68 36 300-1-SEABC C13 Session 4 Stability 2PerPageColor

1
•1
Session 4
Stability and Other Limit States
SEABC C13
Structural Steel Design
October 5, 2023
Andy Metten, P.Eng, Struct.Eng.
•2
•C13 2022- Session 4 Stability Analysis •1

Couple of Comments on
Assignments
Must be submitted as PDF.
Please don’t submit:
Word files
JPG files
A zipped folder with JPG files!
•3
Make your Life Easier

1) Keep calculations brief.
2) Use tables where possible.
3) Mark up the PDF don’t copy out questions.
(People not doing this often claim assignments

take too long – should be 1-2 hr. max).
•4

2nd Assignment Solution
• Couple of errors in the solution set.
• Will be reposting the solution.
•5
Aim For Today’s Session

Philosophy of limit states and see how
stability fits in with this philosophy.
Chapter 1 (Limit States Design)
Chapter 2 (Loads)
Chapter 3 (Cantilever beam stability)
Chapter 9 (P-Δ & frame stability)
6
•6

Roof Beam Problem from
Assignment
Downward Snow
Beam tributary length=10m
Span = 8m
Mf=36.9kN/m*(8m)2 / 8 = 295 kNm Lu=2.0m 7
•7
Downward Snow Strength

Mf=36.9kN/m*(8m)2 / 8 = 295 kNm Lu=2.0m
W 460x52 best
W 410x54 also
works
8
•8

Roof Beam Problem from
Assignment
Upward Wind
Beam tributary length=10m

Span = 8m
Mf=6.3kN/m*(8m)2 / 8 = 50.4 kNm Lu=8m 9
•9
Upward Wind Strength

Mf=6.3kN/m*(8m)2 / 8 = 50.4 kNm Lu=8m
.
Mr’ at 8m = 63.6kNm* = 71.8 kNm (OK)
.
W410 x 54 and
W460x52 both work
10
•10

Downward Snow Deflection
W410x54 I=186
8000/23.25 = 344
11
•11
Choose a Beam
Factored Factored Up Deflection

Down Lu=2 Lu=8m
W410x39 Low Strength Low Strength Too Soft
W410x46 Low Strength OK Too Soft
W410x54 OK OK L/344
W410x60 OK OK L/399
W460x52 OK OK L/392
Least weight from above list is W410x60 but

W460x52 would be a better choice. 12
•12

Unbraced Beams Loaded at Top Flange
Use 1.0L for this:
Use 1.2L for this:
Use 1.4L for this:

•Brace
Pt.
13
L
•13
S16-19 Clause 13.6 5 5 pages of Unbraced Beams
•b) Double
Symmetric Class 3 &
•a) Double Symmetric Class 4
• c) Closed square and round
1&2
• d) Cantilever
•e) Single
Symmetric Class 1
&2&3
•f) Biaxial Bending
•Unbraced beam segments

loaded above shear center
between brace points 14
•14

•Loaded above shear center
•Loaded between brace points
•Load delivery does not provide lateral restraint
•Load delivery does not provide rotational restraint
•Load applied at level of top flange and not restrained by load:

•Use 𝜔 = 1.0
•Use 1.2 L if simple supported (i.e. M=0 at ends)
•Use 1.4 L other cases (i.e. beam segment with moment at end)
15
•15
For beam with joists attached to deck

What about using formula for
If near center and Mmax ~ Ma ~ Mb ~ Mc

Get:
•𝜔 = =1
•Very important point to note: Joists are attached to

the diaphragm so at each load point the
compression flange of the beam is stabilized. 16
•16

Unbraced Beams Loaded at Top Flange
(Not attached to a diaphragm)
Use 1.2L for Unsupported Length:

𝜔 =1.0
Brace Pt.
Use1.4L for Unsupported Length
𝜔 =1.0
L
17
•17
Top Flange Restrained Laterally By Diaphragm

Top Flange Loaded By Deck
(Zero moment at ends of beam)
Unsupported Length = 0
𝑈𝑠𝑒 𝑀𝑟
𝐷𝑜𝑛 𝑡 𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑: 𝜔
18
•18

