Design of Portal Frame Buildings 3rd Ed - Text

Design of Portal
Frame Buildings
Third Edition
S.T. Woolcock
Director, Bonacci Winward
Consulting Engineers
S. Kitipornchai
Professor of Civil Engineering
The University of Queensland
M.A. Bradford
Professor of Civil Engineering
The University of New South Wales
Published by
Australian Institute of Steel Construction
Level 13, 99 Mount Street
AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
A.C.N. 000 973 839
DESIGN OF PORTAL FRAME BUILDINGS
Published by:
AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
Enquiries should be addressed to the publisher:
Business address - Level13. 99 Mount Street, North Sydney, NSW. 2060, Australia.
Postal address - P.O. Box 6366. North Sydney. NSW, 2059, Australia.
E-mail address - enquiries@aisc.com.au
Website - www.aisc.com.au
© Copyright 1999 Australian Institute of Steel Construction
All rights reserved. Thisbook or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form
without the written permission of the Australian Institute of Steel Construction.
Published as
Design of Portal Frame Buildings- 1st edition {to AS 1250) - 1987
Limit State Design ofPortal Frame Buildings- 1st edition (to AS4I00)- 1991
Limit State Design ofPortal Frame Buildings -2nd edition (to AS 4 100) -1 993
Design of Portal Frame Buildings - 3rd edition (to AS 4 100) - 1 999 (this edition)
National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry:
Woolcock. S. T.
Design of portal frame buildings.
3rd ed.
Bibliography.
Includes index.
ISBN 0 909945 84 5
l. Industrial buildings - Design and construction. 2.

Building, Iron and steel - Design and construction. I.
Kitipomchai. S. II. Bradford, Mark A. (Mark Andrew). III.
Australian Institute of Steel Construction. IV. Title.
693.71
Production by Robert Burton Printers Pty Ltd

63 Carlingford Street, Sefton, NSW
2162, Australia.
DISCLAIMER
Every effort has been made and all reasonable care taken to ensure the accuracy of the
material contained in this Publication. However, to the extent permitted by law. the
Authors, Editors and Publishers of this Publication:
(a) will not be held liable or responsible in any way; and

(b) expressly disclaim any liability or responsibility,
for any damage, costs or expenses incurred in connection with this Publication by any
loss,
person, whether that person is the purchaser of this Publication or not. Without limitation,
this includes loss, damage, costs and expenses incurred if any person wholly or partially
relies on any part of this Publication, and loss, damage, costs and expenses incurred as a
result of the negligence of the Authors. Editors or Publishers.
WARNING
This Publication should not be used without the services of a competent professional
person with expert knowledge in the relevant field, and under no circumstances should this
Publication be relied upon to replace any or all of the knowledge and expertise of such a
person.
Contents
Preface x
Notation xii
Introduction 1
1 . 1 Portal Framed Buildings 1

1.2 Limit State Design 5
1.2.1 Background 5
1 .2.2 Design for the Strength Limit State 6
1 .2.3 Design for the Serviceability Limit State 7
1.3 Design Example 7
1.4 References 10
Loads 11
2.1 Background 11
2.2 Dead Loads 11
2.3 Live Loads 11
2.4 Wind Loads 12
2.4.1 General 12
2.4.2 RegionalWind Speeds 14
2.4.3 Wind Directions 14
2.4.4 Terrain Category 14
2.4.5 Basic Wind Speeds 15
2.4.6 Calculation of Pressures 15
2.4.7 External Pressures 16
2.4.8 Internal Pressures 17
2.4.9 Area Reduction Factor 19
2.4.10 Local Pressure Factors 19
2.5 Load Combinations 19
2.5.1 Strength Limit State 19
2.5.2 Serviceability Limit State 21
2.6 Design Example - Loads 21
2.6.1 Dead Loads 21
2.6.2 Live Loads 21
2.6.3 Wind Loads 22
2.6.3. 1 Basic Wind Data 22
• 2.6. 3.2 External Wind Pressures 23
2.6.3.3 Internal Wind Pressures 24
2. 6.3.4 Peak Local Pressures 25
2.6.4 Load Cases for Portal Frames 25
2.6.5 Load Combinations 29
2.7 References 30
Purlins & Girts 31

3.1 General 31
3.2 Roof and Wall Sheeting 32
3.3 Frame Spacing 32
Contents AISC DPFB/03
IV
Purlin Strengths 33
3.4
3.4.1 Manufacturers’ Brochures 33
3.4.2 R-Factor Method 34
Deflections 35
3.5
Axial Loads 35
3.5 .
Purlin Cleats 35
3.6 r
3.7 Purlin Bolts 36

3.8 Equivalent UDL’s for Peak Pressure 36
3 .9 Design Example - Purlins 38
3.10.1 Member Capacity Brochures 38
3.10.2 Outward Loading - Cross Wind 38
3.10.3 Outward Loading - Longitudinal Wind 40
3.10.4 Purlin Selection for Outward Loading 41
3.10.5 Check Inward Loading 44
3.10.6 Purlin Deflections 45
3.10.7 Purlin Summary 46
3.10.8 R-Factor Method 47
3.11 Design Example - Girts 49
3.11.1 Side Wall Girts 49
3.11.2 End Wall Girts with Span of 6250 mm 51
3.12 3.12 References 53
4 Frame Design 55
4. 1 Frame Design by Elastic Analysis 55

4.2 Computer Analysis 55
4.2.1 LoadCases 55
4.2.2 Methods of Analysis 56
4.2.3 Moment Amplification for First Order Elastic Analysis 57
4.3 Rafters 58
4.3.1 Nominal Bending Capacity M bx in Rafters 58
4. 3. 1.1 Simplified Procedure 58
4.3. 1.2 Alternative Procedure 59
4.3.2 Effective Length and Moment Modification Factors 60
for Bending Capacity
General
4. 3. 2.1 60
4.3. 2.2Top Flange in Compression 60
4.3.2.3 Bottom Flange in Compression 61
4.3.3 Major Axis Compression Capacity //« 64
4.3.4 Minor Axis Compression Capacity 64
4.3.5 Combined Actions for Rafters 65
4.3.6 Haunches for Rafters 65
4.4 Portal Columns 65
4.4. 1 General 65
4.4.2 Major Axis Compression Capacity 65
4.4.3 Minor Axis Compression Capacity Ncy 65
4.4.4 Nominal Bending Capacity bx in ColumnsM 66
General
4.4.4. 1 66
4.4.4.2 Inside Flange in Compression 66
4.4.4.3 Outside Flange in Compression 67
4.5 Combined Actions 67
4.5.1 General 67
4.5.2 In-Plane Capacity 67
4.5.2. 1 In-Plane Section Capacity 67
AISC DPFB/03 Portal Framed Buildings v
4. 5. 2. 2 In-Plane Member Capacity 68

4.5.3 Out-of-Plane Capacity 69
4.5.3. 1 Compression Members 69
4.5. 3. 2 Tension Members 69
4.6 Central Columns 69
4.6.1 General 69
4.6.2 Effective Lengths for Axial Compression 70
4.6.2. Top Connection Pinned
1 70
Top Connection Rigid
4.6.2. 2 71
4.6.3 Combined Actions with First Order Elastic Analysis 71
4.6.4 Combined Actions with Second Order Elastic Analysis 71
4.7 End Wall Frames 72
4.7.1 General 72
4.7.2 End Wall Columns 72
4.7.3 End Wall Columns to Rafter Connection 72
4.7.3. 1 General 72
4.7.3.2 Continuous Rafter 73
"
4.7.3. 3 Discontinuous Rafter . 74
4.8 Braces 74
4.8.1 Fly Braces 74
4.8.2 Purlins as Braces 76
4.9 Deflections 77
4.9.1 General 77
4.9.2 Problems of Excessive Deflection 77
4.9.3 Recommended Deflections 78
4.10 Design Example - Frame Design 81
4.10.1 Frame Analysis 81
4.10.1.1 Preliminary Design 81
4.10.1.2 Haunch Properties 82
4.10.1.3 Methods of Analysis 82
4.10.2 Frame Deflections 83
4.10.3 Columns (460UB74) 84
4.10.3.1 Column Section Capacities 84
4.10.3.2 Column Member Capacities 84
4.10.3.3 Column Combined Actions 85
4.10.4 Rafters (360UB45) 89
4.10.4.1 Rafter Section Capacities 89
4.10.4.2 Rafter Member Capacities 89
4.10.4.3 Rafter Combined Actions 90
4.10.1 LIMSTEEL Results 99
4.10.2 End Wall Frames 99
4.10.3 End Wall Columns 99
4.10.7.1 Inside Flange in Tension (Inward Loading) 99
4.10.7.2 Inside Flange in Compression (Outward Loading) 101
4.10.7.3 Axial Compression Under Gravity Loads 102
4.11 References 102
Frame Connections 105

5.1 General 105
5.2 Bolted Knee and Ridge Joints 106
5.3 Base Plates 107
5.4 Design Example - Frame Connections 108
5.4.1 General 108
1
VI Contents AISC DPFB/03
5.4.2 Knee Joint 109

5.4.2. 1 General 109
5.4.2.2 Calculate Design Actions for Bolts, End Plate 109
and Stiffeners
5.4.2.3 Bottom Flange Connection 1 12
5.4.2.4 Top Flange Connection 128

5.4.2.5 Column Web Shear Stiffeners 131
5.4.3 Ridge Connection 134
5.4.4 Baseplates 137
5.4.5 End Wall Column Connections 141
5.4.5. 1 General 141
5. 4.5. 2 Centre Column - Top Connection 141
5. 4.5. 3 Quarter Point Columns - Top Connection 142
5.5 References 143
6 Roof & Wall Bracing 145

6.1 General 145
6.2 Erection Procedure 146
6.3 Forces 146
6.3.1 Longitudinal Wind Forces 146
6.3.2 Rafter Bracing Forces 146
6.4 Bracing Plane 147
6.5 Bracing Layout 147
6.6 Tension Rods 152
6.7 Tubes and Angles in Tension 155
6.8 Tubes in Compression 159
6.9 End Connections for Struts and Ties 161
6.9.1 Tubes 161
6.9. 1.1 Tubes in Tension 161
6.9. 1.2 Tubes in Compression 163
6.9.2 Angles 163
6.10 Eccentricity 163
6. 1 1 Design Example - Roof and Wall Bracing 163
6.11.1 Longitudinal Forces 163
6.11.1.1 General 163
6.11.1.2 Forces due to Longitudinal Wind 164
6.11.1.3 Forces due to Rafter Bracing 166
6.1 1.1.4 Forces in Roof Bracing Members 166
6.11.2 Struts 166
6.11.3 Ties or Tension Diagonals 168
6.11.4 Connections 171
6. 1 1 .4. 1 End Connections for Struts 1 7
6.11.4.2 Bolts 172

6.11.5 Side Wall Bracing 1 73
6.12 References 173
7 Footings & Slabs 191

7.1 General 191
7.2 Design Uplift Forces 192
7.3 Pad Footings 192
7.4 Bored Piers 193
7.4.1 General 193
AISC DPFB/03 Portal Framed Buildings vii
7.4.2 Resistance to Vertical Loads 195

7.4.3 Resistance to Lateral Loads 195
7.5 Holding Down Bolts 196
7.5.1 General 196
7.5.2 Design Criteria 198
7.5.3 Grouting or B edding 199
7.5.4 Bolts in Tension 199
7. 5. 4.1 Anchorage of Straight or Cogged Bars 199
7.5. 4.2 Cone Failure 199
7.5. 4.3 Embedment Lengths 201
7. 5. 4.4 Minimum Edge Distance for Tensile Loads 201
7.5.5 Bolts in Shear 204
7.5.6 Corrosion 205
7.6 Slab Design 205
7.6.1 Design Principles 205
7.6.2 Slab Thickness 205
7.6.3 Joints 206
7. 6.3.1 General 206
7. 6.3.2 Sawn Joints 206
7.6.3.3 Cast-In Crack Initiators 207
7.6. 3.4 Keyed Joints 207
7.6.3. 5 Dowelled Joints 209
7. 6.3. 6 Joint Spacing and Reinforcement 209
7.7 Design Example Footings
- 210
7.7.1 Typical Portal Footings 210
7. 7. 1.1 Bored Piers 210
7.7. 1 Compare Pad Footings
.2 212
7.7.2 End Wall Column Footings ; 212
7.7.3 Main Portal Footings in Braced Bays -213

7.7.3. 1 Comer Columns 213
7.7. 3.2 Column on Grid B2 214
7. 7. 3. 3 Columns on Grids A2, A8 and B8 214
7.7.3 .4 Holding Down Bolts for Portal Columns 214
7.7.3. 5 Holding Down Bolts for End Wall Columns 215
7.8 Design Example - Slab 215
7.8.1 Design Criteria 215
7.8.2 Slab Thickness Design 216
7.8.3 Joints 216
7.8.4 Reinforcement 217
7.9 References 217
8 Plastic Frame Design 219

8.1 General 219
8.2 Plastic Analysis 219
8.2.1 General 219
8.2.2 Direct Mechanism Method 220
8.2.3 Iterative Mechanism Method 223
8.2.4 Statical Method 225
8.2.5 Second Order Effects 225
8.3 Basis of Plastic Design in AS4100 225
8.4 Member Capacities 226
8.5 Design Example - Plastic Frame Design 227
8.5.1 Preliminary Design 227
Contents AISC DPFB/03
8. 5. 1.1 Gravity Load Case 227

8. 5. 1.2 Cross Wind Load Case 229
8.5. 1.3 Deflections 231
8.5.2 Detailed Design 231
8.5.3 Columns 238
8.5.3. 1 Section Capacities 238
8. 5.3.2 Member Capacities 239
8.5.4 Rafters 242
8.5.5 Serviceability 244
8.5.6 Comparison of Plastic and Elastic Solutions 244
8.6 References 244
Gantry Cranes & Monorails 247

9.1 General 247
9.2 Design Procedure for Gantry Cranes 248
9.3 Crane Runway Beams 249
9.3.1 General 249
9.3.2 Design Loads and Moments 250
9.3.3 Member Capacity in Major Axis Bending jMfo 251
9.3.3. 1 AS4100 Beam Design Rules 251
9. 3. 3.2 Proposed Monosymmetric Beam Design Rules 252
9.4 Portal Columns Supporting Crane Runway Beams 254
9.5 Monorail Beams 254
9.5.1 General 254
9.5.2 Member
Capacity Tables 254
9.5.3 Local Bottom Flange Bending :
255
9.6 Design Example - Gantry Crane 255
9.6.1 Load Cases 255
9.6.2 Crane Runway Beam 258
9.6.2. 1 Major Axis Bending Moments 258
9.6. 2.2 Minor Axis Bending Moments 259
9.6. 2.3 Combined Actions 262
9.6.2.4 Check' Major Axis Compound Section Capacity <f>Msx 263
9.6.2.5 Deflections 263
9.6.2.6 Vertical Shear Capacity 263
9.6.2.7Shear Buckling Capacity 264
Shear and Bending Interaction
9.6.2. 8 264
9. 6.2.9 Bearing Capacity of Crane Runway Beam 264
9.6.2.10 Check Effect of Eccentric Corbel Loading on Column 266
9.6.2. 1 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 271
9.6.2.14 Fatigue 271
9.6.3 Check Portal Frame 272
9.6.3. 1 Loads 272
9.6. 3.2 Load Combinations 273
9.6. 3.3 Columns 273
9.7 References 277
Appendix 9. 1 Design Capacity Tables 279
Appendix 9.2 Background to Design Capacity Tables 287
A9.2.1 General 287
A9.2.2 Section Moment Capacity <pMsx 287
71
aisc dpfb/03 Portal Framed Buildings ix
A9.2.3 Member Moment Capacity >

<f
289
A9.2.4 Member Capacity to AS4100 290
AppendlxI: Drawings 293
Appendix II: Computer Output 303

Geometry; Load Cases; Deflections 305
Second Order Analysis; Load Combinations; 3 1
Member Forces; Reactions

Joint and Member Numbering; Displaced Shapes; 3 1
Bending Moment Diagrams

Elastic Critical Load Analysis 323
Appendix III: Limsteel Output 327
Subject Index 333

Preface
In October 1985, Scott Woolcock and Sritawat Kitipomchai presented a non-technical

_
paper entitled Some Aspects of the Design of Industrial Buildings to a conference of!
the Australian Institute of Construction Supervisors at the Gold Coast. The paper
outlined some of the grey areas in the design of portal framed buildings. AISC were
very interested in the paper and invited these two authors to write the earlier working
stress version of this book. It was entitled Design of Portal Frame Buildings and was
published in 1987.
The working stress version was then completely rewritten for the change to
The first limit state edition was published in 1991 and was entitled
limit states design.
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 AS 11 70. The release of the limit state cold formed
structures code AS4600 in 1996 and the publication of the Lysaght and Stramit limit
states purlin and girt brochures in 1999 have also been fully accounted for. Because
limit state design is now well established, the title has reverted to the simpler, original
title - Design of Portal Frame Buildings.
A new chapter dealing mainly with the design of portal frame buildings for
overhead travelling cranes has been added. It covers the design of crane runway
beams and addresses some ambiguities and inadequacies in AS4100’s treatment of
monosymmetric beams. The chapter includes design capacity tables for top flange
(and above top flange) loading of some standard combinations of UB’s and WB’s
with PFC top flange channels. In addition, the effect of crane loads and crane
deflection limits on the design of the portal frames is addressed. Some typical details
are provided. The theory isextended 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 AS2 159- 1995 although different geotechnical capacity reduction factors
x
AISC DPFB/03 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
Winward and the Departments of Civil Engineering at The University of Queensland
and The University of New South Wales for their support in preparing this book.
Although Bonacci Winward’s Brisbane office prepared most of the diagrams, Brice
Engineers of Townsville prepared the three dimensional view in Chapter 1 using
Strucad, and this is much appreciated. Simon Pikusa’s idea for and contribution
towards the plastic design chapter in the first edition is acknowledged. In particular,
the authors would like to thank Arun Syam, National Manager - Technology at the
Australian Institute of Steel Construction for his continued encouragement.
Finally, the authors would like to express their appreciation for the continued
support of their wives and families during the preparation of this edition.
Scott Woolcock
Sritawat Kitipomchai
Mark Bradford
September 1999
Notation
The following notation is used in this book. Where there is more than one meaning to a
symbol, the correct one will be evident from the context in which it is used. Generally, the
notation has been chosen to conform where possible to that in the relevant design standard.
A cross-sectional area, or
tributary area which transmits wind forces to elements
Ac core cross-sectional area of bolt
Ad shank area of rod
Afc flange area at critical section

Afm flange area at minimum cross-section
gross area of cross-section

net area of cross-section
As cross-sectional area of tension reinforcement, or

tensile stress area of bolt or bracing rod, or
effective area of stiffeners
Aw gross sectional area of web
Awe area of column web

a dimension used in defining extent of application of local wind pressure factors
a height of application of load below shear centre of a monosymmetric beam
ac = (Pfc - s
g)/2
aa — (Sg 2 rc)/2
- t wc -
ae edge distance from bolt centreline to top or bottom edge of end plate
af distance from bolt centreline to face of rafter flange
afe effective value of af for bolted moment end plate

ai edge distance from bolt centreline to side edge of end plate = -
(6 f - sg}!2
aw distance between crane wheel loads
B overall dimension of square hollow section

b frame spacing, or
length of building normal to wind stream
bb ' web bearing width used in AS41 00 at the neutral axis of the member
bbf web bearing width used in AS4100 at the junction of the web and inside face
of flange
be effective width of plate element
bes stiffener outstand from face of web
bjb flange width of beam
bfc flange width of column
bi width of end plate

b rc — twc 2fc
br f,
width of railhead
XII
AISC DPFB/03
Notation xiii
bs average breadth of shielding buildings normal to wind stream, or

stiff bearing length
Cp wind pressure coefficient
Cpe external wind pressure coefficient
Cp i
internal wind pressure coefficient
CW cross wind
cu undrained cohesion
D dead load, or
beam depth, or
rod diameter, or
tube diameter, or
hold down bolt diameter, or
building spacing parameter in detemiining shielding
DL dead load
d minimum roof plan dimension, or
depth of a building parallel to windstream, or
bored pier diameter
clear depth between flanges ignoring fillets or welds
di twice the clear distance from the neutral axis to the inside face of the
compression flange
db beam depth
dc column section depth
if distance between flange centroids, or

nominal bolt diameter
du bolt hole diameter in bolted moment end plate
dm minimum depth of haunch (equal to rafter depth)
dp depth of web plate, or

clear distance in Appendix I of AS4100
dwc column section depth between fillets = dc - 2 kc
•-
E Young’s modulus of elasticity ‘
E U E2 minimum edge distances for hold down bolts subjected to tensile load and
shear, respectively
e eccentricity above ground line of applied load to bored pier, or
eccentricity of crane loading
Fa allowable working stress in AS 1250

Foe elastic buckling stress in AS 1250
f vertical distance from knee to ridge for plastic analysis
fac axial stress
fat axial stress in cable or rod

bending stresses in stiffeners at end wall column to rafter connection
ft
fa characteristic strength of concrete
fs design value of shaft adhesion

XIV Notation AISC DPFB/03
ft tensile stress, or
tensile strength of concrete
fu ultimate tensile stress
fuf ultimate tensile strength of bolt

'
fuw normal tensile strength of weld material

*
/ v
average design shear stress in web
f'm maximum design shear stress in web

fy yield stress
fycf.fycw column yield stress of flange or web, respectively
fy.CHS yield stress of CHS
fyd yield stress of doubler plate
fyi yield stress of bolted moment end plate
fys yield stress of stiffener
/,* equivalent design stress on web panel
f\f2 factors in elastic monosymmetric beam buckling formula
G nominal dead load, or

shear modulus of elasticity
Ga Gb , end restraint parameters for a compression member in AS 1 250
Gr part of dead load which resists instability
H column height for plastic analysis, or

column height for effective length calculation
H‘ design lateral force on bored pier

H r height of rail
H„ design lateral bored pier capacity
h eaves height, or
height of structure above ground
hb monorail load height
he eaves height
hs average height of shielding building
h, ridge height, or
rail height
Ic value of Ix for column

IP internal pressure
If second moment of area of flange

Ip polar moment of area
Ir value of Ix for rafter
IS internal suction
Iw second moment of area of web, or

warping section constant
Ix , Iy second moments of area about major (x) and minor (y) principal axes,
respectively
AISC DPFB/03 Notation xv
lyc minor axis second moment of area of compression flange
J Saint Venant torsion constant

Jr torsion constant for rail
K beam parameter for monosymmetric beam
kc distance on column from outer face of flange to inner termination of root
radius= t wc + rc
kc member effective length factor
kj- form factor for a member subjected to axial compression
kf load height effective length factor
km spring stiffness
kmw proportion of design moment transmitted by web

kpr coefficient to allow for additional bolt force due to prying
kr effective length factor for restraint against in-plane lateral rotation
kf twist restraint effective length factor, or

load eccentricity reduction factor for tension members
kw ratio of area of web to total cross sectional area
span, or
member length, or
rafter span, or
embedded length of bored pier
embedment lengths of hold down bolts for singe cone, two intersecting cones
and four intersecting cones respectively
length of column
effective length of compression member or laterally unsupported beam
value of L e about major (x) and minor (y) principal axes, respectively
holding down bolt cog length
length 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
M bending moment
AT design bending moment
‘
M(z, gust wind speed multiplier for terrain category cat at height z
’
cat)
Mb nominal bending moment capacity
M bx value of Mb about major principal x axis

Md wind direction reduction factor
Mi nominal in-plane member moment capacity, or
structure importance multiplier for design wind speed
maximum calculated design bending moment along length of a member or in a
segment
}
XVI Notation AISC DPFB/03
M n elastic critical uniform bending moment for a beam with ends fully restrained
against lateral translation and twist rotation but unrestrained against minor axis
rotation
Maa amended elastic buckling member subject to bending

moment for a
Moo reference elastic buckling moment obtained using L e ~ L
Mob elastic critical bending moment calculated by elastic buckling analysis and
incorporating moment gradient, height of loading and restraint conditions
Mas M 0 b for a segment, fully restrained at bolt ends, but unrestrained against lateral
rotation and loaded at the shear centre
Mox nominal out-of-plane member moment capacity about major (x) axis
M*„ required design moment by plastic frame analysis
M,pr nominal plastic moment capacity reduced by axial force
prx value of M pr about major principal x axis

Mn value of M sx reduced by axial force
M* nominal section moment capacity in bending, or
shielding multiplier for design wind speed
Msx value of M about major

s principal x axis
M, topographic multiplier for design wind speed

M, w torsionalmoment in rail design
My first moment
yield
My ultimate moment capacity of bored pier
<
m
design bending moment on web panel
moment modifying factor in monosymmetric beam buckling formula
c
N* design axial force, tensile or compressive

Nc nominal member capacity in compression
K design axial force on column
Ncs nominal strength of stiffener in compression

Ncx> NCy value of Nc for buckling .about the major (x) and minor (y) principal axes,
respectively
Nfc total compression design force in flange
N fi
total tension design force in flange
NoL = 7? El II
Nom elastic flexural buckling load of member
Nomb value of Nom for braced member
Npb nominal capacity of bolted end plate in bending
Noms value of Nom for sway member
K design axial force in rafter
Nrf . reduced nominal axial capacity of horizontal tubular strut due to self weight
bending
N , nominal section capacity for compressive axial force
b
AISC DPFB/03 Notation xvu
N, nominal section capacity for tensile axial force
N^ nominal capacity of bolts at tension flange
N,/ nominal tension capacity of a bolt or bracing rod

N'j design bolt tensile force :
N ls
nominal strength of stiffener in tension
Ntw capacity of tube wall near cap plate
N vs nominal strength of stiffener designed to resist excess shear in column
Nls design force on stiffener due to shear
Nw nominal capacity of fillet or butt weld for flange subjected to axial force
n number of bolts in bolt group

ns number of upwind shielding buildings within 45° sector or radius 20 h (
P applied load, or
magnitude of anchor head of holding down bolt applied load
ph crane dynamic wheel load
Pz design wind pressure at height z
Q nominal live load

free stream gust dynamic wind pressure resulting from V2
R reduction factor in cold-formed code, or

redundant force in plastic analysis, or
support reaction
R bb nominal bearing buckling capacity
R by nominal bearing yield capacity
Rc ,R c i,Rc 2 nominal capacities of column adjacent to beam compression flange
R cs nominal capacity of stiffened column adjacent to beam compression flange
Rj- rafter length along slope from column centreline to apex in plastic design
R sb nominal buckling capacity of stiffened web
RhR t \yRa nominal-capacities of column adjacent to beam tension flange
R ld nominal capacity of column flange with doubler plates adjacent to beam

tension flange
R ls nominal capacity of stiffened column flange adjacent to beam tension flange
R*w design bearing force or reaction on web panel used in Appendix I of AS4100
Ru nominal capacity
r radius of gyration
rc root radius of column section
rn rs ratios used for tapered member in AS4 1 00

rx,ry radius of gyration about the major (x) and minor (y) axes, respectively
S plastic section modulus

S' design action effect
Sr distance between fly braces

xviii Notation AISC DPFB/03
Sp distance between purlins or girts
S# ratio of plastic section modulus of column to unhaunched rafter
SWL safe working load

s purlin spacing
s bolt gauge
g
sp bolt pitch
T flange thickness, or
force in tension diagonal, or
thickness of anchor head of holding down bolt
t thickness, or
web thickness, or
thickness of tube wall
t
d thickness of doubler plate
tj end plate thickness

tf flange thickness
tjl beam flange thickness
tfc column flange thickness

tr root radius in rail design
ts thickness of stiffener
t( fillet weld throat thickness
t w web thickness, or
fillet weld leg length
t wb beam web thickness
t wc column web thickness
t wd thickness of web doubler plate
V regional basic gust design wind speed

*
V design shear force
Vb nominal shear buckling capacity

v; design shear force in column
nominal capacity of single bolt in shear used in AISC’s connections manual
Vf nominal shear capacity of bolt used in AS4100
Vfr nominal shear capacity of bolt group used in AISC’s connections manual
y} design shear force in bolt used in AS4100

vp basic wind speed for permissible stress method
Vpy nominal capacity of plate in shear
Vs basic wind speed for serviceability limit state
Vu basic wind speed for ultimate limit state, or

nominal shear capacity of web in uniform shear
Vv nominal shear capacity of web
Vic vertical design shear force at interface of end plate and column
nominal web shear capacity in the presence of bending moment

A JSC DPFB/03 Notation xix
vw nominal shear yield capacity of web

Vz basic design gust wind speed at height z
vw nominal capacity of fillet weld per unit length

v weld force component in y direction
)
v* weld force component in z direction
W nominal wind load, or

weld size used in anchor head of holding down bolt
We external work
Wi internal work
Ws serviceability wind load
Wu ultimate wind load
w uniformly distributed load
w' design uniformly distributed load
WDL distributed dead load
We equivalent uniformly distributed load
wL l,wq distributed live load
Wu nominal load
WUW2 nominal loads in plastic frame analysis
yc sag in cable or rod

Ze effective section modulus
Zwc effective section modulus of web used in Appendix I of AS4100
z distance or height above ground level
a angle of slope of roof, or

reduction coefficient for adhesion on bored pier, or
load position parameter for monosymmetric beams
(Xb compression member section constant
CCcx-,CCcy value of ac about major (x) and minor (y) principal axes, respectively
&n\ moment modification factor for flexural-torsional buckling

<zs slenderness reduction factor
CCsb slenderness reduction factor for monosymmetric beams

a st
reduction factor for tapered member
av shear buckling coefficient
Pm ratio of smaller to larger bending moment at ends of member
Px monosymmetry parameter
run ratios of compression member stiffness to end restraint stiffness
A frame or member deflection

5 sway deflection
Sb moment amplification factor for braced member
8m moment amplification factor, taken as the greater of and Ss
8s moment amplification factor for sway member
XX Notation AISC DPFB/03
c load height parameter

e angle of deviation of wind stream from axis of structural system, or
virtual angle of rotation in plastic analysis
Ac elastic buckling load factor
AlAs factors for calculating lateral capacities for bored piers depending on whether !
piers behave as long or short

An modified compression member slenderness
AflXr Any value of about major (x) and minor (y) principal axes respectively
Aw web plate element slenderness
Awy web plate element yield slenderness limit
P degree of monosymmetry
n short term load factor
* capacity reduction factor
A capacity reduction factor for bending in cold-formed structures code

geotechnical reduction factor for bored piers
At, As value of A f°r long or short P*^ e > respectively.

1 Introduction
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 Longitudinal wind forces that are perpendicular to the frames are
in Figure 1.1.
resisted by triangulated bracing systems in the roof and walls which prevent the frames from
falling over. An illustrative isometric view of the steel skeleton of a braced bay of a portal
frame building is shown in Figure 1.2. This book presents limit state design procedures for
the design of portal framed buildings based on Australian standards, as described in Section
1 . 2 .
Large clear spans of about 40 metres can be achieved economically using Universal
Beam (UB) or Welded Beam (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 becomes more pronounced, until the higher
trusses
cost per tonne for truss fabrication is eventually offset. The crossover point is difficult to
nominate because of the many variables. One of the difficulties of the comparison is that a
building with roof trusses is higher than a building with portal frames, assuming that the same
internal height clearances are maintained. The main drawback of a trussed roof is the need for
Figure l . 1 Typical Portal Frame
1
Introduction AISC DPFB/03
2
bracing the bottom chord. Nevertheless, it is recommended that the cost of using
portalised
in preference to portal frames for a particular project be investigated where the span
trusses
exceeds 30 metres or so.
Bolted moment
Figure 1.2 Structural Components in a Braced Bay
Figure 1.3 Portalised Truss

AISC DPFB/03 Portal Framed Buildings 3
Although portal framed buildings are very common, the number of manuals and
handbooks dealing with their design is comparatively small. This book considers the design
of portal framed buildings in accordance with the Australian limit states steel structures code
AS4100 [2], which was first introduced in 1990 in response to an international trend towards
limit state design. Prior to the mid-eighties, the design of structural steelwork in most western
countries was undertaken using permissible or working stress methods. Very little mention of
these methods will be made in this book, since they have now been superseded. Apart from
the 1978 Canadian code [3], limit state design standards for steel structures were released after
1985: in 1985 and 1990 in the United Kingdom [4], in 1986 in the United States [5], in 1990
and 1998 in Australia [2] and in 1992 in New Zealand [6], Background information on the
development of the Australian limit state code is given in Section 1.2.
It thought that the design of portal-framed buildings is simple and

may be
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 ofAnalysis
There are now three main methods of analysis which could be used in the design office as
follows.
• Elastic analysis. This requires separate manual amplification of the moments which in
turn requires the determination of the frame buckling load factor. This is achieved by
using appropriate formulae such as those developed by Davies [8] or by utilising an elastic
critical load analysis using commercially available programs such as Microstran [9] or
Spacegass [10].
• Nonlinear or second order elastic analysis. This is readily available in proprietary
programs, and does not require the amplification of moments.

• Plastic analysis. This is described in Chapter 8.
Note that more advanced analysis programs are starting to become available, but to date these
are generally only research tools.
Loads
.• External pressures are generally prescribed clearly in AS 11.70.2 but two values of roof
pressure coefficients are given, ie -0.9or -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 (Lex is generally * L).
• In-plane or major axis buckling for assessing in-plane member capacity under combined
actions (. L^ = 1 .0L).
Introduction AISC DPFB/03
4
• Out-of-plane or minor axis buckling for assessing out-of-plane member capacity under
combined actions (Ley is generally < 1.0Z. because of restraint by purlins and girts).
Effective Lengths of Beams (Flexural- Torsional Buckl ing)
The rules in AS4100 for determining effective lengths of bfeam 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 of horizontal tension members such as double diagonal roof bracing
tensile capacity
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 levelof prestress needed for rods, its control on site and the effect, if any, on the limit
state tensile capacity of the rods are also issues not well 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 steel or concrete standards, and
there is wide variation in practice. The earlier working stress version of this book [11]
presented information on embedded bolts drawn from research by the American Concrete
Institute on nuclear safety-related structures, and this information has now been incorporated
into the AISC’s Structural Connections book [12]. The essential details in a slightly revised
format are presented in this edition.
Geotechnical 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 DPFB/03 Portal Framed Buildings 5
bored piers including a unique formula (see Equation 7.4 in Chapter 7) for assessing the
lateral capacity of bored piers in cohesive soils.
Design for Gantry Cranes and Monorails
The limit state design of crane runway beams and the portal frames which support them is not
covered comprehensively by Australian standards or handbooks. Chapter 9 addresses these
issues and includes a design example. Comprehensive design tables are presented for the
designer to help choose the correct composite runway beam for a given crane loading based
on a rational buckling analysis of the monosymmetric runway beam. Tables for the bending
capacity of monorails with central concentrated loads at bottom flange level and 200 mm
below bottom flange are also presented.
This book has two essential aims. It attempts firstly to provide an interpretation and
explanation of the limit state approach to the design of portal frame structures using AS4100.
Secondly, it attempts to throw someon many of the problems encountered in portal
light
frame design. It tries problems not normally covered by textbooks, and to

to deal with the
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 AS1 170.1-1989 Part 1: Dead and
liveloads and load combinations [15] and AS1170.2-1989 Part 2: Wind loads [7] are used
throughout this book, as are the design standards AS4100-1998 Steel structures [2],
AS/NZS4600-1996 Cold-formed steel structures [16] and AS3600-1994 Concrete structures
[17]. Other material is referenced as used in the text.
1 .2 Limit State Design
1.2.1 Background
The of treating loads and strengths as random variables has led to the
rational technique
development internationally of limit state design procedures, and these design procedures
have been adopted for use in Australia. Until 1990 when AS4100 was first released, portal
frame buildings had to be designed predominantly in accordance with working stress or
permissible stress philosophies [18]. Since 1996, following the release of AS/NZS4600-1996,
the cold formed steel structures code, it has become possible to design all components of a
portal frame building using limit state design procedures. Although the superstructure of a
portal frame building can be designed totally in accordance with limit state principles, some of
the geotechnical aspects of the foundations must still be designed to working stress principles.
The approach for the design of structures arose because it was recognised
limit state
that different types of load (dead, live, wind, earthquake and even snow) have different
probabilities of occurrence and different degrees of variability. Furthermore, the probabilities
associated with these loads change in different ways as the degree of overload increases.
6 Introduction AISC DPFB/03
Limit state design thus differs from working stress design in that not only are load
factors
used, but different load factors are also used for different load types and different
limit states,
and different capacity reduction factors are used for different materials.
The advantage of limit state design overworking stress design is that it is more logical
and provides a more consistent margin of safety [19,20]. It can serve better
to evaluate
existing structures, and should result in more economical portal frame buildings. One of the
major advantages of limit state design is that it leads to more rational load
combinations. This
eliminates the problem encountered in working stress design of combining
wind uplift loads
with dead loads, which was discussed in Reference
[11].
In the limit state approach, the structure must satisfy simultaneously a number of
different limit states or design requirements. It must possess adequate strength, be stable
against overturning or uplift, and perform satisfactorily under service
loads. The structure
must also be durable, possess adequate fire protection, resist fatigue loading
and satisfy any
special requirements which are related to its intended use.
Codes of practice specify design criteria which provide a suitable margin of safety
against a structure becoming unfit for service in any of these ways. When a particular limit
state is satisfied, the probability of exceedance (eg. the probability
that a column or rafter will
buckle or that a deflection will be excessive) is very small.
The limit state design criteria
adopted for use in AS4100 were calibrated [21] so that this probability
is comparable with
historical exceedance probabilities implied in the superseded
working stress design code
AS1250 [18].
The limit states of strength (including stability against overturning) and serviceability
must be considered separately, and satisfaction of one does not ensure satisfaction
of the
other. For each limit state, the designer must compare the
capacity of the structure with the
appropriate external loads. The are obtained from the loading codes AS 11 70.1 and
latter
AS 1 1 70.2, while the capacities are obtained from the relevant steel or concrete standard.
The
loads and load combinations for industrial portal frame buildings
are discussed in the next
chapter, while the remaining chapters are devoted
to examining the capacities of these
structures.
1.2.2 Design for the Strength Limit State

The design action effect S is calculated by the methods of structural
analysis from the most
severe load combination for the strength limit state (see
Section 2.5.1). At a particular cross-
section, the design action effect may be the axial
force N\
the shear force L', 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 member is taken as the product of its ultimate strength or
strength of a
nominal capacity Ruand an appropriate reduction factor
,
f. The capacity reduction factor ^
is introduced to account for the variability
of the steel (or concrete or soil), the degree with
which the structural model approximates real behaviour,
and the likelihood of
underperformance. For the steel frame, a value of of 0.9 is used
<p for the column and rafter
members, while Stakes lower values in the design of connections.
AISC DPFB/03 Limit State Design a 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' < <pR u (11)
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 Ru for the
strength limit state, this does not indicate that the strength limit state is always more important
than the serviceability limit state. Some portal frame designs may be governed by the limiting
of deflections, and it is important to check that a structure which possesses sufficient strength
will perform satisfactorily at service loads. In some cases, it may be desirable to proportion
the members to satisfy serviceability criteria first, and then to check that the structure
possesses an adequate reserve at the strength limit state.
1 .3 Design Example
The material presented in the chapters of this book is illustrated with a worked design
example. Where appropriate, reference is made to code clauses, tables, figures and other
information on the right hand side of the design calculations. The design brief is for a factory
in a wind Region B industrial estate with the following constraints:
Building Size (Figure 1.4)
Length = 72 m (frame centres)

Width = 25 m (column centres)
Height = 7.5 m (floor to centreline at knee)
Front e (Figure 1.5)
Steel portal = single span across 25 m width

Spacing = 9m
Pitch = 3°
9 9 9
ÂiilMiMii »HiiiiiiiiH[iiii]
9 *. 9 9
iii iiHiiiiriiiii[in t iiHiiiiiiiiiu iiiiin iii»rniii it
9 9 9
niiiii)iiiiHiiiin[inHiiiiiiiiiiii[[iii)iimiiitHumiHiiTl
|
Elevation
Figure 1.4 Design Brief: Plan and Elevation
Typical Section
Figure 1.5 Design Brief: Cross-Section

aisc dpfb/03 Design Example
5) = 87
4:5
Figure 1 .6 Shielding Buildings in Design Example
Floor
Reinforced concrete to carry 4.5 tonne forklift with unlimited passes
Subgrade CBR 5
Roof and Walls
Trimdek 0.42 BMT (Base Metal Thickness) sheeting
Ventilator
Full length ventilator with 600 mm throat

Doors
4xroller shutter doors each 4 m x 3.6 m high
4xpersonnel doors each 0.9 m x 2.2 m high
Soil Conditions
Stiff clay with cu = 50 kPa
Footings
Bored piers or pad footings
Shielding Buildings
Refer to Figure 1.6
1.4 References
1. Broken Hill Proprietary (1998). Hot Rolled Structural Steel Products, BHP, Melbourne.
2. Standards Australia (1998).AS4100 Steel Structures, SA, Sydney.
3. Canadian Standards Association (1978). CAN3-S16.1-M78 Steel Structures for Buildings -
Limit States Design, CSA, Rexdale, Ontario.
4. British Standards Institution (1990). BS5950, Structural Use of Steel in Buildings, Part 1,
Code of Practice for Design in Simple and Continuous Construction: Hot Rolled Sections,
BSI, London.
5. American Institute of Steel Construction (1986). Load and Resistance Factor Design
Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, AISC, Chicago.
6. Standards New Zealand (1992). NZS3404 Steel Structures Standard, SNZ, Wellington, NZ.
7. Standards Association of Australia (1989). AS1 170.2-1989 Part 2 Wind Loading Code (with
amendments), SAA, Sydney.
8. Davies, J.M. (1990). Inplane stability in portal frames, The Structural Engineer, 68(4), 141-
147.
9. Engineering Systems Pty Ltd (1996). Microstran Users Manual, Engineering Systems,
Sydney.
10. Integrated Technical Software Pty Ltd (1995). Spacegass Reference Manual, ITS Pty Ltd,
Werribee, Victoria.
11. Woolcock, S.T. and Kitipomchai, S. (1987). Design of Portal Frame Buildings, AISC,
Sydney.
12. Australian Institute of Steel Construction (1985). Standardized Structural Connections, 3 rd
edn, AISC, Sydney.
13. Standards Association of Australia (1978). AS2 159-1978 SAA Piling Code, SAA, Sydney.
14. Standards Australia (1995). AS2159-1995 Piling - Design and Installation, SA, Sydney.
15. Standards Association of Australia (1989). AS1 170.1-1989 Part l Dead and Live Loads and
Load Combinations, SAA, Sydney.
16. Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand (1996). AS/NZS4600 Cold Formed Steel
Structures, SA, Sydney, SNZ, Auckland.
1 7 . Standards Australia( 1 994). Concrete Structures, SA, Sydney.
18. Standards Association of Australia (1981). AS1250-1981 SAA Steel Structures Code, SAA,
Sydney.
19. Kennedy, D.J.L. (1974). Limit states design - an innovation in design standards for steel
structures,Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 1(1), 1-13.
20. Leicester, R.H., Pham, L. and Kleeman, P.W. (1983). Conversion to limit states design codes,
Metal Structures Conference Brisbane, May, 29-33.
,
21. Pham. L., Bridge, R.Q. and Bradford, M.A. (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 AS 1 170.1-1989 Part 1: Dead and Live Loads and Load
Combinations [1] and AS 1170.2-1989 Part 2: Wind Loads [2]. The wind code has had two
book.
amendments. Both loading standards will be used extensively throughout this
The loads to be considered in the design of portal frame buildings are dead, live, wind
loads generally represent peak
and occasionally snow loads, and combinations of these. Live
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.
2.2
Dead loads G, live loads Q and wind loads W are discussed in Sections 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4
design loads for the strength
respectively. The load combinations used to obtain the factored
and serviceability limit stateshave been determined on a probabilistic basis, and these are
discussed in Section 2.5. Crane loads are treated in Chapter 9.
Dead Loads
2.3
The dead loads acting on a portal-framed industrial building arise from its weight
including
permanent construction or equipment. The dead load will vary

finishes, and from any other
significant modifications are
during construction, but will remain constant thereafter, unless
made to the structure or its permanent equipment.
a guide for preliminary analysis, a dead load of 0.1 kPa can be
As allowed for the roof
but the weight of roof
sheeting and purlins. The weight of the rafter should be included,
bracing, cleats and connections is not usually considered as being significant.
Live Loads
on the roof of a portal frame building arise mainly from maintenance
The live loads acting
loads where new or old roof sheeting may be stacked in concentrated areas.
the loading code

live loads for cladding, purlins and rafters are specified in
The roof
buildings being of the non-trafficable category. Roof
AS 1170.1, the roofs of industrial
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.
11
12 Loads AISC DPFB/03
For purlins and rafters, the code provides for a distributed load of 0.25 kPa where the
supported area A is less than or equal to 14
2
mthe area A being the plan projection of the
,
inclined roof surface area. For areas A less than 14 m 2

,
the code specifies the distributed load
wq to be
w„ =| —A + 0.12 kPa (2.1)
This formula is equivalent to a distributed load of 0.12 kPa plus a load of 1.8 kN distributed
over a span of the member, and ensures that the minimum load to be supported by short
members such as purlin cantilevers and end wall fascia members is 1.8 kN. Presumably, such
a load would cater for the case of a heavy worker standing on the edge of the roof or at the
edge of an opening, and lifting materials on to the roof.
In addition to the distributed live load, the loading code also specifies that portal frame
rafters be designed for a concentrated load of 4.5 kN at any point. Such a load is not critical
for large roofs in high wind areas.
It should be noted that the distributed live load given in Equation 2.1 need not be
considered acting simultaneously with any wind load (see Section 2.5). AS1 170.1 requires
that the structure be designed to support either the distributed live load or the wind load,
whichever produces the worse effect. Note that the distributed live load of 0.25 kPa is
significantly less than the live load in the UK, Europe and North America where snow loads
must be catered for.
2.4 Wind Loads

2.4.1 General
The wind loading specified in AS 1 170.2 is generally the major loading influence in the design
of industrial buildings, even in low wind areas. It is therefore important to evaluate the wind
loads carefully. Table 2.1 compares the wind speeds and the possible uplift pressures in
various regions of Australia for Terrain Category 3. It can be seen that the wind pressures in
Region C (cyclonic areas) are almost twice the Region A
pressures. After some deduction has
been made for the factored dead weight of the roof sheeting, purlins and rafters, the net uplift
on a portal frame rafter in coastal northern Australia could be more than twice that in southern
and inland Australia.
The wind code provides a simplified procedure for calculating wind loads. The
simplified method is applicable to reasonably small rectangular buildings located on flat or
generally undulating ground. A more detailed procedure covers almost all contingencies in
the design of industrial buildings. Because of this, and because the simplified procedure can
be overly conservative in many cases, the detailed procedure is recommended for the design
of industrial buildings. The simplified procedure is not considered in this book.
AISC DPFB/03 Wind Loads 13
Table 2.1 Comparison of Terrain Category 3 Wind Loads
Region A Region B Region C

Perth Brisbane (cyclonic areas
Adelaide except Region D)

Wind Loading Melbourne Danvin
Parameter Townsville
Canberra
Sydney Cairns
Basic Wind Speed Vu m/s ,

50 60 70
Design Gust Wind Speed for

M (zcal)
= 0.80, M = 0.85, M,=
t
1.0 34.0 40.8 47.6
M/- 1.0
Gust Dynamic Wind Pressure q, (kPa) 0.69 1.00 1.36
Typical Uplift Pressure 1.63

0.83 1.20
= (0.74-0.5)?,
Typical Dead Load of Sheeting, 0.20

0.15 0.17
Purlins & Rafters p G (kPa)
Design Uplift =pz - 0.8j9 c (kPa) 0.71 1.06 1.47
Design Uplift
1.00 1.49 2.07
Design Uplift for Region A
In the wind code, the basic wind speeds Vu and Vs are given for the strength (ultimate)
and serviceability limit states respectively. These speeds are then converted into wind
pressures for design .
The wind code also gives permissible stress design velocities Vp which were intended for use in the design of
purlin and girt systems to working stress procedures. However, purlin and girt designs are now undertaken in
accordance with limit state procedures, and permissible stress velocities {'.will not be used in this book.
AJSC DPFB/03
14 Loads
2.4.2
Regional Wind Speeds
The wind speeds Vu and Vs for the strength and serviceability limit states are clearly
basic
specified in thewind code for the four different wind speed regions throughout the country.
These are standardised for a building of height 10 metres in Terrain Category 2. The basic
wind speeds are factored to calculate the design gust wind speeds as discussed in Section
2.4.5.
2.4.3
Wind Direction
The basic wind speeds for the strength and serviceability limit states for some major
population centres are given in the code for specific wind directions. The code allows for the
basic wind speed to be adjusted for specific wind directions in areas where sufficient
meteorological information is available.
Where sufficient information is not available, the code allows a reduction factor of
0.95 on the design wind speed I'or major framing elements inRegions B, C and D Because .
the factor applies to wind speed, the reduction in pressures is about 10% which is significant.
The reduction factor is in the design example for determining not only the loads on
used portal
2.4.4 but also overall

frames, wind bracing forces. It should be emphasised that the reduction factor
does not apply to the wind loads on purlins and girts.
Terrain Category
Most wind speed data have been recorded at airports at a height of 10 metres. The terrain near
most airports is basically very similar, and is designated as Terrain Category 2. Because so
much of this information is available, wind speeds at a height of 10 metres in Terrain
Category 2 are taken as the basic or reference wind speeds V with height multipliers equal to
unity.
The terrain category factors given in the wind code lead to a wide variation of wind
pressures as shown in Table 2.2. It is therefore important to select the appropriate terrain
category carefully. The code uses four
terrain categories defined specifically in terms of
roughness length. This allows for interpolation between the categories on a logarithmic basis.
In selecting the terrain categories, due allowance for any future changes in terrain
should be made, such as the development of neighbouring areas. For example, a factory in a
new industrial estate may be more exposed in its first few years than in the remainder of its
life.
Amendment No. 1 of AS 1 170.2 [2] reintroduced a wind direction reduction factor on the design wind speed for
major framing elements in Regions B, C and D (except for Vs in Region B). It is worth noting that such a factor
was first introduced in the 1983 edition of AS 1 170.2 with a value of 0.9. The factor was changed to 0.95 when
the 1989 edition was published, but it applied to overall buildings and not to major framing elements. With
Amendment No. major framing elements are again included. This appears to apply to the portal frames of
1,
industrial buildings. Some designers take advantage of this, while others are not aware of it or choose not to use
it.
h
If so, it would be reasonable to assume Terrain Category 3 for design

purposes rather
than Terrain Category 2 or 2'/ .

2
Table 2.2 Relative Wind Pressures for Different

Terrain Categories ( = 7.5m)
Terrain Height Multiplier Relative

Category M(z ca
. ,)
Pressures
1 1.09 1.90
2 0.96 1.48
27, 0.8S 1.24
3 0.79 1.00
2.4.5 Basic Wind Speeds

The design gust wind speed V, is obtained from the regional wind speed V (whether for the
strength or serviceability limit states) using
(2 2)
'
where M (zcal)
is the terrain and height multiplier for a particular terrain category, M s
is a
shielding factor, M, is a topographic multiplier. and M i

is an importance multiplier. The values
ofM(zcal) are specified clearly in 170.2 as functions of the terrain category (or roughness)
AS 1
and height z. The code permits interpolation for intermediate values ofz and roughness.
The shielding s multiplier M

accounts for the shielding effect of surrounding buildings
of equal or greater height than the portal frame building under consideration. When the
building spacing parameter for the D
surrounding buildings is less than 1.5, the shielding
factor Ms
drops down to 0.7, whereas Ms
is unity when D is greater than 12. Shielding cannot
be disregarded if the most economical structure is to be achieved.
The topographic multiplier M, applies if the building is located in a local topographic
zone, and may under exceptional circumstances result in a 50% increase in the design gust
speed. The importance factor should be taken as 1.0 for an industrial building, unless the
building has a post-disaster function or some other special purpose.
2.4.6 Calculation of Pressures
The free stream gust dynamic wind pressure qz (kPa) is calculated from the design gust wind
speed Vz (m/s) by
-3
q z = 0.6VZ x 10 (2.3)
The wind pressure p, at height z for the relevant limit state is then calculated from the
pressure coefficient Cp for the surface by the expression
Pz = C p<!z (
2 4)
-
The external wind pressure coefficients are set out clearly in the code, and their
determination is straightforward. However, Amendment No. 2 introduced some additional
complexity with alternative external pressure coefficients for the roofs of industrial buildings,
as mentioned in Section 2.4.7. The determination of internal pressure coefficients has
traditionally caused some confusion amongst designers, and these are discussed in Section
2.4.8.
2.4.7 External Pressures
Although more complex than coefficients in British and US wind codes, external pressure
coefficients in AS 1 170.2 .were relatively simple for rectangular industrial buildings until
Amendment No.2 was issued in 1993. This amendment introduced alternative sets of roof
coefficients Cp for on buildings with roof pitches less than 10° and for
cross winds
longitudinal winds, such that designers must use - 0.9 or -0.4 for a distance h from the
windward edge; -0.5 or 0 for the zone from h to 2 h; -0.3 or +0.2 for the zone from 2 h to 3 h\
and -0.2 or +0.3 beyond 3 h. The first coefficient in each pair should be combined to form
one set (-0.9, -0.5, -0.3 and -0.2), and the second coefficient to form the other set (-0.5, 0,
+0.2 and +0.3). The set which gives the worst effect should be used. The coefficients from
one set should not be mixed with the other.
For typical industrial buildings, this amendment results in two main cross wind
options whereas there was one previously. These options are:
• Maximum uplift using. coefficients: -0.9, -0.5, -0.3, -0.2

• Minimum uplift using coefficients: -0.4, 0, +0.2, +0.3
For longitudinal winds, the alternative coefficient approach introduces the option of a
downwind frame having downwind external pressure on the roof. If this downwind pressure
combines with internal suction, then the resulting combination can be more severe than the
gravity load combination of 1.25 G + 1.5 Q. This outcome is surprising when it is considered
that portal-framed buildings have been designed and built for decades without accounting for
such load combinations. If the maximum internal suction coefficient -0.65 is combined with
downward roof pressures, then the comparison is even more severe. This situation could
open in the side walls at the windward end of the
theoretically arise if there are roller doors
building in the -0.65 wall suction zone, and the rest of the building is closed. Previously,
external suctions were counteracted by internal suctions to some extent, and so these load
combinations were not considered.
Insummary, while wind tunnel testing has undoubtedly revealed that downwind
pressures can be exerted on the roofs of some buildings, these pressures are at odds with
previous practice and international wind loading codes.' Perhaps this is because the
probability of a load combination comprising downward external pressure and internal suction
is low enough compared with other load combinations not to warrant serious consideration of
such a combination.
2.4.8 Internal Pressures
The internal pressure coefficients in AS 1 170.2 range from a positive coefficient of +0.7 to a
suction coefficient of -0.65, as shown in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1 Maximum Internal Pressure Coefficients
The code permits calculation of the permeability ratio to determine internal pressure
coefficients C The permeability ratio is the ratio of the opening area in the windward wall
,,
p
to the sum of the opening areas in the roof and other three walls, provided any opening in the
roof (such as a ventilator) is in an external suction zone. However, this calculation becomes a
matter of judgement because it is up to the designer to choose which of the doors
and
windows may be relied upon to remain closed under design winds.
can be argued that the worst winds occur without warning, eg. during thunderstorms,
It
and that the windows and doors may not be closed when the design winds occur. However,
unless buildings have permanent openings, most are only open, on average, 10 hours per day
and 5 days per week, which is only 30 percent of the time. Assuming that the worst winds are
likely to occur with equal probability at any hour of the day, then the average recurrence
interval shouldbe 0.3x50 years which is 15 years. Although thunderstorms can occur at any
time of the day, the probability of occurrence during a 24 hour period may not be uniform.
Hence it would be prudent to assume an average recurrence interval of, say, 25 years instead
of 15 years for the internal pressures when designing Moreover,
to the strength limit state.
there is the statistical probability that the building will not have the worst combination of
windows and doors open and shut. The foregoing probabilistic approach to internal pressure
— 1
does not have any basis in the wind code, and is provided here as background information
only to assist designers in justifying internal coefficients which are less than the maximum in
some cases.
AS 1 170 (E3.4.7) states that industrial and farm buildings can have permeabilities up to
0.5% of the wall area but the actual percentage can be difficult to quantify. A realistic
assessment of leakage could be made by calculating the area of ribs and gaps at the wall/floor
and wall/roof junctions. The uncertainty with this approach is in the width of the gap between
the wall and roof sheeting and between the floor edge and wall sheeting, and whether the ribs
have been sealed for bird proofing or other reasons. If one considers only the area of the ribs
for say Trimdek roof sheeting, the area of ribs for a 50 m x 20 m building would be as
follows:
For leeward and side walls:
0.05x0.025
wall/floor: — q^qq
,
x (50 + 20 + 20) = 0.56 m
wall/eaves: (as for wall/floor) = 0.56 m 2
For windward wall:

0.05x0.025
wall/floor: — Q200
x 50 -0-31 m
wall/eaves: = 0.31 m 2
Permeability ratio assuming no other openings
«l±a31 =0 .55
0.56 + 0.56
Hence internal pressure coefficient Cpi = +0.

If one roller door is added on the windward face, say 4 mx 3.6 m= 14.4 m 2
area, then:
1M
permeability ratio
. .
= ——+———+ — =
14.4 0.31
0.56 + 0.56
0.31
13.4
’
Hence internal pressure coefficient Cpi = +0.7
It may thus be concluded that the effect of ribs will not be significant if there are major
wall openings such as vehicle doors.
Some designers prefer to use roof ventilators to reduce internal pressures. However,
roof ventilators are quite expensive and their cost can outweigh the savings in structural
steelwork and footings resulting from reduced internal pressures. Part of the problem is that
the equivalent free area of a ventilator is only about 30% of the throat area. As a result, if a
50 m long industrial building has a ridge ventilator with a 600 mm throat for the full length of
the ridge, the equivalent free area would be 50x0.6x30/100 = 9.0 m 2 . In this case, the
permeability ratio would be (14.4 + 0.31 + 0.31)/(0.56 + 0.56 + 9.0) = 1.48. The internal
pressure coefficient Cpi would then drop from +0.7 to +0.3.
Another problem which arises, particularly in cyclonic areas, is the effect of flying
debris on windows, and the failure of roller shutter doors because they bow under pressure
and pull out of their guides. These problems can be overcome by providing cyclone shutters
or security grilles over glass windows and by fitting wind locks to roller doors. There is some
uncertainty, however, regarding the effectiveness of wind locks on roller shutters.
Consideration should also be given in non-cyclonic areas to the ability of roller shutter
guides to withstand wind forces, and to the possibility that the doors will blow out of their
guides. In particular, it appears that roller shutter doors are often attached inadequately to
their supports.
2.4.9 Area Reduction Factor

The area reduction factor for external pressures allows basically for the fluctuating nature of
these pressures, and the fact that the average pressure when the area is large is less than the
coefficients indicate. The area reduction factor applies to roof and side wall loads. It does not
apply to internal pressures, or to windward and leeward wall loads. This means that for a
portal frame under cross wind, only the rafter loads due to external pressures may be
reduced.
Under longitudinal wind, both rafter and column loads due to external pressures may be
reduced. If the area supported by the rafter or a column is greater than 100 nr, the area
reduction factor is 0.8. This factor is significant and cannot be ignored in the design if an
economical structure is to be achieved.
2.4.10 Local Pressure Factors
The code requires all wall and roof claddings,, together with their immediate supporting
members and fixings, to be designed for peak local pressures as shown in Figure 2.2. The
(suctions) whereas
local pressure factors of 1.5 and 2.0 apply to negative external pressures
applies positive external pressures anywhere on the windward wall. Note
the factor of 1.25 to
that the local pressure factors do not apply to internal pressures (positive or negative).
2.5 Load Combinations

2.5.1 Strength Limit State
The loading code AS 11 70.1 stipulates that to produce the most adverse effects’, the design
loads for the strength limit states shall be the following combinations of dead load (G), live
load ( Q) and ultimate wind load (Wu ):
Early working stress versions of the steel structures code did not specify load combinations, but they did permit
a 25% overstress when wind loads were present. The limit on overstress was increased to 33% in the 1972
permissible stress
edition of the code, which was consistent with American practice at that time. However, the
approach to steel design had an inherent danger that if wind load and dead load act
in opposite directions and are
of similar magnitude, then the difference between the loads -is a small value which is very
sensitive to
inaccuracies. This was illustrated in Reference [3].

AISC DPFB/03
20 Loads
(a) 1.25G + 1.5Q

(b) 1.25 G+W u
(c) 0.8G+ 1.25(2
(d) 0.8 G+W u .
j
A separate load combination is also given if earthquake forces are to be considered.

The above load combinations are used for the instability of uplift limit state, except
R
(G
that the part of the dead load which resists the instability ) is separated from the total dead
load.
Area a x a : Local pressure factor 1.5

on negative pressures
B Area a/2 x a/2 : Local pressure factor 2.0

on negative pressures
Area a/2 x a/2 : Local pressure factor 1.25

on positive pressures on windward wall
o = ht , 0.2b or 0.2d, whichever is least
Figure 2.2 Peak Local Pressures
In an attempt to remedy 1975 edition of the working stress code AS1250 [7] removed the 33%
this situation, the
overstress (or the 0.75 load factor) for cases where wind and dead load act in opposite directions. Unfortunately,
this did little to improve the potentially dangerous load combination because the resulting 33% increase in
design load still did not adequately cater for small errors in the dead load or for underestimates of the wind load.
The problems of load combinations for permissible stress design as outlined above were overcome in the limit
state loading code AS1 170.2 [2] which appeared in 1989.
AISC DPFB/03 Load Combinations 21
2.5.2 Serviceability Limit State

The loading code AS1 170.1 includes load combinations for the serviceability limit state. The
following combinations of dead load (G), live load (Q) and serviceability wind load (Ws) are
to be considered:
(a) W s
(b) %Q
(c) G+W s
(d) G+rjQ
where y/z is the short-term load factor given in the code and taken as 0.7 for the roofs of
industrial buildings. Strictly speaking, this means that in checking rafter deflections, only 0.7
times the live load need be considered. However, the deflection limits suggested in this book
are only guidelines based on a survey of practising engineers [4]. In any case, the limit
suggested for live load deflections applies to the full live load. Therefore, there does not seem
to be any point in considering a reduced live load for the serviceability limit state of a portal
frame.
2.6 Design Example - Loads

2.6.1 Dead Loads AS 1 170.1
Trimdek 4.3 kg/m = 0.043 kPa

2
Sheeting:
Purlins: Z20019 at 1200mm centres with 1 5% laps Lysaght [5]
, 1.15x5.68x9^ 101, a
1.2
Total Wq — 0 .043 + 0.053 = 0.096 kPa say 0.1 kPa

Hence sheeting and purlin load on rafter = 0.10x9 = 0.90 kN/m (along slope)
Frame self-weight will be included under the gravity option (GRAV) in the computer
*
analysis. .
In some buildings, an allowance for miscellaneous dead loads such as bracing, roof
exhaust systems, lighting and soffit linings or ceilings will be appropriate.
2.6.2 Live Loads AS 11 70.1
W/-\
Q
— (
- — - + 0.12 ]
= 0.13 kPa but not less than 0.25 kPa ASH 70.1 Cl 4. 8. 1.1
\9x25 )
Hence Wq = 0.25 kPa
Live load on rafter = 0.25x9 = 2.25 kN/m (on plan projection)

8 1
AISC DPFB/03
22 Loads
the computer program Microstran [6] does not have a load type with vertical load
As
distributed on the plan projection of the rafter, it would be more accurate for steep-pitched
roofs to convert the live load to a distributed load along the slope.
In this case, the pitch is not steep and so the effect of pitch on live load is insignificant,
ie. live load on rafter along slope = 2.25xcos3° = 2.25 kN/m.

