DESIGN OF BRACED ToweR 123 Braced Tower Supporti ZONTAL, DIAGONAL AY Bosifions AB | ed L__f . N OF TOWER FLAN ON TONER CEOs s Fic. 6.1. Water tower, Framing dragram ihe, jtucture is contained in these beams and it would be desirable to along these lines. Ay a compromise between these 70, alternatives it is proposed to spuce the cuPmer legs a, af a0 overhang of O87S'm wt each end of the fonk-p16 STEEL FRAME DESIGN EXAMPLES. 1t could be argued that good economy could be obtained by giving a generous overhang to the tank-supporting beams and sloping. the cornet leg» outwards to give the required spread at the base of the toner. This would mean that the pattern of side bracing does not Fepeat, as in the case of parallel legs, and the overall economy of the structure would be impaired. Ic is doubtful whether sloping legs can be justified in any tower less than 25 m high. If the tank being supported is smali, then sloping legs are justifiable ‘A leg spacing of 425 m givcs.a ratio of leg spacing to tower height of 425/18, or approximately | to 4, This may be considered satisfactory 8s giving a good resistance to horizontal deflection due to wind pressure 4 well as giving a compromise solution to the varying economics of tank-supporting beams, side bracings, and tower legs. (©) Side bracings. The tower miay be regarded as four vertical cantilever lattice giders formed together in the shape of a square box. A sider ‘with parallel booms has already been adupted and it now remain lor the layout of the internal bracing to be settled. This bracing must be ‘capable of resisting forces induced by wind pressure as well as providing Festraints at suitable centres for the corner legs and giving three: dimensional stability to the structure. errecrion, DRE TION oreo. ac res} io, 62. Development of side bracing system, When the wind is hiewing in the direction indicated in Fig. 6.2 the N-form of braving shown is economical because the long diagonals ‘are in tension. Sub-frammg is introduced to. provide additonal ‘estraints to the corner Ieps. A similar lattice girder is requited for a reversal of wind direction and will be ‘opposite hand’ in form, The superimposition of these two girder forms gives the arrangement the | up et (a) | oft @ top DESIGN OF BRACED TOWER Rs ‘of bracing shown in Fig. 6 2c). This system of bracing isa duplicate tie system in which the diagonals are designed ay ties, being assumed that only one diagonal is in «peration many one pane, depending Upon the direction of the wind, and the rensining diagonal ts ine sgherative. Analysis is simple and this type of triangulated framing ts ‘extremely effective in practice {Horizontal diagonal cross-bracin. In order to preserve the square tthe structure under conditions of diagonal wind, system of bracing is introduced at positions A—B (Fig. 6 1) (e) Restraint of compression flanges and webs of tank-supporting deams. In order that the flexural bending sess in the beam Ranges may be the maximum allowable. tic angles have been included in the {op tier of beams atthe centre of the span. Web brackets are provided at the support positions of the lower tier of beams to ensure’ that the \wind load occurring on the tank is adequately transmitted ta the tower Portion (see Fig. 6.7). 48 Investigation of Wind Pressures Investigation of wind on open structures raises several interesting points. The shape of the members will affect the intensity of pressure, A fat plate when placed in a wind stream will eshibit different character: istics from an angle section. 11 is possible for the combined effect of {he positive and nezative pressures to exceed the basic unit pressure, ue to the effect of turbulence around the edges of the section. To allow for these conditions it is desirahle to adopt higher values oF junit pressure than would be considered suitable for clad or sheeted structures, Because the structure is open, iti possible for wind to passthrough from the windward side to the leeward side and the exposed surfaces (of each side are required to resist full wind pressure. The size of mem, bers in this type of structure is usually small, and it would be unwise te assume that the windward side affords any shelter or shielding effect pos the leeward side. Bearing in mind the above factors the design ind pressure of 950 Nim® was decided. (2) Conditions of wind loading 10 be considered. (i) Wind blo ormal to side of tower (see Fig. 6.3, Case 1). If sides AB aad CS, of the tower are exposed to wind pressure it may be assumed that this Pressure is resisted equally by the vertical lattice girders in sides AD. ‘and BC. Local bending between A and B, and C and D, is ignored126 STEEL FRAME DESIGN EXAMPLES together with effect of