so to avoid wasting surface area, the staircases have been

placed in two of the corners, and the other two corners will be used for bicycle and

21 | P a g e

Final Report

motorcycle parking. The calculation to determine the total number of parking stalls per

storey can be found in Appendix B and yields that there are 104 parking stalls per storey,

leading to 416 new parking stalls within the entire structure. By allowing parking on the

ramps and by including exterior rooftop parking, this design efficiently maximises the

available space of the structure. A rendering of the building it its entirety can be seen in

Figure 4.2-2

Figure 4.2-4: Structure Rendering

It can also be seen in Figure 4.2-2 that the structure will be designed to have over

25% of the total exterior wall area open to the inside of the structure. This eliminates the

need for mechanical ventilation in accordance with the Nova Scotia Building Code 2010.

A rendering of the structure in the location that it will be built can be seen in Figure

4.2-3. This image shows how well the structure fits in with the context of the surrounding

campus. Since there are no height restrictions in the zone of the structure, the building

could have been designed with more stories, increasing its parking capacity, however, the

Kings College buildings located just across Castine Way are only three stories tall, and an

22 | P a g e

Final Report

overly large structure in this location would stand out and be aesthetically unappealing.

WEMM Engineering wanted to not only add parking spaces to the campus, but to add to the

campus appeal and atmosphere as well.

Figure 4.2-5: Structure within Campus Setting

4.3. Parking Structure Structural Design

The construction process will begin with site preparation work. While this step is

important with any project, it is imperative in precast construction to perform site

preparation accurately and according to intended design so that precast elements

connecting to foundation elements are erected in proper locations and at proper

elevations. Excavation to bedrock will be performed for all footing and foundation wall

locations so that CIP foundations can be poured on bedrock to provide adequate bearing

capacity. Additionally, due to the geologic conditions of the LSC site, available in Appendix

H, excavation to bedrock is also necessary to get below the frost line in most locations.

Having footings bearing on bedrock also eliminates concerns regarding settlement,

specifically differential settlement. Column footings and a retaining wall for backfill will be

poured once excavation has occurred, and fill will be placed for the slab on grade according

to the site elevations shown in Appendix J.

23 | P a g e

Final Report

Precast elements can be installed upon completion of site preparation. Column

connections to footing pilasters will be executed according to the detail shown in Appendix

K. The design of precast connections is done at the discretion of the precast manufacturer,

but connection types are shown in Appendix K for clarity. Columns will connect to CIP

elements through the use of NMB splice sleeves cast into the column base and Wilson

sleeves cast into the footing pilaster. Once proper alignment has been achieved, the sleeves

are grouted solid with high strength grout capable of developing the full capacity of each

bar, effectively making the bar between the CIP and precast elements continuous. Efficient

load transfer is therefore maintained between these members.

Litewall sections will be placed one storey at a time in conjunction with column

placement. Litewall connection to footings at the base of the wall will be similar to footing

connections for columns. Each successive storey will also be connected through the use of

NMB splice sleeves cast into the top and bottom of the members. K-wall sections will also

be placed and secured to foundations in the same manner, using NMB splice sleeves and

Wilson sleeves to achieve adequate load transfer. The S-Frame analysis under the

governing earthquake loading for these K-walls can be found in Appendix L.

Spandrel beams will be placed between columns once erection of columns has taken

place. The intended spandrel connection is a bearing connection to the column, with the

spandrel transferring load to the column along its axis of symmetry so as to avoid moment

due to eccentricity. The spandrel will bear on column corbels.

Placement of the double tee members can take place once columns, spandrels, and

litewall/K-wall sections have been placed. Representative double tee to spandrel and

double tee to litewall connections are shown in appendix K for clarity. Spandrels will be

notched out at double tee web locations, and the double tee will bear on the spandrels at

these locations. Load transfer will occur through bearing plates cast into the double tee and

spandrel beams. These plates can be site welded to provide a secure connection. Additional

shear and pullout capacity is obtained through the use of a PSA insert cast into the spandrel

that is site welded to a JVI spider plate cast into the flange of the double tee. This PSA

insert/spider plate connection is also used where double tee members connect to litewall

24 | P a g e

Final Report

sections, however in these connections bearing transfer is achieved through the use of

corbels on the litewall.

Proper connection between the individual double tee members is a major

consideration in order to achieve structural integrity. The spider plates cast into the flanges

of the double tees allow for continuity of reinforcing bars running transverse to the span.

These bars can be welded together on site at spider plate locations, and thus provide a

mechanism for the transfer of tensile forces in the transverse direction relative to double

tee span. Shear transfer between double tee members is achieved through the use of vector

connectors welded into the flanges of the members along their length. The combination of

transverse bar and shear transfer allows the double tees to work as a system rather than

independently. This load transfer mechanism creates a floor diaphragm.

This same process is repeated for every storey until completion of the structure.

Once the structure has been completed, finishing touches such as painting of parking stall

boundary lines can be carried out.

4.4. Preliminary Hydrological Considerations

The footprint of the proposed structure imposes upon an area of green space behind

the LSC. Currently the rainfall on that area is able to infiltrate into the ground, however

after the construction of the parking structure, the water that falls on that area will need to

be routed to the nearest storm water drain. WEMM Engineering has performed preliminary

calculations to determine the extra strain that will be placed on that drain. These

calculations can be found in Appendix B and showed that the removal of the permeable

green space results in an additional runoff volume of 48.96 m3/hr. The existing drainage in

the area must be evaluated to determine if it can handle this increased flow.

4.5. Foundation Considerations

This section will evaluate the geotechnical investigation performed by LVM

Maritime Testing in April 2014 (included in Appendix H) and will outline the preliminary

foundation considerations of a four storey parking structure located adjacent to the LSC

building on Dalhousie University Campus. The total footprint of the proposed structure is

25 | P a g e

Final Report

36.5 x 73.2 meters. The two borehole samples obtained are located in the Southeast corner

of the structure and it has been assumed, due to lack of available information, that the soil

conditions found apply to the whole building.

The results of the borehole testing revealed 10 centimeters of grass and topsoil, 0.5 -

1 meters of silty sand containing some cobbles and trace organics, then bedrock located

between 0.5 and 1.2 meters below the ground surface. Neither of the boreholes found

evidence of any water so it can be assumed that the groundwater table is located well

below the area of interest.

WEMM Engineering considered the use of Individual footings, strip footings, and

pile foundations. Pile foundations were deemed unnecessary due to the height of the

bedrock providing acceptable conditions for the use of shallow foundations. Due to the

difficulty involved in excavating the bedrock, strip footing were also eliminated. Since the

building gravity loads are carried by columns not walls, individual footings were chosen as

the optimal foundation design because they are the most effective and efficient method to

take the loads of the structure in the given soil conditions and they required less excavation

of the bedrock.