Top Flange Restrained Laterally By Diaphragm
Top Flange Loaded Through Joists
(Zero moment at ends of beam)
Unsupported Length = L
𝑈𝑠𝑒 𝑀′ 𝜔 .𝑟
19
If Joist Spaced at 2.5m
•19
Topics for Today
1. Limit states for steel design

2. Philosophy of loads
3. Cantilever beam stability
4. Gerber framing system
5. Stability of individual elements
6. Frame stability
20
•20

References
 CISC Handbook
 Clause 9 covers stability of structures and
members
21
•21
References
 Roof Framing with Cantilever (Gerber)
Girders and Open Web Steel Joists, Canadian
Institute of Steel Construction, July 1989.
Put out by CISC after Save-On roof

failure – Can only get from AISC
website now
22
•22

References
 Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal
Structures (5th Edition) , Theodore Galambos,
John Wiley & Sons, July 1998.
23
•23
There is a 6th edition

Not possible
to figure
from 6th
edition some
of the points
we will
cover from
5th edition.
(C$254.70 from Amazon) 24
•24

Limit States for Steel
Structures
• Ultimate Limit States
• Serviceability Limit States
25
•25
Ultimate Limit States

• 1) Strength
• 2) Overturning
• 3) Sliding
• 4) Fracture (Fatigue limit state is crack propagation)
26
•26

Serviceability Limit States
• 1) Deflection
• 2) Vibration
• 3) Permanent deformation
27
•27
Typical Serviceability Check

• Check deflection under variable portion of
load.
– Deflection under live load.
– Deflection under snow load * (SLS=0.9)
Steel Does not creep – we do not include dead load

of structure in our deflection calculations.
(This is not wood or concrete)
28
•28

Compare to S16-Annex D
Consider “non-permanent” partition loading if

partitions to be added after finishes?
29
•29
Table of recommended maximums based on building type
30
•30

Non-Industrial Buildings
For the most part limit deflection to L/360.
L/300 will lead to complaints in quality buildings
31
•31
No guidance on combining wind

vertical loading and snow vertical
loading?
Important to do for strength but mostly just
interested in lateral wind deflections.
32
•32

1995 National Limit States Design
Building Code
Working Stress Design
In 1995 two
ways of
designing one
with “working
stress design”
one limit states
design.
4:15
33
•33
• Eliminated any reference to working stress

Task Force on combinations.
Wind and • They were taken out from:
– NBC 2005
Snow NBC
– NBC 2010
2005 – NBC 2015
34
•34

NBC 2020 – Lots of New
Material on Serviceability
20 years later
Working stress
load combinations
are back!
35
•35
Serviceability Combination Snow + Wind
Use 1.0S +0.3W

Should use the 0.9 SLS factor for snow
1.0(0.9S) + 0.3W 36
•36

Serviceability Limit State Protects You
If your design is too bouncy your client will

quickly forget the dollars he saved in
construction costs.
37
•37

What protects your building from falling down.
• Factored Resistance > Factored Loads
38
•38

Factored Resistance >
Factored Loads
Account for variability of
load with load factor.
Account for variability of
resistance with resistance factor.
39
•39
Most Useful for Gravity Load Design
Case Principal Load (2015) Companion Load

(2015)
2 (1.25D or 0.9D) +1.5L 1.0S or 0.4W
3 (1.25D or 0.9D) + 1.5S 1.0L or 0.4W
Will discuss more in a few minutes 40
•40

Think about the Loads
• Factored Resistance > Factored Loads
99% of your structural 1% of your structural

design effort (to many effort. Often chosen based
significant figures). on historical information
and in some cases may be
varied by 100%
41
•41
Dead Load
• Self weight of structure
• Extra for concrete on deflected structure?
• Partition load.
• Partition load not supposed to include:
– Mechanical / Electrical components
– Architectural finishes
42
•42

New for NBC 2020
If the building has earth and plants, we Line at right

are required to consider the earth and = new
plants as part of dead load.
43
•43
Partition Load 1kPa?

