Morf JV01001

Technicians APPLY, Technologists ADAPT, Engineers ORIGINATE
METAMORPHS JOURNAL
http://users.senet.com.au/~metamorf mailto: metamorf@senet.com.au
Vol: 1 No:
Aug-2003
A MEANDERING INTRODUCTION
Steven CONRAD Harrison,
B.Tech(Mfg & Mech.), MIIE, gradTIEAust
Welcome! This is where I get to take a serious and not so serious look at technology in all its forms, including that of society itself. Yes, from my viewpoint society is a technology. Hence I will not be considering the impact of technology on society, but whether the technology that is society, is appropriate for the needs of the people it is supposed to benefit. Are the conditions of the social-contract acceptable and practical? Technology represents order, form and structure (morph) and for it to be of any value it has to be capable of adapting to a dynamic environment, to be able to evolve, to transcend, transform and go beyond (meta) its origins. Metamorphs is an enterprise setup to pursue broad ranging interests concerning technology, encompassing the arts and sciences, the philosophy there-of, and the application in the field of engineering to develop new technologies. Here engineering is broadly defined as: the search for the means of obtaining the maximum benefit from the available but otherwise limited resources. The concept of what is engineering, who are engineers, and how should they be trained, how many do we need, and what value are they, will be a common thread running throughout all future essays published in this journal. For those that are unaware, in Australia, we currently have four grades of engineering practitioners: technicians, engineering officers, engineering technologists and engineers. Only the latter three grades are given status by the institution of engineers Australia (IEAust). Technicians are the closest to the traditional engineers of old; they work with the real systems and are able to build what they design. All the other grades are concerned primarily with the design and management of technology, and they have to be exceptionally lucky to get out off the design office and get anywhere near the real systems they design. These other grades are educated in the use of analytical tools, which allow them to evaluate increasingly complex systems: whether they actually apply these tools in practice is another matter altogether. From simple observation, it should be apparent that most things that we need have already been produced, there may be a shortage of supply, and the systems may not be as effective or efficient as we desire them to be, but they do exist. So we have houses, roads, trucks, railways, trains, pipelines, pumps and power stations, just to name a few. So the question is: where is the complexity that demands the need for engineers? In the building and construction industry where I work, engineering is mainly concerned with producing, what I shall call proof-calculations, the purpose of which is to demonstrate to the satisfaction of regulating authorities that a proposed structure is adequate for its purpose, as defined by compliance with accepted codes of practice. With respect to the definition of engineering that I gave above, no engineering is carried out. Further more the entire exercise can be viewed as a considerable waste of resources, both time and paper, and the cause of unnecessary delays. It should be noted that we have available a limited number of materials that are manufactured into a limited number of structural sections, that are otherwise fabricated and erected into a limited number of common structural configurations. Hence with the exception of the most exotic architectural offering, most of the complex aspects of engineering design can be carried out once and published as design manuals. Most especially in this age of computers; this presents an interesting irony. Prior to the wide scale availability of computers, there were far more engineering handbooks with more precalculations than there are today. In the age of manual calculation, it caused too much delay, to have every individual designer working out everything from first principles, hence repetitive elements of design were worked out and published. So for instance manufacturers of structural sections worked out and published the section properties, but not just the individual sections as they do today, they also worked them out for builtup sections, such as having a channel as a top flange to a universal beam, or castellating a universal beam to increase its depth. May be in this day and age, such fabrication is considered uneconomic, but then again Cellform castellated beams by Westok seem to have wide application. So why is the amount of published
Metamorphs
MorfJ0001.doc, [(03/08/03) 13:55]
METAMORPHS JOURNAL
Vol: 1 No:
Aug-2003
pre-engineered solutions decreasing, especially in this age of computers, when analytical software and electronic publications allow engineers and designers to be more pro-active? Why wait around to be given the opportunity to design the worlds longest span bridge or the worlds tallest building? If you are really creative and interested in engineering, instead of wasting time following the rules of dull computer games, apply the physical laws of the universe and design and invent that which has not yet been imagined. Or on the less innovative side, if you are a qualified engineer: design and publish the relatively routine, before some one asks you to. Why design 12m span sheds on a daily basis, waiting to design a large 30m span shed, when it is a trivial exercise to design the 30m span structure anyway. Reverse the process, instead of designing structures to suit an architects building envelope, design and publish the structures first and let architects find a use for them. That is structural engineers can stretch and extend the imaginations of architects, rather than the other way round. After all, many of our most monumental structures have been designed by holding a competition, and then selecting one of many designs as a winner. To put it an other way, structural engineers in conjunction with fabricators can design and develop exotic structural forms which then extend what is considered routine to an architect. Instead of architects keep hitting a brick wall: cant do that! With the engineer that they need to employ, who can achieve their aims, being located on the other side of the world and unknown, because it is the architects that get the fame. What a real design-engineer should want to do: is put all the knowledge from their formal studies to use. The structural design of a 21m portal frame shed is no different than designing a 12m shed. The exercise only becomes interesting when other aspects are taken into consideration: at what span does a fixed-base portal frame become impractical. If such a span is beyond normal applications, then another aspect to consider is how quickly can frames be fabricated and erected? What is the minimum amount of material that can be used in the structure? What type of materials can be used? Are materials more useful manufactured directly into sections or supplied as sheets? Steel for example can be formed into hot rolled structural sections, such as universal beams, which I might add have considerably less than universal application. Or steel can be formed into high strength coil strip, which can then be manufactured into a whole variety of structural sections to suit specific applications. More over a solid coil of galvanised steel can be transported to a construction site and roll-formed into an entire building. Such method of construction reducing problems of detailing joints for long members, instead members can be rolled to the required length on site. Transportation costs can be reduced. When fabricated in a factory structural members are limited in size due to transportation restrictions. Further more it is the dimension and geometry of the members that determines the number of trucks and trips required to deliver all components to site, not the weight. With steel coil, there is no fresh air between members stacked on a truck, just solid steel. Admittedly roll-forming on site requires roll-forming equipment for each building under construction at the same time. But then the number of trucks required by the construction industry will have also been reduced, so it is in effect exchanging one set of machines for another. Then again, adverse weather conditions, predictable or not, make factory work more productive than on site construction. So is sheet metal of any value for fabricating buildings? Since an industry already exists, manufacturing and supplying fixed-base portal frame sheds fabricated from cold-formed c-section, the answer is clearly yes. So the real questions of concern are: 1. What are the limitations of the available c-sections? 2. What additional sizes are required to extend the range of sheds that can be built? The answer to the first question is provided by the free draft copy of: MEMBER SELECTION CHARTS FOR PORTAL FRAMED SHEDS (Volume 1.1), that accompanies this essay. It is a draft issue, and as not yet been fully checked. However, its use to identify what is not possible, is far better than the guesstimating that currently occurs in the industry. Thus we have a high level of confidence of what is outside the capabilities of the available c-sections, however, that which is within the range of the c-sections requires further demonstration of structural adequacy. {Persons intending to make use of the attached design charts should seek the services of a qualified structural engineer (eg. Either MIStructE or NPER(structural)), to provide guidance on the suitability of the charts for their particular purposes.} The answer to the second question; what additional sizes of c-section are required: is more difficult. The New Metric Hand Book: Planning and Design Data(1997), by Tutt and Adler suggests that an industrial building that is suitable for general manufacturing should have a minimum span of 18m, and an internal clear height of 6m, with entrance doors having 5m clear height. With plan dimensions preferably being square, but Metamorphs MorfJ0001.doc, [(03/08/03) 13:55] 2
METAMORPHS JOURNAL
Vol: 1 No:
Aug-2003
a rectangle in the ratio of 3:1 being acceptable, if process doesnt determine otherwise. The most common spans of shed offered by the shed industry are 7.6m, 9m and 12m. Further more the sheds being bought are not the pre-engineered solutions being offered, customers want to vary both the heights and spans of the available sheds. This results in the shed industry supplying a lower quality product than is expected by the customers. Goods and Service together make up the overall definition of the product supplied. The more traditional way of obtaining a building was to employ a builder (architect) who both designed and constructed the building. Today the more formal way, is to employ an architect, who designs the building space and envelope and then employs engineers as sub-consultants for all the specialised aspects of the building design. The resulting design documents are then put out to tender, various parties submit estimated costs of supplying. Then some criteria are used to select the most appropriate tenderer to contract for the supply. Unfortunately, more often than not the lowest bidder wins the contract. Once the contract as been awarded, an expensive game of variations starts. This is where the contractor declares that certain aspects of supply are outside the scope of the contract, and where the clients representatives contend that it was inside the scope of the contract. The problem is that general consultants do not specify everything that is required, and general contractors do not know everything that is required. Plus there is an aspect of greed by all parties, the buyer doesnt want to pay the full cost of supply, whilst the supplier having already loaded their price to account for items missing from the specification, attempts to get paid twice for it. As a consequence alternatives have been sought to this expensive and stressful adversarial game. One solution as been design and construct contracts. Unfortunately these contracts tend to be structured the opposite way round to the normal contract: that is the builders now employ the designers, and in consequence the designers have less authority to act in the best interests of the building owner. However, whilst independent designers may have the authority to ensure construction complies with their designs, the design itself is not necessarily fit for the purpose required by the owner. Building regulations do not help in this respect either, for they have little to do with owners needs and are more concerned with public safety. {I will discuss the concept of risk and safety more fully in future issues.} The main lack of quality in the tendering/contracting process is that of design, or more specifically the documenting and specifying of the design, followed by comprehending and complying with the design documents. For example many consultants in order to keep costs down, cram as much data as possible onto a single drawing sheet. They then argue that the information was there all the time, and therefore the contractor should have been aware of it, and hence taken it into consideration. Using computer science terminology, the data may well have been there, but there was definitely no information. Specifications should not be produced in a manner that presents a game of search and seek, and if you dont know to look, then you wont find. This lack of quality is therefore largely due to a lack of specialisation, a lack of adaptation and evolution, a failure to build on past experience. Continuously re-inventing the wheel, and each time, leaving a different chunk out. Re-invention needs to be displaced by continuous improvement and original invention. This returns us to the shed industry. The existence of an industry that supposedly supplies pre-engineered, ready to fabricate buildings, is attracting more potential building owners away from the traditional design and tender pathway, and more towards the direct buy path. Unfortunately this is placing all parties at a disadvantage, for there is more to a building project than the supply of a simple envelope and its support structure. For the most part the shed industry does not employ engineers or architects on staff any where within its field of activity. It only contracts structural engineers as a last resort when the client wants a custom structure, and building regulators have rejected the shed suppliers guess. But as I said the disadvantages of the design/tender process are attracting more people to the design/construct process, but that also is loosing out to the direct buy option. Hence there is plenty of future potential, if the scope for improvement is recognised, exploited and improvement achieved. However, the starting point is product design and that requires structural engineering input. For example the attached design charts can be used by informed suppliers to identify whether or not there is justification for variation in section size. Perhaps it is more productive to adopt C35030 for all shed designs, and set up an automated assembly line, that can produce pre-fabricated buildings faster than the automotive industry can produce the vastly more complex car. Given that the market place is international, who are the multinational players with a fully qualified engineering workforce, to challenge our local backyard manufacturers? Metamorphs MorfJ0001.doc, [(03/08/03) 13:55] 3
METAMORPHS JOURNAL
Vol: 1 No:
Aug-2003
If you think you are just a supplier of sheds to your local market, think again. General steel fabricators have already started loosing contracts to international players. Advanced design and detailing software operated by international fabricators with automated beam-lines have allowed them to produce custom designs, with little error, and this has been in record making supply times. It is fabricators and their workshop detailers that are doing this, not consultants. So clearly once a fabricator has computer based instructions for a common everyday structure, then that structure can become a standard product offering, which can be produced and supplied even faster than it was first supplied, simply because the design and engineering have already been done. The only delay concerning design that remains, is that of regulation and building control. The Building approval process is an activity of quality assurance and is more concerned with documents than reality. The focus is on the specifications complying with codes of practice rather than the construction complying with the specifications. If the specifications are compliant, then approval for building is granted. If the specifications are compliant, then there is the assumption that a decent set of documents exist against which the actual construction can eventually be checked for compliance. {I will discuss quality assurance (QA) in future issues, and how an objective of compliance with ISO 9000, is contradictory to QA principles.} So if you want the building approval process to execute more rapidly then improve both the documentation and information that is available about the product being supplied, educate the public about the product. If everyone knows what is required, then it ceases to be necessary to produce multi-page engineering reports every time some one wants to construct a common structural form. As for owner/builders if they have access to published pre-engineered solutions, then they wont have to endure the expense of paying to have their own inadequate designs/constructions rejected, along with paying to strengthen what they have already built. Well thats todays thoughts. If you think I wander all over the place with my ideas, then you are right. It is not my intention to be clear and precise. I am taking a journey along winding roads, and pointing out what I can see on the way. I do not know what will lie around the next bend, but when we turn into it, I will describe what I see there. If youre willing to endure another bumpy ride then tune in for the next issue. Thats unpredictable too, it could be tomorrow, or it could be next month.
PS: Persons requiring more information on the attached design charts can contact the author: Conrad Harrison mailto:metamorf@senet.com.au So that there is no confusion about the authority inferred by education and qualifications, it should be noted that the author of the design charts is not a qualified structural engineer, but is however educated in the fields of industrial, manufacturing and mechanical engineering at the levels of engineering officer and engineering technologist.
Metamorphs
MorfJ0001.doc, [(03/08/03) 13:55]
MEMBER SELECTION CHARTS FOR PORTAL FRAME SHEDS