The individual footings should be founded on sound bedrock. The rock should be

level and clear of any dirt, large cracks, water, and other irregularities. The prepared

subgrade surfaces should be inspected prior to pouring of concrete. The design frost depth

for the area is 1.2 meters so all footings will have a minimum soil cover of 1.2 meters.

The shallow silty sand soil has maximum thickness of 1.2 meters, which according to

the Occupational Safety General Regulations of Nova Scotia is an acceptable depth of loose

soil for a person to enter without providing minimum slope requirements or sheet piling.

Drilling, and hoe ramming techniques will be required to excavate the bedrock. Where

bedrock is too damaged for acceptable footing placement, it shall be over excavated and

Grade A fill shall be placed to provide a level surface for the footing.

In accordance with Halifax Municipal Design Guidelines, backfilling within the

footprint of the building shall be done with Type 1 gravel and shall be placed at a maximum

thickness of 200 mm prior to compaction. The fill on the exterior of the building envelope

shall be placed in increments of 300 mm before compaction.

26 | P a g e

Final Report

More information on the initial site conditions and planned future grade can be

found in Appendix J.

4.6. Cost Summary

WEMM engineering has approached this project using a design/build methodology.

This concept involves bringing together all parties to design and construct the most cost

effective structure. By using a design/build project technique, our precast concrete

supplier will be involved early and able to contribute ideas for the most cost effective

solutions. This method will give a single source responsibility to expedite the time of

construction and keep the overall project costs as low as possible.

Our cost estimate detailed in Table 4.6-1 was formed using the 2016 RSMeans

reference guide. We developed a class “D” cost estimation on the design and construction of

our proposed parking structure.

LSC Parking Structure Cost Estimate

Description QTY Unit Unit Cost Total

Site Preparation:

Site Clearing 1 I.S. $10,000.00 $10,000.00

Excavation and Disposal 2828 C.Y. $12.00 $33,940.00

Environmental Site Assessment 1 I.S. $6,000.00 $6,000.00

Landscaping 1 I.S. $8,000.00 $8,000.00

Construction Costs:

Site Signage 1 I.S. $6,000.00 $6,000.00

Worker Facilities 1 I.S. $8,000.00 $8,000.00

Structural Members:

Column Footings 450 C.Y. $350.00 $157,500.00

Precast Columns 38.14 L.F. $355.00 $258,440.00

Precast Spandrels 112 E.A. $6,775.00 $758,800.00

Precast Stairs 36 Riser $1,675.00 $60,300.00

Staircase Walls 10 C.Y. $400.00 $4,000.00

Staircase Slab 15000 S.F. $4.00 $60,000.00

Elevated Slab 1100 C.Y. $700.00 $770,000.00

Elevated Sloped Slab 2200 C.Y. $750.00 $1,650,000.00

Double Tees 154 E.A. $6,350.00 $977,900.00

27 | P a g e

Final Report

K-wall 66.84 C.Y. $565.00 $37,764.00

Centre Wall 175 C.Y. $565.00 $98,875.00

Interior Finishing:

Expansion Joints 521 I.F. $30.00 $15,630.00

Staircase Roofing 538 S.F $5.00 $2,690.00

Fire rated Steel Frame and Door 10 E.A. $1,500.00 $15,000.00

Miscellaneous Painting 1 I.S. $5,000.00 $5,000.00

Seal Concrete Floors 86400 S.F. $0.50 $43,200.00

Interior Signage 1 I.S. $25,000.00 $25,000.00

Staircase Railings 1 I.S. $39,700.00 $39,700.00

Interior Facilities:

Drainage Receivers and Piping 1 I.S. $147,000.00 $147,000.00

Interior Lighting 1 I.S. $80,000.00 $80,000.00

Wiring 1 I.S. $20,000.00 $20,000.00

Total Construction and Installation Costs (USD): $5,298,739.00

Soft Costs:

Engineering, CM, and Legal (15%) 1 I.S. $1,052,131.00 $794,810.85

Contingency (10%) 1 I.S $645,307.00 $529,873.90

Administration 1 I.S. $50,000.00 $50,000.00

Total Cost (US Dollars) $6,673,423.75

Total Cost (Canadian Dollars) $8,666,784.09 Table 4.6-1: Cost Estimation Data

An important factor to Dalhousie University when considering any new construction

is revenue generation and investment payback. Because of Dalhousie’s collective

agreement, the cost of parking passes cannot be drastically increased even though a new

parking structure will improve the service. Since there is no way to develop further

revenue off of parking passes the return on the 8.7 million dollars that this structure will

cost must come from other sources.

By consolidating parking into a structure, it densifies parking at Dalhousie. As the

sustainable strategies outlined in Section 4.1 start to become more widely used, and fewer

people require on-campus parking, a parking surplus will start to develop. With the

construction of a parking structure, it allows for more parking spots in a smaller area,

28 | P a g e

Final Report

allowing the University to remove existing surface lots and reallocate that space for more

desirable, revenue generating facilities such as residences. It is through these facilities that

Dalhousie will generate the revenue to warrant the cost of this parking structure.

29 | P a g e

Final Report

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

WEMM Engineering was assigned the task of studying the parking situation at

Dalhousie University. Upon completion of said study, WEMM engineering determined that

a problem does exist with the current system. The major causes and underlying issues

associated with the parking system in place have been identified and a solution to this

problem has been developed. The lack of parking spaces at Dalhousie needs to be

addressed using two methods: keeping people from driving (sustainable solution), and

increasing the parking supply (parking structure solution). As time passes, and the four

outlined sustainable strategies (increasing transit ridership, carshare participation, and

number of bicycle/walking commuters) decreases the need for on-campus parking, the

construction of the parking structure is still justifiable because The Master Plan of

Dalhousie outlines a desire for a high density campus. The structure not only alleviates the

immediate parking needs of Dalhousie University, but the future needs as well. If a parking

abundance is achieved, having consolidated parking in the form of an on-campus structure

will allow surface parking to be removed, freeing up space for facilities more in line with

the Master Plan.

The parking structure designed by WEMM Engineering provides Dalhousie with

over 400 new parking stalls and fits in nicely with the surrounding campus. The functional

design of the 8.7 million dollar structure has been tailored specifically for Dalhousie. A

functional, easily accessible parking structure at Dal will not only increase the campus’s

accessibility, but it will contribute toward the educational excellence of this prestigious

University.

