HUGHES STADIUM SEATING EXPANSIONthornton/Spring_2013/Old Reports/MAKET_Report.pdfthe site for concerts by such well‐known artists as Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones and Elton John

1

Preliminary Report Created For Colorado State University Facilities Management

MAKET ENGINEERING

APRIL 28 2011

HUGHES STADIUM SEATING EXPANSION

HUGHES STADIUM SEATING EXPANSION PRELIMINARY REPORT

2011

MAKET ENGINEERING | Fort Collins, Colorado

This report has been prepared for Colorado State University Facilities Management

Fort Collins, Colorado 80523

Created By MAKET Engineering

Department of Civil Engineering College of Engineering

Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523

Spring Semester 2011

MAKET ENGINEERING TEAM MATT GOODERUM

ANNIE SWAN KAITLIN PHENIX EVAN SHICK


2011


TYLER DUNN DEREK PECK


2011


Fred Haberecht Colorado State University Facilities Management Facilities Services North 251 Edison Drive Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523‐6030

April 2011

Dear Mr. Haberecht,

MAKET Engineering is honored to present a preliminary design plan for the seating reconfiguration and expansion of the east side of Hughes Stadium in Fort Collins, CO. The following report includes additions such as seating design plans for the east side which will maximize revenue, and plans for renovation of the restrooms and concessions to accommodate additional guests.

A hard copy of the preliminary report follows, and includes:

• The background of the stadium and statement of problems and objectives • The technical approach for designing the seating expansion • Preliminary design alternatives and descriptions • Preliminary design, analysis, and recommendations • Cost estimate for seating expansion

After three design alternatives were created and analyzed, MAKET Engineering has recommended a design which will be built on top of the existing structure and includes a club level with box suites mirroring the west side of the stadium. This design also includes a plan to renovate the restrooms, concessions, and exits to accommodate the additional guests. This design was chosen because it maximizes revenue, maintains an aesthetic appeal and increases seating capacity by approximately seven thousand seats. The estimated preliminary construction cost for the seating expansion and renovation is $ 27.1 million.

MAKET Engineering is grateful for the opportunity to work with CSU’s Facilities Management and be able to provide a preliminary design plan for the client. The experience the team has gained is invaluable and will be used as each member continues into the workforce. Please feel free to contact us with any questions or concerns at 303‐588‐8389 or the address below.

Respectfully,

Kaitlin Phenix, Project Lead MAKET Engineering 3444 Riva Ridge Place Fort Collins, Colorado 80526


2011


Table of Contents

Background and History 1

Purpose and Objectives 5

Technical Approach 6

Collection of Relevant Information 7

Alternative Designs and Evaluation 8

Seating Configuration A 8

Seating Configuration B 9

Seating Configuration C 10

Alternative Recommendation 11

Preliminary Design 12

General Design Description 12

Specifications for Design 13

Structural Analysis 16

Cost Analysis 19

Summary 20

Appendices

Appendix A: Additional Figures A1

Appendix B: AutoCAD Drawings B1

Appendix C: Calculations C1

Appendix D: References D1


2011

MAKET ENGINEERING | Fort Collins, Colorado ii

List of Figures & Tables

Figures

Figure 1. Hughes Stadium from the East 1

Figure 2. Press Box, Club Level Seating and Suites 2

Figure 3. Location of Potential East Side Stadium Expansion 4

Figure 4. Technical Approach Flowchart 6

Figure 5. Design A 8

Figure 6. Design B 9

Figure 7. Design C 10

Figure 8. Geographic Location of Hughes Stadium in Fort Collins, Colorado A1

Tables

Table 1. 2004 – 2005 Renovations 3

Table 2. Loads and Load Combinations 17

Table 3. Columns 18

Table 4. Initial Cost 19

Table 5. Increased Revenue 19


2011

MAKET ENGINEERING | Fort Collins, Colorado 1

Background and History

Colorado State University’s football team is currently a Division 1 Football Bowl Subdivision program. College football currently uses the Bowl Championship Series (BCS), which employs a ranking system to determine which teams will play in the thirty‐five bowl games at the end of the season. These bowl games can generate a large amount of revenue for the teams involved. Each of the five major BCS bowls pay each school $17 million dollars, and more money is generated through sponsorship and booster clubs. There are currently 120 Football Bowl Subdivision teams split up into eleven conferences and three independent schools. Colorado State University’s football team is currently a part of the Mountain West Conference (MWC), which is labeled as a non‐automatic qualifier conference. The MWC will be expanding to take on three new teams from the Western Athletic Conference; Boise State, Nevada and Fresno State. By expanding to a total of ten teams, the MWC is closer to becoming an automatic qualifier conference. In order to be considered as an automatic qualifier conference in the BCS, the teams in the conference must have stadiums that seat enough people. Hughes stadium currently seats approximately 35,000 people, which is well below the desired requirements.

