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 ofNew South Wales

Published by
Australian Institute of Steel Construction
Level 13, 99 Mount Street
AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
A.C.N. 000 973 839

DESIG!' OF PORTAL FRAl\1E BUILDINGS

Published by:
AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION

Enquiries should be addressed to the publisher:

Business address - Level 13, 99 Mount Street, North Sydney, NS\V. 2060. Australia.
Postal address- P.O. Box 6366, North Sydney. NSW, 2059, Australia.
E-mail address - enquiries@aisc.com.au
Website-www.aisc.com.au

1J Copyright 1999 Australian Institute ofSteel Construction

All rights reser\'ed. This book or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form
without the written permission of the Australian Institute of Steel Construction.

Published as
Design of Portal Frame Buildings- Isl edition (to AS 1250)- 1987
Limit State Design of Portal Frame Buildings- \st edition (to AS 4100)- 1991
Limit State Design of Portal Frame Buildings- 2nd edition (to AS 4100)-1993
Design of Portal Frame Buildings- 3rd edition (to AS 4100)- 1999 (this edition)

National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry:

Woolcock. S. T.
Design of portal frame buildings.

3rd ed.
Bibliography.
Includes index.
ISB1'.' 0 909945 84 5

I. Industrial buildings- Design and construction. 2.

Building, lron and steel - Design and construction. I.
Kitipomchai. S. 11. Bradford, Mark A. (Mark Andrew). Ill.
Australian Institute ofStee! Construction. IV. Title.

693.'71

Production by Robert Burton Printers Pty Ltd

63 Carlingford Street, Sefton, NSW 2162, Australia.

DISCLA!l\IER

Every effort has been made and all reasonable care taken to ensure the accuracy of the
material contained in this Publication. However, to the extent pennitted by law. the
Authors, Editors and Publishers o(this Publication:

(a) will not be held liable or responsible in any way; and

(b) expressly disclaim any liability or responsibility,

for any loss. damage, costs or expenses incurred in connection with this Publication by any
person, whether that person is the purchaser of this Publication or not. Without limitation,
this includes loss, damage, costs and expenses incurred if any person wholly or partially
relies on any part of this Publication, and loss. damage, costs and expenses incurred as a
result of the negligence of the Authors, Editors or Publishers.

\VARNl:"G

This Publication should not be used without the services of a competent professional
person \\ith expert knowledge in the relevant field, and under no circumstances should this
Publication be relied upon to replace any or all of the knowledge and expertise of such a
person.
Contents

PREFACE x
NOTATION Xll

1 INTRODUCTION I
1.1 Portal Framed Buildings I
1.2 Limit State Design 5
1.2.l Background 5
1.2.2 Design for the Strength Limit State 6
1.2.3 Design for the Serviceability Limit State 7
1.3 Design Example 7
1.4 References 10

2 LOADS 11
2.1 Background 11
2.2 Dead Loads 11
2.3 Live Loads 11
2.4 Wind Loads 12
2.4.1 General 12
2.4.2 Regional Wind Speeds 14
2.4.3 Wind Directions 14
2.4.4 Terrain Category 14
2.4.5 Basic Wind Speeds 15
2.4.6 Calculation of Pressures 15
2.4.7 External Pressures 16
2.4.8 Internal Pressures 17
2.4.9 Area Reduction Factor 19
2.4.10 Local Pressure Factors 19
2.5 Load Combinations 19
2.5.1 Strength Limit State 19
2.5.2 Serviceability Liinit State 21
2.6 Design Example - Loads 21
2.6.1 Dead Loads 21
2.6.2 Live Loads 21
2.6.3 Wind Loads 22
2.6.3.1 Basic Wind Data 22
. 2.6.3.2 External Wind Pressures 23
2.6.3.3 Internal Wind Pressures 24
2.6.3.4 Peak Local Pressures 25
2.6.4 Load Cases for Portal Frames 25
2.6.5 Load Combinations 29
2. 7 References 30

3 PURLINS & GIRTS 31

3.1 General 31
3.2 Roof and Wall Sheeting 32
3.3 Frame Spacing 32
iv Contents AISC DPFB/03

3.4 Purlin Strengths 33

3.4.1 Manufacturers' Brochures 33
3.4.2 R-Factor Method 34
3.5 Deflections 35
3.5 . Axial Loads 35
3.6 i Purlin Cleats 35
3.7 Purlin Bolts 36
3.8 Equivalent UDL's for Peak Pressure 36
3.9 Design Example - Purlins 38
3.10.1 Member Capacity Brochures 38
3.10.2 Outward Loading - Cross Wind 38
3.10.3 Outward Loading -Longitudinal Wind 40
3.10.4 Purlin Selection for Outward Loading 41
3.10.5 Check Inward Loading 44
3.10.6 Purlin Deflections 45
3.10.7 Purlin Summary 46
3.10.8 R-FactorMethod 47
3.11 Design Example - Girts 49
3.11.1 Side Wall Girts 49
3.11.2 End Wall Girts with Span of6250 mm 51
3.12 3.12 References 53

4 FRAME DESIGN 55
4.1 Frame Design by Elastic Analysis 55
4.2 Computer Analysis 55
4.2.1 Load Cases 55
4.2.2 Methods of Analysis 56
4.2.3 Moment Amplification for First Order Elastic Analysis 57
4.3 Rafters 58
4.3.1 Nominal Bending Capacity Mbx in Rafters 58
4.3.l.! Simplified Procedure 58
4.3.1.2 Alternative Procedure 59
4.3.2 Effective Length and Moment Modification Factors 60
for Bending Capacity
4.3.2.1 General 60
4.3.2.2 Top Flange in Compression 60
4.3.2.3 Bottom Flange in Compression 61
4.3.3 Major Axis Compression Capacity N,,, 64
4.3.4 Minor Axis Compression Capacity Ney 64
4.3.5 Combined Actions for Rafters 65
4.3.6 Haunches for Rafters 65
4.4 Portal Columns 65
4.4.1 General 65
4.4.2 Major Axis Compression Capacity N,,, 65
4.4.3 Minor Axis Compression Capacity Ney 65
4.4.4 Nominal Bending Capacity Mbx in Columns 66
4.4.4.1 General 66
4.4.4.2 Inside Flange in Compression 66
4.4.4.3 Outside Flange in Compression 67
4.5 Combined Actions 67
4.5.1 General 67
4.5.2 In-Plane Capacity 67
4.5.2.1 In-Plane Section Capacity 67
AISC DPFB/03 Portal Framed Buildings v

4.5.2.2 In-Plane Member Capacity 68

4.5.3 Out-of-Plane Capacity 69
4.5.3.1 Compression Members 69
4.5.3.2 Tension Members 69
4.6 Central Columns 69
4.6. l General 69
4.6.2 Effective Lengths for Axial Compression 70
4.6.2.1 Top Connection Pinned 70
4.6.2.2 Top Connection Rigid 71
4.6.3 Combined Actions with First Order Elastic Analysis 71
4.6.4 Combined Actions with Second Order Elastic Analysis 71
4.7 End Wall Frames 72
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 72
4.7.3.2 Continuous Rafter 73
4.7.3.3 Discontinuous Rafter 74
4.8 Braces 74
4.8.1 Fly Braces 74
4.8.2 Purlins as Braces 76
4.9 Deflections 77
4.9.1 General 77
4.9.2 Problems of Excessive Deflection 77
4.9.3 Recommended Deflections 78
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 83
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 85
4.10.4 Rafters (360UB45) 89
4.10.4.1 Rafter Section Capacities 89
4.10.4.2 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
4.10.7.3 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
vi Contents AISC DPFB/03

5.4.2 Knee Joint 109

5.4.2.1 General 109
5.4.2.2 Calculate Design Actions for Bolts, End Plate 109
and Stiffeners
5.4.2.3 Bottom Flange Connection 112
5.4.2.4 Top Flange Connection 128
5.4.2.5 Column Web Shear Stiffeners 131
5.4.3 Ridge Connection 134
5.4.4 Base Plates 137
5.4.5 End Wall Column Connections 141
5.4.5.! General 141
5.4.5.2 Centre Column - Top Connection 141
5.4.5.3 Quarter Point Columns - Top Connection 142
5.5 References 143

6 ROOF & WALL BRACING 145

6.1 General 145
6.2 Erection Procedure 146
6.3 Forces 146
6.3.1 Longitudinal Wind Forces 146
6.3.2 Rafter Bracing Forces 146
6.4 Bracing Plane 147
6.5 Bracing Layout 147
6.6 Tension Rods 152
6.7 Tubes and Angles in Tension 155
6.8 Tubes in Compression 159
6.9 End Connections for Struts and Ties 161
6.9.1 Tubes 161
6.9.1. ! Tubes in Tension 161
6.9.1.2 Tubes in Compression 163
6.9.2 Angles 163
6.10 Eccentricity 163
6.11 Design Example - Roof and Wall Bracing 163
6.11.1 Longitudinal Forces 163
6.11.1.l General 163
6.11.1.2 Forces due to Longitudinal Wind 164
6.11.1.3 Forces due to Rafter Bracing 166
6.11.1.4 Forces in Roof Bracing Members 166
6.11.2 Struts 166
6.11.3 Ties or Tension Diagonals 168
6.11.4 Connections 171
6.11.4.1 End Connections for Struts 171
6.11.4.2 Bolts 172
6.11.5 Side Wall Bracing 173
6.12 References 173

7 FOOTINGS & SLABS 191

7.1 General 191
7.2 Design Uplift Forces 192
7.3. Pad Footings 192
7.4 Bored Piers 193
7.4.1 General 193
AISC DPFB/03 Portal Framed Buildings vii

7.4.2 Resistance to Vertical Loads 195

7.4.3 Resistance to Lateral Loads 195
7.5 Holding Down Bolts 196
7.5.1 General 196
7.5.2 Design Criteria 19S
7.5.3 Grouting or Bedding 199
7.5.4 Bolts in Tension 199
7.5.4.1 Anchorage of Straight or Cogged Bars 199
7.5.4.2 Cone Failure 199
7.5.4.3 Embedment Lengths 201
7.5.4.4 Minimum Edge Distance for Tensile Loads 201
7.5.5 Bolts in Shear 204
7.5.6 Corrosion 205
7.6 Slab Design 205
7.6.1 Design Principles 205
7.6.2 Slab Thickness 206
7.6.3 Joints 206
7.6.3.1 General 206
7.6.3.2 Sawn Joints 206
7.6.3.3 Cast-In Crack Initiators 207
7.6.3.4 Keyed Joints 207
7.6.3.5 Dowelled Joints 209
7.6.3.6 Joint Spacing and Reinforcement 209
7.7 Design Example - Footings 210
7.7.1 Typical Portal Footings 210
7.7.1.1 Bored Piers 210
7.7.1.2 Compare Pad Footings 212
7.7.2 End Wall Column Footings . 212
7.7.3 Main Portal Footings in Braced Bays - 213
7.7.3.1 Comer Columns 213
7.7.3.2 Column on Grid B2 214
7.7.3.3 Columns on Grids A2, AS and BS 214
7.7.3.4 Holding Down Bolts for Portal Columns 214
7.7.3.5 Holding Down Bolts for End Wal! Columns 215
7.8 Design Example - Slab 215
.. 7.S.l Design Criteria
7.8.2 Slab Thickness Design
215
216
7.S.3 Joints 216
7.8.4 Reinforcement 217
7.9 References 217

8 PLASTIC FRAME DESIGN 219

S.l General 219
8.2 Plastic Analysis 219
S.2.1 General 219
S.2.2 Direct Mechanism Method 220
S.2.3 Iterative Mechanism Method 223
8.2.4 Statical Method 225
8.2.5 Second Order Effects 225
S.3 Basis of Plastic Design in AS4100 225
S.4 Member Capacities 226
S.5 Design Example - Plastic Frame Design 227
8.5.1 Preliminary Design 227
v111 Contents AISC DPFB/03

8.5.1.1 Gravity Load Case 2'}.7

8.5.1.2 Cross Wind Load Case 229
8.5.!.3 Deflections 231
8.5.2 Detailed Design 231
8.5.3 Columns 238
8.5.3.1 Section Capacities 238
8.5.3.2 Member Capacities 239
8.5.4 Rafters 242
8.5.5 Serviceability 244
8.5.6 Comparison of Plastic and Elastic Solutions 244
8.6 References 244

9 GANTRY CRANES & MONORAILS 247

9.1 General 247
9.2 Design Procedure for Gantry Cranes 248
9.3 Crane Runway Beams 249
9.3.1 General 249
9.3.2 Design Loads and Moments 250
9.3.3 Member Capacity in Major Axis Bending ¢Mbx 251
9.3.3.l AS4100 Beam Design Rules 251
9.3.3.2 Proposed Monosymmetric Beam Design Rules 252
9.4 Portal Columns Supporting Crane Runway Beams 254
9.5 Monorail Beams 254
9.5.1 General 254
9.5.2 Member Capacity Tables 254
9.5.3 Local Bottom Flange Bending 255
9.6 Design Example - Gantry Crane 255
9.6.1 Load Cases 255
9.6.2 Crane Runway Beam 258
9.6.2.1 Major Axis Bending Moments 258
9.6.2.2 Minor Axis Bending Moments 259
9.6.2.3 Combined Actions 262
9.6.2.4 Check Major Axis Compound Section Capacity ¢Msx 263
9.6.2.5 Deflections 263
9.6.2.6 Vertical Shear Capacity 263
9.6.2.7 Shear Buckling Capacity 264
9.6.2.8 Shear and Bending Interaction 264
9.6.2.9 Bearing Capacity of Crane Runway Beam 264
9.6.2.10 Check Effect of Eccentric Corbel Loading on Column 266
9.6.2.11 Check Effect of Vertical Loads on Web 267
9.6.2.12 Check Effect o(Eccentric Rail Loading on
Crane Runway Beam Web 268
9.6.2.13 Check Effect of Web Buckling Under Vertical Loads 271
9.6.2.14 Fatigue 271
9.6.3 Check Portal Frame 272
9.6.3.1 Loads 272
9.6.3.2 Load Combinations 273
9.6.3.3 Columns 273
9. 7 References 277
Appendix 9.1 Design Capacity Tables 279
Appendix 9.2 Background to Design Capacity Tables 287
A9.2.l General 287
A9.2.2 Section Moment Capacity ¢M,, 287
AISC DPFB/03 Portal Framed Buildings ix

A9.2.3 Member Moment Capacity ¢M•x 289

A9.2.4 Member Capacity to AS4100 290

APPENDIX I: DRAWINGS 293

APPENDIX II: COMPUTER OUTPUT 303
Geometry; Load Cases; Deflections 305
Second Order Analysis; Load Combinations; 311
Member Forces; Reactions
Joint and Member Numbering; Displaced Shapes; 317
Bending Moment Diagrams
Elastic Critical Load Analysis 323
APPENDIX III: LIMSTEEL OUTPUT 327
SUBJECT INDEX 333
Preface
In October 1985, Scott Woolcock and Sritawat Kitipomchai presented a non-technical.
paper entitled Some Aspects of the Design of Industrial Buildings to a conference ofi
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 ofPortal Frame Buildings and was
published in 1987.
The working stress version was then completely rewritten for the change to
limit states design. The first limit state edition was published in 1991 and was entitled
Limit State Design of Portal Franie 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 AISC 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 AS 1170. 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 ofPortal 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 ~d 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 crane 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
seetions. These 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 AS2 l 59-1995 although different geotechnical capacity reduction factors

x
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 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
gross area of cross-section
net area of cross-section
cross-sectional area of tension reinforcement, or
tensile stress area of bolt or bracing rod, or
effective area of stiffeners
gros's 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
= (bf, - Sg)f2
= (sg- lw, - 2r,)12
a, 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; - sg)l2
distance between crane wheel loads ·

B overall dimension of square hollow section

b 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
= lwc + 2rc
width of railhead

xii
 AISC DPFB/03 Notation xiii

b, average breadth of shielding buildings normal to wind stream, or

stiff bearing length

wind pressure coefficient

external wind pressure coefficient
internal wind pressure coefficient
cross wind
undrained cohesion

D dead load, or
beam depth, or
rod diameter, or
tube diameter, or
hold down bolt diameter, or
building spacing parameter in determining shielding
DL dead load
d minimum roof plan dimension, or
depth of a 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
bolt 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, - 2k,

Young's modulus of elasticity

minimum edge distances for hold down bolts subjected to tensile load and ·
shear, respectively
e eccentricity above ground line of applied load to bored pier, or
eccentricity of crane loading

Fa allowable working stress in AS1250

Fae elastic buckling stress in AS 1250
f vertical distance from knee to ridge for plastic analysis
fa, axial stress
fat axial stress in cable or rod
fi, bending stresses in stiffeners at end Wall column to rafter connection
1: characteristic strength of concrete
f, design value of shaft adhesion
xiv Notation AISC DPFBfOJ

ft tensile stress, or
tensile strength of concrete
!u ultimate tensile stress
!uJ ultimate tensile strength of bolt
i
fuw normal tensile strength of weld material '
f~ average design shear stress in web
1v: maximum design shear stress in web
fy yield stress
fycJ,fycw column yield stress of flange or web, respectively
/y,CHS yield stress of CHS
/yd yield stress of doubler plate
fy; yield stress of bolted moment end plate
fy, yield stress of stiffener
1: equivalent design stress on web panel
factors in elastic monosymrnetric beam buckling formula
fiJi
G nominal dead load, or
shear modulus of elasticity
end restraint parameters for a compression member in AS1250
part of dead load which resists instability

H column height for plastic analysis, or

column height for effective length calculation
H' design lateral force on bored pier
H, height ofrail
Hu design lateral bored pier capacity
h 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 Ix for column

internal pressure
second moment of area of flange
polar moment of area
value of Ix for rafter
internal 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 DPFB/03 Notation xv

minor axis second moment of area of compression flange

J Saint Venant torsion constant

J, torsion constant for rail

beam parameter for monosymmetric beam

distance on column from outer face of flange to inner termination of root
radius= twc +re
k, member effective length factor
k1 fonn factor for a member subjected to axial compression
k, load height effective length factor
km spring stiffuess
kmw proportion of design moment transmitted by web
kpr coefficient to allow for additional bolt force due.to prying
k, effective length factor for restraint against in-plane lateral rotation
k, twist restraint effective length factor, or
load eccentricity reduction factor for tension members
ratio of area of web .to total cross sectional area

L 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
L, length of column
L, effective length of compression member or laterally unsupported beam
L~,Ley value of L, about major (x) and minor (y) principal axes, respectively
L,, holding down bolt cog length
Lwx length of web along which rail load is uniformly distributed
LL live load
e, length of rafter measured between centre of colwnn and apex
e, average spacing of shielding buildings

M bending moment
M. design bending moment
Mrz. cat) gust wind speed multiplier for terrain category 'cat' at height z
Mb nominal bending moment capacity
Mbx value of Mb about major principal x axis
Md wind direction reduction factor
M; nominal in-plane member moment capacity, or
structure importance multiplier for de~ign wind speed
maximum calculated design bending moment along length of a member or in a
segment
xvi Notation AISC DPFB/03

elastic 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 Le= L
elastic critical bending moment calculated by elastic buckling analysis and
incorporating moment gradient, height of loading and restraint conditions
Mob for a segment, fully restrained at bolt ends, but unrestrained against lateral
rotation and loaded at the shear centre
Mox nominal out-of-plane member moment capacity about major (x) axis
M'p required design moment by plastic frame analysis
Mpr nominal plastic moment capacity reduced by axial force
Mprx value of Mpr about major principal x axis
M,, value of Msx reduced by axial force
M, 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

N* design axial force, tensile or compressive

Ne nominal member capacity in compression
N'e design axial force on column
Ne, nominal strength of stiffener in compression
Ncx,Ncy value of Ne for buckling,about the major (x) and minor (y) principal axes,
respectively
Nfe
• total compression design force in flange

Nfl total tension design force in flange

Nol ~ :r 2 EI I L 2
Nam elastic flexural buckling load of member
Nomb value of Nam for braced member
Npb nominal capacity of bolted end plate in bending
Noms value of Nom for sway member
N' design axial force in rafter
N,e
' reduced nominal axial capacity of horizontal tubular strut due to self weight
bending
N, nominal section capacity for compressive axial force
 AISC DPFB/03 Notation xvii

N1 nominal section capacity for tensile axial force

Nib nominal capacity of bolts at tension flange
Ntf nominal tension capacity of a bolt or bracing rod
N"; design bolt tensile force
N,, nominal strength of stiffener in tension
N1w capacity of tube wall near cap plate
N,, nominal strength of stiffener designed to resist excess shear in column
N,,• design force on stiffen\" due to shear
Nw nominal capacity of fillet or butt weld for flange subjected to axial force
"b number of bolts in bolt group
n, number of upwind shielding buildings within 45° sector or radius 20h 1

p applied load, or
magnitude of anchor head of holding down bolt applied load
P, crane dynamic wheel load
Pz design wind pressure at height z

Q nominal live load

qz free stream gust dynamic wind pressure resulting from Vz

R reduction factor in cold-formed coG.e, or

redundant force in plastic analysis, or
support reaction
Rbb nominal bearing buckling capacity
Rby nominal bearing yield capacity
Rc,Rc1,Rc2 nominal capacities of column adjacent to beam compression flange
Re, nominal capacity of stiffened column adjacent to beam compression flange
Rf rafter length along slope from column centreline to apex in plastic design
R,b nominal buckling capacity of stiffened web
Rr,R11,Rt2 nominal.capacities of column adjacent to beam tension flange
Rid nominal capacity of column flange with doubler plates adjacent to beam
tension flange
R,, nominal capacity of stiffened column flange adjacent to beam tension flange
Rw• design bearing force or reaction on web panel used in Appendix I of AS4100
R,, nominal capacity
r radius of gyration
re root radius of column section
rr,rs ratios used for tapered member in AS4 l 00
rx,ry radius of gyration about the major (x) and minor (y) axes, respectively
/

s plastic section modulus

s· design action effect
SJ distance between fly braces
xviii Notation AISC DPFBIOJ

distance between purlins or girts

ratio of plastic section modulus of column to unhaunched rafter
safe working load
purlin spacing
bolt gadge
bolt pitch

T flange thickness, or
force in tension diagonal, or
thickness 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
fwb beam web thickness
fwc column web thickness
fwd thickness 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 AS4 l 00
nominal shear capacity of bolt group used in AISC's connections manual
design shear force 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
AJSC DPFB/03 Notation xix

nominal shear yield capacity of web

basic design gust wind speed at height z
Vw nominal capacity of fillet weld per unit length
weld force component in y direction
v,
v,
. weld force component in z direction

w nominal wind load, or

weld size used in anchor head of holding down bolt
W, external work
W; internal work
Ws serviceability wind load
w,, ultimate wind load
w uniformly distributed load
w' design uniformly distributed !Oad
WDL distributed dead load
equivalent uniformly distributed load
distributed live load
nominal load
nominal loads in plastic frame analysis

Ye sag in cable or rod

Z, effective section modulus
Zwe effective section modulus of web used in Appendix I of AS4100
z distance or height above ground level

a angle of slope of roof, or

reduction coefficient for adhesion on bored pier, or
load position parameter for monosymmetric beams
ab compression member section constant
acr,acy value of ac about major (x) and minor (y) principal axes, respectively
am moment modification factor for flexural-torsional buckling
as slenderness reduction factor
asb slenderness reduction factor for monosymmetric beams
ast reduction factor for tapered member
a, shear buckling coefficient
/J,,, ratio of smaller to larger bending moment at ends of member
ffx monosymmetry parameter
Jl,Ji ratios of compression member stiffness to end restraint stiffness
L1 frame or member deflection
s sway deflection
Ob moment amplification factor for braced member
o;,, moment amplification factor, taken as the greater of bi, and o;
o; moment amplification factor for sway member
xx Notation AISC DPFB/03

? load height parameter

8 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 capacities for bored piers depending on whether
piers behave as long or short
A,, modified compression member slenderness
A,,,, Any value of A,, about major (x) and minor (y) principal axes respectively
Aw web plate element slenderness
A,,,, web plate element yield slenderness limit
p degree of monosymmetry
!If, short term load factor
¢ capacity reduction factor
¢,, capacity reduction factor for bending in cold-formed structures code
¢, geotechnical reduction factor for bored piers
pgl, ?\,s value of¢, for long or short pile, respectively.
 1 Introduction
1.1 PORTAL FRAMED BUILDINGS
Portal-framed steel clad structures are the most common type of industrial buildings. They
find exten.sive use as industrial factory and warehouse structures, and as indoor sporting
venues. The major components of a portal frame b,1ilding are a series of parallel portal
shaped frames 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 I. I. 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 Beani. (WB) rafters such as those manufactured by BHP (!]. The
columns are generally larger than the rafters 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 ofUB 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 crossover 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

R ft R"d J.t K J.t

r-------------
a er-~-----~~~--:: __~------------------~::
~ __01n ~
-------- __ /
Eo ves
''' ....- ''
''
''
/--- '' ''
''
--:''
Haunch
Column
-~~ '''
' ~
.5 -~ '
''' 5. 0:
'''
'
'' "' '''
I
'
-1 Sp on
' '

Figure l.l Typical Portal Frame

 2 Introduction AISC DPFB/03

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 so.

Bolted moment
end plate
at ridge

Z-purlins

Fascia purlin
bracket

Girts

Double diagonal
wo!! bracing

Figure 1.2 ·Structural Components in a Braced Bay

Roof truss with diagonal

' - - - LIB or WB column web members orientated to
suit dominant uplift loading.

Figure 1.3 Portalised Truss

 AISC DPFB/03 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 steel structures code
AS4100 [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 western
countries was undertaken using permissible or 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.
It may be thought that the design of portal-framed buildings is simple and
straightforward. However, some aspects of AS4 l 00 and the wind loading code [7] are
ambiguous, and the behaviour of many aspects of the structure is not well understood. For
example:

Methods ofAnalysis
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 [1 OJ.
• Nonlinear or 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 AS 11.70.2 but two values of roof
pressure coefficients are given, ie -0.9 or -0.4; -0.5 or O; -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 detennined as shown in
Chapter 4 for:
• In-plane or major axis buckling under axial load alone (La is generally >'L).
• In-plane or major axis buckling for assessing in-plane member capacity under combined
actions (L,, = 1.0L).
4 Introduction AISC DPFBIOJ

• Out-of-plane or minor axis buckling for assessing out-of-plane member capacity under
combined actions (Ley is generally< l.OL because of restraint by purlins and girts).

Effective Lengths ofBeams (Flexural-Torsional Buckling)

The rules in AS4100 for determining effective lengths of bbam 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:
• So1ne 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 ofprestress needed for rods, its control on site and the effect, if any, on the limit
state tensile capacity of the rods are also isSues not well ul).derstood and are addressed in
this book.
• The design of welded T-end connections is not well covered, iQ. the literature, and guidance
is given in Chapter 6.

Roof Bracing Struts under Self Weight

Under AS4 l 00, 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 self-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 concrete standards, and
there is wide variation in practice. The earlier 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 Litnit 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 desfgn of pad footings in a comprehensive but
overly complex way. This book presents some useful information on the limit state design of
AISC DPFB/03 Portal Framed Buildings 5

bored piers including a unique formula (see Equation 7.4 in Chapter 7) for assessing the
lateral capacity of bored piers in cohesive soils.

Desie,11 for Ga11try 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 to the design of portal frame structures using AS4100.
Secondly, it attempts to tfuow 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 brief is 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 AS 1170.1-1989 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],
AS/NZS4600-1996 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 AISC DPFB/03

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 better 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
eliminates the problem encountered in working stress design of combining wind uplift loads
with dead loads, which was discussed in Reference [11].
In 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 overturning 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 use in AS4100 were calibrated [21] so that this probability is comparable with
historical exceedance probabilities implied in the superseded working stress design code
ASl250 [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 external loads. The latter are obtained from the loading codes AS 1170 .I and
AS 1170.2, while the capacities are obtained from the relevant steel or concrete standard. The
loads and load combinations for industrial portal frame 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 S' is calculated by the methods of structural analysis from the most
severe load combination for the strength limit state (see Section 2.5.1). At a particular cross-
section, the design action effect may be the axial force N', the shear force V', the bending
moment M', 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 ~trength of a member is taken as the product of its ultimate strength or
nominal capacity Ru, and an appropriate reduction factor ¢. The capacity reduction factor ¢
is introduced to account for the variability of the steel (or concrete or soil), the deg(ee with
which the structural model approximates real· behaviour, and the likelihood of
underperformance. For the steel frame, a value of ¢of 0.9 is used for the column and rafter
members, while ¢talces lower values in the design of connections.
AJSC DPFB/03 Limit State DesignA 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

S' s; ¢R, (1.1)

This requirement must be satisfied at each cross-section and at each coIUlection 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 deflection and in
some cases preventing excessive vibration.
The load combinations employed in design for the serviceability limit state are
discussed 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 loadin~s, 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 adequate 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 = single span across 25 m widih
Spacing = 9m
Pitch = 3°
 8 Introduction AISC DPFB/03

Personnel doors Roller Shutter Door (RSO) ,

~ Cf, 2~.m \~.~. ~. ~.gh er.~ ~. ~

0.9m ' ' 3.6m

~Colum.:::nifo·-===le==""1===11!~==;===0!:0==$)'1::=
=--- I 'jJ l -,
\="~==""'-- j j -,
i i i i i i i i
i i i i i i i i
~ i I I I
- ---------•-M-•--------------------------------·-•
I I I I ! f-

N i ! ! ! ! ! ! !
i ! ! ! ! ! ! !
'1 ! ! ! ! ! ! !
. I I I I I I I
~ 1 _I _; : ; _j _:
t Colu~-; I__.._
, RSD RSD I
t! 809m=72m ti
End frame End frame

Floor Plan

Elevation

Figure 1.4 Design Brief: Plan and Elevation

P'lch
I 3' .
' .'
-
i---- ----..

25m

Typical Section

Figure 1.5 Design Brief· -Cross-Section

AISC DPFB/03
Design Example 9

Shielding buildings
42 x 25 x Sm high ns = 2
ht = 8.7
h s = 9.0
ls=8.7( !Q_+5)-87
2 -
b s = 42
T)'Pical upwind sector --i---~--..
87
D = jg x 42 = 4:5
:. Ms= 0.85

Allotments in
industrial estate

Subject Building

72.5m
overall

140m

Figure J.6 Shielding Buildings in Design Example

Floor
Reinforced concrete to carry 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
4xpersonnel doors each 0.9 m x 2.2 m high
10 Introduction AISC DPFBIOJ

Soil Co11ditio11s
Stiff clay with cu ~ 50 kPa

Footings
Bored piers or pad footings
Sltieldillg Buildings
Refer to Figure 1.6

1.4 REFERENCES

I. Broken Hill Proprietary (1998). Hot Rolled Structural Steel Products, BHP, Melbourne.
2. Standards Australia (1998). AS4100 Steel Structures, SA, Sydney.
3. Canadian Standards Association (1978). CAN3-SJ6.l-M78 Steel Structures for Buildings -
Lbnit States Design, CSA, Rexdale, Ontario.
4. British Standards Institution (1990). BS5950, Structural Use of Steel in Buildings, Part 1,
Code of Practice for Design in Simple and Continuous Construction: Hot Rolled Sections,
BS!, London.
5. American Institute of Steel Construction (1986). Load and Resistance Factor Design
Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, AISC, Chicago.
6. Standards New Zealand (1992). NZS3404 Steel Structures Standard, SNZ, Wellington, NZ.
7. Standards Association of Australia (1989). AS1170.2-1989 Part 2 Wind Loading Code (with
amendments), SAA, Sydney.
8. Davies, J.M. (1990). lnplane stability in portal frames, The Structural Engineer, 68(4), 141-
147.
9. Engineering Systems Pty Ltd (1996). Microstran Users Manual, Engineering Systems,
Sydney.
10. Integrated Technical Software Pty Ltd (1995). Spacegass Reference Manual, ITS Pty Ltd,
Werribee, Victoria.
11. Woolcock, S.T. and Kitipomchai, S. (1987). Design of Portal Frame Buildings, AJSC,
Sydney.
12. Australian Institute of Steel Construction (1985). Standardized Structural Connections, 3rd
edn, AISC, Sydney.
13. Standards Association of Australia (1978). AS2159-1978 SAA Piling Code, SAA, Sydney.
14. Standards Australia (1995).AS2159-1995 Piling-Design and Installation, SA, Sydney.
15. Standards Association of Australia (1989). ASJ/70.1-1989 Part 1 Dead and Live Loads and
Load Co1nbinations, SAA, Sydney. ·
16. Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand (1996). ASINZS4600 Cold Formed Steel
Structures, SA, Sydney, SNZ, Auckland.
17. Standards Australia (1994). Concrete Structures, SA, Sydney. .
18. Standards Association of Australia (1981). AS1250-1981 SAA Steel Structures Code, SAA,
Sydney.
19. Kennedy, D.J.L. (1974). Limit states design - an innovation in design standards for steel
structures, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 1(1), 1-13.
20. Leicester, R.H., Pham, L. and Kleeman, P.W. (1983). Conversion to limit states design codes,
Metal Structures Conference, Brisbane, May, 29-33.
21. Pham. L., Bridge, R.Q. and Bradford. M.A. (l985). Calibration of the proposed limit states
design rules for steel beams and columns, Civil Engineering Transactions, Institution of
Engineers. Australia. C'E27(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 AS 1170.1-1989 Part I: Dead and Live Loads and Load
Combinations[!] and AS1!70.2-!989 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 return 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 constant thereafter, unless significant modifications are
made to the structure or its pennanent equipment.
As a guide for preliminary analysis, a 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
AS 1170.1, 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
usually taken account of by the sheeting manufactur~r which nominates the maximum spans
that will sustain this load.

11
12 Loads AISC DPFB/03

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 14 m2 , the code specifies the distributed load
wQ to.be

i WQ=(1:+0.!2) kPa (2.1)

This formula is equivalent to a distributed load of0.12 kPa plus a load of 1.8 kN distributed
over a span of the member, and ensures that the minimum 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 ofa 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). AS1!70.l 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 LOADS

2.4.1 General
The wind loading specified in AS! 170.2 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 southern
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.
AISC DPFB/03 Wind Loads 13

Table 2.1 Comparison of Terrain Category 3 Wind Loads

Region A Region B Region C

Perth Brisbane (cyclonic areas
Adelaide except Region D)
Wind Loading
Melbourne Darwin
Paran1eter
Canberra Townsville
Sydney Cairns

Basic Wind Speed v;, , mis 50 60 70

Design Gust Wind Speed for

M(uo') = 0.80, M, = 0.85, M, = 1.0 34.0 40.8 47.6
M,= 1.0

Gust Dynamic Wind Pressure q, (kPa) 0.69 1.00 1.36

Typical Uplift Pressure p,

0.83 1.20 1.63
= (0.7+0.5)q,

Typical Dead Load of Sheeting,

0.15 0.17 0.20
Purlins & Rafters PG (kPa)

Design Uplift= p, - 0.8pG (kPa) 0.71 1.06 1.47

Design Uplift
1.00 1.49 2.07
Design Uplift for Region A

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 VP which were intended for use in the design of
purlin and girt systems to working stress procedures. However, purlin and girt designs are now undertaken in
accordance with limit state procedures, and permissible stress velocities VI' will not be used in this book.
 AISC DPFB/03
14 Loads

2.4.2 Regional Wind Speeds

The basic wind speeds V11 and V5 for the strength and serviceability lin1it 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 \Vind speed IOr n1ajor framing elen1ents in Regions B, C and D ... Because
the factor applies to \Vind speed, the reduction in pressures is about 1Oo/o which is significant.
The reduction factor is used in the design example for detennining not only the loads on portal
frames, but also overall wind bracing forces. It should be emphasised that the reduction factor
does not apply to the wind loads on purlins and girts.

2.4.4 Terrain Category

Most wind speed data have been recorded at airports at a height of 10 metres. The terrain near
most airports is basically very siinilar, 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 lvind speeds V with height multipliers equal to
unity.
The terrain category factors given in the wind code lead to a \Vide 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 the 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 tnore exposed in its first few years than in the remainder of its
life.

""Amendment No. I of ASl 170.2 [2] reintroduced a wind direction reduction factor on the design wind speed for
major framing elements in Regions B, C and D (except for Vs in Region B). It is worth noting that such a factor
was first introduced in the 1983 edition of ASl 170.2 with a value of 0.9. The factor was changed to 0.95 when
the 1989 edition was published, but it applied to overall bi.iildings and not to major framing elements. With
Amendment No. l, major framing eletnents 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
it.
AJSC DPFBf03 Wind Loads 15

If so, it would be reasonable to assun1e Terrain Category 3 for. design purposes rather
than Terrain Category 2 or 2 1/ 2 •

Table 2.2 Relative Wind Pressures for Different

Terrain Categories (h = 7.5m)

Terrain Height Multiplier Relative

Category M(z,C'ar) Pressures

1 1.09 1.90
2 0.96 1.48
1
2 /2 0.88 1.24
3 0.79 1.00

2.4.5 Basic Wind Speeds

The design gust wind speed V, is obtained from the regional wind speed V (whether for the
strength or serviceability limit states) using

(2.2)

where Mrz.cao is the terrain and height multiplier for a particular terrain category, Ms is a
shielding factor, Mt is a topographic multiplier.and Mi is an importance multiplier. The values
of M(,.oao are specified clearly in AS! 170.2 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 far 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 if the mo·st 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 streanz gust dyna1nic wind pressure qz (kPa) is calculated from the design gust wind
speed V, (mis) by
 16 loads AISC DPFB/03

q, =0.6V,2 x!0-3 (2.3)

The wind pressure p, at height z for the relevant limit state is then calculated from the
pressure coefficient cp for the surface by tJ;ie expression
f
(2.4)

The external \Vind 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 internal pressure coefficients has
traditionally caused some confusion amongst designers, and these are discussed in Section
2.4.8.

2.4. 7 External Pressures

Although more complex than coefficients in British and US wind codes, external pressure
coefficients in AS 1170.2 .were relatively simple for rectangular industrial buildings until
Amendment No.2 \vas issued in 1993. This amendment introduced alternative sets of roof
coefficients CP for cross winds on buildings with roof pitches leSs than 10° and for
longitudinal \Vinds, such that designers nlust use -0.9 or -0.4 for a distance h from the
windward edge; -0.5 or 0 for the zone from h to 2h; -0.3 or +0.2 for the zone from 2h to 3h;
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 \Vas one previously. These options are:
• Maximum uplift using. coefficients: -0.9, -0.5, -0.3, -0.2
o Minimum uplift using coefficients: -0.4, 0, +0.2, +0.3

For longitudinal winds, the alternative coefficient approach introduces the option of a
down\vind frame having downwind external pressure on the roof. If this downwind pressure
con1bines with internal suction, then the resulting combination can be more severe than the
gravity load combination of 1.25G + 1.SQ. This outcome is surprising when it is considered
that portal-framed buildings have been \iesigned 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,
external suctions were counteracted by internal suctions to some extent, and so these load
combinations were not considered.
AISC DPFBf03 Wind Loads 17

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 down\vard 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 AS 1170.2 range from a positive coefficient of +0. 7 to a
suction coefficient of -0.65, as shown in Figure 2.1.

Wind =:::::>

Pressure Suction

Figure 2.1 Maximtan Internal Pressure Coefficients

The code permits calculation of the permeability ratio to determine internal pressure
coefficients Cp,i· The permeability ratio is the ratio of the opening area in the windward \Vall
to the sum of the opening areas in the roof and other three walls, provided any opening in the
roof (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
\Vindows may be relied upon to remain closed under design winds.
It can be argued that the worst winds occur \Vithout warning, eg. during thunderstorms,
and that the windows and doors may not be closed when the design winds occur. Ho\vever,
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 occur with equal probability at any hour of the day, then the average recurrence
interval should be 0.3x50 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 intervar of, say, 25 years instead
of 15 years for the internal pressures when designing to the strength limit state. Moreover,
there is the statistical probability that the building will not have the worst combination of
\vindows and doors open and shut. The foregoing probabilistic approach to internal pressure
 AISC DPFB/OJ
18 Loads

does not have any basis in the wind code, and is provided here a~ background information
only to assist designers in justifying internal coefficients which are less than the maximum in
some cases.
AS! 170 (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 wall/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 50 m x 20 m building would be as
to!lows:
For leeward and side walls:
0.05x 0.025
wall/floor: x (50 + 20 +20) = 0.56 m 2
0.20 0
wall/eaves: (as for wall/floor)= 0.56 m2

For windward wall:

0.05 x 0.025
wall/floor: x 50 = 0.31 m2
0.20 0
wall/eaves: = 0.31 m'

Pern1eability ratio assunzing no other openings

0.31+0.31
0.55
0.56 + 0.56
Hence int~mal pressure coefficient Cp,i = +0.1
If one roller door is added on the windward face, say 4 m x 3.6 m = 14.4 m 2 area, then:
14.4+0.31+0.31
permeability ratio= + 13.4
056 056
Hence internal pressure coefficient Cp.i = +O. 7

It may thus be concluded that the effect of ribs will not be significant if there are major
\Vall 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 internal 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
50 m long industrial building has a ridge ventilator with a 600 mm throat for the full length of
the ridge, the equivalent free area would be 50x0.6x30/100 = 9.0 m2 • In this case, the
permeability ratio would be (14.4 + 0.31 + 0.31)/(0.56 + 0.56 + 9.0) = 1.48. The internal
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 DPFB/03 JVind 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 toner 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 area is large is less than the
coefficients indicate. The area reduction factor applies to roof and side \\"all loads. It does not
apply to internal pressures, or to windward and leeward wall loads. This means that for a
portal frame under cross wind, only the rafter loads due to external pressures may be r~duced.
Under longitudinal wind, both rafter and column loads due to external pressures may be
reduced. If the area supported by the rafter or a column is greater than I 00 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 immediate supporting
members and fixings, to be designed for peak local pressures as sho\vn 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 internal pressures (positive or negative).

2.5 LOAD COMBINATIONS

2.5.1 Strength Limit State

The loading code AS1170.l stipulates that to produce the most adverse effects, the design
loads for the strength limit states shall be the following combinations of dead load (G), live
load (Q) and ultimate wind load (Wu):

*Early working stress versions of the steel structures code did not specify load combinations, but they did permit
a 25% overstress when wind loads were present. The limit on overstress was increased to 33% in the 1972
edition of the 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 and dead load act in opposite directions and are
of sin1ilar magnitude, then the difference between the loads· is a small value ,...-hich is very sensitive to
inaccuracies. This was illustrated in Reference [3].
 AISC DPFB/03
20 Loads

(a) l.25G + I.SQ

(b) l.25G +Wu
(c) 0.8G + l.25Q
(d) 0.8G+ Wu
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 Local pressure factors ore

far not applicable at ridge where
0 = o· roof pitch < 1o·
C( < 60' Height h1
for 0 = go·
and far 0 = o·
when a ;!; 60.

Wind 0 = o· ~
~Wind 0 = go·
ht ~ 25.0m

~ Area a x a Local pressure factor 1.5

on negative pressures
llll Area a/2 x a/2 Local pressure factor 2.0
on negative pressures
0 Area a/2 x a/2 Local pressure factor 1.25
on positive pressures on windward wall
a ht, 0.2b or 0.2d, whichever is least

Figure 2.2 Peak Local Pressures

In an attempt to remedy this situation, the 1975 edition of the working stress code AS1250 [7] removed the 33%
overstress (or the 0.75 load factor) for cases where wind and dead load act in opposite directions. Unfortunately,
this did little to improve the potentially dangerous load combination because the resulting 33% increase in
design load still did not adequately cater for small errors in th~ dead 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 ASl 170.2 [2] which appeared in 1989.
AISC DPFB/03 Load Combinations 21

2.5.2 Serviceability Limit State

The loading code AS 1170.1 includes load combinations for the serviceability limit state. The
following combinations of dead load (G), live load (Q) and serviceability wind load (W,) are
to be considered:

(a) W,
(b) v;,Q
(c) G+ W,
(d) G+ v;,Q
where v, 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 engineers [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 AS! 170.1

Sheeting: Trimdek 4.3 kg/m' = 0.043 kPa

Purlins: Z20019 at 1200mm centres with 15% laps Lysaght [5]
3
1.15x 5.68x 9.82x 10- = 0.0 kPa
53
1.2
Total wG = 0 .043 + 0.053 = 0.096 kPa say 0.1 kPa
Hence sheeting and purlin load on rafter= O.!Ox9 = 0.90 kN/m (along slope)
Frame self-weight will be included under the gravity option (GRAV) in the computer
analysis.
In some buildings, an allowance for miscellaneous dead loads such as bracing, roof
exhaust systems, lighting and soffit linings or ceilings will be appropriate.

2.6.2 Live Loads AS1170.1

wQ =(~+0.12)
9 x 25
=0.13kPa butnotlessthan0.25kPa ASJJ70.l Cl 4.8.1.1

Hence wQ = 0.25 kPa

Live load on rafter = 0.25x9 = 2.25 kN/m (on plan projection)
 AISC DPFB/03
22 Loads

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 x 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 ASJJ70.2

2.6.3.l BASICWINDDATA
RegionB:
Basic wind speeds:
Ultimate Vu= 60 mis AS1170.2 Table 3.2.3
Serviceability V, = 38 mis AS1170.2 Table 3.2.3
Terrain Category 3 (industrial area)
Column height: 7.5 mat intersection of rafter centreline
Portal span: 25 m between column centres
Roof pitch: 3' (see Figure 1.5)
Eaves height assuming 310 UB rafter, 200 purlins
0.310
=7.5+--+0.200=7.85m say8.0m
2
25
Ridge height= 8.0 + x tan 3' = 8.655 m say 8. 7 m
2
Average spacing of shielding buildings= 87 m
Average height of shielding buildings = 9 m
Average breadth of shielding buildings= 42 m

B m'Id'mg spacmg
. parameter: D = =87
v9 x 42
4.5 ASJJ70.2 Cl 3.2.7

Shielding multiplier: M, = 0.85 AS1170.2 Table 3.2.5.1

• Cross Wind
h = 8.0m
Terrain and height multiplier: Mcs, 3) = 0.80 ASJJ70.2 Table 3.2.5.1
Shielding multiplier: M, = 0.85 ASIJ 70.2 Table 3.2. 7
Ultimate:
V, = 0.80x0.85x60 = 40.8 mis ASIJ 70.2 Cl 3.2.2
2 3
q, = 0.60x40.8 x1Q· = 1.00 kPa AS1170.2 Cl 3.3
 AISC DPFB/03 Design Exan1ples - Loads 23

Serviceability:
V, = 0.80x0.85x38 = 25.8 mis ASJ 170.2 Cl 3.2.2
q, = 0.60x25.8 2xl0., = 0.40 kPa ASl 170.2 Cl 3.3

• Longitudinal Wind
h = 8.7 m
Terrain and height multiplier: Mcs. 7,3) = 0.81 ASl 170.2 Table 3.2.5.1
Shielding multiplier: M, = 0.85 ASIJ 70.2 Table3.2. 7

Ultimate:
V, = 0.8lx0.85x60 = 41.3 mis ASl 170.2 Cl 3.2.2
q, = 0.60x41.3 2 xl0., = 1.02 kPa ASI 170.2 Cl 3.3
Serviceability:
V, = 0.81 x0.85x38 = 26.2 mis ASIJ 70.2 Cl 3.2.2
q, = 0.60x26.22xl0.J = 0.41 kPa AS1170.2 Cl 3.3

2.6.3 .2 EXTERNAL WIND PRESSURES

• Cross Wind (8= IJ') ASIJ 70.2 Fig. 3.3

Windward wall: CP'' = 0. 7 ASIJ70.2 Table 3.4.3.J(A)

d 25
Leeward wall: - = - = 0.35 < 1.0
b 72
Therefore Cp.• = - 0.5 ASIJ70.2 Table 3.4.3.l (BJ

Roof: a =3°
h=h, =8.0m
h 8
-;;= 25 = 0.32 < 0.5

Two sets of Cp.• values for the roof are given in Amendment 2 of ASll 70.2 Table
3.4.3.2(A). Therefore, adopt pressures shown in Figures 2.3(a) and (b).

• Longitudinal Wind (8 = 91l') (see Figure 2.4)

h=h1 =8.7m ASl 170.2 Table 3.4.3.2(A)
h 8.7
-;;= 72 =0.12

• Area Reduction Factor

Tributary area for rafter under cross wind= 25x9 =225 m'
Hence :r;eduction factor for rafters = 0.8
 AISC DPFB/03
24 Loads
8aaa
I 45aa 35aa
;..-,.---.,,,a._9-r"I' -a.5 \~
~ -0.3 1-0.2

"ci "'ciI
+

(a) Maximum Roof Uplift Coefficients

80aO 450a 35aa

r -a.4
a.a
\~
' a.a r +0.2 / +a.3

"ci
+
"'ciI

{b) Minimum Roof Uplift Coefficients

Figure 2.3 Ext~rnal Pressure Coefficients under Cross Wind

Tributary area for rafter and 'columns under longitudinal wind

= (2x7.5 + 25)x9 = 360 m'
Hence reduction factor for columns under longitudinal wind= 0.8 ASl 170.2 Table 3.4.4

2.6.3.3 INTERNAL WIND PRESSURES

• Cross Wind

To calculate the internal pressure coefficients Cp,i' 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 0.35xa.6x72 = 15.l m'.
AISC DPFB/03 Design Examples - Loads 25

Permeability ratio for worst internal pressure under cross wind

2x 4x 3.6+2x 0.9x 2.2
2.17
15.1

Hence Cp.i = 0.5 + ( 2.17-2)

_ x ( 0.6 - 0.5) = +0.52 ASJ 170.2 Table 3.4.7
3 2
For the worst internal suction under cross wind when dominant openings are on the
leeward wall, use the value of Cp,i for leeward external wall surface
Cp,i = -0.50 AS1170.2Table3.4.3.l(B}
Note that roof ventilators can be expensive and the saving in cost due to reduced internal
pressures will be offset to some extent by the cost of the ventilators.

• Longitudinal Wind
Permeability ratio for worst internal pressure (end wall door open, others closed)
4x3.6
= - - · = 0.95 ASJJ70.2 Table 3.4. 7
15.l
Hence Cp.i = +0.1 ASJJ 70.2 Table3.4. 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 coefficient Cp,i = - 0.65 but this will mean that the combination of external
downward pressure and maximum internal suction will now govern the portal frame design
whereas this was not so prior to Amendment 2 of ASll 70.2. For the purpose of this design
example, adopt Cp.i = - 0.3 for portal frame design although not strictly in accordance with
the code, and cp,i = - 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 =8.7 m
or a= 0.2b = 0.2x72.5 = 14.5 m
or a= 0.2d = 0.2x26 = 5.2 m
whichever is least.
Hence a= 5.2 m (see Figure 2.5)

2.6.4 Load Cases For Portal Frames

·• Primary Load Cases:
LC!: DL of0.90 kN/m + frame self weight
 AISC DPFB/03
26 Loads
8700,8700,8700

wall wall
8 @ 9000 = 7200
72500 annrox overall

(a) Roof and End Wall Pressure Coefficients

Maximum Uplift

8700,8700,8700

wall wall
8 @ 9000 = 7200
72500 ooprox overall

(b) Roof and End Wall Pressure Coefficients

Minimum Uplift

870J 8700, 8700

1-o.6 -o.5f_o.31 -0.2

' ' '

! I' Lee~ard
Winiward Plan
wollj
"'0
N

wall/
I I

Side wall

j -0.31
-0.2
1-0.6~ -0.5

Figure 2.4 External Pressure Coefficients under Longitudinal Wind

AISC DPFB/03 Design Examples - Loads 27
,_
r----.-------~
E
lO
General area N •

t
I I x
0
I General area I L
a.
a.
L-=+%f _________ J <(

-
5.2m x 5.2m zone 2.6m x 2.6m zone
Local pressure factor Local pressure factor
1.5 2.0
Approximately 72.5 overall length

Figure 2.5 Peak Local Pressure Roof Plan

LC2: LL of2.25 kN/m + 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.)

LC3: Cross Wind Maximum Uplift (CW! - see Figure 2.6): q, = 1.00 kPa
Wind direction reduction factor for major framing elements
such as portal frames= 0.95 2 AS1170.2 Cl 3.2.3
Area reduction factor for roof only= 0.8 AS! 170.2 Cl 3.4.4

UDL (windward column) = 0.95'x0.7xl.00x9.0 = 5.69 kN/m

UbL (leeward column)
UDL (roof, 0 to 8 m, CP·' = -0.9)
UDL (roof, 8 m to 16-m, CP·' = -0.5)
UDL (roof, 16 m to 24 m, CP·' = -0.3)
UDL (roof, 24 m to 25 m; CP·' = - 0.2 ),
= 0.95 2 x0.5xl.00x9.0 = 4.06 kN/m
= 0.95 2 x0.8x0.9xl.00x9.0 = 5.85 kN/m
= 0.95 2x0.8x0.5xl.00x9.0 = 3.25 kN/m
= 0.952x0.8x0.3xl.00x9.0 = 1.95 kN/m
adopt 1.95 k]\f/m

8000
rI 5.85
14500 3500
:---:---1I I
'..-.~--.,.-~\ 3.25 Ii 3.25 I
1.95

Ol lO
lO 1---.;l 0
.,; '---" ..;

Figure 2.6 Cross Wind Frame Loads - Maximum Uplift (kN/m)

 AISC DPFB/03
28 Loads

Note that the 8 m roof wind loading zones strictly speaking should be measured from the
eaves 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
between the frame intersection points.

LC4: Cross Wind Minimum Uplift (CW2 - see Figure 2.7): q, = 1.00 kPa
Wind direction reduction factor= 0.95 2
Area reduction factor =. 0.80

4500 3500
8000
2 60
I I l ·1 0
1n
0 '·
1.3 0
·' ·'
___,
r---i
'----'
___,

Figure 2. 7 Cross Wind Frame Loads - Minimu':" Uplift CW2 (kN/m)

UDL (columns) as for LC3

UDL (roof, 0 to 8 m, c,,, = -0.4) = 2.60 k:N/m
UDL (roof, 8 m to 16m, c,,, = 0) = 0
UDL (roof, 16 m to 24 m, CP·' = +0.2) = -1.30 k:N/m
UDL (roof, 24 m to 25 m, c,_, = +0.3) adopt -1.30 k:N/m
(The negative sign indicates the loads acts downwards in the negative
direction of the local member y axis according to Microstran load input
conventions.)

LCS: Longitudinal Wind First Internal Frame (LWl)

Area reduction factor for roof and walls = 0.8
As h is approximately equal to the frame spacing of 9 m in this case, take h = 9 m to
simplify calculation of the panel loads. (In other cases where h is quite different from the
bay spacing, the frame UDL's should be determined by simple statics, ie. assum~ng the
purlins are simply supported beams with the frames as supports.)
09 0
UDL (rafters) = 0.95 2 x0.8x( · ; .5)xl.02x9.0 =4.64k:N/m

0 65
UDL (columns) = 0.95 2 x 0.8x( · ;0.5} !.02x9.0 = 3.81 kN/m

LC6: Longitudinal Wind with 0.3q, External RoorPressure

and 0.2q, Wall Suction (LW2)
AISC DPFB!03 Design Examples - Loads 29

Area reduction factor for roof and walls= 0.8

UDL (rafters) = 0.95 2 x0.8x0.3xl.02x9.0 = 1.99 kN/m
UDL (columns) = 0.95'x0.8x0.2xl.02x9.0 = 1.32 kN/m
LC7: Internal Pressure Under Cross Wind (IPCW): Cp,; = +0.52
Area reduction factor does not apply to internal pressures
UDL (rafters and columns)= 0.95 2x0.52xl.00x9.0 = 4.21 kN/m
LCS: Internal Pressure Under Longitudinal Wind (IPLW): Cp,; = +0.1
UDL (rafters and columns)= 0.95'x0.lxl.02x9.0 = 0.83 kN/m
LC9: Internal Suction Under Cross Wind (ISCW): Cp,; = - 0.5
-0.5
UDL (rafters and columns)= --xIPCW = -0.96 x LC7
0.52
LClO: Internal Suction Under Longitudinal Wind (ISLW): Cp,; = - 0.3
.· -0.3
UDL (rafters and columns)= --xlPLW = -3.0 xLC8
0.1
Note that load cases LC9 and LClO are not included in the computer analysis and
combinations containing LC9 and LClO are obtained by factoring LC7 and LC8.

Table 2.3 Factors Used in Load Combinations

Factors
Load
Cases
LCI LC2 LC3 LC4 LC5 LC6 LC7 LC8

LC20 1.25 1.5

LC21 0.8 1.0 1.0

LC22 0.8 1.0 1.0

LC23 1.25 1.0 -0.96

LC24 0.8 1.0 1.0

LC25 1.25 1.0 -3.0

2.6.5 Load Combinations

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
 AISC DPFD/03
30 Loads

elastic 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 II for the
second order method of elastic analysis.

LC20: l.25DL + l.5LL = 1.f5LCI + l.5LC2

LC21: 0.8DL +CW! (maximum uplift)+ IPCW= 0.8LCI + LC3 + LC7
LC22: 0.8DL + CW2 {minimum uplift) + IPCW = 0.8LCI + LC4 + LC7
LC23: J.25DL + CW2 (minimum uplift) + ISCW = l.25LCI + LC4 - 0.96LC7
LC24: O.BDL + LWJ (maximum uplift) + IPLW = 0.8LCI + LC5 + LC8
LC25: l.25DL + LW2 (maximum downward)+ ISLW= l.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
design example, the internal suction coefficient has been arbitrarily reduced for this
combination from -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
I. Standards Association of Australia (1989). AS1170.1-1989 Part 1 Dead and Live Laading
Code, SAA, Sydney.
2. Standards Association of Australia (1989). AS1170.2-1989 Part 2 Wind Loading Code, SAA,
Sydney.
3. Woolcock, S.T. and Kitipomchai, S. (1987). Design of Par/a/ Frame Buildings, AISC,
Sydney.
4. Woolcock, S.T. and Kitipomchai, S. (1986). Deflection limits for portal frames, Steel
Construction, AISC, 20(3), 2-10.
5. Lysaght (1999). Zeds and Cees Purlin and Girt Systen1s, BHP Building Products.
6. Engineering Systems Pty Ltd (1996). Microstran Users Manual, Engineering Systems,
Sydney.
7. Standards Association of Australia (1981). AS1250-1981 SAA Steel 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 perfom1 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 cha1U1el (C) section members,
cold-formed from zinc coated 450 MPa steel of 1.5, 1.9, 2.4 and 3.0 mm thickness. Steel
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 ASfNZS4600 [l] must be
used in lieu of AS4100 [2]. Until 1996, this presented added difficulty as the prevailing cold-
formed steel 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 Typical Lysaght Purlin and Girt Details

31
32 Purlins & Girls AISC DPFB/03

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 n1anufacturers provide data on minimum roof pitch, and on allowable
internal 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-cyclonic areas. I.t is important to remember that the maximum spans for roof sheeting are
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 govern the purlin
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 result, 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
rroviding 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. Apart 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 corresponding to the depth or thickness increases.
Because of the limited range ofpurlin 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 increase 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 the building, and so the choice of frame spacing
is limited.
AISC DPFB/03 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 a~d unit costs are different in the
United Kingdom, and it is uncertain whether the same conclusions apply in Australia.

3.4 PURLIN STRENGTHS

3.4.1 Manufacturers' Brochures

The limit state design capacity tables produced by manufacturers such as Stramit [4] and
Lysaght [5] cover simply supported spans, double spans, double lapped spans, lapped
continuous spans and increased 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 of600, 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 IO percent. The Stramit tables are based on laps of 15
percent of the span.
Both the Strarnit 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 purlins 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 it is 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 defle~tions
prior to fixing roof sheeting, it is an advantage to orient the top .flange pointing up the slope as
this results in a smaller inclination 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
mm, 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 DPFB/03

Because of these problems, it is common to use a section with a heavier wall thickness
for end bay purlins. For example, if 215015 sections are used in internal bays, then 215019
and 215024 sections would be used in the end bays. Significant reductions in external suction
coefficients on downwind surfaces in the more recent versions of AS 1170.2 [1 O] have
accentuated the differ¢nce in loads and bending moments between end span and internal span
purlins. It is therefore advantageous for economical design to consider:
• increased wall thiclmesses 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 peiik
local pressure zone1) to allow the designer to convert the non-uniform pressures to equivalent
uniformly distribuied loads. Such methods are also considered in Section 3.9 of this book.
With the external 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 load on the purlin system were
uniform.

3.4.2 R-Factor Method

AS/N2S4600 [l] 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 lieu 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 M' and V. The reactions also
need to be calculated to check bolt capacities. The laps can be easily modelled by inserting
nlembers with double the second· moment of area into the beam system. Peak local pressure
. loading and reductions in the downwind external pressure coefficients under longitudinal ·
wind can be easily account.ed for.
The member bending capacity is taken in this method as

(3.1)

where Z, is the effective elastic section modulus (calculated using the effective widths of the
compression and bending elements of the purlin section as given in AS/N2S4600), [.. is the
yield strength of the purlin, ¢, is the capacity reduction taken as 0.90 and R is the reduction
factor.
The cold-formed steel structures code AS/N2S4600 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 DPFBf03 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 (c) 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
V, in the current wind loading code AS1170.2 [10] and is greater than the current
serviceability wind speed Vs.
In view of the lack of current recommendations fron1 Lysaght, and as Stramit
recommends a maximum deflection limit of span/150, the following deflection limits are now
proposed.
• Under dead load alone: Span/360
• Under live load alone: Span/180
• Under serviceability wind load alone: Span/150
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 V, to V,. 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 span/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
purlins 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 reserve 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 fonnulae,
but directs the user to the provisions of the combined axial load and bending Clause 3.5 of
AS/NZS4600.

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 75xl2 flats for 300 and 350 purlins and girts.
When purlins are unlapped, f0ur holes in the cleat are required and the cleat \Vidth increases
from 75 mm to 130 mm.
 36 Purlins & Girts AISC DPFB/03

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 forces due to the inclination of the
principal axes to the plane of the roof.
When the gap between the purl in 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 Smm thick cleat should be 250
mm, while a 12 mm thick 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 Ml2-4.6/S which comes either with loose washers or with a flanged
head and nut (ie. with washers integral with the bolt head and nut). Although the latter bolts
are about 2.5 times as expensive as the standard Ml2 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, Ml2-8.8/S bolts should be used. Surprisingly,
8.8/S bolts with flanged heads and nuts are only about 20% to 25% more expensive than their
4.6/S counterparts. Ml6 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 Ml2 bolt heads and nuts even though the height of the hole
. through lapped purlins is less than I 8 mm diameter because of the lapping. By comparison,
the width across the flats of an MI2 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 Ml6 bolts, for which the holes in
the cleats can be 22 mn1 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 factor.s 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 DPFB/03 Equivalent UDL 's for Peak Pressure 37

explanatory diagram indicates a partial load block at the end of the span). A simple
alternative 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 differen~ 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 the 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
spans.
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 multipliers 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 K,1
value of 1.5 and a g value of 0.5, the Stramit factor on the nominal base load is 1.47. (K,1 is
the ratio of the total UDL in the peak local pressure zone to the nominal base UDL in the
absence oflocal 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 corresponding factors on the nominal

r-~-~~~~-~w._ 1 we
I I

r----- -----..., We
L 2 L 2

we= 1.~wx ~ w we= 2~x ~ w

Figure 3.2 Equivalent Uniformly Distributed Loads

for Peak Pressure Load Blocks
38 Purlins & Girts AISC DPFBt03

base load of 1.33 (= l.0+0.5x0.5xl.3) for an end-of-span load block and 1.50 (= l.O
+0.5x0.5x2.0) 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% (= l.50/1.47) for the mid-span load block. If K,1 equals 2,
the corresponding perceqtages are 9o/o 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, it is 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 loading 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
AS1170.1 [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.l. The inward
wind plus dead load case consists of internal suctions and external 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 internal pressure coefficient is +0.52 (see Section 2.6.3.3).

• Edge Zone 0 lo 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 q, = 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

w * = {( 0. 9 + 2x0.9x2.6 + 0.52 ) x !.00-0.8x 0.1} x s = l.86s .kN/m

9
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Purlins 39

Local pressure load

block on end or p = - 09
in tern al span s
~ Cp = -0.9

>-
' t I

~-----------------<!
·- 9000 .
Cp = +0.52

Figure 3.3 Cross Wind Coefficients 0 ro 2600 mm from Eaves

• Edge Zo1te 2600 mm to 5200 mm from Eaves

The cross wind coefficients for this region are shown in Figure 3.4. From Figure 3.2, x =
5200 mm, so 2x/L = 2x5200/9000 = 1.16 >I, and sow,= w.
Hence the total equivalent UDL for spacings is

w* = {(0.9+0.45+0.52)xi.00-0.8x0.l}xs =l.79s kN/m

5200
Local pressure load I
block on end or -...........
internal spans ""- p = - 0 45
. Cp -0.9

' •t I. Cp = +0.52
I

9000

Figure 3.4 Cross Wind Coefficients 2600 mm to 5200 mm from Eaves

• Zo1te 5200 mm 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 we as l.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 AISC DPFB/03

of x = 5200 mm. Both produce the same effect according to the equivalent UDL formula in
Figure 3.2, and the cross wind coefficients for this zone are shown in Figure 3.5.
Hence the total equivalent UDL for spacings is

5 52
w* = {( 0.9+ l.3xo.; x · + 0.52} !.00-0.8x o.1}xs = 1.68s kN/m

• Zone 8000 1nm fro1n Eaves to Ridge

The cross wind coefficients assumed for this zone are 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 spacings is

w*= {( 0.5+ l.3x0.25x5.2 +0.52) xl.00-0.8x0.l } xs=l.13s kN/m

.
9

8700
5200 '
2600 . I
I
----,cP = -0.9
_ _ _!____
I Cp = -0.45
Cp -0.9
'1
.
·+
I
ICp = +0.52

Figure 3.5 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 qz = l.02, the cross wind case in Figure 3.3 is clearly critical.
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Purlins 41

8700

2600

n Cp = -0.9

ICp = -0.9
Cp = -0.5
T ·1 T.>
A Cp = +0.1

9000

Figure 3.6 Longitudinal Wind Coefficients 0 to 2600 mm from Eaves

• Edge Zone 2600 111111 to 5200 mm from Eaves

Cross wind is again clearly critical, as the internal pressure coefficient under longitudinal
wind is +0.1 and under cross wind is +0.52.

