ROOF SYSTEMS BEHAVIOR Progress Report SIMPLE SPAN 2-PURLIN TESTS WITH VARIOUS RESTRAINT SYSTEMS by Ahmad Ghazanfari and Thomas M. Murray Principal Investigator Sponsored by Metal Building Manufacturers Association Research Division Report No. FSEL/MBMA 82-01 February 1982 Second PrintingTABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES - LIST OF TABLES + -~ ~~ Chapter I. INTRODUCTION - . - II, TEST DETAILS ... 2.1 Test Components . . 2.2 Test Set-up... - 2.3 Instrumentation . - 2.4 Testing Procedure 2.5 Supplementary Tests III, TEST RESULTS - ~~~ - 3.1 General... .. 3.2 Test Series I+ + - 3.3 Test Series Ir - - Oot) tect tire = | Re 7576 6 5 oo G 3.6 Test V - +--+ oe) fest Vo 3.8 IV. SUMMARY AND OBSERVATIONS 1 APPENDIX A - TEST I RESULTS APPENDIX B - TEST II RESULTS APPENDIX C - TEST III RESULTS APPENDIX D - TEST IV RESULTS APPENDIX E - TEST V RESULTS APPENDIX F ' TEST VI RESULTS Results of Supplementary ‘Tests: Page di viiiLIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Test set-ups»... ee ee ee ee 7 2. Cross-Section Measurements... .- . uw 3. Panel Shape .. ee. ee eee ee eee i 4. Intermediate and Torsional Restraint Brace Connections ..... +++ ++ 15 5. Location of Strain Gages... 1. + 7 6. Location of Displacement Transducers . . v7 ( ffes Seep 20 _8. Load vs. Deflection Relationships from Cee 32 9. Fvs. Deflection ........... 33 A.1 Instrumentation Location, Test I... . ALB A.2 Measured Purlin Dimensions, Test I. . . Ad A.3 AISI Purlin Analysis, Test I West Purlin AS A.4 AISI Purlin Analysis, Test I East Purlin AL6 A.5 Load vs. Vertical Deflection, Test I. . AT A.6 Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force at Rafter, Test Io... eee ee eee A.B A.7 Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force at Points, Test Is... ++ ee ee eee A.o A.8 Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force at Midspan, ‘vest I $4565 4-c. A.10Figure AL A.10 All A.12 A13 Ald ALIS A.16 Stress Distribution at 99 plf, Test I Stress Distribution at 198 plf, Test I Vertical Loading vs, Lateral Dis- placements, Test T... ee ee ee Instrumentation Location, Test I-A. . Measured Purlin Dimensions, Test I-A . AISI Purlin Analysis, Test I-A Interior Purlin ... 2. ee eee AISI Purlin Analysis, Test I Exterior Purlin. 2. ee eee ee Load vs. Vertical Deflection, Toet tR Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force at Raters ost Ion 2) 2 2 Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force at % Points, Test IAL. ee ee Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force at Midspan, Test I-A. 2... ee eee Distribution of Brace Forces Along Parlin; fest Ions Vertical Loading vs. Lateral Dis- placement, Test I-A... ee ee Instrumentation Location, Test II . . Measured Purlin Dimensions, Test II . AISI Purlin Analysis, Test II West Purlin AISI Purlin Analysis, Test II East Pirin ee Load vs. Vertical Deflection, Test II Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force 6' From Midspan, Test II... .... Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force 4! From Midspan, Test II... . ++ - -idit Page AJL A.12 A.13 ALIS A.16Figure Bg B.9 B.10 Bell Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force 2' From Midspan, Test II... 1... Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force at Midspan, Test II... 1... eee Stress Distribution at 99 plf, Test IT Stress Distribution at 132 plf, rest ee Vertical Loading vs. Lateral Dis- placements, Test II... .. 2... Instrumentation Location, Test eee Measured Purlin Dimensions, Teste AISI Purlin Analysis, Test II-A West Ce AISI Purlin Analysis, Test II-A bast Curlin Load vs. Vertical Deflection, Test eee Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force 6° From Midspan, Test II-A ... Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force 4' From Midspan, Test II-A .. 2... Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force 2' From Midspan, Test II-A .. 2... Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force at Midspan, Test II-A . 2... ww Vertical Loading vs. Lateral Dis- placement, Test II-A. .. 2... Instrumentation Location, Test eee Measured Purlin Dimensions, Test ee vive Page B.23 B.24Figure B.25 AISI Purlin Analysis, Test II-B West Purlin. ...... ee... AISI Purlin Analysis, Test II-B East Purlin. .. 2... e+e ee Load vs. Vertical Deflection, Test II-B ee et ee Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force @ North Rafter, Test II-B... .. Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force @ South Rafter, Test II-B... .. Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force 8' From Midspan, Test II-B... . Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force 6' From Midspan, Test II-B ..... Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force 4" Prom Midspan, Test II-B... . Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force 2" From Midspan, Test II-B... . Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force @Midspan, Test II-B... 1. Distribution of Intermediate Brace Forces Along Span at Interior Purlin, feet Distribution of Intermediate Brace Forces Along Span Between Purlins, Test II-B. ee Vertical Loading vs. Lateral Dis- placements, Test II-B... . .. Instrumentation Location, Test III Measured Purlin Dimensions, Test IIT AISI Purlin Analysis, Test III West Purlin. 2... ee eee BL38Figure c.4 AISI Purlin Analysis, Test IIT East Purlin. 2 ee eee ee Load vs. Vertical Deflection, jest ee Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force at Rafter, Test III ..... 2... Stress Distribution, Test III... Vertical Loading vs. Lateral Dis- placements, Test III ...... Instrumentation Location, Test IV . Measured Purlin Dimension, Test IV AISI Purlin Analysis, Test IV West Burin ee AISI Purlin Analysis, Test IV East Purlin -. 1-5 -+ +s sss Load vs. Vertical Deflection, Test Bl 6 600d 0G oe Geo Gob 6 Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force @ North _ Points, Test IV... .. Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force @ South ¥ Points, Test IV... . . Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force at Midspan; feet CV 9 3 Distribution of Brace Force Along Span at 66 plf, Test IV... .. Stress Distributions at 99 plf, Mest ty Stress Distributions at 231 plf, Test IV. ee ee et ee Vertical Loading vs. Lateral Dis- placements, Test IV... .... ae PageFigure Page E,1 Instrumentation Location, Test V. . . E.2 E,2 Measured Purlin Dimensions, Test V . . E.3 E,3 AISI Purlin Analysis, Test V West Borin E.4 E.4 AISI Purlin Analysis, Test V East Gorin E.5 E.5 Load vs. Vertical Deflection, Test V . E.6 E.6 Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force at Rafter, Test Vi... 1 ee ee eee E.7 E.7 Stress Distribution at 99 plf, Test Ce ee E.8 E.8 Stress Distribution at 165 plf, Test V E.9 E.9 Vertical Loading vs. Lateral Dis- placements, Test V.......--4 E.10 F.1 Instrumentation Location, Test VI. . F.2 F.2 Measured Purlin Dimensions, Test VI . F.3 F.3 AISI Purlin Analysis, Test VI West Porlin ee F.a F.4 AISI Purlin Analysis, Test VI East Dirk F.5 F.5 Load vs. Vertical Deflection, Test VI F.6 F.6 Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force at North Rafter, Test VI ........ F.7 F.7 Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force at South Rafter, Test VI... 1.1... F.8 F.8 Vertical Loading vs. Lateral Dis- placementer Test Vio 9 2 2. F.9 ~vii-LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Test Matrix 2... ee 3 Measured Z-Purlin Dimensions... 