Possible solution to past CM examination question

Question 1 - April 2012

Conference Hall and Exhibition Galleries

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).
 Chartered Membership Examination 5

Question 1. Conference hall and exhibition galleries

Client’s requirements
1. A circular conference hall and three floors of exhibition galleries is to be designed. It is accessed by six circular remote cores, each
containing two lifts and a staircase which are joined to the main building by glazed link walkways. See Figure Q1.
2. The area at Level 1 is to be column free and only limited support is permitted to the floors at Level 2 and above. There is no
restriction to the number of columns on the perimeter of the hall, except that they shall be at a minimum spacing of 8.0m at
Level1.
3. The client requires that 50% of the external wall surface between the access cores to be vertically glazed for natural lighting and
the remainder to be clad with composite panels. The access cores are to be clad with composite panels.
4. The roof over the hall shall be of a lightweight structure with aesthetic consideration.
5. The respective floor to floor heights between Level 1 and Level 3 are to be 10.0m with a minimum clear height of 8.0m. The floor
to floor height between Level 3 and Level 4 is to be 7.5m with a minimum clear height of 5.0m.

Imposed loading
6. Roof 0.6kN/m2
Floor Levels 2, 3, & 4 5.0kN/m2
Floor Level 1 25.0kN/m2
Loadings include an allowance for partitions, finishes, services and ceilings.

Site conditions
7. The site is level and located on the outskirts of a large city. Basic wind speed is 40m/s based on a 3 second gust; the equivalent
mean hourly wind speed is 20m/s.
8. Ground conditions – Assume to vary linearly between boreholes.
Borehole 1 Ground level – 2.0m Made ground
2.0m – 7.0m Stiff clay, 100kN/m2
Below 7.0m Rock, allowable bearing pressure 1000kN/m2
Borehole 2 Ground level – 4.0m Made ground
4.0m – 9.0m Stiff clay, 100kN/m2
Below 9.0m Rock, allowable bearing pressure 1000kN/m2
Ground water was encountered at 2.0m below ground level.

Omit from consideration

9. Detail design of staircases and lift shafts, within the cores. The cores themselves are to be designed.

SECTION 1 (50 marks)

a. Prepare a design appraisal with appropriate sketches indicating two distinct and viable solutions for the
proposed structure. Indicate clearly the functional framing, load transfer and stability aspects of each
scheme. Identify the solution you recommend, giving reasons for your choice. (40 marks)
b. After the design has been completed the client advises that he wishes to hold a sports event in the
conference hall and requires terrace seating at Level 2 and four television screens each weighing 5 tonnes
hung from the edge of the floor at Level 4. Write a letter to the client outlining how this can be achieved
and the implications. (10 Marks)

SECTION 2 (50marks)
For the solution recommended in Section 1(a)
c. Prepare sufficient design calculations to establish the form and size of all the principal structural elements
including the foundations. (20 marks)
d. Prepare general arrangement plans, sections and elevations to show the dimensions, layout and
disposition of the structural elements and critical details for estimating purposes. (20marks)
e. Prepare a detailed method statement for the safe construction of the building and an outline
construction programme. (10 marks)
4 Chartered Membership Examination
Conference Hall and Exhibition Galleries

Introduction

This question relates to a large circular conference hall. Despite its size, and circular
form the brief is relatively straightforward and thus should allow various options to
support the 95m span roof and the associated structural elements.

The brief

 The conference hall is 80m in diameter at ground floor level with sloping sides
and a curved roof with a diameter of 95m.

 The whole of level 1 (the ground floor) is to be column free. The columns around
the perimeter have a minimum spacing of 8m.

 There are three floors of exhibition galleries each of which are circular in plan.
Floor to floor heights between level 1, 2 and 3 are 10m, with a minimum clear
height of 8m, and the floor to floor height between level 3 and 4 is 7.5m with a
clear height of 5m. This leaves a further 7.5m between level 4 and the underside
of the roof at the perimeter (see figure 1).

