Design of Portal Frame Buildings ‘Third Edition S.T. Woolcock Director, Bonacei Winward Consulting Engineers S. Kitipornchai Professor of Civil Engineering The University of Queensland M.A. Bradford Professor of Civil Engineering The University of New South Wales Published by Australian Institute of Steel Construction Level 13, 99 Mount StreetAUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION A.CNN, 000 973 839 DESIGN OF PORTAL FRAME BUILDINGS Published by: AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION Enquiries should he sessed othe peblisher: Busines address ~ Level 13,99 Mount Stet, Noch Sydney, NSW. 2060, Austin, Postal address - P.O, Box 6366, North Sydney. NSW, 2059, Australia, E-mail adress ~ enguiries@aise.com.au Website - wwe ise.comau ‘© Copsrighe 1999 Australian Insite of tel Construction All igh ceserved. This book or any part thereof must not be reprodued in any form ‘witha tke writen permission of the Austin Institut of Stet Consrution. Published as Design of Parl Frame Buildings ~ It ekon to AS 1250)~ 1987 Limit Sate Design of Porta Frame Buildings Ist eition fo AS 4100)— 1991 Limit Sate Design of Pra Frame Buildings 2nd edition (10 AS 4100) ~1995 Desien of Portal Frame Buildings ~ 3d edition (to AS 4100) ~ 1999 (his edition) [ational Library of Australia Cataloguing-inePublication entry: Weolcock.S.T. Design of poral tame buildings. edad Bibliogaphy. Includes ines ISBN. 909945 84 5 | industrial bullngs~ Design and constuction. 2. Building, on anc sie ~ Design and construction. f Kikpomehs, Sl, Bradford, Mark A. (Marke Andrew) I Ausiralian Instvte of Ste! Construction 1 Tite 6931 Production by Robert Burton Printers Py Ld 653 Cartingtord Steet, Seton, NSW 2162, Australia DISCLAIMER Every effort has boen made an all easoable eae taken to ensure the accuracy of the ‘material contained inthis Publeation. Howeve. to the exent pemnied by law the ‘Authors, Edo and Publishers ofthis Publication: {wil rot be held lable oe espesible in any ways and (expen disclaim any Hibiiy or esponsibility, for any lost, demoge, cost or expenses insured in connection with this Publication by any person, whether that person te purchaser ofthis Publcaon or not, Without lation, this inches fst, damage, ons end expenses neared If any person wholly or partially relies on any pat ofthis Publication, and fos damage, costs and expenses incurred as a resul ofthe negligence a the Authors, Editors er Publishes WARNING “This Pbtiuion should not be weed without the services of a competent professional persan wih expen knowledge in the relevant fed, and under no ecastances should this Pubtication be relied upon fo replace any or all of the kaowledge and expertise of sich a person,Contents PREFACE NOTATION INTRODUCTION LA Portal Framed Buildings 1.2 Limit State Design 1.2.1 Background 1.2.2 Design for the Strength Limit State 1.2.3 Design for the Serviceability Limit State 13 Design Example 14 References Loaps 2.1 Background 2.2 Dead Loads 2.3 Live Loads 2.4 Wind Loads 2.4.1 General 2.4.2 Regional Wind Speeds 2.4.3 Wind Directions 2.44 Terrain Category 2.4.5 Basic Wind Speeds 2.4.6 Calculation of Pressures 2.4.7 Extemal Pressures 2.48. Internal Pressures 2.49 Area Reduction Factor 2.4.10 Local Pressure Factors 2.5 Load Combinations 2.5.1 Strength Limit State 2.5.2 Serviceability Limit State 26 Desien Example Londs Dead Loads Live Loads Wind Loads 2.63.1 Basic Wind Data 2 Extemal Wind Pressures 3 Internal Wind Pressures 4 Peak Local Pressures 2.6.4 Load Cases for Portal Frames 2.6.5 Load Combinations 2.7 References PurLins & Girts 3.1 General 3.2 Roof and Wall Sheeting 33 Frame Spacing.iv Contents 3.4 Purlin Strengths 3.4.1 Manufacturers" Brochures 3.4.2 _R-Factor Method .5 Deflections 5, Axial Loads 66 | Purlin Cleats 7 Purlin Bolts 8 Equivalent UDL’s for Peak Pressure ‘9 Design Example - Purlins 3.10.1 Member Capacity Brochures 3.10.2 Outward Loading - Cross Wind 3.10.3 Outward Loading - Longitudinal Wind 3.10.4 Purlin Selection for Outward Loading, 3.10.5 Check Inward Loading 3.10.6 Purlin Deflections 3.10.7 Purlin Summary 3.10.8 R-Factor Method 3.11 Design Example - Girts 3.11.1 Side Wall Girts 3.11.2 End Wall Girts with Span of 6250 mm 3.12 3.12 References 3, 3, 3, 3 3 3 FRAME DESIGN 4.1 Brame Design by Elastic Analysis 4.2 Computer Analysis 42.1 Load Cases 4.2.2. Methods of Analysis 423 Moment Amplification for First Order Elastic Analysis, 43 Rafters 43.1 Nominal Bending Capacity Mu, in Rafters 4.3.1.1 Simplified Procedure 4.3.1.2 Alternative Procedure 43.2. Effective Length and Moment Modification Factors for Bending Capacity 4.3.2.1 General 43.2.2 Top Flange in Compression 4.3.2.3 Bottom Flange in Compression 43.3. Major Axis Compression Capacity Nex 43.4 Minor Axis Compression Capacity Noy 43.5 Combined Actions for Rafters 4.3.6 Haunches for Rafters 4.4 Portal Columns 4.4.1 General 44.2 Major Axis Compression Capacity Nex 443 Minor Axis Compression Capacity Noy 44.4 Nominal Bending Capacity My, in Columns 44.4.1 General 4.4.4.2. Inside Flange in Compression 4.4.43. Ouiside Flange in Compression 4.5. Combined