2... 12 S. SPurdin Properties 0 13 Summary of Test Results ......... 24 Tensile Coupon Test Results ....... 31 6. Comparison of Results at 99 plf per Purlin 35 Comparison of Results at 165 pl£ per Doin 36 -viii-CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A research program to study the behavior of metal building roof systems has been undertaken at the Fears Structural Engineering Laboratory, University of Oklahoma, under the sponsorship of the Metal Building Manufacturers Association (MBMA). The purpose of this research is to de- velop criteria for the design of roof systems as opposed to individual structural components. The study is currently limited to cold-formed C- or Z-purlin supported "conventional" roof systems. A conventional system is defined as one con- ‘sisting of a ribbed panel fastened to purlins at closely spaced intervals using self-drilling fasteners. Standing seam systems or systems not requiring secondary framing mem- bers (purlins) are not currently being considered in the research program. As a starting point two assumptions are made: (a) For design purposes, the stress distribution on a cross-section can be approximated assuming con- strained bending, e.g. £ = My/I (b) The failure criteria (allowable stresses) in the current AISI specifications are adequate. The first phase of the research is to determine the necessary lateral restraint so when assumptions (a) and (b) areused, an adequate factor of safety exists. In the context used here, lateral restraint refers to the force and stiff- ness required to prevent lateral movement of Z-purlins to a degree that assumption (a) is valid or to prevent roll of C-purlins. This first progress report summarizes the results of nine simple span Z-purlin tests conducted with the ob- jectives of (1) determining the effect of intermediate lat- eral braces, torsional restraint braces at the rafter and combinations on Z-purlin strength, (2) determining the mag- nitude and distribution of required restraint forces and (3) obtaining data for use in developing design methodology for restraint systems. Each test consisted of 19 ft. 7% in. simple span loading to failure of two Z-purlins. Four para- meters were varied in the test series: intermediate bracing torsional restraint at the rafter, panel shear stiffness (Q), and panel torsional restraint (F). Six combinations of the Parameters were tested as shown in Table 1 with purpose and configuration as follows: fest I. 19 ft. 7% in. simple span; two Z-purlins; gravity loading; intermediate discrete braces and torsional restraint. Purposes: To determine the effect of intermediate dis- crete braces and of torsional restraint at the rafters on lateral movement. To determine the magnitude of these restraining forces. To serve as base data.Table 1, Test Matrix Paraneter| Inter- | Torsional| Panel Shear| Torsional Renarks mediate| Restraint] Stiffness | Restraint Bracing) @ Rafter Q F @ Pee Test I x x x x Base Test seg x Greased top Flg. mm x x x v x x x v x x No side lap fasteners vi x x x Same as TIL except panel connections reinforced *Intermediate braces @ 2'-0" o.c.Configuration: Intermediate braces at ¥ points; torsional restraint at the rafters, Test It, 19 ft, 7% in, simple span; two Z-purlins; gravity loading; continuous lateral restraint. Purpose: To measure the lateral force required to restrain Z-purlins if restraint is pro- vided only at the compression flange. ‘To determine the distribution of restraining forces when lateral restraint is provided. Configuration: The top flange of the Z-purlin was greased and panel to purlin fasteners were not installed, Sidelap fasteners were in- stalled. Base angles fastened to the panel were used to prevent excessive horizontal movement of the panel assembly. Lateral support was provided by 11 sets of equally spaced intermediate braces attached to the compression portion of the web near the compression flange and anchored to an ex- ternal support. This configuration approx- imates infinite panel shear stiffness, Q. Test TIT. 19 ft. 7% in, simple span; two Z-purlins; gravity ~ loading; torsional restraint at the rafters. Purpose: fo determine the magnitude of torsional restraining forces required at rafters. Configuration: Torsional restraint provided at the rafter locations; no other restraint provided. Test Iv, 19 ft. 7% in. simple span; two Z-purlins; gravity loading; intermediate lateral restraint, Purpose: To determine the magnitude and distribution of intermediate restraining forces when no torsional restraint is provided at rafter.Configuration: Intermediate lateral braces were provided at the quarter points. No torsional re- straint at the rafter was provided. Test V. 19 £t. 7% in, simple span; two Z-purlins; gravity loading; torsional restraint at the rafters; no side lap fasteners, Purpose: To determine the effect of panel shear stiffness on purlin strength. Configuration: Lateral restraint was provided at the rafters but no intermediate braces were used. Side lap fasteners were not in- stalled so that the panel shear stiff- ness, Q, would be minimum. Test VI. 19 ft. 7 in. simple span; two Z-purlins; gravity loading; torsional restraint at the rafter; reinforced panel at the rafter. Purpose: Same as Test III except near the rafter location side lap fasteners were doubled and the panel to purlin connection was reinforced to prevent premature panel shear failure. Configuration: Same as Test III. Details of the test set-up are shown in Figure 1. The purlins were supported by short sections of typical building rafters and simulated live load was applied using concrete blocks. The purlins were oriented with the top flanges facing in the same direction. Intermediate brace restraint and torsional restraint at the rafter was suppliedusing sections of steel tubing with threaded stud inserts. The braces were attached to the purlin as shown in Figures 1 and 4, and anchored to a relatively stiff structural mem- ber. The restraining member was a 20 in. deep standard open web steel joist with a cold formed C-section tack welded to the compression flange to prevent lateral buckling as shown in Figure 1. Four brace configurations were used in the test series. Figure 1(b) shows the location of intermediate quarter point braces and torsional restraint braces, Figure 1(c) shows the brace configuration to simulate infinite panel stiffness, Figure 1(d) shows the location of torsional re- straint at the rafters and Figure 1(e) shows the configuration used for intermediate braces only. The tést purlins were all cold-formed from the same coil in a continuous operation. ‘he test set-ups were con- structed by laboratory personnel using standard industry pro- cedures. Care was taken to ensure that the purlin webs were vertical before installation of the panel. The following is a complete description of the testing procedure and test results.Intermediate Braces . Support Joist for Intermediate Braces }____*"* Cold~formed Channel Purlin Dial Gage—” m Dial Gage Laboratory Floor (a) Elevation of Test Set-up 5t-o" stg feet Torsional Restraint Brace at Rafter | Joist Support |b Bracing Calibrated Dynamometer N | _& Potne Bracing | Torsional Restraint Brace at Rafter (b) Plan View - Test I Figure 1, Test Set-ups‘Torsional