Warehouse Renovation
Warehouse Renovation
(OP)
I am involved in a renovation on a warehouse that is about 60+ years old. The lateral system consists of x-bracing in one direction & a rigid truss system in the opposite direction. I attached a drawing showing the floor plan and side view showing the x-bracing locations. The drawing also shows a section. The client wants to remove the 2nd floor (dotted lines in the section view). The 2nd floor consists of heavy timber girders and joists supported by timber columns. The heavy timber girders are supported by the steel columns at the edge of the 2nd floor. I have been studying the effects of removing the timber 2nd floor and have come the conclusion that the building should be fine without it. I am still nervous about removing it though. While my analysis has shown that the building is stable without it, it has to add a lot of stiffness to the structure. Does anyone have any insight on this issue? I appreciate your input.






RE: Warehouse Renovation
RE: Warehouse Renovation
RE: Warehouse Renovation
RE: Warehouse Renovation
Any indication of crane rail attachments to the columns or to the underside of the high trusses?
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
RE: Warehouse Renovation
If not, you may want to consider adding a couple of horizontal trusses in the plane of the bottom chord of the lower trusses.
RE: Warehouse Renovation
RE: Warehouse Renovation
Dik
RE: Warehouse Renovation
I was told that the building was originally a warehouse for a department store. There are no signs that it was ever used in an industrial application. However, I can't totally rule out that possibility.
I believe the building was designed for the frames to resist all of the lateral force and not rely on the exterior walls except for the end bays (the end walls are brick – no signs of steel in the end walls). In this case the diaphragm would not be needed to transmit the lateral force.
I modeled the building and found that the drift is nearly the same with or without the diaphragm. I think csd72 brought up a good point about the unbraced length of the columns. This is my greatest concern. It seems that the lower-exterior roof trusses provide bracing for the columns. It appears that the lower-exterior trusses are providing a rigid connection (maybe not the right wording) with the upper & lower chord connecting to the interior column.
I tried to attach some pictures. Maybe they will work.
RE: Warehouse Renovation
htt
htt
htt
htt
htt
RE: Warehouse Renovation
I still think the 2nd floor was a adds-on though, because couldn't think a good reason for the mixed use of steel-wood materials, also the wood handrailing on 2nd floor. However, it is not clear from the photos, the columns at the 2nd floor seem to be smaller than that at the 1st floor. What is the main eave hight? How was the transition of column size handled (details)? Very interesting project.
RE: Warehouse Renovation
[IMG]htt
[IMG]htt
RE: Warehouse Renovation
Best regards,
BA
RE: Warehouse Renovation
RE: Warehouse Renovation
That would be very conservative. I doubt that the structure would work that way.
Why not analyze the structure as it is, then make sure that the lower truss members and their connections are capable of carrying the forces required by the analysis?
Best regards,
BA
RE: Warehouse Renovation
RE: Warehouse Renovation
You are correct on modelling the building as is for frame anaysis.
What I meant was to use full column length to compute KL/r, to determine the allowable compressive stress, without counting on the lower roof truss as brace. Hope this is not an over kill.
RE: Warehouse Renovation
Okay, I see what you mean. That may work okay.
csd72,
I don't think you can consider the column laterally braced by either top or bottom chord of the lower truss if the outside columns are hinged top and bottom. Except for the interior column, the lower truss is free to translate.
In the present situation, the floor diaphragm may help a bit, but it is 40' by about 240' (length six times width) so probably doesn't help a great deal.
Best regards,
BA
RE: Warehouse Renovation
It's my gut feeling that the trusses are too flexible to be count on as valid braces, and the lower truss translate with the main column too. That's the reason I suggested to try to get around by using the lowerest code allowable compressive stress. For renovations without original design document, I prefer to stay at safe side.
RE: Warehouse Renovation
I agree with you.
Best regards,
BA
RE: Warehouse Renovation
For example, lateral loads applied to the lower elevation of the frame "stay" in the lower elevation. The floor diaphragm acts like a strut and connects the left lower truss to the right lower truss. The high framing only has to resist it's own lateral loads and dumps them down into the lower framing.
If you remove the floor, then lateral loads have to "travel up" to the high diaphragm and then back down again. Before, the high framing was only accountable for it's own loads, it now has more lateral load traveling through it.
RE: Warehouse Renovation
I have narrowed my problem down some. I am convinced that the 2nd floor diaphragm is not required to transfer lateral forces in the building. I am now considering two issues:
1. The possibility of removal increasing the column effective length
2. The possibility of the 2nd floor acting as a strut and the effects of removing that strut
I modeled an interior frame with and without a beam at the 2nd floor level. It is a simplified model without the trusses exactly modeled, but I think it serves its purpose. See the attached file that shows moment diagrams on the members (wind load right to left). It seems that vandede427 was on to something about the strut issue. The forces in the upper truss connection do increase without the 2nd floor. I suppose I will have to do a more exact model to see if the upper truss can take the extra forces.
Any more thoughts?