10 Doubly Pitched Frames FOR WIND REGION A1 TC3
MEMBER SELECTION CHARTS FOR PORTAL FRAMED SHEDS (Volume 1: DRAFT ISSUE)
Steven CONRAD Harrison
2003
2003 Metamorphs
MEMBER SELECTION CHARTS FOR PORTAL FRAMED SHEDS (Volume 1.1) 2003 Metamorphs All rights reserved. No part of this report may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. CAUTION: The author, by making the information in this document publicly available cannot be considered as rendering professional service. Users of this document are therefore advised to seek the services of a qualified practitioner of structural engineering, to thoroughly review the proposed project and the suitability of applying the information in this document for such purpose. This advice shall be obtained, prior to application for building approval. The person or party rendering such advice shall accept full responsibility for such applications of said information. DISCLAIMER: There is no warranty for this document and the information contained herein, to the extent permitted by applicable law. Except when otherwise stated in writing the author and copyright holders provide the document "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed o r implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Since the information contained in this document may be applied under conditions beyond the authors control, users are further advised that they have been cautioned and that the entire risk as to the suitability of the document for a particular purpose is with the user. No responsibility can be accepted by the author or copyright holders for any loss or damage caused by any person acting or refraining from action as a result of this information. Furthermore the author and copyright holders make no representation or warranty regarding accuracy of any information contained in this document. In no event unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, will the author or copyright holders be liable to the user or affected third parties for damages, including any general, special, incidental or consequential damages arising directly, indirectly, or remotely from the use or omission of any information contained in this document.
2003 Metamorphs
PREFACE
For the building and construction industry, design and engineering are largely viewed as a regulatory hindrance and delay. Not even manufacturers and suppliers of so called preengineered products employ engineers to design and develop such products. They only employ engineers to produce calculations to demonstrate structural adequacy to gain building approval. Many one -off construction projects consist of common structural elements that have been designed a multitude of times before. Yet engineers sit down and start from scratch, writing out and conducting calculations they have completed a hundred times before. Mean while fabricators and construction contractors are wondering what all the delay is, for they believe they already know what size beams and connections to use, for likewise they have constructed such items a hundred times before. The only way our building approval process works is on the basis of experience, such that the approving authority knows that the proposed structure is adequate because it has been approved a hundred times before. Such experience also allows the identification of unique structures that require more engineering attention and detail, than is given to the more common structures. Not only is the entire process wasteful of time, it also wastes other resources, such as the paper used in the documentation and the space required to file such documents, and the energy required to produce and manage. Structural materials are also wasted, due to wide ranging competency in the skills of the engineering practitioners involved. Such variation in competency also results in high variation in the risk of failure of such structures, to the extent that some neighbourhoods have the potential to be highly dangerous environments. A dangerous environment because both the design engineers and the approving authorities can be equally incompetent, resulting in poor designs being granted building approval. It does not have to stay this wa y. Computers, electronic multimedia and the internet open up an entirely new market place for engineering practitioners. That is the publication and distribution of pre-engineered solutions to a world market place. Engineering practitioners should end up competing on the basis of competency, not just availability and price. For example, o ne engineer produces a set of tables for floor beams using simplistic calculations. Another engineer produces a similar set of tables but using more detailed design, such as allowing for vibration, thus implicitly demonstrating that many of the solutions in the first set of tables are inadequate. If the building approval process is working properly then designs based on the first set of tables should start being rejected, with the second set of tables becoming the de facto standard. It is this potential to improve an industry that this first guidebook in a series aimed at providing pre-engineered solutions , is published. The first editions are therefore published to identify current practice and the state of an industry. It is consequently expected that future editions will present significantly different solutions. Steven CONRAD Harrison, B.Tech(Mfg & Mech.), MIIE, gradTIEAust Adelaide January 2003
2003 Metamorphs
THE GUIDEBOOKS
Each guidebook covers an elementary structural form, providing member selection tables. Each guidebook will be supported by several supplementary guides presenting the structural calculations that are the foundations of the tables. Where calculations are presented in a tabular format, additional supplements will present design theory and a detailed worked example. By publishing in this manner several guidebooks can be assembled to form more complete coverage of a building assembly. For example whilst the rafters and columns in a fully fixed portal frame are dependent one upon the other, once the frame analysis is complete and the members are selected, a whole variety of moment resisting connections can be used to assemble the frames. It therefore does not make sense, to produce a guidebook that limits the frame design to one type of connection, and requires other authors to duplicate the work of producing frame selection tables, when what interests them is publishing a connection design.
Referencing
At this stage the proposed referencing of the guidebooks is to refer to each product assembly as a volume. For example: Volumes 1) Fully Fixed Doubly Pitched Portal Frames: Sheds 2) Fully Fixed Doubly Pitched Portal Frames: Canopies Thus each volume will consist of several guidebooks, which will form the sections of each volume. Sections 1) Portal Frame Member Selection 2) Portal Frame Connection Selection 3) Portal Frame Pier Selection 4) End Wall Column/Mullion Member and Pier Selection 5) Longitudinal Bracing Selection 6) Purlin Selection 7) Girt Selection In some circumstances, due to the reusability of information, volumes and/or sections will also be divided up into parts. For example: (1) Region A1: TC3 (2) Region A1: TC2. Each guidebook will also be supported by one or more supplements that present detailed design data that will allow each guidebook to be checked. Supplements 1) Design Actions 2) Design Action Effects 3) Member Design 4) Design Theory 5) Worked Example
2003 Metamorphs
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................1 INDEPENDENT CERTIFICATION .................................................................................................2 DESIGN BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................2 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................2 Generation of Charts ....................................................................................................................3 Building Loads ...............................................................................................................................3 Building Dimensions .....................................................................................................................4 Member Design .............................................................................................................................4 The Future and Known Concerns ...............................................................................................5 INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING THE CHARTS ..............................................................................7 USE OF CHARTS FOR ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS ....................................................................8 Simplified Design Rules ...............................................................................................................9 Allowing For Shielding from Wind ...............................................................................................9 Allowing For Topography .............................................................................................................9 Allowing For Different Terrain Category..................................................................................10 Allowing For Different Bay Spacing ..........................................................................................10 Alternative Materials ...................................................................................................................11 Moment Capacity Required for Actual Dimensions ...............................................................12 Optimising Production ................................................................................................................12 Designing Alternative C-Section ...........................................................................................13
2003 Metamorphs
INTRODUCTION
This first guidebook is produced for the benefit of that portion of the shed industry that supplies gable -end sheds, with a 10 degree roof pitch, and fabricated from cold-formed Csections. The frames for these sheds are: Fully Fixed Doubly Pitched Portal Frames with Constant Frame Size. As such they require moment resisting connections and footings. Since there are a variety of ways of providing such connections and footings, such details have been left to other guidebooks, with this guidebook concentrating on the design of the main portal frames. It is presented as a series of height/Span charts produced for various bay spacings, for AS1170 loading requirements for building importance level 2. This roughly equates to the building having a 10% probability of experiencing a load greater than its critical design load due to wind, in any 50 year period, and failing. Other wind loading parameters are: Region A1, terrain category 3, topography flat, and no shielding . From these charts it is possible to identify what size of c-section is required for a given eaves height and building width. See the instructions section for details on how to use. Whilst this is the age of computers, and the charts themselves were generated by computer, it is not currently considered to be of benefit to develop software for the shed industry. Software would require providing all sales people with a computer, and would require training to a level whereby the user knows that the answer given by the software is garbage or not. The problem with a computer program to design sheds for a specific project, is that it does not give insight into the capabilities of the available materials, and allow product design decisions to be made that optimise production. For example design software may advise that a C20015 is adequate for a given structure, but it wont advise that a C15024 is stronger, and that adopting that will allow end plates to be standardised for the range of sheds sold. Hence the design charts that make the design task visual and graphical. The simplest use is to draw the rectangular elevation of the shed on the chart, find the design curve that envelopes it, and read off the size of c-section required. Another reason for producing such guidebooks is an attempt to encourage shed fabricators and suppliers to increase the engineering content of their products. Thus far suppliers have employed consulting civil engineers to provide structural engineering services. Such consultants are typically involved with one-off designs producing calculations for b uilding approval. Such projects generally involve simplified design, with a lack of detail compensated by conservatism. Such conservatism is beneficial for one-off projects, where mistakes during fabrication and construction, and last minute changes can be catered for without the need to scrap work done. Such an approach to design however is inappropriate for standard products. Removing the conservatism, whilst ignoring the detail as the potential to result in dangerous designs. Unfortunately this is how the coldformed shed industry has evolved.
2003 Metamorphs
In consequence future editions of this guidebook are likely to suggest reduced heights and spans for each of the c-sections considered. This does not however have to be the case if more effort is placed into engineering, beyond structural analysis and member selection. For example quality engineering, value analysis and risk analysis could more clearly identify the limitations of such structures, and the most appropriate application. For example do such structures really need to be classified with importance level 2. For more guidance refer to the guide book to be titled Pre-Engineered Building Structures, and those guide books to be written on specific structural assemblies, such as gable sheds.
INDEPENDENT CERTIFICATION
For those that have read the caution and the disclaimer at the beginning of this guidebook, it should be clear that certification of this guide book by an independent engineer, is a pointless exercise. Engineers considering doing so should think very carefully before taking such action. What exactly would such certification imply? Would such certification remove the need for a qualified engineering practitioner to review the suitability of these design charts on a project by project basis? Building authorities and regulators considering demanding such independent certification should also very carefully consider the impact of such demands on the over all effectiveness and quality of the building approval process. If no engineering practitioner has been appointed as designer responsible for determining the suitability of this guidebook for a particular project, then that person involved in the project and most suitably qualified to make such judgement, is most likely to be held responsible. In other words the building controller, ceases to be the independent approving authority, and becomes the designer responsible instead. Hence no independent check and a building control system with limited effectiveness. It should be noted that this guidebook is produced for use as an estimation tool by nonengineers and as a final design reference by qualified engineering practitioners. Qualified is meant to imply that the engineering practitioner has the capability and competency to either reproduce, if they had the time, or refute the contents of this guidebook. It also means that no such qualified person would merely accept the contents of this document, and would therefore conduct their own checks to verify the suitability of using it as a design reference. At a minimum such checks would consist of verifying at least three design points along the steep descending segment of each design curve that is going to be used. For consultants with plenty of historical designs this should be a relatively trivial task. Once again all users are advised to read the caution and disclaimer at the beginning of this document.
DESIGN BACKGROUND
Introduction
The frames presented in these charts are: Fully Fixed Doubly Pitched Portal Frames with Constant Frame Size .
2003 Metamorphs
As such connections at base, knee and ridge joints all need to be moment resisting. Further more, not only does the connection of the column to the footing system need to be moment resisting, but the footing system itself also needs to resist moments. It is the moment resisting connections that minimise the size of sections required for both columns and rafters, and it is therefore important that connections and footing systems be compatible with this design philosophy. Loads for the frames are calculated using Australian/New Zealand Standards: AS1170 Loading Codes Whilst member capacities are calculated using Australian/New Zealand standard: AS4600 Cold Formed Structures Code
Generation of Charts
A computer program was written using Microsoft Excel and Visual Basic for Applications. The program steps in 600mm increments through various building widths, increasing building eaves height in 100mm steps until the maximum moment in the frame exceeds the section capacity of the c-section under consideration. The frame analysis is carried out using Kleinlogel formulae, and only member end moments are calculated and searched for the maximum frame moment. Each time the height is incremented, new centre-line dimensions are calculated and all frame loads are recalculated. Thus wind loading parameters such as terrain category multipliers and pressure coefficients that are dependent upon frame heights or height to width or length ratios, are updated to match the current frame being analysed. A minimum of four bays has been assumed in the design, where the length of the building has an effect.
Building Loads
Wind loads have been calculated considering directions of: theta = 0 degrees theta = 90 degrees
Only one negative external pressure coefficient has been considered for each surface and direction. Whilst both a positive and negative internal pressure coefficient has been considered, these are: Positive: Cpi1 = +0.4 Negative: Cpi2 = - 0.3
These pressure coefficients were used to calculate both external and internal uniformly distributed loads for each of the frame surfaces. The effects of these individual loads were then calculated as the following primary load cases:
2003 Metamorphs
DL: dead loads LL: live loads PL: occasional point loads WLi0\1 (theta=0): wind load due to internal pressure coefficient (-ve) WLi0\2 (theta=0): wind load due to internal pressure coefficient (+ve) WLe0 (theta=0): wind load due to external pressure coefficients WLi90\1 (theta=90): wind load due to internal pressure coefficient (-ve) WLi90\2 (theta=90): wind load due to internal pressure coefficient (+ve) WLe90 (theta=90): wind load due to external pressure coefficients The effects of these primary load cases were then combined in the following design load cases. 1.2 DL + 1.5 LL 1.2 DL + 1.5 PL 0.9 DL + WLi0\1 + WLe0 0.9 DL + WLi0\2 + WLe0 0.9 DL + WLi90\1 + WLe90 0.9 DL + WLi90\2 + WLe90
Building Dimensions
The eaves height and over all building width are dimensions taken of the enclosing envelope located at the outer most surface of the girts and purlins. In other words the thickness and profile depth of both wall and roof claddings are ignored. These dimensions are converted to centre-line dimensions of the frame always assuming: 75mm deep girts and purlins 100mm deep columns and rafters.
Girts and purlins are also assumed to be flush with the surface of the columns and rafters.
Member Design
Because of the manner in which the charts are derived, the only consideration for member design has been maximum frame bending moment. Both axial and shear effects either in isolation or combination with bending have been ignored. In general for the loading conditions of the environmental region considered, the critical load case that determines the section size is one of the wind loading conditions. Member size is thus controlled mainly by bending in combination with axial tension and shear. Gravitational loading producing column buckling seldom if ever controls selection of member size. Furthermore, column buckling along with both flexural lateral and flexural torsional member instabilities can be controlled by the installation of an appropriate number of lateral and torsional restraints. Hence the member section capacity can be made to approach the effective section capacity of the c-section being used. The calculation of
2003 Metamorphs
maximum frame moment alone is therefore considered adequate for selection of an appropriate section for the members.
The Future and Known Concerns

As pointed out in the preface, this1st edition of the guidebook is to indicate the current state of the industry. That is reflect the design of those sheds that currently form the market place. As such there are many factors that have never been adequately covered by the engineering of such cold -formed structures, and in like manner they have equally well been ignored in the production of these charts. {NB: It should be noted that these charts are based on the current wind loading code, that means that the sheds have a 10% probability of failure under wind loading in a 50 year period, where as previous industry designs were based on 5% probability of failure. Thus heights and spans determined from these charts may exceed those in previous specifications.} Since these frame charts can be used as the basis for designing other components of a shed, the following list identifies areas of design that have traditionally not been given due consideration. 1) Internal pressure coefficients tend to be less than recommended in the loading code, but no scientifically verifiable justifications provided. Then again a 0.7 internal pressure coefficient would decrease the windward wall loading to zero, this may actually be more beneficial than the pressure coefficients adopted. Either way no evaluation of the effects of different internal pressure coefficients is considered. If there is internal partitioning of the building then it is possible for internal pressure coefficients to vary throughout a building, and therefore frames are not subject to a single internal pressure coefficient. 2) Sheds are categorised on the basis of wind Terrain Category, but wind shielding factors vary from one supplier to another. As does the use of the 0.95 multiplier for lack of directional wind data. (Now made partly redundant by AS1170.2:2002) 3) External pressure coefficients used for the 90 degree, longitudinal wind loading case also vary. As does the minimum number of bays. 4) Explicit consideration of drag is missing. 5) Allowance for self-weight and dead-loads vary. But then again shed suppliers change the claddings as they please. 6) Load case combinations vary. Some combine occasional point loads with uniformly distributed live loads, others take them separately. Others also combine wind loading with these live loads. 7) Little consideration for combined stresses. The only situation considered is column bending and axial compression. This however is seldom a critical design case, whilst wind uplift producing maximum bending and tension is. The original cold formed structures code AS1538 did not give guidance on this condition, but that does not mean that it should have been ignored. Admittedly AS1538 was somewhat restrictive in requiring the limiting stress for bending, based on flexural lateral instabilities, to be used for both compression and tension. The current cold-formed steel structures code AS4600, now allows full section capacity to be used when checking combined bending and tension. When combined stresses are being checked both rafters and columns should be checked, for bending with axial tension and compression. Bending and shear should also be checked but likewise as never been explicitly considered. 8) Deflections and other serviceability criteria not considered.
2003 Metamorphs
9) Girts and Purlins are assumed to provide lateral restraint, but not checked to confirm. Also if they do only provide lateral restraint, checks may identify the need to provide fly bracing to also provide torsional restraint. 10) The industry bolts both Girts and Purlins flange to flange with columns and rafters. No explicit consideration for the effects of such holes on any of the structural members. No consideration for the loss of torsional restraint, that was provided by the cleat to the girts and purlins. 11) Bridging used is generally not that recommended by suppliers of girts and purlins. And being connected to bottom flanges only provides lateral restraint, whilst proprietary bridging provides both torsional and lateral restraint. Yet purlin/girt suppliers design tables are still used for purlin and girt selection. Most of these tables are based on detailed flexural torsional analysis of a specific structural system; in consequence they achieve higher capacities than direct application of the simple formulae given in AS4600. 12) Door framing may or may not be designed. 13) Connection design is relatively simplistic, and some connections are detailed upside down for the dominant wind loading case. Detail lacking in connection design: a. Compression Stiffener Design b. Tension Stiffener Design c. Bearing Stiffener Design d. Flange Doubler Plate Design e. Web Shear Stiffener Design or web doubler plate. f. Allowance for prying forces. Which if they exist would also require checking the need for a compression stiffener near the edge of the end plate. g. Consideration of partial fixity. Neither endplates nor bolts are designed with consideration for deflection. If the bolts stretch then there is rotation of the joint, and the full fixity assumed in the frame analysis is not valid. Likewise if column flanges or endplates bend. In other words the serviceability of the connection affects the strength of the whole structure. h. Design of welds to end plates. The achievement of a T-joint, complete penetration butt weld (CPBW) with thin materials is highly questionable. Such a weld would have little practical difference from fillet welds. In many instances 3mm or smaller fillet welds equal to the thickness of the material, are inadequate. Hence the engineers automatic adoption of CPBW is a potentially hazardous practice. i. No consideration for the parent material losing strength in the heat affected zone (HAZ) adjacent to the weld. Noting that the critical design sections are at the joints, and therefore the full strength of the material is required at these locations. Whilst stiffeners and doublers may be specified in the design documents, no design calculations have been shown to demonstrate structural adequacy of the components concerned. Additionally welding such stiffening plates into place is all pointless if the welding reduces the strength of the main member. Of course some of these points may have been considered by the authors of the design codes, with allowance hidden away in obscure design factors. But if the allowance is hidden then for all intents and purposes it does not exist. Likewise some of the points may have been considered by experienced engineers who determined that the effects were insignificant. But if there is no explicit declaration of such
2003 Metamorphs
consideration in the calculations, then the calculations cannot be considered as truly demonstrating structural adequacy of the proposed structure. Clearly if increased attention to detail, increases member size, then suppliers will not be happy and will consider such design uncompetitive with other suppliers. In addition buyers will consider such sheds too expensive and go elsewhere. More importantly improving the design of future sheds, does not resolve the problem of all the sheds that have already been built and which have the potential to fail at a load below their intended design loading. However, the intended design load does not have to be the mandated design load if the communities expectations of design life and risk of failure during that period, is incompatible with the mandated loading . For example do such buildings need to have an importance level of 2? Since the market exists, and there have been few recorded failures, it is the design life and the risk of failure of these types of structures that really needs to be addressed and understood by the community. In other words it is not entirely a problem of increased knowledge and research into engineering mechanics and strength of materials, but a problem of community value and perception. Hopefully these guidebooks are a step in the right direction towards identifying community expectations and values regarding specific building structures.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING THE CHARTS