Restraint N [Intermediate Braces Joist Support 19-755!" © = Calibrated Dynamometer Intermediate Bracing @ 2" o.c. +} EEE Torsional Restraint (c) Plan View - Test T c ca Torsional Restraint |_-Support Joist © = Calibrated Dynamometer LA fforsional Restraint (4) Plan View - Tests III, V and VI Figure 1. Test Set-ups, Cont. -8-1 st-o" -f % Point Bracing NN Support Joist c © Are bracing 19'=734 % Point Bracing © = Calibrated Dynamoneter (e) Plan View - Test IV Figure 1, Test Set-ups, Cont.CHAPTER IT TEST DETAILS 2,1 Test Components Z-Purlins. The Z-purlins used for this test were supplied by MBMA. All Z-purlins were carefylly measured and the dimensions are shown in Table 2. Table 3 shows cross- sectional properties and load and deflection data for a uni- formly loaded simple span of 19 ft. 74 in. calculated using AISI criteria with an assumed yield stress of 56 ksi. (Meas- ured yield stress averaged approximately 58 ksi, Table 5.) Panels and Fasteners. The panels were conventional panels with profile as shown in Figure 3. Sheet size was 3 ft. by 10 ft. and nominally 26 ga. Self-drilling fasteners, No, 12 by 1 in. were used for both sheet-to-sheet and sheet- to-purlin connection. Sheet-to-purlin fasteners were uni- formly spaced at 12 inches on center and sheet-to-sheet fasteners were spaced at 30 in. on center (four per lap). 2.2 Test Set-up General details of the test set-up are shown in Figure 1. To provide free rotation at the supports, the purlins were bolted to knife-edge bearings using } in. dia- meter machine bolts through the bottom flange of the purlin. -10-Z *8r3 20sy vy | sizo} ooo} exo] osz| vy | srz-o | sero] evo] ve-z| sao. | ere) a vy | siz-o| cero] asco] wz] ay | arzo | ovs-o| ayo] on'z| ceoro | ere] an | w | ose-o[ oso] exo] ovz| oy | osz-o | axxo] evo] ev-z| ocoro | eeu) a vy | oszro| oos-o} oro] ax-z| ev | osz-o | o0so| ovo] sv-z| teoro | sez] | * zy | osz-o| oos-o| eso] sez] ev | erz-o | oos-o| sso] ee-z| se0-0 | orel a tw | oszro| cero] sso} exe] ty | etz-o | reso} sso] vz] vaoro- | core) am | zy | osero| cero] aro] osz{ ev [-osz-o | uevo] ovo] cc-z| oeoro | wre] a sy | t92-0]. oos-o| asco} sez] zy | tez-0 | oosro] erro] sv-z| zeoro | ove | am | av | eiz-o] cevro| exo] zvz] vy | etz-o | oso] sro] oc-z| cao | coe] a vy | oszo| cero] avo] evz| ev | osz-0 | o0s-o} seo] ve-z| ceo-0 | ose | wr | ero] oso] evo] ov-z] sy | otz-0 | oos-0| exo] osz| sa00 | ez] a ty | ose-o| oos-o| exo] tsz| zm | osz-o | oosro| 6x0] zv:z| r60°0 | ove | am | zy | osz-o| oos-o] exo] uxz| ev | ozo | ovo] oso] vz) ocoro | sre] a ey | stz0| oos-o} oxo] os-z| ev | erz-0 | oso} os-o| ov-z| o6o'o | 96-2] a | vw | ose-o] ceva] ts-of zx-z] ev | aszo | 005-0] oso] sez} 060-0 | ooe| a ec | osz-o| oos-o| ovo] zxz| ty | osz-o | zenro] eco] ov-z| osoro | nore | nm | sy | coz-o| esv-o] os-o| ese] a | coro | sox-0| oso] vez) cooro | ave] a vw | tez-o] sov-0] os-o| 9s] | tez-o | eon-0] osro| os:z| cooro | zrre| wm | cap | cw | ce [og [eae [ope | cyp cp] eep [ce cep] cp [ow ae oO] ot] et] tt] ee | ely be 03308 on suoysuawyq UFTang - z peanseay *Z eTGeL are“(G eTQeL) T9UsTY ATIUBTTS exe sosseras PTETs poanseay +184 [¢ Jo $80339 PTOFA pounsse UP uo paseq axe sUOFIETNITED TIY :930N wo330q = 4 do sa eoar0|asczx [se-vse| crn [eae | sore | ave [re-ze | os-cc |ovree | -2] are] core |as-zx] care [core las-ar| a auero | cere fovrcse| ac-mt fosce | sce | ese [oerze | ov-ee | vec |o-2| sore] gore |ee-21] core Joore feerer|n |” e260 [or-zi fewese| wre [ee | coe | evra [sz-ce | over | oo-ce ore Ver-zi| sore foore Joven] a erer0 | aerzr J s0°sor | oarat [acre | once | eee force | once | ovree | ore sc-ai] ore fave facrai] exer foxes [rerace | ozmr [owe | ose | ose fecar [oovce [once [aoe vezi] 90° foore focven| a 6-0 | t0°2s | 99-262 | oorvr [cere | ove | one [eseze [ovree | os-ce fer-z| sore] zore [uo-er] ro°e feore feorer| | eoa-o [eos foorere | vest [ose | sore | cove [over [ovee fooree [ree] exe] vere [eres] eave frre [eorer] a savr0 [occzn |ve-n1e| a6 | re-6 | ors | cave Jacree fosree |ooree Jeore| sere| ozre fau-er| seve foare foeren | a | oreo |sorts [ou-vae| so-ct [ove | ova | exe [ewree [over [ovrce [oor] roe] sez [sorr] wore [oore [sour] a s0oro | ccrt1 [oprone | rscer fone | o2re | oare [oorec [os-ce Jov-ee Jouve] e6rz| sera | cernn| core foare foertt| a [on o96-0 facrtt |se-osz | worer foure | ceva | oc-e [toze [os-ce |osce [ere] oo-z| ooze ferni| eoz foore ern] a caro os-zx [errcor | ovat [errs | a6re | 99-8 [re-ee fopree |on-ec [ao-z| oz-c| utce | es-er] ozre Jerre fes-zn] a [O™ wus0 [osrzi [orrere| aove [acre | cove | cove [aoree foorce [oorce [ure] exe] eee fower| cere ore [owrar wee-0 [oer Jou-tor | ascot fezrs | 9e-0 | ops |uzee fossce |osree | oo°z] ere} ore | aerea] ere force [over] m | 6-0 | ss-z1 [er-soc] osvor [cvs | ove | vee [cree [osrce |osree [zoe] vel oie [sees] ore fore fecvai| a soe-0 | verzx fov-soc | erat favre | sors | one far-cc fooree | occ [oore] seve] or-e | seer] seve force foccen| a |” veo fore fave | seat [ove serve [owree force [oe] eee] oat acer] a sew-oferer|cs-eze| asa | e001 cos |sc-oe |ov-ec | over |er-z] seve] ere covet en [ep [oan] on | 20 |o-20[e-30 | fore faen [oon [c= |c on Ge) ooo] "s_ | "| | | we fy ay | | Ls | 's ve | ae werseTseg [Sree | Gs) AN wwe aia — 0% (isz9'6r - weds ‘Fs% 9¢ = %g) soyazadorg uETIng - z “¢ TAPE -13-The knife edge bearings were supported on rafter sections which in turn were supported on short column sections resting on the laboratory floor. Two % in. diameter rollers were inserted between the rafter sections and column to allow the rafter sections to rotate. Intermediate and torsional restraint braces were fabricated from 3/4 in. diameter steel electrical conduit Nuts were welded into each end of the conduit and a 9 in. length of 4 in. diameter threaded stud was inserted. Holes were drilled at the proper location in the purlin webs and connection was made using half moon and flat washers together with a standard nut as shown in Figure 4(a) for a tension brace connection. The washers and nuts were placed on the opposite side of the web for a compression brace connection. A standard 20 in, deep bar joist was used to react the intermediate and torsional restraint brace forces. The joist was connected to one side of the rafters so that the Plane of its web was horizontal. The brace connection to joist is shown in Figure 4(b). Two eye bolts were used to eliminate rotational restraint in the connection. The cal- culated stiffness of the supporting joist was 6.71 kips/in for a single soncentrated force at midspan. For all tests, the torsional restraint braces at the rafter locations were placed as near to the top flange as possible. Except for Test II, all intermediate braces were located at the web mid-depth. For Test II, the intermediate braces were placed at the same relative location as used for the torsional restraint braces. See Figure 4(a).3/4" & Conduit Location of torsional restraint braces and intermediate braces for Test II. eaten - gexiels ‘“~Threaded Stud Location of intermediate braces except Test IL (a) Tension Brace to Purlin Connection Byepoit Coupling Nut Supporting Joist (b) Brace Connection to Supporting Joist Intermediate and Torsional Restraint Brace Connections “15+For all tests except II, the panels were connected to the purlins using self drilling fasteners through the panel and the purlin top flange; ror Test II, the top flange of each purlin was greased and the panels were laid directly on the flanges. Standard base angles were fastened to the “Panel on each side of the flanges with approximately % in. clearance to prevent the panel assembly from sliding off of the purlins. In all tests except V, adjacent panels were connected using side-lap fasteners. In Test V no side lap fasteners were installed. In Test VI, a base angle was placed parallel to the panel ribs at the rafter locations and bolted to the top flange of the purlins. Fasteners were in- stalled at 6 in. on center through the panel and angle and side lap fastener spacing in the four outside laps was de- creased to 6 in. on center. 2.3 Instrumentation Instrumentation consisted of calibrated dynamometers, strain gages, dial gages, and linear displacement trans- ducers. The calibrated dynamometers were typical intermediate or torsional restraint braces with a full strain gage bridge installed at approximately the brace centerline. The braces were then calibrated using a universal testing machine. Calibrated dynamometer locations are shown in Figures 1(b), (c), (a) and (e) for the various tests. Strains near the midspan of the outside purlin (the aFigure 5. Location of Strain Gages + outside Roof Panel Aransducer Supporting Joist I stand Transducer [2] ct-peam Stang ¢ beam Stand Figure 6. Location of Displacement Transducers -171-purlin farthest away from the supporting joist) were measured at 10 locations using strain gages. Figure 5 shows the lo- cation of the gages at the cross-section. One gage was in- stalled on each lip, two gages on each flange, and four gages equally spaced along a vertical line on the web, one sided only. Five linear displacement transducers were used to measure vertical and lateral displacement of the purlins. Two transducers were used to measure vertical deflection at the midspan of the purlins. Three transducers were used to measure lateral displacement, also at the midspan. As shown in Figure 6, two transducers measured horizontal displacement of the bottom flange and one transducer was used to measure horizontal displacement of the top flange of the outside purlin, Dial gages were placed directly underneath the joist Support points on the rafter as shown in Figure l(a). Data from these gages permitted a correction for girder deflection. Gravity load was measured by the number of concrete blocks placed on the test purlins. Each block was known to weigh 33 + 0.1 pounds. 2.4 esting Procedure At the beginning of each test, approximately 20% of the calculated load using the AISI criterion and constrained bending assumption was applied without recording any data and then removed. Following this initial loading, zero -18-readings were recorded for all dynamometers, strain gages, displacement transducers and the dial gages. The system was then loaded in 16.5 plf increments. After each increment, readings of all instrumentation were recorded. The system was loaded until failure occurred and the failure mode and other observations recorded for each test. 2.5 Supplementary Tests Coupon Tests, Standard tensile coupon tests were made from samples cut from typical purlin and panel material. Results from two tests of each material type are given in Section 3,8. Identical material was used in all tests. Rotational Rigidity Tests, The rotational rigidity factor "F" of the panel to purlin connection used in the testing program was measured by personnel of the Butler Manu- facturing Research Center, Grandview, Missouri. Two tests were conducted using the procedure described in the paper “Connection Strength in Thin Metal Roof Structures" by R.W. Haussler and R.F. Pabers published in the proceedings of the Second Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, St. Louis, Missouri, October 1973, Material taken from the lot of purlins and panels supplied for the research program was used in the F-tests. A schematic of the test set-up is shown in Figure 7. For each test a length of panel was supported at one end with solid hardwood blocks contoured to match the cross-section of the test panels and clamped between two support channels. -19-dn-aag asaya “1 ean8ra soe noaog soonpeusay 5] auouaoe dsr eens 2Tqe9 wopsUdyAt midlength of the cantilever, a Z-purlin was attached using self-drilling fasteners at 12 in. on center. Near the free end a displacement transducer was attached to the panel. A thin flexible steel strap was then attached between the pur- lin flange opposite the panel and the transducer measuring cable. Load was applied using a motor driven screw jack and a tension cable connected to the purlin flange as shown in Figure 7, Vertical adjustment of this cable was made to ensure load application parallel to the horizontal axes of the test panel. The load was monitored using a calibrated load cell. Load was applied in increments to cause approximat- ely 0.50 in. of lateral deflection at the purlin flange. The load was held constant for a time period of 1-3 minutes at each load increment to obtain equilibrium. The load was increased until either panel buckling or severe panel de~ formation occurred. The rotational rigidity factor "F" was determined from (2) where P = applied load per unit width of panel, Hy, = load height (see Figure 7), H) = displacement transducer height (see Figure 7) and 4 = horizontal displacement of the purlin flange. For units of inches and pounds, F has the unit lb-in/in/radian, Results are given in Section 3.8. -21-Diaphragm Tests. Diaphragm tests (Q-tests) were not completed in time for inclusion in this progress report. ~22-CHAPTER TIT TEST RESULTS 3.1 General Test results consist of load versus deflection data, load versus dynamometer data, photographic record and de~ scription of failure load. Load vs. deflection data includes plots of simulated live load vs. vertical deflection at the centerline of each purlin, and simulated live load vs. lateral deflection of top and bottom flanges of the outside purlin and the bottom flange of the inside purlin. The vertical deflection plots also include theoretical deflection as com- puted assuming constrained bending. swi4 —3eaET qa) where I = the moment of inertia of the purlin with respect to the horizontal axis, w = uniform load, L = span, and E = modulus of elasticity. Simulated live load vs. intermediate brace or torsional restraint brace forces for at least one half of the span are also included. Results for Tests I to VI are found in appendices A through E, respectively. Table 4 is a summary of results and a detailed description of each test is found in the ap- propriate appendix. -23-“squauea9uy peoy jo uoyqeotTade aya Buyanp pouyequyeu sem Suppeor yo Aagowmss *peangyaaszp Aqwx03yUN sen quwaIDUT TeTaITe nua 2upunsse poreTnoTeD sen PeOT agnqye; a9 ‘guouaToUT poe w BuFInp pezan9D0 eanTTes 3] :920K “paosogutaa sen | “gan s0/pue e8uey3 doa uoraseuuos uFTand 03 jauea | aya Jo BuTTyONg TeICT ovoez c*962 ua *eazoddns avou poTrey uoyiveuues ufTand 03 Tue spottoa sugtana 6161 9662 A (1 *B¥a) ‘sen presoa portor qa 20/pue avery jin suyTand sya jo pus yazon | 243 30 BUFTIONG TeDCT oriez 9°26z at sazoddng 2au partes spotter urtand uofaseuues ufTand 03 Taueg | aya Jo woyaz0d toque9 ore6t zie im svoyssaaduo> uy 502019 Supping TeraeT aaeypauzeauy ona apysang aBueys uoysuey Zeer L087 speot ou pay2ze9 so2eaq azeypauzeauT [ea900s sxon0 paTToa surqang coset £7062 et “parses worsts aupeagsea aveaq 33e7pow20qUT +x9n0 paTtor surting orzct wore n +qen a0/pue aSuet3 Jo Surpjonq 18907 19zz z°s0¢ wi + paayedaa exon suppand !8urav9q “gan a0/pue Burt puo sen oantyey TeraTuT 30 Surpjang Te90T 6-612 er9re 1 (Td) peor (314) Svypuag syapuoy apoy eanqreg | aanqyeg Tenaoy | pourerasucg/siy | “on 3521 saqnsoy asaq jo Axeumng) -y oTger -24-In the discussion of test results that follows, xterior" or "external" refers to the purlin farthest from the lateral support joist and "interior" or “internal” refers to the purlin closest to the support joist. Only the ex- terior purlin was strain gaged. 