• Zone 5200 nzni fro1n 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 5200 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 external pressure coefficient over the whole span, the
total equivalent UDL for spacings is

3 5 52
w*= {(o.9+ 1. xo.: x . +o.1)xl.02-0.8x0.l}xs =l.29s kN/m

3.10.4 Purlin Selection for Outward Loading

Maximum peak pressure on sheeting= (0.9x2 + 0.52)xl.OO = 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 DPFB/03

8700

5200

2600 Alternative peak

pressure zone

r----, Cp = -0.9

!IllIInl!Yrr-1-1};, : -0.5
+0.1

I 9000 I
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
depth 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 corresponding Lysaght capacities are given in Table 3.2.
It can be seen 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 puiposes of the remainder of this design example, the Stramit system with its
longer lap lengths (15% laps) will be adopted.

• Edge Zone 0 to 2600 mm from Eaves

Spacing required for the Stramit Z200-19 purlin system for flexure alone:
2.05
s = - =1.IOm
1.86
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
s=-- =l.47m
1.86
where 2. 73 kN/m is the tabulated Stramit load shown in Table 3.1.
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Purlins 43

Hence ADOPT the Stramit Z200-19 pur/in system at 1100 mm maximum centres

• Edge Zone 2600 mm to 5200 mm from Eaves

Spacing required for the Stramit Z200-19 purlin system for flexure alone:
s= 2.05=1.15 m
1.79
Spacing required for the Stramit Z200-24 purlin system for flexure alone:
2 73
s= · = 1.53 m
1.79
Hence ADOPT the Stramit Z200-19 pur/in system at 1100 mm maximum centres

• Zone 5200 mm to 8000 mm from Eaves

Spacing required for the Stramit Z200-19 purlin system for flexure alone:
2 05
s = · = 1.22 m
1.68
Spacing required for the Stramit Z200-24 purlin system for flexure alone:
2 73
s= · =1.63 m
1.68
Hence ADOPT the Stramit Z200-J 9 pur/in system at 1200 mm maximum centres

Table 3.1 Stramit Capacities for 5 or More Lapped

Continuous 9 m Spans (2 Rows of Bridging)

Mass Outwards Inwards Deflection

Section
kg!m kN/m kN/m Span/150

Z200-15 4.50 1.36 1.36 0.94

Z200-19/15 5.74/4.50 1.37 1.37 1.19
Z200-19 5.74 2.05 2.06 1.27
Z200-24/19 7.21/5.74 2.07 2.07 1.56
Z200-24 7.21 2.73 2.91 1.68
Z250-19 6.50 2.62 2.62 2.06
Z250-24/19 8.17/6.50 2.63 2.63 2.57
Z250-24 8.17 3.65 3.73 2.76

Bold capacities require Grade 8.8 purlin bolts.

44 Purlins & Girts AISC DPFB/03

Table 3.2 Lysaght Capacities for Four Lapped

Continuous 9 m Spans (2 Rows ofBridging)

Mass Outwards Inwards Deflection

Section
kg/m kN/m kN/m Span/150

Z20015 4.44 1.16 1.16 0.93

Z20015/24 4.44/7.15 1.22 1.22 1.60
Z20019 5.68 1.77 1.77 1.26
Z20024 7.15 2.44 2.57 1.68
Z25019 6.43 2.24 2.24 2.04
Z25019/24 6.43/8.10 2.31 2.31 2.70
Z25024 8.10 3.26 3.29 2.77

Bold capacities require Grade 8.8 purlin bolts.

• Zone 8000 mm from Eaves to Ridge

Spacing required for the Strarnit Z200-l 9 purlin system for flexure alone:

s = 2.05 = 1.81 m
1.13
Could adopt the Stramit Z200-l 9 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.

• Prelil11inary Arrange1nent
Based on the outward loading design capacities, try the Stramit Z200-19 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 to 5200 mm from Eaves (I I 00 mm spacing)

Combining the external pressure coefficient of +0.3 with the internal suction coefficient
of - 0.5 under cross wind:
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Purlins 45

w* ={(0.3+0.5)xl.OO+l.25x0.l}xl.l=l.02 kN/m < 2.05kN/m OK

and under longitudinal wind, combining the worst external pressure coefficient of +0.3
with the worst internal suction coefficient of - 0.65:
w* = {(0.3+0.65)x1.02+1.25 x 0. l}x 1.1=1.20 kN/m < 2.05 kN/m OK

• Zo11e 5200 111111 to 8000 mm from Eaves (1200 mm spaci11g)

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)xi.OO+l.25x0.l}xl.2=0.99 kN/m < 2.05kN/m OK

and under longitudinal wind:

w* ={(0.3+0.65)x!.02+1.25x0.l}xi.2=1.31 kN/m < 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:

w* ={(0.5+0.2)xl.OO+l.25x0.l}xi.8=1.49 kN/m < 2.05kN/m OK

and under longitudinal wind:

w* = {(0.3+0.65)x1.02+1.25 x O. l}x 1.8 = 1.97 kN/m < 2.05 kN/m OK

• Check Dead Plus Live Load

For worst case of 1800 mm purlin spacing:
w* = (5.74x9.82x!0-3 +4.3x9.82x!0-3 xi.8)xi.25+0.25xl.8xl.5
= 0.132x1.25+0.45x1.5 = 0.84 kN/m < 2.05 kN/m 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 9xl.8 = 16.2 m' is greater than 14 m', the live load
according to ASll 70.1 [6] is 0.25 kPa.

3.10.6 Purlin Deflections

The dead load deflection ofa Strarnit Z200-19 purlin system spaced at 1800 mm centres using
the dead load calculated above:

L1 = 0.13 x 9000 = 6. 1 mm
1.27 150
46 Purlins & Girts AISC DPFB/03

_ span < span OK

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 kN/m is the de'\'1 load calculated in the previous section.
!
The live load deflection of Stramit Z200-19 purlins spaced at 1800 mm centres:

LI = 0.45 x 9000 = 2 1.3 mm

1.27 150
_ span < span
OK
423 180
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 \Vind
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)2, the
serviceability wind load alone is

2.05 x ( 38)' = 0.82 kN/m < 1.27 kN/m OK

60
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 sheeting 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
purlin system is as follows:
• Stramit Z200-19 system with 15% laps
• Two rows of bridging
• Ml2 4.6/S 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 internal spans
adopted in the previous edition [I I] in accordance with AS1538 [3] and the working stress
design purlin and girt capacities.
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Purlins 47

3.10.8 R-Factor Method

AS/NZS4600 [1] pennits 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 0.44 mm BMT roof sheeting, purlin laps
greater than 13o/o and other conditions satisfied. i
Jn 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
loading, the purlin spacing is 1200 "mm and the base UDL is derived from a -0.9 external
pressure coefficient and a +0.52 internal pressure coefficient. The peak local pressure zone
has a coefficient of 0.5 x (- 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 eight-
span continuous beam with the 1350 mm laps which straddle each internal support simulated
by doubling the second moment.of area Ix. The maximum bending moments M' in the end
span are 12.1 kNm in the mid-span region and 18.0 kNm at the first internal support as shown
in Figure 3.8a The maximum moment in unlapped Z20015 members in the internal spans is
8.5 kNm.

10.1 11.7 10.8

12.7 12.5
16
18

Figure 3.8a Bending Moments for R-factorMethodfor LW 5200 mm

from Eaves to Ridge

7.6 7.9
10.1

Figure 3.8b Shears for R-factor Method for LW 5200 mm

from Eaves to Ridge
48 Purlins & Girts AISC DPFB/03

• Member Moment Capacity

Using an R-factor of 0.95 corresponding to two rows of bridging, the member capacities
rfM, for Z200-19 and Z200-15 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: rfM, = 0.9x 0.95x23.0xl0 3 x 450 = 8.85 kNm

For Z200-19: rfM, = 0.9x0.95x33.8xl0 3 x450=13.0 kNm
For moment capacity alone, Z200-l 9 in the end span and Z200-l 5 in the internal spans are
both adequate as follows:
For Z200-15: M' = 8.5 kNm < 8.85 kNm
For Z200-19: M' = 12.1 kNm < 13.0 kNm

• 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 internal 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 internal support, the moment is 8.5 kNm and
the coincident shear is 6.0 kN.

FOR Z20019:

Shear capacity:
d1 = 203-2x(5+!.9)=189.2 mm

l.4l5x~Ek,
5
189 2 2xl0 x5.34 = .
= · = 99.6 > =1.415x 68 9
1.9 h 450
Hence
~ V. = 0. 9 x (0.905 x Ek,t!) = 0. 9 x(0.905x2x10 x 5.34x 1.9
5 3
J
"'' ' di 189.2
= 31.5 kN
Combined bending and shear:

J' + (-¢..Vv·-.. J' :>1.0

0

-M-
( ¢,M,

¢,M 5 =0.95x33.8xl0 3 x450=14.4 kNm

Note that ¢, equals 0.95 for section capacity, not 0.90. Table 1.6 ASINZS4600
;\JSC DPFB/03 Design Example - Purlins 49

At the end of the lap in the end span:

59 79
· )' + ( · )' = 0.17 + 0.06 = 0.23 < 1.0.
( 14.4 OK
31.5

FOR Z20015:
Shear capacity:
d, = 203-2x(5+1.5)=190 mm
d 190
--'- = - = 126.7 > 68.9 as before
(w 1.5
Hence
J
¢ V = 0. 9 x (0.905 x Ek,t! = 0. 9 x (0.905x2x10' x 5.34x 1.5
3
)
' ' d, 190
= 15.5 kN
Combined bending and shear:
¢,Ms =0.95x23.0xl0 3 x450=9.83 kNm Table 1.6 ASINZS4600

At the end oflap in first internal span near first internal support:

_._ 6 0 )' =0.56+0.15=0.71 < 1.0

8 5 )' + ( _._ OK
( 9.83 15.5

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
Z200!9/Z20015 system is lighter than the Z20019 system obtained by using the Stramit
tables.

3.11 DESIGN EXAMPLE - GIRTS

3.11.1 Side Wall Girts

Inward Pressure Coefjicients: +0. 7 external pressure (CW)
-0.5 internal suction (CW)
Outward Pressure Coefjicients: -0.5 external suction (CW)
+0.52 internal pressure (CW)
-0.65 external suction (LW)
+0.1 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 DPFB/03

• 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

3 0 5 52
= ( Q.5 + 1. x ·: x · + 0.52) x 1.00 x s = 1.2 ls kN/m

8700

5200

2600 Alternative peak

local pressure
Cp = -0.50 zones
r----, Cp = -0.25
1-----1-----, Cp = -0.5

l I I ! I I l I I I I I I I If 1
I 9000 I Cp = +0.1

Figure 3.9 Cross Wind Coefficients for Outward Loading on Side Wall Girts

• Girt Selection
For a Z200-24/19 system, spacing required for flexure alone:
2 05
s= · = 1.69 m
1.21
Hence try the Stramit Z200-l 9 system at 1700 mm maximum centres

• Inward Loading with 1700 nun Spacing

UDL = (0.7 + 0.5)xl.00xl.7 = 2.04 kN/m < 2.05 kN/m OK

• S11111111ary

Adopt the Stramit Z200-l 9 girt system at 1700 inm maximum centres with 1350 laps and
t\vO ro\vs of bridging on all spans.
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Girts 51

3.11.2 End Wall Girts with Span of 6250 mm

Inward Pressure Coe(Jicients: +0.7 external pressure (LW)
-0.65 internal suction (LW)
Outward Pressure Coefficientsf -0.65 external suction (CW)
' +0.52 internal pressure (CW)
-0.25 external suction (LW) [dlb = 72/25 = 2.88]
+O. l internal pressure (LW)

11 Outward Loading
Clearly cross wind will govern the design and the relevant coefficients are shown in Figure
3.10. Refening to Figure 3.2, the total equivalent UDL with peak pressure zone under
cross wind for spacing, s, is

= (o.65~ 1.3x0.325 x 5·2 +o.s2)xl.OOxs = l.SlskN/m

. 6.25

h =8000

5200

2600 Alternative peak

local pressure
zones
Cp = -0.65
r----, Cp = -0.325
I- - - --1- - - - -, Cp = -0 65 cp
' = -0.5

.•
)

Cp = +0. 52
6250

Figure 3.10 Cross Wind Coefficients for Outward Loading on End Wall Girts

11 Girt Selection
To match the side wall girt spacing, try s = I. 7 m
Outward loading= l.5lxl.7 = 2.57 kN/m
For Zl50 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 DPFB/03

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-l 5 system with one row of bridging at 1700 mm centres
Capacity= 2.77 kN/m > 2.57 kN/m OK

• biward Loading with 1700 mm Spacing

UDL = (0.7 + 0.5)xl.02xl.7 = 2.34 kN/m < 2.77 kN/m OK

Table 3.3 Stramit Capacities for 3 or 4 Lapped

Continuous 6.25 m Spans

Outwards Inwards
Section Mass kN/m · kN/m Deflection
kg/m . I Row 2Rows !Row
Span/150

Zl50-10 2.43 0.99 1.18 1.18 0.78

Zl50-12 2.90 1.26 1.49 1.49 0.98
Zl50-15 3.59 1.63 1.96 1.96 1.26
Zl50-19 4.51 2.27 2.77 2.74 1.67
Zl50-24 5.67 3.14 3.89 3.76 2.15
Z200-15 4.50 2.77 2.77 2.77 2.47

Table 3.4 Lysaght Capacities for Lapped

Continuous 6.25 m Spans

Outwards Inwards
Section Mass kN!m kN!m Deflection
kglm I Row 2Rows !Row Span/150

Zl5012 2.84 1.33 1.49 1.33 1.05

Zl5015 3.54 1.73 1.96 1.96 1.34
Zl5019 4.46 2.35 2.76 2.71 1.79
Zl5024 5.62 3.26 3.88 3.77 2.34
Z20015 4.44 2.65 2.65. 2.65 2.58
AISC DPFB/03 Design Exan1ple - Girts 53

• Sum111ary
For end wall girts, adopt Stramit Z200-15 girt system at 1700 mm centres with 1000 mm
laps. Use one row of bridging in all spans.

3.12 REFERENCES
I. Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand (1996). ASINZS4600-1996 Cold Formed Steel
Structures Code, SA, Sydney, SNZ, Auckland.
2. Standards Australia (1998). AS4100-1998 Steel Structures, SA, Sydney.
3. Standards Association of Australia (1988). ASl538-1988 SAA Cold-Formed Steel Structures
Code, SAA, Sydney.
4. Stramit (1999). Stra1nit Purlins and Girts, Stramit Metal Building Products.
5. Lysaght (1999). Zeds and Gees Purlin and Girt Systems, BHP Building Products.
6. Standards Association of Australia (1989). ASJJ70.J-1989 Part I Dead and Live Loading
Code, SAA, Sydney.
7. Horridge, J.F. and Morris, L.J. (1986). Single-storey buildings cost considerations,
Proceedings, Pacific Structural Steel Conference, New Zealand Heavy Engineering Research
Association, August, 265-285.
8. Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand (1998). ASINZS4600-1996 Supplement I: 1998
Cold-Fonned Structures - Com1nentary, SA, Sydney, SNZ, Auckland.
9. Hancock, G.J. (1998). Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structures. 3•• edn, AISC, Sydney.
10. Standards Association of Australia (1989). AS! 170.2-1989 Part 2 Wind Loading Code, SAA,
Sydney.
11. Woolcock, S.T., Kitipomchai, S. and Bradford, M.A. (1993). Limit State Design of Portal
Franze Buildings, 2°d edn, AISC, Sydney.
54 AISC DPFB/03
4 Frame Design
il FRAME DESIGN BY ELASTIC ANALYSIS

Traditionally, portal frame analysis and design in Australia has been elastic rather than plastic
because of the non-unifonn, asymmetric nature of the wind load. Although AS4 l 00 [l] is a
limit state 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
still elastic 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 AS 1170.2 [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 alternatively from
-0.4 to 0, +0.2 and +0.3. This non-unifonn pressure can be handled easily by an elastic
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 ulti1nate or strength limit state, or by limiting deflections in the
serviceability limit state. For the strength limit state, the design axial and bending capacities
rfN, and ¢Mbx 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 ¢M,,, which for many sections will be
the plastic moment capacity if;Sfy. 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 thf:se
are discussed in Section 4.9 of this chapter.

4.2 COMPUTER ANALYSIS

4.2.1 Load Cases

For the cOmputer analysis, it is best to use load cases which are complete in themselves. For
example, internal 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 Maximum Uplift (CW!) (external only)
• Cross Wind Minimum Uplift (CW2) (external only)

55
56 Frame Design AISC DPFB/03

• Longitudinal Wind on First Internal Frame (LWI) (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 b~ildings, 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 internal suction (1.25DL + CW + IS) than
under dead load plus live load (1.25DL + l.SLL). This particularly affects the downw;nd
column as its unrestrained inside flange will be in compression. The internal suction case (IS)
can be obtained simply by factoring the internal pressure load case by an appropriate negative
number.
The recommended load combinations for a computer analysis are:
• LC20: l.25DL + 1.5LL
• LC21: 0.8DL + CWJ (maximum uplift) + IPCW
• LC22: 0.8DL + CW2 (minimum uplift) + IPCW
• LC23: J.25DL + CW2 (minimum uplift) + ISCW
• LC24: 0.8DL + LWJ (maximum uplift) + IPLW
• LC25: l.25DL + LW2 (minimum uplift) + ISLW
Note that the loading code AS! 170.1 [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
tw must be input.
0

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 elastic 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-LJ effects which arise from the sway LJ of
the frame, or P-5 effects which arise from the deflections 5 of individual members from the
A.ISC DPFB/03
Computer Analysis 57

straight lines joining the members' ends. AS4 l 00 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
load 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
elastic buckling load factor Ac. The first order bending moments in the columns and rafters
are then amplified· using the amplification factor b; given by

I
o, =--1- (4.1)
1--
Ac
The factor Ac can be determined by commercially available elastic 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 Ac in this way when direct second order
analysis which avoids the use of Ac 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 ASl250 [4] and therefore should be conservative.
For designers without access to such computer packages, simple approximate
expressions for determining Ac 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:

(4.2)

In AS1250, moment amplification was effectively applied in the combined·stress rules where the amplification
factor 1/(l-faJ0.6Focx) was used to increase the in-plane bending stresses. To determine Fa and Focx 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, it was customary to regard the portal frames as rectangular frames with
zero axial loads in the beams or rafters and use the GA and G 6 factor approach in Appendix E of AS 1250.
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 GA and
Go factor approach for determining effective lengths.
58 Frame Design AJSC DPFB/03

• For fixed base frames:

/l = 5E(IO+R) (4.3)
' 5N°
__
£2 2RN°c h'e
r_r +

fr Jc
in which
R = Jefr (4.4)
Irhe
and E is Young's modulus,
N'c is the axial force in the column,
N'r is the axial force in the rafter,
le is the second moment of area of the column,
I, is the second moment of area of the rafter,
h, is the height to the eaves, and
£, is the length ofrafter between the centre of the column and apex
Once the first order moments are amplified, the combined actions section (Section 8 of
AS4100) applies. Member moment capacities are calculated using actual lengths of rafters
and columns when determining the axial capacity Ne as required by Clause 8.4.2.2 of AS4100
taking an effective length factor k, 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 L, determined from the frame elastic buckling load
factor Ac as discussed in Sections 4.3.3 and 4.4.2. The effective length of a rafter or column
can be determined from

(4.5)

where N• is the design axial force in the rafter or column and Ix is the respective second
moment of area about the x axis.

4.3 RAFTERS

4.3.1 Nominal Bending Capacity Mbx in Rafters

4.3. I. I SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE

AS4100 uses a semi-empirical equation to relate the nominal bending capacity Mbx to the
elastic buckling moment M 0 and the section strength Msx. which for Universal and Welded
Beams and Columns can be taken as Z.Jy. 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.
AISC DPFB/03
Rafters 59

Clause 5.6.1.1 of AS4100 expresses the nominal member bending capacity Mbx as
(4.6)

where Om is a moment modification factor to account for the non-uniform distribution of

major axis bending moment, and Os is a slenderness reduction factor which depends on Msx
and the elastic buckling moment ofa simply supported beam under uniform moment M0 • The
code gives comprehensive values of Om which would be n1et in practice. The conservative
option of taking a,,, equal to unity is also permitted.
The slenderness reduction factor is expressed in Clause 5.6.1.1 of the code as

a,= 0.6x{ (M,,

Moa
)' +3 __!!!..,,__}
Moa
,;; 1.0 (4.7)

where M00 may be taken as either (i) .Af0 which is the elastic buckling moment for a beam
with a uniform bending distribution and with ends fully restrained against lateral translation
and twist rotation but umestrained against minor axis rotation; or (ii) a value determined from
an accurate elastic buckling analysis.
The elastic buckling moment M0 may be determined from the accurate expression [ l]
given in Clause 5.6.1.1 as
2
tr Elw
1+--- (4.8)
GJL2e

where L, is the effective length, and EI,. GJ and Elw are the flexural bending rigidity, the
torsional rigidity and the warping rigidity respectively. Values of the section properties ly, J .
andlw 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 L,, 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 moinent Mob• which allows
for the moment gradient, restraint conditions and height of loading, is determined either from
a computer program or from solutions given in the literature [8,9].
Having obtained M 0 b, the value of M00 to be used in Equation 4. 7 is calculated from

(4.9)

where values of am are obtained either from the code or from an elastic buckling analysis such
that ·
60 Frame Design AISC DPFB/03

(4.10)

The moment M05 is the elastic buckling moment corresponding to Mob for the same
beam segment with the same bendii)g moment distribution, but with
• shear centre loading,
• ends fully restrained against lateral translation and twist rotation, and
• ends unrestrained against minor axis rotation.
The moinent M 00 is the critical uniform bending moment M 0 given by Equation 4.8
with L, 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
Mob·and Mos for tapered rafters may be found in Reference [I OJ.

4.3.2 Effective Length and Moment Modification Factors

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 L, of the rafter must be determined in
accordance with Clause 5 .6.3. The effective length depends on the spacing and stiffuess 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-rigid or
pinned.
• The flexural rigidity of the purlins, in that AS4!00 classifies purlins qualitatively as
flexible or stiff. No n~erical yardstick is given.
• The load height in that AS4 l 00 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.

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 mmx 18 mm holes are generally used in
purlins with only Ml2 bolts. Although this means the holes in the purlins are effectively
AISC DPFBI03
Rafters 61

slotted, the bolts are tightened and so the purlin to ra!ler 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.l(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 twist restraint factor k, is 1.0.
Although gravity loads are applied through the purlins at the top flange, the load
height factor k1 of 1.4 in Table 5.6.3(2) in AS4 l 00 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 k 1 should be taken as 1.0. ·

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
or not, as described in Clause 5.4.3.4 of AS4 l 00. (A fully restrained segment in accordance
with Clause 5.3.2 is essentially one with 'Mb not less than M 1 which means its ama1 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.
In summary, the effective length£, is given by k 1k 1k,L as

L, = LO x LO x 0.85SP =0.85Sp (4.11)

Because the spacing between purlins is short in comparison with the length of the rafter, the
moment mOdification factor <J.m 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, it is
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, AS4 l 00 classifies a fly brace restraint as a full
or 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 1 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 AISC DPFB/03

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
lengths 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
loading. For this reason, k1 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 AS4 l 00. There is,
however, a degree of lateral rotational restraint which would allow k, to be taken as 0.85.
In summary, the effective length Le for segments between fly braces is given by
k,k,k,L as

L, = 1.0 x 1.0 x 0.85Sr = 0.85SJ (4.12)

The moment modification factor am 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.

• Wit/tout Fly Bracing under Uplift

Although some fly bracing is recommended, it is interesting to consider the rafter
behaviour under uplift where there is no fly bracing at all. In this case, the full portal
span should be taken as the effective length, and am 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 feel 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 rafters. The results revealed in part
that the requirement for rotational stiffness is a function of the initial geometric
AISC DPFB/03 Rafters 63

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 bolts-"are
properly tightened.
Further tests and analyses are needed, but in the rneantirne tension flange bracing
should be disregarded.

One fly brace near ridge

Fly brace near column
to stabilize kneel

LFly brace
Na girts this
side say E =fsp
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 Do1v11Ward 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 corners of the frame at kinks. A stiffener between column flanges as
indicated in Figure 4.1 effectively extends 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 least 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 am for the segment should be determined
using one of the three methods in AS4100, but Method (iii) in Clause 5.6.1.l(a) is likely
to be most appropriate ifthere 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 tfMbx of the segment, but the applied bending moments should be reduced by
64 Frame Design AISC DPFB/03

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 AS4 l 00.

4.3.3 Major Axis Compression Capacity No:

In AS4100, the nominal member capacity Ncx 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
(4.13)

where An is the net rafter cross-sectional area, which is generally the gross area fqr portal
frame members (see Clause 6.2.1 of AS4100). The member slenderness reduction factor ac is
given in tabular form in the code for values of the modified slenderness ratio
A.,., = (L, I rx ),fk/
~ fy 1250 where L, is the effective length equal to k,L based on the
actual rafter length L from the centre of the column 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 k, 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 .<c. This factor can be obtained either by using Equation 4.5 with the
Davies method [5] outlined in Section 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 k1which accounts for local plate buckling is given in the BHP section
handbook [6].

4.3.4 Minor Axis Compression Capacity Ney

The nominal member capacity Ney for buckling about they 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 diaphragin spanning between the
roof bracing nodes. The theoretical effective length of an axially loaded member (rafter or
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 the rafter to buckle flexurally between the
purlins. The capacity Ney is obtained from the minor axis modified slenderness ratio
A.,.y = (L, fry ),fk/~ fy 1250 .
AISC DPFB/03
Rafters 65

4.3.5 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.

4.3.6 Haunches for Rafters

A comprehensive AISC publication [19] in 1997 investigated the design of tapered portal
frame haunches fabricated from universal section members. The pubiication deals with
detailing, the cost of fabrication, 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 Ncx

In AS4100, the nominal member capacity Ncx 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 L, of the column equal to}.£.
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 buckling load factor.<, 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 N,,

The nominal member capacity Ney for buckling abou~ they axis is required in the combined
actions 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 girts, since the girts are
restrained longitudinally by wall sheeting acting as a rigid diaphragm spanning between the
66 Frame Design AISC DPFB/03

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 Ney is obtained from the minor axis modified slenderness ratio Any
given in Section 4.3.4.

4.4.4 Nominal Bending Capacity Mbx in Columns

4.4.4.1 GENERAL
The nominal bending capacity Mbx in portal frame columns with fly bracing can 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 AS4 I 00), the
twist restraint factor k1 should be taken as 1.0 and the lateral rotation restraint factor kr as
0.85. The load height factor ke should be taken as 1.0 even ifthe 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 Le for a column with no fly bracing and the inside
flange in compression is given by k 1 kekrL as

· Le = 1.0 x 1.0 x 0.85H = 0.85H (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, a moment modification factor
am 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 am should be chosen to suit the
moment distribution in the column segments between fly braces.
AISC DPFB/03 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 to achieve near full bending capacity without resorting to a 15%
reduction in effective length. The factor a.111 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

4.5.1 General
Although axial tensile or compressive forces in columns or rafters of portal framed buildings
without gantry cranes are usually small, they should not be disregarded. Both the limit states
of in-plane failure and out-of-plane failure (jlexural-torsional buckling) must be considered
when axial and bending actions are present.

4.5.2 In-Plane Capacity

4.5.2.1 IN-PLANE SECTION CAPACITY
For the limit state of in-plane section failure, Clause 8.3.2 of AS4100 requires the design
moment M' for bending in the plane of the portal frame to satisfy

M' '5.r/JM,, (4.15)

where¢= 0.9. The design moment M' is obtained from second order elastic analysis or is an
amplified moment from first order elastic analysis. The section capacity Mrx is reduced by
either a compressive or tensile force N• in the rafter or column to give

M
rx
=M
sx
1--N')
( tj;Ns (4.16)

lf the cross-section contains slender elements, N, is reduced below A,fy to k1AJY to allow for
the effects of local buckling. Values of k1 are given for standard sections in the BHP section
handbook [6].

The reduced moment Mrx for compact doubly symmetric I-sections can be increased
above the provisions of Equation 4.16 for members in combined bending and tension, and for
tnembers in combined bending and compression where k1is equal to 1.0 in accordance with

(4.17)
68 Frame Design AISC DPFB/03

For such members in cornbined bending and compression with k1less than 1.0, the increase in
moment Mrx is in accordance with

{
M,, = l+0.18x
[8282-2·)}( N'J
_
2,,.
1--- Mn 5.Msx
¢N,
(4.18)

in which Aw= (d 1 Itw)~fy1250 is the web plate slenderness and Awy is the web plate yield
slenderness limit.
Most Grade 300 UB's are compact, but not all Grade 350 UB's and WB's are
compact. It should be noted that sections which are compact or fully effective in flexure are
not necessarily fully effective in compression (with k1= l). This is because the stress reversal
in the web of a flexural member is less conducive to plate buckling than the uniform
compression in the web of a compression member.
A strict interpretation of Clause 8.3.2 of the 1990 edition of AS4100 did not allow the
1.18 factor to be used for a tension member which is compact but has a k1 value less than
unity. This was unnecessarily conservative, and was addressed in Amendment No. 2 of the
code and is now incorporated in AS4100-1998. If web local buckling is not a consideration in
flexure, then it will certainly not have an influence on the section moment capacity of a
member in flexure and tension. The 1998 version of AS4100 specifically allows the 1.18
factor to be used for compact doubly symmetric I-section tension members regardless of kr-
Amendment No. 2 of AS4100-1990 also addressed the issue of the sudden loss of the
1.18 benefit for compact I-section members in combined bending an.d compression as their kJ
values slip just below unity. For example, a Grade 300 360UB57 with a k1value of 0.996 was
not previously eligible for the 1.18 factor. AS4100-1998 now allows for a transition in the
factor from 1.18 to 1.00 for members with k1 less than unity (Equation 4.18). For the
360UB57, the factor is now just below 1.18 whereas it was 1.00 prior to Amendment No. 2 of
AS4 l 00-1990.

4.5.2.2 IN-PLANE MEMBER CAPACITY

AS4 l 00 also requires in-plane member failure to be checked. For compression members, the
design moment M' must satisfy the design equation given in Clause 8.4.2.2 as

(4.19)

where ¢ = 0.9 and Ncx is the nominal capacity of the rafter or column for buckling about the
major axis. For doubly symmetric compact I-sections, a benefit may be obtained by using a
more complex expression in AS4100 for M,. The provision of Equation 4.16 in the code is
redundant for compression, since Ncx is always less than or equal to Ns, and Equation 4.19
must always govern. If N' is tensile, then Equations 4.16 or 4.17 should be used as required
by Clause 8.4.2.3.
AISC DPFB/03 Combined Actions 69

4.5.3 Out-of-Plaue Capacity

4.5.3. l COMPRESSION MEMBERS
The limit state offlexural-torsional buckling in combined bending and compression must also
be considered. To guard against this limit state being reached, the code in Cl~use 8.4.4.1
requires the design moment M • obtained from second order elastic analysis, Or amplified
from first order elastic analysis, to be less than or equal to tfMox given by

(4.20)

where ¢ = 0.9 and Mox is the nominal out-of-plane member moment capacity, Ney is the axial
capacity of the rafter or column for buckling about the minor axis and Mbx is the flexural-
torsional buckling capacity as discussed in Section 4.4.4.
Clause 8.4.4.J in AS4100 gives a more accµrate expression [1,8,11] that eliminates
much of the conservatism of Equation 4.20. Unless implemented on a computer or
spreadsheet program, however, this procedure is probably not of benefit in a design office
situation.

4.5.3.2 TENSIONMEMBERS
Axial tension in the rafter or column enhances the lateral buckling capacity, and when this
occurs the design bending moment M" (which is the maximum moment M~ along the
segment) is. required to satisfy Clause 8.4.4.2 given as

(4.21)

\Vhere Nt is the section capacity of a member for axial tension. This is taken as the lesser of
Agj),'and 0.85A,,fu, where Ag is the gross area and A,, is the net area of the member, andf,, is
the ultimate tensile strength.

4.6 CENTRAL COLUMNS

4.6.1 General
In large span industrial buildings, a central column is often used to reduce the rafter span and
to limit rafter and external column sizes. An efficient central column is a square hollow
section (SHS) as central columns are long and can buckle about both axes. Other sections
such as UB's, UC's, WB's or WC's can also be used effectively, particularly if the lateral
stiffness requirements of the portal frame are a problem. These columns can be detailed with
flexible or rigid connections to the rafter. In both cases, there is a need to determine the
70 Frame Design AISC DPFB/03

effective lengths both in-plane and out-of-plane in order to calculate .the compression capacity
under axial load alone. In the case of a rigid top connection, there will be in-plane bending
ffioments generated in the column, and these moments V(ill need to be amplified if a first order
elastic analysis has been carried out. If a flexible connection between the column and rafter is
detailed, it would be prudent to check the central column for both pinned and rigid top
connections as there will be some in-plane moments generated through most practical flexible
connections.

L L

II
Spring
L stiffness km

km=~
l!. Determined from Minimum spring stiffness
computer analysis for Euler strut behaviour
= "' El/L'

Le = L ·ri L6 > " 2LJEl

Figure 4.2 Effective Length of Central Column

There can be some uncertainty about how to calculate the effective length for
determining the nominal capacity Na 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 a portal frame
which can sway sideways. This is dealt with in the follo\ving 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 DPFB/03 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 as shown in Figure 4.2. For a pi1U1ed base column, the minimum spring stiffness to
ensure that its effective length L, is equal to and not greater than the length L of the column is
iEfdL 3 [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 with a
single horizontal load at the apex of the frame.

4.6.2.2 TOP CONNECTION RIGID

If the top connection is rigid, then there should logically be some reduction in effective length.
of the central column. However, in accordance with AS4 l 00, 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
elastic buckling load factor Ac· The only practical way of determining Ac is by means of a
frame analysis program such as Microstran or Spacegass. These programs also convert the Ac
value for each load combination into effective lengths for each member by use of Equation
4.5.

4.6.3 Combined Actions with First Order Elastic Analysis

If the top connection is rigid, the frame elastic buckling load factor Ac for each load
combination is used in Clause 4.4.2.3(b) to determine the amplification factor ~ 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 AS4 l 00 using an effective length
factor k, of 1.0 for combined aciions, and also an effective length factor calculated from
· Ac for axial load alone.
If the top and bottom connections are a5sumed 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 k, will then be 1.0 for both combined actions and for axial load alone if
the minimum spring stiffness 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
A, for amplifying first order moments, then it is likely that the designer also has access to the
second order elastic analysis option of these programs. Jn 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.
 72 Frame Design AISC DPFB/03

4. 7 END WALL FRAMES

4.7.1 General
End wall frames generally have intennediate end wall columns to support the end wall girts
against wind loads. Advantage can be taken of these intennediate columns to brace the end
wall frames and to reduce the span, and therefore the size of the end wall rafters.
Alternatively, 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
offsets 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 internal pressure coefficient of +O. 7 will combine with the
maximum internal suction 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 girts .
. 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 intennediate end wall columns is relatively easy, but the design of the rafter to
end wall column connections and the roof bracing to 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 DPFB/03 End Wall Frames 73

4.7.3.2 CONTINUOUS RAFTER_

• With Non-Slotted Holes

Jfthe 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 Slotted 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
mullion 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 brocing plane

Selected brocing plane

Alternative bracing plane

Standard holes -
not slotted vertically

(a) End Wall Rafter Continuous (b) End Wall Rafter Discontinuous
Over End Wall Column At End Wall Column

Figure 4.3 End Wall Co_l~mn to Rafter Connections

74 Frame Design AISC DPFB/03

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 !rafters.
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 iu 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 varies according to span

Purl in

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 each 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
0
Sharing between multiple intermediate braces was permitted in AS1250, but the total bracing force was 2.5% of
the max~_~m compression force in the whole rafter or column.
AISC DPFB/03 Braces 75

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 ofrestraints which will ensure full lateral support.
A typical case might be a 410UB54 rafter with a maximum design moment of 120
]<Nm in adjacent segments. This moment produces a force in the flange of
!20xl06
- --,- x(!78x10.9) N =249kN
933x 10 3
The horizontal bracing force at each brace point is then
0.025x249 = 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 J:,e.Jix6.3 = 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.

Lop varies according to span

Purlin

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-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 Ml2, and a 25x25 angle is too small for an
Ml2 bolt whose washer diameter is 24 mm. The smallest angle which can accommodate an
Ml2 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.
76 Frame Design AISC DPFB/03

In 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 pudin 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 can
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
confinns this, it is recommended that at least one side of the web be stiffened.

lPurlin

Stiffener - - - 1 Cleat with high strength

each side tensioned bot ts

Figure 4.6 Alternative Rafter Bracing Detail without Fly Braces

4.$.2 Purlins as Braces

Where the top flange is in compressi~!h it was assumed in the rafter design in Section 4.3 that
the purlins provided adequate restraint to the top flange. AS4 I 00 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 am = I. Therefore, full lateral support would mean that a, must be at
least 1.0 to ensure am x a, is greater than 1.0. In the design example in Section 4.10, a, = 1
for a 360UB45 when L, < 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 carry 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.
A.ISC DPFB/03 Braces 77

On the other hand, some sharing of bracing forces could be considered, although on
the face of it, the sharing permitted between multiple restraints in the previous working stress
design code AS1250 [4] is not permitted in AS4100. Consider a 360UB45 which is 12 m
long 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, it is
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 it is therefore important that any deflection limits
be realistic.
The selection of deflection criteria for industrial steel 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
recon1mendations. For a metal clad building without gantry cranes and without internal
partitions against external walls, the code suggests a limit on the horizontal deflection of the
eave as column height/I SO under serviceability wind loads. This limit reduces to column
hcight/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 internal 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 ).
78 Frame Design AISC DPFB/03

• Disturbing roof movement under foot during maintenance.

• Noticeable and disturbing movement under wind load including possible creaks
and groans.
• Damage to fixings between suspended ~eilings 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 from the rafters.
• Danger to operation of gantry cranes through excessive lateral deflection or spread
of columns.
• Damage to internal stud· or masonry walls abutting external walls or columns.
• Damage to external masonry walls.

4.9.3 Recommended Deflections

A deflection limit survey among Australian 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

Figure 4.7(a) Parameters for Deflection Limits

No sag at end wall Sag in large span

apex because of end Nominal ridge internal rafters without
wall mullions. precomber or preset.

Actual ridge line

Elevation
Figure 4. 7(b) Sag in Ridge Line
AISC DPFB/03 Deflections 79

loads should be based. Most believed the lateral deflection limits should be expressed in
terms of the column height h as well as column spacing b (Figure 4.?(a)). They were then
asked to specify specific lateral deflection limits in terms of h and b 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
(a) Steel sheeted walls, h/150
no ceilings, no internal b/200 Relative deflection between
partitions against external adjacent' frames
walls or columns, no gantry
cranes

(b) As in (a) but with h/250 (i) h may be taken at

gantry cranes b/250 crane rail level
(ii) h/300 should be used for
heavy cranes

(c) As in l(a) but with external h/250

masonry walls supported b/200
by steelwork

FARM SHEDS h/100

b/100

Notes:
• The wind load deflection limits apply to serviceability wind loads based on Vz in
AS1170.2. For buildings with overhead cranes, AS1418.18 [18] nominates a deflection
limit of lt/500 at the crane rail level, but this presumably applies to in-service wind loads
based on Vz = 20 mis.
• Where there are two specified limits, the smaller deflection value applies.
• Absolute deflection limits at the gantry crane level as specified by the crane
manufacturer may apply.
• In detennining 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 of the end \Vall.
80 Frame Design AISC DPFB/03

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 ~ngineers. What is regarded
as acceptabl~ -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 limits with more
confidence.

Table 4.2 Proposed Rafter Deflection Limits

Type of Building Deflection Comments

and Load Limit

INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS
(a) Dead Load L/360 For roof pitches> 3°
(see footnotes)
L/500 For roof pitches < 3° but check
for ponding or insufficient roof
sheeting slope (see footnotes)

(b) Live Load L/240 Check spread of columns

if gantry crane present

(c) Wind Load L/150 If no ceilings

FARM SHEDS
(a) Dead load L/240 Check for ponding ifroof
pitch< 3°
(b) Live load L/180
(c) Wind load L/100

Notes:
• The wind load deflection limits apply to serviceability wind loads.
• L_ is the rafter span measured between column centrelines.
• Precamber or pre-set may be used to ensure that the deflected position of the rafter
under dead load corresponds to the undeflected design profile, or is within the ·above
limits of the undeflected design profile. Even so, pre-set may be advisable for internal
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 really a check to ensure that the slope
of the roof sheeting is nowhere less than the minimum slope recommended by the
manufacturer. The slope of the rafter in its deflected state can be determined from the
joint rotations output from a plane frame analysis program. The slope of the roofing
should also be checked mid-way between rafters near the eaves where purlins are more
closely spaced and where the fascia purlin may be significantly stiffer than the other
purlins.
• Where ceilings are present, more stringent limits will probably be necessary.
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example 81

4.10 DESIGN EXAMPLE- FRAME DESIGN

4.10.1 Frame Analysis

4.10 .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.

34 5 67
~2 8-
@Q) © ® ©D
0 <fl
0 <fl
<fl
..... c;;
CD ®
9

25000

Figure 4.8 Joint and Member Numbering/or 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 calculated moment at the knee should merely be checked against the
column section capacity ifM,,. 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 t/JMsx except in the vicinity of the knee 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 AISC DPFBIOJ

4.10.1.2 HAUNCHPROPERTIES
Once the member sizes have been established \Vith 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 perJiendicular to the rafter
centreline. It is common tc 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 DB'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

Calculated 4JOUB60 Calculated 530UB82

Areamm2 7850 7460 9010 10500

4 6
I , mm 214xl0 6
216xl0 6
409xl0 477xl06

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 calculated values and are therefore
slightly unconservative.

4.10.1.3 METHODSOFANALYSIS
First order elastic analysis of portal frames in accordance with AS4100 utilises a simple
procedure that does not account for P-oand P-LJ 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
progran1s are no\v widely available, and as the morrients obtained do not require amplification
AISC DPFB/03
Design Example 83
and are generally less conservative than amplified first order elastic moments, second order
elastic analysis is recommended ahead of first order elastic analysis in this book.
Second order elastic analysis is perfonned on load con1binations 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
elastic 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:
I. Geometry, Load Cases, Deflections
2. Second Order Elastic Analysis ·
3. Displaced Shapes
4. Bending Moment Diagrams
5. Frame Buckling Load Factors

4.10.2 Frame Deflections

Lateral deflections at eaves under serviceability cross wind ( V, = 38 mis)
= 127 x ( 38)' = 51 mm
60

_ eaves height h,
- >- but ACCEPT AS4100 Cl. B2(a)
148 150

It should be remembered that the h/150 limit is only a tentative guideline until further research
provides a more reliable limit.
Rafter deflection under dead load= 48 mm
L L
= 580 < 360 OK

Rafter deflection under live load= 93 mm

Rafter deflection under serviceability cross wind plus internal pressure

= 38)'
( 60 x(l23+138} =105mm
L L
< OK
238 150
84 Frame Design AISC DPFB/03

4.10.3 Columns (460UB74)

4.10.3.1 COLUMNSECTIONCAPACITIES

Check the 460UB74 section used°in the computer analysis.

• Bending Capacitv

Msx = 300x l 660x 10 3 Nmm AS4100 Cl. 5.2.1

=498 kNm
¢ Msx= 0.9x498 = 448 kNm

• Tension Capacity

¢N, = 0.9x300x9520 N (based on the flangefy) AS4100 Cl. 7.2

=2570 kN

• ComDression Capacitv
k1 = 0.948 BHP
¢ N, = 0.948x2570 = 2436 kN AS4100 Cl. 6.2.1

4.10.3.2 COLUMNMEMBERCAPACITIES

• Ma;or Axis Compression Capacitv for A."Cia/ Load Alone

AS4100 requires members to be checked under axial load alone using the effective lengths
L, determined from the frame elastic buckling load factor ,l,. This needs to be done for
those load combinations which have compression in the columns.

• Maior Axis Compression Cauacitv for Combined Actions

Lcr = 7500 mm (taking k, = 1) AS4100 Cl. 6.3.2 & 8.4.2.2

=
7500
188
~
x .Jo.948 x
300
250
= 42.6 AS4100 Cl.. 6.3.3

=O AS4100 Table 6.3.3(1)

Hence
a"' = 0.894 AS4100 Table 6.3.3(3)

¢Ncr = 0.9x0.894x0.948x300x9520 N ASA4100 Cl. 6.3.3

=2178kN

• Minor Axis Con1pression Capacitv

L,... = 1700 mm (girt spacing) AS4 I 00 Sect. 4.4.3

AISC DPFB/03 Design Example 85

Any = l?OOx.J0.948x~ 3 00 =43.4 AS4100 Cl. 6.3.3

41.8 250
acy = 0.891 AS4100 Table 6.3.3(3)
{Ney = 0.9x0.89lx0.94i;x300x9520 N AS4100 Cl. 6.3.3
=2171 kN

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.BDL + CWJ +!POV)
2. Inside flange in compression for LC23 (J .25DL + CW2 + ISCW)

]. Inside Flange in Tension <LC2V

Worst bending moment at knee M' = 453 kNm Appendix II

Reduced bending moment at underside of haunch as shown in Figure 4.9

70
M; = ( 7.5
· )x453 =423kNm

Coincident axial force N' = 105 kN (tension) Appendix!!"

423 at underside
of haunch.

Windward Column Bending Moment Diagram

for Load Cose 21 (0.8DL + CWl + IPCW)

Figure 4.9 Windward Column Bending Moment Diagram for LC2 J

86 Frame Design AISC DPFB/03

• Check In-Plane Capacity

Reduced section and member capacity due to axial tension

¢M..,= 1.18x448x ( 1 -105

- -) =507kNm AS4100 Cl. 8.4.2.3
2570

but< ¢M,, = 448 kNm AS4100 Cl. 8.3.2

Hence
¢M,, = 448 kNm > M x• = 423 kNm 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 Out-of-Plane Capacity

The outside flange is in compression and is braced laterally by girts.
Le = 0.85xl700 (maximum girt spacing)= 1445 mm AS4100 Sect. 4.4.4.2
6 4
ly = 16.6xl0 mm BHP
3 4
J = 530xl0 mm BHP
9 6
lw = 815xl0 mm BHP
3 3
Zex = 1660xl0 mm BHP
o fy = 300 MPa (flange) BHP

am = 1.0 (moment near uniform between adjacent girts)

Hence using a spreadsheet program:
M0 =3572kNm AS4100 Cl. 5.6.1.l(a)
M,, = 498.0 kNm AS4100 Cl. 5.2.1
a, = 0.959 AS4100 Cl. 5.6.1.l(a)
¢Mbx = 430 kNm > M; = 423 kNm OK

2. Inside Flange in Compression fLC23)

Worst bending moment at downwind knee M• = 432 kNm Appendix!!

Reduced bending moment at underside of haunch

M,• = (7.0)
- x 432 = 403 kNm
7.5

Coincident axial force N' = -89 kN (compression) Appendix!!

The axial compression increases from 89 to 104 kN at the bottom due to self weight.
Adopt the maximum value of 104 kN for checking combined actions.
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example 87

• Check Section Caoacity

d ~320
Web slenderness: Aw= _!_x --=53.3 BHP
1. 250
,o Web yield slenderness limit: Awy = 45 AS4100 Table 5.2
Reduced section capacity due to axial compression:

4 82 533
= 448x(l- l0 )x{l+0.18x( - )} AS4100 Cl.3.2
2436 82-45
= 502 kNm but < ¢Msx = 448 kNm

Hence
tfM,, = 448 kNm > M; = 403 kNm OK

• Check Jn-Plane Member Capacitv

Reduced in-plane member capacity due to axial compression:
104
¢M; =448x(l- ) AS4100 Cl. 8.4.2.2
2178
= 427 kNm > M; = 403 kNm OK

Check capacity under axial load alone with effective length determined from the frame
elastic buckling load factor Ac as expressed in Equation 4.2, using N; = 60 kN and N; =
104 kN (Ci. 8.4.2.2 and Cl. 6.1)

A 3x2xl0 5 xl21xl0 6
' 12517x(104x10 3 x 7500 + 0.3x 60x10 3 x12517 J
=5.77
(By comparison, the more accurate value obtained using Microstran is Ac= 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 Ac= 5.77 gives

{L.,,)col -- ;rx

2xl0 5 x335xl0 6
= ;rx
5.77xl04xl0 3
=33,200mm
ab =O AS4100 Table 6.3.3(/)
r, = 188 mm BHP
A =9520mm2 BHP
fy. = 300 MPa
88 Frame Design AISC DPFB/03

k1 = 0.948 BHP

Hence using a spreadsheet program:

Ga = 0.196
¢Na = 479 kN > N; = 104 kN OK

• Check Out-of-Plane Member Capacitv

Consider member bending capacity Mb without fly braces

Le = k 1 ktk,L AS4100 Cl. 5.6.3(1),(2),(3)

k, = 1.0 (fully restrained against twist at both ends)
k1 = 1.0 (loads applied predominantly as a moment by the rafter)
k, = 0.85 (minor axis restraint provided by base plate)
Height to underside of haunch= 7000 mm
Le = 1.0xl.Ox0.85x7000 = 5950 mm
Gm = 1.75 (linear moment distribution with zero moment at one end)
Hence using a spreadsheet.program:
M0 =285kNm AS4100 Cl. 5.6.1.1(a)
Gs = 0.428
¢Mbx = 336 kNm
104
¢Mox= 336x(l- ) AS4100 Cl. 8.4.4.1
2171
=320kNm < M;=403kNm NG
Hence column NG without fly braces. Note that a more accurate and less conservative
approach for detennining Mox for doubly symmetric I-sections which are compact and
which have k1= 1 is also given in the code. However, in this case k1= 0.948.
Therefore try a mid-height fly brace

For Top Ha/(

Le = 1.0xl.Ox0.85x3750 = 3188 mm
Pm =-0.5
Gm = 1.30 AS4/00 Table 5.6.1
Hence using a spreadsheet program:
¢Mox= 413 kNm > M; = 403 kNm OK

Adopt a mid-height fly brace. Bottom half is not critical because Gm is 1.75.
AJSC DPFB/03 Design Example 89

4.10.4 Rafters (360UB45)

4.10.4.l RAFTER SECTION CAPACITIES

Check the 360UB45 section used in the computer analysis
" !

• Bending Capacity
Unhaunched Section: 360UB45 is non-compact BHP
3
M,, = 320x770xl0 Nmm = 246 kNm
¢M,, = 0.9x246 = 222 kNm

Haunched Section (682 mm deep}:

S, = 2x[l7lx9.7x(682~9.7)+{(6822-xl:.4)'}x6.9]
= 1872xl03 mm3 (ignoring fillets)
¢Msx = 0.9x320xl872x!0 3 Nmm = 539 kNm AS4100 Cl. 5.2.1

• Tension Capacity
Unhaunched Section:
rfN1 = 0.9x320x5720 N AS4100 Cl. 7.2
= 1647kN
Haunch~d section:
Ag = 5720+(682-352-10)x6.9+171x9.7
=9590mm2
rfN1 = 0.9x320x9590 N AS4 l 00 Cl. 7.2
= 2762 kN

4.10.4.2 RAFTER MEMBER CAPACIDES

• Major Axis Compression Capacity

For axial loads alone, check individual load combinations which have rafters in
compression to determine Ac and rafter effective length.
For combined actions, the effective length is the actual rafter length (k, = 1.0)
AS4100 Cl. 8.4.2.2
12500
= - - = 12517 mm
cos3°
rx. = 146mm BHP
90 Frame Design AISC DPFBf03

fy =320MPa
flb =O AS4100 Table 6.3.3(1)
kr =0.930 BHP

Aux =
12517
146
x.J0.930x~ 320
250
=93.5 AS4100 Cl. 6.3.3

CJ.ex = 0.585 AS4100 Table 6.3.3(3)

¢Ncx = 0.9x0.585x0.930x320x5720 N AS4 l 00 Cl. 6. 3.3
= 896 kN

• Minor Axis Comrz.re'i_sion C..aaacit}!.

L,y = 1200 mm (girt spacing)

.<,,y =
1200
37.6
x .Jo.930 x ~
320
250
= 34.8 AS4 l 00 Cl. 6. 3.3

flcy = 0.925 AS4100 Table 6.3.3(3)

(Ney = 0.9x0.925x0.930x320x5720 N AS4100 Cl. 6.3.3
= 1417 kN

4.10.4.3 RAFTERCOMBINEDACTIONS

Different segments of the rafter need to be checked for various load combinations. The
checks that will be carried out for this design example are as follows:
1. Haunch segment with bottom flange in tension
for LC21 (0.8DL + CWJ + JPCW)
2. Rafter segment from inner end of haunch to ridge on windward side for LC21
3. Rafter segment from ridge to inner end of haunch on leeward side for LC21
4. Rafter segment 3.2 m long near ridge
for LC25 (l.25DL +LW2 +JSLW)
5. Haunch segment with bottom flange in compression
for LC23 (J.25DL + CW2 + JSCW)
Checks 2 and 3 are for rafter segments with the bottom flange mostly in compression,
and they effectively determine the fly brace spacing. Check 4 is done after the fly brace
spacing is established and is for a rafter segment with the bottom flange mostly in tension.

I. Haunch Se~ment for LC21

Consider the haunch segment with its bottom flange in tension. Assume initially that there
will be a fly brace near the end of the haunch. Therefore, because the top compression flange
is restrained laterally by purlins, out-of-plane buckling need not be considered for this
segment (between the column and fly brace) for this load case.
AJSC DPFB/03 Design Example 91

• Check Haunch Section Capacity at Face of Column

Reduce moment to face of 460UB74 column by assuming a linear bending moment
diagram from column centreline to the first rafter node Appendix II

460
M; = 453-(
2x 1630
)x(453-30!)

=432kNm

Coincident axial force: N' = 62 kN (tension) Appendix II

The in-plane member capacity for tension members is the same as the section capacity
AS4100 Cl. 8.4.2.3
Section and member capacity of haunch reduced due to axial tension

¢M,,= 539 x (1-~) AS4100 Cl 8.4.2.3

2762
= 527 kNm > M; = 432 kNm OK AS4100 Cl. 8.3.2

Hence haunch OK at face of column

• Check Unhaunched Rafler at Inner End ofHaunch

Bending moment at end of haunch: M; = 172 kNm Appendix II
Coincident axial force: N' = 64 kN (tension) Appendix!!
Section and member capacity reduced due to axial tension

¢Mrx = 222 x (1- ~) AS4100 Cl. 8.4.2.3

1647
=2!3kNm > M;=l72kNm OK
Hence rafter at end of haunch OK

2. Windward Rafter Segment for LC21

Try fly brace near the end of haunch and near the ridge and consider the segment of rafter
between these fly braces on the windward side. The bottom flange is mostly in compression.
Refer to bending moment diagram in Figure 4.10 and in Appendix II.
The largest moment at the fly brace near the end of the haunch: M; = 172 kNm
Coincident axial force: N' = 65 kN (tension)

• Check Section and In-Plane Member Capacities

The in-plane member capacity for tension members is the same as the section capacity
AS4 I 00 Cl. 8.4.2. 3
Reduced section and member capacity due to axial tension
92 Frame Design AISC DPFB/03

tfM,, = 222x(1-~)
1647
AS4100 Cl. 8.3.2

=213 kNm > M; = 172 kNm OK

1100
7600
\ ;\Frame
of haunch 125.3

301.2
11_,,,,.__ Face of column
432.0
453.9 Note: - Extra fl)broce near
middle of 7600 segment
subsequently required
f-----Column

Windward Rafter Bending Moment Diagram

For Load Cose 21 (O.BDL + CW1 + IPCW)
Figure 4.10 Bending Moment Diagram for Load Case 21

• Check Out-of-Plane Member Capacity

Le = k 1 kek,L AS4100 Cl. 5.6.3

L =7800mm Measured from the fly brace at the first purlin beyond haunch
to the fly brace at the second purlin from ridge
k, = 1.0 Twist is restrained by fly braces AS4100 Table 5:6.3(1)

k, = 1.0 Upward loading is applied at the tension flange

In any case, the moments in the segment are
predominantly from end moments resulting from
frame action AS4100 Table 5.6.3(2)
k, = 0.85 Minor axis rotational restraint, as well as some warping
restraint, is provided at the haunch end of the segment because
the haunch (which is fly braced at each end) is a short adjacent
segment. Some restraint also exists at the ridge but it is safe to
ignore this
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example 93

Hence
Le = I.Ox l.Ox0.85x7800 = 6630 nun
ly = 8.10xl06 mm4 BHP
3 4
J = 16lxl0 mm BHP
9 6
lw = 237xl0 mm BHP

Hence using a spreadsheet program:

M0 =92.SkNm
125
= = 0.73 (assuming linear moment distribution) AS4100 Table 5.6.1
172

Linear distribution in this case is conservative because it extends the bending moment
zone at the maximum moment end (the 172 kNm end) as shown in Figure 4.9. Within a
rafter segment which has reversal of moment, it is not theoretically feasible at this stage
to take advantage of the fact that the compression flange is restrained by purlins over only
part of the segment. Therefore, the restraint from all purlins within the segment is
conservatively ignored. Consequently, the fact that the maximum bending moment end
has compression in the laterally restrained top flange is irrelevant. Note also that the
assumed end moment of 172 kNm is actually at the top of the haunch which is beyond the
end of the segment. It is therefore slightly larger than the moment at the end of the
segment. This is also conservative.
am = 1.75 + l.05x0.73 + 0.30x0.73 2 AS4100 Table 5.6.1
=2.7 > 2.5
Hence
am = 2.5
a, = 0.308 AS4100 Cl. 5.6.1.l(a)
¢Mbx = 0.308x2.5x222 = 171 kNm
Out-of-plane moment capacity increased due to axial tension:

¢Mox= 17lx (1+~)

1647
=178kNm < ¢M,,=214kNm
Hence
¢Mox= 178 kNm > M; = 172 kNm OK

Therefore·need fly braces at column, near end of haunch and at second purlin from ridge
but check other load combinations. Note that Method (iii) in Clause 5.6.1.1 (a) of
AS4100 could also be used to determine am, but moments M,' and M; at the segment
quarter points and M3 •at the segment midpoint would have to be scaled from the bending
moment diagram. The resulting value of am would be greater than 2.7 but as am is
limited by 2.5 this method is unnecessary.
94 Frame Design AISC DPFB/03

3. Leeward Rafter Segment for LC21

Consider the segment on the leeward side from the fly brace near the ridge to the fly brace
near the end of the haunch with the bottom flange mostly in compression.
Refer to bending moment diagram in Fignre 4.11 and Appendix II.
The maximum bending moment is Im from the ridge: M; = 129 kNm
Coincident axial force: N" = 64 kN (tension)

e"'
()

-5'. c:
()
0
"'
;;::.Q
oO
-Re
;;::_Q
·-
,__ ()
LQ oO
·-
,__
L Q
()
12517

BOO + 5 @ 1200 + 1000 = 7800

1100
=

12s.3rT--T--.

M*
m
129

*
M2 = 119
213.8

Leeward Rafter Bending Moment Diagram

For Load Case 21 (0.8DL + CWl + IPCW)
Figure 4.11 Leeward Rafter Bending Moment Diagram for LC21

• Check Out-of-Plane Member Capacity

L, = 6630 mm as before
. Assuming linear distribution of moment in this case will not be conservative.
Therefore, from Fignre 4.11 and using Method (iii) in Clause 5.6.1.1 (a) of AS4 l 00 .
• 129kNm
Mm=
M; = 119kNm
M3• =87kNm
AISC DPFBf03
Design Exanzple 95

M; =36kNm

--;==1=.7=x=l=29=·== = 1. 45 AS4100 Cl. 6.1.1(a}

~119 2 + 87 2 + 36 2
¢Mbx = 0.308xl.45x222 = 99 kNm
Out-of-plane moment capacity increased due to axial tension:

¢Mox= 99x(l+~)
1647
AS4100Cl.8.4.4.2

= 103 kNm < Mx• = 129 kNm NG

Try an extra fly brace between the haunch and ridge on the 5<h purlin from ridge so that
top segment is 3200 mm long (Figure 4.11).
Moment at top end of segment= 129 kNm
Moment at bottom end of segment= 103 kNm
103
ftm = - = -0.80
129
= l.75-1.05x0.80+0.3x0.80 2 =I.IQ AS4100 Table 5.6.1
Le = I.Ox 1.0x0.85x3200 = 2720 mm
Hence using a spreadsheet program:
¢Mbx = 180 kNm

¢Mox = 180x(1+~)
1647
= 187 kNm > M; = 129 kNm OK

ADOPTfly braces on 2nd, 5th and 9th purlins from ridge

4. Rafter Segment for LC25

Consider the segment towards ridge with its bottom flange largely in tension. The segment is
3200 mm long approximately from the fifth purlin beyond the haunch to the second purlin
from the ridge.

Maximum bending moment in segment is near ridge: M; = 135 kNm Appendix JI

Coincident axial force N' = -51 kN (compression) Appendix II

• Check In-Plane Member Cavacitv

¢M; = 222x(1-2!_) AS4100 Cl. 8.4.2.2

896
= 209 kNm > M; = 135 kNm OK
96 Frame Design AISC DPFIWJ

Check capacity under axial load alone with effective rafter length determined from the
frame elastic buckling load factor Ac (Cl. 8.4.2.2) using N; = 51 kN and N; = 93 kN.

3x2xl0 5 xl2lxl0 6
Chapter 4 Eqn. 4.2
12517x~3x10 3 x 7500 + 0.3x 51x10 3 x12517 J
=6.52
(By comparison, the more accurate value from Microstran is Ac= 8.64)

Using the more readily determined but conservative value A. of 6.52,

2xl0 5 xl2lxl0 6
( L ex ) rafter = ax
6.52x5lxl0 3
=26,800mm
ab =O
rx =146mm BHP
fy =320 MPa
A =5720mm2 BHP
k1 =0.93 BHP

Hence using a spreadsheet program:

ac =0.176

¢Na = 269 kN > N; = 51 kN OK

• Check Out-of-Plane Member Caoacitv

Le = 1200 mm (purlin spacing)

fy = 320 MPa BHP
am = 1.0 (moment nearly uniform between adjacent purlins)

Hence µsing a spreadsheet program:

M0 = 1936kNm AS4100 Cl. 5.6.1.l(a)
Msx =246kNm AS4 l 00 Cl 5. 6.2
as = 0.966 AS4JOO Cl 5.6.J.l(a)
¢M6, = 214 kNm AS4100 Cl 5.6././(a)

Out-of-plane member capacity reduced due to axial compression

¢Mox = 214 x (1- --2'

1417
._) AS4 I 00 Cl 8.4.4. I

= 206 kNm > M; = 135 kNm OK

AJSC DPFB/03 Design Example 97

5. Haunch Segment for LC23

Consider the haunch segment with its bottom flange in compression. In this case, the haunch
has a fly brace at each end.
Moment at column end of haunch Appendix!!
M,• =432kNm
Moment at inside end Appendix!!
M; = 186 kNm (compression)
Coincident axial force Appendix II
N' = -60 kN (compression)

• Check In-Plane Member Capacity

At column end taldng r/Ncx for rafter from column to apex
60
¢M1 = 539x(l- ) AS4100 Cl. 8.4.2.2
896
= 503 kNm > M; = 432 kNm OK

At inside end
60
¢M1 = 222x(l- ) AS4100 Cl. 8.4.4.2
896
=207kN> M;=l86kNm OK

Check capacity under axial load alone. Ac= 5.77 as previously

calculated.

2xl0 5 xl21xl0 6
(L ) = !fX.1---~~
3
"'mj/" 5.77x60x!0
=26,300mm
Hence using a spreadsheet program:
ac = 0.182
¢Ne =279kN > 60kN OK

• Check Out-of-Plane Member Capacity

To check against lateral buckling, the haunch can be considered as a tapered segment as
there happens to be a fly brace at each end in this case.

First determine ¢Mbx of tapered member AS4 JOO Cl. 5. 6.1

Calculate as1: AS4100 Ct: 5.6.1.l(b)

Column end:
M; _ 432
AS4100 Cl. 5.3.3
M, -1872xl0 3 x320xl0_.
98 Frame Design AISC DPFBI03

=0.72
M' = --~-18_6_ _~
_x_
Inside end: AS4100 Cl. 5.3.3
Ms 770xl0 3 x320xl0- 6
=0.75
Hence inside end critical AS4100 Cl. 5.6.1.1(b)
=0.5
= l 7lx9.7 = 1659 mm2
= Afin = 1659 mm2
=352mm
=682mm
1659 ( 0.4 x 352)
rs = 1659 x 0.6 + 682 = 0.806 AS4100 Cl. 5.6.1.1(b)(ii)

as1 = l.O-l.2x0.5x(!.0-0.806) =0.884 AS4100 Cl. 5.6.1.1(b)(ii)

Calculate M 00 based on the section properties of the haunch at the inside end which is the
360UB45.
Le = k 1kek,L AS4100 Cl. 5.6.3
L =3000mm Measured between fly braces
k, = 1.0 Twist is restrained by fly braces AS4100 Table 5.6.3(1)
ke = 1.0 Although there is top flaoge loading, the bending moment in
the segment is predominaotly due to end moments aod the load
application points (purlins) are restrained laterally aoyway
AS4100 Table 5.6.3(2)
k, = 0.85 There will be some minor axis rotational restraint at the ends
AS4100 Table 5.6.3(3)

Hence
Le =2250mm
ly = 8.10xl06 mm 4 .BHP
J = 16lxl03 mm4 BHP
fw = 237xl09 mm6 BHP
fy =320MPa
Zex = 770xl03 mm3 BHP
186
j],,, = - 432 = -0.43
am = l.75-l.05x0.43+0.3x0.43 2 =1.36 AS4100 Table 5.6.1

Hence using a spreadsheet program:

M0 =457kNm
Msx =246kNm
Hence
M 00 = as1M 0 = 0.884x457 = 404 kNm
A.ISC DPFB!OJ Desi'gn Exanzple 99

a, =0.6x{ (~~!)'+3~(~~!)}=0.66
tfMhx = 0.9x l.36x0.66x246
= 1~9 kNm < tfM,, = 222 kNm
Out-of-plane member capacity reduced due to axial compression taking tjN,y equal to
1417 kN as forunhaunched rafter

¢Mox =
c
199x(1-~)
1417
= 191 kNm > M.: =186 kNm OK

Although the tapered member Clause 5.6.1.1 is intended for bending only, it may be used
for combined actions as N' I ¢N, is only very small and its effect may be ignored.