Hughes Stadium has been an important part of the Colorado State University and Fort Collins community since its opening in the fall of 1968. The stadium, which was constructed in a natural oval bowl, is home to the Colorado State University Rams and over the years has been the site for concerts by such well‐known artists as Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones and Elton John. Officially named Sonny Lubick Field at Hughes Stadium, it sits at an elevation of 5,190 feet. It is located beneath the famous Aggies “A” at the base of Horsetooth Reservoir, about four miles west of the main campus. Figure 1 below illustrates the current appearance of the stadium as seen from the east side and Figure 8 in Appendix A indicates its geographic location.

Figure 1. Hughes Stadium from the East


2011


The initial cost of construction was about three million dollars and took one year to complete. Originally, seating was only provided on the east and west sides of the stadium, with grass on the north and south ends. On the west side of the stadium the seating is currently for non‐students and contains approximately 16,000 seats that are a combination of bench seats and individual seats. Student seating is provided on the east side of the stadium and holds close to 10,000 fans on bench seating. After a major renovation in 2005, 4,300 bleacher seats were added to the north end zone. The renovation also included the replacement of the existing press box and club level seating and the addition of twelve luxury suites. Figure 2 displays the press box, club level seating area, and the suites.

Figure 2. Press Box, Club Level Seating, Suites

Currently Hughes Stadium seats a total of 34,400 visitors, but an expansion on the south side is being considered to add approximately 4,000 more seats. The estimated cost of replacement is about $200 million, thus an expansion is the more practical and economical option.


2011


Since the original construction of Hughes Stadium there have been multiple renovations and additions. In 2000, permanent lighting was added to reduce long term costs of renting lighting equipment. Table 1 outlines the major renovations that took place throughout 2004 and 2005:

Table 1. 2004‐2005 Renovations

Phase Description of Work Done

I • Enclosed the north bowl, adding 4,300 bleacher seats • A new video scoreboard and renovated sound system in south end zone

II • Installed new concrete pier foundations and a new precast concrete structure

III • Demolished existing club and press structures • Club and press structures were replaced by a 20,000 square foot steel

structure for enlarged club seating, twelve suites, two lounges and eight restrooms

IV • Interior finish work, including new central heating and air conditioning • A complete fire sprinkler and alarm system were added

The renovated club section provides seating for 420 spectators and the twelve added suites provide seating for 230 spectators. Improvements to these sections include:

• Two new two‐story lounges constructed on the west side with views of Horsetooth Reservoir;

• Two new elevators for spectators;

• Renovation of the existing elevator for press, coaches and stadium service personnel;

• Installation of a fire sprinkler and alarm system;

• Fiber‐optic and wireless connections for spectators, the press and coaches; and

• A broadcast cable system for television and replay.

In 2006, the natural grass field was replaced by FieldTurf. Aesthetics were kept in mind during the entire renovation, so the final product is a modern and high‐tech stadium with expansive views of the foothills.


2011


Remaining areas of potential expansion include the construction of additional levels above the existing east side seating including a renovation of the existing restrooms and concessions as well as an additional level above the existing north side seating. Figure 3 indicates the location of the potential east side expansion.

Figure 3. Location of Potential East Side Stadium Expansion


2011


Purpose and Objectives

Since Hughes Stadium is the smallest stadium in the Mountain West Conference, the overall goal is to raise its capacity to 50,000 seats. The objective of this proposed project is to develop a preliminary architectural design for an east side seating expansion that maximizes the number of seats that will provide the most increased revenue. This expansion will raise the total seating capacity closer to 50,000 seats, therefore becoming closer to complying with the conference requirements. The project focuses on expanding the east side of the stadium and includes three design alternatives to increase seating capacity. One alternative includes the design of club level seating along with box suites that mirror those found on the west side of the stadium. This expansion adheres to building codes and standards regarding seating, stairwells, fire codes, means of egress, and disabled seating. Due to increased seating, stadium amenities such as restrooms, concessions, and exits have be analyzed to provide adequate facilities for the expanding fan base. The ultimate goal of this expansion is to provide maximum revenue for Colorado State University as well as the Mountain West Conference while maintaining an attractive and enjoyable atmosphere for fans.


2011


Technical Approach

MAKET Engineering worked closely with Colorado State University Facilities Management and the Athletic Department to develop a design that was operationally sufficient while remaining economically feasible. This design had to integrate the requests of the clients with the structural analysis aspects of the seating expansion. In order to efficiently and effectively complete their objectives, MAKET developed a technical approach that is outlined below in the flowchart labeled Figure 4. Each heading in the flow chart will be explained in further detail in the following pages of this report.

