×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Calculating dead loads for seismic design

Calculating dead loads for seismic design

Calculating dead loads for seismic design

(OP)
Haven't done much seismic work yet. If I'm doing a facility that has animal confinement (chickens that are free to move around in the building.......not caged) and I'm trying to calculate the total weight of my structure to come up with the Seismic Base Shear, do I need to include the animal weight?

Am I thinking about this correctly in that unless the chickens were rigidly attached to the structure that their weight is inconsequential? In other words, as the building shakes, they lose their footing and they haven't contributed to the mass of the structure that just got racked. Now.............I think I understand that if a chicken was up against a rigid surface and the movement of the structure immediately pushed against that bird that her weight WOULD have to be included, right? I know I'm talking a little silly here perhaps, but in reality isn't that the case? To be conservative I would say that every chicken would be tight against a rigid pen or wall or something, but that load condition is unrealistic. Therefore, could an assumption be made that a certain percentage of the bird weight be added to the total structure weight? Or do I even need to consider the bird weight at all??

Thanks.

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

Unless you're bolting your chickens down then I would consider them a live load that is not a storage load and thus does not get added to the seismic weight.

Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH)
American Concrete Industries
www.americanconcrete.com

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

Chickens will obviously provide increased damping...

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

(OP)
Given the fact that the probability of the building loaded with chickens to it's capacity all of the time is very high there is SUBSTANTIAL weight added to the structure. You certainly could call it a live load, but unlike people in an office, these birds are there 24/7/360. For my own understanding..........if these birds were caged, confined to a cell that was attached to the structure, does the answer change?

Thanks for the quick response.

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

I would include their weight up to the point where the chickens still have contact with the ground...so the question is really what acceleration(g-force) would cause this loss of contact...

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

(OP)
Maybe a clarifying point Sail3. These chickens are layered, or have the opportunity to be located, in a 23' tall building at nearly any point in that 23' of building height. There are open "cages" at roughly 4' levels that the birds can go in, lay eggs, get feed & water, etc, so I think the assumption can be made that the birds will be pretty evenly distributed heightwise in this 23' tall structure. Your comment about "contact with the ground" made me think that I wasn't clear enough in my original description.

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

same principle...if the cages are mechanically connected to the building or if the friction between the cage and it's support is sufficient to overcome the seismic force....not all seismic events are at the max level so what is the cut-off point of the level of intensity of the seismic event that would make the stated assumptions invalid.....

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

(OP)
The cages are mechanically connected to the building but the birds are free to roam wherever they want, within a partitioned section of the building.

So I'm understanding that the seismic levels we're designing for in ASCE 7 are for the maximum load, at which point the birds are knocked off their feet and probably don't contribute to the weight of the building. I'm sorry if most of you think this is a stupid discussion, but bear with me as I seek to understand. So what if the seismic event is 50% of design. Birds don't get knocked off their feet, but they're also not rigidly attached, so I'm thinking that they don't contribute to the weight of the structure. Let's say the birds are all laying down (not sure if birds do that or not) and the building shakes........they would roll around...............again they aren't glued to the structure. Am I not thinking correctly regarding the only way the birds should contribute to the weight of the building is if they are wedged against something vertical?

Thanks for humoring me.

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

it is not a stupid question and can be applied to say human occupancy....I have seen no evidence(there may be some out there) where a human being was knocked off it's feet during a seismic event and ,besides, chickens have clawed feet that give them the ability to cling to a support, if necessary,...with all these unknowns, I would come down on the conservative side...

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

It's also worth noting that chickens are relatively low density compared to a human. It wont take much for a chicken to be taken off it's feet or otherwise not be fully attached to a building by it's weight and friction.

I vote we get some chickens and put them on a shake table. This will be the most entertaining engineering report ever.

Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH)
American Concrete Industries
www.americanconcrete.com

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

(OP)
Ha! That would be good. I am talking about a project that is going to house upwards of 3,000,000 lbs of chickens in one building.

