Wind Loading - Almost totally open walled gable roof
Wind Loading - Almost totally open walled gable roof
(OP)
I need to call on the collective wisdom of this group regarding a building undergoing renovation.
I have been asked by a contractor to evaluate a partially demolished structure for stability. What is to remain are all of the steel pipe columns, the original roof (essentially flat, 3" thick wood decking) + a subsequently installed gable roof, 12/5 pitch, wood trusses, 4 bearing points at each truss line with plywood sheathing AND a masonry gable end wall with a double door opening AT ONE END ONLY. There are steel beams supporting the wood decking running perpendicular to the ridge, and none running parallel. There are no shear walls of any sort. The columns bear on piers or foundation wall pilasters 14" below the ground level slab. The ground level slab (about 3" thick) is supported by bar joists over a crawl space. This slab was cast against and in full contact with all of the steel pipe columns supporting the roof. The plan dimensions are 63' X 113'. The ridge is 113' long. Building height is 27' at the ridge, 14' at the eaves.
For wind perpendicular to the ridge, I would analyze the wind forces as an open pitched roof (ASCE 7-10 Figure 27.4-5).
For wind parallel with the ridge I have a quandary due to the gable end wall at only one end of the structure. This is obviously not a closed building. Wind blowing against the building from the open gable end will spill around the other closed end and will generate outward force from inside and a suction force on the outside. Wind blowing against this gable end will generate forces towards the interior as well as some degree of suction on the inside face of the gable end wall. I am not totally convinced that examining it as an enclosed building in this case is completely correct.
I am modeling the columns as fixed cantilevers from the plane of the floor slab and not as pinned, simply because the floor slab was cast against an around the pipe columns. This seems to be giving the EoR some heartburn. I feel it's a valid approach. By modeling it this way I find the structure to be stable and see no need for supplemental lateral bracing, at least in the direction perpendicular to the ridge.
Perhaps you all could chime in with some advice & opinions. Please, let's not get into a debate of the merits of this method of remodeling - it is what it is and there's no changing it at this point in time.
My questions:
How would you analyze the wind forces parallel with the ridge?
Do you agree that assume the bases of the columns as fixed is valid?
I have been asked by a contractor to evaluate a partially demolished structure for stability. What is to remain are all of the steel pipe columns, the original roof (essentially flat, 3" thick wood decking) + a subsequently installed gable roof, 12/5 pitch, wood trusses, 4 bearing points at each truss line with plywood sheathing AND a masonry gable end wall with a double door opening AT ONE END ONLY. There are steel beams supporting the wood decking running perpendicular to the ridge, and none running parallel. There are no shear walls of any sort. The columns bear on piers or foundation wall pilasters 14" below the ground level slab. The ground level slab (about 3" thick) is supported by bar joists over a crawl space. This slab was cast against and in full contact with all of the steel pipe columns supporting the roof. The plan dimensions are 63' X 113'. The ridge is 113' long. Building height is 27' at the ridge, 14' at the eaves.
For wind perpendicular to the ridge, I would analyze the wind forces as an open pitched roof (ASCE 7-10 Figure 27.4-5).
For wind parallel with the ridge I have a quandary due to the gable end wall at only one end of the structure. This is obviously not a closed building. Wind blowing against the building from the open gable end will spill around the other closed end and will generate outward force from inside and a suction force on the outside. Wind blowing against this gable end will generate forces towards the interior as well as some degree of suction on the inside face of the gable end wall. I am not totally convinced that examining it as an enclosed building in this case is completely correct.
I am modeling the columns as fixed cantilevers from the plane of the floor slab and not as pinned, simply because the floor slab was cast against an around the pipe columns. This seems to be giving the EoR some heartburn. I feel it's a valid approach. By modeling it this way I find the structure to be stable and see no need for supplemental lateral bracing, at least in the direction perpendicular to the ridge.
Perhaps you all could chime in with some advice & opinions. Please, let's not get into a debate of the merits of this method of remodeling - it is what it is and there's no changing it at this point in time.
My questions:
How would you analyze the wind forces parallel with the ridge?
Do you agree that assume the bases of the columns as fixed is valid?
Ralph
Structures Consulting
Northeast USA






RE: Wind Loading - Almost totally open walled gable roof
Doesn't sound like the columns are fixed, but they may be restrained enough to provide the required wind resistance.
Why not put in a few cable braces for good measure until the new construction is completed?
BA
RE: Wind Loading - Almost totally open walled gable roof
My first goal is to determine if it can sustain the loads as-is per my client's wishes.
From there we determine what additional 'suspenders' are appropriate.
See the attached sketch. The trusses are fully sheathed and shingled.
Ralph
Structures Consulting
Northeast USA
RE: Wind Loading - Almost totally open walled gable roof
Temporary cables sounds like a real good idea.
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
RE: Wind Loading - Almost totally open walled gable roof
1. For the parallel to ridge direction, I would use the MWFRS for partially enclosed (or enclosed since the internal coefficient cancel out) for the enclosed gable roof above the low roof level plus wind on the single endwall below low roof level treating it as a sign. Add the wind on all exposed columns as well.
2. Same as #1 but treat the wall below the roof level as a partially enclosed component and not MWFRS so the coefficients don't cancel out. Add wind on all exposed columns.
I guess by Code if the building qualifies as partially enclosed you could treat the single wall as MWFRS but that would be less conservative than #2 above by treating it as a component.
Have you checked bearing on the 3" floor slab from the column horizontal reaction and passive pressure against whatever ground is abutting the crawl space?
RE: Wind Loading - Almost totally open walled gable roof
EIT
www.HowToEngineer.com
RE: Wind Loading - Almost totally open walled gable roof
My item #2 suggested treating the wall as components and cladding. But I agree, you could use MWFRS and just not cancel the internal for that 1 wall.
RE: Wind Loading - Almost totally open walled gable roof
The problem with this project is the lack of anticipation of the (wind) exposure conditions that arise between the existing condition before work started and the various phases that will occur during reconstruction. Unfortunately I get to assist one subcontractor (demo) who didn't read the specs before taking the job (go figure). This wing stood for almost 30 years exposed to some pretty intense winds from thunderstorms with no major issues. If there were an Exposure A, this would fit.
The forces involved at the bottoms of the columns, i.e. compression against the slab edge and shear in the anchor bolts is acceptable.
It's the typical 'dance' between what should have been known at bid time and included in the contract and what has been found in the existing building that was not shown in the contract documents. Combined with the Engineer of Record's attempt to shed as much liability as possible relating to undiscovered issues. I'm trying to accommodate my client's needs without compromising my responsibility to keep it safe.
Ralph
Structures Consulting
Northeast USA
RE: Wind Loading - Almost totally open walled gable roof
I would be conservative with that element and the loading.
RE: Wind Loading - Almost totally open walled gable roof
BA
RE: Wind Loading - Almost totally open walled gable roof
Ralph
Structures Consulting
Northeast USA
RE: Wind Loading - Almost totally open walled gable roof
Ralph
Structures Consulting
Northeast USA
RE: Wind Loading - Almost totally open walled gable roof
Ralph
Structures Consulting
Northeast USA
RE: Wind Loading - Almost totally open walled gable roof
I would be concerned about the connection between the typical beam and column. Are there stiffeners in the beam over each column? If not, the columns are not continuous through the beams and there seems to be nothing much to prevent the beams from racking. Very poor detail.
BA
RE: Wind Loading - Almost totally open walled gable roof
RE: Wind Loading - Almost totally open walled gable roof
It looks like the building is somewhat old, I would be surprised if the existing roof members and connections work for uplift as partially enclosed.
RE: Wind Loading - Almost totally open walled gable roof
I would look at this as partially enclosed and open, taking the worst case of the two.
RE: Wind Loading - Almost totally open walled gable roof
BA
RE: Wind Loading - Almost totally open walled gable roof
For what it's worth, the tops of the columns have a sizable cap plate with a 4-bolt connection. Not a full-moment connection by any stretch but still pretty stiff. We have gotten past the "who should have known what" stage between owner, design team, GC & sub and will be working towards a realistic solution soon.
Ralph
Structures Consulting
Northeast USA
RE: Wind Loading - Almost totally open walled gable roof
BA
RE: Wind Loading - Almost totally open walled gable roof
A plan, with some dimensions, sizes, notes critical to the design, etc. might have been helpful, since we can’t see it from here, although the pictures are helpful too. Let’s see if I have this right, you have some 14' high cantilevered pipe columns, size, number, spacing, connections, etc., all unknown. These are supported at the base by a 3" conc. slab, with unknown bot. forming material, on bar joists, and joist arrangement and how the fl. slab is really supported laterally is also unknown. Doesn’t the whole lateral load on the bldg. have to go through the floor system before it gets to the foundation? Below this lateral slab support is a 12-14" long pipe column back-span which is supported on top of piers, some in walls for improved stability in the plane of the found. wall, but not so much stability perpendicular to the wall. And these piers and pilasters are still cantilevered several feet above the actual ground level, in a crawl space. What are the found. details which give the piers and walls lateral stability? What is the column base reaction at the conc. slab and at the top of the piers? Wouldn’t the reaction at the top of the piers be pretty high, with the small back-span? What are the gravity loads on the pipe columns? Isn’t this a temporary stability issue during this construction, and then something of a permanent stability design problem in the new design?
The bldg. may never see the code prescribed wind loads, so it may never blow over, but it sure looks to me like a bunch of toothpicks standing on end waiting to be pushed over. I agree with Ron, pick the worst wind load and go with it for this temp. work. I also agree with BA that the beam/column connection looks kinda shaky, without serious study. Your salvation may be that the part of the bldg. you are working on is attached to other bldgs., but I’d still study the two unsupported wall lines of the bldg., and probably put some cable x-bracing in for the time being. It’s not a matter of fighting about who’s fault it is at this stage. It is a matter of making it safe as you continue to weaken it, by more demolition, and keeping it from rotating about its two lines of attachment/support.
RE: Wind Loading - Almost totally open walled gable roof
RE: Wind Loading - Almost totally open walled gable roof
BUILDING, ENCLOSED: A building that does not comply
with the requirements for open or partially enclosed buildings.