Use of the charts is relatively straight forward, and blank design summary sheets have been provided in the appendix to assist users. Since this guidebook is part of a series aimed at designing an entire shed, these design summary sheets a re set out to aid with the structural design of an entire shed and not just the portal frame. The first step is to check the suitability of the tables for the intended application. Such suitability is best determined by the coordinated efforts of an architect and engineer. The following preliminary checks need to be made: 1) The building does not require to be weather tight. {NB: the frames in this guidebook have only been designed for strength and not serviceability. In consequence they can be expected to provide for relatively damp and draughty buildings.} 2) The building meets Building Code of Australia (BCA) criteria for importance level 2 or less. 3) That the site is suitable for construction of a moment resisting footing system. {NB: presence of retaining walls may negate such possibility. } 4) The site is flat and not located on a hillside or the top of an escarpment. 5) The surrounding terrain matches the criteria for Wind Terrain Category 3. 6) The roof pitch is 10 degrees. (Tables are also adequate for a roof pitch of 1 in 5 (11.83 degrees)) 7) The rafters and columns are to be fabricated from the same section. 8) If connections types have already been decided check that they are compatible with the full fixity requirements of the frame design. 9) Check that the c-sections proposed to use are compatible with those used in the preparation of these charts. {NB: this requires checking both the strength of materials used, the dimensions of the c-section, and assessing the effective section properties.}
2003 Metamorphs
Once these checks have confirmed the suitability of the tables complete the following: 1) Decide on frame spacing , indicated on charts as bay spacing. 2) Make a note of Building width and Eaves Height. 3) Choose a suitable chart based on bay spacing. {Recommend make a copy of chart for each project.} 4) Find the building width along bottom of chart; draw a vertical line upwards through the chart. 5) Find the building eaves height along the left hand side of the chart; draw a horizontal line across the chart. 6) Where the two lines intersect is the design point. 7) Identify the design curve that is above the design point. 8) Identify the C-section specified for the design curve. This is the c-section to be used for a frame of the chosen dimensions. Example 1) 3m bay spacing 12m building width 5m eaves height Results in frame size: C250-24
USE OF CHARTS FOR ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS

An alternative interpretation of the curves on the charts is lines of constant resisting moment (M R), and therefore with some simple mathematics and design rules these charts can be used for estimating the frames required for alternative designs. Also the data presented in the charts can be transformed into a variety of additional design charts: such as resisting moment versus bay spacing. The charts can also be used for substitution of alternative materials, such as replacing c-section with RHS. Or assessing the benefits of alternative c-section designs, such as a C175. Users should also note that each design curve consists of three regions: 1) A flat segment at the Top left hand side. 2) A middle segment that rapidly descends from left to right. 3) A flat segment at the Bottom right hand side. Roughly segment 1) represents a region where the height of the building alone is determining the member size, and therefore a constant section frame maybe uneconomical. Segment 3) represents a region where the span of the building alone is determining member size, and once again a constant section frame maybe uneconomical. Segment 2) is the region where height and span of the building influence one another, and where a constant section frame has the potential to be most economical. For buildings that have dimensions that fall on segment 1) of the curves, economy maybe obtained by designing lighter rafters. Whilst for those that fall on segment 3) the economy may result from designing lighter columns.
2003 Metamorphs
Simplified Design Rules