 There are six circular external cores each containing lifts and a staircase which
provide access to the exhibition galleries. They are joined to the main building by
glazed link walkways.

 The client requires that 50% of the external wall surface between the access
cores is glazed. The remainder and the cores themselves are to be clad with
composite panels.

 The main roof over the hall is required to be lightweight, and aesthetics are
deemed to be important.

 There is a high load on the ground floor.

 The site is level and is located on the outskirts of a large city.

 The boreholes indicate that there is a significant quantity of made ground, below
which is stiff clay, all of which sits on top of rock with a ground bearing pressure
of 1000 kN/m2. There is groundwater at 2m below ground level.

CM Q1 2012
Interpretation of the brief and critical features

The main issues should be fairly obvious.

 There is a large span roof which will necessitate substantial structural members.

 There are three exhibition galleries which cannot be supported on their inner
edge by columns going to the ground.

 The six circular cores could help with stability, and may also be helpful with the
main structure.

 Although stiff clay is available, a building of this size would best be founded on
the rock.

Structural framing

There are various options that could be explored to provide framing for the building, and
particularly support for the long span roof. The cores could be used for stability and/or
could be utilised as part of the main structural frame. The roof is such a dominant
element that it's not practical to see it as a completely separate element from the
supporting mechanism (vertical support and stability).

There is theoretically sufficient depth available for the exhibition galleries to be

cantilevered from the perimeter, but the brief clearly allows support on the inner edge as
long as this doesn't extend to the ground floor. This suggests hangers taken up to the
roof, although this will introduce significant additional load on what is a long span
structure. These options can be developed in the design, possibly providing two
alternative proposals, the most pragmatic of which would be hangers from the roof.

The six circular cores provide an obvious mechanism to provide overall stability,
although a number of options for the mainframe (cantilevers, pinned arch or portal
frame) would have inherent stability without using the cores. This again provides
distinct and viable options that can be discussed in your appraisal.

The ground consists of three very different layers, a top layer of made ground, a
substantial layer of stiff clay and underlying rock. This is a large building which is going
to generate significant axial load, therefore piling to the rock seems the best solution,
however the stiff clay potentially provides an alternative and the deep layer of made
ground has implications for the ground floor slab.

This question therefore comes down to providing options for the roof with associated
variation in the stability system, support for the exhibition galleries and arrangements for
the main foundations and the ground floor slab.

CM Q1 2012
Options for the main roof

The simplest option for the main roof would be a freestanding simply supported roof
truss with stability being provided by the cores. Although there are various options, the
most logical would either be three long span trusses (but there is the complication of the
joint at the centre) or a 3D space frame supported at six points (see figure 3). This may
not fully reflect the requirement for a lightweight roof.

An alternative would be a cantilevered roof. Again there are variations on this theme.
The cantilever could extend over part of the roof, supporting a separate central roof
structure, or it could span right to the centre (see figure 4).

Another alternative would be to extend the cores to provide support for cable stays
which would provide intermediate or full support for the roof. This would have the
advantage of facilitating a lighter roof structure (see figure 5).

The fourth option would be to construct a portal frame that is integrated into the cores or
independent of the cores (the latter option does not take advantage of the natural
support mechanism provided by the six circular cores) (see figure 6). Because we have
other arrangements that enable us to present two distinct and viable alternatives, my
feeling is that this option is not worthy of development.

Stability

All of the options developed above utilise the cores in one form or another. The first
option of a freestanding roof would rely on the cores to provide lateral stability whereas
the cantilevered structure is integral with the core and therefore is inherently stable.

Exhibition floor support

The obvious mechanism for the exhibition floor support is to provide a limited number of
hangers around the inner edge of the floors supported by the roof. Although this
increases the load on the roof, it would provide a robust support mechanism for the floor
and minimise movement on the outer edge of the floor.