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

Right, but each chicken has to anchor itself and move with the building. When the building shifts suddenly with an acceleration at some proportion of gravity will each chickens little legs and low mass be able to restrain themselves enough to move with the structure.

Hahahahaha, I actually found some empirical evidence of chickens during a seismic event, they were even sitting down and still remained relatively stationary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iRqC5l7tX4

Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH)
American Concrete Industries
www.americanconcrete.com

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

This isn't a silly question at all. A nearly identical issue comes up in the design of libraries: should the books be seismic mass? See this thread for more information: Link. Two things that I've never been clear on:

1) With storage loads, is the 25% based on the probability of full load being present or the assumed vibrational participation of the stored mass? I lean towards the former.

2) If heavy storage loads are seismic mass, why aren't ordinary live loads? A far as I can tell, the only difference is scale. Seismically, is there a philosophical distinction between a box of solenoids and me huddled up in the fetal position on the floor?

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

My understanding to (2) relates to how well you will be seismically isolated. If you're in the fetal position you may slide on the floor a bit but may contribute some to the seismic weight. However, most people will probably be standing or sitting and will be isolated from the seismic force (e.g. they rock or fall over when the building shifts). Thus, a person live load shouldn't add to the seismic weight but the box of solenoids which we can assume that 25% of the will move with the building.

I would say that books may move with the building but chickens will not, chickens will be startled just like people and stand or otherwise not generally be moving with the building.

Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH)
American Concrete Industries
www.americanconcrete.com

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

Would that not be compensated for in the live load with appropriate seismic factors used for anything over 100 psf?

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)


RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

@TME: I think that it's prudent to recognize that the live loads that we use aren't meant to capture just the weight of people. They also include the weight of stationary, inanimate things like furniture. i.e. things that won't be staggering around in a panic during a seismic event. I'd argue that, in most spaces, live load is predominately inanimate mass.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

(OP)
I appreciate all of the comments. Thanks. One last question......and maybe this should have been the first question. Does the building even need to be designed for seismic loads? ASCE 7-10 Section 11.1.2 says that "Agricultural storage structures that are intended only for incidental human occupancy" are exempt from needing designed from that standard. Would anybody interpret this such that an incidentally occupied chicken building could be exempt? I could see "grain storage" or "ag-equipment storage" much more readily fit that bill than a chicken barn. However, manure and egg belts take away the bad and the good and there is little human occupancy in the structure.

My gut tells that to take the "ag-exempt" approach is a little overboard, but I will be challenged with that thought from those who are wanting to keep costs down. I guess that's an age-old problem. smile Would anybody vehemently argue that this should be exempt?

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

One thing I find is that building codes are written for "normal" structures, and if you're dealing with some oddball project, you may need to include loads or combinations that are not addressed.
On the "Exempt" question, it sounds to me like the exemption is for items where you don't mind too much if they collapse or are damaged in a seismic event. If there's a substantial investment in the property, I would be inclined not to use the exemption. I wonder if that would be addressed by insurance requirements anywhere?

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

the other question this raises is the distribution of the weight, if one includes it....the OP indicated that they were open cages and the chickens were free to roam....is there a situation in this environment where the chickens would tend to congregate/flock in one area ie. a feeding station, one part of the bldg more comfortable than the other, etc...

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

(OP)
My understanding is that chickens are not very smart animals and they can "pile" and suffocate each other, perhaps if they got scared. If the design event is generally 30-45 seconds, the likelihood of them piling and causing adverse effects in that short of time seems fairly minimal.

Each room is the same as the next in this chicken hotel though I suppose there could be some ventilation differences that could make an area preferable to another. Good point.

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

@KootK: Good point, also I imagine the cages will be bolted down and the chickens will weigh down the cages.

I'll change my opinion, I would agree that the chickens should be considered a storage load (25% LL and all that), but only if the cages are bolted down sufficiently that the cages themselves can contribute to the seismic weight.

Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH)
American Concrete Industries
www.americanconcrete.com

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

(OP)
One last question..........I hope. So I arrive at my Seismic Base Shear. This structure is actually supported with "guy wire" external bracing at periodic intervals near the eave. I'm supporting it there so that I can take load out of my roof diaphragm at periodic intervals. At the expense of showing my ignorance, I ask, "Can I apply that shear load up high to my external bracing points or do I need to do something different? Generally when I've designed structures for seismic I have more of a shearwall approach that is of relatively equal strength from top of wall to foundation. In this case I have my resistance up high with a lot of ductility between the eave and finish floor. Is that correct thinking? If the ground is moving, I guess so are my external bracing points (deadmen) and it would all act together. Thoughts?

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

PostFrameSE

A sketch might help. I don't quite understand what you are asking.

On another note. What I don't get about storage loads and seismic weight is that you need to include the weight from storage loads in your seismic load..... but when you are figuring 0.6D+0.7E you are not allowed to take 25% of the weight to resist these loads? At least, that is always the way I have been taught to approach the problem.

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

I would say that as long as you can get the load through collectors and into the bracing at the perimeter you should be fine. My old boss did something similar years ago on a large warehouse. The footings were large and he needed to pay special attention to the collectors but it will work.

The only thing I am not sure about is what R factor would you use for that system? Maybe you would be forced to use R=3.

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

I would consider the total weight of the chickens as an operating load and therefore use 100%....this is a major load in the OP's project...if this was my project, my first instinct would be to use a 100% of the chicken weight...if this results in a unreasonable design and the possibility of saving meaningful costs exists, then , I would do a dilligent research on the subject of chicken behavior(if it exists)during a seismic event or if someone qualified presents a sound arguement in reducing this load, I would consider it..in the end, it would come down to my engineering judgement....like it or not, this is real engineering and an opportunity to apply one's engineering knowledge without allot of cookbook handholding...

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

Quote (SteelPE)

On another note. What I don't get about storage loads and seismic weight is that you need to include the weight from storage loads in your seismic load..... but when you are figuring 0.6D+0.7E you are not allowed to take 25% of the weight to resist these loads? At least, that is always the way I have been taught to approach the problem.

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe this is because the earthquake acceleration is both horizontal and vertical. Thus, you may be helped or hurt by that 25% as they're assuming that 25% may be bouncing around in the helpful or hurtful direction (and probably both).

Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH)
American Concrete Industries
www.americanconcrete.com

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

Don't unattached live loads tend to provide damping of seismic effects on structures (think: bridges)? Things tend to roll around in a responsive way to the earth motions, providing damping effects (like water sloshing in a tuned mass damper). I always thought the 25% participation factor was based on the fact that the live load was actually providing some damping effect, though not perfectly. Therefore, the 25% level of contribution was assumed for conservatism's sake. Have I been taught incorrectly here on this point? I would recommend using 100% of the attached mass (cages?), and 25% of the chickens' mass (well fed). winky smile
Dave

Thaidavid

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

my understanding for using 25% of the live load in a seismic event is based on the assumption that it is a low probability of having a full live load and a seismic event occuring at the same time, on the otherhand, an operating load is considered to be present the majority of the time, hence, the use of a 100% of the operating load....

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

When I look at the elevation sketch, I see a one story building with what is essentially racking inside. I that correct? If so, one of two scenarios seem likely:

1) Your chicken racks cantilever up from the ground. In this scenario, there would be no seismic load on the building proper.

2) Your chicken racks are laterally restrained at the top by the roof deck, directly or indirectly. In this case, you may have a rather complicated seismic situation on your hands as our normal procedures are predicated up the lion's share of the seismic mass being located at the diaphragm levels rather than between the diaphragm levels.

How does the total weight of your roof system compare to the total weight of your occupied chicken racking assembly?