1) Load is proportional to spacing {a Q s} 2) Bending moment is proportional to load { M* Q a} 3) Bending moment is proportional to the square of the span. { M* Q L2} 4) When Considering wind loading the following relationships are useful: a. Load is proportional to the square of terrain category multiplier Mz,cat b. Load is proportional to the square of topographic multiplier Mt c. Load is proportional to square of shielding multiplier Ms 5) Section Modulus for a pair of flanges is approximately Z=DBT, where D is distance between flange centres, B is width of flange, and T is the flange thickness. This is based on the assumption that the flanges alone resist bending. 6) Section Capacity (Resisting Moment) Required is proportional to section modulus {MR Q Z }
7) Section Capacity (Resisting Moment) Required is proportional to bending moment effect {M R Q M*}
Allowing For Shielding from Wind

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Select frame size from charts in normal manner. Find the moment capacity of the c-section specified Calculate shielding multiplier in accordance with AS1170 Multiply moment capacity by square of shielding multiplier Identify new section with moment capacity greater than or equal to that calculated in step 4).
Example 2)
Continuing on from Example 1) Moment Capacity C25024 = 27.5 kNm Assume shielding multiplier Ms = 0.85 Ms2 = 0.85 x 0.85 = 0.72 Required Moment Capacity = 0.72 x 27.5 = 19.8 kNm Moment Capacity C20024 = 20.0 kNm
Therefore ADOPT: frame size C20024
Allowing For Topography

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Select frame size from charts in normal manner. Find the moment capacity of the c-section specified Calculate topographic multiplier in accordance with AS1170 Multiply moment capacity by square of topographic multiplier Identify new section with moment capacity greater than or equal to that calculated in step 4). 9
2003 Metamorphs
Example 3)
Continuing on from Example 1) Moment Capacity C25024 = 27.5 kNm Assume topography multiplier Mt = 1.15 Mt2 = 1.15 x 1.15 = 1.32 Required Moment Capacity = 1.32 x 27.5 = 36.4 kNm Moment Capacity C30024 = 38.5 kNm
Allowing For Different Terrain Category

1) 2) 3) 4) Select frame size from charts in normal manner. Find the moment capacity of the c-section specified Calculate terrain multiplier in accordance with AS1170 Estimate terrain category multiplier used in the charts for terrain category 3. {or use the supplementary guidebook that show the frame calculations} 5) Calculate ratio between terrain category multiplier used in charts versus that for current project. {NB: in going from TC3 to TC2 ratio should be greater than 1} 6) Multiply moment capacity by square of ratio of terrain category multipliers 7) Identify new section with moment capacity greater than or equal to that calculated in step 4). Example 4)
Continuing on from Example 1) Moment Capacity C25024 = 27.5 kNm For TC2 Mz,cat = 0.91 (@5m Region A1) For TC3 Mz,cat = 0.83 (@5m Region A1) Ratio = 0.91 / 0.83 = 1.1 Ratio2 = 1.1 x 1.1 = 1.21 Required Moment Capacity = 1.21 x 27.5 = 33.3 kNm Moment Capacity C30024 = 38.5 kNm
Allowing For Different Bay Spacing

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) Select chart with bay spacing just greater than bay spacing required Determine section size required from this chart Determine moment capacity of section required Select chart with bay spacing just less than bay spacing required Determine section size required from this chart Determine moment capacity of section required Draw new chart of moment capacity versus bay spacing. From this new chart determine moment capacity for required bay spacing. Identify new section with moment capacity greater than or equal to that calculated in step 8).
Example 5)
2003 Metamorphs
10
To assess the validity of the method we will attempt to derive the result for a chart that we have. Thus we will select 4.5m bay spacing, and use the 3m and 5m design charts to derive. 4.5m bay spacing 12m building width 5m eaves height Moment Capacity C25024 = 27.5 kNm {3m Bay spacing} Moment Capacity C30024 = 38.5 kNm {5m bay spacing} Draw new chart or interpolate. Slope = dM/ds = (38.5-27.5) / (5-3) = 5.5 27.5 + (4.5-3.3)*5.5 = 34.10 kNm Moment Capacity C30024 = 38.5 kNm
From the 4.5m bay spacing chart frame size: C30024. Hence the estimation method is of practical value. Therefore ADOPT: frame size C30024 Alternatively:
4.5/5 = 0.9 Moment Capacity C30024 = 38.5 kNm {5m bay spacing} 38.5 x 0.9 = 35.01 kNm No change in section. 4.5/3 = 1.5 Moment Capacity C25024 = 27.5 kNm {3m Bay spacing} 27.5 x 1.5 = 41.25 kNm Moment Capacity C30030 = 52.5 kNm This is greater tha n required for 5m bay spacing therefore better to estimate from a known larger to an unknown lower bay spacing, or interpolate between two known values.
Alternative Materials
1) Select the c-section from the design charts as usual 2) Determine moment capacity of section required 3) Use tables of section capacities to select alternative section with moment capacity greater than or equal to section capacity required. 4) Further check that section area is greater than that of the c-section required. 5) Further check that the slenderness ratio is less than that possessed by the required c-section. 6) More thorough checks can be made by using the supplementary guidebooks presenting the frame calculations. Example 6) Continuing on from Example 1) Moment Capacity C25024 = 27.5 kNm Moment Capacity 125x75x5 RHS = 29.5 kNm Therefore ADOPT: frame size 125x75x5 RHS for more detailed investigation.
2003 Metamorphs
11
Moment Capacity Required for Actual Dimensions

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) Plot the dimensions of the building on the design charts. Identify the design curve above the design point. Identify the design curve below the design point. Determine the moment capacities of the two c-sections represented by the two design curves. Draw one chart of moment capacity versus height for constant width. For the height required determi ne moment capacity required Draw one chart of moment capacity versus building width for constant height. For the width required determine moment capacity required. The two moments so calculated should be approximately the same. If not check the calculations. Select the larger of the two values as the design moment.
Example 7)
Continuing on from Example 1) Moment Capacity C25024 = 27.5 kNm (h=6.2, L = 12), (h=5, L=13) Moment Capacity C20024 = 20.0 kNm (h=2.8, L = 12), (h=5, L=10.2) Draw chart or interpolate on heights
Slope = dM/dh = (27.5 -20.0) / (6.2-2.8) = 2.21 20.0 + (5-2.8)*2.21 = 24.85 kNm Draw chart or interpolate on lengths
Slope = dM/dL = (27.5 -20.0) / (13-10.2) = 2.68 20.0 + (12-10.2)*2.68 = 24.82 kNm Therefore Adopt Design Moment: 24.9 kNm.
Optimising Production
Typically manufacturing costs exceed material costs. However, manufacturing costs are determined by product design and the materials selected. Minimum cost will be achieved by adopting Design for Assembly (DFA) and group technology philosophies and minimising the total number of components in the assembled shed. Thus increased bay spacing would reduce the total number of frames that require fabricating. This in turn would reduce the number of end plates and the number of smaller purchased components required, such as nuts and bolts. However, optimising an individual shed may not be beneficial for the annual cost of production. Thus there maybe benefit in having some sheds less than optimum in order to minimise annual production costs, and distribute savings across a range of sheds. For those fabricators that manufacturer c-sections the tables can be used to identify the most economic size of c-section to fabricate, and to also identify the potential for alternative sizes of c-sections , or alternative cold -formed sections such as hollow-flangebeams. It should be noted that c-sections are largely supplied for use as cladding supports, and not the fabrication of portal frames. In consequence, given historical sales data of the most common dimensions of shed required, it may turn out to be advantageous to produce c-sections that have depths that lie between the current 50mm increments in
2003 Metamorphs
12
depth. Thus: C125, C175, C225, C275, C325, and C375 maybe the more economical sizes for fabrication of a range of sheds. For example a C175 of appropriate gauge would cover a range of designs currently covered by C100s, C150s and also encompass some of those provided by C200s. Adoption of the C175 would reduce setup times, and allow greater standardisation of components such as end plates and bolts. Alternatively the size ranges could be maintained whilst the gauge and strength of materials are altered. Thus a C150-30 maybe a more useful section for portal frames.
Designing Alternative C-Section