4.10.5 LIMSTEEL Results

The frame has also been checked using LIMSTEEL [20] which is integrated with Microstran
and the computer output is presented in Appendix III. Generally, the results are in good
agreement, although LIMSTEEL does not take the effective length between fly braces or
purlins as 0.85 times the spacing. LIMSTEEL also does not reduce the bending moment to
the underside of the haunch or to the face of the column.

4.10.6 End Wall Frames

Adopt the typical portal frame for the end frames. This has numerous advantages at the
expense of some rafter tonnage, as ~xplained in Section 4. 7.

4.10.7 End Wall Columns

Consider the central end wall colunm of span 8155 mm to mid-height of rafter. Refer to
Figure 4.12.

4.10.7.1 INSIDE FLANGE IN TENSION (INWARD LOADING)

• Check Strength
Design pressure= (0.7 + 0.65)xl.02 = 1.38 kPa
UDL = 1.38x6.25 = 8.61 kN/m
100 Frame Design AISC DPFB/03

Width su orted Note:

6250 End woll column spon is
from base to bracing plane
ot mid height of roffer.

OCl
N
0
0 "'"'
iii
OCl "'
" "

4 @ 6250

Figure 4.12 End Wall Column Layout

8.6lx8.155 2
- - - - = 71.5 kNm
8
Try a 200UB25, section is non-compact BHP
3
¢M,, = 0.9x320x259x 10 Nmm AS4 l 00 Cl. 5.2.1
= 74.6 kNm > M;
= 71.5 kNm OK
Try a 250UB25 (same weight as a 200UB25 but lower deflections) BHP
Section is compact
L, = 1700 mm (girt spacing)
1, = 2.55xl06 mm4 BHP
J = 67.4xl0 3 mm4 BHP
fw = 36.7xl09 mm6 BHP
Zex = 319xl0 3 mm3 BHP
fy = 320MPa
<>m = 1.0 AS4100 Cl. 5.6.1.l(a)

Hence using a spreadsheet program:

M 0 =230kNm AS4100 Cl. 5.6.1.l(a)
M,, = 102 kNm AS4100 Cl. 5.2.1
a, =0.807 AS4100 Cl. 5.6.1.l(a)
¢Mbx=74.lkNm > M;_=71.5kNm OK

• Check Deflection
q, = 0.40 kPa (serviceability)
AISC DPFB/03
Design Example 101

0.40
UDL = l.0 x 8.61 = 3.38 kN/m
2
5x3.38x8155 4
384x2xl0 5 x35.4xl0 6
= 27 mm = span < span OK
302 150

4.10.7.2 !NSJDEFLANGEIN COMPRESSION (OUTWARD LOADING)

Design pressure= (0.65 + 0.52)xl.02 'C 1.19 kPa
Note that the external suction coefficient on the central end wall column is -0.50
rather than - 0.65. The quarter point column has the - 0.65 coefficient but is slightly shorter.
For simplicity of calculation, adopt the - 0.65 coefficient.
UDL = !.19x6.25 = 7.46 kN/m
, 7.46x8.155 2
Mx = =62.0kNm
8
Check the capacity of the 250UB25 ignoring coincident axial tension.
Allow for some minor axis and warping restraint at the base, so that
L, = 0.9x8155 = 7340 mm (without fly braces)
am = 1.13 AS4100 Table 5. 6. 1

Hence using a spreadsheet program:

M0 =25.1 kNm AS4100 Cl. 5.6.l.1(a)
M,, = 102 kNm
a, = 0.212
t/!Mbx = 22.0 kNm < M x• = 62.0 kNm NG

Try one fly brace at mid-height

L, = 0.9x4 l 00 = 3690 mm
am = 1.0 (conservative) AS4100 Table 5.6.1
Hence using a spreadsheet program:
M 0 =62.9kNm AS4100 Cl. 5.6.1.1(a)
M,, =102kNm
a, = 0.451
tf!Mbx=41.4kNm< M,• =62.0kNm NG
Hence try a 250UB3 l with fly braces at third points
L, = 3000 mm say
Again using a spreadsheet program
 102 Frame Design AISC DPFB/03

> M x• = 62.0 kNm

0
¢Mbx = 73.1 kNm

Hence ADOPT 250UB31 and fly braces at 3000 mm centres maximum

4.10. 7.3 AxlAL COMPRESSION UNDER GRAVITY LOADS

In some cases, the connection between the end wall colunm and rafter is slotted vertically to
allow the rafter to move under load. This avoids uplift loading on the column footings, but
generally creates difficulties in detailing the column to rafter connections.
In this design, the end wall colunm to rafter connection will not be slotted. The
columns will therefore be in compression under gravity loads.
In this worst case oflive load plus full dead load, the axial compression N' (assuming
the rafter carries its self weight before the end wall colunms are erected) is
9
N' = 6.25x 2x (0.1x1.25+ 025 x 1.5)
= 14.1 kN
The column is restrained by girts about the minor axis. Hence, consider major axis buckling
L., = 8155 mm
fy =320MPa BHP
rx = 105 mm BHP
A =4010 mm2 BHP
k1 = 1.0 BHP
Gb =O AS4100 Table 6.6.3.3(1)
Hence using a spreadsheet program:
Anx = 87.9 AS4100 Cl. 6.3.3
a, = 0.625 AS4100 Table 6.3.3(3)
rfN, = 722 kN > N' = 14.1 kN OK
Refer to Chapter 5 for the connection design.

4.11 References
I. Standards Australia (1998). AS4100 Steel Structures, SA, Sydney.
2. Standards Association of Australia (1989). ASll70.2-1989 Part 2 Wind Loading Code, SAA,
Sydney.
3. Standards Association of Australia (1989). ASJJ70.J-1989 Part I Dead and Live Loading
Code, SAA, Sydney.
4. Standards Association of Australia (1981). ASl250-J981 SAA Steel Structures Code, SAA,
Sydney.
5. Davies, J.M. (1990). Inplane stability of portal frames. The Structural Engineer, 68(4), 141-
147.
6. Broken Hill Proprietary (1998). Hot Rolled Structural Steel Products, BHP, Melbourne.
A.ISC DPFBI03 References 103

7. Australian Institute 9f Steel Construction (1997). Design Capacity Tables for Structural
Sections - Volu11ze J'": Open Sections, 2nd edn. & Addendum No. l, AISC, Sydney.
8. Trahair, N.S. and Bradford, M.A. (1998). The Behaviour and Design of Steel Structures to
AS4100, 3"' edn., E&FN Spon, London.
9. Dux, P.F. and Kitipornchai, S. (1986). Buckling of braced beams, Steel Construction, AISC,
20(1), 1-20.
10. Bradford, M.A. (1988). Lateral stability of tapered beam-columns with elastic restraints. 111e
Structural Engineer, 66(22), 376-384.
11. Standards Australia (1999). AS4100 Supplement 1-1999 Steel Structures - Commentary, SA,
Sydney.
12. Wong-Chung, A.D. (1987). 111eoretical and Experilnental Studies of the Geometric and
Materiul Nonlinear Behaviour of Partially Braced and Unbraced Bea111s, PhD Thesis, The
University of Queensland.
13. Engineering Systems Pty Ltd (1996). Microstran Users Manual, Engineering Systems,
Sydney.
14. Integrated Technical Software Pty Ltd (1995). Spacegass Reference Manual, ITS Pty Ltd,
Werribee, Victoria.
15. Standards AustraliaJStandards New Zealand (1996). ASINZS 4600 Cold-Farmed Steel
Structures, SA, Sydney, SNZ, Wellington.
16. Lysaght (1999). Zeds and Cees Purlin and Girt Syste111s, BHP Building Products.
17. Woolcock, S.T. and Kitipornchai, S. (1986). Deflection limits for portal frames. Steel
Construction, AISC, 20(3), 2-10.
18. Standards Australia (1999). ASJ418.18 Crane Runways and Monorails, SA, Sydney.
19. Hogan, T.J. and Syam, A.A. (1997). Design of tapered haunched universal steel members in
portal frame rafters, Steel Construction, AISC, 31(3), 1-28.
20. Centre for Advanced Structural Engineering (1998). LIMSTEEL- Design of Steel Structures
According to AS4100 and NZS3404 Users' Manual, The University of Sydney, Sydney.
21. Australian Institute of Steel Construction (1985). Standardized Stn1ctural Connections, 3rd
edn, AISC, Sydney.
104 AISC DPFB/03
5 Frame Connections
5.1 GENERAL
The detailing of connections is probably the most important part of structural design, and
undoubtedly requires more art and experience to achieve both sound and economical solutions
than does member sizing. Portal frame connections are no exception, although they have been
standardised to some extent in recent years with the publication of the AISC "Standardised
Structural Connections" manuals [1,2]. The most common and economical connections for
portal frames consist of bolted moment end plates at the apex and the knee, as shown in
Figure 5.1. In the past, it was more common to have a shop-welded knee joint and a bolted
beam splice consisting of bolted flange and web plates in the rafter at or near the point of
contraflexure, as shown in Figure 5.2. The advantage of having the bolted splice removed
from the knee was that the bolted splice could be designed for a smaller bending moment than
the peak bending moment which occurs at the knee.

~Bolted moment--
end plote
c

Figure 5.1 Bolted Moment End Plate Connections at Knee and Ridge

Welded ridge '

"-- Bolted splice

Shop welded knee _/
Hounch length limited
by tronsport limit

Figure 5.2 Welded Knee and Bolted Rafter Splice Connections

105
106 Frame Connections AISC DPFB/03

However, although bolted beam splices use less steel than bolted moment end plate
splices, they require more hole drilling, more careful fitting, and more handling of heavy
beams. The end result is that the combination of the shop welded knee joint and bolted splice
is more expensive than the bolted moment end plate at the knee.

5.2 BOLTED KNEE AND RIDGE JOINTS

With bolted moment end plates at the knee as shown in Figure 5.3, the rafter is usually
haunched which has the advantage of reduced rafter size as well as reduced flange and bolt
forces because of the extra depth. Standard knee joint details are ·presented in the AISC
standardised connection booklet(!], while the background theory is presented in the fourth
edition of"Design of Standardized Structural Connections" [2].
It should be remembered that the column flanges are very thin by comparison with the
end plate. For example, a typical column flange would be 12 mm, while a typical end plate is
at least 25 mm thick. Although the design of the end plate is governed by one-way cantilever
bending beyond the critical tension flange of the rafter whereas the stiffened column flange is
subjected to two-way bending, the column flanges are often too thin and doubler plates (2]
may be required.
The most common form of ridge joint is also the bolted moment end plate as shown in
Figure 5.4. Compared with the knee joint, the ridge joint is simple to design and fabricate
because it consists only of opposing end plates and there is no need for stiffeners or doubler
plates.
It would appear that there is a clear advantage in using tensioned Grade 8.8 bolts at the
end plates so as to prestress the joint and reduce the tendency of the joint to open (even very
slightly) under load. The reduction in joint rigidity due to the use of snug bolts could increase

.
I-

UB rafter ..
,>

Cut UB haunch .......-:

. I-
,.......
. ~I-

.v
Haunch length = (0.10 - 0.15) x span

Figure 5.3 Typical Bolted Knee Joint

AJSC DPFBIOJ Bolted Knee and Ridge Joints 107

the frame sidesway movement and the vertical rafter deflections significantly over those
obtained from·the computer analysis. However, some could argue that tensioning is of limited
benefit and under certain conditions the use of snug tightened bolts could be used instead.
Some saving in erection costs and supervision would result from avoiding tensioned bolts, but
the end plates would be thicker because they need to be designed to bend in single rather than
double curvature.
Overall, the benefits of using snug tightened bolts in lieu of tensioned bolts do not
seem pronounced, and tensioned bolts are recommended. It should be noted that it is not
necessary to nominate these bolts as friction bolts because the prevention of slip of the
abutting faces is not critical. The bolts should therefore be designated as S.8ffB (tensioned
and bearing) rather than 8.8ffF (tensioned and friction) so that the fabricator will not leave the
abutting faces unpainted. In any case, some surface treatments such as inorganic zinc silicate
are accepted as having a friction coefficient at least as high as that for unpainted steel faces.

25mm plates
-~~ / 8 M24 6.8/Til bolts
i======~ '

- -

Figure 5.4 Typical Bolted Ridge Joinr

5.3 BASE PLATES

For 'pinned' bases, any moment at the base of the column is disregarded and the base is
designed for only the axial and shear forces at the base of the column. Two bolts may be
sufficient for the applied tension, but it should be remembered that four bolts, as shown in
Figure 5.5, allow riggers to stand and plumb the columns more easily. The base thickness can
be determined by calculating the bending moment in the base plate at the toe of the web weld,
using a 45° spread towards the web from the edge of the bolt hole. However, a less
conservative method [2] is used in the design example.
Mild steel Grade 4.6 bolts are preferred because they can be adjusted by bending on
site, particularly if there is a sleeve or pocket around the holding down bolt for this purpose.
Mild steel bolts can also be tack welded into a cage, whereas Grade 8.8 bolts should not be
tack welded because welding can have an adverse effect on steel grade in the vicinity of the
weld. Regardless of the steel grade, it is recommended that holding down bolts be hot dip
galvanised as discussed in Section 7.5.6.
108 Fraine Connections AISC DPFBl<IJ

.. ..

I I
... , -, . . ····"' .. "' ~· .. ... .. ... ~··"'' .. ,._,_... ,..
I I
• I I I • I
- -
I I • I I I • I
I I 4 I I I 4 I

I I I I I I
I I I I I I

c ::J c ::J

8 high strength bolts 2 or 4 grade 4.6 bolts

and thick base plate and thinner baseplate

(a) Fixed (b) Pinned

Figure 5.5 Typical Fixed and Pinned Base Details

5.4 DESIGN EXAMPLE.- FRAME CONNECTIONS

5.4.1 General
This design example covers the main frame joints for the case of the pinned base frame
designed using the second order analysis described in Chapter 4. The connections between
the end wall mullions and the end wall rafter are also addressed in this chapter but roof and
wall bracing connections are covered in the next chapter.
In summary, the connections included in this chapter are as follows.
• Knee joint (Section 5.4.2)
• Ridge joint (Section 5.4.3)
• Column base and holding down bolts (Section 5.4.4)
• End wall mullion to rafter (Section 5.4.5)

Software such as LIMCOM [2] is commercially available for the checking or design
of these connections in accordance with the AISC connections manual [l].
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Frame Connections 109

5.4.2 Knee Joint

5.4.2.l GENERAL
The procedure for designing the knee joint inay be summarised as follows.
I. Calculate the design actions for the worst load case for the purposes of bolt, end
plate and stiffener design. (Section 5.4.2.2)
2. Design the critical flange connection including bolts and end plate, and check the
column flange for stiffeners and doubler plates. The critical (or more heavily
loaded) flange connection in this design example is the bottom flange connection.
(Section 5.4.2.3)
3. Design the non-critical flange connection for column flange stiffeners and doubler
plates. Less design work is required because some steps are already covered by
the design of the critical flange. The non-critical flange connection in this design
example is the top flange connection. (Section 5.4.2.4)
4. Check the need for column web shear stiffeners. This involves checking the
column web between the top flange of the rafter and the bottom flange of the
haunch for combined shear and bending. (Section 5.4.2.5)
A convenient starting point for the knee joint design is the AISC standard bolted
moment end plate connection [1] for a haunched 360UB45. It has the following properties:
• 330 deep haunch
• 686 mm overall depth measured perpendicular to the rafter centreline
• 180 mmx32 mm end plate
• M24 8.8/TB bolts

5.4.2.2 CALCULATE DESIGN ACTIONS FOR BOLTS, END PLATE AND STIFFENERS
The moments, axial forces and shear forces corresponding to the various load cases are
summarised in Table 5.1. The AISC connections manual [2] states that for the design of
bolts, end plates and stiffeners, it is conventional practice to assume that all of the force above
and below the neutral axis is concentrated at the flanges. This is not so for the design of
flange and web welds but this will be addressed later.

(a) Worst tension in bottom flange and worst compression in top flange
(LC21 - windward column)
Reduce moment to face of column by assuming a linear bending moment diagram near
the column (refer to Figure 5.6)

460
M
0
= 453.9 x x (453.9- 301.2) = 432.4 kNm
2 1630
N° = 62.4 kN (tension)

v· = -100.6 kN
110 Frame Connections AISC DPFB/OJ

Table 5.1 Design Actions for Knee Join/

Load Moment, M .. Axial For9e, N. Shear, v·

Combination kNm kN! kN

LC20: J.5DL+l.5LL -290.4 -41.3 -66.0

LC21: 0.8DL+ CWJ+IPCW 453.9 62.4 100.6
213.8 63.2 -58.8

LC22: 0.8DL+CW2+IPCW 295.3 37.9 62.1

44.6 38.1 -19.7

LC23: l.25DL+ CW2+ICSW -146.0 -58.3 -44.0

-432.2 -60.3 87.3
LC24: 0.8DL+ LWJ+IPLW 220.7 50.0 51.3
LC25: l.25DL+LW2+ISLW -326.9 -50.9 -76.1

M• N• v·
N~ = ---xcos&+-xcos&+-xsin&
d,-tjb 2 2
=overall depth of haunch at face of end plate
=thickness ofbeain or rafter flanges
· 432.4 , 62.4 , I 00.6 . ,
xcos 3 +--xcos 3 ---xs1n 3
0.682-0.010 2 2 .
= 643 + 31-3=671 kN (bottom flange)
M. . · N'
= ---xcosB--xcosfJ--xs1n&
v· .
2 2
= 643-31+3 =615kN (top flange)
V,~ = v· xcosB-N• xsin&
= -100.6xcos3° -62.4xsin3°= -104 kN

(b) Worst tension in top flange and worst compression in bottom flange
(LC23 - leeward column)
Reduce moment to face of column by assuming a linear bending moment diagram near
column (refer to Figure 5.7).
460
M• =432.2 xl x(432.2-299.6) =414kNm
2 630
N" = -60.3 kN (compression)
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Frame Connections 111

r
I
• N*
tc

•
I
G = 3'
I -t--- I

I
~ 1o1kN
62kN
---
432 kNm
,>

V~c
I t ---
I

• ~ ~

I N*ft
.,I •r
r
Figure 5.6 Design Actions for Knee Joint (LC21) (Compression at Top)

.
II • *
Nn

I •
I
-·--+- - - - - - - - - ·.,. ~

T 60.0kN 414 kNm

G = 3' I
I

I
I
V~c
l 87.0kN
~

• N*tc
I •
..I r

r
Figure 5. 7 Design Actions for Knee Joint (LC23) (Compression at Bottom)
112 Frame Connections AISC DPFB/03

v· = 87.3 kN
414 603 873
xcos3' - xcos3' + xsin3'
0.682-0.010 2 2
= 615 - 30 + 2 = 587 kN (top flange)

N 1•, = 615 + 30 -2 = 643 kN (bottom flange)

v'~
= 87.3xcos3°+ 60.3xsin3°=90 kN

If only a firstorder analysis has been carried out, the moments should be amplified for
this load case using the value of 0,,, calculated in Chapter 4.

5.4.2.3 BOTIOM FLANGE CONNECTION

The procedure for checking the bottom flange connection may be summarised as follows.

1. Select the bottom flange design actions

2. Determine the bolt size
3. Determine the end plate thickness
4. Check the need for tension stiffeners
(and geometry restrictions)
5. Design the tension stiffeners, if required
(and check stiffener welds)
6~ Check the need for doubler plates
7. Design the doubler plates, if required
8. Check the need for compression stiffeners
(and yield capacity and buckling capacity)
9. Design the compression stiffeners, if required
10. Check the strength of the stiffened web in compression
if stiffeners are required by calculation
1I. Design the flange welds
12.. Design the web welds

The authors recommend stiffeners at the top and bottom flange of the haunch even if
they are not required by calculation, as stiffeners provide more stability and rigidity to the
knee joint.
The need for doubler plates is determined by checking the capacity of the stiffened
column flange. Doubler plates are butt welded to the web of the column. In the absence of
conventional stiffeners, the doubler plates cantilever from the web of the column in basically
a non-composite combination [2) with the column.flange. Doubler plates can theoretically be
used in lieu of conventional stiffeners, but as mentioned previously, conventional stiffeners
are recommended.
A.JSC DPFB/03 Design Example - Frame Connections 113

The need for compression stiffeners is determined by checking both the yield capacity
and the buckling capacity ··of the column web for the cases where the bottom flange is in
compression. The buckling capacity recommended in the AISC connections manual [2] (and
in this book) is lower than that given in AS4100 [2]. As the AISC method is baied on test
results, the AS4100 method should be used with caution in this case. The comparison
between the two methods is demonstrated in this section.
The method for determining the capacity of the stiffened column web in compression
as recommended by AISC (and in this book) is also more conservative than the AS4100
method. Once again, AS4100 should be used with caution in this case.

J. Design Actions for Bottom Flange

Design actions for bolts, end plate and stiffener design (but not for weld design):

Nfi = 671 kN (LC21)

•
Nfc =643 kN (LC23)
v· ~
=90kN (LC23 - shear is taken by the bottom flange bolts
when top flange is in tension)

2. Determine Bolt Size

The bolt size must be such that
N; ,; r/N,,
V~ :>¢Vfb
where
r/Nib =design capacity of bolt group in tension (4 bolts)
¢ =capacity reduction factor= 0.8
¢Vfb =design capacity of bolt group in shear (4 bolts)

Try 4 - M24 s.srrn

4r/NtJ
¢N1b =l+k Sect. 4.8.3.2 [2}

where "'
¢Nlf =design capacity ofa bolt in tension
k,, = coefficient to allow for the additional bolt force
due to prying (may be taken in the range 0.20 to 0.33)
Try
k,, = 0.30
¢Nlf = ¢A,f.r= 0.8x353x830 = 234 kN AS4 l 00 Cl. 9.3.2.2

Therefore
114 Frame Connections AISC DPFBIOJ

Check Shear:

¢Vdf = 0.8x0.62A,J,,1 AS4!00 Cl. 9.3.2.J

where
¢Vdf =design shear capacity of bolt with threads included in the shear plane
A, =.core area of bolt
J,,1 =ultimate tensile stress of bolt
Therefore
¢Vdf = 0.8x0.62x324x830 N = 133 kN
and
¢Vfb = 4x133 = 532 kN > v; = 90 kN OK

Hence ADOPT M24 8.8/TB bolts

3. Determine End Plate Thickness

The end plate thickness must be such that

Nj, :5[?Wpb•¢Vphl Sect. 4.8.3.3 [2]

The strength of the plate in bending is based on the assumption of double curvature.

Try 21 Ox28 plate

say65 mm

24
=65--=53mm
2
b,, t 1,f,.1 =plate width, thickness and yield stress respectively
0.9x250x210x28 2
?WP• = 53 N
= 699 kN > N Ji• = 671 kN OK

The shear stress distribution in a rectangular ·plate is parabolic with the maximum stress
being 1.5 times the average stress. AS4100 makes allowance for non-uniform shear
stress in a web with the formula.
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Franie Connections 115

v, AS4100 Cl. 5.11.3

where Vu is the nominal shear capacity of a web with a unifornz shear stress distribution
(AS4100 Cl. 5.11.2)
fv~ ,fv: = the maximum and average design shear stresses in the web respectively
Hence
v, 2v.
0.9 + 1.5 = 0.833 v. AS4100 Cl. 5.11.4

= 0.833x0.6 /,Aw = 0.50 /,Aw

The shear capacity of the end plate perpendicular to the plate is less below the bottom
flange of the haunch than it is above because the plate above is stiffened by the web of
the haunch. However, for simplicity, the toW shear capacity of the end plate at the
bottom flange is taken conservatively as twice the capacity of the plate below the bottom
flange.

dwc

Column a;
5Depth d,
8 eami Flange Thickness t fb
fc
kc

_a, ~
I: ... --
A
v -
Sp _ Of "lF
lf
d; II
II
- - Jl
.JI:
- -
.
w
v

Figure 5.8(a) Coluin.n Stiffening Details

116 Franze Connections AISC DPFB/03

NOTATION USED IN FIGURE 5.8(a}

a, (brs,J/2
ad (s8 - twc - 2rc)l2
ae edge distance from bolt centreline to edge of plate
a1 distance from bolt centreline to face of flange
a1 (b 1 - s,)12
bfb flange width of beam or rafter
bft flange width of column
b1 width of end plate
b,c lwc+2rc
de column section depth
dr nominal bolt diameter
dh bolt hole diameter
dwc colwnn section depth between fillets= de - 2kc
/ye yield stress of column flange ~fweb as appropriate (fyr} flange,J;cw web)
kc distance-on column from outer face of flange to inner termination of root radius
lwc +re
re column section root radius
s8 bolt gauge (transversely)
s, bolt pitch (longitudinally)
lfb beam or rafter flange thickness
fjc column flange thickness
ti thickness of end plate
lwb beam or rafter web thiclmess
fwc column web thickness

Geometry Restrictions f2l:-

(i) b, ,; b1,
(ii) s, 5 bfo - d1 but<: 80 mm for M20 bolts
5 b1, - 2.5d1 but <: 120 mm for M24 bolts
(iii) a, <: 30 mm for M20 bolts or
<: 36 mm for M24 bolts
Ge :S: 2.5df

(iv) a1 as small as possible but <: d1 + L,cot¢ where ¢ = (90 - rafter pitch)'
and ~ O.Sds + L,cot¢:
;:::: 0.5xwasher diameter+ weld leg length
and only for air gun tensioning
<: 54 mm for M20 bolts
<: 65 mm for M24 bolts
where: L, = 2.2d1+ grip (actual bolt length)
d, = socket diameter
= 50 mm for M20 bolts
= 60 mm for M24 bolts
Ls = socket length
= 65 mm for M20 bolts
= 80 mm for M24 bolts

Figure 5.8(b) Notation Relevant to Column Stiffening

AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Frame Connections 117

Therefore
¢Vph = 2¢ 0.50 fyAw= 2x0.9x0.50x300x2 l Ox28 N
= 1588 kN > Nj, = 671 kN OK
Note that this expression given for ¢Vph is twice that given in Section 4.8~3.3 of Reference
[2].

4. Check Need for Tension Stiffeners

Tension stiffeners are required if Sect. 4. 8. 3.4(a) [2]

Nft• > ¢R,

¢R, = [¢R11,¢R12]min
2a,+s,-d,)
¢R11 = ff,,1 t 12, x ( 3.14 +--~--
. a,
where the notation is as in Reference [2] and Figure 5.8 of this book with
¢ =0.9
hif = 300 MPa
s, = 130 mm (preferred gauge for M24 bolts) Ref[/]

Check Geometry Restriction<;

s, = 130 mm > 120 mm for M24 bolts OK Sect. 4.8.2.3 [2]
a, =bolt edge distance for column flange
bfc-Sg 190-130
2 2
=30mm > l.25dr = 30 mm OK AS4/00 Table 9.6.2

Sp =130mm
d, =26mm
Sg -fwc -2rc
a, 2
lw, =9.1 mm
r, = l.4mm
130- 9.1-2 x 11.4
49.1 mm
2
2 3 3 26
¢Ra = 0.9x300xl4.5'x(31.4+ x 0+l 0- ) N = 368 kN Sect. 4.8.3.4 [2}
49.1

¢R,,

a; =bolt edge distance for end plate

118 Franie Connections AISC DPFBtoJ

= b;-Sg = 210-130
2 2
= 40 mm > l.5d1= 36 mm OK

N; =maximum design bolt force in tension Sect. 5.8.4 [2}

(may be taken as bolt proof load rather nominal
tensile capacity to provide increased
margin against bolt fracture) AS4100 Table 15.2.5.J
= 210 kN
Hence

= 0 _9 x{3oOxl 4 _5 , x(3.14x(49.1+30)+0.5xl30)xl0_ 3
49.1+40
4
+4x( 0 )x210}
49.1+40
= 200 + 339 = 539 kN

¢R, = (368, 539Jm;,

= 368 kN < Nj, = 671 kN NG

Hence tension stiffeners are required for the botton1flange of the haunch

5. Design Tension Sti(feners

Stiffeners are proportioned to carry the excess so that

N,: ~ ¢N1s Sect. 4.8.3.5(a) [2}

where
N,: = stiffener design force at the tension flange = Nfl - ¢Rr
and
¢JV,, =the stiffener capacity in tension= 671 - 368 = 303 kN
Try Z-90x8 stiffeners
¢JV,, = ¢fy,A, Sect. 4.8.3.5(a) [2}
A.r = 2besls
ts = stiffener thickness = 8 mm
b., = stiffener width= 90 mm AS4 JOO Cl. 5.15. 6
¢JV,, = 0.9x320x2x90x8
= 415 kN > N,,• = 303 kN OK

Hence, use 90xl 0 column stiffeners at bottQm flange of haunch, but check compression at
bottom flange first and check size of stiffeners at top flange as stiffener sizes should
match.
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Frame Connections 119

Check Stiffener Welds Sect. 4.8.3.7 [2}

Try 6 E48XX SP fillet welds
(W., = 0.978 kN/mm Table BJ [2}

Weld capacity:
= 2x2x90x0.978
=352kN > N~=303kN OK
Hence ADOPT 6E48XX SP fillet welds

6. Check Need (or Doubler Plates

Once the need to provide tension stiffeners to the tension flange has been established, it is
necessary to check that the stiffened flange is strong enough.
Doubler plates are required if

Nft• > ¢R,, Sect. 4.8.3.4(d) [2}

where
¢R,, =capacity of the stiffened column flange

= ¢fy,JIJc[2w2 +2w1 -dh + (-1 +J_)(za, +Za,

ad lV 1 W2
-d,)]
w, = .Ja, x (a,+ a, -0.5dJ = .J49.1x(49.1+30- 0.5 x 26) = 57 mm
s -t -2t 130-10-2x6
w, - P s w<w
2 I 2
=54mm but> w1 =57mm

Hence w2 = 57 mm
57 57 26
¢R,, = 0.9x300xl4.5 2 x{Zx +Zx - +(..!._+..!._)x(2x49.1+2x30-26)}
49.1 57 57
= 497 kN < Nfi = 671 kN NG
Hence flange doubler plates are required

7. Design Doubler Plates

If doubler plates are used in lieu of conventional stiffeners, the requirement is that

Nfi ,; ¢R1d
The AISC connections manual [2] suggests that ·the combined thickness of the doubler
plate Id and column flange t1, be greater than that of the end plate I;, ie. (Id + t1,) ;>; t; and
that the doubler plate be butt welded to the column web, as shown in Figure 5.9.
120 Frame Connections AISC DPFB/03

td
t;
t·
If +lib
~ m===+
td
±Ire
ltc

Figure 5.9 Flange Doubler Plate Detail

Hence
td > 28 - 14.5 = 13.5 mm, try 12 mm which is close enough as the thickness
requirement is only a suggestion
Try 90xl2 doubler plates

= ¢x
(
t
2
f
fr:ycf
+t~fy;J
-2 - x (s, +4a,a +l.25a,) Sect. 4.8.3.4(d) [2]
d

= 0. 9 x(l 4.5, x 300+ Ii' x300)x(l30+4x49.l+l.25x30)

2 49.1
= 0.9x84.7x7.41 kN
= 565 kN < N fl• = 671 kN NG

Hence, doubler plates ·must be thicker, or they must be used in combination with
conventional stiffeners. As compression stiffeners will probably be required, consider the
doubler plates combined with conventional stiffeners.
No formula is recommended in the AISC connections manual [2] for the case where both
doubler plates and conventional plates are used, but it is suggested that the expression for
¢R,, be used with (t1, + td) substituted for 1;-,.
Hence
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Frame Connections 121

2
(145 + 12)
¢R,, = x497
145 2
• 671 kN
= 1660 kN > N ft= OK
Therefore, the column stiffened by 90x12 do~bler plates and 90x8 conventional stiffeners
is ample. Note that the stiffener size may be increased to match the top flange stiffener
size.

2.5~ kc
1 >*t-+-\;

•
ltb+2\;~·
+5kc
Nrc
1;;;;;;;::::==\
J_
-r\ fb
.

Figure 5.IO(a): Length for Determining Web Bearing Capacity ¢Rd in

Accordance with AISC Connections Manual [2}

8. Check Need for Conzpression Stiffeners

•
Nfc = 643 kN
Compression stiffeners are requii'ed if Sect. 4.8.3.4(b) [2]

> ¢R,
= [¢Rc1•¢Rc2] mm·
The following expressions for ¢Rd and ¢R,2 are based on actual tests of moment
connections [2]. Alternative expressions from AS4 i 00 are presented later in italics for
comparison.

Yield Capacity ¢R<J.

¢R,1 =design bearing yield capacity Sect. 4.8.3.4(b) [2]
= #°y<wtwc(t/b +5k, +2t 1 )
122 Frame Connections AISC DPFB/03

= 4.5/ycwtw,kc + 0.9 fycwtwc(t jb + 2t;) Figure 5.IO(a)

= k 9 +k 10 (tfb +2t;)
kc =distance from outer face of column flange to inner end of root radius
=24.7mm
fyw =320MPa
k9 =4.5/,cwtwckcxl0-3 =324kN Table E.3 [2]
k10 = 0.9 hew twcX Io·' = 2.62 kN/mm Table E.3 [2}

Therefore
¢Rc1 = 324 + 2.62x(9.7 + 2x28} = 496 kN

I
ltc
~1
"' 1
d2/2 I \;

ltb+ 2\;
"
+5ltc

d2/2 I
I

r iF-s 1

d2/2

Figure 5.IO(b}: Length for Determining Web Buckling Capacity ¢R,1 in

Accordance with AS4100 Clause 5.13.3

Buckling Capacity ¢Rc2

¢R,2 = desigu bearing buckling capacity
0.9 x I0.81~,p;;:;
dwc
where
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Frame Connections 123

dw, = d, - 2k, = 457 - 2x24.7 = 408 mm

Therefore
9.72t!c~fycw
¢R" = k11 = 321 kN Table E.3 [2}
dw,
In summary:
¢R" =496 kN
¢R,2 = 321 kN
Therefore
¢R, = 321 kN < Nj, = 643 kN NG

Hence compression stiffeners are required for the bottom flange of the haunch

ALTERNATIVE AS4100 METHOD FOR DETERMINING ¢Rc1 AND ¢RC2

Design Bearing Yield Capacity ¢Rc1

¢R,1 = ¢R,y = ¢ (1.25/,=bbfwJ
bbf = tfe + 51p: + 211 AS4100 Cl. 5.13.3
= 9.7 + 5xl4.5 + 2x28 = 138.2 mm Figure 5.JO(b)
¢Ro1 = 0.9x320xl.25xl38.2x9.7 N = 482 kN
which is slightly less than ¢Ro1 = 496 kN by the AISC method.

Design Bearing Buckling Capacity ¢Rc2

¢Roi = ¢R,, =¢(a, krJ,,~AwJ
Awe = bbfwc
bb. = bbf+ di
d2 =twice the clear distance from the neutral axis of the column
to the inside of the co1npr_essionjlange of the column
= 457 -2xl4.5 = 428 mm
b, = 138.2 + 428 = 566 mm
k1 = 1.0
S/endernes<t ratio
= 25d; = 2.5x(457-14.5x2) = 118 AS4100 Cl. 5.13.4
lw 9.1
J,,~ = 320 MPa
a, = 0.5 AS4100 Cl .. 5.13.4
a, = 0.327 AS4!00 Table 6.3.3(3)

Therefore
(JR,, = 0.9x0.327x320x566x9.l N=485 kN
This capacity is considerably greater than ¢R,2 = 321 kN calculated by the AJSC method [2}. Until
this anomaly is investigated further, the 1nore conservative A/SC approach for ¢R~ 2 is recommended.
124 Frame Connections AISC DPFB/03

On the other hand, the A/SC approach for the paranzeter ¢R.c 1 gives slightly higher values than the
AS4100 approach but this situation can be accepted if test results give a higher capacity than that
predicted by theory. In su1nmary, the AJSC tnethod is recommended for calculating both ¢Rei and .
¢R".

9. Design Co111pression Stiffeners

Stiffeners are proportioned to carry the excess load so that Sect. 4.8.3.5(b)
• ¢Ncs
Ncs:::;;
where
N~ =stiffener design force at compression flange

= Nj, - ¢R, = 643 -321=322 k,."I

The outstand ofload bearing stiffeners is limited by AS4100 to

b,, = J 51
• = 13.71, for fy, = 300 Mpa

0
Therefore
b,, = 90 mm, t, > 6.6 mm
It is also common practice to provide Sect. 4.8.3.6 [2]

b,, ~ 3bf, 190

= - - = 63 mm
3
and
t fb 9.7
t, >-=-=5mm
- 2 2
Hence check 2-90x8 stiffeners
b,, =90 mm
¢Ncs =stiffener capacity in compression Sect. 4.8.3.5(b) [2]
= ¢fy,A, = 0.9x300x2x90x8 N
=389kN > N;,=322kN OK

10. Check Strem:th o(Stiffe11ed Web

The A!SC connections manual [2] recommends a check on the strength of the stiffened
web in compression regions. The stiffened web may be considered satisfactory if

N 1•, < ¢R"

¢R" = ¢/,yA, + 1.47/y~fr, ~b,,t,,

,4.JSC DPFB/03 Design Example - Frame Connections 125

= 0.9x300x2x90x8 + 1.47x320x14.5 x ,/190 x 9.1 N = 389 + 283 kN

= 672 kN > Nj. = 64:3 kN OK

Hence ADOPT 2-90x8 compression stiffeners

This will also match the top flange compression stiffeners (see Section 5.4.2.4 of this
book). Also, compression stiffeners must be welded to the column web over the full
length of the stiffener.

ALTERNATIVE AS4100 METHOD FOR CHECKING THE CAPACITY OF STIFFENED WEBS

AS4100 also has rules in Clause 5.14 for checking the capacity ofstiffened webs for the design of
load bearing stiffeners. For co111parison with the AJSC method, calculate the capacity of the web
in combination with 2-90x8 stiffeners in accordance ·with AS4100.

Check Outstand
= 90<15xl0 = 137 mm
b,,
-poo OK

250

Yield Capacity
Nr,• < ¢R,, AS4100 Cl. 5.14.1
¢R,, = ¢R,, + ¢A,fy,
¢R., = 482 kN (as previously calculated for ¢R, 1 by the AS4100 method)
lff,.,A, = 0.9x300x2x90x8 = 389 kN
Hence
¢R,, = 482 + 389
• = 643 kN
= 871 kN > N f' OK

Buckling Capacity
•
Nf' < ¢R,, AS4100 Cl. 5.14.2

Referring to Figure 5.11

I, = 8x(2x90+9.l)' = 4.SlxlO' mm'

12

Length ofweb
= 2x17.5 x 9.1 = 282 mm

~
A = 2x90x8 + 282x9.1=4006 mm'

r 4.5lxl0 6
, / - - - - = 33.6 mm
4006
126 Frame Connections AISC DPFB/03

L, = 0.7x(457-2xl4.5) = 300 mm
!::,_ = 300 = 8.93
r 33.6
a, = 0.5
= 1.0
"'¢R,. = rJN,= 0.9xl.Ox4006x300 N
=108lkN > N1, • =643kN OK

Hence ¢R,,. = 871 kN and ¢R,. = 1081 kN using AS4100 are both greater than ¢R0 = 672 kN
using the AJSC method [2}. The A/SC 1nethod is again 111ore conservative and is therefore
reco1nmended.
Jn su1n1nary, AS4100 is not reco1nnzendedfor determining the capacity ofunstiffened or stiffened
webs in co111pression because the capacities so predicted can be unconservative.

II
II
II
II

90x8 141
\ ,__
90x8 -
_J 17.5 x 9.1
= 141
~o
II 250
II
II
II
"
Figure 5.11 Section for Buckling Capacity Check

11. Desir:11 Flange Welds

[ Nfi, Njc):,; ¢Nw

M* =432kNm
N* = 62.4kN
v• =-100 kN
For the design of flange and web welds, the AISC connections manual [2] assumes that
the bending moment and axial force are carried partly by the flange and partly by the
web. This means that the design actions Nfi and Nfa have different values when
designing the flange to end plate welds from those for the design of bolts, end plates and
stiffeners.
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Frame Connections 127

The proportion of bending moment transmitted by the web is kmw [2] and the proportion
of the bending moment transmitted by the flanges is therefore (1 - kmw). The proportions
of the design axial force N' taken by the flanges and web are in proportion to their cross-
sectional area, kw being the proportion taken by the web and (l - kw)l2 by each flange.
Values of kmw and kw for UB's and WB's are given in Appendix E of the AISC
connections manual [2]. Appendix E does not cover haunches so kmw and kw must be
calculated, ie.
Iw Sect. 4.8.2.2 [2}
]total

where l1is the second moment of area of the flanges alone and lw is the second n1oment of
area of the web (ignoring the middle flange of the haunched section).

= 6.9x(682-2x9.7)' =! 67 x!O'mm'
12
2
682-9.7)
=2xl7lx9.7x ( =375x!06 mm4
2
ftotal = 542xl06 mm4
167
= 542 = 0.308
and
area of web
total cross - sectional area
6.9 x (682-2 x 9.7)
-6.-9-x7( 6-8-2--~2-x-9-.7.,-)_+_2_x~I7_1_x_9-.7 = 0 ·58

Hence

[N~,N;c l max =N~

(1-kmw)xM'
d, -.tfb
(1-k.)xN'
+~-~--
2
Sect. 4. 7.2.2 [2}

= (1-0.308)x432+(1-0.58)x62.4 = +! = 458 kN
445 3
0.682-0.0097 2

Try 8 E48XX SP fillet welds to the flanges

¢Nw =2L.(Nw
where
Lw = length of weld

0.8 x 0.6 x 480 x 0.008

(NW = ¢0.6/.,wft = .[). l.30kN/mm

Therefore
ifNw =2xl71xl.30
= 445 kN < Nftmox = 458 kN NG
128 Frame Connections AISC DPFBtol

Hence ADOPTfull strength butt welds to flanges

12. Desir!ll Web Welds

Sect. 4.8.3. J [2]

The web welds are assumed in the AISC connections manual [2] to transmit v·, N: and
M:, where N: and M: are the proportions of the axial force and moment canied by the
web. The maximum result~t force on the web welds is ~v; 2 +v; 2 which must be less
than or equal to ¢vw, where

Nw
• 3Mw
•
v,• =--+--
2Lw L2w
v·
2Lw
=weld length down web, usually (db - 2tp,) = 682 - 2x9.7 = 663 mm
N: =kwN°
M: =-kmwM•

0.58 x 62.4 3 x 0.308 x 432 x 10 3

v,• ---+ = 0.027 + 0.908 = 0.935 kN/mm
2 x 663 663 2
100
Vy• = x = 0.075 kN/mm
2 663
Therefore
f .2
vv, •2
+vy =0.94kN/mm

Try 6 E48XX SP fillet welds to web

0.8 x 0.6 x 480 x 0.006
= ¢0.6f,,wt, = . .fl.
~ .2
= 0.98 kN/mm >v, +Vy.2 = 0.94 kN/mm OK

Hence, ADOPT 6 E48XX SP fillet welds to web

5.4.2.4 TOP FLANGE CONNECTION

The procedure for checking the top flange connection is the same as for the bottom flange, as
summarised in the previous section. Moreover, some of the steps are already covered by the
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Frame Connections 129

bottom flange design and so the steps for the top flange connection in this design example
redµce to the following:
l. Select the top flange design actions
2. Check the need for tension stiffeners
3. Design the tension stiffeners if required
4. Check the need for compression stiffeners
5. Design the compression stiffeners if required
6. Check the strength of the stiffened web in compression.

]. Design Actions for Top Fla1tge

Design actions for bolts, end plate and stiffener design (but not for weld design):
Nfi = 587 kN (LC23)
•
N fo = 615 kN (LC21)
v,; = -104 kN (LC21 - shear is taken by the top flange bolts when bottom
flange is in tension)
From bottom flange calculatio11s, 4-M24 8.8/TB bolts and 210x28 end plate are clearly
adequate

2. Check Need for Te1tsio1t Stiffeners

Tension stiffeners are needed if

Nfi > ¢R, Sect. 4.8.3.4 [2]

From bottom flange calculations
¢R, = 368 kN < N fl• = 587 kN NG
Hence tension stiffeners are re"quired
In any case, if the incoming beam flange is within a distance b1, = 190 mm of the top of
the column; it is recommended that a stiffener always be used.

3. Design Tension Stiffeners

Tension stiffeners are proportioned to carry the excess so that
Sect. 4.8.3.5(a) [2]
N,,• =stiffener design force at tension flange
•
=Nfl-¢R,
= 587 - 368 = 219 kN
From bottom flange calculations, 2-90x8 stiffeners would be adequate
However, first check the need for compression stiffeners.
130 Frame Connections AISC DPFB/03

4. Check Need for Con1pression Stiffeners

Compression stiffeners are required if

Nft > ¢R,

¢R, = [¢Rc1, ¢R'2j mio
Even though a stiffener is required because of the proximity of the top of the column, it is
still necessary to determine the capacity of the unstiffened colunm so that the excess
capacity (if any) can be calculated for stiffener design.

Yield Capacity. ¢Rc1 Sect. 4.8.3.4(b) [2}

¢Rd = 0.9/,~lwcVfo +5k, +2t,)
but check that the yield zone does not project beyond the top of the column
2.5k,+t1 =2.5x24.7 + 28 = 90 < 60 + 50 = 110 mm projection OK
Hence ¢R" is not limited by proximity of the top of the column, and therefore
¢R" = 496 kN as for bottom flange

Buckling Capacity. ¢Rc2

¢R,2 = 321 kN (as for bottom flange)
rj>R, = [496, 321) mm.
•
=32lkN < N1,=615kN NG

Therefore, column compression stiffeners are required at the top flange of the haunch

5. Design Co1npression Stiffeners

Stiffeners are proportioned to _carry the excess, so that
N;, = 615 -321=294 kN
Try 90x8 stiffeners each side
r/Ncs =stiffener capacity in compression Sect. 4.8.3.5(b) [2}
= 0.9x300x2x90x8 N
•
=389kN > N,,=294kN OK

6. Check Strength ofSti((ened Web

The AISC connections manual [2] recommends a check on the strength of the stiffened
web in compression regions. The stiffened web may be considered satisfactory if
•
Nfc < ¢R"

¢Res ::;= 0.9 /ysAs + l.47 /ycwlc~bfct.,.,.c

AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Frame Connections 131

= 389 + l.47x320xl4.5 x .Ji90 x 9.1 = 389 + 283

=672 kN > Nj, =615 kN OK

Hence ADOPT 2 - 90x8 stiffeners

5.4.2.5 COLUMN WEB SHEAR STIFFENERS

Check the need for shear stiffeners to the column web between the top and bottom flanges of
the haunched rafter. The AISC method [2] does not check for combined shear and bending,
and so AS4!00 is preferred in this book for checking the need for shear stiffeners.
The procedure for checking the need for column web shear stiffeners may be
summarised as ,follows.
I. Select the design actions
2. Determine the shear capacity in the absence of bending
3. Check interaction of shear and bending
4. Design diagonal stiffener
5. Design web doubler plate

1. Design Actions
Take the design shear force v;
for the section of column between the top and bottom
flanges of the haunch as the maximum force at the top flange level. Shear stiffeners are
required if

v; = [ Nj,,Nfi L"' > ¢V,rn

N ft• = 587 kN (top flange)
N;, = 615 kN (top flange)
Hence
v; =615 kN

2. Determine Shear Capacity in Absence of Bending

dp 457-2xl4.5
AS4100 Cl. 5.11.2
lw 9.1
82
=47< ~ =72
0
Hence
¢V, = 0.9x0.6fyw,,Aw,
Aw, = (d, - 2t1,)tw,
132 Frame Connections AISC DPFB/03

¢V, = 0.9x0.6x320x(457 -2xl4.5)x9.1 N AS4100 Cl. 5.11.4

=673kN > v; =615kN OK

3. Check Interaction of Shear and Bendinr

Assume web is unstiffened to determine ¢Vvm AS4100 Cl. 5.12
¢M, =448kNm
M' = 423 kNm (moment in column at underside of haunch from
second order analysis)
> 0.75¢Mb = 336 kNm

( !.6M') = 673x (2.2

¢V,m = ¢V, 2.2- ¢M,
1.6 x 423)
448
AS4100 Cl. 5.13.3

=464kN < v; =615kN NG

However, the web is actually stiffened by transverse stiffeners at the top and bottom
flange level of the rafter haunch. Therefore, check the web panel in accordance with
Appendix I of AS4100.

Check Yielding Using AS4100 Appendix I

Axial force on full column section= I 05 kN (tension)
Moment in column at underside of haunch= 423 kNm
Depth of web between flanges dp = 457 - 2xl4.5 = 428 mm
Proportion of axial force carried by web N:
428x9.lx!05
9520 = 43.0 kN

Proportion of moment taken by web M1:

2
_ S.,;M' 428 x 9.1x423 = kNm
106
S"'""'" 4 x 1660 x IO'
N* M*
= ___!!!_ + 0. 77 x __...!!'.._
Awe Zwe

43x!0 0.77x 106xl0 6 x 6

3
= 428 x 9.1 + 4282 x 9.1 = 11 + 293 = 304 MPa

R'w =O

Therefore, yielding check reduces to

Hence
,4.ISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Frame Connections 133

304
( 0.9 )
2
+( 615
x JO' )' = 114,100
0.9x428x9.l
+ 30,800

= 114,900 > 320 2 = 102,400 NG

As web fails the yielding check, there is no point in proceeding with the buckling check
Diagonal shear stiffeners or web doubler plates are required.

4. Diagonal Stiffener Design

Design the diagonal stiffener for excess of the shear force over capacity such that

- N;, <r••vs
""'
cos 8
where 6 is the angle between the diagonal and the horizontal stiffeners

682
= tan-I ( ) = 56.2'
457
615-464
cos fl cos56.2' = 271 kN Sect. 4.7.3.2 [2]

Consider a diagonal stiffener on one side only to avoid obstruction of roof and wall
bracing in bracing bays. The orientation of the diagonal is such that it will be in
compression under the worst case (LC2J).

Try a 90x I 0 stiffener welded at its ends and along its full length Sect. 4.7.3.2 [2]

~ =O
r
=!'..x~f,. = 9ox~300 =9.9<Aey=l4 AS4100 Cl. 6.2.3
t 250 10 250
Hence
b, =b=90mm
#f,, = 0.9x90x!Ox300 N
= 243 kN < N~, = 271 kN NG

Could try I 00><10 diagonal stiffener on one side

However, a web doubler plate would provide less obstruction to the knee joint bolts.

5. Web Doubler Plate Desiytn

Try 6 mm thick web doubler plate. A web doubler plate on one side of the web is butt
welded to the column flanges and the design capacity ¢V" is determined as for the column
web but using the combined thickness of the column web and the web doubler plate.
Hence
134 Frame Connections AJSC DPFB/03

¢V, = 0.9x0.6x{!yw,t., + f,,twd)x(d, -2t1 J

where /,dis the yield stress of the doubler plate of thickness lwd

Hence
¢V, = 0.9 x 0.6 x (457 -2 x 145) x (9.1x320+ 6 x 250) N = 1019 kN

Now check interaction of shear and bending (assuming the web is unstiffened) to
determine ¢V,m. Ignore doubler plate in determining ¢M,.
Therefore
¢M, =448kNm
M' = 423 kN > 0.75x ¢M, = 336 kNm
Hence
6 423
¢V,m = 1019x(2.2 l. x )=702kN > v· =615kN
448 '
Therefore ADOPT 6 mm thick web doubler plate on one side of the column web

5.4.3 Ridge Connection

The moments, axial forces and shears for Member 4 for the various load combinations are
given in Table 5.2. The design actions for Member 5 on the other side of the ridge are
essentially the same. The steps for the design of the ridge connection in this design example
are as follows:
I. Select the design actions
2. Check the bolt capacity
3. Check the plate strength
4. Design the flange welds
5. Design the web welds

1. Desig11 Actions for LC21

Design actions to maximise N;
M' = 125.3 kNm
N' = 64.6 kN (tension positive)
V' = -0.5 kN < 40 kN minimum

Hence
v· =40 kN

Check the 30% minimum flexural capacity AS4 I 00 Cl. 9. I .4(vi)

AISC DPFB/03 Desi'gn Example - Frame Connections 135

M10% = 0.30x222 = 66.6 kNm, but not critical because less than M'
125.3 ' +--xcos3
64.6 ' +-xsm3
40 . ' =400kN
Nj, -----xcos3
0.352-0.010 2 2
v,.; = 64.6x sin3° + 40xcos3° = 43 kN

Standard AISC bolted moment end plates for a 360UB45 have:

• 8 - M24 8.8/TB bolts
• 180x32 end plates
However, try 8-M20 8.8/TB bolts and a J80x25 plate

Table 5.2 Design Actions for Ridge Joint

Load Moment Axial Force Shear Force V'

Combination M' N' kN
kNm kN
LC20: l.25DL + l.5LL 131.2 -38.7 -2.0
LC21: 0.8DL + CWI + IPCW -125.3 64.6 -0.5
LC22: 0.8DL + CW2 + IPCW 60.7 39.4 2.1
LC23: J.25DL + CW2 + IPCW 117.9 -57.7 8.3
LC24: 0.8DL + LWI + IPLW 82.5 51.1 3.3
LC25: l.25DL + LW2 + ISLW 135.0 -49.8 1.7

2. Check Bolt Capaci(y

The bolt size must be such that
N~ < ¢N,. . Sect. 4.8.3.2 [2}
v,.: <¢V/b
Nft• =400kN
v.: =43 kN

Try 4 - M20 8.8/TB bolts at each flange

kp, = 0.30
4x163
¢N" =1.30
= 502 kN > Nj, = 400 kN OK
¢vfb = 4x92.6
136 Frame Connections AISC DPFBIOJ

= 370 kN > V~ = 43 kN OK

Hence ADOPT 8 - M20 8.8/TB bolts

3. Check Plate Stre11r:_t/1

Nfl < [¢N pb•¢VJW l AS4100 Sect. 4.8.3.3 [2]

Try l 80x25 end plate

0.9/y;b;t?
t/Npb =
a fe
fj,; =250MPa
b; =ISO mm
I; =25mm
dh 20
a1, =ar-z-=60-2=50mm

0.9x250x180x 25 2
t/Nµb = 50 N
= 506 kN > N ft• = 267 kN OK
¢Vp, = 2¢0.5fj,;b;t;= 2x0.9x0.5x250x180x25 N
•
=1012kN > Nft=400kN OK

Hence ADOPT 180><25 end plates

4. Desir:.11 Flanr:.e Welds

[Nfi,Nj,J < ¢Nw

Note that the design actions Nfi and Nj, for the design of the welds have different
values from those for the design of the bolts and end plates as discussed in the knee joint
design.
For a 360UB45: kmw = 0.18 Table E.2 [2]
kw = 0.42
Hence
= (l-0.18)xl25.3xcos3° + (l-0.42)x64.6xcos3' + 40xsin3'
0.352 -0.010 2 2
= 300 + 19 +I= 320 kN
Try 6 E48XX SP fillet welds to flanges
t/Nw =2Lw¢Vw
¢Vw =design capacity of fillet weld per unit length
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Frame Ccnnections 137

= 0.978 kN/mm Appendix B [2]

Hence
¢Nw =2xl7lx0.978
= 334 kN > Np =320kN OK

Hence ADOPT 6 E48XX SP fillet welds to flanges

5. Desi(l11 Web Welds

Sect. 4. 8.3.1 [2}

= d, - 21fo = 352 - 2x9.7 = 333 mm

Nw 3Mw 0.42 X 64.6 3x0.18X125.3 x 10 3
v,• =--+-- = +----~--
2Lw 4, 2 x 333 333 2
= 0.041+0.610 = 0.651 kN/mm

= ~ = 0.097 kN/mm
2 x 333
Therefore

vv, J .2
+vy
•2
=0.66kN/mm

Try 6 E48XX SP fillet welds to web

¢vw = 0.978 kN/mm Table E.2 [2]

> vv,
J .2 .2
+vy = 0.66 kN/mm OK

0
ADOPT the following ridge connection:
• 8 - M20 8.8/TB bolts
• 90mm gauge
• 130 mm pitch
• l 80x25 end plate
• E48XX SP fillet welds to flange
• E48XX SP fillet welds to web

5.4.4 Base Plates

The steps for the design of the base plate in this design example are as follows:
1. Select the design actions
2. Check the bolt capacity
3. Check the plate capacity for axial tension iri the column
4. Design the welds
.5. Check the plate capacity for axial compression in the column
138 Frame Connections AISC DPFB/03

Check standard AISC base plate: AISC [2]

• 560x230x25 plate
• 4 - M24 4.6/S bolts
• 400 mm pitch
• 130 mm gauge

1. Select Desir:n Actions

As the portal frame has been designed as a pinned base frame, there are theoretically no
bending moments at the base. The axial forces and shear forces for various load
combinations are given in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3 Design Actions for Base Plate

..
Load Axial Force N' Shear Force V'
. Combination kN kN

LC20: 1.25DL + J.5LL 83.0 38.6

LC21: 0.8DL + CWJ + IPCW -94.7 67.7
LC22: O.BDL + CW2 + IPCW -54.6 45.9
-12.0 -25.3
LC23: J.25DL + CW2 + JSCW 61.6 -16.1
105 -55.8
LC24: 0.8DL + LWI + IPLW -44.5 -12.1
LC25: 1.25DL + LW2 + ISLW 93.4 39.1

2. Check Bolt Capacitv

N; <¢N1b Sect. 4.12.6 [2]

where
N; =the design tension in the column
¢Nib =the capacity of the bolt group in tension
(N;) mox = 94.7 kN
v· =67.7kN
For 4 - M24 4.6/S bolts
¢Ni• =4xll3
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Frame Connections 139

=452 kN > N,' = 94.7 kN OK

but check for combined shear and tension per bolt

• 94.7
Ntf =--=23.7kN
4
• 67.7
V1 =4=16.9kN

¢Nlf = 113 kN (M24 4.6/S) Table A2.1 [2]

¢Vr = 64.3 kN (M24 4.6/S) Table A2.1 [2}

Linear interaction is favoured in the AISC connections manual [2]

over the less conservative circular interaction in AS4100. Sect. 5.12.4 [2}
Therefore
23.7 + 16.9 = 0.47 < l.O OK
113 64.3
Hence ADOPT 4 - M24 4. 6/S holding down bolts
Anchorage of the holding down bolts in concrete footings is treated in Chapter 7.

3. Check Plate Bending Caoacifv tor Te11sio11 in Column

tf>N, = design strength of steel base plate in bending due to axial tension in column
(see Figure 5.12)

Sect. 4.12.4 [2}

This formula applies to UB's and WB's for which .J2 br, ,; d,. Refer to the AISC
connections manual [2] for cases where .J2 br, > d,.
Therefore
0.9x4x190x250x25 2 x4 kN
¢N,
.fi.x130x2x!OOO
= 1163 kN > N,' =94.7 kN OK

Could adopt a thinner base plate than the standard AISC base plate which is 25 mm thick.
In fact, the base plate could be 12 mm thick if the design tension of 94.7 kN were the
only consideration. However, the bases of portal frames provide some moment restraint
which improves the stiffuess of the frames, and a thicker base plate will assist in
providing restraint. In addition, some robustness of base plates is an advantage during
erection.

Hence ADOPT a 20 mm thick base plate

140 Frame Connections AISC DPFB!OJ

4. Check Welds

N 1• < ¢Nw
fNw = design capacity of fillet weld at base of column subject to axial tension in
column
= ¢vwlw
Lw =total length of fillet weld around column section profile

Try 6 E48XX SP fillet welds

fNw = 0.978x(2x2xl90 + 428x2) Sect. 4.12.4 [2}
= 1580 kN > N 1• = 94.7 kN OK
Note that the above method for determining the weld capacity between the column and
base plate does not allow for concentration of force in the welds in the vicinity of the
bolts. As full redistribution of the forces in the welds to mobilise the full weld length is
unlikely, it is recommended that a shorter length of weld be assumed.

bro bro
I

de

:E ~
de
+ +

nb=2
+ +

w
nb=4

Figure 5.12: Base Plate Arrangement

5. Check Plate Capacity for Axial Compression

Portal frame columns are generally lightly loaded unless there are heavy crane or
machinery loads. A check on the base plate and top of the concrete footing due to
compression is not warranted (Section 4.12.3 [2]).
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Frame Connections 141

5.4.5 End Wall Column Connections

5:4.5.1 GENERAL
Apart from designing for different forces, the conoection at the top of the centre column needs
to be treated differently from the connection at the top of the quarter-point column because of
the presence of bolted moment end plates at the apex. As these plates project below the apex,
the eccentricity of connection at the top of the centre column is greater. Another difference is
that it is necessary to design rafter stiffeners above the quarter-point columns to transfer the
shear from the top of the column to the bracing plane.
The base plates and holding down bolts can be designed conventionally for the applied
forces. Sometimes two holding down bolts are sufficient but four bolts can be necessary for
detailing purposes if there is end wall bracing in order to avoid obstruction of the wall bracing
cleats. In this design example, end wall bracing is not required because the typical portal
frame is also used for the end frames. ·
The design of the top connections for the central and quarter-point end wall columns is
dealt with in the following sections.

- -
+ +
+ + - -

---
Bracing plan e

+ +
-

!OE
35
70
+ +
±-·I-+
+1+
- ,...

tII
r '.
140
'
200

Fignre 5.13 Connection of Cen:o-al End Wall Column to Rafter at Apex

5.4.5.2 CENTRE COLUMN - TOP C01'"-'°CTION

Refer to Figure 5 .13
Maximum UDL ~ (0.7 + 0.65)xl.02x6.25 ~ 8.61 kN/m
142 Frame Connections . AISC DPFB!OJ

8.155
Reaction at top of column= 8.61x--=35.l kN
2
Eccentricity of top connection= 350 mm
Moment to be carried by bolt group f 35.lx0.35 = 12.3 kNm
2
Ix. bolt group = 2x2x35 = 490b mm2
2
ly,boltgroup =2x2x70 =19,600mm2
Ip, bolt group =Ix+ ly = 24,500 mm2
Horizontal component
35.1 12.3xl03 x35
=-+ 26.3kN
4 24,500
Vertical component
12.3x 10 3 x 70
35.1 kN
24,500
Resultant
v·f = ~26.3 2 + 35.1 2 = 43.9 kN
¢Vr = 0.8x0.62x830x225 N
= 92.6 kN > v; = 43.9 kN OK

Could try 2-M20 8.8/S bolts but adopt 4 - M20 8.8/S bolts

5.4.5.3 QUARTER-POINT COLUMNS - TOP CONNECTION

I. Clreck Bolts
Refer to Figure 5.14
Reaction= 35.,1 kN say
Eccentricity= 230 mm
Moment of bolt group = 35.1 x0.230 = 8.1 kNm
2
8.1 ) (35.1)2
Resultant force = ( 0.1 + 2
4
= 60.5 kN < 92.6 kN
Hence ADOPT 2 - M20 8.8/S bolts

2. Check Stiffeners for Rafter

0.36
Moment at base of stiffener= 35.lx-- = 6.3 kNm
2
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Frame Connections 143

:
Eg
~N
0

~~
>
~~
"
0
~

~
0

+ +
'
I
~

r
I
140
200

FigUre 5.14: Quarter-Point Column to Rafter Connection

For 75x10 stiffeners straddling a 7 mm web:

0.9 x 300x 157 2 x 10
4
= 16.6 kNm > 6.3 kNm OK
Hence ADOPT 75 ><10 stiffeners each side at the quarter-point

5.5 References
1. Australian Institute of Steel ·Construction (1985). Standardized Structural Connections, 3rd
edn, AISC, Sydney. .
2. Hogan, T.J. and Thomas, LR. (1994) Design ofStandardized Structural Connections, 4th edn.,
AISC, Sydney.
3. Standards Australia (1998). AS4JOO Steel Structures, SA, Sydney.
144 AISC DPFB/03
6 Roof & Wall Bracing
6.1 GENERAL

Portal frames resist cross wind forces by in-plane flexure, but longitudinal wind forces acting
on the end walls must be transferred via roof bracing to the side walls and thence to the
foundations, as shown in Figure 6.1.
Roof and wall bracing often consist of panels of double diagonals which are so slender
as to have negligible capacity in compression, as shown in Figure 6.2. Such members include
pretensioned rods, slender tubes and angles. In the design of double diagonal tension bracing,
one of each pair of diagonals is assumed to act in tension as shown in Figure 6.1, depending
on the direction of wind loading, and the other diagonal is usually ignored. In addition to
tension forces, roof bracing diagonals have to carry their own weight whether by cable action
in the case of rods, or by beam action in the case of tubes and angles.

Nodal forces on
leeward wall
//
/

Nodal forces on
windward wall

Figure 6.1 Roof and Wall Bracing

As common as tension bracing is, there is not a widely accepted method of design
which accounts for tension and self weight. This problem was investigated in References [1]
and [2], and the results are presented in this chapter.

145
 AISC DPFB/03
146 Roof & Wall Bracing

e
T
T= p
cose

Figure 6.2 Double Diagonal Bracing Module

6.2 ERECTION PROCEDURE

Portal frames can collapse during construction if adequate care is not taken to use permanent
or temporary bracing to withstand wind gusts. The procedure to be used varies from building
to building depending on the type and location of the permanent roof and wall bracing bays
and whether the end wall frame is a braced frame or a portal frame.
For example, if the pennanent bracing consists of single diagonal tension bracing in
each end bay as showo in Figure 6.6(V), the structure will not be stable until the two ends are
tied together by purlins. In this case, temporary diagonals would need to be used so that there
is double diagonal bracing at each end until the two bracing bays are connected by purlins. It
follows that such bracing is unlikely to be economical.

6.3 FORCES

6.3.1 Longitudinal Wind Forces

The primary function of a triangulated roof and wall bracing system is to withstand
longitudinal wind forces. By means of the bracing system, the forces on the upper half of the
end walls, and the frictional drag forces on the roof and side walls, are transferred to the side
wall bracing and thence to the foundations.

6.3.2 Rafter Bracing Forces

In addition to the longitudinal wind forces, the bracing system could also be considered as
resisting accumulated, coincidental pur!in or fly brace forces. When the top flange is in
compression, the purlins act as braces whereas fly braces restrain the bottom flange when it is
in compression. However, it is unclear whether the bracing forces should be accumulated.
Purlins and fly braces together could be considered as providing a rotational restraint system
in accordance with Clause 5.4.3.2 of AS4100. In this case, it would not be necessary to treat
the compression flanges of rafters as parallel restrained members in accordance with Clause
5.4.3.3, and therefore it would not be necessary to accumulate the forces. On the other hand,
purlins and fly braces could be considered as providing restraint against lateral deflection of
A.ISC DPFD/03 Forces 147

the compression flange (Clause 5.4.3.1) and in this case the bracing forces would be
accumulated.
It is interesting to comPare roof trusses as far as accumulation of bracing forces is
. concerned. The bottom compression chord of a series of large span roof trusses under net
uplift is usually braced qack to the end bracing bays by a system of struts or ties. In this case,
the bracing forces shoull! be accumulated and then combined with forces due to longitudinal
wind. When the top chord is in compression, it is usually regarded as being braced by purlins
back to the end bracing bays. Logically, the top chord bracing forces should also be
accumulated, but as the compression in the top chord is generally due to gravity loads, there
are no other longitudinal forces in combination and so the loads on the end bracing bays are
not likely to be critical.
It could be similarly argued that the top or bottom flange bracing forces ofUB or WB
rafters, whichever flange is in compression, should also be accumulated. However, even if the
lateral restraint argument (as opposed to the rotational restraint argument) is accepted, the
accumulated bracing forces are usually a small part of the total longitudinal force for portal
frame buildings. It is therefore considered reasonable for UB or WB rafters to ignore
accumulated bracing forces in the design of the roof and wall bracing bays.

6.4 BRACING PLANE

Because purlins form part of the bracing system, at least as lateral restraints for the rafters, it
could be argued that it is desirable to have the bracing plane as close as possible to the purlins
to limit the eccentricity. The top flange of the rafters is ideal in this respect, but the clearance
of diagonals under the purlins can be a problem, especially if double diagonals are used as
shown in Figure 6.3. This potential conflict can be overcome by using higher (non-standard)
purlin cleats- as shown.
Other options for top flange bracing include the use of a bracing layout with only
single diagonals as discussed in Section 6.5. In this case, diagonal angle bracing can be
erected with legs down, and purlins with the standard 10 mm clearance can still be used as
shown in Figure 6.4. Crossed dou)Jle-diagonal angles can also be used with the legs down,
but one diagonal must be discontinuous. This arrangement is difficult to erect without the
purlins in place and therefore is not recommended.
Alternatively, the bracing plane can be dropped below the top flange, as shown in
Figure 6.5. The selection of the bracing plane also affects the end wall rafter and column
detailing as discussed in Section 4.7. Jn general, the mid-height of the rafter minimises
detailing difficulties and is therefore the best bracing plane.

6.5 BRACING LAYOUT

The choice of the roof and wall bracing layout for a building would appear at first thought to
be a very simple decision. To resist end wall wind loads, the most typical layout is with each
end bay braced (Option I, Figure 6.6). However, there can be detailing difficulties connecting
148 Roof & Wall Bracing AISC DPFB/03

the bracing to the end wall rafter if it is smaller than the typical rafter, or if it is discontinuous
at end wall columns. This can be overcome if the second bays from the end are braced
(Option Ill), but extra struts will be needed in the end bays to transfer the loads from the end
wall columns to the braced bays (unles.s the purlins can double as struts).
If the typical (internal) portal frame is also used for the end frames without a reduction
in member size, the detailing difficulties in the end bays do not arise, and both end bays can
be braced. As discussed in Section 4.7, the use of the typical portal frame for the end frames
has a number of advantages. Although the frame itself will be heavier, this approach avoids
the need for end wall bracing. Any extra tonnage if priced rationally will be repetitive and
should be reflected in lower rates.

Top flange

====

Cleat butt welded

to edge of flange

Purlin

Non-standard
purlin clearance
Angle diagonal

Figure 6.3 Bracing at Top Flange Level

A.ISC DPFB/03 Bracing Layout 149

+
+
+ < .
- - L - +- - -
~ --
Non-standard _/==v=....,*3il=if--'I 10 I I
clearance Standard
clearance Check for confilct
between bolts
and pu rlin

Figure 6.4 Bracing at Top Flange Using Uncrossed Diagonals

{Appropriate/or Layout Options II and v,i

10
Standard
clearance

Figure 6.5 Bracing Plane at Mid-Height ofRafter

Therefore, the choice of bracing bays is influenced by the choice of the end wall
frame. Five different bracing layout options are shown in Figure 6.6. It can be seen that in
Options II and V, single (uncrossed) diagonals have been used. This is an advantage if
diagonals are tubes which cannot easily be crossed, or if there is insufficient clearance under
purlins to cross angles back to back, as discussed in the previous section. With Options I, III
and N, each set of double diagonals could be replaced by a more costly single diagonal
compression member to overcome clearance problems.
The use of purlins as struts to transfer end wall wind loads is possible in Options III
and IV, but this is not as inherently sound as using independent tubular struts. Independent
struts are not attached to the roof sheeting, and do not rely on the presence ofroof sheeting to
brace against buckling. It is obviously preferable for a steel building to have a skeleton which
will continue standing if the roof sheeting blows off. This may not be the case if purlins are
used as struts. Using purlins as struts is conditional on the purlins having sufficient reserve
capacity in bending to take the axial compression, as discussed in Section 3.6.
 AISC DPFB/03
150 Roof & Wall Bracing

No intermediate
struts needed ]
--------
x x
x------- x
x x
x- -- -- -- -- -- -- x -

I. Two End Bays Braced II. Double Diagonal Bracing

over Two Bays at Each End

Additional sir; Struts l

1
X_
---Xl_ __ _

X_
X_ ~=
III. Bracing in Second Bay IV. One Bay Braced
from Each End Rafter

Tension ties ~

~
~ /
/ ~
/ ~
V. Single Diagonal Tension
Bracing at Each End

Figure 6.6 Bracing Layout Options

 AISC DPFB/03 Bracing Layout 151

A summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the various options is as follows.

Option !: Two End Bays Braced
• This is the simplest and most direct option.
l• Intermediate eaves and ridge struts are sometimes used as shown dashed. However,
purlins are usually sufficient to brace internal rafters so that no intermediate struts are
required.
• Longitudinal wind loads, as a combination of pressure on the windward wall, suction on
the leeward wall and friction, could be shared between braced bays if purlins have the
capacity to transfer ·some compression load from one end to the other. However, it is
recommended that the bracing at each end be designed to resist loads from external
pressure and internal suction on the adjacent end wall (plus half of the frictional drag
forces if applicable). This keeps the purlin design simple as purlins can then be designed
without considering combined actions.
• Diagonals are crossed which means that CHS sections, which are efficient as long ties
under self weight, cannot easily be used. This option also excludes the use of the top
flange as a bracing plane with angle diagonals crossed back to back unless higher purlin
cleats are used.
• End bay bracing can have detailing difficulties at the end wall rafter as discussed in
Sections 4.7 and 6.4.

Option JI: Double Diagonal Bracing Over Two Bays at Each End
• Diagonals intersect at rafters and therefore tubes can be used as diagonals without
difficulty if they are not crossed.
• The number of diagonals is the same as for Option I but m6re struts are required.

Option III: Second Bay (ram Each End Braced

• This option can overcome any detailing difficulties associated with end bay bracing but
extra struts are required to transfer the end wall wind loads to the braced bays unless the
purlins can act as struts.

Option IV: One Bav Braced

• · Struts in the unbraced bays are required to transfer end wall wind loads to the braced bay
which is expensive unless the purlins can act as struts.

Ootion V: Single Diagonal Tension Bracing at Each End

• Unstable during erection.
• The windward braced bay takes all of the longitudinal wind loads.
• Purlins are usually sufficient to brace internal rafters as in Option I. Leeward end wall
forces are transmitted to the active braced bay at the windward end by purlins in tension.
• Tubes can be used for diagonals without difficulty as they are not crossed.
• Single diagonal rods with turnbuckles should not be used as there is nothing to tension
against.
 AISC DPFB/03
152 Roof & Wall Bracing

• Temporary diagonals may be necessary to create a double diagonal bracing system for
erection purposes in which case there is little advantage in a single diagonal system.

6.6 TENSION RODS

Rods cater Jor the lower end of the range of tensile forces, and are very common in light
industrial buildings. Rods differ from tubes and angles in that they must be pretensioned to
reduce their self weight sag. However, there are certain aspects of rod pretensioning which
are not widely understood. The aspects which need to be considered are as follows.
• The minimum level of pretension force needed to reduce the sag sufficiently to
avoid undue axial slack in the rod.
• The level of pretension used in practice.
• The effect of pretension on the tensile capacity.
• The effect of pretension on the end connections, and on the adjacent struts in the
roof bracing system, when wind loads are applied.
In addressing these questions, it was suggested at one stage [3] that a pretension of
10% to 15% of the allowable axial force would reduce sag to an acceptable level. This
corresponded to a pretension of about 10% of the design axial force for the strength limit state.
More recent advice [4] suggests pretension forces should be 10% to 15% of the yield capacity.
While these levels of pretension may be adequate, it is not practical to measure or control the
prestress level in practice. To answer the questions above properly, it is necessary to examine
the behaviour of pretensioned rods in some detail.
Long rods behave like cables whose self-weight is carried by tension alone; the tension
being inversely proportional to the sag. For small sags in roof bracing situations, the tensile
stress fa, versus sag ye relationship has been shown [2] to be independent of the rod diameter,
and is given by

/ 0, =9.62x!0- x(~:J
6
MPa (6.1)

in which L is the length of the rod and bothyc and L are in mm. This relationship is presented
graphically in Figure 6.7. Using this equation, it can be demonstrated that as a rod is
tensioned, very little force is required to reduce the sag until the sag gets to about span/I 00.
The rod then begins to stiffen suddenly and behave as a straight tension member. This is
shown graphically in Figure 6.8. Therefore, the maximum sag of a rod to avoid undue axial
slack should be about span/100. Surprisingly, a stress of only 20 MPa is required to reduce
the sag ofa 20 metre cable to the L/100 deflection. However, typical stress levels in practice
could be much higher as experiments at The University of Queensland have indicated [2].
In these experiments [2], six different laboratory technicians were asked to tighten rods
ranging in diameter from 12 mm to 24 mm with spans up to 13 metres long. They were told
to tighten the nuts as if they were working on site. Once tightened at one end, the force in the
rod was measured with a calibrated proving ring connected to the other end. The experiments
revealed that the average level of pretension force was well in excess of the value of 10% to
AISC DPFB/03 Tension Rods 153

15% suggested in Reference [4]. In fact, it was found that 16 mm diameter rods were
tensioned close to their design capacity, while 20 mm rods were tensioned to between 40%
and 55% of their design tensile capacity. Because of these unexpectedly high pretension
forces, excessive sag is not a problem, even for a 20 metre span.

Cables or Rods
200

"' 150
0..
::;::

~-:; 100

Figure 6.7 Effect ofAxial Stress on Cable and Rod Deflections

The presence of pretension does not affect the ultimate tensile capacity of the rod
itself. However, there are a few other factors that need to be considered in the design ofroof
bracing rods.
In some cases of over-tensioiiing, the active tension diagonal m3.y yield under the
serviceability wind load, although yielding will relieve the pretension in the system to some
extent. Fortunately, the fracture capacity of the threaded section exceeds the yield capacity of
the rod itself as shown in Table 6.1 (except for an Ml2 rod). This means that the main body of
the rod will generally yield before failure of the turnbuckle section. Because of the
pretension, the rod connections should be designed so that their ultim3:te or fracture capacity is
equal to or greater than the ultimate or fracture capacity of the rods. This is particularly
important because oversized rods are often used. For example, a 20 mm diameter rod may be
used because of its robustness where only a 16 mm diameter rod is required. This philosophy
for the end connection design ofrods is covered in Clause 9.1.4(b)(iii) of AS4100.
Pretensioning could also result in overloading of the struts in the roof bracing system,
especially if rods larger than that required are used. A check should therefore be made in the
design of the struts to cater for forces in the diagonals· due to combined pretension and wind
load as shown in the design examp!e.
 Roof & Wall Bracing AISC DPFB/03
154

Table 6.1 Tensile Capacity of Rods

Unthreaded Tensile Threaded Governing

Shank Yield Ultimate Shank Shank Stress Rod Tensile Tensile
Diameter Stress Stress Area Yield Load Area Capacity Capacity
D fy fu An ¢Ad, A, ¢Ntf
mm MPa MPa mm' kN mm' kN kN
(¢=0.9) (¢=0.8)

12 300 440 113 30.5 84.3 29.7 29.7

16 300 440 201 54.3 157 55.3 54.3
20 300 440 314 84.8 245 86.2 84.8
...
24 300 440 452 122 353 124 122
30 300 440 706 191 561 197 191
36 300 440 1016 274 817 288 274

300
Datum for effective axial
strain based on an ,..,.,r'I
250 arbitrary initial sag $'I
of LI 50 vi/

200
0

'"'__, 6L
.,.:::°$'!'I
/:;'' r'/
TI
"' -
t-~~r
(L
:E 150 L
..::
~ "'., 'I .,
,,'V 'I ,,"'
100 .__,'I .__,
'/
I
50 I o Corresponds to
I
/ L/100 sag.
----0
0 10 20 30x10- 4
Effective axial strain t.L/L

Figure 6.8 Effective Axial Stiffness of Cables or Rods

AISC DPFB/03 Tension Rods 155

In summary, unsupported roof bracing rods may be designed as though they are fully
supported with pretension ignored, but the .connections and struts should be designed for the
ultimate design capacity of the diagonals. A typical connection detail is shown in Figure 6.9.
It is not necessary to slot the end cleat to create a concentric end detail, unless there are
aesthetic reasons to do so. The tensile capacities of rods of Grade 300 steel are given in Table
6.1.

Figure 6.9 Typical End Connection for Rods

6.7 TUBES AND ANGLES IN TENSION

In contrast to rods, tubes and angles are not easily pretensioned and must be sized as beams to
limit self weight sag. The uncertainties for designers, as far as tube and angle section
members are concerned, are firstly the effect of self weight bending on tensile capacity, and
secondiY deflection limits. Some engineers combine self weight bending actions with axial
tensile actions, while many engineers intuitively ignore the bending actions.
It can be shown theoretically [2] that self weight bending has a marginal effect on the
ultimate fracture capacity of a tube or angle. This is because the sag and self-weight bending
moments reduce as the tension increases. It can therefore be concluded that self-weight
bending actions need not be considered in combination with axial tension.
As proposed for rods, a maximum sag of span/I 00 is suggested to avoid undue slack.
However, it is advisable to limit deflections to span/150 to avoid lack of fit without propping
during erection, and for aesthetic reasons. Note that even with a span/150 deflection, there is
occasionally concern expressed during construction as the sag can be quite evident if one
sights along the member. The sag is not generally obvious from floor level. Tables 6.2 and
6.3 give the maximum spans for the 'various families of tubes based on a maximum sag of
span/150 whereas the maximum spans for span/150 sag for individual CHS and SHS members
are given in Tables 6.6 to 6.12 inclusive. Table 6.4 gives maximum spans and tension
capacities for individual angles.
Of course, the designer has the option of suspending the diagonals from the purlins,
but very flexible diagonals (other than rods) can be difficult to erect before the purlins are in
place because of lack of fit. If the purlins are erected first, the stability of the portal frames
without bracing may be inadequate and lifting the diagonals into place will be more difficult
because of obstruction from the purlins. Furthermore, the extra labour necessary to drill and
suspend may cost more than the material saved. The effect of purlin uplift loads on the
capacity of diagonals should also be taken into account. With all these factors considered,
suspending very flexible diagonals from purlins is not recommended.
156 Roof & Wall Bracing AISC DPFB/03

Table 6.2 Maximum Length of CHS Tension

Ties for Span/I 50 Deflection

Outside Lmu forL/lpO

Diameter, D Maximum Deflection
mm m

324 25.3
273 22.6
219 19.5
168 16.3
165 16.3
•.
140 14.5
114 12.5
102 11.7
89 10.5
76 9.6
60 8.1
48 6.9
42 6.4

Table 6.3 Maximum Length of SHS Tension Ties

for Span/I 50 Deflection

Outside Lmox for L/150

Dimellsion, B Maximum Deflection
mlJl m .
250 23.3
200 19.9
150 16.2
125 14.2
100 12.0
89 11.4
75 10.0
65 90
50 7.5
35 6.4
AISC DPFB/03 Tubes in Compression 157

Table 6.4a Maximum Lengths and Tensile .Capacities of Equal Angle Tension Ties

Maximum lengths for span/150 sag

e~
MAXIMUM LENGTHS AND TENSILE CAPACITIES
OF EAUAL ANGLE TENSION TIES
e

SECTION t
i

Mass f,

mm kg/m MPa MPa

f,
No. of
bolts Bolt
across dia.
len
.N,

kN
~ 0=0°
m
440=5°
m
0=10°
m
Crossed
& bolted
m

200x200x 26 EA
26.0 76.8 280 440 2 20 2465 14.0 13.7 13.4 16.9
20 EA
20.0 60.1 280 440 2 20 1930 14.1 13.8 13.5 17.1
18 18.0
EA 54.4 280 440 2 20 1746 14.1 13.8 13.5 17.1
16 EA
16.0 48.7 300 440 2 20 1572 14.2 13.8 13.6 17.2
13 EA 13.0 40.0 300 440 2 20 1293 14.2 13.9 13.6 17.2

150x150x 19 EA 19.0 42.1 280 440 2 20 1294 11.6 11.3 11.1 14.0
16 EA 15.8 35.4 300 440 2 20 1094 11.6 11.4 11.1 14.1
12 EA 12.0 27.3 300 440 2 20 845 11.7 11.4 11.2 14.2
10 EA 10.0 21.9 320 440 2 20 672 11.7 11.5 11.2 14.2

125x125x 16 EA 15.8 29.1 300 440 2 16 899 10.2 10.0 9.8 12.4
12 EA 12.0 22.5 300 440 2 16 698 10.3 10.1 9.9 12.5
10 EA 9.5 18.0 320 440 2 16 560 10.3 10.1 9.9 12.5
8 EA 7.8 14.9 320 .440 2 16 463 10.4 10.1 9.9 12.6

100x100x 12 EA 12.0 17.7 300 440 1 20 571 8.8 8.6 8.5 10.7
10 EA 9.5 14.2 320 440 1 20 458 8.9 8.7 8.5 10.8
8 EA 7.8 11.8 320 440 1 20 380 8.9 8.7 8.5 10.8
6 EA 6.0 9.16 320 440 1 20 297 8.9 8.7 8.5 10.8

90x90x 10 EA 9.5 12.7 320 440 1 20 404 8.2 8.1 7.9 10.0
8 EA 7.8 10.6 320 440 1 20 337 8.3 8.1 7.9 10.0
6 EA 6.0 8.22 320 440 1 20 263 8.3 8.1 7.9 10.1

75x75x 10 EA 9.5 10.5 320 440 1 20 324 7.3 7.1 6.9 8.8
8 EA 7.8 8.73 320 440 1 20 268 7.3 7.1 7.0 8.8
6 EA 6.0 6.81 320 440 1 20 210 7.3 7.1 7.0 8.9
5 EA 4.6 5.27 320 440 1 20 163 7.3 7.2 7.0 8.9

65x65x 10 EA 9.5 9.02 320 440 1 16 280 6.6 6.5 6.3 8.0
,8 EA 7.8 7.51 320 440 1 16 234 6.6 6.5 6.4 8.0
6 EA 6.0 5.87 320 440 1 16 183 6.7 6.5 6.4 8.1
5 EA 4.6 4.56 320 440 1 16 143 6.7 6.5 6.4 8.1

55x55x 6 EA 6.0 4.93 320 440 1 16 149 5.9 5.8 5.7 7.2
5 EA 4.6 3.84 320 440 1 16 116 6.0 5.8 5.7 7.2

50x50x 8 EA 7.8 5.68 320 440 1 16 167 5.5 5.4 5.3 6.6
6 EA 6.0 4.46 320 440 1 16 132 5.6 5.4 5.3 6.7
5 EA 4.6 3.48 320 440 1 16 103 5.6 5.4 5.3 6.8
3 EA 3.0 2.31 320 440 1 16 69.0 5.6 5.5 5.4 6.8

45x45x 6 EA 6.0 3.97 320 440 1 12 121 5.2 5.0 4.9 6.2
5 EA 4.6 3.10 320 440 1 12 94.3 5.2 5.1 5.0 6.3
3 EA 3.0 2.06 320 440 1 12 63.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 6.3

40x40x 6 EA 6.0 3.50 320 440 1 12 104 4.8 4.6 4.6 5.7
5 EA 4.6 2.73 320 440 1 12 a1.1· 4.8 4.7 4.6 5.8
3 EA 3.0 1.83 320 440 1 12 54.6 4.8 4.7 4.6 5.8

Notes:
1. Deflections are calculated as the vectorial sum of the principal axis deflections.
 AISC DPFB/03
158 Roof & Wall Bracing

Table 6.4b Maximum Lengths and Tensile Capacities of Unequal Angle Tension Ties

Maximum lengths for span/150 sag

MAXIMUM LENGTHS AND TENSILE CAPACITIES ;

.1 J~
OF UNEQUAL ANGLE TENSION TIES
!9

SECTION t

mm
Mass

ka/m
"
MPa
f,

MPa
No.of
bolts Bolt
across dia.
lea
;N,

kN
+ 9,,,0°
m
I
0=5°
m
0=10°
m
& bolted
m

150x10D 12 UA 12.0 22.5 300 440 1 20 658 11.3 10.7 10.3 14.4
10 UA 9.5 18.0 320 440 1 20 528 11.3 10.8 10.3 14.5

150X90 16 UA 15.8 27.9 300 440 1 20 808 11.1 10.4 9.9 14.4
12 UA 12.0 21.6 300 440 1 20 628 11.1 10.4 9.9 14.5
10 UA 9.5 17.3 320 440 1 20 503 11.1 10.5 10.0 14.5
8 UA 7.8 14.3 320 440 1 20 416 11.2 10.5 10.0 14.6

125X75 12 UA 12.0 17.7 300 440 1 20 504 9.8 9.2 8.8 12.8
10 UA 9.5 14.2 320 440 1 20 404 9.8 9.2 8.8 12.8
8 UA 7.8 11.8 320 440 1 20 335 9.8 9.3 8.8 12.9
6 UA 6.0 9.16 320 440 1 20 262 9.9 9.3 8.8 12.9

100X75 10 UA 9.5 12.4 320 440 1 20 346 8.7 8.3 8.1 10.9
8 UA 7.8 10.3 320 440 1 20 287 8.7 8.4 8.1 10.9
6 UA 6.0 7.98 320 440 1 20 224 8.8 8.4 8.1 11.0

75X50 8 UA 7.8 7.23 320 440 1 16 197 7.1 6.7 6.4 9.0
6 UA 6.0 5.66 320 440 1 16 155 7.1 6.8 6.5 9.1
5 UA 4.6 4.40 320 440 1 16 120 7.1 6.8 6.5 9.1

65X50 8 UA 7.8 6.59 320 440 1 16 177 6.5 6.3 6.1 8.1
6 UA 6.0 5.16 320 440 1 16 139 6.5 6.3 6.1 8.2
5 UA 4.6 4.02 320 440 1 16 108 6.6 6.3 6.1 8.2

Notes:
1. Unequal angles are assumed to have their long legs perpendicular to the plane of the roof and to be
connected by their short legs.
2. Deflections are calculated ?S the vectorial sum of the principal axis deflections.
AISC DPFBf03 Tubes in Compression 159

6.8 TUBES IN COMPRESSION

The capacity of vertical tubular struts or columns is governed primarily by flexural buckling.
For a given effective length, the design capacity must be determined using Section 6 of
AS4100. However, roof bracing struts are generally horizontal and the effects of self weight
bending can be significant. For circular hollow sections (CHS) and square hollow sections
(SHS), reduced axial compression capacity tables for horizontal tubular struts under self
weight are presented at the end of this chapter.
The effect of self weight bending moment on axial compression capacity is
demonstrated in Figures 6.10 and 6.11 for selected tube sizes. It can be seen that the reduction
in axial capacity due to self weight bending becomes more pronounced as the strut length
increases. For example, for a 12 metre long 165x5.4 CHS of Grade 250 steel, the reduction in
axial compression capacity is about 34%, while for a l 14x4.5 CHS of Grade 250 steel with a
slenderness ratio of 300 (11.7 m long), the reduction is greater than 42%. In summary, the
effect of self weight bending moment in roof bracing compression members cannot be
ignored, and the design capacity tables presented in this chapter should be used.

Self weight
50
....
;>,,

u
ro
c:J
iii" 40
G-1
w
u

.~
x
ro 30
c CHS
c
0
'E
:::J
20
-0
"'
er:
"rf!. 10

o'--""""~:::___JL____l~~~~~_J
2 4 6 8 10 12
Effective length, L (m)

Figure 6.10 Reduction in Axial Capacity of CHS (Grade 250)

Tubular Struts Due to Self Weight
160 Roof & Wall Bracing AISC DPFB/OJ

60
Self weight
l:' 50
u
ro
C1.
c:J-
ro
u 40
.~
G1
"ro
c
c
30 wSHS
0
:;::
u
:J 20
-a
"'
er
0~ 10

0
z 4 6 8 10 12
Effective length, L (ml

Figure 6.11 Reduction in Axial Capacity of SHS (Grade 350)

Tubular Struts Due to Self Weight

The derivation of the loads in these tables is demonstrated in the design example.
Basically, a tube under selfwe.ight is adequate to support an axial compression load N" if its
amplified self weight bending moment M" is less than or equal to its design capacity ¢M1
given by

¢M,=¢M,(1-;J (6.2)

By iteration, the load N" for which M • equals ¢M1 can be determined. This load is the axial
compression capacity reduced by the effect of self-weight bending and is denoted ¢N".
The values of M" and ¢M1 are sensitive to the level of axial load. This means that
manual iteration can be slow. For example, the Grade 350 l39.7x3.0 CHS in the design
example has an M" value of2.36 kNm and a ¢M1 value of7.45 kNm for an applied axial load
N" of34.6 kN. The ratio of M" /¢M1 is about 0.32, and yet the ratio N" !¢N,c (= 34.6/48.5)
is much higher at 0.71.
AISC DPFBf03 End Connections for Struts & Ties 161

6.9 END CONNECTIONS FOR STRUTS AND TIES

6.9.1 Tubes
6.9.1.l TuBES INTENSION
End connection details vary with the size of the tube and the design load. In practice several
types of end connection detail may be used as shown in Figure 6.12. The simplest detail is to
flatten out the end of the tube so that a direct bolted connection may be made. This method is
economical, but is only feasible for the smaller tubes and has the penalty of wide ends for
detailing and loss of cross-sectional area when in tension. For tubes larger than 100 mm
diameter, the slotted end detail is often used. A cleat plate is welded into a longitudinal slot in
the tube, and then sealed by two thin cap plates on either side. The length of slot needs to be
calculated in accordance with guidelines in Reference [5] that account for shear lag in the tube
wall.
A simpler and possibly more economical detail is to weld a cap plate and cleat, or a
rolled tee, to the end of the tube (see Figure 6.13a). However, there is a high level of stress
concentration in the tube under the cleat and this can limit the capacity of the member. An

0
[E]f + +1Jo+20 (min.)

50 70 35

E~>1'1' rr
(a) Flattened End (CHS Only) (b) Welded Tee End

* 5070 35
• Slot length to be 1' 1' 'I' 1' 1'
determined in accordance
with Reference 5 E:::::3
{c) Slotted End Plate

Figure 6.12 Typical Tube End Connections

 AISC DPFB/03
162 Roof & Wall Bracing

experimental investigation of the behaviour of this type of end conn.ection for circular hollow
tubes in tension [6] tested 21 end connections using three tubes sizes and a combination of8
mm and 12 mm cap and cleat plates.
The study revealed that the high localised tensile stress predicted by using a spread
angle of 45° is too conservative. A more !realistic yet conservative approach would be to
assume a 60° spread from the toe of the fillet welds to calculate the localised tensile stresses
below the cleat plate, as shown in Figure 6.13b. Tests [6] of the type shown in Figure 6.14
revealed that thin cap plates do not mobilise the full cross-section in tension. Because of this,
and because of the resulting lack of member ductility, care should be taken in using the
welded tee end detail for-heavily loaded tubular tension members.

I P/2 each side

of lube

(a) (b)

Figure 6.13 Spread of Stress Through Tube Cap Plate

Figure 6.14 Failure a/Welded Tee End Connection

AJSC DPFB/03 End Connections for Struts & Ties 163

Some fabricators prefer using SHS members in lieu of CHS members because the end
connection at one end is more easily align~d in the, san;ie pla_ne as the connection at the other
end. The material cost per tonne for SHS members also tends to be cheaper than for CHS
members, particularly for the thin-walled CHS members, although this penalty for CHS
members can be offset by weight savings in the thinner-walled CHS members of larger
diameter.

6.9 .1.2 TuBES IN COMPRESSION

For struts, the cap plate and cleat detail is usually adequate as tube sizes for struts are
normally selected on the basis of stability criteria, and the axial compressive stresses are
therefore quite low. Flattened ends could be used for smaller tubes, but the width of the
flattened end can create detailing difficulties as previously mentioned.

6.9.2 Angles
Angles are easily connected by bolting through one leg, although such a connection is
eccentric. For tension members, the eccentricity is accounted for in AS4100 by use of
correction factors k, to reduce the effective cross-sectional areas which are then assumed to be
concentrically loaded.

6.10 ECCENTRICITY
Ideally, all member centrelines at a joint in a triangulated bracing system should intersect at a
point, including the intersection of wall and roof bracing diagonals. If eccentricity cannot be
avoided, then the resulting moments will be carried by the members at a joint in proportion to
their flexural stiffuesses, and the members should be checked for these additional bending
moments. Judicious use of eccentricity can simplify detailing considerably without incurring
any penalty in member size [7].

6.11 DESIGN EXAMPLE - ROOF AND WALL BRACING

6.11.1 Longitudinal Forces
6.11.1. l GENERAL
For the roof bracing layout shown in Figure 6.15, the bracing at each end should be designed
for the following longitudinal forces:
• The forces on the adjacent end wall due to external pressure and internal suction.
• Half of the total longitudinal drag on the roof and the upper half of the side walls.
 Roof & Wall Bracing AISC DPFB/03
164

It can be argued that the combined longitudinal wind forces on both end walls could be
shared equally between the two end bracing systems. This would require some of the purlins
adjacent to each end wall column to have sufficient capacity in compression to balance any
internal suction forces on the end walls, and to transfer some of the force at the more highly
loaded windward end to the leeward end. Whether sharing of the end wall forces is adopted or
not is a matter of design philosophy. Relying on purlins to carry compressive forces from
primary loads such as end wall wind loads is uot as inherently sound as using a roof bracing
system which is independent of the roof sheeting as discussed in Section 6.5.

8 0 9000 = 72000

Figure 6.15 RoofBracing Layout

6.11.1.2 FORCES DUE TO LONGITUDINAL WIND

(a) Forces on End Walls

C,_. (external pressure) =+0.7 ASI 170.2 Table 3.4.3.l(A}
c,.; (internal suction) =-0.65 ASll70.2 Table 3.4.3.J(C)
The longitudinal forces at the ridge, quarter points and the eaves ASll70.2 Cl. 3.2.3
using the 0.95 2 wind direction factor are as follows:
8 7 8 35
= (0.7+0.65)x!.02x( · + · )x6.25x0.95 2 =33.1 kN
. 2x2
8
P114 pofot = (0.7 +6.65)x l.02x ·~ 5 x 6.25 x 0.95 2
= 32.4 kN

= (0.7 + 0.65)x l.02x ; x ( ·~ + 0.5} 0.95 2 = 18.0 kN

80 6 5
P,0 , . ,

(b) Frictional Drag ASJJ 70.2 Cl. 3.4.8

d 72
h= 8.7 = 33 > 4
h=8.7m < b=25m
Hence use Equation 3.4.8(1) ASJJ70.2
Trimdek is closer to being corrugated than being ribbed like K.liplok.
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example- Roof & Wall Bracing 165

2 ASJJ 70.2 Cl. 3.4.8(1)

Fridge ::::: F 114 point ::::: 0.02x 1.02 X 6.25 X (72-4x 8.7)x 0.95
=4.3 kN
Feaves::::: roof component +·wall component

= { 0.02x1.02 x ( ·~
6 5
+ 0.5 )x (72-4x 8.7)

80
+ 0.02x1.02 x ; x (72-4x 8.7)}x 0.95'

=5.2kN
Assume that the frictional drag forces are equally shared by the two bracing systems.
Hence nodal forces due to longitudinal wind are:
43
p ridge = 33.1+ · =35.3 kN
2
43
PJ/4poi"I = 32.4+ ; = 34.6 kN

52
= 18.0+ · =20.6kN
2

72.9
- - - 20.6
A 51 .,_ <Q B
"'"'
~

"-""'
.B
c ---
D
34.6

·a. .

;!Ji 9000
E ---
F
35.3

G --- H
34.6

oaa
72.9
SS --- J
20.6

Figure 6.16 Roof Strut and Diagonal Member Forces

166 Roof & Wall Bracing AISC DPFB/OJ

6.11.1.3 FORCES DUE TO RAFTER BRACING

As discussed in Section 6.3.2 of this chapter, accumulated longitudinal forces due to rafter
bracing are ignored in the design ofroof and wall bracing systems in the design example.

6.11.1.4 FORCES IN ROOF BRACING MEMBERS

The forces in roof bracing members can be simply calculated by the method of joints. Figure
6.16 shows the applied forces and the corresponding member forces.

6.11.2 Struts
For simplicity, !alee the effective length as the distance between intersection points or grids
although the smaller distance between the centres of the end connections could be adopted.
Consider strut S3 in Figure 6.16.
N' =35.3 kN

• TRY a 114x5.4 GRADE 250 CHS (14.5 kg/m)

M, = Sfy = 64.lxlO'x250 Nmm = 16.03 kNm AS4100 Cl. 5.2.1

N, = kfAnfy= l.00xl850x250N=463 kN AS4100 Cl. 6.2.1

= a)I, AS4100 Cl. 6.3.3

=9000mm

= 9000 x ~250 = 234 AS4100 Cl. 6.6.3

38.5 250
= -0.5 (cold-formed section) AS4100 Table 6.3.3(1)
= 0.137 AS4100 Table 6.3.3(3)
= 0.137x463 = 63.4 kN
2
M:, = 1.25. x 0.142 x -90·8 - = 1.80 kNm
where 1.25 is the load factor for dead load
N _ tt
2
x2x!0 5 x2.75x10 6
=67.0kN AS4JOO Cl. 4.6.2
omb - 9000 2 X 1000
1
- -- =2.11 AS4100 Cl. 4.4.2.2.
1- 35.3
67.0
As o;, exceeds 1.4, AS4100 requires a second order elastic analysis to be used to determine
the design bending moments. However, it has been shown [8] that o;, closely
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example- Roof & Wall Bracing 167

approximates its more accurate value of (1+0.03N' IN••, )1(1- N' IN••,) for struts under
self-weight, and so the simpler expression in Clause 4.4.2.2 of AS4100 will be adopted in
this book.
= 2. l lxl.80 = 3.80 kNm

¢M; = 0.9x16.03 x
35 3
·(1
0.9x 63.4
)

= 5.50 kNm > M' = 3.80 kNm OK

Alternatively, the designer may use Table 6.6b to select a suitable section. ·Table 6.6b
shows that the capacity is 39.6 kN.

• TRY a 139. 7x3.0 GRADE 350 CHS (10.1 kg/m}

M, = 53.3xlO'x350 Nmm = 18.66 kNm AS4100 Cl.8.3.1
(Note: section is non-compact)
350
N, = l.Oxl290x-- =452kN
1000
=9000mm
=48.3mm
=350MPa
ab =-0.5 AS4100 Table 6.3.3(1}
A = 1290mm2
Hence using a spreadsheet program:
/l,, = 220
ac = 0.153
NC = 69.1 kN
9 o'
M' = 1.25 x 0.099 x-·- = 1.25 kNm
m 8
;r 2
x2xlO'x3.0lxl0 6 AS4100 Cl. 4.6.2
9000' N = 73.4 kN
1 AS4!00 Cl. 4.2.2
35.3 = 1.93
1--
73.4
M' = l.93xl.25 = 2.41 kNm
35 3
= 0.9xl8.66x(l · )
0.9x69.l
= 7.26 kNm > M' = 2.41 kNm OK
Could use 139.7x3.0 Grade 350 or a !00x4.0 SHS. for S3 as shown in Table 6.5.
Use Tables 6.6 to 6.12 for remaining struts. The capacities of various struts are shown in
Table 6.5.
168 Roof& Wall Bracing AISC DPFB/{13

ADOPT J25x4.0 SHSforSJ, S2, S4, S5 and J00x4.0 SHSfor S3

But check effect of pretension of any rods used for tension diagonals

Table 6.5 Strut Design Forces and Capacities

Strut N' Section Grade Mass Capacity

kN MPa kg/m kN

SJ, S5 72.9 !65.!x3.0 CHS 350 12.0 81.9

125x4.0 SHS 350 14.8 72.9
S2,S4 52.2 139.7x3.5 CHS 350 11.8 56.2
165.Ix3.0 CHS 350 12.0 81.9
125x4.0 SHS 350 14.8 72.9
S3 35.3 114.3x5.4 CHS 250 14.5 39.6
139.7x3.0 CHS 350 10.1 48.5
100x4.0 SHS 350 11.6 35.2

6.11.3 Ties or Tension Diagonals

Consider tie DBI in Figure 6.16
0962
N" = I x 52.2 = 63.6 kN
9000

(a) TRY ANGLESCROSSEDBACKTOBACKANDBOLTED

Length= 10957 mm say U 000 mm
For span/150 deflection, the minimum size is a 100x6 EA as the distance between the end
connections is approximately 10.8 m (Refer to Table 6.4). Accept this.
(JN, = 0.9A/y= 0.9xll70x320 N = 337 kN AS4JOO Cl. 7.2
or
(JN,·= 0.9x0.85xk 1 Anfu AS4JOO Cl. 7.2
= 0.9x0.85x0.85x(I 170 - 6x22)x440 N = 297 kN
(JN, = 297 kN > N' = 63.6 kN OK AS4IOO Cl. 7.1

(b) TRY M20 Roos AND TURNBUCKLES

The ultimate capacity of rods is generally governed by yield of the unthreaded shank as
shown in Table 6.1.
AISC DPFB/03
Design Example - Roof & Wall Bracing 169.

¢N1 = 0.9x3 l Ox300 N AS4100 C/.9.3.2.2

= 84.8 kN > N* = 63.6 kN OK

Try rods for diagonals DB3, DB4, DBS and DB6 but check the effect of their pretension
on the struts. The behaviour of a pretensioned roof bracing system under limit state
conditions is not clear as the pretension could tend to relieve itself as the strut fails. The
question is whether the struts would nevertheless fail at lower externally applied loads in
a pretensioned system than in a non-pretensioned system. Some engineers disregard the
effect of pretension on struts and member connections, but as the axial capacity of tubular
struts under self weight is much less conservative under AS4!00 than under earlier
working stress versions of the steel code, some consideration of the effect of prestress is
advisable. The following assessment is one method of doing so. Simpler methods that
acknowledge the uncertainty of the magnitude of pretension forces could be developed.
At the very least, struts in a pretensioned system should have some reserve of capacity to
cater for the effects of pretension.
It is not certain how much pretension 11 metre 20 mm diameter rods carry in practice.
Laboratory tests [!] showed that 9 metre 20 mm diameter rods were pretensioned to 45%
of their yield capacity based on the tensile stress area of the threaded section and an[y of
240 MPa, while 12 metre rods were pretensioned to 35%. The steel grade of rods has
now increased to 300 MPa. However, assuming a conservative pretension value of 50%
of the yield capacity of the threaded rod based on 24.0 MPa steel, the pretension is
0.5x245x240 N = 29.4 kN
The forces in the roof bracing due to pretension alone are shown in Figure 6.16. As the
wind loads are applied, the tension in the 'compression' diagonal will reduce, while the
tension in the other diagonal will increase. Neglecting any change in length of the struts,
the shortening of one. diagonal will equal the increase in length of the other. Based on
this assumption, the force system with the pretension and wind loads will be statically
determinate. On this basis, the forces in the pretensioned bracing system are calculated as
follows.
Assuming half of the applied 35.3 kN force at the ridge is taken by a reduction in the
tension diagonals CF and GF and the other half is taken by an increase in the tension
diagonals DE and HE, the force in strut EF (S3) will be
35 3
= 48.3 + · = 66.0 kN
2
TCF.o• = 29.4- 35.3" 10962 = 18.7 kN
4 9000
To~HE = 29.4+ 35.3x10962 =40.1 kN
4 9000
The compression in struts CD (S2) and GH (S4) can be calculated as the sum of (i) the
pre-compression, (ii) the component of the increase in the tension in the diagonal ED or
EH as appropriate, and (iii) the externally applied quarter point force. That is:
9000 .
Ccoott = 24.2+(40.l-29.4)x--+34.6 =67.6kN
. 10962
 AISC DPFB/03
170 Roof & Wall Bracing

The forces in diagonals CB and GJ and in struts AB and IJ are independent of the
prestress, hence '
353
CAB,U = 20.6 + 34.6 + = 72.9 kN
2
10962
Tcs.GJ = (72.9-20.6)x =63.7kN
9000
The forces are shown in Figure 6.1 7.
Hence, the compression in S3 will be 66.0 kN compared with 35.3 kN in an un-
pretensioned system, and the compression in S2 and S4 is 67 .6 kN compared with 52.2
kN. Therefore, using pretensioned rods for DB3, DB4, DBS and DB6 would not require
a heavier SHS to be used for S2 and S4, but it would require a 125x4.0 SHS for S3 in lieu
of a 100x4.0 SHS.
Weight saved by using rods instead of angles in one bracing bay
= 4xl lx(9.16 - 2.4) = 297 kg

72 9
20.6

~ ~
A B A B
100 x 6 EA's

67.6
34.6
c .

~ ~
D D
¢20 RODS
</
3 66.0
35.3

~ ~
E . F F
¢20 RODS
</
2 67.6
34.6
G~H

~
G H

100x6EA's ~
2.9
20.6
J J

Pretension Alone Pretension + Wind Loads

Figure 6.17 Effect of RoiPretension on Forces

in Bracing System
AISC DPFBfOJ Design Example - Roof & Wall Bracing 171

Additional weight of SHS for S3 in one bracing bay

= 9x(14.8 - 11.6) = 29 kg
Although the cost per tonne is different for angles, SHS and threaded rods with
turnbuckles, it appears that using pretensioned rods for DB3, DB4, D)3S and DB6 will be
cheaper. r
Other options for the roof bracing diagonals could be considered such as M20 rods
throughout or M20 rods in the eaves panels and M\6 rods in the ridge panels.
However, ADOPTfor this design example

• S l ,S2,S3,S4,S5 12Sx4.0 SHS

• DB1,DB2,DB7,DB8 100x6 EA
• DB3,DB4,DBS,DB6 M20 rods and turnbuckles

6.11.4 Connections
6.11.4. l END CONNECTIONS FOR STRUTS
With the use of thin-walled SHS's such as the 12Sx4.0 SHS adopted for SI to SS, close
attention is required in the detailing of end connections. Particular care should be taken
with cap plate and cleat details as the stresses are calculated in the tube wall in the
vicinity of the cleat as discussed in Section 6.9.1.1 of this chapter for tubes in tension.
Consider struts S 1 and SS
N' =72.9kN

]. Check 11Ji11inJun1 con11ectio11 fOrce

= 0.3 x member capacity

= 0.3x72.9 = 21.9 kN

Therefore design on N' = 72.9 kN

Capacity of tube walls ¢Niw assuming a 1:2.5 spread through the cap plate as shown in
Figure 6.18

¢N,,, = 0.9x2t,(t, + 2tw + St,)f,cHs

Try a 10 mm thick cap plate and cleat and 6 mm fillet welds (E48XX SP)
Therefore,
¢Niw = 0.9x2x4.0x(l0 + 2x6 + Sx!O)x3SO N
=18lkN > N' =72.9kN OK

2. Check welds between cap plate and SHS

¢Nw = ¢v02x(IO + 2x6 + SxlO) = 0.978x2x72

= 141 kN > N' = 72.9 kN OK
172 Roof & Wall Bracing AISC DPFB/03

3. Check welds between cap plate and cleat

Try a 150 mm wide cap plate

#fw = ¢vwx4x(t4 + 2.5t2)
150-125
t, ---=12.5mm
2
t4 = 6 + 2.5x10 = 31 mm where t4 is the effective cleat length beyond
the tube wall on one side
Therefore
t4 = 12.5 mm
#fw = 0.978x4x(12.5 + 2.5x10)
=147kN > N' =72.9kN OK
Therefore ADOPT I 0 mm thick cap plate and cleats and 6 mm E48XX SP fillet welds

t4 = t,+2.5t 2 ? ts

Figure 6.18 Welded Tee End Connection for Tubular Struts

6.11.4.2 BOLTS
The preferred connection is 2 - M20 8.8/S bolts
Capacity ofM20 8.8/S bolts in shear
tf;T'J = 0.80x0.62x830x225 N = 92.6 kN AS4100 Cl. 9.3.2.1
Capacity of two bolts= 185 kN
This capacity is greater than the axial forces in all bracing members
Hence ADOPT 2 - M20 8.8/S bolts for all roof bracing connections
AISC DPFB/03
Design Example - Roof & Wall Bracing 173

72.9 72.9

9000

Figure 6.19 Wall and Strnt Diagonal Member Forces

6.11.5 Side Wall Bracing

Refer to Figure 6.19
Try 75x75x5 equal angles crossed back to back.
N' =94.9kN
A 75x75x5 EA (Grade 300) is considered the minimum size for robustoess when used as a
wall bracing angle.
N, = 672x320 N = 215 kN AS4JOO Cl. 7.2
or N1 = 0.85x0.85x(672 - 4.6x22)x440 N = 181 kN AS4100 Cl. 7.2
t/fN1 . = 0.9xl81 = 163 kN >. N' = 94.9 kN OK
Hence ADOPT 75><75x5 Equal Angles with 2 -M20 8.8/S bolts

6.12 REFERENCES
I. Kitipomchai, S. and Woolcock, S.T. (1985). Design of diagonal roof bracing rods and tubes.
Journal ofStructural Engineering, ASCE, 115(5), 1068-1094.
2. Woolcock, S.T. and Kitipomchai, S. (1985). Tension members and self weight. Steel
Construction, AlSC, 1(1), 2-16.
3. Gorenc, B.E. and Tinyou, R. (1984). Steel Designers Handbook. NSW University Press,
Sydney.
4. Gorenc, B.E., Tinyou, R. and Syam, A.A. (1996). Steel Designers Handbook. NSW
University Press, Sydney.
5. Syam, A.A. and Chapman, B.G. (1996). Design of Structural Steel Hollow Section
Connections, Vol. 1: Design Models, AISC, Sydney. ,
6. Kitipomchai, S. and Traves, W.R. (1989). Welded tee end connections for circular hollow
tubes. Journal ofStructural Engineering, ASCE, 115(12), 3155-3170.
7. Woolcock, S.T. and Kitipomchai, S. (1987). Design of Portal Frame Buildings. AISC,
Sydney.
8. Australian Institute of Steel Construction (1993). Limit States Data Sheet AS4100 D505-1993,
AlSC, Sydney.
 ~

~
Table 6.6a: Circular Hollow Section Properties and Tension Capacities with Maximum Spans for Sag

CHS Grade 250 (uo =-0.5) 6'

"'
R<>
~
Size Nominal Gross Section I, s k, Compact- z, 1
'~N, :::::
"
Lmax
Dxt Mass/m Area X10 B x10 3 ness x10 3 °'<l
mmxmm kg/m mm' mm' mm' mm (C,N,S) mm' m kN ~-
165.1x5.4 21.3 2710 8.65 138 56.5 1.00 c 138 16.2 610
165.1x5.0 19.7 2510 8.07 128 56.6 1.00 c 128 16.2 565
139.7x5.4 17.9 2280 5.14 97.4 47.5 1.00 c 97.4 14.4 513
139.7x5.0 16.6 2120 4.81 90.8 47.7 1.00 c 90.8 14.5 477
114.3x5.4 14.5 1850 2.75 64.1 38.5 1.00 c 64.1 12.5 416
114.3x4.5 12.2 1550 2.34 64.3 38.9 1.00 c 64.3 12.6 349
101.6x5.0 11.9 1520 1.77 46.7 34.2 1.00 c 46.7 11.6 342
101.6x4.0 9.63 1230 1.46 38.1 34.5 1.00 c 38.1 11.6 277
88.9x5.9 12.1 1540 1.33 40.7 29.4 1.00 c 40.7 10.5 347
88.9x5.0 10.3 1320 1.16 35.2 29.7 1.00 c 35.2 10.5 297
88.9x4.0 8.38 1070 0.963 28.9 30.0 1.00 c 28.9 10.6 241
76.1x5.9 10.2 1300 0.807 29.1 24.9 1.00 c 29.1 9.4 293
76.1x4.5 7.95 1010 0.651 23.1 25.4 1.00 c 23.1 9.5 227
76.1x3.6 6.44 820 0.54 18.9 25.7 1.00 c 18.9 9.6 185
60.3x5.4 7.31 931 0.354 16.3 19.5 1.00 c 16.3 8.0 209
60.3x4.5 6.19 789 0.309 14.0 19.8 1.00 c 14.0 8.0 178
60.3x3.6 5.03 641 0.259 11.6 20.1 1.00 c 11.6 8.1 144
48.3x5.4 5.71 728 0.170 9.99 15.3 1.00 c 9.99 6.8 164
48.3x4.0 4.37 557 0.138 7.87 15.7 1.00 c 7.87 6.9 125
48.3x3.2 3.56 453 0.116 6.52 16.0 1.00 c 6.52 7.0 102
42.4x4.9 4.53 577 0.103 6.93 13.4 1.00 c 6.93 6.2 130
42.4x4.0 3.79 483 0.0899 5.92 13.6 1.00 c 5.92 6.3 109 ~
c 6.4
""
42.4x3.2 3.09 394 0.0762 4.93 13.9 1.00 4.93 88.7

~
1. lmax is maximum length for U150 deflection under self weight.
2. ipNt is the axial tension capacity on the gross area= 0.9 x 250 x Ag /1000
 ~
"
~
~

Table 6.6b: Reduced Axial Compression Capacities for Circular Hollow Section Struts Under Self Weight ~
CHS Grade 250 (N*s~N, 0 )

Size Nominal Reduced Axlal Compression Capacity ~Nrc (kN) Self Weight
N• N'
~ ~
D>t Massfm for effective length In metres
/ •Effective Length, /

mmxmm kg/m 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 18 20
165.1x5.4
165.1x5.0
21.3
19.7
610
565
605
560
579
536
537.
498
476
441
392
365
303
282
228
213
173
161
133
124
104
97
82.3
76.8
66.0
61.6
53.5
50.0
43.7
40.8
29.7
27.7
I 20.4
19.0
14.0
13.1
139.7x5.4
139.7x5.o
17.9
16.6
513
477
506
470
476
443
426
397
351
327
263
245
189
177
137
128
102
95.2
77.2
72.2
59.7
55.9
46.9
43.9
37.3
34.9
29.9
28.0
24.2
22.6
I 1s.a
15.0
114.3x5.4 14.5 416 406 371 308 221 149 102 72.2 52.8 39.6 30.3 23.5 18.4 I 14.6 --··
114.3x4.5 12.2 349 340 311 259 188 127 86.8 61.6 45.1 33.8 25.9 20.1 15.8 12.5 ~
101.6x5.0
101.6x4.0
11.9
9.63
342
277
331
268
294
239
227
186
150
123
96.8
79.8
65.2
53.8
45.8
37.8
33.3
27.5
24.8
20.5
18.8
15.5
14.5
12.0
111.3
9.3
~-
8B.9x5.9 12.1 346 331 280 192 116 72.6 48.2 33.6 24.2 17.8 13.4 , 10.2 ~
~"
88.9x5.0 10.3 297 284 241 166 101 63.3 421 29.3 21.1 15.6 11.7 8.9
88.9x4.0 8.38 241 230 197 137 83.7 52.6 35.0 24.4 17.6 13.0 9.8 7.5
76.1x5.9
76.1x4.5
76.1x3.6
10.2
7.95
6.44
292
227
184
274
214
174
213
168
138
125
100
82.9
70.8
57.1
47.4
43.5
35.2
29.2
28.6
23.1
19.2
19.7
16.0
13.3
14.0
11.4
9.5
10.2
8.3
6.9
7.6
6.2
5.1
""8'
I

60.3x5.4 7.31 209 188 117 56.8 30.7 18.5 12.0 8.1 5.7 4.1 <Q.,
60.3x4.5 6.19 178 160 101 49.5 26.9 16.2 10.5 7.1 5.0 3.6 !<>
60.3x3.6 5.03 144 130 84.1 41.5 22.6 13.6 8.8 6.0 4.2 3.0
48.3x5.4 5.71 184 136 61.9 27.2 14.4 8.5 5.4 ~ 2.5
~
:::::
48.3x4.0 4.37 125 105 49.9 22.1 11.7 7.0 4.4 3.0 2.0
~
48.3x3.2
42.4x4.9
42.4x4.0
42.4x3.2
3.56
4.53
3.79
3.09
102
130
109
88.6
86.1
100
85.1
70.2
41.8
38.2
33.3
28.2
18.6
16.4
14.3
12.2
9.9
8.6
7.5
6.4
5.9
5.0
4.4
3.8
3.7
3.2
2.8
2.4
I 2.5
2.1
1.8
1.6
1.7

"
~·

1. Tube lengths to !he right of the solid line will sag more than span/150 under self weight alone and are not recommended.
2. linear interpolation is unconservative except for stocky members. Fit curves where critical.

-
.,,_,
 -°'
- .J

Table 6. la: Circular Hollow Section Properties and Tension Capacities with Maximum Spans for Sag
8'
-Q,
CHS Grade 350 (ab= -0.5) Ro
~
:::::
Size Nominal Gross Section I, s r, k, Compact~ z, 1
Lmax '~N, b:l
'1
Dxt Mass/m Area x10 5
x10
3
ness x10
3
"
~·
mmxmm kg/m mm' mm' mm' mm (C,N,S) mm' m kN
323.9x12.7 97.5 12400 · 151 1230 110 1.00 c 1230 25.3 3906
323.9x9.5 73.7 9380 116 939 111 1.00 c 939 25.4 2955
323.9x6.4 50.1 6380 80.5 645 112 1.00 N 601 25.6 2010
273.1x9.3 60.5 7710 67.1 647 93.3 1.00 c 647 22.6 2429
273.1x6.4 42.1 5360 47.7 455 94.3 1.00 N 441 22.8 1688
273.1x4.8 31.8 4050 36.4 346 94.9 1.00 N 312 22.8 1276
219.1x8.2 42.6 5430 30.3 365 74.6 1.00 c 365 19.5 1710
219.1x6.4 33.6 4280 24.2 290 75.2 1.00 c 290 19.6 1348
219.1x4.8 25.4 3230 18.6 220 75.8 1.00 N 210 19.7 1017
168.3x7.1 28.2 3600 11.7 185 57.0 1.00 c 185 16.3 1134
168.3x6.4 25.6 3260 10.7 168 57.3 1.00 c 168 16.3 1027
168.3x4.8 19.4 2470 8.25 128 57.8 1.00 c 128 16.4 778
165.1x3.5 13.9 1780 5.80 91.4 57.1 1.00 N 86.6 16.3 . 561
165.1x3.0 12 1530 5.02 78.8 57.3 1.00 N 71.9 16.3 482
139.7x3.5 11.8 1500 : 3.47 64.9 48.2 1.00 N 63.7 14.5 473
139.7x3.0 10.1 1290 3.01 56.1 48.3 1.00 N 53.3 14.6 406
114.3x6.0 16 2040 3.00 70.4 38.3 1.00 c 70.4 12.5 643
114.3x4.8 13 1650 2.48 57.6 38.6 1.00 c 57.6 12.6 520
114.3x3.6 9.83 1250 1.92 44.1 39.2 1.00 c 44.1 12.7 394
114.3x3.2 8.77 1120 1.72 39.5 39.3 1.00 N 39.5 12.7 353
1. Lmax is maximum length for L1150 deflection under self weight.
2. ~Nt is the axial tension capacity on the gross area = 0.9 x 350 x Ag /1000 ~
"~

j
 l:
~

Table 6. 7b: Reduced Axial Compression Capacities for Circular Hollow Section Struts Under Self Weight ;"

CHS Grade 350 (N*~~Nrc)

Size Nominal Reduced Axial Compression Capacity tJNrc (kN) Self Weight
N•
~ ~
N•
Dxt Mass/m for effective length In metres
I Effective Length
I
.
mmxmm kg/m 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 16 18 20 25
323.9x12.7 97,5 3906 3904 3846 3745 3609 3432 3208 2930 2602 2250 1911 1609 1355 974 717 539 413 224
323.9x9.5 73.7 2955 2954 2910 2835 2733 2602 2435 2228 1984 1720 1463 1234 1041 749 551 415 318 173
323.9x6.4 50.1 2010 2009 1980 1929 1861 1773 1661 1522 1357 1179 1004 847 714 513 377 283 216 116
273.1x9.3 60.5 2429
1688
2428 2371 2287 2170 2015 1814 1572 1317 1083 887 729 605 426
301
309 230
163
174 I 91.6
273.1x6.4
273.1x4.8
219.1x8.2
42.1
31.8
42.6
1276
1710
1688
1275
1703
1650
1247
1644
1592
1203
1554
1512
1143
1425
1406
1063
1247
1270
960
1031
1104
836
818
928
702
641
765
578
506
627
474
404
516
390
327
428
323
268
227
185
219
164
133
121
97.21
123
91.5
72.5
64.4
47.2 ?
o<;·
219.1x6.4 33.6 1348 1343 1297 1227 1126 988 820 652 512 404 323 261 214 148 106 77.9 58.1 "
219.1x4.8 25.4 1017 1013 979 927 852
800
750 624
450
497
333
391 308
194
246 199
122
163 113
67.2
80.6 58.9 43.8
~
168.3x7.1
168.3x6.4
28.2
25.6
1134
1027
1119
1013
1057
958
955
866 728
613
559 411 304
251
229 177
152
139 112
98.9
90.5 61.5
47.1
43.2
33.8
30.9
.§
168.3x4.8
165.1x3.5
165.1x3.0
19.4
13.9
12
778
561
482
768
553
476
727
523
449
658
472
406
556
396
341
429
303
261
317
222
192
234
164
141
177
123
106
137
95.1
81.9
108
74.8
64.3
86.1
59.7
51.3
69.8
48.4
41.5
47.5
32.8
28.0
33.3
22.9
19.5
23.9
16.3
13.9
""
I
6'
139.7x3.5
139.7x3.0
11.8
10.1
472
406
463
398
427
368
366
315
277
240
194
168
136
118
98.5
85.1
73.4
63.4
56.2
48.5
43.9
37.8
34.9
30.0
28.1
24.2
1a.s
16.2
I 13.0
11.1
<Q,
R<>
114.3x6.0 16 643
520
620 545
442
410
336
267
220
173
143
118 84.1
69.6
62.1 47.1
39.0
36.5
30.2
28.8
23.8
23.0 15.1
12.5 ~
114.3x4.8 13 502 97.6 51.4 19.0
9.7
::::
114.3x3.6 9.83 394 380 336 257 170 111 75.6 53.9 39.8 30.3 23.5 18.5 14.8
114.3x3.2 8.77 353 341 301 231 152 99.2 67.7 48.3 35.7 27.1 21.0 16.6 13.2 8.7
~
1. Tube lengths to the right of the solid line wi!l sag more than span/150 under self weight alone and are not recommended. "~·
2. linear interpolation is unconservalive except for stocky members. Fit curves where critical.