In addition, a concentrated load of 4.5 kN will be applied at the ridge.
2.6.3 Wind Loads ASH 70.2
2.6.3. 1 Basic Wind Data

Region B:
Basic wind speeds:
Ultimate Vu = 60 m/s AS1 170.2 Table 3.2.3
Serviceability Vs - 38 m/s AS1 170.2 Table 3.2.3
Terrain Category 3 (industrial area)
Column height: 7.5 m at intersection of rafter centreline

Portal span: 25 m between column centres
Roof pitch: 3° (see Figure 1.5)
Eaves height assuming 3 10 UB rafter, 200 purlins
= 7.5 + —-— + 0.200 = 7.85 m

0.310
say 8.0 m
2
Ridge height = 8.0 + —

25
2
x tan 3° = 8.655 m say 8.7 m
Average spacing of shielding buildings = 87 m
Average height of shielding buildings = 9 m
Average breadth of shielding buildings = 42 m
Building spacing parameter: D=
87
=- 4.5 AS1 170.2 Cl 3.2.7
Shielding multiplier: M s
= 0.85 AS1 170.2 Table 3.2.5.
• Cross Wind
h = 8.0 m
Terrain and height multiplier: = 0-80 AS1 170.2 Table 3.2.5.
Shielding multiplier: M ~ 0.85

s
AS1 170.2 Table 3.2.7
Ultimate :
Vz = 0.80x0.85x60 = 40.8 m/s AS1 170.2 Cl 3.2.2
qz = 0.60x40. xl O' = 1.00 kPa

2 3
AS1 170.2 Cl 3.3
86 1
AISC DPFB/03 Design Examples - Loads 23
Serviceability.
V, =0.80x0.85x38 = 25.8 m/s AS1 170.2 Cl 3.2.2

q, = 0.60x25.
2
xl O'
3
= 0.40 kPa AS! 170.2 Cl 3.3
• Longitudinal Wind
h = S.7 m
Terrain and height multiplier: 7(3 )
= 0.81 AS! 170.2 Table 3.2.5.
Shielding multiplier: M = 0.85

s AS1 170.2 Table 3.2.7
Ultimate :
V, =0.81x0.85x60 =41.3 m/s AS1 170.2 Cl 3.2.2

q, = 0.60x4 1 .3 2 x 1 0° = 1 .02 kPa AS] 170.2 Cl 3.3
Serviceability:
Vz =0.81x0.85x38 =26.2 m/s AS] 170.2 Cl 3.2.2

2 3
qz = 0.60x26.2 xl0' =0.41 kPa AS1 170.2 Cl 3.3
2.6. 3.2 External Wind Pressures
• Cross Wind (0=0°) AS1 170.2 Fig. 3.3
Windward wall: Cp e = 0.7

, AS1 170.2 Table 3.4.3.1(A)
= — = 0.35
d 25
Leeward wall: — < 1 .0
b 72
Therefore Cp e = - 0.5 AS1 170.2 Table 3.4.3. 1 (B)
Roof: a = 3°
h ~h = 8.0 m
e
-h = -=0.
8
32< 0.5
Two sets of Cpe values for the roof are given in Amendment 2 of AS1 170.2 Table
3.4.3.2(A). Therefore, adopt pressures shown in Figures 2.3(a) and (b).
• Longitudinal Wind ( = 9(f) (see Figure 2.4)
h=h = t
8.7 m AS1 170.2 Table 3.4.3.2(A)
h__ 8.7
~ 777
= = 0.12
d 72
• Area Reduction Factor
Tributary area for rafter under cross wind = 25x9 = 225 m 2
Hence reduction factor for rafters = 0.8

AISC DPFB/03
24 Loads
(a) Maximum Roof Uplift Coefficients
(b) Minimum Roof Uplift Coefficients
Figure 2.3 External Pressure Coefficients wider Cross Wind
Tributary area for rafter and columns under longitudinal wind

= (2x7.5 + 25)x9 = 360 m 2
Hence reduction factor for columns under longitudinal wind = 0.8 AS1 170.2 Table 3.4.4
2.6.33 Internal Wind Pressures

• Cross Wind
To calculate the internal pressure coefficients Cpi ,

it is necessary to determine the
equivalent free area of the ventilator. Manufacturers give coefficients in their brochures for
converting the throat width into an equivalent free throat width. In this case, take the
coefficient as 0.35, so that the equivalent free area is 0.35x0.6x72 = 15.1 m 2
.
77
Permeability ratio for worst internal pressure under cross wind
2x4x3.6 + 2x0.9x22
= = 2.17
15.1
Hence Cpi = 0.5 + * (0.6 - 0.5) = +0.52 AS 1 1 70.2 Table 3.4.
For the worst internal suction under cross wind when dominant openings are on the
leeward wall, use the value of Cpj for leeward external wall surface
Cpi =-0.50 ASI 170.2 Table 3.4.3.1(B)
Note that roof ventilators can be expensive and the saving in cost due to reduced internal
pressures will be offset to some extent by the cost of the ventilators.
• Longitudinal Wind
Permeability ratio for worst internal pressure (end wall door open, others closed)
4x36
= = 0.95 ASI 170.2 Table 3.4.
15.1
Hence Cp i
=+0.1 ASI 1 70. 2 Table 3. 4.
For internal suction under longitudinal wind, the worst case would be with the side doors
open and the end doors closed. Hence should strictly speaking adopt the worst side wall
pressure coefficient Cpi = -0.65 but this will mean that the combination of external
downward pressure and maximum internal suction will now govern the portal frame design
whereas this was not so prior to Amendment 2 of ASI 170.2. For the purpose of this design
example, adopt C i = - 0.3 for portal frame design although not strictly in accordance with
p
the code, and Cp - - 0.65
i
for purlin and girt design.
2.6.3. 4 Peak Local Pressures

The peak local pressure roof plan is shown in Figure 2.5.
a = h = 8.7 m
or a — 0.2b = 0.2x72.5 = 14.5 m
or a- 0.2d = 0.2x26 = 5.2 m
whichever is least.
Hence a = 5.2 m (see Figure 2.5)
2.6.4 Load Cases For Portal Frames

Primary Load Cases:
LC1 : DL of 0.90 kN/m + frame self weight
ID
I
CN
(a) Roof and End Wall Pressure Coefficients

Maximum Uplift
8700 8700 8700 —

-0.4
+0.2 +0.3
HZ 1-1 ,
1 II 1 J, 1
rv Roof
o iris
lo
Windward Leeward -
wall wa) |
8 @ 9000 = 7200
72500 approx overall
(b) Roof and End Wall Pressure Coefficients

~~
Minimum Uplift
-0.25
Figm-e 2.4 External Pressure Coefficients under

Longitudinal Wind
4
Figure 2.5 Peak Local Pressure Roof Plan
LC2: LL of 2.25 kN/m + 4.5 kN at ridge

(Note that both the dead and live loads are usually input as negative loads in
Microstran because they usually act in the negative direction of the local or global
member axes.)
LC3: Cross Wind Maximum Uplift (CW1 - see Figure 2.6): q. = 1.00 kPa
Wind direction reduction factor for major framing elements
such as portal frames = 0.95 2
ASH 70.2 Cl 3.2.3
Area reduction factor for roof only = 0.8 ASJ 1 70.2 Cl 3.4.4
UDL (windward column) = 0.95 2 x0. 7x1.00x9.0 = 5.69 kN/m

UDL (leeward column) = 0.95 2 x0.5x 1 .00x9.0 = 4.06 kN/m
UDL (roof, 0 to 8 m, Cpe = -0.9) = 0.95 2 x0.8x0.9x 1.00x9.0 = 5.85 kN/m
UDL (roof, 8 m to 16 m, Cpe = -0.5) - 0.95 2 x0.8x0.5xl. 00x9.0 = 3.25 kN/m
UDL (roof, 16 m to 24 m, Cp e = -0.3) = 0.95 2 x0.8x0.3x 1.00x9.0 = 1.95 kN/m
UDL (roof, 24 m to 25 m, Cp e = - 0.2 ), adopt 1 .95 kN/m
Figure 2.6 Cross Wind Frame Loads - Maximum Uplift (kN/m)

AISC DPFB/03
28 Loads
Note that the 8 m roof wind loading zones strictly speaking should be measured from the
eaves edge of the roof which is m upwind of the intersection point
approximately 0.5
between the rafter and column. For simplicity, the extent of frame loading has been taken
between the frame intersection points.
LC4: Cross Wind Minimum Uplift (CW2 - see Figure 2.7): qz —\ .00 kPa
Wind direction reduction factor = 0.95
2
Area reduction factor = 0.80
ID
o
Figure 2.7 Cross Wind Frame Loads - Minimum Uplift CW2 (kN/m)
UDL (columns) asforLC3

UDL (roof, 0 to 8 m, Cp e = - 0.4 = 2.60 kN/m )
UDL (roof, 8 m to 16 m, Cp e = 0) = 0
UDL (roof, 16 m to 24 m, Cp e = +0.2) = -1.30 kN/m
UDL ( roof, 24 m to 25 m, Cp c = +0.3) adopt - .30 kN/m 1
(The negative sign indicates the loads acts downwards in the negative
direction of the local member y axis according to Microstran load input
conventions.)
LC5: Longitudinal Wind First Internal Frame (LW1)

Area reduction factor for roof and walls = 0.8
As h is approximately equal to the frame spacing of 9 m in this case, take h = 9 m to
simplify calculation of the panel loads. where h is quite different from
(In other cases the
bay spacing, the frame UDL’s should be determined by simple statics, ie. assuming the
purlins are simply supported beams with the frames as supports.)
9* °' 5
UDL (rafters) = 0.95
2
x 0.8 x p' -
-
x 1 .02 x 9.0 =4.64 kN/m
j
Q 6 Q 5
UDL (columns) = 2
x0.8x^
' '
jxl.Q2x9.0 = 3.81 kN/m

0.95
^
LC6: Longitudinal Wind with 0.3^ External Roof Pressure
and 0.2qz Wall Suction (LW2)
1
Design Examples - Loads 29

A5SC DPFB/03
Area reduction factor for roof and walls = 0.8
UDL (rafters) = 0.95 2

x0.8x0.3x 1 .02x9.0 = 1 .99 kN/m
UDL (columns) = 0.95 2
x0.8x0.2x 1 .02x9.0 = 1 .32 kN/m
LC7: Internal PressureUnder Cross Wind (IPCW):

p
C = +0.52 i
Area reduction factor does not apply to internal pressures
UDL (rafters and columns) = 0.95

2
x0.52x 1.00x9.0 = 4.21 kN/m
LC8: Internal Pressure Under Longitudinal Wind (IPLW): Cpli = +0.

UDL (rafters and columns) = 0.95
2
x0.1xl. 02x9.0 = 0.83 kN/m
LC9: Internal Suction Under Cross Wind (ISCW): Cp = - 0.5

i
UDL (rafters and columns) = -j^^xIPCW = - 0.96 x LC7
LC10: Internal Suction Under Longitudinal Wind (ISLW): Cp = - 0.3

i
'
•
-0.3
UDL (rafters and columns) = -^-xIPLW - -3.0 xLC8
Note that load cases LC9 and LC10 are not included in the computer analysis and
combinations containing LC9 and LC10 are obtained by factoring LC7 and LC8.
Table 2.3 Factors Used in Load Combinations
Factors
Load
Cases
LC1 LC2 LC3 LC4 LC5 LC6 LC7 LC8
LC20 1.25 1.5
LC21 0.8 1.0 1.0
1.0
LC22 0.8 1.0
-0.96
LC23 1.25 1.0
1.0 1.0
LC24 0.8
1.0 -3.0
LC25 1.25
2.6.5 Load Combinations

factoring the
The following load combinations LC20 to LC25 may be obtained by
primary load cases (see Table 2.3). These load combinations have been analysed by both
AISC DPFB/03
30 Loads
elastic and methods. In each case, use was made of the computer software Microstran-
plastic
3D Structural Analysis Program [6]. The computer output is listed in Appendix II for the
second order method of elastic analysis.
LC20: 1.25DL + 1.5LL = 1.25LC1 + 1.5LC2

LC21: 0.8DL + CW1 (maximum uplift) + IPCW — 0.8LC1 + LC3 + LC7
LC22: 0.8DL + CW2 (minimum uplift) + IPCW = 0.8LC1 + LC4 + LC7
LC23: 1.25DL + CW2 (minimum uplift) + ISCW = 1.25LC1 + LC4 - 0.96LC7
LC24: 0.8DL + LW1 (maximum uplift) + IPLW = 0.8LC1 + LC5 + LC8
LC25: 1.25DL + LW2 (maximum downward) + ISLW = 1.25LC1 + LC6 - 3.0LC8
Note that LC25 combines downward roof pressures which can occur on
the dead load and
downwind frames under wind with internal suction. As discussed in Section
longitudinal
2.4.7, such combinations should be viewed sceptically if they govern the design. In this
design example, the internal suction coefficient has been arbitrarily reduced for this
combination from -0.65 to -0.3. This is not in strict accordance with the current wind loading
code. Designers need to make their own judgements on the validity of such combinations.
2.7 References
1. Standards Association of Australia (1989). AS} 170. 1-1989 Part 1 Dead and Live Loading
Code, SAA, Sydney.
2. Standards Association of Australia (1989). AS1 170.2-1989 Part 2 Wind Loading Code, SAA,
Sydney.
Sydney.
4. Woolcock, S.T. and Kitipomchai, S. (1986). Deflection limits for portal frames, Steel
Construction, AISC, 20(3), 2-10.
5. Lysaght (1999). Zeds and Cees Purlin and Girt Systems, BHP Building Products.
6. Engineering Systems Pty Ltd (1996). Microstran Users Manual, Engineering Systems,
Sydney.
7. Standards Association of Australia (1981). AS1250-1981 SAA Steel Structures Code, SAA,
Sydney.
3 Purlins & Girts
3.1 General
Purlins and girts are the immediate supporting members for roof and wall sheeting
respectively. They act principally as beams, but also perform as struts and as compression
braces in restraining rafters and columns laterally against buckling. In some buildings, purlins
while in
and girts also act as axial members to transfer end wall wind loads to the braced bays,
smaller buildings they may even act as the struts of the triangulated roof bracing system.
Purlins and girts are now almost universally zed (Z) and channel (C) section members,
cold-formed from zinc coated 450 MPa steel of 1.5, 1.9, 2.4 and 3.0 mm
thickness. Steel
sections cold formed from-1.2 500 mm

MPa steel are also available, as well as those of 1.0
mm thickness cold-formed from 550 MPa steel. Timber purlins are still used occasionally,
especially in certain corrosive environments. Figure 3.1 shows a typical Z section purlin
and
girt arrangement.
Strength is not the only consideration when designing purlins. Purlin spacing must be
chosen to suit the type of roof sheeting and ceiling system if any. The use of translucent
fibreglass roof sheeting will also restrict the purlin spacing. Some suspended ceiling
systems
require a maximum purlin spacing of 1200 mm, and some riggers and roofers object to purlin
spacings in excess of 1200 mm. Purlin deflections must also be controlled.
Because of the thin walls of the cold-formed sections, their design and analysis are
more complex and the limit state cold-formed steel structures code AS/NZS4600 [1] must be
used in lieu of AS4100 Until 1996, this presented added difficulty as the prevailing cold-
[2].
formed steel structures code AS 1538 [3] was written in a working stress format. Fortunately,
purlin and girt manufacturers provide comprehensive design capacity tables [4,5] and
it is not
Figure 3.1 Typical Lysaght Purlin and Girt Details
31
32 Purlins & Girls AISC DPFB/03
usually necessary to refer to AS/NZS4600 unless the designer wishes to take advantage of the
‘R-factor method' described briefly in Section 3.4.2.
3.2 Roof and Wall Sheeting

The first step in purlin design is to consider the spanning capacity of the proposed roof
sheeting. Sheeting manufacturers provide data on minimum roof pitch, and on allowable
internal and end sheeting spans. Their brochures give maximum spans for average conditions
in non-cyclonic areas, as well as allowable wind pressures for various spans in cyclonic and
non-cyclonic areas. It is important to remember that the maximum spans for roof sheeting are
determined not only from wind load considerations, but also from live load requirements,
including the 1.1 kN concentrated load of AS 1170.1 [6]. Therefore, these maximum spans
should not be exceeded for roof sheeting, even if the allowable wind pressure table for the
sheeting profile indicates that the sheeting has the capacity to do so.
The peak local pressure zones around the perimeter of the roof govern the purlin
spacing in these areas, and the purlin spacing chosen in the end bays is usually adopted for the
rest of the roof. A typical purlin and girt layout is given in Appendix I. In some cases, extra
purlins are used in the end bays to halve the purlin spacing used in other bays that are only
partially subjected to peak local pressures. Because the extra purlins are simply supported,
however, may be necessary to use the heaviest purlin thickness for strength, and even then
it
the deflections may be excessive. As a result, the use of extra single span purlins in end bays
and fewer purlins in interior bays is not generally worthwhile. In larger buildings, it can be
advantageous to extend intermediate purlins in the end zones over two or three bays, thereby
providing the continuity needed.
In cyclonic areas, special design criteria are required because of the cyclical loading
and the possibility of fatigue failure. Cyclone or load spreading washers may be necessary.
3.3 Frame Spacing

There are many variables to be considered in optimising the frame spacing for a particular
building. Apart from the portal frames and purlins, it is necessary to consider the length of
roof bracing struts and tension ties, and of course the footings.
Although the size of the portal frames obviously increases with frame spacing, the
weight per unit area of the portal frame building decreases. Theoretically, the price of the
steelwork per tonne should also decrease because the sections are heavier, and there will be
less labour per tonne. By contrast, the cost per square metre of purlins and girts will increase
with frame spacing, but in steps corresponding to the depth or thickness increases.
Because of the limited range of purlin sizes and the consequent sudden jumps in purlin
capacity and cost as sizes increase, it is difficult to optimise frame spacing. It will obviously
be cheaper, for a given purlin depth, to increase the frame spacing to ensure that the purlin
system is working to its capacity. However, this is rarely possible as site or other
requirements usually fix the overall length of the building, and so the choice of frame spacing
is limited.
AISC DPFB/03
Frame Spacing 33
An extensive study in the United Kingdomexamined hundreds of different options

[7]
long. Portal frame spacings of 4.5, 6.0, 7.5 and 9.0 m
m were
for an industrial building 90
considered. The results indicated that the 7.5 m spacing was the most economical for portal
frame spans in excess of 20 m. For spans less than 20 m, the 4.5 m spacing was most
in the
economical. However, basic wind speeds, purlin types apd unit costs are different
United Kingdom, and it is uncertain whether the same conclusions apply in Australia.
3.4 Purlin Strengths
3.4.1 Manufacturers’ Brochures
The produced by manufacturers such as Stramit [4] and

limit state design capacity tables
double lapped spans, lapped
Lysaght [5] cover simply supported spans, double spans,
lapped continuous systems. The
continuous spans and increased thickness end spans in
reduced end spans in continuous lapped systems. The Lysaght

Stramit tables also include
based on standard laps of 600, 900, 1200 and 1800 mm, the laps
tables for lapped systems are
conservative in most cases because the
being a minimum of 10 percent of the span. This is
tables are based on laps of 15
are usually greater than 10 percent. The Stramit
standard laps
percent of the span.
section yielding, flexural-
Both the Stramit and Lysaght load capacities take account of
bending and web shear, and bolt capacity
torsional buckling, distortional buckling, combined
is the so-called rational
The method used to calculate flexural-torsional buckling capacities
analysis in Clause 3.3.3.2(b) of AS/NZS4600. This clause contains the design
elastic buckling
equations from AS1538 converted to limit states format [8,9].
plane of the roof sheeting,
Z-section purlins have their principal axes inclined to the
sheeting to prevent
and therefore rely on the lateral and twist-rotational restraint from the roof
loads. Under outward loads, the bottom flange
lateral displacement of the purlin under inward
and necessary to provide
of the Z-section purlin is in compression over most of each span, it is
reduce the effective lengths to control

bridging between purlins as shown in Figure 3.1 to
flexural-torsional buckling.
erection, Z-purlins are obviously unrestrained. To

limit excessive deflections
During
an advantage to orient the top flange pointing up the slope as
prior to fixing roof sheeting, it is
this results in a smaller inclination of the

weak principal axis to the vertical. Indeed,
experience has shown that a single row of bridging is
advantageous during erection, even if
Lysaght recommends at least one row of
not required for strength in service. Accordingly,
bridging in every span, and that unbridged lengths be restricted to less than 20 times the
Stramit also limits the unbridged length to 20 times the section depth, or 4000
section depth.
It should be noted that these bridging
requirements are those
mm, whichever is less.
treated in detail in AS/NZS4600,
recommended by the manufacturers, and although bracing is
there is no specific limit on the unbridged lengths.
is because end spans not

End spansare usually the critical area for purlin design. This
deflections for a given uniform load, but also
only have higher bending moments and higher
suctions including local pressure effects are highest at the
higher loads because external
windward end under longitudinal winds.
.
34 Purlins & Girts AISC DPFB/03
Because of these problems, it is common to use a section with a heavier wall thickness
for end bay purlins. For example, if Z15015 sections are used in internal bays, then Z15019
and Z15024 sections would be used in the end bays. Significant reductions in external suction
coefficients on downwind surfaces in the more recent versions of AS 1170.2 [10] have
accentuated the difference in loads and bending moments between end span and internal span
purlins. It is therefore advantageous for economical design to consider:
• increased wall thicknesses in end span purlins, or

• reduced end spans by closer portal frame spacing, or
• extra bridging in end spans, provided this increases the design strength of the
purlins.
The Stramit brochure provides design capacity tables for lapped systems with end
spans reduced by 20%, and this shows that significant economies can be achieved. The
Stramit and Lysaght load capacity tables do not cater for the non-uniformity of the base load
on the purlin system, although the Stramit brochure has provided methods to cater for peak
local pressure zones to allow the designer to convert the non-uniform pressures to equivalent
uniformly distributed loads. Such methods are also considered in Section 3.9 of this book.
With the external suction coefficients reducing under longitudinal wind from -0.9 to -0.5 to
-0.3 to -0.2, the end span will generally have a higher base load than the next span. The
moments in the end span would then be higher than if the load on the purlin system were
uniform.
3.4.2 R-Factor Method

AS/NZS4600 [1] 3. 3. 3. 4 known as the 'R-factor method' for the
provides a method in Clause
flexural design of members having one flange through-fastened to sheeting. This method is
relatively simple, and can be used by designers in lieu of using manufacturers’ design capacity
tables. However, it requires a lapped continuous beam analysis for purlins in various roof
zones to determine the design bending moments and shears M* and V The reactions also
need to be calculated to check bolt capacities. The laps can be easily modelled by inserting
members with double the second moment of area into the beam system. Peak local pressure
loading and reductions in the downwind external pressure coefficients under longitudinal
wind can be easily accounted for.
The member bending capacity is taken in this method as
<pb M b =(b RZe fy (3.1)
where Ze is the effective elastic section modulus (calculated using the effective widths of the
compression and bending elements of the purlin section as given in AS/NZS4600),
fy is the
yield strength of the purlin, <p is the capacity reduction taken as 0.90 and R is the reduction
b
factor.
The cold-formed steel structures code AS/NZS4600 presents values of reduction factor
to be used under both uplift loading and downward loading. Its use is restricted to roof and
wall systems which comply with a number of limitations which can be met in standard
designs. Depending on the arrangement of lapped and unlapped spans and bridging, the R
factor varies from 1.0 to 0.60.
AISC DPFB/03 R-Factor Method 35
3.5
Deflections
current brochure, Lysaght [5] does not give recommended deflection limits for purlins
In its
and However, Lysaght did provide recommendations in previous brochures on the basis
girts.
follows: (a) Under
of extensive practical experience. These recommendations were as
Under combined dead and live load: span/150;
maximum or total design load: span/120; (b)
span/180. These limits applied in a working stress design
and (c) Under live load alone:
environment and as such, the appropriate regional basic design wind speed for calculating
deflections was the same as the strength design wind speed. This wind speed
corresponds to
wind loading code AS1 170.2 [10] and is greater than the current
V in the current
serviceability wind speed Vz .
view of the lack of current recommendations from Lysaght, and as Stramit

In
recommends a maximum deflection limit of span/150, the following deflection limits are now
proposed.
• Under dead load alone: Span/360

• Under live load alone: Span/180
• Under serviceability wind load alone: Span/1 50
3.6 The limit of span/150 for serviceability wind load alone may be more stringent than
before but some account has been taken of the reduction in wind speed from Vp to Vs Both the .
deflection
Stramit and Lysaght tables present distributed loads corresponding to a span/150
These tables can be factored readily to give a span/360 or a
for the serviceability limit state.
span/180 deflection.
Axial Loads
As mentioned in Section 3.1, purlins may be required to act as compression members to
3.7 system with the
transfer end wall wind loads to the nodes of the triangulated roof bracing
acting as a diaphragm or a deep beam. Under this condition, the
assistance of roof sheeting
purlins are therefore subjected to combined actions (bending and compression).
Lysaght presents formulae in their design brochure for the axial capacity of purlins
based partly on. any reserve of flexural strength. If there is no reserve of flexural strength, the
axial capacity is taken to be zero. The Stramit brochure does not present specific formulae,
3.5 of
but directs the user to the provisions of the combined axial load and bending Clause
AS/NZS4600.
Purlin Cleats
Standard purlin and girt cleats of time and are generally used without
have ably stood the test
analysis or design. The standard sizes for lapped purlins which require only
two bolts are
75x8 flats for up to 250 purlins and girts, and 75x12 flats for 300 and 350 purlins and girts.
increases
When purlins are unlapped, four holes in the cleat are required and the cleat width
from 75 mm to 130 mm.
Purlin cleats are subjected not only to axial loads, but also to bending moments. The
bending moments result from the component of the weight of the roof sheeting in its own
plane and from the restraint provided by the sheeting to prevent lateral buckling. In the case of
Z profiles, there are also bending moments from lateral forces due to the inclination of the
principal axes to the plane of the roof.
When the gap between the purlin and rafter (or girt and column) is much greater than
the nominal 10 mm gap, thicker cleats or angle cleats such as 75x75x5 equal angles can be
used for strength. This situation can occur when rafters are horizontal and the purlin cleats are
graded in height to provide the roof pitch. Angle cleats also provide greater robustness during
transport and erection. The maximum overall height of an 8mm thick cleat should be 250
mm, while a 12 mm
thick cleat should be no more than 450 mm
high. The height at which
designers specify an angle cleat in preference to a rolled steel flat is fairly arbitrary, but a
practical requirement is that cleats higher than 450 mm
should be angles.
One yardstick for robustness is that girt cleats should not yield when stood on by a
heavy worker. This would equate to a 1.1 kN load applied to the tip of the cleat with a 1.5
load factor to allow for dynamic effects as the worker climbs the steelwork.
3.8 Purlin Bolts

The standard Ml 2-4.6/S which comes either with loose washers or with a flanged
bolt is an
head and nut with washers integral with the bolt head and nut). Although the latter bolts
(ie.
are about 2.5 times as expensive as the standard M12 bolts, it appears that the extra expense is
considered worthwhile by riggers because of the speed of handling only two components
rather than four. Occasionally under high shear, Ml 2-8.8/S bolts should be used. Surprisingly,
8.8/S bolts with flanged heads and nuts are only about 20% to 25% more expensive than their
4.6/S counterparts. Ml 6 bolts are required forZ/C300 and Z/C350 sections.
should be remembered that washers under both the head and nut are essential if the
It
bolts with flanged heads and nuts are not used. Thisis because the standard punched holes in
purlins are 18mm high by 22mm long and the standard hole diameter in cleats is
18 mm.
These hole sizes are too big for M12 bolt heads and nuts even though the height of the hole
through lapped purlins is less than 18 mm diameter because of the lapping. By comparison,
the width across the flats of an Ml 2 bolt mm and the washer diameter 24 mm. Z
is only 18 is
and C-sections with depths of 300 mm and 350 mm require M16 bolts, for which the holes in
the cleats can be 22 mm diameter.
3.9 Equivalent UDL’s for Peak Pressure

In order to use the purlin capacity tables, it is
necessary to convert the loads due to peak
pressures over part of the span to uniformly distributed loads
(UDL’s) over the whole span.
Lysaght gives guidance on converting point loads to equivalent UDL’s but
not peak pressures
as noted earlier. Stramit presents a table of factors to cater for peak loads as partial load
blocks both at the end of the span and in the middle of the span (even though Stramit's
AISC DPFB/03 Equivalent UDL 's for Peak Pressure 37
explanatory diagram indicates a partial load block at the end of the span). A simple
alternative approach is to take a weighted average of the extra peak

load block as shown in
Figure 3.2 and add base uniformly distributed load. The multipliers of 1.3 and 2.0
this to the
for the end span in Figure 3.2 were determined from computer analysis of a four-span
the end span.
continuous lapped beam with different; lengths and locations of load blocks on
the maximum factors by which the average load over the full end span needs to
be
They are
increased to give equivalent maximum moments (in the mid-span region
of the end span) to
moments support are not critical.
those for the actual load block. The at the first internal
The multipliers are conservative in achieving equivalent UDL’s over the end span
only. However the Lysaght and Stramit tables are derived for uniform loads over all spans
and not just the end span. For an equivalent over all spans, the corresponding maximum
UDL
multipliers are approximately 1.6 and 2.5. This is not surprising when it is realised that a
achieve the same
uniform load over a full end span would need to be factored by 1.24 to
a uniform load over all four
maximum end span moment in the mid-span region as that for
spans.
As the Stramit approach does not differentiatebetween mid-span and end-of-span load
blocks, it tends to be conservative for end-of-span load blocks. The end result is that the
multipliers of 1.3 and 2.0 as proposed in this book is not as
simple approach of using
unconservative compared with the Stramit approach as it might appear. For example, for a Kpf
of and a value of 0.5, the Stramit factor on the nominal base load is 1.47. (Aîs
value 1.5 g
base UDL in the
the ratio of the total UDL in the peak local pressure zone to
the nominal
the span length.)
absence of local pressures, and g is the ratio of the length of the load block to
book gives corresponding factors on the nominal
By comparison, the simple approach in this
w we
r
:
1
1
t. L/2 _ - 1/2 ]
X *
w 1 w
Hi Hm we
_
we
i
l
'
mm L
i
IJwx 2wx £
we w we w
L
Figure 3.2 Equivalent Uniformly Distributed Loads

for Peak Pressure Load Blocks
base load of 1.33 (= 1.0 + 0.5x0.5x13) for an end-of-span load block and 1.50 (= 1.0
+ 0.5 x 0.5 x 2.0)
for a mid-span load block. As the corresponding accurate factors are 1.40
and 1.47, the approach in this book is unconservative by 5% (= 1.40/1.33) for the end-of-span
load block, and conservative by 2% (= 1.50/1.47) for the mid-span load block. If Kpf equals 2,
the corresponding percentages are
\
9% and 3%.
3.10 Design Example - Purlins
3.10.1 Member Capacity Brochures

Brochures produced by Stramit [4] and Lysaght [5] present design capacity tables for purlins
and girts subjected to outward and inward loading. The case of outward loading tends to
govern the design in the majority of cases, since it produces predominantly compression in the
unrestrained flange. Because of this, it is logical to select a purlin section from the outward
design capacity table, and then to check this section using the inward design capacity tables.
Deflections also need to be checked.
Outward loading is produced by internal wind pressure combined with external

suctions, reduced by 0.8 times the dead load in accordance with the load combination in
AS 11 70.1[6]. On the other hand, inward loading is produced by wind load and dead load
combinations, and by dead and live load combinations, again as in AS1 170.1. The inward
wind plus dead load case consists of internal suctions and external pressures plus 1.25 times
the dead load, while the dead and live load combination is 1.25 times the
dead load plus 1.5
times the gravity live load.
3.10.2 Outward Loading - Cross Wind

As noted in Chapter 2, cross wind loading produces external suctions over a
number of
different zones. The maximum internal pressure coefficient is +0.52 (see Section 2.6.3 .3).
• Edge Zone 0 to 2600 mm from Eaves

The cross wind
coefficients for this region are shown in Figure 3.3. They include a peak
zone at midspan which produces the worst effect. These loads apply to both
local pressure
internal and end spans. The equivalent UDL for this local pressure
is we = 2wx/L, where
wx is the additional peak load distributed over a length x. The wind pressures are
calculated using q2 = 1.00 kPa for cross wind (see Section 2.6.3. 1).
Using Load Combination (d) in Section 2.5.1, total equivalent UDL for spacing 5 (in
metres) is
2X X2 ' 6
w* = jTo.9 + -
°^ + 0.52 x 1 .00 - 0.8 x x^ = 1 ,86s kN/m
0.1
j j
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example — Purlins 39
2600
Figure 3.3 Cross Wind Coefficients 0 to 2600 mm from Eaves
• Edge Zone 2600 mm to 5200 mm from Eaves

The cross wind coefficients for this region are shown in Figure 3.4. From Figure 3.2, x =
5200 mm, so 2x/L = 2x5200/9000 = 1.16 > 1, and so w = w.
e
Hence the total equivalent UDL for spacing s is
vv*= {(0.9 + 0.45 + 0.52) x 1.00- 0.8 x0.l}xs = 1.79s kN/m
5200
Figure 3.4 Cross Wind Coefficients 2600 mm to 5200 mm from Eaves
• Zone 5200 mm to 8000 mm front Eaves

The peak pressure zone starts at the end wall and is therefore at the end of the purlin.
Hence take the equivalent UDL we as 1.3 wx/L. There are two cross wind peak pressure
coefficients for this case, viz. - 0.9 over a length of x = 2600 mm or - 0.45 over a length
of* = 5200 mm. Both produce the same effect according to the equivalent UDL formula in
Figure 3.2, and the cross wind coefficients for this zone are shown in Figure 3.5.
Hence the total equivalent UDL for spacing s is

1.3x0.45x5.2
0.9 + + 0.52 x 1.00- 0.8 x0.1>xs =1.685 kN/m
• Zone 8000 mm from Eaves to Ridge

The cross wind coefficients assumed for this zone are as shown in Figure 3.5 except that
the external pressure coefficient is -0.5, and so -0.5 should replace -0.9, and -0.25
should replace - 0.45 . Hence total equivalent UDL for spacing s is
1.3x0.25x5.2
w*= 0.5 + + 0.52 xl.00-0.8xO.Ux5 = 1.135 kN/m
8700
5200
— 2600
Cp = -c).9
Cp = -0.45
C p = -0.9
C p = +0.52
9000
Figure 3.5 Cross Wind Coefficients 5200 mm to 8000 mm from Eaves
3.10.3 Outward Loading - Longitudinal Wind

• Edge Zone 0 to 2600 mm from Eaves
The external pressure coefficient is -0.9 over 8.7 m of the span and -0.5 over the
remaining 0.3 m of the span while the internal pressure coefficient +0.1 instead of +0.52.
is
These coefficients are shown in Figure 3.6. Although the longitudinal wind pressures are
calculated using qz = 1.02, the cross wind case in Figure 3.3 is clearly critical.
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Purlins 41
8700
-0.5
+ 0.1
9000
Figure 3.6 Longitudinal Wind Coefficients 0 to 2600 mm from Eaves
• Edge Zone 2600 mm to 5200 mm from Eaves

Cross wind is again clearly critical, as the internal pressure coefficient under longitudinal
wind is +0. 1 and under cross wind is +0.52.

The of the local peak pressure coefficient of -0.9 acting over 2600
effect is identical mm
to that of - 0.45 acting over 5200 according to the equivalent UDL formula in Figure
mm
3.2. The longitudinal wind coefficients for this zone are shown in Figure 3.7.
Conservatively adopting the -0.9 external pressure coefficient over the whole span, the
total equivalent UDL for spacing s is
1.3x0.45x5.2
w*= ^ 0.9 + + 0.1 xl.02-0.8x0.Ux5 = 1.295 kN/m
3.10.4 Purlin Selection for Outward Loading

Maximum peak pressure on sheeting = (0.9x2 + 0.52)xl.00 = 2.32 kPa
For Trimdek 0.42 BMT using Lysaght’s limit state sheeting brochure:
• Maximum end span = 1300 mm
• Maximum internal span = 1900 mm
• Maximum unstiffened overhang = 150 mm
.
42 Purlins & Girts

AISC DPFB/03
Figure 3.7 Longitudinal Wind Coefficients 5200 mm from Eaves to Ridge
In order to reduce purlin twists and deformations, it is recommended by Stramit

[4]
and Lysaght [5] that the maximum bridging spacing be 20 times the purlin depth. For a purlin
depth of 200 mm, the maximum spacing is 4000 mm and so two rows of bridging are
recommended in all 9 m spans.
Both Stramit and Lysaght present capacities for thicker purlins in

the end spans. The
Stramit capacities for various purlin configurations including
thicker end span purlins are
reproduced in Table 3.1 while the corresponding Lysaght capacities are given in Table 3.2.
can be seen from these tables that the Stramit and Lysaght
It
design capacities are
somewhat different, with the differences presumably being attributable
to the different lap
lengths. For the purposes of the remainder of this design example, the Stramit
system with its
longer lap lengths (15% laps) will be adopted.
Edge Zone 0 to 2600 mm from Eaves
Spacing required for the Stramit Z200-19 purlin system for flexure
alone:
2.05
J =L10m
,
“l86
where 2.05 kN/m is the tabulated Stramit load shown in Table 3.1.
Spacing required for the Stramit Z200-24 purlin system

for flexure alone:
2.73
= L47m
*“I^
where 2.73 kN/m is the tabulated Stramit load shown in Table 3.1
aisc dpfb/03 Design Example - Purlins 43
Hence ADOPT the Stramit Z200-19 purlin system at 1100 mm maximum centres
Edge Zone 2600 mm to 5200 mm from Eaves
Spacing required for the Stramit Z200-19 purlin system for flexure alone:
2.05
s = ,
1.15 m
1.79
2.73
s = = 1.53 m
1.79
Zone 5200 mm to 8000 mm from Eaves

s = —
1.68
= i.22m
s — —
2 73
—= 1 .63 m
1.68
Table 3.1 Stramit Capacities for 5 or More Lapped

Continuous 9 m Spans (2 Rows of Bridging)
Mass Outwards Inwards Deflection

Section
kg/m kN/m kN/m Span/ 150
Z200-15 4.50 1.36 1.36 0.94
Z200-19/15 5.74/4.50 1.37 1.37 1.19
Z200-19 5.74 2.05 2.06 1.27
Z200-24/19 7.21/5.74 2.07 2.07 1.56
Z200-24 7.21 2.73 2.91 1.68
Z250-19 6.50 2.62 2.62 2.06
Z250-24/19 8.17/6.50 2.63 2.63 2.57
Z250-24 8.17 3.65 3.73 2.76
Bold capacities require Grade 8.8 purlin bolts.

Table 3.2 Lysaght Capacities for Four Lapped

Continuous 9 m Spans (2 Rows of Bridging)
Section
Mass Outwards Inwards Deflection
kg/m kN/m kN/m Span/150
Z20015 4.44 1.16 1.16 0.93
Z200 15/24 4.44/7.15 1.22 1.22 1.60
Z20019 5.68 1.77 1.77 1.26
Z20024 7.15 2.44 2.57 1.68
Z25019 6.43 2.24 2.24 2.04
Z25019/24 6.43/8.10 2.31 2.31 2.70
Z25024 8.10 3.26 3.29 2.77
Bold capacities require Grade 8.8 purlin bolts.

2.05
Could adopt the Stramit Z200-19 purlin system at 1800 mm

maximum centres but first
check deflections and the possible use of translucent sheeting, and consider the ease
of
erection given that some riggers and roofers prefer 1200 maximum centres. mm
• Preliminary Arrangement
Based on the outward loading design capacities, try the Stramit Z200-19 purlin system
with two rows of bridging for all spans and 1350 mm laps with the following maximum
spacings:
1100mm: 0 to 5000 mm from eaves

1200mm: 5000 mm from eaves to 8000 mm from eaves
800 mm: 8000 mm from eaves to ridge
1
1300 mm: maximum end sheeting spans at eaves and ridge for foot traffic
3.10.5 Check Inward Loading
• Zone 0 to 5200 mm from Eaves (1100 mm spacing)

Combining the external pressure coefficient of +0.3 with the internal suction coefficient
of - 0.5 under cross wind:
:
aisc dpfb/03 Design Example - Purlins 45
w* ={(0.3 + 0.5)x 1.00 + 1.25 xO.ljx 1.1 = 1.02 kN/m < 2.05 kN/m OK
and under longitudinal wind, combining the worst external pressure coefficient of +0.3
with the worst internal suction coefficient of - 0.65
w* = {(0.3
+ 0.65) x 1.02 + 1.25x0. l}x 1.1 = 1.20 kN/m < 2.05 kN/m OK
• Zone 5200 mm to 8000 mm from Eaves (1200 mm spacing)

The same assumptions in previous section will be adopted for both cross wind and
longitudinal wind except that the external pressure coefficient under cross wind will be
+0.2 rather than +0.3:
w* ={(0.5 + 0.2)xl.00 + 1.25x0.l}xl.2 = 0.99 kN/m < 2.05 kN/m OK

and under longitudinal wind:
w* ={(0.3 + 0.65)xl.02 + 1.25x0.l}xl.2 = 1.31 kN/m < 2.05 kN/m OK
• Zone 8000 mm from Eaves to Ridge (1800 mm spacing)

Adopt the same assumptions as in previous section
Hence under cross wind:
w* = {(0.5 + 0.2)x 1.00 + 1.25 x 0.l}x 1.8 = 1.49 kN/m < 2.05 kN/m OK
and under longitudinal wind:
w* = {(0.3 + 0.65)xl. 02 + 1.25x0. l}xl.8 = 1.97 kN/m < 2.05 kN/m OK
• Check Dead Plus Live Load
For worst case of 1800 mm purlin spacing:

3 3
w* = (5.74 x 9.82 x 10" + 4.3 x 9.82 x 10" x 1.8)x 1.25 + 0.25 x 1 .8 x 1 .5
= 0. 1 32 x 1 .25 + 0.45 x 1 .5 = 0.84 kN/m < 2.05 kN/m OK
where the self weight a Z200-19 is 5.74 kg/m and the self weight of 0.42 BMT Trimdek is
4.3 kg/m 2 . As the tributary area of 9x1.8 = 16.2 m 2
is greater than 14 m 2
,
the live load
according to AS 11 70.1 [6] is 0.25 kPa.
3.10.6 Purlin Deflections
The dead load deflection of a Stramit Z200-19 purlin system spaced at 1800 mm centres using
the dead load calculated above:
0.13 9000
A X = 6.1 mm
1.27 150
span span
"300
OK
1475
where 1.27 kN/m is the tabulated Stramit load shown in Table 3.1 to give a span/150
deflection and 0.13 kN/m is the dead load calculated in the previous section.
The live load deflection of Stramit Z200-19 purlins spaced at 1800 mm centres:
0.45 9000
A x = 21.3 mm
1.27 150
span span
”
"
< OK
423 Iso
To checkthe maximum deflection under wind load alone, a designer could adjust the
maximum wind load combination for the strength limit state by eliminating the dead load
component. However the wind load is quite dominant in this case and so the combined wind
and dead load UDL will be adopted as the wind load alone. The maximum wind uplift plus
dead load UDL is approximately equal to the strength capacity of 2.05 kN/m. Converting this
2
from an ultimate to a serviceability wind load by applying a factor of (38/60) the ,
serviceability wind load alone is
2.05 x = 0.82 kN/m < 1.27 kN/m OK
where 1.27 kN/m is the tabulated Stramit load shown in Table 3.1 to give a span/150
deflection.
3.10.7 Purlin Summary

The purlin system and spacing arrangement suggested in Section 3.10.4 is also satisfactory
under inward loading and its However, as translucent sheeting will
deflections are acceptable.
be used and the recommended maximum purlin spacing is 1500 for Alsynite 3050, themm
maximum purlin spacing needs to be restricted to 1500 mm.
The final system and spacings adopted for this design example match the spacings
used in the previous edition of this book which limited the spacing to 1200 mm. The adopted
purlin system is as follows:
• Stramit Z200-19 system with 1 5% laps

• Two rows of bridging
• M12 4.6/S bolts
• Purlin arrangement from eaves:
5 at 1000 mm centres
5 at 1200 mm centres
2 at 800 mm centres (with top purlin 300 mm from ridge
to suit ridge ventilator with 600 mm throat)
This compares with Z200-20 in the end spans and Z200-16 in the internal spans
adopted in the previous edition [11] in accordance with AS1538 [3] and the working stress
design purlin and girt capacities.
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Purlins 47
3.10.8 R-Factor Method

AS/NZS4600 [1] permits a simple alternative method for calculating the member capacities of
purlins and under certain conditions. The so-called R-factor (or reduction factor) method
girts
is potentially applicable in this case with the use of 0.42, mm

BMT roof sheeting, purlin laps
greater than 13% and other conditions satisfied. 1
In this edition, it is not proposed to undertake a purlin and girt design for the whole
building by the R-factor method but to investigate the capacity of one purlin run.
For the zone located 5200 to 8000mm mm

from the eaves and under cross wind
loading, the purlin spacing is 1200 mm
and the base UDL is derived from a -0.9 external
pressure coefficient and a +0.52 internal pressure coefficient. The peak local pressure zone
has a coefficient of 0.5 x (- 0.9) = -0.45 and is 5.2 m long from the end support as shown in
Figure 3.5. These loads are applied in combination with 0.8 times the dead load to an eight-
span continuous beam with the 1350 mm
laps which straddle each internal support simulated
by doubling the second moment of area Ix The maximum bending moments M’ in the end
.
span are 12.1 kNm mid-span region and 18.0 kNm at the first internal support as shown
in the
in Figure 3.8a. The maximum moment in unlapped Z20015 members in the internal spans is
8.5 kNm.
Figure 3.8a Bending Moments for R-factor Method for LW 5200 mm

from Eaves to Ridge
Figure 3.8b Shears for R-factor Method for L W 5200 mm

from Eaves to Ridge
0 9
• Member Moment Capacity
Using an R-factor of 0.95 corresponding to two rows of bridging, the member capacities
jMb for Z200-19 and Z200-15 sections are obtained from Equation 3.1 using the minimum
Ze values tabulated by Stramit [4] and <p equal to 0.9 as follows:
For Z200-15: <fMb = 0.9 x 0.95 x 23.0 x 1 3 x 450 = 8.85 kNm

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

For Z200-19: AT = 12.1 kNm < 13.0 kNm
• Combined Bending and Shear
A check must be made for combined bending and shear. Note that strictly speaking it
would be necessary to re-analyse the purlin system to account for the thinner Z sections in
the internal spans as this would result in slightly different bending moments.
For combined bending and shear, the relevant member actions are as follows. At the
end of the lap in the end span, the moment is 5.9 kNm and the shear is 7.9 kN. In the
second span at the end of the lap near the first internal support, the moment is 8.5 kNm and
the coincident shear is 6.0 kN.
FQR.Z2ML9,
Shear capacity:
d x
= 203 -2x (5 + 1.9) = 189.2 mm
d 189.2 2 05
^=1.415x A -l - ^-3i
, 1
= 99.6 > 1.415x = 68.9
'w 1.9 fy V 450
Hence
^ 0.905 xEkt^ 0.905x2x10 s x 5.34x1.
3
"l
AK = 0.9 X = 0.9 x
4 189.2
= 31.5 kN
Combined bending and shear:
M < 1.0
0b M s = 0.95x33. 8xl0 3 x 450 = 14.4 kNm
Note that <pb equals 0.95 for section capacity, not 0.90. Table 1.6 AS/NZS4600
YY
Design Example - Purlins 49

AISC DFFB/03
At the end of the lap in the end span:

f
1.9 V
f—4
, 14 . , ,31.5,
= 0.17 + 0.06 = 0.23 < 1.0 OK
For Z20015 :
Shear capacity:
d, = 203 - 2 x (5 + 1.5) = 190 mm

i-
t
w
** — 1-5
= 126.7 > 68.9 as before
Hence
f 0.905 x EkJ 0.905 x 2xl0 5 x 5.34 x1.5 3 h
= 0 9* = 0.9 x
ivK -
d 190
x
= 15.5 kN
Combined bending and shear:
<f> b
M s
3
= 0.95 x 23.0 xl0 x 450 = 9.83 kNm Table 1.6 AS/NZS4600
first internal span near first internal support:

At the end of lap in
&oy
f— ,9.83 J 15.5,
= 0.56 + 0.15 = 0.71 < 1.0 OK
The Stramit Z20019/Z20015 system is combined bending and shear

therefore adequate for
as well as for maximum moment alone. There is ample reserve of combined bending and
and sufficient reserve of bending strength to preclude the need
for re-
shear strength
continuous beam for the Z20019/Z20015 combination. The
analysis of the
Z20019/Z20015 system is lighter than the Z20019 system obtained by using the Stramit
tables.
3.1 1 Design Example - Girts

3.11.1 Side Wall Girts
Inward Pressure Coefficients: +0.7 external pressure (CW)
-0.5 internal suction (CW)
Outward Pressure Coefficients: —0.5 (CW)

external suction
+0.52 (CW)
internal pressure
-0.65 external suction (LW)
+0.1 internal pressure (LW)
Clearly the cross wind case is more critical than the longitudinal wind case because of the
much higher internal pressure.
• Outward Loading
The assumed pressure coefficients for cross wind loading including the local pressure zone
are shown in Figure 3.9. Equivalent UDL for cross wind loading with spacing, s, is
1.3x0.25x5.2
= 0.5 + + 0.52 xl.OOxs = 1.21$ kN/m
8700
Figure 3.9 Cross Wind Coefficients for Outward Loading on Side Wall Girts
• Girt Selection
For a Z200-24/19 system, spacing required for flexure alone:
Hence try the Stramit Z200-19 system at 1700 mm maximum centres
• Inward Loading with 1 700 mm Spacing
UDL = (0.7 + 0.5)x 1.00x1. 7 = 2.04 kN/m < 2.05 kN/m OK
• Summary
Adopt the Stramit Z200-19 girt system at 1700 mm maximum centres with 1350 laps and
two rows of bridging on all spans.
j
Design Example — Girts 51

AlSC DPFB/03
3.11.2 End Wall Girts with Span of 6250 mm

Inward Pressure Coefficients: +0.7 external pressure (LW)
-0.65 internal suction (LW)
Outward Pressure Coefficients -0.65 external suction (CW)

”
~ +0.52 internal pressure (CW)
-0.25 external suction (LW) [d/b
= 72/25 = 2.88]
+0.1 internal pressure (LW)
• Outward Loading
Clearly cross wind willgovern the design and the relevant coefficients are shown in Figure
Figure 3.2, the total equivalent UDL with peak pressure
zone under
3.10. Referring to
cross wind for spacing, s, is
L3 X °' 325 X 5 2
+ 0-521 x 1.00x5 = kN/m
‘
0.65 + 1.515
'
, 6.25 )
Figure 3.10 Cross Wind Coefficients for Outward Loading on

End Wall Girts
• Girt Selection
To match the side wall girt spacing, try 5 = 1.7 m

Outward loading = 1.51x1.7 = 2.57 kN/m
capacities are
For Z150 (whose Stramit capacities are listed in Table 3.3 and Lysaght
girts
listed in Table 3.4 using linear interpolation), the recommended maximum bridging
spacing of 20 D - 3040 mm. This length is quite close to half of the span, so one row of
bridging may be justified.
Try Stramit Z200-15 system with one row of bridging at 1700 mm centres
Capacity = 2.77 kN/m > 2.57 kN/m OK j
• Inward Loading with 1 700 mm Spacing

UDL = (0.7 + 0.5)x 1.02x1. 7 = 2.34 kN/m < 2.77 kN/m OK
Table 3.3 Stramit Capacities for 3 or 4 Lapped

Continuous 6.25 m Spans
Outwards Inwards
Section Mass kN/m '
kN/m Deflection
kg/m Span/150
1 Row 2 Rows 1 Row
Z150-10 2.43 0.99 1.18 1.18 0.78
Z150-12 2.90 1.26 1.49 1.49 0.98
Z150-15 3.59 1.63 1.96 1.96 1.26
Z150-19 4.51 2.27 2.77 2.74 1.67
Z 150-24 5.67 3.14 3.89 3.76 2.15
Z200-15 4.50 2.77 2.77 2.77 2.47
Table 3.4 Lysaght Capacities for Lapped

Continuous 6.25 m Spans
Outwards Inwards
Section Mass kN/m kN/m Deflection
kg/m Span/150
1 Row 2 Rows 1 Row
Z15012 2.84 1.33 1.49 1.33 1.05
Z15015 3.54 1.73 1.96 1.96 1.34
Z15019 4.46 2.35 2.76 2.71 1.79
Z 15024 5.62 3.26 3.88 3.77 2.34

Z20015 4.44 2.65 2.65
'
2.65 2.58
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Girts 53
• Summary
For end wall girts, adopt Stramit Z200-15 girt system at 1700 mm centres with 1000 mm
laps. Use one row of bridging in all spans.
3.12 References
1. Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand (1996). AS/NZS4600-J996 Cold Formed Steel
Structures Code, SA, Sydney, SNZ, Auckland.
2. Standards Australia (1998). AS4 100-1998 Steel Structures, SA, Sydney.
3. Standards Association of Australia (1988). AS1538-1988 SAA Cold-Formed Steel Structures
Code, SAA, Sydney.
4. Stramit (1999). Stramit Purlins and Girts, Stramit Metal Building Products.
5. Lysaght (1999). Zeds and Cees Purlin and Girt Systems, BHP Building Products.
6. Standards Association of Australia (1989). ASI 170.1-1989 Part 1 Dead and Live Loading
Code, SAA, Sydney.
7. Horridge, J.F. and Morris, L.J. (1986). Single-storey buildings cost considerations,
Proceedings, Pacific Structural Steel Conference, New Zealand Heavy Engineering Research
Association, August, 265-285.
8. Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand (1998). AS/NZS4600-1996 Supplement 1: 1998
Cold-Formed Structures - Commentary, SA, Sydney, SNZ, Auckland.
,d
9. Hancock, G.J. (1998). Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structures. 3 edn, AISC, Sydney.
10. Standards Association of Australia (1989). ASI 170.2-1989 Part 2 Wind Loading Code, SAA,
Sydney.
11. Woolcock, S.T., Kitipomchai, S. and Bradford, M.A. (1993). Limit State Design of Portal
Frame Buildings, 2 nd edn, AISC, Sydney.
54 A!SC DPFB/03
4 Frame Design
4.1 Frame Design by Elastic Analysis

Traditionally, portal frame analysis and design in Australia has been elastic rather than plastic
because of the non-uniform, asymmetric nature of the wind load. Although AS4100 [1] is a
limit state code with section and member capacities based on the plastic moment of resistance,
the main method in the code for determining the forces and bending moments in a frame is
still elastic analysis. However, plastic analysis may in some cases lead to more economical
structures, and this is considered in Chapter S.
wind code AS 1170.2 [2], coefficients for external suction decrease in

In the Australian
steps starting at the windward edge to -0.5 to -0.3 to -0.2, or alternatively from
from -0.9
-0.4 to 0, +0.2 and +0.3. This non-uniform pressure can be handled easily by an elastic
analysis using a plane frame computer program. In fact, it would be extremely difficult to
take advantage of the reduction in pressure and achieve an economical structure without
recourse to a plane frame computer program.
In the design of rafters and columns in portal frames, the selection of the member sizes
may be governed by the ultimate or strength limit state, or by limiting deflections in the
serviceability limit state. For the strength limit state, the design axial and bending capacities
<f>Nc and fMbx respectively are obtained through a consideration of flexural and flexural-
•
torsional buckling respectively.
To obtain an economical rafter design, it is important to ensure that the design bending
strength is as close as possible to the section capacity <fMSx, which for many sections will be
the plastic moment capacity y This capacity is

<fiSf . usually achieved by the use of adequate
restraints such as fly braces to restrain the inside rafter and column flanges laterally when in
compression. Of course, there are some cases where deflections govern the design, and these
are discussed in Section 4.9 of this chapter.
4.2 Computer Analysis

4.2.1 Load Cases
For the computer analysis, it is best to use load cases are complete in themselves. For
which
example, internal pressure should be a load case by and not combined with an external
itself,
pressure case. The loads on columns and rafters should not be separated. Recommended load
cases for a computer analysis are as follows:
• Dead Load (DL)

• Live Load (LL)
• Cross Wind Maximum Uplift (CW1) (external only)
• Cross Wind Minimum Uplift (CW2) (external only)
55
56 Frame Design AISC DPFB/03
• Longitudinal Wind on First Internal Frame (LW1) (external only)

• Longitudinal Wind on Downwind Frame (LW2) (external only)
• Internal Pressure under Cross Wind (IPCW)
• Internal Pressure under Longitudinal Wind (IPLW)
Extra load cases may be necessary non-symmetrical buildings, for buildings where
for
the cross wind on one side from the other, and for buildings where
terrain category is different
it may be an advantage to consider different wind speeds in different directions. Cross wind
load combinations with internal suction are not often critical, but designers should check such
combinations nevertheless. It is possible that the hogging moment at the downwind knee joint
will be worse under dead load, cross wind and internal suction (1.25DL + + IS) than CW
under dead load plus live load (1.25DL + 1.5LL). This particularly affects the downwind
column as its unrestrained inside flange will be in compression. The internal suction case (IS)
can be obtained simply by factoring the internal pressure load case by an appropriate negative
number.
The recommended load combinations for a computer analysis are:
• LC20: 1.25DL + 1.5LL

• LC21: 0.8DL + CWI (maximum uplift) + IPCW
• LC22: 0.8DL + CW2 (minimum uplift) + IPCW
• LC23: 1.25DL + CW2 (minimum uplift) + ISCW
• LC24: 0.8DL + LW1 (maximum uplift) + IPLW
• LC25: 1.25DL + LW2 (minimum uplift) + ISLW
Note that the loading code AS 11 70.1 [3] states that it is not necessary to consider live
load and wind load acting simultaneously. There is some doubt about the validity of LC25 as
discussed in Sections 2.4.7 and 2.6.5.
The trial section properties used in the first computer run will not affect 'the
distribution of bending moments, provided that the column and rafter second moments of area
are in the same proportion as those finally adopted. Some computer programs allow for shear
deformations, although the effect is not significant. To account for shear deformations in
Microstran, the web area, which can be taken as the overall depth D times the web thickness
t w must be input.
4.2.2 Methods of Analysis

AS4100 permits a number of types of analysis consisting of first and second order elastic
analysis, first and second order plastic analysis and advanced structural analysis. First order
plastic analysis is considered in Chapter 8, while first and second order elastic analysis is
treated in this chapter.
First order elastic analysis assumes the frame remains elastic and that its deflections
are so small that secondary effects resulting from the deflections (second order effects) are
negligible. First order analysis is generally carried out using plane frame analysis computer
programs. Despite the basic assumption of first order analysis, second order effects are not
negligible. Second order effects are essentially P-A effects which arise from the sway A of
the frame, or P-8 effects which arise from the deflections 8 of individual members from the
AISC DPFB/03 Computer Analysis 57
straight lines joining the members’ ends. AS4100 requires that the bending moments
calculated by first order analysis be modified for second order effects using moment
amplification factors.
The use of moment by using second order elastic

amplification factors can be avoided
analysis. Second order analysis adopted by designers as suitable programs are
is now widely
commercially available, and it is easier and more accurate to obtain elastic second order
moments directly than to amplify first order moments. Second order elastic analysis is used
as the first preference in this book with variations for first order analysis also being given
It should be noted that second order analysis should only be performed
for
where appropriate.
load combinations and not for individual load cases.
4.2.3 Moment Amplification for First Order Elastic Analysis
requires a rational analysis of non-rectangular sway frames to determine the frame

AS4100
elastic buckling load factor Ac . The first order bending moments in the columns and rafters
are then amplified* using the amplification factor Ss given by
The A c can be determined by commercially available elastic critical load

factor
computer packages. However, as these seem to go hand in hand with second order elastic
analysis programs, there is little point in determining A c in this way when direct
second order
analysis which avoids the use of A c is available. It should be noted that for pinned base
portals, the approach used by these packages does not take advantage of the nominal base
restraint** allowed in AS1250 [4] and therefore should be conservative.
For designers without access to such computer packages, simple approximate

expressions for determining A c for pinned and fixed base portal frames may be found
in
Reference [5]. These expressions ignore the stiffening effect of any haunches and the
nominal base restraint * allowed in AS 1250 and therefore should be conservative.
• For pinned, base frames:
EI'
' f +o.3N,e
4 = t\KK /
r )
(4 2)
'
‘in AS 1250, moment amplification was effectively applied in the combined stress rules where the amplification
factor l/O-fac/O.dFo,*) was used to increase the in-plane bending stresses. To determine F, and in the
combined stresses equation, the designer was required to calculate the in-plane effective length of the columns.
In the absence of any better technique, it was customary to regard the portal frames as rectangular frames with
zero axial loads in the beams or rafters and use the G* and Gg factor approach in Appendix E of AS 1250.
However, such an approach was of doubtful validity because rafters are inclined and carry axial loads.
’’Nominal base restraint was represented by a G value of 10 for a pinned base in AS 1250 when using the Ga and
G q factor approach for determining effective lengths.
1
• Forfixed base frames:
5£(l0 + tf)
A = (43)
5 NX 2 RN'c h]
F
in which
R= Ic t r (4.4)
IX
and E is Young’s modulus,
N* is the axial force in the column,
N* is the axial force in the rafter,
Ic is the second moment of area of the column,

Ir is the second moment of area of the rafter,
he is the height to the eaves, and
^r is the length of rafter between the centre of the column and apex
Once the first order moments are amplified, the combined actions section (Section 8 of
AS4100) applies. Member moment capacities are calculated using actual lengths of rafters
and columns when determining the axial capacity Nc as required by Clause 8.4.2.2 of AS4100
taking an effective length factor ke of 1.0.
Clause S.4.2.2 of AS4100 also requires the rafters and columns to be checked under
axial load alone using the effective lengths L e determined from the frame elastic buckling load
factor Ac as discussed in Sections 4.3.3 and 4.4.2. The effective length of a rafter or column
can be determined from
Le = rry.
(4.5)
where N' is the design axial force in the rafter or column and Ix is the respective second
moment of area about the x axis. •
4.3 Rafters
4.3.1 Nominal Bending Capacity M bx in Rafters
4.3.1. Simplified Procedure

AS4100 uses a semi-empirical equation to relate the nominal bending capacity Mbx to the
elastic buckling moment M 0 and the section strength M sx , which for Universal and Welded
Beams and Columns can be taken as A^fy. This philosophy uses a set of semi-empirical
equations to relate the member strength to the plastic moment and the elastic flexural-
torsional buckling moment.
l
AISC DPFB/03 Rafters 59
Clause 5. 6. 1.1 of AS4100 expresses the nominal member bending capacity Mbx as
M hx = am as Msx (
4 6)-
where am is a moment modification factor to account for the non-uniform distribution of
major axis bending moment, and is a slenderness reduction factor which depends on M sx
and the elastic buckling moment beam under uniform moment 0 The
of a simply supported M .
code gives comprehensive values of m

ct which would be met in practice. The conservative
option of taking a„, equal to unity is also permitted.
The slenderness reduction factor is expressed in Clause 5. 6. 1.1 of the code as
SX
a = 0.6 x < 1.0 (4.7)
s
M oa
where Moa may be taken as either (i) M 0 which is the elastic buckling moment for a beam
against lateral translation
with a uniform bending distribution and with ends fully restrained
and twist rotation but unrestrained against minor axis rotation; or (ii) a value determined from
an accurate elastic buckling analysis.
The elastic buckling moment M0 may be determined from the accurate expression [1]
given in Clause 5.6. 1.1 as
*2 EI w (4.8)
GJL
where L e is the effective length, and EIy GJ and EIW

,
are the flexural bending rigidity, the
torsional rigidity and the warping Values of the section properties Iy J

rigidity respectively. ,
Design Capacity
and Iw are given in the BHP Section Properties Handbook [6] and in AISC’s
length L e and
Tables for Structural Steel [7]. The use of Equation 4.8 requires the effective ,
the determination of this is discussed in subsequent sections.
4.3 . 1 .2 Alternative Procedure

analysis,
Clause 5.6.4 of AS4100 allows the designer to use the results of an elastic buckling
although in most cases this is not practical for design offices and is really a research tool. If
an elastic buckling analysis is to be used, then the elastic buckling moment ob >
which allows M
and height of loading, determined either from
for the moment gradient, restraint conditions is
a computer program or from solutions given in the literature [8,9].
Having obtained M ob , the value oiMoa to be used in Equation 4.7 is calculated from
Moa -.M°L ct
(4.9)
where values of am are obtained either from the code or from an elastic buckling analysis such
that
M,
(4.10)
M
. M
The moment os is the elastic buckling moment corresponding to M0 b for the same
beam segment with the same bending moment distribution, but with
• shear centre loading,
• ends fully restrained against lateral translation and twist rotation, and
• ends unrestrained against minor axis rotation.
M
The moment 00 is the critical uniform bending moment M 0 given by Equation 4.8
with L e taken as the laterally unsupported length L.
In the event that the whole rafter is designed as a tapered member fabricated by
diagonally cutting, rotating and welding the web, an accurate elastic buckling analysis must
be used. This also applies to the haunched segment of a conventional rafter. The values of
M0 b -and Mos for tapered rafters may be found in Reference [10].
4.3.2 Effective Length and Moment Modification Factors

for Bending Capacity
4.3.2. 1 General
If the simplified design procedure in Clause 5.6. 1.1 of AS4100 (incorporating Equations 4.6,
4.7 and 4.8 above) is used, then the effective length L c of the rafter must be determined in
accordance with Clause 5.6.3. The effective length depends on the spacing and stiffness of
the purlins and fly braces, and the degree of twist and lateral rotational restraint as follows:
• Whether the connection between the purlins and rafter is rigid, semi-rigid or
pinned.
• The flexural rigidity of the purlins, in that AS41 00 classifies purlins qualitatively as
flexible or stiff. No numerical yardstick is given.
• The load height in that AS4100 allows, for example, for the destabilising effect of
loads applied at or above the shear centre in a beam subjected to downward loads.
• Whether the inside or outside flange is the critical flange. For a portal frame, the
compression flange is the critical flange as explained in Clause C5.5 of the AS4100
Commentary [11].
• The degree of lateral rotational restraint provided at the ends of a segment by

adjoining segments.
4.3.2.2 Top Flange in Compression

Under gravity loads, the top flange is mostly in compression, except near the knees. Purlins
provide lateral restraint to the top flange, but full twist restraint to the rafter from the purlins
cannot be relied upon because standard oversized 22 mmxl8 mm holes are generally used in
purlins with only M12 bolts. Although this means the holes in the purlins are effectively
slotted, the bolts are tightened and so the purlin to rafter connection using a standard purlin
cleat and two bolts can be regarded as a partial twist restraint connection in terms of Figure
at the critical flange
5.4.2.1(b) in AS4100. Fortunately, the code permits partial twist restraint
(in association with lateral restraint) to be classified as full restraint of the cross-section.
Therefore for each segment between purlins when the top flange is in compression, both ends
are fully restrained (FF) and the twist restraint factor kt is 1.0.
Although gravity loads are applied through the purlins at the top flange, the load
the load is not
height factor k t of 1.4 in Table 5.6.3(2) in AS4100 does not apply because
to move sideways as the member buckles. In other words, the load is applied at a
point of
free
lateral restraint and kg should be taken as 1.0.
The degree of lateral rotational restraint provided at each end of the segment by
adjoining segments depends on whether the adjoining segments are fully restrained laterally
restrained segment in accordance
or not, as described in Clause 5.4.3.4 of AS4100. (A fully
with Clause 5.3.2 is essentially one with b
not less than Ms
M
which means its am as value is
greater than unity.) The code end restraint or none. No

permits full lateral rotational
intermediate option is provided. While segments between purlins under downward loading
are short and are likely to be fully restrained laterally, full restraint in accordance with Clause
cannot be guaranteed. It follows that lateral rotational restraint should strictly speaking
5,3.2
be disregarded. There is, however, a high degree of lateral rotational restraint which would
allow kr to be taken safely as 0.85.
In summary, the effective length Lc is given by k,k e k r L as
Le « 1.0 x 1.0 x 0.85 S = 0.85 Sp (

4 - n )
p
Because the spacing between purlins is short in comparison with the length of the rafter, the
moment modification factor am should usually be taken as 1.0.
4.3.2. 3 Bottom Flange in Compression
• With Fly Bracing under Uplift
Under uplift, most of the bottom flange of a portal frame rafter is in compression. In such
cases, the rafter is attached to the purlins at the tension flange level, and the compression
flange of the rafter is unrestrained. In order to achieve increased member capacity, it is
customary to restrain the bottom flange of the rafter laterally by providing fly bracing
using small angle section members joining the bottom flange to the purlins.
With the bottom flange in compression, AS4100 classifies a fly brace restraint as a frill
or partial cross-sectional restraintdepending on whether the purlins are flexible or stiff.