wind blowing parallel to AD and BC. Overturn- ing would take place about the tower centre-iine and legs A and’ B ould resist tension with legs C und D resisting compression. “The braciag in sides AD and BC would become stressed. Overtuming would be resisted by four legs and tno sets of side bracing, A gtrewen yo Fi =P T=} 3e # ss ex = a =] 35 = yl = = = a Pra. 6.3 Effect of wind upon tower. i) Wind blowing across diagonal (see Fig. 6.3, Case II). As in the previous case, local bending may be ignored on the sides of the tower, and the wind load resisted by the vertical lattice girders on all four If side of tower = 1-0, then diagonal = 1-41. Assume this load resolved into two loadings within the sides ofthe tower, Load Eis replaced by loads F and G. Load H is replaced by loads J and K Each of the loads, F, G, J, and K will ako be equal 1 unity (1-0) which ‘means that the vertical girders are loaded equaly for bath Cases Teed 1. When overturning takes place across the diagonal, then leg A resists tension and leg C resisis compression, which means that overturaing is resisted by two legs as against four legs in the previous case, Sune ‘arising this from a design point of view, itis convenient to deien the Vertical bracing to suit Case I loading, but the tower lps should be esigned to suit Case Il loading (8) Evaluation of wind loading. Case I (Wind normal to one face of tower): Wind pressure = 950 N/m? Refer to Fig. 6.4 Wind load on tank = 6 x 275 x 980/10? = 15:7 LN (2-75 repre- Semis depth of tank plus the depth of the tank-supporting beans) s the ‘wer, four load RORELE 4 DESIGN OF BRACED TOWER tt sal Ning a Ls 34. 28 NE a a Ble res Fic. 64. Wind forces acting on tower. Divide equally between windward and leeward faces = 157)2= TASEN. Equivalent load at tp of braced poston of the structure = 7.85% 92ers = SSEN. ae Tn considering the wind load on the braced portion ofthe tower iti necessary to estimate the amount of srface exposed fo the wid. As erage gure of 20 er cent will be chosen to enable the Jenga to ore Wind load on 096 fice of tower = 17-75 x 425 x 9S0/10® x 02 = M43 EN. Each tower fac is exposed to wind pressure and this loading repens on both the windward and leeward faces see Fp 6a) Thecgurient loading on the braced portion of the tower is shown in Fig, 640), This oaing i shared equally hy vwo paral faces, see Fig, 64(0), Horizontal reaction at the base of tower = A544 24642464 12) = DEEN Vertical reactions at each support = (25-4) x 17-75 + 204) x 11-82 + (0-24) x 591425, = 652kNon 28 STEEL FRAME DESIGN EXAMPLES ‘The maximum load in the diagonals will occur in the bottom panel of the fame. Shear on this panel = 22.8 — 2(1-2) =204KN ‘Load in diagonal = 20-4 (diagonal length/pane! width) = 20407.27/425) = 35KN ‘Alternatively, a force diagram may be drawn for the frame. Case Ht (Wind acting across dtfonat): Tag el tak dagen = V2 x 6) 206 2, Length of tower diagonal x 425) = ‘Wind load on tank trons agonal on projected area = 848 x 275 x 950/10" = 22kN ‘Some of the load will be deflected off the tank sides and the load ‘acting across the projected diagonal area may be reduced by some factor, which may be taken as 0-8, [Net wind load on tank = 08 x 222 = 17-76 KN If this load is taken as acting at its centroid of application, then: Overturning moment about base = 17-76 X 19-25 = 342 KN m. Wind load across diagonal of braced portion = 602 x 17-75 x 950/10" = 102kN Exposure as before = 20 per cent, ‘Net wind on two faces = 2 x 102 x 02 = 408 KN. Overturning moment about base = 408 x 8875 = 362 KN'm, Total overturning about base = 342 + 362 = 7O4KN i. ‘This overturning moment is resisted by the two diagonally opposed tower legs acting as a force couple, Load induced into tower legs = 704/602 = 117 kN. ‘This load may be tensile or compressive in nature, depending upon the Airection of the wind oy nits fe we te te DESIGN OF BRACED TOWER 19 49 Design of Tank-supporting Beams ‘The details of design for these members are given in Fig. 6.5. It has already been stated that the tank is composed of prefabricated steel units. Alternatively, cast iron units may be used, but in this case it BEAM MK beam mm 2 UB AT 12m C5. sigue Ss ae ay Weight oF tank $3 a ean 72 a 2k~ 4414 S~ BETES me = Sieaoe Lond PER UBS BIZt3, eae sec Ww 3 i age ae TOTALS naatee serie Peareer enantio 8 (ar ee) gs Peat = tet Use aein 2x S2Kg UB = 2)-49(226- 0:88) a ine Bee yee! <3 cot me USE 25tx Hes 31Kg UB BENDING MOMENT DIAGRAM a Fic. 65. Caloulation sheet. “Tank supporting beams. “will be necessary to limit the deflection in the tamk-supporting beams to prevent damage (othe tank and te joins between tank waits. TBE tank fabricator will usually specify the allowable deflection and this ‘igure should be adopted. In other words, the criterion for design is ot :bie - + Bo ‘STEEL FRAME DESIGN EXAMPLES SO) Design of Tomer Members (6) Comer tex or noright Loading Dead loads: kN ‘Tank (empty) = 80 (data ex makers) Self weight of tower = 70 130 kN 50/4 = 37-5 kN Load per leg Live loads: Water (say 22.m deep) = 6 x 6 x 22 x 10 792KN Load per leg = 792/4 = 198 kN Induced wind = 117 KN per leg (already calculated). Maximum load excluding wind, tank full) = 37-5 + 198 = 235-SKN. Try 1524 x 1524 x 126 angle. A=3703cm* r= 301 em L = 2955 m (distance between horizontals) {= (based on ssumpsion that ech end is held in postion but not eae in reton) rm Yr = 2955)301 = 98 p. = 81 Nimm* So= WIA = BSS x 1043-703 x 10" = 63.7 Nim? Proposed section is Satisfactory Maximum load (including wind, tank full) = 375 + 198 + 117 = 3525 KN, For this coniton the safe ses (p.) may be increased by 2 perce (BS 449: 1969, clause 13). ee cae Pe 81 +25 per cent = 10125 N/mm? So WIA = 3825 x 109/3-703 x 10! = 95-5 Njmm? , Proposed section is satisfactory Maximum load (including wind, tank empty) = 37S = 117 = 795 KN (lension) + ‘The proposed section s obsiously able 1 resist this relatively small tensile free and need not be checked for this loading eo ated). SKN, | po one lata on rs Fn rene over DESIGN OF BRACED TOWER X= 131 (8) Diagonal members. Maximum load 35 kN (tension) If the load condition is considered the size of angle required would be smaller than is desirable because a small angle would be extremely flexible and contribute to lack of rigidity inthe structure as u whole. A limit of 250, should be placed upon the lr ratio for this purpose. Length of diagonal between intersections of diagonals to tower legs = 3630 mm,? = 085 Z, and if ir = 250 then pans 085 250 = 123mm = = Bem A635 x 635 x 7:90 angle having an r, = 1-24 is satisfactory. (©) Subsidiary horizontal members. These bars, although carrying no theoretical loading, are required to provide restraint to the comer legs and to the ends of the diagonal members designed in (b) above. In the plane of the tower sides, each angle is supported at mid-apan by the gusset plate connecting the diagonals, but in the plane per- 10 the tower face the angle is supported only at its connec tions with the tower legs. For this reason itis necessary to have the og ofthe angle ottending frm ihe fs ofthe oes. “Fry 162 x 685 x 790 angle with the 762 leg oustanding. b= 085 x 2125 = 1810mm Mr, = 1810/13-2 = 137 1; = 085 x 4250 = 3600 mm ey = 3600/23-5 = 153 Both values are less than 180 and the proposed size of angle chould be adequate to afford the required support to the corner legs and to the diagonal bracing. (@) Main horizontal members. Load 204KN (compression). In Addition to the axial load this member is required to provide restraint to the commer legs. For this reason the i/r ratio will be fimited to 18Q. rather than the higher figure of 250 which s appropriate to membew carrying wind ’ Tiy 2635 x 635 x 7-90 angles ‘starred’ and battened together as shown in Fig. 6.6. This type of double angle section isto be pre- ferred to one in which the angles are placed back to back on each side of a gusset, resulting in a small space between the angles which is inacoessible for purposes of scraping and printing,12 STEEL FRAME DESIGN EXAMPLES Lm 425m 1m 085 x 4250 = 360mm Ir 36007241 = 150 p, = 40 jam? Som WIA = 204 x 10°/1896 x 10° = 11 N/mm? ‘The proposed section is understressed but it should be remembered that it spans 4-25 m and is required to provide restraint to the comer legs of the tower. (©) Horizontal diegonal cross-bracing. This system of bracing is important to the overall rigidity of the siructure because it offsets any tendency for twist or torque to develop in the structure due to peculiar conditions of wind lotding. Iti extremely dificult to assess ‘Try 869 x 762 & 7-82 angle (88-9 leg vertical). Ir = 316/158 = 238 ((= 1-25. where Lis half the tower diagonal) ‘This is less than 250 which is acceptable for subsidiary members but it ‘may be argued that a Section is required to offset deflection ‘due to self weight. If depth is limited to the diagonal length/S0 then section with a depth of 6020/50 = 121 mm is required and a 101-6 x 762 x 7-90 angle should be adequate bearing in mind the intersection Of the angles at mid-span will help in limiting the deflection. S1_ Design of Foundation to Resist Uplift (@) Concrete Block Case 1. Compressive load in tower. Comer leg = 3525KN. * If safe ground pressure = 210 kN/m*, area required = 352-5/210 = 1468 m?. Weight of concrete = 24 kN/m. Allow a depth of block = 06 m. Weight of concrete block = 1°68 x 046 x 24 = 242 kN. ‘This is obviously insufficient to anchor the corner leg