-
___,_,
 -
__,
00

Table 6. le: Circular Hollow Section Properties and Tension Capacities with Maximum Spans for Sag S'
-Q,
Ro>
CHS Grade 350 (o:b =-0.5) ~
:::::
~
s z, '~N, ~·
1
Size Nominal Gross Section I, r, k, Compact· lmax
Massfm Area X10 3 ness 3
D' t B x10 x10
mmxmm kglm mm' mm' mm' mm (C.N.S) mm' m kN
101.6x3.2 7.77 989 1.20 31.0 34.8 1.00 c 31.0 11.7 312
101.6x2.6 6.35 809 0.991 25.5 35.0 1.00 N 25.1 11.8 255
88.9x5.5 11.3 1440 1.260 38.3 29.6 1.00 c 38.3 10.5 454
88.9x4.8 9.96 1270 1.120 34.0 29.8 1.00 c 34.0 10.5 400
88.9x3.2 6.76 862 0.792 23.5 30.3 1.00 c 23.5 10.7 272
88.9x2.6 5.53 705 0.657 19.4 30.5 1.00 c 19.4 10.7 222
76.1x3.2 5.75 733 0.488 17.0 25.8 1.00 c 17.0 9.6 231
76.1x2.6 4.71 600 0.406 14.1 26 1.00 c 14.1 9.6 189
76.1x2.3 4.19 533 0.363 12.5 26.1 1.00 c 12.5 9.7 168
60.3x3.5 4.9 624 0.253 11.3 20.1 1.00 c 11.3 8.1 197
60.3x2.9 4.11 523 0.216 9.56 20.3 1.00 c 9.56 8.2 165
60.3x2.3 329 419 0.177 7.74 20.5 1.00 c 7.74 8.2 132
48.3x3.5 3.87 493 0.124 7.04 15.9 1.00 c 7.04 6.9 155
48.3x2.9 3.25 414 0.107 5.99 16.1 1.00 c 5.99 7.0 130
48.3x2.3 2.61 332 0.0881 4.87 16.3 1.00 c 4.87 7.1 105
42.4x2.6 2.55 325 0.0646 4.12 14.1 1.00 c 4.12 6.4 102
42.4x2.0 1.99 254 0.0519 3.27 14.3 1.00 c 3.27 6.5 80
1. Lmax Js maximum length for U150 deflection under serf weight.
2. ¢NI is the axial tension capacity on the gross area = 0.9 x 350 x Ag 11000 >
~
"
~
~

~
 ~
"
i
Table 6. 7d: Reduced Axial Compression Capacities for Circular Hollow Section Struts Under Self Weight

CHS Grade 350 (N*~~Nrc)

Reduced Axial Compression Capacity ~Nre (kN) Self Weight
Size Nominal
N•
~ ~
N•
0,1 Mass/m for effective length In metres
I •Effective Length I
mmxmm kgfm 0 1 1.5 2. 2.5 3 3.5 4.0 4.5 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
101.6x3.2
101.6x2.6
7.77
6.35
312
255
298
244
280
229
254
208
218
179
177
145
139
114
109
89.6
86.2
71.1
69.4
57.2
47.0
38.7
33.3
27.5
24.5
20.2
18.5
15.2
14.3
11.8
11.2
9.2
I s.s
7.3
7.1
5.9
8B.9x5.5 11.3 454 426 389 334 265 200 151 116 90.8 72.6 48.6 34.3 25.0 18.8 14.4 11.2
88.9x4.8
88.9x3.2
9.96
6.76
400
272
376
256
344
235
296
204
235
164
178
125
134
94.6
103
72.8
80.8
57.1
64.6
45.7
43.3
30.7
30.5
21.6
22.3
15.8
16.7
11.9
12.8
9.1
10.0
7.1 ~
.-;;·
I
88.9x2.6 5.53 222 209 192 167 135 103 78.4 60.3 47.4 37.9 25.5 17.9 13.1 9.9 7.6 5.9 ~

76.1x3:2
76.1x2.6
5.75
4.71
231
189
212
174
187
154
150
124
111
91.7
80.1 59.2
49.3
4~0
37.4
35.0
29.2
27.9
23.2
18.6
15.5
13.0
10.8
9.4
7.9
7.0
5.9
5.3
4 .•~.
l:1
66.6
"
76.1x2.3
60.3x3.5
60.3x2.9
60.3x2.3
4.19
4.9
4.11
3.29
168
197
165
132
155
170
143
115
137
134
113
91.5
111
91.1
77.5
63.2
81.9
60.9
52.0
42.5
59.5
42.4
36.2
29.6
44.0
30.8
26.3
21.5
33.5
23.1
19.8
16.2
26.1
17.9
15.3
12.5
20.8
14.1
12.1
9.9
13.8
9.3
8.0
6.5
9.7
6.4
5.5
4.5
7,0

4.6
3.9
3.2
I 5.2

3.4
2.9
2.4
4.0
~
""
~
I

48.3x3.5 3.87 155 121

102
78.3
67.1
47.2
40.7
. 30.3 20.7 14.9
129
11.1
9.6
8.6
7.4
6.7
~8
4.4 ~
3.8 2.6
2.1
1.8
"
oQ,
48.3x2.9 3.25 130 26.1 17.9
48.3x2.3 2.61 105 82.6 64.9 33.4 21.5 14.8 10.6 7.9 6.1 4.8 3.1 2.1 1.5 !<>
42.4x2.6
42.4x2.0
2.55
1.99
102
80.0
73.1
57.8
42.7
34.1
24.9
20.0
15.8
12.7
10.8
8.7
7.7
6.2
5.7
4.6
4.4
3.5
3.4
2.8
2.2
1.8
I 1.5
1.2
~
:::::
1. Tube lengths to the right of the so!id line will sag more than span/150 under self weight alone and are not recommended.
2. Linear interpolation Is unconservative except for stocky members. Flt curves where critical.
°'tl
()

~-

-
__,
'D
 -
co
0

Table 6.Ba: Square Hollow Section Properties and Tension Capacities with Maximum Spans for Sag 8'
.Q,
Ro
SHS Grade 350 (% = -0.5) ~
::::
°'"
il
Size Nominal Gross Section Ix s rx k, Compact- Z, 1
Lmax
2
$N1 ~·
x10 3
6
Bx Bxt Massfm Area x10 x10 3 ness
mmxmmxmm kg/m mm' mm' mm' mm {C,N,S) mm' m kN
250x250x9.0 65.9 8400 79.8 750 97.5 1.00 N 744 23.3 2646
250x250x6.0 45.0 5730 56.2 521 99.0 0.853 s 409 23.5 1805
200x200x9.0 51.8 6600 39.2 465 77.1 1.00 c 465 19.9 2079
200x200x6.0 35.6 4530 28.0 327 78.6 1.00 N 294 20.2 1427
200x200x5.0 29.9 3810 23.9 277 79.1 0.890 s 223 20.3 1200
150X150x9.0 37.7 4800 15.4 248 56.6 1.00 c 248 16.2 1512
150x150x6.0 26.2 3330 11.3 178 58.2 1.00 c 178 16.5 1049
150x150x5.0 22.1 2810 9.70 151 58.7 1.00 N 144 16.6 885
125x125x9.0 30.6 3900 8.38 165 46.4 1.00 c 165 14.2 1229
125x125x6.0 21.4 2730 6.29 120 48.0 1.00 c 120 14.5 860
125x125x5.0 18.2 2310 5.44 103 48.5 1.00 c 103 14.6 728
125x125x4.0 14.8 1880 4.52 84.5 49.0 1.00 N 78.9 14.7 592
100x100x9.0 23.5 3000 3.91 .98.6 36.1 1.00 c 98.6 12.0 945
100x100x6.0 16.7 2130 3.04 73.5 37.7 1.00 c 73.5 12.4 671
100x100x5.0 14.2 1810 2.66 63.5 38.3 1.00 c 63.5 12.5 570
100x100x4.0 11.6 1480 2.23 52.6 38.8 . 1.00 c 52.6 12.6 1--·· 466
100x100x3.0 8.96 1140 1.77 41.2 39.4 1.00 N 37.1 12.7 359
1. Lmax is m'aximum length for U150 deflection under self weight.
2. ~Nt is the axial tension capacity on the gross area =0.9 x 350 x Ag /1000 >
~
0

j
 >
~
"'
~

~
Table 6.Bb: Reduced Axial Compression Capacities for Square Hollow Section Struts Under Self Weight

SHS Grade 350 (N*.S.~Nrc)

Nominal Self Weight

Size Reduced Ax.Jal Compression Capacity 4iNrc{kN)
N' N•
~ ~
BxBxt Masslm for effective length Jn metres
I 1
Effective length
1
I
mmxmmxmm kgfm 0 2 4 5· 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1B 20 22
250x250x9.0 65.9 2646 2590 2388 2234 2035 1792 1526 1270 1048 867 721 604 510 434 372 278 211 163
250x250x6.0 45.0 1540 1513 1411 1335 1237 1116 976 830 694 578 482 403 340 288 246 182 136 103
~
....~
200x200x9.0 51.8 2079 2004 1754 1552 1302 1046 826 654 524 425 349 289 242 205 174 128 72.4
200x200x6.0 35.6 1427 1377 1211 1077 910 735 582 461 369 299 245 203 169 143 121 88.5 65.8 .. 49.4
200x200x5.0 29.9 1068 1035 924 836 723 597 479 383 307 249 204 168 140 118 100 72.3 53.3 39.5
150x150x9.0
150x150x6.0
37.7
26.2
1512
1049
1408
981
1062
754
811
586
594
433
438
321
331
243
255
188
201
148
161
119
130
96.3
107
79.1
88.6
65.6
74.0
54.9
62.21
46.2
44.6
33.2
"'~
~
150x150x5.0 22.1 885 828 640 499 370 274 207 160 126 101 81.8 67.1 55.6 46.4 39.0 27.9
~
125x125x9.0
125x125x6.0
30.6
21.4
1228
860
1102
777
687
504
474
353
331
248
238
179
178
134
136
102
106
80.1
84.2
63.7
67.8
51.4
55.3
41.9
45.4
34.5
37.6
28.6
....
I
125x125x5.0 18.2 728 659 433 305 214 155 116 88.8 69.5 55.3 44.6 36.4 30.0 24.9
125x125x4.0 14.8 592 537 356 251 177 128 95.4 72.9 57.0 45.3 36.4 29.7 24.4 20.2 6'
100x100x9.0 23.5 945 782 352 226 154 109 80.4 60.9 47.1 37.0 2~.5 23.7 -Q,
100x100x6.0 16.7 671 566 271 176 120 85.3 62.9 47.7 37.0 . 29.1 23.3 18.8 Ro
100x100x5.0 14.2 570 483 237 154 105 74.7 55.2 41.9 32.5 25.6 20.5 16.5
100x100x4.0 11.6 466 397 198 129 87.9 62.7 46.4 35.2 27.3 21.5 17.2 13.9 ~
100x100x3.0 8.96 359 307 155 101 69.0 49.1 36.2 27.4 21.2 16.7 13.3 10.7 ::::
1. Tube lengths to the right of the so!id line will sag more than span/150 under self weight alone and are not recommended. °''1
2. Linear interpolation is unconservalive except for stocky members. Fit curves where critical. "
~-

-
00
 Table 6.Bc: square Hollow Section Properties and Tension Capacities with Maximum Spans for Sag ~

00
N

SHS Grade 350 (ub = -0.5)

8'
.;;;,
Ro
Size Nominal Gross Section I, s r, k, Compact- z, 1
Lmax '~N, ;;;
6 3 3
BxB xt Mass/m Area ness
mmxmmxmm kg/m mm'
x10
mm'
x10
mm' mm (C,N,S)
x10
mm' m kN ""
89x89x6.0
89x89x5.0
89x89x3.5
14.6
12.5
9.06
1870
1590
1150
2.06
1.81
~.37
56.6
49.1
36.5
33.2
33.7
34.5
1.00
1.00
1.00
c
c
c
56.6
49.1
36.5
11.4
11.5
11.6
589
501
362
J.
75x75x6.0 12.0 1530 1.16 38.4 27.5 1.00 c 38.4 10.0 482
75x75x5.0 10.3 1310 1.03 33.6 28.0 1.00 c 33.6 10.1 413
75x75x4.0 8.49 1080 0.882 28.2 28.6 1.00 c 28.2 10.3 340
75x75x3.5 7.53 959 b.797 25.3 28.8 1.00 c 25.3 10.3 302
75x75x3.0 6.60 841 0.716 22.5 29.2 1.00 c 22.5 10.4 265
75x75x2.5 5.56 709 0.614 19.1 29.4 1.00 N 18.3 10.5 223
65x65x6.0 10.1 1290 0.706 27.5 23.4 1.00 c 27.5 9.0 406
65x65x5.0 8.75 1110 0.638 24.3 23.9 1.00 c 24.3 9.1 350
65x65x4.0 7.23 921 0.552 20.6 24.5 1.00 c 20.6 9.3 290
65x65x3.0 5.66 721 0.454 16.6 25.1 1.00 c 16.6 9.4 227
65x65x2.5 4.78 609 0.391 14.1 25.3 1.00 c 14.1 9.5 192
65x65x2.0 3.88 494 0.323 11.6 25.6 1.00 N 10.6 9.5 156
50x50x5.0 6.39 814 0.257 13.2 17.8 1.00 c 13.2 7.5 256
50x50x4.0 5.35 681 0.229 11.4 18.3 1.00 c 11.4 7.6 215
50x50x3.0 4.25 541 0.195 9.39 19.0 1.00 c 9.39 7.8 170
50x50x2.5 3.60 459 0.169 8.07 19.2 1.00 c 8.07 7.9 145
50x50x2.0 2.93 374 0.141 6.66 19.5 1.00 c 6.66 7.9 118
50x50x1.6 2.38 303 0.117 5.46 19.6 1.00 N 5.10 8.0 95
40x40x4.0 4.09 521 0.105 6.74 14.2 1.00 c 6.74 6.4 164
40x40x3.0 3.30 421 0.0932 5.72 14.9 1.00 c 5.72 6.7 133
40x40x2.5 2.82 359 0.0822 4.97 15.1 1.00 c 4.97 6.7 113
>
40x40x2.0 2.31 294 0.0694 4.13 15.4 1.00 c 4.13 6.8 93
40x40x1.6 1.88 239 0.0579 3.41 15.6 1.00 c 3.41 6.8 75 ~
1. Lmax is maximum length for U150 deflection under self weight. "
~
~

2. 4'Nt is the axial tension capacity on the gross area= 0.9 x 350 x Ag/1000 ~
 Table 6.Bd: Reduced Axial Compression Capacities for Square Hollow Section Struts Under Self Weight
~
"~

SHS Grade 350 (N*.'.S.<j>N,c) i

Self Weight
Size Nominal Reduced Axial Compression Capacity of!Nrc (kN)
N• N•
~ ~
BxBxt Massfm for effective length in metres
I Effective Length
I
mmxmmxmm kg/m 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4.0 4.5 5 5.5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
89x89x6.0
89x89x5.0
14.6
12.5
589
501
561
477
523
446
468
401
393
340
312
272
242
211
188
165
148
130
119
105
97.3
85.6
80.5
70.8
57.0
50.2
41.8
36.9
31.6
27.8
24.3
21.5
19.1
16.8
115.1
13.4
89x89x3.5 9.06 362 346 325 294 251 203 159 124 98.6 79.4 64.9 53.7 38.1 28.0 21.2 16.4 12.8 10.2
75x75x6.0 12.0 482 448 402 335 255 188 140 107 83.6 66.7 54.1 44.6 31.3 22.8 17.1 13.0 10.1
75x75x5.0 10.3 413 384 347 291 224 166 124 95.0 74.3 59.3 48.1 39.7 27.9 20.3 15.2 11.6 9.0
75x75x4.0 8.49 340 318 288 244 190 142 106 81.3 63.6 50.8 41.3 34.0 23.9 17.5 13.1 10.0 7.8
75x75x3.5 7.53 302 283 257 218 171 128 95.9 73.5 57.5 45.9 37.3 30.8 21.7 15.8 11.9 9.1 7.1
75x75x3.0 6.60 265 248 226 193 152 114 86.1 66.0 51.7 41.3 33.6 27.7 19.5 14.2 10.7 8.2 6.4 0
75x75x2.5 5.56 223 209 191 164 130 97.6 73.5 56.4 44.2 35.3 28.7 23.6 16.6 12.1 9.1 6.9 5.4 >. !!)
<JQ•
65x65x6.0 10.1 406 366 312 235 165 117 88.0 65.1 50.5 40.1 32.4 26.6 18.5 13.4 9.9 7.5
65x65x5.0 8.75 350 317 272 209 148 106 77.7 58.8 45.7 36.3 29.4 24.1 16.8 12.2 9.1 6.9 "
65x65x4.0 7.23 290 264 229 178 128 91.4 67.2 50.9 39.6 31.5 25.5 20.9 14.6 10.6 7.9 6.0 ~
65x65X3.0
65x65x2.5
5.66
4.78
227
192
208
176
182.
154
143
122
104
89.3
74.9
64.4
55.2
47.5
41.9
36.1
32.6
28.1
26.0
22.4
21.0
18.1
17.3
14.9
12.1
10.4
8.8
7.6
6.5
5.6
5.0
4.3
.§"
65x65x2.0
50x50x5.0
3.88
6.39
156
256
143
212
126
152
100
96.1
73.3
62.6
52.9
43.1
39.0
31.2
29.6
23.3
23.0
18.0
18.3
14.2
14.8
11.4
12.1
. 9.3
8.5
6.4
6.1
4.5
4.5
3.3
3.4
"'8'
I
50x50x4.0 5.35 215 179 132 85.0 55.7 38.4 27.8 20.8 16.1 12.7 10.2 8.3 5.7 4.1 3.0
50x50x3.0 4.25 170 144 109 71.7 47.3 32.7 23.7 17.8 13.7 10.9 8.7 7.1 4.9 3.5 2.6 <Q,
50x50x2.5 3.60 145 123 93.6 61.9 40.9 28.4 20.6 15.4 11.9 9.4 7.6 6.2 4.3 3.1 2.2 R<>
~
50x50x2.0 2.93 118 101 77.3 51.5 34.1 23.7 17.2 12.9 10.0 7.9 6.3 5.2 3.6 2.6 1.9
50x50x1.6 2.38 95.4 81.9 63.3 42.5 28.2 19.5 14.2 10.6 8.2 6.5 5.2 4.2 2.9 2:11 1.5
40x40x4.0
40x40x3.0
4.09
3.30
164
133
118
98.8
69.3
60.5
40.4
35.8
25.7
22.8
17.5
15.6
12.6
11.2
9.3
8.3
7.2
6.4
5.6
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.6
3.3
2.5
2.2
1.7
1.6
""~
40x40x2.5
40x40x2.0
2.82
2.31
113
92.6
85.2
70.5
53.0
44.5
31.5
26.5
20.1·
17.0
13.8
11.6
9.9
8.3
7.4
6.2
5.7
4.8
4.4
3.8
3.6
3.0
2.9
2.4
2.0
1.7
1.4
1.2 "
~·
40x40x1.6 1.88 75.3 57.8 36.9 22.1 14.2 9.7 7.0 5.2 4.0 3.1 2.5 2.0 1.4 1.0
1. Tube lengths to the right of the solid line will sag more than span/150 under self weight alone and are not recommended.

2. Linear interpolation is unconservative except for stocky members. Fit curves where critical.
00
w
 ,,.
~

00

,,
a
-Q.,
Table 6.9a: Square Hollow Section Properties and Tension Capacities with Maximum Spans for Sag Ro
~
:::::
SHS Grade 450 (ab= -0.5)
~
"'
~·
Size Nominal Gross Section I, s k, Compact- z. 1
'~Nt.
BxBxt Massfm Area x10 5
x10 3 " ness x10 3
Lmax

mmxmmxmm kg/m mm' mm' mm' mm (C,N,S) mm' m kN

100x100x3.8 11.1 1410 2.14 50.3 38.9 1.00 N 48.3 12.6 539
100x100x3.3 9.73 1240 1.90 44.5 39.2 1.00 N 39.3 12.7 474
100x100x2.8 8.39 1070 1.67 38.7 39.5 0.886 s 31.0 12.8 409
100x100x2.3 6.95 885 1.40 32.3 39.7 0.721 s 23.1 12.8 ·~-·· 339 I

75x75x3.3 7.14 909 0.761 24.1 28.9 1.00 c 24.1 10.4 348
75x75x2.8 6.19 788 0.676 21.2 29.3 1.00 N 20.1 10.4 301
75x75x2.3 5.14 655 0.571 17.7 29.5 0.974 s 15.0 10.5 251
65x65x2.8 5.31 676 0.429 15.6 25.2 1.00 c 15.6 9.4 259
65x65x2.3 4.42 563 0.364 13.1 25.4 1.00 N 12.1 9.5 215
50x50x2.8 3.99 508 0.185 8.87 19.1 1.00 c 8.87 7.8 194
50x50x2.3 3.34 425 0.159 7.52 19.3 1.00 c 7.52 7.9 163
40x40x2.8 3.11 396 0.0890 5.43 15.0 1.00 c 5.43 6.7 151
40x40x2.3 2.62 333 0.0773 4.64 15.2 1.00 c 4.64 6.7 127
1. lmax is maximum length for U150 deflection under self weight.
2. ij>Nt is the axial tension capacity on the gross area = 0.9 x 0.85 x 500 x ~ /1000

~
" ~

~
 ~
n
0
~
~

Table 6.9b: Reduced Axial Compression Capacities for Square Hollow Section Struts Under Self Weight

SHS Grade 450 (N*.:5~Nrc)

Self Weight
Size Nominal Reduced Axial Compression Capacity $Nrc (kN)
~
N• ~
N"
BxBxt Mass/m for effective length Jn metres Effective .Length~
I
mmxmmxmm kgfm 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4.0 4.5 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
100x100x3.8 11.1 571 546 512 463 396 321 252 198 158 128 87.0 62.3 46.3 35.3 27.6 21.9 17.7 14.4
100x100x3.3
100x1 OOx2.8
9.73
8.39
502
384
480
369
451
350
408
321
350
283
283
236
223
190
175
151
139
120
113
97.4
76.6
66.4
54.8
47.4
40.6
35.1
30.9
26.7
24.1
20.7
19.1
16.4
15.3
13.1
12.5
10.6 ~
100x100x2.3 6.95 258 251 240 225 204 178 148 121 97.8 79.7 54.6 38.9 28.7 21.8 16.9 13.3 10.6 8.5 o'~O'
75x75x3.3
75x75x2.8
7.14
6.19
368
319
338
293
297
259
238
209
175
155
127
113
94.7
83.8
72.3
64.0
56.6
50.1
45.3
40.1
30.5
27.0
21.6
19.1
15.9
14.0
12.1
10.6
9.3
8.2
I 7.3
6.4
5.9
5.1
. "'11
75x7sx·2.3 5.14 258 238 212 173 129 94.3 70.1 53.5 41.9 33.5 22.5 15.9 11.6 8.7 6.7 5.3 4.2 .§
65x65x2.8
65x65x2.3
5.31
4.42
274
228
244
204
203
170
149
125
103.2
87.1
73.1
61.7
53.7
45.3
40.8
34.4
31.B
26.8
25.4
21.4
17.0
14.3
12.0
10.0
8.8
7.3
6.6
5.5
I 5.1
4.2
--··
"'
-r
50x50x2.8
50x50x2.3
3.99
3.34
206
172
166
139
114
97.0
70.8
60.7
46.1
39.6
31.9
27.4
23.1
19.9
17.4
15.0
13.5
11.6
10.7
9.2
7.1
6.1
4.9
4.3
I 3.6
3.1
2.7
2.3
8'
<Q,
40x40x2.8
40x40x2.3
3.11
2.62
160
135
108.2
92.4
60.4
52.2
35.0
30.4
22.3
19.4
15.3
13.3
11.0
9.6
8.2
7.2
6.4
5.5
5.0
4.4
3.3
2.9
I 2.3
2.0
Ro
1. Tube lengths to the right of the solid lin.e will sag more than spanf150 under self weight alone and are not recommended. ~
:::::
2. Linear interpolation Is unconservalive except for stocky members. Fit curves where critical. b:i
;i
"
~·

-
00
v.
 Table 6. 1Oa: Square Hollow Section Properties and Tension Capacities with Maximum Spans for Sag
Du rag al SHS Grade 450LO (uo = -0.5) -°'
00

Standard Thickness

s z,
"'
c

""
1
Size Nominal Gross Section I, r, k, Compact- Lmax "'4'Nt
Ro>
Bx Bxt Mass/m Area x10 6 x10 3 ness x10 3

mmxmmxmm kg/m mm' mm' mm' mm (C,N,S) mm' m kN ~

:::::
100x100x6.0 16.70 2130 3.040 73.5 37.7 1.00 c 73.5 12.4 815
100x100x5.0 14.20 1810 2.660 63.5 38.3 1.00 c 63.5 12.5 692
100x100x4.0
100x100x3.0
100x100x2.5
100x100x2.0
·11.60
8.96
7.53
6.07
1480
1140
959
774
2.230
1.770
1.510
1.230
52.6
41.2
34.9
28.3
38.8
39.4
39.6
39.9
1.00
0.952
0.787
0.624
N
s
s .
s
51.9
34.4
26.2
19.0
12.6
12.7
12.8
12.8
566
436
367
296
*'
~·

75x75x6.0 12.00 1530 1.160 38.4 27.5 1.00 c 38.4 10.0 585
75x75x5.0 10.30 1310 . 1.030 33.6 28.0 1.00 c 33.6 10.1 501
75x75x4.0 8.49 1080 0.882 28.2 28.6 1.00 c 28.2 10.3 413
75x75x3.5 7.53 959 0.797 25.3 28.8 1.00 c 25.3 10.3 367
75x75x3.0 6.60 841 0.716 22.50 29.2 1.00 N 22.2 10.4 322
75x75x2.5 5.56 709 0.614 19.10 29.4 1.00 N 17.0 10.5 271
75x75x2.0 4.50 574 0.505 15.60 29.7 0.841 s 12.2 10.5 220
65x65x6.0 10.1 1290 0.706 27.5 23.4 1.00 c 27.5 9.0 493
65x65x5.0 8.75 1110 0.638 24.3 23.9 1.00 c 24.3 9.1 425
65x65x4.0 7.23 921 0.552 20.6 24.5 1.00 c 20.6 9.3 352
65x65x3.0 5.66 721 0.454 16.6 25.1 1.00 c 16.6 9.4 276
65x65x2.5 4.78 609 0.391 14.1 25.3 1.00 N 13.7 9.5 233
65x65x2.0 3.88 494 0.323 11.6 25.6 0.978 s 9.8 9.5 189
65x65x1.6 3.13 399 0.265 9.44 25.8 0.7_74 s 7.03 9.6 153
50x50x5.0 6.39 814 0.257 13.2 17.8 1.00 c 13.2 7.5 311
50x50x4.0 5.35 681 0.229 11.4 18.3 1.00 c 11.4 7.6 260
50x50x3.0 4.25 541 0.195 9.39 19.0 1.00 c 9.39 7.8 207
50x50x2.5 3.6 459 0.169 8.07 19.2 1.00 c 8.07 7.9 176
50x50x2.0 2.93 374 0.141 6.66 19.5 1.00 N 6.58 7.9 143
50x50x1.6 2.38 303 0.117 5.46 19.6 1.00 N 4.74 8.0 116
40x40x4.0 4.09 521 0.105 6.74 14.2 1.00 c 6.74 6.4 199
40x40x3.0 3.30 421 0.0932 5.72 14.9 1.00 c 5.72 6.7 161 >
40x40x2.5 2.82 359 0.0822 4.97 15.1 1.00 c 4.97 6.7 137 1'l
40x40x2.0 294 0.0694 4.13 1.00 c 4.13 112
40x40x1.6
2.31
1.88 239 0.0579 3.41
15.4
15.6 1.00 N 3.37
6.8
6.8 91 "
~·
1. Lma• Is maximum length for U150 deflection under self weight. s
 Table 6.10b: Reduced Axial Compression Capacities for Square Hollow Section Struts Under Self Weight
Duragal SHS Grade C450LO (N*~$N,c) ~
Standard Thickness "'
~

Self Weight
~
Size Nomlnal Reduced Axial Compression Capacity ~Nrc (kN)
N' N•
~ ~
BxBxt Massfm for effective length In metres
I •Effective Length• I
mmxmmxmm kgfm 0 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 7 9 10 11 1Z 13
100x100x6.0 16.70 863
1
822 768
2
688 582
3
465 362
4.0
284 225
5
182
'
124 88.7
8
65.9 50.3 39.3 31.2 25.2 20.5
100x100x5.0 14.20 733 699 655 590 501 403 316 248 197 159 109 77.7 57.7 44.1 34.5 27.4 22.1 18.0
100x100x~.O 11.60 599 573 537 485 415 335 263 207 165 ' 133 90.9 65.1 48.4 37.0 28.9 23.0 18.5 15.1
100x100x3.0 8.96 440 421 397 362 314 258 205 162 129 104 70.9 50.6 37.5 28.5 22.2 17.5 14.1 11.4
100x100x2.5 7.53 306 295 281 262 235 201 165 133 107 86.9 59.4 42.4 31.3 23.8 18.4 14.5 11.6 9.4
100x100x2.0 6.07 196 191 183 173. 160 143 123 102 83.7 68.6 47.2 33.7 24.9 18.8 14.6 11.4 9.1 7.3
75x75x6.0 12.00 620 563 487 378 272 196 145 110 86.2 68.9 46.3 32.8 24.1 18.2 14.0 11.0 8.8
75x75x5.0 10.30 531 484 422 331 240 173 128 97.9 76.6 61.2 41.2 29.2 21.4 16.2 12.5 9.8 7.8
75x75x4.0 8.49 437 400 351 279 204 148 110 83.8 65.6 52.5 35.3 25.0 18.4 13.9 10.8 8.5 6.8
75x75x3.5 7.53 388 356 313 250 184 134 99.2 75.7 59.3 47.5 32.0 22.7 16.7 12.6 9.8 7.7 6.1 tJ
75x75x3.0 6.60 341 313 276 222 164 120 88.9 68.0 53.2 42.6 28.7 20.3 15.0 11.3 8.8 6.9 5.5 ~
75x75x2.5 5.56 287 264 234 189 140' 102 75.8 57.9 45.3 36.2 24.3 17.2 12.6 9.5 7.3 5.7 4.6 ~·
75x75x2.0 2.62 196 183 166 140 109 81.4 61.0 46.7 36.6 29.2 19.6 13.8 10.1 7.6 5.8 4.5 3.6
65x65~6.0
65x65x5.0
10.1
8.75
522
450
456
395
365
321
254
227
172
155
121
109
88.4
79.9
67.0
60.5
52.1
47.2
41.5
37.6
27.7
25.1
19.5
17.7
14.2
12.9
10.7
9.7
8.2
7.5
ti'
§
65x6Sx4.0 7.23 373 ,330 271 194 134 94.3 69.1 52.4 40.9 32.6 21.8 15.4 11.2 8.4 6.5 "6
65x65x3.0 5.66 292 260 216 158 109 77.4 56.8 43.1 33.7 26.8 18.0 12.7 9.3 7.0 5.4
65x65x2.5
65x65x2.0
4.78
3.88
247
196
220
175
184
148
135
110
93.8
76.8
66.5
54.4
48.8
39.9
37.1
30.3
28.9
23.6
23.1
18.8
15.4
12.5
10.9
8.8
8.0
6.4
6.0
4.8
4.6
3.7
""
I
S'
65x65x1.6 3.13 125 115 101 81.4 60.0 43.4 32.1 24.4 19.0 15.1 10.0 7.0 5.1 3.8 2.9 .Q,
50x50x5.0 6.39 330 255 164 99.4 64.2 44.2 32.0 24.1 18.6 14.8 9.8 6.8 4.9 3.6 Ro
50x50x4.0 5.35 276 217 144 88.2 57.1 39.4 28.6 21.5 16.6 13.2 8.7 6.1 4.4 3.3
50x50x3.0 4.25 219 176 120 74.7 48.6 33.6 24.4 18.3 14.2 11.3 7.5 5.2 3.8 2.8 ~
°'""~
50x50x2.5 3.6 186 150 104 64.6 42.1 29.1 21.1 15.9 12.3 9.8 6.5 4.5 3.3 2.4
50x50x2.0 2.93 151 123 85.8 53.7 35.1 24.3 17.6 13.3 10.3 8.2 5.4 3.8 2.7 2.0
50x50x1.6 2.38 123 100 70.5 44.3 28.9 20.0 14.5 10.9 8.4 6.7 4.4 3.1 2.21 1.6
40x40x4.0
40x40x3.0
4.09
3.30
211
171
134
114
72.0
63.3
41.4
36.6
26.3
23.4
18.0
16.0
12.9
~1.5
9.7
8.6
7.5
6.7
5.9
5.2
3.8
3.4
2.6
2.4
1.9
1.7
~·
40x40x2.5 2.82 145 99.0 55.6 32.3 20.6 14.1 10.2 7.6 5.9 4.6 3.0 2.1 1.5
40X40x2.0 2.31 119 82.2 46.8 27.2 17.4 11.9 8.6 6.4 5.0 3.9 2.6 1.8 1.3
40x40x1.6 1.88 96.8 67.7 38.9 22.7 14.5 9.9 7.2 5.4 4.1 3.3 2.1 1.5 1.1
~

1. Tube lengths to the right of the solid line will sag more than span/150 under self weight alone and are not recommended. _,
00

2. linear interpolation is unconservalive except for stocky members. Fit curves where critical.
 -
00
00

~
c
Ro
Table 6.11a: Square Hollow Section Properties and Tension Capacities with Maximum Spans for Sag '"~"'
Duragal SHS Grade 450LO (ab= -0.5)
"'""
ii
Non-Standard Thickness ~-

Size Nominal Gross Section I, s k, Compact~ z, 1

'$N,
"
Lmax
6 3 3
BxBxt Mass/m Area x10 x10 ness x10
mmxmmxmm kg/m mm' mm' mm' mm (C,N,S) mm' m kN
100x100x2.8 8.39 1070 1.6700 38.7 39.5 0.886 s 31.0 12.8 409
75x75x2.8 6.19 788 0.6760 21.2 29.3 1.00 N 20.1 10.4 301
75x75x2.3 5.14 655 0.5710 17.7 29.5 0.974 s 15.0 10.5 251
65x65x2.3 4.42 563 0.3640 13.1 25.4 1.00 N 12.1 9.5 215
50x50x2.8 3.99 508 0.1850 8.87 19.1 1.00 c 8.87 7.8 194
50x50x2.3 3.34 425 0.1590 7.52 19.3 1.00 c 7.52 7.9 163
40x40x2.8 3.11 396 0.0890 5.43 15.0 1.00 c 5.43 6.7 151
40x40x2.3 2.62 333 0.0773 4.64 15.2 1.00 c 4.64 6.7 127
35x35x2.8 2.67 340 0.0570 4.02 12.9 1.00 c 4.02 6.1 130
35x35x2.3 2.25 287 0.0499 3.46 13.2 1.00 c 3.46 6.1 110
1. lmax is maximum length for U150 deflection under self weight.
2. !fiNt is the axial tension capacity on the gross area= 0.9 x 0.85 x 500 x Ag/1000

>
i'i
":::
. .ii··. ~
1111ill~'•-'!' -/''
 ~
""'
~

Table 6.11 b: Reduced Axial Compression Capacities-for Square Hollow Section Struts Under Self Weight

Duragal SHS Grade C450LO (N*~~N,c)

Non-Standard Thickness
Size
BxBxt

mmxmmxmm
Nominal

Massfm

kg/m 0 1 1.5 2
Red_uced Axial Compression Capacity

for effective length in metres

2.5 3 3.5 4.0 4.5

~Nrc (kN)

5 6 7
N'
~

8
I
Self Weight

Effective Length•

9 10 11
I --
N'

12
.

13 ~
o<;•
100x100x2.8 8.39 384 369 350 321 283 236 190 151 120 97.4 66.4 47.4 35.1 26.7 20.7 16.4 13.1 I 10.6
75x75x2.8 6.19 319 293 259 209 155 113 83.8 64.0 50.1 40.1 27.0 19.1 14.0 10.6 az I 6.4 5.1 "t'l
75x75x2.3 5.14 258 238 212 173 129 94 70.1 53.5 41.9 33.5 22.5 15.9 11.6 &.7 6.7 5.3 4.2 .. ~
65x65x2.3 4.42 228 204 170 125 87.1 61.7 45.3 34.4 26.8 21.4 14.3 10.0 7.3 5.5 I 4.2 .§
50x50x2.8
50x50x2.3
3.99
3.34
206
172
166
139
114
97.0
70.8
60.7
46.1
39.6
31.9
27.4
23.1
19.9
17.4
15.0
13.5
11.6
10.7
9.2
7.1
6.1
4.9
4.3
I 3.6
3.1
2.7
2.3 """I
40x40x2.8 3.11 160 108 60.4 35.0 2Z3 15.3 11.0 8.2 6.4 5.0 3.3 2.3 8'
40x40x2.3 2.62 135 92.4 52.2 30.4 19.4 13.3 9.6 7.2 5.5 4.4 2.9 2.0 ~
35x35x2.8 2.67 138 78.4 39.7 22.5 14.3 9.7 7.0 5.2 4.0 3.1 2.1 1.4 Ro
35x35x2.3 2.25 116 67.7 34.6 19.7 12.5 8.5 6.1 4.6 3.5 2.8 1.8 1.2
;;i
1. Tube lengths lo the right of the so!id line will sag more than spanf150 under self weight alone and are not recommended. ::::
~
2. Linear interpolation is unconservalive except for stocky members. Fit curves where critical.

~·

-00

"'
190 AISC DPFB/03
7 Footings & Slabs
7.1 GENERAL
Portal frames are commonly designed on the assumption of pinned bases, although it is
sometimes an advantage to fix the bases. A pinned base is designed assuming no moment
transfer, so that the only design forces at the base of the column are axial and shear forces. In
reality, there will be some moment resistance at the base. Fixing or partially fixing the bases
reduces the lateral frame deflections significantly and this can result in substantial savings in
frame weight if the columns are tall. Of course, the savings in weight will be offset by the
extra cost of foundations and holding down bolts. Reductions in frame bending moments due
to fixing of bases are not usually as significant as the reductions in deflections. Typical base
plate and holding down arrangements for pinned and fixed bases are shown in Figure 5.5.
The most common footing type for a pinned base is the square pad footing as shown in
Figure 7.1, although bored piers can be very economical in clayey soils because the adhesion
of

t
Pedestal

HD bolts

Section A-A ·

Figure 7.1 Typical Pad Footing

191
192 Footings & Slabs AISC DPFB/03

even soft clays to the sides of a bored pier can result in substanti~l holding down capacity.
The lateral capacity also needs to be considered.
In expansive clays, it is usually much cheaper to design details for relative movement
of the column footings and slab rather than to use a raft foundations for the whole floor slab.
Such detailing includ~s isolation joints between column footings and the floor slab. It may
also be necessary to suspend the bridging for wall girts from the eaves rather than prop the
bridging from the floor slab to allow the floor to move relative to the wall. Paved areas or
concrete strips around the perimeter of the building will help maintain a more constant
moisture content in the soil under the edge of the building. If masonry walls are used in some
parts such as office and administration areas, it may be necessary to provide a raft foundation
in these regions. If the masonry is restricted to reinforced block perimeter walls, the footings
and the blockwork can sometimes be designed to cater for differential ground movements
along the length of the wall without resorting to a raft foundation.
It should be remembered that the expansiveness of clay soils cannot be realistically
assessed from Atterberg Limits. This is because Atterberg Limits are determined for the clay
fraction of the soil which might be a very small proportion of the whole sample. Shrink/swell
tests which are carried out using whole samples of soil give a much better indication of likely
soil movements.
There are cases where it may be necessary to use a full raft or even a piled foundation
for an industrial building. For example, full raft foundations have been used successfully in
reclaimed areas where there have been two to three metres of compacted fill over marine mud.

7.2 DESIGN UPLIFT FORCES

The frame computer analysis provides factored reactions for the design of footings. In uplift
cases, the design uplift applied by the superstructure to the footings is W, - O.SD, where W, is
the limit state uplift and D is the dead load reaction. The ultimate resistance to uplift provided
by the footings must also be factored by 0.8'.

7.3 PAD FOOTINGS

In industrial buildings without cranes, excessive bearing pressure under pad footings is not
usually a problem because the footing size necessary to restrain uplift is large enough to

•This is in contrast to previous practice. It means that the design of portal frame footings is considerably more
conseivative under limit state codes. For example, if the unfactored or working column reactions were W = 70
kN and D = 15 kN, then the weight of pad footings would need to be 83 kN [1.4W - D] under AS1250, and 116
kN [(1.SW - 0.80)/0.8] under AS4100 and ASI 170.1. This extra conservatism seems hard to justify, as pull-out
of portal frame footings designed to AS1250 has not been a problem to the authors' knowledge. While the load
factors of 1.5 on wind (Wu = l .5W) and 0.8 on superstructure dead load appear reasonable, it seems unnecessary
to factor the footing mass by 0.8 as pad footings tend to be oversized rather than undersized. To certify
compliance with codes and regulations, however, designers have little option but to apply the 0.8 factor to the
footing weight.
AISC DPFBI03 Pad Footings 193

ensure that the bearing pressure under gravity loads is less than 100 kPa. An allowable
bearing pressure of 100 kPa is readily achieved on all but the poorest of sites. If the allowable
bearing pressure is less than 100 · kPa, then a taft foundation, piers or even piles may be
necessary.
; One of the best collections of geotechnical data for foundations is contained in Section
3 of the Bridge Design Code SA HB77.3-1996 [l] and its commentary SA HB77.3.l-1996
[2]. Ultimate limit state bearing pressures for cohesive and non-cohesive soils are tabulated,
and principles for checking the serviceability limit state are given. However at this stage, the
building industry has not embraced limit state bearing pressures for pad footings and
allowable bearing pressures are still in force.
Jn determining the weight of pad footings necessary to resist factored uplift forces, it is
important to take advantage of the weight of the slab and any soil contributing. Apart from
the weight of the slab and soil directly above the footing, the slab beyond the edge of the
footing also contributes. A contribution of a one metre strip of slab beyond the edge of the
pad footing would be a reasonable, perhaps conservative, assumption in the absence of
detailed calculations. Such calculations could involve a yield line analysis of the slab.
However this would be complex and subject to many variables such as joint layout, tolerance
on mesh position in the slab and random cracking of the slab due to shrinkage. Realistically,
therefore, it becomes a matter of engineering judgment as to how much of the slab will
contribute. For a 2 m x 2 m internal pad footing, the total slab area contributing to hold down
is 4 m x 4 m ifa one metre strip of slab around the perimeter of the pad footing is assumed.
If internal pressure contributes to the uplift force, it is legitimate to deduct the force
resulting from the same internal pressure acting down on the area of slab assumed to be
contributing to the hold down. This area of slab is usually small when compared with the area
of roof supported by the column. For example, the area of slab may be 4 m x 4 m , whereas
the area of roof supported by the column might be 20 m x 6 m. Therefore, the deduction is
usually ignored.
Some benefits can be obtained by considering soil friction or adhesion on the sides of
the pad footing. It is also possible that there would be some suction or adhesion on the
underside of the footing for short duration uplift loads such as those due to wind gusts.
However, it is not considered prudent to take advantage of this possibility.
The reinforcement of pad footings is well treated in the Concrete Design Handbook
[3]. Charts are presented for different ultimate bearing capacities and concrete strengths. If
uplift is dominant, it will probably be necessary to have a layer of mesh in )he top of the
footing as well as in the bottom.

7.4 BORED PIERS

7.4.1 General
Bored piers can provide a very economical solution in cohesive soils because of the
substantial adhesion of the clays, and because they are easily excavated without a tendency for
the sides of the hole to collapse.
194 Footings & Slabs AISC DPFB!03

The resistance to vertical and lateral loads in cohesive soils depends on the undrained
shear strength on cohesion of the clays. Characteristic limit state values of cu are given in
Table 7.1. The resulting vertical and lateral capacities should be multiplied by a geotechnical
capacity reduction factor¢, to arrive at (limit state) design values.

Table 7.1 Characteristic Undrained (Immediate)

Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils

Undrained Field
Consistency Cohesion, er, Indications
kPa

Very soft Less than 12 Soil will exude between the fingers
when squeezed firmly

Soft 12 to 25 Soil can be easy moulded with the

fingers

Firm 25 to 50 Soil can be moulded with strong

pressure of the fingers

Stiff 50to 100 Soil cannot be readily moulded

with the fingers but can be indented
with pressure from the thumb

Very stiff 100 to 200 Soil can be indented to little more

than a fingerprint with strong
pressure from the thumb

Hard Greater than Soil cannot be indented with the

200 thumb, but can be marked with
the fingernail

AS2159-1995 [4] recommends ¢g values between 0.45 and 0.65 depending on the
reliability of the geotechnical investigation. These factors are principally intended for the
vertical load capacity of piles. Without ¢., the overall factor of safety for structures with a
geotechnical interface would be based on load factors of 1.25 for dead load and 1.5 for live
load and wind load. The overall factor of safety would clearly be less than the accepted
factors of safety of between 2.0 and 3.0 for geotechnical structures such as retaining walls,
footings and piles. ·
For bored piers as footings for industrial buildings, an overall factor of safety of
around 2.5 is considered reasonable when geotechnical parameters govern the design capacity.
AISC DPFB/03 Pad Footings 195

For example, the geotechnical parameters are critical for 'short' laterally loaded piers or for
piers under vertical upward or downward loads. Where the structural parameters govern the
design such as for 'long' laterally loaded piers, an overall factor of safety of 2.0 is considered
appropriate. Consequently, assuming a load factor of 1.5, a ¢, value of 0.6 is recommended
for short, laterally loaded piers or piers under vertical loads, and a ¢,value of 0.75 for long
laterally loaded piers whose capacity is largely governed by the bending strength of the pier.
Bored piers are not as economical or as practical in cohesionless soils but design
parameters are available in AS2159 [4].

7.4.2 Resistance to Vertical Loads

The resistance to downward loads or to uplift in cohesive soils depends on the shaft adhesion.
The current piling code AS2159 [4] does not give a relationship between shaft adhesion and
cohesion but both the previous version of AS2!59 [7] and the Bridge Design Code [1] present
a graph of reduction factors. For soft and firm clays, the adhesion is equal to the cohesion but
for stiffer clays, the adhesion is less than the cohesion. The design value of the shaft adhesion
is therefore given by
(7.1)
where
a =shaft adhesion reduction factor
¢, =material factor= 0.6
cu =characteristic value of undrained shear strength in kPa
No distinction is made in the Bridge Design Code [1] between upward and downward
loading as far as shaft adhesion in cohesive soils is concerned, but additional capacity is
available under downward loading conditions due to end bearing. It should be noted that the
Bridge Design Code recommends that for bored piers in cohesion/ess soils, the shaft skin
friction[, for uplift conditions should be 50% of the value for downward loading.

7.4.3 Resistance to Lateral Loads

If the top of a bored pier is isolated from the slab, the bored pier will also have to resist any
horizontal reactions at the column bases. In some cases, the slab may be considered to
provide resistance to inward loading depending on the isolation detail between slab and pier
cap. Tomlinson [5] presents simple formulae for determining the ultimate lateral capacity of
bored piers. The formulae are for short and long piles where the short pile capacity is
governed by geotechnical failure and the long pile capacity is governed by the structural
capacity (yielding of the pile in flexure). These formulae in limit state design format are as
follows:
Short pile Hu= ¢gscud 2 (7.2a)
Long pile Hu= ¢gLc,,d 2 (7.2b)
where
Hu =the lateral resistance in kN
196 Footings & Slabs AISC DPFB/03

d =pier diameter in m
¢,s =0.6
¢gL =0.75
cu =cohesion in kPa
As =a factor taimlated in Reference [7] or as calculated below

= 9x {-(~d + u) + (~d + u)' + .'9c,d'

!:!':!.r.._} (7.3)

My = Muo = the design strength of the pier in bending in accordance

with AS3600-1994 [6] without a¢ factor applied.
The short pile parameter As can be determined from first principles using the theory in
Reference [5] rather than resorting to the table in the Bridge Design Code or in the superseded
version of AS2159-1978 [7] for which interpolation is difficult for low values of Lid. From
this theory, it is possible to derive the following quadratic equation in As.

The parameter As is determined by solving the quadratic equation

aA~ +bAs +c=O (7.4)

where
a =0.5 (7.5)
b = 9x(~-1.5)+1sx(~+u) (7.6)

c = -0.5x[9x(~-l.5 )]' (7.7)

This can easily be programmed into a spreadsheet program along with the code
expression for AL. It is recommended that a bored pier should have a minimum depth of 2
metres and Lid should not be less than 4. It should be noted that the formulae for both As and
Ai allow for shrinkage of the clay away from the top of the piers to a depth of l.5d.
Single bored piers can also resist moment, and as such can be used to provide a fixed
base foundation. Although it is possible to auger holes up to 1200 mm diameter, it may be
necessary to use two smaller bored piers and a pile cap in order to obtain a fixed base.
Typical details ofa single bored pier are shown in Figure 7.2.

7.5 HOLDING DOWN BOLTS

7.5.l General
Holding down bolts are at the interface between steel and concrete design, and as a result,
their design has not received proper attention. Few text books or design manuals present
comprehensive theories or even empirical data. In particular, there sometimes seems to be
confusion over whether holding down bolts should be lapped with reinforcement or merely
AISC DPFBI03 Holding Down Bolts 197

embedded in concrete. Holding down bolts need only be lapped with reinforcement when the
edge distance is small or there is insufficie?t cone pullout capacity.

,J
r
Sheeting - I
Pier cap \
I
Finished surface - -~

~ I
'~. ,)$/"'
~
- e- -
' -- /

v ~ 0®
Se ction

Figure 7 .2 Typical Bored Pier Detail

A useful state-of-the-art paper on holding down bolts was jointly published in 1980 by
the British concrete and structural steel organisations [8]. The paper deals generally with most
aspects of holding down bolts including design, installation, anchorage, corrosion, bedding
and grouting. Despite the effort put into the paper and the cooperation of the concrete and
steel groups, the paper concludes that there is no general consensus and no fonnal
recommendations-are made.
More detailed guidance on the strength of holding down bolts is contained in the work
of the American Concrete Institute Committee 349, Concrete Nuclear Structures [9]. The
work is for the most part directly applicable to general concrete structures, and in fact a
modified version for general structures was presented with a commentary in the Concrete
Institute Journal [IO]. The modified version forms the basis of the recommendations made in
this book. Suggested design criteria are given and tables of edge distances and embedment
lengths for mild steel or commercial bolts have been derived for this book for concrete with an
198 Footings & Slabs AISC DPFBJOJ

J; of 20 MPa. This concrete strength gives conservative embedment lengths as the concrete
code AS3600 [6] requires a minimum characteristic concrete strength of 25 MPa for the
footings of commercial buildings.
It should be noted that mild steel bolts are more ductile than high strength bolts, and
this allows easier adjustment of the steelwork during erection. Mild steel also has the
advantage of weldability, which means that holding down bolt cages can be tack welded
together and thereby more firmly held during concrete pours.
The fourth edition of the AISC connections manual [11] develops the
recommendations made in earlier versions of this book [18] for the design and embedment of
holding down bolts. It presents a table for embedment lengths, edge distances and cog
dimensions. The embedment lengths tabulated in Reference [I I] are for single bolts and are
therefore smaller than those presented in Table 7.3 of this book, which allow for bolts in
groups as discussed in Section 7.5.4.2 ofthis book.

7.5.2 Design Criteria

There are many considerations in the design of holding down bolts [8], the most important
being as follows:
• The bolts themselves should have sufficient capacity in combined tension and
shear.
• The grouting or bedding under the base plate should have sufficient capacity in
compression to cater for applied compression and bending moment at the base of
the column.
• The concrete or the grout filling the space around the bolts and sleeves should
have sufficient strength in bearing to transmit the shear force in the bolt.
• If the bolts do not have a suitable head or other anchor at the head to prevent
pullout or bearing failure under the head, the bolts must be sufficiently long or
must be suitably cogged or hooked to satisfy the anchorage requirements for plain
deformed bars (as appropriate) in the concrete code AS3600 [6].
• If the bolts have a suitable head or anchor, the embedment must be sufficient to
prevent the bolts pulling out a cone of concrete (cone failure).
• If there is insufficient edge distance to satisfy the AC! 349 requirements, the bolts
must be lapped or anchored with reinforcing bars in accordance with the concrete
code [6].
• Account should be taken of fabrication and erection tolerances when detailing and
installing holding down bolts.
• The likelihood of corrosion must be considered carefully. Hot dip galvanizing is
recommended.
• A minimum of four bolts rather than two bolts is favoured by riggers to assist in
supporting columns during erection.
Some of these criteria are self-explanatory. Additional comments are provided in the
following sections.
AISC DPFB/03 Holding Down Bolts 199

7.5.3 Grouting or Bedding

The choice of bedding material should be made with reference to manufacturers' data sheets
based on the size of the base plate, the level of stress, the type of packing and the space
available. The calculation of stresses on the bedding material is best achieved using the
theory of ultimate strength behavior of concrete but this is not necessary for pinned base
frames.
The space between foundation and base plate should not be less than 25 mm fo(
grouting, 50 mm for mortar bedding and 75 mm for concrete bedding [8]. The design should
provide adequate access for cleaning and filling pockets or sleeves, and also air or access
holes through the base plates where necessary.

7.5.4 Bolts in Tension

7 .5 .4.1 ANCHORAGE OF STRAIGHT OR COGGED BARS

The anchorage lengths of plain round bars, whether straight or cogged, are generally
prohibitive especially if the bond length is reduced because of the presence of a sleeve which
allows adjustment during erection, as shown in Figure 7 .3. Sometimes deformed Y-grade bars
with threaded ends are used to reduce the anchorage lengths required. However, it is wise to
use a bolt one size smaller than the deformed bar (eg. an M20 thread on a Y24 bar) to ensure
the thread can be properly cut, and so this approach can become uneconomical by comparison
with others. It should also be noted that BHP [12] recommends that only 80% of the 410 MPa
yield strength be used when Tempcore bars are threaded because of the loss of the hardened
outer region of the bars.
The AISC connections manual [11] includes cog lengths for plain round mild steel
holding down bolts. However, in the background information in Section 5.12.4 of the manual,
it is mentioned that cogged bolts (called hooked anchors) should be used only for base plates
subject to compression.
References [10] and [11] indicate that the head of a standard anchor bolt without a
plate or washer has sufficient bearing area to fully develop the tensile strength of the bolts.
Therefore a nut threaded on to the embedded end of the bolt would also be sufficient for
tension but may not prevent the bolt turning in green concrete when the exposed nut is being
tightened. The most practical anchorages are therefore a bolt head, a nut with sufficient weld
to prevent turning during tightening, a square plate welded to an unthreaded end or a U-bolt as
shown in Figure 7.3.

7.5.4.2 CONEFAILURE
If the holding down bolts have standard heads or are in the form of U-bars, pullout by bond
failure between the concrete and bolt shank is not possible, and cone failure governs (see
Figure 7.4). The design cone failure strength is based on an ultimate uniform tensile stress of
0.33¢..Jl[ acting on an effective stress area which is defined by the projected area of a stress
cone radiating from the bearing edge of the head of the anchor towards the concrete surface.
 Footings & Slabs AISC DPFB/OJ
200

The effective area is limited by overlapping stress cones, and by edges of the concrete. The
effective area should be reduced by the bearing area of the anchor head. For simplicity, the
bearing area of the anchor head is conservatively taken as zero in Figure 7.4 and in Section
7.5.4.3.

Optional
pocket

ID

Fillet ~---i'+- D
welds W C;t~===::=--
[ r I~ e--f
~
(a) Anchor Bolt (b) Standard Bolt (c) U-Bolt ( d) Cogged Bolt
& Welded Nut

Figure 7.3 Holding Down Bolt Details

50 50 min.
75 for M30 75 for M30
100 for M36 100 for M36

Projected area
of stress cone
s

' x / ' x /~

(a) Single Cone (b) Two Intersecting (c) Four Intersecting

Cones Cones
Figure 7.4 Single and Group Cone Failures

The inclination angle for calculating projected areas is 45', while the ¢ factor should
be taken as 0.65 for holding down bolts. The 0.65 value for¢ is taken from Reference [10]
AISC DPFB/03 Holding Down Bolts 201

although Reference [ll] has adopted a ¢ value of 0.8. The concrete stress Id is the
characteristic compressive cylinder strength in MPa. The cone failure strength so calculated is
an ultimate value. · ··

7.5.4.3 EMBEDMENTLENGTHS
Embedment lengths for varying bolt diameters are presented in Table 7 .2 for tensile load
cases. The embedment lengths are based on the assumed cone failure described in Section
7.5.4.2. The values L 1, L, and L4 correspond to a single cone, two intersecting cones and four
intersecting cones respectively (see Figure 7 .4), with the cone capacity being equal to or
greater than the ultimate tensile capacity of the bolt to ensure ductility. The bolt spacing is
taken as 100 mm for Ml2 to M24 bolts, 150 mm for M30 bolts and 200 mm for M36 bolts.
Recommended holding down bolt details are presented in Table 7.3.
The relationship between cone pullout capacity and bolt tensile strength can be
expressed ~s:

(o.33 x 0.65 x ,JJ;)x ___.!!__

1000
;, Ntf (7.8)

where L =the embedment to top of bolt head on anchor in mm

Ntf =nominal tensile capacity of bolt in kN
A =projected surface area of the cone in mm2
For a single bolt, A= lllf and therefore, adopting Id = 20 MPa
L,;, 18.2x jN; (7.9)

For a double bolt, A is given by the following expression, but L, must be calculated by trial
and error.

g
l
2xcos-'(-s))
A=Jll'x I ZL, +.:'..x L'-!!._ (7.10)
' 360 2 ' 4

For 4 bolts in a group with the bolt spacings in each direction less than the embedment length
L4 , A is given by

l
2xcos -1(-s-))
+.:'..x~L2
2
A= Jll2
4
x 0.75- ZL, 4
_.:_ +!!.__ (7.11)
360 2 4 4

7.5.4.4 MINIMUM EDGE DISTANCE FOR TENSILE LOADS

For tensile loads, a minimum edge distance is required at the anchor head to confine the lateral
bursting force generated by the full load transfer from steel to concrete. For conventional
anchor heads, the lateral bursting force may conservatively be taken as one quarter of the
202 Footings & Slabs AISC DPFB/03

Table 7.2 Calculated Holding Down Bolt

Details for Grade 4.6 Bolts

Bolts : Single Bolt

in Tension in Shear

Bolt
Diameter, D L1 L, L, E1 E,
mm mn1 111111 mm mm rnm

12 110 120 150 50 125

16 150 180 220 65 200
20 180 230 300 80 210
,
24 220 280 370 95 250
30 270 350 450 120 310
36 330 410 530 140 375

Notes:
1. U bolts can present difficulties on site because of inaccurate spacing of their legs.
2. Minimum J;
= 20 MPa, concrete unreinforced. Note AS3600 requires a minimum
J; = 25 MPa for industrial building footings.
3. Bolt grade is 4.6.
4. Intersecting cone spacings are based on a minimum bolt spacing of 100 mm for Ml2,
Ml6, M20 and M24 bolts, 150 mm for M30 bolts and 200 mm for M36 bolts.
5. Cone capacity is based on a uniform ultimate tensile stress of 0.33 x 0.65.Jl: acting
over the projected area of the cone at the concrete surface. The apex of the cone is
assumed to be at the top of the anchor plate or bolt head.
6. E 1 is the minimum edge· distance in unreinforced concrete required to confine the
lateral thrust generated by the tensile strength of the bolt assuming no shear on the
bolt.
7. E1 is the minimum edge distance in unreinforced concrete required for full
development of the shear strength of the bolt towards the edge.
8. Embedment lengths LI> L 1 and L 4 require a minimum edge distance equal to the
embedment as shown in Figure 7 .4 for a single cone, two intersecting cones or four
intersecting cones respectively.
9. Where a single bolt in tension is closer thanL 1 to the edge, the required embedment to
develop the ultimate tensile capacity of the bolt will be greater than L 1 and may be
calculated by trial and error. Alternatively, embedment L 4 may be conservatively
adopted.
IO.Where embedment lengths or edge distances are not sufficient to fully develop the
strength of the anchor bolts, reinforcement must be located to intercept potential
cracking planes and must be fully developed on both sides of the postulated crack.
11.Where bolts are close to both an edge and to other bolts such as in a pedestal,
reinforcement will probably be necessary.
AISC DPFB/03 Holding Down Bolts 203

tensile capacity of the bolt. For expansion anchors, this force should not be taken as less than
the pullout capacity of the anchor because of the significant lateral force required to restrain
an expansion anchor. ' ~ ·

Table 7 .3 Recommended Holding Down Bolt

Details for Grade 4. 6 Bolts

Minimum Edge Anchor Plate Cog

Bolt Minimum Distance for Details LengthL.
Dia. Embedment Shear or Tension mm mm
mm mm mm [see Notes
D [see Note (4)] p T w (5) and (6)]

12 150 150 50 6 6 160

16 225 225 50 10 6 225
20 300 300 50 12 6 280
24 375 375 50 16 8 335
30 450 450 75 20 10 425
36 550 550 75 25 12 520

Notes:
1. Minimum I:=- 20 MPa, unreinforced concrete. Note AS3600 requires a minimum
1; = 25 MPa for industrial building footings.
2. Bolt grade is 4.6, maximum of 4 bolts per group.
3. Minimum pitch 100 mm except 150 mm for M30 bolts and 200 mm for M36 bolts.
4. The edge distance and embedments cover a group of 4.bolts. A single or double bolt
may have less edge distance than shown in this table: ·Table 7.2 can be used for single
or double bolts whose cones are truncated by edges or overlaps. If the edge distance
is not available, the bolts can lap with reinforCement.
5. Cogged plain mild steel bolts are recomrn~nded only for base plates subject to
compression [11].
6. L, ;,,AJ,1 !(0.7J;D)

For conventional anchor heads, working on a ¢factor for the bolt of 0.85, and a tensile
stress area of0.75 times the gross area of the bolt, the edge distance can be expressed as

E, =Dx (7.11)
6.06x-Jl:
204 Footings & Slabs AISC DPFB/03

where E, is the edge distance in mm, D is the bolt diameter in mm, J.1 is the ultimate tensile
strength of the bolt in MPa and J; is as previously defined. Values of E, are given in Table
7.2. Reference [II] recommends a minimum edge distance of 5 times the bolt diameter or
I 00 mm whichever is the greater for Grade 4.6 bolts, but these minima are not adopted in
Table 7.2 ofthis book.

7.5.5 Bolts in Shear

For lateral loads towards the free edge, the edge distance shall be such that the concrete failure
strength (based on a uniform tensile strength of 0.33¢.JJI acting on an effective area defined
by projecting a 45° half cone to the free edge surface from the centreline of the anchor at the
shearing plane as shown in Figure 7.5) exceeds the ultimate shear strength of the bolts. This
concept has been confirmed ,by tests [13]. Based on these requirements, the commentary to.
the AC! 349 guidelines presents the following edge distance formula:

E, =Dx (7.13)
0.83xfJ:

where E2 is the edge distance and D is the bolt diameter in mm, J.i is the ultimate tensile
strength of the bolt in MPa, and J; is as previously defined. The resulting edge distances
defined in Figure 7.5 are given in Table 7.2. Reference [I I] recommends a minimum edge
distance for Grade 4.6 bolts of 12 bolt diameters although this is not adopted in Table 7.2 of
this book.

Figure 7.5 Half-Cone Failure for Single Bolt in Shear

AISC DPFB/03 Holding Down Bolts 205

7.5.6 Corrosion
According to the British publication [8], inspections of holding down bolts taken from
demolished structures have shown that corrosion has significantly reduced the cross-sectional
area of the bolts within the design life of.the building. Generally cementitious bedding and
filling materials have not been reliable in preventing corrosion. Hot dip galvanizing of
holding down bolts is recommended.

7.6 SLAB DESIGN

7.6.1 Design Principles
Concrete slabs are intended to provide a level hard-wearing surface for wheel loads and other
loads such as storage racks. It follows that a slab should be designed [14] to prevent the
occurrence of
• excessive flexural stresses which may result in cracking of the concrete.
• excessive bearing stresses on the concrete surface.
• excessive punching shear stresses due to concentrated loads.
• differential deflection at joints.
• excessive deflections due to settlement of the subgrade.
Cracks can also occur because of restrained shrinkage and temperature effects. In fact,
some cracking in floors is virtually inevitable no matter what precautions are taken. Cracking
in industrial floor slabs is not inhereatly detrimental unless the cracks are so wide that there is
inadequate load transfer across the cracks causing forklifts to bump badly. However, even
with narrow cracks, there are disadvantages such as marred appearance and the possible
spalling of the concrete surface at the cracks. It follows that it is desirable to minimise
cracking. This can be achieved by good joint design and layout, by the use of sufficient
reinforcement to ensure that any cracks are held together, or by prestressing.
It is also important to minimise bumps or level differences at joints, especially when
solid tyred forklifts are used. This can be achieved by ensuring load transfer at joints and by
minimising the number of construction breaks where level differences inevitably occur.
Fortunately, the design, construction, and specification of industrial slabs and
pavements are very well covered by three excellent publications [14,15,16]. The information
in these publications will not be reproduced here but additional comments on various aspects
of slab design are given in the following sections.

7.6.2 Slab Thickness

The predominant consideration in slab thickness design is the prevention of excessive flexural
stresses under wheel or post loads. For all but. lightly loaded floors, the stresses are
determined using charts such as those produced by the Cement and Concrete Association of
Australia [14]. In the case of wheel loading, determining the ratio of the tensile stress (under a
 Footings & Slabs AISC DPFB/03
206

single application of the static wheel load) to the ultimate flexural.tensile strength at 90 days,
allows the number of repetitions of the load which can be withstood by the slab to be read
from a table. If the stress ratio is 0.5 or less, then the slab can withstand an unlimited number
of repetitions or passes.
For lightly loaded floors, the slab thickness is usually determined from experience, and
Reference [14] presents a table of typical thicknesses. For example, an industrial building or
warehouse with live loading between 5 and 20 kPa, or a garage used for fully loaded semi-
trailers, would typically have a 175 mm thick slab, a concrete strength Id of 32 MP a and F72
mesh with 30 mm top cover. Where the heaviest loads are only one tonne forklifts, the
thickness could be reduc.ed to 125 mm with an 1; of 25 MPa depe,nding on the subgrade
quality.
An example of a more heavily loaded floor slab would be a 200 mm thick slab with an
Id of 40 MPa. Such a floor would be capable of carrying repetitive 5 tonne forklift loads
again depending on subgrade quality.

7.6.3 Joints

7.6.3.1 GENERAL
Joints are necessary in concrete pavements prlmarily to control cracks due to shrinkage and
temperature effects as previously discussed, and to control cracks due to uneven ground
movements. Joints are also necessary to provide construction breaks. It is not normally
necessary to provide expansion joints in floor slabs because shrinkage provides enough of a
gap at contraction joints to cater for any subsequent thermal expansiOn.
It is good practice to provide load transfer at joints, especially for solid tyred forklifts,
in order to minimise bumping across the joints, and also to spread the load on the edge of the
slab to the adjacent slab so as to reduce the high flexural edge stresses. Load transfer can be
achieved using keyed joints in lightly to moderately loaded slabs, and dowelled joints in more
heavily loaded slabs.

7.6.3.2 SAWN JOINTS

A common method of providing contraction joints is to saw cut joints within 4 to 48 hours of
the pour, depending on the local conditions, to one quarter of the slab depth. The saw cuts
will initiate cracks. The mesh can be completely cut at the joint, but if the joint spacing
exceeds 5 metres only every second wire should be cut. The wires which do cross the joint
hold the joint together to some extent thereby aiding aggregate interlock and shear transfer. A
saw cut joint is shown in Figure 7 .6. A sealant is recommended not only to prevent moisture
entering the subgrade in exposed or wet areas, but also to provide some support to the sawn
edges to minimise spalling.
A1SC DPFB/03
Slab Design 207

Induced crack Cut all wires or alternate

wires of mesh before pour
Figure 7.6 Saw Cut Joint Detail

Cast-in crack
(initiator

Cl t- .
~ f - - -1;i·.··· >id
- - - 7 ' - - +...
;'
-,··-
...- · - ·

Induced crack Cut all wires or alternate

wires of mesh before pour
Figure 7.7 Detail for Cast-In Crack Inducer

7.6.3.3 CAST-IN CRACK INITIATORS

Instead of using saw cuts to initiate cracks, a crack initiator as shown in Figure 7.7 can be cast
into the slab at the desired contraction joint location. Crack initiators such as metal or wooden
strips were once placed on the ground and held vertical with removable stakes, but in more
recent years a galvanised steel strip stiffened with a small rib has been pushed into the top of
the wet concrete.
The galvanised strip is known commercially as Crack-a-Joint, and has been used with
mixed success. One drawback is that the strip tends to end up slightly below the concrete
surface, and this results in a slightly.'ragged crack. However, eVen with a ragged crack, there
is still a smooth transition for forklifts across the joint because the crack is narrow compared
with a saw cut, and the surface level on each side of the joint is the same. A smooth transition
is difficult to achieve with formed joints where the slab on each side is poured at a different
time. Crack-a-Joint, pre-formed metal keyed joints and saw cuts have the advantage that large
pours can be achieved without pour breaks and the associated bumps that occur at pour
breaks.

7 .6.3.4 KEYED JOINTS

A typical keyed joint detail is shown in Figure 7.8. Keyed joints are appropriate for slabs
used by lightly to moderately loaded vehicles. It is important that the key dimensions
208 Footings & Slabs AISC DPFBtOJ

recommended by the Cement and Concrete Association [14] are· adhered to, except that a
flatter I in 10 taper rather than I in 4 should be considered. In particular, it should be noted
that the key itself should project only 0.1 T from the edge of the slab where Tis the thickness
of the slab or thickening as appropriate. Otherwise, the key, or concrete above and below the
key, will be in danger of breaking off.
Keyed joints should not be constructed in slabs thinner than 150 mm without
thickening of the slab in the vicinity of the joint. Thickening provides edge stiffuess and
strength which compensates to some extent for the lack of direct load transfer resulting from
the tapered nature of the key combined with shrinkage movement. It would therefore be wise
to limit the spacing of thickened keyed joints to a maximum of six metres. Thickenings over
pad footings should be isolated from the footing by a 50 mm minimum layer of sand or
crusher dust to avoid shrinkage restraint.

Formed or
Sealant
cast-in metal key
.~
0.25T
E - "[,.
Cl
0 I>
<.()
N

II
I-

0.1T

300 300

Figure 7.8 Keyed Joint Detail

Dowel with sawn ends Paint one half with water

based bituminous paint.
D/2

~;col J
. q
. ., . .'V ..

a ,,.,,:foe Induced crack.

150 and 180 slabs Joint may also be
R20-300 x 300 long a formed joint.

Figure 7.9 Dowelled Joint Detail

AJSC DPFB/03 Slab Design 209

7.6.3.5 DOWELLED JOINTS

For pavements which support heavy vehicles or forklifts, it is necessary to use dowels at joints
as shown in Figure 7.9. The latest Cement and Concrete Association publications [16) show
dowels with keys although it is difficult to see the benefit of a key when dowels are used. The
publications give typical details of key dimensions and dowel size and spacing. A common
arrangement for 150 mm slab is R20 dowels 300 mm long at 300 mm centres.
Dowels should be smooth round bars as the name implies. At least one half should be
bond broken to facilitate opening of the joint. Some engineers specify that the bond broken
half of the dowel should be capped to allow for expansion. However, the contraction which
takes place due to shrinkage should be sufficient to cater for expansion due to temperature. It
should be noted that solvent based bituminous paint can actually increase the bond, and so
water based bituminous paint or grease should be specified.
It is important to specify that the dowels be saw cut rather than shear cut because shear
cutting defonns the dowel end which would resist opening of the joint. Dowels must be
carefully aligned so that they are perpendicular to the plane of the joint, otherwise the dowels
will resist sliding and could even initiate cracking. It is difficult to properly align dowels, and
so the use of tie bars is recommended as shown in Figure 7.9.
In some cases, corrosion of the dowels may be possible, and the use of galvanised
dowels would be advisable. In any case, when dowels are used, sealant should be used to
prevent moisture ingress.