3.2 Test Series 1 The purpose of this series was to provide base data for comparison to all remaining tests. The test configuration consisted of intermediate braces at midspan and quarter points, and torsional restraint braces at the rafters. Test Iwas first conducted using a span of 20 ft. 0 in. center-to- center of rafter webs. Premature failure was caused by web crippling at the knife edge bearings. Subsequently, the span was reduced to 19 ft. 74 in. to obtain a larger bearing ‘length at each end, ‘he purlins were then repaired and the test repeated. Failure occurred at 219.9 plf by local buck- ling of the flange and/or web approximately 1 ft. from the midspan. Using the AISI criteria and the constrained bending assumption, the predicted failure load was 316.9 plf. To verify that the repaired purlins did not affect test results, the test was repeated as Test I-A. Failure occurred at 226.1 lbs. per linear ft. again by local buckling of the flange and/or web approximately 1 ft. from the mid- span. The predicted failure load was 305.2 lbs. per linear ft. Test summary sheets found in Appendix A describe in -25-detail the test results. In both tests, the measured vertical deflection exceeded the predicted values with the internal purlin deflecting more than the external purlin, Figures A.5 and A.16. Brace forces were somewhat erratic, except at midspan, for Test I possibly due to the repaired ends, Figures A.6 to A.8. Brace forces were consistent for Test I-A, Figures A.17 to A.19. The largest forces were measured at the rafter (torsional restraint braces) and the smallest at midspan, Figure A.20, Strains were only measured for Test I. The distribution varied from the constrained bending assumption, Figures A.9 and A.10. For Test I-A, exterior and interior brace forces at midspan and at the % points were essentially equal. The ratio of interior to exterior brace forces at the rafter was ‘near 4.0, Total brace force as a percentage of supported vertical load was approximately 208 for the exterior purlin and 40% for the interior purlin. 3.3 Test Series IT The purpose of this series was to measure the re~ straint required if the top flange of both purlins was con- tinuously supported. Test Summary sheets in Appendix B detail the results for three tests: II, II-A, and II-B. Test II was terminated at 132 plf because of failure of the lateral support joists. Test II~Awas conducted with all intermediate and torsional restraint braces placed so that Conly tension could be resisted (see Figure 4(a)). The out~ side (nearest the rafters) four braces went slack under light loading. Failure occurred at 135.3 plf due to the inability of the web to restrain lateral movement of the tension flange. Test II-B was conducted only after it was determined which braces would be in tension and which in compression (by trial and error). Failure occurred at 188.2 plf due to tension flange buckling. Measured vertical deflections were very close to predicted values, Figure B.27. Brace forces at the rafters were in compression (Figure B.28), near zero at the first inside locations (Figure B.29) and in tension for the remaining locations to the midspan (Figures B.31 to B.34). The distribution along the purlins is plotted in Figures B.35 and B.36. Strains were only measured in Test II and were found not to vary with the constrained bending as- sumption, Figures B.11 and B.12. The ratio of exterior to interior brace forces at a transverse location varied considerably along the span (see Test Summary sheet). Summation of brace forces as a percent of supported vertical load was approximately 178 for the exterior purlin and39¢ for the interior purlin. 3.4 Test IIT This test was conducted to determine the magnitude of required torsional restraining forces at the rafter. A Test Summary sheet is included in Appendix C. Failure occur- xed when the center portion of the purlins rolled at a load -27-of 193.6 plf, Subsequent investigation showed that the failure was caused by tearing of the panel in shear at fast- ener locations near the rafters. Measured vertical deflections of the exterior purlin agreed with predicted values; interior purlin deflections were greater than predicted (Figure C.5). Good to excellent agreement exists between brace forces at opposite rafters, Figure C.6. Measured strains were relatively consistent with the constrained bending assumption, Figure c.7. The ratio of interior to exterior braces forces varied from approximately 2.0 to near 4.0. The total brace force as a percent of supported vertical load varied from approximately 10 to 308. Near failure the maximum brace force exceeded 900 1b. 3.5 Test Iv Test IV was conducted to determine the magnitude of intermediate brace forces when torsional restraint is not supplied at the rafter. Test results are shown in Appendix D. Failure occurred at 231.0 plf and was caused by local flange and/or web buckling near midspan. As shown in Figure D.5, good agreement was obtained between predicted and meas- ured vertical deflections. Comparison of Figures D.6 and D.7 shows that the brace forces at the north % point were significantly greater than at the south % point. Figure D.9 shows the distribution of brace forces along the span. ~28-Measured strains did not conform to the constrained bending assumption as shown in Figures D.11 and D.12. Tension was measured in the top lip and the top flange was found to have fully yielded at the failure load. The ratio of interior to exterior brace forces at a transverse location varied from less than 1.0 to more than 2.5. Summation of exterior brace forces as a percent of supported load was approximately 25% and varied from less than 308 to approximately 50% for the interior braces. 3.6 Test V Test V was conducted to determine the lack of panel stiffness on purlin performance. The test configuration was the same as Test III except sidelap fasteners were not in- stalled. Failure occurred at 191.9 pl£ becuase of tearing of the panel at fastener locations near the rafters (vs. 193.6 plf for Test III). Measured vertical deflections were in good agreement with predicted values, Figure B.5, Measured brace forces at the rafter locations were consistent, Figure E.6. Measured strains did not conform to the constrained bending assumption, Figures E.7 and E.8. Total brace force as a percent of the supported load was approximately 25% at the exterior purlin and 50% at the interior purlin. The ratio of interior to exterior brace forces at a location varied from less than 1.5 to approximately 2.5. -29-3.7 Test VI Test VI was identical to Test III except the panel to purlin connection and sidelap connections were reinforced near the rafters as described above. Results are shown in Appendix F. Failure was by local buckling of the flange and/or web near midspan at a load of 230.0 plf versus 193.6 for Test III. Figure F.5 shows good agreement between measured and predicted vertical deflection. Comparison of Figure F.6 and F.7 shows consistency between brace forces at opposite ends of the span. Strains were not measured in this test. Summation of brace forces as a percent of supported vertical load was near 10% for the exterior purlin and near 40% for the interior purlin. 