• Steel stud wall with gyproc both sides =
0.25 kPa per square meter of wall.
2.4m
2.4m 2.4m Create a whole
nest of 2.4m x
2.4m x 3m high
2.4m
rooms
• Partition weight = 2.4m x 2 x 3.0m *0.25

kPa / (2.4m x 2.4m) = 0.625 kPa
44
•44

New In NBC 2020
If partitions shown (e.g. school) then can use

calculated weight. If not shown (e.g. office
building) assume 1.0 kPa. 45
•45
Dead Load
Clause 7.1.1 requires the dead load to include
the “additional weight of concrete and
finishes resulting from deflections of
supporting members”
46
•46

Dead Load Counteracting
• All non-seismic combinations replace
1.25D with 0.9D
• Ignore partition load if relieving load
• Commentary E for the structural
commentaries says do not do skip dead
loading on floors.
47
•47
No Skip Dead Load

1.25Dead or 0.9 Dead
1.25Dead
0.9Dead 0.9Dead
48
•48

What do load factors cover:
• Minor Overload due to magnitude of load.
• Minor Overload due to distribution of load.
• Minor round-off in calculation
49
•49
What Load Factors Don’t cover:

• Gross errors in calculation
• Loads of excessively higher than designed
for.
• Deficiencies in the material
50
•50

The Load Factors Don’t cover this:
51
•51
Surrealism
René Magritte
L'Anniversaire,
1959
An architect would say it is surrealism because the bolder

obviously does not fit in the room while a structural
engineer says it is surrealism because of the discontinuity
between the load and the resistance of the floor.
52
•52

Where do Load Factors &
Combinations come from:
• National Building Code sets load
combination factors.
• Same for all materials.
• Extensive probability studies
53
•53
NBCC 2020 Load Cases

•Companion Action approach
Case Principal Load Companion Load
1 1.4D
2 (1.25D or 0.9D)+1.5L 1.0S or 0.4W
3 (1.25D or 0.9D)+1.5S 1.0L or 0.4W
4 (1.25D or 0.9D)+1.4W 0.5L or 0.5S
5 1.0D + 1.0E 0.5L or 0.25S
54
•54

Load Combination Results
2 (1.25D or 0.9D)+1.5L 1.0S or 0.4W
• 1.25D + 1.5L
• 1.25D + 1.5L + 1.0S
• 1.25D + 1.5L + 0.4W
• 0.9D + 1.5L
• 0.9D + 1.5L + 1.0S
• 0.9D + 1.5L + 0.4W
55
•55

3 (1.25D or 0.9D)+1.5S 1.0L or 0.4W
• 1.25D + 1.5S Similar to Case 2 but

with snow governing
• 1.25D + 1.5S + 1.0L
• 1.25D + 1.5S + 0.4W Last week’s roof
• 0.9D + 1.5S design load #1
• 0.9D + 1.5S + 1.0L
• 0.9D + 1.5S + 0.4W
56
•56

4 (1.25D or 0.9D)+1.4W 0.5L or 0.5S
• 1.25D + 1.4W Similar to Case 2 but

with snow governing
• 1.25D + 1.4W + 0.5L
• 1.25D + 1.4W + 0.5S Last week’s roof
• 0.9D + 1.4W design load #2
• 0.9D + 1.4W + 0.5L
• 0.9D + 1.4W + 0.5S
57
•57
Get lots of Load Combinations

• Need to only work with those that govern.
• Can dump all into computer or can think
• If looking at downward load on simple span
roof beam:
•1.25D + 1.5S + 0.4W Consider this
•0.9D + 1.5S + 0.4W Don’t bother

with this
(Looking for maximum down load and 1.25D on a
simple span beam is always worse than 0.9D) 58
•58

Load Cases to Ignore
• 1995 code used to say:
• “If it can be shown by engineering principles, or if
it is know from experience, that neglect of some or
all of the effects due to T does not affect the
structural safety and serviceability, they need not
be considered in the calculations”
(This no longer in Code)

59
•59
Live Load
• Not always easy to decide what is
appropriate loading.
• Building Code Table 4.1.6.3 gives loading
for various occupancies.
•60

Imagine designing a University
Lecture Classroom / Theater
Somewhere on this spectrum
•61
•62

Assembly Areas - Option a
• Classrooms or Courtrooms with or without
fixed seats:
• Live load = 2.4 kPa
•63
Assembly Areas Option b

• Portions of assembly areas with or without fixed
seats that have backs for the following use:
– Lecture Halls
– Live load = 2.4 kPa.
•64