A-1

Final Report

APPENDIX A – Division of Labour

For the most part, WEMM Engineering worked together as a team. Each person took lead

on certain elements, but by working on things together it allowed us to use our diverse set

of strengths to produce the best possible product. Each team member assisted with and

reviewed every aspect of the project to ensure it was done to the best of our ability as a

team rather than as individuals. Found below, are short descriptions of each team members

role through the two semesters of this project.

Andrew Eagen:

In the first semester Andrew was responsible for defining initial conditions for each

possible site location. He also was in charge of the preliminary geotechnical considerations.

In second semester, Andrew put together the final presentation and designed the design

expo poster. He also did the calculations for snow and earthquake loads and took lead in

the development of the sustainable solutions. For both semester’s Andrew was the main

contact for the advisors and was responsible for scheduling group meetings. He also

compiled, formatted, and edited both the progress report and final report.

Christopher Wallace:

During the first semester Chris worked on basic pricing, materials selection, and consulting

with Strescon Ltd. in order to research various options for the building layout. During the

second semester he was responsible for modelling the proposed structure in an

architectural software and developing renderings and mock ups of the final design.

Ian Milne:

In the first semester Ian worked on site assessment of the Dunn site, as well as a parking

needs assessment, comparing Dalhousie to other Canadian schools. Second semester he did

the cost estimation for the parking structure and calculated the wind pressure on the

exterior of the building. Ian also worked on the sustainable solutions to reduce Dalhousie’s

parking demand worked on the risk assessment. Ian was also responsible for developing

agendas prior to each meeting, and for generating and submitting the meeting minutes

throughout the year.

A-2

Final Report

Kenzie MacDonald:

In the first semester Kenzie created the campus maps that were used to show various

aspects of the considerations that went into site selection and sustainable approach

solutions. These were created using the PDF editing software BlueBeam. He also came up

with grading criteria for the site selection. In the second semester he produced of all

AutoCAD drawings and CIVIL3D cut and fill analysis, as well as the S-Frame model which

was used to assess the magnitude of forces that would result from our worst case lateral

load criteria.

B-1

Final Report

APPENDIX B – Supporting Calculations

Table of Contents:

Parking Stalls on Each Floor............................................................................................................................B-2

Member Weights...................................................................................................................................................B-3

Snow Load Calculation.......................................................................................................................................B-5

Specified Wind Calculation...............................................................................................................................B-7

Earthquake Load Calculation..........................................................................................................................B-8

Calculation of Service Load Moments.......................................................................................................B-10

Calculation of the Effect of a Structure on Current Drainage.........................................................B-11

M.ve*,tec t r

N"r""..k<- - e5* k:. h-s-,#,q {1r,"" p,sf- F / "'g"(:

tI

II

I

rclII

IIIIIII

\i,

Exler;o- v*-l I sLf ls ;

+S * l[: -c) a 6s'8 .-

J6- ;{-s,r,) ? 2q.,0,^.

1y".lL rn) Soull *ul| Sl*tIt/\lGt:?.,_\ *a * 5L sl*rrsf:;t-) "- <-----E

St*tl S,'** : )-5* c--ida5'S,..- J"*j

fr-e

4 kWe^ce "

Pre.*sL f Pr. sl,=s *J (

P"nl';"9 Sfnllvz.\e"o*;#ef Pr**t- g '?o' j

cnuf-e

f'*, l'it'*

Eosl o- )t et'l-g\t/lL "2._t )

fnhvr sLll5ial

1:{3'g \ *\ .r'f ]

VesF vu*ll' sLlfS

>L k lg sLllg

i)e6tgn F-. Cenlr- Pcr ( t<<?)

l,I

1Ar,/n<

To+-l 1," u-'-.l"e- o[

'[O lol vt u,*^be-- oF Sl--*lf S : ) oq x t4 Sh- ie f: t-llG sL*l)s

lerFun -uul' bf t A(, l?a';o*u) by t I )tA

I tr

Zt'\ Stua I l5ffi

u{*llt W" Flonr : 5> t fbe

: loq sl-,lt

3q

B-2

Pryteersq_D_:u\!iJSe@#lSQa Y Foo

|\[otr,o,\ benerly fsncd'Ls l?yn

:t&o

. qls l?to , qrs rr--F-

fit= I f,( .Soo tn*lf= t{ \\|?9 ^\ot on..r$

\= 3?5 h1l rna

v = t.? t<it 1"3V/s'S?*$

! -,'\cr

p:\L

fp*

LK\.lJr$

Jlnv.n'1 13 , tot6

Iqrr I't\ilnt

= t5 VIP*,

:l*o ,faP*

" q{o ti$q

ln,va

rso]

9e = $3)Da= E\\

f "t'"i

[-*u**,"

.,.) "c)

rro{

ropos!$ SBc.{ict t."a"} o ?.Q k$cornt6y ) t$nnrn

'irnpo*e* lae.{iCf i**} s \.\

[a'YotOf = $6tnfts'

6c.*s 66oltcn".l en\ = (t.tg*\ Lo.u: il - (".1$T,'\[',9) (" .-'l-59n^\te' ) tq? rr\

s.ots9rr, A* o's(3t'rrta

)qBErn f,1.<-*-.\ Jasi\ (e".rc**S = a$ r*lrrus

1-= (g.tt"Y\ - (o.Grn\ - t\,o\yn* *u\etr .kn-.$a&r\f LFvrFtr

, spansrrls

\^f = (o " Sttt ,,1\( fV.ognn) fas h.]t t"P) ( it \

= )o.984.s:Kil

5t'\

CdPvrco<* tcsl'ecrd 6"6q{Ptf Hon*b.oh

.slY3*

).)3'

.tsrbrns]*hl-.,Rr{ievF\ Lv;

Rtfs rrncq : FC I

B-3

J",nrlq$J \3) aolIqn f4.\nF

): 2$ l(tu/ro,i

\ - o .ctStq[t'! ( qt. 18 ? r*\--1 3- 1".5 tct

To|^\ \o\q*t '.

\ = (1.3 **\ (1 s'clisnf s 5\.\ nns

Tor_-.\ f orre of' K -v"\\ :

r : (xr,i..:\*KNlc,f) = {\ ?aq.q Krl

("olnr*

p : (*, 0 - 1 o. [ *\(: .1 qaf*,\(,i){ tQt<nl*r\

= l3L.\\ Y"\l

T.*J f6rEB of o..l\ 0-l'rmnst

F' i31 1?'l?k1"1

!:v{o\\_ tolcf

ece*-.{ C.osl SeC}ion:

h: 5o6o = ?S Aq61 m,.l

To|",\ Le.$h:

L : 3 (.t x",1") + e ( (o gt rorn) +

a 2$?-g\."1'-t

Yo lurnf ".