3.8 Results of Supplementary Tests Coupon Tests. Coupon test results from two samples each of purlin and panel material are given in Table 5. The average yield stress for the two purlin samples was 58.0 ksi. It is noted that the computed properties shown in Table 5 are based on a yield stress of 56 ksi. Rotational Rigidity Tests. Results from two rota~ tional rigidity tests (F-tests) are shown in Figure 8 as ap- plied load versus deflection and in Figure 9 as F versus deflection. -30-Table 5. Tensile Coupon Test Results Material | Test | Thickness | Width | Yield | Ultimate | Elongation Location | No. Gn.) (in.) | Stress | Stress % (ksi) | (ksi) Purlin | 1 0.0920 | 0.498 | 58.93 | 68.32 30.0 2 0.0917 | 0.501 | 57.03 | 68.56 30.5 Avg. 57.98 | 68.44 30.2 Panel | 1 0.0179 | 0.497 | 62.95 | 66.54 30.0 2 0.0179 | 0.497 | 62.05 | 66.54 30.0 Ave. 62,50 | 66.54 30.0 a1sasaq- wory sdpysuopaeToy UoTIVeTJoq “sa peoT “NI * NOTLAITI30 +g aandyg 4ozan awe Hz- =32-sz uoy320T39q “SA a “NI ‘NOTLOI143¢ z s't +6 aanspg S20 w& AM-HZN\HZN\e9sep paanseou = wy :930N wow] otro ee oe | aso] 680 598 sex | sos of ta al ee) soo $87 sv | cot] 86-0 sax ou sak oul a uly B°8T sto ole ole £071 96°0 sak sak ou sak AL sal ter} to se” sot | 66-0] seo 304 cok | oak oo | am WN VN $070 0°6z o'et z0'L oo'L ou ae sak sek | g-11 wl wl ero vw we [seo] 8-0 ou os 534 sox | vu 0°07 o'er oro WN vu sr zorl ou Aue sak sok IL wl wl wo o-8e cot | oof 68-0 594 sok 524 sex | vi wet le 99°0 WN YN ol 96°0 sak sok sak sak 1 a — SS) (rs) (¥8%)] (20F4283xg) | UFTANg omy | UTFTANg euD (ur) Sduog | uorsuay| suety dox| —-zossz.er | aoptoa%E 20720354 yo auoul pea] sodas jwora9e r300 eso aupoeag ssaras “xox | -a2erés50 yore se e023 | 99 | teorasen | ssouszras | -s3ras faurexasou | aaerpou | -on Teme auyerrsey poanseoy | ap | ‘uedspiy | Teuoysioy | aeoys |reuosszoy | —zoaur | aso uypang aad 31d 66 av S2]NG0y Jo Uossaeduog “9 aTALL =35-soe 9-,Z 18 Seoeaq oaeTp. naquy £q popyaoad = y ay2e4s@ 10 prrvauy ‘peinseaw you = yN uypand s0psaxa 203 uoyaDeTJap Suypuaq pauzerysuos = 99 uypand s0f193xa 205 woyI99T;9p parnsvaw = uy :9I0N vw | ww a1"0 ove ce feeo] ovr sox | sak 59k ou | ta vez | ove | ceero ees wer fet} et 52k ou sak o | a con | orze 62"0 eee viz fet] —99t sax | sak ou sok | ar or9s | or9s goo Tus coz |66°0. ar sak sak sak ou | qr wn | Ww 60"0 ov6e ort eero] — esrt ou | sae sok sok {g-11 vN VN WN yn WN vn WN ou | sek sak sak [yin wi] ow ww ww wo] ow YN ou | 894 80k sok | oa we] ow so*o ey eer leon} ist sox | saa 59k soe | yt zie | o-oe so WN we foot] eset sax | sak 9k sox | ot cu (1s) | (45%) |(aorszaaxa) | uyTang ong | urtang ou0 cop *duo9 luoysuay [adueta doy] —107x03uz soyaayg 40} 193% = ——}"" jo aun} — Lv = fuorazatsaq ssou | aoijey ae | Suyseag sossazag “xem | -22erdsta] peor azoddng yo ze se | 2g | peojz30q | ssauszzas| 338 | quyeaasay | arespau | -on Tersie]] sosog ayexas9y painseay | P| uedspra | TevorsioL] aeeys | Teuoysaoy | -aaaur | asoy 31d cot ae saqnsoy Jo vosyaeduoy “L aTqey ~36-deflections (5wL4/384EI) is adequate for design. From Tables 6 and 7, the ratio of measured to predicted vertical deflec- tion ranged from 0.85 to 1.18 at 99 plf per purlin and from 0.93 to 1.12 at 165 plf per purlin. 3. At 99 plf per purlin, measured restraining force as a percentage of supported load (single purlin loading for exterior braces and two purlin loading for interior braces varied from 8.0 to 24.5% for exterior purlins and 17.5 to 48.5% for interior purlins (Table 6). At 165 plf per purlin, measured restraining force as a percentage of supported load varied from 8.7 to 23.4% for exterior purlins and 19.2 to 57.18 for interior purlins (Table 7). The large difference between exterior and interior total brace forces indicates that the panel assembly carries relatively more force than “the exterior braces. 4. Results from Test II-B may lend credence to the contention that brace forces partially accumulate over a slope Figures B-31 and B.37 show that when continuous intermediate restraint is supplied (as from an eave or from resistance of the opposite slope), part of the restraining system is in tension and part in compression. The total restraint forces in Test II-B were 18.0 and 29.0¢ at 99 plf per purlin and 17.0and 39,0at 165 plf per purlin as compared to slightly higher precentages for other tests. However Test I results, Figure A.20, tend to contradict this con- clusion. Further study is recommended. <37-5. The magnitude of brace forces can be significantly affected by the angle between the web and lower flange, es- pecially at the rafter location. Figure D.9, for instance, shows considerable difference between the magnitude of inter- mediate forces at opposite ends of the same purlin. It was observed in this test, that the angle between the web and lower flange varied from 90°, 6. Little difference in purlin strength was found for practical bracing configurations: Test I-A, 226.1 plf; Test IV, 231 plf; and Test VI, 230 plf. (The failure mode for Test III was independent of purlin strength.) 7. From Test III results, it is evident that panel- to-purlin connection strength is a design consideration at least for simple span purlins. 8. From Test V (no sidelap fasteners), either shear stiffness (Q) has little effect on strength or sidelap fasteners do not contribute to shear stiffness. Note that the failure was caused by tearing of the panel at fasteners near the rafter, Further study is recommended. -38-APPENDIX A TEST I RESULTS‘TEST SUMMARY Project :__MBMA Roof System Behavior Test No.:_L Test Date: November 24, 1981 Purpose:__Base Test re Span(s):__19.625" ‘Thickness:_0.093" Moment of Inertia: 13.3 in® Parameters: Intermediate bracing @ pt. Torsional restraint @ rafter Panel shear stiffness Pane] torsional restraint Failure Load:_219.9 plé Failure Mode’ Local buckling of flange and/or web near midspan Predicted Failure Loads: Method AISI Constr, BendingXl.67 Load__316.9 plf Method Load. Method, Load, Discussion: ‘Two tests were conducted: 1. Span 20'~( ~Bearing failure occurred at the north end at 132 plf. “Vertical deflections were 20-30% greater than predicted from con— strained bending assumption. ~Pailed portion of purlin was repaired by cutting and welding new end. 2. Span 19'=75;" vLocal buckling of the flange and/or web occurred at 219.9 plf approx imately 1 ft. from the centerline. “Vertical deflections were 10-15% greater than predicted. Deflections of the west purlin (nearer the lateral support joist) were greater. “Measured intermediate brace forces were erratic especially near repaired end. -Brace forces seen to increase linearily with increasing load. Al“Ratio of exterior to interior brace forces at centerline varied fron 1,92 to 2.71, at south & point from 1.23 to 1.68 and at south rafter from 6.88 to 2.44 (Data for north & point and rafter is not con- sidered to be valid.) “At 66 plf, summation of external braces forces equaled 29.7% of ver tical load on external purlin. Summation of internal brace forces equaled 47.7% of total vertical load. “At 198 plf, summation of external brace forces equaled 42.3% of total vertical load. “Stress distribution from measured strains approximates constrained bending. “Stresses increased linearily with loading. : ~Top flange lateral displacements exceeded bottom flange displacements. “Maximum lateral displacement was less than 0.5 in.