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

(OP)
It is a one story building with multiple levels of cage racks. Rack legs are one-piece and actually run all of the way up to the roof from concrete floor, so the roof is supported by vertical members at 4' o.c. the length of the building and approximately 6' o.c. across the width of the building. Essentially my roof is supported by a floor-to-roof "column" or rack leg every 24 square feet. Chicken racks do NOT cantilever from the floor, they are truly a pinned connection there. Your #2 more accurately describes the scenario wherein the seismic mass is certainly between the diaphragm levels. You worded that well.

Perhaps what I ought to do is brace the mid-height of this mass by an exterior guy wire as well. In other words, have one brace connected to my roof diaphragm and one brace at the center of my cage mass. When I think about it that way it starts to make more sense. That would actually give me a "diaphragm level" at the center (mid-height) of my loaded rack assembly.

My roof system weighs 8% of what the dead load of the racking assembly weighs. Put birds in there at 100% load and the roof becomes 5% of the occupied racking assembly. The weight clearly is in the birds and racking assembly........not the shell of the structure.

Do I really have any other choice but to put another brace in at mid-height as I suggested?

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

So, your racks support the roof? Is that correct? That is kind of an odd setup (my familiarity with this type of structure ends at Napoleon Dynamite). Unless the chickens are squeezed into the cages such that they can't move, I wouldn't add their weight to the seismic weight of the building, however, I would include the racking system. The seismic load needs to be transferred to the ground in some way. Your rack columns may be able to distribute the load to the ground and to the roof through local bending, if not, then you will need to install a mid-height brace and diaphragm (probably going to be tough).

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

(OP)
That is correct SteelPE. This is a new venture for us. Giving it a shot. That's why I'm being rather inquisitive here and trying to churn up as many issues as I can. I hope this discussion has been as fruitful for others as it has been for me. Thanks.

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

Quote (OP)

Do I really have any other choice but to put another brace in at mid-height as I suggested?

There are other ways but, before we really get into it, is this a real option? I had imagine that there would be human travel lanes around the outside of the chicken storage that would make it tough to connect the racking diaphragms to external guy wire bracing. If anything, I thought that the chicken racking might have internal cross bracing etc.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

(OP)
Here's a better snip of the plan. Unfortunately there are belts and walkways and all kinds of things that are preventing any X-bracing or walls to be installed that could act as shearwalls to transfer load to the foundation. Where I've shown the two guy-wire connections, there is a continuous member from side-to-side of building so there is continuity there in that fashion. The racks only have X-bracing where shown, and it can't be anywhere else in that building section. Hence my thought that we need to tie off that mid-level continuous member.

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

This thread is the best.

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

The extra guy wire may well be advisable if you can swing it. Either way though, your racks are going to have to span some distance vertically to distribute the seismic loads to the diaphragm level(s). The sketch below shows the seismic weirdness that comes of having the bulk of your mass between diaphragms. Some of the implication of that, in my opinion, include:

1) The seismic period of the building will elongate as it would include the flexibility of the racking.

2) The racking rightfully deserves to be designed as a part of the seismic LFRS.

3) ELF procedures determine base shear based on the assumed SDOF acceleration at the center of seismic mass. In a one story building, that location is usually more or less at the roof deck. That's not the case for your poultry affordable housing project. As a result, I think that you need to scale your base shear up by something to the tune of h_eave / h_c.m.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

to me the design concept raises a red flag...it has ,at least, one stability loop in there...the integrity of the roof depends on being supported by the stacks of cages while the stability/integrity of the cage stacks depend on the integrity of the roof...as Koot previously mentioned, I would have expected the roof to be independent of these stacks and provide lateral bracing/support @ the top of the stacks....this is not the first henhouse ever built..there must be some examples of various design concepts out there...

RE: Calculating dead loads for seismic design

To summarise, while all the Engineering theories for this "chicken" problem, I quote the PURPOSE of seismic assessment as provided originally in UBC code.
"The purpose of the earthquake provisions herein is primarily to safeguard against major structural failures and loss of life and not to limit damage or maintain function"
I don,t think the authors of the code were really considering animals/chickens as loss of life, even though the farmers etc would not b too happy

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources