You are on page 1of 358
Design of Portal Frame Buildings Third Edition S.T. Woolcock Director, Bonacci Winward Consulting Engineers S. Kitipornchai Professor of Civil Engineering The University of Queensland M.A. Bradford Professor of Civil Engineering The University of New South Wales Published by ‘Australian Institute of Steel Construction Level 13, 99 Mount Street AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION ACN. 000973 839 DESIGN OF PORTAL FRAME BUILDINGS Published by AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION Enquiries shoul be sessed to the publisher: ‘Busines address - Level 13,99 Mount Sit, Noch Sydney, NSW, 2060, Australia, Postal adress - P.O, Bx 6366, Noth Sydney. NSW, 2059, Australia, mall adress ~ engues@als.comau Website - wwew.isecom.au ‘© Copyright 1999 Australian Insite of Stel Consiruction [Allsights eserved, This book or any pat thereof must not be reproduced in aay form Without te eten permission ofthe AustrlianInstiateof Stee! Construction. Poablished as ‘Design of Pol Frame Buildings ~ It edition (to AS 1250) ~ 1987 Limit Sate Design of Portal Frame Buildings ~ Ist etn (0 AS 4100)~ (991 Limit Se Design of Paral Frame Buildings ~2nd edition (© AS 4100) ~1993 Design of Poa Frame Buildings ~ Sed edition (10 AS 4100) ~ 1999 (this eiton) [National Library of Australia Catalogulngein-Publication entryt Wooleoek, ST. Design of posal frame buildings. Sede Bibliogaphy Includes inde, ISBN 0 909945 84 5 | Industrial buiings — Design and constuction. 2, Building, lon and sieel— Design and contruction Kitpores, SU, Bradford, Mark A. (Make Andrew). 10 ‘Australian Insite of Stes! Conscutio.1V. Tie eal Production by Robert Burton Printers Pay Ld {65 Carlingford Street, Setion, NSW 2162, Ausaia, DISCLAIMER Every effort has boan made and all easonble eure taken o ensure the accuracy of the ‘materiel covtsined inthis Pubbization. However. to the exent pemited by law the ‘uors, duos and Publishes of is Publication: (wl not beheld able oe espesibe in any wn and (@)expeessly disclaim any Hibiiy or responsibility, for any lost damoge, costs oF expenses incued in connection with tis Publication by any person, whether hat peso te purchase ofthis Publication or not, Without limitation, this inclses Toss, damage, costs ad expenses igure if any person wholly or partially rales on any pat ofthis Publication, and foes. damage costs and expenses incurred 2s Fesul othe negligence of the Authors, Eats or Publishes WARNING “This Publintion should not be used without the services of a competent professional ern wih expes koowlege in he evant flld, and under ao eeunstanes should this Pubtiction be relied upon fo replace any or all ofthe knowedge and expertise of sigh & person Contents PREFACE NOTATION INTRODUCTION 11 Portal Framed Buildings 1.2 Limit State Design 1.2.1 Background 1.2.2 Design for the Strength Limit State 1.2.3 Design for the Serviceability Limit State 1.3 Design Example 1.4 References Loaps 2.1 Background 2.2 Dead Loads 23 Live Loads 2.4 Wind Loads 24.1 General 242 Regional Wind Speeds 24.3 Wind Directions 244 Terrain Category 2.4.5 Basic Wind Speeds 2.46 Calculation of Pressures 2.47 External Pressures 2.48 Internal Pressures 2.49 Area Reduction Factor 2.4.10 Local Pressure Factors 2.5 Load Combinations 2.5.1 Strength Limit State 252 Serviceability Limit State 2.6 Design Example - Loads 2.6.1 Dead Loads Live Loads Wind Loads 2.63.1 Basic Wind Data 2.63.2 External Wind Pressures 2.6.3.3 Internal Wind Pressures 2.63.4 Peak Local Pressures 2.6.4 Load Cases for Portal Frames 2.6.5 Load Combinations 2.7 References PuRLINS & Girts 3.1. General 3.2 Roof and Wall Sheeting 3.3 Frame Spacing, Bx Srrquue iv Contents 3.4 Purlin Strengths 3.4.1 Manufacturers" Brochures 3.4.2 R-Factor Method 3.5. Deflections 5; Axial Loads 3.6 | Purlin Cleats 3.7 Purlin Bolts 3.8 Equivalent UDL’s for Peak Pressure 3.9 Design Example - Purlins 3.10.1 Member Capacity Brochures 3.10.2 Outward Loading - Cross Wind 3.10.3 Outward Loading - Longitudinal Wind (0.4 Purlin Selection for Outward Loading 10.5 Check Inward Loading 06 Putlin Deflections 0. .7 Purlin Summary 8 R-Factor Method 3.11 Design Example - Girts 11.1 Side Wall Girts 2 End Wall Girts with Span of 6250 mm 1 i 1 1 it 1 3. 3, 3, 3. 3. 3. 3, 3, 3.12 3.12 References FRAME DESIGN 4.1 Frame Design by Elastic Analysis 4.2. Computer Analysis 4.2.1 Load Cases 4.2.2. Methods of Analysis 423 Moment Amplification for First Order Elastic Analysis, 43° Rafters 43.1 Nominal Bending Capacity My, in Rafters 4.3.1.1 Simplified Procedure 4.3.1.2 Alternative Procedure 4.3.2 Effective Length and Moment Modification Factors for Bending Capacity 43.2.1 General 43.2.2 Top Flange in Compression 43.23 Bottom Flange in Compression 43.3 Major Axis Compression Capacity Nex 43.4 Minor Axis Compression Capacity No, 43.5 Combined Actions for Rafters 43.6 Haunches for Rafters 4.4 Portal Columns 44.1 General 4.4.2 Major Axis Compression Capacity Nox 443 Minor Axis Compression Capacity Noy 4.44 Nominal Bending Capacity My, in Columns 444.1 General 4.4.4.2 Inside Flange in Compression 4.4.43. Outside Flange in Compression 4.5 Combined Actions 45.1 General 45.2 In-Plane Capacity 4.5.2.1 In-Plane Section Capacity Atsc DPFBAS Portal Framed Buildings v 4.5.2.2 In-Plane Member Capacity 68 4.5.3 Out-ofPlane Capacity 6 4.5.3.1 Compression Members 69 45.3.2 Tension Members 69 4.6 Central Columns 9 4.6.1 General 69 462 Effective Lengths for Axial Compresion 70 4.6.2.1 Top Connect 70 4.6.2.2. Top a 4.6.3 Combined Actions with First Order Elastic Analysis n 4.6.4 Combined Actions with Second Order Elastic Analysis 7 4.7 End Wall Frames: 2 4.7.1 General 72 4.7.2 End Wall Columns 72 4.7.3 End Wall Columns to Rafter Connection 72 4.7.3.1 General 2 4.73.2 Continuous Rafter - B 4.7.3.3 Discontinuous Rafter - 74 4.3 Braces 4 4.8.1 Fly Braces 74 4.8.2 Purlins as Braces 16 4.9 Deflections 7 4.9.1 General 7 4.9.2 Problems of Excessive Deflection 7 4.9.3 Recommended Deflections ar 4.10 Design Example - Frame Design 81 4.10.1 Frame Analysis 81 4,10.1.1 Preliminary Design 81 4.10.1.2 Haunch Properties 82 4.10.1.3 Methods of Analysis 82 4.10.2 Frame Deflections 383 4.10.3 Columns (460UB74) 84 4,10.3.1 Column Section Capacities 84 4,10.3.2 Column Member Capacities 84 4.10.3.3 Column Combined Actions 385 4,104 Rafters (360UB45) 89 4,10.4.1 Rafter Section Capacities 89 4.10.42 Rafter Member Capacities 89 4.10.4.3 Rafter Combined Actions 90 4.10.1 LIMSTEEL Results 99 4.10.2 End Wall Frames 99 4.10.3 End Wall Columns 99 4.10.7.1 Inside Flange in Tension (Inward Loading) 99 4.10.7.2 Inside Flange in Compression (Outward Loading) 101 4.10.73 Axial Compression Under Gravity Loads 102 4.11 References 102 5 FRAME CONNECTIONS 105 5.1. General 105 5.2 Bolted Knee and Ridge Joints 106 5.3 Base Plates 107 5.4 Design Example - Frame Connections 108 5.4.1 General 108 Contents 5.4.2 Knee Joint General Calculate Design Actions for Bolts, End Plate and Stiffeners Bottom Flange Connection ‘Top Flange Connection Column Web Shear Stiffeners 5.4.3 Ridge Connection 5.4.4 Base Plates 5.4.5. End Wall Column Connections 5.4.5.1 General 5.4.5.2. Centre Column = Top Connection 5.4.5.3 Quarter Point Columns - Top Connection 5.5 References: Roor & WALL BRACING 6.1 General 6.2 Erection Procedure 6.3 Forces 63.1 Longitudinal Wind Forces 63.2 Rafter Bracing Forces 64 Bracing Plane 6.5 Bracing Layout 6.6 Tension Rods 6.7 Tubes and Angles in Tension 68 Tubes in Compression 69 End Connections for Struts and Ties 69.1 Tubes 6.9.1.1 Tubes in Tension 6.9.1.2. Tubes in Compression 692 Angles 6.10 Eccentricity 6.11 Design Example - Roof and Wall Bracing 6.11:1 Longitudinal Forces 6.1.1.1 General 6.1.1.2 Forces due to Longitudinal Wind 6.1.1.3 Forces due to Rafter Bracing 6. 6.11.5 Side Wall Bracing 6.12 References Foortines & SLABS 7.1 General 7.2 Design Uplift Fores 7.3 Pad Footings 7a Bored Piers TAA General Atsc pPFm03 109 109 109 112 128 131 1B4 137 141 14t Mi 142 143 145 145, 146 146 146 146 147 147 152 155 159 161 161 161 163 163 163 163 163 163 164 166 166 166 168 im m1 172 173 13 191 191 192 192 193 193 Aise pPFnns 15 16 17 18 79 Portal Framed Buildings 74.2 Resistance to Vertical Loads 743. Resistance to Lateral Loads Holding Down Bolts 7.5.1 General 752 Design Criteria 753. Grouting or Bedding 5.4 Bolts in Tension 7.54.1 Anchorage of Straight or Cogged Bars 75.4.2 Cone Failure 7.543 Bmbedment Lengths 7.5.4.4 Minimum Edge Distance for Tensile Loads 75.5. Bolts in Shear 7.5.6 Corrosion Slab Design 7.6.1 Design Principles 7.6.2 Slab Thickness 7.63 Joints 7.6.3.1 General 7.6.3.2 Sawn Joints 7.6.3.3 Cast-In Crack Initiators 6.3.4 Keyed Joints 7.6.3.5 Dowelled Joints 16.3.6. Joint Spacing and Reinforcement Design Example - Footings 7.1.1 ° Typical Portal Footings 7.7.1.1 Bored Piers 7.7.1.2 Compare Pad Footings 7.1.2. End Wall Coltinn Footings 7.7.3. Main Portal Footings in Braced Bays 7.13.1 Comer Columns 7.73.2 Column on Grid B2 7.733 Columns on Grids A2, A8 and B8 7.7.3.4 Holding Down Bolts for Portal Columns 7.73.5. Holding Down Bolts for End Wall Columns Design Example - Slab 78.1 Design Criteria 7.8.2. Slab Thickness Design 783 Joints 7.8.4 Reinforcement References PLASTIC FRAME DESIGN 8.1 82 83 84 85 General Plastic Analysis 8.2.1 General 8.22 Direct Mechanism Method 8.2.3 Iterative Mechanism Method 8.2.4 Statical Method 8.2.5 Second Order Effects Basis of Plastic Design in AS4100 Member Capacities Design Example - Plastic Frame Design 8.5.1 Preliminary Design Vii 195 195 196 196 198, 199 199 199 199, 201 201 205 205 205 205 206 206 206 207 207 209 209 210 210 210 212 212 213 213 214 214 214 245 215 215 216 216 217 217 29 219 219 219 220 223 225 225 225 226 227 227 Contents 5.1.1 Gravity Load Case 8.5.1.2 Cross Wind Load Case 8.5.1.3 Deflections 8.5.2 Detailed Design 8.5.3 Columns 8.5.3.1 Section Capacities 5.3.2 Member Capacities 8.5.4 Raflers 8.5.5 Serviceability 8.5.6 Comparison of Plastic and Elastic Solutions 8.6 References Gantry Cranes & MONORAILS 9.1 General 9.2 Design Procedure for Gantry Cranes 9.3. Crane Runway Beams 93.1 General 93.2 Design Loads and Moments 9.3.3 Memiber Capacity in Major Axis Bending fMp, 9.3.3.1 AS4100 Beam Design Rules 9.3.3.2 Proposed Monosymmetric Beam Design Rules 9.4 Portal Columns Supporting Crane Runway Beams 9.5 Monorail Beams 95.1 General 9.5.2 Member Capacity Tables 9.5.3 Local Bottom Flange Bending 9.6 Design Example - Gantry Crane 9.6.1 Load Cases 9.62 Crane Runway Beam 9.6.2.1 Major Axis Bending Moments 9.6.2.2 Minor Axis Bending Moments 9.6.2.3 Combined Actions 9.6.2.4 Check Major Axis Compound Section Capacity Aye 9.6.2.5 Deflections .6 Vertical Shear Capacity .7 Shear Buckling Capacity 2.8 Shear and Bending Interaction .9 Bearing Capacity of Crane Runway Beam .10 Check Effect of Eccentric Corbel Loading on Column 11 Check Effect of Vertical Loads on Web 12. Check Effect of Eccentric Rail Loading on Crane Runway Beam Web .13 Check Effect of Web Buckling Under Vertical Loads 14 Fatigue 9.6.3 Check Portal Frame 9.6.3.1 Loads 9.6.3.2 Load Combinations 96.3.3 Columns 9.7 References Appendix 9.1 Design Capacity Tables Appendix 9.2 Background to Design Capacity Tables A9.2.1 General A9.2.2 Section Moment Capacity #My. Isc DPFDNS 27 229 231 231 238 238 239 242 244 244 244 247 247 248 249 249 250 251 251 252 254 254 254 254 255 255 255 258 258 259 262 263 263 263 264 264 264 266 267 268 amt 2m 272 272 273 273 27 279 287 287 287 ‘AISC DPFBIOS Portal Framed Buildings A9.2.3 Member Moment Capacity AMox A9.2.4 Member Capacity to AS4100 APPENDIX]: DRAWINGS APPENDIX II: ComeuTER OUTPUT Geometry; Load Cases; Deflections Second Order Analysis; Load Combinations; Member Forces; Reactions Joint and Member Numbering; Displaced Shapes; Bending Moment Diagrams Elastic Critical Load Analysis, APPENDIX ID: LrmsTeeL OUTPUT Supsect INDEX 289 290 293 303 305 3 317 323 327 333 Preface In October 1985, Scott Woolcock and Sritawat Kitipornchai presented a non-technical, paper entitled Some Aspects of the Design of Industrial Buildings to a conference of! the Australian Institute of Construction Supervisors at the Gold Coast, The paper ‘outlined some of the grey areas in the design of portal framed buildings. AISC were very interested in the paper and invited these two authors to write the earlier working stress version of this book. It was entitled Design of Portal Frame Buildings and was published in 1987. The working stress version was then completely rewritlen for the change to limit states design. ‘The first limit state edition was published in 1991 and was entitled Limit State Design of Portal Frame Buildings. Further changes were made for the second limit state edition in 1993 to incorporate amendments to AS4100 and AS 1170.2, to reflect changes in the ATSC structural connections manual and to generally refine the limit state design process. ‘This third limit state edition has been almost completely rewritten to cater for the change in basic steel grade from 250MPa to 300MPa and the change in roof wind loads in Amendment No. 2 of AS1170. The release of the limit state cold formed structures code AS4600 in 1996 and the publication of the Lysaght and Stramit limit, states purlin and girt brochures in 1999 have also been fully accounted for. Because limit state design is now well established, the title has reverted to the simpler, original title - Design of Portal Frame Buildings. A new chapter dealing mainly with the design of portal frame buildings for overhead travelling cranes has been added. It covers the design of crane runway beams and addresses some ambiguities and inadequacies in AS4100’s treatment of monosymmetric beams. ‘The chapter includes design capacity tables for top flange (and above top flange) loading of some standard combinations of UB’s and WB's with PFC top flange channels. In addition, the effect of rane loads and crane deflection limits on the design of the portal frames is addressed. Some typical details are provided. The theory is extended to bottom flange (and below bottom flange) loading of UB and WB monorails, and design capacity tables are presented. The design capacity tables for crane runway beams and monorails should prove to be of great assistance to designers because there has been little if anything published since the sixth edition of AISC’s Safe Load Tables for Structural Steel in 1987. The 1987 tables were working stress design tables based on a steel grade of 250 MPa and did not account for above top flange or below bottom flange loading, ‘The design capacity tables for CHS and SHS roof and wall bracing struts, which are unique to this book, have been expanded to cater for the Duragal range of sections. Those tables account for the effect of self-weight bending in combination with axial compression, Tension capacities and maximum spans for span/150 deflection are now given for each CHS and SHS section. ‘The previous chapters on footings and slab-on-the-ground have been merged. ‘The design of bored piers is now generally in accordance with the limit state design approach of AS2159-1995 although different geotechnical capacity reduction factors x Asc prrnes Preface xi are proposed depending on whether the piers are classified as short or lon; quadratic expression derived from Broms’ work by the authors for use in determining the lateral load capacity of short bored piers is now presented in the text of the footings chapter rather than being somewhat hidden in the design example. This expression facilitates the preparation of spreadsheet programs for determining the lateral capacity of bored piers. ‘The authors’ association started at The University of Sydney where all three obtained doctorates conducting research into steel structures under the supervision of Professor NS Trahair. This association has continued over the years. Overall, this addition should prove to be of great assistance to practicing engineers and students, The authors gratefully acknowledge the positive feedback from many users, Firstly they would like to thank consulting engineers Bonacei ‘Winward and the Departments of Civil Engineering at The University of Queensland and The University of New South Wales for their support in preparing this book ‘Although Bonacci Winward’s Brisbane office prepared most of the diagrams, Brice Engineers of Townsville prepared the three dimensional view in Chapter 1 using Strucad, and this is much appreciated. Simon Pikusa’s idea for and contribution towards the plastic design chapter in the first edition is acknowledged. In particular, the authors would like to thank Arun Syam, National Manager - Technology at the Australian Institute of Steel Construction for his continued encouragement. Finally, the authors would like to express their appreciation for the continued support of their wives and families during the preparation of this edition. Scott Woolcock Sritawat Kitipomchai ‘Mark Bradford September 1999 Notation ‘The following notation is used in this book. Where there is more than one meaning to a symbol, the correct one will be evident from the context in which it is used, Generally, the notation has been chosen to conform where possible to that in the relevant design standard. A Ye a ay cross-sectional area, or tributary area which transmits wind forces to elements core cross-sectional area of bolt shank area of rod flange area at critical section flange area at minimum cross-section gxoss area of eross-section net area of cross-section cross-sectional area of tension reinforcement, or tensile stress area of bolt or bracing rod, ot effective area of stiffeners gross sectional area of web area of column web dimension used in defining extent of application of local wind pressure factors height of application of load below shear centre of a monosymmetric beam = (be- sd = (5 tee ~ BreW/2 edge distance from bolt centreline to top or bottom edge of end plate distance from bolt centreline to face of rafter flange effective value of ar for bolted moment end plate edge distance from bolt centreline to side edge of end plate = (b; - 55)/2 “distance between crane wheel loads overall dimension of square hollow section frame spacing, or length of building normal to wind stream web bearing width used in AS4100 at the neutral axis of the member web bearing width used in AS4100 at the junction of the web and inside face of flange effective width of plate element stiffener outstand from face of web flange width of beam flange width of column width of end plate = tye + 2re width of railhead xii lsc DPFBIOS bs Sau & Notation xiii average breadth of sl stiff bearing length ing buildings normal to wind stream, or wind pressure coefficient extemal wind pressure coefficient i internal wind pressure coefficient cross wind undrained cohesion dead load, or beam depth, or rod diameter, or tube diameter, or hold down bolt diameter, or building spacing parameter in determining shielding dead load minimum roof plan dimension, or depth ofa building parallel to windstream, or bored pier diameter clear depth between flanges ignoring fillets or welds twice the clear distance from the neutral axis to the inside face of the compression flange beam depth column section depth distance between flange centroids, or nominal bolt diameter dolt hole diameter in bolted moment end plate minimum depth of haunch (equal to rafter depth) depth of web plate, or clear distance in Appendix I of AS4100 column section depth between fillets = d, - 2ke Young’s modulus of elasticity . minimum edge distances for hold down bolts subjected to tensile load and * shear, respectively ‘eccentricity above ground line of applied load to bored pier, or ofcrane loading allowable working stress in AS1250 elastic buckling stress in AS1250 vertical distance from knee to ridge for plastic analysis axial stress axial stress in cable or rod bending stresses in stiffeners at end wall column to rafter connection characteristic strength of concrete design value of shaft adhesion xiv ft fu fg Sos See Ire 4 Srei. row fucus Se Si tw Sih Ga Gp Pa H, hy hy hy Notation AISCOPFBaS tensile stress, or tensile strength of concrete ultimate tensile stress ultimate tensile strength of bolt normal tensile strength of weld material average design shear stress in web maximum design shear stress in web yield stress . coluinn yield stress of flange or web, respectively yield stress of CHS. yield stress of doubler plate yield stress of bolted moment end plate yield stress of stiffener ‘equivalent design stress on web panel factors in elastic monosymmetric beam buckling formula nominal dead load, or shear modulus of elasticity end restraint parameters for a compression member in AS1250 part of dead load which resists instability column height for plastic analysis, or column height for effective length calculation design lateral force on bored pier height of rail design lateral bored pier capacity eaves height, or height of structure above ground ‘monorail load height eaves height average height of shielding building ridge height, or rail height value of J for column intemal pressure second moment of area of flange polar moment of area value of Jy for rafter intemal suction second moment of area of web, or warping section constant second moments of area about major (x) and minor (y) principal axes, respectively AISC DPFBNS. Ie Me, cap Mo Ma M; Notation xv minor axis second moment of area of compression flange Saint Venant torsion constant torsion constant for rail beam parameter for monosymmetric beam distance on column from outer face of flange to inner termination of root 1adlUs= tye * Fe member effective length factor form factor for a member suibjected to axial compression load height effective length factor spring stiffness proportion of design moment transmitted by web cocfficient to allow for additional bolt force due to prying, effective length factor for restraint against in-plane lateral rotation twist restraint effective length factor, or Joad eccentricity reduction factor for tension members ratio of area of wed to total cross sectional area span, or member length, or rafter span, or embedded length of bored pier embedment lengths of hold down bolts for singe cone, two intersecting cones and four intersecting cones respectively length of columa effective length of compression member or laterally unsupported beam value of Ze about major (x) and minor (y) principal axes, respectively holding down bolt cog length Jength of web along which rail load is uniformly distributed live load length of rafter measured between centre of column and apex average spacing of shielding buildings bending moment, design bending moment gust wind speed multiplier for terrain category ‘caf’ at height z nominal bending moment capacity value of My about major principal x axis wind direction reduction factor nominal in-plane member moment capacity, or structure importance multiplier for design wind speed maximum calculated design bending moment along length ofa member or in a segment xvi Notation Ais DeFBm3 clastic critical uniform bending moment for a beam with ends fully restrained against lateral translation and twist rotation but unrestrained against minor axis rotation amended elastic buckling moment for a member subject to bending reference elastic buckling moment obtained using L. = L elastic critical bending moment calculated by elastic buckling analysis and incorporating moment gradient, height of loading and restraint conditions ‘Mos for a segment, fully restrained at bolt ends, but unrestrained against lateral rotation and loaded at the shear centre nominal out-of-plane member moment capacity about major (x) axis required design moment by plastic frame analysis nominal plastic moment capacity reduced by axial force value of Mpr about major principal x axis value of My, reduced by axial force nominal section moment capacity in bending, or shielding multiplier for design wind speed value of