#2 #9 # Dynamometer number © canned asaber N 47 #10 External Purlin #6 % #5 #8. @ Section A-A, Strain Gages Internal Porlin uu ear a3 @ ® Figure A.1 Instrumentation Location, Test 11 | 8.12 Bxternel Purlin base Internal Puriin Figure A.2 Measured Purlin Dimensions, Test I Aars IDENTIFICATION? MEMA-I-W TOF FLANGE Cin? 2.500 LIPCin) 0.500 LIP ANGLE(des) 44,000 RADIUS L/F(in) 0.468. RADIUS F/WCin) 0-281 PURLIN ANALYSIS 11/24/81 BOTTOM 2-560 0.500 44.000 0.468 0.281 TOTAL DEPTH(in? 8.12 THICKNESS (in) 0.093 YIELD STRENGTH(ksi> 56 SECTION MODULII(in73) MOMENTS OF INERTIACin™4) TOF BOTTOM GROSS= 13.426 3.331 3.359 STRENGTH= 13.426 3.331 3.359 DEFLECTION= 13,426 BE= 2126 in 33.600 ksi 33.600 ksi 33.363 ksi MOMENT CARRYING CAPACITY HC= 9.328 MT= 9.406 MW= 10.081 MU= 15.578 SPAN 19.625 UNIFORM LOAD= 323.575, DEFLECTION = 0.843 (AISI CRITERIA) tt-k tt-k ft-k ft-k (1.67kallowable) ft. P1f (1,67Xallowable) ins/100P1f Figure A.3 AIST Purlin Analysis, Test I West Purlina PURLIN ANALYSIS IDENTIFICATION? MBMA-I-E 11/24/81 TOP BOTTOM FLANGE (in) 2.340 2.580 LIFGin) 0.500 0.500 LIP ANGLE(des) 44,000 45.000 RADIUS L/FCin) 0.468. 0.468 RADIUS F/W(in) 0203 0.203 TOTAL DEPTH(in) 8.12 THICKNESS (in) 0,093 YIELD STRENGTH(ksi) 56 SECTION MODULII(in™3) MOMENTS OF INERTIACin™a) TOP, BOTTOM GROSS= 13,304 3.263, 3.369 STRENGTI 13.304 3.263 3.369 DEFLECTION= 13.304 BE= 2,044 in 33,600 ksi 33.600 ksi 33.363 ksi MOMENT CARRYING CAPACITY (AISI CRITERIA) Mi 9.135 ft-k 9.433 ftt-k 9.662 Tt-k 15.255 ft-k (1.67Kallowable) SPAN = 19-625 ft. UNIFORM LOAD= 316,881 P1f (1-67Xallowable) DEFLECTION = 0.850 in./100r1F xxx Figure A.4 AISI Purlin Analysis, Test I East PurlinNae Ne rer 300 | 250 | 20 | 158 108 | 5 pevcoseoa FAST PURLIN a NEST PURLIN ++ FAST THEORETICAL + GEST THEORETICAL 0 : AoA ; : : 8 os 152 ye 3.5 DEFLECTIONCin) Figure A.5 Load vs. Vertical Deflection, Test T AT=rmonHseo~ ozHorer ~a 3 BRACE FORCE, Ib Figure A.6 Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force at Rafter, Test I A1 1 1008 1208 BRACE FORCE, Ib Figure A.7 Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force at Pointe, Test I rr)0 t ! f i. Lt i ! i ! i) off nN 1BL I i 7 / ! F F / 0 4 f R | i 4 ! fl I i L108 | : 0 I i > | if I | i N Tak & 1 of ety f P tf i i t bé tevneeoma NORTH INT. i ++ NORTH EXT fl lf if yf er _ s : 1 —— 8 20 10 600 00 168 1208 BRACE FORCE, Ib Figure A.8° Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force at Midspan, Test, I A.1019.2 ksi STRESS ON EAST PURLIN AGT ksi 7.8 ksi TEST HBHA-I DATE 12/1/81 LOAD 99.08 pif YIELD STRENGTH (ksi) 58.0 ksi Figure A.9 Stress Distribution at 99 plf, Test I AL21.7 ksi 38.7 ksi .6 ksi TEST MBHA-I DATE 12/1/81 LOAD 198.08 pif YIED STRENGTH (ksi) 56.0 ksi 33.1 ket 37.8 ksi 4.8 ksi oT PURLIN Figure A.10 Stress Distribution at 198 plf, Test I Az1 asay, ‘sauowo2eTdezq TexeIe1 “sa BuTpeoT Tera, TT¥ ean3Ty "UL “LNANAOV1dSIG 1 sL°8 38 s2°e @ = > sL*e- ce 7 =e a > —~4 A “Lod ‘ANT — -« “iy ‘tod ‘1xa +--- = , AOL “1X3 Poonno == v? : t vol es i | n I N ' i | ea! “1 a | o t | yr t 1 : \ est i _ ’ + i 1 i \ h } 1 ? + 902 a—eN N2PZHLOeE 40O 7.96 THICKNESS (in) 0.086 YIELD STRENGTH(ksi)? 56 SECTION MODULII(in73) MOMENTS OF INERTIACin™4) TOF BOTTOM GROSS= 11,782 2.996 2.989 STRENGTH= 11.782 2.996 2.989 DEFLECTION= 11.782 BE= 2.195 in 33.600 ksi 7 33,600 ksi FBU= 32.914 ksi MOMENT CARRYING CAPACITY (AISI CRITERIA) 8.388 ft-k 8.370 ft-k 8.803 ft-k MU= 13,978 ft-k (1.67xallowable) SPAN = 19.625 ft. UNIFORM Lai 290.355 P1f (1,47kellowsble) DEFLECTION 0.960 in+/100P1F Figure B.16 AISI Purlin Analysis, Test II-A East Purlin@eeHSorer s=wemnHeo~ en 7 / 300 / / 7 2 ~s / / / / om | “ft / Ut 4 1 4 i 4 fo Fs 108 | “4 Ye i # hl sense EAST PARLIN 1 4 == EST PORLIN + FAST TEDRETTON DEFLECTIONCin) Figure B.17 Load vs. Vertical Deflection, Test IT-A B.19BRACE FORCE, Ib Figure B.18 Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force 6' From iidspan, Test II-A B.20/ U yet i 7 BK 0 ge |S X “sy L 10 H Te A D 4 1 |] N h : | A ‘a a ' f f i aa 4S, CENTER EXT. : / penn 4S. CATR INT. / i 4 58 188 198 28 238 308 BRACE FORCE, Ib Figure 8.19 Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force 4’ From Midspan, Test II-A B.21oO é é f f f / { u I! N18 | i I us F aad Hl ia re Lmt ff 0 / / A ae Dd if I il N af fle ® bt ti! e—1 2! $. CENTER EXT. 1 ii panne 2°, CENTER INT. W Fp é | 6m OCSSCti«idSC*«s RACE FIRE, Ib Figure 3.20 Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force 2" From Widepan, Test IT-A 3.22BRACE FORCE, Ib Figure B.21 Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force at Midspan, Test TI-A 3.23VOILE 204 ‘quoweoeTdsya TeI193eT “sa Burpeoy TeoTIIeA Zz"a eANBTy Ut *LNAW3OV dsr 2 sl 1 s'8 8 so = z- 7 - 8 es ear _ est eez NDZHLO@E 4O — 43,000 44.000 RADIUS L/F(ind 0,500 0.438 RADIUS F/WCin) 0.250 0.250 TOTAL DEPTH(in) 29 THICKNESS (in) 0.087 YIELD STRENGTH(ksi) 56 SECTION MODULII(in73) MOMENTS OF INERTIACin™a) TOP BOTTOM GROSS= 11.368 2.890 2.931 STRENGTI 11.368 2.890 2.931 DEFLECTION= 11,368 BE= 2.003 in FC= 33.600 ksi FT= 33.600 ksi FRU= 33,064 ksi MOMENT CARRYING CAPACITY (AISI CRITERIA) M( 8.091 ft-k MTs 8.205 ft-k Mu= 8.604 tt-k Ml 13,512 ft-k (1,67*allowable) SPAN 19.625 ft, UNIFORM LOAD= 280.662 P1f (1.67kallowsble) DEFLECTION = 0.995 ins /100P1F Figure B.25 AISI Purlin Analysis, Test II-B West Purlin B.28ars IDENTIFICATION? POURTIN @NALYS18 MBMA TEST-II-B (12/21/81) EAST PURLIN Tor BOTTOM FLANGE(in) 24300 2.420 LIFCin) 0.450 9.490 LIP ANGLE(des) — 44.000 48.000 RADIUS L/F(in) 0.500 0.438 RADIUS F/WCin) 04219 0.219 TOTAL DEPTH(in) 8.09 THICKNESS (in) 0.087 YIELD STRENGTH(ksi) 56 SECTION MODULII(in™3) MOMENTS OF INERTIACin74) TOF BOTTOM GRos:! 11,955 2.963 3.013 STRENGTH= 11.955 2.963 3.013 DEFLECTION= 11,955 1.994 in 33.600 ksi 33,600 ksi FBW= 32.877 ksi MOMENT CARRYING CAPACITY (AISI CRITERIA) MCe 8.296 ft-k MT= 8.436 ft-k Mus 8,682 Ft-k MU= 13,855 ft-k (1,67kellowable) SPAN = 19,625 ft, UNIFORM LOAD= 287,785 P1f (1-67xallowable) DEFLECTION = 0.946 in./100P1f Figure 8.26 AISI Purlin Analysis, Test II-B East PurlinSor =wWOMHZzcCN mzH San 300 L L t t t beneeeema EAST PURLIN ~——+ HEST PURLIN s—s EAST THEORETICAL +—+ WEST THEORETICAL 1 1 1 1 ‘1 1 0.5 i 15 2 25 3 3.5 DEFLECTIONCin. ) Figure B.27 Load vs. Vertical Deflection, Test II-B B.30=amomMHZoN~ oezHTrer ~+43 200 Figure 8.28 Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force @ North Rafter, Test II-B “158-108 -58 ae tod eapnnoh a= he BRACE FORCE, Ib 3.31 1 50200 l U N 150 4 i F 0 R 4 1 1 L 100 ; 0 “4 A vt ) va I ho ‘ (4 vt 50 \1- t f ta / \y \ \ 8 \ 1 ot 1 1 ! 200-150-100 -50 4 58 100 150 BRACE FORCE, Ib Figure B.29 Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force @ South Rafter, Test 11-3 3.32200 Spence s4ozsHSze tS} 158 108 -158 108 ~200 BRACE FORCE, Ib Figure B.30 Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force 8' From :iidspan, Test II-Beazy Sa ———+ BT. +---4 MN. 1 L 200 408 600 800 1000 1208 BRACE FORCE, Ib Figure B.31 Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force 6' From Midspan, Test II-B 3.34i ; ! / te i i if t H / iy it _ Ct if it ad il if 1 uw bid ul al ecenmm EXT. 