An alternative would be cantilevered floors unsupported at their inner edge but

deflection would need to be carefully considered. The most substantial fixity is only
available at the six core locations (although moment could also be taken into the
intermediate columns). A third option, which isn't prevented by the brief, would be
diagonal support. This has the advantage of supporting the inner edge of the floors
without adding extra load to the roof, but has the practical disadvantage of occasional
inclined structural elements within the exhibition galleries (see figure 2).

CM Q1 2012
Site conditions and foundations

It would probably be possible to found the building on the stiff clay, and this could be
investigated as a potential alternative foundation solution, however the principal
arrangement would be piles into the rock.

The conference hall would require a suspended ground floor slab which could be
supported on piles into the clay or rock.

The letter

The scenario presented in the question is that after the design has been completed the
client seeks advice in relation to potential changes connected with holding sporting
events in the conference hall. The client wishes to provide terraced seating at level two
and four television screens each weighing 5 tonnes which are to be hung from the edge
of the floor at level four.

This represents a fairly straightforward change of design which provides a variety of

options that can be discussed in your answer. The question implies (but does not state
explicitly) that the terraced seating and/or the television screens are temporary and it
does not make it clear whether the other levels would be required for concurrent use.
This would have some relevance when assessing the additional loads on the roof.

Both the terraced seating and the television screens add additional weight to the
support structure and ultimately to the roof. None of this should be difficult to
accommodate, but the client needs to be made aware of the extra load and the effect
this will have on the existing structure, and especially the long span roof. It would be
possible to mitigate the effect of the extra load on the roof by providing temporary props
to the ground floor, if this is acceptable to the client. Also, the additional impact of
dynamic loads introduced by crowd behaviour at sporting events needs to be brought
into your answer.

CM Q1 2012
Summary

This is a large building which is probably outside the day-to-day experience of most
candidates sitting the examination. However, these large buildings often lend
themselves to very straightforward structural arrangements which are therefore
relatively easy to develop into two distinct and viable schemes.

There are four elements discussed in the above appraisal which could be combined to
form two very clear distinct and viable schemes, which would be based on the approach
taken to provide the long span roof.

Care would need to be taken to not propose schemes that are too complex to design
under examination conditions in the time available, but overall this question should
provide a good vehicle for candidates to demonstrate their engineering knowledge, as
long as they are not scared off by the scale and geometry of the building.

CM Q1 2012
 Possible solution to past CM examination question

Question 2 - April 2012

Headquarters Extension

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).
 Chartered Membership Examination 7

Question 2. Headquarters extension

Client’s requirements
1. An existing office building is to be extended to accomodate additional offices and a dining area. See Figure Q2. The exterior of the
new building is to be clad with a patent glazing system that requires supports at 2.0m centres vertically and horizontally.
2. The dining area is to be 15m wide and 30m long. The clear height is to be 3m. Only two columns with a maximum size of 1m
square are permitted in this area. No other structural members are permitted within this volume or in the free space above the
dining area.
3. The office areas are to be 10m wide and 30m long. The clear height is to be 3m. No columns or other structural members are
permitted inside the office areas.
4. The building is to be linked by pedestrian bridges at each floor level. No horizontal loads are allowed to be transmitted to the
existing building via the bridges. To meet fire regulations, non-structural external stairs will be used.
5. There are no restrictions on the structure outside the building envelope. No bracing or walls are permitted inside the office spaces
or within the dining area.

Imposed loading
6. Roof loading 0.5kN/m²
Floor loading 5.0kN/m²
Bridge loading 5.0kN/m²

Site conditions
7. The site is located in a coastal location. Basic wind speed is 46m/s based on a 3 second gust; the equivalent mean hourly wind
speed is 23m/s.
8. Ground conditions:
Borehole 1 at Level 1
0.0m – 0.5m Top soil
0.5m – 2.0m Sand, N=10
2.0m – 5.0m Gravel, N=30
Below 5.0m Rock, allowable bearing pressure 500 kN/m²
Borehole 2 at 3m below Level 1
3.0m – 4.0m Loose clayey sand
4.0m – 7.0m Gravel, N=30
Below 7.0m Rock, allowable bearing pressure 500 kN/m²
Ground water was found at 4m depth from ground level.

Omit from consideration

9. Detailed design of link bridges and external stairs.

SECTION 1 (50 marks)

a. Prepare a design appraisal with appropriate sketches indicating two distinct and viable solutions for the
proposed structure. Indicate clearly the functional framing, load transfer and stability aspects of each
scheme. Identify the solution you recommend, giving reasons for your choice. (40 marks)
b. After your design is complete but before construction has been started, the client requests that the existing
building be supported laterally by the new building. Write a letter to the client advising on the impacts of
this decision on the new building. (10 marks)

SECTION 2 (50 marks)

For the solution recommended in Section 1(a):
c. Prepare sufficient design calculations to establish the form and size of all the principal structural elements
including the foundations. (20 marks)
d. Prepare general arrangement plans, sections and elevations to show the dimensions, layout and disposition
of the structural elements and critical details for estimating purposes. (20 marks)
e. Prepare a detailed method statement for the safe construction of the building and an outline construction
programme. (10 marks)
6 Chartered Membership Examination
Headquarters Extension

Introduction

This question relates to a five-storey rectangular office building as an extension to an existing

construction. It is relatively straightforward but has a few critical features including an open
dining area and a large facade of patent glazing, with the whole building sitting over a sloping
site.

The brief

A new building, which forms an extension to an existing building, provides additional offices and
a dining area.

 The exterior of the new building is to be clad with patent glazing that requires support
both vertically and horizontally at 2m centres. This is likely to be a critical feature of your
proposal on the eastern elevation (assuming north-south is vertical on the page) as there
is a large area of glazing without pre-existing structural support.

 The dining area covers the whole of the ground floor. Only two columns with a
maximum size of 1m² are permitted in this area (i.e. only two columns are available to
support the offices above). No other structural elements are permitted within the dining
area or the open atrium that runs the full height of the building.

 The office area at each level is to be 10m x 30m. No columns or other structural
members are permitted in the offices.

 Both the dining area and the offices are to have a clear height of 3m. The floor-to-floor
heights are specified, giving a maximum structural depth.

 The buildings are to be linked by pedestrian bridges at each level. However horizontal
loads cannot be transmitted via the bridges, so apart from a nominal vertical load from
the link bridge, the existing building is structurally irrelevant.

 There are no restrictions on the structure outside the building envelope.

 The site is located in a coastal region and has a significant slope. The building is
positioned 3m above existing ground level at its eastern edge. There isn't viable soil in
the upper layers but below the loose sand there is gravel overlying rock.

Interpretation of the brief and critical issues

The building itself is a relatively straightforward rectangular office block but does have a few
features that form the challenge in this particular question.

There are no restrictions on the structure around the perimeter, other than being aware of the
visual impact of structural elements, as the whole building is clad in glazing. However no

CM Q2 2012
structural members are permitted inside the office space, nor the atrium, and only two columns
are allowed in the dining area.

Each of the usable spaces in the building is required to have a clear height of 3m, with each
level having a story height of 4m, effectively allowing 1m for structure, services and finishes. As
no specific clear service zones have been specified, it would seem reasonable to use the
majority of the space for structural elements (providing openings in the structure for the services
as needed). This should be adequate for floor beams in the office area (based on span/depth
ratios) but may be insufficient for a long-span transfer structure.

The whole of the eastern elevation is clad in patent glazing, which needs supporting vertically
and horizontally at 2m centres, but there are no horizontal restraints at any level (normally
provided by the floors). Vertically there will be columns, but probably not at 2m centres.
Therefore additional, structural elements will be required to support the glazing.

