×
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

Could you get this to work?

Could you get this to work?

Could you get this to work?

(OP)
This is an interesting one. Yesterday I was asked to look at a house built in the 1970's and have attached the basic frame section. The frames are constructed of 4x6 lumber @ 42" oc and 2x6 T&G decking for floors and roof. The loft floor stops about 10' from the front wall of the structure and there are interior walls in the plane of the frame at 10'-12' spacing. The longitudinal beams shown at the edge of the loft are (3) ply 2x10's with offset butt joints. I could not find any locations with 2 plies butted at the same location so I assume they are 16' long with 5'-4" offset.

RE: Could you get this to work?

It looks laterally unstable. Maybe the interior walls in the plane of the frame are acting as shear walls to provide the lateral support.

RE: Could you get this to work?

Looks like it shouldn't work... do you have any moment transfer at the haunch?

Dik

RE: Could you get this to work?

(OP)
When I walked in my first thought was "What have I gotten myself into?" and 2nd "Maybe I should just leave". ;>)
Cal91. Yes, the interior walls are providing lateral support.
dik. I agree, it looks like it should not work but it has been there for 50 years. It was a windy day and I did not perceive any wind induced motion while upstairs. I also did some rhythmic bouncing and the loft was stiffer than the main level (and stiffer then most floors in my own house for that matter.
To answer your second question the connection at the loft/rafter does not have any moment capacity. in fact, I would say that it has limited gravity capacity. See attached photo.

RE: Could you get this to work?

Performance is an excellent indicator of success

RE: Could you get this to work?

(OP)
ash060. It is pretty hard to tell someone that their home too unstable to stand when it has been continually lived in for nearly 50 years. Anyone care to comment on load path and joint free-body diagrams? I have my ideas but would like to hear what others come up with.
Assume that it is stable (given 50 year history).

RE: Could you get this to work?

Seems like you can't get around there being some moment fixity at the joints, particularly at the exterior foundation/exterior wall joint for this to be stable.

RE: Could you get this to work?

I disagree. I think the frame provides vertical stability without any moment connections. The frame is stabilized laterally by the roof diaphragm / interior shear walls.

It's analogous to a simple supported beam on two pinned columns is vertically stable, and laterally stabilized by diaphragm / lateral force resisting system.

RE: Could you get this to work?

Haydenwse

I agree that the structure works, that was the intent of the comment. If the structure functions as intended, the design is acceptable. It is like it had a fifty year load test, even though the load path is not apparent it has one.

RE: Could you get this to work?

(OP)
Look at the photo. I would not give that connection any moment capacity. The joints are all pin connected. Assume that the frame cannot deflect laterally due to interior partition walls that are attached to the roof and floor decking which prevents lateral movement of the upper floor relative to the lower floor.

RE: Could you get this to work?

I think so, but I would have to add another beam/joist system over the top of all three footings, and below the existing floor joists so that the end diagonal members could have a fixed base - well, somewhat fixed anyway.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)


RE: Could you get this to work?

(OP)
The crawl space has girders under the floor joists. The floor / joists are 4x8 @ 42" oc. In alignment with the wall/roof frames The sketch is just to show the basic geometry but there are no provisions in the connections that could be interpreted to have moment capacity in wood construction.

RE: Could you get this to work?

In my opinion it is simply an A-frame, supported on the little struts, and stabilized by the walls/floor

The main rafters are bending at the loft connection, which ties each side together. (the photo you attached)

RE: Could you get this to work?

No. As currently drawn, the structure is unstable laterally.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)


RE: Could you get this to work?

It's stable when the diaphragm and interior walls are accounted for.

RE: Could you get this to work?

Still bother me as these structures typically have large window walls at one end with little to no shear capacity.

And, the only stabilizing triangles I see are above the loft... nothing below that.

I still do not like it.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)


RE: Could you get this to work?

It seems everyone is overthinking it. The basic frame with the rafters and bottom chord is obviously stable. The odd little splayed studs can't go left or right or both without bending the lower floor joists and bending the tails of the rafters. Provided that the bending resistance is there in the joists and in the rafter tails, pin joints everywhere in this arrangement are eminently stable, as has been demonstrated for 50 years. If you don't believe it, get out your popsicle sticks & try it.

RE: Could you get this to work?