By plotti ng the actual sizes of sheds sold, on the design charts, the variation in c-section required can be determined. To minimise this variation the largest possible c-section required for the range of sheds can be selected. If it is known that 80% of the sheds sold fall within the scope of a given dimensional envelope, then a single c-section to cover the entire range maybe of economic benefit. Suppose the charts require C100s, C150s and C200s, for this range. Then this would imply the need to use C200s for the entire range. But it is discovered that adoption of a C200 for the entire range makes the smaller sheds too expensive. Therefore require an alternative size of c-section. To determine an alternative section, follow the procedure for determining the moment capacity for actual dimensions; using the dimensional envelope of the range of sheds as the actual dimensions. Once the moment capacity as been determined, the dimensions of an alternative c-section can be estimated. 1) Determine the yield strength of the material intend on using 2) Divide required moment capacity by yield strength to obtain required section modulus. 3) Section Modulus Z _ D x B x T 4) Experiment with dimensions for D,B, and T that fit within width range of available sheet metal coil strips, or plate if intend on folding channel section. Note full dimensions of c-section also includes bend radii and lips. 5) Have the chosen section-design fully checked to AS4600. Example 8)
2003 Metamorphs
Continuing on from Example 7) Resisting Moment Required = 24.9 kNm {needs C25024} Yield Strength of Material fy = 450 MPa (MN/m2 ) Z = (24.9 x 103 ) / (450 x 106 ) = 5.53 x 10-5 m3 {note unit conversions} Z = 5.53 x 10-5 [m3] x 109 [mm3 /m3]= 55.3 x 103 mm3 Flange Area A = Z / D = BT = 55.3 x 103 / 175 = 316 mm T = A / B = 316 / 100 = 3.16 mm {adopt 4mm thick material, and check assumed yield strength available at this thickness} Z _ 175 x 100 x 4 = 70.0 x 103 mm Adopt: 175 x 100 x 4 Flange Area A = Z / D = BT = 55.3 x 103 / 225 = 246 mm T = A / B = 246 / 100 = 2.46 mm {adopt 3mm thick material} Z _ 225 x 100 x 3 = 67.5 x 103 mm 13
Compare
Adopt: 225 x 100 x 3
C20024: Z _ 203 x 76 x 2.4 = 37.0 x 103 mm3 {cf. Zx = 56.0 x 103 mm3} C25024: Z _ 254 x 76 x 2.4 = 46.3 x 103 mm3 {cf. Zx = 75.7 x 103 mm3} Hence detailed design check would allow some reduction in flange width and material thickness, and the provision of a stiffening lip to the flange. Checking the above ratios of estimate to actual Z, gives the estimate as around 60% of actual. Splitting this between flange width and material thickness gives 77% reduction for each. Therefore Adopt: The following C-sections for further consideration: 175 deep x 77 wide flange x 2.4 mm thick 225 deep x 77 wide flange x 1.9 mm thick
2003 Metamorphs
14
Chart 1 Fully Fixed Doubly Pitched Portal Frame : TC3.0, 0.6m Bays, 10deg. Roof Pitch Initial Estimate of Frame Member Size Based on Maximum Design Moment
24.000 23.000 22.000 21.000 20.000 19.000 18.000 17.000 16.000 15.000 Eaves Height [m] 14.000 13.000 12.000 11.000 10.000 9.000 8.000 7.000 6.000 5.000 4.000 3.000 2.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 Building Width [m] 25.000 30.000 35.000 40.000 C100-10 C100-12 C100-15 C100-19 C150-12 C150-15 C150-19 C200-15 C150-24 C200-19 C250-19 C200-24 C250-24 C300-24 C300-30 C350-30
(C)2003 Metamorphs
Chart 2 Fully Fixed Doubly Pitched Portal Frame : TC3.0,0.9m Bays, 10deg. Roof Pitch Initial Estimate of Frame Member Size Based on Maximum Design Moment
20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 Eaves Height [m] 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40 C100-10 C100-12 C100-15 C100-19 C150-12 C150-15 C150-19 C200-15 C150-24 C200-19 C250-19 C200-24 C250-24 C300-24 C300-30 C350-30
(C)2003 Metamorphs
18 17 16 15 14 13 12 Eaves Height [m] 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40 C100-10 C100-12 C100-15 C100-19 C150-12 C150-15 C150-19 C200-15 C150-24 C200-19 C250-19 C200-24 C250-24 C300-24 C300-30 C350-30
(C)2003 Metamorphs
16 15 14 13 12 11 10 Eaves Height [m] 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 5
C100-10 C100-12 C100-15 C100-19 C150-12 C150-15 C150-19 C200-15 C150-24 C200-19 C250-19 C200-24 C250-24 C300-24 C300-30 C350-30
10
15
20 Building Width [m]
25
30
35
40
(C)2003 Metamorphs
15 14 13 12 11 10 Eaves Height [m] 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40 C100-10 C100-12 C100-15 C100-19 C150-12 C150-15 C150-19 C200-15 C150-24 C200-19 C250-19 C200-24 C250-24 C300-24 C300-30 C350-30
(C)Metamorphs
14 13 12 C100-10 11 10 9 Eaves Height [m] 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40 C100-12 C100-15 C100-19 C150-12 C150-15 C150-19 C200-15 C150-24 C200-19 C250-19 C200-24 C250-24 C300-24 C300-30 C350-30
(C)2003 Metamorphs
13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40
C100-10 C100-12 C100-15 C100-19 C150-12
Eaves Height [m]
C150-15 C150-19 C200-15 C150-24 C200-19 C250-19 C200-24 C250-24 C300-24 C300-30 C350-30
(C)2003 Metamorphs
13 12 11 10 9 8 Eaves Height [m] 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40 C100-10 C100-12 C100-15 C100-19 C150-12 C150-15 C150-19 C200-15 C150-24 C200-19 C250-19 C200-24 C250-24 C300-24 C300-30 C350-30
(C)2003 Metamorphs
12.000
Chart 9 Fully Fixed Doubly Pitched Portal Frame : TC3, 3m Bays, 10deg. Roof Pitch Initial Estimate of Frame Member Size Based on Maximum Design Moment
11.000
10.000 C100-10 9.000 C100-12 C100-15 8.000 Eaves Height [m] C100-19 C150-12 C150-15 7.000 C150-19 C200-15 6.000 C150-24 C200-19 5.000 C250-19 C200-24 4.000 C250-24 C300-24 3.000 C300-30 C350-30 2.000
1.000
0.000 0.000
5.000
10.000
15.000
20.000 Building width [m]
25.000
30.000
35.000
40.000
(C)2003 Metamorphs
12 11
10 9 8 Eaves Height [m] 7
C100-10 C100-12 C100-15 C100-19 C150-12 C150-15 C150-19 C200-15
6 5 4 3
C150-24 C200-19 C250-19 C200-24 C250-24 C300-24 C300-30 C350-30
2 1 0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40
(C)2003 Metamorphs
11
10
C100-10 C100-12
C100-15 C100-19
7 Eaves Height [m]
C150-12 C150-15 C150-19 C200-15 C150-24
C200-19 C250-19
C200-24 C250-24 C300-24 C300-30
C350-30
0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40
(C)2003 Metamorphs
10
Chart 12 Fully Fixed Doubly Pitched Portal Frame : TC3.0,4.5m Bays, 10deg. Roof Pitch Initial Estimate of Frame Member Size Based on Maximum Bending Moment
C100-10 C100-12 C100-15
C100-19 C150-12 C150-15 C150-19 C200-15
Eaves Height [m]
C150-24 C200-19
C250-19 C200-24
C250-24 C300-24 C300-30
C350-30
0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40
(C)2003 Metamorphs
10
Chart 13 Fully Fixed Doubly Pitched Portal Frame : TC3.0, 5.0m Bays, 10deg. Roof Pitch Initial Estimate of Frame Member Size Based on Maximum Bending Moment
C100-10 C100-12 C100-15
C100-19 C150-12 C150-15 C150-19 C200-15
Eaves Height [m]
C150-24 C200-19
C250-19 C200-24
C250-24 C300-24 C300-30
C350-30
0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40
(C)2003 Metamorphs
9
8 C100-10 7 C100-12 C100-15 C100-19 6 Eaves Height [m] C150-12 C150-15 5 C150-19 C200-15 C150-24 4 C200-19 C250-19 3 C200-24 C250-24 C300-24 2 C300-30 C350-30 1
0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40
(C)2003 Metamorphs
9
8 C100-10 7 C100-12 C100-15 C100-19 6 Eaves Height [m] C150-12 C150-15 C150-19 5 C200-15 C150-24 4 C200-19 C250-19 C200-24 3 C250-24 C300-24 C300-30 2 C350-30 Series17 1
0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40
(C)2003 Metamorphs
8 C100-10 7 C100-12 C100-15 6 Eaves Height [m] C100-19 C150-12 C150-15 5 C150-19 C200-15 C150-24 4 C200-19 C250-19 C200-24 3 C250-24 C300-24 2 C300-30 C350-30
0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40
(C)2003 Metamorphs
8
7 C100-10 C100-12 6 C100-15 C100-19 C150-12 5 Eaves Height [m] C150-15 C150-19 C200-15 4 C150-24 C200-19 3 C250-19 C200-24 C250-24 2 C300-24 C300-30 C350-30 1
0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40
(C)2003 Metamorphs
7 C100-10 6 C100-12 C100-15 C100-19 5 Eaves Height [m] C150-12 C150-15 C150-19 C200-15 4 C150-24 C200-19 C250-19 3 C200-24 C250-24 C300-24 2 C300-30 C350-30 1
0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40
(C)2003 Metamorphs
7 C100-10 6 C100-12 C100-15 C100-19 5 Eaves Height [m] C150-12 C150-15 C150-19 4 C200-15 C150-24 C200-19 3 C250-19 C200-24 C250-24 2 C300-24 C300-30 C350-30 1
0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40
(C)2003 Metamorphs
8
7 C100-10 C100-12 6 C100-15 C100-19 C150-12 5 Eaves Height [m] C150-15 C150-19 C200-15 4 C150-24 C200-19 3 C250-19 C200-24 C250-24 2 C300-24 C300-30 C350-30 1
0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40
(C)2003 Metamorphs
7
C100-10 C100-12 C100-15
C100-19 C150-12 C150-15
Eaves Height [m]
C150-19 C200-15 C150-24
C200-19 C250-19 C200-24
C250-24 C300-24 C300-30
C350-30
0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40
(C)2003 Metamorphs
7
6 C100-10 C100-12 5 C100-15 C100-19 C150-12 Eaves Height [m] C150-15 4 C150-19 C200-15 C150-24 3 C200-19 C250-19 C200-24 C250-24 2 C300-24 C300-30 C350-30 1
0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40
(C)2003 Metamorphs
7
C100-10 C100-12 C100-15
C100-19 C150-12
Eaves Height [m]
C150-15 4 C150-19 C200-15 C150-24 3 C200-19 C250-19 C200-24 2 C250-24 C300-24 C300-30 1 C350-30
0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40
(C)2003 Metamorphs
C100-10 C100-12 C100-15 C100-19
4 Eaves Height [m]
C150-12 C150-15 C150-19
C200-15 C150-24 C200-19 C250-19
C200-24 C250-24 C300-24 C300-30
C350-30
0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40
(C)2003 Metamorphs
6
C100-10 C100-12 C100-15 C100-19
4 Eaves Height [m]
C150-12 C150-15 C150-19 C200-15
C150-24 C200-19 C250-19 C200-24
C250-24 C300-24 C300-30
C350-30 Series17
0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40
(C)2003 Metamorphs
5
C100-10 4 C100-12 C100-15 C100-19 C150-12 Eaves Height [m] 3 C150-15 C150-19 C200-15 C150-24 C200-19 2 C250-19 C200-24 C250-24 C300-24 1 C300-30 C350-30
0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40
(C)2003 Metamorphs
METAMORPHS
Transcending Above and beyond structures
Sheet
Table 2.1: Comparison of Effective Section Capacities [kNm] Reference Nominal Dimensions Code AAE AAF AAG AA AA AA AA BA BA CA CA DA EA GA JA MA
Depth 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 200 150 200 250 200 250 300 300 350
Thickness 10 12 15 19 12 15 19 15 24 19 19 24 24 24 30 30
ALPHA IND' WOODROFFE STRAMIT LYSAGHT phi.Ms phi.Ms phi.Ms phi.Ms 2.90 2.63 2.81 2.81 3.30 3.20 3.23 3.20 3.77 3.89 3.77 3.73 5.19 5.09 5.31 5.25 5.77 5.87 5.65 5.71 7.36 7.58 7.36 7.41 9.26 9.58 9.42 9.50 10.96 10.41 10.20 13.13 13.25 13.50 15.65 15.98 15.74 15.56 20.30 20.28 19.90 19.64 20.51 20.34 20.34 20.49 28.66 28.00 27.75 27.93 39.31 38.79 53.08 52.78 68.31 68.31
MAX. 2.90 3.30 3.89 5.31 5.87 7.58 9.58 10.96 13.50 15.98 20.30 20.51 28.66 39.31 53.08 68.31
MIN. 2.63 3.20 3.73 5.09 5.65 7.36 9.26 10.20 13.13 15.56 19.64 20.34 27.75 38.79 52.78 68.31
Nominal Based on Nominal Capacity 2.5 3.0 3.5 5.0 5.5 7.0 9.0 10.0 13.0 15.5 19.5 20.0 27.5 38.5 52.5 68.0 Ratio 1 1.00 1.20 1.40 2.00 2.20 2.80 3.60 4.00 5.20 6.20 7.80 8.00 11.00 15.40 21.00 27.20 1.20 1.17 1.43 1.10 1.27 1.29 1.11 1.30 1.19 1.26 1.03 1.38 1.40 1.36 1.30 Ratio 2
Reference Code AAE AAF AAG AA AA AA AA BA BA CA CA DA EA GA JA MA
Ratio 1 Ratio 2
Ratio of capacity to smallest capacity Ratio of capacity to next lower capacity
NB: Table is sorted in order of increasing section capacity from top to bottom
MAX. MIN.
(C)2003 Metamorphs
Table 2.2 Section Capacities Code Nom1 0.5 AAA 0.5 AAA 0.5 AAA 0.5 AAA 0.5 AAB 1 AAB 1 AAB 1 AAB 1 AAB 1 AAC 1.5 AAC 1.5 AAC 1.5 AAC 1.5 AAC 1.5 AAC 1.5 AAC 1.5 AAD 2 AAD 2 AAD 2 AAD 2 AAD 2 AAE 2.5 AAE 2.5 AAE 2.5 AAE 2.5 AAE 2.5 AAF 3 AAF 3 AAF 3 AAF 3 AAF 3 AAG 3.5 AAG 3.5 AAG 3.5 AAG 3.5 AAH 4 AAH 4 AAI 4.5 AAI 4.5 AAI 4.5 AAI 4.5 AA 5 AA 5 AA 5 AA 5 AA 5 AA 5 AA 5 AA 5 AA 5 AA 5 AA 5 AA 5
AAA
Section 25x25x1.6SHS Duragal C450LO 25x25x2.0SHS Duragal C450LO 25x25x2.5SHS Duragal C450LO 30x30x1.6SHS Duragal C450LO 30x30x2.0SHS Duragal C450LO 35x35x1.6SHS Duragal C450LO 35x35x2.0SHS Duragal C450LO 50x20x1.6RHS Duragal C450LO 40x40x1.6SHS Duragal C450LO 50x25x1.6RHS Duragal C450LO 35x35x2.5SHS Duragal C450LO 50x20x2.0RHS Duragal C450LO 40x40x2.0SHS Duragal C450LO 35x35x3.0SHS Duragal C450LO 50x25x2.0RHS Duragal C450LO 50x20x2.5RHS Duragal C450LO 50x50x1.6SHS Duragal C450LO 40x40x2.5SHS Duragal C450LO 50x25x2.5RHS Duragal C450LO 50x20x3.0RHS Duragal C450LO 40x40x3.0SHS Duragal C450LO 50x25x3.0RHS Duragal C450LO
C100-10
50x50x2.0SHS Duragal C450LO 40x40x4.0SHS Duragal C450LO 75x25x1.6RHS Duragal C450LO 65x65x1.6SHS Duragal C450LO 65x35x2.0RHS Duragal C450LO
C100-12
50x50x2.5SHS Duragal C450LO 75x50x1.6RHS Duragal C450LO 75x25x2.0RHS Duragal C450LO