M, about major principal x axis topographic multiplier for design wind speed torsional moment in rail design first yield moment ultimate moment capacity of bored pier design bending moment on web panel ‘moment modifying factor in monosymmetric beam buckling formula design axial force, tensile or compressive nominal member capacity in compression design axial force on column nominal strength of stiffener in compression value of N, for buckling about the major (x) and minor (y) principal axes, respectively total compression design force in flange total tension design force in flange = PBI elastic flexural buckling load of member value of Nom, for braced member nominal capacity of bolted end plate in bending value of No, for sway member design axial force in rafter reduced nominal axial capacity of horizontal tubular strut due to self weight bending nominal section capacity for compressive axial force AISCDPFRAS Paty s Notation xvii nominal section capacity for tensile axial force nominal capacity of bolts at tension flange nominal tension capacity of a bolt or bracing rod design bolt tensile force : nominal strength of stiffener in tension capacity of tube wall near cap plate nominal strength of stiffener designed to resist excess shear in column design force on stiffener due to shear nominal capacity of fillet or butt weld for flange subjected to axial force number of bolts in bolt group number of upwind shielding buildings within 45° sector or radius 20h, applied load, or magnitude of anchor head of holding down bolt applied load crane dynamic wheel load design wind pressure at height z norninal live load free stream gust dynamic wind pressure resulting from V, reduction factor in cold-formed cote, or redundant force in plastic analysis, or support reaction nominal bearing buckling capacity nominal bearing yield capacity nominal capacities of column adjacent to beam compression flange nominal capacity of stiffened column adjacent to beam compression flange rafter length along slope from column centreline to apex in plastic design nominal buckling capacity of stiffened web nominal-capacities of column adjacent to beam tension flange nominal capacity of column flange with doubler plates adjacent to beam tension flange nominal capacity of stiffened column flange adjacent to beam tension flange design bearing force or reaction on web panel used in Appendix I of AS4100 nominal capacity radius of gyration root radius of column section ratios used for tapered member in AS4100 radius of gyration about the major (x) and minor (y) axes, respectively plastic section modulus design action effect distance between fly braces xviii hoe Notation distance between purlins or girts ratio of plastic section modulus of column to unhaunched rafter safe working load purlin spacing, bolt gatige bolt pitch flange thickness, ot force in tension diagonal, or thicknoss of anchor head of holding down bolt thickness, or web thickness, or thickness of tube wall thickness of doubler plate end plate thickness flange thickness ‘beam flange thickness column flange thickness root radius in rail design thickness of stiffener fillet weld throat thickness web thickness, or fillet weld leg length beam web thickness column web thickness kness of web doubler plate regional basic gust design wind speed design shear force nominal shear buckling capacity design shear force in column nominal capacity of single bolt in shear used in AISC’s connections manual nominal shear capacity of bolt used in AS4100 nominal shear capacity of bolt group used in AISC’s connections manual design shear foree in bolt used in AS4100 basic wind speed for permissible stress method nominal capacity of plate in shear basic wind speed for serviceability limit state basic wind speed for ultimate limit state, or nominal shear capacity of web in uniform shear ‘nominal shear capacity of web vertical design shear force at interface of end plate and column nominal web shear capacity in the presence of bending moment aise pra AISC DFBIOS pe é HHSORERBR ELAR Notation xix nominal shear yield capacity of web basic design gust wind speed at height z nominal capacity of fillet weld per unit length weld force component in y direction weld force component in z direction nominal wind load, or weld size used in anchor head of holding down bolt external work intemal work serviceability wind load ultimate wind load uniformly distributed load design uniformly distributed load distributed dead load equivalent uniformly distributed load distributed live load nominal load nominal loads in plastic frame analysis sag in cable or rod effective section modulus effective section modulus of web used in Appendix I of AS4100 distance or height above ground level angle of slope of roof, or reduction coefficient for adhesion on bored pier, or load position parameter for monosymmetric beams compression member section constant value of a, about major (x) and minor (y) principal axes, respectively moment modification factor for flexural-torsional buckling slenderness reduction factor slendemess reduction factor for monosymmetric beams reduetion factor for tapered member shear buckling coefficient ratio of smaller to larger bending moment at ends of member monosymmetry parameter ratios of compression member stiffness to end restraint stiffness frame or member deflection sway deflection moment amplification factor for braced member moment amplification factor, taken as the greater of d and 3, moment amplification factor for sway member Notation AISC DPFBAG. Pe 8s BOSS PR PE = load height parameter angle of deviation of wind stream from axis of structural system, or Virtual angle of rotation in plastic analysis elastic buckling load factor factors for calculating lateral capa piets behave as long or short modified compression member slendemess value of 4, about major (x) and minor ()) principal axes respectively web plate element slendemess ‘web plate element yield slendemess limit degree of monosymmetry short term load factor capacity reduction factor capacity reduction factor for bending in cold-formed structures code ‘geotechnical reduction factor for bored piers value of g for long or short pile, respectively. for bored piers depending on whether | 1 Introduction i 1.1 PORTAL FRAMED BUILDINGS Portal-framed steel clad structures are the most common type of industrial buildings. They find extensive use as industrial factory and warehouse structures, and as indoor sporting venues. The major components of a portal frame building are a series of parallel portal shaped fiames as the major framing elements. Each frame is rigid, and resists horizontal wind forces and gravity loads in the plane of the frame by flexural action, A typical portal frame is shown in Figure 1.1. Longitudinal wind forces that are perpendicular to the frames are resisted by triangulated bracing systems in the roof and walls which prevent the frames from falling over. An illustrative isometric view of the steel skeleton of a braced bay of a portal frame building is shown in Figure 1.2. This book presents limit state design procedures for the design of portal framed buildings based on Australian standards, as described in Section 1,2. Large clear spans of about 40 metres can be achieved economically using Universal Beam (UB) or Welded Beari (WB) rafters such as those manufactured by BHP [1]. The columns are generally larger than the rafiers because the rafters are haunched near the columns to cater for the peak bending moments at the columns. For larger spans, some form of roof truss, as shown in Figure 1.3, is often used in lieu of UB or WB rafters. As the span increases, the weight saving offered by trusses becomes more pronounced, until the higher cost per tonne for truss fabrication is eventually offset. The ctossover point is difficult to nominate because of the many variables. One of the difficulties of the comparison is that a building with roof trusses is higher than a building with portal frames, assuming that the same internal height clearances are maintained. The main drawback of a trussed roof is the need for Rafter Ridge soint Kree doint \ Je ‘Span Figure 11 Typical Portal Frame 2 Introduction aise DPewOs bracing the bottom chord, Nevertheless, it is recommended that the cost of using portalised trusses in preference to portal frames for a particular project be investigated where the span exceeds 30 metres or 50. : Bolted moment fend plete connection ot riege Double diagonal watt bracing mz AAAS Root truss with diagonal }=-— UB or WB columa web members cvientoted to suit dominant uplift loting Figure 1.3 Portalised Truss aisc PFDs Portal Framed Buildings 3 Although portal framed buildings are very common, the number of manuals and handbooks dealing with their design is comparatively small. This book considers the design of portal framed buildings in accordance with the Australian limit states stee! structures code AS84100 [2], which was first introduced in 1990 in response to an international trend towards, limit state design. Prior to the mid-eighties, the design of structural steelwork in most westem countries was undertaken using permissible ot working stress methods. Very little mention of these methods will be made in this book, since they have now been superseded, Apart from the 1978 Canadian code [3], limit state design standards for steel structures were released after 1985: in 1985 and 1990 in the United Kingdom [4], in 1986 in the United States [5], in 1990 and 1998 in Australia [2] and in 1992 in New Zealand [6]. Background information on the development of the Australian limit state code is given in Section 1.2. Jt may be thought that the design of portal-framed buildings is simple and straightforward, However, some aspects of AS4100 and the wind loading code [7] are ambiguous, and the behaviour of many aspects of the structure is not well understood. For example: . Methods of Analysis ‘There are now three main methods of analysis which could be used in the design office as follows. + [Elastic analysis] This requires separate manual amplification of the moments which in ‘turn requires the determination of the frame buckling load factor. This is achieved by using appropriate formulae such as those developed by Davies [8] or by utilising an elastic critical load analysis using commercially available programs such as Microstran [9] or Spacegass [10]. « [Nonlinear oy second order elastic analysis] This is readily available in proprietary programs, and does not require the amplification of moments, +» [Plastic analysis|| This is described in Chapter 8. Note that more advanced analysis programs are starting to become available, but to date these are generally only research tools. Loads + External pressures are generally prescribed clearly in AS1170.2 but two values of roof pressure coefficients are given, ie -0.9 or -0.4; -0.5 or 0; -0.3 or +0.2; -0.2 or +0.3. Some designers use the first coefficients mixed with the second to produce the worst effect, whereas the intention of the code is that the first and second coefficients be used as alternative sets. * The choice of internal pressure coefficients is largely a matter of judgement for the designer. This means that different designers can arrive at different solutions for a given project. Effective Lengths of Compression Members (Flexural Buckling) Effective lengths of compression members in portal frames need to be determined as shown in Chapter 4 for: ‘+ In-plane or major axis buckling under axial load alone (Le, is generally # L). + Inplane or major axis buckling for assessing in-plane member capacity under combined actions (Ler= 1.0L). 4 Introduction aise PBA + Outofplane or minor axis buckling for assessing out-of-plane member capacity under combined actions (Lay is generally < 1.0L because of restraint by purlins and girts) Effective Lengths of Beams (Flexural-Torsional Buckling) ‘The rules in AS4100 for determining effective lengths of beam segments are relatively complex, and depend on: End lateral restraints. End torsional restraints. End minor axis bending (lateral rotational) restraints, Height of loading with respect to the shear centre, Tension Members under Self Weight The tensile capacity of horizontal tension members such as double diagonal roof bracing members under self weight bending is not widely understood. “For example: + Some designers consider the combined actions’ of tension and self, weight bending ‘moments in tubes and angles whereas tension only is an adequate consideration. + Some designers are uncertain about appropriate limits on the deflection of roof bracing members under self-weight alone. Guidance is given in Chapter 6. ‘+ The level of prestress needed for zods, its control on site and the effect, if any, on the limit state tensile capacity of the rods are also issues not well understood and are addressed in this book. + The design of welded T-end connections is not well covered in the literature, and guidance is given in Chapter 6, Roof Bracing Struts under Self Weight Under AS4100, the capacity of a strut under transverse loads is effectively determined by comparing moments rather than axial forces. These moments are relatively small and sensitive to the level of axial load, Designers therefore cannot readily develop a feel for the axial capacity. Design compression capacities of CHS and SHS members under scif-weight, unique to this book, are presented in Chapter 6, Holding Down Bolt Embedment The design of holding down bolts is not covered by either the steel or conerete standards, and there is wide variation in practice. The catlier working stress version of this book [11] presented information on embedded bolts drawn from research by the American Concrete Institute on nuclear safety-related structures, and this information has now been incorporated into the AISC’s Structural Connections book {12}. The essential details in a slightly revised format are presented in this edition. Geotechnical Limit State Design There are no Australian standards for the working stress or limit state design of pad footings for buildings, The piling code [13,14] covers the limit state design of bored piers and the Bridge Design Code addresses the limit state design of pad footings in a comprehensive but overly complex way. This book presents some useful information on the limit state design of AISCDPFBAS Portal Framed Buildings = S bored piers including 2 unique formula (see Equation 7.4 in Chapter 7) for assessing the lateral capacity of bored piers in cohesive soils. Design for Gantry Cranes and Monorails ‘The limit state design of crane runway beams and the portal frames which support them is not covered comprehensively by Australian standards or handbooks. Chapter 9 addresses these issues and includes a design example. Comprehensive design tables are presented for the designer to help choose the correct composite runway beam for a given crane loading based on a rational buckling analysis of the monosymmetric runway beam. Tables for the bending capacity of monorails with central concentrated loads at bottom flange level and 200 mm below bottom flange are also presented. ‘This book has two essential aims, It attempts firstly to provide an interpretation and explanation of the limit state approach fo the design of portal frame structures using AS4100. Secondly, it attempts to tirow some light on many of the problems encountered in portal frame design. It tries to deal with the problems not normally covered by textbooks, and to provide a state-of-the-art book on the limit state design of portal frame buildings from the roof sheeting down to the slab-on-ground and footings, Although not intended to be a complete step by step design manual, the book presents a comprehensive worked design example which is followed through each chapter. The briefis given in Section 1.3. Material readily available in other publications such as industrial pavement brochures, geotechnical standards and standard connection manuals is not reproduced here, but comments are provided. The Australian loading standards AS1170.1-1989 Part 1: Dead and live loads and load combinations {15} and AS1170.2-1989 Part 2: Wind loads (7} are used throughout this book, as are the design standards AS4100-1998 Steel structures (2}, ASINZS4600-1996 Cold-formed steel structures [16] and AS3600-1994 Concrete structures [17]. Other material is referenced as used in the text, 1.2 Limit STATE DESIGN 1.2.1 Background ‘The rational technique of treating loads and strengths as random variables has led to the development internationally of limit state design procedures, and these design procedures have been adopted for use in Australia. Until 1990 when AS4100 was first released, portal frame buildings had to be designed predominantly in accordance with working stress or permissible stress philosophies [18]. Since 1996, following the release of AS/NZS4600-1996, the cold formed steel structures code, it has become possible to design all components of a portal frame building using limit state design procedures. Although the superstructure of a portal frame building can be designed totally in accordance with limit state principles, some of the geotechnical aspects of the foundations must still be designed to working stress principles. ‘The limit state approach for the design of structures arose because it was recognised that different types of load (dead, live, wind, earthquake and even snow) have different probabilities of occurrence and different degrees of variability. Furthermore, the probabilities associated with these loads change in different ways as the degree of overload increases. 6 Introduction AISCDPFBAOS Limit state design thus differs from working stress design in that not only are load factors used, but different load factors are also used for different load types and different limit states, and different capacity reduction factors are used for different materials. ‘The advantage of limit state design over working stress design is that it is more logical and provides a more consistent margin of safety [19,20]. It can serve beiter to evaluate existing structures, and should result in more economical portal frame buildings. One of the major advantages of limit state design is that it leads to more rational load combinations, This climinates the problem encountered in working stress design of combining wind uplift loads with dead loads, which was discussed in Reference [11]. Jn the limit state approach, the structure must satisfy simultaneously a number of different limit states or design requirements. It must possess adequate strength, be stable against overtuming or uplift, and perform satisfactorily under service loads. ‘The structure must also be durable, possess adequate fire protection, resist fatigue loading and satisfy any special requirements which are related to its intended use. Codes of practice specify design criteria which provide a suitable margin of safety against a structure becoming unfit for service in any of these ways. When a particular limit state is satisfied, the probability of exceedance (eg. the probability that a column or rafter will buckle or that a deflection will be excessive) is very small. ‘The limit state design criteria adopted for usc in AS4100 were calibrated [21] so that this probability is comparable with historical exceedance probabilities implied in the superseded working stress design code AS1250 [18]. The limit states of strength (including stability against overturning) and serviceability must be considered separately, and satisfaction of one does not ensure satisfaction of the other. For each limit state, the designer must compare the capacity of the structure with the appropriate extemal loads. ‘The latter are obtained from the loading codes ASi170.1 and AS1170.2, while the capacities are obtained from the relevant steel or concrete standard. ‘The loads and load combinations for industrial portal ffame buildings are discussed in the next chapter, while the remaining chapters are devoted to examining the capacities of these structures. 1.2.2 Design for the Strength Limit State The design action effect 5* is calculated by the methods of structural analysis from the most severe load combination for the strength limit state (sce Section 2.5.1). At a particular eross- section, the design action effect may be the axial force NV", the shear force V”, the bending moment Af", or combinations of these. Computer programs such as Microstran [9] and Spacegass [10] are almost invariably deployed to calculate these design action effects, The design strength of a member is taken as the product of its ultimate strength or nominal capacity R,, and an appropriate reduction factor ¢. ‘The capacity reduction factor is introduced to account for the variability of the steel (or concrete or soil), the degree with which the structural model approximates real: behaviour, and the likelihood of underperformance. For the steel frame, a value of g of 0.9 is used for the column and rafter members, while gtakes lower values in the design of connections. AIC DPFDAS Limit State Designs = 7 The design requirement for the strength limit state is that the design strength or capacity is greater than or equal to the design action effect, that is Ss gk, aay ‘This requirement must be satisfied at each cross-section and at each connection throughout the frame. Of course, in satisfying Equation 1.1, several different load combinations must be considered. 1.2.3 Design for the Serviceability Limit State In design for serviceability, the designer must ensure that the structure behaves satisfactorily, ‘and can perform its intended function at service loads. The most important serviceability limit states to consider for a portal frame building are those of limiting excessive defleotion and in some cases preventing excessive vibration. ‘The load combinations employed in design for the serviceability limit state are Giscussed in Section 2.5.2. Deflections are calculated by the usual methods of structural analysis, and guidance on these is given in Section 4.9. Vibrations of portal frame buildings, particularly in response to dynamic crane loadings, are not considered in this book, although crane loadings are considered in Chapter 9. ‘While most of the design standards are devoted to calculating the capacities R, for the strength limit state, this does not indicate that the strength limit state is always more important than the serviceability limit state. Some portal frame designs may be governed by the limiting. of deflections, and it is important to check that a structure which possesses sufficient strength will perform satisfactorily at service loads. In some cases, it may be desirable to proportion. the members to satisfy serviceability criteria first, and then to check that the structure possesses an aclequate reserve at the strength limit state, 1.3 DESIGN EXAMPLE ‘The material presented in the chapters of this book is illustrated with a worked design example, Where appropriate, reference is made to code clauses, tables, figures and other information on the right hand side of the design calculations. The design brief is for a factory in a wind Region B industrial estate with the following constraints: Building Size (Figure 1.4) Length = 72 m (frame centres) Width 25 m (column centres) Height 7.5 m (floor to centreline at knee) Frame (Figure 1.5) Steel portal = si Spacing Pitch 3 8 Introduction Isc DPFEAS Personnel doors Rote gules Door (R50) eae ¢ e ole ¢ End treme End frome Elevation Figure 1.4 Design Brief Plan and Elevation itch : 25. Typical Section Figure 1.5 Design Brief: Cross-Section AiSC DPFBIOS Design Example 9 Shielding buildings 42x 25 x 9m high nse2 hus 87 hs = 90 ts=a7( 245) = 87 bs= 42 Typical upwind sector ——} ‘Allotments in industrial estote = Subject Bulding 725m coverait 40m Figure 1.6 Shielding Buildings in Design Example Floor Reinforced concrete to camry 4.5 tonne forklift with unlimited passes ‘Subgrade CBR 5 Roof and Walls ‘Trimdek 0.42 BMT (Base Metal Thickness) sheeting Ventilator Full length ventilator with 600 mm throat Doors 4xroller shutter doors each 4 m x 3.6 m high Axpersonnel doors each 0.9 m x 2.2. m high 10 % 10. i. 13. 