't

I t..*'

IIh

Tq.t?{ ^ |

T

2 haq?

3. tV5 n"'

t'ron)

Prnfqcrnbt bV I I[i\

Nev\eve} bv : CW

ffne.sl ft.gti'esged

t

MN

tlrPs$r.tb:, FCf Gncftf o \|6'vr$\oqOk

B-4

Sn""r L.q\ G\tghlidntu@ r

s = Lt L 5s ({bL,-C, t^)

Is . , mporlo,6., f*.ftrr t l. o f,r.- pur{n,*,l, J

es = /i.' So ye,"r S*wr-J -lr:scJlo*Js = l"q

LU: br^s,e ,""f snn-*.J*nj f*ehr o-8

C,- = C-iry) &xpct5",,< f*" {t = l-Q (rJ ooe,r\ ek)nS por rt,ft

C + ' ro"rl SloPe T*"lon

Ca, = 5h*P* E cl*rr r c-o.lc,* 3r.*,

* y y,a 5Q f&*" t**,s.^kJ r*'6 )o*r) ;' O'(e kPr

(*|"-l 9 {^. F"y 4J" {l'ot *} perc.,oef

5.1

(-)

FeL"uY 1rt*t

lu rra.j*-

l*y^ { il*l,Iax

rpa*."J ,:*dz]- .-*lJs )

\rej

:a*,* icr 1oY)':*o 6"r - ' .!-"t

P.#trryp

x (

r{) lH < 35sl/ ^tl l )

hil titttttltl{ ri {,J,'l'lrJ,i[,],+

xA#- ry* l-- 06{ IoJ,g

>35,/ X

lf

-;*lt

o c^ o)

o<r< XA (1 ,#uJ.<ry-< bl,,t t

o) loh' ,

Tlerre is ol5o s-h<'u.ev'er tl i5 rtolJ )^..r.r3\ r'v€+Trlfig ;+

.

iln = hegt"+ PrfLtty r

t, lhp= l-of- b?=

c.;a ,{ i f {r{7v.:fr 7Sczl;A tv.A l-v'S*u'o*) L b-ild'

. t_\

bp ' t'e-glh

73 "- av1 long

*.e$aee' l€.'nau'g\ g

VF

f*'-* pe"*

stlz =

3,..( Xd -< 't *^ Gto) o-,r I2)' . 21" ,/

I,

,tl[ [ . i,^ri,] u^*'ghl st\a,-^' j-co[

{ rs.l.r'p,

SnaJ

36"- e^ slo,trs'J<.

tvt

i l-.e

IlP 6]lo-.

) ilrt . ut*

,Y, ui.h- ;F5s

kN f ,*.2

zj'),

B-5

Feb. u"'$ } 2slL

Srre> vt [-e*, (o,\crr

X},

b.t :

,/ ^ /^ .4Lr ^ u'('2 +

pa'r"u'Pe-l *

a{t"*+} * j.lr.tr*

13* ),[-4'- S T=D -oo d*-. i,*-i43-

* O;C}

5 ,-,;litn z-l[ Fva oF WbPe*'o- {' f ,,--\ - -

J: l'o! )"4(o,Atr'Q x l*() u l't47) | o'' )- L

..'t "n

= /-75 hPo,,

S Fo- nesl o$ b*;l d:F:g { 6* ' t 'ct}

5'- r'o C t'41 ( o'v ' t'a * l'o x r"P)

'= l"(4L1 kqa'-. __*__ -. ;:;*;t:r5

Cel*-*!a'L i'" €g}"i CI$ "{n9* tt{\ gi.'-" {',*: f *J' :

A, t Q,,oo*g& + Ur, tn(l+

As,onlsrt*' )r;ll o' Prc* ff"1

, = >h l-lq J- 3L 'a)" 2"?4kP'u

= IZ4b l^^)

Q, ' ing'd.* pa.o * zb-,n l. [+r-,t-43tU .L l"N

Jfx*t)J ^i

[lk,,-t-73-tt^4* )-le_

t -qq7

b)s = 5W a ,p6L r-,j e*.{l,y*}^u {'urc € {,*t*uJohbn

Perf.e,nrS- S- \ Ai\':jt:r-4"-bl r rn-bfrS$q: (q${'\s^tor\ g - NBdC

B-6

Jq".2? r1"olI".o gilhe

SpeciP;e I vin* (e.\culqVisrl

[d.e""ot p\ess u rtcrt * \ri\\ino .l

\oo Srlclr;>ru d*e b qin d o\ gacf sr *il sF .r. srr

P -- l" 1, Cc Ctct

\v = t. ( qosn ".)\; " o.s8 (torlIy vird Pressuc ohP6 l/ro Ye"f)

c: F b. ? (h/ rzJ'? = o.?$t Gorrcnsg,g

Ct = a.S ( Svr.l;o'rs .'r! glfs-no\ Ct*\\\

Ce= €>.? (ftppnSrx Fl) L"pesinls .*f c\oseJ in Starrn)

".r9,..\t'+\= oQ9

P, = o^5?.6 KPa.

P"= O .91 KPqPa= Q'StE ltP*

FV = o.\'? t^Fo,

t nol- GevrrT{s'\

tselefeq4t'; Cscarreat".lf : Nts6L

MTvlB*n:*eA-bX : cbJ

B-7

L"*\ Cq\crr\".|ion

,r /2\ sb-z).Ttw\1ta (T)-Pa\vo

T€ = rrvtparir-r.a lo* t'-*r + l"O

5[r'7\ = ftigv-rc coef,F,.;*-'l F*1 |*o'B'fort ? o'&3

'W ' *v* {,l,Fy F,-:crg 4,' $irc* fr*e', $*.o }*r 3 t -S

g- ? o\,,ers{rt -'3l-f. }n*e- r'v-roclnrFf .o F ,,"* F*"g*-

W ' u,aghl o? S+**r' h,*&

= DL u /ST, S

, 5). 1?7 y o " Zs(43tV "Z)

=54, a g 2, n* l', f roorg = lj

DL=3suS;r"\'T-beiftt

. 57 ot72

,t5 tJ KN /p luar

l"> |,*lF ,ftS .5 t"Ja *aSo f/*.r.6 +5e kN

Febcvucy 3, 2o

4* 1"3

lo t4t l0 + l tllqtl

Sph&rl gsl,a*

k4

f;"st $ !oo.