Loading Choices for a University Theatre:
Assembly Auditoria 4.8 kPa

Lecture halls without
4.8 kPa
fixed seats with backs:
Classroom with or
2.4 kPa
without fixed seats
Lecture hall with fixed
2.4 kPa
seats with backs
100% difference in loading and not clear which to

choose
•65
Weight of People
Regulated Weight of US Airline Passengers

Including worn clothing and carry- on Baggage
Males Summer 200 lbs 0.88 kN
Males Winter 205 lbs 0.91 kN
Females Summer 179 lbs 0.80 kN
Females Winter 184 lbs 0.82 kN
4:30
•66

Loading Typical University Lecture
Theatre Estimate:
• Room say 10m x 15m = 150 sq. m.
• 75 people at 1kN each = 75kN
• 50 sets of hand luggage at 0.025kN (5 lb) each
=2kN
• 75 chairs and part desk at 0.2kN each = 15kN
• Total Wt = 75kN + 2 kN + 15 kN = 92 kN
• Loading = 92 kN / 150 sq. m = 0.6 kPa
•67
More than one occupancy

• Building Code clause 4.1.5.8 “Where an
area of floor or roof is intended or 2 or more
occupancies at different times, the value to
used from Table 4.1.5.3 shall be the greatest
value for any of the occupancies served”
68
•68

Very Crowded Conditions
(Before Social Distancing)
• Want a space of at least 3’ x 3’

• Average individual weight say 175 Lbs
• Gives 19 Psf = 0.9 kPa
• Many occupancy loads are derived from
historical precedent and what works from
serviceability requirements rather than
strength requirements.
69
•69
So Why Design for 4.8kPa

(100 Psf?)
Loads in Code “Historical” have been found to
work well in past.
• Not a lot of failures.
• Good “feel” – if design for 1 kPa very bouncy
• Works for most construction equipment.
• If something goes wrong you want to have
designed to the Code.
• If you design within the Code very, very good
chance nothing will go wrong. 70
•70

Why we
design
stairs for
4.8kPa
71
•71
However Some Loads Not Conservative
Mechanical areas are often much heavier loaded than the Code
would suggest
 Work out
loads from
Equipment
Lists 72
•72

Another Load that is Often
Unconservative
Offices above first story at 2.4 kPa is usually very insufficient for
most normal office with file storage.
Rolling file
storage can
get to 16 kPa
73
•73
What the Code is Saying is Both of These

Should be Designed for Same Loading:
Office Above Ground: 2.4 kPa School Classroom: 2.4 kPa
 As a responsible engineer you need to think about the loads and design in
for the expected loads – client very upset if they can’t use building for its
intended use.
Structure does not know what it was “supposed

to be designed for” only what the actual load is. 74
•74

Loads from Environmental
Forces
• Earthquake
• Snow
• Wind
• Temperature
• Foundation Settlement
75
•75
Loads from Environmental

Forces
• Earthquake
• Snow
• Wind
• Temperature
• Foundation Settlement
76
•76

Snow Load
• Based on 1/50 year return period
• 2% chance of being exceeded in one year.
• Does not include global warming effects
Life Of Building Probability of

Exceedence
50 Years 64%
75 Years 78%
100 Years 87%
77
•77
Snow Load
• Authority having jurisdiction sets values
• Vancouver Snow load Ss=1.8 Sr=0.2
• Granville and 41st Ss=1.9 Sr=0.3
•Granville and
•Vancouver 41st
Except
Granville and
41st
78
•78

Load Factor taking account?
• Vancouver Snow load Ss=1.8 Sr=0.2
• Granville and 41st Ss=1.9 Sr=0.3
• 1.8(0.8) + 0.2 = 1.64 kPa
• 1.9(0.8) + 0.3 = 1.82 kPa
• 1.82 / 1.64 = 1.10
79
•79
Can Get Sharp Changes in Snow

Load at boundaries
• Vancouver Snow • Burnaby Snow
Ss=1.8 Sr=0.2 Ss=2.9 Sr=0.7
(Based on snow at SFU)
80
•80

Only one of these is the “real” load
• This roof to be • This roof to be
designed for designed for
S=0.8(1.8)+0.2= S=0.8(2.9)+0.7=
1.64 kPa 3.02 kPa
81
•81
One option
• Get Environment Canada to do site specific
snow load. ($100).
• Can save $ Thousands in construction costs.
82
•82

Snow Roof collapses Europe 2004-2006
Poland: Jan 2, 2006 Moscow: Feb 23, 2006
German Ice Rink Jan 3, 2006 Moscow: Swimming Pool Feb 2004 83
All Photos: BBC Website
•83
Earthquake Since NBCC 2005

• Probability of being exceeded = 2% in 50
years
• Based on 1/2500 years return period
• Importance factor for schools and post
disaster buildings.
84
•84

Magnitude 7 event is similar to
Haiti where 250,000 killed
More than 10 events of magnitude 6.0 to
7.3 have occurred within 260 kM of
Vancouver since 1800.
Potential is that the smaller

frequent scattered events could
be up to magnitude 7.3.
•85
•85
Unintentional
Creation of seismic
events
86
•86

Seismic Risk For Fort Nelson is
rated as Low
• (But based on data that does not include “fracking”)
• If you are working on a project in Fort Nelson

would you consider higher earthquakes???
Currently there are several projects planned in the

area including a gas plant of approximate cost
$800Million - $1Billion 87
•87
Seismic Risk Based on Past Events

• What if we are doing something that
appears to increase the risk?
88
•88

Fracking and Seismic
Present thought from seismologists:
• Overall risk does not increase but may get

earlier release of smaller events.
•  Use values from Code for your design.
89
•89
Wind Loads
• NBCC 1965-1995
• q10 for deflection
• q10 for cladding strength
• q30 or q100 for strength of structure
• NBCC 2005 – 20??
• q50 for everything
– Iw wind importance factor
90
•90

Wind Effects in Permanent Structures Often
Expressed First in Non-Structural Items
• Windstorm Calgary Nov 27,

2011 (During Grey Cup being
held in Vancouver)
91
•91
Wind Load
• Takes complex problem and condenses with
charts.
Load factors give designer

confidence 92
•92

Please Don’t Say
“The Code specified load is the largest that
can ever occur”
Most Loads are Limited only by

what the Code feels is appropriate
93
•93
Wind pressure q
Probability of Probability of Probability of

Probability of
being being being
being exceeded in
exceeded per exceeded in exceeded in 75
100 years
year 50 years years
q10 10.0% 99.5% 100.0% 100.0%

q30 3.3% 81.6% 92.1% 96.6%
q50 2.0% 63.6% 78.0% 86.7%
q100 1.0% 39.5% 52.9% 63.4%
94
•94

Seismic Vs Wind Load
• Wind load has load factor (1.4).
• Seismic load factor 1 and then design load
reduced by RdRo
Life Of Building Wind Probability of Seismic
Exceeding listed value Probability of
Exceedence
50 Years 64% 2%
75 Years 78% 3%
100 Years 87% 4%
95
•95
Actual Wind Probability

• Q=1/2 ρ V2 = 1/2 (0.0012929)V2 (NBCC Appendix C)
• Q50=0.45 kPa V=26.4 m/sec
• Apply Load factor of 1.4 for wind
• What is return for Sqrt(1.4)* 26.4m/sec)= 31.2m/sec
Appendix C NBCC:
Get Return Period = 650 years

Less than seismic = 2,475 years 96
•96

Ponding Loads On Roof
Design for 1 day rain on roof or 30mm above
scuppers whichever is less.
97
•97
Temperature Loads
• Not much guidance in code.
• Depends on differential between erected
and in place
• Often ignored
98
•98

Settlement Loads
• No problem if entire building settles.
• Stresses depend on differential settlement
• Soils consultant provides differential values
• Often ignored unless on very soft soil
4:45
99
•99
Settlement Effects on Rigid

Construction
• Entire frame settling as a unit has not effect
on structural stresses.
100
•100

Settlement Effects on rigid
construction
• Rotation of entire frame as a unit has not
effect on structural stresses.
101
•101
Settlement Effects on Rigid

construction
• Settlement that distorts frame will result in
stresses
102
•102

Even differential settlement often
not a problem in steel structures
due to simple span construction.
•No Added stress in simple
span beams
•Column
Settles
103
•103
Conversion of Settlement Data to

Structural Forces
104
•104

NBC 2020 Combinations
T is not shown 105
•105
T in NBCC 2020
• If T affects structural safety add in with
load factor of 1.25
• Don’t combine with seismic loads.
106
•106

Load Distribution
• For snow: Building Code clause 4.1.6.3
requires for roofs of less than 15 degree
slope consider:
• 1) Full snow everywhere.
• 2) Full snow or half snow as produces worst
effect.
50% 100% 50%
107
•107
Even if were doing half snow

would still put on Load factor of
1.5 throughout
50% 100% 50% Service
Apply load Factor = 1.5
75% 150% 75% Factored
108
•108

Load Distribution
• For Live Load: Building Code clause
4.1.5.3 requires us to consider:
• 1) Full live everywhere.
• 2) Full live only on those parts which
produce the worst effect. (no live
elsewhere)
0% 100% 0%
109
•109
What about loads not in Code?
Roof failures from volcanic ash.

In Canada would be hard to justify to your client that
you were increasing your structure cost to
accommodate volcanic ash (might not be so hard in
Tonga). 110
•110

Loads – Please take this away
• We spend vastly more time in analysing the
building than we do in computing the loads.
• Occupancy loads are based on historical
design methods.
• Environmental design loads have great
probability of being exceeded during life of
structure.
• Effects of load change with distribution
111
•111
Resistance Factors
• Resistance factors for items with greatest
uncertainty have lowest numbers.
112
•112

• Resistance (Ø) factor for steel = 0.9
• Exceptions:
Item Symbol Value
Reinforcing Steel Ør 0.85
Bolts Øb 0.80
Shear Connectors ØSC 0.80
Beam web bearing interior Øbi 0.80
Beam web bearing exterior Øbe 0.75
Bearing of bolts on steel Øbr 0.75
Weld metal Øw 0.67
Anchor rods Øar 0.67
Concrete Øc 0.65
113
•113
Stability of Individual Members

• Two options:
• S16 Clause 9.2.6 – Detailed analysis.
• S16 Clause 9.2.5 – Simplified method brace
for 2% of force in compression flange or
chord at point of support.
114
•114

Stability
• Members in compression loose capacity as
the distance between support points
increases
115
•115
Stability of Individual Members

• Stabilize compression flange to prevent
lateral torsional buckling by attaching to
diaphragm. .
116
•116

S16 Detailed method
 *  o   b * C f
Pb 
L
• Requires an understanding of initial
imperfections.
117
•117
 *  o   b * C f
P 
Items in Equation b L
• Pb= Force in the brace
• 0 = Initial misalignment, taken as tolerance
for sweep or camber. The variation in
straightness for W sections with flanges
greater than 150mm is L / 1000.
• b = 0
118
•118

Items in  *  o   b * C f
Pb 
Equation L
Number of brace Beta

Points
1 2
2 3
3 3.41
4 3.63
Greater than 4 4
• Cf = Force in column or compression force

being braced.
• L = Length between bracing points.
119
•119
Example for a 10m long W 530x66 beam what is the

brace force required if it is braced at third points.
• Axial force in brace = ?

120
•120

• Compression force in flange =

164mm*11.4mm*350,000*0.9 *10-6 = 589 kN121
•121

• Braced at third points: Kb =  *  o   b * C f

Pb 
L
(  3.0) * (0.010m  0.010m) * (Cf  589KN)
 10.6KN
(L  10m / 3  3.33m)
10.6 kN / 589 kN = 1.8% of compression

flange force
122
•122

SIMPLIFYIED METHOD
minimum brace force it is braced at third points.
• Simplified method – use 2% force
• Compression force in flange =
164mm*11.4mm*350,000*0.9 *10-6 = 589 kN
Pb  0.02 * 589 kN  11.8kN
Round to 12 kN
123
•123
Make sure bracing strong enough
Also need load path to solid resistance if tie all

members together will buckle same direction.
124
•124

Members Stabilized by Metal
Deck
Clause 9.2.7 requires that beams stabilized by
a slab or deck shall be stabilized by a force
equal to 5% of the flange force distributed
over the length of the beam.
125
•125
Structural
Design of
the Gerber
Girder
Cantilever
System
(Filling the knowledge gap)
126
•126

Gerber Framing System
Very common steel roof framing system especially for retail and
warehouse use.
1
2
7
•127
Just What is Gerber Framing?
• Gottfried Heinrich Gerber invented the