14, 15. 16, 17. 18, 20. nv Introduction AISC DPFBOS Soil Conditions Stiffclay with ¢, = 50 kPa Footings Bored piers or pad footings Shielding Buildings Refer to Figure 1.6 REFERENCES Broken Hill Proprietary (1998). Hort Rolled Structural Steel Products, BEP, Melbourne. Standards Australia (1998). 454700 Steel Structures, SA, Sydney. Canadian Standards Association (1978). CAN3-SI6.1-M78 Steel Structures for Buildings — Limit States Design, CSA, Rexdale, Ontario. British Standards Institution (1990). 855950, Structural Use of Steel in Buildings, Part 1, Code of Practice for Design in Simple and Continuous Construction: Hot Rolled Sections, BSL, London. American Institute of Steel Construction (1986). Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Structural Stee! Buildings, AISC, Chicago. Standards New Zealand (1992). NZS3404 Steel Structures Standard, SNZ, Wellington, NZ. Standards Association of Australia (1989). AS/170.2-1989 Part 2 Wind Loading Code (with ‘amendments), SAA, Sydney. Davies, J.M, (1990). Inplane stability in portal frames, The Structural Engineer, 68(4), 141- 147. Engineering Systems Pty Ltd (1996). Microstran Users Manual, Engineering Systems, ‘Sydney. Integrated Technical Software Pty Ltd (1995). Spacegass Reference Manual, ITS Pty Ltd, Werribee, Victoria Woolcock, 8.7. and Kitipomchai, S. (1987). Design of Portal Frame Buildings, AISC, Sydney. Australian Institute of Stee! Construction (1985). Standardized Structural Connections, 3° edn, AISC, Sydney. Standards Association of Australia (1978). 4S2/59-1978 SAA Piling Code, SAA, Sydney. Standards Australia (1995), 452/59-1995 Piling ~ Design and Installation, SA, Sydney. Standards Association of Australia (1989). AS/170.1-1989 Part 1 Dead and Live Loads and Load Combinations, SAA, Sydney. Standards Australia/Stendards New Zealand (1996). AS/NZS4600 Cold Formed Steel Structures, SA, Sydney, SNZ, Auckland. Standards Australia (1994). Concrete Structures, SA, Sydney. Standards Association of Australia (1981). AS/250-1981 SAA Steel Structures Code, SAA, Sydney. Kennedy, DL. (1974). Limit states design ~ an innovation in design standards for steel structures, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, \(1), 1-13. Leicester, R.H., Pham, L. and Kleeman, P.W. (1983). Conversion to limit states design codes, Metal Structures Conference, Brisbane, May, 29-33. Pham, L., Bridge, R.Q. and Bradford, M.A. (1985). Calibration of the proposed limit states design rules for steel beams and columns, Civil Engineering Transactions, Institution of Engineers, Australia, CE27(3). 268-274. 2 Loads 2.1 BACKGROUND ‘As part of the development of the limit state design approach for structures, the loading codes were drafted using a rational probabilistic basis. The relevant loading codes for limit state design appeared some time ago, being AS1170.1-1989 Part 1: Dead and Live Loads and Load Combinations [1] and AS1170.2-1989 Part 2: Wind Loads (2). The wind code has had two amendments, Both loading standards will be used extensively throughout this book. ‘The loads to be considered in the design of portal frame buildings are dead, live, wind and occasionally snow loads, and combinations of these. Live loads generally represent peak loads which have a 95% probability of not being exceeded over a 50 year retum period, while for wind loads, different return periods are used for the strength and serviceability limit states. Snow loads are not considered in this book. Dead loads G, live loads Q and wind loads Ware discussed in Sections 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 respectively. The load combinations used to obtain the factored design loads for the strength and serviceability limit states have been determined on a probabilistic basis, and these are discussed in Section 2.5, Crane loads are treated in Chapter 9. 2.2. DEAD LOADS ‘The dead loads acting on a portal-framed industrial building arise from its weight including, finishes, and from any other permanent construction or equipment. The dead load will vary during construction, but will remain constent thereafter, unless significant modifications arc made to the strueture or its permanent equipment. ‘As a guide for preliminary analysis, @ dead load of 0.1 kPa can be allowed for the roof sheeting and purlins. ‘The weight of the rafter should be included, but the weight of roof bracing, cleats and connections is not usually considered as being significant. 2.3. Live LoaDs ‘The live loads acting on the roof of a portal frame building arise mainly from maintenance loads where new or old roof sheeting may be stacked in concentrated areas. ‘The roof live loads for cladding, purlins and rafters are specified in the loading code ‘AS1170.1, the roofs of industrial buildings being of the non-trafficable category. Roof cladding must be designed to support a concentrated load of 1.1 KN in any position, but this is ustally taken account of by the sheeting manufacturer which nominates the maximum spans that will sustain this load. u R Loads AISC DPFBIOS For purlins and rafters, the code provides for a distributed load of 0.25 kPa where the supported area A is less than or equal to 14 m’, the area A being the plan projection of the inclined roof surface area. For areas A less than 14m’, the code specifies the distributed load We to be Wo = (2 +0u2) a @.1) ‘This formula is equivalent to a distributed load of 0.12 kPa plus a load of 1.8 KN distributed over a span of the member, and ensures that the minitmam load to be supported by short members such as purlin cantilevers and end wall fascia members is 1.8 KN. Presumably, such a load would cater for the case of a heavy worker standing on the edge of the roof or at the ‘edge of an opening, and lifting materials on to the roof. In addition to the distributed live load, the loading code also specifies that portal frame rafters be designed for a concentrated load of 4.5 KN at any point. Such a load is not critical for large roofs in high wind areas. It should be noted that the distributed live load given in Equation 2.1 need not be considered acting simultaneously with any wind load (see Section 2.5). AS1170.1 requires that the structure be designed to support either the distributed live load or the wind load, whichever produces the worse effect. Note that the distributed live load of 0.25 kPa is significantly less than the live load in the UK, Europe and North America where snow loads must be catered for. 2.4 WIND Loaps . 2.4.1 General ‘The wind loading specified in AS1170.2 is generally the major loading influence in the design of industrial buildings, even in low wind areas. It is therefore important to evaluate the wind loads carefully. Table 2.1 compares the wind speeds and the possible uplift pressures in various regions of Australia for Terrain Category 3. It can be seen that the wind pressures in Region C (cyclonic areas) are almost twice the Region A pressures. After some deduction has been made for the factored dead weight of the roof sheeting, purlins and rafters, the net uplift ‘on a portal frame rafter in coastal northern Australia could be more than twice that in southem and inland Australia. The wind code provides a simplified procedure for calculating wind loads. The simplified method is applicable to reasonably small rectangular buildings located on flat or generally undulating ground. A more detailed procedure covers almost all contingencies in the design of industrial buildings. Because of this, and because the simplified procedure can be overly conservative in many cases, the detailed procedure is recommended for the design ‘of industrial buildings. The simplified procedure is not considered in this book. Ise DPEBICS Wind Loads ‘Table 2.1 Comparison of Terrain Category 3 Wind Loads Design Uplift for Region A Region A | Region B_ | Region C Perth | Brisbane _| (cyclonic areas . Adelaide except Region D) Wind Loading Melboume Darwin Parameter Canberra Townsville Sydney Cairns Basic Wind Speed V, , m/s 50 6 0 Design Gust Wind Speed for Mo cay = 0-80, M, = 0.85, M,= 1.0 34.0 40.8 41.6 M,=10 Gust Dynamic Wind Pressure q, (KPa) | 0.69 1.00 1.36 ‘Typical Uplift Pressure p, 03 120 16 =(0.7405)q, ‘Typical Dead Load of Sheeting, Putlins & Rafters p, (kPa) 0.15 OAT 0.20 Design Uplift =p,- 0.8p, (KPa) on 1.06 147 i Design Ue 1.00 149 2.07 13 In the wind code, the basic wind speeds V, and V, are given for the strength (ultimate) and serviceability limit states respectively. ‘These speeds are then converted into wind pressures for design’. ‘The wind code also gives permissible stress design velocities which were ended for use in the design of purlin and girt systems to working stress procedures. However, purlin and git designs are now undertaken it ‘accordance with limit state procedures, and permissible stress velocities /,ill not be used inthis book. 4 Loads aisc rr 2.4.2. Regional Wind Speeds ‘The basic wind speeds ¥, and ¥, for the strength and serviceability limit states are clearly specified in the wind code for the four different wind speed regions throughout the country. These are standardised for a building of height 10 metres in Terrain Category 2. The basic wind speeds are factored to calculate the design gust wind speeds as discussed in Section 2.4.5. 2.4.3 Wind Direction The basic wind speeds for the strength and serviceability limit states for some major population centres are given in the code for specific wind directions. The code allows for the basic wind speed to be adjusted for specific wind directions in areas where sufficient ‘meteorological information is available. Where sufficient information is not available, the code allows a reduction factor of 0.95 on the design wind speed for major framing elements in Regions B, C and D™. Because the factor applies to wind speod, the reduction in pressures is about 10% which is significant, The reduction factor is used in the design example for determining not only the loads on portal frames, but also overall wind bracing forces. It should be emphasised that the reduction factor oes not apply to the wind loads on purlins and girts. 2.44 Terrain Category Most wind speed data have been recorded at airports at @ height of 10 metres. The terrain near most airports is basically very similar, and is designated as Terrain Category 2. Because so much of this information is available, wind speeds at a height of 10 metres in Terrain Category 2 are taken as the basic or reference wind speeds V with height multipliers equal to unity. ‘The terrain category factors given in the wind code lead to a wide variation of wind pressures as shown in Table 2.2. It is therefore important to select the appropriate terrain category carefully. The code uses four terrain categories defined specifically in terms of roughness length. This allows for interpolation between te categories on a logarithmic basis. In selecting the terrain categories, due allowance for any future changes in terrain should be made, such as the development of neighbouring areas. For example, a factory in a new industrial estate may be more exposed in its first few years than in the remainder of its life, No. | of AS11702 (2] reintroduced a wind direction reduction factor on the design wind speed for ‘major feaming elements in Regions B, C and D (except for ¥, in Region B). It is worth noting that such a factor ‘was first introduced in the 1983 edition of ASIN70.2 with a value of 0.9. The factor was changed to 0.95 when ‘he 1989 edition was published, but it applied to overall buildings and not to major framing elements. With ‘Amendment No. 1, major framing clements are again included. This appears to apply to the portal frames of industrial buildings. Some designers take advantage of this, while others are not aware of it or choose not to use ie AISC DPFBAS Wind Loads 15 Ifo, it would be reasonable to assume Terrain Category 3 for design purposes rather than Terrain Category 2 or 2%. _ Table 2.2 Relative Wind Pressures for Different i Terrain Categories (h = 7.5ni) Terrain Height Multiplier Relative Category Meee Pressures 1 1.09 1,90 2 0.96 148 Wh 0.88 124 3 0.79 1.00 2.4.5 Basic Wind Speeds The design gust wind speed V, is obtained from the regional wind speed ¥ (whether for the strength or serviceability limit states) using Fi, = VM eqyM MM, (2.2) where Mica is the terrain and height multiplier for a particular terrain category, M, is 2 shielding factor, M, is a topographic multiplier and M, is an importance multiplier. The values Of My cay ate specified clearly in AS1170.2 as functions of the terrain category (or roughness) and Height z, The code permits interpolation for intermediate values of z and roughness. The shielding multiplier M, accounts for the shielding effect of surrounding buildings of equal or greater height than the portal frame building under consideration. When the building spacing parameter.D for the surrounding buildings is less than 1.5, the shielding factor M, drops down to 0.7, whereas M, is unity when D is greater than 12, Shielding cannot be disregarded ifthe most economical structure is to be achieved. “The topographic multiplier M, applies if the building is located in a local topographic zone, and may under exceptional circumstances result in a 50% increase in the design gust speed. The importance factor M; should be taken as 1.0 for an industrial building, unless the building has a post-disaster function or some other special purpose. 2.4.6 Calculation of Pressures ‘The free stream gust dynamic wind pressure q_ (KPa) is calculated from the design gust wind speed V, (avs) by 16 Loads Ais¢ prams 9g, = 06¥2 x10 (23) The wind pressure p, at height z for the relevant limit state is then calculated from the ‘pressure coefficient Cy for the surface by the expression Pi = Cole (24) The extemal wind pressure coefficients are set out clearly in the code, and their determination is straightforward. However, Amendment No. 2 introduced some additional complexity with alternative external pressure coefficients for the roofs of industrial buildings, as mentioned in Section 2.4.7, The determination of intemal pressure coefficients has traditionally caused some confusion amongst designers, and these are discussed in Section 24.8. 2.4.7 External Pressures Although more complex than coefficients in British and US wind codes, external pressure coefficients in AS1170.2 were relatively simple for rectangular industrial buildings until Amendment No.2 was issued in 1993. This amendment introduced alternative sets of roof coefficients C, for cross winds on buildings with roof pitches less than 10° and for longitudinal winds, such that designers must use -0.9 or -0.4 for a distance h from the windward edge; ~0.5 or 0 for the zone from to 2h; -0.3 or +0.2 for the zone from 2h to 37, and ~0.2 or +0.3 beyond 3h. ‘The first coefficient in each pair should be combined to form ‘one set (—0.9, -0.5, -0.3 and -0.2), and the second coefficient to form the other set (0.5, 0, +¥0.2 and +0.3). The set which gives the worst effect should be used. The coefficients from ‘one set should not be mixed with the other. For typical industrial buildings, this amendment results in two main cross wind options whereas there was one previously. These options are: + Maximum uplift using.coefficients: 0.9, -0.5, -0.3, -0.2 © Minimum uplift using coefficients: ~0.4, 0, +0.2, 40.3 For longitudinal winds, the altemative coefficient approach introduces the option of a downwind frame having downwind external pressure on the roof. If this downwind pressure ‘combines with intemal suction, then the resulting combination can be more severe than the gravity load combination of 1.25G + 1.5. This outcome is surprising when it is considered that portal-framed buildings have been designed and built for decades without accounting for such load combinations. If the maximum internal suction coefficient 0.65 is combined with downward roof pressures, then the comparison is even more severe. This situation could theoretically arise if there are roller doors open in the side walls at the windward end of the building in the -0.65 wall suction zone, and the rest of the building is closed. Previously, extemal suctions were counteracted by infernal suctions to some extent, and so these load combinations were not considered. Isc DPFBVG3 Wind Loads 7 In summary, while wind tunnel testing has undoubtedly revealed that downwind pressures can be exerted on the roofs of some buildings, these pressures are at odds with previous practice and international wind loading codes; Perhaps this is because the probability of a load combination comprising downward external pressure and internal suction is low enough compared with other load combinations not to warrant serious consideration of such a combination. 2.4.8 Internal Pressures ‘The internal pressure coefficients in ASI170.2 range from a positive coefficient of +0.7 to @ suction coefficient of -0.65, as shown in Figure 2.1. Wind and Vind -0.65 MY “Se Pressure Suction Figure 2.1. Maximum Internal Pressure Coefficients ‘The code permits calculation of the permeability ratio to determine intemal pressure coefficients C,,, The permeability ratio is the ratio of the opening area in the windward wall to the sum of the opening areas in the roof and other three walls, provided any opening in the oof (such as a ventilator) is in an external suction zone. However, this calculation becomes a matter of judgement because it is up to the designer to choose which of the doors and windows may be relied upon to remain closed under design winds. Itcan be argued that the worst winds occur without warning, eg. during thunderstorms, and that the windows and doors may not be closed when the design winds occur. However, unless buildings have permanent openings, most are only open, on average, 10 hours per day and 5 days per week, which is only 30 percent of the time. Assuming that the worst winds are likely to ocour with equal probability at any hour of the day, then the average recurrence interval should be 0,350 years which is 15 years. Although thunderstorms can occur at any time of the day, the probability of occurrence during a 24 hour period may not be uniform. Hence it would be prudent to assume an average recurrence interval of, say, 25 years instead of 15 years for the intemal pressures when designing to the strength limit state. Moreover, there is the statistical probability that the building will not have the worst combination of ‘windows and doors open and shut. The foregoing probabilistic approach to internal pressure 18 Loads AlscpPFuo3 does not have any basis in the wind code, and is provided here as background information only to assist designers in justifying internal coefficients which are less than the maximum in some cases. : AS1170 (E3.4.7) states that industrial and farm buildings can have permeabilities up to 0.5% of the wall area but the actual percentage can be difficult to quantify. A realistic assessment of leakage could be made by calculating the area of ribs and gaps at the wall/floor and wail/roof junctions, The uncertainty with this approach is in the width of the gap between the wall and roof sheeting and between the floor edge and wall sheeting, and whether the ribs have been sealed for bird proofing or other reasons. If one considers only the area of the ribs for say Trimdek roof sheeting, the area of ribs for a SO m x 20 m building would be as tollows: For leeward and side walls: wall floor: 225% 0025 (50+ 20420) = 0.56 m* 0.200 wall/eaves: (as for wall/floor) = 0.56 m* For windward wall: 005%0025 wall/loor: T5950 = 0.31 m wall/eaves: = 0.31 mn? Permeability ratio assuming no other openings 031+031 056+056 155 Hence intemal pressure coefficient C,=+0.1 If one roller door is added on the windward face, say 4m x 3.6 m= 14.4 m? area, then: 14440314031 056 +056 Hence intemal pressure coefficient C,, = +0.7 permeability ratio It may thus be concluded that the effect of ribs will not be significant if there are major wall openings such as vehicle doors. Some designers prefer to use roof ventilators to reduce internal pressures. However, roof ventilators are quite expensive and their cost can outweigh the savings in structural steelwork and footings resulting from reduced intemal pressures. Part of the problem is that the equivalent free area of a ventilator is only about 30% of the throat area. As a result, if'a 30 m long industrial building has a ridge ventilator with 600 mm throat for the full length of the ridge, the equivalent free area would be 50x0.6x30/100 = 9.0 m*. In this case, the permeability ratio would be (14.4 + 0.31 + 0.31)(0.56 + 0.56 + 9.0) = 1.48. The intemal pressure coefficient C, , would then drop from +0.7 to +0.3. Another problem which arises, particularly in cyclonic areas, is the effect of flying debris on windows, and the failure of roller shutter doors because they bow under pressure AIsc DPFBNS Wind Loads 19 and pull out of their guides. These problems can be overcome by providing cyclone shutters or security grilles over glass windows and by fitting wind locks to roller doors. There is some uncertainty, however, regarding the effectiveness of wind locks on roller shutters. Consideration should also be given in non-cyclonic areas to the ability of roller shutter guides to withstand wind forces, and to the possibility that the doors will blow out of their guides. In particular, it appears that roller shutter doors are often attached inadequately to their supports. 2.4.9 Area Reduction Factor The area reduction factor for external pressures allows basically for the fluctuating nature of these pressures, and the fact that the average pressure when the arca is large is less than the cooflicients indicate, The area reduction factor applies to roof and side wall loads. It does not apply to intemal pressures, or to windward and leeward wall loads. This means that for a portal frame under cross wind, only the rafter loads due to extemal pressures may be reduced. Under longitudinal wind, both rafter and column loads due to extemal pressures may be reduced, If the area supported by the rafter or a column is greater than 100 m’, the area reduction factor is 0.8. This factor is significant and cannot be ignored in the design if an ‘economical structure is to be achieved. 2.4.10 Local Pressure Factors ‘The code requires all wall and roof claddings,. together with their ifnmediate supporting members and fixings, to be designed for peak local pressures as shown in Figure 2.2. The local pressure factors of 1.5 and 2.0 apply to negative external pressures (suctions) whereas the factor of 1.25 applies to positive external pressures anywhere on the windward wall. Note that the local pressure factors do not apply to intemal pressures (positive or negative). 