$r*"J*| { gte leJ

r J.1oo4

i;Le'-h-*t

,, /r r (o-23)(t-o)(54osz';\/--l*l#v [3i (t-s)/r.:)

rr1_>

Ft\'-'----)ftl

--*

= t4 ;-5o kru

tJ- l"r '

*,eter$neFt :Faet \Fer*P.gneA.5 \ AtReuicsteA ty I Jf\

,rIt/hitt

l- _ lrr s3s

A fuao I

lJsqgl IV,t\y

l5 3tso

t-,x4

/r \(Fr'- o .1

- NBCC

B-8

*:

6?st

)3 sr3

)35 t,,

*35 rJ

ui r?25 r.4€t t

5; q s?'

7+ scr

Z u,l hl

0 rrzFZ

?-: !!

o'31 r"

11"r12 i

ts\ gT-t*h*

hi?.'J49

?" 6otr:

Utx h*

FFbr\,crY ? J

, f t--"i'-l- -- lVlt .')J)J-T

6atf "7

13 {/!v - |

t+V{{ " S

tr f,) j

11 , s35

/5"3SS jo3 cr!

5- = JSq 538

* {ku;r, j.rsJ; ..l..}w€r r', r.}'-{r- i"'"i 'vJ

- - | A,?P eeft>rrnFj _F!. I

^rS_*_qy q* \sy : I trt

t Lf- * N&tCttqfus:Eg.i Po,r

{'- t -o

B-9

Ftt.{*$l !,,1*n hi\ne

C* \Crr\*{G.f, .f _S llv.:jt_ \=$*\SI}ry$t $Go x8ao dslUtP Tae

SP0rn * ltn*$vper irnpog64 ohqJ b** 3EuFf.- imp*sg$ live l.od

*

lsnCcff I

f f 't$wiftufc;' : tS l4h

}{orrnq\ funsi*gfeslresseJ ver ndrcBrnon*,

Itr-- \l rnr"r 16(0

fte __ ( rq (19\ __

PPo = o'? f1u

Sec*ion Prtprlies :0o = S0(r6.so tn*^t.;': ?S rt}to yio6 hrnr

\u*- (32 n"r'r-5+_ llY*- 1 35b* \o.Eo"o tlo'Toyq

^S+' t93:fig3xrojtnqrvyr: t+S hSlq|*\^): \.i hpl". = lt'SVa V'N/rn

Preslrrss For63:P.= ( )?gG) [-.7) [rtto1 /r& . lgoo vtil

Pl = (to"r- i..itio,\ uss\ . (..q)(ttoo) = 15y'laUF" . (::rr- \ol'-\ \ors)= (".Y{) ttwo\ = 11?o k$

Srcrtiae )"g,.J Movntnls i*? oidsp*ct t

*.u, s ( rt.s\q FpJ",-) { ntf,t

luls.l = ( \.st l^pl *) ( tt-'fF

hr. (gge\*hlrJhil,(Snf8

Ft.$otnt\ EYt I\\

Rev ierprl bV t C.hJ.

F.e?e{'FaAS i Pc I Pcec*sl Fre<tcsse& C*t.c,.ate $.n&b-"[

c.S hbtlrrf € ).& Hillrnt,7S k$l/,ht' = e,*o\ l<Vln

l,th. sfnss rol;sd sfr"nJeItSU trnl

= _s,tq.:5*S:

= Yt| ,lt 5 \\N*

= 259'q, h$ '"'

B-10

C-1

Final Report

APPENDIX C – Gantt Chart of Project Progress

ID Task Name Duration Start Finish

1 I - Project Management/Organizational Tasks 131 days Mon 10/5/15 Mon 4/4/162 Weekly Team Meetings 131 days Mon 10/5/15 Mon 4/4/163 Log Books 131 days Mon 10/5/15 Mon 4/4/164 II - Preliminary Research and Design 30 days Mon 10/5/15 Fri 11/13/155 Campus Investigation and Site Selection 8 days Mon 10/5/15 Wed 10/14/156 Data Collection/Traffic analysis 10 days Mon 10/5/15 Fri 10/16/157 Zoning restrictions research 8 days Mon 10/5/15 Wed 10/14/158 Dalhousie parking requirements research 6 days Wed 10/7/15 Wed 10/14/159 Parking structure code requirements research 6 days Wed 10/7/15 Wed 10/14/1510 Geotechnical Analysis 6 days Wed 10/14/15 Wed 10/21/1511 Prelim. Technical Design Work 18 days Wed 10/14/15 Fri 11/6/1512 Conceptual Drawings 15 days Mon 10/26/15 Fri 11/13/1513 III - Design Selection and Analysis 79 days Fri 11/13/15 Wed 3/2/1614 Design Selection 4 days Fri 11/13/15 Wed 11/18/1515 Loads Analysis 14 days Mon 1/4/16 Thu 1/21/1616 Exam Period/New Years Break 20 days Tue 12/8/15 Mon 1/4/1617 Storm Water Routing 10 days Mon 1/4/16 Fri 1/15/1618 Building Renderings 10 days Mon 1/4/16 Fri 1/15/1619 Gravity Load Design 14 days Fri 1/22/16 Wed 2/10/1620 LLRS Design 14 days Fri 1/22/16 Wed 2/10/1621 Foundation Design 10 days Thu 2/11/16 Wed 2/24/1622 Cost Estimate 5 days Thu 2/25/16 Wed 3/2/1623 IV - Final Report/Drawing Package 37 days Fri 2/12/16 Mon 4/4/1624 Poster Board Design 5 days Wed 3/9/16 Tue 3/15/1625 Final Report 37 days Fri 2/12/16 Mon 4/4/1626 Final Presentation 24 days Mon 2/29/16 Thu 3/31/1627 CAD Drawings/Renderings 18 days Thu 2/25/16 Mon 3/21/1628 V - Deliverables 131 days Mon 10/5/15 Mon 4/4/1629 Work Plan Due 1 day Tue 10/6/15 Tue 10/6/1530 Project Team 40% Presentation 1 day Fri 12/4/15 Fri 12/4/1531 Project 40% Report Due 1 day Mon 12/7/15 Mon 12/7/1532 Submit Logbooks for Review 1 day Mon 12/7/15 Mon 12/7/1533 Poster Board File Due 1 day Tue 3/15/16 Tue 3/15/1634 Design Expo 1 day Tue 3/22/16 Tue 3/22/1635 Draft of Project Team Design Report Due 1 day Sun 3/27/16 Sun 3/27/1636 Project Team Final Presentation 1 day Fri 4/1/16 Fri 4/1/1637 Project Team Final Design Report Due 1 day Mon 4/4/16 Mon 4/4/1638 Logbooks Due 1 day Tue 4/5/16 Tue 4/5/16