No numerical criterion is given for assessing the flexibility or stiffness of purlins.
Therefore if partial cross-sectional restraint is assumed conservatively at each end of the
segment (PP), the twist restraint factor k, will be greater than 1 .0 in accordance with
Table 5.6.3(1) of AS4100. However, unless fly braces are closely spaced or the rafter has
an unusually high flange to web thickness ratio, kt will normally be close to 1.0.
Frame Design AISC DPFB/03
Considering that the partial restraint assumption is probably conservative, a k, value of 1.0
is recommended for simplicity.
It may appear that there should be a useful reduction in effective length because the
wind loads act at the more favourable tension flange level. However, the benefit of this is
not significant as most of the bending moment within a segment is due to end moments,
and the segment should not be likened to a simply supported beam under uniformly
distributed load applied at the tension flange level. Moreover, the reduction in effective
lengths of a simply supported beam under such loads is limited in some cases as
discussed in the next subsection and AS4100 offers no concession for bottom flange
loading. For this reason, kt should be taken as 1.0.
For a segment between and with the bottom flange in compression, the
fly braces
lateral rotational restraint provided
ends of the segment by adjoining segments
at the
should strictly speaking be disregarded because it is unlikely that the adjoining segments
are fully restrained laterally in accordance with Clause 5.4.3.4 of AS4100. There is,
however, a degree of lateral rotational restraint which would allow kr to be taken as 0.85.
In summary, the effective length Le for segments between fly braces is given by
k,k t kr L as
4=1.0x1.0x0.8557=0.855/ (4.12)
The moment modification a m for segments between fly braces will usually be
factor
greater than 1.0. For segments which have a reversal of moment, part of the segment will
have its compression flange restrained by purlins but this benefit should be ignored.
Without Fly Bracing under Uplift
Although some fly bracing is recommended, it is interesting to consider the rafter

behaviour under uplift where there is no fly bracing at all. In this case, the full portal
span should be taken as the effective length, and am should be based on the bending
moment distribution across the rafter span. Even though the validity of this approach for
a kinked member is doubtful, the large effective length should equate to such a low
capacity that some fly bracing will be necessary.
Designers often feel that the

lateral restraint offered by purlins to the tension flange
under uplift conditions
should also increase the lateral buckling capacity. However,
theoretical and experimental studies [9,12] of the bracing of beams have confirmed that
translational restraint alone acting at the level
of the tension flange, such as that provided
by purlins, is virtually ineffective. These studies show that if the lateral restraint is
combined with some twist restraint, the buckling capacity is increased. It is possible to
design the purlin-rafter connection for some by providing two or four
rotational capacity
friction bolts to the cleat, or by using wider cleat plates with bolts. There may be
more
architectural advantages in avoiding fly bracing, such as when a ceiling is required above
the bottom flange level.
Investigations have been carried out [12] into the effectiveness of standard purlin
connections in providing rotational restraint to the rafters. The results revealed in part
that the requirement for rotational stiffness is a function of the initial geometric
imperfections in the is, for very crooked rafters, greater stiffness in the brace
rafter. That
is required. The and experimental studies have so far indicated that ordinary
theoretical
or standard purlin connections are effective to some degree, provided that the bolts' are
properly tightened.
Further tests and analyses are needed, but in the meantime tension flange bracing
should be disregarded.
LOCATION EFFECTIVE LENGTH
Outside flange in compression 0.85 Sp
Inside flange in compression 0.85 Sf
Column without girts or fly bracing. 0.85 H
Figure 4.1 Effective Length Factors for Bending in Rafters and Columns
o
• With Fly Bracing under Downward Load
The effect of the bottom flange near the columns being in compression due to gravity
loads or other loading should be considered even though most of the bottom flange of the
rafter is in tension. A fly brace is recommended near each knee and near the ridge to
restrain the inside comers of the frame at kinks. A stiffener between column flanges as
indicated in Figure 4.1 effectively extends the bottom flange of the haunch to the outside
column flange which is restrained by girts. This effectively provides some restraint to the
insideof the knee. However, a fly brace near the knee is still recommended. With fly
braces at least at the knees and the ridge, the effective length will be 0.85 times the
spacing between fly braces.
The value of the moment modification factor am for the segment should be detemiined
using one of the three methods in AS4100, but Method (iii) in Clause 5.6.1.1(a) is likely
to be most appropriate if there is no intermediate fly brace between the knee and ridge. It
is recommended any haunch should be ignored in determining the design bending
that
capacity <fMbx of the segment, but the applied bending moments should be reduced by
factoring the moment at any haunch section by the ratio of the elastic section modulus of
the unhaunched section to the corresponding elastic modulus of the haunched section.
Alternatively if each end of the haunch happens to be fly braced as in the design example,
the haunch may be treated as a tapered segment in accordance with AS4100.
4.3.3 Major Axis Compression Capacity Ncx

In AS4100, the nominal member capacity Na is required in the combined actions rules for
determining the in-plane member capacity in Clause 8.4.2. 2. It is obtained from Clause 6.3.3
as
Ncx =ac kfAJy (4.13)
where An is the net rafter cross-sectional area, which is generally the gross area for portal
frame members (see Clause 6.2.1 of AS4100). The member slenderness reduction factor ac is
given in tabular form in the code for values of the modified slenderness ratio
A'nx = ( Le I r
x)fef4fy /250 where L * is the effective length equal to keL based on the
actual rafter length L from the centre of the column to the apex.
Two effective lengths need to be used under Clause 8.4.2.2 of AS4100. For combined
actions, the effective length factor should be taken as to be 1.0. The rafter also needs
checked under axial load alone using effective lengths determined from the frame elastic
buckling load factor A c This factor can be obtained either by using Equation 4.5 with the
.
Davies method [5] outlined in Section 4.2.3 of this book, or by using commercially available
computer packages such as Microstran [13] or Spacegass [14]. The check under axial load
alone is unlikely to be critical for portal frames without cranes because they are principally
flexural frames with low axial loads in all members.
The form factor kf which accounts for local plate buckling is given in the BHP section
handbook [6].
4.3.4 Minor Axis Compression Capacity Ncy

The nominal member capacity for buckling about the y axis is required in the combined
action rules of AS4100 for determining the out-of-plane capacity in Clause 8.4.4.I. It is
obtained by taking the effective length Le as the distance between purlins, since the purlins are
restrained longitudinally by roof sheeting acting as a rigid diaphragm spanning
between the
roof bracing nodes. The of an axially loaded member (rafter or
theoretical effective length
column) with discrete lateral but not twist-rotational restraints attached to one of the flanges
may be greater than the distance between the restraints. Unfortunately, there is no simple
method of determining the effective length of such a member. In the case of a rafter
restrained by purlins, some degree of twist-rotational restraint would also exist. The
combined full lateral and partial twist-rotational restraint
provided by the purlins to the
outside flange should be effective in enforcing the rafter to buckle flexurally between the
purlins. The capacity Ncy is obtained from the minor axis modified slenderness ratio
-V = {Le 1 r
y)F7jfy 1 250 •
4.3.5 Combined Actions for Rafters
tensile or compressive forces in rafters combined with bending

should be
The effect of axial
included in the design as described in Section 4.5.
4.3.6 Haunches for Rafters
comprehensive AISC publication [19] in 1997 investigated the design of tapered

portal
A with
section members. The publication deals
frame haunches fabricated from universal
the calculation of elastic and plastic section properties,
detailing, the cost of fabrication,
segments), and section and
computer modelling (including the effect of varying the number of
member design to AS4100. It also reviews the testing of haunches in other literature.
4.4.1
4.4 Portal Columns

General
In the sizing of portal columns, it is necessary to consider not only major and minor axis
column
4.4.2 The axial forces and bending moments
buckling, but also flexural-torsional buckling.
can be extracted from the computer output, but knee bending moments can be reduced to the
value at the underside of the rafter or haunch.
Major Axis Compression Capacity Noe

In AS4100, the nominal member capacity Ncx is required in the combined actions rules for
determining the in-plane member capacity in Clause 8.4.2. It is given by Equation 4.13 of this
chapter, with the effective length L e of the column equal to kj*.
two effective lengths need to be used under Clause 8. 4.2.2 of

As for the rafters,
should be taken as 1.0. The
4.4.3
AS4100. For combined actions, the effective length factor ke
lengths calculated
column also needs to be checked under axial load alone using effective
from the frame elastic buckling load factor A c using Equation 4.5.
However, as for the rafters,
be critical for portal frames without cranes

the check under axial load alone is unlikely to
because of the low axial loads present.
Minor Axis Compression Capacity Ncy

The nominal member capacity Ncy for buckling about they axis is required in the combined
in Clause 8.4.4. 1. It is
actions rules of AS4100 for determining the out-of-plane capacity
between since the girts are
obtained by taking the effective length L e as the distance girts,
as a rigid diaphragm spanning between the

restrained longitudinally by wall sheeting acting
wall bracing nodes. As concluded for rafters braced by purlins in Section 4.3.4, the girts may
generally be assumed as effective in enforcing the column to buckle flexurally between the
girts. The true effective length could
be slightly greater than the girt spacing because the
restraints are not on the column centrelines and the effects of rotational restraint from the girts
is uncertain. For the design of heavily loaded columns such as those supporting crane loads, it
is recommended that the effective length be taken conservatively as the distance between fly
braces, or the full height of the column if there are no fly braces, rather than the distance
between girts. The capacity Ncy is obtained from the minor axis modified slenderness ratio Any
given in Section 4.3.4.
4.4.4 Nominal Bending Capacity M bx in Columns
4.4.4. 1 General
The nominal bending capacity bx M in portal frame columns with fly bracing can be obtained
in the same way as for the rafters.
4.4.4.2 Inside Flange in Compression

When the inside flange is in compression and there is no fly bracing, the segment length is the
column length from the base plate to the underside of the haunch. At the bottom, the base
plate and bolts provide full lateral and twist restraint, and nearly full lateral rotational
restraint. At the top, there is full lateral and twist restraint from the wall bracing and the fly
brace at the inside comer of the haunch. However, there is little rotational restraint available
from the rafter, and it is difficult to assess any warping restraint at the knee.
With each end of the column having fill! cross-sectional restraint (FF in AS4100), the
twist restraint factor k, should be taken as 1.0 and the lateral rotation restraint factor k as
r
0.85. The load height factor k should be taken as 1.0 even if the loads are considered as top
t
jlange loads because the loads are applied through girts which are not free to move sideways
during buckling.
In summary, the effective length Le for a column with no fly bracing and the inside
flange in compression is given by kt kik r L as
• Le = 1.0x1.0x0.85// =0.85// (4.14)
The bending moment distribution in the portal columns can usually be approximated
by a linear distribution from a maximum at the top to zero at the bottom. Accordingly when
the inside flange is in compression and there is no fly bracing, a moment modification factor
am equal to 1.75 can be used.
If fly braces are used, then the effective length can be taken as 0.85 times the fly brace
spacing as for rafters, and the moment modification factor am should be chosen to suit the
moment distribution in the column segments between fly braces.
Portal Columns 67
AISC DPFB/03
4.4.43 Outside Flange in Compression

is in compression, the effective length should
the outside flange
be taken as 0.85 times
When
discussed in Section 4.3;2.2, but the girt spacing will
the distance between the girts as
generally be small enough to achieve near full

bending capacity without resorting to a 15%
conservatively be taken as unity, or chosen to
reduction in effective length. The factor a,„ can
suit the moment distribution in
the column segments between the girts. Some effective length
factors are shown in Figure 4.1.
4.5 Combined Actions
4.5.1 General
of portal framed buildings
Although axial tensile or compressive forces in columns or rafters
they should not be disregarded. Both the limit states
without gantry cranes are usually small,
(flexural-torsional buckling) must be considered
of in-plane failure and out-of-plane failure
when axial and bending actions are present.
4.5.2 In-Plane Capacity
4.5.2. 1 In-Plane Section Capacity

8.3.2 of AS4100 requires the design
For the limit state of in-plane section failure. Clause
moment M' for bending in the plane of the portal frame to satisfy
4 15 >
-
M'<<f>M rx (
where = 0.9. The design moment M" obtained from second order elastic analysis or is an
is
amplified
<f>
moment from first order elastic analysis. The section capacity M

rx is reduced by
either a compressive or tensile force N *

in the rafter or column to give
= M. 1
- N_ (4.16)
Ws)
If the cross-section contains slender elements, N s is
reduced below A,fy to k/AJy to allow for
the effects of local buckling. Values of kf are given for standard sections in the BHP section
handbook [6].
The reduced moment M

compact doubly symmetric I-sections can be increased
rx for
tension, and for
above the provisions of Equation 4.16 for members in combined bending and
accordance with
members in combined bending and compression where k/is equal to 1.0 in
For such members in combined bending and compression with kfless than 1.0 the increase , in
moment M rx is in accordance with
82-2.
M„ = G + 0.18x 1
- N' \M <Mc (4.18)
82-2,»>• 0s
j
in which 2 W — (t/, / t
w )^jfy /250 is the web plate slenderness and 2 >ty is the web plate yield
slenderness limit.
Most Grade 300 UB’s are compact, but not all Grade 350 UB’s and WB’s are
compact. It should be noted that sections which are compact or fully effective in flexure are
not necessarily fully effective in compression (with kf= 1). This is because the stress reversal
in the web of a flexural member is less conducive to plate buckling than the uniform
compression in the web of a compression member.
A strict interpretation of Clause 8.3.2 of the 1990 edition of AS4100 did not allow the
1.18 factor to be used for a tension member which
is compact but has a kf value less than
unity. This was unnecessarily conservative, and was addressed in Amendment No. 2 of the
code and is now incorporated in AS4100-1998. If web local buckling is not a consideration in
flexure, then it will certainly not have an influence on the section moment capacity of a
member in flexure and tension. The 1998 version of AS4100 specifically allows the 1.18
factor to be used for compact doubly symmetric I-section tension members regardless of kp
Amendment No. 2 of AS41 00-1990 also addressed the issue of the sudden loss of the
1.18 benefit for compact I-section members in combined bending and compression as their kf
values slip just below unity. For example, a Grade 300 360UB57 with a Ay value of 0.996 was
not previously eligible for the 1.18 factor. AS4 100- 1998 now allows for a transition in the
factor from 1.18 to 1.00 for members with kf less than unity (Equation 4.18). For the
360UB57, the factor is now just below 1.18 whereas it was 1.00 prior to Amendment No. 2 of
AS4 100- 1990.
4. 5. 2. 2 In-Plane Member Capacity

AS4100 also requires in-plane member failure to be checked. For compression members, the
design moment M
must satisfy the design equation given in Clause 8.4.2.2 as
*
/
M’ < ~ <JM sx 1 -
(4.19)
v
where <p = 0.9 and N

cx is the nominal capacity of the rafter or column for buckling about the
major axis. For doubly symmetric compact I-sections, a benefit may be obtained by using a
more complex expression in AS4100 for Mh The provision of Equation 4.16 in the code is
redundant for compression, since Ncx is always less than or equal to Ns , and Equation 4.19
must always govern. If N *
is tensile, then Equations 4. 16 or 4.17 should be used as required
by Clause 8.4.2. 3.
1
AfSC DPFB/03 Combined Actions 69
4.5.3 Out-of-Plane Capacity
4.5.3. 1 Compression Members

The limit state offlexural-torsional buckling in combined bending and compression must also
be considered. To guard against this limit state being reached, the code in Clause 8.4.4.
requires the design moment M‘ obtained from second order elastic analysis, or amplified
from first order elastic analysis, to be less than or equal to <pMox given by
M' < fM ox = fM bx (4.20)
where = 0.9 and M ox is the nominal out-of-plane member moment capacity, Ncy is the axial
capacity of the rafter or column for buckling about the minor axis and Mbx is the flexural-
torsional buckling capacity as discussed in Section 4.4.4.
Clause 8.4.4.1 in AS4100 gives a more accurate expression [1,8,11] that eliminates
much of the conservatism of Equation 4.20. Unless implemented on a computer or
spreadsheet program, however, this procedure is probably not of benefit in a design office
situation.
4.5. 3. 2 Tension Members

Axial tension in the rafter or column enhances the lateral buckling capacity, and when this
occurs the design bending moment M' (which is the maximum moment Mm along the
segment) is required to satisfy Clause 8.4.4.2 given as
f
M’ <</>M ox =fM bx
< <f>Mrx (4.21)
where N c is the section capacity of a member for axial tension. This is taken as the lesser of
Agfy'zxid. 0.85 A n f„ where A g is the gross area and An is the net area of the member, and f, is
the ultimate tensile strength.
4.6 Central Columns

4.6.1 General
In large span industrial buildings, a central column is often used to reduce the rafter span and
to limit rafter and external column sizes. An efficient central column is a square hollow
section (SHS) as central columns are long and can buckle about both axes. Other sections
such as UB’s, UC’s, WB’s or WC’s can also be used effectively, particularly if the lateral
stiffness requirements of the portal frame are a problem. These columns can be detailed with
flexible or rigid connections to the rafter. In both cases, there is a need to determine the
effective lengths both in-plane and out-of-plane in order to calculate the compression capacity
under axial load alone. In the case of a rigid top connection, there will be in-plane bending
moments generated in the column, and these moments will need to be amplified if a first order
elastic analysis has been carried out. If a flexible connection between the column and rafter is
detailed, it would be prudent to check the central column for both pinned and rigid top
connections as there will be some in-plane moments generated through most practical flexible
connections.
A Determined from Minimum spring stiffness

computer onalysis for Euler strut behaviour
= 7t2E)/L3
tt2£I
L.J
Figure 4.2 Effective Length of Central Column
There can be some uncertainty about how to calculate the effective length for
determining the nominal capacity Na in the plane of the portal frame (see Figure 4.2). The
uncertainty arises partly because the top of the rafter is attached to the apex of a portal frame
which can sway sideways. This is dealt with in the following sections.
4.6.2 Effective Lengths for Axial Compression
4.6.2. 1 Top Connection Pinned

If the top of the central column is connected to the portal frame by a flexible connection such
as a cleat perpendicular to the plane of the frame, it would be reasonable to regard this
.
Central Columns 71
AlSC DPFB/03
with the
connection as pinned. In this case, the central column does not interact flexurally
but the frame must have a certain minimum stiffness to effectively brace' the top of the
frame,
columns as shown in Figure 4.2. For a pinned base column, the minimum spring
stiffness to
ensure that its effective length L e is equal to and not greater than the length L of the column is
1
JE1JL [8],
In practical frames, the sidesway stiffness of the rigid frame with its relatively stiff
side columns andrafter is usually quite sufficient to brace the top of a slender central column.
Designers can readily determine the sidesway stiffness by analysing a special load case with a
single horizontal load at the apex of the frame.
4.6.2.2 Top Connection Rigid

If the top connection then there should logically be some reduction in effective length
is rigid,
of the central column. However, in accordance with AS4100, it is not possible to determine
directly the effective length of individual members in non-rectangular
frames. The code in
the frame
Clause 4.7 requires a rational buckling analysis of the whole frame to determine
elastic buckling load factor A The only practical way of determining Ac is by means of a
c.
also convert the Ac
frame analysis program such as Microstran or Spacegass. These programs
value for each load combination into effective lengths for each member by use of Equation
4.5.
4.6.3 Combined Actions with First Order Elastic Analysis
If the top connection is rigid, the frame elastic buckling load factor Ac for each load
combination is used in Clause 4.4.2.3(b) to determine the amplification factor Ss which

is
applied to any bending moments from a first order elastic analysis. The capacity of the
central column is then checked under Clause 8.4.2.2 of AS4100 using an effective length
factor ke of 1.0 for combined actions, and also an effective length factor calculated from
Ac for axial load alone.
If the top and bottom connections are assumed to be pinned, there will be
no moments
from the frame analysis but a nominal eccentricity in each direction is recommended. The
effective length factor k will then be 1.0 for both combined actions and for axial load alone
if
e
the minimum spring stiffness in Section 4.6.2. 1 is provided.
4.6.4 Combined Actions with Second Order Elastic Analysis

Ironically, if a designer has access to programs such as Microstran or Spacegass to determine
the
Ac for amplifying first order moments, then it is likely that the designer also has access to
second order elastic analysis option of these programs. In this case, a designer would ideally
use the second order elastic analysis as this obviates the need to amplify the moments. The
capacity of the central column is then checked as described in the previous section.
4.7
4.7.1
End Wall Frames
General
End wall frames generally have intermediate end wall columns to support the end wall girts
against wind Advantage can be taken of these intermediate columns to brace the end
loads.
wall frames and to reduce the span, and therefore the size of the end wall rafters.
Alternatively, the typical internal portal frame can be adopted for the end wall frame.
Although this results in unnecessary tonnage, it has the following advantages:
• Repetition.
• End wall bracing can generally be avoided.
• No complication with roof bracing details at smaller or discontinuous end wall

rafters. For example, if the roof bracing plane is at the mid-height of a typical
rafter, a shallower end wall rafter will generally create detailing difficulties unless
it is half the depth of the typical rafters.

The detailing difficulties can be avoided
by relocating the bracingbay from the end, but this may necessitate adding struts
in the end bay to transfer the end wall column loads to the bracing bay. This
offsets to some extent the tonnage saved by reducing the end wall rafter.
4.7.2
• The building can be readily extended.
End Wall Columns

The main function of end wall columns is to provide support against end wall wind loads. In
the worst, case, the maximum internal pressure coefficient of +0.7 will combine with the
maximum internal suction coefficient of -0.65. Lower pressure coefficients may be
appropriate as discussed previously. Axial compression under gravity loads should also be
considered.
Outward loads with the unrestrained inside flange in compression are potentially more
than inward loads where the compression flange is restrained laterally by girts.
critical
However, the maximum bending moment capacity under outward loading can still be
4.7.3
achieved by use of fly braces to the girts. Deflections should also be considered and a
maximum serviceability deflection of span/150 is recommended for walls clad with metal
sheeting so as to limit damage to the sheeting and its fasteners. For masonry walls, a more
stringent deflection limit is advisable.
End Wall Columns to Rafter Connection
4.7.3. 1 General
The sizing of intermediate end wall columns is relatively easy, but the design of the rafter to
end wall column connections and the roof bracing to end wall rafter connections (if the roof
bracing is to be in the end bay) requires considerable experience. The choice of end rafter
type depends on a number of detail design decisions as follows.
AfSC DPFB/03 End Wall Frames 73
4.73.2 Continuous Rafter
• With Non-Slotted Holes
If the end wall rafter is continuous over the top of the end wall columns (or mullions), the
connection between the end wall column and the rafter may be of the form shown in
Figure 4.3(a). The eccentricity between the bolt group and the bracing plane (or the roof
diaphragm) must be taken into account in the design of the bolt group unless a fly brace is
used. If a fly brace to a single or double purlin is used, the purlin must have sufficient
reserve of flexural capacity to take the additional moment due to the force in the fly brace.
The purlin must also be checked for combined actions in accordance with the cold formed
code [15] or the Lysaght purlin and girt brochure [16]. In general, using a fly brace to
transfer the load at the top of the mullion is not considered to be a viable option.
• With Slotted Holes
If a typical portal frame is adopted as the end wall rafter, some engineers consider that
vertically slotted holes should be used because the rafter does not require vertical support
from the end wall mullions. The perceived advantage of slotting is that the footings for the
end wall mullions do not have to be designed for downwards or upwards loading.
Unfortunately, the effect of vertically slotting is that the bolt group has limited or no
moment capacity depending on the number of bolts used. A fly brace to prop the top of
the mullion back of the incompatibility of the slots
to a purlin does not really help because
between the mullion and rafter on one hand, and
thethe direct connection between the
mullion and the purlin via the fly brace on the other hand. Overall, the only advantage of
vertically slotted holes is a small saving in footing size for the intermediate columns. This
advantage is not usually worthwhile, and a vertically slotted connection is not
recommended.
Alternative bracing plane
£ o
JD
- o.
-| — Selected bracing plane
£ 3
O Alternative bracing plane
fc -S' +_+
>
<U
V)
<U ++
_] X3
Standard holes -
not slotted vertically
-V
(o) End Wall Rofter Continuous (b) End Wall Rafter Discontinuous
Over End Wall Column At End Wall Column
Figure 4.3 End Wall Column to Rafter Connections

74 Frame Design A1SC DPFB/03
4.7.33 Discontinuous Rafter

Some of these problems are overcome if the end wall rafter is discontinuous. The connection
may then take the form shown in Figure 4.3(b). The difficulty with discontinuous rafters is
between the roof bracing diagonals, columns and discontinuous jrafters.
detailing the joints
One method of avoiding this problem is to have the roof bracing bay in the second bay from
the end as previously discussed. There is a further discussion of roof bracing planes and
detailing in Chapter 6.
4.8 Braces
4.8.1 Fly Braces
As discussed previously, fly braces are diagonal members bracing the bottom flange of rafters
back to purlins, or the inside flange of columns back to girts to stabilise the inside flange
when in compression. Fly braces can take many fonns, with the most common being a single
angle each side of the bottom flange, as shown in Figure 4.4.
The design bracing force is determined from Clause 5.4.3 of AS4100, which gives
criteria for the strength of braces to prevent lateral displacement of the
braced compression
flange. For each intermediate brace, the design force is 2.5% of the maximum compression
force in the braced flange of the segments on each side of the brace. In this case, a segment is
the length of the member between fly braces. Sharing between multiple intermediate braces is
not permitted , but each bracing force is related to the local maximum flange compression
force rather than to the maximum flange compression force in the whole rafter or column. It
Sharing between multiple intermediate braces was permitted in AS1250, but the total bracing force was 2.5% of
maximum compression force in the whole rafter or column.
the
0
AISC DPFB/03 Braces 75
should be noted that AS4100 permits restraints to be grouped when they are more closely
spaced than is required for full lateral support, the actual arrangement of restraints being
equivalent to a set of restraints which will ensure foil lateral support.
A might be a 410UB54 rafter with a maximum design moment of 120

typical case
kNm in adjacent segments. This moment produces a force in the flange of
6
170 x 1
r x (178x10.9)
3
N = 249 kN
933 xlO
The horizontal bracing force at each brace point is then
0.025x249 = 6.2 kN
If there is a fly brace on only one side of the rafter and it is 45° to the vertical, the
compression force in the fly brace will x6.3 =

kN. The length of the fly brace will
be 4l 8.8
be approximately 600 mm, and as it will usually be single bolted at each end, it should be
designed for buckling about its minor principal axis. Because this axis passes through or near
the gauge line for bolting of angles, the eccentricity about the
minor principal axis due to
bolting will be small.
Under these conditions, the capacity of single bolted fly brace angles will be close to
their concentric capacity based on minor axis (v-v) buckling. For this case, even the smallest
angle, a 25x25x3, has the capacity in compression to sustain the force calculated. However, it
is not really practical to use a bolt smaller than an Ml 2, and a 25x25 angle is too small for an
M12 bolt whose washer diameter is 24 mm. The smallest angle which can accommodate an
M12 bolt is a 40x40x3 angle.
It seems unnecessary to use fly braces on both sides of the rafter when a small angle
on one side is quite adequate. It is also common to use the lower bolt hole in the purlin web at
the end of the lapped section of the purlins to save drilling a special hole. In summary, an
economical detail is as shown in Figure 4.5.
In some cases, there may be practical or aesthetic objections to fly braces because of
the presence of a ceiling above the bottom flange of the rafter. This could occur in a
supermarket for example. In this case, a wider purlin cleat and four high strength bolts, and a
web on one or both sides to prevent cross-sectional distortion, as shown in Figure 4.6
stiffener
could be used to brace the bottom flange. The bolt shear forces in the friction type joint can
be calculated for the combined case of purlin uplift and moment due to the lateral bracing
force at the bottom flange level. The disadvantage of this approach lies in the non-standard
purlin cleats and non-standard holing of purlins.
There is some evidence that the stiffeners are unnecessary [12]. However, until testing
confirms this, it is recommended that at least one side of the web be stiffened.
strength
Figure 4.6 Alternative Rafter Bracing Detail without Fly Braces
4.8.2 Purlins as Braces
Where the top flange is in compression, it was assumed in the rafter design in Section 4.3 that
the purlins provided adequate restraint to the top flange. AS4100 permits restraints to be
grouped when they are more closely spaced than is required for full lateral support, the actual
arrangement of restraints being equivalent to a set of restraints which will ensure full lateral
support.
Assuming that the moment distribution is basically uniform between adjacent closely
spaced restraints, then am = 1 Therefore, full lateral support would mean that as must be at
.
am xCis is greater than 1.0.

least 1.0 to ensure In the design example in Section 4.10, as = 1
for a 360UB45 when L e < 1000 mm. Since the purlins are not more closely spaced than
required for support, then it would appear that each purlin should be considered as
full lateral
a discrete restraint. Each purlin would then be required to carry 2.5% of the maximum flange
force in its adjacent rafter segments, a rafter segment being that between two adjacent purlins.
However, this seems an excessive requirement. Obviously, a restraint can be safely ignored if
a designer so chooses. For example, if a beam were designed with a central lateral restraint
and then two additional restraints were added at its quarter points, it must be safe to ignore the
two extra restraints.
Braces 77
AISC DPFB/03
On the other hand, some sharing of bracing forces could be considered, although on
the sharing permitted between multiple restraints in the previous working
stress
the face of it,
design code AS1250 not permitted in AS4100. Consider a 360UB45 which is 12
[4] is
m
brace is now substituted by two braces 500
long with a central lateral restraint. If the single
rules would
m m on each side of the mid-point, then' literal interpretation of the AS4100However, it is
require that each brace be designed for 2.5% of the maximum flange force.
two braces as one central restraint with each carrying half of

clearly reasonable to regard the
the 2.5% force.
In summary, where the top flange is. in compression, it is recommended that the
to provide the required member capacity be determined.
If the
restraint spacing necessary
restraint spacing is much greater than the purlin spacing, then some of the purlins can
required
near the notional brace point could be
be ignored as restraints, and two or three purlins
considered as sharing the required bracing force at that point.
4.9 Deflections
4,9.1 General
frames are generally designed on the basis of strength first, and are then checked
for the
Portal
(deflection) limit state according to some arbitrary criteria. Deflection limits
serviceability
govern the design of portal frames, and it is therefore important that any deflection
limits
can
be realistic.
matter. In
The selection of deflection criteria for industrial steel frames is a subjective
general, codes are not prepared to give specific recommendations, probably because
deflection limits have not been adequately researched. The steel code AS4100 states that the
still gives some
responsibility for selecting deflection limits rests with the designer, but
recommendations. For a metal clad building without gantry cranes and without internal
deflection of the
partitions against external walls, the code suggests a limit on the horizontal
eave as column height/150 under serviceability wind loads. This limit reduces to column
height/240 when the building has masonry walls. The limits suggested in Appendix B of
AS4100 are based on the work in Reference [17].
4.9.2 Problems of Excessive Deflection

The potential problems of excessive deflections in industrial buildings include:
• Damage to cladding and fixings thereby affecting the hold down capacity of
fixings and water tightness.
• Ponding of water on low pitched roofs and possible leakage because of ponding or
insufficient pitch.
• Visually objectionable sag in rafters or suspended ceilings whose ceiling hangers
are difficult to adjust for sag, eg. heavy acoustic ceilings.

the apexes
• Visually objectionable sag in the ridgeline because of the deflection of
of internal rafters relative to the end wall apexes. The end wall rafters do not sag
because they are supported by end wall columns as shown in Figure 4.7(b).
78 Frame Design AISC DFFB/03
• Disturbing roof movement under foot during maintenance.

• Noticeable and disturbing movement under wind load including possible creaks
and groans.
• Damage to fixings between suspended ceilings and walls under uplift, and
possible collapse of internal walls following the loss of support from the ceiling.
• Danger to operation of monorail cranes suspended from the rafters.
• Danger to operation of gantry cranes through excessive lateral deflection or spread

of columns.
• Damage to internal stud or masonry walls abutting external walls or columns.
• Damage to external masonry walls.
4.9.3 Recommended Deflections

A deflection limit survey among Australian engineers was undertaken in 1986 [17].
Altogether, some 90 responses were received. Engineers were asked to indicate the
appropriate criteria on which lateral deflection of portal frames under serviceability wind
No sag at end wall

Sag in large span
opex because of end Nominal ridge internal rafters without
wall mullions.
precomber or preset.
\
\
-Actual ridge line
Elevation
Figure 4.7(b) Sag in Ridge Line

AlSC DPFB/03 Deflections 79
loads should be based. Most believed the lateral deflection limits should be expressed in
terms of the column height A as well as column spacing A (Figure 4.7(a)). They were then
asked to specify specific lateral deflection limits in terms of h and b for buildings with and
without gantry cranes. Another section of the questionnaire asked engineers for specific
deflection limits under dead load, live load, dead plus live load, and wind load.
Table 4. 1 Proposed Lateral Deflection Limits
Type of Building Limits Comments
Industrial Buildings
(a) Steel sheeted walls, A/150
no ceilings, no internal A/200 Relative deflection between
partitions against external adjacent" frames
walls or columns, no gantry
cranes
(b) As in (a) but with (i) h may be taken at
gantry cranes crane rail level
(c) As in 1(a) but with external

masonry walls supported
1 (ii) A/300 should be used
heavy cranes
for
by steelwork
Farm Sheds A/100

A/100
Notes:
• The wind load deflection limits apply to serviceability wind loads based on Vz in
AS1 170.2, For buildings with overhead cranes, AS1418.18 [18] nominates a deflection
limit of A/500 at the crane rail level, but this presumably applies to in-service wind loads
based on V2 = 20 m/s.
• Where there are two specified limits, the smaller deflection value applies.
• Absolute deflection limits at the gantry crane level as specified by the crane
manufacturer may apply.

• In relative movement between adjacent frames, it should be
determining the
remembered even a braced end frame will deflect to some extent. This deflection can
that
be determined by calculating the horizontal component of the change in length of the
diagonal braces in the plane of the end wall.
The of the survey were reported in Reference [17]. It is interesting to note that
results
in many answers, was no clear consensus of opinion among engineers. What is regarded
there
as acceptable to one engineer is not necessarily acceptable to another. The results of the
survey were rationalised, and deflection limits were proposed. These are summarised in
Tables 4.1 and 4.2. It is emphasised that these limits should be used for guidance rather than
as mandatory, limits. Further research is required to establish deflection limits with more
confidence.
Table 4.2 Proposed Rafter Deflection Limits
Type of Building Deflection Comments

and Load Limit
Industrial Buildings
(a) Dead Load Z/360 For roof pitches > 3°
(see footnotes)
Z/500 For roof pitches < 3° but check
for ponding or insufficient roof

sheeting slope (see footnotes)
(b) Live Load Z/240 Check spread of columns

if gantry crane present
(c) Wind Load Z./I50 If no ceilings
Farm Sheds
(a) Dead load Lt 240 Check for ponding if roof
pitch < 3°
(b) Live load i/180
(c) Windload i/100
Notes:
• The wind load deflection limits apply to serviceability wind loads.
• L is the rafter span measured between column centrelines.
• Precamber or pre-set may be used to ensure that the deflected position of the rafter
under dead load corresponds to the undeflected design profile, or is within the above
limits of the undeflected design profile. Even so, pre-set may be advisable for internal
rafters to avoid visual sag in the ridge line as shown in Figure 4.7(b).
• For low roof pitches, the check for ponding is really a check to ensure that the slope
of the roof sheeting is nowhere less than the minimum slope recommended by the
manufacturer. The slope of the rafter in its deflected state can be determined from the
from a plane frame analysis program. The slope of the roofing
joint rotations output
should also be checked mid-way between rafters near the eaves where purlins are more
closely spaced and where the fascia purlin may be significantly stiffer than the other
purlins.
• Where ceilings are present, more stringent limits will probably be necessary.
2
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example 81
4.10 Design Example -Frame Design
4.10.1 Frame Analysis

4.10.1.1 Preliminary Design ;
rafter and column sizes is from experience

For preliminary computer analysis, selection of the
or by guesswork. The computer model
should have at least two nodes near each knee joint to
design phase. Nodes at the mid-height
allow for modelling of the rafter haunches in the final
of the rafter (see Figure 4.8) can give useful bending
of each column and at quarter points
diagrams in some cases, although this is generally unnecessary when using modem
moment
computer packages.
Haunches need not be included in the initial computer run as they do not have
much
bending moments. However, significant reductions in deflection can be
effect on the frame
achieved later in the analysis.
Once the computer analysis is run, the limit state bending moments in the column
first
should be checked against the section capacities to check the assumed

sizes.
and in the rafters
p — @® © © ©@
8
'
in
in
00
© ©
1
9
25000
Figure 4.8 Joint and Member Numbering for Computer Analysis
underside of the
For preliminary design, reducing the column bending moment to the
forces can be
haunch or reducing the section capacity to allow for coincident axial
The calculated moment at the knee should merely be checked against the
disregarded.
Implicit in this check is that sufficient fly braces can be
column section capacity <f>Msx .
provided to ensure that the full section capacity is achieved.
The calculated bending moments in the rafter should be similarly checked against the
capacity (Msx except in the vicinity of the knee joints where haunches will probably be
provided to cater for the peak rafter moments in these areas. Some small margin
in flexural
assumed
capacity should be retained in order to cater for axial forces. The member
sizes
should then be adjusted accordingly and the frame analysis re-run.
The final sizes adopted are 460UB74 columns and 360UB45 rafters.
0 0
4. 1 0. 1 .2 Haunch Properties
Once member sizes have been established with more confidence, it is appropriate to model
the
the haunches. For a 360UB45, the standard AISC haunch [21] is formed from the same
360UB45 section as the rafter and is 686 mm deep measured perpendicular to the rafter
centreline. It is common to model the haunch with two or three uniform segments of equal
length although Reference '[19] indicates that there is no benefit in using more than two
segments.
The depth of the haunch is calculated at the mid-point of each segment and the section
properties can be calculated accordingly. Both Microstran and Spacegass can calculate
haunch properties automatically. UB’s which are
Alternatively, the properties of standard
contained in the standard software library can be used to model the haunch segments
approximately.
In this example, two segments are used. The depths at the mid-points of each segment
are 439 mm and 604 mm, and standard UB 410UB60 and 530UB82
sections chosen are
respectively. These UB were chosen during the actual design process to expedite the
sections
design. For interest, a comparison of the calculated section properties and the standard UB
properties is given in Table 4.3. The middle flange is included in the calculation:
Table 4.3 Comparison of Calculated Haunch Properties

and Assumed UB Properties
Small Segment Large Segment
Calculated 410UB60 Calculated 530UB82
Area mm 2
7850 7460 9010 10500
Ix mm 4
214xl0 6
2I6xI0 6
409x1
6
477x1
6
The UB properties of the small segment are very close to the calculated values while
the UB properties of the large segment are greater than the calculated values and are therefore
slightly unconservative.
4. 1 0. 1 .3 Methods of Analysis
First order elastic analysis of portal frames in accordance with AS4100 utilises a simple
procedure that does not account for P-8 and P-A effects.
Second order elastic analysis essentially involves a number of iterations of first order
elastic analysis with the deflected shape of the previous iteration being used for the second
and subsequent iterations until convergence is obtained. Second order elastic analysis
programs are now widely available, and as the moments obtained do not require amplification
elastic moments, second order

and are generally less conservative than amplified first order
in this book.
elastic analysis is recommended ahead of first order elastic analysis
Second order performed on load combinations and not on individual

elastic analysis is
the individual load cases cannot be
load cases, since the second order analyses using
superimposed. Therefore, it is necessary to have two separate sets of output for second order
load cases and load case deflections (as obtained by first order
elastic analysis: the first for
and the second for member forces and reactions for load combinations (as
elastic analysis)
presented in
obtained by second order elastic analysis). The output for these computer runs is
Appendix II.
The computer output presented in Appendix II is as follows:
1 . Geometry, Load Cases, Deflections

2. Second Order Elastic Analysis
3. Displaced Shapes
4. Bending Moment Diagrams
5. Frame Buckling Load Factors
4.10.2 Frame Deflections

Lateral deflections at eaves under serviceability cross wind (Vs = 38 m/s)
= 127 x
.
—
38O
= 51 mm
60 .
= eavesheight > butACCEPT AS4100 Cl. B2(a)

148 150
It should be remembered that the A/150 limit is only a tentative guideline until further research
provides a more reliable limit.
Rafter deflection under dead load = 48 mm

L L
OK
580 360
Rafter deflection under live load = 93 mm
=4 < Wo
0K
Rafter deflection under serviceability cross wind plus internal pressure
n2
f 38
x (123 + 138) = 105 mm
0K
0
4.10.3 Columns (460UB74)
4. 10.3.1 Column Section Capacities

Check the 460UB74 section used in the computer analysis.
• Bending Capacity
M sx = 300x1 660x1 3
Nmm AS4J00 Cl. 5.2.1
= 498 kNm
pM^ 0.9x498 = 448 kNm
• Tension Capacity
pN t
= 0.9x300x9520 N (based on the flange^J,) AS4I00C1.7.2
= 2570 kN
• Compression Capacity
kf = 0.948 BHP
pNs = 0.948x2570 = 2436 kN AMI 00 Cl. 6.2.1
4. 10.3.2 Column Member Capacities

• Major Axis Compression Capacity for Axial Load Alone
AS4100 requires members to be checked under axial load alone using the effective lengths
L e determined from the frame elastic buckling load factor Ac This needs to be done for
.
those load combinations which have compression in the columns.
• Major Axis Compression Capacity for Combined Actions

= 7500 mm (taking ke - 1) AS4100 CL 6.3.2 & 8.4.2.2
AIIX = ^^xV0.948 x = 42.6 AS4100 CL. 6.3.3

188 V 250
Qb =0 AS4100 Table 6.3.3(1)
Hence
acx = 0.894 AS4100 Table 6.3.3(3)
pNax = 0.9x0.894x0.948x300x9520 N ASA4100 CL 6.3.3
= 2178 kN
• Minor Axis Compression Capacity
Lgy = 1700 mm (girt spacing) AS4100 Seel. 4.4.3

AISCDPFB/03 Design Example 85
170
= °xV5548x,P°= 43.4 AS4I00 Cl. 6.3.3
4,y 41.8 \ 250
dcy =0.891 AS4100 Table 6.3.3(3)
fNcy = 0.9x0.891x0.94^x300x9520 N AS4100 Cl. 6.3.3
= 2171 kN
4.10.3.3 Column Combined Actions

Two load combinations are checked in this design example as follows:
1. Inside flange in tension for LC21 ( 0.8DL + CW1 + IPCW)

2. Inside flange in compression for LC23 ( 1.25DL + CW2 + ISCW)
1. Inside Flanee in Tension (LC21)
Worst bending moment at knee M*= 453 kNm Appendix II
Reduced bending moment at underside of haunch as shown in Figure 4.9
7.0
|x 453 =423 kNm
Coincident axial force N *

= 105 kN (tension) Appendix II
Windward Column Bending Moment Diagram
for Lood Cose 21 (0.8DL +. CW1 + IPCW)
Figure 4.9 Windward Column Bending Moment Diagram for LC21

00
AISC DPFB/03
86 Frame Design
Check In-Plane Capacity
Reduced section and member capacity due to axial tension
105
(fMrx = 1.18x448x 1
- = 507 kNm AS4100 Cl. 8.4.23
2570
but < jMsx = 448 kNm AS4100 Cl. 8.3.2
Hence
JMrx = 448 kNm > ~ 423 kNm OK
in tension, the in-plane member capacity check is the same as the
Because the column is
section capacity check AS4100 Cl. 8.4.23
• Check Out-o f-Plane Capacity
The outside flange is in compression and is braced laterally by girts.
Le = 0.85x1700 (maximum girt spacing) = 1445 mm AS4100 Sect. 4.4.4.2
Iy = 16.6xl0 mm 6 4 BHP
J = 530x1 mm 3 4 BHP
Iw =815xl0 9 mm 6 BHP
Zex = 1660x1
3
nun
3 BHP
=300 MPa (flange) BHP

o fy
am - 1 .0 (moment near uniform between adjacent girts)
Hence using a spreadsheet program:
M0 — 3572 kNm AS4100 Cl. 5.6.1.1(a)
M sx= 498.0 kNm AS4100 Cl. 5.2.1
a, = 0.959 AS4100 Cl. 5.6.1.1(a)
(Mbx = 430 kNm > M\ = 423 kNm OK
2. Inside Plane e in Compression (LC23)
Worst bending moment at downwind knee - 432 M kNm Appendix II
Reduced bending moment at underside of haunch
'TO
x 432 = 403 kNm
J.5
Coincident axial force N‘ = -89 kN (compression) Appendix II
The axial compression increases from 89 to 104 kN at the bottom due to self weight.
Adopt the maximum value of 104 kN for checking combined actions.

2
A1SC DPFB/03 Design Example 87
• Check Section Capacity
Web slenderness: Aw = —
d
x j
1 320
= 53.3 BMP
t... V 250
o Web yield slenderness limit: A yvy = 45 AS4J00 Table 5.2
Reduced section capacity due to axial compression:
104 ^ 82-53.3
(Mrx = 448 x x 1 + 0.18x AS4100 Cl. 3.
2436. 82-45
= 502 kNm but < <pMsx = 448 kNm
Hence
(JMrx = 448 kNm > M* = 403 kNm OK
• Check In-Plane Member Capacity
Reduced in-plane member capacity due to axial compression:
<pMi = 448 xj\ — AS4100 Cl. 8.4.2.
= 427 kNm > A/’ = 403 kNm OK

Check capacity under axial load alone with effective length determined from the frame
elastic buckling load factor A c as expressed in Equation 4.2, using N r

- 60 kN and N =c
104 kN (CT. S.4.2.2 and Cl. 6.1)
3x2xl0 xl21xl0 6 5
^ c_ 3 3
12517 x (l 04 x 10 x 7500 + 0.3x60 xlO x 125 17)
^ =5.77
(By comparison, the more accurate value obtained using Microstran is A c = 9.27. This
includes the effect of haunches and the average values of compression in the rafters and
columns rather than the maximum values.)
Using Equation 4.2 with a value of A c = 5.77 gives
(
L ex)
co l
2xlQ 5 x335x!0 6
= 71 x
V 5.77xl04xl0 3
= 33,200 mm
ab =0 AS4100 Table 63.3(1)
rx = 188 mm BHP
A = 9520 mm 2 BHP
fy = 300 MPa
1
kf = 0.948
'
BHP
ctex =0.196
= 479 kN > N* = 104 kN OK '
• Check Out-o f-Plane Member Capacity
Consider member bending capacity Mb without fly braces
Le = k,k ( k r L -
AS4100 Cl 5.63(1), (2), (3)
k t
=1.0 (fully restrained against twist at both ends)
k( =1.0 (loads applied predominantly as a moment by the rafter)
kr = 0.85 (minor axis restraint provided by base plate)
Height to underside of haunch = 7000 mm

Le = 1.0x1.0x0.85x7000 = 5950 mm
am — 1.75 (linear moment distribution with zero moment at one end)
M0 = 285 kNm AS4 100 Cl. 5.6.1.1(a)
as =0.428
<pMbx = 336 kNm
(Mox = 336 x(V AS4100 Cl 8.4.4.1
= 320 kNm < Mx = 403 kNm NG

Hence column NG without fly braces. Note that a more accurate and less conservative
approach for determining M ox for doubly symmetric I-sections which are compact and
which have kf= 1 is also given in the code. However, in this case kf= 0.948.
Therefore try a mid-height fly brace
For Top Half:

Le = 1.0x1.0x0.85x3750 = 3188 mm
Pm =-0.5
am = 1 .30 AS4100 Table 5. 6.
<pM0X = 413 kNm > Mx = 403 kNm OK

Adopt a mid-height fly brace. Bottom half is not critical because am is 1.75.
0 2
4.10.4 Rafters (360UB45)
4.10.4. 1 Rafter Section Capacities

Check the 360UB45 section used in the computer analysis
• Bendine Capacity
Unhaunched Section: 360UB45 is non-compact BMP

M„ ~ 320x770xl0 Nmm = 246 kNm
3
<f>Msx = 0.9x246 = 222 kNm
Haunched Section (682 mm deep):
S. =2
= 1872xl0 3 mm 3
(ignoring fillets)
jMsx = 0.9x320x1 872x1 3

Nmm = 539 kNm AS4100 Cl. 5.2.1
• Tension Capacity
Unhaunched Section:
0, = 0.9x320x5720 N AS4100 Cl. 7.2
= 1647 kN
Haunched section:
Ag = 5720 + (682 - 352 -10)x 6.9 + 171x9.7

= 9590 mm2
(fiNi = 0.9x320x9590 N AS4100 Cl. 7.2
= 2762 kN
4. 1 0.4.2 Rafter Member Capacities
• Major Axis Compression Capacity
For axial loads alone, check individual load combinations which have rafters in
compression to determine Ac and rafter effective length.
For combined actions, the effective length is the actual rafter length k =
( e 1 .0)
AS4100 Cl. 8. 4. 2.
12500
= 12517 mm
cos 3°
- 146 mm BHP
Frame Design A1SC DPFB/03
90
= 320 MPa
=0 AS4100 Table 6.3.3(1)
= 0.930 BHP
12517
- =93.5 AS4I00 CL 6.3.3
146 V 250
= 0.585 AS4100 Table 6.33(3)
= 0.9x0.585x0.930x320x5720 N AS4100 Cl. 6.3.3
= 896 kN
Minor Axis Compression Caoacitv
L ey = 1200 mm (girt spacing)

A„y
y
= —x
37.6
V0.930 x 1^
V 250
= 34.8 AS4J00 Cl. 6.3.3
acy = 0.925 AS4100 Table 6.33(3)
jNcy = 0.9x0.925x0.930x320x5720 N AS4100 Cl. 633

= 1417 kN
4. 1 0.4.3 Rafter Combined Actions
Different segments of the rafter need to be checked for various load combinations. The
checks that will be carried out for this design example are as follows:
1 . Haunch segment with bottom flange in tension
for LC21 (0.8DL + CW1 + JPCW)
2. Rafter segment from inner end of haunch to ridge on windward side for LC21
3. Rafter segment from ridge to inner end of haunch on leeward side for LC21
4. Rafter segment 3.2 m long near ridge

for LC25 (1.25DL +LW2 +ISLW)
5. Haunch segment with bottom flange in compression
for LC23 (1.25DL + CW2 + ISCW)
Checks 2 and 3 are for rafter segments with the bottom flange mostly in compression,
and they effectively determine the fly brace spacing. Check 4 is done after the fly brace
spacing is established and is for a rafter segment with the bottom flange mostly in tension.
1. Haunch Segment for LC21

Consider the haunch segment with its bottom flange in tension. Assume initially that there
will be a fly brace near the end of the haunch. Therefore, because the top compression flange
is restrained laterally by purlins, out-of-plane buckling need not be considered for
this
segment (between the column and fly brace) for this load case.
Check Haunch Section Capacity at Face of Column
Reduce moment to face of 460UB74 column by assuming a linear bending moment

diagram from column centreline to the first rafter node Appendix II
460
M* = 453- x (453-301)
2x1630
= 432 kNm
Coincident axial force: N' = 62 kN (tension) • Appendix II

The in-plane member capacity for tension members is the same as the section capacity
AS4100 Cl. 8.4.23
Section and member capacity of haunch reduced due to axial tension
<f>Mrx = 539 x (l - AS4100 Cl 8.4.23
= 527 kNm > M* = 432 kNm OK AS4100 Cl. 83.2
Hence haunch OK at face of column
• Check Unhaunched Rafter at Inner End of Haunch
Bending moment at end of haunch: M'x =172 kNm Appendix II
Coincident axial force: N' = 64 kN (tension) Appendix II
Section and member capacity reduced due to axial tension
x(l- AS4100 8.4.23

<fMrx = 222 Cl.
= 213 kNm > 172 kNm OK

Hence rafter at end of haunch OK
2. Windward Rafter Segment for LC21

Try fly brace near the end of haunch and near the ridge and consider the segment of rafter
between these fly braces on the windward side. The bottom flange is mostly in compression.
Refer to bending moment diagram in Figure 4.10 and in Appendix II.
The largest moment at the fly brace near the end of the haunch: Mx - 172 kNm
Coincident axial force: N *
= 65 kN (tension)
• Check Section and In-Plane Member Capacities
The in-plane member capacity for tension members is the same as the section capacity
AS4I00 Cl. 8.4.23
Reduced section and member capacity due to axial tension

A1SC DPFB/03
92 Frame Design
jMrx = 222: AS4100 Cl. 8.3.2
l 1647 )
= 213 kNm > M\ = 172 kNm OK
1100
Frame
125.3
Trial flybrace
locotion
Note:- Extra flybrace near

middle of 7800 segment
subsequently required
Column
Windward Rafter Bending Moment Diagram
For Load Cose 21 (0.8DL + CW1 + IPCW)
Figure 4.10 Bending Moment Diagram for Load Case 21
• Check Out-of-Plane Member Capacity,
Le = k,k ( kr L AS4100 Cl. 5.6.3
L - 7800 mm Measured from the fly brace at the first purlin beyond haunch
to the fly brace at the second purlin from ridge
K = 1.0 Twist is restrained by fly braces AS41 00 Table 5:6. 3(1)
kt = 1.0 Upward loading is applied at the tension flange
Inany case, the moments in the segment are

predominantly from end moments resulting from
frame action AS41 00 Table 5. 6. 3(2)
= Minor as well as some warping

K 0.85 axis rotational restraint,
restraint, is provided at the haunch end of the segment because

the haunch (which is fly braced at each end) is a short adjacent
segment. Some restraint also exists at the ridge but it is safe to
ignore this
0
A!SC DPFB/03 Design Example 93
Hence
Le = 1.0x1.0x0.85x7800 =6630mm
= 8.10xl0 6
mm 4
BMP
h
J = 161xl0 3
mm 4
BHP
Av = 237x1 9
mm 6 BHP
M0 = 92.5 kNm
125
= = 0.73 (assuming linear moment distribution) AS4100 Table 5.6.1
Pm 172
Linear distribution in this case is conservative because it extends the bending moment
zone at the maximum moment end (the 172 kNm end) as shown in Figure 4.9. Within a
raftersegment which has reversal of moment, it is not theoretically feasible at this stage
to takeadvantage of the fact that the compression flange is restrained by purlins over only
part of the segment. Therefore, the restraint from all purlins within the segment is
conservatively ignored. Consequently, the fact that the maximum bending moment end
has compression in the laterally restrained top flange is irrelevant. Note also that the
assumed end moment of 172 kNm is actually at the top of the haunch which is beyond the
end of the segment. It is therefore slightly larger than the moment at the end of the
segment. This is also conservative.
am = 1.75 + 1.05x0.73 + 0.30x0.73 2 AS4100 Table 5.6.1
= 2.7 > 2.5
Hence
Gm = 2.5
=0.308 • AS4100 Cl. 5.6.1.1(a)
<jMbx = 0.308x2.5x222 = 171 kNm

Out-of-plane moment capacity increased due to axial tension:
= 178 kNm < tpMr* = 214 kNm
Hence
(Mox = 178 kNm > AT* = 172 kNm OK
Therefore need fly braces at column, near end of haunch and at second purlin from ridge
but check other load combinations. Note that Method (iii) in Clause 5. 6. 1.1 (a) of
AS4100 could also be used to determine am but moments , 2 and M
at the segment
'
M/
quarter points and M/ at the segment midpoint would have to be scaled from the bending
moment diagram. The resulting value of am would be greater than 2.7 but as am is
limited by 2.5 this method is unnecessary.

3. Leeward Rafter Segment for LC21
Consider the segment on the leeward side from the fly brace near the ridge to the fly brace
near the end of the haunch with the bottom flange mostly in compression.
Refer to bending moment diagram in Figure 4. 1 1 and Appendix II.
The maximum bending moment is lm from the ridge: M\ = 129 kNm
Coincident axial force: N' = 64 kN (tension)
Leeward Rafter Bending Moment Diagram
For Load Case 21 (Q.8DL + CW1 -f 1PCW)
Figure 4. 1 1 Leeward Rafter Bending Moment Diagram for LC21
• Check Out-of-Plane Member Capacity
Le = 6630 mm as before
. Assuming linear distribution of moment in this case will not be conservative.

Therefore, from Figure 4.1 1 and using Method (iii) in Clause 5.6.1.1(a) of AS4100.
M*m = 129 kNm

M*2 =119 kNm
Ml =87 kNm
2
M 4 = 36 kNm
1.7x129
Qm = = 1.45 AS4100 Cl. 6.1.1(a)
2 2
Vll9 +87 2 +36
<fMbx ~~ 0.308x1.45x222 = 99 kNm !
Out-of-plane moment capacity increased due to axial tension:
64
<fM0X = 99 x 1 + AS4100 Cl. 8.4.4.
1647
= 103 kNm < M = 129 kNm NG

ln
Try an extra fly brace between the haunch and ridge on the 5 purlin from ridge so that
top segment is 3200 mm

long (Figure 4.1 1).
Moment at top end of segment =129 kNm

Moment at bottom end of segment = 1 03 kNm
103
Pm
/?„,
= - = -0.80
.
129
+ 0.3 x0.80 =
2
am = 1. 75 - 1.05x0.80 1.10 AS4100 Table 5.6.1
L„ e = 1 .Ox 1 .0x0.85x3200 = 2720 mm
fMbx =180 kNm
<fMo. = 180xfl + -^~l

l 1647/
= 187 kNm > M'x = 129 kNm OK

ADOPTfly braces on 2nd, 5 th and 9th purlins from ridge
4. Ra fter Segment for LC25

Consider the segment towards ridge with its bottom flange largely in tension. The segment is
3200 mm long approximately from the fifth purlin beyond the haunch to the second purlin
from the ridge.
Maximum bending moment in segment is near ridge: Mx = 135 kNm Appendix II
Coincident axial force N' = -51 kN (compression) Appendix II
Wi = 222 x fl--l AS4100 Cl. S.4.2.2
V 896 J
= 209 kNm > hi\ = 135 kNm OK
1
Check capacity under axial load alone with effective rafter length determined from the
frame elastic buckling load factor Ac (Cl. 8.4. 2.2) using N* = 51 kN and N* = 93 kN.
3x2x10 xl21x!0 6
s
Chapter 4 Eqn. 4.2

3 3
12517 x (93 x 10 x 7500 + 0.3 x 51x 10 x 125 It]
6.52
(By comparison, the more accurate value from Microstran is Ac = 8.64)
Using the more readily determined but conservative value Ac of 6.52,
, s
= /
2x10 s x 121 x~Iq*~
\ ex) rafter 3
6. 5 2 x 51xl0
= 26,800 mm
<*b
=0
rx = 146 mm BHP
fy = 320 MPa
A = 5720 mm 2 BHP
kf = 0.93 BHP
=0.176
0Na = 269 kN > N'r =51 kN OK
Le = 1 200 mm (purlin spacing)

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

M 0 = 1936 kNm AS4100 Cl. 5.6.1.1(a)
M sx =246 kNm AS4100 Cl 5.6.2

as — 0.966 AS4100 Cl 5.6.1.1(a)
rfMbi =214 kNm AS4100 Cl 5.6.1.1(a)
Out-of-plane member capacity reduced due to axial compression
51
tf)Mox — 214x 1
- AS4100 Cl 8.4.4.
1417
X 221
5.
Haunch Segment for LC23
Consider the haunch segment with its bottom flange in compression. In this case, the haunch
has a fly brace at each end.
column end of haunch Appendix II

Moment at
M* = 432 kNm
end Appendix II
Moment at inside
M *
= 186 kNm (compression)
Coincident axial force Appendix II
N ’ = -60 kN (compression)
• Check In-Plane Member Capacity,
At column end taking 0^ for rafter from column to apex

AS4100 Cl. 8. 4. 2.
= 503 kNm > M* = 432 kNm OK

At inside end
« = 222x i_
( SM AS4100 Cl. 8. 4. 4.
*
= 207 kN > = 186 kNm OK
Check capacity under axial load alone. A c = 5.77 as previously
calculated.
2xlQ i xl21xio r
L ex) = K |
\ 3
rafter
^ 5.77x60xl0
= 26,300 mm

ac =0.182
fNc = 279 kN > 60 kN OK
To check against lateral buckling, the haunch can be considered as a tapered segment as
there happens to be a fly brace at each end in this case.
First determine jMfo of tapered member AS4100 Cl. 5. 6.
Calculate ast :
^S41 00 Cl. 5.6.1. 1(b)
Column end:
Ml 432
AS4100 Cl. 5.3.3
M s
3
1872 x 10 x 320x10^
0 0
= 0.72
M*x = 186
Inside end:
M s 770 x 1
3
x 320 x 1
0” 6 AS4100 Cl. 5.3.3
= 0.75
Hence inside end critical

AS4100 Cl. 5.6.1.1(b)
rr = 0.5
Afm = 171x9.7 = 1659 mm 2
Afc = Afm ~ 1 659 mm 2
d„ ,
=352 mm
dc = 682 mm
1659 f 0.4x352
= X 6+ = 0.806 AS4100 Cl. 5.6.1.1(b)(ii)
1659 l°' 682
ast = 1 .0 - 1 .2 x 0.5 x (l .0 - 0.806) = 0.884 AS4100 Cl. 5.6.1.1(b)(ii)
Calculate M oa based on the section properties of the haunch at the inside end which is the
360UB45.
Le = k k e kr L
t AS4100 Cl. 5.6.3
L = 3000 mm Measured between fly braces
K =1-0 Twist is restrained by fly braces AS4100 Table 5.6.3(I)

kt = 1 Although there top flange loading, the bending
is moment in
the segment is predominantly due to end moments and the load
application points (purlins) are restrained laterally anyway
AS4100 Table 5. 6.3(2)
K
kr =0.85 There will be some minor axis rotational restraint at the ends
AS4100 Table 5. 6.3(3)
Hence
Le ~ 2250 mm
Iy = 8.10xl0 6 mm 4 '
J =161xl0 3 mm 4
Iw = 237x1 9
mm 6
fy = 320 MPa
= 770x1 3 mm 3
186
A* = -^ = '
0 43
-
am = 1.75 -1.05x0.43 + 0.3 x0.43 2 = 1.36 AS4100 Table 5.6.1

M 0 = 457 kNm
M sx = 246 kNm
M oa = ast M0 = 0.884x457 = 404 kNm

J
jMbx =0.9x1.36x0.66x246
= 199 kNm < <fMsx = 222 kNra
Out-of-plane member capacity reduced due to axial compression taking 0 cy equal to
1417 kN as for unhaunched rafter
/ <•« '
<Mox = 199 x 1
c l 1417
= 191 kNm > M* =186 kNm OK
Although the tapered member Clause 5. 6. 1.1 is intended for bending only, it may be used
for combined actions as N' hpNc is only very small and its effect may be ignored.
4.10.5
LIMSTEEL Results
The frame has also been checked using LIMSTEEL [20] which is integrated with Microstran
and the computer output is presented in Appendix III. Generally, the results are in good
agreement, although LIMSTEEL does not take the effective length between fly braces or
4.10.6 as 0.85 times the spacing. LIMSTEEL also does not reduce the bending moment to
purlins
the underside of the haunch or to the face of the column.
End Wall Frames

4.10.7
Adopt the typical portal frame for the end frames. This has numerous advantages at the
expense of some rafter tonnage, as explained in Section 4.7.
End Wall Columns

Consider the central end wall column of span 8155 mm to mid-height of rafter. Refer to
Figure 4.12.
4. 10.7.1 Inside Flange in Tension (Inward Loading)
• Check Streng th
Design pressure = (0.7 + 0.65)xl.02 = 1.38 kPa

UDL =1.38x6.25 = 8.61 kN/m
0
2
8.61 x 8.1 55
Mx =
8
= 71.5 kNm
Try a 200UB25, section is non-compact BHP

<fMsx = 0.9x320x259xl0 3 Nmm AS4100 Cl 5.2.1
= 74.6 kNm > U\ =71.5 kNm OK
Try a 250UB25 (same weight as a 200UB25 but lower deflections) BHP
Section is compact
Le = 1700 mm (girt spacing)
h = 2.55xl0 6 mm4 BHP

J = 67.4x1 3 mm4 BHP
Iw = 36.7xl0 9 mm 6 '
BHP
Zex = 319xl0 3 mm 3 BHP
fy = 320 MPa
a„, = 1.0 AS4100 Cl. 5.6.1.1(a)
M 0 = 230 kNm AS4100 Cl. 5.6.1.1(a)
M sx =102 kNm AS4100CI. 5.2.1
as - 0.807 AS4100 Cl. 5.6.1.1(a)
<f>Mbx = 74.1 kNm > M* =71.5 kNm OK
• Check Deflection
qz = 0.40 kPa (serviceability)

UDL = y^x 8.61 = 3.38 kN/m

4
5x3.38x8155
S = s 6
384x 2x10 x35.4xl0
=_
span span
27 mm - <, OK
302 150
4. 1 0.7.2 Inside Flange in Compression (Outward Loading)

Design pressure = (0.65 + 0.52)xl.02 - 1.19 kPa
Note that the external suction coefficient on the central end wall column is -0.50
- 0.65 The quarter point column has the - 0.65 coefficient but is slightly shorter.
rather than .
For simplicity of calculation, adopt the

- 0.65 coefficient.
UDL = 1.19x6.25 = 7.46 kN/m

2
7.46 x 8.1 55
Mx =
8
= 62.0 kNm
tension.
Check the capacity of the 250UB25 ignoring coincident axial
Allow for some minor axis and warping restraint at the base, so that
Le = 0.9x8155 = 7340 mm (without fly braces)

- 1.13
AS4100 Table 5.6.1

M0 = 25.1 kNm AS4100 Cl. 5.6.1.1(a)
M sx =102 kNm
= 0.212
fMbx = 22.0 kNm < M x = 62.0 kNm NG
Try one fly brace at mid-height

Le =0.9x4100 = 3690 mm
= AS4100 Table 5.6.1
am 1.0 (conservative)
M 0 = 62.9 kNm AS4100 Cl. 5.6.1.1(a)
M sx =102 kNm
=0.451
}Mbx = 41 .4 kNm < M*x = 62.0 kNm NG

Hence try a 250UB31 with fly braces at third points
Le =3000 mm say
Again using a spreadsheet program

fMbx = 73.1 kNm > M* = 62.0 kNm

Hence ADOPT 250UB31 andfly braces at 3000 mm centres maximum
4.10.7.3 Axial Compression Under Gravity Loads

In some cases, the connection between the end wall column and rafter is slotted vertically to
allow the rafter to move under load. This avoids uplift loading on the column footings, but
generally creates difficulties in detailing the column to rafter connections.
In this design, the end wall column to rafter connection will not be slotted. The
columns will therefore be in compression under gravity loads.
In this worst case of live load plus full dead load, the axial compression N' (assuming
the rafter carries its self weight before the end wall columns are erected) is
9
N' = 6.25x-x (0.1x1.25+ 0.25x1.5)
= 14.1 kN
The column is restrained by girts about the minor axis . Hence, consider major axis buckling
=8155 mm
fy = 320 MPa BHP
rx = 105 mm BHP
A =4010 mm 2 BHP
kf =1.0 BHP
ab =0 AS4100 Table 6.6.33(1)
=87.9 AS4100 Cl. 6.3.3
ac = 0.625 AS4100 Table 6.33(3)

<pNc = 722 kN > N* =14.1 kN OK
Refer to Chapter 5 for the connection design.
4.11 References
1 . Standards Australia (1 998). AS4100 Steel Structures, SA, Sydney.