2.5 LOAD COMBINATIONS 2.8.1 Strength Limit State ‘The loading code AS1170.1 stipulates that to produce the most adverse effects’, the design loads for the strength limit states shall be the following combinations of dead load (@), live load (Q) and ultimate wind load (W,): * Barly working stess versions of the ete! structures code didnot specify load combinations, but they did permit 2.259% oversivess when wind loads weze present. ‘The limit on overstess was increased to 33% in the 1972 edition ofthe code, which was consistent with American practice at that time, However, the permissible stress approach to steel design had an inherent danger that if wind load end dead load actin opposite directions and are of similar magnitude, then the difference between the loads-is a small value which i8 very sensitive to Inaccuracies, This was ustated in Reference (3]- 2» Loads AIscDPFR03 (@) 1.25G+150 : @) 1256+, © 08641259 @ 08c+w, | A separate load combination is also given if earthquake forces are to be considered. ‘The above load combinations are used for the instability of uplift limit state, except that the part of the dead load which resists the instability (G*) is separated from the total dead load. Height he Locol pressure factors are for not opplicable ot ridge where O=0 roof pitch < 10° a< 60" Height hy for © = 90° ond for 0 = 0 when « 2 60° Mind © a Wind © = 90° hy S$ 25.0m Area oxo: Local pressure fector 1.5 on negotive pressures Area a/2 x 0/2: Locol pressure factor 2.0 on negotive pressures G Area o/2 x 0/2: Locol pressure factor 1.25 on positive pressures on windword wall 0.2b or 0.2d, whichever is lest Figure 2.2 Peak Local Pressures In en attempt to remedy this situation, the 1975 edition of the working sttess code AS1250 [7] removed the 33% ‘overstress (or the 0.75 load factor) for cases witere wind and dead load act in opposite dicections. Unfortunately, this did little to improve the potentially dangerous load combination becuse the resulting 33% increase in design load still did not adequately cater for small errors in the dend load or for underestimates of the wind load, The problems of load combinations for permissible stress design as outlined above were overcome in the limit state loading code AS1170.2 [2] which appeared in 1989. AIsc PFW Load Combinations 21 2.5.2 Serviceability Limit State ‘The loading code AS1170.1 includes load combinations for the serviceability limit state. The following combinations of dead foad (G), live load (Q) and serviceability wind load (W,) are to be considered: @ W, ® 42 © Gt, @ G+ yO where y, is the short-term load factor given in the code and taken as 0.7 for the roofs of industrial buildings. Strictly speaking, this means that in checking rafter deflections, only 0.7 times the live load need be considered. However, the deflection limits suggested in this book are only guidelines based on a survey of practising engincers [4]. In any case, the limit suggested for live load deflections applies to the full live load. ‘Therefore, there does not seem to be any point in considering a reduced live load for the serviceability limit state of a portal frame. 2.6 DESIGN EXAMPLE - LOADS 2.6.1 Dead Loads ASII70.1 Sheeting: Trimdck 4.3 kg/m? = 0.043 kPa Purlins: 220019 at 1200mm centres with 15% laps Lysaght [5] _ 1155.68 9,82% 107 12 Total wg =0.043 + 0,053 =0.096 kPa say 0.1 kPa Hence sheeting and purlin load on rafter = 0.10x9 = 0.90 kN/m (along slope) Frame self-weight will be included under the gravity option (GRAV) in the computer analysis. = 0.053 kPa ings, an allowance for miscellaneous dead loads such as bracing, roof lighting and soffit linings or ceilings will be appropriate. In some bt exhaust systems, 2.6.2 Live Loads ASII70.0 Woe (3 +012) = 0.13 kPa but not less than 0.25 kPa ASIITO1 CL48.1.1 Hence we =0.25 kPa Live load on rafter = 0.25x9 = 2.25 kNim (on plan projection) 2 Loads AISC DPFBIOS As the computer program Microstran [6] does not have a load type with vertical load distributed on the plan projection of the rafter, it would be more accurate for steep-pitched roofs to convert the live load to a distributed load along the slope, In this case, the pitch is not steep and so the effect of pitch on live load is insignificant, ie, live load on rafter along slope = 2.25 cos3? = 2.25 kN/m. In addition, a concentrated load of 4.5 KN will be applied at the ridge. 2.6.3 Wind Loads ASIIT0.2 2.6.3.1 BASIC WIND DATA Region B: Basic wind speeds: Ultimate P,,= 60 m/s AS1I70.2 Table 3.2.3, Serviceability ¥,=38 m/s ASII70.2 Table 3.2.3, Terrain Category 3 (industrial area) Column height: 7.5 m at intersection of rafter centreline Portal span: 25 m between column centres Roofpitch: 3° (see Figure 1.5) Eaves height assuming 310 UB rafter, 200 purlins = 754312. 0200= 785 m say 8.0m. Ridge height = 8.0 +B xctan3° = 8.655 m say 87m Average spacing of shielding buildings = 87 m Average height of shielding buildings = 9m Average breadth of shielding buildings = 42 m Building spacing parameter: D =45 ASII70.2 13.2.7 ASI170.2 Table 3.2.5.1 k= 8.0m Terrain and height multiplier: Mg 3) = 0.80 ASI170.2 Table 3.2.5.1 Shielding multiplier: 4, = 0.85 AS1170.2 Table 3.2.7 Ultimate: ¥, =0.80x0.85x60 =40.8 mls ASH70.2 13.2.2 Jz =0.60%40.8%10" = 1.00 kPa AS1170.2 C13.3 aisc pPFHns Serviceability: F, = 0.80x0.85x38 = 25.8 m/s q, = 0.60%25.8'x10° ~ 0.40 kPa ¢ Longitudinal Wind h=8.7m Torrain and height multiplier: M73) = 0.81 Shielding multiplier: M, = 0.85 Ultimate: v, 0.81x0.85x60 = 41.3 m/s Qe = 0.60x41,3%10? = 1.02 kPa Serviceability: V, =081%0.85x38 = 26.2 m/s g, = 0.60%26.2*«10" = 0,41 kPa 2.6.3.2 EXTERNAL WIND PRESSURES + Cross Wind ( Design Examples -Loads 23 ASLI70.2 C13.2.2 ASII70.2 C13.3 ASII70.2 Table 3.2.5.1 AS1170.2 Table 3.2.7 AS1170.2 C13.2.2 ASHI70.2 13.3 AS1170.2 C13.2.2 AS1170.2 C13.3 ASIIT0.2 Fig. 3.3 ASI170.2 Table 3.4.3.1(A) ASII70.2 Table 3.4.3.1 (B) Two sets of C,. values for the roof are given in Amendment 2 of AS1170.2 Table 3.4.3.2(A). Therefore, adopt pressures shown in Figures 2.3(a) and (b). + Longitudinal Wind (0= 90°) (see Figure 2.4) ‘Tributary area for rafter under cross wind = 25x: Hence reduction factor for rafters = 0.8 AS1170.2 Table 3.4.3.2(A) 24 Loads AIS DPBS 8000 4500_ 3500 0.9 [os Fe -0.5 l-o.5, ~03 |-o2 S ji re) sty 3 ¢ 7 (c) Maximum Roof Uplift Coefficients g000___4500_, 3600 re TCO 8000 -0.4 +0: I 0.0 00 2 _|+03 40.7 ~0.5 (b) Minimum Roof Uplift Coefficients Figure 2.3 External Pressure Coefficients under Cross Wind ‘Tributary area for rafter and columns under longitudinal wind = 2x75 +25)x9 = 360 mm? Hence reduction factor for columns under longitudinal wind =0.8 -ASI170.2 Table 3.4.4 2.6.3.3 INTERNAL WIND PRESSURES © Cross Wind To calculate the intemal pressure coefficients C,,, it is necessary to determine the equivalent free area of the ventilator. Manufacturers give coefficients in their brochures for converting the throat width into an equivalent free throat width. In this case, take the coefficient as 0.35, so that the equivalent free area is 0.35x0.6x72 = 15.1 m’, BSC DPFBIOS Design Examples - Loads 25 Permeability ratio for worst intemal pressure under cross wind 2 0.92: = 2X4x3642«09%22 1 151 211-2 Hence C,, = 05+|— x (0.6~ 05) =+0.52 AS1170.2 Table 3.4.7 For the worst internal suction under cross wind when dominant openings are on the leeward wall, use the value of C,, for leeward external wall surface Gy = -0.50 AS11702 Table 3.4.3.1(B) Note that roof ventilators can be expensive and the saving in cost due to reduced internal pressures will be offfct to some extent by the cost of the ventilators. © Longitudinal Wind . Permeability ratio for worst intemal pressure (end wall doot open, others closed) 4x36 ag 7095 ASII70.2 Table 3.4.7 Hence C,; =+0.1 ASH70.2 Table 3.4.7 For internal suction under longitudinal wind, the worst case would be with the side doors ‘open and the end doors closed, Hence should strictly speaking adopt the worst side wall pressure coeflicient C,, = ~0.65 but this will mean that the combination of extemal downward pressure and maximum internal suction will now govern the portal frame design whereas this was not so prior to Amendment 2 of AS1170.2. For the purpose of this design example, adopt C,,;= ~ 0.3 for portal frame design although not strictly in accordance with the code, and C,, = —0.65 for purlin and girt design. 2.6.3.4 PEAK LOCAL PRESSURES The peak local pressure roof plan is shown in Figure 2.5. a=h=87m or a=0.2b=0.2x72.5= 14.5 m or a=0.2d=0.2x26= 5.2m whichever is least. 2m (see Figure 2.5) Hence a= 2.6.4 Load Cases For Portal Frames * Primary Load Cases: LC DL of 0.90 kN/m + frame self weight 26 Loads aise prea __8700 8700 8700 =0.9 0.7 =0.25 Windword Leeward wall woll 8 @ 2000 = 7200 72500 opprox overall (0) Roof and End Woll Pressure Coefficients Moximurm Uplift 8700 ,8700 8700 =0.4 o [402 40.3 07, ~0.25 Windward Leeward wall wall 8 @ 9000 = 7200 72500 approx overall (b) Roof ond End Wall Pressure Coefficients Minimum Uptit 8700, 8700, 8700 Tiree al =0.2 Pr TT Tr ry SEL bes | Plan | l veel! ig ¥ wal aT i Se || Sidefwot | | | 06g 25] 9 8 8700 8700 8700 (c) Woll Pressure Coefficients Figure 2.4 External Pressure Coefficients under Longitudinal Wind AIscDPFBAS Lez: LC3: Design Examples-Loads 27 ‘ a jl] &ls | General area is i ty rT as Genero! oreo B15 u ‘|| < 3 Wj — a 5.2m x 5.2m zone 2.6m x 2.6m zone Local pressure foctor Local pressure factor 15S 2.0 Approximately 72.5 overall length Figure 2.5 Peak Local Pressure Roof Plan LL of 2.25 kNim + 4.5 kN at ridge (Note that both the dead and live loads are usually input as negative loads in Microstran because they usually act in the negative direction of the local or global member axes.) Cross Wind Maximum Uplift (CW1 - see Figure 2.6): g, = 1.00 kPa ‘Wind direction reduction factor for major framing elements such as portal frames = 0.95* ASII70.2 C13.2.3 ‘Area reduction factor for roof only = 0.8 AS11702 C1344 ‘UDL (windward column) = 0.957x0.7x1,00x9.0 = 5.69 Nim UDL (leeward column) 0.95%0,5x1.00x9.0 = 4.06 kNim UDL (roof, 0108 m,Cy¢=-0.9) = 0.95%x0.8x0,9%1.00x9.0 = 5.85 kNim UDL (roof, 8 mo 16m, C,,=—0.5) = 0.957x0.8x0.5%1.00x9.0 = 3.25 kN/m UDL (oof, 16m to 24 m, C,,,= ~0.3) = 0.95%0.8x0.3%1.00x9.0 = 1.95 kNim UDL (roof, 24 m to 25 m, C,,,= —0.2), adopt 1.95 kN/m 8000 4500, 3500 a 3.25 [5251 1.95 5.69 4,08 Figure 2.6 Cross Wind Frame Loads - Maximum Uplift (kN/m) 28 Loads Isc prewios Note that the 8 m roof wind loading zones strictly speaking should be measured from the caves edge of the roof which is approximately 0.5 m upwind of the intersection point between the rafter and column. For simplicity, the extent of frame loading has been taken i between the frame intersection points. LC4: Cross Wind Minimum Uplift (CW2 - see Figure 2.7): g, = 1.00 kPa Wind direction reduction factor = 0.95? Area reduction factor = 0,80 5.69 4,06 i Figure 2.7 Cross Wind Frame Loads - Mininum Uplift CH2 (kW/m) UDL (columns) as for LC3 UDL (roof, 0 to 8m, C,.= -0.4)= UDL (roof, 8 mto 16m, C,,=0)=0 UDL (oof, 16 mto 24 m, C,, = +0.2) = =1.30 kN/m : UDL (roof, 24 m to 25 m, C,,.=+0.3) adopt ~1.30 kN/m i (The negative sign indicates the loads acts downwards in the negative direction of the local member y axis according to Microstran toad input : conventions.) .60 kN/n LCS: Longitudinal Wind First Internal Frame (LW1) i Area reduction factor for roof and walls = 0.8 As his approximately equal to the frame spacing of 9 m in this case, take A = 9 m to simplify calculation of the pane! loads. (In other cases where h is quite different from the bay spacing, the frame UDL’s should be determined by simple statics, ic. assuming the purlins are simply supported beams with the frames as supports.) 0.9+0.5 UDL (rafters) = o9s' x08 }s1.02%9.0 = 4.64 KN/m 0.6540.5 2 i UDL (columns) = 095" 108% 1,029.0 =3.81 KN/m LC6: Longitudinal Wind with 0.39, Extemal Roof Pressure ! and 0.2¢, Wall Suction (LW2) (NSC DFFBIS Design Examples - Loads 29 ‘Area reduction factor for roof and walls = 0.8 UDL (rafters) = 0.95x0.8%0.3%1.02%9.0 UDL (columns) = 0.957x0.8%0,2%1.02%9. 99 KN 32 KN/m LCT: _ Intemal Pressure Under Cross Wind (IPCW): C, = +0.52 } Area reduction factor does not apply to internal pressures UDL (rafters and columns) = 0.95%0.52%1,00%9.0 = 4.21 KN/m LC8: — Intemal Pressure Under Longitudinal Wind (IPLW): C,.;=+0.1 UDL (afters and columns) = 0.95%0.1o<1,02x9.0 = 0.83 KN/m LC9: Internal Suction Under Cross Wind (ISCW): C, = - 0.5 ‘UDL (rafters and columns) = Searew = -0.96 xLC7 LC10: Internal Suction Under Longitudinal Wind (ISLW): C,;= —0.3 3 UDL (rafters and columns) = Se aPLw= = 3.0 xLC8 Note that load cases LC9 and LC10 are not included in the computer analysis and combinations containing LC9 and LC10 are obtained by factoring LC7 and LC8, Table 2.3 Factors Used in Load Combinations Load Factors Cases Tei | xc2 | 103 | uce | tos | 206 | xe7 | xcs LC20 } 1.25] 15 Lea | 08 1.0 1.0 Lez | 08 10 1.0 1023 | 1.25 1.0 -0.96 ‘ Lez | 08 1.0 10 Leas | 1.25 1.0 3.0 ‘The following load combinations LC20 to LC25 may be obtained by factoring the primary load cases (see Table 2.3). These load combinations have been analysed by both 30 Loads ‘ASC DPFRIOS clastic and plastic methods, In each case, use was made of the computer software Microstran- 3D Structural Analysis Program [6]. The computer output is listed in Appendix IL for the second order method of elastic analysis. LC20: 1.25DL + LSLL = 1.25LCI + 1.5LC2 O.8DL + CWI (maximum uplift) + IPCW = 0.8LCI + LC3 + LC7 O.8DL + CW2 (minimum uplift) + PCW = 0.8EC1 + LC4 + LC7 1.25DL + CW2 {minimum uplifi) + ISCW = 1.25LCI + LCA - 0.96LC7 O:8DL + LWI (maximum uplift) + IPLW = 0.8LCI + LCS + LC8 LC2S: 1.25DL + LW2 (maximum downward) + ISLW = 1.25LCI + LC6- 3.0LC8 Note that LC25 combines the dead load and downward roof pressures which can occur on. downwind frames under longitudinal wind with internal suction. As discussed in Section 2.4.7, such combinations should be viewed sceptically if they govern the design. In this Gesign example, the internal suction coefficient has been arbitrarily reduced for this combination fiom -0.65 to~0.3. This is not in strict accordance with the current wind loading. code, Designers need to make their own judgements on the validity of such combinations. 2.7 REFERENCES 1, Standards Association of Australia (1989). AS/170,1-1989 Part 1 Dead and Live Loading Code, SAA, Sydney. 2, Standards Association of Australia (1989). AS/170.2-1989 Part 2 Wind Loading Code, SAA, Sydney. 3. Woolceck, $.T. and Kitipornchai, S. (1987). Design of Portal Frame Buildings, AISC, Sydney. 4, Wooleock, $.. and Kitipomchai, $. (1986). Deflection limits for portal frames, Stee! Consiruction, AISC, 20(3), 2-10. 5. Lysaght (1999). Zeds and Cees Purlin and Girt Systems, BHP Building Products. 6. Engineering Systems Pry Lté (1996). Microstran Users Manual, Engineering Systems, Sydney. 7. Standards Association of Australia (1981). AS/250-198] SAA Stee! Structures Code, SAA, Sydney. 3 Purlins & Girts 3.1 GENERAL Purlins and girts are the immediate supporting members for roof and wall sheeting respectively. They act principally as beams, but also perform as struts and as compression braces in restraining rafters and columns laterally against buckling. In some buildings, purlins and girts also act as axial members to transfer end wall wind loads to the braced bays, while in smaller buildings they may even act as the struts of the triangulated roof bracing system. Purlins and girts are now almost universally zed (Z) and channel (C) section members, cold-formed from zine coated 450 MPa steel of 1.5, 1.9, 2.4 and 3.0 mm thickness. Stee! sections cold formed from-1.2 mm 500 MPa steel are also available, as well as those of 1.0 mm thickness cold-formed from 550 MPa steel. Timber purlins are still used occasionally, especially in certain corrosive environments. Figure 3.1 shows a typical Z section purlin and girt arrangement. Strength is not the only consideration when designing purlins. Purlin spacing must be chosen to suit the type of roof sheeting and ceiling system if any. The use of translucent fibreglass roof sheeting will also restrict the purlin spacing. Some suspended ceiling systems require a maximum purlin spacing of 1200 mm, and some riggers and roofers object to purlin spacings in excess of 1200 mm, Purlin deflections must also be controlled. Because of the thin walls of the cold-formed sections, their design and analysis are more complex and the limit state cold-formed steel structures code AS/NZS4600 [1] must be used in lieu of AS4100 [2]. Until 1996, this presented added difficulty as the prevailing cold- formed stec! structures code AS1538 [3] was written in a working stress format. Fortunately, purlin and girt manufacturers provide comprehensive design capacity tables [4,5] and it is not Typical assembly using Zed sections ‘and Hook—Lok bridging. Zed purlins Figure 3.1 Zypical Lysaght Purlin and Girt Details 31 32 Purlins & Girts tse DPFBNS usually necessary to refer to AS/NZS4600 unless the designer wishes to take advantage of the ‘R-factor method’ described briefly in Section 3.4.2. 3.2. ROOF AND WALL SHEETING ‘The first step in purlin design is to consider the spanning capacity of the proposed roof sheeting, Sheeting manufacturers provide data on minimum roof pitch, and on allowable intemal and end sheeting spans. Their brochures give maximum spans for average conditions in non-cyclonic areas, as well as allowable wind pressures for various spans in cyclonic and non-oyelonic areas. It is important to remember that the maximum spans for roof sheeting arc determined not only from wind load considerations, but also from live load requirements, including the 1.1 KN concentrated load of AS1170.1 [6]. Therefore, these maximum spans should not be exceeded for roof sheeting, even if the allowable wind pressure table for the sheeting profile indicates that the sheeting has the capacity to do so. The peak local pressure zones around the perimeter of the roof govem the puslin spacing in these areas, and the purlin spacing chosen in the end bays is usually adopted for the rest of the roof. A typical purlin and girt layout is given in Appendix I. In some cases, extra purlins are used in the end bays to halve the purlin spacing used in other bays that are only partially subjected to peak local pressures. Because the extra purlins are simply supported, however, it may be necessary to use the heaviest purlin thickness for strength, and even then the deflections may be excessive. As a resull, the use of extra single span purlins in end bays and fewer purlins in interior bays is not generally worthwhile. In larger buildings, it can be advantageous to extend intermediate purlins in the end zones over two or three bays, thereby providing the continuity needed. In cyclonic areas, special design criteria are required because of the cyclical loading and the possibility of fatigue failure, Cyclone or load spreading washers may be necessary. 3.3. FRAME SPACING ‘There are many variables to be considered in optimising the frame spacing for a particular building. Apatt from the portal frames and purlins, it is necessary to consider the length of roof bracing struts and tension ties, and of course the footings. Although the size of the portal frames obviously increases with frame spacing, the weight per unit area of the portal frame building decreases. Theoretically, the price of the steelwork per tonne should also decrease because the sections are heavier, and there will be less labour per tonne. By contrast, the cost per square metre of purlins and girts will increase with frame spacing, but in steps comesponding to the depth or thickness increases. Because of the limited range of puriin sizes and the consequent sudden jumps in purlin capacity and cost as sizes increase, it is difficult to optimise frame spacing. It will obviously be cheaper, for a given purlin depth, to inerease the frame spacing to ensure that the purlin system is working to its capacity. However, this is rarely possible as site or other requirements usually fix the overall length of thie building, and so the choice of frame spacing, is limited. {SC DPF Frame Spacing 33 ‘An extensive study in the United Kingdom (7] examined hundreds of different options for an industrial building 90 m long, Portal frame spacings of 4.5, 6.0, 7.5 and 9.0 m were considered, ‘The results indicated that the 7.5 m spacing was the most economical for portal frame spans in excess of 20 m. For spans less than 20 m, the 4.5 m spacing was most ‘economical, However, basic wind speeds, purlin types afd unit costs are different in the ‘United Kingdom, and it is uncertain whether the same conchusions apply in Austral 3.4 PURLIN STRENGTHS 3.4.1 Manufacturers’ Brochures ‘The limit state design capacity tables produced by manufacturers such as Stramit [4] and Lyseght [5] cover simply supported spans, double spans, double lapped spans, lapped continuous spans and inereased thickness end spans in lapped continuous systems. The Stramit tables also include reduced end spans in continuous lapped systems. ‘The Lysaght tables for lapped systems are based on standard laps of 600, 900, 1200 and 1800 mm, the laps ‘being a minimum of 10 percent of the span. This is conservative in most cases because the standard laps are usually greater than 10 percent. ‘The Stramit tables are based on laps of 15 percent of the span. Both the Stramit and Lysaght load capacities take account of section yielding, flexural- torsional buckling, distortional buckling, combined bending and web shear, and bolt capacity. "The method used to calculate flexural-torsional buckling capacities is the so-called rational elastic buckling analysis in Clause 3.3.3.2(b) of AS/NZS4600. This clause contains the design ‘equations from AS1538 converted to limit states format (8,9). Z-section putlins have their principal axes inclined to the plane of the roof sheeting, and therefore rely on the lateral and twist-rotational restraint from the roof sheeting to prevent lateral displacement of the purlin under inward loads. Under outward loads, the bottom flange of the Z-section purlin is in compression over most of each span, and itis necessary to provide bridging between purlins as shown in Figure 3.1 to reduce the effective lengths to control flexural-torsional buckling. During erection, Z-purlins are obviously unrestrained. To limit excessive deflections prior to fixing roof sheeting, itis an advantage to orient the top flange pointing up the slope as this results in a smaller inolination of the weak principal axis to the vertical. Indeed, experience has shown that a single row of bridging is advantageous during erection, even if not required for strength in service. Accordingly, Lysaght recommends at least one row of bridging in every span, and that unbridged lengths be restricted to less than 20 times the section depth, Stramit also limits the unbridged length to 20 times the section depth, or 4000 tam, whichever is less. It should be noted that these bridging requirements are those recommended by the manufacturers, and although bracing is treated in detail in AS/NZS4600, there is no specific limit on the unbridged lengths. End spans are usually the critical area for purlin design. This is because end spans not only have higher bending moments and higher deflections for a given uniform load, but also higher loads because external suctions including local pressure effects are highest at the windward end under longitudinal winds. 