'Y +---+ M. i 208 400 7) 808 1008 1208 BRACE FORCE, Ib Figure B.32 Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force 4' From Midspan, Test II-B 3.35200 s+ du é ‘ i af u i / nob fy ir 0 it R i M ut tl L100 Ly 0 i ii 7 N a 6 i 3% p i | f aa AT. i 4 +--+ MT @ 1 1 a 1 1 4 Q 200 400 600 808 1008 1200 BRACE FORCE, Ib Figure B.33 Vertical'Loading vs. Brace Force 2' From Midspan, Test II-3 3.36maze en A + - “ oo, a 7 K v a c f f / / aoe / a i é hol ud H I af ! i i} if i if pea BT, 1 poe BT i i yf : L 1 \ 1 200 400 608 808 1000 1208 BRACE FORCE, Ib Figure B.34 Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force @ Midspan, Test II-3 3.37oh {11 3504 ‘uTTAng aoF19qUT ye uRds SuoTY s9o10g aDeAg aIeTPSuIaqUT Jo WoyaNgTAasTa Era eaNBTE Cid) N¥dS JTVH Oe t ! @ ee9- @es- 88r—- eee- eec- ee1- eer 202 eeo -auN Nme NVdS JTVH eo 8 9 ¥ 2 YOTUAIXE a2 ees -20N Nae 8 THICKNESS (in) 0.092 YIELD STRENGTH(ksi) 56 SECTION MODULII(in73) MOMENTS OF INERTIACin™4) TOF BOTTOM Gros! 12.758 3.204 3.249 STRENGTH= = 12,758 3.204 3.249 DEFLECTION= 12.758 2.077 in 33.600 ksi 33.600 ksi FRW= 33.393 ksi MOMENT CARRYING CAPACITY (AISI CRITERIA) 8.972 ft-k 9.098 ft-k 9.715 ft-k + 14,984 ft-k (1,67%2llowable) SFAN = 19.625 ft. UNIFORM Loa 3116242 P1f (1,67kallowable) DEFLECTION = 0.887 in./100r1F Figure C.3. AISI Purlin Analysis, Test ITI West Purlin 5ars URLIN ANALYSIS IDENTIFICATION: MBMA-III-E 11/24/81 BOTTOM FLANGE Cin) 2.500 LIPCin) 0.480 LIF ANGLE(des) 43,000 42,000 RADIUS L/F(in) 0+ 440 04440 RADIUS F/W(in) 0-250 0.250 TOTAL DEPTH(in) 8.14 THICKNESS (in) 0.09 YIELD STRENGTH(ksi? 56 SECTION MODULII(in™3) MOMENTS OF INERTIACIn™4) TOP BOTTOM GRoSs= 13,021 3.238 3.232 STRENGT! 13.021 3.238 3.232 DEFLECTION= 13.021 2.210 in 33.600 ksi 33.600 ksi FBU= 33,095 ksi MOMENT CARRYING CAPACITY (AISI CRITERIA) 9.067 9.049 9.638 154112 19.625 313.906 0.869 DEFLECTION = tt-k tt-k tt-k ft-k (1.67kellowsble) tte Plf (1,67%allowable) in. /100P1f Figure C.4 AISI Purlin Analysis, Test IIT East Purlin c.6ware Noor PORLIN #1 EAST THEORETICAL +———+ WEST THEORETICAL 1 4 1 am 4 0.5 I 15 2 25 3 3.5 DEFLECTIONCin) Figure C.5 Load vs. Vertical Deflection, Test IIT c.7M=ZHOFoOr =zRPOeMHZC~ ~~ BRACE FORCE, Ib Figure C.6 Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force at Rafter, Test IIT c.8Weel 2eq 7 7A ‘ eg 30-8 Figure C.7 le Dec. 1, 90 wie. — — —- 0165 pit Stress Distribution, Test ITT c.9 MBMA - IIT igedI11 380% {squemaseTdstaq Ter93eT “SA BuTPRoT TeITIIAA g°D aINBTy “1 “LNW39VIdSTd I SLO s@ S$2°@ 8 S2°8- s"o- SL°8- I- 7 S32 __s¢ ere see 110g INT e— — ~2 “4og ‘1g += -- > AOL “1X9 v-==---- = \ es iN : : ea) JX t it | esi e02 NS ZHLO@E 4O , Ie opaaauy a8 -20N Neae aarcad i) Section A~A, Strain Gages Internal Porlin Q au #15 ®@ ® Figure E.1 Instrumentation Location, Test V E.2External Purlin Internal Purlin Figure E.2 Measured Purlin Dimensions, Test V E.3ast PURLIN ANALYSIS IDENTIFICATION! MEMA-V-W 12/3/81 TOF BOTTOM FLANGE (in) 2.450 2.480 LIPCin) 0.480 0.490 LIP ANGLE(des) 43,000 44,000 RADIUS L/Fin) 0,500 0.500 RADIUS F/WCin) 04250 0.250 TOTAL DEPTH(in) 7.95 THICKNESS (in) 0.091 YIELD STRENGTH(ksi) 56 SECTION MODULII(in™3) MOMENTS OF INERTIACin™4) TOF BOTTOM GROSS= 124366 3.140 3.155 STRENGTH= 12,3466 3.140 3.155 DEFLECTION= 12.366 2.109 in 33,600 ksi 33.600 ksi FBW= 33.358 ksi MOMENT CARRYING CAPACITY (AISI CRITERIA) MC= 8.791 ft-k 8.833 ft-k Ml 9.435 ft-k ml 14.680 ft-k (1,.67xallowable) SPAN 19.625 ft. UNIFORM Loa 304.937 P1f (1,67%allowable? DEFLECTION 0.915 in/100P1f Figure E.3. AISI Purlin Analysis, Test V West Purlin B.4ast IDENTIFICATION? TOF FLANGE Cin? 2.480 LIPCin) 0.450 LIP ANGLE(des) 44,000 RADIUS L/F(in) 0.470 RADIUS F/WCind 04250 TOTAL DEPTH(in) THICKNESS (in) YIELD STRENGTH(ksi) 7.98 0.09 56 MOMENTS OF INERTIACin™4) GROSS= STRENGT! 12,186 DEFLECTION= 12.186 24140 in 33.600 ksi 33.600 ksi 33.247 ksi 12,186 PURLIN ANALYSIS MEMA-V-E 12/3/81 BOTTOM 2.400 0.490 44,000 0.470 0.250 SECTION MODULTI(in73) TOF BOTTOM 3.095 3,083, 3.095 3.083 MOMENT CARRYING CAPACITY (AISI CRITERTA) wi 8.6467 w 8.632 mi 9.271 ml 14,415 SPAN 19.625 UNIFORM Loa 299.418 DEFLECTION = 0.928 ft-k tt-k tt-k ft-k (1,67%allowable) ft. Pf (1.67kallowable) im. /100P1P Figure E.4 AISI Purlin Analysis, Test V East Purlinee ezHrScrer sano Y Y Y Y Y y Y Y ae oe” ae gt fos Lea (oe 7 fir fis af ff ee EAST ARUN i} pao AEST ARON Figure E.5 Load vs. Vertical Deflection, Test V B.6lb BRACE Figure E.6 Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force at Rafter, Test V zTEST 8+ DATE 12/8/81 LOAD 99.00 pit YIED STRENGTH (ksi) 56.8 ksi Figure E.7 Stress Distribution at 99 plf, Test VTEST HBMA-Y DATE 12/8/81 LOAD 165.00 pit YTD STRENGTH (ksi) 56.8 ksi Figure E.8 Stress Distribution at 165 plf, Test V1 ioay ‘sauowsoeTdsya Tex0wT “sh SUFPEOT TRPTAIIA 6° anda UL *LNSHIOVTdSTO 1 sl'8 $9 sz'0 @ sze- sia- _SL'8- I- — = — "9 eLGe LNT Bae eee 10d 2A Gece aOL “LXa e------* 1 es 1 it 1 , 7 eat 1 1 1 1 t est 1 \pzHuerE 4O areal 10 Roe Section A-A, Strain Gages Internal Porlin uy a #10 @ @ Figure F.1 Instrumentation Location, Test VI F.20.507 Wo haar ' External Purlin Internal Purlin Figure F.2 Measured Purlin Dimensions, Test VI F.3Tor BOTTOM FLANGE (in) 2.400 2.410 LIPCin) 0.480 04500 LIP ANGLE(des) 44,000 44,000 RADIUS L/F(in) 0.500 0.438 RADIUS F/WCin) 9.219 0.219 TOTAL DEPTH( in) 8.13 THICKNESS (in) 0.087 , YIELD STRENGTH(ksi) 56 SECTION MODULII¢in73) MOMENTS OF INERTIACin7a) TOP. BOTTOM GROSS= 12.327 3.062 3.068 STRENGTH= 12,327 3.062 3.068 DEFLECTION= 12,327 BE= 2.094 in FC= 33,600 ksi F 334600 ksi FBU= 32.838 kei MOMENT CARRYING CAPACITY (AISI CRITERIA) Mce 8.575 ft-k 86590 ft-k 8.964 ft-k 14.320 ft-k (1,67Kallowable) SPAN 19.625 ft, UNIFORM LOAB= 297,445 plf (1.67Kallowable) DEFLECTION = 0.918 in./100r1F Figure F.3 AISI Purlin Analysis, Test VI West Purlin PeaAIst PURLIN IDENTIFICATION? TOF FLANGE (in) 2.340 LIPCin) 0,480 LIP ANGLE(des) 44.000 RADIUS L/F(in) 0,438 RADIUS F/WCin) 0.219 TOTAL DEPTH(in) THICKNESS (in) YIELD STRENGTH(ksi) MOMENTS. GRoss= STRENGTH= 12.582 DEFLECTION= 12,582 BE= 2,035 in FC= 33.600 ksi FT= 33.600 ksi FRW= 32.745 ksi 12,582 MOMENT CARRYING CAPACITY 8.486 9.051 8.826 14,171, 19.625 294,351 0.899 SPAN UNIFORM Loa DEFLECTION = OF INERTIACin™4) ANALYSIS MBMA-VI-ECINT) 12/23/81 BOTTOM 2.800 04470 44,000 0.500 0.219 8.13 0.086 56 SECTION MODULII(in™3) TOP BOTTOM 3.031 3.232 3.031 3.232 (AISI CRITERIA) fink ft-k ft-k ft-k (1,67Kallowable) ft. P1f (1.67Xallowable) ins/100r1f Figure F.4 AISI Purlin Analysis, Test VI East PurlinmmOmMHseoN eezHoror er) DEFLECTIONCin.) Figure F.5 Load vs. Vertical Deflection, Test VI F.6becenen=a INT. pono BM, 1208 1088 BRACE FORCE, Ib at North Rafter, Test VI Force Brace ng vs. Figure F.6 Vertical Loadi2EHoBmor zROeMHZcNY ~an 208 fF. gk I, ow je +---4 ET. f / a 208 408 608 808 1908 1208 BRACE FORCE, Ib Figure F.7 Vertical Loading vs. Brace Force at South Rafter, Test VI F.8Is 389" ‘squowaseTdsyq° Téxae1 “sa BUEpeO] TwoTaTeA gry ean qy “UL *LNSWADVIdSId 4 s2'8 s'2 sz'a @ sze- Se- SL'e- — = <—— — 2 “ti [408 (INT 2— — rod “Los (1X3 +--- > oe dOL *1X3 ¥------- oe i x i 7 f a At a : / ? yoy ‘ t i a a i ft ,} ; } ay { i | ¥ N i t i = 4 “vy |‘ ele est NOZHLO@E 4OKQHZO a-4N eee es2