2. Standards Association of Australia (1989). AS1 170.2-1989 Part 2 Wind Loading Code, SAA,
Sydney.
3. Standards Association of Australia (1989). AS1 170.1-1989 Part 1 Dead and Live Loading
Code, SAA, Sydney.
4. Standards Association of Australia (1981). AS1 250-1981 SAA Steel Structures Code, SAA,
Sydney.
5. Davies, J.M. (1990). Inplane stability of portal frames. The Structural Engineer, 68(4), 141-
147.
6 . Broken Hill Proprietary (1998). Hot Rolled Structural Steel Products, BHP, Melbourne.
,
References 103
AISC DPFB/03
Tables for Structural

7. Australian Institute of Steel Construction (1997). Design Capacity
Sections - Volume 7: Open Sections, 2
nd
edn. &
Addendum No. 1, AISC, Sydney.
Trahair, N.S. and Bradford, M.A. (1998). The Behaviour

and Design of Steel Structures to
AS4100, 3 edn., E&FN Spon, London.
rd
Construction, AISC,
9. Dux, P.F. and Kitipomchai, S. (1986). Buckling of braced beams, Steel
-
20 ( 1 ), 1 20. . .
with elastic restraints. The

10 .
Bradford, M.A. (1988). Lateral stability of tapered beam-columns
Structural Engineer, 66(22), 376-384.
- Commentary SA,
11 . Standards Australia (1999). AS4100 Supplement 1-1999 Steel Structures
Sydney.
(1987). Theoretical and Experimental Studies of the Geometric and
12 .
Wong-Chung, A.D.
PhD The
Material Nonlinear Behaviour of Partially Braced and Unbraced Beams,
Thesis,
University of Queensland.
Engineering Systems,
13. Engineering Systems Pty Ltd (1996). Microstran Users Manual,
Manual, ITS Pty Ltd,

14. Integrated Technical Software Pty Ltd (1995). Spacegass Reference
Werribee, Victoria. „ , , „ ,
_ .
Australia/Standards New Zealand (1996). AS/NZS 4600 Cold-Formed Steel

15. Standards
Structures,SA, Sydney, SNZ, Wellington.
Lysaght (1999). Zeds and Cees Purlin and Girt Systems, BHP Building
Products.
16.
and Kitipomchai, S. (1986). Deflection limits for portal frames. Steel
17. Woolcock, S.T.
Monorails, SA, Sydney.
18. Standards Australia (1999). AS1418.18 Crane Runways and
universal steel members in
19. Hogan, T.J. and Syam, A.A. (1997). Design of tapered haunched
portal frame rafters, Steel Construction, AISC, 31(3), 1-28.
20 . Centre for Advanced Structural Engineering (1998). LIMSTEEL- Design of Steel Structures
According to AS4100 and NZS3404 Users Manual, 'The University of Sydney, Sydney.
^
Structural Connections, 3
21 . Australian Institute of Steel Construction (1985). Standardized
edn, AISC, Sydney.
104 AISC DPFB/03
5 Frame Connections
5.1 General
The detailing of connections probably the most important part of structural design, and
is
economical solutions
undoubtedly requires more art and experience to achieve both sound and
frame connections are no exception, although they have been
thandoes member sizing. Portal
standardised to some extent in recent years with the publication of the AISC “Standardised
Structural Connections” manuals The most common and economical connections for
[1,2].
the apex and the knee, as shown in
portal frames consist of bolted moment end plates at
Figure 5.1. In the past, it was more common to have a shop-welded knee joint and a bolted
beam splice consistingof bolted flange and web plates in the rafter at or near the point of
contraflexure, asshown in Figure 5.2. The advantage of having the bolted splice removed
smaller bending moment than
from the knee was that the bolted splice could be designed for a
the peak bending moment which occurs at the knee.
Figure 5.1 Bolted Moment End Plate Connections at Knee and Ridge
Figure 5.2 Welded Knee and Bolted Rafter Splice Connections
105
106 Frame Connections AISC DPFB/03
However, although bolted beam splices use less steel than bolted moment end plate
splices, they requiremore hole drilling, more careful fitting, and more handling of heavy
beams. The end result is that the combination of the shop welded knee joint and bolted splice
is more expensive than the bolted moment end plate at the knee.
5.2 Bolted Knee and Ridge Joints

With bolted moment end plates at the knee as shown in Figure 5.3, the rafter is usually
haunched which has the advantage of reduced rafter size as well as reduced flange and bolt
forces because of the extra depth. Standard knee joint details are presented in the AISC
standardised connection booklet [1], while the background theory is presented in the fourth
edition of “Design of Standardized Structural Connections” [2].
should be remembered that the column flanges are very thin by comparison with the
It
end For example, a typical column flange would be 12 mm, while a typical end plate is
plate.
at least 25 mm
thick. Although the design of the end plate is governed by one-way cantilever
bending beyond the critical tension flange of the rafter whereas the stiffened column flange is
subjected to two-way bending, the column flanges are often too thin and doubler plates [2]
may be required.
The most common form of ridge joint is also the bolted moment end plate as shown in
Figure 5.4. Compared with the knee joint, the ridge joint is simple to design and fabricate
because it consists only of opposing end plates and there is no need for stiffeners or doubler
plates.
It would appear that there is a clear advantage in using tensioned Grade 8.8 bolts at the
end plates so as to prestress the joint and reduce the tendency of the joint to open (even very
slightly) under load. The reduction in joint rigidity due to the use of snug bolts could increase
Figure 5.3 Typical Bolted Knee Joint

AISC DPFB/03 Bolted Knee and Ridge Joints 107
significantly over those

the frame sidesway movement and the vertical rafter deflections
However, some could argue that tensioning is of limited
obtained from the computer analysis.
benefit and under certain conditions

the use of snug tightened bolts could be used instead.
from avoiding tensioned bolts, but
Some saving in erection costs and supervision would result
be designed to bend in single rather than
the end plates would be thicker because they need to
double curvature.
lieu of tensioned bolts do not
Overall, the benefits of using snug tightened bolts in
recommended. should be noted that it is not
It
seem pronounced, and tensioned bolts are
bolts as friction bolts because the prevention of slip of the
necessary to nominate these
The bolts should therefore be designated as S.8/TB (tensioned
abutting faces is not critical.
the
(tensioned and friction) so that the fabricator will not leave
and bearing) rather than 8.8/TF
some surface treatments such as inorganic zinc silicate
abutting faces unpainted. In any case,
as that for unpainted steel faces.
are accepted as having a friction coefficient at least as high
Figure 5.4 Typical Bolted Ridge Joint
5.3 Base Plates

For ‘pinned' bases, any moment at the base of the
column is disregarded and the base is
designed for only the axial and shear forces at the base of the column. Two bolts may be
applied tension, but it should be remembered that four bolts, as shown in
sufficient for the
easily. The base thickness can
Figure 5.5, allow riggers to stand and plumb the columns more
base at the toe of the web weld,
be determined by calculating the bending moment in the plate
web from the edge of the bolt hole. However, a less

using a 45° spread towards the
conservative method [2] is used in the design example.
Grade 4.6 bolts are preferred because they can be adjusted

by bending on
Mild steel
site, particularly if there is a sleeve or pocket around the holding down bolt for this purpose.
bolts should not be
Mild steel bolts can also be tack welded into a cage, whereas Grade 8.8
grade the vicinity of the
tack welded because welding can have an adverse effect on
steel in
weld. Regardless of the steel grade, it is recommended that holding down bolts be hot dip
galvanised as discussed in Section 7.5.6.

8 high strength bolts 2 or 4 grode 4.6 bolts

and thick base plate and thinner baseplate
(o) Fixed (b) Pinned
Figure 5.5 Typical Fixed and Pinned Base Details
5.4 Design Example - Frame Connections
5.4.1 General
This design example covers the main frame joints for the case of the pinned base frame
designed using the second order analysis described in Chapter 4. The connections between
the end wall mullions and the end wall rafter are also addressed in this chapter but roof
and
wall bracing connections are covered in the next chapter.
In summary, the connections included in this chapter are as follows.
• Knee joint (Section 5.4.2)

• Ridge joint (Section 5.4.3)
• Column base and holding down bolts (Section 5.4.4)
• End wall mullion to rafter (Section 5.4.5)
Software such as LIMCOM [2] is commercially available for the checking or design
of these connections in accordance with the AISC connections manual [1].
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Frame Connections 109
5.4.2 Knee Joint
5 . 42
. . l General
The procedure for designing the knee joint may be summarised as follows.
Calculate the design actions for the worst load case for the purposes of bolt,
end
1.
plate and stiffener design. (Section 5.4.2.2)
2. Design the critical flange connection including bolts and end plate, and check the
column flange for stiffeners and doubler plates. The critical (or more heavily
connection.
loaded) flange connection in this design example is the bottom flange
(Section 5.4.2.S)
3. Design the non-critical flange connection for column flange stiffeners and doubler
plates. Less design work is required because some steps are
already covered by
flange. The non-critical flange connection in this design
the design of the critical
example is the top flange connection. (Section 5.4. 2.4)

4. Check the need for column web shear stiffeners. This involves checking the
column web between the top flange of the rafter and the bottom flange of the
haunch for combined shear and bending. (Section 5.4. 2. 5)
convenient starting point for the knee joint design is the AISC standard bolted
A
moment end plate connection [1] for a haunched 360UB45. It has the following properties:
• 330 deep haunch
• 686 mm overall depth measured perpendicular to the rafter centreline
• 180 mmx32 mm end plate
. M24 8.8/TB bolts
5 .4.2.2 Calculate Design Actions for Bolts, End Plate and Stiffeners
load cases are
The moments, axial forces and shear forces corresponding to the various
manual for the design of
summarised in Table 5.1. The AISC connections [2] states that
conventional practice to assume that all of the force above

bolts, end plates and stiffeners, it is
concentrated at the flanges. This is not so for the design of
and below the neutral axis is
flange and web welds but this will be addressed later.
(a) Worst tension in bottom flange and worst compression in top flange
(LC21 - windward column)
Reduce moment to face of column by assuming a linear bending moment diagram near
the column (refer to Figure 5.6)
46 °
M* = 453.9 - ~- x (453.9 - 301.2) = 432.4 kNm
2x1630
N‘ = 62.4 kN (tension)
V' = -100.6 kN
Table 5.1 Design Actions for Knee Joint
Load Moment, M' Axial Forge, N *

Shear, V
Combination kNm kN> kN
LC20: 1.5DL+1.5LL -290.4 -41.3 -66.0
LC21: 0.8DL+ CW1+IPCW 453.9 62.4 100.6

213.8 63.2 -58.8
LC22: 0.8DL+CW2+IPCW 295.3 37.9 62.1

44.6 38.1 -19.7
LC23: 1.25DL+ CW2+ICSW -146.0 -58.3 -44.0

-432.2 -60.3 87.3
LC24: 0.8DL+ LW1+IPLW 220.7 50.0 51.3
LC25: 1. 25DL+L W2+ISL W -326.9 -50.9 -76.1
N\ =
M'
xco s& + —
N'
2
xcos<9+ —
V
4
2
xsin#
db = overall depth of haunch at face of end plate

~ thickness of beam or rafter flanges
tfb
432.4 62.4 100.6

Nr = o0 +
xcos3„„ xsin3„ 0
.
, •xcos3
0.682-0.010 2 2
= 643 + 3 1 - 3 = 671 kN (bottom flange)
N* =
M'
xcos#
•
N *
xcos^
V'
xsin<9
db l
Jb
2 2
= 643-31 + 3 =615 kN (topflange)
V'; = V* xcos^-W xsin^

= - 100.6 xcos3° -62.4xsin3°= -104 kN
(b) Worst tension in top flange and worst compression in bottom flange
(LC23 - leeward column)
Reduce moment to face of column by assuming a linear bending moment diagram near
column (refer to Figure 5.7).
M — 432.2 -— -
460 — x (432.2 -299.6) =4l4kNm
2x1630
N' - -60.3 kN (compression)
Figure 5.7 Design Actions for Knee Joint (LC23) (Compression at Bottom)
f
V‘ = 87.3 kN
414 60.3 87.3
N ft
= xcos3,, xcos3 +
.
x sin 3
0.682-0.010 2
= 615 -30 + 2 = 587 kN (top flange)
N c
= 615 + 30 -2 = 643 kN (bottom flange)
V* = 87.3 x cos3° + 60.3 x sin3° = 90 kN
If only a first order analysis has been carried out, the moments should be amplified
for
this load case using the value of 6m calculated in Chapter 4.
5.4. 2. 3 Bottom Flange Connection

The procedure for checking the bottom flange connection may be summarised as follows.
1 . Select the bottom flange design actions
2. Determine the bolt size

3. Determine the end plate thickness
4. Check the need for tension stiffeners
(and geometry restrictions)
5. Design the tension stiffeners, if required
(and check stiffener welds)
6. Check the need for doubler plates
7. Design the doubler plates, if required

8. Check the need for compression stiffeners
(and yield capacity and buckling capacity)
9. Design the compression stiffeners, if required
10. Check the strength of the stiffened web in compression

if stiffeners are required by calculation
1 1 . Design the flange welds
12. Design the web welds
The authors recommend stiffeners at the top and bottom flange of the haunch even if
they are not required by calculation, as stiffeners provide more stability
and rigidity to the
knee joint.
The need for doubler plates is determined

by checking the capacity of the stiffened
column flange. Doubler plates are butt welded
web of the column. In the absence of
to the
conventional stiffeners, the doubler plates cantilever from the web
of the column in basically
a non-composite combination
[2] with the column flange. Doubler plates can theoretically be
used in lieu of conventional stiffeners, but as mentioned previously, conventional
stiffeners
are recommended.
} 2
AISC DPFB/03
Design Example - Frame Connections 113
The need by checking both the yield capacity

for compression stiffeners is determined
column web where the bottom flange is in
for the cases
and the buckling capacity of the
recommended in the AISC connections manual [2] (and
compression. The buckling capacity
that given in AS4100 [2]. As the AISC method is based on
test
in this book) is lower than
case. The comparison
results, the AS4100 method should be used with caution in this
between the two methods is demonstrated in this section.
The method for determining the capacity of the stiffened column web in
compression
(and in this book) is also more conservative than the AS4100
as recommended by AISC
used caution case.
method. Once again, AS4100 should be with in this
/. T)esien Actions for Bottom Flanee
Design actions for bolts, end plate and stiffener design (but not for weld
design):
N t
~ 671 kN (LC21)
N}c = 643 kN (LC23)
V' - 90 kN (LC23 - shear is taken by the bottom flange bolts

vc
when top flange is in tension)
2 .
The bolt size must be such that
where
<pN, b = design capacity of bolt group in tension (4 bolts)
<p = capacity reduction factor = 0.8

(Vjb = design capacity of bolt group in shear (4 bolts)
Try 4 - M24 8.8/TB
4 jNtf
Sect. 4.8.3. 2 [2]
l + k pr
where
(pNif = design capacity of a bolt in tension

kpr = coefficient to allow for the additional bolt force
due to prying (may be taken in the range 0.20 to 0.33)
Try
kpr = 0.30
= = 0.8x353x830 = 234 kN AS4W0 Cl. 9. 3. 2.

<pNtf f
<f>A s u{
Therefore
1
4x234
4>Nlb = = 720 kN > N* = 671 kN OK
1.30 fl
Check Shear:
i
fVd/ =0.8x0.62Ac/,/ AS4100 Cl. 9.3.2.
where
<j)Vd
f = design shear capacity of bolt with threads included in the shear plane
Ac = core area of bolt
fuf = ultimate tensile stress of bolt
Therefore
fVdf = 0.8x0.62x324x830 N = 133 kN

and
</>Vfb =4x133 = 532 kN > = 90 kN OK
Hence ADOPT M24 8.8/TB bolts
3. Determine End Plate Thickness
The end plate thickness must be such that
Sect. 4.8. 3. 3 [2]
The strength of the plate in bending is based on the assumption of double curvature.
Try 210x28 plate
d
afc â f -~
f
150-11.5
af ~ = 69.3 mm say 65 mm
a/e = 65 - —= 53 mm
b,-,
U,fyt = plate width, thickness and yield stress respectively
0.9x250x210x28 2
0 Pb
= — N
= 699 kN > = 671 kN OK
N*fl
The shear stress distribution in a rectangular plate is parabolic with the maximum stress
being 1.5 times the average stress. AS4100 makes allowance for non-uniform shear
stress in a web with the formula.
2V
Vv = *
t
< vu AS4100 Cl. 5.11.3
0.9 + NV
\fvaj
where Vu is the nominal shear capacity of a web with a uniform shear stress distribution
(AS4100CI. 5.11.2)
fvm’fva = the maximum and average design shear stresses in the web respectively
Hence
2V
Vv = "°- 833 ^ AS4100 Cl. 5.11.4
09 + 15
= 0.833x0.6 f A w = 0.50 fy A w
y
The shear capacity of the end plate perpendicular to the plate is less below the bottom
flange of the haunch than it is above because the plate above is stiffened by the web of
the haunch. However, for simplicity, the total shear capacity of the end plate at the
bottom flange is taken conservatively as twice the capacity of the plate below the bottom
flange.
f d k
116 Frame Connections AISC
Notation Used In Figure 5.8(al
ac ~ ( bfc - Sg)/2
Q>g - Cc ~ 2.rc)/2
ae = edge distance from bolt centreline to edge of plate

a = distance from bolt centreline to face of flange
a,- = ( bj - sg)/2
bjb = flange width of beam or rafter
bfc = flange width of column
bj = width of end plate
&rc
~ twe + 2rc
dc = column section depth
df = nominal bolt diameter
dh ~ bolt hole diameter
dwc = column section depth between fillets = dc - 2 c
= yield stress of column flange of web as appropriate {f>T flange, ycw web)
fyc } f
kc = distance on column from outer face of flange to inner termination of root radius
= twc + re
rc = column section root radius
sg = bolt gauge (transversely)

sp = bolt pitch (longitudinally)
~ beam or rafter flange
tjb thickness
tfc
= column flange thickness
ti
- thickness of end plate
tWb
= beam or rafter web thickness
twc = column web thickness
Geometry Restrictions f2/:-
(0 h <b fc
(ii) sg < bp,- df but > 80 mm for M20 bolts

< bfc
- 2.5 df but > 120 mm for M24 bolts
(iii) ae >30 mm for M20 bolts or
>36 mm for M24 bolts
ae <2.5 f
(iv) Of as small as possible but > df + La cot$ where <f.

= (90 - rafter pitch)
0
and > 0.5dj + i,cot^.-

> diameter + weld leg length
0. 5 x washer
and only for air gun tensioning
> 54 mm for M20 bolts
> 65 mm
for M24 bolts
where: L„ = 2.2 df+ grip (actual bolt length)
ds = socket diameter
= 50 mm for M20 bolts
Ls = socket length
Figure 5.8(b) Notation Relevant to Column Stiffening

2
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example ~ Frame Connections 117
Therefore
fVph = 2{Z! 0.50 fy A w = 2x0.9x0.50x300x210x28 N

= 1588 kN > N* =671 kN
fi
OK
Note that this expression given for tf>Vp h is twice that given in Section 4. 8,3. 3 of Reference
[
2 ]-
4. Check Need for Tension Stiffeners
Tension stiffeners are required if Sect. 4.8.3.4(a) [2]
N ft
> <pR {
iRt =[^ i,^ 2 / ] min

2a rc + s pn —d.n
fi
R ~t\ ffycftfc X 3.14 +
where the notation is as in Reference [2] and Figure 5.8 of this book with
<j>
=0.9
fycf = 300 MPa
sg =130 mm (preferred gauge for M24 bolts) Ref.fJ]
Check Geometry Restrictions
sg =130 mm > 120 mm for M24 bolts OK Sect. 4.8.23 [2]
ac = bolt edge distance for column flange
bfc~ s 190-130
g _
"
2 2
= 30 mm > 1.254- = 30 mm OK AS4100 Table 9.6.2
sp = 130 mm
dh - 26 mm
—
.
s ~t wc - 2rc
a* = g
twc = 9.1 mm
rc =1.4 mm
130-9.1-2x11.4
aA = =49. 1mm
2x 30 + 130-26
<f>R t , = 0.9x300x14.5 x 31.4 + N = 368 kN Sect. 4.83.4 [2]
49.1
'3.Ux(a d +a c )+0.5s a ;
fR <2 =<f>Afy'Ac* + 4x N„
a, + a. a, + a,
at = bolt edge distance for end plate

1
bj-Sg 210-130
2 ~ 2
= 40 num > 1.56?/= 36 mm OK
j
N't{ = maximum design bolt force in tension Sect. 5.8.4 [2]
(may be taken as bolt proof load rather nominal

tensile capacity to provide increased
margin against bolt fracture) AS4100 Table 1 5.2.5.
= 210 kN
Hence
3. 14 x (49. l-t-30) + 0.5x130 ^
/R t2 = 0.9x|300xl4.5^ x x 10"
49.1 + 40
/ 40
+ 4x x 210
,49.1 + 40,
= 200 + 339 = 539 kN
* = [368 ’
539 L
= 368 kN < Nf = 671 kN t
NG
Hence tension stiffeners are required for the bottom flange of the haunch
5. Design Tension Stiffeners
Stiffeners are proportioned to carry the excess so that
Nl < <f>Nts Sect. 4.8.3.5(a) [2]
where
N*s = stiffener design force at the tension flange = Np -

t
(R,
and
0ts = the stiffener capacity in tension = 671 - 368 = 303 kN
Try 2-90x8 stiffeners
f>Nls = ffys As Sect. 4.8.3.5(a) [2]
As - 2 bests
ts - stiffener thickness = 8 mm
bes - stiffener width = 90 mm AS4100 Cl. 5. 15.6
<fiN,s
= 0.9x320x2x90x8
= 415 kN > JV* =303kN OK
Hence, use 90x10 column stiffeners at bottom flange of haunch, but check compression at
bottom flange first and check size of stiffeners at top flange as stiffener sizes should
match.
p ) 3
Check Stiffener Welds Sect. 4.8. .

7 [2]
Try 6 E48XX SP fillet welds
<ftv w = 0.978 kN/mm Table Bl [2]
Weld capacity:
= 2x2x90x0.978
= 352 kN > N)s = 303 kN OK
Hence ADOPT 6E48XX SP fillet welds
6. Check Need for Doubler Plates
Once the need to provide tension stiffeners to the tension flange has been established, it is
necessary to check that the stiffened flange is strong enough.
Doubler plates are required if
N t
> <pR,s Sect. 4.8.3.4(d) [2]
where
= capacity of the stiffened column flange
w. = yla d x{a d +a c -0.5d^) = V49.1x (49.1 + 30 -0.5x26) = 57 mm

s-t- 2t w
= -Z < =
130-10-2x6
w.
2 2
= 54 mm but > w, = 57 mm
Hence vv2 = 57 mm
2x57 + 2x57-26 1 1
<j>R = 0.9x300xl4.5
2
x- + x (2 x 49.1 + 2x30-26)
tt
49.1 57 51
= 497 kN < N*ji

- 671 kN NG
Hence flange doubler plates are required
7. Design Doubler Plates
If doubler plates are used in lieu of conventional stiffeners, the requirement is that
N'ji 1 fR td
The AISC connections manual [2] suggests that the combined thickness of the doubler
plate td and column flange t/c be greater than that of the end plate ie. (td + t/c) ^ U and
that the doubler plate be butt welded to the column web, as shown in Figure 5.9.
5
Figure 5.9 Flange Doubler Plate Detail
Hence
td > 28 - 14.5 = 13.5 mm, try 12 mm which is close enough as the thickness
requirement is only a suggestion
Try 90x12 doubler plates

2 r \
{Z
%d = 0* (
2
f |-
^ +4a rf
+ 1.25a e
Sect. 4.8.3.4(d) [2]
2
12 x300 fl 30 + 4x49.1 + 1.25x30
= 0.9x 14.
2
x 300 +
)
49.1
= 0.9x84.7x7.41 kN
= 565 kN < N ft
= 671 kN NG
Hence, doubler plates must be thicker, or they must be used in combination with
conventional stiffeners. As compression stiffeners will probably be required, consider the
doubler plates combined with conventional stiffeners.
No formula is recommended in the AISC connections manual [2] for the case where both
doubler plates and conventional plates are used, but it is suggested that the expression for
<f}R is be used with (t/c + td

) substituted for t/c .
Hence
2
(14.5 + 12)
0Rts
= ^ x 497
rt**T
2
14.5
= 1660 kN > N*f( =671 kN OK

Therefore, the column stiffened by 90x12 doubler plates and 90x8 conventional stiffeners
is ample. Note that the stiffener size may be increased to match the top flange stiffener
size.
— fc
Figure 5.10(a): Length for Determining Web Bearing Capacity {R c i in
Accordance with AISC Connections Manual [2]
8. Check Need for Compression Stiffeners
N}c = 643 kN
stiffeners are required if Sect. 4.8.3.4(b) [2]
Compression
N}c ><f>R c
<f,R' =[(«„„ ] min
The following expressions for <fiR c i and (f>R C2 are based on actual tests of moment
connections [2]. Alternative expressions from AS4100 are presented later in italics for
comparison.
Yield Capacity tiR d
= design bearing yield capacity Sect. 4.8.3.4(b) [2]

<f>R C f
=
$ycJv: (*/&
+ )
122 Frame Connections aiscdpfb/03
= 4-5fyCW t wc kc + 0 .9fycw t wc (l ft, + 2/,- ) Figure 5.10(a)
= + *io('y& + 2t i)
kc = distance from outer face of column flange to inner end of root radius
= 24.7 mm
fyyv
= 320 MPa
=4.5 fycw twc kc x 1 O' = 324
3
k9 kN Table E.3 [2]
kio =0.9 fycw t„cx 1 O'

3
= 2 .62 kN/mm Table E.3 [2]
Therefore
<f)R cl = 324 + 2.62x(9.7 + 2x28) = 496 kN
Figure 5.10(b): Length for Determining Web Buckling Capacity tf>R c i in
Accordance with AS4100 Clause 5.13.3
Buckling Capacity <5R r?
tf>R C2 = design bearing buckling capacity

0-9x10 &IJTT
where
AISC DPFB/03
dwc =dc ~ 2kc = 457 - 2x24.7 = 408 mm

Therefore
9-72 t wc -jfyCW
~ kN Table E.3 [2]
<pR C2 =kn= 321
In summary:
<j>Rcl ~ 496 kN
jRa = 321 kN
Therefore
<f,R c = 321 kN < N}c = 643 kN NG

Hence compression stiffeners are required for the bottom flange of the haunch
ALTERNATIVE AS4100 METHOD FOR DETERMINING <f>R cl AND (R C2
Design Bearing Yield Capacity d>R c i
(f)Rc,
~ <f>Rby ~ $ G ISfyctvbb/wc)
- t/b + 5tfi + 2 h AS4100 Cl. 5.13.3
b hf
= + 5x14.5 + 2x28 = 138.2 mm Figure 5.10(b)
9.7
fRcl =0.9x320x1.25x138.2x9.7 N = 482 kN

which is slightly less than tpR c , = 496 kN by the AISC method
Design Bearing Buckling Capacity <f>R C 2
<f>R c2
= ipRbb = tP(ac kffycwA wc)
Awe = bb twe
bb . = b bf + d2
d2 = twice the clear distance from the neutral axis of the column
to the inside of the compression flange of the column
= 457 - 2x14.5 = 428 mm
bb = 138.2 + 428 = 566 mm
kf = 1.0
Slenderness ratio
_ 25d\ = 2.5 x (457 -14.5x2) AS4100 Cl. 5.13.4

= ng
'w 9.1
fycw = 320 MPa

ab = 0.5 AS4100CL 5.13.4
ac = 0.327 AS4100 Table 6.3. 3(3)
Therefore
(pRcl = 0.9x0.327x320x566x9.1 W=485 kN
This capacity is considerably greater than /R c2 = 321 kN calculated by the AISC method [2J. Until
this anomaly is investigated further, the more conservative AISC approach for <j)R c2 is recommended.
On the other hand, the AISC approach for the parameter tf>R c i gives slightly higher values than the
AS4100 approach but this situation can be accepted if test results give a higher capacity than that
predicted by theory. In summary, the AISC method is recommended for calculating both f>Rc , and
0Rc2-
9. Design Compression Stiffeners
Stiffeners are proportioned to carry the excess load so that Sect. 4.8.3.5(b)
Ks ± fNa
where
N‘a = stiffener design force at compression flange
= N}c - jR c = 643 - 321 = 322 kN
The outstand of load bearing stiffeners is limited by AS4100 to
l5t
= fys = 300 Mpa
’
I3.7ts for
Ll
250
Therefore
bes ~ 90 mm, ts > 6.6 mm

It is also common practice to provide Sect. 4. 8. 3. 6 [2]
.
bes ^ — —
*/c
- 190 = 63
,,
mm
and
ts ^=5mm
2
Hence check 2-90x8 stiffeners
bes = 90 mm
<j>NCs — stiffener capacity in compression Sect. 4.8.3.5(b) [2]
= (ffys As — 0.9x300x2x90x8 N
= 389 kN > = 322 kN OK
10. Check Strength of Stiffened Web
The AISC connections manual [2] recommends a check on the strength of the stiffened
web in compression regions. The stiffened web may be considered satisfactory if
Nfc < <f>R Cs
0Rcs ~ fifyA-s
5
+ 1.47fycwt/c ^b ft
t
we
AISC DFFB/03
= 0.9x300x2x90x8+ 1 .47 x 320 x 1 4.5 x -*/l 90 x 9.1 N = 389 + 283kN

= 672 kN > N}c = 643 kN OK
Hence ADOPT 2-90x8 compression stiffeners
stiffeners (see Section 5.4.2.4 of this

This will also match the top flange compression
book). Also, compression stiffeners must
be welded to the column web over the full
length of the stiffener.
OF STIFFENED WEBS
ALTERNATIVE AS4100 METHOD FOR CHECKING THE CAPACITY
the capacity of stiffened webs for the design of
AS4100 also has rules in Clause 5.14 for checking
For comparison with the AISC method, calculate the capacity of the we
load bearing stiffeners.
combination with 2-90*8 stiffeners in accordance with AS4100.
in
Check Outstand
bc, - 90 = 137 mm OK
[300
v 250
Yield Capacity.
* ,
D AS4100 Cl. 5.14.1
N
xr
fc
< </>Rsy
fRsy = (pRby + fdsfys
(as previously calculated for <pR el by

the AS41 00 method)
0P by = 482 kN
<ffyS A s = 0.9x300x2x90x8 = 389 kN
Hence
fRsy = 482 + 389
= 871 kN > N}c = 643 kN OK
Buckline Capacity
AS4100 Cl. 5.14.2
Nfe < fR;b
Referring to Figure 5.11
8x (2x90 + 9.1)
=4 6
mm *
*
= 51 Al0
12
Length of web
= 2x17.5x9.1 = 282 mm
[320
\ 250
A = 2x90x8 + 282x9. 1 = 4006 mm 2

c
4.51xl0
r = 33.6 mm
4006
f
Le = 0.7x(457 -2x14.5) = 300 mm

— = = 8.93
r 33.6
a* = 0.5
= 1.0
$Rsh =fo?c= 0.9x 1 .0x4006x300 N
= 1081 kN > N* = 643 kN OK
fc
Hence 0Rsy = 871 kN and (f>R!b = 1081 kN using AS4 1 00 are both greater than <f>Ra = 672 kN
using the AISC method [2], The AISC method is again more conservative and is therefore
recommended.
In summary, AS4100 is not recommended for determining the capacity’ of unstiffened or stiffened
webs in compression because the capacities so predicted can be unconservative.
141
17.5 x 9.1
141
J3 20
250
Figure 5.11 Section for Buckling Capacity Check
11. Design Flange Welds
\
NfiNf \z4Nw
c
M* — 432 kNm
N* = 62.4 kN
V* = -100 kN
For the design of flange and web welds, the AISC connections manual [2] assumes that
the bending moment and axial force are carried partly by the flange and partly by the
web. This means that the design actions N t

and N*j-C have different values when
designing the flange to end plate welds from those for the design of bolts, end plates and
stiffeners.
— 0
AlSC DPFB/03
proportion
The proportion of bending moment transmitted by the web is kmw [2] and the
- kmw). The proportions
of the bending moment transmitted by the flanges is therefore (1
proportion to their cross-

of the design axial force AT* taken by the flanges and web are in
taken by the web and - kw)/ 2 by each flange.
sectional area, kw being the proportion (1
Values of kmw and kw for UB’s and WB’s are given in Appendix E of the AISC
manual Appendix E does not cover haunches so kmw and kw must be
connections [2].
calculated, ie.
k mw = i = 2*> Sect. 4. 8.2.2 [2]
/,„+/, * total
is the second moment of

where I/is the second moment of area of the flanges alone and Iw
area of the web (ignoring the middle flange of the haunched section).
3
6. 9x(682-2x9.7)
Iw = 167x10° mm 4
12
2
682-9.7
If
= 2xl71x9.7x = 375xl0 6 mm4
1,0,at = 542x1 6
mm4
= = 0.308
542
and
area of web
kw —
total cross - sectional area
6.9 x (682 - 2 x 9.7)

= 0.58
6.9x(682-2x 9.7) + 2x171x9.7
Hence
r 1
Y (1 Sect. 4.7. 2.2 [2]
(1-Q.308)x432
0.682-0.0097
t
(l-0.58)x62.4
2
^w
Try 8 E48XX SP fillet welds to the flanges
(N «>
= 2 Lw iv
where
Lw = length of weld
0.8x0.6x480x0.008
= 1.30 kN/mm
fow ~ i 0 6 _/ uh- > tl
42
Therefore
<f>Nw =2x171x1.30
= 445 kN < N*flm ax=458kN NG
Hence ADOPT full strength butt welds to flanges
12. Design Web Welds
2 2
v* + v* < Sect. 4.8.3.
1 [2]
The web welds are assumed in the AISC connections manual [2] to transmit V" , N*w and
Mw , where Nw and Mw are the proportions of the axial force and moment carried by the
web. The maximum resultant force on the web welds
n 2 7:
is
y v z + vy which must be less
than or equal to <fww , where
Nl 3 Ml
-
+
' 2 L„ Li
Vy
. V
2 K
Lw = weld length down web, usually (db - 2 tfi) = 682 - 2x9.7 = 663 mm
N*w =kw N'
— kmwM
3
* 0.58 X 62.4 3 x 0.308 x 432 x 10
2
= 0.027 + 0.908 = 0.935 kN/mm
2x663 663
100
= 0.075 kN/mm
y 2 x 663
Therefore
2 2
v* + v* = 0.94 kN/mm
Try 6 E48XX SP fillet welds to web
0.8x0.6x480x0.006
fow ^0.6fuw t,
-
2 2
= 0.98 kN/mm > Jv* +v* =0.94 kN/mm OK
Hence, ADOPT 6 E48XX SP fdlet welds to web
5. 4.2.4 Top Flange Connection
The procedure for checking the top flange connection is the same as for the bottom flange, as
summarised in the previous section. Moreover, some of the steps are already covered by the
design example
bottom flange design and so the steps for the top flange connection
in this
reduce to the following:
1. Select the top flange design actions

2. Check the need for tension stiffeners
3 . Design the tension stiffeners if required
1.
4. Check the need for compression stiffeners
5 . Design the compression stiffeners if required
6. Check the strength of the stiffened web in compression.
Tiesien Actions for Top Flange

stiffener design (but not for weld design):
Design actions for bolts, end plate and
2.
N*ft = 587 kN LC23 ) (.
N}c = 615 kN (LC21)
y' = -104 kN (LC21 - shear is taken by the top flange bolts when bottom
flange is in tension)
From bottom flange calculations, 4-M24 8.8/TB bolts and 210x28 end plate are cleat ly
adequate
3.
Check Need for Tension Stiffeju
Tension stiffeners are needed if
Sect. 4. 8.3. 4 [2]
From bottom flange calculations
/Rt - 368 kN < Nfi = 587 kN NG

Hence tension stiffeners are required
In any case, if the incoming beam flange is within a distance b/c =190 mm of the top of
the column, it is recommended that a stiffener always be used.
Desipn Tension Stiffeners
Tension stiffeners are proportioned to carry the excess so that
K Sect. 4.8.3.5(a) [2]
N*s - stiffener design force at tension flange
= Nfi - 0R,
= 587 -368 = 219 kN
From bottom flange calculations, 2-90x8 stiffeners would be adequate
However, first check the need for compression stiffeners.
^
4. Check Need for Compression Stiffeners
Compression stiffeners are required if
N}c >0R c
Even though a stiffener is required because of the proximity of the top of the column, it is
stillnecessary to determine the capacity of the unstiffened column so that the excess
capacity (if any) can be calculated for stiffener design.
Yield Capacity, <f>R ,, Sect. 4.8.3.4(b) [2]
l*cj
= 0.9/ f w [t +5k + 2t
Jw Jb c l)
but check that the yield zone does not project beyond the top of the column
2.5 kc+ti = 2.5x24.7 + 28 = 90 < 60 + 50 = 1 10 mm projection OK

Hence <f>Rc i is not limited by proximity of the top of the column, and therefore
/R c t ~ 496 kN as for bottom flange
Buckling Capacity. d>R .
<f>R C2 = 321 kN (as for bottom flange)
<PR C =[496,32l]
min
= 321 kN < N*j-: = 615 kN NG

6.
Therefore, column compression stiffeners are required at the top flange of the haunch
5. Design Compression Stiffeners
Stiffeners are proportioned to carry the excess, so that
N’cs =615-321 =294 kN

Try 90x8 stiffeners each side
0 CS = stiffener capacity in compression Sect. 4.8.3.5(b) [2]
= 0.9x300x2x90x8 N
= 389 kN > N* = 294 kN OK
s
Check Strength of Stiffened Web
The AISC connections manual [2] recommends a check on the strength of the stiffened
web in compression regions. The stiffened web may be considered satisfactory if
N*fc < 0R CS
<m c,
AlSC DPFB/03
= 389+ 1 .47x320x 14.5 x f\ 90x9.1 = 389 + 283

= 672kN > tf}c =615kN OK
Hence ADOPT 2 - 90x8 stiffeners
5. 4.2. 5 Column Web Shear Stiffeners

Check the need for shear stiffeners to the
column web between the top and bottom flanges of
the haunched rafter. The AISC
method [2] does not check for combined shear and bending,
and so AS4100 is preferred in this book for checking the need for shear stiffeners.
need for column web shear stiffeners may be

The procedure for checking the
summarised as follows.
1. Select the design actions

2. Determine the shear capacity in the absence of bending
3 . Check interaction of shear and bending
4. Design diagonal stiffener
5. Design web doubler plate
1. Design Actions
Take the design shear force V* for the section of column between the top and bottom
maximum force at the top flange level. Shear stiffeners are
flanges of the haunch as the
required if
K - N}c ,N*n > tvvm

J J ma>l
ii
587 kN (top flange)
n 615 kN (top flange)
Hence
v; = 615 kN
2. Determine Shear Capacity in Ab sence of Bending

457-2x14.5 AS4100CI. 5.11.2
9.1
82
= 47 < = 72
320
V 250
Hence
<pVv =0.9x0 .efywAvc
Awe = (rfc “ 2tfc)twc
o
Q
fVv = 0.9x0.6x320x(457 - 2xl4.5)x9.1 N . AS4100 Cl. 5.11.4
= 673 kN > V’ = 615 kN OK
3. Check Interaction of Shear and Bending
Assume web is unstiffened to determine (Vvm AS4100 Cl. 5.12
(Ms = 448 kNm

. M' — 423 kNm (moment in column at underside of haunch from
second order analysis)
> 0.15 (Mb = 336 kNm
- \.6M* 1.6x423
'j
"]
fVvm = 0K 2 2 . = 673 x 2 2 - . AS4100 Cl. 5.13.3
(M i J 448 J
= 464 kN < V'c -615 kN NG
However, the web is actually stiffened by transverse stiffeners at the top and bottom
flange level of the rafter haunch. Therefore, check the web panel in accordance with
Appendix I of AS41 00.
Check Yielding Using AS4J00 Appendix I
Axial force onfull column section = 105 kN (tension)
Moment column at underside of haunch = 423 kNm

in
Depth of web between flanges dp = 457 - 2x14.5 = 428 mm

Proportion of axial force carried by web N*w
428x9.1x105
= 43.0 kN
9520
Proportion of moment taken by web M* v
_ S web M*
2
428 x 9.1 x 423
3
= 106 kNm
u full section 4 x 1660 x 10
Al Ml.
fw = + 0.77 x
A wc
3 6
43 x 1 0.77 x 106 x IQ x6
2
= 11 +293 = 304 MPa
428x9.1 428 x 9.1
& =0
Therefore, yielding check reduces to
/; 2
ywc
M,
Hence
, x
A !SC DPFB/03
2
615xl0 3 )
f304> Tf
, i
1 14,100 + 30,800
1 0-9 ) 1^0.9x428x9.1 J
= 114,900 > 320 2 = 102,400 NG
As web fails the yielding check, there is no point in proceeding with the buckling check
Diagonal shear stiffeners or web doubler plates are required.
4. Diagonal Stiffener Design
Design the diagonal stiffener for excess of the shear force over capacity such that
*
N
cos 6
where 6 is the angle between the diagonal and the horizontal stiffeners
' =‘“-'(
H)= 56 20
-
N*„ _ 615-464 Sect. 4.7. 3.2 [2]

==271kN
cos 0 cos56.2°
Consider a diagonal stiffener on one side only to avoid obstruction of roof and wall
bracing in bracing bays. The orientation of the diagonal is such that it will be in
compression under the worst case (LC21 ).
Try a 90x10 stiffener welded at its ends and along its full length Sect. 4. 7.3. 2 [2]
=0
r
Ae
b
— — Ll = 9.9 < /?cy
= 14 AS4100 Cl. 6.2.3
t 250
Hence
be — b = 90 mm
0 VS = 0.9x90x10x300 N
= 243 kN < N*s = 271 kN NG
Could try 100x10 diagonal stiffener on one side

However, a web doubler plate would provide less obstruction to the knee joint bolts.
5. Web Doubler Plate Design

Try 6 mm thick web doubler plate. A web doubler plate on one side of the web is butt
welded to the column flanges and the design capacity (f>Vv is determined as for the column
web but using the combined thickness of the column web and the web doubler plate.
Hence
W, = 0.9x0 -2 t fc )
where fy( / is the yield stress of the doubler plate of thickness tWd
Hence
<f>Vv = 0.9 x 0.6 x (457 - 2 x 14.5) x (9.1 x 320 + 6 x 250) N = 1019 kN

Now check interaction of shear and bending (assuming the web is unstiffened) to
determine <f>Vvm . Ignore doubler plate in determining 0MS.
Therefore
jz M, ~ 448 kNm
M’ = 423 kN > 0.75 x^ = 336 kNm
Hence
1.6x423 ^
fVnn = 1019 x 2 2 - . = 702 kN > V] = 615 kN
448 ,
Therefore ADOPT 6 mm thick web doubler plate on one side of the column web
5.4.3 Ridge Connection
The moments, axial forces and shears for Member 4 for the various load combinations are
given in Table 5.2. The design actions for Member 5 on the other side of the ridge are
essentially the same. The steps for the design of the ridge connection in this design example
are as follows:
1. Select the design actions

2. Check the bolt capacity
3. Check the plate strength
4. Design the flange welds
5. Design the web welds
1. Desien Actions for LC21
Design actions to maximise N

M‘ =125.3 kNm
N' — 64.6 kN (tension positive)
V *
- -0.5 kN < 40 kN minimum
Hence
V* = 40 kN
Check the 30% minimum flexural capacity AS4100 Cl. 9.1.4(vi)

M 30 %= 0.30x222 = 66.6 kNm, but not critical because less than M'
N/ = *
xcos3°+— xcos3°+ — xsin3° =400kN
'
0.352-0.010 2 2
'
= 64.6 x sin3° + 40 x cos3° = 43 kN
**
V c
Standard AISC bolted moment end plates for a 360UB45 have:
• 8 - M24 8.8/TB bolts

• 180x32 end plates
However, try 8-M20 8.8/TB bolts and a 180^25 plate
Table 5.2 Design Actions for Ridge Joint
Load Moment Axial Force Shear Force V"

Combination M* N‘ kN
kNm kN
-38.7 -2.0
LC20; 1.25DL + 1.5LL 131.2
1PCW -0.5
LC21: 0.8DL + CW1 + -125.3 64.6
LC22: 0.8DL + CW2 + IPCW 60.7 39.4 2.1
LC23: 1.25DL + CW2 + IPCW 117.9 -57.7 8.3
LC24: 0.8DL + LW1 + IPLW 82.5 51.1 3.3
-49.8
LC25: 1.25DL+LW2 + ISLW 135.0 1.7
2. Check Bolt Capacity
The bolt size must be such that
Sect. 4.8.3. 2 [2]

Np < W*
K<
N} = 400 kN
t
V'c = 43 kN
Try 4 - M20 8.8/TB bolts at each flange
kpr
- 0.30
4x163
1.30
= 502 kN > N*f = 400 kN OK

, *
= 370 kN > = 43 kN OK
Hence ADOPT 8 - M20 8.8/TB bolts
3. Check Plate Strength
N AS4100 Sect. 4.83.3 [2]
Try 180x25 end plate
Mfyjbjtt
<f>Npb
°fe
fyi
= 250 MPa
bi = 180 mm
U = 25 mm
afe = Of - ~~ = 60 - —
20
= 50 mm
2
0.9 x 250x 180x 25
0 Pb
= ^ N
= 506 kN > N ft
= 267 kN OK
jVpv = 2tp Q.SfyibiU = 2x0.9x0.5x250x 1 80x25 N
= 1012 kN > N} = 400 kN t
OK
Hence ADOPT 180x25 end plates
4. Design Flange Welds
[NfiFfc] <
•Note that the design actions N^ and N*yc for the design of the welds have different
values from those for the design of the bolts and end plates as discussed in the knee joint
design.
For a 360UB45: kmw =0.18 TableE.2[2]

kw = 0.42
Hence
3°
_ (l -0.18)x 125.3 x cos3° (l-0.42)x64.6xcos3° 40 x sin
+ +
0.352-0.010 2 2
= 300 + 19 + 1 = 320 kN
Try 6 E48XX SP fillet welds to flanges
0w = 2 L w fVw
<f>Vw - design capacity of fillet weld per unit length
AtSC DPFB/03 Design Example - Frame Connections 137
= 0.978 kN/mm .
Appendix B [2]
Hence
0NW =2x171x0.978
= 334 kN > N*fl = 320 kN OK
Hence ADOPT 6 E48XX SP fillet welds to flanges
5 . Design Web Welds
Sect. 4.8.3. 1 [2]
Lw = db - 2tjb = 352 - 2x9.7 = 333 mm

3
- 0-42x64.6 + 3 x 0.18 x 125.3 x 10

+ IMjtL
*
Vz ~~ 2 2
2L W Lw 2x333 333
= 0.041 + 0.610 = 0.651 kN/mm

64-6
v
*
= = 0.097 kN/mm
y 2 x 333
Therefore
2 2
=0.66 kN/mm
J v ; + Vy
Try 6 E48XX SP fillet welds to web
= 0.978 kN/mm Table E.2 [2]

fi>w
2 2
> -Jv* +v* = 0.66 kN/mm OK
o
ADOPT the following ridge connection:
• 8 - M20 8.8/TB bolts
• 90 mm gauge
• 130 mm pitch
• 180x25 end plate
• E48XX SP fillet welds to flange
• E48XX SP fillet welds to web
5.4.4 Base Plates
The steps for the design of the base plate in this design example are as follows:
1 . Select the design actions

2. Check the bolt capacity
3. Check the plate capacity for axial tension in the column
4. Design the welds
.5. Check the plate capacity for axial compression in the column
Check standard AISC base plate: •

AISC [2]
• 560x230x25 plate
. 4 - M24 4.6/S bolts
• 400 mm pitch .
• 130 mm gauge f
1. Select Design Actions
As the portal frame has been designed as a pinned base frame, there are theoretically no
bending moments at the base. The axial forces and shear forces for various load
combinations are given in Table 5.3.
Table 5.3 Design Actions for Base Plate
Load Axial Force N *

Shear Force V*
Combination kN kN
LC20: 1.25DL + 1.5LL 83.0 38.6
LC21: 0.8DL + CW1 + IPCW -94.7 67.7
LC22: Q.8DL + CW2 + IPCW -54.6 45.9

-12.0 -25.3
LC23: 1.25DL + CW2 + ISCW 61.6 -16.1

105 -55.8
LC24: 0.8DL + LW1 + IPLW -44.5 -12.1
LC25: 1.25DL + LW2 + ISLW 93.4 39.1
2. Check Bolt Capacity
N* < <f>N tb Sect. 4.12.6 [2]
where
N‘ = the design tension in the column

fN,b = the capacity of the bolt group in tension
(A/,*) = 94.7 kN
V' = 67.7 kN
For 4 - M24 4.6/S bolts
<f>N,b =4x113
AISC DPFB/03
= 452 kN > N* = 94.7 kN OK

but check for combined shear and tension per bolt
N'f =
94 7
— =23.7 kN
—
|
V’• = = 16.9kN
4
Table A2A [2]
jNtf = 113 kN (M24 4.6/S)
Table A2A [2]
<pvf = 64.3 kN (M24 4.6/S)
manual [2]
Linear interaction is favoured in the AISC connections
circular interaction in AS4100. Sect. 5A 2.4 [2]
over the less conservative
Therefore
H2 + l^ = 0.47 <1.0 OK
113 64.3
Hence ADOPT 4 - M24 4. 6/S holding down bolts
in concrete footings treated in Chapter 7.

Anchorage of the holding down bolts is
Check Plate Ren dine Capacity for Te nsion in Column

3.
N] <[0Ns , 0w ]
tension in column
<j)Ns ~ design strength of steel base plate in bending due to axial
(see Figure 5.12)
_ v !h Sect. 4.12.4 [2]
Ssg 2
UB’s and WB’s for which 4l bfo < d* Refer to the AISC
This formula applies to
connections manual [2] for cases where -Jl b/0 > dc .
Therefore
2
0.9x 4x 190 x 250 x25 x4
^ s ~
72x130x2x1000
= 1163 kN > N* = 94.7 kN OK
Could adopt a thinner base plate than the standard AISC
base plate which is 25 thick. mm
thick if the mm
design tension of 94.7 kN were the
In fact, the base plate could be 12
frames provide some moment restraint
only consideration. However, the bases of portal
base plate will assist in
which improves the stiffness of the frames, and a thicker
base plates is an advantage during
providing restraint. In addition, some robustness of
erection.
Hence ADOPT a 20 mm thick base plate

4. Check Welds
N* <
0NW = design capacity of fillet weld at base of column subject to axial tension in
column
= ^vwL w
Lw = total length of fillet weld around column section profile
Try 6 E48XX SP fillet welds

jNw = 0.978x(2x2x 1 90 + 428x2) Sect. 4. 12.4 [2]
= 1580 kN > N* = 94.7 kN OK

Note that the above method for determining the weld capacity between the column and
base plate does not allow for concentration of force in the welds in the vicinity of the
bolts. As full redistribution of the forces in the welds to mobilise the full weld length is
unlikely, it is recommended that a shorter length of weld be assumed.
nb = 4
Figure 5.12: Base Plate Arrangement
Portal frame columns are generally lightly loaded unless there are heavy crane or
machinery loads. A check on the base plate and top of the concrete footing due to
compression is not warranted (Section 4.12.3 [2]).
5.4.5 End Wall Column Connections
5:4.5. 1 General
centre column needs
Apart from designing for different forces, the connection at the top of the
top of the quarter-point column because of
to be treated differently from the connection
at the
the presence of bolted moment end plates a: the apex. As these plates project below the apex,
is greater. Another difference is
the eccentricity of connection at the top of the centre column
is necessary to design rafter stiffeners above the quarter-point columns to transfer the
that it
shear from the top of the column to the bracing plane.
The base plates and holding down bolts can be designed conventionally for the applied
forces. Sometimes two holding down bolts are sufficient but four bolts can be necessary for
detailing purposes if there end wall bracing in order to avoid obstruction of the wall bracing
is
In this design example, end wall bracing is not required because the
typical portal
cleats.
frame is also used for the end frames.
The design of the top connections for the central and quarter-point end wall columns is
dealt with in the following sections.
+ +
+ +
Bracing plone
+ +
+ +
+ "+
+ +
Li
1 to
r
200
Figure 5.13 Connection of Cental End Wall Column to Rafter at Apex
5. 4.5. 2 Centre Column - Top Connection

Refer to Figure 5.13
Maximum UDL = (0.7 + 0.65)x 1.02x6.25 = 5.61 kN/m

—
142 Frame Connections A ISC DPFB/03
8.155
Reaction at top of column = 8.6 1 x = 35.1 kN
Eccentricity of top connection = 350 mm

Moment to be carried by bolt group f 35.1x0.35 = 12.3 kNm
lx, bon group
= 2x2x35 = 4900 mm 2
2
ly, bolt group = 2x2x70 2 = 19,600 mm 2

Ip, bolt group Ix + ly ~ 24,500 mm
Horizontal component
3
35.1 12.3 x 10 x 35
+ = 26.3 kN
4 24,500
Vertical component
J
12.3x 1Q x 70
= 35.1 kN
24,500
Resultant
2 2
V) = V26.3 + 35.1 = 43.9 kN
tpVf = 0.8x0.62x830x225 N
= 92.6 kN > V) = 43.9 kN OK
Could try 2-M20 8.8/S bolts but adopt 4 - M20 8.8/S bolts .
5.4.5 .3 Quarter-Point Columns - Top Connection
1. Check Bolts
Reaction = 35.1 kN say
Eccentricity = 230 mm
Moment of bolt group = 35.1x0.230 = 8.1 kNm
351
Resultant force = +
. 2
= 60.5 kN < 92.6 kN
Hence ADOPT 2 - M20 8.8/S bolts
2. Check Sti ffeners for Rafter
—0.36 = 6.3 kNm

'
base of stiffener = 35.1 x

,
Moment at
Design Example — Frame Connections 143
AISC DPFB/03
Figure 5.14: Quarter-Point Column to Rafter

Connection
For 75x10 stiffeners straddling a 7 mm web:

2
0.9 x 300 x 157 x 10
fMsx
=
J
= 16.6 kNm > 6.3 kNm OK
Hence ADOPT 75x10 stiffeners each side at the quarter-point
5.5 References
rd
Australian Institute of Steel Construction (1985).

Standardized Structural Connections, 3
1.
edn,AISC, Sydney. . . .* ,
Connections, 4 edn.,
2. Hogan, T.J. and Thomas, I.R. (1994) Design of Standardized Structural
AISC, Sydney.
3. Standards Australia (1998). AS4100 Steel Structures, SA, Sydney.
144 AISC DPFB/03
6 Roof & Wall Bracing
6.1 General
wind forces by in-plane flexure, but longitudinal wind forces acting
Portal frames resist cross
bracing to the side walls and thence to the
on the end walls must be transferred via roof
foundations, as shown in Figure 6.1.
slender
Roof and wall bracing often consist of panels of double diagonals which are so
compression, as shown in Figure 6.2. Such members include
as to have negligible capacity in
pretensioned rods, slender tubes and angles. In the design of
double diagonal tension bracing,
shown in Figure 6.1, depending
one of each pair of diagonals is assumed to act in tension as
usually ignored. In addition to
on the direction of wind loading, and the other diagonal is
own weight whether by cable action
tension forces, roof bracing diagonals have to carry their
the case of rods, or by beam action in the case of tubes and angles.
in
Nodal forces on
As common as tension bracing is, there is not a widely accepted method of design
References
which accounts for tension and self weight. This problem was investigated in [1]
and and the results are presented in this chapter.