Actions 45.1 General 45.2 In-Plane Capacity 45.2.1 In-Plane Section Capacity‘tse DPFBAS Portal Framed Buildings 4.5.2.2 In-Plane Member Capacity 4.5.3 Out-of-Plane Capacity 45.3.1 Compression Members 45.3.2 Tension Members 46 Central Columns 4.6.1 General 4.6.2. Effective Lengths for Axial Compression 4.6.2.1 Top Connection Pinned Combined Actions with First Order Elastic Analysis ‘Combined Actions with Second Order Elastic Analysis 4.7 End Wall Frames 47.1 General 472 End Wall Columns 4.73. End Wall Columns to Rafter Connection 473.1 General 4.73.2 Continuous Rafter 4.733 Discontinuous Rafter 48 Braces 48.1 Fly Braces 48.2 Purlins as Braces 49. Deflections 4.9.1 General 4.9.2 Problems of Excessive Deflection 4.9.3 Recommended Deflections 4.10 Design Example - Frame Design 4.10.1 Frame Analysis 4,10,1.1 Preliminary Design 4.10.1.2 Haunch Properties 4.10.13 Methods of Analysis 4.10.2 Frame Deflections 4.10.3 Columns (460UB74) 4,10.3.1 Column Section Capacities 4.10.3.2 Column Member Capacities 4.10.33 Column Combined Actions 4.10.4 Rafters (360045) 4,10.4.1 Rafter Section Capacities 4,10.4.2 Rafter Member Capacities 4.10.4.3 Rafter Combined Actions LIMSTEEL Results End Wall Frames End Wall Columns 4.10.7.1 Inside Flange in Tension (Inward Loading) 4.10.7.2 Inside Flange in Compression (Outward Loading) 4.10.73 Axial Compression Under Gravity Loads 4.11 References ao ABS Bes ese FRAME CONNECTIONS 5.1 General 5.2 Bolted Knee and Ridge Joints Base Plates Design Example - Frame Connections 5.4.1 GeneralContents 55 5.4.2 Knee Joint 5.4.2.1 General 4.2.2. Calculate Design Actions for Bolts, End Plate and Stiffeners 5.4.2.3 Bottom Flange Connection 5.4.2.4 Top Flange Connection 5.4.2.5 Column Web Shear Stiffeners Ridge Connection Base Plates End Wall Column Connections 5.4.5.1 General 5.4.5.2 Centre Column - Top Connection 5.4.5.3 Quarter Point Columns - Top Connection References gee Bee ERG Roor & WALL BRACING 6.1 6.2 63 64 65 6.6 67 68 69 General Erection Procedure Forces 63.1 Longitudinal Wind Forces 6.3.2 Rafter Bracing Forces Bracing Plane Bracing Layout Tension Rods Tubes and Angles in Tension Tubes in Compression End Connections for Struts and Ties 6.9.1 Tubes 6.9.1.1 ‘Tubes in Tension 6.9.1.2. Tubes in Compression 6.9.2 Angles 6.10 Eccentricity 6.11 Design Example - Roof and Wall Bracing 6.11.1 Longitudinal Forces 6.11,1.1 General 11.1.2 Forces dite to Longitudinal Wind 11.1.3 Forces due to Rafter Bracing 11.4 orees in Root Bracing Members es r Tension Diagonals ‘onnections 11.4.1 End Connections for Struts 6.11.42 Bolts 6.11.5 Side Wall Bracing egygetes 6.12 References Footings & SLABS 1 12 73 Th General Design Uplift Forces Pad Footings Bored Piers 74.1 General Isc DPFH03 109 109 109 12 128 131 134 137 ity 14h Mi 142 143 145 145 146 146 146 146 147 147 152 155 159 161 161 161 163 163 163 163 163 163 164 166 166 166 168 m im 172 173 1B 191 191 192 192 193 193Asc DPFneS 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 75.1 General 196 } 752 Design Criteria 198 : 753 Grouting or Bedding 199 754 Bolts in Tension 199 7.5.4.1 Anchorage of Straight or Cogged Bars 199 7342 Cone Failure 199 73.43 Bmbedment Lengths 201 7.5.44. Minimum Edge Distance for Tensile Loads 201 75.5 Bolts in Shear 204 75.6 Corrosion 205 7.6. Slab Design 205 7.6.1 Design Principles 205 7.6.2. Slab Thickness 205 76.3 Joints 206 7.6.3.1 General 206 7.632 Sawa Joints 206 6.3.3 Cast-In Crack Initiators 207 7634 Keyed Joints 207 7.6.3.5 Dowelled Joints 209 7.63.6. Joint Spacing and Reinforcement 209 7.7 Design Example - Footings 210 7.1.1 Typical Portal Footings 210 TIAA Bored Piers 210 7.7.1.2 Compare Pad Footings 212 7.1.2. Bnd Wall Column Footings 2212 7.73 Main Portal Footings in Braced Bays 213 7.13.1 Comer Columns 213 7.13.2 Column on Grid B2 214 7.733. Columns on Grids A2, A8 and BS 214 7.73.4 Holding Down Bolts for Portal Columns 214 -73.5_ Holding Down Bolts for End Wall Columns 215 78 Design Example - Slab 215 78.1 Design Criteria 215 7.82. Slab Thickness Design 216 783° Joints 216 7.84 Reinforcement 217 7.9 References 217 8 PLASTIC FRAME DESIGN ag 8.1 General 219 8.2 Plastic Analysis 219 8.2.1 General 219 8.2.2 Direct Mechanism Method 220 3 Iterative Mechanism Method 223 2.4 Statical Method 25 8.2.5 Second Order Effects 225 83 Basis of Plastic Design in AS4100 25 8.4 Member Capacities 226 85 Design Example - Plastic Frame Design 207 8.5.1. Preliminary Design . 