Figure 4. Technical Approach Flowchart


2011


Collection of Relevant Information

After reaching a full understanding of the objectives, MAKET collected the necessary relevant information to facilitate the project. The following summarizes this stage of the technical approach required to move forward with the preliminary design.

Plans/Blueprints and Site Visit

MAKET contacted CSU Facilities Management to obtain detailed plans and blueprints of Hughes Stadium. The plans included measurements and elevations of the original design from the 1960’s as well as the newer renovation from 2005. An overhead plan view in AutoCAD was also received showing exact dimensions and elevations of the current stadium. Finally, MAKET Engineering acquired design plans compliments of HOK, for the east side of Hughes stadium composed of several expansion alternatives. Each plan and blueprint was reviewed and referenced to gain a greater knowledge of the existing structure and its surroundings.

MAKET Engineering also contacted Athletic Director, Doug Max, to arrange several site visits to Hughes Stadium. The site visits were conducted for multiple purposes: first, to better understand the expansion area by walking the structure and taking photos. Second, to view the current architecture and existing seating areas (bleachers, club seats, and box suites) with the possibility of mirroring the west side. And lastly, MAKET wanted to have the client explain and show what was considered essential to the new expansion design. A final site visit was conducted to confirm that all the final measurements on the preliminary design comply with the existing structure.

Codes and Design Specifications for Stadiums

In order for the preliminary stadium design to be in compliance with the City of Fort Collins, MAKET Engineering has taken into account all appropriate codes and design specifications. All design specifications for the seating configurations such as seat spacing, aisle spacing, and stairway requirements, as well as design loads were established using ICC 300‐2002. Codes and specifications involving structural design, means of egress, and concrete were obtained from the IBC 2009: International Building Code. For plumbing requirements the IPC 2009: International Plumbing Code was used for the proposed restroom facilities. The structural design loads used to design structural members were determined from ASCE 7‐05: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. Minimum required design loads for snow wind and rain were found from the City of Fort Collins Building Services: Codes and Standards. Codes and specifications relating to handicap accessibility requirements were found according to the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design.


2011


Design Alternatives and Evaluation

After collecting the necessary material and information, three design alternatives were developed, analyzed, and prepared for presentation to the client at an intermediate meeting where a final design was chosen for further development. Considerations included ease of construction, construction cost, number and type of increased seats, aesthetics, accessibility, and increased future revenue. The following outlines the three alternatives:

DESIGN A

Design A is a seating configuration in which a large seating addition would be added directly onto the existing east side structure. The structure would attach to the back of the existing seating and continue upwards, adding approximately 60 rows above the existing student section. In this design, the style of seating would be bleacher bench seats; the same as currently exists on the east side. The apex of this seating addition would be at the same height as the highest point on the west side of the stadium. Finally, the seating addition would continue the length of the current seating structure, which would help maintain an aesthetically pleasing look to the stadium.

The advantage of this design is that it is simply constructed; no additional structural supports would be necessary. Based on the initial cost estimates, this would be the most cost effective design out of the three designs because less material and labor would be used. Additionally, this design provides approximately 6,000 additional seats. The disadvantage of this design is that it provides less revenue than other alternatives because bench seating is the least expensive type of seat to sell. There would also be demolition of about 2,900 seats in the existing student section to accommodate for the construction of the new seats. Finally, there are possible congestion issues that arise due to the current means of egress that are available on the east side. Figure 5 displays the design for Alternative A.

Figure 5: Design A


2011


DESIGN B

This alternative provides additional seating while also taking into consideration the viewing pleasure of disabled patrons. This addition is similar to Design A, however there would be no demolition of existing seats. Instead, Design B would use the current space at the top of the exiting seating structure to create an aisle way that would then give rise to a seating expansion. The aisle way would attach to a ramp, so disabled patrons would be able to access this area easily and have designated viewing areas. This aisle way is separated from the main aisle way so that people from the existing section as well as the new addition can all move about without congestion issues.

The advantage of this design is that it does not require any demolition of the existing section. Design B also provides the most net additional seats with approximately 6,300.

There is easy access to this addition for disabled patrons as well as for regular viewers. In addition, this design maintains consistency with existing seating, making it aesthetically pleasing. The two disadvantages of this design are that there is less revenue generated because of the bench seating that would be used, and there would be a higher cost of construction because more material would be required and the construction would take longer than Design A. Figure 6 illustrates the layout for Alternative B.

Figure 6: Design B


2011


Figure 7: Design C

DESIGN C

Design C is the third and final design alternative. It includes suites and club seating as well as bench seating above the suite and club area. There would be 2 suites added on each end of the addition with the club level in between. This design mirrors the club and suite layout on the west side. Each suite would hold approximately 18 people and the club level in between would contain approximately 1,000 seats. The addition with the suites and club seats would span the length of the existing east side seating structure and would be built above the last row of seats. This design alternative provides the suites and the club level with indoor and outdoor seating, as opposed to the west side which only contains indoor seating. Finally, approximately 4,000 seats would be added in a structure that would be placed atop the suite and club level. The seats contained in this area could be changed from bench to chair‐back style depending on preference of the client.

