Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DM04 07 C PDF
DM04 07 C PDF
0.053b1.88 L0.13
PLN = C tr 0.95 1.07 0.94 W Eq. 1
np d t
Where:
I xy
PLT = W Eq. 2
Ix
Where:
PLT = the TOTAL anchorage force that is required to be resisted by the system plus
anchorage device(s)
Ixy/Ix = A dimensionless parameter derived from a shear flow analysis or other methods.
Given these two equations it is possible to derive the implied inherent system resistance
factor at ө = 0 as shown in Eq. 3.
⎡ I xy 0.053b1.88 L0.13 ⎤
FSI = ⎢ − C tr 0.95 1.07 0.94 ⎥ Eq. 3
⎣⎢ I x np d t ⎦⎥
1
Commentary to DM Section 4.7 is new.
From Equation 4 a new expression can be written for the NET anchorage force based
on a combination of flexure theory and the AISI provisions as shown in Equation 5.
⎡⎛ I ⎞ ⎤
PLN = ⎢⎜⎜ XY ⎟⎟Cos (θ ) − Sin(θ ) − FSI Cos (θ )⎥W Eq. 5
⎣⎝ I X ⎠ ⎦
Equation 5 is not yet complete. The inherent system resistance behaves as a passive
spring. Therefore, if no displacement is produced, no system resistance will be
produced. The angle at which no displacement is produced is assumed as that
corresponding to the principal axis of the ZEE purlin ө0. Therefore, as the roof pitch ө
approaches ө0, the inherent system resistance diminishes to zero. Therefore, the
following multiplier to the FSI term is required.
(1 – Tan(ө)/ Tan(ө0)). In which Tan(ө0) can be approximated by IXY/IX.
⎡⎛ I ⎞ Tanθ ) ⎤
PLN = ⎢⎜⎜ XY ⎟⎟Cos (θ ) − Sin(θ ) − FSI Cos (θ )(1 − )⎥W Eq. 6
⎣⎝ I X ⎠ I XY I X ⎦
Through use of Equation 6, the system resistance may be separated from the total
required resistance. The benefit of this is to remove the error in the current specification
which produces erroneous results at higher roof pitches. The negative sign causing the
system resistance to add to the total force is automatically taken care of in the algebra.
For both of these cases the values of Ctr produce the anchorage forces resulting from
one side of the frame line only. However, Equation 2 represents the entire force for the
bay. Therefore the equations must be modified as shown below.
⎡ I xy 0.053b1.88 L0.13 ⎤
FSI = ⎢ − 2C tr 0.95 1.07 0.94 ⎥ Eq. 3-a
⎣⎢ I x np d t ⎦⎥
1 ⎡⎛ I XY ⎞ Tanθ ) ⎤
PLN = ⎢⎜ ⎟⎟Cos (θ ) − Sin(θ ) − FSI Cos (θ )(1 − )⎥W Eq. 6-a
2 ⎣⎜⎝ I X ⎠ I XY I X ⎦
⎡ I xy 0.220b1.5 ⎤
FSI = ⎢ − 2(0.5) 0.72 0.90 0.60 ⎥ Eq. 7
⎣⎢ I x n p d t ⎦⎥
⎡⎛ I ⎞ Tanθ ) ⎤
PLN = ⎢⎜⎜ XY ⎟⎟Cos (θ ) − Sin(θ ) − FSI Cos (θ )(1 − )⎥W Eq. 6
⎣⎝ I X ⎠ I XY I X ⎦
For simple span purlins at end supports use Equations 7 and 6 above but divide
Equation 6 by 2.
When purlin rows are reversed as a method to reduce anchorage and diaphragm forces
the equations must be modified. Reversing purlins has two effects as follow.
• The reversed purlins produce a down-slope force that offsets the up-slope force
given in the first component of Equation 6.
When some purlin rows are reversed the first step in revising Equation 6 can be written
as follows assuming all purlin rows have equal loading (i.e. equal spacing with uniform
load).