I vote unstable save for the effect of interior and exterior shear walls. And I wouldn't be too thrilled about having my E&O insurance tethered to the thing unless I'd identified and evaluated those shear walls with some care. What's the issue that got you looking at this thing in the first place? Owner fishing for an open floor plan?

I suspect that the frame derives much of its gravity load "stability" from the fact that the gravity loads appear to be distributed pretty symmetrically.

My spidey senses lead me to speculate that something is missing from this picture though. If stability is really as fragile as it appears, I would have thought this thing pretty tough build in the first place without resorting to shoring etc.

I want a picture from the outside. Is it red like Papa Smurf's hat?

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: Could you get this to work?

Gravity stability - bending rafter tails

Lateral stability - floor and cross walls.



A trussed roof spanning between two side walls isn’t stable either without crosswalls. Are we going to fail that scenario too?

RE: Could you get this to work?

In the absence of moment connections, I disagree with the notion that the rafter tails in bending address gravity stability. Below, I've drawn a racking mechanism that involves no flexural deformation and no axial deformation (almost, more on that later). In my opinion, this serves as proof that the thing is unstable in the absence of shear walls etc as described above. And this is considering the rafter tails to be rigid. As anyone who's designed tail bearing trusses can attest to, the rafter tails are anything but rigid and often insufficiently strong. They're sketchy at the best of times.

There is a small flaw in my argument here. The mechanism below would require the middle post to shorten. I've shown that below, greatly exaggerated. So the frame would be stable mathematically if the collar ties were sufficient rigid flexurally. But, then, I can't fathom a structural engineer worthy of the title putting any serious stock in that.

I also contend that the situation is quite different from that of a common house truss on plumb walls. With plumb walls, unbalanced gravity load does not produce a significant tendency towards lateral movement (racking). That's a pretty fundamental difference. Just ask the steel erectors that work on the Frank Gehry stuff.





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: Could you get this to work?

(OP)
I take the evening off and look what happens. 8 posts since I last checked. I will address comments below in order of post. I am uploading a photo and see that the roof pitch is about 12:12 which just makes the thrust greater. Note that it appears that only one side wall is tilted but that is just because the fence is hiding it.

Msquared48. You state that it is unstable but that is only if there were no shear walls. With walls parallel to the frame at 12’-14’ on center it will not deflect laterally as stated by cal91.

Msquared48. There is a large window wall at one end and this is the end that has the cutback about 14’ for the loft. The lateral mechanism for these last two bays would be the roof diaphragms back to the 1st interior wall and to a pair of 6’ wall sections at the eaves. Given the short eave height these piers should be sufficiently stiff.

OldBldgGuy. I think you are heading in the right direction but I do not believe that the rafters have sufficient capacity in bending to support gravity loads. I.e. if you eliminate the walls and used a three-point support (fix center, roller at each tail) I think that it is likely that the tails would fail.

Kootk. I completely agree that it is unstable save for interior shear walls. My involvement is to listen to floor squeaks. The couple that currently owns the structure just bought it a month ago and after moving in noticed that there are a lot of squeaks in the loft floor. They tell me that everyone who looked at the building with them commented on how unusual the framing was to they were starting to get nervous. Their first contact with me was a two days ago. The item that they called me out to look at (floor squeaks) was easily resolved. The 2x6 T&G deck is nailed to the beams and over time a few have experienced enough shrinkage that they have slight gaps. When someone steps on these planks, the gap closes and the nail squeaks against the board. Running deck screws through the board into the beam below should solve that problem.

My spidey senses were on edge when I first walked in as I said in post #4 of this thread but I didn’t run as my first inclination wanted. I started moving around (to be sure, cautiously at first) and using my body mass and inertia to load and deflection test the structure. ;>) I was very surprised to find it quite stiff. At that point and given that I knew that the building was about 50 years old, I had to admit to myself that the system worked even though I could not see how. I do agree that construction stability would be a major challenge because without the roof and floor plank diaphragms and the interior shear wall it is very unstable at all phases.

Tomfh. Lateral stability I agree but gravity stability by bending of the tails, I do not think so. More on that in the next post.