for Case IT loading in which an uplift of 79-5 KN is present. (Case Il. Tensile load in tower corner leg = 795 KN. Allow a factor of safety against uplift of 15 Weight of concrete block required = 79-5 + 50 per cent = 119-25 kN ered 1 is ffsets ue to sess but it sction Y then 16x ection ase IL DESIGN OF BRACED TOWER 133 Let = length of side of a square block and d/2 = depth. Then, AD x 24 = 11928 22m Say, 22m square x 1-1 m deep. (B) Anchorage. Uplift due to wind on each corner leg = 79-5 KN. Allowable stress in anchor bolts on area across root of thread = 130N/mm*, AAs the stress in the anchor bolts is induced by wind the safe stress ‘may be increased by 25 per cent to 132 N/mm, Allow three bolts per base, 795 x 108 Area required per bolt = 75" 2" = 175 mm? ‘A 20mm dia bolt has a cross-sectional area at the root of thread equal to 215 mm? and is satisfactory. ‘To ensure that the anchor bolts are adequately secured in the concrete block the system of anchor channels shown in Fig. 6.6 is included. S2 Check on Estimated Data Ina structure ofthis nature the exposed area of steelwork presented 10 the wind od the sefwelht ofthe srctre are important factors in the stability ofthe structure. Both factors were estimated in order (0 allow the design to proceed and the data used should be veried before the proposed design is finally accepted. A check on the pro- visional data used in this example shows that the original estimates were substantially correct. 53. Design of Comections Typical details of suitable connections are shown in Figs. 66 and 6.7 Black bolts are used throughout and hecause of the size of the tower itis unlikely that it wil be erected before delivery and transported in several lage pieces. The connections such as gusset plates, base plate, and cap material for the corner legs could be shop-bolted to the appropriate members for despatch to the site, Gusset plates are uged at all bracing connection points to give some degree of rigidity even though adequate width of material may be present o accommodate the necessary connection bolts, as in the case of diagonal bracing connected to the corner legs.s Wx o\ 14 STEEL FRAME DESIGN EXAMPLES. oasouat SECTION AA eomen el a3 xeb5 7900, wanna nine ine GUSSET PLATES 10 THICK Base ruaTe, 2125 eae PLANON BASE Oy Pease ANCHOR CHANNELS « ex vec t00 Lone Fi. 6.6, Part elevation of tower side. 54 Provision of Access to the Tank vis unlikely that frequent access to the tank will be required and a system of ladders served by intermediate landings is shown in outline fon Fig. 6.1. Each ladder should be 250mm between siringers with rungs at 250 mm centres and provided with safety loops on the upper ae eet | J and a with DESIGN OF BRACED TOWER 135 28.4 166 » 315g UB E688) pats 92 523 UB) Vv 2510146» Bby UB. coRNER He'rces bx790 Teen, " ars [aso PART PLAN ON Tank SUPPORTING Beams spin 1520 5249 Pun CORNER LEG. ese Pri cnamneu PLAN ON cA oF conneR Cee PART SIDE ELEVATION AT HEAD oF TOWER Fio. 6.7. Det of tank beams and head of tower. {wo flights. A slope is indicated to the ladders to give ease in climbing. If Frequent access is required to the tank then consideration should be siven fo the provision of a staircase. ‘55 Maintenance of the Structure f In view of the fact that the structure is exposed to the weather itis important that some attention be given to maintenanos.C106 - STEEL FRAME DESIGN EXAMPLES ;, A minimum thickness of material should be specified for external thickness of 10 mm may be considered advisable, 8) The minimum acceptable finish should consist of grt blasting ail material and coating with good quality primer paint before delivery, followed by a further two coats of paint at ste after erection. Relatively tore expensive would be galvanizing the whole structure or spraying ‘with metal. Such a treatment would be likely to last 15 years and ove, 4 long period proves les expensive than a 3 r 5 year programme of ing. GAs an ateraaive to mild sel x copper being or weatherag sea might bea feb proposition, Thee Secu Taqeewo Paes And ovr the fst two yea of life achieve « prise poten hee which prevents further eterioraion. The cole of is ene upon environmestal codons. These grades oft ease ees pensive inal, ae they to prove economia! veh 6 eek ot tie and are becoming increasingly popular for exer aaa (oy) In Fig. 66 it wl be noted thatthe tower come lee echoes set up aboveground lvl to prevent corrosion aking place uhce rod ofcur he sal bas vas potonel foe ngs (9) No details should be adopted which tehave a6 waterraps. Al desolate anges shoud te areal dtd otha yon ‘exposed for maintenance purposes 3 ‘ ‘ E f i } 5 t i 56 Inge: @R Os ‘monl @o for b Dit abov: @T of su a teot fabri mee catia feabt order tok