⎡⎛ I ⎞ Tanθ ) ⎤
PLN = ⎢⎜⎜ XY ⎟⎟Cos (θ )(n pT − nd − nd ) − Sin(θ ) − FSI Cos (θ )(1 − )⎥W Eq. 8
⎣⎝ X ⎠
I I XY I X ⎦
Observation of the derivation of Equation 3 will reveal that Factor 1 must also be applied
to FSI for the same reasons it is applied to the first term in Equation 6.
From flexure theory with reversed purlins the value of ө0 can be calculated as follows.
⎡⎛ I ⎞ ⎤
P0 = ⎢⎜⎜ XY ⎟⎟Cos (θ )(1 − 2nd n pT ) − Sin(θ )⎥W Eq. 9
⎣⎝ I X ⎠ ⎦
Tan(θ 0 ) =
I XY
(1 − 2nd n pT ) Eq. 10
IX
Given the derivations above, Equation 6 can be written as follow to account for reversed
purlin rows.
⎡⎛ I ⎞ Tan(θ ) ⎤
PLN = ⎢⎜⎜ XY ⎟⎟Cos (θ )(1 − 2nd n pT ) − Sin(θ ) − FSI (1 − 2nd n pT )Cos (θ )(1 − )⎥W
⎢⎣⎝ I X ⎠ ( I XY I X )(1 − 2nd n pT ) ⎥⎦
Also, from algebra given the equations for reversed purlins, the optimum number of
reversed purlins is given by Equation 12.
⎡ I ⎤ n pT
n d (opt ) = ⎢1 − X Tan(θ )⎥ Eq. 12
⎣ I XY ⎦ 2
All of the above equations, like those in the AISI Specification, assume that all bays are
of equal spacing and all purlins are of equal thickness. In practice these are frequently
not the case. Therefore, it will frequently be required to perform the anchorage analysis
in parts. This is done simply by evaluating the equations for the bays on either side of
the frame line based on the respective purlins and value for W. Then, the final
anchorage force will be the average anchorage forces from the two analyses.
8.5 Z 0.092
b = 2.5 in.
d = 8.5 in.
t = 0.092 in.
np = 15
L = 25 ft.
W = 52.5 kips
5.0000
0.0000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-5.0000
PLN (kips)
-10.0000
-15.0000
-20.0000
-25.0000
-30.0000
-35.0000
Roof Pitch (X:12)
11.5 Z 0.065
b = 3.5 in.
d = 11.5 in.
t = 0.065 in.
np = 4
L = 40 ft.
W = 18 kips
0.0000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-2.0000
PLN (kips)
-4.0000
-6.0000
-8.0000
-10.0000
-12.0000
Roof Pitch (X:12)
NOTE: This example was chosen to demonstrate that a small number of thin deep
purlins will provide minimal system resistance. In this case, the system resistance
appears to be practically zero since the curve fall directly on the flexure theory curve.
Upon inspection of AISI Equation D.3.2.1-5 it will be seen that the value Ctr is outside
the parenthesis. If the plot in example 2 for the AISI equation were to apply Ctr to the
first term in the parenthesis only, all three curves will coincide as shown in Example 2
by the curve for AISI D.3.2.1-5 (MOD). This implies that the Ctr term may have been
erroneously applied when the original equations for flat roofs were extrapolated for all
roof pitches.
8.5 Z 0.092
b = 2.5 in.
d = 8.5 in.
t = 0.092 in.
np = 15
L = 25 ft.
W = 52.5 kips
0.0000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
PLN (kips)
-10.0000
-20.0000
-30.0000
-40.0000
Roof Pitch (X:12)
11.5 Z 0.065
b = 3.5 in.
d = 11.5 in.
t = 0.065 in.
np = 4
L = 40 ft.
W = 18 kips
2.0000
0.0000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-2.0000
PLN (kips)
-4.0000
-6.0000
-8.0000
-10.0000
-12.0000
Roof Pitch (X:12)
8.5 Z 0.092
b = 2.5 in.
d = 8.5 in.
t = 0.092 in.
np = 15
L = 25 ft.
W = 52.5 kips
0.0000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-5.0000
PLN (kips)
-10.0000
-15.0000
-20.0000
-25.0000
Roof Pitch (X:12)
11.5 Z 0.065
b = 3.5 in.
d = 11.5 in.
t = 0.065 in.
np = 4
L = 40 ft.
W = 18 kips
2.0000
0.0000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
PLN (kips)
-2.0000
-4.0000
-6.0000
-8.0000
-10.0000
Roof Pitch (X:12)
NOTE: For this condition the proposed curve does not coincide with the flexure theory
curve. In fact, it produces higher anchorage forces than flexure theory. This is indicative
of an error in the AISI equation when np is low. The same example with different values
for np produced the following results.
np = 5 Æ The proposed curve coincides with the AISI curve both of which produce
higher values than flexure theory.
8.5 Z 0.092
b = 2.5 in.
d = 8.5 in.
t = 0.092 in.
np = 15
L = 25 ft.
W = 52.5 kips
0.0000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
PLN (kips)
-10.0000
-20.0000
-30.0000
-40.0000
Roof Pitch (X:12)
11.5 Z 0.065
b = 3.5 in.
d = 11.5 in.
t = 0.065 in.
np = 4
L = 40 ft.
W = 18 kips
2.0000
0.0000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-2.0000
PLN (kips)
-4.0000
-6.0000
-8.0000
-10.0000
-12.0000
-14.0000
Roof Pitch (X:12)
Once again, small numbers of thin deep purlins should not produce significant system
effect. This is demonstrated by the close fit between the proposed curve and the flexure
theory curve and is considered validation of the proposed method.
wT L2
L1
w1 w2
Θ1 Θ2
FIGURE 1
Anchorage Force Transfer
Across Ridge
The uniformly distributed horizontal transfer of force across the ridge is dependant on
the values of w1 and w2 and the relative diaphragm stiffness on each side of the ridge.
The relative diaphragm stiffness is proportional to L1, L2 and Θ1 and Θ2. .
H
wNET = w1Cos (θ1 ) − w2 Cos(θ 2 ) Eq. 13
The resulting NET uniformly distributed forces on each side of the ridge are given by
equations 14 and 15
H
wNET L1P
w1NET = Eq. 14
(L1P + L2 P )Cos(θ1 )
H
wNET L2 P
w2NET = Eq. 15
(L1P + L2 P )Cos(θ 2 )
The in-plane loads derived above for each side of the ridge derived above are directly
applicable to the calculation of diaphragm shears and deflections. However, in order to
arrive at the resulting anchorage forces, it is necessary to convert the in-plane loads into
equivalent vertical loads so that the inherent system resistance can be accounted for.
The relationship between in plane diaphragm forces and vertical loads is given by
Equation 17.
⎡ I XY ⎤ Equiv
− plane = ⎢
winNET Cos (θ )(1 − 2nd n p ) − Sin(θ )⎥ wVert Eq. 17
⎣ IX ⎦
winNET
− plane
Equiv
wVert = Eq. 18
⎡ I XY ⎤
⎢ Cos (θ )(1 − 2nd n p ) − Sin(θ )⎥
⎣ IX ⎦
It should be noted that reversing purlins in conjunction with transferring forces across
the ridge must be done with caution. If too many purlins are reversed Equation 18 will
produce an extremely high equivalent vertical force and may result in a zero divide
error. In general, if more than a few rows of purlins are required to be reversed in
conjunction with force transfer across the ridge, the reversed purlin option should be
selected alone without across ridge transfer.
Transfer of in-plane forces across the ridge of a gabled roof produces vertical loads in
the ridge purlins. These loads are a function of the magnitude of the force transferred
and the roof slope.
wT
Uniform ridge
wNET purlin reaction
wRP
Θ
FIGURE 2
Ridge Purlin Loads
Figure 2 shows the uniformly distributed loads acting at the ridge purlin. The uniform
reaction along the ridge purlin (wRP) due to the in-plane NET diaphragm force and the
ridge transfer force is given by Equation 19.