C100-15
50x50x3.0SHS Duragal C450LO 65x35x2.5RHS Duragal C450LO 65x65x2.0SHS Duragal C450LO 75x25x2.5RHS Duragal C450LO 65x35x3.0RHS Duragal C450LO 50x50x4.0SHS Duragal C450LO 90x90x1.6SHS Duragal C450LO 75x50x2.0RHS Duragal C450LO 75x75x2.0SHS Duragal C450LO 100x50x1.6RHS Duragal C450LO
C100-19
50x50x5.0SHS Duragal C450LO 65x35x4.0RHS Duragal C450LO 75 TFC grade 250 65x65x2.5SHS Duragal C450LO
C150-12
75x50x2.5RHS Duragal C450LO 90x90x2.0SHS Duragal C450LO 65x65x3.0SHS Duragal C450LO 75x75x2.5SHS Duragal C450LO 75x50x3.0RHS Duragal C450LO
phi.Msx Nom2 0.50 0.5 0.59 0.5 0.69 0.5 0.75 0.5 0.89 0.5 1.04 1.0 1.25 1.0 1.27 1.0 1.36 1.0 1.43 1.0 1.50 1.5 1.53 1.5 1.67 1.5 1.71 1.5 1.73 1.5 1.83 1.5 1.92 1.5 2.01 2.0 2.07 2.0 2.09 2.0 2.32 2.0 2.37 2.0 2.63 2.5 2.66 2.5 2.73 2.5 2.76 2.5 2.84 2.5 3.16 3.0 3.20 3.0 3.27 3.0 3.34 3.0 3.36 3.0 3.73 3.5 3.80 3.5 3.83 3.5 3.97 3.5 4.07 4.0 4.45 4.0 4.61 4.5 4.70 4.5 4.77 4.5 4.91 4.5 5.05 5.0 5.09 5.0 5.33 5.0 5.38 5.0 5.39 5.0 5.54 5.5 5.65 5.5 5.91 5.5 6.48 6.0 6.71 6.5 6.90 6.5 6.92 6.5
(C)2003 Metamorphs
Table 2.2 Section Capacities Code Nom1 Section AA 5 C150-15 AA 5 100x50x2.0RHS Duragal C450LO AA 5 100x100x2.0SHS Duragal C450LO AA 5 100 TFB grade 250 AA 5 65x65x4.0SHS Duragal C450LO AA 5 75x50x4.0RHS Duragal C450LO AA 5 75x75x3.0SHS Duragal C450LO AA 5 90x90x2.5SHS Duragal C450LO AA 5 100x50x2.5RHS Duragal C450LO AA 5 C150-19 AA 5 65x65x5.0SHS Duragal C450LO BA 10 125x75x2.0RHS Duragal C450LO BA 10 75x50x5.0RHS Duragal C450LO BA 10 75x75x3.5SHS Duragal C450LO BA 10 C200-15 BA 10 100 TFC grade 250 BA 10 100x100x2.5SHS Duragal C450LO BA 10 100x50x3.0RHS Duragal C450LO BA 10 65x65x6.0SHS Duragal C450LO BA 10 75x50x6.0RHS Duragal C450LO BA 10 75x75x4.0SHS Duragal C450LO BA 10 90x90x3.0SHS Duragal C450LO BA 10 100x50x3.5RHS Duragal C450LO BA 10 150x50x2.0RHS Duragal C450LO BA 10 C150-24 BA 10 100x50x4.0RHS Duragal C450LO BA 10 75x75x5.0SHS Duragal C450LO BA 10 100x100x3.0SHS Duragal C450LO BA 10 125x75x2.5RHS Duragal C450LO BA 10 89x89x3.5SHS Duragal C450LO CA 15 C200-19 CA 15 75x75x6.0SHS Duragal C450LO CA 15 100x50x5.0RHS Duragal C450LO CA 15 150x50x2.5RHS Duragal C450LO CA 15 100x50x6.0RHS Duragal C450LO CA 15 125 TFC grade 250 CA 15 125 TFB grade 250 CA 15 125x75x3.0RHS Duragal C450LO CA 15 C250-19 CA 15 89x89x5.0SHS Duragal C450LO DA 20 C200-24 DA 20 150x50x3.0RHS Duragal C450LO DA 20 100x100x4.0SHS Duragal C450LO DA 20 100UC14.8 DA 20 89x89x6.0SHS Duragal C450LO DA 20 125x75x4.0RHS Duragal C450LO EA 25 100x100x5.0SHS Duragal C450LO EA 25 150x50x4.0RHS Duragal C450LO EA 25 C250-24 EA 25 150UB14 EA 25 125x75x5.0RHS Duragal C450LO EA 25 100x100x6.0SHS Duragal C450LO FA 30 150x50x5.0RHS Duragal C450LO FA 30 125x75x6.0RHS Duragal C450LO
(C)2003 Metamorphs
phi.Msx Nom2 7.36 7.0 7.37 7.0 7.63 7.5 7.98 7.5 8.34 8.0 8.56 8.5 8.99 8.5 9.03 9.0 9.18 9.0 9.26 9.0 9.85 9.5 10.00 10.0 10.10 10.0 10.20 10.0 10.20 10.0 10.40 10.0 10.60 10.5 10.80 10.5 11.10 11.0 11.40 11.0 11.40 11.0 11.90 11.5 12.10 12.0 12.80 12.5 13.13 13.0 13.50 13.5 13.60 13.5 13.90 13.5 14.10 14.0 14.50 14.5 15.56 15.5 15.60 15.5 16.10 16.0 17.60 17.5 18.40 18.0 18.60 18.5 18.80 18.5 18.80 18.5 19.64 19.5 19.90 19.5 20.34 20.0 20.80 20.5 21.00 21.0 21.40 21.0 22.90 22.5 24.40 24.0 25.70 25.5 26.50 26.5 27.75 27.5 29.30 29.0 29.50 29.5 29.80 29.5 31.90 31.5 34.10 34.0
Table 2.2 Section Capacities Code Nom1 Section GA 35 150x50x6.0RHS Duragal C450LO GA 35 150PFC GA 35 C300-24 GA 35 150UB18 GA 35 180UB16.1 IA 45 180UB18.1 IA 45 180PFC JA 50 150UC23.4 JA 50 200UB18.2 JA 50 C300-30 KA 55 180UB22.2 KA 55 200PFC MA 65 200UB22.3 MA 65 C350-30 NA 70 150UC30 NA 70 230PFC NA 70 200UB25.4 PA 80 150UC37.2 RA 90 200UB29.8 RA 90 250UB25.7 VA 110 250PFC VA 110 250UB31.4 ZA 130 200UC46.2 ZA 130 310UB32 BB 140 250UB37.3 DB 150 300PFC DB 150 200UC52.2 IB 175 200UC59.5 JB 180 310UB40.4 MB 195 310UB46.2 RB 220 360UB44.7 UB 235 380PFC VB 240 360UB50.7 AB 265 250UC72.9 BC 270 360UB56.7 HC 300 410UB53.7 IC 305 250UC89.5 LC 320 410UB59.7 AC 395 460UB67.1 FD 420 310UC96.8 KD 445 460UB74.6 TD 490 310UC118 UD 495 460UB82.1 GE 555 530UB82 LE 580 310UC137 XE 640 530UB92.4 EF 675 310UC158 ZF 780 610UB101 IG 825 610UB113 CG 925 610UB125 phi.Msx 36.90 37.00 38.79 38.90 39.80 45.20 49.00 50.70 51.80 52.78 56.20 59.70 65.30 68.31 71.90 73.30 74.60 83.60 90.90 92.00 114.00 114.00 133.00 134.00 140.00 152.00 154.00 177.00 182.00 197.00 222.00 238.00 242.00 266.00 273.00 304.00 309.00 324.00 399.00 422.00 449.00 494.00 496.00 558.00 580.00 640.00 676.00 782.00 829.00 927.00 Nom2 36.5 37.0 38.5 38.5 39.5 45.0 49.0 50.5 51.5 52.5 56.0 59.5 65.0 68.0 71.5 73.0 74.5 83.5 90.5 92.0 114.0 114.0 133.0 134.0 140.0 152.0 154.0 177.0 182.0 197.0 222.0 238.0 242.0 266.0 273.0 304.0 309.0 324.0 399.0 422.0 449.0 494.0 496.0 558.0 580.0 640.0 676.0 782.0 829.0 927.0
(C)2003 Metamorphs
V1Frames.dwg 001 001 GD/01