25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 4 9 14 19 24 29 4 9 14 19 24 29 3 8 13 18 23 28 2 7 12 17 22 27 3 8 13 18 23 28 2 7 12

Sep 13, '15 Sep 27, '15 Oct 11, '15 Oct 25, '15 Nov 8, '15 Nov 22, '15 Dec 6, '15 Dec 20, '15 Jan 3, '16 Jan 17, '16 Jan 31, '16 Feb 14, '16 Feb 28, '16 Mar 13, '16 Mar 27, '16 Apr 10, '16

Task

Completed

Milestone

Summary

Break

Completed Milestone

Page 1

Project: Gantt TimelineDate: Sun 4/3/16

C-2

D-1

Final Report

APPENDIX D – Potential Site Maps

Dunn:

Hancock:

D-2

Final Report

Wickwire:

LSC:

E-1

Final Report

APPENDIX E – TDM Significant Findings

Details of Available Parking at Dalhousie University

E-2

Final Report

Peak Occupancy Observed During Parking Survey:

E-3

Final Report

Continued…

E-4

Final Report

Total Occupancy at each Campus by time of day:

F-1

Final Report

APPENDIX F– Detailed Site Selection Information

Crite

riaW

eight

ingDu

nn

Scor

e

Dunn

Weig

hted

Hanc

ock

Scor

e

Hanc

ock

Weig

hted

Wick

wire

Scor

e

Wick

wire

Weig

hted

LSC S

core

LSC

Weig

hted

Relat

ive pa

rking

gain

156

906

9010

150

812

0

Stree

t acce

ss12

1012

03

365

6010

120

Cost

125

606

721

127

84

Size (

capa

city)

128

963

366

729

108

Impa

ct on

surro

undin

g site

s12

112

1012

07

843

36

Strain

on pa

rking

durin

g con

struc

tion

91

92

1810

904

36

Camp

us ac

cessi

bility

11

888

444

555

999

Impa

ct on

curre

nt us

e9

1090

1090

00

872

Noise

durin

g con

struc

tion

53

158

405

253

15

Cons

tructi

on ac

cess

35

157

218

245

15

Total

100

595

567

572

705

G-1

Final Report

APPENDIX G – NBC of Nova Scotia as it Pertains to Parking Structures

1) The building would be classified as a Group F, Division 3, Low Hazard Industrial

Occupancy. (Storage Garage)

Whether it is sprinklered or not depends on the building area and building height

(assuming up to 5 storeys), as specified in Articles 3.2.2.78. to 3.2.2.80. Note that

3.2.2.88. would be of significant importance regarding an unsprinklered parking

garage.

It is assumed that there will be no storeys below grade, otherwise Sentence

3.3.5.4.(7) will require them to be sprinklered.

2) By definition, an open-air storey is one in which at least 25% of the total area of its

perimeter walls is open to the outdoors in a manner that will provide cross-

ventilation to the entire storey.

3) It must be noted that if the building is not sprinklered, several of the 3.2.2.

requirements state the number of streets that must be available for fire-fighting

purposes.

Remember that “2 streets” require 50% of the perimeter be available, and “3

streets” requires 75% of the perimeter be available for fire-fighting access.

4) If the building meets the requirements of Article 3.2.2.88., but is not more than 15 m

high, Sentence 3.2.5.9.(4) would not require a standpipe system to be provided.

This would be the only exception to providing a standpipe system regardless of a

sprinkler system or not.

5) Sentence 3.2.3.10.(1) would permit an exposing building face to have unlimited

unprotected openings if such building face has a limiting distance of not less than 3

m, and all storeys are constructed as open-air storeys. If the limiting distances are

less than 3 m, then the usual requirements for percentage of unprotected openings

and type of construction would apply. (Table 3.2.3.7.)

G-2

Final Report

6) Sentence 3.3.5.4.(5) would require a clear height of not less than 2 m throughout the

structure.

7) Clause 3.4.6.7.(1)(b) would permit a maximum ramp slope of 1 in 6 for this

industrial occupancy.

There does not appear to be any special provision for people in wheelchairs that

may have to contend with this gradient.

8) Exit stairs must be located so that the travel distance to at least one such stair from

any point on a floor area does not exceed 60m in an unsprinklered building. (Article

3.4.2.5.)

9) The width of exit stairs must be at least 1100 mm (Table 3.4.3.2.A.) which would

have a capacity for 137 people per exit, per storey.

10) If the building is designed under Article 3.2.2.88. the exit stair enclosures must have

a fire-resistance rating of at least 45 minutes.

If any other Article is used for design, the exit stair enclosures must be equal to that

specified for floor assemblies by the specified Article. (See Article 3.4.4.1.)

11) Whereas the floor areas exceed 600 m², the Barrier-Free requirements of the N.S.

Building Code Regulations would require the installation of an elevator. (Put

Barrier- Free parking stalls (7 at up to 500 stalls) outside parking structure if you

prefer to go without an elevator)

H-1

Final Report

APPENDIX H – Test Pit Logs

Grass / TopsoilFILL : silty sand, some cobbles, traceorganics, loose, moist, dark brown tobrown.

Elev: 0.98 feet

Inferred Bedrock Level

End of Test Pit at 3 feet in Bedrock.

Test Pit dry upon completion.

Note that the Bedrock surface acrossthe test pit varied from 1 foot on theeast side to 3 feet on the west side.

18661

SURFACE ELEVATION

SOIL SAMPLE

PROJECT

LOGGED/DWN. BAM CKD. TKM DATE OF INVEST. TP 1

WC % wp- w- wl-

10 20 30 40 50

DEPTH

ft m

MODIFIED

USCS

SOIL

SYMBOL

SOIL DESCRIPTION

DATUM BM : Top of Door Threshold,LSC Building, Assigned Elev:0.0 feet

JOB NO.4/25/14

COND.

TYPE Mini Excavator

WMCL Building, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NSGeotechnical Investigation -

3.98 feet POCKET

PENE.

BACKHOE TYPE

OTHER TESTS

PLATE 1

TEST PIT LOG

TEST PIT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1

2

3

4

5H-3


Elev: 1.56 feet


End of Test Pit at 2.08 feet inBedrock.


18661

SURFACE ELEVATION

SOIL SAMPLE

PROJECT


WC % wp- w- wl-

10 20 30 40 50

DEPTH

ft m

MODIFIED

USCS

SOIL

SYMBOL

SOIL DESCRIPTION


JOB NO.4/25/14

COND.

TYPE Mini Excavator


3.64 feet POCKET

PENE.