Based on the sign convention shown in Figure 2, the uniform load on the ridge purlin will
be an uplift load. This will be the most common under gravity loading and hence will
tend to reduce the purlin gravity load. However, there are conditions that may cause the
loading to be downward. It is important to remember that the ridge purlin has a smaller
tributary area than the main roof purlins even though the purlin size may be the same.
As a result, the ridge purlins often have excess capacity and these forces will not be a
problem. However, these loads must be inspected to determine if the ridge purlin is OK.
The load delivered across the ridge is delivered uniformly to the ridge purlins at each
panel rib. For Panel Rib roofs the forces must pass through the #12-14 structural
fasteners. In the case of SSR, the loads must pass through each panel clip unless
through-fasteners are used at the ridge purlin. The capacity of the panel attachments at
each rib are given in Table 1.
TABLE 1
Nominal Capacity of Rib
Connection to Eave Purlins (1),(2)
Panel Type Pn (kips)
26 ga. PR 3.23
26 ga. PR-2 (3) 6.46
24 ga. PR 3.86
24 ga. PR-2 (3) 7.72
24 ga. SSR 1.70 (5)
(4)
24 ga. SSR-tf 7.72
24 ga. SLR 1.7 (5)
24 ga. SLR-tf (4) 7.72
Table 1 Notes:
1. Tabulated values are nominal strength values based on AISI Eq. E4.3.1-4 with FU = 65 ksi. For
ASD divide values by Ω = 3. For LRFD multiply values by Ǿ = 0.5.
2. Values are based on #12-14 structural fasteners. d = 0.216 inches.
3. PR-2 applies to Panel Rib with (2) fasteners per rib.
4. SSR-tf and SLR-tf applies to panels with (2) through-fasteners per rib.
5. Values for transfer through panel clips only are based on testing. One half of the tested values
are used to account for the fact that the test setup engaged more than one clip. The allowable
values have been multiplied by three to convert them to nominal strength values.
In addition to the rib attachment capacity, the capacity of the rib itself must be
considered. Equations 20, 21 and 22 provide rib capacities as a function of roof load.
These equations were developed based on data provided by the CFSTM program using
a maximum purlin space of five feet. Only the rib profiles themselves were modeled.
It is assumed that the ridge cap for all three panels is not capable of transferring any
force between the two ridge purlins. Therefore, special ties as shown in Figure 3 will be
used.
L2 x 2 x 1/8
L ≈ 3 ft.
F F
#12-14 SDF
FIGURE 2
Ridge Force
Transfer Detail
In Figure 2 the capacity of the tie angle will be governed by the shear strength of the
fasteners.
TABLE 2
Nominal Fastener Strength by Purlin
Thickness
Purlin Thickness Fn (kips)
(in.)
.059 2.41
.065 2.65
.073 2.98
.082 3.35
.092 3.76
.105 4.29
.120 4.74
Table 2 Notes:
1. Values are nominal strength based on AISI Eq. E4.3.1-2 and E4.3.1-3. For ASD divide by Ω = 3.
For LRFD multiply by Ǿ = 0.5
2. FU = 70 ksi for purlin material and 65 ksi for angle material. Capacity in the 0.120 purlins is
controlled by the angle material.
The force required to be resisted by each angle and the corresponding panel rib is the
uniform ridge transfer force, (wT), as defined above, times the angle spacing. Angles
should be spaced at even multiples of the panel rib spacing. For spacing greater than
the panel rib space, the panel diaphragm strength/stiffness will transfer the force in the
intermediate rib(s) to the angle location. If the angle connection, rib connection or rib
capacity is exceeded, the angles will need to be spaced more closely. In no case will
the angle spacing be less than the panel rib spacing.
Example:
Allowable force for SSR clip transfer = 1.7/3 = 0.57 kips < 2.0 kips NG
Æ Through-fasteners at ridge purlin will be required.