The advantage of this design is that it generates the most revenue because of the suite and club seating, which in turn benefits the athletic department and university as a whole. This design is aesthetically pleasing because it mirrors the west side club level and suites and adds an air of luxury to the stadium. Most importantly, this design contains elements, such as suites and club level seating, which are desirable to the client and their vision of the stadium in the future. The disadvantage to this option is that it is a complex construction and elements of structural support must be considered. It is also the highest construction cost while providing the least amount of overall seating. Design C is illustrated in Figure 7.


2011



2011


RECOMMENDATION

At an intermediate meeting held with the client, MAKET Engineering recommended Design C as the superior design for the expansion of the east side of Hughes Stadium. This option is the most complex in terms of construction and structural additions and is the most expensive alternative. However, after considering the requests of the client, the drawbacks are outweighed by the advantages of this design. By providing the stadium with 4 more suites and approximately 1,000 more club level seats, the revenue generated will be far greater than any other alternative. Also, this design contains features such as providing outdoor seating for the suite and club level, which cannot be found on the west side. Last, by constructing another seating addition atop the suite and club level, it gives this design diversity not offered by any other alternative. In summation, the benefits of constructing an addition with suites, club seating, and traditional seating provides patrons with more options for seating and revenue for the university, which are offset by the complexities of such a design. At the conclusion of the presentation of the alternatives, the client chose MAKET’s recommendation of Design C to be further developed.


2011


Preliminary Design____________________

General Design Description

Visually, the chosen design will span the length of the current east side student section and will be constructed above the last row of the existing section. The suite and club level will be one story high and will contain 2 suites on each end, with the club level in between. Each suite will have a capacity of 18 people and contain indoor and outdoor seating. The club seating will contain luxury chair‐back seats that will add about 1,000 additional seats to the stadium. The club level will also have the option of sitting outside or inside and a lounge inside can provide additional shelter in case of inclement weather as well as a 360° bar. To access the club and suite level, a patron will take a private elevator up to this level and will be spared the difficulty of dealing with crowds in the student section. Currently a suite sells for $35,000 a season and a single club seat sells for $1,500 per season. By adding 4 suites and about 1,000 club seats, this provides a generous increase in revenue for the athletic department and university. The additional seating structure will be added to the top of the suites and club level and can be accessed by ramps that will be added to each side of the new addition. The addition of ramps on each side of the new addition will minimize congestion as well as giving disabled patrons ease of access to the upper levels. Disabled seating will exist at the front of this upper seating addition and will provide almost 100 designated areas for disabled persons, which far exceeds the required amount specified in the IBC 2009. This upper level addition will contain about 6,200 bench seats, bringing the total seating addition of this alternative to 7,418. This along with an expansion of the north and south sides can potentially raise the capacity of the stadium to 50,000. Detailed accompanying AutoCAD drawings can be found in Appendix B.


2011


Specifications for Design

MAKET Engineering has researched specifications and codes that apply to stadiums and have outlined relevant codes below. Each specification is in keeping with stadium codes as well as city and county codes. Seating, disabled seating, restrooms, vendors, ramp structures and means of egress have been outlined below and have been complied with in design of structural additions.

Bleacher Seating

Bleacher seating, aisles and aisle stairs are designed in accordance with ICC 300‐2002 and IBC 2009. The upper seating addition will consist of 26 rows of seating with a maximum of 25 seats per row between a total of 9 aisles.

Bleacher seating will continue along the length of the row and have a width of 11.5 inches and depth of 16.5 inches measured from the face of the concrete slab to top of bleacher. Seating has been designed so that one person occupies 18 inches of bleacher length.

To preserve the line‐of‐sight for each spectator, rows have been designed to form a slight concave shape in keeping with the existing shape of the structure, with depths of approximately 12 inches measured as a clear vertical distance. The width of the row is approximately 30 inches as a clear horizontal distance. Aisle widths are designed for 48 inches with aisle stairs continuing the length of the aisle.

Disabled Seating

Disabled seating is provided to accommodate people with physical disabilities and has been designed in accordance with ADA standards. It is required that at least one percent of the seating be designed for wheelchair locations. MAKET Engineering has included wheelchair seating locations at the upper level addition and has far exceeded the one percent requirement. The clear space allowance in the design for single and double wheelchairs with a forward entrance are 34 inches by 48 inches and 68 inches by 48 inches, respectively.

Restrooms

MAKET Engineering has researched restroom requirements for the seating configuration alternative chosen by the client. A description and recommendations of necessary


2011


additional facilities needed for the proposed expansion are provided on the following page.

In order to accommodate the increased capacity of the stadium, the existing restroom will be demolished, relocated, and expanded. The IBC 2006 states that for the first 1,500 males and females, 1 toilet stall is required for every 75 males and every 40 females. For numbers exceeding 1,500, 1 toilet stall is required for every 120 males and every 60 females. According to the IPC 2006, urinals can replace a maximum of 67% of male stalls in assembly areas such as stadiums. The following calculations and recommendations will use this maximum of 67% and will assume that the spectators consist of an equal number of each sex.

With the increase of 7,418 seats, a minimum of 68 additional stalls would be required for the women’s restrooms and a minimum of 35 additional stalls would be required for the men’s restrooms, 23 of which could be replaced with urinals.

Vendors

Hughes Stadium currently contains eight permanent concessions on the east and west sides of the stadium, each with two vendors a piece. The ratio of vendor to seats at current capacity is one vendor to every 2,150 seats. The standard throughout the Mountain West Conference is one vendor to every 2,500 seats. Although Hughes Stadium meets this standard, MAKET Engineering felt that this ratio could be improved by adding more permanent concessions to the east side of the stadium. The proposed expansion adds 7,418 seats bringing the total stadium capacity to approximately 42,000 and adding six permanent concessions. As part of the expansion, two of the permanent concessions will be added to the lower level concourse and four concessions will be added to the upper level concourse. With the added concessions, this brings the ratio to one vendor to every 1,500 seats. MAKET Engineering believes that these added permanent concessions will greatly benefit patrons with easier, faster service and benefit the university with added revenue.

Ramp Structures

The ramp structures are designed in compliance with IBC 2006, as well as ADA standards. Ramps at the north and south ends of the stadium are to be provided. Each ramp will be designed identically in order to provide a sense of symmetry and aesthetic appeal. A maximum slope of 1:12, permitted by ADA standards, will be used to provide elevation change. The ramps are to be 10 feet wide having runs being equal to or less


2011


than 60 feet. Areas of the ramps where a change in direction occurs, a level landing of at minimum 10 feet shall be provided. Continuous handrails are to be present along the inside and outside of the ramps spanning the entire ramp length. The recommended dimensions for handrails are 1.25 to 2 inches in diameter having a height of 34 to 36 inches. A minimum clearance of 2 inches from any wall shall be provided for every handrail.

Means of Egress

The phrase "means of egress" refers to the ability to exit the structure, primarily in the event of an emergency, such as a fire. Specifically, a means of egress is broken into three parts: the path of travel to an exit, the exit itself, and the exit discharge (the path to a safe area outside). The code also address the number of exits required for a structure based on its intended occupancy use and the number of people who could be in the structure at one time as well as their relative locations.

Means of egress and emergency escape conditions have been verified in accordance with IBC 2006. A total of eight exits currently exist at Hughes Stadium for spectators to use in the event of an emergency. The addition of two ramp structures has been imposed to better exit access and flow. Aisles and stairs that connect the additional seating have been designed to maximize pedestrian flow. A maximum travel distance from the seating to the provided exits along aisle access way’s has been designed at 120 feet which is well below the maximum allowable distance of 400 feet.

In addition to the ramp structures three elevators have been designed to provide added ease of access and functionality of the structure. Two passenger elevators have been strategically placed in the center of the expansion structure to provide optimal service routes for the club and upper levels. A service elevator has also been added providing access for the loading and unloading of larger objects to upper levels of the structure. Each elevator has been designed with accordance with building codes to ensure safety.


2011


Structural Analysis

Structural load analyses were performed to determine the required load capacity of the proposed seating structure, as well as the seating structure’s compatibility with the existing seating structure. The design loads were calculated in accordance with ASCE 7‐05: Minimal Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures which includes dead, live, snow, rain, and wind.

In order to calculate the loads listed above, the proposed structure was broken into five separate sections: upper level bleachers, upper level concourse exposed, upper level concourse beneath the bleachers, club and suite level, and club seating outdoors. The sections were separated based on variations in loads experienced throughout the structure.

Dead loads, according to ASCE 7‐05 3.1.1, are defined as consisting of "... the weight of all materials of construction incorporated into the building..." This is generally considered to mean that anything that is a fixed part of the structure is a dead load. To be considered dead load, an item must be physically attached to the structure. Additional uniform loads were taken into consideration on certain parts of the structure due to the weight of people and amenities.

Live loads are defined in ASCE 7‐05 4.2.1 are the maximum loads expected by the intended use or occupancy, but shall in no case be less than the minimum uniformly distributed unit loads required by Table 4‐1 in ASCE 7‐05. The live loads used for the designed structure were determined from that table.

Snow loads are considered a uniform load due to the accumulation of snow and snow drifts on a structure. Snow loads for the proposed structure were calculated using the procedure indicated in Chapter 7 of ASCE 7‐05. The calculations yielded a snow load of 16.17 psf, however, the City of Fort Collins building codes require a minimum snow load of 30 psf for design. As a result, a snow load of 30 psf was used for design.

Rain loads involve the uniform load due to the accumulation of precipitation due to intense, short‐duration rainfall events. The determination of these loads incorporates the type and location of roof drainage for the structure. The proposed structure was designed for a maximum 2 in. of standing water due to the location of the secondary drains.

Wind loads are defined as the uniform air pressure acting on the surface of a structure. The loads were calculated, according to Method 1‐ Simplified Procedure described in Chapter 6 of ASCE 7‐05. The proposed structure was designed as a main wind force resisting system as well as a rigid structure. A basic design wind speed of 100 mph was required by the City of Fort


2011


Collins building codes. Only windward forces were taken into account during the structural analysis and design.

Due to geographic location and relevant statistical data, seismic loading was not considered in the design of the proposed structure.

There were five load combinations calculated for each segment of the structure. All five load combinations took into account the dead, live, snow, rain and wind loads as previously specified. These values are shown in Table 2. Using the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) the maximum load combination was determined and is highlighted below in Table 2.

Table 2: Loads and Load Combinations

Loads (psf) Loads (psf) Loads (psf) Loads (psf) Loads (psf)

Dead 108.67 Dead 98.67 Dead 163.67 Dead 118.67 Dead 112

Live 100 Live 100 Live 100 Live 100 Live 60

Snow 30 Snow 30 Snow 0 Snow 0 Snow 30

Rain 10.4 Ra in 10.4 Ra in 0 Rain 0 Rain 10.4

Wind 4.32 Wind 16.11 Wind 16.11 Wind 11.6 Wind 3.7

Load Combinations

(psf)Load

Combinations(psf)

Load Combinations

(psf)Load

Combinations(psf)

Load Combinations

(psf)

1 152.13 1 138.13 1 229.13 1 166.13 1 156.8

2 305.4 2 293.4 2 356.4 2 302.4 2 245.4

3 278.4 3 266.4 3 296.4 3 242.4 3 242.4

4 252.31 4 259.18 4 322.18 4 260.96 4 215.32

5 236.4 5 224.4 5 296.4 5 242.4 5 200.4

Upper Level Bleachers

Upper Level Concourse (Exposed)

Upper Level Concourse

(Beneath Bleachers)Club and Suite Level Club Seating

The figures tabulated in Table 2 were calculated using a step by step procedure that can be found in Appendix C.

After the maximum load combinations were calculated, this information was used to determine the size and strength of columns that will be required to support each level of the expansion. Initially, the square footage of each section of the proposed structure was determined. The total required strength of each section was determined using the square footage and the calculated applied factored loads found using LRFD. Each segment was then divided into equivalent tributary areas in order to define the number of columns to be used. The breakdown of each section into smaller tributary areas allowed the required strength of each column to be calculated. The LRFD load factor of 0.9 was used to calculate the design strength


2011


of each column. In order to be conservative, a large factor of safety (3) was used to find the actual design strength of each column. This is due to the assumption that stadiums are often exposed to excessive, spontaneous dynamic loading.

Upon determining the design strength of each column, several column dimensions were evaluated to meet the design requirements set forth. Using the optimal column dimensions the allowable column strengths were determined. The structure was designed using 3 ksi reinforced concrete with a unit weight of 148 pcf. The resulting column design for each column type of the proposed structure is shown in Table 3. Each column was designed to aesthetically match the existing columns on the west side of Hughes Stadium.

Table 3: Columns

Existing Concourse

T 5001 278 309 3 926 18" x 24" 1296

Existing Concourse Arched

24845 690 767 3 2301 18" x 44" 2376

Club Level and Suites

17265 480 533 3 1599 24" x 24" 1728

Upper Concourse

7903 439 488 3 1464 18" x 27" 1458

Total Required Strength (kips)

Columns

Required Strength of Each Column

(kips)

Design Strength of Each Column

(kips)

Factor of Safety

Design Strength w/ F.S. (kips)

Column Dimensions

Actual Column Strength (kips)

All calculations supplying the values found in this table can be found in Appendix C.