34 Purlins & Girts AISC DFFBI03 Because of these problems, it is common to use a section with a heavier wall thickness for end bay purlins, For example, if Z15015 sections are used in internal bays, then Z15019 and Z15024 sections would be used in the end bays. Significant reductions in external suction coefficients on downwind surfaces in the more recent versions of AS11702 [10] have accentuated the differgnce in loads and bending moments between end span and internal span purlins. Itis therefore advantageous for economicat design to consider: ‘+ increased wall thicknesses in end span purlins, or + reduced end spans by closer portal frame spacing, or + extra bridging in end spans, provided this increases the design strength of the purlins. ‘The Stramit brochure provides design capacity tables for lapped systems with end spans reduced by 20%, and this shows that significant economies can be achieved. The Stramit and Lysaght load capacity tables do not cater for the non-uniformity of the base load on the purlin system, although the Stramit brochure has provided methods to cater for peak local pressure zones to allow the designer to convert the non-uniform pressures to equivalent mly distributed loads. Such methods are also considered in Section 3.9 of this book. With the extemal suction coefficients reducing under longitudinal wind from ~0.9 to -0.5 to ~0.3 to ~0.2, the end span will generally have a higher base load than the next span. The moments in the end span would then be higher than if the Ioad on the purlin system were 3.4.2 R-Factor Method AS/NZS4600 [1] provides a method in Clause 3.3.3.4 known as the ‘R-factor method’ for the flexural design of members having one flange through-fastened to sheeting. This method is relatively simple, and can be used by designers in liew of using manufacturers" design capacity tables. However, it requires a lapped continuous beam analysis for purlins in various roof zones to determine the design bending moments and shears MM” and /”. The reactions also need to be calculated to check bolt capacities. The laps can be easily modelled by inserting members with double the second’moment of area into the beam system. Peak local pressure loading and reductions in the downwind extemal pressure coefficients under longitudinal wind can be easily accounted for. ‘The member bending capacity is taken in this method as Hoy = WRZefy 6) where Z, is the effective clastic section modulus (calculated using the effective widths of the compression and bending elements of the purlin section as given in AS/NZS4600), f, is the yield strength of the purlin, ¢, is the capacity reduction taken as 0.90 and R is the reduetion factor. The cold-formed steel structures code AS/NZS4600 presents values of reduction factor to be used under both uplift loading and downward loading, Its use is restricted to roof and wall systems which comply with a number of limitations which can be met in standard designs. Depending on the arrangement of lapped and unlapped spans and bridging, the R factor varies from 1.0 to 0.60. AIsc DPFBA3 R-Factor Method 35 3.5 DEFLECTIONS In its current brochure, Lysaght [5] does not give recommended deflection limits for purlins and girts. However, Lysaght did provide recommendations in previous brochures on the basis of extensive practical experience. These recommendations were as follows: (a) Under maximum or total design load: span/120; (b) Under combined dead and live load: span/150; ‘and (¢) Under live load alone: span/180. These limits applied in a working stress design environment and as such, the appropriate regional basic design wind speed for calculating deflections was the same as the strength design wind speed. This wind speed corresponds to ¥, in the current wind loading code AS1170.2 [10] and is greater than the current serviceability wind speed F,, In view of the lack of current recommendations from Lysaght, and as Stramit recommends a maximum deflection limit of span/150, the following deflection limits ere now proposed. ‘© Under dead load alone: Span/360 ‘© Under live load alone: Span/i80 ‘+ Under serviceability wind load alone: Span/50 ‘The limit of span/150 for serviceability wind load alone may be more stringent than before but some account has been taken of the reduction in wind speed from /, to ¥, Both the Stramit and Lysaght tables present distributed loads corresponding to a span/150 deflection for the serviceability limit state. These tables can be factored readily to give a spaw/360 or a span/180 deflection. 3.6 AXIAL LOADS ‘As mentioned in Section 3.1, purlins may be required to act as compression members to transfer end wall wind loads to the nodes of the triangulated roof bracing system with the assistance of roof sheeting acting as a diaphragm or a deep beam. Under this condition, the putlins are therefore subjected to combined actions (bending and compression). Lysaght presents formulae in their design brochure for the axial capacity of purlins based partly on any feserve of flexural strength. If there is no reserve of flexural strength, the axial capacity is taken to be zero, ‘The Stramit brochure does not present specific formulae, but directs the user to the provisions of the combined axial load and bending Clause 3.5 of ASINZS4600. 3.7 PURLIN CLEATS Standard purlin and girt cleats have ably stood the test of time and are generally used without analysis or design. ‘The standard sizes for lapped purlins which require only two bolts are 75x8 flats for up to 250 purlins and girts, and 75x12 flats for 300 and 350 purlins and girts ‘When puslins are unlapped, four holes in the cleat are required and the cleat width increases from 75 mm to 130 mm. 36 Purlins & Girts AISC DPF BIOS Purlin cleats are subjected not only to axial loads, but also to bending moments. The bending moments result from the component of the weight of the roof sheeting in its own plane and from the restraint provided by the sheeting to prevent lateral buckling. In the case of Z profiles, there are also bending moments from lateral forees due to the inclination of the principal axes to the plane of the roof, : ‘When the gap between the purlin and rafter (or girt and column) is much greater than the nominal 10 mm gap, thicker cleats or angle cleats such as 75x75x5 equal angles can be used for strength. This situation can occur when rafters are horizontal and the purlin cleats are graded in height to provide the roof pitch. Angle cleats also provide greater robustness during, transport and erection. ‘The maximum overall height of an 8mm thick cleat should be 250 mm, while a 12 mm thiok cleat should be no more than 450 mm high. The height at which designers specify an angle cleat in preference to a rolled steel flat is fairly arbitrary, but a practical requirement is that cleats higher than 450 mm should be angles. One yardstick for robustness is that girt cleats should not yield when stood on by a heavy worker. This would equate to a 1.1 KN load applied to the tip of the cleat with a 1.5 load factor to allow for dynamic effects as the worker climbs the steelwork. 3.8 PURLIN BOLTS ‘The standard bolt is an M12-4,6/S which comes either with loose washers or with a flanged hhead and nut (je. with washers integral with the bolt head and nut). Although the latter bolts are about 2.5 times as expensive as the standard M12 bolts, it appears that the extra expense is considered worthwhile by riggers because of the speed of handling only two components rather than four, Occasionally under high shear, M12-8.8/S bolts should be used. Surprisingly, 8.8/8 bolts with flanged heads and nuts are only about 20% to 25% more expensive than their 4.6/8 counterparts. M16 bolts are required for Z/C300 and Z/C350 sections. It should be remembered that washers under both the head and nut are essential if the bolts with flanged heads and nuts are not used. This is because the standard punched holes in purlins are 18mm high by 22mm long and the standard hole diameter in cleats is 18 mm. ‘These hole sizes are too big for M12 bolt heads and nuts even. though the height of the hole through lapped purlins is less than 18 mm diameter because of the lapping. By comparison, the width across the flats of an M12 bolt is only 18 mm and the washer diameter is 24 mm. Z and C-sections with depths of 300 mm and 350 mm require M16 bolts, for which the holes in the cleats can be 22 mm diameter. 3.9 EQUIVALENT UDL’S FOR PEAK PRESSURE In order to use the purlin capacity tables, it is necessary to convert the loads due to peak pressures over part of the span to uniformly distributed loads (UDL’s) over the whole span. Lysaght gives guidance on converting point loads to equivalent UDL’s but not peak pressures: as noted earlier. Stramit presents a table of factors to cater for peak loads as partial load blocks both at the end of the span and in the middle of the span (even though Stramit's AISC DPBS Equivalent UDL's for Peak Pressure 37 explanatory diagram indicates a partial load block at the end of the span). A simple altemative approach is to take a weighted average of the extra peak load block as shown in Figure 3.2 and add this to the base uniformly distributed load. ‘The multipliers of 1.3 and 2.0 for the end span in Figure 3.2 were determined from computer analysis of a four-span continuous lapped beam with different lengths and locations of load blocks on the end span. ‘They are the maximum factors by which the average load over the full end span needs to be increased to give equivalent maximum moments (in the mid-span region of the end span) to those for the actual load block. The moments at the first internal support are not critical. ‘The multipliers are conservative in achieving equivalent UDL’s over the end span only. However thé Lysaght and Stramit tables are derived for uniform loads over all spans and not just the end span. For an equivalent UDL over all spans, the corresponding maximum multipliers are approximately 1.6 and 2.5. This is not surprising when it is realised that a uniform load over a full end span would need to be factored by 1.24 to achieve the same maximum end span moment in the mid-span region as that for a uniform load over all four spats. ‘As the Stramit approach does not differentiate between mid-span and end-of-span load blocks, it tends to be conservative for end-of-span load blocks. The end result is that the simple approach of using mulkipliers of 1.3 and 2.0 as proposed in this book is not as ‘unconservative compared with the Stramit approach as it might appear. For example, for a Ky value of 1.5 and ag value of 0.5, the Stramit factor on the nominal base load is 1.47. (Kris the ratio of the total UDL in the peak local pressure zone to the nominal base UDL in the absence of local pressures, and g is the ratio of the length of the load block to the span length.) By comparison, the simple approach in this book gives comesponding factors on the nominal om sw wee WE gw Figure 3.2 Equivalent Uniformly Distributed Loads “for Peak Pressure Load Blocks 38 Purlins & Gins AIC DPFEO base load of 1.33 (= 1.0+0.5x0.5x1.3) for an end-of-span load block and 1.50 (= 1.0 +0.5%0.5%2.0) for a mid-span load block. As the corresponding accurate factors are 1.40 and 1.47, the approach in this book is unconservative by 5% (= 1.40/1.33) for the end-of-span load block, and conservative by 2% (= 1.50/1.47) for the mid-span load block, If Ky, equals 2, the corresponding percentages are 9% and 3%. ~ 3.10 DESIGN EXAMPLE — PURLINS 3.10.1 Member Capacity Brochures Brochures produced by Stramit [4] and Lysaght [5] present design capacity tables for purlins and girts subjected to outward and inward loading. The case of outward loading tends to govern the design in the majority of cases, since it produces predominantly compression in the unrestrained flange, Because of this, itis logical to select a purlin section from the outward design capacity table, and then to check this section using the inward design capacity tables. Deflections also need to be checked. Outward joading is produced by internal wind pressure combined with external suctions, reduced by 0.8 times the dead load in accordance with the load combination in ASI170.1 [6]. On the other hand, inward loading is produced by wind load and dead load combinations, and by dead and live load combinations, again as in AS1170.1.. The inward wind plus dead load case consists of intemal suctions and extemal pressures plus 1.25 times the dead load, while the dead and live load combination is 1.25 times the dead load plus 1.5 times the gravity live load. 3.10.2 Outward Loading — Cross Wind As noted in Chapter 2, cross wind loading produces external suctions over a number of different zones. The maximum iftternal pressure coefficient is +0.52 (see Section 2.6.3.3). © Blige Zone 0 to 2600 mm from Eaves The cross wind coefficients for this region are shown in Figure 3.3. They include a peak local pressure zone at midspan which produces the worst effect. These loads apply to both internal and end spans, ‘The equivalent UDL for this local pressure is w, = 2wx/L, where wx is the additional peak load distributed over a length x, The wind pressures are calculated using g, = 1.00 kPa for cross wind (see Section 2.6.3.1). ‘Using Load Combination (d) in Section 2.5.1, total equivalent UDL for spacing s (in metres) is wre {(0042829226..952)st00-o.0rlasetase ta asc DPFBOS Design Example -Purlins 39 2600, Local pressure load block on end or internal spans. ™ Cy = 0.52 9000 Figure 3.3. Cross Wind Coefficients 0 to 2600 mm from Eaves «© Bdge Zone 2600 mn: to 5200 mm from Eaves ‘The cross wind coefficients for this region are shown in Figure 3.4. From Figure 3.2, x= 5200 mmm, so 2x/Z =2x5200/9000 = 1.16 > 1, and sow, =w. Hence the total equivalent UDL for spacing s is w* = {(0.9+0.45 +0.52)x1.00~0.8x0.1}xs=1.79s kN/im 5200 Local pressure lood block on end or intemal sons) Gp = 0.45 9000 Figure 3.4 Cross Wind Coefficients 2600 mm to 5200 mm from Eaves + Zone 5200 man to 8000 mm from Eaves The peak pressure zone starts at the end wall and is therefore at the end of the purlin. Hence take the equivalent UDL w, as 1.3wx/L. There are two cross wind peak pressure coefficients for this case, viz. —0.9 over a length of x= 2600 mm or ~0.45 over a length 40 Purlins & Girts aise pres ofx=$200 mm, Both produce the same effect according to the equivalent UDL formula Figure 3.2, and the cross wind coefficients for this zone are shown in Figure 3.5. Hence the total equivalent UDL for spacing s is we {(09-42224882.4052}n100-08%04 1.685 kvm © Zone 8000 mm from Eaves to Ridge The cross wind coefficients assumed for this zone arc as shown in Figure 3.5 except that the external pressure coefficient is -0.5, and so —0.5 should replace 0.9, and ~0.25 should replace — 0.45. Hence total equivalent UDL for spacing s is wee {(ose aoe os2}x 1.00-0.8%0. thas =L13s KN C = -0.9 Gp = +0.52 . 9000 Figure 3.3 Cross Wind Coefficients 5200 mm to 8000 mm from Eaves 3.10.3 Outward Loading - Longitudinal Wind © Edge Zone 0 to 2600 mm from Eaves ‘The external pressure coefficient is -0.9 over 8.7 m of the span and —0.5 over the remaining 0.3 m of the span while the internal pressure coefficient is +0.1 instead of +0.52. ‘These coefficients are shown in Figure 3.6. Although the longitudinal wind pressures are calculated using , = 1.02, the cross wind case in Figure 3.3 is clearly critical, |AISC DPFBIRS Design Example Purlins Cy = -0.5 Cy = +01 9000 Figure 3.6 Longitudinal Wind Coefficients 0 to 2600 mm from Eaves + Edge Zone 2600 mm to 5200 mm from Eaves Cross wind is again clearly critical, as the intemal pressure coefficient under longitudinal wind is +0.1 and under cross wind is +0.52. © Zone 5200 mm from Eaves to Ridge ‘The effect of the local peak pressure coefficient of -0.9 acting over 2600 mm is identical to that of -0.45 acting over $200 mm according to the equivalent UDL formula in Figure 3.2. The longitudinal wind coefficients for this zone are shown in Figure 3.7. Conservatively adopting the ~0.9 extemal pressure coefficient over the whole span, the {otal equivalent UDL for spacing s is, 5x5, v= (ooops +01}102-0800.} 0 29s kim 3.10.4 Purlin Selection for Outward Loading Maximum peak pressure on sheeting = (0.9x2 + 0.52)xc1.00= 2.32 kPa For Trimdek 0.42 BMT using Lysaght’s limit state sheeting brochure: © Maximum end span = 1300 mm + Maximum internal span = 1900 mm * Maximum unstiffened overhang = 150 mm 42 Purlins & Girts ‘AISc DPFBIO3 {~ Alternative peok pressure zone ~0.5 +01 9000 Figure 3.7 Longitudinal Wind Coefficients 5200 mm from Eaves to Ridge In order to reduce purlin twists and deformations, it is recommended by Stramit (4) and Lysaght [5] that the maximum bridging spacing be 20 times the purlin depth. For a purlin Gepth of 200 mm, the maximum spacing is 4000 mm and so two rows of bridging are recommended in all 9 m spans. Both Stramit and Lysaght present capacities for thicker purlins in the end spans, The Stramit capacities for various purlin configurations including thicker end span purlins are reproduced in Table 3.1 while the comesponding Lysaght capacities are given in Table 3.2. It can be scen from these tables that the Stramit and Lysaght design capacities are somewhat different, with the differences presumably being attributable to the different lap lengths. For the purposes of the remainder of this design example, the Stramit system with its longer lap lengths (15% laps) will be adopted. + Edge Zone 0 t0 2600 mm from Eaves Spacing required for the Stremit Z200-19 purlin system for flexure alone: 2.05 10m 186 where 2.05 kN/m is the tabulated Stramit load shown in Table 3.1. Spacing required for the Stramit 2200-24 purlin system for flexure alone: 2.73 AT m 186 where 2.73 kN/m is the tabulated Stramit load shown in Table 3.1 ts DPF Design Example-Purlins 43, Hence ADOPT the Stramit 2200-19 purlin system at 1100 mm maximum centres «Edge Zone 2600 mm to 5200 mm from Eaves Spacing required for the Stramit 2200-19 purlin system for flexure alone: I 2.05 = =115 5=T59 m ‘Spacing required for the Stramit 2200-24 purlin system for flexure alone: 2B 153m 1.79 Hence ADOPT the Stramit 2200-19 purlin system at 1100 mm maximum centres + Zone 5200 mm to 8000 mm from Eaves Spacing required for the Stramit 2200-19 purlin system for flexure alone: Spacing required for the Stramit 2200-24 purlin system for flexure alone: 7B 163m 1.68 Hence ADOPT the Stramit Z200-19 purlin system at 1200 mm maximum centres Table 3.1 Stramit Capacities for 5 or More Lapped Continuous 9 m Sparis (2 Rows of Bridging) (Z200-15 4.50 1.36 1.36 0.94 7200-19/15 | 5.74/4.50 137 1.37 1.19 (2200-19 5.74 2.05 2.06 127 Z200-24/19 | 7.21/5.74 2.07 2.07 1.56 (2200-24 721 2.73 2.91 1.68 2250-19 6.50 2.62 2.62 2.06 2250-24/19 | 8.17/6.50 2.63 2.63 2.57 2250-24 8.17 3.65, 3.73 2.76 Bold capacities require Grade 8.8 purl bolts. 44 Purlins & Girts AISC DPFBAS Table 3.2 Lysaght Capacities for Four Lapped Continuous 9 m Spans (2 Rows of Bridging) 220015 4.44 1.16 1.16 0.93 220015/24 | 4.44/7.15 1.22 1,22 1.60 220019 5.68 1qT 177 1.26 220024 TAS 2.44 2.57 1.68 (225019 643 2.24 2.24 2.04 Z25019/24 | 6.43/8.10 231 231 2.70 225024 8.10 3.26 3.29 297 Bold capacities require Grade 8.8 purlin bolts, + Zone 8000 mm from Eaves to Ridge Spacing required for the Stramit Z200-19 purlin system for flexure alone: 2.05 13 Could adopt the Stramit 2200-19 purlin system at 1800 mm maximum centres but first check deflections and the possible use of translucent sheeting, and consider the ease of erection given that some riggers and roofers prefer 1200 mm maximum centres. im + Preliminary Arrangement Based on the outward loading design capacities, try the Stramit 2200-19 purlin system with two rows of bridging for all spans and 1350 mm laps with the following maximum spacings: 1100 mm: 0 to 5000 mm from eaves 1200 mm: 5000 mm from eaves to 8000 mm from eaves 1800 mm: 8000 mm from eaves to ridge 1300 mm: maximum end sheeting spans at eaves and ridge for foot traffic 3.10.5 Check Inward Loading * Zone 0 10 5200 mm from Eaves (1100 mm spacing) Combining the external pressure coefficient of +0.3 with the intemal suction coefficient of ~0.5 under cross wind: ASC DFAS Design Example -Purlins 45 (0.3 -+0.5)x1.00 +1.25x0.1}x1.1=1,02 KNim < 2.05kN/ém OK and under longitudinal wind, combining the worst extemal pressure coefficient of +0.3 with the worst internal suction coefficient of —0.65: ww = (0.3 + 0.65)x1.02 +1.25x0.1}x1.1=1.20 kNim < 2.05kN/m OK «© Zone 5200 mm to 8000 mm from Eaves (1200 mm spacing) ‘The same assumptions in previous section will be adopted for both cross wind and longitudinal wind except that the external pressure coefficient under cross wind will be ++0.2 rather than +0.3: w* = {(0.5-+0.2)1.0041.25x0.1}x 17 and under longitudinal wind: 0.99 KN/m < 2.05KN/m OK ((0.3+-0.65)x1.02 +1.25%0.1}x1.2=131 KNim < 2.05kN/m OK « Zone 8000 mm from Eaves to Ridge (1800 mm spacing) ‘Adopt the same assumptions as in previous section Hence under cross wind: we = {(0.5-+0,2)>1.0041.25x0.1}x 1.8 =149 kNim < 2.05kNim OK and under longitudinal wind: OK * Check Dead Plus Live Load For worst case of 1800 mm purlin spacing: wt =(5.74x9.82%107 44.39.8210" x1.8)x1.25+0.25x1.8x1.5 = 0.132x1.25 +0.45x1.5 = 0.84 kNim < 2.05kNin OK where the self weight a Z200-19 is 5.74 kg/m and the self weight of 0.42 BMT Trimdek is 4.3 kg/m®. As the tributary area of 9x1.8 = 16.2 m’ is greater than 14 m’, the live load according to AS1170.1 (6] is 0.25 kPa. 3.10.6 Purlin Deflections ‘The dead load deflection of a Stramit 2200-19 purlin system spaced at 1800 mm centres using the dead load calculated above: 46, Purlins & Girts AISC DPFB/O3, 2m. pM og 1475, 300 where 1.27 KN/m is the tabulated Stramit load shown in Table 3.1 to give a span/150 deflection and 0.13 kNhn is the dead load calculated inthe previous seetion. The live load deflection of Stramit Z200-19 purlins spaced at 1800 mm centres: AS 9000 2000 213 mu 127150 = SPan , SPAN 43. ~ “180 To check the maximum deflection under wind load alone, a designer could adjust the maximum wind load combination for the strength limit state by eliminating the dead load component. However the wind load is quite dominant in this case and so the combined wind and dead load UDL will be adopted as the wind load alone. The maximum wind uplift plus dead load UDL is approximately equal to the strength capacity of 2.05 kN/m. Converting this from an ultimate to a serviceability wind load by applying a factor of (38/60)', the serviceability wind load alone is 2 20s-(2) 0.82 Km < 1.27kN/m OK where 1.27 KN/m is the tabulated Stramit load shown in Table 3.1 to give a span/150 deflection. 3.10.7 Purlin Summary . The purlin system and spacing arrangement suggested in Section 3.10.4 is also satisfactory under inward loading and its deflections are acceptable, However, as translucent shecting will be used and the recommended maximum purlin spacing is 1500 mm for Alsynite 3050, the ‘maximum purlin spacing needs to be restricted to 1500 mm. ‘The final system and spacings adopted for this design example match the spacings used in the previous edition of this book which limited the spacing to 1200 mm. The adopted urlin system is as follows: ‘© Stramit Z200-19 system with 15% laps ‘+ Two rows of bridging + M12.4.6/8 bolts ‘© Purlin arrangement from eaves: 5 at 1000 mm centres 5 at 1200 mm centres 2 at 800 mm centres (with top purlin 300 mm from ridge to suit ridge ventilator with 600 mm throat) This compares with Z200-20 in the end spans and Z200-16 in the intemal spans adopted in the previous edition (11) in accordance with AS1538 [3] and the working stress design purlin and girt capacities. AISCDPFBIOD Design Example~Purlins 47 3.10.8 R-Factor Method ‘AS/NZS4600 [1] permits a simple alternative method for calculating the member capacities of purlins and girts under certain conditions. The so-called R-factor (or reduction factor) method is potentially applicable in this case with the use of 0.42 mm BMT roof sheeting, purlin laps greater than 13% and other conditions satisfied. i In this edition, it is not proposed to undertake a purlin and girt design for the whole building by the R-factor method but to investigate the capacity of one purlin run, For the zone located 5200 mm to 8000 mm from the eaves and under cross wind foading, the purlin spacing is 1200'mm and the base UDL is derived from 2 -0.9 extemal pressure coefficient and 2 +0.52 intemal pressure coefficient. The peak local pressure zone ‘has a coefficient of 0.5x (—0.9)= -0.45 and is 5,2 m long from the end support as shown in Figure 3.5. These loads are applied in combination with 0.8 times the dead load to an cight- span continuous beam with the 1350 mm laps which straddle each intemal support simulated by doubling the second moment of area J,, The maximum bending moments M" in the end span are 12.1 KNm in the mid-span region and 18.0 KNm at the rst internal support as shown in Figure 3.8a. The maximum moment in unlapped Z20015 members in the intemal spans 8.5kNm. 121 Figure 3.81 Bending Moments for R-factor Method for LW 5200 mm from Eaves to Ridge 101 Figure 3.8b Shears for R-factor Method for LW 5200 mm Soom Eaves to Ridge 48 Purlins & Girts AISCDPFBIOS © Member Moment Capacity Using an R-factor of 0.95 comesponding to two rows of bridging, the member capacities @M, for Z200-19 and 2200-15 sections are obtained from Equation 3.1 using the minimum Z, values tabulated by Stramit [4] and ¢ equal to 0.9 as follows: For Z200-15: gM, = 0.9x0.95x23.0%10° x 451 For 2200-19: gM, = 0,9 0.95x33.8x10? x45 For moment capacity alone, 2200-19 in the end span and 2200-15 in the intemal spans are both adequate as follows: ForZ200-15; M* =85kNm < 8.85kNm For Z200-19: M7 = 12.1 KNm < 13.0kNm. © Combined Bending and Shear ‘A check must be made for combined bending and shear. Note’that strictly speaking it would be necessary to re-analyse the purlin system to account for the thinner Z sections in the intemal spans as this would result in slightly different bending moments. For combined bending and shear, the relevant member actions are as follows. At the end of the lap in the end span, the moment is 5.9 kNm and the shear is 7.9 KN. In the second span at the end of the lap near the first intemal support, the moment is 8.5 k¢Nm and the coincident shear is 6.0 kN. For 220019: Shear capacity: a, = 203-2x(5+1.9)=189.2 mm 4, _ 189.2 = 99.6 > 1.415% 19 Hence a. ~ ony 0.905 Eke, 0.9 { 2:905%2% 10° x5.34x1. 