[2],
145
146 Roof & Wall Bracing AISC DPFB/03
Figure 6.2 Double Diagonal Bracing Module
6.2 Erection Procedure

Portal frames can collapse during construction if adequate care is not taken to use
permanent
or temporary bracing to withstand wind gusts. The procedure to be used varies from
building
to building depending on the type and location of the permanent roof and
wall bracing bays
and whether the end wall frame is a braced frame or a portal frame.
For example, if the permanent bracing consists of single diagonal tension bracing in
each end bay as shown in Figure 6.6(V), the structure will not be stable until the two ends
are
tied together by purlins. In this case, temporary diagonals would need to be used so that there
isdouble diagonal bracing at each end until the two bracing bays are connected by purlins.
It
follows that such bracing is unlikely to be economical.
6.3 Forces
6.3.1 Longitudinal Wind Forces
The primary function of a triangulated roof and wall bracing system is to withstand
longitudinal wind forces. By means of the bracing system, the forces on the upper half of the
end walls, and the frictional drag forces on the roof and side walls, are transferred to the side
wall bracing and thence to the foundations.
6.3.2 Rafter Bracing Forces

In addition to the longitudinal wind forces, the bracing system could also be considered as
resisting accumulated, coincidental purlin or fly brace forces. When the top flange is in
compression, the purlins act as braces whereas fly braces restrain the bottom flange when it is
in compression. However, it is unclear whether the bracing forces
should be accumulated.
Purlins and fly braces together could be considered as providing a rotational restraint
system
in accordance with Clause 5.4.3.2 of AS4100. In this case, it would
not be necessary to treat
the compression flanges of rafters as parallel restrained members in accordance
with Clause
5.4. 3.3, and therefore it would not be necessary to accumulate the
forces. On the other hand,
purlins and fly braces could be considered as providing restraint against lateral
deflection of
Forces 147
AISC DPFB/03
compression flange (Clause 5.4.3.1) and in this case the bracing forces would be
the
accumulated.
compare roof of bracing forces is

trusses as far as accumulation
It is interesting to
of large span roof trusses under net
concerned. The bottom compression chord of a series
bays by a system of struts or ties. In this case,
uplift is usually braced back to
the end bracing
accumulated and then combined with forces due to longitudinal
the bracing forces should be
usually regarded as being braced by purlins
wind When the top chord is in compression, it is
Logically, the top chord bracing forces should also
be
back to the end bracing bays.
generally due to gravity loads, there
accumulated, but as the compression in the top chord is
are no other longitudinal forces in
combination and so the loads on the end bracing bays are
not likely to be critical.
Itcould be similarly argued that the top or bottom flange

bracing forces of UB or WB
compression, should also be accumulated. However, even if the
rafters, whichever flange is in
(as opposed to the rotational restraint
argument argument) is accepted, the
lateral restraint
the total longitudinal force for portal
accumulated bracing forces are usually a small part of
reasonable for UB or WB rafters to ignore
frame buildings. It is therefore considered
accumulated bracing forces in the design of the roof and wall bracing bays.
6.4 BRACING PLANE

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

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

is smaller than the typical rafter, or if it is
discontinuous
at end wall columns. This can be overcome if the second bays from the end are
braced
(Option but extra struts will be needed in the end bays to transfer the loads from
III),
the end
wall columns to the braced bays (unless the purlins can double as struts).
If the typical (internal) portal frame is also used for the

end frames without a reduction
in member size, the detailing difficulties in theend bays do not arise, and both end bays can
be braced. As discussed in Section 4.7, the use of the typical portal frame for the end
frames
has a number of advantages. Although the frame itself will be heavier, this approach
avoids
the need for end wall bracing. Any extra tonnage if priced rationally will be repetitive
and
should be reflected in lower rates.
Figure 6.3 Bracing at Top Flange Level

0
AISC DPFB/03 Bracing Layout 149
+
< >
+_
Non-standard
—
clearance
Figure 6.4 Bracing at Top Flange Using Uncrossed Diagonals

(Appropriate for Layout Options II and V)
+
<> e
10 1r
Standard
clearance
Figure 6.5 Bracing Plane at Mid-Height of Rafter
Therefore, the choice of bracing bays is influenced by the choice of the end wall
frame. Five different bracing layout options are shown in Figure 6.6. It can be seen that in
Options II and V, single (uncrossed) diagonals have been used. This an advantage if
is
diagonals are tubes which cannot easily be crossed, or if there is insufficient clearance under
purlins to cross angles back to back, as discussed in the previous section. With Options I, III
and IV, each set of double diagonals could be replaced by a more costly single diagonal
compression member to overcome clearance problems.
The use of purlins as struts to transfer end wall wind loads is possible in Options III
and IV, but this is not as inherently sound as using independent tubular struts. Independent
struts are not attached to the roof sheeting, and do not rely on the presence of roof sheeting to
brace against buckling. It is obviously preferable for a steel building to have a skeleton which
will continue standing if the roof sheeting blows off. This may not be the case if purlins are
used as struts. Using purlins as struts is conditional on the purlins having sufficient reserve
capacity in bending to take the axial compression, as discussed in Section 3.6.
150 Roof & Wall Bracing A1SC DPFB/03
No intermediate
struts needed -
X
X
XIXIXIXI
X NXNXI
X
I. Two End Bays Braced II. Double Diagonal Bracing
over Two Boys at Each End
Struts n
X1
X
X
X
III. Bracing in Second Bay IV. One Boy Braced
from Each End Rafter
V. Single Diagonal Tension

Bracing at Each End
Figure 6.6 Bracing Layout Options

AISC DPFB/03 Bracing Layout 151
A summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the various options is as follows.
Option I: Two End Bays Braced
• This is the simplest and most direct option.
• Intermediate eaves and ridge struts are sometimes used as shown dashed. However,
purlins are usually sufficient to brace internal rafters so that no intermediate struts are
required.
• Longitudinal wind loads, as a combination of pressure on the windward wall, suction on

the leeward wall and friction, could be shared between braced bays if purlins have the
capacity to transfer some compression load from one end to the other. However, it is
recommended that the bracing at each end be designed to resist loads from external
pressure and internal suction on the adjacent end wall (plus half of the frictional drag
forces if applicable). This keeps the purlin design simple as purlins can then be designed
without considering combined actions.
• Diagonals are crossed which means that CHS sections, which are efficient as long ties
under self weight, cannot easily be used. This option also excludes the use of the top
flange as a bracing plane with angle diagonals crossed back to back unless higher purlin
cleats are used.
• End bay bracing can have detailing difficulties at the end wall rafter as discussed in
Sections 4.7 and 6.4.
Option II: Double Diagonal Bracing Over Two Bays at Each End
• Diagonals intersect at rafters and therefore tubes can be used as diagonals without
difficulty if they are not crossed.
• The number of diagonals is the same as for Option I but more struts are required.
Option III:_Second Bay from Each End Braced
• This option can overcome any detailing difficulties associated with end bay bracing but
extra struts are required to transfer the end wall wind loads to the braced bays unless the
purlins can act as struts.
Option IV: One Bav Braced

• '
Struts in the unbraced bays are required to transfer end wall wind loads to the braced bay
which is expensive unless the purlins can act as struts.
Option V: Single Diagonal Tension Bracing at Each End

• Unstable during erection.
• The windward braced bay takes all of the longitudinal wind loads.
• Purlins are usually sufficient to brace internal rafters as in Option I. Leeward end wall
forces are transmitted to the active braced bay at the windward end by purlins in tension.
• Tubes can be used for diagonals without difficulty as they are not crossed.
• Single diagonal rods with tumbuckles should not be used as there is nothing to tension
against.
• Temporary diagonals may be necessary to create a double diagonal bracing system for
erection purposes in which case there is little advantage in a single diagonal system.
6.6 Tension Rods

Rods cater for the lower end of the range of tensile forces, and are very common in light
industrial buildings. Rods differ from tubes and angles in that they must be pretensioned to
reduce their self weight sag. However, there are certain aspects of rod pretensioning which
are not widely understood. The aspects which need to be considered are as follows.
• The minimum level of pretension force needed to reduce the sag sufficiently to
avoid undue axial slack in the rod.
• The level of pretension used in practice.
• The effect of pretension on the tensile capacity.
• The effect of pretension on the end connections, and on the adjacent struts in the
roof bracing system, when wind loads are applied.
In addressing these questions, it was suggested at one stage [3] that a pretension of
10% to 15% of the allowable axial force would reduce sag to an acceptable level. This
corresponded to a pretension of about 10% of the design axial force for the strength limit state.
More recent advice [4] suggests pretension forces should be 10% to 15% of the yield capacity.
While these levels of pretension may be adequate, it is not practical to measure or control the
prestress level in practice. To answer the questions above properly, it is necessary to examine
the behaviour of pretensioned rods in some detail.
Long rods behave like cables whose self-weight is carried by tension alone; the tension
being inversely proportional to the sag. For small sags in roof bracing situations, the tensile
stress/ versus sagyc relationship has been shown [2] to be independent of the rod diameter,
fl ,
and is given by
f ot = 9.62 x 1CT
6
x0-j MPa (6.1)
in which L is the length of the rod and bothyc and L are in mm. This relationship is presented
graphically in Figure 6.7. Using this equation, it can be demonstrated a rod is
that as
tensioned, very little force is required to reduce the sag until the sag gets to about span/100.
The rod then begins to stiffen suddenly and behave as a straight tension member. This is
shown graphically in Figure 6.8. Therefore, the maximum sag of a rod to avoid undue axial
slack should be about span/100. Surprisingly, a stress of only 20 MPa is required to reduce
the sag of a 20 metre cable
L/100 deflection. However, typical stress levels in practice
to the
could be much higher as experiments at The University of Queensland have indicated
[2],
In these experiments [2], six different laboratory technicians were asked to tighten rods
ranging in diameter from 12 mm to 24 mm with spans up to 13 metres long. They were told
to tighten the nuts as if they were working on site. Once tightened at one end, the force in the
rod was measured with a calibrated proving ring connected to the other end. The experiments
revealed that the average level of pretension force was well in excess of the value of 10% to
AISC DPFB/03 Tension Rods 153
15% suggested in Reference [4]. In fact, it was found that 16 mm diameter rods were
tensioned close to their design capacity, while 20 mm rods were tensioned to between 40%
and 55% of their design tensile capacity. Because of these unexpectedly high pretension
forces, excessive sag is not a problem, even for a 20 metre span.
The presence of pretension does not affect the ultimate tensile capacity of the rod
itself. However, there are a few other factors that need to be considered in the design of roof
bracing rods.
In some cases of over-tensioning, the active tension diagonal may yield under the
serviceability wind load, although yielding will relieve the pretension in the system to some
extent. Fortunately, the fracture capacity of the threaded section exceeds the yield capacity of
the rod itself as shown in Table M12 rod). This means that the main body of
6.1 (except for an
the rod will generally yield before failure of the tumbuckle section. Because of the
pretension, the rod connections should be designed so that their ultimate or fracture capacity is
equal to or greater than the ultimate or fracture capacity of the rods. This is particularly
important because oversized rods are often used. For example, a 20 mm
diameter rod may be
used because of its robustness where only a 16 mm
diameter rod is required. This philosophy
for the end connection design of rods is covered in Clause 9.1.4(b)(iii) of AS4100.
Pretensioning could also result in overloading of the struts in the roof bracing system,
especially if rods larger than that required are used. A check should therefore be made in the
design of the struts to cater for forces in the diagonals- due to combined pretension and wind
load as shown in the design example.
AISC DPFB/03
Table 6. 1 Tensile Capacity of Rods
Unthreaded Tensile Threaded Governing

Shank Yield Ultimate Shank Shank Stress Rod Tensile Tensile
Diameter Stress Stress Area Yield Load Area Capacity Capacity
D fy fu $Arfy A, 0,/
mm MPa MPa mm 2 kN mm 2 kN kN
(^0.9) (#=0.8)
12 300 440 113 30.5 84.3 29.7 29.7
16 300 440 201 54.3 157 55.3 54.3
20 300 440 314 84.8 245 86.2 84.8

’
24 300 440 452 122 353 124 122
30 300 440 706 191 561 197 191
36 300 440 1016 274 817 288 274
Effective axial strain AL/l
Figure 6.8 Effective Axial Stiffness of Cables or Rods

A1SC DPFB/03 Tension Rods 155
In summary, unsupported roof bracing rods may be designed as though they are fully
supported with pretension ignored, but the connections and struts should be designed for the
ultimate design capacity of the diagonals. A
typical connection detail is shown in Figure 6.9.
It isnot necessary to slot the end cleat to create a concentric end detail, unless there are
aesthetic reasons to do so. The tensile capacities of rods of Grade 300 steel are given in Table
6 . 1 .
~nrzn
r .
n: |
35 70 50
E=
Figure 6.9 Typical End Connection for Rods
6.7 Tubes and Angles in Tension

In contrast to rods, tubes and angles are not easily pretensioned and must be sized as beams to
limit self weight sag. The uncertainties for designers, as far as tube and angle section
members are concerned, are firstly the effect of self weight bending on tensile capacity, and
secondly deflection limits. Some engineers combine self weight bending actions with axial
tensile actions, while many engineers intuitively ignore the bending actions.
It can be shown theoretically [2] that self weight bending has a marginal effect on the
ultimate fracture capacity of a tube or angle. This is because the sag and self-weight bending
moments reduce as the tension increases. It can therefore be concluded that self-weight
bending actions need not be considered in combination with axial tension.
As proposed for rods, a maximum suggested to avoid undue slack.

sag of span/100 is
However, it is advisable to limit deflections to span/150 to avoid lack of fit without propping
during erection, and for aesthetic reasons. Note that even with a span/150 deflection, there is
occasionally concern expressed during construction as the sag can be quite evident if one
sights along the member. The sag is not generally obvious from floor level. 1 ables 6.2 and
6.3 give themaximum spans for the various families of tubes based on a maximum sag of
span/150 whereas the maximum spans for span/150 sag for individual CHS and SHS members
are given in Tables 6.6 to 6.12 inclusive. Table 6.4 gives maximum spans and tension
capacities for individual angles.
the designer has the option of suspending the diagonals from the purlins,
Of course,
but very flexible diagonals (other than rods) can be difficult to erect before the purlins are in
place because of lack of fit. If the purlins are erected first, the stability of the portal frames
without bracing may be inadequate and lifting the diagonals into place will be more difficult
because of obstruction from the purlins. Furthermore, the extra labour necessary to drill and
suspend may cost more than the material saved. The effect of purlin uplift loads on the
capacity of diagonals should also be taken into account. With all these factors considered,
suspending very flexible diagonals from purlins is not recommended.
A1SC DPFB/03
Table 6.2 Maximum Length of CHS Tension

Ties for Span/150 Deflection
Outside L max forL/ipO

Diameter, D Maximum Deflection
mm m
324 25.3
273 22.6
219 19.5
168 16.3
•
165 16.3
140 14.5
114 12.5
102 11.7
89 10.5
76 9.6
60 8.1
48 6.9
42 6.4
Table 6.3 Maximum Length ofSHS Tension Ties

for Span/150 Deflection
Outside L max forL/150

Dimension, B Maximum Deflection
mm m
250 23.3
200 19.9
150 16.2
125 14.2
100 12.0
89 11.4
75 10.0
65 90
50 7.5
35 6.4
AISC DPFB/G3 Tubes in Compression 157
Table 6.4a Maximum Lengths and Tensile Capacities of Equal Angle Tension Ties
Maximum lengths for span/150 sag

MAXIMUM LENGTHS AND TENSILE CAPACITIES e 0
OF EQUAL ANGLE TENSION TIES
Notes:
1 . Deflections are calculated as the vectorial sum of the principal axis deflections.
AISC DPFB/Q3
Table 6.4b Maximum Lengths and Tensile Capacities of Unequal Angle Tension Ties
1 . Unequal angles are assumed to have their long legs perpendicular to the plane of the roof and to be
connected by their short legs.
2. Deflections are calculated as the vectorial sum of the principal axis deflections.
AlSC DPFB/03 Tubes in Compression 159
6.8 Tubes in Compression

The capacity of vertical tubular struts or governed primarily by flexural buckling.
columns is
determined using Section 6 of

For a given effective length, the design capacity must be
AS4100. However, roof bracing struts are generally horizontal and the effects of self weight
bending can be significant. For circular hollow sections (CHS) and square
hollow sections
reduced axial compression capacity tables for horizontal tubular struts under self
(SHS),
weight are presented at the end of this chapter.
The effect of self weight bending moment on axial compression capacity is

demonstrated in Figures 6.10 and 6.1 1 for selected tube sizes. It can be seen that the reduction
in axial capacity due to self weight bending
becomes more pronounced as the strut length
increases. For example, for a 12 metre long 165x5.4 CHS of Grade 250 steel, the reduction in
axial compression capacity is about 34%, while for a

114x4.5 CHS of Grade 250 steel with a
slenderness ratio of 300 (11.7 m long), the reduction is greater than 42%. In summary, the
effect of self weight bending moment in roof bracing compression members cannot be
ignored, and the design capacity tables presented in this chapter
should be used.
>%
LJ
07
O-
ro
<_>
ro
x
OJ
—
c
o
LJ
ZD
TD
<U
CXZ.
IV*
Effective length, L (m)
Figure 6.10 Reduction in Axial Capacity of CHS (Grade 250)

Tubular Struts Due to Self Weight
.
1 60 Roof & Wall Bracing AISC DPFB/03
Effective length, L (m)
Figure 6. 1 1 Reduction in Axial Capacity of SHS (Grade 350)

Tubular Struts Due to Self Weight
The derivation of the loads in these tables is demonstrated in the design example.
Basically, a tube under self weight is adequate to support an axial compression load N" if its
amplified self weight bending moment M‘ is less than or equal to its design capacity <pM{
given by
(fM { = (fM z (6.2)

. We)
By iteration, the load N' for which M '
equals <fM( can be determined. This load is the axial
compression capacity reduced by the effect of self-weight bending and is denoted <fNrc .
The values of M‘ and (fM-t are sensitive to the level of axial load. This means that
manual iteration can be slow. For example, the Grade 350 139.7x3.0 CHS in the design
example has an M *
value of 2.36 kNm and a value of 7.45 kNm for an applied axial load
N‘ of 34.6 kN. The ratio of M‘ /0M, is about 0.32, and yet the ratio N' /0rc (- 34.6/48.5)
is much higher at 0.7 1
AISC DPFB/03 End Connections for Struts & Ties 161
6.9 End Connections for Struts and Ties

6.9.1 Tubes
6.9. 1.1 Tubes in Tension
End connection details vary with the size of the tube and the design load. In practice several
types of end connection detail may be used as shown in Figure 6.12. The simplest detail is to
end of the tube so that a direct bolted connection may be made. This method is
flatten out the
economical, but is only feasible for the smaller tubes and has the penalty of wide ends for
detailing and loss of cross-sectional area when in tension. For tubes larger than 100 mm
diameter, the slotted end detail is often used. A cleat plate is welded into a longitudinal slot in
the tube, and then sealed by two thin cap plates on either side. The length of slot needs to be
calculated in accordance with guidelines in Reference [5] that account for shear lag in the tube
•
wall.
A simpler and possibly more economical detailis to weld a cap plate and cleat, or a
rolled tee, to the endof the tube (see Figure 6.13a). However, there is a high level of stress
concentration in the tube under the cleat and this can limit the capacity of the member. An
r i i
L T 0+20 (min.)
50 70 35
50 70 35
(a) Flattened End (CHS Only) (b) Welded Tee End
* Slot length to be
determined in accordance
with Reference 5
(c) Slotted End Plate
Figure 6.12 Typical Tube End Connections

experimental investigation of the behaviour of this type of end connection for circular hollow
tubes in tension [6] tested 21 end connections using three tubes sizes and a combination of 8
mm and 12 mm cap and cleat plates.
The study revealed that the high localised tensile stress predicted by using a spread
angle of 45° is too conservative. A
more jrealistic yet conservative approach would be to
assume a 60° spread from the toe of the fillet welds to calculate the localised tensile stresses
below the cleat plate, as shown in Figure 6.13b. Tests [6] of the type shown in Figure 6.14
revealed that thin cap plates do not mobilise the full cross-section in tension. Because of this,
and because of the resulting lack of member ductility, care should be taken in using the
welded tee end detail for heavily loaded tubular tension members.
Figure 6. 13 Spread of Stress Through Tube Cap Plate
Figure 6.14 Failure of Welded Tee End Connection

AJSCDPFB/03 End Connections for Struts & Ties 163
Some fabricators prefer using SHS members in lieu of CHS members because the end
connection at one end is more easily aligned in the, same plane as the connection at the other
end. The material cost per tonne for SHS
members also tends to be cheaper than for CHS
members, particularly for the thin-walled CHS members, although this penalty for CHS
members can be offset by weight savings in the thinner-walled CHS members of larger
diameter.
6.9. 1 .2 Tubes in Compression

adequate as tube sizes for struts are
For struts, the cap plate and cleat detail is usually
normally selected on the basis of stability criteria, and the axial compressive stresses
are
therefore quite low. Flattened ends could be used for smaller tubes,
but the width of the
flattened end can create detailing difficulties as previously mentioned.
6.9.2 Angles
Angles are easily connected by bolting through one leg, although such a connection is
eccentric. For tension members, the eccentricity is accounted for in AS4100 by use of
correction factors k, to reduce the effective cross-sectional areas which are then assumed to be
concentrically loaded.
6.10 Eccentricity
Ideally, all member centrelines at a joint in a triangulated bracing system should intersect at a
point, including the intersection of wall and roof bracing diagonals. If eccentricity cannot be
avoided, then the resulting moments will be carried by the members at a joint in proportion to
their flexural stiffnesses, and the members should be checked for these additional bending
moments. Judicious use of eccentricity can simplify detailing considerably without incurring
any penalty in member size [7].
6.1 1 Design Example - Roof and Wall Bracing

6.11.1 Longitudinal Forces
6.11.1.1 General
For the roof bracing layout shown in Figure 6.15, the bracing at each end should be designed
for the following longitudinal forces:
• The forces on the adjacent end wall due to external pressure and internal suction.
• Half of the total longitudinal drag on the roof and the upper half of the side walls.
AISC DPFB/03
It can be argued that the combined longitudinal wind forces on both end walls could be
shared equally between the two end bracing systems. This would require some of the purlins
adjacent to each end wall column to have sufficient capacity in compression to balance any
internal suction forces on the end walls, and to transfer some of the force at the more highly
loaded windward end to the leeward end. Whether sharing of the end wall forces is adopted or
not is a matter of design philosophy. Relying on purlins to carry compressive forces from
primary loads such as end wall wind loads is not as inherently sound as using a roof bracing
system which is independent of the roof sheeting as discussed in Section 6.5.
X
X X
X
X
X X
X
8 © 9000 = 72000
Figure 6.15 Roof Bracing Layout
6 11 1.2
. . Forces due to Longitudinal Wind
(a) Forces on End Walls
Cp e (external pressure) = +0.7 AS1 170.2 Table 3.4.3.1(A)

Cpj (internal suction) = -0.65 AS1 170.2 Table 3.4.3.1(C)
The longitudinal forces at the ridge, quarter points and the eaves AS1 170.2 Cl. 3.2.3
2
using the 0.95 wind direction factor are as follows:
8.7 + 8.35 2
Fridge = (0.7 + 0.65)xl.02x x 6.25x0.95 =33.1 kN
2x2
8.35 2
p 1/4 point = (0.7 + 0.65)x 1 .02 x x 6.25 x 0.95 =32.4kN
peaves = (0.7 + 0.65)x 1.02 x M x + 0.5 X 0.95 2 = 18.0 kN

j
(b) Frictional Drag AS1 170.2 Cl. 3.4.8
d
-
h
= —=
72
8.7
8.3 >4
h = 8.7 m < b = 25 m
Hence use Equation 3.4.8(1) AS1170.2
Trimdek is closer to being corrugated than being ribbed like Kliplok.
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Roof & Wall Bracing 165
F ..
‘ ridge
= Ful/4point .
= 0.02 x 1 .02 x 6.25 x (72
'
- 4 x 8.7)x 0.95
'
2
ASI 170.2 Cl. 3. 4.8(1)
= 4.3 kN
F eflVRS = roof c ° mp° nent + wall component

( f\
= >! 0.02 x 1.02 x -hO.sjx (72 -4x8.7)
- 4 x 8.7) x 0.95 2
0.02 x 1 .02 x
-y x (72 j
= 5.2kN
Assume that the frictional drag forces are equally shared by the two bracing systems.
Hence nodal forces due to longitudinal wind are:
JW = 33.1
+ ^ =35.3 kN
P,Mpo,», = 32.4+^ = 34.6 kN
P~. =18.0 + ^=20.6kN
Figure 6.16 RoofStrut and Diagonal Member Forces

6. 1 1 . 1 .3 Forces due to Rafter Bracing

As discussed in Section 6.3.2 of this chapter, accumulated longitudinal forces due to rafter
bracing are ignored in the design of roof and wall bracing systems in the design example.
6. 1 1 . 1 .4 Forces in Roof Bracing Members

The forces in roof bracing members can be simply calculated by the method of joints. Figure
6.16 shows the applied forces and the corresponding member forces.
6.11.2 Struts
For simplicity, take the effective length as the distance between intersection points or grids
although the smaller distance between the centres of the end connections could be adopted.
Consider strut S3 in Figure 6.16.
AT = 35.3 kN
=
• Try a 114x5.4 Grade 250 CHS (14.5 kg/m)
K -Sfy = 64.1xl0 x250 Nmm -

3
16.03 kNm AS4100 Cl. 5.2.1
= kj-A n fy = 1.00x1850x250 N = 463 kN AS4100 Cl. 6.2.1
He AS4100 Cl. 6.3.3
4 = 9000 mm
4 = 9000 x. 250 =234 1
AS4100 Cl. 6.6.3

38.5 Y 250
ab = -0.5 (cold-formed section) AS4100 Table 6.3.3(1)
ac = 0.137 AS4100 Table 6.3.3(3)
K = 0.137x463 = 63.4 kN
2
K = 1.25 x 0.142 x
9.0
8
= 1.80 kNm
where 1 .25 is the load factor for dead load
2
/r x2xl0* x2.75xlO fi
^ omb = 2
AS4100 Cl. 4.6.2
9000 xlOOO
4 =2 ' n AS4100 Cl. 4. 4. 2. 2.
% 35.3
67.0
As 5b exceeds 1.4, AS4100 requires a second order elastic analysis to be used to determine
the design bending moments. However, it has been shown [8] that <% closely
approximates its more accurate value of (l + 0.0377” / Nomb )/(l -77* / Nomb ]
for struts under
AS4100 will be adopted in

self-weight, and so the simpler expression in Clause 4.4.2.2 of
this book.
M' = 2.11x1.80 = 3.80 kNm

35.3
jMj =0.9x16.03x11
(
—
0.9x63.4,
= 5.50 kNm > M* =3.80 kNm OK

may use Table 6.6b to select a suitable section. Table 6.6b
Alternatively, the designer
shows that the capacity is 39.6 kN.
• Try a 139.7x3.0 Grade 350 CHS (10.1 kg/m)
M s
= 53.3xl0 x350Nmm=3
18.66 kNm AS4100 Cl. 8. 3.1
(Note: section is non-compact)
77-
5
= 1.0xl290x— =452kN
1000
Le = 9000 mm
r
y
— 48.3 mm
fy = 350 MPa
=-0.5 AS4100 Table 6.3.3(1)
^
A = 1290 mm 2
An =220
ac =0.153
77c = 69.1 kN
2
9 0
M'm = 1.25x0.099 x-^- = 1.25 kNm
8
2 5 6
7T x2x 10 x 3.0 lx 10
Nomb 2
N = 73.4 kN AS4100 Cl. 4.6.2
9000
AS4100 Cl. 4.2.2

4 35.3
1.93
1
-
73.4
M' = 1.93x1.25 = 2.41 kNm
= 7.26 kNm > M' = 2.41 kNm OK

Could use 139.7x3.0 Grade 350 or a 100x4.0 SHS for S3 as shown in Table 6.5.
6.6 to 6.12 for remaining struts. The capacities of various struts are shown in
Use Tables
Table 6.5.
.
ADOPT 125x4.0 SHSfor SI, S2, S4, S5 and 100x4. 0 SHSfor S3

But check effect of pretension of any rods used for tension diagonals
Table 6.5 Strut Design Forces and Capacities
Strut N‘ Section Grade Mass Capacity

kN MPa kg/m kN
SI, S5 72.9 165.1x3.0 CHS 350 12.0 81.9

125x4.0 SHS 350 14.8 72.9
S2,S4 52.2 139.7x3.5 CHS 350 11.8 56.2

165.1x3.0 CHS 350 12.0 81.9
125x4.0 SHS 350 14.8 72.9
S3 35.3 114.3x5.4 CHS 250 14.5 39.6

139.7x3.0 CHS 350 10.1 48.5
100x4.0 SHS 350 11.6 35.2
6.11.3 Ties or Tension Diagonals
Consider tie DB1 in Figure 6.16
10962
N *
x 52.2 = 63.6 kN
9000
(a) Try Angles Crossed Back to Back and Bolted

Length =10957 mm say 1.1000 mm
For span/150 deflection, the minimum size is a 100x6 EA as the distance between the end
connections is m (Refer to Table 6.4).
approximately 10.8 Accept this.
fN (
= Q.9A/y =0.9x11 70x320 N = 337 kN AS4100 Cl. 7.2
<fNt =0.9x0.85 xk A a fu t AS4100 Cl. 7.2

= 0.9x0.85x0.85x(l 170 - 6x22)x440 N = 297 kN
<f>Nt =297kN > N' =63.6kN OK AS4100CI. 7.1
(b) Try M20 Rods and Turnbuckles

The ultimate capacity of rods is generally governed by yield of the unthreaded shank as
shown in Table 6. 1
0 t
= 0.9x310x300 N .
AS4100 Cl.9.3.2.2
= 84.8 kN > N*- 63.6 kN OK

Try rods for diagonals DB3, DB4, DB5 and DB6 but check the effect of their pretension
on the struts. The behaviour of a pretensioned roof bracing system under limit state
conditions is not clear as the pretension could tend to relieve itself as the strut fails. The
question is whether the struts would nevertheless fail at lower externally applied loads in
a pretensioned system than in a non-pretensioned system. Some engineers disregard the

effect of pretension on struts and member connections, but as the axial capacity of tubular
struts under self weight is much less conservative under AS4100 than under earlier
working stress versions of the steel code, some consideration of the effect of prestress is
advisable. The following assessment is one method of doing so. Simpler methods that
acknowledge the uncertainty of the magnitude of pretension forces could be developed.
At the very least, struts in a pretensioned system should have some reserve of capacity to
cater for the effects of pretension.
It is not certain how much pretension 11 metre 20 mm diameter rods carry in practice.
Laboratory tests [1] showed that 9 metre 20 mm diameter rods were pretensioned to 45%
of.their yield capacity based on the tensile stress area of the threaded section and an fy of
240 MPa, while 12 metre rods were pretensioned to 35%. The steel grade of rods has
now increased to 300 MPa. However, assuming a conservative pretension value of 50%
of the yield capacity of the threaded rod based on 240 MPa steel, the pretension is
0.5x245x240 N = 29.4 kN
The forces in the roof bracing due to pretension alone are shown in Figure 6.16. As the
wind loads are applied, the tension in the ‘compression diagonal will reduce, while ’ the
tension in the other diagonal will increase. Neglecting any change in length of the struts,
the shortening of one diagonal will equal the increase in length of the other. Based on
this assumption, the force system with the pretension and wind loads will be statically
determinate. On this basis, the forces in the pretensioned bracing system are calculated as
follows.
Assuming half of the applied 35.3 kN force at the ridge is taken by a reduction in the
tension diagonals CF and GF and the other half is taken by an increase in the tension
diagonals DE and HE, the force in strut EF (S3) will be
Cef
EF = 48.3 + — 2
=66.0 kN
T'cfgf
CT,GF
= 29.4-— xî =18.7 kN
4 9000
35.3 10962
rDE,HE
nF hf
= „
29.4 + x = 40.1 kN
4 9000
The compression in struts CD (S2) and GH (S4) can be calculated as the sum of (i) the
pre-compression, (ii) the component of the increase in the tension in the diagonal ED or
EH as appropriate, and the externally applied quarter point force. That is:
—
(iii)
9000
Ccd.gh = 24.2 + (40. - 29.4)x
1 - + 34.6 = 67.6 kN
10962
170 Roof & Wall Bracing A1SC DPFB/03
The forces in diagonals CB and GJ and in struts AB and IJ are independent of the
prestress, hence
CABU = 20.6 + 34.6 + — 2

=72.9 kN
^cb. gj = (72.9 -20.6)x^= 63.7 kN

The forces are shown in Figure 6.17.
Hence, the compression in S3 will be 66.0 kN compared with 35.3 kN in an un-

pretensioned system, and the compression in S2 and S4 is 67.6 kN compared with 52.2
kN. Therefore, using pretensioned rods for DB3, DB4, DB5 and DB6 would not require
a heavier SHS to be used for S2 and S4, but it would require a 125x4.0 SHS for S3 in lieu
of a 100x4.0 SHS.
Weight saved by using rods instead of angles in one bracing bay

= 4x 1 1 x(9. 16 - 2.4) = 297 kg
i
j
Pretension Alone Pretension + Wind Loads
Figure 6. 1 7 Effect of Rod Pretension on Forces

in Bracing System
Additional weight of SHS for S3 in one bracing bay
= 9x(l 4.8 - 1 1 .6) = 29 kg

Although the cost per tonne is different for angles, SHS and threaded rods with
tumbuckles, it appears that using pretensioned rods for DB3, DB4, DB5 and DB6 will be
cheaper.
Other options for the roof bracing diagonals could be

considered such as M20 rods
throughout or M20 rods in the eaves panels and Ml 6 rods in the

ridge panels.
However, ADOPTfor this design example

• S1,S2,S3,S4,S5 125x4.0 SHS
. DB1,DB2,DB7,DB8 100x6 EA
• DB3 ,DB4,DB 5 ,DB 6 M20 rods and tumbuckles
6.11.4 Connections
6. 1 1 .4. 1 End Connections for Struts

as the 125x4.0 SHS adopted for SI to S5, close
With the use of thin-walled SHS’s such
of end connections. Particular care should be taken
attention is required in the detailing
the tube wall in the
with cap plate and cleat details as the stresses are calculated in
discussed Section 6. 9. 1.1 of this chapter for tubes in tension.
vicinity of the cleat as in
Consider struts SI and S5
N' - 72.9 kN
1. Check minimum connection force

= 0.3 x member capacity
= 0.3x72.9 = 21.9 kN
Therefore design on N *
= 72.9 kN
Capacity of tube walls assuming a 1:2.5 spread through the cap plate as shown in
Figure 6.18
= 0.9x2/, (/, + 2t w + SQfycns
Try a 10 mm thick cap plate and cleat and 6 mm fillet welds (E48XX SP)
Therefore,
fNtw = 0.9x2x4.0x(10 + 2x6 + 5xl0)x350 N

= 181 kN > N' - 72.9 kN OK
2. Check welds between cap plate and SHS
x2x(lO + 2x6 + 5x10) = 0.978x2x72

<fiN w — 0vw
= 141 kN > N‘ = 72.9 kN OK
1
3. Check welds between cap plate and cleat
Try a 150 mm wide cap plate

= A’w x 4x(r4 + 2.5/ 2 )
150-125
U
2
= 12.5 mm
u - 6 + 2.5x10 = 3 1 mm where t
A
is the effective cleat length beyond
the tube wall on one side
Therefore
t
A
= 12.5 mm
<fNw = 0.978x4x(12.5 + 2.5x10)
= 147kN > N* =72.9kN OK
Therefore ADOPT 10 mm thick cap plate and cleats and 6 mm E48XX SP fillet welds
JN*
Figure 6.18 Welded Tee End Connection for Tubular Struts
6 11 4.2
. . Bolts
The preferred connection is 2 - M20 8.8/S bolts
Capacity of M20 8.8/S bolts in shear
<pVf
= 0.80x0.62x830x225 N = 92.6 lcN AS4100 Cl. 9.3.2.
Capacity of two bolts = 85 kN

1
This capacity is greater than the axial forces in all bracing members
Hence ADOPT 2 - M20 8.8/S bolts for all roof bracing connections
72.9 . 72.9
Figure 6.19 Wall and Strut Diagonal Member Forces
6.11.5 Side Wall Bracing

Try 75x75x5 equal angles crossed back to back.
N' = 94.9 kN
A 75x75x5 EA (Grade 300) is considered the minimum size for robustness when used as a
wall bracing angle.
N, = 672x320 N = 215 kN AS4100C1.7.2
or N t
= 0.85x0.85x(672 - 4.6x22)x440 N= 181 kN AS4100 Cl. 7.2
fN, = 0.9x181 = 163 kN > AT = 94.9 kN

'
OK
Hence ADOPT 75x75x5 Equal Angles with 2 - M20 8.8/S bolts
6.12 References
1. Kitipomchai, S. and Woolcock, S.T. (1985). Design of diagonal roof bracing rods and tubes.
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 1 1 5(5), 1068-1 094.
2. Woolcock, S.T. and Kitipomchai, S. (1985). Tension members and self weight. Steel
3. Gorenc, B.E. and Tinyou, R. (1984). Steel Designers Handbook. NSW
University Press,
Sydney.
4. Gorenc, B.E., Tinyou, R. and Syam, A.A. (1996). Steel Designers Handbook.
NSW
University Press, Sydney.
5. Syam, A.A. and Chapman, B.G. (1996). Design of Structural Steel Hollow Section
Connections, Pol. 1: Design Models, AISC, Sydney.
6. Kitipomchai, S. and Traves, W.H. (1989). Welded tee end connections for circular hollow
of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 115(12), 3155-3170.
tubes. Journal
7. Woolcock, S.T. and Kitipomchai, S. (1987). Design of Portal Frame Buildings. AISC,
Sydney.
8. Australian Institute of Steel Construction (1993). Limit States Data Sheet AS41 00 D505-1 993,
AISC, Sydney.
o
z“ z o to co r-~ co o> cm r- ss <- CO h- to in cm

O
-e- X T- <D T~ J*- o- r- •*roi rr O) (Nj CO CO CM 130 109 88.7
1
to to to Xf CO CO CM CO CM CM CM CM t-
OJ
Sag
for X
i
E
xr in co co 0) o CM p
1
14.4 14.5 12.5 12.6
_i 05 05 05 (O (D N CD CD cd
1
Spans
in'
o O
CO CO co h*; S N O) t-
p CO CM CO
Maximum
N SX E CO CM o 64.1 54.3 <d c d in ed 05 CO CO 9.99 7.87 6.52
05 05 O)
n E 05 o> rr co T CO CM CM CM r~ CD IO -
’
M
n
with
2?
Compact- ness z oo oo OO oo OOO OOO oo o ooo
o*
Capacities
O
to o oo
000
/1
CM 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 poo 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ay
x
<D
Tension
U CO
weight.
250
x
L_ to f- tO 05 M; N. p OI MN CO N O 0.9
wK d
and o UJLU 56.5 56.6
-t tT $8 34.2 34.5 05 05
CM CM CO
tr into
CM CM CM
tri in to
self
=
n
c
under area
X
o
gross
n
Properties
tr to t- CO N CM Cl 05 h- CM CO CM CO
w 138 128 h- d ss 46.7 38.1
o in co 29.1 23.1 18.9 05 co in 05 05 05
WM
deflection
1 05 05 M- CO CM 05 h- id CD the
on
L/150
capacity
Section
for
*
X
<D
o
T- E 8.65 8.07 2.75 2.34 1.77 1.46 0.54
SSS
CO CO CM
dod odd
0.807 0.651 0.103 0.0899 0.0762
X E d length
tension
Hollow
axial
maximum
Section
o oo
M- CM S x- O) c-- co rr the
Area E 2710 2510 1850 1550
to CO o 1300 1010 820 CO CO 728 557 453 N- co 05 is
Circular E o> r- <o in m- co is
max
Gross 4»Nt
L
1. 2.
6.6a:
.E 05 CO t- h- CD CO 05 05
no
n id p
Nominal
Mass/m
OI
21.3 19.7 17.9 16.6 14.5 12.2 11.9 9.63 10.2 7.95 6.44 CO •*-; f- co in in
in in tr cd xr c o co
Table
165.1x5.4 165.1x5.0 139.7x5.4 139.7x5.0 114.3x5.4 114.3x4.5 101.6x5.0 101.6x4.0
Size Dxt mmxmm

88.9x5.9 88.9x5.0 88.9x4.0 76.1x5.9 76.1x4.5 76.1x3.6 60.3x5.4 60.3x4.5 60.3x3.6 48.3x5.4 48.3x4.0 48.3x3.2 42.4x4.9 42.4x4.0 42.4x3.2
j
Weight
Self
Under
recommended.
Struts
not
are
Section
and
alone
critical.
Hollow
weight
where
self
Circular
curves
under
Fit
for
span/150
members.
Capacities than
stocky
more
for
sag
will
except
Compression
line
solid
unconservative
the
of
Axial
right
is
the
to
interpolation
Reduced
lengths
Linear
6.6b:
Tube
1. 2.
Table
176 Roof & Wall Bracing AISC DPFB/Q3
Sag
for
Spans
in
oi
Maximum
ii
.c
a
with
Capacities
o
LO
CO Ag/1000
x
o
Tension
D03
weight.
350
x
0.9
L_
and 0 self
under
=
area
to
x
o
gross
Properties
deflection
the
on
L/150
capacity
Section
for
length
tension
Hollow
axial
maximum
the
is
Circular
is
max
4>Nt
L
: 1. 2.
6.7a
Table
_
A1SC DPFB/03 Design Example - Roof & Wall Bracing
TT CO CD p Ml cm
CM “ v* O) (D M
CO CO CD Tf CO *n iDq®
M- CO CM 03 SS^
‘I cd in co o <o N Ol O) CD (7> <J> CO (J)

CO OCO CD CO
m m- CM (N r r- Ol SS CO CO CM T-
Weight
M
J N Q> O M- CO tp . ^
CO CO
cd in
CM CD
r^- in co tO 04 *- T- V- CO M* IT CO
Self
CD rN in co co cm in in cq o co CM NS
£
o>
5 $2
m r*- M- co CM
N
CD CD M"
S CM cd cd cd
J? 5 ! a> cd
Under
mi— m co co CO M CO recommended.
-e- ^ rr r-
Struts
V| 2? rC CD M- CO CM CM CM
*
Z o)ioo
CM CD
N- f- CD
CM CD O)
o>
£8
o not
,1
1609 1234 847
s in co CO CM T- CM CM «-
are
Section
v- CO ^ ^ rf CO CD
and
D> M- o IS Jm
CO CD M- M- CO CM
alone
critical.
Hollow
CO Tf- CO a> CM p o co
2250 1720 1179 1083 765 578 o
in
oo
co *m-
in t-
a> co
CD
in m-
CO
MOPC
N- 0> 1
'
weight
o
in
self
where
M- r*t M <D N
Circular
co (0 0)10 1317 928 702 ?S!5
to to to
LO CV
CM N
r-
.
s CM
cd m a>
co
curves
CM t- T- under
<D Fit
TJ »NS in *-
for
..s
2 3 s
2930 2228 1522 1572 1104 836
03 (O tT to CO s
span/150
members.
e>
ffllDr CM CM CO CD <D N
CO o CO ID N N
»» n S2
Capacities
1814 1270 960 1031 820 624 IO than
CM M- ID
X CO CM r-
a> h- cd
o
stocky
more
re * coon) co co <**
for
3432 2602 1773 2015 1406 1063 1247 988 750
£ io sag
3 1 will
except
T8 ? O
m 85
CO CD
Compression
% ® 3609 2733 1861 2170 1512 1143 1425 1126 852 o

as
cm in fc ,
CM CM
line
solid
in in o> CM CO in co co CM CD
unconservative
TT CO CM co o> o M O
K© O)
CO CM *-
CM in CM
CM T- !§g in cd
o> CO M M--
the
of
Axial
OO MO© m cm : right
CD t- r- co a> cd is
s ss CO CD CM J 1644 1297 979 CM Tf
in m* So **r
-
c-
c
CO CM T- CM v- the
to
interpolation
Reduced
sag co co in
CM CD h- 703 343 013
co co
in f"-
CO CO
CD CD
OOO
CM
CM
CO
0)0 0 M- CD CM in m- M* CO cd in co lengths
6.7b:
cd m o o co s m- h* ot Linear
O lO T-
0 0)0 ) s S o Pgfc o co
CM CD
5 cm o>
in co co
Tube
CO CM CM 1 .
2.
Table
CD CD
cm co
Tj;
m to CO co N
M CO CM o> cd
. m m- M; p p o O CO CD CM
^ SXXX
CD V cd cd id
X X X X
cd <d
C O)
<D
o
N
—X X X CO CO CO
X X
n co cq <o cq
CD
co a 03
fO CO D> O <Ji cd cd a> a> cri ^ M-' M** **
G «« CM CM CD CD CD <o co
8 CM CM CM
|
Roof & Wall Bracing AISC DPFB/03
W« to o f- cm wtora atom in
1-
no oS
t- t- r- 00
Sag
for
t^co IDIDN
JI 21
°q^£
° a) a> a>
t-incm
cd co co
O)
® s
O'-
s'
O’ lO
coco
Spans
Z.
2-
. or;
t t-io
rtoini; o»-io
co 1n o) r^Tj-cv
nioi o
^ q
ôis
oi» i"~
ns
r- cm
Maximum
X E n^ CO CO CM <- i- *- •r- t-OJS- S-IO-» TT cd
with
0000 000 000 0 00 00

Capacities
Ag/1000
x
Tension 350
weight.
x
ci ~ “ ~
co q cq CO
*c co co
•; ":i co
“! in c; T_ q *o ro r- n co 0.9
wx
I I
8888 8^8 S88 5?“ 5J

.
self
e Slg =
and
under area
gross
oin «qint O'c-co cocdoIocds.Icmi-

M
Properties
c 10 co o’ co O) n. o’ cm r q o t- cn co cm
1
I
deflection
E <0 CM CO CO t-N T- r- -r- O) s s

1-<3)S- I 10
]
o ri the
on
L/150
capacity
Section
“
o
*
C o £ 995!^
r CO
CM 0> CM CD lO
co ® co
CO O CO
nos
LO^S- o
CM o $
~ for
v 5
^ o CM d N- q O O CO N N »• »- t- §
o odd odd oo_;
•
x c length
tension
Hollow
axial
maximum
® g n in
mo3 2StlDO co o co o’ co o> co o- cm
sO
the
Circular
E
g o) co ;™cos CO ® CO
m CM CM
co 10 o-
CD
o o CO
co
is
is
max
L
1.
cfiNI
2.
6.7c:
•- = s-io co co co co in -a t- o s inr-
£
tn
S; to
O) qms 10 s- t-
r-~
,3,
Zi cmm cm co
o jg
5 J£ s^ cd *- cri cd in id oo '*’
cd cd cd cm
Table
“ inqcj® (Mm« loan in q

cq I cd q I
X
,n x £ X X
xl 555
Ls
r (b <d
N <2
O
a; XXXtM COcoCOXXX
CM CM
XXX vXX
cd CM CM CM CM
rr>
E - - 05 O) -
^
r- t- r-
co co to cd cd cd cd 000
I
• I CO <0
co CJ) cococo
CO CO CO X?
OO
. . . .
cd cd co
CO CD CO a> N N N CO ID 0
cvi csi
£ Tj- Tf r?
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example — Roof & Wall Bracing 179
1
^ 04 «o^ oj
"C.
a>
Weight
*«>,- as inVp
in tt
Self
o cn cn cn
® 52 JI ai h-‘ in in CO CN CN
Under
(D cn CN r; » 113.
rr co co 04 ^ i-
Struts
$ i
04 04 *- v-
03 143 CO 03 <=> ® rs. n; in in

SO 2°oi
' *-
CD ID TT
03 04 «-
Section
(onsi4) CO
CO 03 143
'T 'T CO 04
O 0) CO CD 03 03
8
TO 2
Hollow
ID IO SOI Cl CN CO
N MO
MOO
CO
»O
03 04
$2 cn 143 'if I |
O
:
in 04 (DOr’r ONr 03 03 U3 CD V^ if 143 I

Circular
co o o r- s- 143 04
CO 0- CD M- 03
I & cn co ir
I
a>
for
a '
03 «*
o
«*>
O
o U; 1/3 T- CO 04
03 03 ID
cd a; 4- COl
2 04 !£ CO
N- fe CO S £ 03 si 143 if I
l 1C
e> I £ (4)
03 03
<j- UD 'T q
cn cq
oJd v
CO 03 143
f
C43
O C'i
Capacities
CO to 03 TO eo CO r
-
.
IN S- CD
X i £
o- «- 03 l*-
o o
3
<?
S T 04 CD S- 03 CO
6 sv
88 IN i- r
03 03
CO N |
88S
Compression
143 Oil
04 £
t- in cn 03. p
iS_ no
xr cn
o
04 04 co cn cn
-
r-’
o co
h- CD
ir
04 OJ
d
Axial
.Ol «
cn
co
v
in cn
to rr co Q)
n r
as”
3- 03
I i
Reduced
£« fe-
CM CD
cn n- in o 04 M-
r- J~.
143
143 IN O CN
Ol T- r- i- i" CO
! 1
4> i—
7d: O
CM
6. OO H “*
CD
r- CN
Table
N
CO
ID
CM ID
o
03 03 CM
in CO CN CD
ifi^rncN
Roof & Wall Bracing AISC DPFB/03
<°g 2
2 t 22 fc g £! 2 m w o co n m^-otoc)
JS(D «t s- r- co m
S EE S2E E co RjcotNO)
2Ei co s- in os co in co
co m q cm co cm mq n in id s q m; in iq n
co co
CM CM
oi oo
T- CM CM
cd id id
T-T-T-
-t ct *t it
r- T- ^-r-
cm
T-
cm cm
^ cm’
T- T- T~
cm
E h52
dN'T S S^h?.
MCMN N 'f
N--r- CD CM o
cd cd cd cd cm s-
T-T-T-f^ CD SCD in n
IA OT
8 Z Z V> O ZV) O O Z OOOZ OOOQZ
= O
000
/1
S§ 8§I 8§§|8888|b8888|
’-O T-T-C> T~ T~ *-
x
350
weight.
x
p IDO T- CD --
N co oi
©NS
cd to CO
ctoino
id cd cd ai
T- Nn©M
cd s^ cd cd oi
self
0.9
p
c C~ 2?
a> a> r- s- s- in ©w m- m- m- -t cococococo =
under area
gross
CO ° E
Ot~
m cm
msss
co cm
co co
o- s- in
^ ©on©
©no* q q^tn in cm deflection
x E ^ 10 ^ m^ CM’-'- cd
qs©©5
cd cd cm
the
on
L/150
capacity
for
O05 M COO M © CO S
oowns
-x o
i 32 M
_5
s- in
CM
05 CO CO
co cm cm
©* so COcoq
.
05 O’ CM
CM O-.
co in -t
q
r-
co co cj cm t- length
tension
axial
maximum
(o
©
« oo
O o o o ooo oooo o o o o o
CO O CO t- o n ^ o co t- co onrot the
<E
p
E
E
ms cd in co COCOCO 05 S» CO CO O - CO 1 r-
co in cd rt co O- CO CM CO CM CM T- n N
is
is
Lmax
ij*Nt
1. 2.
S N •* q -o cm co in cm co cd
*>
n cTi m
© in t— m 05
t © io N fc cd cm cd ^
CO CM CM CO CM
cd u-’
t- <-
cd cd O'
CM-r-T-T-00
2
jJ
*“
t o o ooo qqq qqqo qqqqo
XXEp o o XXX mmmm
o> <d oi cd in
ooo
X X X X X
ooo
oi cd in
ooooo
X X X X X X X X X
oi cd in o- oi cd in o- cd
£0E m in o o o ooooo
in in in cm cm cm cm
x x XXX XXX X X X X xxx^cx
K E
y. CM CM CM CM CM
CQ
x
P
E
O O OOO ooo
mm ooo m m mmmm ooooo
ooooo in cm cm cm cm
P CM CM CM CM CM
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Roof & Wall Bracing
N nn
®0
•»
M
3 flioi
B O <*>
wk"
L-, l-r- UJ I
w|w G
-Q CO CM
~ r~w
00 CO col (D N Ol
f'Jedrgl'Fcor^
CM *- »- CO N. I TT to CM
m co <r r-o ojcvoI

[a
5?
c
rs m;
COOJ
n<mo cm co cnl
CO -f CO I
TJ CO m CO CO O O) ?l (O (O ON
25 SSH*-
TTCN CM »- 't 'T <o| r^" ro
r-- lA M- 1 CO CM CM CM
o
.oO CM C7J O CO to CO 1; WOV

? men <m«-t- cd in in
co io if)
iiif' Ofl
o- co co cm
„ TT CO O) CO CO s ^ r; Cl O) VN N 07 IO O) N
T- S9
COM" CM 9
S CM 2
»-
° oi s
CO
id ^ idoi
in -J n CM cd cd to cd
t- r- i- r-
d
f-. CM
t-cm cnin-M- o co cq cq m; cq -m into in cm co

r^-cr 3 ?, cm
co cm S co
<S co
oi r; c^'-'o-co
id in <r n oi cd o n cd
cm cm cm t- t-
__ f- CO m 0)01 i-ov CM C- CO CO O IO IO N
- S& 2 SS £:=? SS 8 $ SKSS'S
° g o T- co eo co ^ cn q roqqw
“5co
CM CO
in co co
°
CM^-»- 2 O CO
O) h~
CO in
NNOINr-
CO CO CM CM
O'
PO M-T-CO O CO CM CO 01 OlMDIM'r
°* n2 S25
CO M CO
r- c°
in CO
£>“>*£
CM r- >-
<2 °®
CO
cm
N osdds
CO rf O' CO CM
P CO CO CM 0) r-COS COM-COT. MWN»N

3 §^ SS 8 t gg 8 «gg
co o> in co
SS IPS co u? cv
SS S oco
?ss
<0 Tf N
cvjOfs.cn
ssst ^^ ^ CO to SoinO)°
xr id (v s ,«
Tf co in *-
Ninom
le XT CO CO CN
CO r- rr T-
<Q 1- lO
CO xf h* CVJ
o o>
co r**- cd lOr 0(0 0)
xr xf cvj co
n
Mr o rro
r**«
co tD
N xr
S co
CD if)
tn
xy CO
£ O) O I CO co a>
I
in N N (D (D
*5, in i/j r-' in o) cn to xf r-‘ °!
CM t" r- T- CO
p qpo
0> (O ID xf
mX mX mX mX
®
AISC DPFB/03
1 82 Roof & Wall Bracing
cn t—
cm cm co o cm m co COOO h- CM CD
m co in o in co
COOIO
in in co
CO t- TT
tr M- n O CO
co cm
CM
cm
o
^ in O)
co cm
cm cn
cm i— i-
Sag
for
o
odd nodd
m co f) O v-
o> oi o>
p o; pp
ai a> ai
in co co
fd rd id
p
nnp«
p M;
cd cd
PP
n- co
p
co
cd
I
Spans
in
o a; <o n Minn in co CD <o *- CD CM M O opp MNNCOr-
K (D O r^f^pT-o-
Maximum
I!
N £ oj CO co
CO CO CM
in CM co
CM CM «— v- t- cn co <o in cd in -d M 1
cd
with
OOO ooo oo O O O 0 0 2 O O O 0 0 2 O O O O OJ
Capacities
O
ID
CO
Boo Boo BBS Ag/1000
x
o> 350
Tension
D weight.
x
cs in P
co
ID
co
p 0)0
(0
CM it opp
cd cd -d
T- CO
in in in
P CO CO
1^ cd cn
O cm p p
cn cd cn
cm cn r- m- col
ddiriiriin self
0.9
and o r--
CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
under
=
area
in
X o m
gross
Properties
in CO ° co in co cm co p'•'mo
r
co p p p to P ^ o>
cd d d tdd” 9 8 5?
deflection
t- cn co co n
. .
CM CM CM T- co in m* m* co I the
on
L/150
capacity
Section for
M COCO oSS 85
CM 1- CO
§ t
-M-
odd odd °8§8

in
^° co r- co IO
in cn cm
r*
d ddd
r--
odd odd O dooo| length
tension
Hollow
axial
maximum
e P5 oo o S°S cn t- o> <- t- o> M- 1— <- CD M- CO t- t- cn cn the
CM O no O
-M-
cn If)
i-coi'
Square
<o
in
2
<
co in t-
222 83 CM
O) N(D M
Cn
co co in
in
m- co co
CM CM ID CO
ID -M- CO CM CM
is
jS
max
$Nt
L
2.
1
•
6.8c:
<o in co O CO O
CO O) CD in co co co co
^ cm P oj o ^ m co
>- od cd r-^
in
in
S
co
CM ID
in
S
CO
d cd CO in M CO CM CM
Table 2 S
p o in opp^ pop poo opp opp

d
o p
N d
NXXX
in o o P p Pi '
N £0
co in co
XXX XXX
cn in
XXX
cd cd cm id in -"d cd cm cm in cd •d cd CM CM
o* * * * £\
oooo i
V) X XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX CO CO CO CO CO CO M* M" M* O’ M"

>< X X X X|
I
aisc dpfb/03 Design Example - Roof & Wall Bracing 1 83
Weight
Self
Under
recommended.
Struts
not
are
Section
and
alone
critical.
Hollow
weight
where
self
Square
curves
under
Fit
50
for
span/1
members.
Capacities
than
more stocky
for
sag
will
except
Compression
line
solid
conservative
the
Axial of
un
right
is
the
Reduced to
interpolation
lengths
6.8d:
Linear
Tube
1 .
2.
Table
AISC DPFB/03
z
-e-
O) 03 O)
CONOCO CO
o-
V 1-
on
cd in
in t*
If) CO
'T 'T CO CO CM CM CM
Sag
for
(D N 03 CO Tj- Tt «n
m- in CO CO NN
dd t--' CD CD I
Spans
in
O CO O'
Maximum
tl
N “ O CD
in o'
a
a
with
oz OO OO 000
/1
Capacities
Ag
o
in ° s
x
500
rj-
§8i5 co f-
<=>
x
od
Tension
o weight.
0.85
*D x
0.9
2 cd cm in n- o> co in CM -O- 1- CO o CM
u* o dd self
=
and o CO O) O)
CO CO CO CO
CO CD CD
CM CM CM
in in
CM CM
in in I
under
area
c n gross
Properties
c o co n co
d'tCON
t-- r; CM S co --
iri co
deflection
in co co CM CM v
r~^
no the
on
50
171
capacity
Section
x- CD CD <*
o co for
CM CD
{SIS t co
dd
Is
dd length
tension
Hollow
axial
maximum
«
o oo CD CO eo in co co
the
w »-
cf N O
tj-
t>- CD o CM CD CO is is
Square tfl < cd in ino CO CO x
4>Nt
ma
L
6.9a:
*- n
s oim
n O) O' CD Tt
^
t- d cb d N ID ID
co o;
in m-
Table
co co co co
<o co cm cm co co co col co col
X X X X
XXX
CO CM CM
n
in in
CM CM cm' cm cm' cm I
r- r- r~
X X X X
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example.- Roof & Wall Bracing
l
t Jz I »o to .
U- . .
~ . I <o n- co
o ^ ^ ^ 05MS T-tN
oicod in XT
ooir^cq - <0 ^ (ou, ^„

I
SSSn «*«* tvicsi
<o<q^r- oioifl „ „ <£> ,_
I £?S8 £5? « n: <d «
«® x* o>
NOn m r- po too
fx- N V
10 in tr
CD NO x-
r- r-r-
IO
a> <n
^^ rJrJ
04 ^
otDxrto iopin
N
op
<D ID
W O
^ nN N XT
|x-
I to S 10 (N N r-r-
x>
CO to ’T
N X- (J)
rt
tooco
X-; >n ’3;
IO x—
''T I- CM
O o XT
X- x- o, XT XT CO CN CM r- 10
ID (D CJI O ® P x- C) “ PP « in
xt Egg? n cm 2? «5*
O COtOx-T- pop “Jxf •«; © CM CM

x»
£ S Eg §s C= £ cd^
O CO N#*; I—
P X- O) O
in
” ^2^
CM CO
SSS Eg S 82
r- nto co s to to «- h*. o> N; co co
cn co <0 i**«
CO (N 04 r-
o*J *— t
«r-*-3? pj
[2
r
S
%— s-I
CO CN
in to
S£
m osonj loiooi S': x;u> pt

IN asss Ojj “®
4).
d COCOCMN t!22 Sb T „ Nt . —
--
!2
o
o co t- to a> o co o) in
1
<o h« Q n*
(/)
W (OONW COON ^«M

^rnoj oj oj r- t- r- doco 100 d)
—
-C
j
fc co co
V>• CN r- CD CD 0*x O) CN CO
I
T-
I
r-ioinxr pifir*
lOTj-cnCvJ (N oj cn I
o
CN
v (DOO-r- ^
CO CO CO r* t* (O O) -
TT CO CD tO
lO N- CO CN
CO <J> CO
CO OJ OJ
TTO ID CO
t- X-
ScN
O
CN CN
T- CN N* <0
no <010
co
cd t—
Om
CO
h- oj
CO CD CN
oh-
O
cd
tO
co
I
I
I
in in co <n co <0 cn cn cn cnt- t-t-I
F t- to o> to
h- co 05
O’ 0> O’
T-; T-; T-^
T- CN
P) Tf
O
O) CO
TJ
•s-
v T- Q co ID <d in in o* co co
El co <0 co <0
E I
CO ro CN oi
w XX
X in in
X X X X
in 10 o o
I
Sx hX NX 0X CD 10 w
X X X
in m m in in ool I
1
CD CD 10 ml
| (
h- h- h- I
[
g
AISC DPFB/03
1 86 Roof & Wall Bracing
ID CN CO CD ^ CD IDt-CON CN t- o co in cn co
oi P! in n
non
co op in
x-
X- CD
OO CD CO CD
h- -«t X-
NN CO CN CN 1~ -r- CO CN CN X- x- T-
Sag
for
rr n
i id h- cq co o r- co co -n; in in o nN qqq in <d co 0)0)0 't N- cq co
-o.5)
=
cvi cn cn c>4 cni cnj odoo odd t-
o> o> a> d o> d a> co
r*'-
CD CD CD to cd
Spans
(«&
mo O ^ S N S N
NNq
Oq
in in cn o- CD CN CO CN CN in co 04 CD ff) CN rt
h*- cn t- cq
Maximum
N CO CD co co cd in
CO CO CN CN
cn
CN
f''< cn CD
to in xf x^ to
with
450LO
OOZ CD CO CO o o o o z z w O O O O 2(0(0 O O O O Z Z O O O O Z
Capacities
§§ 88S §888 8§S 3333 8fc$ 88

Thickness
odd Od T- T" »-
Grade
Tension
weight.
Oq
^ q q q n nn t giqr; q q q q q q Nqq cn cn t- xf co
O q q
cq co
03 03 co co co O) O 0 cd cd -t id in S CO Ol
> iri iri 0> Cl 03 xt xt u> irj cd
self
and co co co CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN
co co co
SHS under
Standard
Properties
® in m id t\i o> co •N q CN q g°§ in co cd co

NNd
i- qjJ M N CD
CO
h- CD CD
O CD NS O) r -4
deflection
</>
"888 CD
CN CN CN t- T- <- X- CJ> cd CD in
-»r
CD id xt XT CO
Duragal
L/150
Section for
§§§ sss o o
id coa CN f- ID
*-
n m588 tn8§
*- o §883;
O CD CN f» in CM - OION to
CD ID co in rr cq cn cn CN CN r-
CO CN CN T*" t- r- dd odd do od odd odd
N-
length
Hollow
maximum
2°So oi n go- - OT _
cn o o cn
i n
O) 't
ms o
Square 3 sI K II cn
O) N CD CO Tj
-
CO CO
•N- lO N" CO CN CN
Is
•
?
6.10a:
oo o m oo
m O O
CD i- co to co co co cn cn x- co
CN CD
h*. ^ O) CD
N" cd iq in -j r^- cn cd r*** cq co co cn ^ a> cq cq cq cq cq
d
.
00
CD *N* x—
5 cd cd id xj- *- cd hi id N co co CD in xf CN CN Xt CD CN
Table
pop p in
p
CD CN CN o p o
in qioo o o q o q-
XXXo oXXX
CD id X*
o o oxxx
N* CD CN CN
o
O o
o o CDX
O o ooo
id xt
X X x
CD
xxx
CD CN CN
X X X X xxx oxxx o o
o o oxxx
xxx oxxx in in in
XXXo oxxx
o X X X X xxx X X X X
in to in
o o
oo
oo
o o oo o m in in mm in
cm’
AISC DPFB/03
z ^ t— Tt CO oo
CD to
t- r- t- " T" T-
OJ
Sag
for in x
d E
CO
CM oo
IO
O) CD tO to to
Spans
co -<± CM to
Maximum
N OX E
h co CM -T-
CO LO
CO h- LO M*
co o
tT 03
with
o
03 (/) to
a.
o z V} Z CO z oo OO oo
E c o
Capacities
O 0 a
o
Ag/1000
0 O
to 500
tJ3
§5 8 88 88 88
g £ O o x
S H
0.85
Tension
weight.
x
O -O K
LO CO LO M- T- CO O CM CD CM
seif
0.9
to in =
and 0} 03 i_
E CO CM CM
CM 03
x ? under
area
CO
03 gross
Properties
03
CB
m w E
8 CM i- co r-
S3
IO
CM CD
M- CO
deflection
the
X E -Ct
03 c on
o
D z
Section Q to o
o 82 O o o O CO 28
IO CD
L/150
for
capacity
X a "s to
s CO
to to CO
LO
IS o o
dd d OO oo dd length
tension
Hollow
c axial
o maximum
o o the
o re
O CO CO
•<*-
is is
Square
< E h- to UJ in •«* CO CO CO CM
max 4>Nt
o L
(3 . !.
6.11a:
C3 F f- in
E 03 o> co
03 03 to to CO CO 03 CM CM CM'
z s
Table
E CO
CO CO co CO CO CO 03 co to
e
CD E o X X X X X X X x x
in in
in in CO CO
w X X
b o to to
r- r-
A
to in in CO CO
'
'
b
Q
190 AISC DPFB/03
\ ....
7 Footings & Slabs
7.1 General
Portal frames are commonly designed on the assumption of pinned bases, although it is
sometimes an advantage to fix the bases. A pinned base is designed assuming no moment
transfer, so that the only design forces at the base of the column are axial and shear forces. In
reality, there will be some moment resistance at the base. Fixing or partially fixing the bases
reduces the frame deflections significantly and this can result in substantial savings in
lateral
frame weight if the columns are tall. Of course, the savings in weight will be offset by the
extra cost of foundations and holding down bolts. Reductions in frame bending moments due
to fixing of bases are not usually as significant as the reductions in deflections.
Typical base
plate and holding down arrangements for pinned and fixed bases are shown in Figure 5.5.
The most common footing type for a pinned base is the square pad footing as shown in
Figure 7.1, although bored piers can be very economical in clayey soils because the adhesion
of
Section A-A
Figure 7.1 Typical Pad Footing
191
192 Footings & Slabs AISC DPFB/03
even soft clays to the sides of a bored pier can result in substantial holding down capacity.
The lateral capacity also needs to be considered.
In expansive clays, it is usually much cheaper to design details for relative movement
of the column footings and slab rather than to use a raft foundations for the whole floor slab.
Such detailing includes isolation joints between column footings and the floor slab. It may
also be necessary to suspend the bridging for wall girts from the eaves rather than prop the
bridging from the floor slab to allow the floor to move relative to the wall. Paved areas or
concrete strips around the perimeter of the building will help maintain a more constant
moisture content in the under the edge of the building. If masonry walls are used in some
soil
parts such as office and administration areas, it may be necessary to provide a raft foundation
in these regions. If the masonry is restricted to reinforced block perimeter walls, the footings
and the blockwork can sometimes be designed to cater for differential ground movements
along the length of the wall without resorting to a raft foundation.
It should be remembered that the expansiveness of clay soils cannot be realistically

assessed from Atterberg Limits. This is because Atterberg Limits are determined for the clay
fraction which might be a very small proportion of the whole sample. Shrink/swell
of the soil
tests which are carried out using whole samples of soil give a much better indication of likely
soil movements.
There are cases where it may be necessary to use a full raft or even a piled foundation
for an industrial building.For example, full raft foundations have been used successfully in
reclaimed areas where there have been two to three metres of compacted fill over marine mud.
7.2 Design Uplift Forces

The frame computer analysis provides factored reactions for the design of footings. In uplift
cases, the design uplift applied by the superstructure to the footings is W
u
- 0.8Z), where W u
is
the limit state uplift and D is the dead load reaction. The ultimate resistance to uplift provided
by the footings must also be factored by 0.8*.
7.3 Pad Footings