2011


Cost Analysis

After consulting with industry professionals and the advisor of the project, MAKET Engineering decided upon a base price per seat for each section with bleacher seats being the least expensive and box suite seats being the most expensive. This is summarized in the following table:

Table 4: Initial Cost

Seating Number of Seats Price Per Seat ($) Price (million $)

Bleacher 6420 3500 22.47

Club 926 4500 4.17

Suite 72 6000 0.43

TOTAL 27.07

The same approach was used when considering the increased future revenue, again with bleacher seats being the least expensive and box suite seats being the most expensive. The following table summarizes the increased future revenue:

Table 5: Increased Revenue

Increased Revenue Increased Revenue Per Seat Per Season

($)Per Season (million $)

Bleacher 6420 200 1.28

Club 926 600 0.56

Suite 72 1000 0.07

TOTAL 1.91

Seating Number of Seats

As previously mentioned, this alternative has the highest initial cost at about $27.1 million but it makes the most increase in future revenue with about $2 million per season. At 100% capacity, the stadium would be paid off in about 14 years however; this number has been calculated without the considered increase from concessions and parking.

MAKET Engineering estimates that about 250 hours were spent towards this expansion design.


2011


Summary

In order to increase the capacity at Colorado State University’s Hughes Stadium, MAKET Engineering has developed a preliminary design for an east side seating expansion. Three alternative designs were created and presented to the Colorado State University Facilities Management and Athletic Department where a final preliminary design was chosen. The final preliminary design for the seating expansion includes the addition of a suite/club level above the existing seating and above that, 6,300 bleacher style seats mirroring those found on the west side. 7,418 total additional seats increases the stadium’s overall capacity to approximately 42,000 seats. If the proposed south side expansion is carried out as well as an expansion of the north side, the new stadium would hold the necessary amount of spectators. These additions would allow spectators to choose from a variety of seating options: suite/box on the east side with views of the mountains or west side with view of the city, indoor club seating on the west side, indoor and outdoor club seating on the east side, chair‐back style seating on the west side, and bleacher style seating on the west, north, east, or south sides. The aesthetics of the addition will be consistent with the rest of the stadium, imitating already existing sections of the stadium as much as possible. It is recommended to use lightweight concrete in the expansion to ensure structural reliability of the existing structure. In order to accommodate the additional visitors east side restrooms and concessions have been added and relocated in accordance with the appropriate codes and specifications. The total estimated cost for the expansion is $27.1 million ($3,650 per seat) but the potential increased revenue per season is about $2 million.


2011


Appendices

Appendix A: Additional Figures

Figure 8. Geographic Location of Hughes Stadium in Fort Collins, Colorado


2011

MAKET ENGINEERING | Fort Collins, Colorado A1

Appendix B: AutoCAD Drawings

Preliminary architectural drawings for the proposed Hughes Stadium Seating Expansion have been drafted using AutoCAD. These can be found in the drawings attached to this report. Section A shows plan views for the existing structure, our proposed structure, as well as grid measurements used in the design. Section B shows elevation views along three separate grid lines. Section C includes enlarged plan views of the Club/Suite Level as well as the Upper level. Section D shows an enlarged elevation cross section view of the Club/Suite Level as well as the Upper Level. The final section, Section E, shows detailed views of the walkways as well as the bleacher and club seats. These documents are not for use in construction.


2011

MAKET ENGINEERING | Fort Collins, Colorado C1

Appendix C: Calculations

The procedure used to determine the required, allowable, and design strengths of the structural columns designed for the seating expansion structure is listed below. These calculations were based on ASCE 7‐05: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures and ACI 318‐08: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. All calculations were used with the Load and Resistance Factor Design method.

Loads on Proposed Upper Bleacher Seating

1. Required Loads Dead Load, D (psf)

• 8” slabs of reinforced concrete with a unit weight, γ, of 148 pcf

• Bleacher seating superimposed uniform dead load of 10 psf

Live Load, L (psf)

• Per ASCE 7‐05, Chapter 4, Table 4‐1, Bleacher seating uniform live load of 100 psf

Snow Load, S (psf)

• Using ASCE 7‐05, Chapter 6, the snow load was calculated using Eq. 7‐1

• City of Fort Collins Building Code requires a minimum of 30 psf for design

• The larger of the two loads was used for design

• A flat roof snow load was determined based on flat bleacher and step surface areas

• Occupancy category III, Exposure category B

•


2011


Where: Flat roof snow load, psf

Exposure Factor = 0.7

Thermal Factor = 1.0

Importance Factor = 1.1

Ground snow load = 30 psf

• A snow load of 30 psf was used for design

Rain Load, R (psf)

• Using ASCE 7‐05, Chapter 8, the rain load was calculated using Eq. 8‐1 as shown below

Where: Rain load, psf

Depth of water on undeflected roof up inlet of secondary drainage system when primary drainage system is blocked = 2 in

Additional depth of water on undeflected roof above inlet of secondary drainage system at its design flow = 0 in

Wind Load, W (psf)

• Using ASCE 7‐05, Chapter 6, the wind loads were found using Eq. 15 and Eq. 6‐17 for Main Wind‐Force Resisting Systems: Rigid Buildings of All Heights