Kootk. I can assure you that there are no moment connections anywhere in this structure (other than the treads of the spiral staircase but that is not relative to this discussion.)
I have a problem with our diagram because it shows racking and the numerous and closely spaced interior walls prevent lateral movement. I doubt that they are plywood sheathed but even as double sided GWB walls they add up to a lot of lateral restraint. I do not disagree with the mechanics of the racked diagram or your conclusions, just that it is not apropos to the existing conditions. I would contend that from an analytical standpoint, the bare frame would be no more or less unstable if the stub walls were vertical. The structure is symmetrical about the ridge so the tipping force on the walls is opposite and EAQUAL. They offset. A fully pinned symmetric frame under gravity only will always have 0 net lateral force.

RE: Could you get this to work?

Quote (Haydenwse)

Kootk. I can assure you that there are no moment connections anywhere in this structure

Yeah, I know. Here, I find that you need to carefully qualify your opinions in order to keep them from getting challenged needlessly on points of little consequence. A bit like lawyering I'm afraid. That's the only reason that I mentioned moment connections at all.

Quote (Haydenwse)

I have a problem with our diagram because it shows racking and the numerous and closely spaced interior walls prevent lateral movement.

There is no discrepancy. My sketch was meant to address the case where in plane shear walls did not exist. I posted it in an attempt to dispel the notion that this thing would somehow be inherently stable without such help. As I've said a couple of times now, I'm in the shear wall camp, even if those shear walls would have been unintentional originally.

Quote (Haydenwise)

The structure is symmetrical about the ridge so the tipping force on the walls is opposite and EAQUAL.

I take exception to this. What about unbalanced snow and live loads? What about wind and seismic acting concurrently those loads? Even if the gravity load is balanced somehow, it's still a problem in a stability sense. Remember, every stability problem is not about where the ideal structure starts off. Rather, it's about where it'll end up given imperfections etc. There're plenty of Euler columns that are loaded symmetrically on paper but are still altogether unstable.

Quote (Haydenwse)

A fully pinned symmetric frame under gravity only will always have 0 net lateral force.

This is only true of structures that are stable. That stability cannot be presupposed in this case as that's the issue at hand. You're right, you wouldn't develop net lateral reactions here. But that implies lateral movement as I suggested in my last post.

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: Could you get this to work?

(OP)
Kootk I agree with all of your points. I should have added more qualifiers to my statement about the analytical model statement. I was only referring to the uniform gravity loading case with no outside lateral forces. Certainly an unbalanced dead and or live load would induce lateral loads in this structure that would not be induced in a structure that had vertical bearing elements. My statement should have been "A theoretical fully pinned symmetric frame under uniform symmetric gravity loads will always have 0 net lateral force." I was getting tied of typing. morning

RE: Could you get this to work?

Quote (Haydenwse)

A theoretical fully pinned symmetric frame under uniform symmetric gravity loads will always have 0 net lateral force

This doesn't change anything in my opinion. Consider a structure that is:

1) Fully symmetric in terms of it's internal composition.
2) Fully symmetric in terms of it's external loading loading.
3) Fully pinned.

Such a structure will have a zero net lateral force but may still very much have a stability problem, as your structure here would have in the absence of the shear walls etc. This, because the imperfection that initiates instability neuters the symmetry, pretty much by definition.

With loading and geometry 100% symmetric, I would agree that the situation would be no worse off for having the sloped knee walls as compared to plumb framing.

Quote (Haydenwse)

A theoretical fully pinned symmetric frame under uniform symmetric gravity loads will always have 0 net lateral force.

Excepting stability issues, I actually believe this to be true for structure with asymmetrical loading.

Rest up your fingers and get back to work. We can debate further on the weekend if you're still interested.


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: Could you get this to work?

(OP)
I think that I might know how this building is working. Given my assumption that it is not possible to make a moment connection in wood framing I started by visualizing the free body of the wall / rafter joint. In doing this I realized that in order for that joints forces to resolve, the rafter must be in tension, otherwise the wall is going to fall over.

Well, that realization put everything into a different light! Once I came to grips with that I started looking to see what could be holding this thing up. I think that the basic gravity load path is 3 bearing points, center wall and the 3-ply 2x10 beams that are place above the loft floor joist/rafter joint. This beam runs the full length of the building down both sides and passes through all of the partition walls. My theory is that these beams are bearing at the partition walls down to the floor structure. When looking at it this way the rafter tails have a little bit of axial tension and relatively small amount of bending with support at the end provided by the inclined wall.

RE: Could you get this to work?

