Part 1 – Problem 02: The deliverable document specifies page limits for calculation appendices and drawings. If our drawings/appendices take up less pages than the limit, can other sections of the report be extended to use up the extra space, or are those pages reserved?

Yes, you may adjust other parts of the report as long as the total report is within the 11-page limit. Please only use 11×17 size pages for drawings (i.e. if you use fewer than three pages for drawings, you may not use an 11×17 page for the body of the report).

Part 1 – Problem 03 (part A): Does the member requirement of 0.2”x0.2” max area specified in the Design Guide apply for the applied retrofitting scheme technique? For instance, can the designed bracings on the extension structure done on Deliverable 2 be retrofitted to have a total dimension bigger than 0.2”x0.2”? This is technically retrofitting the proposed initial design and not proposing a new design.

We would like you to stay within the specifications of the Design Guide for all parts of the addition. You are permitted to deviate from parts of the Design Guide for the existing structure because you’re restricted by the original design of the structure. With the addition, however, you have the ability to completely adjust […]

Part 1 – Problem 03 (part B): As part of the retrofitting scheme, can the existing column dimensions be increased to exceed the 0.2”x0.2” specified area from the Existing Construction Documents?

Yes, you are permitted to increase the column dimensions of the existing structure as part of the retrofit scheme. However, if you choose to do so, please describe how this represents a real retrofit technique.

Part 1 – Problem 04: This deliverable states that we are asked to use flexible diaphragms for the existing structure (Deliverable 2 states that “Diaphragms should be completely and have zero stiffness”). Taking this into account, we considered that for the analysis of the existing structure the rigid diaphragm condition was neglected and we did not use diaphragms (wall members/slab), as it was not imposed . Is it correct ?

Yes, this question in Deliverable 4 asks you to consider how the modal results will differ when you change the initial Deliverable 2 assumption and impose a rigid diaphragm.

Part 1 – Problem 05: The deliverable states that the assumption of flexible diaphragms with zero stiffness should be changed with the rigid diaphragm condition. Does it mean that for our numerical model in SAP2000/ETABS a certain thickness diaphragm should be introduced in order to satisfy this assumption ?

Because you are assigning rigid diaphragms rather than semi-rigid diaphragms, the thickness that you assign to the slab element should have little consequence on the behavior of the structure. Rigid diaphragms have infinite in-plane stiffness rather than considering the actual in-plane stiffness, so the slab thickness would not affect the behavior.