On the eastern elevation the building is 3m above existing ground level, so some form of
support mechanism will be required between level 1 (ground floor) and outside ground level,
including transmission of any lateral loads into the foundations.

There is decent gravel across the site, albeit that the strata slopes, however there is underlying
rock with an allowable ground bearing pressure of 500 kN/m², which would provide an ideal
foundation.

Design options

There are effectively four issues that need to be addressed in this question. A mix-and-match
from each would form the basis of two very clear "distinct and viable" schemes. These issues
are: stability, internal support of the offices, support for the glazing (particularly on the front
elevation) and foundations (particularly at the front of the building where the ground floor slab is
above ground level). Each of these issues is discussed below.

Principal material and grid layout

Depending on the precise proposal, steel would seem an appropriate material for the main
frame and particularly any lattice structures. This would facilitate architecturally pleasing
(exposed) bracing. The floors would be constructed of reinforced concrete. Concrete could be
used as an alternative material, but offering the same framing arrangement, with one scheme in
steel and the other scheme in concrete would not be deemed to be two different schemes. I
have chosen a 6m grid as it can be readily subdivided to facilitate the glazing support structure
which has a maximum span of 2m.

Office support

As each floor level and clear heights have been specified, it is not practical to have a deep
transfer beam at level 2 spanning the full 30m, however with two supporting columns a transfer
structure comprising a three span continuous beam would be a feasible option. This could
either support additional columns above the level two floor, with shorter span beams at the
upper levels, or the same column arrangement at each level, running the two columns right

CM Q2 2012
through to the roof. The second option is simpler but requires longer spans for the floors.

Therefore the "obvious" first design option would be to specify two columns in the dining area
aligning with the internal edge of the offices above, providing a transfer structure at level two,
supporting more conventionally spaced columns on the outer extremity of the offices on levels 2
- 5. See figure Q2 - 1.

As an alternative, a lattice roof structure could span from front to back, with the office columns
hung from the roof, meaning that no columns would be required in the dining area, see figures
Q2 - 2 and Q2 - 5. This would give a distinct and viable alternative to this part of the structure.

Support for the patent glazing.

The patent glazing clearly needs some dedicated structural members in addition to any principal
columns, as it requires support at 2m centres vertically and horizontally. Because this is such a
significant element of the question it would be desirable to provide two alternatives. Although
main columns could be supplied at 2m centres it would probably be more practical and cost-
effective to provide principal supports at wider centres and then secondary support members
spanning between them, see figure Q2 - 7. The columns on the eastern elevation are long
(19m) with no intermediate support and therefore no lateral restraint, therefore effective lengths,
instability and deflection all need to be carefully considered.

Figures Q2 - 2, 3 & 5 show some options, where this part of the structure could be made a
feature. The loads and exact structural purpose of these columns will depend on how they are
integrated into the overall structural form (see figures) but each option involves vertical columns
supporting the roof, with secondary support spanning horizontally and vertically between them
providing support for the glazing system.

An alternative would be to provide horizontal lattice beams as the principal members supporting
the glazing. This arrangement would not provide vertical support to the roof, although the roof
could be supported from the internal columns and a 5m cantilever truss (see figure Q2 - 4).
Because of the relative dimensions of the building (20 m high and 30 m long), this option does
not have any particular advantage over vertical supports having the dual function of principal
columns holding-up the roof and glazing support, but it is nevertheless a viable alternative and
illustrates that you can devise alternatives.

Foundations

The soil profile given in the question is open to some interpretation, however the two relevant
elements are the gravel which slopes across the site (and is below the water table), and the
rock. This provides us with the opportunity to propose two alternative foundation systems, one
utilising pads in the gravel and the second, piles in the rock. We would need to exercise some
caution with the pad solution, bearing in mind the gravel slopes and is below groundwater level
but it does enable you to offer two different schemes. Once the options and the pros and cons
are discussed, I would propose piles into the rock as the preferred scheme.