7.6.3.6 JOINT SPACING AND REINFORCEMENT

It is generally accepted that a 6 metre contraction joint spacing will perfonn well in service.
There has been a trend to increase this spacing on the incorrect basis that shrinkage is the only
cause of cracking and that the quantity of reinforcement needed to resist shrinkage forces can
be calculated. However, such reinforcement is not designed to prevent cracks, but to hold
them together when they occur. There are also differential temperature effects and ground
subsidence which contribute to cracking.
For internal slabs, there are also thickenings, trenches, footings and pits which can
serve to restrain shrinkage. It is therefore advisable to aim for a contraction joint spacing of 6
metres maximum wherever possible. At columns, the slab should be isolated from the column
footing pedestal with a layer of compressible material around the footing or pedestal. At
internal columns, the column pedestal can be rotated through 45' so that the corners of the
pedestal are at floor slab joints. Perimeter pour strips, say 2 metres wide, can be used on two
or four sides where the column spacing does not suit a 6 metre joint spacing. The pour strips
are separated from the body of the floor by keyed joints. The joint spacing in the pour strips
suits the column spacing while the joint spacing in the remainder of the floor is arranged to be
about 6 metres or less.
 Footings & Slabs AISC DPFB/03
210

7.7 DESIGN EXAMPLE- FOOTINGS

7.7.1 Typical Portal Footings

7.7.1.l BORE!f PIERS
r
The vertical and horizontal reactions at the footings for the various load con1binations are
given in Table 7.4. The foundation material is a stiff clay with c, = 50 kPa.
Try bored piers 450 mm diameter x 3000 mm deep below finished ground level.
These piers will need to be capped with a pedestal deep enough to accommodate the holding
down bolts. Strictly speaking, shrinkage of the clay away from the top of the piers need not
be considered because of paving around the pier, but allow shrinkage over I.5d from top of
the piers.

Table 7.4 Design Actions for Footings

(taken from Node Reactions in Appendix II)

NODE 1 NODE9
Load
X-Force Y-Force X-Force Y-Force
Combinatio
kN kN kN kN
n

LC20 38.6 83.0 -38.6 83.0

LC21 -67.7 -94.7 -3.2 -53.0
LC22 -45.9 -54.6 -25.3 -12.0
LC23 -16.1 61.6 -55.8 105
LC24 -12.1 -44.5 12.1 -44.5
LC25 39.1 93.4 93.4
-39.l

• Check Hold Down Capacity

Adhesion= ac, = 0.9x50 = 45 kPa
Ultimate hold down capacity with a ¢factor on geotechnical capacity of 0.6 and a load
factor on concrete weight of0.8
ffX0.45 2
= 0.6x45x;rx0.45x (3.0-0.45xl.5) + 0.8x x3.0x24 =98kN
4
Maximum uplift= 94. 7 kN < 98 kN OK

• Check Lateral Forces

Lateral force H' = 67.7 kN (LC21) inwards AS2J59
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Footings 211

Lateral capacity ignoring any slab restraint:

~ = 3000 = 6.67
d 450
_:_ = 200 = 0.44
d 450
As is determined by solving the quadratic equation (using a spreadsheet calculation)
aA& +b/l.s +c=O
where .
a =0.5

b = 9x (~ -1.s) + 18x (~+ 1.5)

c = -0.5x{9x(~-J.5)f
so that As = 12.3
Assume 6 - YI 6 bars equally spaced in the bored pier
Determine My using the circular column charts in the Concrete Design Handbook [3] or
by a suitable spreadsheet program.

= steel area = 6 x 200 x 4 = 0. 0075

p
gross area 1f x 450
2

= 450-2x(50+6+0.5xl6) =0.?2
g
450

JfX 450 2
#Jr = 0.8 x x 450 Nmm = 57.3 kNm
4
Alternatively, in the absence of design aids, consider 3 - Yl6 bars as tension steel, choose
an approximated of330 mm and calculate tfM y = r/1dA,fy.
Hence
tfMu = 0.8 x 0.9 x 3 x 200 x 330x 400 Nmm = 57.0 kNm

Hence adopting MY= 57.0/0.8 = 71

AL =9x{-(0.44+ 1.5)+ ~(0_.4_4_+_1-.5-)2_+__2_x_7_1_,} = 6.73
9x 50 x 0.45
 Footings & Slabs AISC DPFB!OJ
212

Hence
"' HU = 0.75x6.73x50x0.45 2
'f'gL AS2/59 Cl. A4

=51.lkN<H*=67.7kN NG
Try 6 - Y20 bars
310
"'"' =-x71=110kNm
>"'"' 200
/IL = 9.7
¢,LHU = 73.7 kN > H. = 67.7 kN OK AS2159 Cl. A4

Details of the bored piers are shown in Appendix I

7.7.1.2 COMPARE PAD FOOTINGS

Design uplift= 94.7 kN
. d=
V o 1ume o f concrete require 94.5 = 4 .9 m 3
0.8x 24
Try a 2.5 m x 2.5 m pad footing
The footing is shown in Figure 7.10
Slab contribution assuming a 1 m strip on three sides
25
= ( ~ + 0.25say} (2.5+1.0+ l.O}x 0.175 = 1.97, say 2 m 3

Hence, volume of pad footing required

= 4.9-2.0 = 2.9 m'

Thickness of pad footing

29
· = 0.46 m, say 450 mm
25 x 2.5

Compare pad footing volume of2.9 m 3 with bored pier volume

2
·3.0 X ffX 0.45 = 0.5 m'
4

Hence bored piers are clearly more economical

7.7.2 End Wall Column Footings

Maximum uplift pressure under LW = (0.9 + 0.1)x1.02 = 1.02 kPa
Maximum uplift pressure under CW= (0.9 + 0.52)x·l .OO = 1.42 kPa
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Footings 213

Uplift force = ~ x 6.25 x 1.42 = 40 kN

2
9
Dead load = - x 6.25 x 0.1 (roof)+ 0.5lx6.25 (rafter)+ 6.25x8x0.l (wall)
2
= 11 kN
Hence design uplift= 40 - 0.8xll = 31.2 kN
Use typical bored pier with 98 kN uplift capacity because the concrete volume is very
small and the saving is not significant for the six piers involved.
Check maximum horizontal load at base
8 55
= .1 x 8.61 = 35 kN
2
Clearly OK/ram Section 7.6.1.1

Pad footing

Pedestal

Assumed area of
slob contributing --hL-/
to hold down. 1---'--t...-+-""-"'-'

Figure 7.10: Slab Contribution to Hold Down

7.7.3 Main Portal Footings in Bracing Bays

7.7.3.l CORNERCOLUMNS
Uplift on the comer column due to· longitudinal wind pressures on the roof

= ( 6.25x9) x (0.9+0.l ) xl.02 =14.3 kN

2x2
 Footings & Slabs AISC DPFB/03
214

Ignoring DL, the combined uplift force due to roof pressures and diagonal wall bracing forces
72 9 7 5
=14+ · x · =75kN<98kN OK
9
Therefore typical bored piers are OK for uplift. The longitudinal force at the top of the
pier will be transmitted by the slab and therefore shared between the other side wall piers.

7.7.3.2 COLUMN ON GRID B2

Column B2 is likely to have a high uplift load because the wall bracing is in the second bay
from the end to avoid the roller door in the end bay. The uplift force from the wall bracing
then combines with the maximum main· frame uplift from the longitudinal wind.
Design uplift under long wind= 44.5 kN (LC24 = 0.8DL+LWl+IPLW)
Up l'ftd
1 . f'orce ="7Z. 9 x 7 .5
ue to wallbracing = 608kN
·
9
Total design uplift= 44.5 + 60.8 = 105 kN > 98 kN NG
Therefore increase bored pier depth (conservatively) to J05x3.0/98 = 3.2 m for all bored
piers

7.7.3.3 COLUMNS ON GRIDS A2, A8 AND B8

When these columns are at the windward end, the force from the wall bracing is downward
and thus counteracts the main frame uplift. When these columns are at the leeward end, the
uplift from the wall bracing function is not only smaller, but the external suction coefficient
which acts in combination with the wall bracing uplift is also only 0.2.
Hence, ADOPT the typical bored piers

7. 7.4 Holding Down Bolts for Portal Colnmns

Maximum uplift = 105 kN (Grid B2)

Coincident shear = 72.9 kN (due to longitudinal bracing forces)
Coincident shear = 12 kN (due to in-plane column base shear LC24)
Resultant shear = .Jn.9' + 12 2
= 73.9 kN

• CHECK STANDARD AlSC BASE PLATE AND HOLDING BOLTS

Capacity of 4 - M24 4.6/S bolts in tension
= 0.8x353x400x4 AS4/00 Cl. 9.3.2.2
=452kN > 105kN OK
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Footings 215

Capacity of 4 - M24 4.6/S bolts in shear

= 0.8x0.62x324x400x4 AS4100 Cl. 9.3.2.1
= 257 kN > 73.9 kN OK

Combined shear and tension (linear interaction) A/SC [17]

= 73.9 + 105 = 0.52 < 1.0

257 452
ADOPT 4 -M24 4.6/S bolts at 400 mm by 130 mm centres with 400 mm embedment
Provide 250 mm edge distance to the edge of the pedestal to ensure the ultimate shear
capacity of the bolts can be developed (see Table 7.2) without special ligatures around
the bolts.

7.7.5 Holding Down Bolts for End Wall Columns

AISC's Standardised Structural Connections [17] recommends the following base details for a
250UB31:
• 280xl80x20 plate
• 2 - M20 4.6/S bolts
Capacity of2-M20 4.6/S bolts in tension
= 0.8x245x400x2 N=l57kN AS4100 Cl. 9.3.2.2

Design uplif\ in Section 7.7.2 = 31.2 kN

Capacity of2 - M20 4.6/S bolts in shear
= 0.8x 0.62x 225x 400x 2 N= 89 kN AS4100 Cl. 9.3:2.I
Design shear force
= 8.61x8.155 = 35 kN OK
2
Combined shear and tension clearly OK

7.8 DESIGN EXAMPLE - SLAB

7.8.1 Design Criteria

• 4.5 tonne forklift single wheel axle
• Unlimited repetitions
• Subgrade CBR 5
 Footings & Slabs AISC DPFB/03
216

7.8.2 Slab Thickness Design

Design reference "Concrete and Industrial Floor and Pavement Design" published by Cement
& Concrete Association of Australia, July 1985 [14].
Try fJ = 32 MPa
Therefore, flexural tensile strength of concrete at 28 days is

ft,28day' = 0.438(/J)?'j = 4.4 MPa

· and J,, 9odaw = l.lx4.4 = 4.8 MPa

For unlimited repetitions, the maximum stress ratio is 0.5 and therefore the maximum
stress is 2.4 MPa.
Accepting adequate load transfer or thickenings at slab edges, the charts for interior
loading can be used. Using Figure 8 of Reference [14] and the following parameters:
• Axle load= 10 tonne
• Wheel centres = 900 mm Table 8 Ref [14}
• CBR=5
• Maximum stress= 2.4 MPa
A slab thickness of 175 mm is required
Note that Figure 7 of Reference [14] indicates a slab thickness of just over 180 mm. The
difference may be due to the use of 28 day rather than 90 day flexural tensile strength in
preparing Figure 7, or perhaps different wheel centres.

7.8.3 Joints
Dowelled joints require care and close inspection for proper installation, and are more
expensive than keyed joints. Therefore, select longitudinal keyed joints with thickenings to
250 mm and transverse sawn joints.
As the panels are at 9 m centres, the transverse sawn joints should be either at 9 m or
4.5 m centres unless pour strips are used along the sides to isolate the columns and permit say
a 6 m joint spacing. From experience, 9 m spacing for sawn joints is too much to maintain
aggregate interlock after shrinkage.
If sawn joints at 4.5 m centres are adopted, the total length of sawn joint will be 15x26
=390m.
If a 2 m wide pour strip is used down each side of the building to increase the sawn
joint spacing to 6 m, the total length of sawn joint will be llx22 + 15x4 = 302 m allowing
for sawn joints at 4.5 m centres across the 2 m wide pour strips. In addition, a keyed joint
between each pour strip and the rest of the slab will be necessary, making an extra length of
keyed joint of 2x72 = 144 m. As keyed joints are more expensive than sawn joints, adopt
sealed sawn joints at 4.5 m centres
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Slab 217

7.8.4 Reinforcement
Figure 24 of Reference [14] indicates that F72 mesh is the minimum size required for a 175
mm slab. Therefore,
ADOPT F72 mesh

7.9 REFERENCES

I. Standards Australia (1996). HB77.3 - 1996 Bridge Design Code. Section 3:Foundations. SA,
Sydney.
2. Standards Australia (1996). HB77.3.l -1996 Bridge Design Code. Section 3: Foundations -
Co1n1nentary, SA, Sydney.
3. Cement and Concrete Association of Australia (1989). Concrete Design Handbook, C&CA,
Sydney.
4. Standards Australia (1995). AS2159 - 1995 Piling Code - Design and Installation, SA,
Sydney.
5. Tomlinson, M.J. (1991). Pile Design and Constrnction Practice. 3rd edn., Chapman and Hall,
London.
6. Standards Australia (1994). AS3600-1994 Concrete Structures. SA, Sydney.
7. Standards Association of Australia (1978). AS2159 -1978 SAA Piling Code, SAA, Sydney.
8. The Concrete Society, The British Constructional SteelWork Association and the
Constructional Steel Research and Development Organisation (1980). Holding Down Systerns
for Steel Stanchions, Special Publication.
9. American Concrete Institute Committee 349 (1979). Proposed addition to: Code requirements
for nuclear safety related concrete structures (ACI 349-76); and Addition to commentary on
code requirements for nuclear safety related concrete structures (ACI 349-76). A1nerican
Concrete Institute Structural Journal, 75(8), 329-347.
IO. Cannon, R.W., Godfrey, D.A. and Moreadith, F.L. (1981). Guide to the design of anchor bolts
and other steel embedments. Concrete Institute, 2(7), 28-41.
11. Hogan, T.J. and Thomas, I.R. (1994). Design of Structural Connections. 4" edn., AJSC,
Sydney.
12. Broken Hill Proprietary (1987). Tempcore - Leading the way in steel reinforcing. Rod and
Bar Products Division, 1987 edn., BHP, Melbourne.
13. Ueda, T., Kitipomchai, S. and Ling, K. (1990). Experimental investigation of anchor bolts
under shear. Journal ofStructural Engineering, ASCE, 116(4), 910-924.
14. Cement and Concrete Association of Australia (1985). Concrete Industrial Floor and
Pavement Designs. C&CA, Sydney.
15. Egan, D.E. (1985). lndustrial floors and pavements. Technical Note TN54, C&CA, Sydney.
16. Cement and Concrete Association of Australia (1997). Industrial Pave1nents - Guidelines for
Design, Construction and Specification. C&CA, Sydney.
17. Australian Institute of Steel Construction (1985). Standardized Structural Connections, 3rd
edn, AISC, Sydney.
18. Woolcock, S.T. and Kitipomchai, S. (1987). Design of Porto/ Frome Buildings, AISC,
Sydney.
 AISC DPFBIOJ
218
8 Plastic Frame Design
8.1 GENERAL
In Chapter 4, elastic frame analysis was used to determine frame forces and bending moments.
The frame was then designed so that its plastic or limit state section and member capacities
exceed the calculated bending moments. In this chapter, the frame is analysed plastically
allowing the formation of plastic hinges and redistribution of bending moments. The frame is
then designed in a similar way to a frame analysed elastically, although there are some special
clauses in AS4100 for design based on plastic analysis.
The plastic approach to portal frame design can be very quick and elegant. This is
especially true for symmetric loading. With the widespread availability of interactive
structural analysis computer packages, even more complex and non-symmetric load cases can
be analysed adequately with greater ease because of the advantage of moment redistribution.
Any need to control deflections may negate this advantage, however.

8.2 PLASTIC ANALYSIS

8.2.1 General
There are two methods of plastic analysis [l,2,3]. These are the well-known mecha'lism
(upper bound) and statical (lower bound) methods. An upper bound method gives frame or
member load capacities vt:hich are greater than or equal to the correct values, and is sometimes
called an unsafe method. A lower bound method gives frame or member load capacities
which are less than or equal to the correct values, and is sometimes called a safe method. The
basis and requirements of these methods are well documented in the references, and will not
be repeated here. However, it sh0uld be stated that the two methods are really just two
different paths for approaching or reaching the same correct or unique solution at which the
mechanism, equilibrium and plastic moment conditions are all satisfied. It does not matter if
an unsafe path has been taken to arrive at a correct solution. It should be noted that the
capacities determined by the mechanism method in the next section are not unsafe, but are the
correct solutions for some simple symmetrical loading cases.
If the mechanism method is used in design to determine the· required plastic moments
for a frame rather than determining the load capacity from the analysis of a frame, then the
mechanism method will also be unsafe if plasticity is not satisfied. This is because the method
will give required moments less than the minimum necessary to carry the applied loads.
Conversely, the statical method will give safe required moments if the mechanism condition
is not satisfied.
The application of the mechanism method to portal frames is described in the
following sections. The limitations and assumptions governing plastic analysis are clearly set

219
220 Plastic Design AISC DPFB/OJ

out in Clause 4.5 of AS4100. However, the load cases are the same as for an elastic analysis
with the same load factors.

~I. 1 1 1 1 1 .I~
L

(a) Loading

~Mp SRMP

i~e~
M'p M'p

(·)
L/2 L/2
I I
(b) Mechanism

SRMP SRMP

M'p

(c) Bending Moment Diagram

Figure 8.1 Plastic Analysis ofFixed Ended Haunched Beam

8.2.2 Direct Mechanism Method

The mechanism or upper bound method requires the selection of a failure mechanism for the
structure, with the type of mechanism and location of plastic hinges being dictated by the
nature of the applied loading. The mechanism may then be analysed by the principle of
virtual displacements in order to obtain either an upper bound capacity if a given structure is
being analysed, or a lower bound on the required plastic moment for design purposes. The
mechanism inethod gives the correct solution if the moments are less than the plastic moment
at all points except at the assumed plastic hinges where they are equal to the plastic moment.
AISC DPFB/03 Plastic Analysis 221

This is the necessary condition of plasticity [3]. Note that the mechanism method is only
unsafe ifthe plasticity condition has not been satisfied.
As an example of the method, consider the fixed ended haunch rafter shown in Figure
8.1 (a) with a uniformly distributed load w. The corresponding failure mechanism is shown in
Figure 8.l(b). If the rafter rotates thlough a small angle !>8, then M = MJ:JJ2), and the
external work we is

M wL2
W: = wL- = --MJ (8.1)
' 2. 4

while the internal work Wj is

(8.2)

where M; is the required section capacity in bending at midspan, and SR is the ratio of the
plastic modulus at the supports to that at midspan. Equating the external and internal work,
Equations 8.1 and 8.2 produce

(8.3)

If the member size is known, then this equation will give the member load capacity w,
taking M; = ¢Msx· If the size is not known, which is the normal design situation, then -~his
equation will give the section moment capacity M; required to carry the known load w.
Note that SR is a function of the beam geometry only, and may be set by the designer. The
design objective is to provide a member with a capacity ¢M,, <: M; at midspan and ¢M,, <:
SR M; at the end of the haunch. The bending moment diagram at plastic collapse is shown in
Figure 8.l(c), where it can be seen that the plasticity condition is satisfied. Therefore,
Equation 8.3 represents the correct solution at which the mechanism, equilibrium and plastic
moment conditions are satisfied.
The above procedure can be extended easily to cover a full portal frame with a pitched
rafter, and provides the designer with a simple and powerful method for the analysis of portal
frames under symmetric loading [4]. Such loading occurs when the structure is subjected to
gravity loads and longitudinal wind. These load cases are more critical in low wind speed
areas such as in southern Australia. Non-symmetric loading patterns such as those due to
cross wind are more difficult to analyse by the mechanism method unless some simplifying
assumptions are made. These include converting the varying pressures to uniformly
distributed loads or point loads. The designer must also take care to select the correct mode of
failure.
In order to illustrate the use of the mechanism method for symmetric load cases,
consider the frame and gravity loading shown in Figure 8.2(a). If the rafter rotates by an angle
!>&at the knee, as shown in Figure 8.2(c), then the ridge will drop by L\f and the eaves will
222 Plastic Design AISC DPFB/03

spread by M/2. By noting that L = 2R1 cosfiandf= R1 sin8, the following expressions may be
obtained:

(a) Gravity Load Case

w, H

(b) Longitudinal Wind Load Cose

6L
2
II

Rr"' Rafter length

(c) Mechanism Geometry

Figure 8.2 Symmetrically Loaded Frame and Mechanism

AlSC DPFB/03 Plastic Analysis 223

M = 2R1 sin BAB= 2/AB (8.4)

LAB
8f = R1 cosalB= - - (8.5)
2
The external work W, done by the distributed load w, and the concentrated load Pis

(8.6)

so that from Equations 8.4 and 8.5

(8.7)

The angle change at the ridge is clearly 2ABwhile the angle change at each knee is AB
+ M/2H. The internal work done W, is then

(8.8)

where SR is the ratio of the plastic modulus of the column to that of the unhaunched rafter
assuming that any haunch will be proportioned to remain elastic as discussed later.
Substitution of Equation 8.4 into Equation 8.8 produces

(8.9)

Equating the external and internal work yields

(8.10)

For the longitudinal wind case shown in Figure 8.2b, the corresponding equation is

(8.11)

8.2.3 Iterative Mechanism Method

The iterative mechanism method is particnlarly useful for cross wind load cases, since the
analysis can be performed easily with an elastic structural analysis program such as
Microstran or Spacegass. The usefulness of this method is enhanced if the package is
interactive, and allows the designer to plot and superimpose the bending moment diagrams on
the computer screen.
224 Plastic Design AISC DPFB/03

(a) Cross Wind Loads (b) Redundant Load Case

on Determinate Frame on Determinate Frame

{H + f)R

(c) BMD for Cross Wind Loads (d) BMD for Redundant Load
on Determinate Frame on Determinate Frame

AT KNEE : SRMP = M, - HR

AT APEX : Mp = M2 - (H + f)R
· Figure 8.3 Statical Analysis

To illustrate this procedure, consider the frame and loading shown in Figure 8.3(a).
The plastic bending moment is produced firstly by removing enough redundants from the
frame to make it statically determinate. For pinned base frames, there is one redundant. Then
the bending moment distributions obtained separately from the redundants and the applied
loading are superimposed to roughly locate sufficient hinges for a mechanism. For the pinned
base frame shown in Figure 8.3, the horizontal reaction at the right hand support is removed
and the support released. The determinate frame is analysed for both the cross-wind loads
(Figure 8.3(a)) and the redundant reaction R (Figure 8.3(b)). Although these frames are
statically determinate, a computer analysis enables bending moment diagrams for non-
uniform loading to be obtained quickly and accurately.
For the loading shown in Figure 8.3(a); the combined bending moments would
indicate plastic hinges at the windward knee and at the ridge, these two hinges being sufficient
AISC DPFB/03 Plastic Analysis 225

to form a mechanism. The bending moment diagrams for this condition, with the
corresponding equations of equilibrium, are shown in Figures 8.3(c) and (d). Once the value
of the redundant is calculated, the redundant load case can be re-analysed, combined with the
applied loading, and the final bending moment diagram checked for the plasticity condition.
The process can be performed visually on the computer screen. It may be the case that the
assuifn.ed hinge locations are not correct, and that one hinge is located, for example, elsewhere
on the rafter. A trial and error procedure must then be implemented to locate the correct hinge
position. Generally, only one or two iterations are required for a reasonably experienced
designer to determine the required plastic moments accurately.

8.2.4 Statical Method

In the statical method of analysis, the bending moment diagram that satisfies the plasticity
condition as well as equilibrium is obtained for each design loading condition. This gives a
lower bound on the frame load capacity. The distribution of moments is correct if the
positions where the moment equals the design capacity !fM,, produce a set of hinges which
corresponds to a failure mechanism. The statical method is not used in this book.

8.2.5 Second Order Effects

AS4100 requires M; and other design load effects to be amplified ifthe elastic buckling load
factor 2, (= N0 m/N*) of the frame is less than 10. If the factor is less than 5, a second order
plastic analysis must be carried out As 2, for most portal frames is greater than 5, second
order plastic analysis is generally not required.

8.3 BASIS OF PLASTIC DESIGN IN AS4100

The provisions in AS4100 for design based on plastic analysis differ in some ways from those
for design based on elastic analysis. For plastic design, Clause 4.5.2 requires amongst other
things that the cross-section is free from local buckling effects (ie. it is compact) and that only
doubly symmetric I-sections such as UB's, WB's, UC's and WC's be used. Clause 5.1
requires that a member which is analysed by the plastic method shall have full lateral restraint
as specified in Clause 5.3.2.
Lateral restraint is ensured in Clause 5.3.2.4 by limiting the slenderness ratio Llry
according to

.!:._,;; (80 +50flm)~

250
(8.12)
ry fy
226 Plastic Design AISC DPFB/03

where /Jm is the ratio of the end moments over a segment length L . .If the above equation is to
be applied to the entire rafter or column, then it is extremely restrictive and would require fly
braces to be placed at nearly every purlin and girt. However, Clause 5.3.2.1 in the code
overcomes this conservatism by logically allowing the elastic design provision of Clause 5.6
to be used, so that lateral stability will be ensured if the member moment Mbx is not less than
the section moment capacity Msx in the segments containing plastic hinges. This condition
can be expressed as

(8.13)

8.4 MEMBER CAPACITIES

The plastic moment capacity is reduced in AS4100 to account for axial compression or
tension N* by the use of Clause 8.3.2 as

<fMwx =l.18¢M,,(l- N*) 5.¢M,, (8.14)

¢N,

where M,, is the section strength which for plastic design will always be the full plastic
moment SJ;,, and where N, is the squash load AJ;,.

AS4100 also presents limits on the ratio N*l¢N, for plastically designed beams subject
to axial compression with plastic hinges permitted to form. The axial forces N* in portal
frames are generally a small percentage of the squash loads N, and so this check is usually not
critical. Assuming N*/¢N, 5. 0.15, the check is given by Clause 8.4.3.2 as

(8.15)

where /Jm is the ratio of the smaller to larger end bending moment taken as positive when the
member is bent in reverse curvature, anc\ Lis the actual length of the member,
2
tr EJ
Nol =--2- (8.16)
L
and
N, =k1A,,fy (8.17)

where A, is the net area of the member and k1 is the local buckling form factor.
AISC DPFB/03 Member Capacities 227

The code also presents limits on the ratio N*I ¢N, depending on the web slenderness.
As the web slendernesses ofUB's range from 30 to 55, there are two categories ofUB web
slenderness to be checked from Clause 8.4.3.3 as follows:

. (T,
N* 50.60-(d') VZso (8.18)
¢Ns lw 137
when

455!!!._~fy 582
lw 250
and
rTv
N. 51.91-(!!L) 51.0 _V_lli_ (8.19)
¢Ns lw 27.4
when

25 55._~ !, 5 45 (8.20)
lw 250

where d, is the web depth and lw is the web thickness.

8.5 DESIGN EXAMPLE - PLASTIC FRAME DESIGN

8.5.1 Preliminary Design

8.5.1.l GRAVITY LOAD CASE

For preliminary proportioning, the.column and rafter sizes are selected based on the dead and
live loads. Note that cross wind will probably be the governing case for Region B.
Assume 0.5 kN/m self weight for the rafter.
From Sections 2.6.1 and 2.6.3

WDL = 0.1 Ox9 + 0.5 = 1.40 kN/m

wLL = 0.25x9 = 2.25 kN/m

Hence design load

wu' = 1.25x!.40 + 1.5x2.25 = 5.13 kN/m

with a concentrated load at the apex= 1.5x4.5 = 6.75 kN
As the haunch is tapered, the behaviour of any hinge which forms within the haunch is
uncertain, especially with regard to its ductility. It is therefore generally accepted that the
 AISC DPFB/03
228 Plastic Design

hinge at the knee should form in the column and the haunch should remain elastic. This
means that the plastic section modulus of the haunch at the face of the column should be
greater than the plastic modulus of the column.
For the standard haunches detailed in the AISC Standardised Structural Connections
manual [5], the ratio of the plastic section modulus of the haunch at the face of th~ column to
that of the unhaunched rafter ranges from 2.3 to 2.5. Therefore, to ensure hinge formation in
the column, Sooi.m/S,.1,,, should generally be less than 2.3 if standard AISC haunches are
used. Experience shows that a ratio of about 2.2 produces an economical frame with the
advantage of extra depth for a manageable bolted connection at the column. Hence adopt

Scolumn :::: SR :::: z.z

Srafler

The direct mechanism method in Equation 8.10 produces

M' x [ 2·2 x
p
(i + 0.655)
7.5
+ 1] = 5.13 x 25
8
2
+ 6.75 x 25 = 443 kNm
4

Hence
• 130kNm
MP=

The required plastic moduli are then

6
130 x 10 = 45lx!O' mm'
0.9 x 320
sco/umn = 2.2x451xl03 = 992xl03 mm3
Based on these plastic moduli, a 360UB56.7 column and a 250UB37.3 rafter could be
tried. However, these will clearly violate the serviceability limit state from experience with
deflections in Chapter 4, and so a 460UB67/310UB40 column/rafter combination will be
tried. For this combination

= 633xl03 mm3
scofumn = 1480xl03 mm3
s, = 1480 = 2.34
633
The frame is proportioned so that the plastic modulus of the deepest section of the
haunch is slightly greater than that of the column. The haunch is divided into two sections of
equal length for the computer analysis, and the average value of the second moment of area
over each section is used. The length of the haunch is usually between I 0% and 15% of the
span.
AISC DPFB/03
Design Example - Plastic Frame Design 229

8.5.1.2 CROSS WIND LOAD CASE

Having selected preliminary sizes from the gravity load case, the iterative mechanism method
is now performed for the cross wind cases using the selected section sizes. The basic load
cases considered for preliminary design are
LCJ: DL including self weight
LC3: CW!
LC7: IPCW (or!SCW)
LCR: Redundant R

1.94

(a) Cross Wind Loads CWl (kN/m)

R=10kN

(b) Redundant

Figure 8.4 Statically Determinate Frame with Redundant Action

The horizontal reaction at the right hand support is chosen as the redundant R. The
cross wind frame loading for the maximum uplift case (LC3) was determined in Section 2.6.4.
The UDL's which are used in Chapter 8 are slightly inaccurate compared with those in
Section 2.6.4. The Chapter 8 values are shown in Figure 8.4. The internal pressure under
cross wind is 4.21 kN/m as in Section 2.6.4.
Consider the combined load cases
LC21: 0.8DL +CW!+ IPCW
LC31: LC21 + LCR
230 Plastic Design AISC DPFB/03

75 I
- --.
110.3110.3 115.9
75.8 76.7 - - - - - - ; ...... - - - · -

i ) X 492.9
...... -~
81.5
-.
-=-~·=-::...-::.-----=-.- - - -_

\ l,/ 207.3
\ v-/'f--33a.;
I-..,.._!
\ f--492.9 Cose
I i LC R - - - -
I LC 21 - · - - -

Figure 8.5 BMD for Load Cases LC21 and LCR (R=JO kN)
with 3JOUB40 Rafters

The load case LCR is run for a value of R =IO kN (see Figure 8.4(b)). The bending moment
diagrams are shown in Figure 8.5. From Figure 8.3, the equations of equilibrium for the
hinges at the knee and ridge are
Knee: 2.34M; = 492.9 - 7.5R
Ridge: M; =I 10.3 + (7.5 + 0.655)R
Hence M; = 182 kNm and R= 8.83 kN

The frame is now re-analysed for a value of R = 8.83 kN in load case LCR. Visual
inspection shows that the plasticity condition is approximately satisfied.

Preliminary design moments are then

• 8.83
Knee: 2.34M, = 492.9--x75 =427kNm
10
Ridge: • 182 kNm as above
MP=

The design capacity of the 310UB40 rafter is

¢M,, = 0.9x320x633xl03 Nmm
= 182 kNm ~ M; = 182 kNm OK

The ~esign capacity of the 460UB67 column is

¢M,, = 0.9x300xl480xl03 Nmm
•
=400kNm < Mp=427kNm NG

Try new sizes for the column

_ 428xl0 6 _ 3 3
s"'"•" - 0.9x300 -1585xl0 mm

Hence try a 460UB74 column.

AISC DPFB/03
Design Example - Plastic Frame Design 231

S~ 1,., = l 660x 1O' mm'

1660
s, = 633 = 2.62

8.5.1.3 DEFLECTIONS
By comparison with the 460UB74/360UB45 frame in Chapter 4 that was designed using
elastic analysis, the deflection of this frame with a lighter 31 OUB40 rafter will be excessive.
Lateral deflection of 460UB74/310UB40 frame at eaves (LC3)

= ( 38)' xl44 =58mm

60
height h,
=-- > - NG but ACCEPT at this stage
130 150
Rafter deflection under LL
L L
=108mm = - > - NG but ACCEPT at this stage
231 240

8.5.2 Detailed Design

The iterative mechanism method is now used to analyse the revised frame for the same load
cases and the other non-symmetrical load cases. The three non-symmetrical load cases are:
LC21: 0.8DL + CWJ + IPCW
LC22: 0.8DL + CW2 + IPCW
·LC23: l.25DL + CW2 + JSCW
The remaining load cases which are symmetric are analysed using the direct
mechanism method. These cases are:
LC20: l.25DL + J.5LL
LC24: 0.8DL + LWJ + JPLW
LC25: l.25DL + LW2 + ISLW

• LC21:0.8DL+CWJ+IPCW
As the rafter size and therefore loading have not changed, the bending moment diagram is
still as shown in Figure 8.5. Analysis of the frame with a redundant R = 10 kN yields the
following equations of equilibrium
2.62M; = 492.9 - 7.5R
232 Plastic Design AISC DPFB/03

M; = 110.3 + 8.155R
Hence
R = 7.06 kN and
M; =168kNm < ¢Mp.mfle•=l82kNm! OK
At the knee
SRM; =2.62xl68=440kN < ¢M,.<oiumo=448kNm OK

167.9 167.9 172.9

440

3
- R = 7.06 kN
~--,,~,,z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---,,75'57,z'-.~

Figure 8.6 Combined BMD for Load Case LC21 with Plasticity
Condition Violated (R =7. 06 kN)

Figure 8.6 shows the combined bending moment diagram. The plasticity condition would
be violated 1.4 m to the right of the ridge (where the maximum moment is 172.9 kNm) if
¢M, of the rafter were only 168 kNm. Therefore, try relocating the apex hinge 1.4 m to the
right of the ridge where the bending moment is 115.9 kNm as shown in Figure 8.5.
Hence,
2.62M; = 492.9-7.SR

MP• = 115.9+ ( 7.5+0.655x 12·5-1 ·4) xR .

12.5
= ll5.9 + 8.08R
This produces
R =6.60kN
M; =169.2kN < 182kNm OK

At the knee
SRM; =2.62xl69.2=443kNm < 448kNm OK
Figure 8.7 shows the combined bending moment diagram that satisfies the plasticity
condition with the maximum moment of 169.2 kNm equal to the required value of M;.

,.,;
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Plastic Frame Design 233

164.1 164.1 169.2

2.6
---,,~,,------------------------,~l;;-,,.....::R = 6.60 kN
z
Figure 8.7 Combined BMD for Load Case 21 with Plasticity
Condition Satisfied (R=6.6 KN)

• LC22: 0.8DL + CW2 + IPCW

Analysis of the determinate frame for this load case and the redundant load case with R =
10 kN yields the bending moment diagram shown in Figure 8.8. The equations of
equilibrium are
2.62M; = 492.9 -0.75R
M; = -141.9 + 8.155R
Hence
R =29.96kN
M; = 102.4 kNm < 182 kNm OK
At the knee
SRM; =2.62x102.4=268kNm < 448kNm OK
However, the combined bending moment diagram in Figure 8.9 shows that the plasticity
condition would be violated if ¢M, of the rafter was only I 02.4 kNm. Therefore, try
relocating the apex hinge 2.3 m to the right of the ridge where the maximum moment is
131 kNm as shown in Figure 8.8. Hence;

_75.~J.6.7
81.5
____________ _81.5___________ 76.?_!_5.8 -

75 - .493 . ---
\ i iI -------·- t41.9 i4t91J1--·-·-·----.L
179.\ 2033"
\ i../·)·322;· 232.3
I~_..... i400.1
\ 493.
I I Case
I I LC R - - - -
I LC 22 - · - · -

--;;?.7;7,,,---------------~--------;~;,-.,.....::R = 10_0 kN
/, /,

Figure 8.8 BMD for Load Cases LC22 and LCR (R= I 0 KN)
 Plastic Design AISC DPFB/03
234

102.4 102.4 109.6

so.a 23.a
7.6

54.3

- - 7 1 > 7 7 . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . , . ; ' 9 9 ; - r , - - R = 29.96 k~

z

Figure 8.9 Combined BMD for Load Case LC22 with Plasticity
Condition Violated (R=29.96 KN)

2.62MP• =492.9 -0.75R

M; = -131+8.03R
so that
R =29.30kN
M; = 104.3 kNm < 182 kNm OK
At the knee
SRM; =2.62xl04.3=273kNm < 448kNm OK

Figure 8.10 shows the combined bending moment diagram which satisfies the plasticity
condition.

97 97 104.3
_..:;;~-;:;::::,,...~""':::::::::=::::J::::::::::::::::::::::=:::::===4~5.~7=Jl18~.B~~ 12.6
,..

51.B

---dmc---------------------~~~R = 29.30 kN
z
Figure 8.10 Combined BMD for Load Case LC22 with Plasticity
Condition Satisfied (R=29.3 KN)

• LC23: J.25DL + CW2 + ISCW

Analysis of the determinate frame for this load case and the redundant load case with R =
I 0 kN yields the bending moment diagram shown in Figure 8.11.
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Plastic Frame Design 23S

----------~ ::! ~-~----------

1
_75.8__!_6.7
75
I I'-·1260.9 •
II i ...- ...-0.2 I
75
260.9 I • jj .v m.9 \
I '/1-.J. ,, i .-·- 250.1 I
1
\ •
i 331.6 j93·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·lL·-----·-·.--·-
561 556.6 556.6 f
1
l I I
I/ Cose 1
i LCR - - - -
-7,j,~,-----------·-LC_2_3_-_·_·_-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--;~~-;::::R = 10.0 kN
z z

Figure 8.11 Combined BMD for Load Cases LC23 andLCR (R=JO kN)

The equations of equilibrium at the downwind knee and the ridge are
2.62M; = 0.2 - ?.SR
M; = -S58.6 + 8. lSSR
Hence
R = S0.71 kN
M; = 145.1 kNm < ¢M,, = 182 kNm
At the knee
SRM; =2.62x14S.1=380kNm < 448kNm

However, the combined bending moment diagram in Figure 8.12 shows that the plasticity
condition would be violated if ¢M, of the rafter were only 14S.l kNm. Therefore, try
relocating the apex hinge 1.4 m to the left of the ridge.
360.1
249.7

21.4

Figure 8.12 BMD for Combined Load Case LC23 with Plasticity
Condition Violated (R=50.71 kN)

Hence
2.62M; = 0.2 - ?.SR
 Plastic Design AISC DPFB/03
236

At the knee
SRMp• =2.62xl46.5=384kNm < 448kNm

Figure 8.13 shows the combined bending moment diagram which satisfies the plasticity
condition.

123.2
123.2\i::::'.555.~9,,._~Q21=:==:::::::::=::~====~:::::::::====:::::,,,_"""':::::._.J._~L_-1-__:3~Bl!4.B
146.4 141 141

20.4

Figure 8.13 Combined BMD for Load Case LC23 {R=51.21 kN)

• LC20: J.25DL + J.5LL

Check for Second Order Effects
Using the rafter and column axial forces obtained from the elastic analysis:
·«·= 8.08 from Microstran
Hence
0.9
1.03 AS4100 Cl. 4.5.4
1
1--
8.08

Check Bending Capacity

From Equation 8.10

M; x [2.62 x (1+ 0~~ ) +l] 5 5.13x25 2 6.75x25

8 + 4 443kNm

so. M; = 115kNm

Hence based on 0.5 kN/m for unfactored rafter self-weight

oPM; = l.03xll5 = 119 kNm < 182 kNm OK

At the knee
<),SRM;=l.03x2.62xll5 =310kNm< 448kNm OK
AJSC DPFB/03 Design Example - Plastic Frame Design 237

• LC24: 0.8DL + LWI + IPLW

Roof: LWl = 4.64 kN/m
IPLW = 8.83 kN/m
Hence combining wind and dead load as cos 3° is close to unity
w 1 = 4.64 + 0.83 - 0.8x(0.8 + 0.5)
=4.35 kN/m
Walls: LWl = 3.81 kN/m
IPLW = 0.83 kN/m
Hence
w, = 3.81+0.83 = 4.64 kNm
From Equation 8.11, talcing cos 3° = 1

• [ 2.62x ( l+~
MPx 0.655) +l]

4.35x25 2 4.35x0.6552 4.64x0.655x7.5

8 + 2 + 2
=-328kNm
Hence
M; = 85.2 kNm (absolute value) < 182 kNm OK
At the knee
SRM; =2.62x85.2=233kNm < 448kNm OK

• LC25: J.25DL + LW2 + ISLW

Roof: ISLW = -3.0x0.83 =-2.49 kN/m
LW2 =-l.99kN/m.
Hence combining wind and dead load directly as cos 3° is close to unity
w1 = -2.49 - 1.99 - l.25x(0.9 + 0.5)
=-6.23 kN/m
Walls: ISLW = -2.49 kN/m
LW2 = 1.32 kN/m
Hence
w,· =-2.49+ 1.32 =-l.17kN/m
From Equation 8.11, taking cos 3° = 1

M; x [ 2.62 x ( 1 + 0 ;~ 5) + 1]
6.23x25 2 6.23 x 0.655 2 l.17x0.655x75
8 2 2
 AISC DPFB/03
238 Plastic Design

=482.5 kNm
Hence
M; = 125 kNm < 182 kNm OK

From Microstran [7], ..i, = 6.95 (LC25)

0.9
so q, I = 1.05 AS4100 Cl.4.5.4
I- 6.95
At the knee
oPS RM; = l.05x2.62x125 =_344 kNm < 448 kNm OK

A summary of the required plastic moments for the six load cases is given in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1 Summary of Required Plastic Moments

Load Column Rafter

Combination kNm kNm

LC20: l.25DL + l.5LL 310 119

LC21: 0.8DL + CWJ + IPCW 440 168
LC22: 0.8DL + CW2 + IPCW 273 104
LC23: J.25DL + CW2 + ISCW 384 147
LC24: 0.8DL + LWJ + IPLW 223 85
LC25: l.25DL + LW2 + ISLW 344 131

8.5.3 Columns
Check the 460UB74 section

8.5.3.l SECTION CAPACITIES

Bending Capacitv

<fM,,, = 0.9x300x!660xl03 Nmm = 448 kNm AS4100 Cl. 5.2.1

Con1eression Caoacity

k1 = 0.948 BHP[6}
¢N, = 0.9x0.948x300x9520 N = 2437 kN AS4110 Cl. 6.2.1
AISC DYFB/03 Design Example - Plastic Frame Design 239

8.5.3.2 MEMBER CAPACITIES

• LC21: 0.8DL +CWJ + IPCW
Worst bending momel)t M; = 440 kNm
Coincident axial force' N* = I 05 kN (tension)

5
¢Mprx = 1.18x448x(l- l0 ) AS4100 Cl. 8.4.3.4
2437
= 506 kNm > ¢M,, = 448 kNm
Hence
r/JMp,, = 448 kNm > M; = 440 kNm OK

• LC25: J.25DL + LW2 + ISLW

Check Plastic Moment Capacity
Worst bending moment (amplified for second order effects)
M'x =344kNm
N* = 1.05x(-93) = -98 kN

= 1.18 x 448 x (1--2!..)

2437
AS4100 Cl. 8.4.3.4

= 507 kNm > 448 kNm

Hence
r/JMP"' = 448 kNm > M; = 344 kNm OK

Check Member Slenderness

N*
AS4100 Cl. 8.4.3.2
¢N,

,,, x 2 x ~~:~ 335 x I 0 N

2
6
AS4 JOO Cl. 8.4.3.4

= 11,756kN

= 0 (pinned base)
2437
N, = - - =2708kN
0.9
2 2

0.6 + OA.Pm ] = [ 0.6 1 AS4100 Cl. 8.4.3.2

~ 2708
[
vN.Z 11756
 AISC ~PFD/03
240 Plastic Design

N*
= 1.56 > ¢N, = 0.04 OK

Check Web Slenderness

!!i.~ !, = 457 - 2x14.5 x ~300 AS4100 Cl. 8.4.3.3

r. 250 9.1 250
= 51.5 > 45 but < 82
Hence

0.60- d, x ~y]
- 51.5
=0.60--
[ tw X 137 250 137

N*
= 0.22 > -=0.04 OK
¢N,

Check Lateral Restraint Requirement AS4100 Cl. 5.1

(for Columns without Fly Braces) AS4100 Cl. 5.3.2.1
Full lateral restraint for the segment containing a potential plastic hinge is achieved if
Section 8.3
am = 1.75 for the bending moment distribution with zero moment at one end

Calculate as:
Taking
L, = 0.85x7000 = 5950 Section 4.3.2.
ly = 16.6x106 mm4 BHP
J = 530xl03 mm 4 BHP
lw = 815xl09 mm' BHP
S = 1660xl03 mm3 BHP
fy =300 MPa BHP
Using a spreadsheet program:
M0 =336kNm AS4100 Cl. 5.6.1.l(a)
M,.. =498kNm AS4100 Cl. 5.6.l(a)
a, = 0.43
Therefore
a,,, a,= l.75x0.43 = 0.75 < 1.0 NG
Try one fly brace at mid-height and check both upper and lower segments
AISC DPFB/03
Design Example - Plastic Frame Desi'gn 241

Check Upper Segment

/Jm =-0.5
am = 1.75 -1.05 x0.5 + 0.3x0.5 2 = 1.30
L, = k 1 kpk,L AS4100 Cl. 5.6.3
k, = 1.0 fully restrained against twist at both ends AS4100 Cl. 5.6.3(1)
ke = 1.0 loads applied predominantly as moments AS4100 Cl. 5.6.3(2)
k, = 0.85 assuming lower segment has ama, > 1 and provides lateral rotational
restraint to the upper segment
L = 7000- (3xl200+ 150)=3250mm
where 7000 mm is the height to the underside of the haunch and
(3xl200 + 150) mm is the height to the fly brace (see drawings).
Therefore
L, = 0.85x3250 = 2763 mm

Using a spreadsheet program:

a, = 0.72
Hence
amx a,= l.30x0.72 = 0.94 < 1.0 NG
Therefore, upper segment is not fully restrained laterally and an extra fly brace is required.
Try adding a fly brace to the second top girt. The top girt is 7150 from the base and the
second top girt is 1700 below this.
7150-1700 = -0.76
/Jm - 7150
am = 1.75 -1.05 x0.76 + 0.3x0.762 = 1.13
L, = 0.85xl 700 = .1445 mm
Using a spreadsheet program:
a, =0.96
amx a,= l.13x0.96 = 1.08 > 1.0
The top segment is therefore fully restrained. The middle segment (L, = 0.85x 1700) is also
fully restrained as it has a higher flm value.

Check Lower Segment

am = 1.75
k, = 1.0 fully restrained against twist at both ends AS4100 Cl. 5.6.3(1)
ke = 1.0 fully restrained against twist at both ends AS4 I 00 Cl. 5. 6.3(1)
k, =0.70 upper segment is fully restrained and provides AS4 I 00 Cl. 5.4. 3.4
lateral rotational restraint to lower segment at
top end while base plate and holding down bolts
provide lateral rotational restraint at bottom end
242 Plastic Design AISC DPFB/03

L, = 0.70x3750 = 2625 mm
Using a spreadsheet prognµn:
a, =0.86
amx a,= l.75x0.86 = 1.51 > 1.0 OK

8.5.4 Rafters
Check the lateral restraint requirements for the critical load case (LC2J). Plastic hinges may
form adjacent to the columns, or anywhere in a zone 1.4 m each side of the ridge for this load
combination.
Consider. segment of leeward rafter between fly braces at the second and fifth purlins
from ridge as for elastic design. The segment is 3200 mm long and starts approximately I 000
mm from the ridge. This segment can contain a plastic hinge 1.4 m from the ridge and
therefore needs to have full lateral restraint.

Calculate Ctn

The bending moment at the top fly brace is 169 kNm (bottom flange in compression) while
the bending moment at the bottom fly brace is 142 kNm. Therefore, take a linear distribution
from 169 kNm at one end to 142 kNm at the other end.
142
= - 169 = - 0.84
am = 1.75 -1.05 x0.84 + 0.3x0.842 = 1.08 AS4100 Table 5.6.l
L, = 0.85x3200 = 2720 Section 4.10.3.2 (ii)
Using a spreadsheet program:
a, =0.74
ama, = l.08x0.74 = 0.80 < 1.0 NG
Hence additional fly braces are needed for this segment.
With even shorter segments, the moment is near uniform so.that°'• should be taken as unity.
Therefore, as ama, will not be greater than or equal to unity, it is necessary to limit the
slenderness in accordance with Clause 5.3.2.4 of AS4100.
{250
L < r,(80+50,8.)Vrn AS4l 00 Cl. 5.4.2.4

As the plastic hinge can be 1.4 m from the ridge, need fly braces on the first three purlins from
the ridge which are 300, 1100 and 1900 mm respectively from the ridge.
AISC DPFB/03
Design Example - Plastic Frame Design 243

For the remainder of the rafter down to the fly brace near the end of the haunch, the moment
distribution can be reasonably taken as linearly reducing from 168 kNm to 0 kNm over a
distance of8900 - 1900 = 7000 mm tb the fly brace near the end of the haunch.

Try 7000 mm seement.

Le = 0.85x7000 = 5950 mm
am = 1.75 AS4100 Table 5.6.1
Using a spreadsheet program:
¢Mb = 119 kNm < M; = 168 kNm NG

As there is no potential for a plastic hinge to form in this segment, full lateral restraint is not
required and the segment can be designed as if an elastic analysis had been performed.

Try next segment 2400 mm long

Bending moment at the end of this segment

=168x ( 1 -2400)
- - =llOkNm
7000
Hence
110
=-168 =0.65
am = 1.75 -l.05x0.65 + 0.3x0.65 2 = 1.19 AS4 l 00 Table 5. 6.1
Le = 0.85x2400 = 2040 mm
Using a spreadsheet program:
a, =0.85
¢Mb = 182 kNm > M; = 168 kNm OK

Consider next ser:ment 4600 mm lonr: -from fi.fth to ninth purlin

Bending moment varies from 100 kNm to 0 kNm
/Jm =O
am = 1.75
Le = 0.85x4600 =3910 mm
Using a spreadsheet program:
a, =0.64
¢Mb =182kNm> M; =llOkNm OK
The positions of the required fly braces are shown in Table 8.2
 Plastic Design AISC DPFB/03
244

8.5.5 Serviceability

Deflections may be checked by restraining the 'released' support in the computer model used
for the statical analysis. The lateral deflection of the knee under ultimate cross wind is 144
mm. Hence, under serviceability wind

o = 144x ( 38)' =58mm

60
eaves height h 0
---~->- NG but ACCEPT
130 150

Table 8.2 Position of Rafter Fly Braces

Distance Fly Braces

Purlin
from Ridge
mm

1 300 FB
2 1100 FB
3 1900 FB
4 3100 -
5 4300 FB
6 5500 -
7 6700 -
8 7900 -
9 8900 FB

8.5.6 Comparison of Plastic and Elastic Solutions

The plastic design example illustrates that a haunched 460UB74/310UB40 can be achieved on
a strength basis but there needs to be five fly braces on the rafter on each side of the ridge and
three girts on each of the colunms. The overall weight would be about 2100 kg per frame
which is roughly 130 kg lighter than the 460UB74/310UB45 frame designed using elastic
analysis. Consideration could also be given to designing an unhaunched frame.

8.6 REFERENCES
l. Baker, J.F., Home, M.R. and Heyman, J. (1956). The Steel Skeleton: Volume II Plastic
Behaviour and Design. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
2. Beedle, L.S. (1958). Plastic Design ofSteel Frames. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
AISC DPFB/03
References 245

3. Neal, B.G. ( 1977). Plastic Methods of Structural Analysis. 3rd e~n., Chapman and Hall,
London.
4. Pikusa, S. and Bradford, M.A. (1992). An approximate simple plastic analysis of portal frame
structures, Steel Construction, AISC, 26(4), 2-12.
5. Australian Institute of Steel Construction (1985). Standardized Structural Connections, 3rd
edn., AISC, Sydney. f
6. Broken Hill Proprietary, (1998). Hot Rolled and StructUral Steel Products, BHP, Melbourne.
7. Engineering Systems Pty Ltd (1996). Micros/ran Users Manual, Engineering Systems,
Sydney.
 AISC DPFB/03
246

'
9 Gantry Cranes & Monorails

9.1 GENERAL
Overhead travelling cranes or gantry cranes as shown in Figure 9.1 are generally used in
workshops and warehouses where lifting capacity is required over a large proportion of the
floor area. Monorails are used where the need to lift and move items can be confined to one
direction. This chapter is intended to give guidance for the design of crane runway beams and
portal frames required to support overhead travelling cranes which have a capacity of up to 15
tonnes safe working load (SWL). The theory developed for top flange and above top flange
loading of crane runway beams is extended to bottom flange loading of monorails. Tables
giving member moment capacities of crane runway beams and monorails are presented in
Appendix A9. I.

Downshop Conductor

- --- - --- - l Crone

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -&-Hook

200 min . 24143 Crone Span max 200 min

' '
(~)
~
~
- ~
""'
....,
'O
-- --
u. cu
~

~ dJ
~~

0"'
-0 E Roving I'-Runway
0
85 :c ~~ ~o
0 c
g-&l Pendant ~ ~
:::> ga Beam
~
~
0

.,,.
.,,.
~~

::f; ~
Ne
ID&
Control
o ·cu
g""
"'-60
mu
~-
ID 0
"'
~o
-
"'
ID
-~

"" F.F.L.
0
0

"' ..

Elevation
Figure 9.1 Overhead Travelling Crane in Design Example

247
248 Gantry Cranes & Monorails AISC DPFB/03

It is assumed the crane runway beams are simply supported and are seated on corbel
brackets that cantilever from the main portal columns. Overhead travelling cranes of heavier
capacity are more likely to be supported by stepped, compound or supplementary portal
columns which are not addressed in this book.
The client or end user will usually present his or her basic requirements in the design
brief. These may include:
• SWL
• Hook height
• Clearance to the underside of the crane beam (for double girder cranes)
• Crane class
• Crane type (eg single or double girder)
• Crane manufacturer (sometimes)
Designers then need to establish various parameters that will influence the struct~al
design of the building, including:
• Level of the top ofrail (TOR)
• Clearance above the rail
• Springing height of frame
• Design loads
• Crane wheel centres
• Deflection limits for the crane runway beam and portal frame
• Utilisation and state of loading for fatigue assessment
The level of the top of the rail, the clearance above the top of the rail and the crane
wheel base vary with the type of crane, and can be obtained from the manufacturer. The
working loads are also best obtained from the crane manufacturer who knows the self-weight
of the crane, the wheel centres, the limits of hook travel across the span and the intricacies of
the crane code AS1418.!8 Part 18-1999: Crane Runways and Monorails (1]. The
manufacturer can usually provide loads factored for dynamic effects and lateral loads
calculated in accordance with the code. There can be a significant difference in wheel loads
and geometry between single and double girder cranes, so the designer should at least
establish the type of crane that is to be used. If the designer carmot establish the make of the
crane, then a contingency of say 10% could be added to the loads provided by one
manufacturer to allow for other makes which might be adopted. Nevertheless, the design
should be checked when the actual crane has been chosen.

9.2 DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR GANTRY CRANES

Once the crane wheel loads and the overall geometry have been established, the general
design procedure is as given below. This procedure is presented from the viewpoint of the
additional steps needed for the design of a portal frame building with an overhead travelling
crane compared with those needed in Chapter 4 for a building without a crane.
1. Design the cra_ne runway beams for combined vertical and lateral loads using the design
capacity tables in Appendix 9.1 or from the fir8t principles given in Section 9.3.
2. Determine the maximum crane load reactions on the corbel supporting the crane runway
beam, and the coincident minimum crane load reactions on the opposite portal column. (If
AISC DPFB/03 Design Procedure for Gantry Cranes 249

the corbel is included as a member in the computer model, these vertical loads are applied
directly to the corbel. If the c9rbel is 11ot modelled, the ,crane load needs to be applied to
the column as a vertical load and a coincident moment at the level of the mid-height of the
corbel.)
3. Detkrmine the coincident lateral loads on the portal frame due to oblique travel or lateral
inertia. (These loads are applied to the portal column at the level of the top of the crane
runway beam.)
4. Add the crane runway beam dead load to the dead load case in Chapter 4 and add the
following new load cases:
• Crane loads with maximum load at left column
• Crane loads with maximum load at right column
• Lateral crane loads with maximum at left column
and acting from left to right
• Lateral crane loads with maximum at right column
and acting from left to right
5. Determine load combinations
6. Analyse frame
7. Check deflections
8. Check columns and rafter for strength

9.3 CRANERUNWAYBEAMS

9.3.1 General
Crane runway beams usually consist of a Universal Beam (UB) or a Welded Beam (WB)
stiffened against lateral loading and flexural-torsional buckling by a Parallel Flange Channel
(PFC) welded over the top flange as shown in Figure 9.2. A rail is loosely fixed on top of the
crane runway beam by various methods as detailed in Reference [2],

Figure 9.2 Monosymmetric Crane Runway Beam

250 Gantry Cranes & Monorails AISC DPFB!03

The crane runway beam is therefore a compound monosymmetric beam subjected to

combined vertical and horizontal loads. The vertical loads are applied above the shear centre
which reduces the buckling moment. In addition, the distribution of major axis moment
varies according to the number and location of the wheel loads on the span and this too
influences the buckling moment.

9.3.2 Design Loads and Moments

For a given cra..'le with two wheels on each side, the distribution of vertical load between
wheels varies according to the position of the hoisted load along the crane beam and the type
of crane (eg single or double girder). The crane code AS1418.18 numbers the four wheels in a
matrix - Wheels 11 and 12 on Side I and Wheels 21 and 22 on Side 2. The maximum loads
on a pair of wheels obviously occur when the hoisted load is closest to those wheels but the
loads are not necessarily equal. The maximum bending moment in the crane runway beam
may occur with one or two wheels on one span depending on the spacing of wheels relative to
the crane runway beam span. If the two loads are not equal, the maximum moment can be
determined using simple algebraic expressions and differentiating. If they are equal, the
maximum moment can be determined from simple expressions \Vell summarised in Reference
[3]. If aw< 0.586L, the maximum moment:

M = P(L - o.sa.)' (9.1)

2L
where aw is the distance between the two loads. The distribution of horizontal loads between
the four wheels varies according to the nature of the phenomenon causing the lateral loads.
There are three cases oflateral loading described in ASl418.18 as follows:
• For lateral inertia of the hoisted load under cross-shop travel, the lateral loads are
relatively small and are all of equal magnitude and direction.
• For lateral inertia from down-shop travel \Vith the hoisted' load in a non-central
position, the lateral loads are larger but are equal and in opposite directions for
each pair of wheels.
• For oblique travel, the lateral loads occur on diagonally opposite wheels and are in
the· same direction.
The lateral loads are applied to the top of the rail and are essentially resisted by the top
flange of the crane runway beam in bending about its vertical axis. Because the force is
actually applied above the top flange, leverage will result in the lateral forces resisted by the
top flange being higher than the applied forces at top of rail level. Under horizontal loading,
the maximum top flange bending moment coincident \vith the maximum major axis moment
tends to occur in the oblique travel case. However, other lateral load cases are likely to
become more critical as the spacing of wheels increases relative to the crane iunway beam
span, and so all lateral load cases should be checked.
As ASl418.18 is in limit states format, the load factors for dead load and crane live
loads are 1.25 and 1.5. The crane load cases need to be combined using suitable load factors
with the dead load case and with the in-service wind load cases which are based on a regional
AJSC DPFB/03
Crane Runway Beams 251

basic wind speed V of 20 m/sec. The cross wind loads from left to right should logically
combine with lateral crane loads from left to right and vice versa.

9.3.3 Member Capacity in Major Axis Bending rfM,x

9.3.3.l AS4100 BEAM DESIGN RULES
The determination of the member moment capacity, ¢Mbx, of monosymmetric beams is
covered in Clause 5.6.1.2 of AS4100 [4] for uniform moment distribution. Clause 5.6.1.2
refers to Clause 5.6.1.1 which applies to doubly symmetric beams. The treatment of non-
uniform bending is not specifically mentioned but the implication is that the moment
modification factors a. in Table 5.6.l of the code as derived for doubly symmetric beams can
be used for monosymmetric beams so that

(9.2)

in which as is the beam slenderness reduction factor given by

a, =0.6x{ (M,,J'
Moa
+3.:. M,,}
Moa
(9.3)

where M 00 is the reference buckling moment of a simply supported beam under uniform
moment and M sx is the section moment capacity. The beam capacity curve ¢M bx =

¢a,a.M,, in Clause 5.6.1.1 is really only applicable to doubly symmetric sections. It relies
on limited experimental results on doubly symmetric beams to give higher capacities for
stockier beams subjected to non-uniform moment than the capacities which would be obtained
using the more fundamental beam curve given in Clause 5.6.2(ii) of AS4100.
Although Clause 5.6.2(ii) appears to be only for segments restrained at one end, its
beam curve is fundamental with general validity. It takes the form ¢M,, = ¢a,,M,, where the
non-uniform moment (or am) effect is incorporated in ~b because ~b is based on Mot:> as
follows

a,. =0.6x{ (M,,)'

Mab
+3 _ M,,}
Mob
(9.4)

For doubly symmetric beams, M 0b = amMo. This approach is more fundamental because am
is really an elastic buckling moment modifier and its use in Clause 5.6.1.1 of AS4!00 in
directly modifying the plastic moment M,, is empirically rather than theoretically based.

As discussed earlier, the ¢M,, = ¢a,a.M,, design rule given in Clause 5.6.1.1 of
AS4 l 00 is really only appropriate for doubly symmetric beams. In fact, it is potentially
unsafe for moilosymmetric beams as shown in References [5] and [6]. The moment
modification factors am for monosymmetric beams are very different from those for doubly
252 Gantry Cranes & Monorails AISC DPFB/03

symmetric beams. The uniform moment case is not necessarily the worst loading case for
monosymmetric beams and so a. could be less thau 1.0. For example, the moment
modification factor for a typical crane runway beam subjected to central concentrated loading
acting at the shear centre can be as low as 0.8 [6] compared with the value for a. ~ 1.35 for a
doubly symmetric beam under the same loading.
Apart from the above mentioned problem, the effect of load height is not specifically
mentioned in AS4 l 00 for monosymmetric beams but the approach of applying a 1.4 effective
length factor for top flauge loading as for doubly symmetric beams is implied. This approach
is very approximate aud in auy case, the height of top flange loading in AS4 l 00 is at the top
surface of the top flange, whereas for crane runway beams it is actually above the top flange
(by the height of the rail). Overall the AS4100 approach for monosymmetric beams is rather
unsatisfactory and can be unconservative.

9 .3 .3.2 PROPOSED MONOSYMMETRIC BEAM DESIGN RULES

The uncertainties with the Clause 5.6.1.1 approach in AS4100 cau be overcome by adopting
the more fundamental and conservative approach of design by buckling analysis using Clause
5.6.2 (ii) of AS4 l 00. Apart from using a more appropriate beam curve, this approach relies
on a rational elastic buckling analys~s to determine the elastic critical buckling moment Mob.
This is appropriate for· monosymmetric beams under non-uniform moment since both the
effects of major axis moment' distribution and load height can be more accurately incorporated
in calculating the elastic buckling moment. Consequently, there is no need to use am or the
effective length factor of 1.4 for top flange loading. Using this approach, the member bending
capacity PM,, is given by

(9.5)

in which asb is the beam slenderness reduction factor given by Equation 9.4 above.

Approximate formulae ~or the elastic buckling moment Mob for monosymmetric
beams under different load cases have been derived [5,6]. The loading case relevaut to the
present problem is that for simply supported monosymmetric beams under the action of two
equal symmetrically-placed concentrated loads acting at a variable load height above or below
the shear centre. The explicit expression for the elastic buckling moment, M 0 b, is as follows:

M. om [ "~;"'Jl '""' •~Kf(M, :;]' •M'[c; l)

p)K' f, :;

(9.6)
where
2
tr El>,dJ
K= (9.7)
4GJL'
AISC DPFB/03
Crane Runway Beams 253

in which Kis the berun parruneter, Ely is the minor axis flexural rigidity, GJis the torsional
rigidity, L is the length of the beam. and /l, is the monosymmetry section constant given by
[5]

:; =0.9x(2p-l)x{1-(;: J} (9.8)

where l x and ly are the second moment of areas about the section major and minor principal
axes and pis the degree of beam monosymmetry given by
/ye
p=- (9.9)
I,.
where lye is the second moment of area of the compression flange about the section minor
principal y-axis. Factors m, fi and / 2 are given in terms of the location a of the point loads
where aL = (L-a.)12 asshowninFigure9.3 and

m=l-0.4a(l-5.5a) (9.10)

2m .
fi = - -2 Sln 2 Jla (9.11)
a;r

f2 =_!_{a(l-a) :r' 1} (9.12)

2 sin 2 Ka

while ( is the load height parameter given by

(9.13)

where ii is the height of application of the load below the shear centre and d1 is the distance
between the centroids of the top and bottom flanges. The centroid of the top flange is taken as
the centroid of the PFC and the shear centre is positioned approximately (1 - p)d1 below the
centroid of the top flange.
The particular case of a central concentrated load is covered by a.= 0 (see Figure 9.3).
Note that it is assumed that the case of non-symmetrical loading with two concentrated loads
is less critical than the case of symmetrical loading with two equal concentrated loads. This
would be obvious for doubly symmetric beams because the latter gives a more adverse zone of
unifonn bending in the middle. However, it is not so clear for monosymmetric beruns for
which uniform moment is not necessarily the critical buckling condition. It can be shown for a
typical crane runway beam that symmetrical loading with two equal concentrated loads is
more critical than eccentric loading with a single concentrated load applied in the srune
location as one of the twin concentrated loads.
Using the above approach and various spreadsheet analyses, it can be shown that the
most adverse case for crane runway beam loading is for two symmetrically located
concentrated loads with ajL in the range 0.2 to 0.4. Results obtained indicated that the
254 Gantry Cranes & Monorails AISC DPFB/03

moment capacities are almost constant in this range and so a value of ajL equal to 0.3 has
been adopted for the design capacity tables presented in Appendix 9.1. As the rail height can
vary, particularly with the trend to use flat bars in lieu of rails (presumably because BHP is no
longer rolling the smaller rails), tables for different rail heights are presented. Linear
interpolation can be used if required. The derivation of the tables is given in Appendix 9.2.