227viii Contents Isc DPFHNS 85.1.1 Gravity Load Case 27 8.5.1.2 Cross Wind Load Case 229 85.1.3 Deflections 231 8.5.2 Detailed Design 21 85.3 Columns 238 8.5.3.1 Section Capacities 238 85.3.2 Member Capacities 239 85.4 Rafters 242 8.5.5 Serviceabitity 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 93.1 General 249 9.3.2 Design Loads and Moments 250 9.3.3 Member Capacity in Major Axis Bending Mj, 251 9.3.3.1 A84100 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 234 9.5.1 General 234 9.5.2 Member Capacity Tables 234 9.5.3 Local Bottom Flange Bending 255 9.6 Design Example - Gantry Crane 255 9.6.1 Load Cases 255 9.62 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 ¢Mpx 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 Bffect of Eccentric Corbel Loading on Column 266 9.6.2.1 Check Effect of Vertical Loads on Web 267 9.6.2.12 Check Effect of Eccentric Rail Loading on Crane Runway Beam Web 268 9.6.2.13 Check Effect of Web Buckling Under Vertical Loads 2m 9.6.2.14 Fatigue 2 9.6.3 Check Portal Frame 22 9.6.3.1 Loads 222 9.6.3.2 Load Combinations 223 9.6.3.3 Columns 273 9.7 References 271 Appendix 9.1 Design Capacity Tables 279 Appendix 9.2 Background to Design Capacity Tables 287 A9.2.1 General 287 ‘A9.2.2 Section Moment Capacity Mex 287AISC DPFBIOS Portal Framed Buildings A9.2.3 Member Moment Capacity Mex ‘A9.2.4 Member Capacity to AS4100 APPENDIX]: DRAWINGS APPENDIX I: COMPUTER OUTPUT Geometry; Load Cases; Deflections Second Order Analysis; Load Combinations; Member Forces; Reactions Joint and Member Numbering; Displaced Shapes; Bending Moment Diagrams Elastic Critical Load Analysis APPENDIXID: LIMSTEEL OUTPUT SUBJECT INDEX 289 290 293 303 305 3 317 323 327 333Preface In October 1985, Scott Wooleock and Sritawat Kitipornchai presented a non-technical paper entitled Some Aspects of the Design of Industrial Buildings to a conference of! the Australian Institute of Construction Supervisors at the Gold Coast, ‘The paper outlined some of the grey areas in the design of portal framed buildings. AISC were very interested in the paper and invited these two authors to write the eatlier working stress version of this book. It was entitled Design of Portal Frame Buildings and was published in 1987, The working stress version was then completely 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 Frame Buildings. Further changes were made for the second limit state edition in 1993 to incorporate amendments to AS4100 and AS 1170.2, to reflect changes in the 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 AS1170. The release of the limit stale cold formed structures code A$4600 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 litle - Design of Portal Frame Buildings. ‘A new chapter dealing mainly with the design of portal frame buildings for overhead travelling cranes has been added. It covers the design of crane ranway beams and addresses some ambiguities and inadequacies in AS4100's treatment of monosymmetric beams. The chapter includes design capacity tables for top flange (and above top flange) loading of some standard combinations of UB's and WB's with PFC top flange channels. In addition, the effect of 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 sections, 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 AS2159-1995 although different geotechnical capacity reduction factorsASC DPFRAS Preface xi are proposed depending on whether the piers are classified as short or long, A quadratic expression derived from Broms’ work by the authors for use in determining the lateral load capacity of short bored piers is now presented in the text of the footings chapter rather than being somewhat hidden in the design example. This expression facilitates the preparation of spreadsheet programs for determining the lateral capacity of bored piers. ‘The authors’ association started at The University of Sydney where all three obtained doctorates conducting research into steel structures under the supervision of Professor NS Trahair. This association has continued over the years. Overall, this addition should prove to be of great assistance to practicing engineers and students. The authors gratefully acknowledge the positive feedback from many users, Firstly they would like to thank consulting engineers Bonacci ‘Winwatd and the Departments of Civil Engineering at The University of Queensland and The University of New South Wales for their support in preparing this book. Although Bonacci Winward’s Brisbane office prepared most of the diagrams, Brice Engineers of Townsville prepared the three dimensional view in Chapter 1 using Strucad, and this is much appreciated. Simon Pikusa’s idea for and contribution towards the plastic design chapter in the first edition is acknowledged. In particular, the authors would like to thank Arun Syam, National Manager - Technology at the ‘Australian Institute of Steel Construction for his continued encouragement. Finally, the authors would like to express their appreciation for the continued support of their wives and families during the preparation of this edition. Scott Wooleock Sritawat Kitipomehai ‘Mark Bradford September 1999Notation ‘The following notation is used in this book. Where there is more than one meaning to a symbol, the correct one will be evident from the context in which it is used. Generally, the notation has been chosen to conform where possible to that in the relevant design standard, bn 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 gross sectional area of web area of column web dimension used in defining extent of application of local wind pressure factors eight of application of load below shear centre of a monosymmetric beam = Wye- spl? = (6g bo = 22 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 cexige distance from