Bingo! The owner is gonna love you. At least they should.

- There isn't a stability issue because the sloped walls aren't really load bearing.
- This nicely addresses the construction issue that tripped my spidey senses earlier.

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: Could you get this to work?

(OP)
Thanks KootK. The owners were happy when I left because they saw my reaction when the load path resolved itself in my mind. They were decidedly nervous for the first 20 minutes or so as I walked around with a big scowl on my face saying thinks like HMM and HUH while scratching my head and glancing longingly towards the exit door! They were watching me intently when I stopped and stared at the incline wall, then slowly up the rafter, ran my eyes both ways along the 3-ply and suddenly said a happy OH! I think that I heard them both exhale about then. 2thumbsup

RE: Could you get this to work?

Coming into this discussion a little late, but it appears the structure is not entirely symmetrical as the vertical wall appears to be slightly off center. Uniform load on the second floor would tend to cause the structure to move to the right.

I disagree that the rafter tails are in tension. They are primarily in bending, but slightly in compression. The short sloping walls are also in compression.

Without the benefit of shear walls, this structure is unstable.

BA

RE: Could you get this to work?

(OP)
BAretired. here is the free body. With only two members both of which are inclined the one must be in tension and the other in compression or the node will displace. Here is the simple diagram. If the tail is in compression (pushing towards the node) the wall will fall over.

RE: Could you get this to work?

Haydenwse,

You are assuming a hinge in the rafter at the junction to second floor. Actually, the rafter is continuous. If the sloping wall is removed, the rafter would be a cantilever which would deflect downward. The sloping wall prevents that, so the sloping wall is in compression. That compression can be resolved into components parallel and perpendicular to the rafter. One causes axial compression while the other causes bending in the rafter tail.

It is possible that the 3-2x10 beams carry some of the second floor load into the partitions as you have suggested but I don't know how much roof load they could carry. That would depend on their connection to the rafters which is not specified.

But whether or not the beams carry roof load into the partitions, the structure relies on the shear walls for lateral stability.

BA

RE: Could you get this to work?

This is one of those where the owner goes: "It's been there for 50 years!" And I say: "I couldn't care less.....if I can't prove it works on paper, I'm not messing with it."

RE: Could you get this to work?

Quote (Haydenwse)

I think that I heard them both exhale about then.

I bloody bet. Just imagine how concerned you'd be about the security of the investment that you'd made as the owner. Frankly, when I look at your initial sketch with fresh eyes, I feel a bit foolish for failing to see this in the first place. Darn that hindsight.

I agree with BA on the rafter tails not being in tension. I left that alone as it would seem to be of little consequence at this point, other than as an aid to clarifying general understanding (which always has some merit).

While there's little doubt that the shear walls are the lateral resisting elements in the conventional sense (W/EQ/P-Delta), I think that it's still a pretty big win to have some assurance that unbalanced gravity loading is no longer prone to making substantial contributions to lateral instability. Although you may have expressed it a bit differently, I'm sure that was what was nagging at you originally as well.

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: Could you get this to work?

Quote (KOOTK)

Below, I've drawn a racking mechanism

Quote (BA)

Without the benefit of shear walls, this structure is unstable.

Yes it can fall over if there are no cross walls, the same as any frame/beam supported on parallel walls can fall over.

I don't think it's fair to criticise this system on the grounds that it's not stable without the shear walls when we don't make such criticisms of other systems.

Harder to erect, and more unstable during erection, no doubt...

RE: Could you get this to work?

Tomfh.

I believe we do make a similar criticism of other buildings. A rectangular building which relies on diaphragm action of the roof and end walls for lateral support is unstable without end walls whereas a building with frames may not need end walls. This building has frames, so it needs to be stated that shear walls are required for stability.

BA

RE: Could you get this to work?

(OP)
I think that some people have gotten hung up on my referring to the "basic frame" in my initial post. I stated that it was constructed of dimensional lumber and had numerous interior walls parallel to the frame. Not all frames are moment frames and I did not say that it was a moment frame. For a structural system I would say that this structure is a type B.24 per table 12.2-1 Building Frame with Light-Frame walls with shear panels of all other materiials with an R of 2.5.

RE: Could you get this to work?

Quote (Tomfh)

I don't think it's fair to criticise this system on the grounds that it's not stable without the shear walls when we don't make such criticisms of other systems.

Speaking only for myself, I wasn't concerned for this system because it's not stable without shear walls. I was concerned for it because its nature is such that unbalanced gravity loads would induce lateral displacements. And that's not generally true of typical systems. In fact, it's a situation that requires a greater than typical amount of designer attention to lateral load paths and P-delta effects. Of course, this is moot given recent revelations about beam support.

Quote (Haydenwse)

I think that some people have gotten hung up on my referring to the "basic frame" in my initial post.

And rightly so. Initially there was speculation that the frames themselves might provide the lateral stability. And, of course, now we're debating issues that are somewhat independent of your original question.

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: Could you get this to work?

One of the more unusual aspects of this structure is that the beams are on top of the second floor joists instead of the more usual situation where the joists bear on top of the beams. The attachment of beams to floor joists or rafters is not specified. The photograph showing the rafter connection does not show the beam because the floor stops ten feet from the end wall. If the beams are distributing significant load to the partitions, the connection of beam to structure would need to be evaluated.

BA

RE: Could you get this to work?

(OP)
In my initial post I tried to give all of the most important info.
"The frames are constructed of 4x6 lumber @ 42" oc and 2x6 T&G decking for floors and roof." 
Wood construction pretty much precludes moment connections.

"... there are interior walls in the plane of the frame at 10'-12' spacing." 
Any wall that goes from floor to floor or floor to roof can be used as a shear wall.

"The longitudinal beams shown at the edge of the loft are (3) ply 2x10's with offset butt joints. I could not find any locations with 2 plies butted at the same location so I assume they are 16' long with 5'-4" offset." 
I made a point to call out the 3-ply beams so that they were not missed.

RE: Could you get this to work?

All of a sudden, the lines of text in this file are too long to read. This has happened before, and I believe it has something to do with pictures or sketches
which have been introduced above.

BA

RE: Could you get this to work?

Is anyone else experiencing the same problem?

BA

RE: Could you get this to work?

Haydenwse,

I understood your OP. What I am questioning is the connection between the beam and structure. How are the longitudinal beams
fastened to the frames?

BA

RE: Could you get this to work?

I understood the OP too. I was just trying to say that these conversations tend to take on lives and directions of their own. Folks will pursue the ideas that tickle their fancies and that doesn't necessarily imply any hangups or OP deficiencies. OP's like to think that their threads are really all about them but, in truth, that suggests a degree of responder altruism that is surely exaggerated. In significant measure, we're really in it to have our own fun. If we happen to impart any information that might actually be useful to the OP, that's just icing on the delicious cake of intellectual self gratification.

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: Could you get this to work?

Interesting notion.

BA

RE: Could you get this to work?

Obviously, I can only really speak to my own motivations: self edification + camaraderie + ego stroking + some genuine desire to assist. It's been something of a tightrope walk for me. If I drift from core topics too much, I draw moderator heat. If I drift too little, there's not enough in it for me to justify the considerable investment that I make of my own time and energy.

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: Could you get this to work?

(OP)
BAretired. I am also getting the long line syndrome. Interestingly it did not happen until just after I read your post. Here is a photo of the connection between the rafter and the top of the 3-ply. I am assuming that there is also some connection to the bottom of the 3-ply to the 4x6 floor joist but could not see it.

RE: Could you get this to work?

Haydenwse,

To get around the problem of the long lines, I am inserting my own line feed at a point where I think it ought to be.
My eyesight is a bit problematic, so my preference is to use larger text than most people which makes the long lines
difficult to read.

The typical rafter to beam connection in your latest photo seems to be fairly substantial, so I would agree with your
earlier suggestion that the longitudinal beams are probably transferring most of the roof and floor load to the partitions.
Presumably there is a column in each partition under each beam, possibly a triple stud.

The partitions are still acting as shear walls and, even if they are not lined with plywood, should still be adequate
with drywall properly fastened on each side.

BA

RE: Could you get this to work?

(OP)
BAretired. And besides as my wife puts it, "the house is cuter than all get out" She saw the listing when it was for sale and called it "The Birdhouse".

By the way, I am with you on the large text, 150% for me. glasses

RE: Could you get this to work?

I agree with your wife. It is a cute little house.

BA

RE: Could you get this to work?

It's like balancing an egg on the head of a pin...

Dik

RE: Could you get this to work?

Awesome design

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