Eq. Eq.

t L
t
Figure 9.3 Two Equal Symmetrically-Placed Concentrated Loads

9.4 PORTAL COLUMNS SUPPORTING CRANE RUNWAY BEAMS

The portal columns are subjected to additional axial compression loads and moments due to
the crane loading. Because the inside flange is not restrained by girts, it is recommended that
the effective length for minor axis buckling be taken as the full height of the column, or the
height between wall bracing nodes, whichever is the lesser; or where fly braces are provided,
the distance between fly braces.

9.5 MONORAIL BEAMS

9.5.1 General
While the design of monorail beams has no particular relevance to the design of portal frame
buildings, the proposed method for designing crane runway beams can be used for designing
monorail beams to take advantage of the load being applied at or below the bottom flange
level. This could be quite beneficial as AS4 l 00 does not give a method for dealing with
bottom flange or lower than bottom flange loading, and Appendix B2 of AS1418.18 allows
the point of application of loads from monorail-type hoists to be taken as 200 mm below the
bottom flange.

9.5.2 Member Capacity Tables

The method given in Section 9.3.3.2 for monosymmetric beams is generally applicable to
monorails except that the loading is a single concentrated load and the beams are doubly
symmetric without a top hat PFC. Therefore the following parameters should be used with
Equations 9.5 to 9.7 in lieu of those defined in Section 9.3.3.2.
AISC DPFB/03
Monorail Bean1s 255

p =0.5
/l, =0
111 = 1.9 - 2.2a(l - a), where aL is the distance to the load from one end
msin 2 Jra
a(l-a},,.'

f, = .!_{a(l-a)ff'
2 sin 2 Jra
i}
The shear centre is at the centroid of a doubly symmetric section and bottom flange
loading for this exercise is assumed to be at the underside of the bottom flange. It could be
argued that because the wheels of the hoist apply the load at the top of the bottom flange, this
assumption is not strictly correct However, as AS1418.18 proposes that the load can be
considered as being applied 200 mm below the bottom flange, such refinement is not
worthwhile.
Although this method can deal with a single concentrated load anywhere along the
beam, the worst case for bottom flange loading is central loading. Tables of design member
moment capacities ¢M,, for WB and UB sections for both bottom flange loading (h, = 0)
and loading 200 mm below the bottom flange ( h, = - 200 mm) are presented in Appendix
A9.l. It should be noted that although these tables give higher capacities than those for shear
centre loading, they are based on the more conservative asbM s beam curve. For WC and UC
sections, the extra conservatism in the asbM s beam curve is significant enough to more than
offset the benefits of below shear centre loading. Consequently, tables for WC and UC
monorail beams are not included.

9.5.3 Local Bottom Flange Bending

The bottom flanges of monorail beams are subjected to local bending both transversely and
longitudinally. The longitudinal bending acts in combination with the overall major axis
bending. AS1418.!8 presents a permissible stress design expression for minimum flange
thickness which accounts very simply for these combined effects. The flange thickness
expression is based on work done by BHP in the seventies [1 OJ, and confirmed by more recent
work which investigated the local flange bending theoretically using grillage models [11].

9.6 DESIGN EXAMPLE - GANTRY CRANES

9.6.1 Load Cases

As the height and plan dimensions of the building have been kept the same with or without the
overhead travelling crane, the dead, live and wind loads are the same as in previous chapters.
The crane loads as provided by the crane manufacturer are presented in Figure 9.4 and are
shown pictorially in Figure 9.5.
256 Gantry Cranes & Monorails AISC DPFB/03

SWF
HOISTS & INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT PTY. LTD.
A.C.N. 005 2og 898

WHEEL LOADS to AS1418 1994

****************************
DATE RUN 7-2-97 (SINGLE BEAM CRANE)
CLIENT BONACCI WINWARD
JOB NUMBER 7050
CRANE SWL. 5 TONNE CLASS C3.M3
HOIST·FACTOR 1.1
DEAD LOAD FACTOR 1.1
CRANE SPAN 24143 MM
HOOK APPROACH 600 MM
WHEEL BASE 3500 MM
WHEEL CLEARANCE 12 MM
DISTANCE B/N. WHEEL 22 & C/L BRIDGE 1750 MM
DISTANCE B/N. C/L HOOK & C/L BRIDGE 0 MM
DISTANCE B/N. C/L ~RAB & C/L BRIDGE 0 MM
BRIDGE BEAM !xx 3286 *10~6 MM~4
BRIDGE BEAM WEIGHT 4.765804 TONNES
BOGIE WEIGHT (ea) .3 TONNES
CRAB WEIGHT .65 TONNES
MIN DRIVE W.L 13.23887 KN

MAX. MAX.
WHEEL IDENTIFICATION - 21 22 11 12

STATIC WHEEL LOADS (KN)

40.2 40.2 13.8 13.8

DYNAMIC WHEEL LOADS (KNI

44.2 44.2 15.2 15.2
OBLIQUE TRAVEL WHEEL LOADS - Y 4.6 1.6
DR 4.6 1.6

LATERAL INERTIA - Phb + +

6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7
+ +

LATERAL INERTIA - Phc 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

LONGITUDINAL INERTIA - Pht 4.0 4.0

Figure 9.4 Manufacturer's Crane Loads

AISC DPFB/03 Design Example 257

(a) Dynamic Vertical Wheel Loads

with Lateral Inertia Loads Phb

5 tonne S'M.

(b) Dynamic Vertical Wheel Loads

with Oblique Travel Wheel Loads

Figure 9.5(a), (b) Pictorial Representation of Crane Loads

258 Gantry Cranes & Monorails AISC DPFB!OJ

5 tonne SY«.

(c) Dynamic Vertical Wheel Loads

with Lateral Inertia Loads Phc

Figure 9.5(c) Pictorial Representation of Crane Loads

9.6.2 Crane Rnnway Beam

9 .6.2.1 . MAJOR Axis BENDING MOMENTS

Determine the maximum moment in a 9 m span beam under the action of two equal
concentrated loads 3.5 m apart as shown in Figure 9.6. Self weight bending moment will be
added separately.
44.2 k.N ~-----~ 44.2 kN

c D
B

9DDO

Figure 9.6 Unfactored Vertical Beam Loads

Reaction at support A:

R, =9-x+9-(3.5+x)x44.2=14.5-2xx44.2 kN
9 9
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example 259

The bending moment will be a maximum under one of the concentrated wheel loads, say at C.
The bending moment at C is then

Mc= (l 4 .5 - 2 x)x44.2x kNm

9
The maximum bending moment under the wheel load at C will occur when dMddx = 0.
Hence

(14.5-4x)x44.2
0 so x=3.625 m -
9
and (Mc),," = 129 kNm (unfactored)
The bending moment diagram associated with the maximum unfactored bending moment is
shown in Figure 9.7.
Try a 4101JB59.7 + 300PFC + 3lkg/m rail (total 130.8 kg/m) BHP

Self weight bending moment =130.8x9.82xl0-' x~ = 13.0 kNm

8
Design moment (factored):
M; =l.5xl29+1.25xl3.0 =210 kNm

As the rail height is 117.5 mm, check the major axis member capacity in Appendix 9.1
for the h, = 120 mm case. The design capacity ¢M,, is 224 kNm which is greater than M; =
210 kNm. This appears to have an adequate margin so proceed to check for minor axis
bending moments and other actions.

~~c~~~~-o~ 129 kNm 122 kNm

Figure 9.7 Maximum Bending Moment

9.6.2.2 MINORAxIS BENDING MOMENTS

The minor axis bending moment coincident with the maximum major axis bending moment is
calculated from the two most critical lateral loading cases as follows.

• Lateral Inertia Loading (refer to Figure 9.8)

R, = 6.7 x 3.5 = 2.61 kN

9
M,~ = 2.6!x3.625 = 9.45 kNm
260 Gantry Cranes & Monorails AISC DPFB/03

3625 3500

6.7 I
\/

f
c
9000

Figure 9.8 Lateral Inertia Loading

• Oblique Travel Wheel Loading (refer to Figure 9.9)

3 625
R, = 4.6 x (9 - · ) = 2.75 kN
9
M,c = 2.75x3.625 = 9.96 kNm say 10 kNm

The maximum lateral bending moment will occur when one of the lateral inertia loads is at
the support as in Figure 9.10.

R, = 6.7x3.5 = 2 _61 kN
9
M,.~ = 2.6lx5.5 = 14.3 kNm
3625
I
I 46 I

r
\/

f 9000

Figure 9.9 Oblique Travel Wheel Loading

3500

f 9000

Figure 9.10 Loading for Maximum Lateral Bending Moment

Adopt the maximum coincident minor axis bf:nding moment of 10 kNm (unfactored).
Because the lateral loads are applied at the top of the rail which is above the top flange
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example 261

level, the lateral loading applies a torque to the section about the longitudinal axis. The
minor axis moment must therefore be proportioned into components in the top flange and
bottom flange. In Figure 9.11 which assumes a 31 kg/m BHP rail [7] and a 410UB60 +
300PFC crane runway beam, F is a force applied at the top of the rail which induces
forces F, in the top flange and F, in the bottom flange as shown.

F-

Figure 9 .11 Lateral Load Sharing between Flanges

By taking moments about the centroid of the bottom flange

F,
= 117.5 + 27.2 + 380.4 x F = l.3 8F
380.4
where the distance between the centroid of the top flange (taken as the centroid of the
PFC) and the centre of the bottom flange of the 410UB60 is
12.8
=406 + 8 +27.2-- =380.4mm
2
and
F, = (1.38- l)xF= 0.38F
Therefore, the design lateral bending moment in the top flange is
M; = l.38xl.5x10 = 20.7 kNm
and the design lateral bending moment in the bottom flange is
M; = 0.38xl.5x10 = 5.7 kNm

Assuming both flanges are compact, the minor axis design section capacity of the bottom
flange
1782 12 8
ifM,1 = 0.9x x · x 300 Nmm
4
= 27.3 kNm > 5.7 kNm OK

For a 300PFC bent about its major axis, ifM" = 152 kNm. Hence the minor axis design
section capacity of the top flange (ignoring rail) bent about its vertical axis is
262 Gantry Cranes & Monorails AISC DPFB/03

¢M,,. = 152 + 27.3

= 179 kNm > 20.7 kNm OK

9.6.2.3 COMBINED ACTIONS

• TopFlange
Using Table 9.1 in the Appendix, the combined actions ratio for major axis bending of the
full compound 41 OUB60/300PFC section and minor axis bending of the top flange as a
compound section is

M; (M;),,,
¢M,,, + ¢(M ,,),,,

= 210 + 20.7 ·= 1.06 > 1.00 NG AS4 I 00 Sect. 8

224 179

Try a 460UB67 + 300PFC + 31 kg/m rail (total= 138 kg/m)

Top flange minor axis design capacity:
190 27
¢M,,. = 0.9x ' xl · x300x!0-6 +152=183 kNm
4
Self weight bending moment= 138x9.82xIO·'x2..'._ = 13.7 kNm
8
M; = l.5xl29 + l.25xl3.7 = 211 kNm

The lateral bending moment in the top flange will be less than before because the section
is deeper and the torsional effect will be less. Therefore, conservatively adopt the same
design lateral bending moment. The combined actions check is therefore

211+20.7=0.91 < 1.00 OK AS4 I 00 Sect. 8

264 183

• Bottom Flange
Minor axis design capacity of bottom flange
12 7 9
¢M,, = 0.9x · xl 0' x300 Nrnrn=30.9kNm
4
The combined actions check is therefore
211 + 5.7 = 0.98 < 1.00 OK AS4 I 00 Sect. 8
264 30.9

Although the torsional effect will result in slightly higher minor axis moments in the
bottom flange, adopt 460UB67/300PFC Section with a 31 kglm Rail
AISC DPFBf03 Design Example 263

9.6.2.4 CHECKMAJORAx!S COMPOUND SECTION MOMENT CAPACITY ¢M,.

The 460UB67 is compact for bending about both axes, but the 300PFC is not compact for
bending about its minor axis when the web is in compression. However, providing the
welding between the PFC and the top flange of the UB is continuous, or is hit and miss with
the miss length less than the flange width, the width b could be taken as the width between
welds and hence (bit)~ f,.1250 = (178/8) .J300 / 250 = 24.3 < A,, = 30. In this case, the PFC
can be taken as being compact for bending of the compound UB/PFC section about its strong
or weak axis.

9.6.2.5 DEFLECTIONS

• Vertical Deflection
Assume conservatively that both maximum static wheel loads are combined as a single
central concentrated load. From the AISC Design Capacity Tables [8], I,= 436x I 06 mm'.
Thus
3 3
= (2x40.2)xl0 x9000 =l 4 .0mm
48x2xl0 5 x436xl0 6

= _!:_ < _!:_ limit for U3 classification ASJ418.J8

643 500
Note that the accurate deflection for two symmetrical concentrated loads spaced 3.5 m
apart is 12.4 mm.

• Lateral Deflection
Assume conservatively that the worst lateral wheel load of 6. 7 kN is applied at midspan,
ignoring the 6.7 kN wheel load in the opposite direction.
J,. for top flange= 79.7x!O' uun'
6.7xl0 3 x9000 3
L1 ---~---~ = 6.4 mm
48x2xl0 5 x79.7x10 6
L L
< OK AS1418.18
1410 600

9.6.2.6 VERTICAL SHEAR CAPACITY

The maximum shear occurs with one wheel load adjacent to a support. Therefore

=1.5x44.2x ( ! +5500) 9
- - +1.25xl.38x-=107+7=114kN
RA
9000 2·
Hence V' = 114 kN
264 Gantry Cranes & Monorails AISC DPFB/03

Assuming that the shear stress in the web is unifom1, which is not strictly correct for a
mon~symmetric section, '
¢Vw = 0.9x0.6x320x454x8.5 AS4 J00 Sect. 5
=667kN > V' =114~N OK

9.6.2. 7 SHEAR BUCKLING CAPACITY

a, 82
d, I/,: =
[ . 82
454-12.7x2x~320
]'
[
t.:x v250 8.5 250
= 2.07 > 1.0 so web will not buckle in shear AS4J00 Sect. 5

Therefore
¢Vw=667kN > V' =114kN OK AS4100 Sect. 5

9.6.2.8 SHEAR AND BENDING INTERACTION

Calculate shear coincident with maximum bending moment ignoring self-weight shear.

R, = 1.5 x ! 4 .5 - 2x x 44.2 kN
9
where x = 3.625 m
Therefore
R, = 53.4 kN = V'
M' > 0.75¢M,

6 6 211
"'V ="'V x(2.2-l. M')=667x(2.2-l. x )
Y' vmY' v ¢Afs 529

= 1042 kN > v· = 53.4 kN OK AS4 I 00 Sect. 5

9.6.2.9 BEARING CAPACITY OF CRANE RUNWAY BEAM

As shown in Figure 9.12, stiffeners between corbel flanges below the centreline of the crane
runway beam will need to be provided to prevent local bending of the corbel flange and web
and to provide a positive load path for the eccentric reaction from the beam.
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example 265

The corbel will tend to rotate under the action of unbalanced loads from the crane
runway beams when the crane is located in one bay. As the corbel rotates, the length of the
stiff bearing support reduces.

Eccentric
vertical load

Forces induced by
eccentric vertical load

Eccentric
vertical load

>---- Provide stiffeners to limit local

bending of corbel flange & web

Corbel 460UB74

Figure 9.12 Stiffened Corbel

The bearing yield capacity can be written as a function of the stiff bearing length b, in
min shown in Figure 9.13 as follows:

¢R,, =0.9xl.25b01 twfy =0.9xl.25x(b, +2.5t 1 )xtwf,. AS4100Sect. 5

=0.9xl.25x(b, +2.5xl2.7)x8.5x320 N
= 97 +3.060b, kN
266 Gantry Cranes & Monorails AISC DPFB/03

Length for buckling

bb
i-------.-. I
Length for bearing
LI t
-= =f= ~=1=::::t::====1
bs I ,l J 2-51,

Figure 9. 13 Stiff Bearing Length

The required stiff bearing length b, is thus

114-97
b, 5.56 mm
3.060
which is achievable even with the rotation of the corbel
The bearing buckling capacity of the crane runway beam is determined by considering
the web as a column of cross-section bbxtw, with a slenderness ratio of2.5d/t"', using ab= 0.5
and k1 = 1.0 (AS4100, Clause 5.13).

L, 2.5x(454-2xl2.7) =
126
r. 8.5

/I., =126 X -Vr.-;::

LU X -
~320 = 143 AS4 I 00 Sect. 5
250
a, = 0.296 AS4100 Table 6.3.3(3)
rfN, = 0.9x0.296xb,x8.5x320 N = 0.725b, kN

= 0.725x(b, +2.5xl2.7+
454 -~~ 12 · 7 )

=178+0.725b, > R" =114kN as b,>O OK

9.6.2. ! 0 CHECK EFFECT OF ECCENTRIC CORBEL

LOADING ON COLUMN
Refer to Figure 9 .14
Assume conservatively that the centre of bearing is midway between the web and the edge of
the corbel flange as shown in Figure 9.12. The torque is thus l 14x0.190/4 = 5.4 kNm.
The equivalent force couple applied at the top and bottom corbel flanges
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example 267

5
= .4 = 11.8 kN
0.46
The equivalent forces on inside column flange
2
= 11.Sx 460 + 00 16.9 kN
460
11.8 kN

->--<-+-
t Column

460UB7 4 Column

t Roil Torque Applied to

Corbel at Runwoy
o
o~
N
o
"8: 460UB74 Corbel
Beam Centreline
0

Figure 9:14 Plan on Corbel and Induced Couple of Forces

Assume that the inside column flange resists the couple of forces as shown in Figure 9.15.

R, =16.9x(460 - 920) =-1.24

6250 6250

= l.24x(6.25-0.92) =6.6kNm
Z,y = 262x 103 mm' BHP.
3
¢M, = 0.9x262xl0 x300 Nmm = 70.7 kNm

Assume the applied moment is resisted by 50% of the minor axis capacity. Therefore,
Mc = 6.6 kNm < 0.5x70.7 = 35.4 kNm OK
However, check combined actions of column later

9.6.2.11 CHECK EFFECT OF VERTICAL LOADS ON WEB

The rail load is deemed in Clause 5.8.3.3 of AS1418.18 to be distributed uniformly along a
length of web Lw, where

Lwx = 2Hr + 5t1+ tr

where H, is the height of the rai~ 'i is the thickness of the compound flange and I, = the root
radius. Thus
268 Gantry Cranes & Monorails AISC DPFB/03

L., = 2x117.5 + 5x(12.7 + 8.0) + 11.4 = 350 mm

The limit state design check is

N: J' + (~)'
(¢L,.,tJ, < 1o
¢M,_, - .
AS1418.18 Sect. 5.8.3.3(b}

N;, = l .5x44.2 = 66.3 kN

66.3 2 + ( 211 ) ' = 0.64 < 1.0 OK

(
0.9 x 350 x 8.5 x 320 x 10-J ) 264

'
D_/
c_/ 0
-~
--
16.9 kN

16.9 kN

0 Inside flange
"'
N

"'

' A
Isometric· View Inside Column Flange

Figure 9.15 Force Couple Applied to Column Flange

9.6.2.12 CHECK EFFECT OF ECCENTRIC RAIL LOADING

ON CRANE RUNWAY BEAM WEB
Eccentricity ofvertica1 load from web centreline

e,. = _!::__+ b,, (b,, =width ofrailhead) ASl418.18 Cl. 5.4.2

1000 4
= 9000 + 63.5 =
24 _9 mm
1000 4
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example 269

Local torsional moment M ~

AS/418.18 Eqn. 5.8.3.4.(c}I

where H,is the rail height and Iris the thickness of the compound top flange(= 12.7 + 8.0
mm). I

Therefore
M:W = l.5x {44.2x 0.0249 + 6.6 x (0.1175 + 0.0127 + 0.008)}
=3.02kNm

Bending moment per unit length of web for a single wheel load M;
AS/418.18 Eqn. 5.8.3.4.2

where ce AS/418.18 Eqn. 5.8.3.4(c}3

SW +Sif

and = 0.092Et 3 x 0 ·25 L = 0.092x2xlO' x8.5 3 x 0. 25 x 9000

\Y d"' 428
6
= 59.4xl0 Nmm
= Vr+J,)xG
and
0.5L
in which Jr is the torsion constant of the top flange including the PFC

= 290xl0 3 + l 90xl 2 ·7 ' =419xl03 mm3 BHP

3

The torsion constant for the rail J, is not tabulated by BHP, but can be calculated
approximately from the following expression [9]
A4
J,

where A is the cross-sectional area= 4010 mm', 11 is also not tabulated by BHP, but may be
calculated approximately by treating the rail as three rectangles 60x30, 13x65 and 108xl3.
Hence

30x60 3 65xl3 3 13xl08 3

I, ---+ + = I.92xl06 mm4
12 12 12
I, = 7.66xl06 mm 4 BHP
A =4010mm' BHP
4010 4
J, -~~---~-~
2 6
= 684xl03 mm'
47' x(7.66+!.92)xl0
270 Gantry Cranes & Monorails AISC DPFB/03

Hence
3
= (419+684}x10 x 80000 ;,, 19 _6 x!O' Nmm
0.5x9000
= 59.4xJO' =
0 75
(59.4+19.6}xl0 6 •

L, = 5x(B,6 +H,+t 1 ) ASl418.18 Eqn. 5.8.3.4(c)4

where B,, is the width of the rail bottom flange and H, and t1 are as previously defined
L, = 5x(l08 + 117.5 + 12.7+8.0)=1231 mm

M. = 0.75 x 3.02 = 1. 84 kNm/m

I J.23 J
1 231 852
¢M, = 0.9 x · x x 320 Nmm/m = 6.40 kNm/m
4
Combining the actions from the vertical load and bending moment in the web in a linear
interaction gives
M. N' 34 663
-'-+ w = 1. + = 0.36 < 1.00 OK
¢M, ¢£.,twfy 6.40 0.9x350x8.5x320xl0 3

Clause 5.8.3.4 of AS 1418.18 requires that the local torsional moment be doubled if the
wheels are spaced less than 0.5L, ie if ajL < 0.5. This requirement appears overly
conservative when it is realised that the wheel spacing is 3.5 m and the length of web over
which the moment from one wheel acts is only 1.91 m. In any case, as the local torsional
moment is made up of two components: (i) a torque due to the eccentricity of the vertical
loading and (ii) a torque due to the horizontal loading, the horizontal forces to be considered at
each of the two wheels should act in the same direction. The unfactored force of 6.6 kN used
earlier in the section acts in the opposite direction at the second wheel.
The only forces which act in the same direction are the 0.6 kN loads in Figure 9.5(c).
In Figure 9.5(b), there is a 4.6 kN force acting alone on one crane runway beam. Assuming
conservatively that the 4.6 kN force acts on both adjacent wheels, the local torsional moment
after doubling becomes

2M;_ = 2x[N>,+N;(H,+t1 )]
= 2 x [1.5 x (44.2x0.0249)+1.5 x 4.6 x (0.1175 + 0.0127 + 0.008)]
=5.20kNm
Therefore
2M; = 0.75x5.20 =3.17kNm/m
1.231
Hence the combined actions check is

(2M') N'
--'-+ w
¢M, ¢LwJwfy
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example 271

= 3.17 + 66.3 ' =0.57 < 1.00 OK

6.40 0.9 x 350 x 8.5x320x10-

9.6.2.13 CHECK EFFECT OF WEB BUCKLING UNDER VERTICAL LOADS

Clause 5.8.3.5(b) of AS1418.18 refers to AS4100 for checking the patch loading buckling
capacity of the web panel. Clause 5.13.4 of AS4100 defines the nominal bearing buckling
capacity RM as the capacity of a strut of cross-sectional area twxbb, slenderness ratio Ljr =
2.5d,ft., using a, = 0.5 and k1= 1.0. Hence using this familiar procedure,

d, =428mm BHP
t. =8.5 mm BHP

L, = 2.5x 428 = 126

r 8.5
b, = 2H, + 5t1 + d,
= 2xll 7.5 + 5x(12.7 + 8.0) + 428 = 766.5 mm
A = b,t.= 766.5x8.5 = 6515 mm'
f,. = 320MPa

rfN, = 0.9x0.296x6515x320 N
= 555 kN > N: = 1.5x44.2 = 66.3 kN OK

9.6.2.14 FATIGUE
The overhead travelling crane will be used less than ten times per day every day for 25 years.
It will generally lift light loads with occasional lifts of the safe working load.
Therefore, the maximum number of operating cycles
= !Ox365x25 = 91000
Hence the class ofutilisation in accordance with Table 6.1(1) of AS1418.18 is U3 •
The state ofloading is classified as 'Q2 -Moderate' in Table 6.1(2) of AS1418.18. It
follows that the classification of the crane structure is S3, and a fatigue analysis is not required
as shown in Table 6.1(3) of AS1418.18.
272 Gantry Cranes & Monorails AISC DPFB/03

9.6.3 Check Portal Frame

9.6.3.I LOADS
• Dead Load
The dead load is as previously adopted, except for the addition of the cranb runway beam
loads.
Crane runway beam reaction for 460UB67, 300PFC and 31kg/m rail allowance
= (67 + 40.1+31)x9x9.82x10"3 = 12.2 kN
Coincident moment at centre of column (located 480 mm from rail centreline as shown in
Figure 9.16)
= 12.2x0.48 = 5.9 kNm

l '
250

Slotted holes for

' l RAIL
alignment of crone
runway beam I " +6250 Above Floor

<O
.;
~
1- u u
1 - - 410UB54 + 300 PFC

"'=>
0
....
<O p_ - - ~
+5610 Above Floor

- 460 UB 74.6

Approx. 480

Figure 9.16 Crane Runway Beam Dimensions

• Crane Vertical Loads <Maximuni to Lefi)

The maximum reaction occurs with one wheel over a support or with the wheel loads
straddling a support.

R""' = 44.2x(l+
9 3
-
9
.5) = 71.2 kN (unfactored)
Coincident moment = 71.2x0.48 = 34.2 kNm ·(clockwise)
Coincident vertical load on right hand column
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example 273

= 15 ·2 x 71.2 = 24.5 kN
44.2
Coincident moment on right hand column
= 24.Sx 0.48 = 11.8 l<lfm (anticlockwise)
f

• Crane Vertical Loads <Maxinzum to Riglzt)

The loads are as for the maximum to the left, but with left and right column loads mirror
reversed.

• Crane Lateral Loads

The worst lateral loading for this crane is due to oblique travel and consists of a 4.6 kN
lateral load at one column and a 1.6 kN lateral load at the other column. These loads are a
function of the frictional contact between the wheels and rail, and so the larger lateral
load is associated with the larger vertical load. ·

• WindLoads AS/418.18 Cl. 4.6.2.2

The wind load cases are the same as for the portal frame without a crane. For load
combinations, the crane code considers in-service wind loads for permissible stress design
to be based on a regional basic wind speed of20 mis compared with 60 mis for limit state
strength design under dead and wind load alone.
Therefore, the wind load component for crane load combinations should be factored by
l.5x(20/60)2 = 0.167 for limit state strength design using a load factor of 1.5 to convert
permissible stress design loads to limit state strength design loads.

9.6.3.2 LOAD COMBINATIONS

The load factors of 1.25 on the dead load and 1.5 on crane loads are drawn from
AS/NZS1418.18.
• l .25DL + 1.5 x (Crane Loads Vertical Left)
• l.25DL + 1.5 x (Crane Loads Vertical Left+ Lateral)
• l .25DL + 1.5 x (Crane Loads Vertical Right)
• l .25DL + 1.5 x (Crane Loads Vertical Right+ Lateral)
• 1.25DL + 1.5 x (Crane Loads Vertical Left+ Lateral)+ 0.167CW1
• l .25DL + 1.5 x (Crane Loads Vertical Right+ Lateral) + 0.167CW1
• l .25DL + 1.5 x (Crane Loads Vertical Left+ Lateral) + 0.167 x (CW2 + ISCW)
• l .25DL + 1.5 x (Crane Loads Vertical Right+ Lateral) + 0.167 x (L W2 + ISLW)

9.6.3.3 COLUMNS
The column section capacities for the 460UB74 are the same as in Chapter 4, except that the
member compression capacities for buckling about the minor axis should be based on an
effective length of 0.85 times the height to the top of the crane runway beam instead of 0.85
times the girt spacirig. This is a conservative measure because of some uncertainty regarding
274 Gantry Cranes & Monorails AISC DPFB/03

the effectiveness of girts providing minor axis restraint to one flange of an I-section column
under axial compression loads. (This uncertainty is overlooked in the design of portal
columns without crane loads.) The wall bracing will be arranged so that there is a node level
with the top of the crane runway beam. Hence,

L,, = 0.85x6250 = 5313 mm

.< =
5313
,, 41.8
x .Jo.948 x
3
250
~ 00
= 136

a,, = 0.347
¢N,, = 846 kN

In summary with reference to Chapter 4,

¢M,. = 448 kNm
¢N, =2570kN
¢N, =2436 kN
¢Na =2178kN(La =7500 mm)
N,,. = 846 kN

• Combined Actions (or Crane Loads

M' = 159 kNm at downward column knee

M' = 171 kNm at crane corbel
N' = 171 kN compression at base ofcolumn

• Check Section Caracitv

Reduced section capacity due to axial compression

¢M = {1+
"
0.18~( 8282-- 4745· 1 )}x 448x(1-~)
2436
= 487 kNm but > ¢M,, = 448 kNm . ·
Hence
¢M,, = 448 kNm > M; = 171 kNm OK

• Check In-Plane Member Capacitv

In-plane member capacity is reduced due to axial compression.
7
¢M; = 448x(1-; ; )
1 8
=413 kNm > M; = 171 kNm OK

Check capacity under axial load alone with th_e effective column length determined from
the frame elastic buckling load factor.<, calculated using Equation 4.2.
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example 275

3EI,
= e,(N;h, +0.3N;e,)
3x2xl0 5 xl2lxl0 6
12517x(!71x10 3 x 7500 + 0.3x24x10 3 x12517)
= 4.23
By comparison, the more accurate value obtained from Microstran is Ac= 11.0. This
takes account of the haunches and the localised distribution of axial force in the columns.
For exa1nple, the n1aximum axial con1pression in the left hand colun1n is only 63 kN.
Nevertheless, using the more readily determined value of.<,= 4.23 produces

2xl0 5 x335xl0 6
Lu = ;rx =30,200mm
4.23x171xl0 3
a, = 0.233
rfNcr =567 kN > N;=17!kN OK

• Check Out-of-Plane Member Capacity

The maximum applied moment occurs at the level of the mid height of the crane corbel
with the inside flange of the downwind column in compression.

M' = 171 kNm

At this level, the inside flange of the column can be considered to be braced laterally by
the corbel which is in tum braced longitudinally by the crane runway beam. This beam in
tum is fly braced back to the longitudinal wall bracing system as shown in Figure 9.17.
Therefore, the segment length from a flexural-torsional buckling viewpoint is
460
L = 6250-460- =.5560 mm
2
L, =k,k1k, =l.0xl.Ox0.85x5560 =4726 mm
= 1.75

Hence using a spreadsheet p~ogram

M, =409kNm
a, = 0.540
¢M., = 424 kNm

~"' 171
,,,,.,,, =424x(i- 846 )
= 338 kNm > M; = 171 kNm OK
276 Gantry Cranes & Monorails AISC DPFB/03

The mid height column fly braces needed for the portal frame without the crane can be
deleted in lieu of the restraint provided by the crane runway beains and corbels.

=r====
-T

- - - - -

(a) Crane Runway Beam

Fly Brace Detail

Eaves strut

(b) Wall Bracing

Figure 9.17 Longitudinal Bracing

AISC DPFB/03 Design Example 277

• Check Deflections
The lateral deflection at the top of the crane runway beam level at 6250 mm due to lateral
crane loads of 4.6 kN and 1.6 kN
=19mm
6250
>the lesser of - - = 12.5 mm or 10 mm deflection limit NG
500
However, it can be argued that the lateral crane loads will be distributed over at least two
frames by virtue of the diaphragm action of the roof sheeting as the lateral loads are small
in this case.
Lateral deflection at the top of the crane runway beam due to in-service wind loads of V,
= 20 mis compared with V, = 40.8 mis in Section 2.6.3.1.

= ( -20-)' xl08 =26mm

40.8
6250
>the lesser o f - - = 12.5 mm or 10 mm deflection limit NG
500
There will be some rotational restraint at the base of the portal frame columns which will
reduce the in-service deflections. However, the deflection limits are substantially
exceeded and either the member sizes need to be increased or some base restraint needs to
be accepted or otherwise incorporated in the design.
It could be argued that the lateral deflections due to crane loads should be combined with
lateral deflections due to in-service wind loads. However, the likelihood of these two
events occurring simultaneously, even with the much reduced return period for in service
wind loads, is considered to be very low.

9.7 REFERENCES
I. Standards Australia (1999). AS1418.18 Crane Runway and Monorails, SA Sydney.
2. Gorenc, B.E. (1983). Crane Runway Girders, AISC, Sydney.
3. Gorenc, B.E., Tinyou, R. and Syam, A.A. (1996). Steel Designers' Handbook, University of
NSW Press, Sydney.
4. Standards Australia (1990). AS4100 Steel Structures, SA, Sydney.
5. Wang, C.M. and Kitipomchai, S. (1986). Buckling Capacity of Monosymmetric I-Beams,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 11, 2373-2391.
6. Kitipomchai, S. and Wang, C.M. (1988). Flexural-Torsional buckling of Monosymmetric
beam-column/tie-beams, Structural Engineer, Vol. 66, No. 23, 393-399.
7. Broken Hill Proprietary (1998). Hot Rolled Structural Steel Products, BHP, Melbourne.
8. Australian Institute of Steel Construction (1997). Design Capacity Tables for Strcutural
Sections - Volurne !: Open Sections, zn<1 edn. & Addendum No. 1, AISC, Sydney.
9. Trahair, N.S. and Bradford, M.A. (1998). The Behaviour and Design of Steel Structures to
AS4100, 3" edn, E&FN Spon, London.
10. Broken Hill Proprietary (1978). Monorail Beam Design, BHP, Melbourne.
II. Woolcock, M.D. and Ford, A.W. (1998). Buckling of Crane Runway Beams and Monorails,
BE Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, The Uiliversity of Queensland.
 AJSC DPFB/03
278 Gantry Cranes & Monorails
AISC DPFB/03
Appendix 9.1 - Design Capacity Tables 279

APPENDIX 9.1
DESIGN CAPACITY TABLES
 Ow
t
"'
t~·
00
0

J, 1 Crane Runway Beams

t--L-.··-t Grade 300
aJL = 0.30
h1 = 120 mm
~
Composed of Nominal $Msx Design Member Moment Capacities ~Mbx (kNm) $Msy ~
Beam Top Flange Mass Actual Length (L) metres Top Flange Q
~
~
Channel kg/m kNm 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 kNm
~
WELDED BEAMS With PARALLEL FLANGE CHANNELS R<>
1200WB249 380PFC 304 4536 3458 3067 2695 2361 2070 1822 1613 1439 1293 1171 1067 979 357 ~
~

~
800WB168 380PFC 223 2178 1798 1648 1501 1363 1237 1125 1026 940 865 799 742 692 357
146 201 1967 1620 1479 1340 1208 1088 980 886 805 734 673 620 574 340
122 178 1640 1350 1232 1115 1004 903 812 732 663 604 ·ss2 507 469 306 ~
700WB173 380PFC 228 1975 1640 1513 1392 1278 1176 1064 1002 931 867 811 761 717 371
150 205 1714 1416 1303 1194 1093 1001 919 846 782 726 677 633 595 336
130 186 1545 1271 1164 1060 962 874 795 726 665 612 566 526 491 322
115 170 1351 1118 1024 932 845 765 694 631 576 529 487 451 419 306
UNIVERSAL BEAMS with PARALLEL FLANGE CHANNELS

610UB125 380PFC 180 1217 1003 924 848 779 716 659 609 565 526 492 461 434 303
113 169 1103 914 842 774 710 651 599 553 512 476 444 416 391 295
101 157 1053 867 796 728 665 607 556 510 470 435 405 ,375 354 290
530UB92.4 380PFC 148 856 704 650 599 552 509 472 438 408 381 358 336 318 284
82.0 137 762 630 583 537 495 457 423 393 366 342 320 301 284 277
530UB92.4 300PFC 133 827 602 537 478 428 386 350 319 293 271 252 235 221 198
82.0 122 734 539 480 428 382 343 311 283 259 239 222 207 193 191
460UB82.1 300PFC 122 641 470 424 383 348 318 293 270 251 235 220 207 195 191
74.6 115 585 431 388 351 319 291 267 246 229 213 200 188 177 187
67.1 107 529 392 353 319 289 264 242 223 207 193 180 169 159 183
410UB 59.7 300PFC 99.8 428 318 290 265 243 224 208 193 181 170 160 151 143 179
53.7 93.8 400 295 268 244 224 206 190 177 165 155 146 138 130 177
360UB56.7 300PFC 96.8 362 269 247 228 212 198 185 174 164 155 147 140 133 178 >
50.7 90.8 326 243 223 206 191 178 167 157 148 140 133 126 120 175 ~
44.7 84.8 300 223 206 192 179 167 157 148 140 133 127 121 115 172
":;:
~
 Ow \ ~

.
t
Composed of
l

Nominal
L

4>Msx
1
1
'
Crane Runway Beams
Grade 300
awiL = 0.30
h1 = 25

Design Member Moment Capacities ij>Mbx (kNm}

mm
T $M,y
I
Beam Top Flange Mass Actual Length (L) metres Top Flange
Channel kg/m kNm 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 kNm

WELDED BEAMS with PARALLEL FLANGE CHANNELS

1200WB249 380PFC 304 4536 3565 3193 2832 2500 2205 1949 1731 1547 1390 1258 1146 1050 357
800WB168 380PFC 223 2178 1857 1719. 1581 1448 1324 1210 1108 1018 938 867 805 750 357
146 201 1967 1677 1550 1420 1294 1176 1068 971 884 808 742 684 633 340
122 178 1840 1407 1302 1195 1089 990 898 815 742 677 619 569 525 306
700WB173 380PFC 228 1975 1695 1579 1464 1355 1253 1160 1076 1001 933 873 819 771 371
150 205 1714 1470 1367 1265 1168 1077 993 918 851 790 737 689 646 336
130 186 1545 1325 1230 1134 1041 954 873 801 737 679 628 584 544 322 ~
~
115 170 1351 1169 1087 1003 921 844 772 706 848 595 549 508 472 306
UNIVERSAL BEAMS with PARALLEL FLANGE CHANNELS
~
610UB125 380PFC 180 1217 1053 983 914 847 784 726 674 626 584 545 511 480 303 !O
113 169 1103 961 899 837 776 718 665 617 573 533 497 465 436 295 ....
101 157 1053 916 855 794 734 677 625 577 533 494 459 428 401 290 I
530UB92.4
82.0
380PFC 148
137
856
762
750
673
704
633
658
593
613
554
571
516
532
481
496
449
463
419
433
392
406
368
381
345
359
325
284
277
~
~·
530UB92.4 300PFC 133 827 650 589 533 481 436 396 362 332 306 284 264 247 198
82.0 122 734 584 530 480 433 392 356 325 297 274 253 235 219 191 ~
460UB82.1 300PFC 122 641 512 469 429 393 361 332 307 285 265 248 232 219 191 ll
74.6
67.1
115
107
585
529
472
431
433
396
396
363
363
332
333
305
306
280
283
258
262
239
243
222
227
207
213
194
200
182
187
183 "
~·
410UB 59.7 300PFC 99.8 428 353 327 302 280 259 241 224 209 196 184 173 163 179 ~
53.7
360U856.7 300PFC
93.8
96.8
400
362
330
300
306
280
282
261
261
244
241
228
224
214
208
201
194
189
181
178
170
168
160
159
151
151
177
178
""~
50.7. 90.8 326 272 254 237 222 208 195 183 172 162 153 145 138 175
44.7 84.8 300 252 236 221 207 195 183 172 163 154 146 139 132 172

"'
00
 Ow
t N
00
N

L '

Composed of
l

Nominal
L

~M~
l
t
Crane Runway Beams
Grade 300

Design Member Moment Capacities $Mb~

aw/L = 0.30
h1 =

(kNm)
0 mm
T $Msy
~
~
Q
Beam Top Flange Mass Actual Length (L) metres Top Flange
§
Channel kg/m kNm 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 kNm
~
WELDED BEAMS with PARALLEL FLANGE CHANNELS Ro>

1200WB249 380PFC 304 4536 3592 3225. 2868 2537 2241 1983 1763 1576 14~7 1282 1168 1070 357 ~
800WB168 380PFC 223 2178 1871 1737 1601 1470 1346 1233 1130 1039 957 886 822 766 357 ~
146
122
201
178
1967
1640
1691
1420
1567
1318
1440
1214
1316
1110
1199
1012
1091
920
993
837
906
762
828
696
761
638
701
586
649
541
340
306
~-
!;""
700WB173 380PFC 228 1975 1708 1595 1483 1374 1273 1180 1096 1019 951 890 835 786 371
150 205 1714 1483 1383 1283 1187 1096 1013 937 869 807 753 704 660 336
130 186 1545 1338 1246 1152 1060 974 894 821 755 697 645 599 558 322
115 170 1351 1181 1102 1021 940 863 791 726 666 613 566 523 486 306
UNIVERSAL BEAMS with PARALLEL FLANGE CHANNELS

610UB125 380PFC 180 1217 1064 997 929 863 801 743 690 642 599 560 524 492 303
113 169 1103 972 912 851 792 735 682 633 588 548 511 478 449 295
101 157 1053 926 868 809 750 694 642 593 550 510 474 442 413 290
53DUB92.4 380PFC 148 856 759 716 ' 671 627 586 646 510 477 446 418 393 370 284
82.0 137 762 682 644 606 567 530 496 463 433 405 380 357 336 277
530UB92.4 300PFC 133 827 661 602 546 495 449 409 373 343 316 293 272 254 198
82.0 122 734 594 543 493 446 405 368 336 308 283 262 243 226 191
460UB82.1 300PFC 122 641 522 480 441 405 372 343 317 294 274 255 239 225 191
74.6 115 585 481 443 407 374 343 316 292 271 252 235 220 206 187
67.1 107 529 439 406 373 343 315 290 268 248 230 215 201 188 183
410UB 59.7 300PFC 99.8 428 360 335 311 289 268 249 232 217 203 190 179 169 179
53,7 93.8 400 338 314 291 270 250 232 216 201 188 176 166 156 177

~
36DVB56.7 300PFC 96.8 362 307- 288 269 252 236 221 208 195 184 174 165 156 178
50.7 90.8 326 278 261 245 229 215 202 189 178 168 159 151 143 . 175
44.7 84.8 300 258 242 228 214 201 190 179 169 160 151 143 136 172
!ii
~

~
 WB Monorails
Grade 300
CENTRAL POINT LOAD
hb = 0 mm
I
t
~<"l
..".,,
.."
~

$Msx Design Member Moment Capacities $Mbx (kNm)

Beam Actual Length (L) metres
kNm 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
WELDED BEAMS

1200W8455 7110 7152 7024 6874 6704 6517 6317 6106 5888 5667 5444 5222 5003 4790
423 6510 6543 6424 6282 6122 5945 5756 5556 5350 5140 4928 4717 4509 4306
392 5910 5934 5822 5690 5540 5374 5196 5008 4813 4615 4415 4216 4020 3829
342 4980 4892 4744 4571 4380 4176 3963 3747 3532 3321 3117 2923 2740 2568
317 4500 4411 4271 4109 3930 3737 3537 3334 3131 2934 2743 2563 2393 2235
278 3790 3628 3468 3286 3089 2884 2678 2475 2281 2099 1930 1775 1635 1509 ~
"5
249
1000W8322
3250
4130
2926
4068
2710
3950
2478
3814
2243
3664
2016
3504
1805
3338
1614
3166
1446
3000
1298
2834
1170
2674
1060
2521
965
2376
883
2240 ,..~
296
258
215
900WB282
3720
3100
2580
3440
3656
2980
2358
3402
3546
2857
2200
3311
3418
2716
2028
3206
3277
2564
1851
3090
3127
2405
1677
2966
2970
2245
1513
2837
2810
2087
1361
2705
2651
1936
1225
2573
2496
1792
1104
2443
2346
1658
998
2317
2203
1535
906
2195
2068
1423
826
2079
1941
1320
756
1969
-
~

I
ti
~
257 3070 3031 2948 2851 2743 2628 2507 2384 2260 2139 2021 1907 1799 1697 ,;;·
218 2510 2432 2341 2237 2123 2004 1883 1762 1645 1532 1426 1328 1236 1153 "
175 2020 1875 1764 1641 1513 1384 1259 1142 1035 938 852 776 709 650 l?
800WB192 2030 1931 1843 1744 1641 1535 1431 1331 1236 1148 1067 993 926 865 1i
168 1720 1602 1512 1414 1311 1210 1112 1020 935 858 789 727 673 624 "
~·
146 1540 1413 1322 1222 1120 1019 923 835 755 683 621 565 517 475
122 1220 1074 983 888 792 703 622 550 488 435 389 351 318 290 ~
g:
700WB173 1610 1511 1433 1349 1262 1176 1093 1015 942 875 814 759 709 664 ~
150 1350 1234 1155 1072 987 906 829 759 695 638 588 . 543 503 468
130 1210 1085 1005 920 835 753 678 611 551 499 454 414 380 350
115 1020 905 833 756 680 607 541 482 431 387 348 316 288 263 N
00
w
 N
....
00

UB Monorails
Grade 300
CENTRAL POINT LOAD
hb = 0 mm
It €;l
~

~
$M$l( Design Membei" Moment Capacities $Mbx {kNm)
Q
§
Beam Actual Lenoth (L) metres ~
kNm 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Ro
UNIVERSAL BEAMS
~
~
610UB125 927 816 684 619 559 504 414 377 346 318 294 272
~
750 456
113 829 725 664 601 541 485 435 391 353 320 291 267 246 227
101 782 669 606 542 481 425 377 335 299 268 242 220 202 185 ~
530UB92.4 640 536 482 429 379 336 298 265 238 215 195 179 164 152
82.0 558 462 413 364 319 280 246 218 194 174 157 143 131 121
460UB82.1 496 406 363 322 285 253 225 202 182 165 151 139 128 119
74.6 449 364 324 286 251 221 196 174 157 142 129 118 109 101
67.1 399 321 284 248 216 189 166 147 131 118 107 97 89 83
410UB 59.7 324 256 226 197 172 151 133 118 106 96 87 80 73 68
53.7 304 233 201 173 148 128 111 98 87 78 70 64 59 54
360UB56.7 273 215 190 167 147 130 116 104 94 85 78 72 66 62
50.7 242 189 165 144 126 110 97 86 77 70 64 59 54 50
44.7 222 167 144 123 106 91 80 70 62 56 51 46 42 39
310UB 46.2 197 155 137 121 106 94 84 76 68 62 57 53 49 45
40.4 182 138 120 104 90 79 69 62 55 50 46 42 39 36
32.0 134 93 78 66 56 48 41 36 32 29 26 24 22 20
250UB37.3 140 102 89 77 67 59 53 47 43 39 36 33 31 29
31.4 114 81 69 59 50 44 38 34 31 28 25 23 21 20
25.7 92.0 57 47 39 33 29 25 22 20 18 16 15 14 13
200UB29.8 90.0 64 56 48 43 38 34 30 28 25 . 23 22 20 19 ,.
25.4 74.6 51 43 37 32 28 25 22 20 18 17 15 14 13 iil
22.3 65.3 44 37 32 27 24 21 18 17 15 14 13 12 11 =
~
~

~
 WB Monorails
Grade 300
CENTRAL POINT LOAD
hb = -200 mm
£, f
~
iii
~

$Msx Design Member Moment Capacities $Mbit {kNm)

Beam Actual Length (L) metres
kNm 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
WELDED BEAMS

1200WB455 7110 7185 7075 6944 6795 6630 6451 6261 6063 5859 5651 5443 5234 5029
423 6510 6575 5471 6349 6208 6053 5864 5705 5517 5324 5127 4929 4732 4537
392 5910 5954 5867 5752 5621 5475 5317 5148 4972 4790 4605 4419 4233 4050
342 4980 4932 4803 4652 4482 4299 4106 3906 3704 3503 3307 3116 2933 2760
317 4500 4449 4327 4185 4026 3854 3672 3485 3295 3107 2923 2745 2576 2415
278 3790 3671 3531 3371 3194 3008 2816 2625 2437 2258 2088 1930 1785 1652 ~
'5
249 3250 2987 2794 2584 2365 2148 1942 1750 1576 1421 1285 1166 1061 971 §
1000WB322 4130 410~, 4003 3886 3755 3614 3464 3309 3153 2996 2843 2693 2549 2411
~
296 3720 3690 3596 3487 3364 3231 3090 2945 2798 2651 2506 2366 2232 2104 ~
~
258 3100 3019 2913 2791 2657 2514 2367 2220 2075 1934 1801 1675 1559 1451
I
215 2580 2408 2271 2119 1958 1795 1637 1487 1349 1223 1110 1010 922 844
900WB282
257
3440
3070
3432
3059
3356
2990
3267
2908
3167
2815
3059
2715
2944
2609
2825
2498
2704
2385
2583
2272
2462
2159
2344
2050
2230
1943
2120
18~1
~
,;;·
~
218 2510 2463 2386 2298 2199 2094 1985 1874 1763 1655 1551 1452 1358 1271
CJ
175 2020 1914 1820 1713 1599 1481 1364 1251 1144 1045 954 872 799 734 -§
800WB192 2030 1965 1891 1807 1716 1621 1525 1430 1338 1250 1167 1090 1019 953 ~
168 1720 1637 1561 1476 1385 1293 1200 1111 1026 948 875 809 749 695 ~-
146 1540 1448 1372 1286 1195 1103 1012 925 844 770 702 642 588 541
122 1220 1110 1033 949 863 778 698 624 558 500 449 406 368 335 ~
700WB173
150
1610
1350
1544
1268
1479
1202
1408
1130
1331
1054
1253
978
1175
904
1099
834
1026
769
958
709
894
655
835
605
781
561
732
522
~
130 1210 1121 1054 980 904 828 755 687 624 568 518 474 434 400
115 1020 938 877 811 743 675 610 551 496 448 405 367 335 306 N
00
"'
 £,
N
co
°'
UB Monorails
Grade 300 hb = -200 mm ~
CENTRAL POINT LOAD

Design Member Moment Capacities ljiMbx (kNm)

t "
~
Q
ljiM$x §
Beam Actual Lenath Cll metres
!l
kNm 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Ro
UNIVERSAL BEAMS
~
610UB125 927 B4B 794 736 676 619 564 514 469 42B 392 361 333 30B "c
113 B29 755 705 650 595 542 491 445 404 367 335 306 2B2 260 ~.
101 7B2 702 649 593 537 4B3 433 3BB 34B 314 2B4 25B 235 216 !:;<
530UB92.4 640 567 522 475 42B 3B5 345 309 27B 251 22B 208 191 176
82.0 558 491 450 407 . 365 325 2B9 25B 230 207 1B6 169 154 141
460UBB2.1 496 434 39B 361 325 292 262 236 213 193 176 161 14B 137
74.6 449 391 35B 323 290 259 231 207 1B6 16B 152 139 127 117
67.1 399 346 315 2B3 252 224 199 177 15B 142 12B 116 106 9B
410UB59.7 324 279 253 22B 203 1BO 160 143 . 128 115 104 95 B7 80
53.7 304 256 230 204 179 157 138 122 108 96 87 78 71 65
360UB56.7 273 236 215 194 174 155 139 125 113 102 93 85 78 72
50.7 242 208 189 169 151 134 119 106 95 86 78 71 65 60
44.7 222 187 168 149 131 115 101 89 79 70 63 57 52 48
310UB 46.2 197 171 157 142 128 115 103 93 64 76 69 64 59 54
40.4 182 155 140 )26 112 99 BB 7B 70 63 57 52 47 44
32.0 134 10B 95 B3 72 62 54 47 42 37 33 30 2B 25
250UB37.3 140 117 105 94 B4 74 66 59 53 4B 44 40 37 34
31.4 114 94 84 74 65 57 50 44 40 35 32 29 27 25
25.7 92.0 69 60 51 44 38 33 28 25 23 20 18 17 16
200UB29.8 90.0 75 67 60 54 48 43 38 34 31 29 26 24 22
25.4 74.6 61 54 48 42 37 33 29 26 23 21 19 18 16 ~
22.3 65.3 54 4B 42 37 32 28 25 22 20 18 16 15 14 "!;!
~
AISC DPFB/03
Appendix 9.2 - Background to Design Capacity Tables 287

Appendix 9.2
1) '

BACKGROUND TO
DESIGN CAPA CITY TABLES

A9.2.l General
It is important to provide the background to any set "of design capacity tables so that engineers
can verify or spot check the derivation for themselves. Probably the best way of doing so is to
derive one of the figures in the table. A relevant figure for this book is the capacity of the 9 m
long 410UB59.7+300PFC crane runway beam used as a trial section in the design example,
with h = 120 mm.

A9.2.2 Section Moment Capacity ¢h(,,

While the 410UB59.7 is compact for bending about both axes, the 300PFC is not compact for
bending about its minor axis when the web is in compression. However, provided the welding
between the PFC and the top flange of the UB is continuous, or is hit and miss with the miss
length less than the flange width, the PFC can be taken as compact for bending of the
compound UB/PFC about its strong axis. For example, taking the dimension b of the PFC
web as the length between welds,.<, of the PFC web would be (177/8)x .J300/250 = 24
which is less than J.,, = 30.

• Calculate Plastic Section Modulus

Refer to Figure 9.18

300

16
II ..,.
N
Ag = 7640 + 5110
N "' ..,. ~
0 = 12750
~
0
~ 7.8 m
..,.'
"'
...; :;;:

Figure 9.18 Dimensions of UB!PFC Combination

288 Gantry Cranes & Monorails AISC DPFIWJ

Assume firstly that the plastic centroid y, 1 lies below the PFC. Hence,
12 750
(y , 1 -12.8 )x7.8+ (178xl2.8) =-' -
2
Y,, = 538 mm > lesser of324 mm or depth of section NG

Therefore, the assumption of the plastic centroid location is incorrect. Try the plastic
centroidy,2 located within the depth of the PFC.

(y ,, -12.8)x 7.8+ (l 78x 12.8)+ 2x 16 x (y,, -324)= 12 ·~ 50

so y,, = 365.9 mm
Hence,

M,
12.8)
= 178xl2.8x ( 365.9--- x300 (bottom flanges)
2
2
+ (365.9-12.8) x7.8 x 320 (b ottom part o1,rweb·''I
2
(406-12.8-365.9)'x7.8 , ,r b·'
+ x 320 tfop part o1 we 'I
2
1 8
+ l 78x 12.8 x ( 406 -365.9 - ~ )x 300 (top flange)

365 9 324
+( · - )' x2xl6x300 (bottom part ofPFC flanges)
2
4 4 365 9
+( l - . )' x2x16x300 (toppartofPFCflanges)
2

+(300-2xl6)x8x( 414-I-365.9 )x320 (PFC web)

= 245.7 + 155.6 + 0.9 + 23.0 + 8.4 + 11.1+30.2

=475.1 kNm
Therefore
475.lxlO'
s 300
1583x10 3 mm'

Elastic section moduli from AISC's Design Capacity Tables [8] are:
ztop = 2350x 103 mm3
z.,. = ll 60x 103 mm3
l.5Z.'" = l.5xl 160xl03 = l 740xl0 3 mm'
Therefore
Z = Z = 1583xlO'mm'
' p

Therefore major axis section moment capacity is

AISC DPFB/03
Appendix 9.2 - Background to Design Capacity Tables 289

¢M, = 0.9x1583xlO'x300 Nmm = 427 kNm

A9.2.3 Member Moment Capacity ¢M.x

The member bending capacity ¢M,, can be obtained from Equation 9.5 by first calculating the
elastic buckling momentM0h using Equation 9.6 and the beam slenderness reduction factor ash
using Equation 9.4. In calculating M,, the following properties are used:

E = 2xlO' MPa
I, =323xl06 mm4 AISC [8]
6 4
I, = 84.4xl0 mm AISC [8]
6
I,., = 78.4x 10 mm' AISC[8]
73
p = .4 = 0.929 AS4 l 00 Sect. 5
84.4
G =8xl04 MPa
J =619xlO'mm4 AISC[8]
12 8
di = 414- · -27.2
2
= 380.4mm (centroid of top flange taken as centroid of PFC)
Iw = p(l- p)I,dj = 0.929x(l -0.929)x84.4xl06 x380.42
= 806xl09 mm' (for use in Section A9.2.4)

~; = 0.9x(2x0.929-l)x{1-(~::)'} =0.719
a = c-;.3) = 0.35 where 0.3 = aw

m = 1 -0.4x0.35x(! - 5.5x0.35) = 1.13

2 3
= x1.1 2 xsin'(,,-x0.35) =0.519 where (,,-x0.35) is in radians
0.35 x,,.
2

f, = .!.x{0.35x(l-0.35)x,,- 1} =0. 914

2 sin'(,,-x0.35)
= -(l-0.929)x380.4-27.2-120= -174.2 mm
2xl74.2 = _ _
0 916
380.4

Hence substituting into Equation 9.6,

M,, = 370.8 kNm
and
 Gantry Cranes & Monorails AISC DPFB/03
290

a,, = 0.6x{ (475.1)' +3- 475.1} =0.524

370.8 370.8
so that
fJM, = 0.9x0.524x475.l = 224 kNm
which is given in the Tables.

The capacities in the tables are for individual runway beams acting alone in resisting
the external forces in accordance with the simple procedure given in Clause 5.7.2 of
AS1418.18. In reality, the more heavily loaded beam will be restrained against buckling by
the less heavily loaded beam on the other side of the workshop. The gantry crane itself acts as
a link bet\veen the two opposite beams ensuring some interaction. Appendix B2 of
AS 1418.18 acknowledges this and permits the r, value to be increased by 20%. One response
to this concession would be the development of alternate sets of tables based on values of I,
and Icy which are increased by 1.22 = 1.44. However as this interpretation is uncertain a·nd the
degree of interaction between the two beams is untested, alternate sets of tables are not
provided in this edition.

A9.2.4 Member Capacity to AS4100

Clause 5.6.1.2 of AS4100 presents formulae for calculating the member strength of
n1onosymmetric beams. In lieu of using the explicit formula for the elastic buckling moment
given in Clause 5.6.1.2(a), Clause 5.6.1.2(b) allows design by buckling analysis by methods
such as the rational buckling analysis used to produce the design tables. However for this
comparison, Clause 5.6.l.2(a) will be used.
The elastic buckling moment is calculated from the case for uniform bending given by

in which L, = l .4L for top flange loading. The design member capacity is then obtained from
from

¢M, = ¢amasMs AS4100 Cl. 5.6.1.1(1)

where

a, = 0.6x{ (~:)' +3
-M,}
M,
AS4/00 Cl. 5.6.1./(2)

The maximum bending moment of 129 kNm is associated with a non-symmetrical

bending moment diagram. 'The calculation of am for this distribution of bending moment is
not straightforward, but it will be conservative to use the am value for the symmetrical
bending moment diagram which is a case tabulated in AS4100. (Table 5.6.1).
AISC DPFBI03
Appendix 9.2 - Background to Design Capacity Tables 291

Hence

a. = 1.0+0.35x ( 1-L
2a)'

where 2a = 3.5 m and L = 9.0 m

Hence

a. = 1.0+0.35x ( l -3.5)'
9 = 1.13

Using the properties derived in Section A9.2.3, gives M. can be calculated as

=422kNm

a, = 0.6x{ (475.!)' +3- 475.1} =0.564

422 422

¢M, = 0.9xl.13x0.564x475.1 = 273 kNm

This design member capacity exceeds the more accurate value of 224 kNm by 22%.
The code approach can therefore be quite unconservative. This unconservatism arises mainly
due to the assumption that the top of the rail loading is at top flange level, and in the erroneous
calculation of the am values for monosymmetric beams as discussed previously.
292 AISC DPFB/03
APPENDIX I
DRAWINGS

293
294 Appendix I: Drawings AISC DPFB/03

1' 1HIV DNl>IVHJ!:~

~ 6~ 2.J SIOO~:>

I\ 1~f, I\ I
~
1<§t I' : ~4'1 d?j

1 '11 I\ '

1,
,, 1, ],,' ,, 1,
Vi

1, j;\ 11 ( 1'i1\ 11
~
I,
I/ "'r-.
re ' re Ill
~I.
'
• ~I I~ • If II>
"'"
I I
11

,, i, • '~ h • 1. • I
I
' '
L: I' 1' Jl-"

11

, • El~
I I
1~
I
.le
• • z
I
Ir I
I
-'/" ~
<
~ ..-1
Q 0...
! ~
w
~
d
, , el·I•~ .
0
z
• • ~
~
0
~

~
,, 1'
I
' ,, I I
I;..;
~

<
I
1·
'

.,~
~
,,;
~
p::
"'"-
~ 5
I I I u
"~
0
~
"'0"-
'I, , • • [, • I j I I ,• '
<
~
" 0
p::
I
'' "0
I
I I
I
I• i, • ,•hi 1.• 1, _,
I I

1' ?"
~
'"
n
0
~
0

I ~ n
0
~
I ~

·~: n
• E

'i, ~
'
0

I\ r1 I\ I< .;,f; I'\ 1, '0 ~

0

~ ~
111\ 1, I\ ' ~

'
~ I; ,-r-~ I/ ' ~
11 r-._ ,,
'"'
d/V ltJ O<:j!HID ~~6~i~ -0
OOO<;l
 ~

cp ~ Cf> <i> Cf ~ ct> ~ Cf>

"
0
~

~
FASCIA PURLIN Sil
--
55 56
-- ""

/ "-.. 7
nu• "' !'... /
,. ""' ' /

!=13 s; I
01
' I / ..._
"' '" I
I ,q
JC ~: ,
'
v;. " ,....,.
I'·

J I
/
" I I I l
I
I I " I

Z20019 GIRTS
1350 LAPS, TWO ROWS Of BRIDGING

ELEVATION ON GRID B

Cf> ~ ct> ~ Cf <i> Cf> ~ cp

-·
S7 FASCIA PURUN SI
"'
..

~
"' ~

,,...,
v
'
/
OHi
"
' '
,
.
/
l
;:;·
""'
/·
''[/

'
<;
c
N
~
Q
i-
I I
~

I /
Y'

"I
"'~
l I I I l I I J
~
~·
Z20019 GIRTS ~
1350 LAPS, TWO ROWS OF BRIDGING

ELEVATION ON GRID A N

"'"'
296 Appendix I: Drawings AISC DPFB/03

SCHED,ULE OF STEELWORK
MARK
'
MEMBER REMARKS
C1-Cl8 460 UB 74

C19-C24 250 UB 31

R1-R9 360 UB 45

S1-S11 125 x 125 x 4.0 SHS. 12 THICK CAP PLATE AND CLEATS
6 E48XX SP FILLET WELDS
DB1, DB2 100x100x6L
DB7-DB10
DB15,DB16

DB3-DB6 M20 RODS \\1TH TURNBUCKLES

DB11-DB14

WB1-WB8 75 X 75 X 5 L

FB 40 X 40 x 3 L

DH1-DH3 200 x 75 [

DJ1-DJ6 200 x 75 [
.
 ~
.
~
®
T . 5 @ 1200 CTS
800 300
2\A:prox \ \
Cf
~
I S~@
1
1000 CTS \ C0J
1 I -l--cc
I I ) __ _ I
- fB
fB fB fB fB - FB
it;- FB
"'
~

"
0
0
I 3000 3000 .,
~

,,
@
N
I I
fB FB J.
~,
" ~
"
0
0
I
I
II
~
@
:..
"' I I :g
§
"-
25000
,,.
I';·

ti
il
§.
~
TYPICAL FRAME ELEVATION
FB DENOTES FLYBRACE
N
.._,
'O
298 Appendix I: Drawings AISC DPFB/03

C10015 RAKING GIRT Cl 0015 RAKING GIRT

~ ~
~ ~

FB FB I FB
I
1.1
C19 C20 I C21 DH4
I
FB I FB I FB I-

ro
I r-
-, -, I-
I I
0 0

Z20015 GIRTS
1000 LAPS, BRIDGING AS SHOWN

ELEVATION ON GRID 1

C10015 RAKING GIRT C10015 RAKING GIRT

~ ~

~
~ ~

I FB I FB I FB I I
I C24 C23 C22
I FB I FB FB

,, I I I
I I I

Z20015 GIRTS
1000 LAPS, BRIDGING AS SHOWN

ELEVATION ON GRID 9
AISC DPFB/03 Appendix I: Drawings 299

I
'
'
I I
'- /

~ 210 x 32 END It
FSBW FLANGES
10D x 50 x 4.0 RHS 6 CFW B/S WEBS - E48XX
OUTRIGGER 8 M24 8.8/TB BOLTS
8 END It 140 GAUGE
6 CFW TO OUTRIGGER 15D PITCH
M12 4.6/S BOLTS 50 EDGE DISTANCE

_,__
. /
I - -
I ~

i ·: ~ [/

6 THICK WEB
DOUBLER PLATE .
"----+--I
I
I
- ----.>

ONE 'SIDE I I I
BUTT WELD TO FLANGES I I
L I 19 ~
~
-

90 x 10 STIFFENERS
BOTH SIDES
\ I \l ':-- j___/
90 x 16 DOUBLER It
BOTH SIDES
I
FSBW ENDS FSBW TO COLUMN WEB
~
6 CFW WEB 6 CFW TOP & BTM
r
300 Appendix I: Drawings AISC DPFB/03

10 ft STIFFENER---
6 CFW

WALL BRACING DETAILS

AISC DPFB/03 Appendix I: Drawings 301

ALL BRACING CONNECTIONS

10mm CLEAT PLATES
6 CFW UNO
2 M20 8.8/S BOLTS

®---

1
ROOF BRACING DETAILS
 w
s
9000
~
A "'
1l
~
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I "'b
P2
I
_I_ -
I
I I
t-- - _L_ -
I
-+- -___l_ - -tI _l<EYED c~~s~of.I. JOINT <~qJ_)-
I I
I
I
I
I
I
-
I I
t-- - _L_ -
I
-+- I
I
I
___l_ - ~ - _I_
I
P2
il
~
~·
I I I I I I I I "
J I I I I I I I
~I el 1 1 1 KCJ 1 1 1 1
N
P2
~1--1--1 - 1 - - 1 - 1 - - 1 - - t - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - 1 - - 1 - 1 - - 1 - P2

~I •1 .I •1 .I •1 .I •1 .I •1 .I •1 .I •1 .I
~I Vl lf}I VI tnl tn Vll Vl VII Ill Vll Vll Vll VJ In

P2 ~:- -L-+-_J_
1 I
_-+ __t _-:- ~ l _ -:- -L-+-_J_ _-+ __J _-:-
I I I I I I
P2

I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
Pl Pl Pl Pl Pl Pl Pl Pl Pl

SLAB AND FOOTING PLAN FOOTING SCl:JEDULE

GEN[RALLY' 175 THlCK R.C.SLAS ON GROUND 'MTH F72 FABRIC· TOP (3Dmm COVER) Pl 600 x 900 x 600 DEEP PIER CAP
DN "FORTECON STANDARD" LAPPED AND TAPED ON 50mm SAND. 450 x 2600 DEEP BORED PIER UNOER >
CONCRETE STRENGTH f'c = 32 MPo P2 600 x 600 x 600 DEEP PIER CAP tii
450 x 2600 DEEP SORED PIER UNOER g
"'
~

~
 APPENDIX II
COMPUTER OUTPUT

1. Geometry; Load Cases & Deflections

2. Second Order Analysis of Load
Combinations
3. Joint & Member Numbering; Bending
Moment Diagrams & Displaced Shapes
. 4. Elastic Critical Load Analysis

303
304 AISC DPFBJ(}3
GEOMETRY
LOAD CASES
DEFLECTIONS

305
306 Appendix II: Computer Output AISC DPFB/03
AISC DPFB/03 Appendix II: Computer Output 307

Bonacci Winward (Qld) ?ty Ltd Page 1 of4

Job: Porta199 23 Aug 1999
PORTAL FRAME WITH 3m HAUNCHES - PINNED BASES 7:55 PM
460UB74 COLS, 360UB45 RAFTERS - 4.5kN LL INCLUDED

INPUT/ANALYSIS REPORT

Job: Portal99
Title: PORTAL FRAME WITH 3m HAUNCHES PINNED BASES
460UB74 COLS, 360UB45 RAFTERS 4.5kN LL INCLUDED
Type: Plane frame
Date: 23 Aug 1999
Time: 7:50 PM
Nodes •. , • • • . . . • • • . . • • . • • . . • • • . . . • • 9
Members • , • • • • . . • • • . . . • • • • • . • • • • • . • 8
Spring supports • • • . • . • • • • • . . . • • • . . 0
Sections • • • • • • • . . • • • • • . • • • • . . . • • • . 4
Materials • • • • • • • • • • . • . • • • . • • • • • • • • 1
Primary load cases • . . . • • • • . • • • • • . • 8
Combination load cases . • • • . . . • • • . . 6
Analysis: Non-linear elastic
Update node coordinates •• , ••••• , • • Y
Small displacement theory , , • • • • . . • Y
Include axial force effects . • • • • . . Y
Include flexural shortening • . . . • • • N
Convergence criterion: Residual
Convergence tolerance , •••• , • • • 5. OOOE-04

LOAD CASES
Case T:{pe Analysis Title
l p L OL
2 p L LL INCL 4.5KN LOAD AT RIDGE
3 p L CROSS WIND MAX UPLIFT (CWl)
p CROSS WIND MAXIMUM DRAG (CW2)
5 ' p
p
L
L LONG WIND lST INTERNAL FRAME (LWl)
6 L LONG WIND WITH 0.3 DOWN PRESS COEFF (LW2)
7 p L INTERNAL PRESSURE UNDER CROSS WIND (IPCW)
8 p L INTERNAL PRESSURE UNDER LONG WIND (IPLW)
Analysis Types:
S - Skipped (not analysed)
L - Linear
N - Non-linear

NODE COORD:rNATES
Node x y z Restraint
rn rn rn
l 0.000 0.000 o.ooo 111110
2 0.000 7. 500 0.000 001110
3 1. 630 7.585 0.000 001110
3.260 7.671 o.ooo 001110
'5 12. 500 8 .155 .
7. 671
0.000 001110
001110
6 21.740 0.000
7 23.370 7.585 o.ooo 001110
8 25.000 7.500 o.ooo 001110
9 25. 000 o. 000 o. 000 111110

MEMBER DEFINITION
Member A B c Prop Matl Rel-A Rel-B Length
., l 2 -x l l 000000 000000 7.500
m

2 2 3 y 3 l 000000 000000 1. 632

y 000000 000000 1. 632
3 3
' y ' l
000000 000000 9.253
'5 '5 5
6
7
y
y
2
2
l
l
l
000000
000000
000000
000000
9.253
1.632
7
6 6
7 B y '3 l 000000 000000 1.632
8 8 9 x l l 000000 000000 7 .500

Microstran [VS.50.16] C:\MSWIN\OATA\PFBook\Portal99.p1

308 Appendix II: Computer Output AISC DPFB/03

Bonacci Winward (Cid) Pty Ltd Page 2 of 4

Job: Portal99 23 Aug 1999
PORTAL FRAME WITH 3m HAUNCHES - PINNED BASES 7:55 PM
460UB74 COLS, 360UB45 RAFTERS - 4.SkN LL INCLUDED

LIBRARY SECTIONS
Section Library Name Axis Comment
1 Aow 460UB74.6 y COLUMNS
2 .,w
.,w 360UB44.7 y
y
RAFTERS
3 530UB82.0
.,w 410UB59.7 y
HAUNCH 2
HAUNCH 1

SECTION PROPERTIES
Section Ax Ay Iy fact

1
m2
9. 520E-03
m2
O.OOOE+OO O.OOOE+OO
"m2
5.300E-07
J
m4 m4
1.660E-05
"
m4
3. JSOE-04
2 5.720E-03 O.OOOE+OO O.OOOE+OO 1.610E-07 8 .lOOE-06 l .210E-04
3 1.0SOE-02 0. OOOE+OO O.OOOE+OO 5.260E-07 2.0lOE-05 4.770E-04
4 7. 640E-03 O.OOOE+OO O.OOOE+OO 3.370E-07 1.210E-05 2.160E-04

MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Material E u Density Alpha
kN/m2 t/m3 /deg C
2. OOOE+08 0.3000 7.850E+OO l.OBOE-05

TABLE OF QUANTITIES
!:'.ATE RIAL 1
section N=e Length Mass Comment
m tonne
1 4600874.6 15.000 1.121 COLUMNS
2 3600844.7 18.505 0.831 RAE"l'ERS
3 530UB82.0 3.264 0.269 HAUNCH 2
4 410U859.7 3.265 0.196 HAUNCH 1
----------
40.034
----------
2.417

~-u>PL:CED LOAO:CNG
CASE 1: DL
Gravitational Acceleration
X Comp Y Comp Z Comp
m/sec2 m/sec2 rn/sec2
0.000 -9.820 0.000
Member Loads
Member Fo= s n
1 ONIF
T
<Y
A
GL -0.900
-0.900·
Xl
" X2

2 UNIF <Y GL
3 UNIF FY GL -0.900
4 UNIF FY GL -0.900
5 UNIF FY GL -0.900
6 UNIF FY GL -0.900
7 UNIF FY GL -0.900
8 UNIF FY GL -0.900
Sum of Applied Loads (Global Axes):
FX'
CASE ,,
0.000 FY: -59. 763
LL INCL 4.SKN LOAD AT RIDGE
FZ: 0.000

Node Loads
Node X Force Y Force z Force X Momerit Y Moment z Moment
kN kN kN kNm kNm kNm
5 o.ooo -4. 500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Member Loads
Member Form T A s Fl Xl F2 X2
2 UNIF FY GL -2.250
3 UNIF FY GL -2.250
4 UNIF FY GL -2.250
5 UNIF FY GL -2.250
6 UNIF FY GL -2.250
7 UNIF FY GL -2.250

Microstran [V6.50.16] C:\MSWIN\DATA\PFBook\Portal99.p1

AISC DPFB/03 Appendix II: Computer Output 309

Bonacci Winward (Qld) Pty Ltd Page 3 of 4

Job: Portal99 23 Aug 1999
PORTAL FRAME WITH 3m HAUNCHES - PINNED BASES 7:55 PM
460UB74 COLS, 360UB45 RAFTERS - 4.5kN LL INCLUDED
SUD1 of Applied Loads (Global Axes) :

CASE
FX:
,, 0.000 FY: -60.827
CROSS WIND MAX UPLIFT {CWl)
FZ: 0.000

Member Loads
Member Form T A s Fl Xl X2
1 UNIF FX GL 5. 690 "
2 UNIF FY LO 5.850
3 UNIF FY LO 5.850
TRAP FY LO LE 5.850 o.ooo
'' TRAP FY LO LE 3.250 4.750
5.850
3.250
4.750
9.253
5 TRAP FY LO LE 3.250 0.000 3.250 3.500
5 TRAP FY LO LE 1. 950 3.500 1. 950 9.253
6 UNIF FY LO 1. 950
7 UNIF FY LO 1.950
8 UNIF FX GL 4 .060
SUD1 of Applied Loads (Global Axes):
FX' 71.421 FY: 90.355 FZ: 0.000
CASE 4: CROSS WIND MAXIMUM ORAG (CW2)
Membe:t' Loads
Member Form T A s Fl Xl F2 X2
1 UNIF FX GL 5.690
2 UNIF FY LO 2. 600
3 UNIF FY LO 2. 600
' TRAP
5 TRAP
6 UNIF
FY LO LE
FY LO LE
FY LO
2.600
-1.300
0.000
3.500
2.600
-1. 300
4. 750
9. 253
-1.300
7 UNIF FY LO -1.300
8 UNIF FX GL 4 .060
SUD1 of Applied Loads (Global Axes):
FX: 71.421 FY: 9 .102 FZ: 0.000
CASE ,, LONG WIND lST INTERNAL FRAME (LWl)
Membe:t' Loads
Member Form T A s Fl Xl F2 X2
1 UNIF FY LO 3.810
·2 UNIF FY LO 4. 640
3 UNIF FY LO 4. 640
UNIF FY LO 4.640
'5 UN!F FY LO 4.640
6 UNIF FY LO 4. 640
7 UNIF FY LO 4.640
8 UNIF FY LO 3.810
SUD1 of Applied Loads (Global -Axes):
FX'
CASE ,, 0. 000 FY: 116.000 FZ:
LONG WIND WITH 0.3 DOWN PRESS COEFF (LW2)
0.000

Member Loads
Member Form T A s Fl Xl F2 X2
1 UNIF FY LO 1.320
2 UNIF FY LO .;1.990
3 UNIF FY LO -1.990
UNIF FY LO -1.990
' 5 UNIF FY LO -1.990
6 UNIF FY LO -1.990
7 UNIF FY LO -1.990
8 UNIF FY LO 1.320
Sum of Applied Loads (Global Axes):
FX: 0.000 FY: -49. 750 FZ: 0.000
CASE 7' INTERNAL PRESSURE UNDER CROSS WIND (IPCW)

Microstran [VG.50.16] C:\MSWIN\DATA\PFBook\Portal99.p1

310 AISC DPFB/03

Bonacci Winward (Qld) Pty Ltd Page4 of 4

Job: Portal99 23 Aug 1999
PORTAL FRAME WITH 3m HAUNCHES - PINNED BASES 7:55 PM
460UB74 COLS, 360UB45 RAFTERS - 4.5kN LL INCLUDED

Member Loads
Member Form Ti A s Fl Xl F2 X2
1 UNIF Ft LO 4 .210
2 UNIF FY LO 4. 210
3 UNIF FY LO 4.210
UNIF FY LO 4. 210
'5 UNIF FY LO 4. 210
6 UNIF FY LO 4. 210
UNIF FY LO 4.210
'8 UNIF FY LO 4. 210
Sum of Applied Loads (Global .Axes) :
FX: 0.000 FY: 105.250 FZ: 0.000
CASE 8' INTERNAL PRESSURE UNDER LONG WIND (IPLWl
Member Loads
Member Form T A s Fl Xl F2 X2
1 UNIF LO FY 0.830
2 UNIF LO FY 0.830
3UNIF LO FY 0.830
UNIF LO FY 0. 830
'
5 UNIF LO FY 0.830
6 UNIF LO FY 0.830
UNIF LO FY o. 830
'UNIF LO FY 0.830
'
sum of Applied Loads {Global Axes):
FX: o.ooo FY: 20.750 FZ: 0. 000

NODE DISPLACEMENTS
Node Case X-Disp Y-Disp Z-Disp X-Rotn Y-Rotn Z-Rotn
m m m cad rad cad
2 1 -0.0024 -0.0001 0.0000 0.00000 0. 00000 -0. 00232
2 -0. 0047 -0.0001 0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 -0.00429
3 0.1269 0.0003 0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 -0.00375
0.1211 0.0001 0.0000 0.00000 0. 00000 -0.00929
'5 0. 007 6 0.0002 0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00689
6 -0.0038 -0.0001 0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 -0.00374
0.0067 0. 0002 0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00605
'8 0.0013 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00119
5 1 0.0000 -0.0481 0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
2 0.0000 -0.0930 0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3 0.1207 0.1232 0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 0. 00587
0.1207 0.0078 0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 0. 00587
'5 0.0000 0.1543 0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
6 0.0000 -0.0743 0.0000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000
0. 0000· 0.1379 0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 0. 00000
' 0.0000 0.0272 0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
'

Microstran [V6.50.16] C:\MSWlN\DATA\PFBook\Porta199.p1

SECOND ORDER ANALYSIS
LOAD COMBINATIONS
MEMBER FORCES
REACTIONS

311
 Appendix II: Computer Output AISC DPFB!03
312
AISC DPFB/03 Appendix II: Computer Output 313

Bonacci Winward (Old) Pty Ltd Page 1of4

Job: Porta!99 23Aug 1999
PORTAL FRAME WITH 3m HAUNCHES • PINNED BASES 7:58 PM
460UB74 COLS, 360U845 RAFTERS • 4.SkN LL INCLUDED

INPUT/ANALYSIS REPORT

Job: Portal99
Title: PORTAL FRAME WITH Jm HAUNCHES PillNED BASES
460UB74 COLS, 360UB45 RAFTERS 4 . 5 kN LL I:.~•CLUDED
Type: Plane frame
Date: 23 Aug 1999
Time: 7:57 PM
Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Members , .. , .. , , , , , , . , .. , , , • . . . . . . . 8
Spring supports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Primary load cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Combination load cases . . . . . . . . . . , . 6
Analysis: Non-linear elastic
Update node coordinates .• , ... , ,, , , Y
Small displacement theory . . . . . . . . . Y
Include axial force effects . . . . . . . Y
Include flexural shortening . . . . . . . N
Convergence criterion: Residual
Convergence tolerance . . . . . . . . . 5.000E-04

LOAD CASES
case Type Analysis Title
20 c N l.25DL+l.SLL
21 c N 0. 8DL+CW1 (MAX UPLIFT)+I?CW
22 c N 0.8DL+CW2(MAX DRAGJ+IPCW
23 c N l.25DL+CW2(MAX DRAG)+ISCW
24 c N 0.8DL+LWl(MAX UPLIFT)+I?LW
25 c N l.2SDL+LW2(MAX OOWNWARDi+ISLW
Analysis Types:
S Skipped (not analysed)
L - Linear
N - Non-linear
NODE TABLE NOT PRINTED
MEMBER TABLE NOT PRINTED
SECTION PROPERTY TABLE NOT PRINTED
MATERIAL TABLE NOT PRINTED

APPLIED LOADING
CASE 20: l.25DL+l.5LL
Load Combinations
Case Factor
1 1.250 DL
2 1.500 LL INCL 4.5KN LOAD AT RIDGE
Sum of Applied Loads (Global Axes) :
FX: 0.000 FY: -165.940 FZ: 0.000
CASE 21: 0.8DL+CWl(MAX UPLIFT)+IPCW
Load Combinations
case Factor
1 0.800 DL
3 1.000 CROSS WIND MAX UPLIFT (CWl)
7 1.000 INTERNAL PRESSURE UNDER CROSS WIND {IPCW)
Sum of Applied Loads (Global Axes) :
FX: 70.898 FY: 147. 701 FZ: 0.000
CASE 22: 0. 8DL+CW2 (MAX DRAG) +IPCW

Microstran [V6.50.16] C:\MSWIN\DATA\PFBook\Portal99.p1

314 Appendix JI: Computer Output AISC DPFB/03

Bonacci Winward (Old) Pty Ltd Page 2 of 4

Job: Portal99 23 Aug 1999
PORTAL FRAME WITH 3m HAUNCHES - PINNED BASES 7:58 PM
460UB74 COLS, 360UB45 RAFTERS - 4.SkN LL INCLUDED

Load Combinations
Case Factor
1 0.800 DL
1.000 CROSS WIND MAXIMUM DRAG (CW2)
'
7 1.000 INTERNAL PRESSURE UNDER CROSS WIND (IPCW)
Sum of Applied Loads {Global Axes) :
FX: 71.175 FY: 66.539 FZ: o.ooo
CASE 23: l.25DL+CW2(MAX DRAG)+ISCW
Load Combilk:tions
case Factor
1 1.250 DL
1.000 CROSS WIND MAXIMUM DRAG (CW2)
'
7 -0.960 INTERNAL PRESSURE UNDER CROSS WIND (IPCW)
Sum of Applied Loads (Global Axes) ;
FX: 71. 929 FY: -166. 631 FZ: 0.000
CASE 24: 0. 8DL+LW1 (MAX UPLIFT) +IPLW
Load Combinations
Case Factor
1 0. 800 DL
5 1. 000 LONG WIND !ST INTERNAL FRAME (LWl)
8 1.000 INTERNAL PRESSURE UNDER LONG WIND (IPLW)
Swn of Applied Loads (Global Axes) :
FX: 0.000 FY: 88.925 FZ: o.ooo
CASE 25: l.250L+LW2(MAX DOWNWARD)+ISLW
Load Combinations
Case Factor
1 1. 250 DL
6 1. 000 LONG WIND WITH 0.3 DOWN PRESS COEFF (LW2)
8 -3.000 INTERNAL PRESSURE UNDER LONG WIND (IPLW)
Sum of Applied Loads (Global Axes) :
FX: 0.000 FY: -186.762 FZ: o. 000
. MEMBER FORCES
Member case Node Axial Shear-y Shear-z Torque Moment-y Moment-z
kN kN kN kNm kNm kNm
20 1 -82.926 38. 728 0.000 0.000 0. 000 0.000
2 -67.609 38. 710 0.000 0. 000 0. 000 -290.380
21 1 95.766 -66.119 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.002
2 104.889 -54.868 0.000 0.000 0.000 453.725
22 1 55.318 -44.994 0. 000 0.000 0.000 -0.010
2 64.442 -33.743 0.000 0.000 0.000 295.266
23 1 -61.318 -17.159 0.000 0.000 0. 000 0.000
2 -46. 738 56.083 0.000 o.ooo 0.000 -145.961
24 1 44.475 -12.012 0.000 0. 000 0. 000 o. 000
2 54.278 -46.804 0.000 0.000 0.000 220.565
25 1 -93.333 39.216 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001
2 -78.016 47.972 0.000 0.000 0.000 -326.939
2 20 2 -41.317 -66.042 0.000 0.000 0.000 -290.380
3 -40.955 -57. 053 0.000 0.000 0.000 -189.923
21 2 62.350 100.619 0.000 0. 000 0.000 453.727
3 62.477 86. 427 0.000 0. 000 0.000 301.073
22 2 37.892 62.069 0.000 0.000 0.000 295.282
3 38.003 53 .183 0.000 0.000 0. 000 201.222
23 2 -58.266 -43.984 0. 000 o.ooo 0.000 -145.960
3 -58.158 -38.145 0.000 0.000 0.000 -78. 936
24 2 50.012 51. 338 0.000 0.000 o.ooo 220.565
3 50.145 44. 637 0.000 0. 000 0.000 142.237
25 2 -50.873 -76.145 0.000 0.000 o.ooo -326. 938
3 -50.737 -65. 348 0.000 o.ooo 0.000 -211.468
3 20 3 -40.703 -57.225 0.000 0.000 0.000 -189.920
-40.396 -48.683. 0.000 0.000 0. 000 -103.487
21 '3 63.205 85.896 0.000 o.ooo 0.000 301.072
63.331 71. 415 0.000 0.000 0.000 172.680
'
Microstran [V6.50.16] C:\MSWIN\DATA\PFBook\Porta!99. p1
AISC DPFB/03 Appendix II: Computer Output 315

Bonacci Winward (Qld) Pty Ltd Page 3 of4

Job: Porta!99 23 Aug 1999
PORTAL FRAME WITH 3m HAUNCHES - PINNED BASES J:58 PM
460UB74 COLS, 360UB45 RAFTERS - 4.SkN LL INCLUDED

22 3 38' 314 52.960 o.ooo 0.000 0.000 201.221

4 38.422 43.785 o.ooo 0.000 0.000 122.263
23 3 -58.107 -38.225 0.000 0.000 0.000 -78.934
4 -58.017 -32.835 0.000 0.000 0.000 -20. 942
24 3 50.336 44.423 0.000 0.000 o.ooo 142.236
4 50.461 37.434 0.000 0.000 0.000 75.428
25 3 -50.409 -65.587 0.000 0.000 0.000 -211.463
4 -50.306 -55.239 0.000 0.000 0.000 -112.855
20 4 -40.361 -48.713 0. 000 0.000 0.000 -103.489
5 -38.717 -2.007 0 .000 0.000 0.000 131.153
21 4 63.833 70.967 o.ooo 0.000 0.000 172.680
5 64. 550 -0.510 0. 000 0.000 0.000 -125.486
22 4 38.761 43.487 0 .000 0.000 0.000 122.262
5 39.391 2.088 0.000 0.000 0.000 -60. 785
23 4 -58.333 -32.273 o.ooo 0.000 0.000 -20.941
5 -57.723 8.267 0.000 0.000 0.000 117.912
24 4 50.456 37.441 0.000 0.000 0.000 75.427
5 51.090 -3.267 0. 000 0.000 0.000 -82.678
25 4 -50.290 -55.259 0. 000 0.000 0.000 -112.857
5 -49. 767 1. 691 0.000 0.000 0.000 134.954
20 5 -38.717 2.007 0.000 0 .coo 0.000 131.153
6 -40.361 48.713 0. 000 0.000 0.000 -103.489
21 5 63. 989 8.506 0. 000 0.000 0.000 -125.487
6 63.317 -43.139 o.ooo 0.000 0.000 47.837
22 5 38.842 6.863 0. 000 0.000 0.000 -60. 786
6 38.261 -14. 704 0. 000 0.000 0.000 -11. 421
23 5 -55.170 4.074 0.000 0.000 0.000 117.912
6 -58.682 64.447 0. 000 0.000 o.ooo -185.982
24 5 51.090 3.267 0. 000 0.000 0.000 -82.678
6 50.456 -37.441 0. 000 0.000 0.000 75.427
25 5 -49.767 -1.691 o.ooo 0.000 0.000 134.954
6 -50.290 55.259 0. 000 0.000 0.000 -112.857
6 20 6 -40.396 48.685 0. 000 0.000 0.000 -103.486
7 -40.703 57.226 0.000 0.000 0.000 -189.922
21 6 63. 664 -42. 628 0. 000 0.000 0.000 47.835
7 63.517 -50. 744 0. 000 0.000 0.000 124.042
22 6 38.397 -14.373 0. 000 0.000 0.000 -11.418
7 38.267 -17.183 0.000 0.000 0.000 14.336
23 6 -59.425 63.763 0 .000 0.000 0.000 -185.982
7 -59.560 75.516 0. 000 0.000 0.000 -299.648
24 6 50. 4 61 -37.436 0. 000 0.000 0.000 75.426
7 50.336 -44.425 0. 000 0.000 0.000 142.238
25 6 -50.306 55.237 0. 000 0.000 0.000 -112.857
7 -50.409 65.585 0. 000 0.000 0.000 -211. 460
20 7 -40.955 57.046 0. 000 0.000 0.000 -189.929
8 -41.317 66. 035 0.000 0.000 0. 000 -290.374
21 7 63.326 -50.986 0.000 0.000 0. 000 124.037
8 63.166 -58.814 0.000 0.000 0. 000 213.648
22 7 38.257 -17.226 0.000 0.000 0. 000 14. 336
8 38.109 -19.749 0.000 o.ooo 0. 000 44. 512
23 7 -60.104 75.083 0. 000 0.000 0. 000 -299.648
8 -60.285 87.285 0. 000 0.000 0. 000 -432.153
24 7 50.145 -44.635 0.000 o.ooo 0.000 142.239
8 50.012 -51.335 0. 000 o.ooo 0.000 220.563
25 7 -so. 737 65.352 0. 000 0.000 0.000 -211.464
8 -50.873 76.149 0.000 0.000 0.000 -326.942
8 20 8 -67.609 -38. 710 0. 000 o.ooo 0.000 -290.380
9 -82.926 -38.728 0. 000 0.000 0.000 0.000
21 B 62.460 59.559 0. 000 0.000 0.000 213.643
9 53.041 -2.589 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
22 B 21.716 37.016 o.ooo 0.000 0.000 44.511
9 12.352 -25.147 0.000 0. 000 0.000 0.002
23 B -89.201 -57.409 0.000 0. 000 0. 000 -432.150
9 -103.927 -57.837 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002
24 B 54.278 46.804 0.000 o.ooo 0.000 220.565
9 44. 475 12.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
25 B -78.016 -47. 972 0.000 0.000 0.000 -326.939
9 -93.333 -39.216 0.000 0. 000 0.000 0.001
Positive Forces (Member AY.esl:

Microstran [V6.50.16J C:\MSWIN\DATA\PFBook\Portal99.p1

316 AISC DPFB/03

Bonacci Winward (Qld) Pty Ltd Page 4 of 4

Job: Portal99 23Aug 1999
PORTAL FRAME WITH 3m HAUNCHES - PINNED BASES 7:58 PM
460U874 COLS, 360UB45 RAFTERS - 4.SkN LL INCLUDED

·Axial - Tension Shear - End A sagging

Torque - Right-hand twist Moment - Sagging

SUPPORT REACTIONS
Node Case Force-x Force-Y Force-Z Noment-X Moment-Y Mornent-Z
kN kN kN kNm kNm kNm
20 38.632 82.970 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
21 -67. 634 -94.702 0.000 0.000 o.ooo 0. 000
22 -45.867 -54.596 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
23 -16.101 61. 605 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
24 -12.057 -44.463 0.000 o.ooo 0.000 0. 000
25 39.101 93.381 0.000 0.000 0.000 0. 000
9 20 -38.632 82. 970 0.000 0.000 0.000 0. 000
21 -3.257 -53.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0. 000
22 -25.322 -11.989 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
23 -55.821 105.024 o.ooo 0.000 0.000 0.000
24 12.057 -44.463 o.ooo 0.000 0.000 0.000
25 -39.101 93.381 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
(Reactions act on structure in positive global axis directions.)
SUM OF REACTIONS
case Force-X Force-Y Force-z
kN kN kN
20 0.000 165.940 0.000
21 -70.891 -147.705 0.000
22 -71.190 -66.585 0.000
23 -71.922 166.629 o.ooo
24 0.000 -88.925 0.000
25 0.000 186. 762 0.000

RESIDUALS
case DOFN Residual
1 20 8.420E-13
2 17 1. 982E-12
3 2 2.582E-11
2 1.670E-11
'5 20 -2.0SOE-12
6 20 l.350E-12
7 5 2.494E-12
-2.416E-13
' 17

Microstran [VS.50.16) C:\MSWIN\DATA\PFBook\Portal99.p1

JOINT & MEMBER NUMBERING
DISPLACED SHAPES
BENDING MOMENT DIAGRAMS

317
318 Appendix II: Computer Output AISC DPFBf03

microSTRAN

5
2 3 4 6 7 8
CV Q) ®0
CD ®

z
Lx
GEOMETRY
G=1.88 PORTAL FRAME V!TH 3m HAUNCHES - 3 DEG PITCH

microSTRAN

z
Lx
DEFLECTIONS - cw
G=1.88 D=0.127 PORTAL FRAME \\1TH 3m HAUNCHES - 3 DE{; PITCH
AISC DPFB/03 Appendix II: Computer Output 319

m croSTRAN E~

Lx
z
DEFLECTIONS - DL
G=1.88 D=0.127 PORTAL FRAME \\1TH 3m HAUNCHES - 3 DEG PITCH

z
Lx
DEFLECTIONS - LWI
G=1.88 D=0.127 PORTAL FRAME \\1TH 3m HAUNCHES - 3 DEG PITCH
 320 Appendix II: Computer Output AJSC DPFB/03

microSTRAN

'

290.4

131.2 131.2

z
Lx
BENDING MOMENT Mz 1.25DL + 1.5LL
G=2.26 M=273. PORTAL FRAME \\1TH 3m HAUNCHES - 3 DEG PITCH

microSTRAN

CASE
21_

125.3 125.3 129.5

213.8
301.2
45 .9

z
Lx
BENDING MOMENT Mz o.SDL + cw1(MAX. UPLIFT) + 1Pcw
G=1.88 M=227. PORTAL FRAME \\1TH 3m HAUNCHES - 3 DEG PITCH
AISC DPFB/03 Appendl-.: II: Conzputer Output 321

m croSTRAN =-:: = =
~==

CASE
22_

60. 7 60. 7 67.4

295.3 11.3 44.6
14.5 44.6

38.1

Lx
z
BENDING MOMENT Mz o.8DL + cw2(MIN. UPLIFT) + 1Pcw
G=l.88 M=227. PORTAL FRAME WlTH 3m HAUNCHES - 3 DEG PITCH

microSTRAN

CASE
23_

299.6 43.2.2
146 78.920.9 186
146 ,f::::t::o~~===:I==--"'::::.__LJ-+~ 432.1
125.2 117.9 117.9

15

z
Lx
BENDING MOMENT Mz 1.2soL + cw2(M1N. UPLIFT) + 1scw
G=2.71 M=328. PORTAL FRAME WlTH 3m HAUNCHES - 3 DEG PITCH
322 Appendix II: Computer Output AISC DPFB/03

microSTRAN

CASE
24_

82.5 82.5
220.7

220.7 220.7

z
Lx
BENDING MOMENT Mz o.BDL + Lwt(MAX. UPLIFT) + IPLW
G=1.88 M=227. PORTAL FRAME \'!TH 3m HAUNCHES - 3 DEG PITCH

microSTRAN ::.-= ~
=-- - -=-
CASE
25_
326.9 327
211.5 211.5
112.9 .1i2.9
326.9 326.9
135 135

z
Lx
BENDING MOMENT Mz 1.25DL - LW2(MAX. DOY!NWARD) + ISLW
G=2.26 M=273. PORTAL FRAME \'!TH 3m HAUNCHES - J DEG PITCH
ELASTIC CRITICAL
LOAD ANALYSIS

323
324 Appendix II: Computer Output AISC DPFBf03
AISC DPFB/03 Appendix fl: Computer Output 325

Bonacci Winward (Qld) Pty Ltd Page 1 of2

Job: Portal99 23 Aug 1999
PORTAL FRAME WITH 3m HAUNCHES - PINNED BASES 8:02 PM
460UB74 COLS, 360UB45 RAFTERS - 4.SkN LL INCLUDED

INPUT/ANALYSIS REPORT
Job: Portal99
'
Title: PORTAL FRAME WITH 3m HAUNCHES ' PINNEO BASES
460UB74 COLS, 360UB45 RAFTERS 4.5kN LL INCLUDED
Type: Plane frame
Date: 23 Aug 1999
Time: 8:00 PM
Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Members ...... ,., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 8
Spring supports ..• , . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . 0
Sections .. , ..........•. , ....... , . . 4
Materials , , , ........ , , ........• , . . 1
Primary load cases ... , ........ , • , . 8
Combination load cases , . . . . . . . . . • . 6
Analysis: Non-linear elastic
Update node coordinates ....• , . . . . . Y
Small displacement theory .....•... Y
Include axial force effects ... ...• Y
Include flexural shortening , , . . . . . N
Convergence criterion: Residual
Convergence tolerance ......•.. 5.000E-04

LOl\D CASES
Case Type Analysis Title
20 c N l.25DL+l.5LL
21 c N 0. 8DL+CW1 {MAX UPLIFTJ+IPCW
22 c N 0.80L+CW2(MAX DRAGl+IPCW
23 c N l.25DL+CW2(MAX DRAG)+!SCW
24 c N 0.8DL+LWl(MAX UPLIFT)+IPLW
25 c N l.25DL+LW2(MAX DO~l~~ARO)+ISLW
Analysis Types:
S Skipped (not analysed)
L - Linear
N - Non-linear
NODE TABLE NOT PRINTED
MEMBER TABLE NOT PRINTED
SECTION PROPERTY TABLE NOT PRINTED
MATERIAL TABLE NOT PRINTED

ELASTIC CRITICAL LOAD FACTORS

Case Mode Factor
20 1 10.05
21 1 > 1024 (ky, k' estimated)
22 1 > 1024 (ky, estimar.ed)
23
24
1
1
9.27
> 1024 {ky,
",,
estimar.ed)
25 1 8. 64

EFFECTIVE LENGTH FACTORS

MEMBER 1, Nodes 1 - 2 Section l• 4600374.6 y
case Pcrit ky ,,
kN
20 -756.20 o.oo 3.94
21l.03E+05 0.00 o.oo
2261293.54 0.00 o.oo
23 -501.03 0.00 4.8~
2450561. 39 o.oo o.oo
25 -740.28 o.oo 3.96
MEMBER 2' Nodes 2 - 3 Section 3' 530UB82.0 y
Case Pcrit ky ,,
kN
20 -413.31 0.00 29. 2~
21 63928.81 o.oo o.oo
22 38869.33 o.oo o.oo
Microstran [V6.50.16] C:\MSWIN\DATA\PFBook\Portal99.p1
326 AISC DPFBI03

Bonacci Winward (Old) Pty Ltd Page 2 of 2

Job: Portal99 23Aug 1999
PORTAL FRAME WITH 3m HAUNCHES - PINNED BASES 8:02 PM
460UB74 COLS, 360U845 RAFTERS - 4.SkN LL INCLUDED

23 -539.83 0.00 :;:s.sg

24 51299.36 o.oo 0.00
25 -439.03 0.00 2S. 37
MEMBER 3' Nodes 3 Section 4: 410UB59. 7 y
Case Pcrit ky k'
kN
20 -407.44 0.00 l S'. 8-2
21 64804.41 o.oo 0.00
22 39300.82 0.00 0.00
23 -538.43 0.00 17. 24
24 51627.07 o.oo o.oo
25 -435.19 0.00 l~.18

MEMBER 4' Nodes Section 2: 3f0UB44.7 y

Case Pcrit
' ky ,,
kN
20 -397.27 0.00 2. 65
21 65749.41 0.00 0.00
22 40025.66 0.00 J.00
23 -538.12 0.00 2.28
24 52010.88 0.00 C.00
25 -432.32 0.00 2.54
MEMBER 5, Nodes 5 Section 2' y
Case Pcrit
' ky
3~JUB44.7

h
kN
20 -397.27 0.00 2.65
21 65198.05 0.00 C.00
22 39491.32 o.oo 0.00
23 -541.81 o.oo 2.27
24 52010.88 0.00 .: .00
o.oo
MEMBER
25
,, -432. 32
Nodes 6 section
'
:. . 54
.;::UB59.7 y
Case Pcrit ky ,,
kN
20 -407.44 0.00 2. ~. 82
21 65134.36 0.00 o.oo
22 39255.68 o.oo c.. oo
23 -551.70 o.oo :;_-;. 03
24 51627.07 0.00 ('. 00
25 -435.19 0.00 :S.18
MEMBER ,, Nodes 7
' Sect.ion 3' 53-JUB82.0 y
Case Pcrit ky kz
kN
20 -413.31 0.00 2S-.24
21 64781.30 o.oo o. oo·
22 39096.96 o.oo o.oo
23 -558.21 0.00 25.16
24 51299.36. o.oo o.oo
25 -439.03 0.00 22.37
MEMBER ,, Nodes 8 - 9 Section 1: .;£OUB74.6 Y
case Per it ky kz
kN
20 -756.20 o.oo . '34
21 59136.29 0.00 .oo
22 17418.82 0.00 .oo
23 -895.48 0.00 . 62
24 50561.39 0.00 .00
25 -740.28 0.00 . :;a

_Microstran [V6.50.16] C:\MSWIN\DATA\PFBook\Portal99.p1

APPENDIX III

LIMSTEEL OUTPUT

327
328 Appendix III: Limsteel Output AISC DPFB/03
AISC DPFB/03 Appendix III: Limsteel Output 329

Bonacci Winward (Qld) Pty Ltd Page 1 of4

Job: Porta199 23 Aug 1999
PORTAL FRAME WITH 3m HAUNCHES • PINNED BASES 8:21 PM
460UB74 COLS, 360UB45 RAFTERS • 4.SkN LL INCLUDED

LOAD CASES - STEEL DESl:GN

case Type Title
20 c l.25DL+l.5LL
21 c 0.8DL+CWl(MAX UPLIFT)+IPCW
22 c 0.8DL+CW2(MAX DRAG)+IPCW
23 c l.25DL+CW2(MAX DRAG)+ISCW
24 c 0.8DL+LWl(MAX UPLIFT)+IPLW
25 c l.25DL+LW2(MA.~ DOWNWARD)+ISLW

STEEL MEMBERS SUMMARY REPORT

M•mb Code Length Grade Section Crit. Load Critical
~ Name Ratio Case Condition
1 AS4100 7500 300 460UB74, 6 0.988 21 Section N+Mx
4 AS4100 9253 300 360UB44.7 1.139 23 Member out-plane C+Mx
5 AS4100 9253 300 360UB44.7 1.140 23 Section N+Mx
AS4100 7500 300 460UB74.6 o. 993 23 Member out-plane C+Mx
'
LOAD CASES - STEEL DESl:GN
case Type Title
20 c l.25DL+l.5LL
21 c 0.80L+CWl(MAX UPLIFT)+IPCW
22 c 0.8DL+CW2(MAX DRAGl+IPCW
23 c l.25DL+CW2(MAX DRAG)+ISCW
24 c 0.8DL+LWl(MAX UPLIFT)+IPLW
25 c l.25DL+LW2(MAX DOWNWARDJ+ISLW

STEEL MEMBERS FULL REl?ORT

MEMBER: 1 (Code Check to AS4100)
Section: 460UB74.6 Axis: Y Grade: 300 fyf: 300 fyw: 320 fu: 440
Section dimensions and properties.
D• 457.0 B• 190.0 Tf= 14.5 TW"' 9 .1
Ag= 9520.0 rX"' 188.0 Zx= 1. 46E+06 Sx= 1. 66E+06
ry= 41.8 Zy= l.75E+05 Sy"' 2. 71E+05
J• 5. 30E+05 Iw= 8.15E+ll
section Properties fo' Design:
Form Factor= 0. 948 Class Mx: Compact Zex= 1.660E+06
Ae"' 9027 Class My: Compact Zey"' 2.625E+05
Member Restraints
/--Beam--/ Load /------Column-----/
No Offset Top Btm Cant Ht xx kx yy ky
1 o.ooo L L N s y ECL y 1.00
2 1.500 L N s y 1.00
3 2.700 L N s y 1. 00
4 3.900 L N s y 1.00
5 5.600 L L. s y 1. 00
6 7.300 L N s y 1.00
7 7. 500 L L N
Sidesway - about XX axis: Y about YY axis: N
. Connection: Uniform and concentric
Critical condi.tions for design load cases:
case cap/Load Condition
20 1,469 Member out-plane c+Mx
21 0,988 Section N+Mx
22 1.518 Section N+Mx
23 2.866 Member out-plane C+Mx
24 2.032 section N+Mx
25 1.303 Member out-plane C+Mx
SECTION CHECKS
Case: 21 Off: 7500 Cap/Load= o. 988 section N+Mx (8.3.2)
Design loads: N*= 104.89 t M*x= 453.73 M*y"' 0.00
Design capacities 0Nt.,2570.40 0Msx~ 448.20 0Msy= 70.88
0NS"' o.oo 0Mrx= 448.20 0Mry"' 70. 88
MEMBER/SEGMENT CHECKS
case: 21 Off: 5600/7300 Cap/Load= 1.013 section N+Mx (8.3.2)
Design loads: N*"' 104.?5 t M*X"' 442. 37. M*yoo 0.00
Lmx= 7500 colUI!Ul o/a le~gth ~mx= -1.000

Microstran (VS.50.16] C:\MSWIN\DATA\PFBook\Portal99.p4

 AISC DPFB/03
330 Appendix III: Limsteel Output
Page 2 of 4
Bonacci Wlnward (Qld) Pty Ltd 23 Aug 1999
Job: Porta!99 SES 8:21 PM
PORTAL FRAME WITH 3m HAUNCHES - PINNED BA
460UB74 COLS, 360U845 RAFTERS - 4.SkN LL INCLUDED
Bmy= 0. 000
Lmy• 1700
Lxg 7500 nme"' -1.000
am= 1.101 BM modification factor
Lya 1700 os= 0.93 BM slend. reductn. factor
Lem 1700 beam eff. length
Lzg 1900 torsion eff. length
Des1gn capacities
oNt~2570.40 0MsX= 448.20 !ZlMbx= 448.20 cMOX"' 448.20
cMrX"' 448.20 oMix= 0.00 0Mbxo= 0.00
"MS}"" 70 .88 01.'liy= o.oo 0NOZ"' 0.00
0Mry= 70.88 oMcx= 0.00

SHE:AR CHECKS (Appendix I excluded)

Case: 21 Off: 7500 Cap/Load= 1.297 Section N+Mx (8.3.2)
Design loads: V*= 54. 87
Design capacities
~Nv= 431.17 0Mf= 329.15

MEMBER: 4 (Code Check to AS4100)

Section: 360UB44.7 Axis: y Grade: 300 fyf: 320 fyw: 320 fu: 440
Section dimensions and properties.
D• 352.0 B• 171. 0 Tf'"' 9.7 TW"' 6.9
Ag= 5720.0 rx= 14 6. 0 Zx= 6.89E+05 SX"' 7.77E+05
ry= 37. 6 Zy= 9. 47E+04 Sy"' l.46E+05
J• 1. 618+05 Iw= 2.37E+ll
Section Properties for Design:
Form Factor= 0. 930 Class Mx: Non-compact Zex= 7. 698£+05
Ae= 5319 Class My: Non-compact Zey"' l . .;04E+05
Member Restraints
/--Beam--/ Load /------Column-----/
No Offset Top Btm Cant Ht xx kx yy kv
1 0.000 L N N s y ECL y 1.00
2 0.353 L L s y 1.00
3 1. 353 N N y 1.00
4 2.553 N N y 1. 00
5 3. 753 N N y 1.00
6 4. 953 L L s y 1.00
7 6.153 N N y 1.00
8 7. 353 N N y 1. 00
9 8.153 L L s y 1. O:J
10 8.953 N N y 1.00
11 9.253 L L N
Sidesway - about XX axis: Y about YY axis: N
ConneCtion: Uniform and concentric
Critical conditions for des1gn load cases:
Case Cap/Load Condition
20 1.286 Member out-Plane C+Mx
21 1.223 Section N+Mx
22 1.739 Section N+Mx
23 1.139 Member out-plane C+Mx
24 2.073 Member out-plane T+Mx
25 1.172 Member out-plane C+Mx
SECTION CHECKS
Case: 21 Off: 0 Cap/Load"' 1.223 Section N+Mx (8.3.2)
Design loads: N*= 63,83 t M*x= 172.68 M*y= 0.00
Design capacities 0Nt=1647.36 0Msx= 221.71 oMsy= 40.42
0Ns= 0.00 oMrX'"' 213.12 oMry"' 38.86
MEMBER/SEGMENT CHECKS
Case: 23 Off: 4953/8153 Cap/Load'"' 1.139 Member out-plane c~Mx

Design loads: N*~ 58.01 c M.. x= 125.00 0.00

Lmx= 9253 column o/a length Bmx= -1.000
Lmy= 1200 Btny~ o.ooo
Lx,,,21013 5me"' -1.000
Ly= 1200
Le= 3200 beam eff. length
=·
CIS"'
l. 021 BM modi.fi.ca:.i.on fac1=.~::'.
0.66 BM slend. reductn. f,;,.ctor
Lz= 3200 torsion eff, length
Design capacities

Microstran {VS.50.16] C;\MSWIN\DA TA\PF Book\Portal99.p4

AISC DPFB/03 Appendix III: Limsteel Output 331
Bonacci Winward (Qld) Pty Ltd Page 3 of4
Job: Portal99 23Aug 1999
PORTAL FRAME WITH 3m HAUNCHES - PINNED BASES 8:21 PM
460UB74 COLS, 360UB45 RAFTERS - 4.5kN LL INCLUDED

0NCX"' 412.87 0Msx= 221.71 oNcx"'ll51.99 0Mox= 143.27

cNcy=l417. 62 0Mrx= 213.32 oNcy=l417.62 cMbxo= o.oo
0Msy= 40. 42 oMix= 210.55 0Noz= o.oo
cMry= 38.89 ol-1iy= 38.77 0Mcx= 143. 27
0MbX= 149.38 § computed with kL <e Lm (8. 4. 2. 21

SHEAR CHECKS (Appendix I excluded)

Case: 21 Off: 0 Cap/Load"' 1.554 Section N+Mx (8.3.21
Design loads: V*= 70.97
Design capacities
0VV= 400.32 oMf= 163.52

MEMBER: 5 (Code Check to AS4100)

Section: 360UB44.7 Axis: Y Grade: 300 fyf: 320 fyw: 320 fu: 440
Section dimensions and properties.
De 352.0 B= 171.0 Tf= 9.7 Tw= 6.9
Ag= 5720.0 rx= 146.0 Zx= 6.89E+05 Sx= 7.77E+05
ry= 37.6 Zy= 9.47E+04 Sy= l.46E+05
J= 1. 61E+05 Iw= 2.37E+ll
Section Properties for Design:
Form Factor= 0.930 Class Mx: Non-compact Zex= 7. 698E+05
Ae= 5319 Class My: Non-compact Zey= 1. 404E+05
Member Restraints
/--Beam--/ Load /------Column-----/
No Offset Top Btm Cant Ht xx kx yy ky
1 o.ooo L N N s y ECL y 1.00
2 0.300 L N s y 1.00
3 1.100 L L s y 1.00
1.900 s y 1.00
5 ' 3.100
L
L
N
N s y 1.00
6 4.300 L L s y 1.00
7 5.500 L N s y 1.00
B 6. 700 L N s y 1.00
9 7.900 L N s y 1.00
10 8.900 L L 5 y 1.00
11 9. 253 L N N
Sidesway - about xx axis: y about yy axis: N
Connection: uniform and concentric
Critical conditions for design load cases:
Case Cap/Load Condition
20 1.593 Member out-plane C+Mx
21 1.237 Member out-plane T+Mx
22 2.282 Member out-plane T+Mx
23 1.140 Section N+Mx
24 2.072 Member out-plane T+Mx.
25 1.517 Member oUt-plane C+Mx
SECTION CHECKS
Case: 23 Off: 9253 Cap/Load= 1.140 Section N+Mx {8.3.2)
Design loads: N*= 58. 68 c M*x=-186. 00 M*y"' o.oo
Design capacities 0Nt"' 0.00 oMSX"' 221.71 0Msy= 40.42
0Ns .. 1531.80 oMrx"' 213. 22 0Mry= 38. 88
MEMBER/SEGMENT CHECKS
Case: 21 Off: 1100/4300 Cap/Load= 1.237 Member out-plane T+Mx

Design loads: N*= 63.76 t M*x=-129. 79 M*y= o.oo

Lmx"' 9253 column o/a length Bmx= -1.000
Lrny= 1200 Brny= 0. 000
LX"' 9253 Cirne"' -1.000
Ly= 1200 1.048 BM modification factor
Le= 3200 beam eff. length ""'"
o:s= 0.66 BM slend. reductn. factor
Lz= 3200 torsion eff. length
Design capacities
0Nt=l647. 36 0Msx= 221.71 OMbX"" 153.22 0MOX"' 159 .15
0Mrx= 213.13 ::iMix= 0.00 0Mbxo= o.oo
!ZIMSy= 40.42 0Miy= ·o. oo 0Noz= o.oo
!ZIMry= 38.86 oMcx= o.oo
SHEAR CHECKS (Appendix I excluded)

Microstran [V6.50.16] C:\MSWIN\DATA\PFBook\Portal99.p4

332 Appendix III: Limstee/ Output AISC DPFB/03

Bonacci Winward (Qld) Pty Ltd Page 4 of 4

Job: Portal99 23Aug 1999
PORTAL FRAME WITH 3m HAUNCHES - PINNED BASES 6:21 PM
460UB74 COLS, 360UB45 RAFTERS - 4.SkN LL INCLUDED
Case: 23 Off: 9253 Cap/Load= 1.471 section N+Mx (8.3.2)
Design loads: V*""' 64.45
Design capacities
0VV"' 359.99 oMf= 163.52

MEMBER: 8 (Coda Check to AS4100)

Section: 460UB74. 6 Axis: y Grade: 300 fyf: 300 fyw: 320 fu: 440
Section dimensions and properties.
0• 457.0 B· 190. 0 Tf= 14.5 TW"' 9 .1
Ag= 9520. 0 rX"' 188.0 zx,,, l. 46E+06 Sx= 1.66E+06
ry= 41.8 Zy= l.75E+05 Sy= 2.71E+05
J• 5.30E+05 Iw= 8.150:+11
Section Properties for Design:
Form Factor= 0.948 Class Mx: Compact Zex"' 1. 660E+06
Ae~ 9027 Class My: Compact Zey= 2.625E+OS
Member Restraints
/--Beam--/ Load /------Column-----/
No Offset Top Btm cant Ht xx kx yy ky
1 0.000 L L N s y ECL y 1.00
2 0.200 L N s y 1.00
3 1. 900 L L s y 1.00
4 3. 600 L N s y 1. 00
5 4. 800 L N s y 1. 00
6 6.000 L N s y 1. 00
7 7 .200 L N s y 1.00
B 7 .500 L L N
Sidesway - about XX axis: Y about YY axis: N
Connection: Unifonn and concentric
Critical conditions for design load cases:
Case Cap/Load Condition
20 1.469 Member out-plane C+V.x
21 2. 098 Section N+Mx
22 6.386 Member out-plane T+Mx
23 0. 993 Member out-plane C+H:~
24 2. 032 section N+Mx
25 1.303 Member out-plane c+z.:x
Si::CTION CHECKS
Case: 23 Off: 0 Cap/Load= 1.037 Section N+Mx (B.3.2J
Design loads: N*= 89.20 c H .. x=-432.15 M*y= D.00
Design capacities 0Nt= 0.00 cMsx= 448.20 oMsy= 70.BB
0Ns=2437.28 eM:::x= 448.20 oMry"" 70.BB
MEMBER/SEGMENT CHECKS
Case: 23 Off: 0/1900 Cap/Load= 0.993 !>!ember out-plane C+Mx (8.4.4.lJ
Design loads: N*= 92.93 c M*y= o.oo
Lmx= 7500 column o/a length Bmx= -1.000
Lmy= 1700 fimy= 0.000
Lx=26194 firne= -1.000
Ly= 1700
Le= 1900 beam eff. length =·
as=
1.118 BM modification factor
0.91 BM slend. reductn. factor
Lz= 1900 torsion eff. length
Design capacities
oNcx= 723. 84 0Msx= 448.20 oNcx=2178. 32 0Mox= 429.01
cNcy=2170 .18 0Mrx= 448.20 0Ncy=2170.18 oMbxo= 0.00
0Msy= 70.88 oMiz"' 429.08 oNoz= 0.00
0MrY"' 10. ea 0Miy= 67.84 0Mcx= 429.01
oMbX= 448.20 # computed with kL <= Lm (8. 4. 2. 2)
SHEAR CHECKS (Appendix I excluded)
Case: 23 Off: 0 Cap/Load= 1.356 Sectio~ N+Mx (8.3.2)
Design loads: V*"' 57.41
Design capacitieS
0vv= 472.35 ev.:"' 329 .15

Microstran [V6.50.16) C:\MSWIN\DATA\PFBook\Portal99.p4

Subject Index
Adhesion of clay 193 rafter bracing forces 146
Amplification factor 57,71,166-167 side wall 173
Anchor head 200 single diagonal 151-152
Angles 74-75, 155,157-158,163, 168, 173 truss chords 147
Area reduction factor 19,23-24 using purl ins 31,76-77,149,151
Atterberg limits 192 Brief for design example 7-10
Buckling
Base plates 107,137-140 central columns 69-71
Bases combined actions 68-69
fixed 58,108 crane runway beams 251-254
pinned 57,107-108,138 flexural 64,65-66
Basic wind speeds 15 flexural-torsional 58-60
Bearing capacity monorail beams 254-255
ultimate 193 monosyrllmetric beams 251-254
Be~ring pressure 193 Building spacing parameter 15,22
Bending capacity
rafters 58-64 Cable action of rod bracing 152
columns 66-67 Cap plate and cleat 161-163
in-plane 68 Capacity reduction factor 6
out-of-plane 69 geotechnical 194-196
purlin 34 Central column 69-71
Bolted knee joint 106-107, 109-134 first order elastic analysis 71
Bolted moment end plate 106 second order elastic analysis 71
Bolts top connection pinned 70-71
at knee 113-114 top connection rigid 71
at ridge 135 Cladding 11,19,32
fly braces 75 live load 11-12
holding down 138-139,196-205 Clays 191-196
purlin 36,46 expansive 192
roof bracing 172 Cleat plate 161,172
Bottom flange of rafters in compression 61-64 Cleats
haunch 64,97-99 purlin 35-36
with fly bracing 61-62,63 - Cogged holding down bolts 199
without fly bracing 62-63 Cohesion of clay 193-195
Bored piers 4-5,93-96 Columns 1,65-67
lateral capacity 195-196 central 69-71
vertical capacity 195 combined actions 85-88
Bottom flange connection of knee joint 112-128 design example 84-88,238-242
Bracing (see also Roof & wall bracing) eccentric crane loading 268-271
accumulated forces 146-147 end wall 72,148
clearance underpurlins 147 inside flange in compression 66
design example 163-173 major axis compression capacity 65
double diagonal 146,151 minor axis compression capacity 65
fly (see Fly bracing) nominal bending capacity 66-67
layout 147-152 outside flange in compression 67
longitudinal wind forces 146 restraints 66-67
plane 147 section capacity 87

333
334 Subject Index
web shear stiffeners 109, 117-134
Combinations
load 11,19-21,29-30,56,110,135,138
210,231
Combined actions 67-69
in-plane section capacity 67-68
in-plane member capacity 68
out-of-plane member capacity 69
Compression capacity 64,65,226-227
columns 65-66,84
major axis 65
minor axis 65-66
rafters 64,89-90
Computer analysis 55-58,223-225
Cone failure of holding down bolts 198,
199-204
Connections
angles 148, 163
base plate 107
design example 108-143
end wall 141-143
frame 105-143
Irnee (see Knee joint)
design procedures 109, 112, 129,131
ridge (see Ridge joint)
tubes 161-163
Contraction joints 206-209
Corrosion of holding down bolts 205
Cracking in slabs 205,209
Crack initiators 207
Cranes (see Gantry cranes)
Crane corbel 249,266-268
Crane runway beams 249-254
bearing capacity 264-266
combined actions 262
design loads 250-251
design procedure 248-249
fatigue 271
lateral buckling 251-254
lateral deflection 263
major axis bending moments 258-259
member capacity 251-254
minor axis bending moments 259-262
portal column supports 254
shear capacity 263-264
vertical deflection 263
Cross-wind loads 16,22-25,38-40,44-45,49
55-56,223,229-231
Cyclon~ shutters 19
Cyclone washers 32
Cyclonic effects 12
Dead load 5,ll,19-21,35,55,227
Deflections 7,21,55,77-80
AISC DPFB/03
effects of77-78
end wall columns 100-101
frame 55,83
lateral or sidesway limits 79
purlins 35,45-46
rafter limits 80
Design action effect 6-7
Design example
brief7-10
footings 210-215
frame design 81-102
frame connections I08-143
gantry crane 255-277
girts 49-53
loads 21-30
plastic frame design 227-244
purlins 38-49
roof & wall bracing 163-173
slab215-217
Direct mechanism method 220-223
Direction factor for wind 14,27-29
Double diagonal bracing 145,147-152
Doubler plates
flange 119-121
web 133-134
Dowelled joint 206,209
Drawings 294-302
Eccentricity
in-plane at joints in roof bracing 163
of end connection for angles 163
Edge distance for holding down bolts
201-204
Effective length 3-4
central column 70-71
column in bending 66-67
column in compression 65-66
for combined actions 65
rafter in bending 60-64
rafter in compression 64
Elastic
analysis 55-58
buckling load factor 57-58,71
buckling moment 59
first order analysis 56-57
second order analysis 57
Embedment of holding down bolts 201
End wall frames 72-74,99-102,147-151
columns 72,99-102, 141-143
connections 72-74,141-143
continuous rafters 73
discontinuous rafters 74
rafters 73-74
AISC DPFBf03
slotted holes 73
Equivalent free throat width 18
;1, :
Erection 146,151
Expansion joints 206
Expansive clays 192
External wind pressure 16-17,19,23-24
Factor of safety on uplift 192
Fibreglass roof sheeting 31
First order
elastic analysis 56-58,71
plastic analysis 56,219-225
Fixed base 58,191
Floor slabs (see Slabs)
Fly bracing 2,55,74-76
columns in elastic design 66
columns in plastic design 226,240-242
crane runway beam 276
design force 75
rafters in elastic design 61-62
rafters in plastic design 226,242-243
single angle each side 74
single angle one side 75
Footings 191-205
allowable bearing pressure 193
Atterberg limits 192
bored piers 193-196
comer 213
design example 210-215
end wall 212-213
expansive clays 192
lateral loads on bored piers 195-196
pad 192-193
plan 302
raft foundations 192
shrink/swell tests 192
ultimate bearing pressure 193
uplift forces 192
vertical loads 195
Frame
bracing 145-190
central 69-71
columns 65-67,254
combined actions 67-69
connections (see Connections)
crane colu.mns 254
dead load 11,21,227
deflections 77-80,231,244
elastic analysis buckling load factor
57-58,225
elastic design example 81-102
end wall 72-74
fly braces (see Fly bracing)
Subject Index 335
live load 11-12,21-22,227
1 ·i r.-.;·.
load combinations 56,229,231
methods of analysis 56-57,82-83
plastic design example 227-244
portal 1-5,145
rafters 58-65,242-243
spacing 32-33
trial section properties 56,81-82
wind loads 12-19,22-29,229-231
Free stream dynamic pressure 15-16
Gantry cranes 247-248
design example 255-277
Girts 31
(see also Purlins)
as column bracing 65-67
design example 49-53
end wall 51-53
side wall 49-50
Grouting under base plates 199
Haunches 1,63 ,65 ,82,90-91,97-99, I 06
221,228
Height of beam loading 60-62
Height multiplier for wind speed 15,22-23
Holding down bolts 4,196-205
anchorage 199
cone failure 199-201
corrosion 205
design criteria 198
design example 214-215
edge distances 201-204
embedment lengths 201
galvanising 205
in shear 204
intersecting cones 199-200
lateral loads 204
pull-out 201
Importance multiplier 15
In-plane member capacity 68
In-plane section capacity 67-68,226
Iterative mechanism method 223-225
Internal wind pressure 17-19,24-25,38
Joints in floor slabs (see Slabs)
Joints in steelwork (see Connections)
Keyed joints in slabs 207-208
Knee joint 106-107
bolts 113-114
bottom flange connection 112-128
compression stiffeners 121-li4, 130
336 Subject Index AISC DPFD/03

design actions 109-112 Pad footings 191,192-_193,212

doubler plates 119-121,133-134 Peak local pressures 19,25,32,38
end plate 114-117 Pem1eability ratio 17-18,25
flange and web welds 126-128 Permissible stress 3
geoITletry restrictions 116 Pinned base 57,107-108,138
procedure 109 Plane of roof bracing system 147-149
shear stiffeners 131-134 Plastic
tension stiffeners 117-119,129 analysis 3,56,219-225
top flange connection 128-131 comparison with elastic solution 244
web doubler plate 133-134 design example 227-244
direct mechanism method 220-223
Lateral loads on bored Piers 195-196 frame design 219-245
Lateral restraints for rafters 60-64 iterative mechanism method 223-225
Layout for roof bracing system 145,147-152 lower bound 219-220
Leakage 18 n1echanism method 219
Limit state design 1,5-7 member capacity 226-227,239-242
serviceability 7,21 required plastic moments 219-221
strength 6-7,19 second order effects 225,236
Loads 3,11-30 statical method 219,225
dead 11,21 upper bound 219,220
design example 21-30 web slenderness 227
live 11-12,21-22 Pretension in rods 152-155, 169-171
wind 12-19,22-25 Pressure coefficients 16-19,23-25,38-42,
Load cases 25-29,55-56 44-45,47,49-51
Load combinations 19-20,29-30,56,231-238, Purlins 31-49
273 angle cleats 36
Local pressures 19,25,32,38 as braces 61-64,76-77,147,226
Longitudinal wind loads 16,23,25,28-30, as struts 31,35
40-41,56, 145-146, 163-166,221 axial loadS 35
bolts 36
Masonry walls bridging 33
effect of deflections 77-79 capacity brochures 31,33-34,38
Mechanism method 219-225 cleats 35-36
Methods of analysis 3,55-58,71,219-225 deflection limits 35
Moment design example 38-49
amplification factor 57 ,236 end spans 33-34
modification factor 59-60,226,251-25:2 equivalent UDL's 36-38
Monorail beams 247,254-255 erection 33
local flange bending 255 lapped 33-34,47
member capacity rules 254-255 . lateral buckling 33
maximum unbraced lengths 33-34
Nominal capacity 6-7 orientation ofZ-section 33
bending 58-64,66-67 R-factor method 32,34,47-49
compression 64-66 selection 41-44
Nonlinear analysis 3,56-57,71,82-83 spacing 31,38-46
strength 33-34,38
Out-of-plane buckling 4,33,58-67
Out-of-plane member capacity 58-69 R-factor method 32,34,47-49
Overturning Rafters I ,2,55,58-65
stability against 6 amplified first order analysis 57-58
bottom flange in compression 61-64
P-..1 effects 56.82 bracing forces 76-77
P-o effects 56-57.82 combined actions 65,67-69
AISC DPFB/03 Subject Index

design example 89-99,242-243 Shear deformations 56

major axis compression _capacity 64 Shear stiffeners at knee joint 109, 131-134
minor axis comprciSsibil 'c~p,aci.ty 64 diagonal stiffener design 133
nominal bending capacity 5 8-64 interaction of shear and bending 132-13:
top flange in compression 60-61 shear capacity in absence of bending
Rational buckling analysis 131-132
purlins 33 web doubler plates 133-134
rafters 59-60 Shielding 15,22
Reduction factors for wind loads Slotted holes for end wall column connectfr
area 19,23-24 73
wind direction 14 Slabs 205-209
Regional wind speed 14 cast-in crack inducers 207
Ridgejoint 105,106-107,134-137 contraction joints 206-209
Ridge ventilators 18,24-25 cracking 205,206
Rods 145,152-155 design example 215-217
acceptance sag 152 design principles 205
design example 168-171 dowelled joints 209
end connections 155 expansion joints 206,209
overtensioning 153 joints 206-209
pretension 152-155,169-171 joint spacing 209
Roller shutters 18-19 keyed joints 207-208
Roof reinforcement 209
bracing 145-190 sawn joints 206-207
live load 11-12,21-22 thickness 205-206
sheeting 32 Slenderness reduction factor 59,86,88,93,9
Roof and wall bracing 145-190 99,226,251-252,290
bracing in both end bays 147-152 Spacing
bracing in only one end bay 150-151 frame 32-33
comparison of bracing layouts 150-152 purlins 31,38-46
design example 163-173 Stability 6
effect on_ footing uplift forces 214 Statical method 219,225
end \Vall bracing 72 Strength limit state 6-7,19-20,33
forces 146-147,163-166 Struts
frictional drag 164 (see also Tubes)
in-plane eccentricity at joints 163 CHS, SHS under self weight 4,159-160
layout 147-152 166-168
longitudinal wind forces 146,164 design capacity tables 176-190
side wall bracing 173 end connections 161-163
single tension diagonals 150-151
struts 159-160 Tapered rafters 60,97-99
Roof sheeting 11,32 Tension flange bracing 61-63
Tension members ·
Sag angles 155
ridge line 77-78 rods (see Rods)
rods 152-154 tubes 155
Sawn joints 206 under self \veight 152-158
Second order plastic analysis 225 Terrain and height multiplier 15,22 .
Self weight Terrain category 14-15,22
of horizontal struts 4,159-60 Thunderstorms 17-18
of tension meffibers 4, 152-154 Ties (see Tension members and Rods)
sag 152-154 Top flange connection of knee joint 128-1
Serviceability 7, 13,21,35,46,77-80, Topographic multiplier 15
231,244,263 Trusses 1-2,147
338 Subject Index AISC DPFB/03

Tubes
deflection under self weight 4,159-160
end connections 161-163
flattened ends 161
in compression (see Struts)
in tension 161-163

U-bolts 199-201
Uplift forces on footings 192-195

Ventilators
roof 18,24-25

Wall bracing 145-146,173,276

Wall sheeting 18,19,31,32
Web doubler plates 133-134
Welds
base plate 140
flange 126-128,136-137
web 128,137
Wind loads 3,12-19
area reduction factor 19 ,23-24
design example 22-30
external pressures 16-17 ,23-24
internal pressures 17-19,24-25
local pressure factors 19
on roller shutter doors 18-19
permeability ratio 17-19,25
regional velocities 14,22
terrain categories 14-15,22
topographic effects 15
Wind locks 19
Windo\v shutters 19