bolt centreline to side edge of end plate = (b- s,)/2 "distance between crane wheel loads overall dimension of square hollow section frame spacing, or length of building normal to wind stream web bearing width used in AS4100 at the neutral axis of the member ‘web bearing width used in AS4100 at the junction of the web and inside face of flange effective width of plate clement stiffener outstand from face of web flange width of beam flange width of column width of end plate = tye + 2re width of railhead xiialse DPFROS ds Ey Ey Sat & Notation xiii average breadth of shielding buildings normal to wind stream, or stiff bearing length wind pressure coefficient extemal wind pressure coefficient | intemal wind pressure coefficient cross wind undrained cohesion dead load, or beam depth, or rod diameter, or tube diameter, or hold down bolt diameter, or building spacing parameter in determining shielding dead load minimum roof plan dimension, or depth ofa building parallel to windstream, or bored pier diameter clear depth between flanges ignoring fillets or welds twice the clear distance from the neutral axis to the inside face of the compression flange ‘beam depth column section depth distance between flange centroids, or nominal bolt diameter volt hole diameter in bolted moment end plate minimum depth ofhaunch (equal to rafter depth) depth of web plate, or clear distance in Appendix I of AS4100 column section depth between fillets = de = 2ke ‘Young's modulus of elasticity - minimum edge distances for hold down bolts subjected to tensile load and shear, respectively eccentricity above ground line of applied load to bored pier, or eccentricity of crane loading allowable working stress in AS1250 clastic buckling stress in AS1250 vertical distance from knee to ridge for plastic analysis axial stress axial stress in cable or rod bonding stresses in stiffeners at end wall column to rafter connection characteristic strength of concrete design valuc of shaft adhesionNotation AISC OFFS tensile stress, or tensile strength of conerete ultimate tensile stress ultimate tensile strength of bolt normal tensile strength of weld material average design shear stress in web maximum design shear stress in web yield stress column yield stress of flange or web, respectively yield stress of CHS yield stress of doubler plate yield stress of bolted moment end plate yield stress of stiffener equivalent design stress on web panel factors in elastic monosymmetric beam buckling formula nominal dead load, or shear modulus of elasticity end restraint parameters for a compression member in AS1250 part of dead load which resists instability column height for plastic analysis, or column height for effective length calculation design lateral force on bored pier height of rail design lateral bored pier capacity caves height, or height of structure above ground monorail load height eaves height average height of shielding building ridge height, or rail height value of f, for column internal pressure second moment of area of flange polar moment of area value of fy for rafter intemal suction second moment of area of web, or ‘warping section constant second moments of area about major (x) and minor (y) principal axes, respectivelyAISC DPF BMS Ie J de Li, LaLa Len bey Notation xv ‘minor axis second moment of area of compression flange Saint Venant torsion constant torsion constant for rail beam parameter for monosymmetric beam distance on column from outer face of flange to inner termination of root radius tye * Pe member effective length factor form factor for a member subjected to axial compression load height effective length factor spring stiffness proportion of design moment transmitted by web coefficient to allow for additional bolt force due to prying, effective length factor for restraint against in-plane lateral rotation twist restraint effective length factor, or Joad eccentricity reduction factor for tension members ratio of area of web {0 total cross sectional area span, ot member length, or rafler span, ot embedded length of bored pier embedment lengths of hold down bolts for singe cone, two intersecting cones and four intersecting cones respectively length of column of compression member or laterally unsupported beam value of Z- about major (x) and minor (y) principal axes, respectively holding down bolt cog length {ength of web along which rail load is uniformly distributed live load length of rafter measured between centre of column and apex average spacing of shielding buildings bending moment “design bending moment ‘gust wind speed multiplier for terrain category ‘cat’ at height z nontinal bending moment capacity value of Mj, about major principal x axis, wind direction reduction factor nominal in-plane member moment capacity, oF structure importance multiplier for design wind speed maximum calculated design bending moment along length of a member or in a segmentxvi Notation isc DPFBa3 clastic critical uniform bending moment for a beam with ends fully restrained against lateral translation and twist rotation but unrestrained against minor axis rotation amended elastic buckling moment for a member subject to bending reference elastic buckling moment obtained using Le elastic ertical bending moment calculated by elastic buckling analysis and incorporating moment gradient, height of loading and restraint conditions ‘Mg for a scament, fully restrained at bolt ends, but unrestrained against lateral rotation and loaded at the shear centre . nominal out-of-plane member moment capacity about major (x) axis required design moment by plastic frame analysis nominal plastic moment capacity reduced by axial force value of Mpr about major principal x axis value of May reduced by axial force nominal section moment capacity in bending, or shielding multiplier for design wind speed value of M, about major principal x axis topographic multiplier for design wind speed torsional moment in rail design first yield moment ultimate moment capacity of bored pier design bending moment on web panel moment modifying factor in monosymmetric beam buckling formula design axial force, tensile or compressive nominal member capacity in compression design axial force on column nominal strength of stiffener in compression value of N; for buckling about the major (x) and minor (y) principal axes, respectively total compression design force in flange total tension design force in flange PEP clastic flexural buckling load of member value of Nom for braced member nominal capacity of bolted end plate in bending valuc of Now for sway member design axial force in rafter reduced nominal axial capacity of horizontal tubular strut due to self weight bending nominal section capacity for compressive axial forceAISCDPFBAS ™ Me Ny Ne Ne Now Nr Ne Nw 1 Rs P Pa Ps Q % R Notation xvii nominal section capacity for tensile axial force nominal capacity of bolts at tension flange nominal tension capacity of a bolt or bracing rod. design bolt tensile force nominal strength of stiffener in tension capacity of tube wall near cap plate nominal strength of stiffener designed to resist excess shear in column, design force on stiffener due to shear nominal capacity of fillet or butt weld for flange subjected to axial force number of bolts in bolt group number of upwind shielding buildings within 45° sector or radius 20h, applied load, or magnitude of anchor head of holding down bolt applied load crane dynamic wheel load design wind pressure at height z nominal live load free stream gust dynamic wind pressure resulting from Vz reduction factor in cold-formed code, or redundant force in plastic analysis, or support reaction nominal bearing buckling capacity nominal bearing yield capacity nominal capacities of column adjacent to beam compression flange nominal capacity of stiffened column adjacent to beam compression flange rafler length along slope from column centreline to apex in plastic design nominal buckling capacity of stiffened web nominal capacities of column adjacent to beam tension flange nominal capacity of column flange with doubler plates adjacent to beam tension flange nominal capacity of stiffened column flange adjacent to beam tension flange design bearing force or reaction on web panel used in Appendix I of AS4100 nominal capacity radius of gyration root radius of column section ratios used for tapered member in AS4100 radius of gyration about the major (x) and minor (y) axes, respectively plastic section modulus design action effect distance between fly bracesxviii Notation aise prs distance between purlins or girts ratio of plastic section modulus of column to unhaunched rafter safe working load purlin spacing, bolt gatige bolt pitch flange thickness, 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 beam web thickness column web thickness 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 manval nominal shear capacity of bolt used in AS4100 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a HPS OE RPRRE Notation xix nominal shear yield capacity of web basic design gust wind speed at height z nominal capacity of fillet weld per unit length weld force component in y direction weld force component in z direction nominal wind load, or ‘weld size used in anchor head of holding down bolt external work internal work serviceability wind load ultimate wind load uniformly distributed load design uniformly distributed toad distributed dead load equivalent uniformly distributed load distributed live load nominal load nominal loads in plastic frame analysis sag in cable or rod effective section modulus effective section modulus of web used in Appendix I of AS4100 distance or height above ground level angle of slope of roof, or reduction coefficient for adhesion on bored pier, or load position parameter for monosymmetric beams compression member section constant value of @, about major (x) and minor (y) principal axes, respectively moment modification factor for flexural-torsional buckling, slenderness reduction factor slenderness reduction factor for monosymmetric beams reduction factor for tapered member shear buckling coefficient ratio of smaller to larger bending moment at ends of member monosymmetry parameter ratios of compression member stiffness to end restraint stiffness frame or member deflection sway deflection ‘moment amplification factor for braced member moment amplification factor, taken as the greater of d and J moment amplification factor for sway memberSUPRER OBR ON y 4 Seas = Notation AISC DPEBAS, load height parameter angle of deviation of wind stream from axis of structural system, or virtual angle of rotation in plastic analysis clastic buckling load factor : factors for calculating lateral capacities for bored piers depending on whether piers behave as long or short modified compression member slendemess value of 4, about major (2) and minor ()) principal axes respectively web plate element slendemess ‘web plate element yield slendemess limit degree of monosymmetry short term load factor capacity reduction factor capacity reduction factor for bending in cold-formed structures code ‘geotechnical reduction factor for bored piers value of g, for long or short pile, respectively.1 Introduction i 1.1 PORTAL FRAMED BUILDINGS Portal-framed steel clad structures are the most common type of industrial buildings. They find extensive use as industrial factory and warehouse structures, and as indoor sporting venues. The major components of a portal frame building are a series of parallel portal shaped 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 1.1. Longitudinal wind forces that are perpendicular to the frames are resisted by triangulated bracing systems in the roof and walls which prevent the frames from falling over. Am illustrative isometric view of the steel skeleton of a bracéd 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 Bearh (WB) rafters such as those manufactured by BHP [1]. 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 of UB or WB rafters. As the span increases, the weight saving offered by trusses becomes more pronounced, until the higher cost per tonne for truss fabrication is eventually offset. ‘The crossover point is difficult to rominate 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 Span Figure 1.1. Typical Portal Frame2 Introduction Ise DPEwOS bracing the bottom chord, Nevertheless, it is recommended that the cost of using portalised trusses in preference to portal frames for a particular project be investigated where the span exceeds 30 metres or 50. Bolted moment fend plete connection. at riege bracket Doubler plotes \ copenn flange stiffener Double diagonal wall bracing Figure 1.2: Structural Components in a Braced Bay l Roof truss with diagonal UB or WB column web members orientated to ‘suit dominant uplift loan Figure 1.3 Portalised Trussassc PFDs Portal Framed Buildings 3 Although portal framed buildings are very common, the number of manuals and handbooks dealing with their design is comparatively small. This book considers the design of portal framed buildings in accordance with the Australian limit states stec! 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 westem, 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 AS4100 and the wind loading code [7] are ambiguous, and the behaviour of many aspects of the structure is not well understood. For example: . Methods of Analysis ‘There are now three main methods of analysis which could be used in the design office as follows. «+ Blastic analysis. This requires separate manual amplification of the moments which in tum requires the determination of the frame buckling load factor. This is achieved by using appropriate formulae such as those developed by Davies [8] or by utilising an elastic critical load analysis using commercially available programs such as Microstran [9] or ‘Spacegass [10]. + Nonlinear or second order elastic analysis. This is readily available in proprictary 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 ace generally prescribed clearly in AS1170.2 but two values of roof pressure cocfficients are given, ie -0.9 or -0.4; -0.5 or 0; -0.3 or +0.2; -0.2 or +0.3. Some designers use the first coefficients mixed with the second to produce the worst effect, whereas the intention of the code is that the first and second coefficients be used as alternative sets. + The choice of internal pressure coefficients is largely a matter of judgement for the designer. This means that different designers can arrive at different solutions for a given project. Effective Lengths of Compression Members (Flexural Buckling) Effective lengths of compression members in portal frames need to be determined as shown in Chapter 4 for: ‘+ _In-plane or major axis buckling under axial load alone (Lexis generally # L). © Inplane or major axis buckling for assessing in-plane member capacity under combined actions (Ler = LOL).4 Introduction Ais DPFBAS © Outoftplane or minor axis buckling for assessing out-of-plane member capacity under combined actions (Ley is generally < 1.0L because of restraint by purlins and girts). Effective Lengths of Beams (Flexural-Torsional Buckling) The rules in AS4100 for determining effective lengths of beam segments are relatively complex, and depend on: End lateral restraints. End