Rev Issue Plot
SHEET DRN : DSGN : APPD : ISS'D :
-SCH SCH
indicative only DO NOT SCALE

Size
ALL DIMENSIONS IN MILLIMETRES TOLERANCES: LINEAR ANGULAR
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED:
PORTAL FRAME SHED TYPICAL ELEVATION ON FRAME --

Rev Issue Plot
-SCH SCH
NOT TO SCALE DO NOT SCALE

Size
PORTAL FRAME SHED TYPICAL FLYBRACING GUIDELINES --

Rev Issue Plot
-SCH SCH
NOT TO SCALE DO NOT SCALE

Size
PORTAL FRAME SHED FLYBRACING CONCEPTS --
REF.: DESIGN: TITLE :
PAGE: DATE:
DESIGN SUMMARY SHEET

1 2
Location : Wind Region : Bay Spacing Building Width PORTAL FRAME Terrain Category : m m Eaves Height m
3 4
5 6 7
Rafter : Column : Endwall Column: ROOF
plus fly braces @ plus fly braces @ plus fly braces @
8 9 10
Cladding : Purlins : @ WALLS c/c near Edges, @ c/c typical
11 12 13
Cladding : Girts : @ BRACING c/c near Edges, @

{end bays}
c/c typical
14 15 16
Struts:
DURAGAL C450LO
Diameter : Diameter:
Roof Cross-Bracing: THREADED ROD Wall Cross-Bracing: THREADED ROD
CONNECTIONS
17 18 19
Base : Eaves : Ridge :
Plate: Plate: Plate:
FL FL FL
Bolts: Bolts: Bolts:
-4.6/s -8.8/s -8.8/s
CONCRETE FOOTING PIERS for COLUMNS
Without slab
Sandy Soils 20 21 Clay Soils
With Slab
Sandy Soils Clay Soils
Diameter Depth
(C)Metamorphs
SummarySht1.xls

Morf JV01001

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Morf JV01001

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Technicians APPLY, Technologists ADAPT, Engineers ORIGINATE

MorfJ0001.doc, [(03/08/03) 13:55]

Technicians APPLY, Technologists ADAPT, Engineers ORIGINATE

Technicians APPLY, Technologists ADAPT, Engineers ORIGINATE

Technicians APPLY, Technologists ADAPT, Engineers ORIGINATE

MorfJ0001.doc, [(03/08/03) 13:55]

MEMBER SELECTION CHARTS FOR PORTAL FRAME SHEDS

Steven CONRAD Harrison

The Future and Known Concerns

INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING THE CHARTS

USE OF CHARTS FOR ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS

Simplified Design Rules

Allowing For Shielding from Wind

Therefore ADOPT: frame size C20024

Allowing For Topography

Therefore ADOPT: frame size C30024

Allowing For Different Terrain Category

Therefore ADOPT: frame size C30024

Allowing For Different Bay Spacing

Moment Capacity Required for Actual Dimensions

Designing Alternative C-Section

Adopt: 225 x 100 x 3

16 15 14 13 12 11 10 Eaves Height [m] 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 5

20 Building Width [m]

C100-10 C100-12 C100-15 C100-19 C150-12

Eaves Height [m]

20.000 Building width [m]

10 9 8 Eaves Height [m] 7

C100-10 C100-12 C100-15 C100-19 C150-12 C150-15 C150-19 C200-15

C150-24 C200-19 C250-19 C200-24 C250-24 C300-24 C300-30 C350-30

2 1 0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40

7 Eaves Height [m]

C150-12 C150-15 C150-19 C200-15 C150-24

C200-24 C250-24 C300-24 C300-30

0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40

C100-10 C100-12 C100-15

C100-19 C150-12 C150-15 C150-19 C200-15

Eaves Height [m]

C250-24 C300-24 C300-30

0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40

C100-10 C100-12 C100-15

C100-19 C150-12 C150-15 C150-19 C200-15

Eaves Height [m]

C250-24 C300-24 C300-30

0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40

0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40

0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40

0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40

0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40

0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40

0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40

0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40

C100-10 C100-12 C100-15

C100-19 C150-12 C150-15

Eaves Height [m]

C150-19 C200-15 C150-24

C200-19 C250-19 C200-24

C250-24 C300-24 C300-30

0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40

0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40

C100-10 C100-12 C100-15

Eaves Height [m]

0 0 5 10 15 20 Building Width [m] 25 30 35 40