• Calculations were based on factors of region/area, elevation, and the structure’s surface on which the wind contacted


2011


• Only windward forces were taken into account

Where: Velocity pressure, psf

Velocity pressure coefficient = 1.016, for height above the ground surface = 110 ft [from Table 6‐3, Case 2, Exposure Category B]

Topographic factor = 1.0 [from Section 6.5.7.2]

Wind directionality factor = 0.85 [from Table 6‐4, Buildings: Main Wind Force Resisting Systems]

Basic wind speed = 100 mph [from City of Fort Collins Building Codes and Standards]

Importance Factor = 1.15 [from Table 6‐1, Non‐Hurricane Prone Regions]

• Using the velocity pressure, the windward load was determined using Eq. 6‐17 as shown below

Where: wind load, psf

Velocity pressure = 25.41 psf

Gust effect factor = 0.85 [from Section 6.5.8.1, Rigid Structures]

External pressure coefficient = ±0.2 [from Figure 6‐6 for a 32° slope]


2011


Velocity pressure for internal pressure = [from Section 6.5.12.2.1]

Internal pressure coefficient = 0.0 [from Figure 6‐5, open building]

2. Load and Resistance Factor Design – Load Combinations

• The controlling load combination was determined from ASCE 7‐05, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.2, Eq. 2 as shown below

Where: Required strength, psf

Dead load, psf

Live load, psf

Snow load, psf

Rain load, psf

Loads on Proposed Upper Concourse (Exposed)




2011


Live Load, L (psf)


Snow Load, S (psf)













2011


Rain Load, R (psf)





Wind Load, W (psf)









2011








External pressure coefficient = 0.8 [from Figure 6‐6]





2011




Dead load, psf

Live load, psf

Snow load, psf

Rain load, psf

Loads on Proposed Upper Concourse (Beneath Bleachers)



• Amenities superimposed uniform dead load of 65 psf

Live Load, L (psf)



2011


Wind Load, W (psf)





Velocity pressure coefficient = 0.95, for height above the ground surface =86 ft [from Table 6‐3, Case 2, Exposure Category B]








2011










Dead load, psf

Live load, psf

Snow load, psf

Rain load, psf


2011


Loads on Proposed Club and Suite Level



• General superimposed uniform dead load of 10 psf

Live Load, L (psf)


Wind Load, W (psf)








2011














2011




Dead load, psf

Live load, psf

Snow load, psf

Rain load, psf

Loads on Proposed Outer Club Seating


• 8.3” slabs of reinforced concrete with a unit weight, γ, of 148 pcf

• Bleacher seating superimposed uniform dead load of 10 psf

Live Load, L (psf)

• Per ASCE 7‐05, Chapter 4, Table 4‐1, chair‐back bleacher seating uniform live load of 100 psf


2011


Snow Load, S (psf)












Rain Load, R (psf)





2011



Wind Load, W (psf)











2011






External pressure coefficient = ±0.2 [from Figure 6‐6 for a 34° slope]






Dead load, psf

Live load, psf

Snow load, psf


2011


Rain load, psf

Column Design on Proposed Upper Bleacher Seating

• A total of 18 columns will be used as support members for this section of the structure

• All columns were designed as vertical, rectangular concrete supports

• All columns were designed using 3 ksi reinforced concrete

• A factor of safety of 3 was used for the determination of design strengths

1. Area Determination (ft2)

2. Required Strength

3. Design Strength


2011


4. Column Design

Column Design on Proposed Club and Suite Level


• All columns were designed as vertical, square concrete supports





7. Design Strength


2011


8. Column Design

Column Design on Proposed Arched Columns







11. Design Strength


2011


12. Column Design

Column Design on Proposed T Columns







15. Design Strength


2011


16. Column Design


2011


Appendix D. References

ASCE 7‐05: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, 2006.

City of Fort Collins: Codes and Standards. Fort Collins, Colorado: City of Fort Collins, Nov 2005. Accessed Feb 2011. <http://www.fcgov.com/nbs/codes.php>.

Code of Federal Regulations. 28 CFR Part 36. “ADA Standards for Accessible Design.” Department of Justice, 1994.

IBC 2006: International Building Code. Country Club Hills, Illinois: International Code Council, Inc., 2006.

ICC 300‐2002: International Code Council. “Bleachers, Folding and Telescopic Seating, and Grandstands.” Country Club Hills, Illinois: International Code Council, Inc., 2003.

IPC 2006: International Plumbing Code. Country Club Hills, Illinois: International Code Council, Inc., 2006

Sonny Lubick Field at Hughes Stadium Renovation Plans: Construction Documents Bid Package #1. Created by HOK, et al. 17 March 2004.