BACKHOE TYPE

OTHER TESTS

PLATE 2

TEST PIT LOG

TEST PIT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1

2

3

4

5H-4


Elev: -4.30 feetInferred Bedrock Level



Note that the test pit was excavatedadjacent to the foundation wall of theChase Building and the depth tobedrock indicated on the Test Pit Logwas measured to the bottom of thefoundation wall. At approximately 4feet out from the wall, bedrock wasencountered at a depth of 1.2 feetbelow ground surface.

18661

SURFACE ELEVATION

SOIL SAMPLE

PROJECT


WC % wp- w- wl-

10 20 30 40 50

DEPTH

ft m

MODIFIED

USCS

SOIL

SYMBOL

SOIL DESCRIPTION


JOB NO.4/25/14

COND.

TYPE Mini Excavator


0.77 feet POCKET

PENE.

BACKHOE TYPE

OTHER TESTS

PLATE 3

TEST PIT LOG

TEST PIT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1

2

3

4

5H-5

Grass / TopsoilFILL : mixture of site native till andgravel, some cobbles, slate boulders,loose, moist, brown to orange brown.

Elev: -4.30 feet




Note that the bedrock surface variedacross the test pit.The test pit wasexcavated adjacent to a foundationwall and near an abandoned steamline pipe. The depth to bedrockindicated on the Test Pit Log wasmeasured to the bottom of thefooting. At approximately 4 feet outfrom the wall, bedrock wasencountered at a depth of 3 feetbelow ground surface.

18661

SURFACE ELEVATION

SOIL SAMPLE

PROJECT


WC % wp- w- wl-

10 20 30 40 50

DEPTH

ft m

MODIFIED

USCS

SOIL

SYMBOL

SOIL DESCRIPTION


JOB NO.4/25/14

COND.

TYPE Mini Excavator


3.38 feet POCKET

PENE.

BACKHOE TYPE

OTHER TESTS

PLATE 4

TEST PIT LOG

TEST PIT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1

2

3

4

5H-6

Grass / TopsoilFILL : silty sand, traces of cobblesand slate, glass, loose, moist, brown.

Elev: 1.10 feet


End of Test Pit at 2.0 feet in Bedrock.


18661

SURFACE ELEVATION

SOIL SAMPLE

PROJECT


WC % wp- w- wl-

10 20 30 40 50

DEPTH

ft m

MODIFIED

USCS

SOIL

SYMBOL

SOIL DESCRIPTION


JOB NO.4/25/14

COND.

TYPE Mini Excavator


3.10 feet POCKET

PENE.

BACKHOE TYPE

OTHER TESTS

PLATE 5

TEST PIT LOG

TEST PIT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1

2

3

4

5H-7

Concrete StoneFILL : mixture of slate cobbles andboulders, some sand and gravel,slightly compact, moist, brown.

Elev: -5.54 feet




Note that the bedrock surface variedacross the test pit.The test pit wasexcavated adjacent to a foundationwall and the depth to bedrockindicated on the Test Pit Log wasmeasured to the bottom of thefooting. At approximately 3.5 feet outfrom the wall, bedrock wasencountered at a depth of 2.5 feetbelow ground surface.

18661

SURFACE ELEVATION

SOIL SAMPLE

PROJECT


WC % wp- w- wl-

10 20 30 40 50

DEPTH

ft m

MODIFIED

USCS

SOIL

SYMBOL

SOIL DESCRIPTION


JOB NO.4/25/14

COND.

TYPE Mini Excavator


-2.10 feet POCKET

PENE.

BACKHOE TYPE

OTHER TESTS

PLATE 6

TEST PIT LOG

TEST PIT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1

2

3

4

5H-8

I-1

Final Report

APPENDIX I – Functional Parking Structure Design

The functional design of a parking structure encompasses the fluidity of flow of pedestrians

and vehicles throughout the garage as well as into and out of the structure.

Operational Types

Two main types of parking structures exist: self-park and attendant park facilities.

In self-park facilities, drivers park their own vehicles and walk through the garage to an

exit. In attendant park facilities, the users leave their cars at the entrance and attendants

park their vehicles for them. Attendant park facilities maximize the capacity of the

structure through stacked parking, however they have a higher upkeep cost due to the

salary of the parking attendants. For the structure at Dalhousie, a self-park facility is a

better option because of the arrival patterns. 80% of the cars will arrive and leave at rush

hour times, which would overwhelm the attendants and lead to long wait times that can be

avoided by a self-park operational type.

Building Type

Two building types exist for parking structures: open parking structures and

parking garages. Open parking structures relies on facade openness (minimum of 25% of

total wall area) allowing for natural ventilation, but it means that the garage cannot be

effectively heated. Closed in parking garages and be heated but require mechanical

ventilation. The garage built for Dalhousie will be an open parking structure to keep costs

minimal and prevent the need for a fire sprinkler system.

Revenue Control

The proposed parking structure will be provided on Dalhousie Campus for students

and faculty, therefore, it will be included in amenities provided through the purchase of a

Dalhousie parking pass. This means that there is no need for pay stations at building

entrances and exits, instead an attendant will circulate the garage and verify that all parked

cars have a pass; the same technique used in all of Dalhousie’s parking lots. This provides

an easy flow into the garage without the buildup of ingress/egress lines.

I-2

Final Report

Stall Changeover Frequency

Stall Changeovers can be transient, or infrequent. The use of this garage will be

primarily for students and staff coming to campus for class, meaning that there will be

minimal parking stall turnover. Someone will pull into a stall in the morning, stay for the

day, and pull out at the end of the day. The minimal stall changeover allows for the design

of the parking spaces to meet, and not exceed, the minimum parking spot dimensions. If

cars were constantly entering and exiting, there would be benefit to providing oversized

stalls, limiting the total number of spots, however in this case there is no need.

Street Access

Ideally, parking garages should be accessed from the busiest street possible to allow

for the fastest path from the parker’s origin to their parking destination, and it should exit

onto the least busy street possible to reduce exit delays caused by street congestion. This

proposed parking structure is surrounded by internal Dalhousie streets that are all low

volume and easily accessible by main roads, giving it the ideal ingress/egress conditions.

This parking structure will provide two two-way entrances/exits providing an efficient

traffic flow as well as an extra entrance/exit in case one becomes unusable. A minimum

ceiling clearance of 2.1 meters is recommended by parking garage codes, so the Dalhousie

garage shall comply with that entrance/exit size.