189.2 =31.5kN Combined bending and shear: Giz) . (Fz) sre GM, =0,95%33.8x10° x 450 =14.4 kNm Note that ¢, equals 0.95 for section capacity, not 0.90. Table 1.6 ASINZS4600 ANS DPBS Design Example -Purlins 49 ‘At the end of the Jap in the end span: 2 2 (2) (2) =0.1740.06 =0.23 < 1.0 OK 144) “\315. 72001 Shear capacity: d, = 203-2x(5+1.5)=190 mm i = 4 = 126.7 >68.9 as before Hence Ay, = 09x{ 205% Bhatt hy = 09 | = 15.5 KN ‘Combined bending and shear: #M, =0.95x23.0%10° x 450= 9.83 kKNm_ Table 1.6 AS/NZS4600 At the end of lap in first internal span near first intemal support: 3s) (60) 32) 4[25] =056+0.15 (3) (8) “The Stramit Z20019/Z20015 system is therefore adequate for combined bending and shear as well as for maximum moment alone. ‘There is ample reserve of combined bending and shear strength and sufficient reserve of bending strength to preclude the need for re- analysis of the continuous beam for the Z20019/Z20015 combination. The 720019/220015 system is lighter than the Z20019 system obtained by using the Stramit tables. 71< 1.0 OK 3.11 DESIGN EXAMPLE — GIRTS 3.11.1 Side Wall Girts fnward Pr ficie 40.7 05 0.5 +052 0.65 40.1 Queward Pressure Coefficients:, ‘external pressure (CW) internal suction (CW) extemal suction (CW) internal pressure (CW) ‘external suction (LW) internal pressure (LW) Clearly the cross wind case is more critical than the longitudinal wind case because of the much higher internal pressure. 50 Purlins & Girts AISC DPBS © Outward Loading ‘The assumed pressure coefficients for cross wind loading including the local pressure zone are shown in Figure 3.9. Equivalent UDL for cross wind loading with spacing, s, is (¢ss22e0ses2, 052 }1.00%s = 121s KN/m 8700 5200 2600 Alternotive peck focal pressure Icy = ~0.50 zones rea-5 Gp = -0.25 bona be = -05 9000 Figure 3.9 Cross Wind Coefficients for Outward Loading on Side Wall Girts * GirtSelection For a Z200-24/19 system, spacing required for flexure alone: 5-21.69 m 121 Hence try the Stramit Z200-19 system at 1700 mm maximum centres ‘© Inward Loading with 1700 mm Spacing UDL = (0.7 + 0.5)x1.00x1.7 = 2.04 kN/m < 2.05kKNim — OK © Summary Adopt the Stramit 2200-19 girt system at 1700 mm maximum centres with 1350 laps and two rows of bridging on all spans. ASC DPBS Design Example Girts 51 3.11.2. End Wall Girts with Span of 6250 mm Inward Pressure Coefficients: +0.7 extemal pressure (LW) 0,65. internal suction (LW) Outward Pressure Coefficients; -0.65 extemal suction (CW) ++0,52. internal pressure (CW) 0.25. extemal suction (LW) [d/b = 72/25 = 2.88] +0.1 intemal pressure (LW) © Outward Loading Clearly cross wind will govern the design and the relevant coefficients are shown in Figure 3.10. Referring to Figure 3.2, the total equivalent UDL with peak pressure zone under cross wind for spacing, s, is 1.3x0.325%5, = (0.654. ( 625 +052)x 1.00x5 = 1.51skN/im he=8000 5200 2600 | Alternative peok . local pressure cy ag / zones rhn—7 Cp = ~0.525 F --4 G = -085 6, = -05 Cp = +0.52 6250 Figure 3.10 Cross Wind Coefficients for Outward Loading on End Wall Girts + Girt Selection To match the side wall girt spacing, try s= 1.7m Outward loading = 1.51x1.7 = 2.57 KN/m For Z150 girts (whose Stramit capacities are listed in Table 3.3 and Lysaght capacities are listed in Table 3.4 using linear interpolation), the recommended maximum bridging 52, Purlins & Girts AISC DPFE/O spacing of 20D = 3040 mm. This length is quite close to half of the span, so one row of bridging may be justified. Try Stramit Z200-15 system with one row of bridging at 1700 mm centres Capacity = 2.77 kNim > 2.571Nim OK © Inward Loading with 1700 mm Spacing UDL = (0.7 + 0.5)x1,02x1.7=2.34kNim <2.77KNim OK ‘Table 3.3 Stramit Capacities for 3 or 4 Lapped Continuous 6.25 m Spans ‘Outwards Inwards Section | Mass Nin kNim_| Deflection kel | teow | 2Rows | tow | Span/i50 Z180-10 | 243 | 0.99 | 118 | 118 0.78 2150-12 | 290} 126 | 149 | 149 0.98 2150-15 | 359 | 163 | 196 | 196 1.26 Z180-19 | 4.51 | 2.27 | 2.77 | 2.74 1.67 7150-24 | 5.67 | 3.14 | 389 | 376 | 215 Z200-15 | 480 | 2.77 | 277 | 2.77 247 Table 3.4 Lysaght Capacities for Lapped Continuous 6.25 m Spans Outwards Inwards Section | Mass Nim kNim_| Deflection fafa 1 Row | 2 Rows Row Span/150 zisol2 | 284] 133 | 149 | 133 1.05 zisors | 3.54] 173 | 196 | 1.96 1.34 Zisoi9 | 4.46 | 235 | 276 | 271 1.79 215024 | 5.62 | 3.26 | 388 | 3.77 234 z20015 | 444 | 265 | 265°| 265 2.58 ‘sc DPPH: Design Example-Girts 53 3.) 1 Summary For end wall girts, adopt Stramit 2200-15 girt system at 1700 mm centres with 1000 mm Japs. Use one row of bridging in all spans. 12 REFERENCES ‘Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand (1996), ASINZS4600-1996 Cold Formed Steel Structures Code, SA, Sydney, SNZ, Auckland. ‘Standards Australia (1998). 44100-1998 Steel Structures, SA, Sydney. Standards Association of Australia (1988). AS/538-1988 SAA Cold-Formed Steel Structures Code, SAA, Syéney. Stramit (1999), Stramit Purtins and Girts, Stramit Metal Building Products. Lysaght (1999). Zeds and Cees Purlin and Girt Systems, BHP Building Products. Standards Association of Australia (1989). 4S/170.1-1989 Part 1 Dead and Live Loading Code, SAA, Sydney. Horridge, JF. and Morris, LJ. (1986). Single-storey buildings cost considerations, Proceedings, Pacific Structural Steel Conference, New Zealand Heavy Engineering Research Association, August, 265-285. Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand (1998). AS/NZS4600-1996 Supplement 1: 1998 Cold-Formed Structures - Commentary, SA, Syéney, SNZ, Auckland, Hancock, GJ. (1998). Design of Cold-Formed Stee! Structures. 3" edn, ATSC, Sydney. Standards Association of Australia (1989). AS//70.2-1989 Part 2 Wind Loading Code, SAA, Sydney, Woolcock, 8.T., Kitipomchai, 8. and Bradford, M.A. (1993). Limit State Design of Portal Frame Buildings, 2 edn, AISC, Sydney. 54 AISC DPFBAS 4 Frame Design 4.1 FRAME DESIGN BY ELASTIC ANALYSIS Traditionally, portal frame analysis and design in Australia has been elastic rather than plastic because of the non-uniform, asymmetric nature of the wind load. Although AS4100 [1] is a Jimit stale code with section and member capacities based on the plastic moment of resistance, the main method in the code for determining the forces and bending moments in a frame is siill clastic analysis. However, plastic analysis may in some cases lead to more economical structures, and this is considered in Chapter 8. Jn the Australian wind code AS1170.2 [2], coefficients for external suction decrease in steps starting from -0.9 at the windward edge to -0.5 to ~0.3 to -0.2, or altematively from 0.4 to 0, +0.2 and +0.3. This non-uniform pressure can be handled easily by an clastic analysis using a plane frame computer program. In fact, it would be extremely difficult to take advantage of the reduction in pressure and achieve an economical structure without recourse to a plane frame computer program. In the design of rafters and columns in portal frames, the selection of the member sizes may be governed by the ultimate or strength timit state, or by limiting deflections in the serviceability limit state, For the strength limit state, the design axial and bending capacities Ne and @My, respectively are obtained through a consideration of flexural and flexural- torsional buckling respectively. ‘To obtain an economical rafter design, it is important to ensure that the design bending strength is as close as possible to the section capacity Ma, which for many sections will be the plastic moment capacity Sf. This capacity is usually achieved by the use of adequate restraints such as fly braces to restrain the inside rafter and column flanges laterally when in compression. Of course, there are some cases where deflections govern the design, and these are discussed in Section 4.9 of this chapter. 4.2" COMPUTER ANALYSIS 4.2.1 Load Cases For the computer analysis, itis best to use load cases which are complete in themselves. For ‘example, intemal pressure should be a load case by itself, and not combined with an external pressure case. The loads on columns and rafters should not be separated. Recommended load cases for a computer analysis are as follows: Dead Load (DL) Live Load (LL) Cross Wind Maximam Uplift (CW1) (external only) Cross Wind Minimum Uplift (CW2) (extemal only) 35 56 Frame Design AISCDFFBNS Longitudinal Wind on First Intemal Frame (LI) (external only) Longitudinal Wind on Downwind Frame (LW2) (external only) Internal Pressure under Cross Wind (IPCW) Internal Pressure under Longitudinal Wind (IPLW) Extra load cases may be necessary for non-symmetrical buildings, for buildings where the cross wind terrain category is different on one side from the other, and for buildings where it may be an advantage to consider different wind speeds in different directions. Cross wind load combinations with internal suction are not often critical, but designers should check such combinations nevertheless. It is possible that the hogging moment at the downwind knee joint will be worse under dead load, cross wind and intemal suction (1.25DL + CW + IS) than under dead toad plus live toad (1.25DL ++ 1.5LL). This particularly affects the downwind column as its unrestrained inside ange will be in compression. The internal suction case (IS) can be obtained simply by factoring the intemal pressure load case by an appropriate negative number. The recommended load combinations for a computer analysis are: LC20: 1.25DL + 1.5LL LO2: 0.8DL + CW (maximum uplif + PCW LC22; O.8DL + CH2 (minimun uplifi) + IPCW LC23: 1.25DL + CW2 (minimum uplif) + ISCW LCM: O8DL + LW i (maximum uplift) + IPLW LOWS: | 1.25DL + LW2 (minimum uplift) + ISLW ‘Note that the loading code AS1170.1 [3] states that it is not necessary to consider live load and wind load acting simultaneously. There is some doubt about the validity of LC25 as discussed in Sections 2.4.7 and 2.6.5. The trial section properties used in the first computer run will not affect “the distribution of bending moments, provided that the column and rafter second moments of area are in the same proportion as those finally adopted. Some computer programs allow for shear deformations, although the effect is not significant. To account for shear deformations in Microstran, the web area, which can be taken as the overall depth D times the web thickness ty must be input, 4.2.2 Methods of Analysis AS4100 permits a number of types of analysis consisting of first and second order elastic analysis, first and second order plastic analysis and advanced structural analysis. First order plastic analysis is considered in Chapter 8, while first and second order elastic analysis is ‘treated in this chapter. First order clastic analysis assumes the frame remains elastic and that its deflections are so small that secondary effects resulting from the deflections (second order effects) are negligible, First order analysis is generally carried out using plane frame analysis computer programs. Despite the basic assumption of first order analysis, second order effects are not negligible. Second order effects are essentially P-d effects which arise from the sway 4 of the frame, or P-S effects which arise from the deflections J of individual members from the ‘aise DPFBAS Computer Analysis 7 straight lines joining the members’ ends. AS4100 requires that the bending moments calculated by first order analysis be modified for second order effects using moment amplification factors. ‘The use of moment amplification factors can be avoided by using second order elastic analysis. Second order analysis is now widely adopted by designers as suitable programs are commercially available, and it is easier and more accurate to obtain elastic second order moments directly than to amplify first order moments. Second order elastic analysis is used as the first preference in this book with variations for first order analysis also being given ‘where appropriate, It should be noted that second order analysis should only be performed for Joad combinations and not for individual load cases. 4.2.3 Moment Amplification for First Order Elastic Analysis ‘AS4100 requires a rational analysis of non-rectangular sway frames to determine the frame clastic buckling load factor 2. The first order bending moments in the columns and rafters are then amplified” using the amplification factor & given by 1) The factor 2, can be determined by commercially available clastic critical load computer packages, However, as these seem to go hand in hand with second order elastic analysis programs, there is little point in determining 2, in this way when direct second order analysis which avoids the use of Ay is available. It should be noted that for pinned base portals, the approach used by these packages does not take advantage of the nominal base restraint’ allowed in AS1250 [4] and therefore should be conservative. For designers without access to such computer packages, simple approximate expressions for determining 4, for pinned and fixed base portal frames may be found in Reference [5]. These expressions ignore the stiffening effect of any haunches and the nominal base restraint’ allowed iri AS1250 and therefore should be conservative. ‘© For pinned base frames: 3EL, Ae 4.2) © 8, (Nh, +0.3N;6, @2 “in AS1250, moment amplification was effectively applied in the combined stress rules where the amplification, factor 1/(I-f,/0.6Feq) Was used to increase the in-plane bending stresses. ‘To determine F, and Fac: in the ‘combined stresses equation, the designer was required to calculate the in-plane effective length of the columns. In the absence of any better technique, t was customary to zegard the portal frames es rectangular frames with zero axial loads in the beams or rafters and use the Ga and Gy factor approach in Appendix E of AS12S0. However, such an approach was of doubtful validity because rafters are inclined and carry axial loads. “Nominal base restraint was represented by a G value of 10 for a pinned base in AS1250 when using the Gq and Gq factor approach for determining effective lengths. 58 Frame Design AIsc PPR + For fixed base frames: SE(L0+R) (43) © SNiE2 | 2RNTA2 SMEs BRN. Z, 7. in which TA, Rates 4.4) a 44) and £ is Young's modulus, Nz is the axial force in the column, 2; is the axial force in the rafter, Tz _ isthe second moment of area of the columa, J, _ isthe second moment of area of the rafter, ig is the height to the eaves, and 4, is the length of rafter between the centre of the column and apex Once the first order moments are amplified, the combined actions section (Section 8 of AS84100) applies. Member moment capacities are calculated using actual lengths of rafters and columns when determining the axial capacity N, as required by Clause 8.4.2.2 of AS4100 taking an effective length factor ke of 1.0. Clause 8.4.2.2 of AS4100 also requires the rafters and columns to be checked under axial load alone using the effective lengths Z. determined from the frame elastic buckling load factor A, as discussed in Sections 4.3.3 and 4.4.2. ‘The effective length of a rafter or column can be determined from x. a (4.5) where N" is the design axial force in the rafter or column and J, is the respective second moment of area about the x axis. 4.3 RAFTERS . 4.3.1 Nominal Bending Capacity My, in Rafters 4.3.1.1 SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE AS4100 uses a semi-empirical equation to relate the nominal bending capacity Mbx to the elastic buckling moment M, and the section strength M,., which for Universal and Welded Beams and Columns can be taken as Ze. This philosophy uses a set of semi-empirical equations to relate the member strength to the plastic moment and the elastic flexural- torsional buckling moment. isc prFwnS Rafters 539 Clause 5.6.1.1 of AS4100 expresses the nominal member bending capacity Mp, a My = Gn ipM ax (4.6) where @y is a moment modification factor to account for the non-uniform distribution of major axis bending moment, and a, is a slondemess reduction factor which depends on Mar and the elastic buckling moment of a simply supported beam under uniform moment Mp. The code gives comprehensive values of @» Which would be met in practice, ‘The conservative option of taking ay, equal to unity is also permitted. ‘The slendemess reduction factor is expressed in Clause 5.6.1.1 of the code as } +3 us| < 10 (a7) M, where Mog may be taken as either (i) -M, which is the elastic buckling moment for a beam with 2 uniform bending distribution and with ends fully restrained against lateral translation and twist rotation but unrestrained against minor axis rotation; or (ii) a value determined from an accurate elastic buckling analysis. The elastic buckling moment M, may be determined from the accurate expression [1] given in Clause 5.6.1.1 a5 n EL, M,=—. 1 ~ TAELCL oe 48) whore Le is the effective length, and £/,, GJ and Ely are the flexural bending rigidity, the torsional rigidity and the warping rigidity respectively. Values of the section properties J), J and [Jy are given in the BHP Section Properties Handbook (6] and in AISC’s Design Capacity ‘Tables for Structural Steel [7]. The use of Equation 4.8 requires the effective length Le, and the determination of this is discussed in subsequent sections. 4.3.1.2 ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE Clause 5.6.4 of AS4100 allows the designer to use the results of an elastic buckling analysis, although in most cases this is not practical for design offices and is really a research tool. If an elastic buckling analysis is to be used, then the elastic buckling moment Mo, which allows for the moment gradient, restraint conditions and height of loading, is determined either from ‘computer program or from solutions given in the literature [8,9]. Having obtained Mop, the value of Mog to be used in Equation 4.7 is calculated from Mog = Mob. 9) Gm where values of a, are obtained either from the code or from an elastic buckling analysis such that 60 Frame Design Alsc DPF (4.10) The moment Me, is the elastic buckling moment corresponding to Myy for the same beam segment with the same bendifg moment distribution, but with © shear centre loading, «ends fully restrained against lateral translation and twist rotation, and + ends unrestrained against minor axis rotation. ‘The moment Moy is the critical uniform bending moment M, given by Equation 4.8 with Z, taken as the laterally unsupported length L. In the event that the whole rafter is designed as a tapered member fabricated by diagonally cutting, rotating and welding the web, an accurate elastic buckling analysis must be used. This also applies to the haunched segment of a conventional rafter. The values of ‘Mry-and Mos for tapered rafters may be found in Reference {10]. ication Factors 4.3.2 Effective Length and Moment Mo for Bending Capacity 4.3.2.1 GENERAL If the simplified design procedure in Clause 5.6.1.1 of AS4100 (incorporating Equations 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8 above) is used, then the effective length Z, of the rafter must be determined in accordance with Clause 5.6.3. The effective length depends on the spacing and stiffness of the purlins and fly braces, and the degree of twist and lateral rotational restraint as follows: * Whether the connection between the purlins and rafter is rigid, semi: pinned. + The flexural rigidity of the purlins, in that AS4100 classifies purlins qualitatively as flexible or stiff. No numerical yardstick is given. + The load height in that AS4100 allows, for example, for the destabilising effect of loads applied at or above the shear centre in a beam subjected to downward loads, * Whether the inside or outside flange is the critical flange. For a portal frame, the compression flange is the critical flange as explained in Clause C5.5 of the AS4100 Commentary [11]. ‘© The degree of lateral rotational restraint provided at the ends of a segment by adjoining segments, gid or 4.3.2.2 Top FLANGE IN COMPRESSION Under gravity loads, the top flange is mostly in compression, except near the knees. Purlins provide lateral restraint to the top flange, but full twist restraint to the rafter from the purlins cannot be relied upon because standard oversized 22 mmx18 mm holes are generally used in purlins with only M12 bolts. Although this means the holes in the purlins are effectively AISCDPEBIS Rafters 6 slotted, the bolts are tightened and so the purlin to rafter connection using a standard purlin cleat and two bolts can be regarded as a partial twist restraint connection in terms of Figure 5,4.2.1(b) in AS4100. Fortunately, the code permits partial twist restraint at the critical flange {in association with lateral restraint) to be classified as full restraint of the cross-section. ‘Therefore for each segment between purlins when the top flange is in compression, both ends are fully restrained (FF) and the nwist restraint factor kris 1.0. Although gravity loads are applied through the purlins at the top flange, the load height factor ky of 1.4 in Table 5.6.3(2) in AS4100 does not apply because the load is not free to move sideways as the member buckles. In other words, the load is applied at a point of lateral restraint and ky should be taken as 1. ‘The degree of lateral rotational restraint provided at each end of the segment by adjoining segments depends on whether the adjoining segments are fully restrained laterally for not, as described in Clause 5.4.3.4 of AS4100. (A fully restrained segment in accordance with Clause 5.3.2 is essentially one with Mf, not less than M, which means its aa, value is greater than unity.) The code permits full lateral rotational end restraint or none. No intermediate option is provided. While segments between purlins under downward loading are short and are likely to be fully restrained laterally, full restraint in accordance with Clause 5.3.2 cannot be guaranteed, It follows that lateral rotational restraint should strictly speaking be disregarded. ‘There is, however, a high degree of lateral rotational restraint which would allow k; to be taken safely as 0.85. Tn summary, the effective length L- is given by kkk, L as 1, =10x 10x 0858, = 0.855, in Because the spacing between purlins is short in comparison with the length of the rafter, the moment modification factor o.,, should usually be taken as 1.0. 