You are on page 1of 6

University of Texas at San Antonio

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering


Civil Engineering Design (CE 4813-001)
Spring 2014





100% Submittal





Prepared By
Travis W. Miller
Austin Porlier
Jacob Wilson
Nathan Foote
Stefan Garza















Submitted to
Dr. Alberto Arroyo


Table of Contents


I. Project Summary

II. Environmental

III. Transportation

IV. Utilities

V. Drainage

VI. Geotechnical and Foundation

VII. Structural

VIII. Costs


























I. Project Summary



a. Duc-ees Convenience Store and Gas Station is located at the intersection of
Highway 37 South and Loop 1604, on the northeast corner. The property is
owned by DGS Land Development. The property is 8.24 acres with low
vegetation and has a gravel driveway and pad existing on the property from the
previous use of the property. New development will consist of the convenience
store which is 49,500 square feet. The gas station will have an estimated 50
pumping stations. Design will be carried out by High Tower, LLC.

II. Environmental

a. Notice of Intent (NOI) for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction
Activity under TPDES General Permit (TRX150000)

b. Notice of Termination (NOT) for Authorization under TPDES General Permit
TRX150000


c. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Underground and Aboveground
Storage Tank Construction Notification Form

d. Utility Installation Request for through Texas Department of Transportation


III. Transportation

a. TIA (Traffic Impact Analysis)


IV. Utilities

a. Existing Conditions
i. A 12-inch water line currently runs in front of our property. The nearest
gravity main for sewage disposal is at Loop 1604 south of our property,
12-inches.

ii. Two different routes have been analyzed to determine the best and most
efficient way to run our sanitary sewer. Due to the elevation changes it is
almost near impossible to run a gravity main to the nearest existing one.
Running it south to Loop 1604 is not feasible because of the elevation
differences. Running it west and boring under two access roads and
Highway 37 is also not possible due to the elevation; it would not meet the
minimum cover requirements. Only other possibility is installing a lift
station.

iii. Water Consumption totals to 30 EDU which requires a 3-inch meter.
Impact fees totals to $93,690.




iv. Sewage Consumption totals to 30 EDU which would also require a 3-inch
meter. Impact fees total to $33,528.

1. 8-inch gravity main at 1.3% slope

v. Lift Station

1. Wet Well Diameter - 6 feet
2. Wet Well Depth 12 feet
a. 5 feet of emergency storage
b. 4 feet of on/off storage
c. 3 feet of submersible storage
3. 4-inch force main at 888 feet
4. Pump size less than 500 gpm but greater than 133.33 gpm
vi. Fire Flow
1. Pressure Zone 2
2. Minimum of 2000 gpm
3. From the International Fire Code Table B105.1 2500 gpm
4. Install 8-inch fire line


V. Drainage

a. Existing Contours

b. Drainage Path

i. From elevation changes our run-off drains into the ditch in front of our
property and drains north to a 100-year flood plain.


c. Rational Method
i. Time of Concentration
1. 38.37 minutes
ii. Existing Flow
1. 14 cfs
iii. Proposed
1. Drainage Area 1
a. 7.63 minutes
b. 65 cfs
2. Drainage Area 2
a. 5.00 minutes
b. 27 cfs



d. Floodplain Analysis
i. Was carried out using Hec-Ras and Flowmaster

VI. Geotechnical and Foundation
a. Geotechnical Report
b. Future potential considerations for preliminary pavement and foundation design
c. Cross-sections of Canopy Foundation, Building Foundation and Parking
Pavement


VII. Structural
a. Summary
i. Concrete and Concrete-Steel Hybrid
ii. Steel Option 1
iii. Steel Option 2
iv. Steel Option 3
b. Loadings for Steel Member Design
i. Beam
ii. Girders
c. Steel Member Design
i. Beam Design-Option 1 &3
ii. Beam Design-Option 2
iii. Girder Design-Option 1
iv. Girder Design-Option 2
v. Girder Design-Option 3
d. Weight Comparison
e. Frame Loadings
i. Snow Loads
ii. Wind Loads
iii. Seismic Loads
f. SAP2000 Results
i. Transverse Frames
ii. Longitudinal Frames
g. Strength Checks of Members Against SAP2000
i. Flexural Strength
ii. Shear Strength
h. Connection Design
i. Beam-to-Girder Connection
ii. Beam-to-Column Connection
iii. Girder-to-Column Connection
i. Column Design
j. Bracing Design
i. Braces
ii. Connection





k. Dead Load Calculations for Beams, Girders, and Columns
i. Gas Pump Canopy
1. Deck -5psf
2. Faade -5psf
3. Steel Self weight

l. Live Load Calculations for Beams, Girders, and Columns
i. Gas Pump Canopy
1. Roof Live -30

m. Wind Load Calculations
i. Gas Pump Canopy
1. Lateral -25psf
2. Uplift -20psf



VIII. Costs
a. See Appendix

You might also like