In industrial buildings without cranes, excessive bearing pressure under pad footings is not
usually a problem because the footing size necessary to restrain uplift is large enough to
'This is in contrast to previous practice. It means that the design of portal frame footings is considerably more
conservative under limit state codes. For example, if the unfactored or working column reactions were W= 70
kN and D= 15 kN, then the weight of pad footings would need to be 83 kN [1.4W - D] under AS 1250, and 116
kN [(1.5W - 0.8D)/0.8] under AS4100 and AS1 170.1. This extra conservatism seems hard to justify, as pull-out
of portal frame footings designed to AS 1250 has not been a problem to the authors’ knowledge. While the load
factors of 1.5 on wind (Wu = 1.5W) and 0.8 on superstructure dead load appear reasonable, it seems unnecessary
to factor the footing mass by 0.8 as pad footings tend to be oversized rather than undersized. To certify
compliance with codes and regulations, however, designers have little option but to apply the 0.8 factor to the
footing weight.
AISC DPFB/03 Pad Footings 193
ensure that the bearing pressure under gravity loads is less than 100 kPa. An allowable
bearing pressure of 100 kPa is readily achieved on all but the poorest of sites. If the allowable
bearing pressure is less than 100 kPa, then a raft foundation, piers or even piles may be
necessary.
[2]
One of the best collections of geotechnical data for foundations is contained in Section
;
3 of the Bridge Design Code SA HB77.3-1996 [1] and its commentary SA HB77.3. 1-1996
. Ultimate limit state bearing pressures for cohesive and non-cohesive soils are tabulated,
and principles for checking the serviceability limit state are given. However at this
stage, the
building industry has not embraced limit state bearing pressures for pad footings and
allowable bearing pressures are still in force.
In determining the weight of pad footings necessary to resist factored uplift forces, it is
important to take advantage of the weight of the slab and any soil contributing. Apart from
the weight of the slab andabove the footing, the slab beyond the edge of the
soil directly
A
contribution of a one metre strip of slab beyond the edge of the
footing also contributes.
pad footing would be a reasonable, perhaps conservative, assumption in the absence of
calculations.
detailed Such calculations could involve a yield line analysis of the slab.
However this would be complex and subject to many variables such as joint layout, tolerance
Realistically,
on mesh position in the slab and random cracking of the slab due to shrinkage.
therefore, it becomes a matter of engineering judgment as to how much
of the slab will
contribute. For a 2 m x 2 m internal pad footing, the total slab area contributing to hold down
is 4 m x 4 m if a one metre strip of slab around the perimeter of the pad footing assumed. is
If internal pressure contributes to the uplift force, it is legitimate to deduct the force
resulting from the same internal pressure acting down on the area of slab assumed to be
to the hold down. This area of slab is usually small when compared with the
[3]
contributing area
of roof supported by the column. For example, the area of slab may be 4
x 4 whereas m m ,
the area of roof supported by the column might be 20 m

x 6 m. Therefore, the deduction is
usually ignored.
Some by considering soil friction or adhesion on the sides of

benefits can be obtained
the pad footing. It is also possible that there would be some suction or
adhesion on the
underside of the footing for short duration uplift loads such as those due to wind gusts.
However, it is not considered prudent to take advantage of this possibility.
The reinforcement of pad footings is well treated in the Concrete Design Handbook
Charts are presented for different ultimate bearing capacities and concrete strengths. If
.
uplift is dominant, it will probably be necessary to have a layer of

mesh in .the top of the
footing as well as in the bottom.
7.4 Bored Piers
7.4.1 General
Bored piers can provide a very economical solution in cohesive soils because of the
substantial adhesion of the clays, and because they are easily excavated without a tendency for
the sides of the hole to collapse.
The resistance to vertical and lateral loads in cohesive soils depends on the undrained
shear strength on cohesion of the clays. Characteristic limit state values of cu are given in
Table 7.1. The resulting vertical and lateral capacities should be multiplied by a geotechnical
capacity reduction factor fg to arrive at (limit state) design values.
Table 7.1 Characteristic Undrained (Immediate)

Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils
Undrained Field
Consistency Cohesion, cu Indications
kPa
Very soft Less than 12 Soil will exude between the fingers
when squeezed firmly
Soft 12 to 25 Soil can be easy moulded with the

fingers
Firm 25 to 50 Soil can be moulded with strong

pressure of the fingers
Stiff 50 to 100 Soil cannot be readily moulded

with the fingers but can be indented
with pressure from the thumb
Very stiff 100 to 200 Soil can be indented to little more

than a fingerprint with strong
pressure from the thumb
Hard Greater than Soil cannot be indented with the

200 thumb, but can be marked with
the fingernail
AS2 159-1 995 [4] recommends values between 0.45 and 0.65 depending on the
g
<f>
reliability of the geotechnical investigation. These factors are principally intended for the
vertical load capacity of piles.
0g Without ,
the overall factor of safety for structures with a
geotechnical interface would be based on load factors of 1.25 for dead load and 1.5 for live
load and wind load. The overall factor of safety would clearly be less than the accepted
factors of safety of between 2.0 and 3.0 for geotechnical structures such as retaining walls,
footings and piles.
For bored piers as footings for industrial buildings, an overall factor of safety of
around 2.5 is considered reasonable when geotechnical parameters govern the design capacity.
AISC DPFB/03 Pad Footings 1 95
For example, the geotechnical parameters are critical for ‘short’ laterally loaded piers or for
piers under vertical upward or downward loads. Where the structural
parameters govern the
design such as for ‘long’ laterally loaded piers, an overall factor of safety of 2.0 is considered
appropriate. Consequently, assuming a load factor of 1.5, a <f>
value of 0.6 is recommended
g
for short, laterally loaded piers or piers under vertical loads, and
a ( value of 0.75 for long
g
governed by the bending strength of the pier.
laterally loaded piers whose capacity is largely
Bored piers are not as economical or as practical in cohesionless soils but design
parameters are available in AS2159 [4].
7.4.2 Resistance to Vertical Loads

The resistance to downward loads or to uplift in cohesive soils depends on the shaft adhesion.
The current piling code AS2159 [4] does not give a relationship between shaft adhesion and
cohesion but both the previous version of AS2159 [7] and the Bridge Design Code [1]
present
equal to the cohesion but
a graph of reduction factors. For soft and firm clays, the adhesion is
for stiffer clays, the adhesion is less than the cohesion. The design value of the shaft adhesion
is therefore given by
(71)
fs = fg ac «
where
a
~ shaft adhesion reduction factor
fg = material factor = 0.6

cu = characteristic value of undrained shear strength in kPa
No distinction is made in the Bridge Design Code [1] between upward and downward
loading as far as shaft adhesion in cohesive soils is concerned, but additional capacity is
downward loading
available under conditions due to end bearing. It should be noted that the
bored piers in cohesionless soils, the shaft skin
Bridge Design Code recommends that for
friction s for uplift conditions should be 50% of the value for downward loading.
f
7.4.3 Resistance to Lateral Loads

If the top of a bored pier is isolatedfrom the slab, the bored pier will also have to resist any
horizontal reactions at the column bases. In some cases, the slab may be considered to
provide resistance to inward loading depending on the isolation detail between slab and pier
cap. Tomlinson simple formulae for determining the ultimate lateral capacity of
[5] presents
bored piers. The formulae are for short and long piles where the short pile
capacity is
governed by geotechnical failure and the long pile capacity is governed by the structural
(yielding of the pile in flexure). These formulae in limit state design format are as
capacity
follows:
Short pile H = gs c \A
u (j>
2 (7.2a)
Long pile Hu = fgL cu d 2 (7 - 2b)
where
H u
= the lateral resistance in kN
d = pier diameter in m
0gs = 0- 6
= 0-75
cu ~ cohesion in kPa
As = a factor tabulated in Reference [7] or as calculated below
h = 9* + ™Z.\ 3
(7.3)
9c u d
MY = M uo = the design strength of the pier in bending in accordance

with AS3600-1994 [6] without a if, factor applied.
The short pile parameter As can be determined from first principles using the theory in
Reference [5] rather than resorting to the table in the Bridge Design Code or in the superseded
version of AS2 159- 1978 [7] for which interpolation is difficult for low values of Ltd. From
this theory, it is possible to derive the following quadratic equation in As .
The parameter As is determined by solving the quadratic equation
aA^ + bA$ + c — 0 (7.4)

where
a = 0.5 (7.5)
b = 9x + 18x (7.6)
{
c = ~0.5x 9x| L Y1
iHJ (7.7)
This can easily be programmed into a spreadsheet program along with the code
expression for AL . It is recommended that a bored pier should have a minimum depth of 2
metres and Lid should not be less than should be noted that the formulae for both As and
4. It
Al allow for shrinkage of the clay away from the top of the piers to a depth of \.Sd.
Single bored piers can also resist moment, and as such can be used to provide a fixed
base foundation. Although it is possible to auger holes up to 1200 diameter, it may be mm
necessary to use two smaller bored piers and a pile cap in order to obtain a fixed base.
Typical details of a single bored pier are shown in Figure 7.2.
7.5 Holding Down Bolts
7.5.1 General
Holding down bolts are between
and concrete design, and as a result,
at the interface steel
their design has not received proper attention. Few
books or design manuals present
text
comprehensive theories or even empirical data. In particular, there sometimes seems to be
confusion over whether holding down bolts should be lapped with reinforcement or merely
AISC DFFB/03 Holding Down Bolts 197
embedded in concrete. Holding down bolts need only be lapped with reinforcement when the
edge distance is small or thereis insufficient cone pullout capacity.
Figure 7.2 Typical Bored Pier Detail
Auseful state-of-the-art paper on holding down bolts was jointly published in 1980 by
the British concrete and structural steel organisations [8]. The paper deals
generally with most
anchorage, corrosion, bedding
aspects of holding down bolts including design, installation,
and grouting. Despite the effort put into the paper and the cooperation of the concrete and
groups, the paper concludes that there is no general consensus and no
formal
steel
recommendations are made.
More detailed guidance on the strength of holding down bolts is contained in the work
of the American Concrete Institute Committee 349, Concrete Nuclear Structures [9].
The
work is for the part directly applicable to general concrete structures, and in fact a
most
modified version for general structures was presented with a commentary in the Concrete
Institute Journal [10]. The modified version forms the basis of the recommendations
made in
this book. Suggested design criteria are given and tables of edge distances and embedment
lengths for mild steel or commercial bolts have been derived for this book for concrete with an
f'
e
of 20 MPa. This concrete strength gives conservative embedment lengths as the concrete
code AS3600 [6] requires a minimum characteristic concrete strength of 25 MPa for the
footings of commercial buildings.
It should be noted that mild steel bolts are more ductile than high strength bolts,
and
this allows easier adjustment of the steelwork during erection. Mild steel also has the
advantage of weldability, which means that holding down bolt cages can be tack welded
together and thereby more firmly held during concrete pours.
The fourth edition of the AISC connections manual [11] develops the
recommendations made in earlier versions of this book [18] for the design and embedment of
holding down bolts. It presents a table for embedment lengths, edge distances and cog
dimensions. The embedment lengths tabulated in Reference [1 1] are for single bolts and are
therefore smaller than those presented in Table 7.3 of this book, which allow for bolts in
groups as discussed in Section 7.5. 4.2 of this book.
7.5.2 Design Criteria

There are many considerations in the design of holding down bolts [8], the most important
being as follows:
• The bolts themselves should have sufficient capacity in combined tension and
shear.
• The grouting or bedding under the base plate should have sufficient capacity in
compression to cater for applied compression and bending moment at the base of
the column.
• The concrete or the grout filling the space around the bolts and sleeves should
have sufficient strength in bearing to transmit the shear force in the bolt.
• If the bolts do not have a suitable head or other anchor at the head to prevent
pullout or bearing failure under the head, the bolts must be sufficiently long or
must be suitably cogged or hooked to satisfy the anchorage requirements for plain
deformed bars (as appropriate) in the concrete code AS3600 [6].
• If the bolts have a suitable head or anchor, the embedment must be sufficient to
prevent the bolts pulling out a cone of concrete (cone failure).
• If there is insufficient edge distance to satisfy the ACI 349 requirements, the bolts
must be lapped or anchored with reinforcing bars in accordance with the concrete
code [6].
• Account should be taken of fabrication and erection tolerances when detailing and
installing holding down bolts.
• The likelihood of corrosion must be considered carefully. Hot dip galvanizing is
recommended.
• A minimum of four bolts rather than two bolts is favoured by riggers to assist in
supporting columns during erection.
Some of these criteria are self-explanatory. Additional comments are provided in the
following sections.
AISC DPFB/03
Holding Down Bolts '
199
7.5.3 Grouting or Bedding

manufacturers’ data sheets
The choice of bedding material should be made with reference to
the level of the type of packing and the space
based on the size of the base plate, stress,
of on the bedding material is best achieved using the

available. The calculation stresses
ultimate strength behavior of concrete but this is not necessary for pinned base
theory of
frames.
The space between foundation and base plate should not be less than 25 mm for
grouting, 50 mm for mortar bedding and 75 mm for concrete bedding [8]. The design should
sleeves, and also air or access
provide adequate access for cleaning and filling pockets or
holes through the base plates where necessary.
7.5.4 Bolts in Tension
7.5 .4. 1 Anchorage of Straight or Cogged Bars

cogged, are generally
The anchorage lengths of plain round bars, whether straight or
presence of a sleeve which
prohibitive especially if the bond length is reduced because of
the
Sometimes deformed Y-grade bars
allows adjustment during erection, as shown in Figure 7.3.
anchorage lengths required. However, it is wise to

with threaded ends are used to reduce the
use a bolt one size smaller than the deformed bar (eg. an M20 thread on a Y24 bar) to ensure
and so this approach can become uneconomical by comparison

the thread can be properly cut,
that only 80% of the 410 MPa
with others. It should also be noted that BHP [12] recommends
yield strength be used when Tempcore bars are threaded because of the loss of the hardened
outer region of the bars.
mild steel
The AISC connections manual [11] includes cog lengths for plain round
background information in Section 5.12.4 of the manual,
holding down bolts. However, in the
it is mentioned that cogged bolts (called hooked anchors) should be used only for base plates
subject to compression.
anchor bolt without a
References [10] and [11] indicate that the head of a standard
washer has sufficient bearing area to fully develop the tensile strength of the bolts.
plate or
Therefore a nut threaded on to the embedded end of the bolt
would also be sufficient for
green concrete when the exposed nut is being
tension but may not prevent the bolt turning in
anchorages are therefore a bolt head, a nut with sufficient weld
tightened. The most practical
a square plate welded to an unthreaded end or a U-bolt as
to prevent turning during tightening,
shown in Figure 7.3.
7.5. 4.2 Cone Failure

have standard heads or are in the form of U-bars, pullout by
bond
If the holding down bolts
and bolt shank not possible, and cone failure governs (see
failure between the concrete is
strength based on an ultimate uniform tensile stress of

Figure 7.4). The design cone failure is
defined by the projected area of a stress

0.33 i-ffl acting on an effective stress area which is
the concrete surface.
cone radiating from the bearing edge of the head of the anchor towards
& Slabs AISC DPFB/03
200 Footings
The effective area is limited by overlapping stress cones, and by edges of the concrete. The
effective area should be reduced by the bearing area of the anchor head. For simplicity, the
bearing area of the anchor head is conservatively taken as zero in Figure 7.4 and in Section
7. 5.4.3.
(a) Anchor Bolt (b) Standard Bolt (c) U— Bolt (d) Cogged Bolt
& Welded Nut
Figure 7.3 Holding Down Bolt Details
(a) Single Cone (b) Two Intersecting (c) Four Intersecting
Cones Cones
Figure 7.4 Single and Group Cone Failures
The inclination angle for calculating projected areas is 45°, while the <f)
factor should
be taken as 0.65 for holding down bolts. The 0.65 value for <p is taken from Reference [10]
—
AISC DPFB/03
Holding Down Bolts 201
although Reference [11] has adopted a (f>

value of 0.8. The concrete stress f'c is the
characteristic compressive cylinder strength in MPa. The cone failure strength so calculated is
an ultimate value.
7.5.43 Embedment Lengths

Embedment lengths for varying bolt diameters are presented in Table 7.2 for tensile load
cases. The embedment lengths are based on the assumed
cone failure described in Section
7. 5.4.2. The values L L 2 and I 4 correspond to a single cone, two intersecting cones and four
x ,
capacity being equal to or

intersecting cones respectively (see Figure 7.4), with the cone
greater than the ultimate tensile capacity of the bolt to ensure ductility. The bolt spacing is
taken as 100 mm for M12 to M24 bolts, 150 mm for M30 bolts and 200 mm for M36 bolts.
Recommended holding down bolt details are presented in Table 7.3.
between cone pullout capacity and bolt tensile strength can be

The relationship
expressed as:
(0.33x0.«xV77)x-4_ Sty (7.8)
where L = the embedment to top of bolt head on anchor in mm

= nominal tensile capacity of bolt in kN
Nff
A ~ projected surface area of the cone in mm 2
For a single bolt, A= td} and therefore, adopting f’ = 20 MPa

x
(7l9)
L >\S.2xjN^
x
For a double bolt, A is given by the following expression, but L2 must be calculated by trial
and error.
( r
s
2 x cos'
21 ,'ll . I T
A = xL22*X ,
1 — + lxj£-*r (7.10)
360
group with the bolt spacings in each direction less than the embedment length
For 4 bolts in a
L4 A
,
is given by
2 x cos' 2 2
2 L, s -s
xjL24
I
0.75- +
,
(7.11)
A= xL\ x H
360
7.5 .4.4 Minimum Edge Distance for Tensile Loads

head to confine the lateral
For tensile loads, a minimum edge distance is required at the anchor
load transfer from steel to concrete. For conventional
bursting force generated by the full
bursting force may conservatively be taken as one quarter of the

anchor heads, the lateral
Table 7.2 Calculated Holding Down Bolt

Details for Grade 4.6 Bolts
Bolts 1 Single Bolt

in Tension in Shear
Bolt
_
Diameter, D lx l2 la Ex e 2
mm mm mm _
mm mm mm
12 110 120 150 50 125
16 150 180 220 65 200

20 180 230 300 80 210
' 24 220 280 370 95 250
30 270 350 450 120 310
36 330 410 530 140 375
Notes:
1 . U bolts can present difficulties on site because of inaccurate spacing of their legs.
2. Minimum f'c = 20 MPa, concrete unreinforced. Note AS3600 requires a minimum
f' - 25 MPa for industrial building footings.
c
3. Bolt grade is 4.6.
4. Intersecting cone spacings are based on a minimum bolt spacing of 100 mm for Ml 2,
M16, M20 and M24 bolts, 150 mm for M30 bolts and 200 mm for M36 bolts.
5. Cone capacity is based on a uniform ultimate tensile stress of 0.33 x 0.65^[fJ acting
over the projected area of the cone at the concrete surface. The apex of the cone is
10.
assumed to be at the top of the anchor plate or bolt head.
6. £, is the minimum edge- distance in unreinforced concrete required to confine the
11.
lateral thrust generated by the tensile strength of the bolt assuming no shear on the
bolt.
7. E2 is the minimum edge distance in unreinforced concrete required for full
development of the shear strength of the bolt towards the edge.

8. Embedment lengths L u L 2 and LA require a minimum edge distance equal to the
embedment as shown in Figure 7.4 for a single cone, two intersecting cones or four
intersecting cones respectively.
9. Where a single bolt in tension is closer than L to the edge, the required embedment to
x
develop the ultimate tensile capacity of the bolt will be greater than Z., and may be
calculated by trial and error. Alternatively, embedment Z< may be conservatively
adopted.
Where embedment lengths or edge distances are not sufficient to fully develop the
strength of the anchor bolts, reinforcement must be located to intercept potential
cracking planes and must be fully developed on both sides of the postulated crack.
Where bolts are close to both an edge and to other bolts such as in a pedestal,
reinforcement will probably be necessary.
AISC DPFB/03
tensile capacity of the bolt.For expansion anchors, this force should not be taken as less than
the significant lateral force required to restrain
the pullout capacity of the anchor because of
an expansion anchor.
Table 7.3 Recommended Holding Down Bolt

Details for Grade 4.6 Bolts
Minimum Edge Anchor Plate Cog

Bolt Minimum Distance for Details Length 4
Dia. Embedment Shear or Tension mm mm
mm [see Notes
mm mm
D [see Note (4)] P T W (5) and (6)]
1.
150 50 6 6 160
12 150
225 225 50 10 6 225

16
300 300 50 12 6 280

20
375 375 50 16 8 335

24
450 450 75 20 10 425

30
550 550 75 25 12 520

36
Notes:
Minimum f'c ~ 20 MPa, unreinforced concrete. Note AS3 600 requires a minimum
f'c = 25 MPa for industrial building footings.
2. Bolt grade is 4.6, maximum of 4 bolts per group.

3. Minimum pitch 100 mm except 150 mm for M30 bolts and 200 mm for M36 bolts.
4. The edge embedments cover a group of 4,bolts.
distance and A
single or double bolt
than shown in this table. Table 7.2 can be used for single
may have less edge distance
or overlaps. If the edge distance
or double bolts whose cones are truncated by edges
is not available, the bolts can lap with reinforcement.
base plates subject to
5. Cogged plain mild steel bolts are recommended only for
compression [11].
6. Lh >AJ u/ j(0.1f;D)
For conventional anchor heads, working on a <f>

of 0.85, and a tensile
factor for the bolt
the edge distance can be expressed as
stress area of 0.75 times the gross area of the bolt,
E = Dx
,
r/r (7.11)
1
6.06
where E x
is the edge distance in mm, D is the bolt diameter in mm, /„y is the ultimate tensile
strength of the bolt in MPa and f'c is as previously defined. Values of is, are given in Table
7.2.Reference [11] recommends a minimum edge distance of 5 times the bolt diameter or
100 mm
whichever is the greater for Grade 4.6 bolts, but these minima are not adopted in
Table 7.2 of this book.
7.5.5 Bolts in Shear

For lateral loads towards the free edge, the edge distance shall be such that the concrete failure
strength (based on a uniform tensile strength of Q330*JfJ acting on an effective area defined
by projecting a 45° half cone to the free edge surface from the centreline of the anchor at the
shearing plane as shown in Figure 7.5) exceeds the ultimate shear strength of the bolts. This
concept has been confirmed by tests [13]. Based on these requirements, the commentary to.
the ACI 349 guidelines presents the following edge distance formula:
E ~ Dx.
L
2 (7-13)
0.83xV]r
where E2
is the edge distance and D is the bolt diameter in mm, fuf is the ultimate tensile
strength of the bolt in MPa, and /J is as previously defined. The resulting edge distances
defined in Figure 7.5 are given in Table 7.2. Reference [11] recommends a minimum edge
distance for Grade 4.6 bolts of 12 bolt diameters although this is not adopted in Table 7.2 of
this book.
Figure 7.5 Half-Cone Failure for Single Bolt in Shear

AISC DPFB/03
7.5.6 Corrosion
According to the British publication [8], inspections of holding
down bolts taken from
has significantly reduced the cross-sectional
demolished structures have shown that corrosion
Generally cementitious bedding and
area of the bolts within the design life of -the building.
filling materials have not been reliable in preventing corrosion. Hot dip galvanizing of
holding down bolts is recommended.
7.6 Slab Design

7.6.1 Design Principles
and other
Concrete slabs are intended to provide a level hard-wearing surface for wheel loads
should be designed [14] to prevent the
loads such as storage racks. It follows that a slab
occurrence of
• excessive flexural stresses which may result in cracking of the concrete.

• excessive bearing stresses on the concrete surface.
• excessive punching shear stresses due to concentrated loads.
• differential deflection at joints.
• excessive deflections due to settlement of the subgrade.
In fact,
Cracks can also occur because of restrained shrinkage and temperature effects.
Cracking
some cracking in floors is virtually inevitable no matter what precautions are taken.
detrimental unless the cracks are so wide that there is
in industrial floor slabs is not inherently
the cracks causing forklifts to bump badly. However, even
inadequate load transfer across
with narrow cracks, there are disadvantages such as marred appearance and the possible
desirable to minimise
spalling of the concrete surface at the cracks. It follows that it is
by the use of sufficient
cracking. This can be achieved by good joint design and layout,
reinforcement to ensure that any cracks are held together, or by prestressing.
It is minimise bumps or level differences at joints, especially when

also important to
solid tyred forklifts are used. This can be achieved by ensuring
load transfer at joints and by
breaks where level differences inevitably occur.
minimising the number of construction
Fortunately, the design, construction, and specification of industrial slabs and

pavements are very well covered by three excellent publications [14,15,16]. The information
in these publications will not be reproduced here but additional comments on various aspects
of slab design are given in the following sections.
7.6.2 Slab Thickness

The predominant consideration in slab thickness design is the prevention of excessive flexural
stresses under wheel or post loads. For all but lightly loaded floors, the stresses are
Association of
determined using charts such as those produced by the Cement and Concrete
the case of wheel loading, determining the ratio of the tensile stress (under a
Australia [14]. In
A1SC DPFB/03
206 Footings & Slabs
single application of the static wheel load) 90 days,
to the ultimate flexural. tensile strength at
allows the number of repetitions of the load which can be withstood by the slab to be read
from a table. If the stress ratio is 0.5 or less, then the slab can withstand an unlimited number
of repetitions or passes.
For lightly loaded floors, the slab thickness is usually determined from experience, and
Reference [14] presents a table of typical thicknesses. For example, an industrial building or
warehouse with live loading between 5 and 20 kPa, or a garage used for fully loaded semi-
trailers, would typically have a 175 mm thick slab, a concrete strength f'c of 32 MPa and F72
mesh with 30 mm top cover. Where the heaviest loads are only one tonne forklifts, the
thickness could be reduced to 125 mm with an /c
'
of 25 MPa depending on the subgrade
quality.
An example of a more heavily loaded floor slab would be a 200 mm thick slab with an
f'c of 40 MPa. Such a floor would be capable of carrying repetitive 5 tonne forklift loads
again depending on subgrade quality.
7.6.3 Joints
7.6.3. 1 General
Joints are necessary in concretepavements primarily to control cracks due to shrinkage and
temperature effects as previously discussed, and to control cracks due to uneven ground
movements. Joints are also necessary to provide construction breaks. It is not normally
necessary to provide expansion joints in floor slabs because shrinkage provides enough of a
gap at contraction joints to cater for any subsequent thermal expansion.
It is good practice to provide load transfer at joints, especially for solid tyred forklifts,
in order to minimise bumping across the joints, and also to spread the load on the edge of the
slab to the adjacent slab so as to reduce the high flexural edge stresses. Load transfer can be
achieved using keyed joints in lightly to moderately loaded slabs, and do welled joints in more
'
heavily loaded slabs. •
7.6.3. 2 Sawn Joints

A common method of providing contraction joints is to saw cut joints within 4 to 48 hours of
the pour, depending on the local conditions, to one quarter of the slab depth. The saw cuts
will initiate cracks. The mesh can be completely cut at the joint, but if the joint spacing
exceeds 5 metres only every second wire should be cut. The wires which do cross the joint
hold the joint together to some extent thereby aiding aggregate interlock and shear transfer. A
saw cut joint is shown in Figure 7.6. A sealant is recommended not only to prevent moisture
entering the subgrade in exposed or wet areas, but also to provide some support to the sawn
edges to minimise spalling.
Aisc dpfb/03 Slab Design 207
Induced crack—/ Cut al! wires or alternate

\
wires of mesh before pour
Figure 7.6 Saw Cut Joint Detail
Cast-in crack
wires of mesh before pour
Figure 7.7 Detailfor Cast-In Crack Inducer
7.63.3 Cast-In Crack Initiators

Instead of using saw cuts to initiate cracks, a crack initiator as shown in Figure 7.7 can be cast
into the slab at the desired contraction joint location. Crack initiators such as metal or wooden
strips were once placed on the ground and held vertical with removable
stakes, but in more
the top of
recent years a galvanised steel strip stiffened with a small rib has been pushed into
the wet concrete.
The galvanised strip is known commerciallyas Crack-a- Joint, and has been used with
mixed success. One drawback is that the strip tends to end up slightly below the concrete
surface, and this results in a slightly ragged crack. However, even with a ragged crack, there
is still a smooth transition for forklifts across the joint because the crack is narrow compared
with a saw cut, and the surface level on each side of the joint is the same. A smooth
transition
is difficult to achieve with formed joints where the slab on

each side is poured at a different
saw have advantage that large

time. Crack-a- Joint, pre-formed metal keyed joints and cuts the
pours can be achieved without pour breaks and the associated bumps that occur at pour
breaks.
7.63.4 Keyed Joints

A keyed joint detail is shown in Figure 7.8. Keyed joints are appropriate for slabs
typical
dimensions
used by lightly to moderately loaded vehicles. It is important that the key
208 Footings & Slabs AISC DPF8/03
recommended by the Cement and Concrete Association [14] are adhered to, except
that a
flatter 10 taper rather than 1 in 4 should be considered. In particular, it should be noted
in 1
that the key itself should project only 0. IF from the edge of the slab where Fis the
thickness
of the slab or thickening as appropriate. Otherwise, the key, or concrete above and below the
key, wi,ll be in danger of breaking off.
Keyed joints should not be constructed in slabs thinner than 150 without mm
thickening of the slab in the vicinity of the joint. Thickening provides edge stiffness
and
strength which compensates to some extent for the lack of direct load transfer resulting
from
the tapered nature of the key combined with shrinkage movement. It would therefore
be
wise
to limit thespacing of thickened keyed joints to a maximum of six metres. Thickenings
over
pad footings should be isolated from the footing by a 50 mm
minimum layer of sand or
crusher dust to avoid shrinkage restraint.
d I
£
CD
CD
LO
CNJ
II I
Figure 7.8 Keyed Joint Detail
Dowel with sown ends — Paint one half with water

based bituminous paint.
0/2
1
.
v ?
Typical dowels for Induced crack.

150 and 180 slobs — 1
Joint may also be

R20-300 x 300 long a formed joint.
Figure 7.9 Dowelled Joint Detail

AISC DPFB/03 Slab Design 209
7.63.5 Dowelled Joints

necessary to use dowels at joints
For pavements which support heavy vehicles or forklifts, it is
The Cement and Concrete Association publications [16] show
as shown in Figure 7.9. latest
dowels are used. The
dowels with keys although it is difficult to see the benefit of a key when
publications give typical details of key dimensions and dowel size and
spacing. A common
arrangement for 150 mm slab is R20 dowels 300 mm long at 300 mm centres.
Dowels should be smooth round bars as the name implies. At least one half should be
bond broken to facilitate opening of the joint. Some engineers specify that the bond broken
However, the contraction which
half of the dowel should be capped to allow for expansion.
due shrinkage should be sufficient to cater for expansion due to temperature. It
takes place to
and so
should be noted that solvent based bituminous paint can actually increase the bond,
water based bituminous paint or grease should be specified.
because shear
important to specify that the dowels be saw cut rather than shear cut
It is
of the Dowels must be
cutting deforms the dowel end which would resist opening
joint.
plane of the joint, otherwise the dowels

carefully aligned so that they are perpendicular to the
could even
and initiate cracking. It is difficult to properly align dowels, and
will resist sliding
so the use of tie bars is recommended as shown in Figure 7.9.
some cases, corrosion of the dowels may be

In possible, and the use of galvanised
dowels would be advisable. In any case, when dowels are used, sealant should be used to
prevent moisture ingress.
7.63.6 Joint Spacing and Reinforcement

well in service.
It isgenerally accepted that a 6 metre contraction joint spacing will perform
been a trend increase this spacing on the incorrect basis that shrinkage is the only
There has to
resist shrinkage forces can
cause of cracking and that the quantity of reinforcement needed to
designed prevent cracks, but to hold
be calculated. However, such reinforcement is not to
There differential temperature effects and ground

them together when they occur. are also
subsidence v/hich contribute to cracking.

and pits which can
For internal slabs, there are also thickenings, trenches, footings
serve to restrain shrinkage. It is therefore advisable to aim for a contraction joint spacing of 6
metres maximum wherever possible. At columns, the slab should be isolated from the column
footing or pedestal. At
footing pedestal with a layer of compressible material around the
through 45° so that the comers of the
internal columns, the column pedestal can be rotated
slab joints. Perimeter pour strips, say 2 metres wide, can be used on two
pedestal are at floor
where the column spacing does not suit a 6 metre joint spacing. The pour
strips
or four sides
The joint spacing in the pour strips
are separated from the body of the floor by keyed joints.
remainder of the floor is arranged to be
suits the column spacing while the joint spacing in the
about 6 metres or less.
7.7 Design Example - Footings
7.7.1 Typical Portal Footings
7.7. 1.1 Bored Piers

r
The vertical and horizontal reactions at the footings for the various load combinations are
given in Table 7.4. The foundation material is a stiff clay with c„ = 50 kPa.
Try bored piers 450 mm

diameter x 3000 mm
deep below finished ground level.
These piers will need to be capped with a pedestal deep enough to accommodate the holding
down bolts. Strictly speaking, shrinkage of the clay away from the top of the piers need not
be considered because of paving around the pier, but allow shrinkage over 1.5 d from top
of
the piers.
Table 7.4 Design Actions for Footings

(taken from Node Reactions in Appendix II)
Node 1 Node 9
Load
X-Force Y-Force X-Force Y-Force
Combinatio
n
kN kN kN kN
LC20 38.6 83.0 -38.6 83.0
LC21 -67.7 -94.7 -3.2 -53.0

LC22 -45.9 -54.6 -25.3 -12.0
LC23 -16.1 61.6 -55.8 105
LC24 -12.1 -44.5 12.1 -44.5
LC25
39.1 93.4 -39.1 93.4
• Check Hold Down Capacity
Adhesion = ac u = 0.9x50 = 45 kPa
Ultimate hold down capacity with a if> factor on geotechnical capacity of 0.6 and a load
factor on concrete weight of 0.8
= 0.6 x 45 x ^-x 0.45 (3.0

;rx0 45
'
x -0.45x1. 5) + 0.8x x 3.0x24 = 98 kN

4
Maximum uplift = 94.7 kN < 98 kN OK
• Check Lateral Forces
Lateral force H' = 67.7 kN ( LC21 ) inwards AS2159

L 1
AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Footings 21
Lateral capacity ignoring any slab restraint:
L 3000
= 6.67
d~ 450
200
= 0.44
d 450
calculation)
A s is determined by solving the quadratic equation (using a spreadsheet
+ bA§ + c ~0
where .
a =0.5
b = 9x| --lil +18 x f— + 1.5 >
Kd
c = -0.5xj9x — -1.5
l
so that As = 12.3
Assume 6 -Y16 bars equally spaced in the bored pier
Determine M Y using the

circular column charts in the Concrete Design Handbook [3] or
by a suitable spreadsheet program.
steel area 6 x 200 x 4

= = 0.0075
P
gross area ^x450 2
450-2 x (50 + 6+ 0.5 x 16)
o’ — — U. I
* 450
^ A
=0
Hence
ict
Wu _ 0.8
AgD
<fM Y = 0.8 x ——
V
7T
-
4S0”
— - x 450 Nmm = 57.3 kNm
Alternatively, in the absence of design aids, consider 3

- Y16 bars as tension steel, choose
an approximate d of 330 mm and calculate <fM Y - <fidA s fy .
Hence
(M u = 0.8 x 0.9 x 3 x 200 x 330 x 400 Nmm = 57.0 kNm
Hence adopting M y = 57.0/0.8 = 71
= 6.73
K =9x
Al < A s so Al governs
Hence
0gL Hu = 0.75x6.73x50x0.45 2 AS2159 Cl. A4
= 51.1 kN <H* = 67.7 kN NG
Try 6 - Y20 bars
= 310 x71 =110 kNm

200 .
h = 9-7
fgL Hu = 73.7 kN > H' = 67.7 kN OTf AS2159 Cl. A4
Details of the bored piers are shown in Appendix I
7.7. 1.2 Compare Pad Footings

Design uplift = 94.7 kN
94.5
Volume of concrete required = = 4.9 m 3
0.8 x 24
Try a 2.5 m a 2.5 m pad footing

The footing is shown in Figure 7.10
Slab contribution assuming a 1 m strip on three sides
~
2 5 'n
+ 0.2Ssay x (2.5 + 1 .0 + 1 .0)x 0. 1 75 =

I 1 .97, say 2 m 3
Hence, volume of pad footing required

= 4.9 -2.0 =2.9 m 3
Thickness of pad footing
2.9
= 0.46 m, say 450 mm
2.5 x 2.5
Compare pad footing volume of 2.9 m 3

with bored pier volume
2
3.0x^-x0.45
= — = 0.5 m ,
3
Hence bored piers are clearly more economical
7.7.2 End Wall Column Footings

Maximum uplift pressureLW = (0.9 + 0.1)xl.02 = 1.02 kPa
under
Maximum uplift pressure under CW = (0.9 + 0.52)xl.00 = 1.42 kPa

3
9
Uplift force =— x 6.25 x 1.42 = 40 kN
Dead load = —9 x 6.25 x 0.1 (roof) + 0.51x6.25 (rafter) + 6.25x8x0.1 (wall)
= 11 kN
Hence design uplift = 40 - 0.8x11 = 31.2 kN
Use typical bored pier with 98 kN uplift capacity because the concrete volume is very
small and the saving is not significant for the six piers involved.
Check maximum horizontal load at base
= -8— 1
2
55
x 8.61 = 35 kN
Clearly OKfrom Section 7. 6.1.1
Figure 7.10: Slab Contribution to Hold Down
7.7.3 Main Portal Footings in Bracing Bays
7.7.3. 1 Corner Columns

Uplift on the comer column due to longitudinal wind pressures on the roof
6.25x9
|x(0.9 + 0.l)xl.02 =14.3 kN
2x2
AISC DPFB/03
Ignoring DL, the combined uplift force due to roof pressures

and diagonal wall bracing forces
= 14+
72 9 *
'
— =75kN < 98 kN OK
9
Therefore typical bored piers are OK for uplift. The longitudinal force at the top of the
pier will be transmitted by the slab and therefore shared between the other side wall piers.
7.7.3. 2 Column on Grid B2

Column B2 is likely to have a high uplift load because the wall
bracing is in the second bay
from the end to avoid the roller door in the end bay. The uplift force from
the wall bracing
wind.
then combines with the maximum main' frame uplift from the longitudinal
Design uplift under long wind = 44.5 kN (LC24 = 0.8DL+LW1+IPLW)
Uplift due to wall bracing force

= —
"72.9x7.5
—— = 60.8 kN
Total design uplift = 44.5 + 60.8 = 105 kN > 98 kN NG

Therefore increase bored pier depth (conservatively) to 105x3.0/98
= 3.2 m for all bored
piers
7.7.3 .3 Columns on Grids A2, A8 and B8

When windward end, the force from the wall bracing is downward
these columns are at the
leeward end, the
and thus counteracts the main frame uplift. When these columns are at the
not only smaller, but the external suction coefficient
uplift from the wall bracing function is
which acts in combination with the wall bracing uplift is also only 0.2.
Hence, ADOPT the typical bored piers
7.7.4 Holding Down Bolts for Portal Columns
Maximum uplift = 105 kN (Grid B2)
Coincident shear = 72.9 kN (due to longitudinal bracing forces)
Coincident shear = 12 kN (due to in-plane column base shear LC24)
Resultant shear = -Jl2.9

7
+ \2 7
= 73.9 kN
• Check standard AISC base plate and holding bolts

Capacity of 4 - M24 4.6/S bolts in tension
AS4100 Cl. 9. 3.2.2
= 0.8x353x400x4
= 452 kN > 105 kN OK
2
11
Capacity of 4 - M24 4.6/S bolts in shear

= 0.8 x 0.62 x 324 x 400 x 4 AS4100 Cl. 9.3.2.
= 257 kN > 73.9 kN OK

Combined shear and tension (linear interaction) AISC [17]
73.9 105 .
= + = 0.52 < A
1.0
257 452
ADOPT 4 - M24 4.6/S bolts at 400 mm by 130 mm centres with 400 mm embedment
Provide 250 mm edge distance to the edge of the pedestal to ensure the ultimate shear
capacity of the bolts can be developed (see Table 7.2) without special ligatures around
the bolts.
7.7.5 Holding Down Bolts for End Wall Columns
AISC’s Standardised Structural Connections [17] recommends the following base details for a
250UB31:
• 280x1 80x20 plate
• 2 -M20 4.6/S bolts
Capacity of 2-M20 4.6/S bolts in tension

= 0.8x245x400x2 N= 157kN AS4100 Cl. 9. 3. 2.
Design uplift in Section 7.7.2 = 31.2 kN
Capacity of 2 - M20 4.6/S bolts in shear

= 0.8x0.62x225x400x2 N = 89kN AS4J00 Cl. 9.3:2.
Design shear force

8.61x8.155
= 35 kN OK
2
Combined shear and tension clearly OK
7.8 Design Example - Slab
7.8.1 Design Criteria

• 4.5 tonne forklift single wheel axle
• Unlimited repetitions
• Subgrade CBR 5
AISC DPFB/03
7.8.2 Slab Thickness Design
Design reference “Concrete and Industrial Floor and Pavement Design” published by Cement
& Concrete Association of Australia, July 1985 [14].
Try f' = 32 MPa
Therefore, flexural tensile strength of concrete at 28 days is
ft ,28 Jays = 0.438(/c')% = 4.4 MPa

and ft i90days =11 *4.4 = 4.S MPa
For unlimited repetitions, the maximum stress ratio is 0.5 and therefore the maximum
stress is 2.4 MPa.
Accepting adequate load transfer or thickenings at slab edges, the charts for interior
loading can be used. Using Figure 8 of Reference [14] and the following parameters:
• Axle load =10 tonne

• Wheel centres = 900 mm Table 8 Ref. [1 4]
• CBR = 5
• Maximum stress = 2.4 MPa
A slab thickness of 1 75 mm is required
Note that Figure 7 of Reference [14] indicates a slab thickness of just over 180 mm. The
difference may be due to the use of 28 day rather than 90 day flexural tensile strength in
preparing Figure 7, or perhaps different wheel centres.
7.8.3 Joints
Dowelled joints require care and close inspection for proper installation, and are more
expensive than keyed joints. Therefore, select longitudinal keyed joints with thickenings to
250 mm and transverse sawn joints.
As the panels are at 9 m centres, the transverse sawn joints should be either at 9 m or
4.5 m centres unless pour strips are used along the sides to isolate the columns and permit say
a 6 m joint spacing. From experience, 9 m spacing for sawn joints is too much to maintain
aggregate interlock after shrinkage.
If sawn joints at 4.5 m centres are adopted, the total length of sawn joint will be 15x26
= 390 m.
If a 2 m wide pour strip is down each side of the building to increase the sawn
used
joint spacing to 6 m, the total length of sawn joint will be 11x22 + 15x4 = 302 m allowing
for sawn joints at 4.5 m centres across the 2 m wide pour strips. In addition, a keyed joint
between each pour strip and the rest of the slab will be necessary, making an extra length of
keyed joint of 2x72 = 144 m. As keyed joints are more expensive than sawn joints, adopt
sealed sawn joints at 4.5 m centres

AISC DPFB/03 Design Example -Slab 217
7.8.4 Reinforcement
Figure 24 of Reference [14] indicates that F72 mesh is the minimum size required for a 175
mm slab. Therefore,
ADOPT F72 mesh
7.9 References
1. Standards Australia (1996). HB77.3 - 1996 Bridge Design Code. Section 3: Foundations. SA,
Sydney.
2. Standards Australia (1996). HB77.3.1 -1996 Bridge Design Code. Section 3: Foundations -
Commentary, SA, Sydney.

3. Cement and Concrete Association of Australia (1989). Concrete Design Handbook, C&CA,
Sydney.
4. Standards Australia (1995). AS2159 - 1995 Piling Code - Design and Installation, SA,
Sydney.
,d
5. Tomlinson, M.J. (1991). Pile Design and Construction Practice. 3 edn., Chapman and Hall,
London.
6. Standards Australia (1994). AS3600 - 1994 Concrete Structures. SA, Sydney.
7. Standards Association of Australia (1978). AS2159 - 1978 SAA Piling Code, SAA, Sydney.
8. The Concrete Society, The British Constructional Steelwork Association and the
Constructional Steel Research and Development Organisation (1980). Holding Down Systems
for Steel Stanchions, Special Publication.
9. American Concrete Institute Committee 349 (1979). Proposed addition to: Code requirements
for nuclear safety related concrete structures (ACI 349-76); and Addition to commentary on
code requirements for nuclear safety related concrete structures (ACI 349-76). American
Concrete Institute Structural Journal 75(8), 329-347.
,
10. Cannon, R.W., Godfrey, D.A. and Moreadith, F.L. (1981). Guide to the design of anchor bolts
and other steel embedments. Concrete Institute, 2(7), 28-41.
lh
11. Hogan, T.J. and Thomas, I.R. (1994). Design of Structural Connections. 4 edn., AISC,
Sydney.
12. Broken Hill Proprietary (1987). Tempcore - Leading the way in steel reinforcing. Rod and
Bar Products Division, 1987 edn., BHP, Melbourne.
13. Ueda, T., Kitipomchai, S. and Ling, K. (1990). Experimental investigation of anchor bolts
under shear. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 1 1 6(4), 9 1 0-924.
14. Cement and Concrete Association of Australia (1985). Concrete Industrial Floor and
Pavement Designs. C&CA, Sydney.
15. Egan, D.E. (1985). Industrial floors and pavements. Technical Note TN54, C&CA, Sydney.
16. Cement and Concrete Association of Australia (1997). Industrial Pavements - Guidelines for
Design, Construction and Specification. C&CA, Sydney.
rd
17. Australian Institute of Steel Construction (1985). Standardized Structural Connections, 3
edn, AISC, Sydney.
Sydney.
218 AISC DPFB/03
8 Plastic Frame Design
8.1 General
forces and bending moments.
In Chapter 4, elastic frame analysis was used to determine frame
The frame was then designed so that its plastic or limit state section and member capacities
plastically
exceed the calculated bending moments. In this chapter, the frame is analysed
allowing the formation of plastic hinges and redistribution of bending moments. The
frame is
then designed in a similar way to a frame analysed elastically, although there are some special
clauses in AS4100 for design based on plastic analysis.
The approach to portal frame design can be very quick and elegant. This is
plastic
especially true for symmetric loading. With the widespread availability of interactive
structural analysis computer packages, even more complex and non-symmetric load
cases can
be analysed adequately with greater ease because of the advantage of moment redistribution.
Any need to control deflections may negate this advantage, however.
8.2 Plastic Analysis
8.2.1 General
There are two methods of plastic analysis [1,2,3]. These are the well-known mechanism
(upper bound) and statical (lower bound) methods. upper bound method gives frame or
An
member load capacities which are greater than or equal to the correct values, and is sometimes
called an unsafe method. A lower bound method gives frame or
member load capacities
which are less than or equal to the correct values, and is sometimes called a safe method. The
basis and requirements of these methods are well documented in the references, and will not
be repeated here. However, should be stated that the two methods are really just two
it
different paths for approaching or reaching the same correct or unique solution at which the
mechanism, equilibrium and plastic moment conditions are all satisfied. It does not matter
if
a correct solution. It should be noted that the

an unsafe path has been taken to arrive at
capacities determined by the mechanism method in the next section are not unsafe, but are the
correct solutions for some simple symmetrical loading cases.

plastic moments
If the mechanism method is used in design to determine the required
the
for aframe rather than determining the load capacity from the analysis of a frame, then
mechanism method will also be unsafe if plasticity is not satisfied. This is because the method
will give required moments less than the minimum necessary to carry the applied loads.
Conversely, the statical method will give safe required moments if the mechanism condition
is not satisfied.
mechanism method to portal frames is described in the

The application of the
and assumptions governing plastic analysis are clearly set
following sections. The limitations
219
220 Plastic Design AISC DPFB/03
out in Clause 4.5 of AS4100. However, the load cases are the same as for an elastic analysis
with the same load factors.
(c) Bending Moment Diagram'
Figure 8.1 Plastic Analysis of Fixed Ended Haunched Beam
8.2.2 Direct Mechanism Method

The mechanism or upper bound method requires the selection of a failure mechanism for the
structure,with the type of mechanism and location of plastic hinges being dictated by the
nature of the applied loading. The mechanism may then be analysed by the principle of
virtual displacements in order to obtain either an upper bound capacity if a given structure is
being analysed, or a lower bound on the required plastic moment for design purposes. The
mechanism method gives the correct solution if the moments are less than the plastic moment
at all points except at the assumed plastic hinges where they are equal to the plastic moment.
aisc dpfb /03 Plastic Analysis 221
This is the necessary condition of plasticity [3]. Note that the mechanism method is only
unsafe if the plasticity condition has not been satisfied.
As an example of the method, consider the fixed ended haunch rafter shown in Figure
8.1(a) with a uniformly distributed load w. The corresponding failure mechanism is

shown in
Figure 8.1(b). If the rafter rotates through a small angle A 9, then Ad = A (5(1/2), and the
external work We
is
W.-wL—-—t9
4
(81)
2.
while the internal work is
W = 2 Sr M*p A6+ M*p 2A&

t
(8.2)
where Mp is the required section capacity in bending at midspan, and SR is the ratio of the
plasticmodulus at the supports to that at midspan. Equating the external and internal work,
Equations 8.1 and 8.2 produce
M'p (l + Ss ) = 83 )
?f (
If the member size is known, then this equation will give the member load capacity w,
taking Mp = <f>Msx . If the size is not known, which is the normal design situation, then this
equation will give the section moment capacity Mp required to carry the known load w.
Note that SR is a function of the beam geometry only, and may be set by the designer. The
design objective is to provide a member with a capacity <jMsx > Mp at midspan and jMsx >
S R M*p at the end of the haunch. The bending moment diagram at plastic collapse is shown in
Figure 8.1(c), where it can be seen that the plasticity condition is

satisfied. Therefore,
Equation 8.3 represents the correct solution at which the mechanism, equilibrium and plastic
moment conditions are satisfied.
The above procedure can be extended easily to cover a full portal frame with a pitched
rafter,and provides the designer with a simple and powerful method for the analysis of portal
frames under symmetric loading [4], Such loading occurs when the structure is subjected to
gravity loads and longitudinal wind. These load cases are more critical in low wind speed
areas such as in southern Australia. Non-symmetric loading patterns such as
those due to
cross wind are more difficult to analyse by the mechanism method unless some simplifying
assumptions are made. These include converting the varying pressures to uniformly
distributed loads or point loads. The designer must also take care to select the correct
mode of
failure.
In order to illustrate the use of the mechanism method for symmetric load cases,
consider the frame and gravity loading shown in Figure 8.2(a). If the rafter rotates by an angle
A# at the knee, as shown in Figure 8.2(c), then the ridge will drop by Af and the eaves will
spread by ALU. By noting that L = 2i?yCOS#and /= RjsmO, the following expressions may be
obtained:
w2 H
(b) Longitudinal Wind Load Case
AL
2 A0
|
t Af
r
31 AL
2H
1 6
t
R f = Rafter length
(c) Mechanism Geometry
Figure 8.2 Symmetrically Loaded Frame and Mechanism

AISC DPFB/03 Plastic Analysis 223
AL~2Rj s\nOA0-2fAO (8.4)
Af = Ry cosflA0=^~- (8-5)
The external work W e done by the distributed load w, and the concentrated load P is
We =w L^- + PAf{
(8
. 6)
so that from Equations 8.4 and 8.5
\ao (8.7)
2)
The angle change at the ridge is clearly 2 A Awhile the angle change at each knee is AO
+ ALI2H. The internal work done W t
is then
W^2SR M'p [he+^ + M’ê (8 . 8 )
where SR is modulus of the column to that of the unhaunched

the ratio of the plastic rafter
assuming any haunch will be proportioned to remain elastic as discussed

that later.
Substitution of Equation 8.4 into Equation 8.8 produces
f
W i
= 2 s r m; 1+^1+ 2 M p ae (8.9)
Equating the external and internal work yields
2
w, L PL
M. 5,11 + 4:1 + 1 + (8 . 10 )
H 8 4
For the longitudinal wind case shown in Figure 8.2b, the corresponding equation is
w, L cos 0
r2 n ... f2
w\f v>ifH
11 )
M, ‘S'pl i+-^1 + i ~ (8 .
H 8 2 2
8.2.3 Iterative Mechanism Method

The iterative mechanism method is particularly useful for cross wind load cases, since the
analysis can be performed easily with an elastic structural analysis program such as
Microstran or Spacegass. The usefulness of this method is enhanced if the package is
interactive, and allows the designer to plot and superimpose the bending moment diagrams on
the computer screen.
Plastic Design A1SCDPFB/03
224
(a) Cross Wind Loads (b) Redundant Load Case

on Determinate Frame on Determinate Frome
(c) BMP for Cross Wind Loads (d) BMP for Redundant Load
on Determinate Frame on Determinate Frome
AT KNEE : S R Mf, = M, - HR
AT APEX : Mf,
= M2 - (H + f)R
Figure 8.3 Statical Analysis
To consider the frame and loading shown in Figure 8.3(a).

illustrate this procedure,
The plastic bending moment produced firstly by removing enough redundants from the
is
frame to make it statically determinate. For pinned base frames, there is one redundant. Then
the bending moment distributions obtained separately from the redundants and the applied
loading are superimposed to roughly locate sufficient hinges for a mechanism. For the pinned
base frame shown in Figure 8.3, the horizontal reaction at the right hand support is removed
and the support released. The determinate frame is analysed for both the cross-wind loads
(Figure 8.3(a)) and the redundant reaction R (Figure 8.3(b)). Although these frames are
statically determinate, a computer analysis enables bending moment diagrams for non-
uniform loading to be obtained quickly and accurately.
For the loading shown in Figure 8.3(a), the combined bending moments would
indicate plastic hinges at the windward knee and at the ridge, these two hinges being sufficient
AISC DPFB/03 Plastic Analysis 225
to form a mechanism. The bending moment diagrams for this condition, with the
corresponding equations of equilibrium, are shown in Figures 8.3(c) and (d). Once
the value
of the redundant is calculated, the redundant load case can be re-analysed, combined with the
moment diagram checked for the plasticity condition.
applied loading, and the final bending
The process can be performed visually on the computer screen. It may be the case
that the
are not correct, and that one hinge is located, for example, elsewhere
assumed hinge locations
locate the correct hinge
on the rafter. A trial and error procedure must then be implemented to
Generally, only one or two iterations are required for a reasonably experienced
position.
designer to determine the required plastic moments accurately.
8.2.4 Statical Method

In the statical method of analysis, the bending moment diagram that satisfies the plasticity
condition as well as equilibrium is obtained for each design loading condition.

This gives a
lower bound on the frame load capacity. The distribution of moments is correct if the
positionswhere the moment equals the design capacity </Mpx produce a set of hinges which
corresponds to a failure mechanism. The statical method is not used in this book.
8.2.5 Second Order Effects
M* and other design load effects to be amplified if the elastic buckling load
AS4100 requires
factor Xc (r NomJN*) of the frame is less than 10. If the factor is less than 5, a second order
must be carried out. As Xe for most portal frames is greater than 5, second
plastic analysis
order plastic analysis is generally not required.
8.3 Basis of Plastic Design in AS4100

The provisions in AS4100 for design based on plastic analysis differ in some ways from those
4.5.2 requires amongst other
for design based on elastic analysis. For plastic design, Clause
buckling it is compact) and that only
things that the cross-section is free from local effects (ie.
doubly symmetric I-sections such as UB’s, WB’s, UC’s and WC’s be used. Clause 5.1
requires that a member which is analysed by the plastic method shall have full lateral restraint
as specified in Clause 5.3.2.
Lateral restraint is ensured in Clause 5. 3.2.4 by limiting the slenderness ratio L!ry
according to
A<(80+ 50 (8 . 12 )
r
y h
where pm is the ratio of the end moments over a segment length L. If the above equation is to
be applied to the entire rafter or column, then it is extremely restrictive and would require fly
braces to be placed at nearly every purlin and girt. However, Clause 5.3.2. 1 in the code
overcomes this conservatism by logically allowing the elastic design provision of Clause 5.6
to be used, so that lateral stability will be ensured if the member moment M bx is not less than
the section moment capacity M sx in the segments containing plastic hinges. This condition
can be expressed as
(8.13)
8.4 Member Capacities

The plastic moment capacity is reduced in AS4100 to account for axial compression or
tension N* by the use of Clause 8.3.2 as
(
<fM prx = 1.18 /Msx 1
- (8.14)
l
where M sx is the section strength which for plastic design will always be the full plastic
moment Sfy and where Ns

,
is the squash load Afy .
AS4100 also presents limits on the ratio N*I$NS for plastically designed beams subject
to axial compression with plastic hinges permitted to form. The axial forces N* in portal
frames are generally a small percentage of the squash loads Ns
and so this check is usually not
critical. Assuming N*hfiNs < 0.15, the check is given by Clause 8.4.3.2 as
N* 0.6 + 0.4A
(8.15)
Ws
N.oL
where pm is the ratio of the smaller to larger end bending moment taken as positive when the
member is bent in reverse curvature, and L is the actual length of the member,
jpEI
*<*« (8.16)
and
Ns — kj An fy (8.17)
where A„ is the net area of the member and kj is the local buckling form factor.
AISC DPFB/03
Member Capacities 227
The code on the ratio N*10, depending on the web slenderness.

also presents limits
As the web slendernesses of UB’s range from 30 to 55, there are two categories of UB web
slenderness to be checked from Clause 8.4.3.3 as follows:
N* < 0.60 - 1
— (8.18)
0s 137
when
45<^L
V
A
250
.< 82
and
N* < 1.91 - 'd' < 1.0 (8.19)

27.4
0s
when
25 < <45 (8 . 20 )
t... V 250
where d x
is the web depth and t w is the web thickness.
8.5 Design Example - Plastic Frame Design
8.5.1 Preliminary Design
8. 5. 1.1 Gravity Load Case

For preliminary proportioning, the column and rafter sizes are selected based on the dead and
live loads. Note that cross wind will probably be the governing case for
Region B.
Assume 0.5 kN/m self weight for the rafter.
From Sections 2.6.1 and 2.6.3
wDL = 0.10x9 + 0.5 = 1.40 kN/m

wLL = 0.25x9 = 2.25 kN/m
Hence design load
wj = 1.25x1.40+ 1.5x2.25 = 5.13 kN/m
with a concentrated load at the apex = 1. 5x4.5 = 6.75 kN
As the haunch is tapered, the behaviour of any hinge which forms within the haunch is
uncertain, especially with regard to its ductility. It is therefore generally accepted that the
0 1 0
hinge at the knee should form in the column and the haunch shquld remain elastic. This
means that the plastic section modulus of the haunch at the face of the column should be
greater than the plastic modulus of the column.
For the standard haunches detailed in the AISC Standardised Structural Connections
manual [5], the ratio of the plastic section modulus of the haunch at the face of the column to
that of the unhaunched rafter ranges from 2.3 to 2.5. Therefore, to ensure hinge formation in
the column, Scolumn ISrafler should generally be less than 2.3 if standard AISC haunches are
used. Experience shows that a ratio of about 2.2 produces an economical frame with the
advantage of extra depth for a manageable bolted connection at the column. Hence adopt
o
~ Column __
g _ 29
^ rafter
The direct mechanism method in Equation 8.10 produces
z
5.13 x 25 6.75x25
Mp * 2.2 x |
1 + |
+ + = 443 kNm
7.5
Hence
M"p = 130 kNm
The required plastic moduli are then
6
130 xlQ
* rafter
= 451xl0 3 mm 3
0.9 x 320
Scolumn = 2.2x45 lx 10 = 3
992x1
3
mm 3
Based on these plastic moduli, a 360UB56.7 column and a 250UB37.3 rafter could be
tried. However, these will clearly violate the serviceability limit state from experience with
deflections in Chapter 4, and so a 460UB67/310UB40 column/rafter combination will be
tried. For this combination
$ rafter
— 633x1 mm 3 3
uCcolumn = 1480xl0 mm 3 3
1480
S* = 2.34
633
The frame is proportioned so that the plastic modulus of the deepest section of the
haunch is slightly The haunch is divided into two sections of
greater than that of the column.
equal length for the computer analysis, and the average value of the second moment of area
over each section is used. The length of the haunch is usually between 10% and 15% of the
span.
A1SC DPFB/03 Design Example - Plastic Frame Design 229
8.5. 1.2 Cross Wind Load Case
Having selected preliminary sizes from the gravity load case, the iterative mechanism method
is now performed for the cross wind cases using the selected section sizes. The basic load
cases considered for preliminary design are
LC1: DL including self weight

LC3: CWl
LC7: IPCW(orlSCW)
LCR : Redundant R
m
q
-t
R=10kN
%
(b) Redundant
Figure 8.4 Statically Determinate Frame with Redundant Action
The horizontal reaction at the right hand support is chosen as the redundant R. The
cross wind frame loading for the maximum uplift case (LC3) was determined in Section 2.6.4.
The UDL’s which are used in Chapter 8 are slightly inaccurate compared with those in
Section 2.6.4. The Chapter 8 values are shown in Figure 8.4. The internal pressure under
cross wind is 4.21 kN/m as in Section 2.6.4.
Consider the combined load cases
LC21: 0.8DL + CWl + IPCW

LC3J: LC21 + LCR
00
AISC DPFB/03
230 Plastic Design
HO. 3 110.3 115.9
Figure 8.5 BMD for Load Cases LC21 and LCR (R—10 kN)
with 3 10UB 40 Rafters
The load case LCR is run for a value of R

~ 10 kN (see Figure 8.4(b)). The bending moment
diagrams are shown in Figure 8.5. From Figure 8.3, the equations of equilibrium for the
hinges at the knee and ridge are
Knee: 2MM'p = 492.9 - 7.5 R
Ridge: A/* = 1 10.3 + (7.5 + 0.655 )R
Hence M*p = 182 kNm and R = 8.83 kN

The frame is now re-analysed for a value of R- 8.83 kN in load case LCR. Visual
inspection shows that the plasticity condition is approximately satisfied.
Preliminary design moments are then
Knee: 2.34AT p
*
= 492.9 - —
8 83
10
x 75 = 427 kNm
Ridge: M*p ~ 1 82 kNm as above
The design capacity of the 310UB40 rafter is
tf>Msx = 0.9x320x633x1 3
Nmm
= 182 kNm > M*p = 182 kNm OK
The design capacity of the 460UB67 column is
<fMsx = 0.9x300x1 480x1 3

Nmm
= 400 kNm < Mp= 427 kNm NG
Try new sizes for the column
6
428 xlO
0.9x300
= 1585xl0 3 mm 3
Hence try a 460UB74 column.