Because the new building’s ground floor slab is above existing ground level at all but the rear of
the building, transferring lateral loads into the ground becomes an issue which certainly should
be discussed. One option would be to take all the lateral loads out on the rear foundations, in

CM Q2 2012
which case simple axially loaded columns would span between the ground floor slab and the top
of the foundations, but it would be desirable to spread the lateral loads across all of the
foundations. This could be easily achieved by concrete walls although these may look rather
bulky, but the same effect could be achieved by diagonal columns, or raking piles any of which
could be made a feature of the building.

Stability

Although the building is clad in glazing, there is no indication that this precludes diagonal
bracing. There are many examples where bracing is made an architectural feature, and is
deliberately visible behind glass facades. The fact that the building is clad in glass makes
deflection a critical issue and therefore a stiff stability system is a desirable feature. Therefore,
diagonal bracing in each elevation would seem to be the most desirable option to achieve
stability. Concrete shear walls would not be appropriate in this particular situation. An
alternative could be moment resisting frames, which could readily be constructed East/West and
possibly North/South. Figure Q2 - 5 shows an arrangement where the basic construction
consists of large moment resisting frames with the internal offices hung from the frame.

Vertical bracing should be selected as the desirable scheme on the basis of simplicity and
critically, restricting deflection in the building. This arrangement of course has the added benefit
that it is straightforward to design (an important practical consideration in the examination).

Forming two distinct and viable schemes

Although I have advocated a pick and mix of the various options for each of the main features,
this is primarily for the purpose of thinking through the options afforded by the brief which can
later be combined into viable structural arrangements. Once this is complete, for the purposes
of the exam they should be packaged into two clear schemes (i.e. the analysis of the available
options could form part of the initial design appraisal but they must result in "two distinct and
viable" [fully worked-up] structural schemes.

Section 1b - Letter

The scenario presented in section 1b relates to a fundamental issue in relation to the existing
building in that the client has requested that the new building provides lateral support for the
existing building (presumably via the link bridges). Clearly this would increase the lateral loads
carried on the superstructure and foundations of the new building, but this should be easily
accommodated by designing for higher loads, assuming the new building has a relatively stiff
bracing arrangement. If a more flexible frame has been proposed, the need for resisting
additional load would further increase deflection, which would have to be checked very carefully
in relation to the glazed cladding. However, the main issue in relation to this proposal is
transferring the loads through a single vertical line of link bridges. It would be virtually
impossible to resist torsional loads, and therefore part of the solution should involve increasing
the number of links by providing additional connections at the North and South intersections.

The other issue that is worth considering is the circumstance that has led to this requirement
and whether it would be possible to transfer lateral loads out of the existing building without
retrofitting strong points into this building. It seems reasonable to assume that the building is

CM Q2 2012
currently stable but is subject to some circumstance that requires additional lateral support.
This could be inadequacy in the current provision or some change to the existing building that
necessitates support from the adjacent new building. If the lateral loads from the existing
building are transferred to the new building, it would be relatively easy to strengthen the new
building and perfectly possible to provide adequate transfer arrangements, but it could be
extremely difficult to collect the lateral loads from the existing building at locations where they
could be transferred into the new building. These aspects give another whole dimension that
could be discussed in the letter.

Summary

This seems to be a reasonably straightforward question, with some obvious structural

challenges. The brief is clear and the combination of supporting the office floors internally (with
a limited number of columns), the unsupported glass facade, and the raised building on the East
elevation provide a vehicle through which to demonstrate your understanding of structural
principles and to develop proposals for viable alternative solutions. By combining these options
along with possible alternative stability systems you should be able to provide the "two
distinction and viable solutions" required by the question.

CM Q2 2012
 Possible solution to past CM examination question

Question 4 - April 2012

New Arts School

by Bob Wilson

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).