Circulation System Level of Service

The level of service of a parking structure can be affected by several things: parking

space angle and width, drive aisle width, number and radii of turns, ceiling heights, lighting

levels, ramp slopes, pedestrian crossings, entry/exit location and design, vehicle travel

distances, and the traffic circulation system. WEMM Engineering will be designing a

detailed circulation plan next year taking into account all of these considerations

J-1

Final Report

APPENDIX J – Site Preparation Cut and Fill Quantities

K-1

Final Report

APPENDIX K – Structure Drawings and Details

1 2 3 4 5 6

A

B

C

1463014630 14630

18288

18288

1463014630DWG:

DRAWN BY:

DATE:

SCALE:

PLAN

KM

APRIL 4/2016

1:250

You

cre

ated

this

PD

F fr

om a

n ap

plic

atio

n th

at is

not

lice

nsed

to p

rint t

o no

vaP

DF

prin

ter

(http

://w

ww

.nov

apdf

.com

)

K-2

http://www.novapdf.com

3845

3845

NORTH ELEVATION

5775

5768

3845

3845

1930

SOUTH ELEVATION

3845

DWG:

DRAWN BY:

DATE:

SCALE:

ELEVATIONS

KM

APRIL 4/2016

1:250

You

cre

ated

this

PD

F fr

om a

n ap

plic

atio

n th

at is

not

lice

nsed

to p

rint t

o no

vaP

DF

prin

ter

(http

://w

ww

.nov

apdf

.com

)

K-3


EAST ELEVATION

WEST ELEVATION

DWG:

DRAWN BY:

DATE:

SCALE:

ELEVATIONS

KM

APRIL 4/2016

1:250

You

cre

ated

this

PD

F fr

om a

n ap

plic

atio

n th

at is

not

lice

nsed

to p

rint t

o no

vaP

DF

prin

ter

(http

://w

ww

.nov

apdf

.com

)

K-4


EAST ELEVATION

36576

6096

DWG:

DRAWN BY:

DATE:

SCALE:

SECTION AT KWALL

KM

APRIL 4/2016

1:150

You

cre

ated

this

PD

F fr

om a

n ap

plic

atio

n th

at is

not

lice

nsed

to p

rint t

o no

vaP

DF

prin

ter

(http

://w

ww

.nov

apdf

.com

)

K-5


3845

NORTH ELEVATION

5775

3845

3845

DWG:

DRAWN BY:

DATE:

SCALE:

SECTION AT LITEWALL

KM

APRIL 4/2016

1:250

You

cre

ated

this

PD

F fr

om a

n ap

plic

atio

n th

at is

not

lice

nsed

to p

rint t

o no

vaP

DF

prin

ter

(http

://w

ww

.nov

apdf

.com

)

K-6


DW

G:

DR

AW

N B

Y:

DA

TE:

SC

ALE

:

CO

LUM

N C

ON

NEC

TIO

N

KM

APR

IL 4

/201

6

1:8

WIL

SO

N S

LEEV

E

NM

B SP

LIC

ES

LEEV

E

CO

LUM

N C

ON

NE

CTI

ON

TO

CIP

PIL

ASTE

R B

Y O

THER

S

You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

K-7


DW

G:

DR

AW

N B

Y:

DA

TE:

SC

ALE

:

DT

BRG

ON

SPA

ND

REL

KM

APR

IL 4

/201

6

1:8

CO

NN

EC

TIO

N B

Y O

THER

S

BR

G. P

LATE


K-8


DW

G:

DR

AW

N B

Y:

DA

TE:

SC

ALE

:

DT

TIE

TO

SPA

ND

REL

KM

APR

IL 4

/201

6

1:8

CO

NN

EC

TIO

N B

Y O

THER

S

PSA

INS

ERT

SPI

DE

R P

LATE


K-9


DW

G:

DR

AW

N B

Y:

DA

TE:

SC

ALE

:

VC

IN D

T FL

ANG

E

KM

APR

IL 4

/201

6

1:8

CO

NN

EC

TIO

N B

Y O

THER

S

PLA

N

ELE

VATI

ON

VE

CTO

RC

ON

NE

CTO

R


K-10


DW

G:

DR

AW

N B

Y:

DA

TE:

SC

ALE

:

DT

TO L

ITEW

ALL

BRG

KM

APR

IL 4

/201

6

1:8

CO

NN

EC

TIO

N B

Y O

THER

S

BR

G. P

LATE


K-11


DW

G:

DR

AW

N B

Y:

DA

TE:

SC

ALE

:

DT

TO L

ITE

WAL

L TI

E

KM

APR

IL 4

/201

6

1:8

CO

NN

EC

TIO

N B

Y O

THER

S

PSA

INS

ERT

SPI

DE

R P

LATE


K-12


L-1

Final Report

APPENDIX L – K-Wall S-Frame Analysis under Governing Earthquake Load

Halifax, Nova Scotia

Dalhousie Parking Structure - K WallFilename: G:\WINTER 2015-2016\CIVL 4802\S-FRAME\KWALL WITH OFFSET.TELGRAPHICAL RESULTS - Ld Case 8 Seismic 2->Axial Force (kN)

Engineer: WEMM Engineering

Page: 1 of 1

ACADEMIC VERSION NOT FOR COMMERCIAL USE S-FRAMEAcademic Version 11.1.14

© Copyright 1995-2015, S-FRAME Software Inc.

X

Y

Axial Force (kN)

2497.5586

2023.8461

1550.1337

1076.4213

602.7087

128.9963

-344.7161

-818.4285

-1292.1410

-1765.8534

-2239.5659

-2713.2783

-3186.9907

Axial Force (kN)

2497.5586

2023.8461

1550.1337

1076.4213

602.7087

128.9963

-344.7161

-818.4285

-1292.1410

-1765.8534

-2239.5659

-2713.2783

-3186.9907


L-2


Halifax, Nova Scotia

Dalhousie Parking Structure - K WallFilename: G:\WINTER 2015-2016\CIVL 4802\S-FRAME\KWALL WITH OFFSET.TELGRAPHICAL RESULTS - Ld Case 8 Seismic 2->Moment (kN-m)

Engineer: WEMM Engineering

Page: 1 of 1

ACADEMIC VERSION NOT FOR COMMERCIAL USE S-FRAMEAcademic Version 11.1.14

© Copyright 1995-2015, S-FRAME Software Inc.

X

Y

Moment (kN-m)

75.5270

63.9133

52.2996

40.6859

29.0722

17.4585

5.8448

-5.7689

-17.3826

-28.9963

-40.6100

-52.2237

-63.8374

Moment (kN-m)

75.5270

63.9133

52.2996

40.6859

29.0722

17.4585

5.8448

-5.7689

-17.3826

-28.9963

-40.6100

-52.2237

-63.8374


L-3


Dalhousie Parking Project Final Report

Documents

Transcript of Dalhousie Parking Project Final Report