AISC DPFB/03 Design Example - Plastic Frame Design 231
= 1660xl0 3 mm3
1660
S* = 2.62
633
8.5. 1.3 Deflections
By comparison with the 460UB74/360UB45 frame in Chapter 4 that was designed using
elastic analysis, the deflection of this frame with a lighter 310UB40 rafter will be excessive.
Lateral deflection of 460UB74/310UB40 frame at eaves (LC3)
x 144 = 58 mm
height
> A- AfG but ACCEPT at this stage
130 150
Rafter deflection under LL

L L
= 108 mm > NG but ACCEPT at this stage
231 240
8.5.2 Detailed Design
The iterative mechanism method used to analyse the revised frame for the same load
is now
cases and the other non-symmetrical load cases. The three non-symmetrical load cases are:
LC21: 0.8DL + CW1 + IPCW

LC22: 0.8DL + CW2 + IPCW
. LC23: 1.25DL + CW2 + ISCW
The remaining load cases which are symmetric are analysed using the direct
mechanism method. These cases are:
LC20: 1.25DL + 1.5LL

LC24: 0. 8DL + LW1 + IPLW
LC25: 1.25DL + LW2 + ISLW
• LC21: 0.8DL + CW1 + IPCW

the rafter size and therefore loading have not changed, the bending moment
As diagram is
still as shown in Figure 8.5. Analysis of the frame with a redundant R
= 10 kN yields the
following equations of equilibrium
2.62 M*p = 492.9 -7.5*

AISC DPFB/03
232 Plastic Design
M* = 1 10.3 + 8.155/2
Hence
R = 7.06 kN and
M’p =168 kNm < tfMp _ rafer
= 1 82 kNm; OK
At the knee
S R m'p = 2.62x 1 68 = 440 kN < fM s eolumn

= 448 kNm OK
167.9 167.9 l? 2-9
Figure 8.6 Combined BMD for Load Case LC21 with Plasticity
Condition Violated (R~7.06fcN)
Figure 8.6 shows the combined bending moment diagram. The plasticity condition would
be violated 1.4 m to the right of the ridge (where the maximum moment is 172.9 kNm) if
(fMs of the rafter were only 168 kNm. Therefore, try relocating the apex hinge 1.4 m to the
right of the ridge where the bending moment is 1 15.9 kNm as shown in Figure 8.5.
Hence,
2.62 M*p = 492.9-7.5 R
12,5 ~ lA
M*p = 1 15.9 + 1
7.5 + 0.655 x lx R
\ 12.5 )
= 115.9 + 8.08 R
This produces
R = 6.60 kN
M* = 169.2 kN < 182 kNm OK
At the knee
S R M*p = 2.62x 1 69.2 = 443 kNm < 448 kNm OK
Figure 8.7 shows the combined bending moment diagram that satisfies the plasticity
condition with the maximum moment of 169.2 kNm equal to the required value of Mp .
164.1 164.1 169.2
R = 6.60 kN
Figure 8.7 Combined BMD for Load Case 21 with Plasticity

Condition Satisfied (R=6.6 kN)
• LC22: 0.8DL + CW2 + IP CW

Analysis of the determinate frame for this load case and the redundant load case with R =
10 klsT yields the bending moment diagram shown in Figure 8.8. The equations of
equilibrium are
2.62 M* =492.9 -0.75/?
M*p =-141.9+8.155/?
Hence
R = 29.96 kN
Mp = 102.4 kNm < 182 kNm OK
At the knee
S R M*p = 2.62x 1 02.4 = 268 kNm < 448 kNm OK
However, the combined bending moment diagram in Figure 8.9 shows that the plasticity
condition would be violated if <fMs of the rafter was only 102.4 kNm. Therefore, try
relocating the apex hinge 2.3 m to the right of the ridge where the maximum moment is
131 kNm as shown in Figure 8.8. Hence,
81.5 81.5
Figure 8.8 BMD for Load Cases LC22 and LCR (R—10 kN)
AISC DPFB/03
234 Plastic Design
109 - 6
102.4 102.4
Figure 8.9 Combined BMD for Load Case LC22 with Plasticity
Condition Violated (R =29. 96 kN)
2.62 M*p =492.9 -0.75 R
M*p = -131 + 8. 03.fi
so that
R = 29.30 kN
M*p = 104.3 kNm < 182 kNm OK
At the knee
S R M*p = 2.62x 1 04.3 = 273 kNm < 448 kNm OK
Figure 8.10 shows the combined bending moment diagram which satisfies the plasticity
condition.
97 97 104 -3
Figure 8. 1 0 Combined BMD for Load Case LC22 with Plasticity

Condition Satisfied (R=29.3 kN)
• LC23: 1.25DL + CW2 + ISCIV

Analysis of the determinate frame for this load case and the redundant load case with R =
10 kN yields the bending moment diagram shown in Figure 8.1 1.
Figure 8. 1 1 Combined BMD for Load Cases LC23 and LCR (R=10 kN)
The equations of equilibrium at the downwind knee and the ridge are
2.62 M\ = 0.2 - 7.5*
M*p =-558.6 + 8.155*

Hence
* = 50.71 kN
M*p = 145.1 kNm < fMsx = 182 kNm
At the knee
S R M*p = 2.62x145.1 = 380 kNm < 448 kNm
However, the combined bending moment diagram in Figure 8.12 shows that the plasticity
condition would be violated if </M1 of the rafter were only 145.1 kNm. Therefore, try
relocating the apex hinge 1 .4 m to the left of the ridge.
380.1
Hence
2.61 Mp =0.2 -7.5*
At the knee
S R M*p = 2.62x146.5 = 384 kNm < 448 kNm
Figure 8.13 shows the combined bending moment diagram which satisfies the plasticity
condition. i
383.8
Figure 8.13 Combined BMD for Load CaseLC23 (R=51.21 kN)
• LC20: 1.25DL + 1.5LL
Check for Second Order Effects
Using the rafter and column axial forces obtained from the elastic analysis:
Ac = 8.08 from Microstran

Hence
0.9
Sp = = 1-03 AS4100 Cl. 4.5.4
j
1_
8fr8
Check Bending Capacity
From Equation 8.10
0.655 5.13 x 25 2 6.75 x 25

Mp x 2.62 x 1 + +1 + = 443 kNm
7.5
so Mp = 115 kNm
Hence based on 0.5 kN/m for unfactored rafter self-weight
Sp M*p = 1.03x115= 119 kNm < 182 kNm OK

At the knee
Sp SR M’p = 1.03x2.62x115 = 310 kNm < 448 kNm OK

: 5
A1SC DPFB/03 Design Example - Plastic Frame Design 237
• LC24: 0.8DL + LWl + IPLW

Roof: LWl = 4.64 kN/m
IPLW = 8.83 kN/m
Hence combining wind and dead load as cos 3° is close to unity
w," = 4.64 + 0.83 -0.8x(0.8 + 0.5)

= 4.35 kN/m
Walls LWl =3.81 kN/m
IPLW = 0.83 kN/m
Hence
w>2 =3.81 +0.83 = 4.64 kNm
From Equation 8.1 1, taking cos 3° = 1
M’„x 2 62 x(l + .
^) + l
2 2
4.35x25 4.3 5 x 0.65 4.64x0.655x7.5
+ +
8 2 2
= -328 kNm
Hence
M*p = 85.2 kNm (absolute value) < 182 kNm OK

At the knee
S R M* = 2.62x85.2 = 233 kNm < 448 kNm OK
. LC25: 1.25DL +LJW2 + ISLW
Roof: ISLW = -3.0x0.83 = -2.49 kN/m

LW2 =-1.99 kN/m
Hence combining wind and dead load directly as cos 3° is close to unity
w/ = -2.49- 1.99 - 1.25x(0.9 + 0.5)

= -6.23 kN/m
Walls: ISLW = -2.49 kN/m

LW2 =1.32 kN/m
Hence
w’ =-2.49+ 1.32 =-1.17 kN/m
From Equation 8.1 1, taking cos 3° = 1
M *
x 2.62 x ^1 + +
1j
2 2
6.23 x 25 6.23 x 0.655 1.17 x 0.655 x 75
8 “ 2 2
0 1
AISC DPFB/03
238 Plastic Design
= 482.5 kNm
Hence
M*p = 125 kNm < 182 kNm OK
From Microstran [7], Xc = 6.95 LC25 )

(
so 5p =
0.9
j
— = 1.05 AS4100 Cl.4.5.4
i_
6^95
At the knee
Sp S R Mp = 1.05x2.62x125 = 344 kNm < 448 kNm OK

A summary of the required plastic moments for the six load cases is given in Table 8.1.
Table 8.1 Summary of Required Plastic Moments
Load Column Rafter

Combination kNm kNm
LC20: 1.25DL + 1.5LL 310 119

LC21: CW1 +IPCW
0.8DL + 440 168
LC22: CW2 + IPCW
0.8DL + 273 104
LC23: 1.25DL CW2 + ISCW
+ 384 147
LC24: 0.8DL + LW1 +IPLW 223 85
LC25: 1.25DL + LW2 + ISLW 344 131
8.5.3 Columns
Check the 460UB74 section
8.5.3. 1 Section Capacities
Bending Capacity
jMsx = 0.9x300x 1 660x 1

3
Nmm = 448 kNm AS4100 Cl. 5.2.
Compression Capacity
k = 0.948 BMP [6]

f
<fiNs = 0.9x0.948x300x9520 N = 2437 kN AS4U0CI. 6.2.1
|
8.5.3. 2 Member Capacities

. LC21: 0.8DL + CW1 +IPCW
Worst bending momeijt M* = 440 kNm
Coincident axial force N* = 105 kN (tension)
dMorx =
r prx 1.18x448x11-— AS4100 Cl. 8.43.4
V 2437 J
= 506 kNm > <fMsx = 448 kNm
Hence
fMprx = 448 kNm > M*x - 440 kNm OK
• LC25: 1.25DL +LW2+ JSL W

Check Plastic Moment Capacity
Worst bending moment (amplified for second order effects)
K - 344 kNm
N* = 1.05x(-93) = -98 kN
m prx
= 1.18x 448x
f
1
”
98 >
2437 J
AS4100 Cl. 8.43.4
= 507 kNm > 448 kNm

Hence
jMprx = 448 kNm > M* = 344 kNm OK
Check Member Slenderness
N* = 98
-—=0.04 . _
... <0.15 AS4100 Cl. 8.43.2
0, 2437
n' x2x 10 5 x335x 10'

noL 2
AS4100 Cl. 8.43.4
7500
= 1 1,756 kN
Pm =0 (pinned base)
N s
=2708 kN
-
2 2
~\
0-6 + 0.4fim 0.6

AS4J00 Cl. 8.43.2
l*s 2708
j
‘i _V 11756.
00 3
1
A! SC DPFB/03
240 Plastic Design
= 1.56 > —N*

— =0.04 OK
0s
Check Web Slenderness
<f_
|X = 457-2x14.5 *
fj00
AS4100 Cl. 8.43.3
t
w V 250 9.1 y 250
= 51.5 > 45 but <82
Hence
51.5
0.60- = 0.60-
t
w x 137 137
= 0.22 > —
0s
= 0.04 OK
Check Lateral Restraint Requirement AS4100 Cl 5.1

(for Columns without Fly Braces) AS4100 Cl. 5.3.2.
Full lateral restraint for the segment containing a potential plastic hinge is achieved if
ct m as > 1.0 Section 8.
am = 1 .75 for the bending moment distribution with zero moment at one end
Calculate as :
Taking
Le =0.85x7000 = 5950 Section 43.2.
- 16.6x1 mm
6 4
I
y
BHP
J = 5 3 0x1 mm 3 4
BHP
Iw = 815xl0 9 mm 6 BHP
S = 1660xl0 mm J 3
BHP
fy = 300 MPa BHP
Using a spreadsheet program:
M 0 = 336 kNm AS4100 Cl. 5.6.1.1(a)
M„ =498 kNm AS4100CI. 5.6.1(a)
a5 = 0.43
Therefore
am as = 1 .75x0.43 = 0.75 < 1.0 NG

Try one fly brace at mid-height and check both upper and lower segments
Check Upper Segment
Pm =" 0-5
= 1 .75 - 1 .05 x0.5 + 0.3x0.5 z = 1 .30
Le - k k t kr L AS4100 CL 5.6.3
t
kt =1.0 fully restrained against twist at both ends AS4100 CL 5. 6.3(1)
ke =1.0 loads applied predominantly as moments AS4100 CL 5.6.3(2)
kr - 0.85 assuming lower segment has am as > 1 and provides lateral rotational
restraint to the upper segment
l = 7000- (3x1200+ 150) = 3250 mm

where 7000 mm is the height to the underside of the haunch and
(3x1200 + 150) mm is the height to the fly brace (see drawings).
Therefore
Le = 0.85x3250 = 2763 mm
= 0-72
Hence
tf mX a, = 1.30x0.72 = 0.94 <1.0 NG
Therefore, upper segment not fully restrained laterally and an extra fly brace is required.
is
base and the
Try adding a fly brace to the second top girt. The top girt is 7150 from the
second top girt is 1700 below this.
7150-1700 =
= -0.76
Pm 7150
- 1.05 x0.76 + 0.3x0.76 =
z
ctm = 1.75 1.13
Le =0.85x1 700 = .1445 mm

as = 0.96
a- mX ^= 1.13x0.96 = 1.08 > 1.0
The top segment is therefore fully restrained. The middle segment (L e = 0.85x1700) is also
fully restrained as it has a higher value.
Check Lower Segment
am =1.75
=1.0 fully restrained against twist at both ends AS4100 Cl. 5. 6.3(1)
k,
=1.0 fully restrained against twist at both ends

AS4100 Cl. 5. 6.3(1)
k(
= 0.70 upper segment is fully restrained and provides AS4100CL 5.4. 3.4
kr
lateral rotational restraint to lower segment at
top end while base plate and holding down bolts
provide lateral rotational restraint at bottom end

Le = 0.70x3750 = 2625 mm
as = 0.86
as ~ 1-75x0.86 = 1.51 > 1.0 OK
8.5.4 Rafters
Check the lateral restraint requirements for the critical load case {LC21). Plastic hinges may
form adjacent to the columns, or anywhere in a zone 1.4 m each side of the ridge for this load
combination.
Consider segment of leeward rafter between fly braces at the second and fifth purlins
from ridge as for elastic design. The segment is 3200 mm
long and starts approximately 1000
mm from the ridge. This segment can contain a plastic hinge 1.4 from the ridge and m
therefore needs to have full lateral restraint.
Calculate aa
The bending moment at the top fly brace is 169 kNm (bottom flange in compression) while
the bending moment at the bottom fly brace is 142 kNm. Therefore, take a linear distribution
from 169 kNm at one end to 142 kNm at the other end. ?
142
A 169
-0.84
am = 1.75 -1 .05 x0.84 + 0.3 x0.84 2 = 1 .08 AS4100 Table 5.6.1
Le = 0.85x3200 = 2720 Section 4.10.3.2 (ii)
as = 0.74
am a5 = 1.08x0.74 = 0.80 <1.0 NG
Hence additional fly braces are needed for this segment.
With even shorter segments, the moment is near uniform so that am should be taken as unity.
Therefore, as am as be greater than or equal to unity,
will not it is necessary to limit the
slenderness in accordance with Clause S.3.2.4 of AS4100.
Z</V(80 + 50A, AS4100 Cl. S.4.2.4
250
= 38.3 x 30 x J— =1015 mm
320
As the plastic hinge can be 1 .4 m from the ridge, need fly braces on the first three purlins from
the ridge which are 300, 1100 and 1900 mm respectively from the ridge.
end of the haunch, the moment

For the remainder of the rafter down to the fly brace near the
distribution can be reasonably taken as linearly reducing
from 168 kNm to 0 kNm over a
distance of 8900 - 1900 = 7000 to the fly mm
brace near the end of the haunch.
Trv 7000 mm segment.

Le = 0.85x7000 = 5950 mm
= AS4100 Table 5.6.1
^ 1-75

jUb =119 kNm < M* = 168 kNm NG
no potential for a plastic hinge to form in this segment, full lateral restraint is not
As there is
required and the segment can be designed as if an elastic analysis had been performed.
Trv next segment 2400 mm Ions.

Bending moment at the end of this segment
2400
= 168x 1 = 110 kNm
7000 J
Hence
110
Pm = 0.65
168
= 1.75 -1.05x0.65 + 0.3x0.65
2
= 1.19 AS4100 Table 5.6.1
'
Le = 0.85x2400 = 2040 mm
or, = 0.85
<fMb = 182 kNm > M ’ = 168 kNm OK
Consider next segment 4600 mm long from fifth to ninth purlin
Bending moment varies from 100 kNm to 0 kNm
Pm =0
** =1.75
Le =0.85x4600 = 3910 mm
as =0.64
(fMb — 182 kNm > M* =110 kNm OK
The positions of the required fly braces are shown in Table 8.2
AISC DPFB/03
244 Plastic Design
8.5.5
Serviceability
Deflections may be checked by restraining the ‘released’ support in the computer model used
for the statical analysis. The lateral deflection of the knee under ultimate cross wind is 144
mm. Hence, under serviceability wind
38
6 = 144x = 58 mm
60 )
eaves height K_
NG bat ACCEPT
130 150
Table 8.2 Position of Rafter Fly Braces
Distance
Purlin Fly Braces
from Ridge
mm
1 300 FB
2 1100 FB
3 1900 FB
4 3100 -
5 4300 FB
6 5500 -
7 6700 -
8.5.6 8 7900 -
9 8900 FB
8.6
Comparison of Plastic and Elastic Solutions
The plastic design example haunched 460UB74/310UB40 can be achieved on

illustrates that a
a strength basis but there needs be five fly braces on the rafter on each side of the ridge and
to
three girts on each of the columns. The overall weight would be about 2100 kg per frame
which is roughly 130 kg lighter than the 460UB74/310UB45 frame designed using elastic
analysis. Consideration could also be given to designing an unhaunched frame.
References
1. Baker, J.F., Home, M.R. and Heyman, J. (1956). The Steel Skeleton: Volume II Plastic
Behaviour and Design. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
2. Beedle, L.S. (1958). Plastic Design of Steel Frames. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
AISC DPFB/03
References 245
,d
3. Neal, B.G. (1977). Plastic Methods of Structural Analysis. 3 edn., Chapman and Hall,
London.
4. Pikusa, S. and Bradford, M.A. (1992). An approximate simple plastic analysis of portal frame
structures, Steel Construction, AISC, 26(4), 2-12.
rd
5. Australian Institute of Steel Construction (1985). Standardized Structural Connections, 3
edn.,AISC, Sydney. \
6. Broken Hill Proprietary, (1998). Hot Rolled and Structural Steel Products BHP, Melbourne.
,
7. Engineering Systems Pty Ltd (1996). Microslran Users Manual, Engineering Systems,
Sydney.
AISC DPFB/03
246
9 Gantry Cranes & Monorails
9.1 General
Overhead travelling cranes or gantry cranes as shown in Figure 9.1 are generally used in
workshops and warehouses where lifting capacity is required over a large proportion of the
floor area. Monorails are used where the need to lift and move items can be confined to one
direction. This chapter is intended to give guidance for the design of crane runway beams and
portal frames required to support overhead travelling cranes which have a capacity of up to 15
tonnes safe working load (SWL). The theory developed for top flange and above top flange
loading of crane runway beams is extended to bottom flange loading of monorails. Tables
giving member moment capacities of crane runway beams and monorails are presented in
Appendix A9.1.
Buffer
\i
o
o
o
Elevotion
Figure 9. 1 Overhead Travelling Crane in Design Example
247
248 Gantry Cranes & Monorails A ISC DPFB/03
assumed the crane runway beams are simply supported and are seated on corbel
It is
brackets that cantilever from the main portal columns. Overhead travelling cranes of heavier
capacity are more likely to be supported by stepped, compound or supplementary portal
columns which are not addressed in this book.
The client or end user will usually present his or her basic requirements in the design
brief. These may include:
• SWL
• Hook height
• Clearance to the underside of the crane beam (for double girder cranes)
• Crane class
• Crane type (eg single or double girder)
• Crane manufacturer (sometimes)
Designers then need to establish various parameters that will influence the structural
design of the building, including:
• Level of the top of rail (TOR)

• Clearance above the rail
• Springing height of frame

• Design loads
• Crane wheel centres
• Deflection limits for the crane runway beam and portal frame
• Utilisation and state of loading for fatigue assessment
The level of the top of the rail, the clearance above the top of the rail and the crane
wheel base vary with the type of crane, and can be obtained from the manufacturer. The
working loads are also best obtained from the crane manufacturer who knows the self-weight
of the crane, the wheel centres, the limits of hook travel across the span and the intricacies of
the crane code AS1418.18 Part 18-1999: Crane Runways and Monorails [1]. The
manufacturer can usually provide loads factored for dynamic effects and lateral loads
calculated in accordance with the code. There can be a significant difference in wheel loads
and geometry between single and double girder cranes, so the designer should at least
establish the type of crane that is to be used. If the designer camiot establish the make of the
crane, then a contingency of say 10% could be added to the loads provided by one
manufacturer to allow for other makes which might be adopted. Nevertheless, the design
should be checked when the actual crane has been chosen.
9.2 Design Procedure for Gantry Cranes

Once the crane wheel loads and the overall geometry have been established, the general
design procedure is as given below. This procedure is presented from the viewpoint of the
additional steps needed for the design of a portal frame building with an overhead travelling
crane compared with those needed in Chapter 4 for a building without a crane.
1. Design the crane runway beams for combined vertical and lateral loads using the design
capacity tables in Appendix 9.1 or from the first principles given in Section 9.3.
2. Determine the maximum crane load reactions on the corbel supporting the crane runway
beam, and the coincident minimum crane load reactions on the opposite portal column. (If
AISC DPFB/03 Design Procedure for Gantry Cranes 249
the corbel is included as a member in the computer model, these vertical loads are applied
directly to the corbel. If the corbel is not modelled, the crane load needs to be applied to
the column as a vertical load and a coincident moment at the level of the mid-height of the
corbel.)
3. Determine the coincident lateral loads on the portal frame due to oblique travel or lateral
inertia. (These loads are applied to the portal column at the level of the top of the crane
runway beam.)
4. Add the crane runway beam dead load to the dead load case in Chapter 4 and add the
following new load cases:
• Crane loads with maximum load at left column

• Crane loads with maximum load at right column
• Lateral crane loads with maximum at left column
and acting from left to right
• Lateral crane loads with maximum at right column

and acting from left to right
5. Determine load combinations

6. Analyse frame
7. Check deflections
8. Check columns and rafter for strength
9.3 Crane Runway Beams

9.3.1 General
Crane runway beams usually consist of a Universal Beam (UB) or a Welded Beam (WB)
and flexural-torsional buckling by a Parallel Flange Channel
stiffened against lateral loading
(PFC) welded over the top flange as shown in Figure 9.2. A rail is loosely fixed on top of the
crane runway beam by various methods as detailed in Reference [2].
Figure 9.2 Monosymmetric Crane Runway Beam

250 Gantry Cranes & Monorails AISC DPFB/03
The crane runway beam is therefore a compound monosymmetric beam subjected to

combined vertical and horizontal loads. The vertical loads are applied above the shear centre
which reduces the buckling moment. In addition, the distribution of major axis moment
varies according to the number and location of the wheel loads on the span and this too
influences the buckling moment.
9.3.2 Design Loads and Moments

For a given crane with two wheels on each side, the distribution of vertical load between
wheels varies according to the position of the hoisted load along the crane beam and the type
of crane (eg single or double girder). The crane code AS 1418.18 numbers the four wheels in a
matrix - Wheels 1 1 and 12 on Side 1 and Wheels 21 and 22 on Side 2. The maximum loads
on a pair of wheels obviously occur when the hoisted load is closest to those wheels but the
loads are not necessarily equal. The maximum bending moment in the crane runway beam
may occur with one or two wheels on one span depending on the spacing of wheels relative to
the crane runway beam span. If the two loads are not equal, the maximum moment can be
determined using simple algebraic expressions and differentiating. If they are equal, the
maximum moment can be determined from simple expressions well summarised in Reference
[3]. If a w < 0.586L, the maximum moment:
M . p.^:20Sa
.
J (9.1)
L
where a w is the distance between the two loads. The distribution of horizontal loads between
the four wheels varies according to the nature of the phenomenon causing the lateral loads.
There are three cases of lateral loading described in AS 141 8. 18 as follows:
• For lateral inertia of the hoisted load under cross-shop travel, the lateral loads are
relatively small and are all of equal magnitude and direction.
• For lateral inertia from down-shop travel with the hoisted' load in a non-central
position, the lateral loads are larger but are equal and in opposite directions for
each pair of wheels.
• For oblique travel, the lateral loads occur on diagonally opposite wheels and are in
the same direction.
The lateral loads are applied to the top of the rail and are essentially resisted by the top
flange of the crane runway beam in bending about its vertical axis. Because the force is
actually applied above the top flange, leverage will result in the lateral forces resisted by the
top flange being higher than the applied forces at top of Under horizontal loading,
rail level.
the maximum top flange bending moment coincident with the maximum major axis moment
tends to occur in the oblique travel case. However, other lateral load cases are likely to
become more critical as the spacing of wheels increases relative to the crane runway beam
span, and so all lateral load cases should be checked.
As AS 141 8. 18 is and crane live

in limit states format, the load factors for dead load
loads are 1.25 and 1.5. The crane load cases needbe combined using suitable load factors
to
with the dead load case and with the in-service wind load cases which are based on a regional
, 1
AISC DPFB/03
Crane Runway Beams 25
basic wind speed V of 20 m/sec. The cross wind loads from left to right should logically
combine with lateral crane loads from left to right and vice versa.
9.3.3 Member Capacity in Major Axis Bending <fMhx
9.3.3. 1 AS4 100 Beam Design Rules

The determination of the member moment capacity, <f)M bx ,
of monosymmetric beams is
covered in Clause 5.6. 1.2 of AS4100 [4] for uniform moment distribution. Clause 5. 6. 1.2
refers to Clause 5. 6. 1.1 which applies to doubly symmetric beams. The treatment of non-
uniform bending is not specifically mentioned but the implication is that the moment
modification factors am in Table 5.6.1 of the code as derived for doubly symmetric beams can
be used for monosymmetric beams so that
<f>M bx = <f>am cts M zx < Mu (9.2)
in which as is the beam slenderness reduction factor given by
a =0.6x (9.3)
where is the reference buckling moment of a simply supported beam under uniform
moment and Al u is the section moment capacity. The beam capacity curve (fM bx =
</>a
z
am M zx in Clause 5. 6. 1.1 is really only applicable to doubly symmetric sections. It relies
on limited experimental results on doubly symmetric beams to give higher capacities for
stockier beams subjected to non-uniform moment than the capacities which would be obtained
using the more fundamental beam curve given in Clause 5.6.2(ii) of AS4100.
Although Clause 5.6.2(ii) appears to be only for segments restrained at one end, its
beam curve is fundamental with general validity. It takes the form <f>Mbx - (fasb M zx where the
non-uniform moment (or am ) effect is incorporated in azb because asb is based on as
follows
"
asb - 0.6 x {
'M.
+3 - K (9.4)
For doubly symmetric beams, M ob

M
= am 0 This approach is more fundamental because am
.
is really an elastic bucklingmoment modifier and its use in Clause 5.6. 1.1 of AS4100 in
directly modifying the plastic moment M
„ is empirically rather than theoretically based.
As discussed earlier, the <f>M bx = <pctz am M zx

design rule given in Clause 5. 6.1.1 of
AS4100 is really only appropriate for doubly symmetric beams. In fact, it is potentially
unsafe for monosymmetric beams as shown in References [5] and [6]. The moment
modification factors a m for monosymmetric beams are very different from those for doubly
symmetric beams. The uniform moment case is not necessarily the worst loading case for
monosymmetric beams and so am could be less than 1.0. For example, the moment
modification factor for a typical crane runway beam subjected to central concentrated loading
acting at the shear centre can be as low as 0.8 [6] compared with the value for am = 1.35 for a
doubly symmetric beam under the same loading.
Apart from the above mentioned problem, the effect of load height is not specifically
mentioned in AS4100 monosymmetric beams but the approach of applying a 1.4 effective
for
length factor for top flange loading as for doubly symmetric beams is implied. This approach
is very approximate and in any case, the height of top flange loading in AS4100 is at the top
surface of the top flange, whereas for crane runway beams it is above the top flange
actually
(by the height of the rail). Overall the AS4100 approach for monosymmetric beams is rather
unsatisfactory and can be unconservative.
9.3 .3.2 Proposed Monosymmetric Beam Design Rules

The uncertainties with the Clause 5.6. 1.1 approach in AS4100 can be overcome by adopting
the more fundamental and conservative approach of design by buckling analysis using Clause
5.6.2 (ii) of AS4100. Apart from using a more appropriate beam curve, this approach relies
on a rational elastic buckling analysis to determine the elastic critical buckling moment M ob
.
This is monosymmetric beams under non-uniform moment since both the

appropriate for
effects of major axis moment distribution and load height can be more accurately incorporated
in calculating the elastic buckling moment. Consequently, there is no need to use am or the
effective length factor of 1 .4 for top flange loading. Using this approach, the member bending
capacity </M bx is given by
0Mbx =fa,b M iX
<M sx (9.5)
in which asb is the beam slenderness reduction factor given by Equation 9.4 above.
Approximate formulae for the elastic buckling moment M ob

for monosymmetric
beams under different load cases [5,6]. The loading case relevant to the
have been derived
present problem is that monosymmetric beams under the action of two
for simply supported
equal symmetrically-placed concentrated loads acting at a variable load height above or below
the shear centre. The explicit expression for the elastic buckling moment, ob is as
follows: M ,
M ob
\(
n EI y GJ
+ /K C+fi
A
(9.6)
where
K= (9.7)
V 4GJJ}
AISC DPFB/03 Crane Runway Beams 253
in which K is the beam parameter, EI y is the minor axis flexural rigidity, GJ is the torsional
rigidity, L is the length of the beam and J3X is the monosymmetry section constant given by
[5]
= 0.9x(2/?-l)x (9-8)
where I x and I are the second moment of areas about the section major and minor principal
axes and p is the degree of beam monosymmetry given by
Pm (9.9)
h
where Iyc is the second moment of area of the compression flange about the section minor
principal y-axis. Factors m, f and f2

are given in terms of the location a of the point loads
where aL - (L - a w )/2 as shown in Figure 9.3 and

'
m =1-0 Aa(l- 5.5a) (9.10)
/. =-^-sin 2 na (9.11)
an
2
a(l-a) 7r
= (9.12)
/2 2
2 sin na
while £ is the load height parameter given by
2 a_
(9.13)
<r=
where a is the height of application of the load below the shear centre and df is the distance
between the centroids of the top and bottom flanges. The centroid of the top flange is taken as
the centroid of the PFC and the shear centre is positioned approximately (1 - p)df below the
centroid of the top flange.
The particular case of a central concentrated load is covered by a w = 0 (see Figure 9.3).
Note that it is assumed that the case of non-symmetrical loading with two concentrated loads
is less critical than the case of symmetrical loading with two equal concentrated loads.
This
would be obvious for doubly symmetric beams because the latter gives a more adverse zone of
uniform bending in the middle. However, it is not so clear for monosymmetric beams for
which uniform moment is not necessarily the critical buckling condition. It can be shown for a
typical crane runway beam that symmetrical loading with two equal concentrated loads is
more critical than eccentric loading with a single concentrated load applied in the same
location as one of the twin concentrated loads.
Using the above approach and various spreadsheet analyses, it can be shown that the
most adverse case for crane runway beam loading is for two symmetrically located
concentrated loads with aJL in the range 0.2 to 0.4. Results obtained indicated that the
moment capacities are almost constant in this range and so a value of aJL equal to 0.3 has
been adopted for the design capacity tables presented in Appendix 9.1. As the rail height can
vary, particularly with the trend to use flat bars in lieu of rails (presumably because BHP is no
longer rolling the smaller rails), tables for different rail heights are presented. Linear
interpolation can be used if required. The derivation of the tables is given in Appendix 9.2.
Figure 9.3 Two Equal Symmetrically-Placed Concentrated Loads
9.4 Portal Columns Supporting Crane Runway Beams

The portal columns are subjected to additional axial compression loads and moments due to
the crane loading. Because the inside flange is not restrained by girts, it is recommended that
the effective length for minor axis buckling be taken as the full height of the column, or the
height between wall bracing nodes, whichever is the lesser; or where fly braces are provided,
the distance between fly braces.
9.5 Monorail Beams

9.5.1 General
While the design of monorail beams has no particular relevance to the design of portal frame
buildings, the proposed method for designing crane runway beams can be used for designing
monorail beams to take advantage of the load being applied at or below the bottom flange
level. This could be quite beneficial as AS4100 does not give a method for dealing with
bottom flange or lower than bottom flange loading, and Appendix B2 of AS 141 8. 18 allows
the point of application of loads from monorail-type hoists to be taken as 200 mm below the
bottom flange.
9.5.2 Member Capacity Tables

The method given in Section 9. 3. 3.2 for monosymmetric beams is generally applicable to
monorails except that the loading a single concentrated load and the beams are doubly
is
symmetric without a top hat PFC. Therefore the following parameters should be used with
Equations 9.5 to 9,7 in lieu of those defined in Section 9. 3. 3. 2.
AISC DPFB/03 Monorail Beams 255
p =0.5
A =o
m = 1 . 9 - 2.2«(l - a), where ctL is the distance to the load from one end
_ wsin not
1
a(\ - a)x 2
_ 1 \
a(\-ay 2 J
2 2
2 [_
sin 7ia J
The shear the centroid of a doubly symmetric section and bottom flange
centre is at
loading for this exercise assumed to be at the underside of the bottom flange. It could be
is
argued that because the wheels of the hoist apply the load at the top of the bottom flange, this
assumption is not strictly correct. However, as AS 141 8.1 8 proposes that the load can be
considered as being applied 200 mm
below the bottom flange, such refinement is not
worthwhile.
Although this method can deal with a single concentrated load anywhere along the
beam, the worst case for bottom flange loading is central loading. Tables of design member
moment capacities 4>M bx for WB
and UB sections for both bottom flange loading ( h b — 0)
and loading 200 mm below the bottom flange (h b = -200 mm) are presented in Appendix
A9.1. It should be noted that although these tables give higher capacities than those for shear
centre loading, they are based on the more conservative asb t beam curve. For M and UC WC
sections, the extra conservatism in the cesb M s
beam curve is significant enough to more than
offset the benefitsof below shear centre loading. Consequently, tables for WC and UC
monorail beams are not included.
9.5.3 Local Bottom Flange Bending

The bottom flanges of monorail beams are subjected to local bending both transversely and
longitudinally. The longitudinal bending acts in combination with the overall
major axis
bending. AS1418.18 presents a permissible stress design expression for minimum
flange
thickness which accounts very simply for these combined effects. The flange thickness
expression is based on work done by BHP in the seventies [1 0], and confirmed by more
recent
work which investigated the local flange bending theoretically using grillage models [1 1].
9.6 Design Example - Gantry Cranes
9.6.1 Load Cases

the height and plan dimensions of the building have been kept the same
with or without the
As
overhead travelling crane, the dead, live and wind loads are the same as in previous chapters.
provided by the crane manufacturer are presented in Figure 9.4 and are
The crane loads as
shown pictorially in Figure 9.5.
) ) B 6
SWF HOISTS & INDUSTRIAL

EQUIPMENT
A.C.N. 005 209 898
PTY. LTD.
WHEEL LOADS to AS141B 1994

***********c*****************
DATE RUN 7-2-97 (SINGLE BEAM CRANE)

CLIENT BONACCI W INWARD
JOB NUMBER 7050
CRANE SWL. 5 TONNE CLASS C3 M3 .
HOI ST -FACTOR 1.1

DEAD LOAD FACTOR 1.1
CRANE SPAN 24143 MM
HOOK APPROACH 600 MM
WHEEL BASE 3500 MM
WHEEL CLEARANCE 12 MM
DISTANCE B/N. WHEEL 22 & C/L BRIDGE 1750 MM
DISTANCE B/N. C/L HOOK & C/L BRIDGE 0 MM
DISTANCE B/N. C/L "CRAB & C/L BRIDGE 0 MM
BRIDGE BEAM Ixx 3286 *10~6 MM~4
BRIDGE BEAM WEIGHT 4.765B04 TONNES
BOGIE WEIGHT (ea) .3 TONNES
CRAB WEIGHT .65 TONNES
MIN DRIVE W.L 13.23887 KN
MAX . MAX .
WHEEL IDENTIFICATION - 21 22 11 12
STATIC WHEEL LOADS ( KN

40.2 40.2 13. 13.8
DYNAMIC WHEEL LOADS ( KN

44.2 44.2 15.2 15.2
OBLIQUE TRAVEL WHEEL LOADS - Y 4.6 1.6

OR 4.6 1 .
LATERAL INERTIA - Phb + - + _

6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7
— —
LATERAL INERTIA - Phc 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
LONGITUDINAL INERTIA - Pht 4.0 4.0
Figure 9.4 Manufacturer's Crane Loads

AISC DPFB/03 Design Example
(a) Dynamic Vertical Wheel Loads

with Lateral Inertia Loads Phb
(b) Dynamic Vertical Wheel Loads

with Oblique Trovel Wheel Loads
Figure 9.5(a), (b) Pictorial Representation of Crane Loads

258 Gantry Cranes & Monorails A!SC DPFB/03
(c) Dynamic Vertical Wheel Loads

with Lateral Inertia Loads Ph c
Figure 9.5(c) Pictorial Representation of Crane Loads
9.6.2 Crane Runway Beam
9.6.2. 1 Major Axis Bending Moments

Determine the maximum moment in a 9 m span beam under the action of two equal
concentrated loads 3.5 m apart as shown in Figure 9.6. Self weight bending moment will be
added separately.
44.2 kN ,
44.2 kN
,
9000
Figure 9.6 Unfactored Vertical Beam Loads
Reaction at support A:
9-x + 9-{3.5 + x) AA „ = 14.5-2* x44.2

AA ^ „
Rj = x 44.2 kN
1
9 9
Design Example 259
AISC DPFB/03
The bending moment will be a maximum under one of the concentrated wheel loads, say at C.
The bending moment at C is then
Mr = (
14-5 ~^ x44.2x kNm
9 »
The maximum bending moment under the wheel load at C will occur when dMJdx — 0.
Hence
(l4.5 -4x)x 44.2

4 L = 0 so x = 3.625
, m
9
and (W r ) n H =129 kNm

,
(unfactored)
The bending moment diagram associated with the maximum unfactored bending moment is
shown in Figure 9.7.
Try a 410UB59.7 + 300PFC + 3 lkg/m rail (total 130.8 kg/m) BHP

2
-3 9
Self weight bending moment = 130.8 x 9.82 x 10 x-— =13.0 kNm
O
Design moment (factored):
M; =1.5x129 + 1.25x13.0 =210 kNm
As the rail height is 1 17.5 mm, check the major axis member capacity in Appendix 9.1
is 224 kNm which is greater than M*
=
for the h, = 120 mm case. The design capacity *z
210 kNm. This appears to have an adequate margin so proceed to check for minor axis
bending moments and other actions.
129 kNm 122 kNm
Figure 9.7 Maximum Bending Moment
9.6. 2.2 Minor Axis Bending Moments

axis bending moment coincident with the maximum major axis bending moment is
The minor
calculated from the two most critical lateral loading cases as follows.
• Lateral Inertia Loading (refer to Figure 9.8)
6.7 x 3.5
A
= =261kN
9
M >c
=2.61x3.625 = 9.45 kNm
MyC — 2.75x3.625 = 9.96 kNm say lOkNm
The maximum lateral bending moment will occur when one of the lateral inertia loads is at
the support as in Figure 9.10.
Figure 9.10 Loading for Maximum Lateral Bending Moment
Adopt the maximum coincident minor axis bending moment of 10 kNm (unfactored).
Because the lateral loads are applied at the top of the rail which is above the top flange
level, the lateral loading applies a torque to the section about the longitudinal axis. The
minor axis moment must therefore be proportioned into components in the top flange and
bottom flange. In Figure 9.11 which assumes a 31 kg/m BHP rail [7] and a 410UB60 +
300PFC crane runway beam, F is a force applied at the top of the rail which induces
forces F, in the top flange and Fb in the bottom flange as shown.
27.2
Centroid PFC
Figure 9.1 1 Lateral Load Sharing between Flanges
By taking moments about the centroid of the bottom flange
117.5 + 27.2 + 380.4

F, xF =13SF
380.4
where the distance between the centroid of the top flange (taken as the centroid of the
PFC) and the centre of the bottom flange of the 410UB60 is
= 406 + 8 + 27.2 - — 2
= 380.4 mm
and
F b
=(1.38- l)xF = 0.38F
Therefore, the design lateral bending moment in the top flange is
My =1.38x1.5x10 = 20.7 kNm
and the design lateral bending moment in the bottom flange is
M'y =0.38x1.5x10 = 5.7 kNm
Assuming both flanges are compact, the minor axis design section capacity of the bottom
flange
178 - 12 8
Nmm
'
<f>MSy = 0.9x x 300

^
= 27.3 kNm >5.7 kNm OK
For a 300PFC bent about its major axis, <fMK =152 kNm. Hence the minor axis design
section capacity of the top flange (ignoring rail) bent about its vertical axis is
262 Gantry Cranes & Monorails A1SC DPFB/03
fM = sy
152 + 27.3
= 179kNm > 20.7 kNm OK
9.623 Combined Actions

• Top Flange
Using Table Appendix, the combined actions ratio for major axis bending of the
9.1 in the
full compound 410UB60/300PFC section and minor axis bending of the top flange as a
compound section is
M\ M /I
( P
M AM »)'
;
i t* 0p
= —224
+
179
= 1 .06 > 1 .00 NG AS4100 Sect. 8
Try a 460UB67 + 300PFC + 31 kg/m rail (total = 138 kg/m)
Top flange minor axis design capacity:
19Q2 12 7
x300xl0- 6 +152 = 183 kNm
'
/Msy = 0.9x
^
Self weight bending moment = 138x9.82xl0‘ x

3
—=
9
2
13.7 kNm
O
M; = 1.5x129+ 1.25x13.7 = 211 kNm

The lateral bending moment in the top flange will be less than before because the section
is deeper and the torsional effect will be less. Therefore, conservatively adopt the same
design lateral bending moment. The combined actions check is therefore
111 + ^1=0.91 < 1.00 OK AS4100 Sect. 8

264 183
• Bottom Flanee
Minor axis design capacity of bottom flange
12 7x1 90 2
= 0.9 x x300 Nmm = 30.9 kNm
The combined actions check is therefore
S7
211
±11 + hL = 0.98 < 1 .00 OK AS4I00 Sect. 8
264 30.9
Although the torsional effect will result in slightly higher minor axis moments in the
bottom flange, adopt 460UB67/300PFC Section with a 31 kg/m Rail

56 0 J
.4
9.6 2. Check Major Axis Compound Section Moment Capacity

The 460UB67 is compact for bending about both axes, but the 300PFC is not compact for
bending about its minor axis when the web is in compression. However, providing the
welding between the PFC and the top flange of the UB is continuous, or is hit and miss with
the miss length less than the flange width, the width b could be taken as the width between
welds and hence (b/t)^fy / 250 = (178/8) V300/250 = 24.3 < Atp = 30. In this case, the PFC
can be taken as being compact for bending of the compound UB/PFC section about its strong
or weak axis.
9.6. 2. Deflections
Vertical Deflection
Assume conservatively that both maximum static wheel loads are combined as a single
central concentrated load. From the AISC Design Capacity Tables [8], Ix = 436x10° min'*.
Thus
3 3
(2 x 40.2) x x 9Q00
=
s
1
=UQ mm
48x2x10 x436xl0°
L AS14I8.18
limit for U3 classification
643 500
Note that the accurate deflection for two symmetrical concentrated loads spaced 3.5 m
apart is 12.4 mm.
• Lateral Deflection
Assume conservatively that the worst lateral wheel load of 6.7 kN is applied at midspan,
ignoring the 6.7 kN wheel load in the opposite direction.
Iy for top flange = 79.7x10° mm'

3 3
6.7 xlO x9000
A 5
= 6.4 mm
48x2xl0 x 79.7x10
L L
.
OK AS14I8.18
1410 600
9.6.2. Vertical Shear Capacity

The maximum shear occurs with one wheel load adjacent to a support. Therefore
5500
R, =1.5x44.2x1 + •
1
+ 1. 25x1. 38 x— = 107 + 7= 114 kN
-
9000 2
Hence V* =114 kN
5
Assuming that the shear stress in the web is uniform, which is not strictly correct for a
monosymmetric section,
<f>Vw =0.9x0.6x320x454x8.5 AS4100 Sect. 5

= 667kN > V* = 114fc;N OK
9 62.1
. Shear Buckling Capacity
Vb = a yw
x
= 2.07 >1.0 so web will not buckle in shear AS4100 Sect. 5
Therefore
<f>Vb = 0VW = 667 kN > V = 1 14 kN OK AS4 100 Sect. 5
9.6.2. 8 Shear and Bending Interaction

Calculate shear coincident with maximum bending moment ignoring self-weight shear.
R.x = 1.5x —
145-2xr
-x44.2 kN
9
where a: = 3.625 m
Therefore
Ra = 53.4 kN = r
M' >0.7 <j,Mt
- 1.6M - 1. 6x211
/Km =tK* 2 2 . = 667 x 2.2
529
= 1042 kN > V' = 53.4 kN OK AS4 100 Sect. 5
9 62.9
. Bearing Capacity of Crane Runway Beam
As shown in Figure 9.12, stiffeners between corbel flanges below the centreline of the crane
runway beam will need to be provided to prevent local bending of the corbel flange and web
and to provide a positive load path for the eccentric reaction from the beam.
The corbel will tend to rotate under the action of unbalanced loads from the crane
runway beams when the crane is located in one bay. As the corbel rotates, the length of the
stiff bearing support reduces.
The bearing yield capacity can be written as a function of the stiff bearing length b in
s
mm shown in Figure 9.13 as follows:
(J)Rby =0.9x1 25b bf t w fy = 0.9 x 1.25 x(&, +2.5 t

f
)xtjy AS4100 Sect. 5
= 0.9x1 .25 x (bs + 2.5 x 12.7)x 8.5 x 320 N
= 97 +3.0606 s kN
The required stiff bearing length 6, is thus
114-97
“ = 5.56 mm
3.060
which is achievable even with the rotation of the corbel
The bearing buckling capacity of the crane runway beam is determined by considering
the web as a column of cross-section bb xtw with a slenderness ratio of 2.5djtv> using a = 0.5
,
b
and kf = 1.0 (AS4100, Clause 5.13).
Le 2.5 x (454 -2x12.7) _

126
r 8.5
An =126xVT0xJ— = 143 AS4100 Sect. 5

V 250
«c = 0.296 AS4100 Table 6. 3. 3(3)
<f>Nc = 0.9x0.296x6, x8. 5x320 N = 0.7256, kN

454-2x12.7^
= 0.725 x b, +2.5x12.7 + -
= 178 + 0.7256, > R‘ =114 kN as bs >0 OK
9.6.2. 1 0 Check Effect of Eccentric Corbel

Loading on Column
Assume conservatively that the centre of bearing is midway between the web and the edge of
the corbel flange as shown in Figure 9.12. The torque is thus 1 14x0.190/4 = 5.4 kNm.
The equivalent force couple applied at the top and bottom corbel flanges
1 0
5.4
= 11.8kN
0.46
The equivalent forces on inside column flange

460 + 200
= 1 1.8x = 16.9 kN
460
11.8 kN
o
CO
t Column
— 460UB74 Column
1 i Roil Torque Applied to

1
O P >< Corbel at Runwoy

a a N- 460UB74 Corbel
o 190 Beam Centreline
Plan
Figure 9 14 Plan on Corbel

: and Induced Couple of Forces
Assume that the inside column flange resists the couple of forces as shown in Figure 9.15.
N
460 920
6250 6250,
Mc = 1. 24 x (6.25 -0.92) =6.6 kNm

Ze, = 262x1 3
mm 3
BHP
= 0.9x262xl0 x300 Nmm = 70.7 kNm
3
<pMy
Assume the applied moment is resisted by 50% of the minor axis capacity. Therefore,
Mc =6.6 kNm < 0.5x70.7 = 35.4 kNm OK

However, check combined actions of column later
9 6
. . 2. 1 Check Effect of Vertical Loads on Web
The rail load is deemed in Clause 5. 8. 3. 3 of AS 141 8. 18 to be distributed uniformly along a
length of web L wx where
L wx = 2Hr + 5t
f
+ tr
where H r is the height of the rail, is the thickness of the compound flange and t, = the root
radius. Thus
L„x = 2x117.5 + 5x(12.7 + 8.0) + 11.4 = 350 mm

The limit state design check is
N..
Y M.
+ <
{^Jj y ) W bx
1.0 AS1 418. 18 Sect. 5.8.3.3(b)
N'w = 1.5x44.2 = 66.3 kN
66.3
0.9x350x8.5x320x10
—V +
V
—
211
{264)
i
=0.64 < 1.0 OK
Figure 9.15 Force Couple Applied to Column Flange
9.6.2. 12 Check Effect of Eccentric Rail Loading

on Crane Runway Beam Web
Eccentricity of vertical load from web centreline
e..
>
— —
1000
- + —4
{b
K tk
, = width of railhead)1 ASH 18. 18 Cl. 5.4.2
= 9000 + 63.5
= 24.9 mm
1000 4
0
4 — 0
AJSC DPFB/03 Design Example 269
Local torsional moment Ml

= N‘w e + N‘ (Hr +
y y
t
f)
ASM 1 8. IS Eqn. 5.83.4. (c)l
where H r
is the rail height and t
f
is the thickness of the compound top flange (= 12.7 + 8.0
mm).
Therefore
Ml = 1 ,5x {44.2 x 0.0249 + 6.6 x (0. 1 1 75 + 0.0 1 27 + 0.008)}

= 3.02 kNm
Bending moment per unit length of web for a single wheel load M\
ASM 18. 18 Eqn. 5.83.4.2

'
L,
s„
where ASM 18. 18 Eqn. 5.8.3.4(c)3
and SL = 0.092£'t
,
3
x —
0.25Z.
- = 0.092 x 2 x 10 x 8.5 x
5 3
--------
dw 428
= 59.4xl0 6 Nmm
{Jf +J,)*G
and Srf
0.5 L
in which J{ is the torsion constant of the top flange including the PFC
= 290 xlO + 3
=419xl0 3 mm 3
BHP
The torsion constant for the rail Jr is not tabulated by BHP, but can be calculated
approximately from the following expression [9]
- A
/
4 Ah+i>)
where A is the cross-sectional area = 4010 mm 2

,
Iy is also not tabulated by BHP, but may be
calculated approximately by treating the rail as three rectangles 60x30, 13x65 and 108x13.
Hence
30x60 3
65xl3 3 13xl08 3
r
/y = + + -=1.92x10
1ft6
mm4
.
12 12 12
Ix = 7.66x1 6
mm 4
BHP
A =4010 mm 2
BHP
4
40 10
Jr = 684x1 3
mm 3
4^ 2
x(7.66 + 1.92)x!0 6
5
Hence
3
684)xl0 x 80000
= (419 + = 19.6xl0 6 Nmm
0.5x9000
59.4xl°‘
and .
* (59.4 + 1 9.6) xl0“
L, = 5 x [Brb +H r
+t f ) ASM 18. 18 Eqn. 5.8.3.4(c)4
where Brb is the width of the H and

rail bottom flange and r
t
f
are as previously defined
L, = 5x(108+ 117.5 + 12.7 + 8.0) = 1231 mm

0.75x3.02 ......
M, = - ~ — • = 1.84 kNm/m
.
1.231
2
1.23 lx 8.
fM = s
0.9 x x 320 Nmm/m = 6.40 kNm/m
Combining the actions from the vertical load and bending moment in the web in a linear
interaction gives
|
K 1.84
+
663 = 0.36 < 1.00 OK
;
(L WX t W fy 6.40 0.9x350x8.5x320x1 O' 3
Clause 5.83.4 of AS 141 8. 18 requires that the local torsional moment be doubled if the
wheels are spaced less than 0.5L, ie if aJL < 0.5. This requirement appears overly
conservative when it is realised that the wheel spacing is 3.5 and the length of web over m
which the moment from one wheel acts is only 1.91 m. In any case, as the local torsional
moment is made up of two components: (i) a torque due to the eccentricity of the vertical
loading and (ii) a torque due to the horizontal loading, the horizontal forces to be considered at
each of the two wheels should act in the same direction. The unfactored force of 6.6 kN used
earlier in the section acts in the opposite direction at the second wheel.
The only forces which act in the same direction are the 0.6 kN loads in Figure 9.5(c).
In Figure 9.5(b), there is a 4.6 kN force acting alone on one crane runway beam. Assuming
conservatively that the 4.6 kN force acts on both adjacent wheels, the local torsional moment
after doubling becomes
2 Ml =2 x[Ker + N;{H r
+t,)]
= 2x [l .5 x (44.2 x 0.0249) + 1 .5 x 4.6 x (0. 1 1 75 + 0.0127 + 0.008)]

= 5.20 kNm
Therefore
0.75x5.20
2 . = =3 17kNm/m
1
1.231
Hence the combined actions check is
(2 M]) N'w
+
</M, (L w tJy
3.17 663
3
= 0.57 < 1.00 OK
6.40 0.9x350x8.5x320xl0"
9.6.2. 1 3 Check Effect of Web Buckling Under Vertical Loads

Clause 5.8.3.5(b) of AS1418.18 refers to AS4100 for checking the patch loading buckling
capacity of the web panel. Clause 5.13.4 of AS4100 defines the nominal bearing buckling
capacity R bb as the capacity of a strut of cross-sectional area /w x6 6 slenderness,
ratio LJr =
2.5 djtw , using ab - 0.5 and kf = 1.0. Hence using this familiar procedure,
d }
= 428 mm BHP
tw = 8.5 mm BHP
4
t-
= 2 5x
.
^
8.5
=1 26
bb = 2Hr + 5tf + d x
= 2x1 17.5 + 5x(12.7 + 8.0) + 428 = 766.5 mm

A =b bt w = 766.5x8.5 =6515 mm 2
fy = 320 MPa
= 126 xj— =142.6

250
ac = 0.296
0NC = 0.9x0.296x65 15x320 N
= 555 kN > N‘w = 1.5x44.2 = 66.3 kN OK
9.6.2.14 Fatigue
The overhead travelling crane will be used less than ten times per day every day for 25 years.
It will generally lift light loads with occasional lifts of the safe working load.
Therefore, the maximum number of operating cycles

= 10x365x25 = 91000
Hence the class of utilisation in accordance with Table 6.1(1) of AS1418.18 is U

3.
The state of loading is classified as 'Q2 - Moderate' in Table 6.1(2) of AS1418.18. It
follows that the classification of the crane structure is S3, and a fatigue analysis is not required
as shown in Table 6.1(3) of AS 141 8. 18.

1
9.6.3 Check Portal Frame

9.6.3. Loads
• Dead Load
\
The dead load is as previously adopted, except for the addition of the crane runway beam
loads.
Crane runway beam reaction for 460UB67, 300PFC and 31kg/m rail allowance
= (67 + 40.1 + 31)x9x9.82xl0' = 3

12.2 kN
Coincident moment at centre of column (located 480 mm from rail centreline as shown in
Figure 9.16)
= 12.2x0.48 = 5.9 kNm
Figure 9.16 Crane Runway Beam Dimensions
• Crane Vertical Loads (Maximum to Left)
The maximum reaction occurs with one wheel over a support or with the wheel loads
straddling a support.
R ava = 44.2 x — = 71 .2 kN (unfactored)

^ j
Coincident moment = 71.2x0.48 = 34.2 kNm (clockwise)
Coincident vertical load on right hand column

2
= —x
44.2
71.2 = 24.5 kN
Coincident moment on right hand column

= 24.5 x 0.48 = 11.8 kNm (anticlockwise)
r
• Crane Vertical Loads (Maximum to Right)
The loads are as for the maximum to the left, but with left and right column loads mirror
reversed.
• Crane Lateral Loads
The worst lateral loading for this crane is due to oblique travel and consists of a 4.6 kN
lateralload at one column and a 1.6 kN lateral load at the other column. These loads are a
function of the frictional contact between the wheels and rail, and so the larger lateral
load is associated with the larger vertical load.
. Windloads AS14J8.18 Cl. 4. 6.2.
The wind load cases are the same as for the portal frame without a crane. For load
combinations, the crane code considers in-service wind loads for permissible stress design
to be based on a regional basic wind speed of 20 m/s compared with 60 m/s for limit state
strength design under dead and wind load alone.
Therefore, the wind load component for crane load combinations should be factored by
9.63.2
2
= 0.167 for limit state strength design using a load factor of 1.5 to convert
1.5x(20/60)
permissible stress design loads to limit state strength design loads.
Load Combinations
The load factors of 1.25 on the dead load and 1.5 on crane loads are drawn from
AS/NZS1418.18.
1.25DL + 1.5 x (Crane Loads Vertical Left)

1 .25DL + 1 .5 x (Crane Loads Vertical Left + Lateral)
1 .25DL + 1 .5 x (Crane Loads Vertical Right)
1 .25DL + 1 .5 x (Crane Loads Vertical Right

+ Lateral)
9.63.3 x (Crane Loads Vertical Left + Lateral) + 0.167CW1
1.25DL + 1. 5
1.25DL + 1. 5 x (Crane Loads Vertical Right + Lateral)

+ 0.167CW1
1 .25DL + 1 .5 x (Crane Loads Vertical Left + Lateral) + 0. 1 67 x (CW2 + ISCW)
1 .25DL + 1 .5 x (Crane Loads Vertical Right + Lateral) + 0. 1 67 x (LW2 + ISLW)
Columns
Chapter 4, except that the
The column section capacities for the 460UB74 are the same as in
on an
axis should be based
member compression capacities for buckling about the minor
effective length of 0.85 times the height to the top of the crane
runway beam instead of 0.85
regarding
times the girt spacifig. This is a conservative measure because of some uncertainty
274 Gantry Crams & Monorails A ISC DPFB/03
the effectiveness of girts providing minor axis restraint to one flange of an I-section column
under axial compression loads. (This uncertainty is overlooked in the design of portal
columns without crane loads.) The wall bracing will be arranged so that there is a node level
with the top of the crane runway beam. Hence,
L ey =0.85x6250 = 5313 mm
Av =^HxV0.948x = 136
41.8 V 250
=0.347
tpNcy = 846 kN
In summary with reference to Chapter 4,
JMlx = 448 kNm

(N, = 2570 kN
<f>N, = 2436 kN
0a = 2178 kN (L a = 7500 mm)
N c>,
= 846 kN
• Combined Actions for Cram Loads
M’ =159 kNm at downward column knee

M’ =171 kNm at crane corbel
N' ~ 1 71 kN compression at base of column
• Check Section Capacity
Reduced section capacity due to axial compression
82-47.1 171
/M = rx
1 + O.lSx x 448 x 1-
82-45 2436
= 487 kNm but > <f,MiX = 448 kNm
Hence
<pMrx = 448 kNm > M* = 171 kNm OK
In-plane member capacity is reduced due to axial compression.
(M, = 448x[ 1--^-]

V 2178 )
= 413 kNm > M' = t
171 kNm OK
Check capacity under axial load alone with the effective column length determined from
the frame elastic buckling load factor Ac calculated using Equation 4.2.
3 EI r
~
er [KK+oWjr)
6 5
3x2xl0 xl21xlQ
~ 12517x(l71xl0 x 7500 + 0.3 x24xl0 3
3
x 12517)
= 4.23
By comparison, more accurate value obtained from Microstran is A c = 11.0. Tins

(he
in the columns.
takes account of the haunches and the localised distribution of axial force
hand column only 63 kN.
For example, the maximum axial compression in the left is
Nevertheless, using the more readily determined value of Ac = 4.23 produces
5
2 xl0 x 335x10*
Lex - ttx 3
= 30,200 mm
4.23xl71xl0
ac = 0.233
fNa = 567 kN > N'c = 171 kN OK

the crane corbel
The maximum applied moment occurs at the level of the mid height of
with the inside flange of the downwind column in compression.
M' =171 kNm

At of the column can be considered to be braced laterally by
this level, the inside flange
the corbel which is in turn braced longitudinally by the crane

runway beam. This beam in
turn is fly braced back to the longitudinal wall bracing system as shown in Figure 9.17.
Therefore, the segment length from a flexural-torsional buckling viewpoint is
L - 6250 - 460 - =.5560 mm

2
4 =k 44 =1.0x1.0x0.85x5560 =4726
,
mm
=1.75
Hence using a spreadsheet program
M 0
= 409 kNm
cts = 0.540
<jMbx = 424 kNm
/
--
170
<f>Mox = 424 x 1
846
= 338 kNm > = 171 kNm OK.
'6 Gantry Cranes & Monorails AISC DPFB/03
The mid height column fly braces needed for the portal frame without the crane can be
deleted in lieu of the restraint provided by the crane runway beams and corbels.
AISC DPFB/Q3 Design Example 277
• Check Deflections
The lateral deflection at the top of the crane runway beam level at 6250 mm due to lateral
crane loads of 4.6 kN and 1.6 kN
= 19 mm
!
> the lesser of

-^9 = 12.5 mm
.
or 10 mm deflection limit NG
500
However, it can be argued that the lateral crane loads will be distributed over at least two
frames by virtue of the diaphragm action of the roof sheeting as the lateral loads are small
in this case.
Lateral deflection at the top of the crane runway beam due to in-service wind loads of V
:
- 20 m/s compared with V, = 40.8 m/s in Section 2.6.3. 1.