4.3.2.3, BOTTOM FLANGE IN COMPRESSION © With Fly Bracing under Uplift Under uplift, most of the bottom flange of a portal frame rafter is in compression, In such cases, the rafter is attached to the purlins at the tension flange level, and the compression flange of the rafter is unrestrained. In order to achieve increased member capacity, itis customary to restrain the bottom flange of the rafter laterally by providing fly bracing using small angle section members joining the bottom flange to the purlins. With the bottom flange in compression, AS4100 classifies a fly brace restraint as a full ot partial cross-sectional restraint depending on whether the purlins are flexible or stiff. No numerical criterion is given for assessing the flexibility or stiffness of purlins. Therefore if partial cross-sectional restraint is assumed conservatively at each end of the segment (PP), the twist restraint factor k; will be greater than 1.0 in accordance with Table 5.6.3(1) of AS4100. However, unless fly braces are closely spaced or the rafter has an unusually high flange to web, thickness ratio, k; will normally be close to 1.0. 62 Frame Design ASC DPFBItS Considering that the partial restraint assumption is probably conservative, a k; value of 1.0 is recommended for simplicity. It may appear that there should be a useful reduction in effective length because the ‘wind loads act at the more favourable tension flange level, However, the benefit of this is not significant as most of the bending moment within a segment is due to end moments, and the segment should not be likened to a simply supported beam under uniformly distributed load applied at the tension flange level. Moreover, the reduction in effective Iengths of a simply supported beam under such loads is limited in some cases as discussed in the next subsection and AS4100 offers no concession for bottom flange Toading. For this reason, ky should be taken as 1.0. For a segment between fly braces and with the bottom flange in compression, the lateral rotational restraint provided at the ends of the segment by adjoining segments should strictly speaking be disregarded because it is unlikely that the adjoining segments are fully restrained laterally in accordance with Clause 5.4.3.4 of AS4100. There is, however, a degree of lateral rotational restraint which would allow k, to be taken as 0.85. Jn summary, the effective length Le for segments between fly braces is given by Kk, Las L, 0% 1.0% 0.855, = 0.855, (4.12) ‘The moment modification factor on for segments between fly braces will usually be greater than 1.0. For segments which have a reversal of moment, part of the segment will have its compression flange restrained by purlins but this benefit should be ignored, © Without Fly Bracing under Uplift Although some fly bracing is recommended, it is interesting to consider the rafter behaviour vider uplift where there is no fly bracing at all. In this case, the fall portal span should be taken as the effective length, and @ should be based on the bending moment distribution across the rafter span. Even though the validity of this approach for a kinked member is doubtful, the large effective length should equate to such a low capacity that some fly bracing will be necessary. Designers often fect that the lateral restraint offered by purlins to the tension flange under uplift conditions should also increase the lateral buckling capacity. . However, theoretical and experimental studies [9,12] of the bracing of beams have confirmed that translational restraint alone acting at the level of the tension flange, such as that provided by purlins, is virtually ineffective. ‘These studies show that if the lateral restraint is combined with some twist restraint, the buckling capacity is increased. It is possible to design the purlin-rafter connection for some rotational capacity by providing two or four friction bolts to the cleat, or by using wider cleat plates with more bolts. There may be architectural advantages in avoiding fly bracing, such as when a ceiling is required above the bottom flange level. Investigations have been carried out [12] into the effectiveness of standard purlin connections in providing rotational restraint to the raffers. The results revealed in part that the requirement for rotational stiffness is a function of the initial geometric AISCDPFBAS Rafters 3 imperfections in the rafter. That is, for very crooked rafters, greater stiffness in the brace is required. ‘The theoretical and experimental studies have so far indicated that ordinary or standard purlin connections are effective to some degree, provided that the bolisare properly tightened. Further tests and analyses are needed, but in the meantime tension flange bracing should be disregarded. One fly brace neor ridge Fly brace near column to stabilize knee 7 ae 4 A No girts this | side say LOCATION EFFECTIVE LENGTH Outside flange in compression 0.85 Sp Inside flange in compression 0.85 Sf Column without girts or fly bracing] 0.85. H Figure 4.1 Effective Length Factors for Bending in Rafters and Columns © With Fly Bracing under Downward Load The effect of the bottom flange near the columns being in compression due to gravity loads or other loading should be considered even though most of the bottom flange of the rafter is in tension. A fly brace is recommended near each knee and near the ridge to restrain the inside comers of the frame at kinks. A stiffener between column flanges as indicated in Figure 4:1 effectively exténds the bottom flange of the haunch to the outside column flange which is restrained by girts. This effectively provides some restraint to the inside of the knee, However, a fly brace near the knee is still recommended. With fly braces at Icast at the knees and the ridge, the effective length will be 0.85 times the spacing between fly braces. The value of the moment modification factor ay for the segment should be determined using one of the three methods in AS4100, but Method (iii) in Clause 5.6.1.1(@) is likely to be most appropriate if there is no intermediate fly brace between the knee and ridge. It is recommended that any haunch should be ignored in determining the design bending capacity Mx of the segment, but the applied bending moments should be reduced by 64 Frame Design tse DPFBS factoring the moment at any haunch section by the ratio of the elastic section modulus of the unhaunched section to the corresponding elastic modulus of the haunched section, Alternatively if each end of the haunch happens to be fly braced as in the design example, the,haunch may be treated as a tapered segment in accordance with AS4100. 4.3.3. Major Axis Compression Capacity Nox In AS4100, the nominal member capacity Ner is required in the combined actions rules for determining the in-plane member capacity in Clause 8.4.2.2. It is obtained from Clause 6.3.3 as N, aks Aghy 4.13) where A, is the net rafter cross-sectional atea, which is generally the gross area for portal frame members (see Clause 6.2.1 of AS4100). The member slencemess reduction factor a is given in tabular form in the code for values of the modified slendemess ratio Ang = (Le! re)ufkey [Fj 1250 where Le is the effective length equal to kL based on the actual rafter length L from the centre of the cohumn to the apex. ‘Two effective lengths need to be used under Clause 8.4.2.2 of AS4100. For combined actions, the effective length factor ke should be taken as 1.0. The rafter also needs to be checked under axial load alone using effective lengths determined from the frame elastic buckling load factor 4,. This factor can be obtained either by using Equation 4.5 with the Davies method [5] outlined in Scotion 4.2.3 of this book, or by using commercially available computer packages such as Microstran [13] or Spacegass [14]. The check under axial load alone is unlikely to be critical for portal frames without cranes because they are principally flexural frames with low axial loads in all members. The form factor ky which accounts for local plate buckling is given in the BHP section handbook (6). 4.3.4 Minor Axis Compression Capacity Ny The nominal member capacity No for buckling about the y axis is required in the combined action rules of AS4100 for determining the out-of-plane capacity in Clause 8.4.4.1. It is obtained by taking the effective length L, as the distance between purlins, since the purlins are restrained longitudinally by roof sheeting acting as a rigid diaphragm spanning between the roof bracing nodes. The theoretical effective length of an axially loaded member (rafter ot column) with discrete lateral but not twist-rotational restraints attached to one of the flanges may be greater than the distance between the restraints. Unfortunately, there is no simple method of determining the effective length of such a member. In the case of a rafter restrained by purlins, some degree of twist-rotational restraint would also exist. The combined full lateral and partial twist-rotational restraint provided by the purlins to the outside flange should be effective in enforcing thie rafier to buckle lexurally between the purlins. The capacity Ney is obtained from the minor axis modified slendemess ratio aise DPF . Rafters 65 43.5 Combined Actions for Rafters ‘The effect of axial tensile or compressive forces in rafters combined with bending should be included in the design as described in Section 4.5. 43.6 Haunches for Rafters ‘A comprehensive AISC publication {19] in 1997 investigated the design of tapered portal fame haunclies fabricated from universal section members. The publication deals with detailing, the cost of febrication, the calculation of elastic and plastic section properties, computer modelling (including the effect of varying the number of segments), and section and member design to AS4100. It also reviews the testing of haunches in other literature. 4.4 PORTAL COLUMNS 4.4.1 General In the sizing of portal columns, it is necessary to consider not only major and minor axis column buckling, but also flexural-torsional buckling, The axial forces and bending moments can be extracted from the computer output, but knee bending moments can be reduced to the value at the underside of the rafter or haunch. 4.4.2 Major Axis Compression Capacity Nec In AS4100, the nominal member capacity Ney is required in the combined actions rules for determining the in-plane member capacity in Clause 8.4.2, It is given by Equation 4.13 of this chapter, with the effective length Le of the column equal to hel. ‘As for the rafters, two effective lengths need to be used under Clause 8.4.2.2 of AS4100. For combined actions, the effective length factor k, should be taken as 1.0. The column also needs to be checked under axial load alone using effective lengths calculated from the frame elastic buekling load factor 2, using Equation 4.5. However, as for the rafters, the check under axial load alone is unlikely to be critical for portal frames without cranes because of the low axial loads present. 4.4.3 Minor Axis Compression Capacity Nay The nominal member capacity Ney for buckling about the y axis is required in the combined actions rules of AS4100 for determining the out-oftplane capacity in Clause 8.4.4.1. It is obtained by taking the effective length Le as the distance between girts, since the girts are restrained longitudinally by wall sheeting acting as a rigid diaphragm spanning between the 66 Frame Design aise prraes wall bracing nodes. As concluded for rafters braced by purlins in Section 4.3.4, the girts may generally be assumed as effective in enforcing the column to buckle flexurally between the girts, The true effective length could be slightly greater than the girt spacing because the restraints are not on the column centrelines and the effects of rotational restraint from the girts. is uncertain, For the design of heavily loaded columns such as those supporting crane loads, it is recommended that the effective length be taken conservatively as the distance between fly braces, or the full height of the column if there are no fly braces, rather than the distance between girts, The capacity Noy is obtained from the minor axis modified slenderness ratio Zp, given in Section 4.3.4. 4.4.4 Nominal Bending Capacity M,, in Columns 4.4.4.1 GENERAL ‘The nominal bending capacity My, in portal frame columns with fly bracing ean be obtained ‘in the same way as for the rafters 4.4.4.2 INSIDE FLANGE IN COMPRESSION When the inside flange is in compression and there is no fly bracing, the segment length is the column length from the base plate to the underside of the haunch. At the bottom, the base plate and bolts provide full lateral and twist restraint, and nearly full lateral rotational restraint. At the top, there is full lateral and twist restraint from the wall bracing and the fly brace at the inside corner of the haunch. However, there is little rotational restraint available from the rafter, and it is difficult to assess any warping restraint at the knee. ‘With each end of the column having full cross-sectional restraint (FF in AS4100), the twist restraint factor & should be taken as 1.0 and the lateral rotation restraint factor é, as 0.85. The load height factor ke should be taken as 1.0 even if the loads are considered as top flange loads because the loads are applied through girts which are not free to move sideways during buckling. In summary, the effective length L, for a column with no fly bracing and the inside flange in compression is given by kjkyk,L 25 2, = 10x 10x 085H = 0.851 (4.14) The bending moment distribution in the portal columns can usually be approximated by a linear distribution from a maximum at the top to zero at the bottom, Accordingly when the inside flange is in compression and there is no fly bracing, 2 moment modification factor Gm equal to 1.75 can be used. If fly braces are used, then the effective length can be taken as 0.85 times the fly brace spacing as for rafters, and the moment modification factor ay should be chosen to suit the moment distribution in the column segments between fly braces, ASCDPFBNS Portal Columns 67 4.4.4.3 OUTSIDE FLANGE IN COMPRESSION When the outside flange is in compression, the effective length should be taken as 0.85 times the distance between the girts as discussed in Section 4.3.2.2, but the girt spacing will generally be small enough fo achieve near full bending capacity without resorting to a 15% reduction in effective length. The factor cy, can conservatively be taken as unity, or chosen to suit the moment distribution in the column segments between the girts. Some effective length factors are shown in Figure 4.1. 4,5 COMBINED ACTIONS 45.1 General [Although axial tensile or compressive forces in columns or rafters of portal framed buildings me Figure 4.2 Bffective Length of Central Column There can be some uncertainty about how to calculate the effective length for determining the nominal capacity Nex in the plane of the portal frame (see Figure 4.2). The uncertainty arises partly because the top of the rafter is attached to the apex of @ portal frame which can sway sideways. This is dealt with in the following sections, 4.6.2 Effective Lengths for Axial Compression 4.6.2.1 ToP CONNECTION PINNED If the top of the central column is connected to the portal frame by a flexible connection such as a cleat perpendicular to the plane of the frame, it would be reasonable to regard this, AISC DPFROS Central Columns 71 connection as pinned. In this case, the central column does not interact flexurally with the frame, but the frame must have a certain minimum stiffness to effectively brace the top of the columns es shown in Figure 4.2. For a pinned base column, the minimum spring stiffness to ensure that its effective length Z. is equal to and not greater than the length L of the column is PEEL (8). In practical frames, the sidesway stiffness of the rigid frame with its relatively stiff side columns and rafter is usually quite sufficient to brace the top of a slender central column. Designers can readily determine the sidesway stiffness by analysing a special load case single horizontal load at the apex of the frame. 4.6.2.2. Top CONNECTION RIGID {Ifthe top connection is rigid, then there should logically be some reduction in effective length of the central column, However, in accordance with AS4100, it is not possible to determine directly the effective length of individual members in non-rectangular frames. The code in Clause 4.7 requires a rational buckling analysis of the whole frame to determine the frame clastic buckling load factor 4. The only practical way of determining 2. is by means of a frame analysis program such as Microstran or Spacegass. These programs also convert the Ae value for each load combination into effective lengths for each member by use of Equation 45. 4.6.3 Combined Actions with First Order Elastic Analysis If the top connection is rigid, the frame elastic buckling load factor 2 for each load combination is used in Clause 4.4,2.3(b) to determine the amplification factor 4; which is applied to any bending moments from a first order elastic analysis. The capacity of the central column is then checked under Clause 8.4.2.2 of AS4100 using an effective length factor ky of 1.0 for combined actions, and also an effective length factor cafculated fom 4¢for axial load alone. Ifthe top and bottom connections are assumed to be pinned, there will be no moments from the frame analysis but a nominal eccentricity in each direction is recommended. The effective length factor Ke will then be 1.0 for both combined actions and for axial load alone if the minimum spring stiffftess in Section 4.6.2.1 is provided. 4.6.4 Combined Actions with Second Order Elastic Analysis Ironically, if'a designer has access to programs such as Microstran or Spacegass to determine efor amplifying first order moments, then itis likely that the designer also has access to the second order elastic analysis option of these programs. In this case, a designer would ideally use the second order elastic analysis as this obviates the need to amplify the moments. The capacity of the central column is then checked as described in the previous section. n Frame Design Isc DFFBRS 4.7 END WALL FRAMES 4.71 General End wall frames generally have intermediate end wall columns to support the end wall gitts against wind loads. Advantage can be taken of these intermediate columns to brace the end wall frames and to reduce the span, and therefore the size of the end wall rafters. Altematively, the typical internal portal frame can be adopted for the end wall frame. Although this results in unnecessary tonnage, it has the following advantages: Repetition. ‘+ End wall bracing can generally be avoided. + No complication with roof bracing details at smaller or discontinuous end wall rafters. For example, if the roof bracing plane is at the mid-height of a typical rafter, a shallower end wall rafter will generally create detailing difficulties unless it is half the depth of the typical rafters. The detailing difficulties can be avoided by relocating the bracing bay from the end, but this may necessitate adding struts, in the end bay to transfer the end wall column loads to the bracing bay. This offets to some extent the tonnage saved by reducing the end wall rafter. © The building can be readily extended, 4.7.2, End Wall Columns ‘The main function of end wall columns is to provide support against end wall wind loads. In the worst,case, the maximum intemal pressure cocfficient of +0,7 will combine with the maximum intemal suetion coefficient of ~0.65. Lower pressure coefficients may be appropriate as discussed previously. Axial compression under gravity loads should also be considered. Outward loads with the unrestrained inside flange in compression are potentially more critical than inward loads where the compression flange is restrained laterally by gitts. . However, the maximum bending moment capacity under outward loading can still be achieved by use of fly braces to the girts. Deflections should also be considered and a maximum serviceability deflection of span/150 is recommended for walls clad with metal sheeting so as to limit damage to the sheeting and its fasteners, For masonry walls, a more stringent deflection limit is advisable. 4.7.3 End Wall Columns to Rafter Connection 4.7.3.1 GENERAL The sizing of intermediate end wall columns is relatively easy, but the design of the rafter to end wall column connections and the roof bracing fo end wall rafter connections (if the roof bracing is to be in the end bay) requires considerable experience. The choice of end rafter type depends on a number of detail design decisions as follows. |AISC DPEBIOS End Wall Frames 73 4.7.3.2. CONTINUOUS RAFTER, © With Non-Stoted Holes Ifthe end wall rafter is continuous over the top of the end wall columns (or mullions), the connection between the end wall column and the rafter may be of the form shown in Figure 4.3(a). The eccentricity between the bolt group and the bracing plane (or the roof diaphragm) must be taken into account in the design of the bolt group unless a fly brace is used. If a fly brace to a single or double purlin is used, the purlin must have sufficient reserve of flexural capacity to take the additional moment due to the force in the fly brace. ‘The purlin must also be checked for combined actions in accordance with the cold formed code [15] or the Lysaght purlin and girt brochure [16]. In general, using a fly brace to transfer the load at the top of the mullion is not considered to be a viable option. + With Sloued Holes If.a typical portal frame is adopted as the end wall rafter, some engineers consider that vertically slotted holes should be used because the rafter does not require vertical support from the end wall mullions. The perceived advantage of slotting is that the footings for the end wall mullions do not have to be designed for downwards or upwards loading. Unfortunately, the effect of vertically slotting is that the bolt group has limited or no moment capacity depending on the number of bolts used. A fly brace to prop the top of the mullion back to a purlin does not really help because of the incompatibility of the slots, between the mullion and rafter on the one hand, and the direct connection between the muilion and the purlin via the fly brace on the other hand. Overall, the only advantage of vertically slotted holes is a small saving in footing size for the intermediate columns. This advantage is not usually worthwhile, and a vertically slotted connection is not recommended. Alternative bracing plone 1— Selected bracing plone Alternative bracing plone Lever orm for Stondord holes — not slotted vertically Av “" (0) End Woll Rafter Continuous {b) End Wall Rofter Discontinuous Over End Woll Column At End Woll_ Column Figure 4.3. End Wall Column to Rafter Connections "4 Frame Design asc pPrnns 4.7.3.3, DISCONTINUOUS RAFTER Some of these problems are overcome if the end wall rafter is discontinuous, The connection may then take the form shown in Figure 4.3(b), The difficulty with discontinuous rafters is detailing the joints between the roof bracing diagonals, columns and discontinuous jrafters. One method of avoiding this problem is to have the roof bracing bay in the second bay from the end as previously discussed. There is a further discussion of roof bracing planes and detailing in Chapter 6. 