torsional restraints. End minor axis bending (lateral rotational) restraints, Height of loading with respect to the shear centre. Tension Members under Self Weight ‘The tensile capacity of horizontal tension members such as double diagonal roof bracing members under self weight bending is not widely understood. For example: + Some designers consider the combined actions of tension and self weight bending ‘moments in tubes and angles whereas tension only is an adequate consideration, ‘+ Some designers are uncertain about appropriate limits on the deflection of roof bracing. ‘members under self-weight alone. Guidance is given in Chapter 6. ‘+ The level of prestress needed for zods, its control on site and the effect, if any, on the limit state tensile capacity of the rods are also issues not well understood and are addressed in this book. «The design of welded T-end connections is not well covered in the literature, and guidance is given in Chapter 6, Roof Bracing Struts under Self Weight Under AS4100, the capacity of a strut under transverse loads is effectively determined by comparing moments rather than axial forces. These moments are relatively small and sensitive to the level of axial load, Designers therefore cannot readily develop a feel for the axial capacity. Design compression capacities of CHS and SHS members under 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 stee! 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 Limit State Design There are no Australian standards for the working stress or limit state design of pad footings for buildings, The piling code [13,14] covers the limit state design of bored piers and the Bridge Design Code addresses the limit state design of pad footings in a comprehensive but overly complex way. This book presents some useful information on the limit state design ofAISC PFE Portal Framed Buildings 5 bored piers including 2 unique formula (see Equation 7.4 in Chapter 7) for assessing the lateral capacity of bored piers in cohesive soils. Design for Gantry Cranes and Monorails ‘The limit state design of erane runway beams and the portal frames which support them is not covered comprehensively by Australian standards or handbooks. Chapter 9 addresses these issues and ineludes 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 throw 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 AS1170.1-1989 Part 1: Dead and live loads and load combinations {15} and AS1170.2-1989 Part 2: Wind loads (7} are used ‘throughout this book, as are the design standards AS4100-1998 Stee! 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 intemationally 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 pottal 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 AIScDPFBIS 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 climinates the problem encountered in working stress design of combining wind upli with dead loads, which was discussed in Reference [11]. Jn the limit state approach, the structure must satisfy simultaneously a number of different limit states or design requirements. It must possess adequate strength, be stable against overtuming or uplift, and perform satisfactorily under service loads. The structure must also be durable, possess adequate fire protection, resist fatigue loading and satisfy any special requirements which are related (o 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 exccedance (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 AS1250 [18]. The limit states of strength (including stability against overtuming) and serviceability must be considered separately, and satisfaction of one does not ensure satisfaction of the other. For each limit state, the designer must compare the capacity of the structure with the appropriate extemal loads. The latter are obtained from the loading codes ASI170.1 and AS1170.2, while the capacities are obtained from the relevant steel or concrete standard, The loads and load combinations for industrial portal 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 $* 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 IV", the shear force ¥”*, 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 strength of a member is taken as the product of its ultimate strength or nominal capacity R,, and an appropriate reduction factor 1 The capacity reduction factor is introduced to account for the variability of the steel (or concrete or soil), the degree with which the structural model approximates real behaviour, and the likelihood of uunderperformance. For the steel frame, a value of g of 0.9 is used for the column and rafter members, while gtakes lower values in the design of connections.AISCDPFBAS Limit State Designs = 7 ‘The design requirement for the strength limit state is that the design strength or capacity is greater than or equal to the design action effect, that is S'S, aay ‘This requirement must be satisfied at each cross-section and at each connection throughout the frame. Of course, in satisfying Equation 1.1, several different load combinations must be considered. 