2
|
xl08 =26 mm
> the lesser of 9999 = 1 2.5 mm or 10 mm deflection limit NG

500
There will be some rotational restraint at the base of the portal frame columns which will
reduce the in-service deflections. However, the deflection limits are substantially
exceeded and either the member sizes need to be increased or some base restraint needs to
be accepted or otherwise incorporated in the design.
It could be argued that the lateral deflections due tocrane loads should be combined with
lateral deflections due to in-service wind loads. However, the likelihood of these two
events occurring simultaneously, even with the much reduced return period for in service
wind loads, is considered to be very low.
9.7 References
1. Standards Australia (1999). AS1418.I8 Crane Runway and Monorails, SA Sydney.
2. Gorenc, B.E. (1983). Crane Runway Girders , AISC, Sydney.
3. Gorenc, B.E., Tinyou, R. and Syam, A. A. (1996). Steel Designers’ Handbook, University of
NSW Press, Sydney.
4. Standards Australia (1990). AS4100 Steel Structures, SA, Sydney.
5. Wang, C.M. and Kitipomchai, S. (1986). Buckling Capacity of Monosymmetric I-Beams,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 1 12, No. 11, 2373-2391.
6. Kitipomchai, S. and Wang, C.M. (1988). Flexural-Torsional buckling of Monosymmetric
beam-column/tie-beams, Structural Engineer, Vol. 66, No. 23, 393-399.
7. Broken Hill Proprietary (1998). Hot Rolled Structural Steel Products, BHP, Melbourne.
8. Australian Institute of Steel Construction (1997). Design Capacity Tables for Strcutural
nd
Sections - Volume I: Open Sections, 2 edn. &
Addendum No. 1, AISC, Sydney.
9. Trahair, N.S. and Bradford, M.A. (1998). The Behaviour and Design of Steel Structures to
AS4100, 3 edn, E&FN Spon, London.
rd
10. Broken Hill Proprietary (1978). Monorail Beam Design, BHP, Melbourne.
11. Woolcock, M.D. and Ford, A.W. (1998). Buckling of Crane Runway Beams and Monorails,
BE Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Queensland.
AISC DPFB/03
AISC DPFB/03 Appendix 9.1 - Design Capacity Tables 279
Appendix 9.1
Design Capacity Tables
AISC DPFB/03
AISC DPFB/03 Appendix 9.1 - Design Capacity Tables
E s
u.
E
z 178 175 172
177^
“© Q.
151 138 132

151
160 159 145 139
mm
0.30
25 170 168 153 146
/L h,=
181 178 162 154
w
a
194 189 172 163
208 201 183 172
Beams
224 214 195 183
300
241 228 208 195
Runway
Grade
261 244 222 207
Crane
282 261 237 221
306 280 254 236
330 300 272 252

53.7
400 362 326 300
93.8 96.8 90.8 84.8
300PFC
7
50.7
156.7
44
AISC DPFB/03
t- CD CM CD
S CO
CO CO CO CO
MO 177 178
175
172
156 156 143 136
N CD t/>
l/) Ol CO 166 165 151 143
o
0.30 o co in to 176 174 159 151
= =
/L h,
188 184 168 160
05 CO <D CD
w
a
o> m (D
201 195 178 169
co N- h- CN CO
2
^2
CD CO
a> <a Ssss n 04
216 208 189 179
Beams
“ n n n CD n cd o
” <2
5
“
-O' T-
P
CD
i- O) 232 221 202 190
300
||g 2J
<X> h- 3S3 3 S cn cm
O) m
o <n co in
250 236 215 201
JS " c>
TT
TT T co 3 3
Runway
Grade
o> « CO CM O m co inro
O CO CO
t}-
V M- N
S O) in
r- r~
3?
'T
^ V 270 252 229 214
Crane
t-OV nnw>- T- CD co co
“
S3 ss fcS 3
291 269 245 228
CO N- in co 314 288 242

261
3 3 S3
3 CM CO
3 3
~ S
307-
q C7>
CM
o> cd m
338 278 258
05 N O W'Hl CD 04 y- in cn
tss
CM T-
S> 33 s S
CO CN
in in
400 362 326 300
*1
o
93.8 96.8 90.8
WMrr- 84.8
300PFC
ll ra
.o 6
J l~
tj-
q 53
156.7
50.7
7 -
cn CM
cn <o 44
CD
1
AISC DPFB/03 Appendix 9.1 - Design Capacity Tables 2;
o<oo>ming>- OT-o
£ ) ( )
a)r>co OLrj .} .
l no't<x>oc^
Nncou)NinS^® n N° ®'îoo)(o^tw®'}nN 1
oraooniOmfflfflPioPSStticinNcooinog
OOCM'rO)COSh;tDC^>yr^pC^ or ^ - -OOCDCO g r y T
StSiDONn'-oinifiD
2?S2r'.a)CMcomio-<tT-’-
N N
in
N cn U1 N o
^ Tf N N r-
in « m
“> <M
CM CM
in a
*- 01 r,
»- r. “^NoiNincoNin^n
oi
CM T-
^<oiosnooU©«~Nr-ffl
Tt f cm t- ^ S No)>-®Utot®
N S M" co t-
i— co t I tt in Sc] TT co cm col in
t- I CM CM — 05 CM CM
M-
co cn
o) a Nt
at co
co cm
at at
t
o to
t q>
co
cm
co
oSocoinintoos
coiincoioNiBoiro
ffl
lO
r
lO
IB (O O)
CO CM CM
O CM
T-
CO Tf r«-
CM CM T-
oi tocD'caioif'o
M*
oortNi-îoor-oKinoinwSiDinioNinrr;
»inT-nwo'fomnNsaswo cO'fciiin<o
onminr-w 4 oiD 0iMinN(DOW nlfi
inin'fcoiON'-ncMT-T-cMCM'-'-'- 0lS< 0)m in-i
Monorails
s(oiDcosein 3 p|nnssn®j;N nN n 0 ) i D!:

£ o> 3 § 5 1 s s 8 I § § 5 8 § I 8 8 5 8 8 I » 6
*
E o>
a> c >
o>
•-
w
w
3 00
N w
t- S ®
>f j N
in at co r-
t;
(O s
IO
co
“SkS£S8SS£?f?2£g£
WB o>
*>
o co in in m- co cm
|Q <
S^g^S3SUSS?Snr8gSEsi!?g
t.CMOT-oiiOtOtiOioeom^Sj^t
feSS5;2SU?soSSSS^
IDIDin'f'frtCMlOONCMIOCMCM’-'-’'
^M-cMitT-eooocD^.o
NNcM'tNiB'-in'r'no
tt in o| ^t S k t- cm 2 10 9
o^coS-cMit-f-cnincocM
uS co cm co
>r
o> co r- <» in
*-
co SM £2
*• t- ©
C-tOin-M-M-cOCMCOCOCMCM
CM CO CO CM CM CO CM CM T- 1
CM CO it CM oipoiDoocM'-Ninr-Ncoj'-tin
NNiDinoinonntjJojfcrSS
in
t-
} o
rt CDOOCOOTCOM-OM-COOCDM-OinCMO
s in
id n co
o>
t COCMtCOCMClrtcOCM'-'-'-i-'-''^^
o © o o o o o ooooooooooooooo
^^r-mopiinltoNOfflStÊjG^SSonNO
cp
t- m N wl
ifi O) O)
IS-ctCOCOCOCMCMCOCMCMCMCMCMCMT-j-T-T-T-'r-T-^-T
AISC DPFB/03
Monorails
UB
AISC DPFB/03 Appendix 9.1 - Design Capacity Tables 285
5 '
Monorails
WB
AISC DPFB/03
A1SC DPFB/03 Appendix 9.2 - Background to Design Capacity Tables 287
Appendix '
9.2
I. 5 i
Background to
Design Capacity Tables j
A9.2.1 General
important to provide the background to any set of design capacity tables so that engineers
It is
can verify or spot check the derivation for themselves. Probably the best way of doing so is to
derive one of the figures in the table. A relevant figure for this book is the capacity of the 9 m
long 410UB59.7+300PFC crane runway beam used as a trial section in the design example,
with h = 120 mm.
A9.2.2 Section Moment Capacity fM^

While the 410UB59.7 is compact for bending about both axes, the 300PFC is not compact for
bending about its minor axis when the web is in compression. However, provided the welding
between the PFC and the top flange of the UB is continuous, or is hit and miss with the miss
length less than the flange width, the PFC can be taken as compact for bending of the
compound UB/PFC about its strong axis. For example, taking the dimensi on b of th e PFC
web as the length between welds, Xe of the PFC web would be (l77/8)x -s/300/ 250 = 24
which is less than Xep - 30.
• Calculate Plastic Section Modulus
Ag = 7640 + 5110
= 12750
Figure 9.18 Dimensions of UB/PFC Combination

0
288 Gantry Cranes & Monorails a 'SCDPFB*3
Assume firstly that the plastic centroid ypX lies below the PFC. Hence,
(y pX -12.8)x 7.8 + (l78x 12.8) =
y p] = 538 mm > lesser of 324 mm or depth of section NG
Therefore, the assumption of the plastic centroid location is incorrect. Try the plastic
centroid yp2 located within the depth of the PFC.
(y p2 -12.8)x7.8 + (l78xl2.8)+2xl6x(y /)2 -324)=^^

so = 365.9 mm
yp 2
Hence,
M p
= 178 x 12.8 x 365.9
12 8
— |x 300 (bottom flanges)
2
(365.9 -12.8) x 7.8 ^ , ft
+ x 320 (bottom part of web)
2
+-
(406 - 12.8 -365.9) 2 x 7.8
x320^ (top part
r
of web)
+ 178 x 12.8 x f^406 - 365.9 ““^“1 x 300 (t0P flan8e)
2
(365.9 -324)
+ x 2 x 1 6 x 300 (bottom part of PFCflanges)
2
(414-365 9)
+ — x 2 x 1 6 x 300 (top part of PFC flanges)
+ (300 - 2xl6)x8x ^414 ^ - 365. jx 320 (PFC web)

- 9
= 245.7 + 155.6 + 0.9 + 23.0 + 8.4 + 1 1.1 + 30.2
= 475.1 kNm
Therefore
475.1x10
= 1583 x 10 3
mm 3
300
Elastic section moduli from AISC’s Design Capacity Tables [8] are:
Z,op = 2350x 10 3
mm 3
Zblm = 1160xl0 3
mm 3
1.5Zmi .„
= 1.5x1 160x1
3
= 1740xl0 3
mm 3
Therefore
Ze = Zp = 1583xl0 3 mm 3
Therefore major axis section moment capacity is

00 ’ 0
AISC DPFB/03 Appendix 9.2- Background to Design Capacity Tables 289
= 0.9x1 583 x10 x300 Nmm = 427 kNm

3
<fMt
A9.2.3 Member Moment Capacity fMbx

The member bending capacity fM bx can be obtained from Equation 9.5 by first calculating the
elastic buckling moment Mousing Equation 9.6 and the beam slenderness reduction factor asb
using Equation 9.4. In calculating M ob the following properties are used:
E = 2x10 MPa s
Ix =323xl0 6 mm4 AISC [8]
Iy — 84.4x1
6
mm 4
AISC [8]
Iyc = 78.4x1
6
mm 4
AISC[S\
p
H = —
84.4
=0.929 AS4100 Sect. 5
G = 8xl04 MPa
J — 619xl0 3
mm 4
AISC [8]
d
'
=414- — 2
-27.2
= 380.4 mm (centroid of top flange taken as centroid of PFC)

6 2
/„ = p _ p)iy d] = 0.929x(l - 0.929)x 84.4x 1
(\
x 3 80 .4
= 806x 1 9
mm 6
(for use in Section A9.2.4)
- = 0.9 x (2x0.929 -l)x|l-(^^jj =0.719

|
~ 1-0.3^
a = 0.35 where 0.3 = a
m = 1 - 0.4x0.35x(l - 5.5x0.35) = 1.13
2x1.13 2
x sin (vx 0.35) =0.519 where (^x0.35) is in radians
f 0.35 x ?r
2
0.35x(l-0.35)x^
= -1 =0.914
h [
sin
2
(xx 0.35)
2 {
= - (l - 0.929) x380.4 - 27.2 - 120 = - 174.2 mm
2x174.2 =
-0.916
380.4
Hence substituting into Equation 9.6,
M ob
=370.8 kNm
and
475.1 475.1
a,. = 0.6 x + 3- = 0.524
370.8 370.8
so that
fM = 0.9x0.524x475.1 = 224 kNm

b
which is given in the Tables.
The capacities in the tables are for individual runway beams acting alone in resisting
the external forces in accordance with the simple procedure given in Clause 5.7.2 of
AS 141 8. 18. more heavily loaded beam will be restrained against buckling by
In reality, the
beam on the other side of the workshop. The gantry crane itself acts as
the less heavily loaded
a link between the two opposite beams ensuring some interaction. Appendix B2 of
AS1418.1S acknowledges this and permits the ry value to be increased by 20%. One response
to this concession would be the development of alternate sets of tables based on values of J
y
and I which are increased by 1.2
2
= 1.44.However as this interpretation is uncertain and the
degree of interaction between the two beams is untested, alternate sets of tables are not
provided in this edition.
A9.2.4 Member Capacity to AS4X00

Clause of AS4100 presents formulae for calculating the member strength of
5. 6. 1.2
monosymmetric beams. In lieu of using the explicit formula for the elastic buckling moment
given in Clause 5.6.1.2(a), Clause 5.6.1.2(b) allows design by buckling analysis by methods
such as the rational buckling analysis used to produce the design tables. However for this
comparison, Clause 5.6.1.2(a) will be used.
The elastic buckling moment is calculated from the case for uniform bending given by
M„ =
n 2
El.
I
GJ+ f^
L
K 2
+
4
x Â
L\
+
2
F.
inwhich L e - 1 AL for top flange loading. The design member capacity is then obtained from
from
4>Mb = 4>am as M s
AS4100 Cl. 5.6.1. 1(1)
where
AS4100 Cl. 5.6.1. 1(2)
The maximum bending moment of 129 kNm is associated with a non-symmetrical

bending moment diagram. The calculation of am for of bending moment is this distribution
not straightforward, but be conservative to use the am value for the symmetrical
it will
bending moment diagram which is a case tabulated in AS4100. ( Table 5.6.1).
291
AISC DPFB/03 Appendix 9.2- Background to Design Capacity Tables
Hence
a. = 1.0 + 0.35 x i-£

L
where 2a = 3.5 m and L = 9.0 m

Hence
a„ = 1.0 + 0 . 35 x 11-^1 = U3
Using the properties derived in Section A9.2.3,

gives M a
can be calculated as
= 422 kNm
2
475 1
a* = 0.6 x
f[f475.1> +3 = 0.564
l 422 ; 422
J
(M =0.9x1.13x0.564x475.1 =273 kNm

b
This design member capacity exceeds the

more accurate value of 224 kNm by 22%.
unconservative. This unconservatism arises mainly
The code approach can therefore be quite
loading is at top flange level, and in the erroneous
due to the assumption that the top of the rail
calculation of the am values for monosymmetric
beams as discussed previously.
292 AISC DPFB/03
Appendix I
Drawings
293
AISC DPFB/03 Appendix I: Drawings 295
ELEVATION
FLYBRACE
FRAME DENOTES
FB
TYPICAL
298 Appendix I: Drawings AISC DPFB/03
Cl 001 5 RAKING GIRT Cl 001 5 RAKING GIRT
FB. FB.
- IB
.[
Cl 9 C20 C21
DH4 I
FB. FB. FB
CO
t Q Q
_ _
i ]
Z20015 GIRTS
1000 LAPS, BRIDGING AS SHOWN
ELEVATION ON GRID 1
Cl 001 5 RAKING GIRT Cl 001 5 RAKING GIRT
^1-—
—^ r u F== =T
FB. FB. IB
'1 1
C24 C23 C22

FB_ fb_ IB
\ r
— —
Z20015 GIRTS
1000 LAPS, BRIDGING AS SHOWN
ELEVATION ON GRID 9
300 Appendix I: Drawings AISC DPFB/03
WALL BRACING DETAILS

302 Appendix I: Drawings A1SC DPF8/03
UNDER UNDER
CAP CAP
PIER PIER
PIER PIER
BORED BORED
DEEP DEEP
600 600
DEEP DEEP
x x
2600 2600
900 600
x x x x
600 450 600 450
PI P2
COVER)
SAND.
(30mm
50mm
TOP
ON
FABRIC’
TAPED
F72
AND
WITH
MPo
LAPPED
32
GROUND
fc
ON
STANDARD’
R.C.SLAB STRENGTH
"FORTECON
THICK
CONCRETE
175
ON
GENERALLY
Appendix II
Computer Output
1. Geometry; Load Cases & Deflections

2. Second Order Analysis of Load
Combinations
3 . Joint & Member Numbering; Bending
Moment Diagrams & Displaced Shapes
4. Elastic Critical Load Analysis
303
304 AISC DPFB/03
Geometry
Load Cases
Deflections
306 Appendix II: Computer Output AISC DPFB/03
Appendix II: Computer Output 307
AISC DPFB/03
Page 1 of 4
Bonacci Winward (Qld) Pty Ltd
23 Aug 1999
Job: Portal99
PINNED BASES 7:55 PM
PORTAL FRAME WITH 3m HAUNCHES -
460UB74 COLS, 360UB45 RAFTERS - 4.5kN LL INCLUDED
INPUT/ANALXSIS report
Job: Portal99
Title: PORTAL FRAME WITH 3m HAUNCHES PINNED BASES
460UB74 COLS, 360UB45 RAFTERS 4.5kN LL INCLUDED
Type: Plane frame
Date: 23 Aug 1999
Time: 7:50 PM
Nodes 9
Members 8
Spring supports 0
4
Sections
Materials 1
Primary load cases 8
Combination load cases 6
Analysis: Non-linear elastic

Update node coordinates Y
Small displacement theory Y
Include axial force effects Y
Include flexural shortening N
Convergence criterion: Residual
Convergence tolerance 5.000E-04
LOAD CASES
Case Type Analysis Title
1 P L DL
2 P L LL INCL 4.5KN LOAD AT RIDGE
3 P L CROSS WIND MAX UPLIFT (CW1)
4 p L CROSS WIND MAXIMUM DRAG (CW2)
5 p L LONG WIND 1ST INTERNAL FRAME (LW1)
6 P L LONG WIND WITH 0.3 DOWN PRESS COEFF (LW2J
INTERNAL PRESSURE UNDER CROSS WIND (IPCW)
7 P L
8 P L INTERNAL PRESSURE UNDER LONG WIND (IPLW)
Analysis Types:
S - Skipped (not analysed)
L - Linear
N - Non-linear
NODE COORDINATES
Node X Y z Restraint
nv m m
1 0.000 0.000 0.000 111110
2 0.000 7.500 0.000 001110
3 1.630 7.585 0.000 001110
4 3.260 7.671 0.000 001110
5 12.500 8.155 0.000 001110
6 21.740 7.671 0.000 001110
7 23.370 7.585 0.000 001110
B 25.000 7.500 0.000 001110
9 25.000 0.000 0.000 111110
MEMBER DEFINITION
A B C Prop Matl Rel-A Rel-B Length
Member 1
m
2 -X 1 1 000000 000000 7.500
i 1
2 3 Y 3 1 000000 000000 1.632
2
Y 4 1 000000 000000 1.632
3 3 4
4 5 Y 2 1 000000 000000 9.253
4
5 6 Y 2 1 000000 000000 9.253
5
6 7 Y 4 1 000000 000000 1.632
6
7 8 Y 3 1 000000 000000 1.632
7
9 X 1 1 000000 000000 7.500
8 8
C:\MSWIN\DATA\PFBook\Portal99.p1
Microslran [V6.50.16]
7
0 0
7 :
Appendix II: Computer Output A ISC DPFB/03
Bonacci Winward (Old) Pty Ltd Page 2 of 4

Job: Portal99 23 Aug 1999
PORTAL FRAME WITH 3m HAUNCHES - PINNED BASES 7:55 PM
LIBRARY SECTIONS
Section Library Name Axis Comment
1 Asw 460UB74 .6 Y COLUMNS
2 Asw 360UB44 . Y RAFTERS
3 Asw 530UB82 . Y HAUNCH 2
4 Asw 410UB59 . Y HAUNCH 1
SECTION PROPERTIES
Section Ax Ay Az J ly Iz fact
m2 m2 m2 m4 m4 m4
1 9 . 520E-03 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 5.300E-07 1 . 660E-05 3 350E-04
.
2 5 . 720E-03 O.OOOE+OO O.OOOE+OO 1.610E-'07 8 . 100E-06 1.210E-04

3 1 . 050E-02 0.000E+00 O.OOOE+OO 5.2 60E-'07 2 . 010E-05 4 770E-04
.
4 7 . 640E-03 O.OOOE+OO O.OOOE+OO 3 370E-I07

. 1 . 210E-05 2 160E-04
.
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Material E u Density Alpha
kN/m2 t/m3 /deg C
1 2 000E+08
. 0.3000 7.850E+00 1 . 080E-05
TABLE OF QUANTITIES
MATERIAL 1
Section Name Length Mass Comment

m tonne
1 460UB74.6 15.000 1.121 COLUMNS
2 360UB44 . 18.505 0.831 RAFTERS
3 530UB82 . 3.264 0.269 HAUNCH 2
4 410UB59.7 3.265 0.196 HAUNCH 1
40.034 2.417
APPLIED LOADING
CASE 1 : DL
Gravitational Acceleration
X Comp Y Comp Z Comp
m/sec2 m/sec2 m/sec2
0.000 -9.820 0.000
Member Loads
Member Form T A S FI XI F2 X2
1 UNIF FY GL -0.900
2 UNI F FY GL -0.900'
3 UNIF FY GL -0.900
4 UNIF FY GL -0.900
5 UNIF FY GL -0.900
6 UNIF FY GL -0.900
7 UNIF FY GL -0.900
8 UNIF FY GL -0.900
Sum of Applied Loads (Global Axes)
FX: 0 000 FY:. -59.763 FZ: 0.000
CASE 2: LL INCL 4.5KN LOAD AT RIDGE
Node Loads
Node X Force Y Force Z Force X Moment Y Moment z Moment
kN kN kN kNm kNm kNm
5 0 . 000 -4.500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Member Loads
2 UNIF FY GL -2.250
3 UNIF FY GL -2.250
4 UNIF FY GL -2.250
5 UNIF FY GL -2.250
6 UNIF FY GL -2.250
7 UNIF FY GL -2.250
Mic/ostran [V6.50.16] C:\MSWIN\DATA\PFBook\Portal99.p1

::::: )
AISC DPFB/03 Appendix II: Computer Output 309
Bonacci Winward (Qld) Pty Ltd Page 3 of 4

460UB74 COLS, 360U845 RAFTERS - 4.5kN LL INCLUDED

FX: 0.000 FY: -60.827 FZ: 0.000
1
CASE
Member
3:
u Loads
Form
CROSS WIND MAX UPLIFT (CW1)
T A S FI XI F2 X2
1 UNIF FX GL 5.690
2 UN IF FY LO 5.850
3 UNIF FY LO 5.850
4 TRAP FY LO LE 5.850 0.000 5.850 4.750
4 TRAP FY LO LE 3.250 4.750 3.250 9.253
5 TRAP FY LO LE 3.250 0.000 3.250 3.500
5 TRAP FY LO LE 1.950 '3.500 1.950 9.253
6 UNIF FY LO 1.950
7 UNIF FY LO 1.950
8 UNIF FX GL 4.060
FX: 71 .421 FY: 90.355 FZ: 0.000
CASE 4: CROSS WIND MAXIMUM DRAG (CW2)
Member Loads
1 UNIF FX GL 5.690
2 UNIF FY LO 2.600
3 UNIF FY LO 2.600
4 TRAP FY LO LE 2.600 0.000 2.600 4.750
5 TRAP FY LO LE -1.300 3.500 -1.300 9.253
6 UNIF FY LO -1.300
7 UNIF FY LO -1.300
8 UNIF FX GL 4.060
FX: 71.,421 FY: 9.102 FZ: 0.000
CASE 5: LONG WIND 1ST INTERNAL FRAME (LW1
Member Loads
1 UNIF FY LO 3.810
2 UNIF FY LO 4.640
3 UNIF FY LO 4.640
4 UNIF FY LO 4.640
5 UNIF FY LO 4.640
6 UNIF FY LO 4.640
7 UNIF FY LO 4.640
8 UNIF FY LO 3.810
FX: 0.000 FY : 116.000 FZ: 0.000
CASE 6: LONG WIND WITH 0..3 DOWN PRESS COEFF (LW2)
Member Loads
Member Form T A S FI XI F2
1 UNIF FY LO 1.320
2 UNIF FY LO -1.990
3 UNIF FY LO -1.990
4 UNIF FY LO -1.990
5 UNIF FY LO -1.990
6 UNIF FY LO -1.990
7 UNIF FY LO -1.990
8 UNIF FY LO 1.320
FX: 0.'000 FY: -49.750 '
FZ: 0.000
CASE 7: INTERNAL PRESSURE UNDER CROSS WIND (IPCW)
Microstran (V6.50.16) C:\MSWIN\DATA\PFBook\Portal99.p1

::
AISC DPFB/Q3
Page 4 of 4
Bonacci Winward (Qld) Ply Ltd
23 Aug 1999
Job: Portal99
PINNED BASES 7:55 PM
PORTAL FRAME WITH 3m HAUNCHES -
Member Loads
A FI F2 X2
Member Form t! S
1 ONIF Ft LO 4.210
2 UNIF FY LO 4.210
3 ONIF FY LO 4.210
4 ONIF FY LO 4.210
5 UNIF FY LO 4.210
6 ONIF FY LO 4.210
7 ONIF FY LO 4.210
8 UNIF FY LO 4.210
0.000 FY 105.250 0.000
FX: :
8: INTERNAL PRESSURE UNDER (IPLW)

CASE
Member Loads
FI XI F2 X2
Member Form T A S
1 UNIF FY LO 0.830
2 UNIF FY LO 0.830
3 UNIF FY LO 0.830
4 UNIF FY LO 0.830
5 UNIF FY LO 0.830
6 UNIF FY LO 0.830
7 UNIF FY LO 0.830
8 UNIF FY LO 0.830
FX: 0.000 FY: 20.750 FZ: 0.000
NODE DISPLACEMENTS
X-Disp Y-Disp Z-Disp X-Rotn Y-Rotn Z-Rotn
Node Case
m m m rad rad rad
-0.0024 - 0.0001 0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 -0.00232
-0.0047 - 0.0001 0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 -0.00429
0.1269 0.0003 0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 -0.00375
0.1211 0.0001 0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 -0.00929
0.0076 0.0002 0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00689
-0.0038 - 0.0001 0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 -0.00374
0.0067 0.0002 0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00605
0.0013 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00119
0.0000 -0.0481 0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

0.0000 -0.0930 0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
0.1207 0.1232 0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00587
0.1207 0.0078 0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00587
0.0000 0.1543 0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
0.0000 -0.0743 0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
0.0000 0.1379 0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
0.0272 0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
0.0000
Microstran [V6.50.161
Second Order Analysis
Load Combinations
Member Forces
Reactions
311
A1SC DPFB/03
312 Appendix II: Computer Output
::

460U B74 COLS. 360UB45 RAFTERS - 4.5kN LL INCLUDED
INPUT/ ANALYSIS REPORT
Job: Portal99
Title: PORTAL FRAME WITH 3m HAUNCHES - PINNED BASES
Type: Plane frame
Date: 23 Aug 1999
Time: 7:57 PM
Nodes 9
Members 8
Spring supports 0
Sections 4
Materials 1

Convergence tolerance S.000E-04
LOAD CASES
20 C N 1.25DL+1.5LL
21 C N 0.8DL+CW1 (MAX UPLIFT) +IPCW
22 C N 0 8DL+CW2 (MAX DRAG) +IPCW
.
23 C N 1 25DL+CW2 (MAX DRAG) +ISCW

.
24 C N 0 8DL+LW1 (MAX UPLIFT) +IPLW

.
25 C N 1 25DL+LW2 (MAX DOWNWARD) +ISLW

.
Analysis Types:
L - Linear
N - Non-linear
NODE TABLE NOT PRINTED
MEMBER TABLE NOT PRINTED
SECTION PROPERTY TABLE NOT PRINTED
MATERIAL TABLE NOT PRINTED
APPLIED LOADING
CASE 20: 1.25DL+1.5LL
Load Combinations
Case Factor
1 1.250 DL
2 1.500 LL INCL 4.5KN LOAD AT RIDGE
FX: 0.000 FY: -165.940 FZ : 0.000
CASE 21: 0. 8DL+CW1 (MAX UPLIFT) +IPCW
Load Combinations
Case Factor
1 0.800 DL
3 1.000 CROSS WIND MAX UPLIFT (CW1)
7 1.000 INTERNAL PRESSURE UNDER CROSS WIND (IPCW)
FX; 70.898 FY: 147.701 FZ: 0.000
CASE 22: 0 . 8DL+CW2 (MAX DRAGJ+IPCW
Microstran [V6.50.16] C:\MSWIN\DATA\PFBook\Portal99.p1

::::
Bonacci Winward (Qld) Pty Ltd P«fl® 2 ° f ^

,
Job: Portal99
23 Aug 1999
PM
PORTAL FRAME WITH 3m HAUNCHES
460UB74 COLS. 360UB45 RAFTERS -
- PINNED BASES
4.5kN LL INCLUDED __
7:58
Load Combinations
Case Factor
1 0.800 DL
4 1.000 CROSS WIND MAXIMUM DRAG (CW2)
7 1.000 INTERNAL PRESSURE UNDER CROSS WIND (IPCW)
Stun of Applied Loads (Global Axes)

FX: 71.175 FY: 66.539 FZ: 0.000
CASE 23: 1 . 25DL+CW2 (MAX DRAG)+ISCW
Load Combinations
Case Factor
1 1.250 DL
4 1.000 CROSS WIND MAXIMUM DRAG (CW2)
7 -0.960 INTERNAL PRESSURE UNDER CROSS WIND (IPCW)
Sum of Applied Loads (Global Axe3)

FX: 71.929 FY: -166.631 FZ: 0.000
CASE 24: 0 . 8DL+LW1 (MAX UPLIFT) +IPLW
Load Combinations
Case Factor
1 0.800 DL
5 1.000 LONG WIND 1ST INTERNAL FRAME (LW1)
8 1.000 INTERNAL PRESSURE UNDER LONG WIND (IPLW)

FX: 0.000 FY: 88.925 FZ: 0.000
CASE 25: 1 . 25DL+LW2 (MAX DOWNWARD) +ISLW
Load Combinations
Case Factor
1 1.250 DL
6 1.000 LONG WIND WITH 0.3 DOWN PRESS COEFF (LW2)
8 -3.000 INTERNAL PRESSURE UNDER LONG WIND (IPLW)

FX: 0.000 FY: -186.762 FZ: 0.000
MEMBER FORCES
Member Case Node Axial Shear-y Shear-z Torque Moment-y Moment-z
1 20 1 -82.926 38.728 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
2 -67.609 38.710 0.000 0.000 0.000 -290.380
21 1 95.766 -66.119 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.002
2 104.889 -54.868 0.000 0.000 0.000 453.725
22 1 • 55.318 -44.994 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.010
2 64.442 -33.743 0.000 0.000 0.000 295.266
23 1 -61.318 -17.159 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
2 -46.738 56.083 0.000 0.000 0.000 -145.961
24 1 44.475 -12.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
2 54.278 -46.804 0.000 0.000 0.000 220.565
25 1 -93.333 39.216 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001
2 -78.016 47.972 0.000 0.000 0.000 -326.939
2 20 2 -41.317 -66.042 0.000 0.000 0.000 -290.380

3 -40.955 -57.053 0.000 0.000 0.000 -189.923
21 2 62.350 100.619 0.000 0.000 0.000 453.727
3 62.477 86.427 0.000 0.000 0.000 301.073
22 2 37.892 62.069 0.000 0.000 0.000 295.282
3 38.003 53.183 0.000 0.000 0.000 201.222
23 2 -58.266 -43.984 0.000 0.000 0.000 -145.960
3 -58.158 -38.145 0.000 0.000 0.000 -78.936
24 2 50.012 51.33B 0.000 0.000 0.000 220.565
3 50.145 44.637 0.000 0.000 0.000 142.237
25 2 -50.873 -76.145 0.000 0.000 0.000 -326.938
3 -50.737 -65.348 0.000 0.000 0.000 -211.468
3 20 3 -40.703 -57.225 0.000 0.000 0.000 -189.920

4 -40.396 -48.683 0.000 0.000 0.000 -103.487
21 3 63.205 85.896 0.000 0.000 0.000 301.072
4 63.331 71.415 0.000 0.000 0.000 172.680
Microstran [V6.50.16] C:\MSWlN\DATA\PFBook\Portal99.p1

:

Job: Porta!99 ; 23 Aug 1999
22 3 38 .314 52..960 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 201.221

4 38 .422 43..785 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 122.263
23 3 -58 .107 -38..225 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 -78.934
4 -58 .017 -32..835 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 -20.942
24 3 50 .336 44..423 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 142.236
4 50..461 37..434 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 75.428
25 3 -50..409 -65,.587 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 -211.463
4 -50..306 -55..239 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 -112.855
20 4 -40..361 -48..713 0.000 0 .000
. 0.000 -103.489
5 -38 .717 -2..007 0.000 0 .000
. 0.000 131.153
21 4 63..833 70..967 0.000 0 .000
. 0.000 172.680
5 64 .550 - 0 .510
. 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 -125.486
22 4 38..761 43..487 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 122.262
5 39 .391 2..088 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 -60.785
23 4 -58 ,333 -32,,273 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 -20.941
5 -57,.723 8..267 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 117.912
24 4 50..456 37..441 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 75.427
5 51..090 -3..267 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 -82.678
25 4 -50..290 -55..259 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 -112.857
5 -49..767 1..691 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 134.954
20 5 -38..717 2..007 0.000 0 , ,000 0.000 131.153
6 -40..361 48,,713 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 -103.489
21 5 63..989 8..506 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 -125.487
6 63..317 -43..139 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 47.837
22 5 38..842 6..863 0.000 0 , .000 0.000 -60.786
6 38..261 -14..704 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 -11.421
23 5 -59..170 4..074 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 117.912
6 -58..682 64..447 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 -185.982
24 5 51..090 3..267 0.000 0 , .000 0.000 -82.678
6 50..456 -37..441 0.000 0 , .000 0.000 75.427
25 5 -49..767 -1..691 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 134.954
6 -50.,290 55..259 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 -112.857
20 6 -40..396 48..685 0.000 0,.000 0.000 -103.486
7 -40..703 57.,226 0.000 0 .000
. 0.000 -189.922
21 6 63..664 -42.,628 0.000 0 .000
. 0.000 47.835
7 63.,517 -50.,744 0.000 0 .000
. 0.000 124.042
22 6 33.,397 -14.,373 0.000 0 .000
. 0.000 -11.418
7 33.,267 -17..183 0.000 0 .000
. 0.000 14.336
23 6 -59..425 63.,763 0.000 0..000 0.000 -185.982
7 -59.,560 75.,516 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 -299.648
24 6 50..4 61 -37..436 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 75.426
7 50.,336 -44..425 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 142.238
25 6 -50..306 55..237 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 -112.857
7 -50..409 65..585 0.000 0 , .000 0.000 -211.460
20 7 -40..955 57..046 0.000 0 .000
. 0.000 -189.929
8 -41..317 66..035 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 -290.374
21 7 63..326 -50..986 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 124.037
8 63..166 -58..814 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 213.648
22 7 38..257 -17,.226 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 14.336
8 38..109 -19..749 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 44.512
23 7 -60..104 75..083 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 -299.648
8 -60..285 87. 285 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 -432.153
24 7 50..145 -44..635 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 142.239
8 50..012 -51..335 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 220.563
25 7 -50..737 65,.352 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 -211.464
8 -50..873 76,.149 0.000 0 . .000 0.000 -326.942
20 8 -67.,609 -38..710 0.000 0 .000
. 0.000 -290.380
9 -82..926 -38,.728 0.000 0 .000
. 0.000 0.000
21 0 62..460 59,.559 0.000 0 .000
. 0.000 213.643
9 53,.041 -2,.589 0.000 0 .000
. 0.000 0.000
22 8 21..716 37..016 0.000 0 .000
. 0.000 44.511
9 12..352 -25,.147 0.000 0 .000
. 0.000 0.002
23 8 -89..201 -57,.409 0.000 0 .000
. 0.000 -432.150
9 -103,.927 -57,.837 0.000 0..000 0.000 0.002
24 8 54..278 46..804 0.000 0..000 0.000 220.565
9 44..475 12..012 0.000 0 .000
. 0.000 0.000
25 8 -78..016 -47,.972 0.000 0 .000
. 0.000 -326.939
9 -93 .333
. -39..216 0.000 0 .000
. 0.000 0.001
Positive Forces (Member Axes)
Microstran [V6.50.16J C:\MSWIN\DATA\PFBook\Portal99.p1

316 AISC DPFB/03
Bonacci Winward (Qld) Pty Ltd

Page 4 of 4
23 Aug 1999
Job: Porta!99
46QUB74 COLS, 360UB45 RAFTERS - 4.5kN LL INCLUDED
'
Axial - Tension Shear - End A sagging
Torque - Right-hand twist Moment - Sagging
SUPPORT REACTIONS
Node Case Force-X Force-Y Force-2 Moment-X Moment -Y Moment-Z
1 20 38.632 82.970 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
21 -67.634 -94.702 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
22 -45.867 -54.596 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
23 -16.101 61.605 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
24 -12.057 -44.463 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
25 39.101 93.381 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
9 20 -38.632 82.970 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
21 -3.257 -53.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
22 -25.322 -11.989 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
23 -55.821 105.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
24 12.057 -44.463 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
25 -39.101 93.381 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
(Reactions act on structure in positive global axis directions.)
SUM OF REACTIONS
Case Force-X 1 Force-Y Force-z
kN kN kN
20 0.000 165.940 0.000
21 -70.891 147.705 0.000
22 -71.190 -66.585 0.000
23 -71.922 166.629 0.000
24 0.000 -88.925 0.000
25 0.000 186.762 0.000
RESIDUALS
Case DOFN Residual
1 20 8 420E-13
.
2 17 1 982E-12
.
3 2 2 582E-11
.
4 2 1.670E-11
5 20 -2 050E-12
.
6 20 1 350E-12
.
7 5 2 494E-12
.
8 17 -2.416E-13

Joint & Member Numbering
Displaced Shapes
Bending Moment Diagrams
317
Appendix II: Computer Output AISC DPFB/03
318
m i e roSTR AN
3 4 ~ 6 7
2 8
©© © © ©©
© ®
, 1 9
'i
X
L
GEOMETRY
PORTAL FRAME WITH 3m HAUNCHES - 3 DEG PITCH
G=1.88
microSTRAN
,
x
DEFLECTIONS - cw
3 n=n 197 PORTAL FRAME WITH 3m HAUNCHES - 3 DEG PITCH
AISC DPFB/03
322 Appendix II: Computer Output
m i c o S T R A N -=_!=
CASE
24
82.5 82.5
220.7 X _ 220.7
7^6 7576^ —Jv

220.7
^7 142.4 142.4 220.7
>
X
Z
BENDING MOMENT Mz om + lwi(max. uplift) + iplw
G=1.88 M=227 portal FRm WTH 3m HAUNCHES " 3 DEG PITCH
microSTRAN
CASE
25
BENDING MOMENT Mz 1.25DL - lw 2 (max. downward) + isiw

PORTAL FRAME WITH 3m HAUNCHES - 3 DEG PITCH
Elastic Critical
Load Analysis
323
0
Job: Portai99
23 Aug 1999
INPUT/ANALYSIS REPORT
Job: Portal99
Title: PORTAL FRAME WITH 3m HAUNCHES - PINNED BASES
460UB74 COLS, 360UB45 RAFTERS - 4 5kN LL INCLUDED
.
Type: Plane frame

Date: 23 Aug 1999
Time: 8:00 PM
Nodes 9
Members 8
Spring supports 0
Sections 4
Materials 1

Convergence tolerance 5.000E-04
LOAD CASES
20 C N 1 25DL+1 5LL . .
21 C N 0 8DL+CW1 (MAX UPLIFT) +IPCW

.
22 C N 0 8DL+CW2 (MAX DRAG) +IPCW

.
23 C N 1 25DL+CW2 (MAX DRAO+ISCW

.
24 C N 0 8DL+LW1 (MAX UPLIFT) +IPLW

.
25 C N 1 25DL+LW2 (MAX DOWNWARD) +ISLW

.
Analysis Types:
L - Linear
N - Non-linear
NODE TABLE NOT PRINTED
MEMBER TABLE NOT PRINTED
SECTION PROPERTY TABLE NOT PRINTED
MATERIAL TABLE NOT PRINTED
ELASTIC CRITICAL LOAD FACTORS

Case Mode Factor
20 1 10.05 .
21 1 > 1024 (ky, kz estimated)

22 1 > 1024 (ky, kz estimated)
23 1 9.27
24 • 1' > 1024 (ky, kz estimated)
25 1 8.64
EFFECTIVE LENGTH FACTORS

MEMBER 1: Nodes 1 - 2 Section 1 : 460U374.6
Case Pcrit ky kz
kN
20 -756.20 0.00 3.94
21 1.03E+05 0.00 0.00
22 61293.54 0.00 0.00
23 -501.03 0.00 4.84
24 50561.39 0.00 0.00
25 -740.28 0.00 3.98
MEMBER 2: Nodes 2 - 3 Section 3 : 530UB82 .
Case Pcrit ky kz
kN
20 -413.31 0.00 29.24
21 63928.81 0.00 0.00
22 38869.33 0.00 0.00
Microstran [V6.50.16]
326 AISC DPFB/03
BonaccI Winward (Qld) Pty Ltd Page 2 of 2

23 -539.83 0.00 25.59

24 51299.36 0.00 0.00
25 -439.03 0.00 2S.37
MEMBER 3: Nodes 3-4 Section 4: 4I0UB59.7 Y
Case Pcrit ky kz
fcN
20 -407.44 0.00 19.82
21 64804.41 0.00 0.00
22 39300.82 0.00 0.00
23 -538.43 0.00 17.24
24 51627.07 0.00 0.00
25 -435.19 0.00 19.18
MEMBER 4: Nodes 4-5 Section 2: 3 60UB44 . 7 Y
Case Pcrit ky kz
fcN
20 -397.27 0.00 2.65
21 65749.41 0.00 0.00
'
22 40025.66 0.00 o.oo
23 -538.12 0.00 2.28
24 52010.88 0.00 0.00
25 -432.32 0.00 2.54
MEMBER 5: Nodes 5-6 Section 2: 3500B44 .7 Y
Case Pcrit ky kz
kN
20 -397.27 0.00 2.65
21 65198.05 0.00 0.00
22 39491.32 0.00 0.00
23 -541.81 0.00 2.27
24 52010.88 0.00 C. 00
25 -432.32 0.00 2.54
"
MEMBER 6: Nodes 6 - Section 4: 4120359.7 Y
Case Pcrit ky kz
kN
20 -407.44 0.00 19.82
21 65134.36 0.00 0.00
22 39255.68 0.00 0.00
23 -551.70 0.00 17.03
24 51627.07 0.00 0.00
25 -435.19 0.00 19.18
MEMBER 7: Nodes 7-8 Section 3: 5301)582 .0 Y
Case Pcrit ky kz
kN
20 -413.31 0.00 29.24
21 64781.30 0.00 0.00'
22 39096.96 0.00 0.00
23 -558.21 0.00 25.16
24 51299.36. 0.00 0.00
25 -439.03 0.00 28.37
MEMBER 8: Nodes 8-9 Section 1: 46CUB74 . 6 Y
Case Pcrit ky kz
kN
20 -756.20 0.00 3. "54
21 59136.29 0.00 0.00
22 17418.82 0.00 0.00
23 -895.48 0.00 3.62
24 50561.39 0.00 0.00
25 -740.28 0.00 2.58

Appendix III
Limsteel Output
327
328 Appendix III: Limsteel Output AISC DPFB/03
/ 7
6 :

AISC DPFB/03
Page 1 of 4
Bonacci Winward (Qld) Pty Ltd 23 Aug 1999
Job: Portal99 8:21 PM
PORTAL FRAME WITH 3m HAUNCHES - PINNED BASES
460UB74 COLS. 360UB45 RAFTERS - 4.5kN LL INCLUDED
LOAD CASES - STEEL DESIGN

Case Type Title
20 C 1 25DL+1 5LL
. .
21 C 0 8DL+CW1 (MAX UPLIFT) +IPCW

.
22 C 0 8DL+CW2 (MAX DRAG)+IPCW

.
23 C 1 25DL+CW2 (MAX DRAGl+ISCW

.
24 C 0 8DL+LW1 (MAX UPLIFT) +IPLW

.
25 C 1 25DL+LW2 (MAX DOWNWARD) +ISLW

.
STEEL MEMBERS SUMMARY REPOI

Crit. Load Critical
Me mb Code Length Grade Section
mm Name Ratio Case Condition
300 460UB74 0.988 21 Section N+Mx
1 AS 4100 7500 .
AS4100 9253 300 360UB44 . 1.139 23 Member out-plane C+Mx

4
AS4100 9253 300 360UB44 .7 1.140 23 Section N+Mx
5
AS 4100 7500 300 460UB74 0.993 23 Member out-plane C+Mx
8 .
LOAD CASES - STEEL DESIGN

Case Type Title
20 C 1.25DL+1.5LL
21 C 0 8DL+CW1 (MAX UPLIFT) +IPCW
.
22 C 0 8DL+CW2 (MAX DRAG) +IPCW

.
23 C 1 .25DL+CW2 (MAX DRAG) +ISCW

24 C 0 8DL+LW1 (MAX UPLIFT) +IPLW
.
25 C 1 25DL+LW2 (MAX DOWNWARD) +ISLW

.
STEEL MEMBERS FULL REPORT

MEMBER: 1 (Code Check to AS4100)
fu: 440
Section: 460UB74.6 Axis: Y Grade: 300 fyf 300 fyw: 320
:
:
Section dimensions and properties

457.0 B= 190.0 Tf= 14.5 Tw= 9.1
D-
9520.0 rx- 188.0 Zx= 1.46E+06 Sx= 1.66E+06
Ag= 2.71E+05
ry= 41.8 Zy= 1.75E+05 Sy-
J= 5.30E+05 lw= 8.1SE+11
Section Properties for Design:

0.948 Class Mx: Compact Zex= 1.660E+06
Form Factor=
9027 Class My: Compact Zey« 2.62SE+05
Ae=
Member Restraints
/ — Beam — Load /
XX
Column-
kx YY ky
/
No Offset Top Btm Cant Ht

0.000 L L N S Y ECL Y 1.00
1
1.500 L N S Y 1.00
2
2.700 L N S Y 1.00
3
3.900 L N S Y 1.00
4
5.600 L L. S Y 1.00
5
7.300 L N S Y 1.00
6
7 7.500 L L N
Sidesway - about XX axis: Y about YY axis: N

Connection: Uniform and concentric
Critical conditions for design load cases:
Case Cap/Load Condition
20 1.469 Member out-plane C+Mx
21 0.988 Section N+Mx
SECTION CHECKS
Case: 21 Off: 7500 Cap/Load= 0.988 Section N+Mx
(8.3.2) ,
M‘x= 453.73 M*y— 0.00

Design loads: N*= 104.89 t
oNt=2570.40 oMsx= 448.20 oMsy= 70.88
Design capacities 70.88
oMry=
MEMBER/SEGMENT CHECKS
Section N+Mx (8.3.2)
Case: 21 Off: 5600/7300 Cap/Load= 1.013
M*x= 442.37 M*y= 0.00
Design loads: N*“ 104.65 t
Lmx= 7500 column o/a length Bmx= -1.000
7 ; 9

Job: Porta!99 23 Aug 1999
460UB74 COLS. 360UB45 RAFTERS - 4.5kN LL INCLUDED
Liny- 1700 Qmy= 0.000

Lx- 7500 ftme- -1.000
Ly- 1700 om= 1.101 BM modification factor
De- 1700 beam eff. length as- 0.93 BM slend. reductn. factor
Lz« 1900 torsion eff. length
Design capacities
ON t =2 570. 40 oMsx= 448.20 oMbx= 448 20 oMox- 448.20
oMrx= 448.20 0Mix= 0 00 0 Mbxo= 0.00
oMsy= 70.88 aMiy= 0 00 0NOZ = 0.00
oMry- 70.88 oMcx= 0.00
SHEAR CHECKS (Appendix I excluded)
Case: 21 Off: 7500 Cap/Load- 1.297 Section N+Mx (8.3.2)
Design loads: V*= 54.87
Design capacities
aVv= 431.17 0Mf= 329.15

Section : 360UB44 . Axis : Y Grade: 300 fyf : 320 fyw: 320 fu: 440
Section dimensions and properties.
D- 352.0 B- 171.0 Tf= 9.7 Tw— 6 .
Ag= 5720.0 rx= 146.0 Zx= 6.89E+05 Sx- 7.77E+05

ry= 37.6 Zy= 9.47E+04 Sy- 1 . 4 6E + 05
J= 1.61E+05 Iw= 2.37E+11
Form Factor- 0.930 Class Mx: Non-compact zex- 7.698E+05
Ae= 5319 Class My: Non-compact Zey :
1 404E+05
.
Member Restraints
/ — Beam—/ Load / — Column-
No Offset Top Btm Cant H XX kx YY ky
1 0.000 L N N Y ECL Y 1.00
2 0.353 L L 1.00
3 1.353 N N Y 1.00
4 2.553 N N Y 1.00
5 3.753 N N Y 1.00
6 4.953 L L Y 1.00
7 6.153 N N Y 1.00
8 7.353 N N Y 1.00
9 8.153 L L Y 1.00
10 8.953 N N Y 1.00
11 9.253 L L N
24 2.073 Member out-plane T+Mx
SECTION CHECKS
Case: 21 Off: 0 Cap/Load- 1.223 Section N+Mx (8.3.2)
Design loads: N*= 63.83 t
'
M‘x= 172. 6B M*v= 0.00
Design capacities oNt=1647.36 oMsx= 221.71 oMsv= 40.42
0Ns= 0.00 oMrx= 213.12 oMry- 38.86
Case: 23 Off: 4953/8153 Cap/Load- 1.139 Member out-plane
C+Mx
Design loads: N*- 58.01 c M*x= 125.00 M-y= 0.0C
Lmx= 9253 column o/a length Bmx= - 1.000
Lmy- 1200 6my= 0.000
Lx=21013 5me= - 1.000
Ly= 1200 ccn- 1.021 BM modifi cation factor
Le= 3200 beam eff. length a s- 0.66 BM slend. reductn. factor
Lz= 3200 torsion eff. length
Design capacities
C:\MSWlN\DATA\PFBook\Portal99.p4
/ .

AISC DPFB/03
Page 3 of 4
Bonacci Winward (Qld) Ply Ltd 23 Aug 1999
Job: Portal99 8:21 PM
PORTAL FRAME WITH 3m HAUNCHES - PINNED BASES
460UB74 COLS, 360UB45 RAFTERS - 4.5KN LL INCLUDED
0Msx= 221.71 oNcx=1151 99 | 0Mox= 143.27

oNcx= 412.87 .
0.00
oMrx= 213.32 oNcy=1417 62 * 0MbxO=
oNcy=1417.62 .
eMsy= 40.42 oMix= 210.55 0 Noz= 0 00 .
oMry= 38.89 oMiy= 38.77 0Mcx= 143.27

0Mbx= 149.38 * computed w. .th kL <= Lm (8.4.2.21

(8.3.2)
Design capacities
oVv= 400.32 oMf = 163.52

fu: 440
Section: 360UB44.7 Axis: Y Grade: 300 fyf: 320 fyw: 320
352.0 B= 171.0 Tf= 9.7 Tw= 6.9
D=
5720.0 rx= 146.0 Zx= 6.89E+05 Sx= 7.77E+05
Ag= 1.46E+05
ry= 37.6 Zy= 9.47E+04 Sy=
J= 1.61E+05 Iw = 2.37E+11

0.930 Class Mx: Non-compact Zex= 7 . 698E+05
Form Factor=
5319 Class My: Non-compact Zey= 1 . 404E+05
Ae=
Member Restraints
/— Beam — Load / Column-
kx YY ky
No Offset Top Btm Cant Ht XX
0.000 L N N S Y ECL Y 1.00
1
0.300 L N S .Y 1.00
2
1.100 L L S Y 1.00
3
1.900 L N S Y 1.00
4
3.100 L N S Y 1.00
5
4.300 L L S Y 1.00
6
5.500 L N s Y 1.00
7
6.700 L N s Y 1.00
8
7.900 L N s Y 1.00
9
8.900 L L s Y 1.00
10
11 9.253 L N N

'

SECTION CHECKS
(8.3.2)
N*= 58.68 c M*x=-186.00 M*y= 0.00

Design loads:
0.00 oMsx= 221.71 oMsy= 40.42
Design capacities aNt= 38.88
oNs=1531 . 80 oMrx= 213.22 oMry=
out-plane T+Mx
Case: 21 Off: 1100/4300 Cap/Load= 1.237 Member
63.76 M*x=-129 .79 M*y= 0.00

Design loads: N*= t
Lmx= 9253 column o/a length Bmx= -1.000

Lmy = 1200 Qmy= 0.000
Lx= 9253 Bme= -1.000
Ly= 1200 can= 1.048 BM modification factor
Le= 3200 beam eff. length os= 0.66 BM slend. reductn. factor
Design capacities
oMsx= 221-71 0Mbx= 153 22 0MOX= 159.15
oNt=1647 .36 oMbxo= 0.00
0Mrx= 213.13 oMix= 0 00
oMsy= 40.42 eMiy= 0 00 0NOZ= 0.00
oMcx= 0.00
cMry= 38.86
SHEAR CHECKS (Appendix : excluded)
Microstran IV6.50.16]
, 1

Case: 23 Off: 9253 Cap/Load= 1.471 Section N+Mx (8.3.2)
Design capacities
• i
bVv= 359.99 oMf= 163.52
MEMBER: 8 (Coda Check to AS4100)

Section : 460UB74.6 Axis: Y Grade: 300 fyf : 300 fyw: 320 fu: 440
D= 457.0 B= 190.0 Tf= 14.5 Tw= 9 .
Ag= 9520.0 rx= ie8.0 Zx= •

1.46E+06 Sx= 1 66E+06.
ry= 41.8 Zy= 1.75E+05 Sy= 2.71E+05

J= 5.30E+05 Iw= 8.15E+11
Form Factor^ 0.948 Class Mx: Comoact Zez- 1 . 660E+06
Ae= 9027 Class My: Compact Zey= 2 . 625E+05
Member Restraints
1
/ — Beam — / Load /— /
No Offset Top Btm Cant Ht XX kx YY ky
1 0.000 L L N S Y ECL Y 1.00
2 0.200 L N S Y 1.00
3 1.900 L L S Y 1.00
4 3.600 L N S Y 1.00
5 4.800 L N S Y 1.00
6 6.000 L N S Y 1.00
7 7.200 L N S Y 1.00
8 7.500 L L N
20 1.469 Member out-plane C+M.x
SSCTION CHECKS
Design loads: N*= 89.20 c M'x— 432.15 M*y= 0.00
Design capacities oNt= 0.00 oMsx= 448.20 aMsy= 70.88
0Ns=2437 28 . «Hrx= 448.20 aMry* 70.88
Case: 23 Off: 0/1900 Cap/Load= 0.993 Member out-plane C+Mx (8. 4. 4.1)
Design loads: N*=- 92.93 c M'x=-432.15 **
M*y= 0.00
Lmx= 7500 column o/a length Bmx= - 1.000
Lmy= 1700 Qmy= 0.000
Lx=26194 Bme= - 1.000
Ly= 1700 am= 1.118 BM modification factor
Le-= 1900 beam eff. length as= 0.91 BM slend. reductn. factor
Design capacities
0Ncx= 723.84 0 Msx= 448.20 0Ncx=2178.32 # aMox= 429.01
oNcy=2170.18 aMrx= 448.20 oNcy=2170.18 oMbxo- 0.00
tl
oMsy= 70.88 oMix“ 429.08 oNoz= 0.00

oMry= 70.88 0 Miy= 67.84 oMcx= 429.01
oMbx= 448.20 * computed with kL <= Lm 18.4.2.2)

Design capacities
0Vv= 472.35 aMf= 329.15

1
Subject Index
rafter bracing forces 146

Adhesion of clay 193
side wall 173
Amplification factor 57,71,166-167
single diagonal 151-152
Anchor head 200
truss chords 147
Angles 74-75,155,157-158,163,168,173
using purlins 31,76-77,149,151
Area reduction factor 19,23-24
Brief for design example 7-10
Atterberg limits 192
Buckling
centralcolumns 69-71
Baseplates 107,137-140
combined actions 68-69
Bases
crane runway beams 251-254
fixed 58,108
flexural 64,65-66
pinned 57,107-108,138
flexural-torsional 58-60
Basic wind speeds 15
monorail beams 254-255
Bearing capacity
monosymmetric beams 251-254
ultimate 193
Building spacing parameter 15,22
Bearing pressure 193
Bending capacity
Cable action of rod bracing 152
rafters 58-64
Cap plate and cleat 161-163
columns 66-67
Capacity reduction factor 6
in-plane 68
geotechnical 194-196
out-of-plane 69
Central column 69-71
purlin 34
first order elastic analysis 71
Bolted knee joint 106-107,109-134
second order elastic analysis 71
Bolted moment end plate 106
top connection pinned 70-71
Bolts
top connection rigid 71
at knee 1 13-114
Cladding 11,19,32
at ridge 135
live load 11-12
fly braces 75
Clays 191-196
holding down 138-139,196-205
expansive 192
purlin 36,46
Cleat plate 161,172
roof bracing 172
61-64 Cleats
Bottom flange of rafters in compression
purlin 35-36
haunch 64,97-99
• Cogged holding down bolts 199
with fly bracing 61-62,63
Cohesion of clay 193-195
without fly bracing 62-63
Columns 1,65-67
Bored piers 4-5,93-96
central 69-7
lateral capacity 195-196
vertical capacity 195
112-128 design example 84-88,238-242
Bottom flange connection of knee joint
eccentric crane loading 268-271
Bracing (see also Roof & wall bracing)
end wall 72,148
accumulated forces 146-147
inside flange in compression 66
clearance under purlins 147
major axis compression capacity 65
design example 163-173
minor axis compression capacity 65
double diagonal 146,151
nominal bending capacity 66-67
fly (see Fly bracing)
outside flange in compression 67
layout 147-152
restraints 66-67
longitudinal wind forces 146
section capacity 87
plane 147
333
334 Subject Index A1SC DPFli/03
web shear stiffeners 109,1 17-134 effects of 77-78 .
Combinations end wall columns 100-101

load 11,19-21 ,29-30,56, 1 1 0, 1 35, 1 38 frame 55,83
210,231 lateral or sidesway limits 79
Combined actions 67-69 purlins 35,45-46

in-plane section capacity 67-68 rafter limits 80
in-plane member capacity 68 Design action effect 6-7

out-of-plane member capacity 69 Design example
Compression capacity 64,65,226-227 brief 7-10
columns 65-66,84 footings 210-215
major axis 65 frame design 81-102
minor axis 65-66 frame connections 108-143
rafters 64,89-90 gantry crane 255-277
Computer analysis 55-58,223-225 girts 49-53
Cone failure of holding down bolts 198, loads 21-30

199-204 plastic frame design 227-244
Connections purlins 38-49
angles 148,163 roof & wall bracing 163-173
base plate 107 slab 215-217
design example 108-143 Direct mechanism method 220-223
end wall 141-143 Direction factor for wind 14,27-29
frame 105-143 Double diagonal bracing 145,147-152
knee (see Knee joint) Doubler plates
design procedures 109,112,129,131 flange 119-121
ridge (see Ridge joint) web 133-134
tubes 161-163 Dowelled joint 206,209
Contraction joints 206-209 Drawings 294-302
Corrosion of holding down bolts 205
Cracking in slabs205,209 Eccentricity
Crack initiators 207 in-plane at joints in roof bracing 163
Cranes (see Gantry cranes) of end connection for angles 163
Crane corbel 249,266-268 Edge distance for holding down bolts
Crane runway beams 249-254 201-204
bearing capacity 264-266 Effective length 3-4
combined actions 262 central column 70-71
design loads 250-251 column in bending 66-67
design procedure 248-249 column in compression 65-66
fatigue 271 for combined actions 65
lateral buckling 251-254 rafter in bending 60-64
263
lateral deflection rafter in compression 64
major axis bending moments 258-259 Elastic
member capacity 251-254 analysis 55-58
minor axis bending moments 259-262 buclding load factor 57-58,71
portal column supports 254 buckling moment 59
shear capacity 263-264 first order analysis 56-57
vertical deflection 263 second order analysis 57
Cross-wind loads 16,22-25,38-40,44-45,49 Embedment of holding down bolts 201
55-56,223,229-231 End wall frames 72-74,99-102,147-151
Cyclone shutters 19 columns 72,99-102,141-143.
Cyclone washers 32 connections 72-74,141-143
Cyclonic effects 12 continuous rafters 73
Dead load 5,11,19-21,35,55,227 discontinuous rafters 74
Deflections 7,21,55,77-80 rafters 73-74
1 1
Subject Index 335

AISC DPFB/03
live load 1 1-12,21-22,227

slotted holes 73
Equivalent free throat width 18 load combinations 56,229,231
j .
methods of analysis 56-57,82-83

Erection 146,151
plastic design example 227-244
Expansion joints 206
portal 1-5,145
Expansive clays 192
rafters 58-65,242-243
External wind pressure 16-17,19,23-24
spacing 32-33
trial section properties 56,81-82
Factor of safety on uplift 1 92
Fibreglass roof sheeting 3
wind loads 12-19,22-29,229-231
Free stream dynamic pressure 15-16
First order
elastic analysis 56-58,71
plastic analysis 56,219-225 Gantry cranes 247-248
Fixed base 58,191
Girts 31
Floor slabs (see Slabs)
(see also Purlins)
Fly bracing 2,55,74-76
as column bracing 65-67
columns in elastic design 66
columns in plastic design 226,240-242
crane runway beam 276 end wall 51-53
side wall 49-50
design force 75
rafters in elastic design 61-62 Grouting under base plates 199
rafters in plastic design 226,242-243

single angle each side 74
Haunches 1,63,65,82,90-91,97-99,106
221,228
single angle one side 75
Footings 191-205
Height of beam loading 60-62
allowable bearing pressure 193
Height multiplier for wind speed 15,22-23
Atterberg limits 192 Holding down bolts 4,196-205
anchorage 199
bored piers 193-196
cone failure 199-201
comer 213
corrosion 205
design criteria 198
end wall 212-213
expansive clays 192
edge distances 201-204
lateral loads on bored piers 195-196
embedment lengths 201
pad 192-193
galvanising 205
plan 302
in shear 204
raft foundations 192
intersecting cones 199-200
shrink/swell tests 192
lateral loads 204
ultimate bearing pressure 193
192 pull-out 20
uplift forces
vertical loads 195
Importance multiplier 15
Frame
bracing 145-190
In-plane member capacity 68
In-plane section capacity 67-68,226
central 69-71
Iterative mechanism method 223-225
columns 65-67,254
Internal wind pressure 17-19,24-25,38
connections (see Connections)
Joints in floor slabs (see Slabs)
crane columns 254
Joints in steelwork (see Connections)
dead load 11,21,227
deflections 77-80,231,244
elastic analysis buckling load factor Keyed joints in slabs 207-208
57-58,225 Knee joint 106-107
design example 81-102 bolts 113-114
elastic
bottom flange connection 112-128
end wall 72-74
Fly bracing) compression stiffeners 121-124,130
fly braces (see
336 Subject Index
AISC DPFB/03
design actions 109-112

Pad footings 191,192-193,212
doubler plates 119-121,133-134
Peak local pressures 19,25,32,38
end plate 114-117
Permeability ratio 17-18,25
flange and web welds 126-128 Permissible stress 3
geometry restrictions 116 Pinned base 57,107-108,138
procedure 109
Plane of roof bracing system 147-149
shear stiffeners 131-134
Plastic
tension stiffeners 1 17-1 19,129 analysis 3,56,219-225
top flange connection 128-131
comparison with elastic solution 244
web doubler plate 133-134 design example 227-244
direct mechanism method 220-223
Lateral loads on bored piers 195-196 frame design 219-245
Lateral restraints for rafters 60-64
iterative mechanism method 223-225
Layout for roof bracing system 145,147-152 lower bound 219-220
Leakage 18
mechanism method 219
Limit state design 1,5-7
member capacity 226-227,239-242
serviceability 7,21
required plastic moments 219-221
strength 6-7,19
second order effects 225,236
Loads 3,11-30
method 21 9,225
statical
dead 11,21 upper bound 219,220
web slenderness 227
live 11-12,21-22
Pretension in rods 152-155,169-171
wind 12-19,22-25 Pressure coefficients 16-19,23-25,38-42,
Load cases 25-29,55-56
44-45,47,49-51
Load combinations 19-20,29-30,56,231-238 Purlins 31-49
273 angle cleats 36
Local pressures 19,25,32,38
as braces 61-64,76-77,147,226
Longitudinal wind loads 16,23,25,28-30,
as struts 31,35
40-41,56,145-146,163-166,221 axial loads 35
bolts 36
Masonry walls
bridging 33
effect of deflections 77-79 capacity brochures 31,33-34,38
Mechanism method 219-225 cleats 35-36
Methods of analysis 3,55-58,71,219-225
deflection limits 35
Moment design example 38-49
amplification factor 57,236
end spans 33-34
modification factor 59-60,226,251-252
equivalent UDL’s 36-38
Monorail beams 247,254-255
erection 33
local flange bending 255 lapped 33-34,47
member capacity rules 254-255 lateral buckling 33
maximum unbraced lengths 33-34
Nominal capacity 6-7 orientation of Z-section 33
bending 58-64,66-67 R-factor method 32,34,47-49
compression 64-66 selection 41-44
Nonlinear analysis 3,56-57,71,82-83
spacing 31,38-46 >
strength 33-34,38
Out-of-plane buckling 4,33,58-67
Out-of-plane member capacity 58-69
R-factor method 32,34,47-49
Overturning Rafters 1,2,55,58-65
stability against 6
amplified first order analysis 57-58
bottom flange in compression 61-64
P-A effects 56.82 bracing forces 76-77
P-5 effects 56-57,82 combined actions 65,67-69
1
Subject Index
AISC DPFB/03
design example 89-99,242-243 Shear deformations 56

major axis compression capacity 64 Shear stiffeners at knee joint 109,131-134
minor axis compression capacity 64 diagonal stiffener design 133
nominal bending capacity 58-64 interaction of shear and bending 132-13.'
top flange in compression 60-6 shear capacity in absence of bending
Rational buckling analysis

131-132
purlins 33 web doubler plates 133-134

rafters 59-60 Shielding 15,22
factors for wind loads Slotted holes for end wall column connectk
Reduction
area 19,23-24 73
wind direction 14 Slabs 205-209

cast-in crack inducers 207
Regional wind speed 14
contraction joints 206-209
Ridge joint 105,106-107,134-137
cracking 205,206
Ridge ventilators 18,24-25
Rods 145,152-155
acceptance sag 152 design principles 205
design example 168-171 dowelled joints 209

end connections 155 expansion joints 206,209
overtensioning 153 joints 206-209
pretension 152-155,169-171 joint spacing 209
Roller shutters 18-19 keyed joints 207-208
Roof reinforcement 209
bracing 145-190 sawn joints 206-207

live load 11-12,21-22 thickness 205-206
sheeting 32 Slenderness reduction factor 59,86,88,93,9
Roof and wall bracing 145-190 99,226,251-252,290
bracing in both end bays 147-152 Spacing

bracing in only one end bay 150-151 frame 32-33
comparison of bracing layouts 150-152 purlins 31,38-46
design example 163-173 Stability 6
effect on footing uplift forces 214 Statical method 219,225

end wall bracing 72 Strength limit state 6-7,19-20,33
forces 146-147,163-166 Struts
frictional drag 1 64 (see also Tubes)

CHS. SHS under self weight 4, 1 59- 1 60
in-plane eccentricity at joints 163
layout 147-152
166-168
longitudinal wind forces 146,164 design capacity tables 176-190
side wall bracing 173 end connections 161-163

single tension diagonals 150-151
159-160 Tapered rafters 60,97-99
struts
Roof sheeting 11,32 Tension flange bracing 61-63

Tension members
Sag angles 155
ridge line 77-78 rods (see Rods)
rods 152-154 tubes 155
Sawn joints 206 under self weight 152-158

Second order plastic analysis 225 Terrain and height multiplier 15,22 •
Self weight Terrain category 14-15,22
of horizontal struts 4,159-60 Thunderstorms 17-18

of tension members 4,152-154 Ties (see Tension members and Rods)
sag 152-154 Top flange connection of knee joint 128-1

Serviceability 7, 1 3,21 ,35,46,77-80, Topographic multiplier 15
231,244,263 Trusses 1-2,147

338 Subject Index AISC DPF8/03
Tubes
deflection under self weight 4,159-160
end connections 161-163
flattened ends 161
in compression (see Struts)
in tension 161-163
U-bolts 199-201
Uplift forces on footings 192-195
Ventilators
roof 18,24-25
Wall bracing 145-146,173,276

Wall sheeting 18,19,31,32
Web doubler plates 133-134
Welds
base plate 140
flange 126-128,136-137
web 128,137
Wind loads 3,12-19
area reduction factor 19,23-24
external pressures 16-17,23-24
internal pressures 17-19,24-25
local pressure factors 19
on roller shutter doors 18-19
permeability ratio 17-19,25
regional velocities 14,22
terrain categories 14-15,22
topographic effects 15
Wind locks 19
Window shutters 19

Design of Portal Frame Buildings 3rd Ed - Text

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design of Portal Frame Buildings 3rd Ed - Text

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design of Portal

DESIGN OF PORTAL FRAME BUILDINGS

© Copyright 1999 Australian Institute of Steel Construction

National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry:

l. Industrial buildings - Design and construction. 2.

Australian Institute of Steel Construction. IV. Title.

Production by Robert Burton Printers Pty Ltd

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

1 . 1 Portal Framed Buildings 1

Purlins & Girts 31

3.7 Purlin Bolts 36

4. 1 Frame Design by Elastic Analysis 55

4. 5. 2. 2 In-Plane Member Capacity 68

Frame Connections 105

VI Contents AISC DPFB/03

5.4.2 Knee Joint 109

5.4.2.4 Top Flange Connection 128

6 Roof & Wall Bracing 145

6.11.4.2 Bolts 172

7 Footings & Slabs 191

7.4.2 Resistance to Vertical Loads 195

7.7.3 Main Portal Footings in Braced Bays -213

8 Plastic Frame Design 219

8. 5. 1.1 Gravity Load Case 227

Gantry Cranes & Monorails 247

aisc dpfb/03 Portal Framed Buildings ix

A9.2.3 Member Moment Capacity >

AppendlxI: Drawings 293

Appendix II: Computer Output 303

Member Forces; Reactions

Bending Moment Diagrams

Appendix III: Limsteel Output 327

Subject Index 333

In October 1985, Scott Woolcock and Sritawat Kitipomchai presented a non-technical

The previous chapters on footings and slab-on-the-ground have been merged.

Overall, this addition should prove to be of great assistance to practicing

Ad shank area of rod

Afc flange area at critical section

gross area of cross-section

As cross-sectional area of tension reinforcement, or

Awe area of column web

afe effective value of af for bolted moment end plate

aw distance between crane wheel loads

B overall dimension of square hollow section

bfc flange width of column

bi width of end plate

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

Cp wind pressure coefficient

Cpe external wind pressure coefficient

if distance between flange centroids, or

dp depth of web plate, or

dwc column section depth between fillets = dc - 2 kc

Fa allowable working stress in AS 1250

fac axial stress

fat axial stress in cable or rod

fs design value of shaft adhesion

fuf ultimate tensile strength of bolt

fuw normal tensile strength of weld material

f'm maximum design shear stress in web

fycf.fycw column yield stress of flange or web, respectively

fy.CHS yield stress of CHS

fyd yield stress of doubler plate

fyi yield stress of bolted moment end plate