4.8 BRACES 4.8.1 Fly Braces As discussed previously, fly braces are diagonal members bracing the bottom flange of rafters back to purlins, or the inside flange of columns back to girts to stabilise the inside flange when in compression. Fly braces can take many forms, with the most common being a single angle each side of the bottom flange, as shown in Figure 4.4, Lop vories occording to span ce Single ongle Rafter Figure 4.4 Typical Double Fly Brace Detail ‘The design bracing force is determined from Clause 5.4.3 of AS4100, which gives criteria for the strength of braces to prevent lateral displacement of the braced compression flange. For cach intermediate brace, the design force is 2.5% of the maximum compression force in the braced flange of the segments on each side of the brace. In this case, a segment is the length of the member between fly braces. Sharing between multiple intermediate braces is not permitted’, but each bracing force is related to the local maximum flange compression force rather than to the maximum flange compression force in the whole rafter or column. It “Sharing between multiple intermediate braces was permitted in AS1250, but the total bracing force was 2.5% of ‘he meximum compression force in the whole rafter or column. AISCDPFRNS, Braces 15 should be noted that AS4100 permits restraints to be grouped when they are more closely spaced than is required for full lateral support, the actual arrangement of restraints being equivalent to a set of restraints which will ensure full lateral support. A typical case might be a 410UBS4 rafter with a maximum design moment of 120 km in adjacent segments. ‘This moment produces a force in the flange of 120x108 933 10° ‘The horizontal bracing force at each brace point is then 0,025%249 = 6.2 KN If there is a fly brace on only one side of the rafter and it is 45° to the vertical, the compression force in the fly brace will Le /2 x6.3 = 8.8 KN. The length of the fly brace will be approximately 600 mm, and as it will usually be single bolted at each end, it should be designed for buckling about its minor principal axis. Because this axis passes through or near the gauge line for bolting of angles, the eccentricity about the minor principal axis due to bolting will be small. (178% 10.9) N = 249 KN Lap_vories according to spon urlin Single ongle Rofter Figure 4.5. Typical Single Fly Brace Detail Under these conditions, the capacity of single bolted fly brace angles will be close to their concentric capacity based on minor axis (»-v) buckling, For this case, even the smallest angle, a 25x25x3, has the capacity in compression to sustain the force calculated. However, it is not really practical to use a bolt smaller than an M12, and a 25x25 angle is too small for an M12 bolt whose washer diameter is 24 mm. The smallest angle which can accommodate an M12 bolt is a 40x40x3 angle. It seems unnecessary to use fly braces on both sides of the rafter when a small angle on one side is quite adequate. It is also common to use the lower bolt hole in the purlin web at the end of the lapped section of the purlins to save drilling a special hole. In summary, an economical detail is as shown in Figure 4.5 ~ 16 Frame Design AIS DPBS, Jn some cases, there may be practical or aesthetic objections to fly braces because of the presence of a ceiling above the bottom flange of the rafter. This could occur in a supermarket for example. In this case, a wider putlin cleat and four high strength bolts, and a web stiffener on one or both sides to prevent cross-sectional distortion, as shown in Figure 4.6 could be used to brace the bottom flange. The bolt shear forces in the friction type joint ean be calculated for the combined case of purlin uplift and moment due to the lateral bracing force at the bottom flange level. The disadvantage of this approach lies in the non-standard purlin cleats and non-standard holing of purlins. There is some evidence that the stiffeners are unnecessary [12]. However, until testing confimns this, it is recommended that at least one side of the web be stiffened. Stiffener ——-| Cieot with high strength each side tensioned bolts Figure 4.6 Alternative Rafter Bracing Detail without Fly Braces 4.8.2 Purlins as Braces ‘Where the top flange is in compression, it was assumed in the rafter design in Section 4.3 that the purlins provided adequate restraint to the top flange. AS4100 permits restraints to be grouped when they are more closely spaced than is required for full lateral support, the actual arrangement of restraints being equivalent to a set of restraints which will ensure full lateral support. ‘Assuming that the moment distribution is basically uniform between adjacent closely spaced restraints, then @y = 1. Therefore, full lateral support would mean that a, must be at Teast 1.0 to ensure mx @; is greater than 1.0. In the design example in Section 4.10, a, = 1 for a 360UB45 when Ze < 1000 mm. Since the purlins are not more closely spaced than required for full lateral support, then it would appear that each purlin should be considered as, a discrete restraint. Each purlin would then be required to cany 2.5% of the maximum flange force in its adjacent rafter segments, a rafter segment being that between two adjacent purlins.. However, this seems an excessive requirement. Obviously, a restraint can be safely ignored if a designer so chooses. For example, if a beam were designed with a central lateral restraint and then two additional restraints were added at its quarter points, it must be safe to ignore the two extra restraints. : AISCDPFBNS Braces 7 ‘On the other hand, some sharing of bracing forces could be considered, although on the face oft, the sharing permitted befween multiple restraints in the previous working stress design code AS1250 [4] is not permitted in AS4100. Consider a 360UB45 which is 12 m rong with a central lateral restraint. If the single brace is now substituted by two braces 500 mm on each side of the mid-point, then literal interpretation of the AS4100 rules would require that each brace be designed for 2.5% of the maximum flange force. However, itis Clearly reasonable to regard the two braces as one central restraint with each carrying half of the 2.5% force. In summary, where the top flange is, in compression, it is recommended that the restraint spacing necessary to provide the required member capacity be determined. If the required restraint spacing is much greater than the purlin spacing, then some of the purlins can be ignored as restraints, and two or three purlins near the notional brace point could be considered as sharing the required bracing force at that point. 4.9 DEFLECTIONS 4.9.1 General Portal frames are generally designed on the basis of strength first, and are then checked for the serviceability (deflection) limit state according to some arbitrary criteria. Deflection limits ‘can govern the design of portal frames, and itis therefore important that any deflection limits be realistic. ‘The selection of deflection criteria for industrial stee! frames is a subjective matter. In general, codes are not prepared to give specific recommendations, probably because deflection limits have not been adequately researched. The steel code AS4100 states that the responsibility for selecting deflection limits rests with the designer, but still gives some recommendations, For a metal clad building without gantry oranes and without internal partitions against external walls, the code suggests a limit on the horizontal deflection of the eave as column height/150 under serviceability wind loads. This limit reduces to column height/240 when the building has masonry walls. ‘The limits suggested in Appendix B of ‘AS4100 are based on the work in Reference (17]. 4.9.2 Problems of Excessive Deflection The potential problems of excessive deflections in industrial buildings include: © Damage to cladding and fixings thereby affecting the hold down capacity of fixings and water tightness. ‘+ Ponding of water on low pitched roofs and possible leakage because of ponding or insufficient pitch. © Visually objectionable sag in rafters or suspended ceilings whose ceiling hangers are difficult to adjust for sag, eg, heavy acoustic ceilings. ‘+ Visually objectionable sag in the ridgeline because of the deflection of the apexes of intemal rafters relative to the end wall apexes. ‘The end wall rafters do not sag because they are supported by end wall columns as shown in Figure 4.7(b).. B Frame Design ASC DPFHIOS + Disturbing roof movement under foot during maintenance. * Noticeable and disturbing movement under wind load including possible creaks and groans. * Damage to fixings between suspended geilings and walls under uplift, and possible collapse of internal walls following the loss of support from the ceiling. ‘+ Danger to operation of monorail cranes suspended fiom the rafters. ‘* Danger to operation of gantry cranes through excessive lateral deflection or spread of columns. © Damage to intemal stud or masonry walls abutting extemal walls or columns. © Damage to external masonry walls. 4.9.3 Recommended Deflections A. deflection limit survey among Australien engineers was undertaken in 1986 [17], Altogether, some 90 responses were received. Engineers were asked to indicate the appropriate criteria on which lateral deflection of portal frames under serviceability wind h b & { b Figure 4.7(a) Parameters for Deflection Limits No sag at end wall Sog in large span opex because of end Nominal ridge internal rafters without wall mullions, precamber or preset. ‘Actual ridge line Elevation Figure 4.7(b) Sag in Ridge Line ‘A1SC DFAS Deflections 19 Joads should be based. Most believed the lateral deflection limits should be expressed in terms of the column height / as well as column spacing 4 (Figure 4.7(a)). ‘They were then asked to specify specific Iateral deflection limits in terms of ft and 6 for buildings with and without gantry cranes. Another section of the questionnaire asked engineers for specific deflection limits under dead load, live load, dead plus live load, and wind load. Table 4.1 Proposed Lateral Deflection Limits “Type of Building Limits Comments INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS @) Sicel sheeted walls, 4so no ceilings, no internal 4/200 | Relative deflection between partitions against external adjacent frames walls or columns, no gantry cranes (b) As in (a) but with 4250 | @) hmay be taken at gantry cranes 5/250 crane rail level i) 17300 should be used for heavy cranes (©) Asin 1(a) but with extemal | 4/250 masonry walls supported | 6/200 by stechwork FARM SHEDS #1100 boo Notes: © The wind load deflection limits apply to serviceability wind loads based on ¥; in AS11702, For tuildings with overhead cranes, ASI418.18 [18] nominates a deflection limit of h/S00 at the crane rail level, but this presumably applies to in-service wind loads based on ¥; = 20mis, + Where there are two specified limits, the smaller deflection value applies. ‘© Absolute deflection limits at the gantry crane level as specified by the crane ‘manafacturer may apply. '* In determining the relative movement between adjacent frames, it should be remembered that even a braced end frame will deflect to some extent. This deflection can be determined by calculating the horizontal component of the change in length of the diagonal braces in the plane ofthe end wall 80 Frame Design ‘ise pPenia The results of the survey were reported in Reference {17}. It is interesting to note that in many answers, there was no clear consensus of opinion among engineers. What is regarded as acceptable to one engineer is not necessarily acceptable to another. The results of the survey were rationalised, and deflection limits were proposed. These are summarised in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. It is emphasised that these limits should be used for guidance rather than as maridatory. limits. Further research is required to establish deflection fimits with more confidence. Table 4.2 Proposed Rafter Deflection Limits Type of Building —_| Deflection Comments and Load Limit INDUSTRIAL BuLLDINGs (a) Dead Load 1/360 _| For roof pitches > 3° (see footnotes) 11500 _ | For roof pitches < 3° but check for ponding or insufficient roof sheeting slope (see footnotes) (0) Live Load 1240 | Check spread of columns if gantry crane present (Wind Load 1150 | Ifno ceilings FARM SHEDS: (@) Dead load 1/240 | Check for ponding if roof pitch< 3° (®) Live load 1/180 (©) Wind toad 1/100 Notes: + The wind load deflection limits apply to serviceability wind loads. ‘© Lis the rafter span measured between column centrelines, » _Precamber or pre-set may be used to ensure that the deflected postion ofthe rafter Under dead load corresponds to the undefleced design profile, or is within the above limits of the undeflected design profil. Even so, pre-set may be advisable for intemal rafters to avoid visual sag in the ridge line as shown in Figure 4.7(b). ‘+ _ For low roof pitches, the check for ponding is relly check to ensue thatthe slope of the roof sheeting is nowhere less than the minimum slope recommended by the rmanufecture. The slope of the rafter in its deflected siate can be determined from the Joint rotations output from 2 plane frame analysis program. The slope of the roofing should slso be checked mid-way between rafters near the eaves where purlins are more closely spaced and where the fascia purlin may be significantly stiffer dhan the ather parlns ‘Where ceilings are present, more stringent limits will probably be necessary. AISC DPFRINS Design Example 81 4.10 DESIGN EXAMPLE — FRAME DESIGN 4.10.1. Frame Analysis 4.0.1.1 PRELIMINARY DESIGN + For preliminary computer analysis, selection of the rafter and column sizes is from experience or by guesswork. The computer model should have at least two nodes near each knee joint to allow for modelling of the rafter haunches in the final design phase, Nodes at the mid-height of each column and at quarter points of the rafter (see Figure 4.8) can give useful bending ‘moment diagrams in some cases, although this is generally unnecessary when using modem computer packages. Haunches need not be included in the initial computer run as they do not have much effect on the frame bending moments. However, significant reductions in deflection can be achieved later in the analysis. ‘Once the first computer analysis is run, the limit state bending moments in the column and in the rafters should be checked against the section capacities to check the assumed sizes. ot 5 87 4 ooo © g 3 x lo e| * 1 9 25000 Figure 4.8 Joint and Member Numbering for Computer Analysis, For preliminary design, reducing the column bending moment to the underside of the haunch or reducing the section capacity to allow for coincident axial forces can be disregarded. The caloulated moment at the knee should merely be checked against the column section capacity ¢Mz.. Implicit in this check is that sufficient fly braces can be provided to ensure that the full section capacity is achieved. ‘The calculated bending moments in the rafter should be similarly checked against the capacity ¢Mz, except in the vicinity of the knec joints where haunches will probably be provided to cater for the peak rafter moments in these areas. Some small margin in flexural capacity should be retained in order to cater for axial forces. The member sizes assumed should then be adjusted accordingly and the frame analysis re-run. ‘The final sizes adopted are 460UB74 columns and 360UB45 rafters. 82 Frame Design aise DPFae3 4.10.1.2 HAUNCH PROPERTIES ‘Once the member sizes have been established with more confidence, it is appropriate to model the haunches. For a 360UB45, the standard AISC haunch [21] is formed from the same 360UB45 section as the rafter and is 686 mm deep measured perpendicular to the rafter centreline. It is common tg model the haunch with two or three uniform segments of equal length although Reference'{19] indicates that there is no benefit in using more than two segments, ‘The depth of the haunch is calculated at the mid-point of each segment and the section properties can be calculated accordingly. Both Microstran and Spacegass can calculate haunch properties automatically. Alternatively, the properties of standard UB's which are contained in the standard software library can be used to model the haunch segments approximately. In this example, two segments are used. The depths at the mid-points of each segment are 439 mm and 604 mm, and standard UB sections chosen are 410UB60 and 530UB82 respectively. These UB sections were chosen during the actual design process to expedite the design. For interest, a comparison of the calculated section properties and the standard UB properties is given in Table 4.3. ‘The middle flange is included in the calculation. Table 4.3 Comparison of Calculated Haunch Properties and Assumed UB Properties ‘Small Segment Large Segment Cateulated | 410UB60 | Calculated | 530UB82 Area mm? 7850 7460 9010 10500 J, mm* 214x10® | 216x10° | 409x10% | 477x108 ‘The UB properties of the small segment are very close to the calculated values while the UB properties of the large segment are greater than the catculated values and are therefore slightly unconservative. 4,10.1.3, METHODS OF ANALYSIS First order elastic analysis of portal frames in accordance with AS4100 utilises a simple procedure that does not account for P-Sand P-A effects. Second order elastic analysis essentially involves a number of iterations of first order elastic analysis with the deflected shape of the previous iteration being used for the second and subsequent iterations until convergence is obtained. Second order elastic analysis, programs are now widely available, and as the montients obtained do not require amplification, asc orrers Design Example 83 and are generally less conservative than amplified first order elastic moments, second order clastic analysis is recommended ahead of first order elastic analysis inthis book. Second order elastic analysis is performed on load combinations and not on individual load cases, since the second order analyses using the individual load cases cannot be superimposed, Therefore, it is necessary to have two separate sets of output for second order elastic analysis: the first for load cases and load case deflections (as obtained by first order clastic analysis) and the second for member forces and reactions for load combinations (as obtained by second order elastic analysis). ‘The output for these computer runs is presented in Appendix II. “The computer output presented in Appendix II is as follows: . Geometry, Load Cases, Deflections Second Order Blastic Analysis, Displaced Shapes Bending Moment Diagrams Frame Buckling Load Factors yaper 4.10.2. Frame Deflections Lateral deflections at eaves under serviceability cross wind (¥, = 38 m/s) 38) = 127x| ==] =51 mm (a) eaveshecight | h. soe PT 4100 Cl a ga buracel 4S 2a) It should be remembered that the //150 limit is only a tentative guideline until further research provides a more reliable limit, Rafter deflection under dead load = 48 mm A. ek 380 ~ 360 OK Rafter defleotion under live load = 93 mm sa < Gp OOK Rafter deflection under serviceability cross wind plus internal pressure - (8) (123-4138) = 105 mm L L we < 150 OF 84 Frame Design AISCDFFDOS 4.10.3 Columns (460UB74) 4,10.3.1 COLUMN SECTION CAPACITIES Check the 460UB74 section used in the computer analysis. * Bending Capacity Mg, = 300%1660x10° Nam ASE100 Cl 5.2.1 = 498 Nm OP Myx= 0.9x498 = 448 kN © Dension Capac ON, = 0.9x300x9520.N (based on the flange f,) AS4100 Cl. 7.2 = 2570 KN * Compression Capacity ky =0.948 BHP @Ng = 0.948x2570 = 2436 KN AS4100 Cl. 6.2.1 4.10.3.2 COLUMN MEMBER CAPACITIES . jon Capacity for Axial AS4100 requires members to be checked under axial load alone using the effective lengths Z, determined from the frame elastic buckling load factor 4.. This needs to be done for those load combinations which have compression in the columns. © Major Axis wression ity for Combi fous Tec = 7500 mm (taking ke = 1) AS4100 Cl. 63.2 & 84.2.2 AS4100 CL. 6.3.3, AS#100 Table 6.3.3(1) Hence Qe, = 0.894 AS#100 Table 6.3.3(3) Nex = 0:9%0.894x0.948x300%9520 N ASA4100 Cl. 6.3.3 = 2178 KN * Minor Axis Compression Capacity Ley = 1700 mm (girt spacing) | AS4100 Sect. 4.4.3 ASC OPEB Design Example 85 day = wo 0948 x F ASA100 C1. 6.3.3 1.8 dey = 0891 AS4100 Table 6.3.3(3) Noy = 0:9x0.891x0.948%300%9520 N ASAIO0 CL, 6.3.3 =2171KN 4,10.3.3, COLUMN COMBINED ACTIONS. ‘Two load combinations are checked in this design example as follows: 1. Inside flange in tension for LC21 (0.8DL + CW1 + IPC) 2. Inside flange in compression for LC23 (/.25DL + CW2 + ISCW) 1. Inside Flange in Tension (LC21) ‘Worst bending moment at knee M"= 453 KNm_ Appendix IT Reduced bending moment at underside of haunch as shown in Figure 4.9 Mp= (22)<453 = 423 Nm 75. Coincident axial force N* = 105 kN (tension) Appendix If 423 ot underside ‘of hounch, Windword Column Bending Moment Diagram for Load Case 21 (0.8DL + CWI + IPCW) Figure 4.9 Windward Column Bending Moment Diagram for LC21 86 Frame Design . AISC DFFHO3 . lan: Reduced section and member capacity due to axial tension, Max= 1b A { 105 5} = 507 kNm ASH100 Cl. 8.4.2.3 2570, but < AM, = 448 KNm ASA100 Cl. 8.3.2 Hence Mp =448kNm > My =423KNm OK Because the column is in tension, the in-plane member capacity check is the same as the section capacity check AS4100 Cl 8.4.2.3 © Check Qut-of-Plane Capacity. ‘The outside flange is in compression and is braced laterally by girts. L¢ = 0.851700 (maximum girt spacing) = 1445 mm ASA100 Sect. 444.2 ty = 16.6108 mm* BHP J =530x10° mm* BHP Ty =815x10? mmé BHP Zee = 1660%10° mm? BHP © fy = 300MPa (flange) BHP Gq = 1.0 (moment near uniform between adjacent girts) Hence using a spreadsheet program: My = 3572 kNm AS4100 Cl. 5.6.1.2a) Mg = 498.0kNm AS4100 Cl. $.2.0 Qs 959 AS4100 Cl. 5.6.1.1 (a) Mx=430KNm > M>=423kNm OK 2 Inside it pane yt (LC23) Worst bending moment at downwind knee M*= 432 kNm Appendix IT Reduced bending moment at underside of baunch Mia (22s = 403 KNm Coincident axial force N’ =-89 KN (compression) Appendix It ‘The axial compression increases from 89 to 104 KN at the bottom duc to self weight. Adopt the maximum value of 104 kN for checking combined actions. AISC DPFBIO3 Design Example 87 + Check Section Capacity 4, (320 Web slende 2 Ay = feb slendemness: 7 ¥350 © Web yield slendemess limit: Ayy = 45 484100 Table 5.2 3.3 BHP Reduced secrion capacity due to axial compression: tity = w8r( Ot \efrons(22)h asii0o.c.3.2 =502KNm but < Mg = 448 kNm Henee @M,, =448kNm > Ml =403KNm OK © Check In-Ple ar Reduced in-plane member capacity due to axial compression: ot; = 4asx( jo) ASA100 Cl. 84.2.2 Check capacity under axial Joad alone with effective length determined from the frame elastic buckling load factor 2. as expressed in Equation 4.2, using N, = 60 KN and 104 KN (CL. 84.2.2 and CI. 6.1) 32%10* x 121x108 4 ©" 12517 x (104% 10* x 7300 + 0.3% 60 x10? x 12517 577 (By comparison, the more accurate value obtained using Microstran is 2,~ 9.27. This | includes the effect of haunches and the average values of compression in the rafters and columns rather than the maximum values.) Using Equation 4.2 with a value of 4_= 5.77 gives — AS84100 Table 6.3.3(1) BHP BHP Sy =300 MPa 88 Frame Design AISC FFB BHP Hence using a spreadsheet program: . 196 9KN > N,=104KN OK © Check Qut-of-Plane Member Capacity Consider member bending capacity My without fly braces, gk L - AS4100 Cl. 5.6.3(1),2),(3) .0 (fully restrained against twist at both ends) Kk, = 1.0 (loads applied predominantly as a moment by the rafter) .85 (minor axis restraint provided by base plate) Height to underside of haunch = 7000 mm Le = 1.0x1.0x0.85x7000= 5950 mm @q = 1.75 (linear moment distribution with zero moment at one end) Hence using a spreadsheet program: Ms =285KNmn AS4I00 Cl. 5.6.1.1(a) a = 0.428 Moc = 336 KNm PMox = 336 x: j04 AS4100 Cl. 8.4.4.1 “ 217) ” =320KNm < M;=403KNm NG Hence column NG without fly braces. Note that a more accurate and less conservative approach for determining Mg, for doubly symmetric I-sections which are compact and which have ky= 1 is also given in the code, However, in this case ky= 0.948. Therefore try a mid-height fly brace For Top Half: Le Ox1.0x0.85x3750 Br 5 On 30 AS4100 Table 5.6.1 Hence using a spreadsheet program: (Mex = 413 KNm > M7 =403KNm OK Adopt a mid-height fly brace. Bottom half is not critical because ay, is 1.75,

You might also like