1.2.3 Design for the Serviceability Limit State In design for serviceability, the designer must ensure that the structure behaves satisfactorily, ‘and can perform its intended function at service loads, The most important serviceability limit states to consider for a portal frame building are those of limiting excessive 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 loadings, are not considered in this book, although crane loadings are considered in Chapter 9. While most of the design standards are devoted to calculating the capacities R, for the strength limit state, this does not indicate that the strength limit state is always more important than the serviceability limit state. Some portal frame designs may be governed by the limiting of deflections, and it is important fo 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 width Spacing om Pitch e8 Introduction AISC DPFBAS Personnel doors Reller gates Door (850) 0.9m x 2.2m dem x 3, S e\g ° I Figure 1.4 Design Brief: Plan and Elevation (ee Elevation Typical Section Figure 1.5. Design Brief: Cross-Section‘Asc DPFRIOS Design Example 9 Shielding buidings 42 x 25 x Sen high nga hus 87 hs = 90 0 Is = 87( 545) = 87 Typicol upwind sector ‘Allotments in industrial estote Subject Building 725m, overalt Figure 1.6 Shielding Buildings in Design Example Floor Reinforeed 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 jength ventilator with 600 mm throat Doors 4xroller shutter doors each 4 m x 3.6m high 4xpersonnel doors each 0.9 m x 2.2 m high10 10. u. 13. 4 16. 17. 18, 20. nv Introduction AISC DPFBAS Soit Conditions Stiff clay with ¢, = 50 kPa Footings Bored piers or pad footings Shielding Buildings Refer to Figure 1.6 REFERENCES Broken Hill Proprietary (1998). Hot Rolled Structural Steel Products, BHP, Melbourne. Standards Australia (1998). AS#/00 Steel Structures, SA, Sydney. Canadian Standards Association (1978). CAN3-SI6.1-M78 Steel Structures for Buildings — Limit States Design, CSA, Rextale, Ontario. British Standards Institution (1990). 855950, Structural Use of Steel in Buildings, Part 1, Code of Practice for Design in Simple and Continuous Construction: Hot Rolled Sections, BSI, London. American Institute of Steel Construction (1986). Load and Resistance Factor Design ‘Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, AISC, Chicago. Standards New Zealand (1992). NZS3404 Steel Structures Standard, SNZ, Wellington, NZ. Standards Association of Australia (1989). 4S1170.2-1989 Part 2 Wind Loading Code (with amendments), SAA, Sydney. Davies, J.M, (1990). Inplane stability in portal frames, The Structural Engineer, 68(4), 141- 147, Engineering Systems Pty Ltd (1996). Micrastran Users Manual, Engineering Systems, Sydney. Integrated Technical Software Ply Ltd (1995). Spacegass Reference Manual, ITS Pty Ltd, Werribee, Victoria Woolcock, 8.7. end Kitipomchai, 8. (1987). Design of Portal Frame Buildings, AISC, Sydney. Australian Institute of Steel Construction (1985). Standardized Structural Connections, 3" edn, AISC, Sydney. Standards Association of Australia (1978). AS2/59-1978 SA4 Piling Code, SAA, Sydney. Standards Australia (1995). 452/59-1995 Piling — Design and Installation, SA, Sydney. Standards Association of Australia (1989). AS/170.1-1989 Part | Dead and Live Loads and Load Combinations, SAA, Syéney. Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand (1996). AS/VZS4600 Cold Formed Steel Structures, SA, Sydney, SNZ, Auckland. Standards Australia (1994). Concrete Structures, SA, Sydney. Standards Association of Australia (1981). ASI250-1981 SAA Steel Structures Code, SAA, Sydney. Kennedy, DJ.L. (1974). Limit states design - an innovation in design standards for steel structures, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, \(1), 1-13. Leicester, R.H., Pham, L. and Kleeman, P.W. (1983). Conversion to limit states design codes, Metal Structures Conference, Brisbane, May, 29-33. Pham, L., Bridge, R.Q. and Bradford, M.A. (1985). Calibration of the proposed limit states design rules for steel beams and columns, Civil Engineering Transactions, Institution of Engineers, Australia, CE27(3), 268-274.2 Loads 2.1 BACKGROUND ‘As part of the development of the limit state design approach for structures, the loading codes were drafted using a rational probabilistic basis. The relevant loading codes for limit state design appeared some time ago, being AS1170.1-1989 Part 1: Dead and Live Loads and Load Combinations [1] and AS1170.2-1989 Part 2: Wind Loads [2]. The wind code has had two amendments. Both loading standards will be used extensively throughout this book. The loads to be considered in the design of portal frame buildings are dead, live, wind and occasionally snow loads, and combinations of these. Live loads generally represent peak loads which have a 95% probability of not being exceeded over a 50 year 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 strueture or its permanent 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 ASIL70.1, 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 manufacturer which nominates the maximum spans that will sustain this load. u