Gerber Girder System in the 19th century.
128
•128

Was Originally Used in Bridge
Construction
Quebec Bridge (you might be wearing part of the

predecessors of this bridge)
129
•129
Advantages
• Drop in beam can be smaller than if standard
framing
• Cantilever moment reduces moment on interior
span
• Interior span deflections reduced by continuity.
130
•130

Disadvantages
• Takes more analysis to design
• Need to consider stability of system.
131
•131
Gerber Framing and Stability Case Study:

Save-On Foods at Station Square / Metrotown
132
•132

Save-On / Station Square
Roof Collapse
(Burnaby BC)
At 9:00 AM on the morning of April 23,

1988, customers were let into the store as
part of a grand opening sale for senior
citizens. Within 15 minutes of the opening
the roof had collapsed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Station_Square_coll
apse
5:00
133
•133
Collapse was on a Saturday

Morning – Papers on Sunday
Morning had figures showing what
went wrong.
Province Newspaper Day following the roof

collapse.
134
•134

Collapse Resulted in Detailed
Inquiry
Figures from: Commissioner Inquiry, Station Square Development, Burnaby, British Columbia. Report of the Commissioner Inquiry,
Station Square Development, Burnaby, British Columbia Inquiry Commissioner: Dan I. Closkey.
135
•135
There Have Been Other Halifax March 2015 in

“White Jean” Snowstorm
Similar Failures:
Texas
• Source: https://csengineermag.com/gerber-girders-from-
forensic-investigation-to-repairs/
Photos and text: Michel Comeau, M.Sc., P.Eng.
Campbell Comeau Engineering Limited (Halifax) 136
•136

These Three Failures All Show the Same Beam
– Column Issue:
Gerber Beam “rolls over” and web buckles at point of column

support
137
•137
A Quick Review of Stability

Stability – Point #1
Slender members in tension don’t buckle –
Slender members in compression will buckle
Tension
Compression
138
•138

Stability - Point #1 Result
If you brace the tension flange you don’t do much to
help the compression flange).
Unsupported top
flange in compression
and wants to buckle
Brace to bottom flange

(in tension) does not
help brace compression
flange
139
•139
140
Gerber System –
Unfortunately only some
of the brace points go to
compression flange
Top Flange Tension = Green
Bottom Flange
Compression = Red
140
•140

Stability Point #2: Unsupported Length
• Members in compression rapidly loose capacity as the
distance between support points increases
141
•141
• Point #3– Unsupported length of member can be greater
than the length of the member!
Cantilever Length
Effective unbraced
length of cantilever
can exceed length of
cantilever
142
142
•142

Inflection points are not necessarily points of
lateral support
Inflection points
can move and are
not points of lateral
support
143
•143
Stability Point #5
Bracing one element in compression to a similar

element in compression just makes both buckle the
same way but does not help prevent the buckling
occurring.
144
•144

Stability Point #6
P P
’
The force required to stabilize a compression

element is not large (~2% of compression force)
but you need to provide the load path.
(A small brace does a lot of stabilizing but no

2% P’
brace does not help you).
P P
’
145
•145
Beams Only partly restrained by diaphragm
Shear connections at
end not connected to
web not top flange of
beam
Drop in beam from Gerber framing system. Restrained only at locations shown. (Only place
it’s connected to anything so only hope of possible stability)
146
146
•146

Cantilever Beam Stability
Clause 13.6(d)
For cantilever beams, a rational
method of analysis taking
• Cantilever beams can buckle if not account the lateral support
controlled conditions at the support and tip
of the cantilever should be used.
147
•147
Effective
Unsupported
Length of
Cantilever
1989 CISC
publication
148
148
•148

A Beautiful Beam Column Intersection
1) Joist Connects top of

column to diaphragm.
2) Vertical stiffener in
beam at column location
3) Bottom Chord extension

on joist at column
Has the three things we are looking for at the column
149
•149
What K to use? (Zero Top Flange Load)

(100% of load through connection plate)
K=1.0
100% of cantilever load through shear tap no top flange load.
150
•150

What K to
use?
K=1.5 to 2.5
151
•151
What K to
use?
K=1.5 to 2.5
K=1.0
152
•152

Philosophy
• Stability should not be a numbers issue.
• Provide positive stability where required.
• Some engineers like to use a minimum K of 1.5 on cantilevers
• Use higher than K=1.5 where appropriate
My take: Go with the

most conservative
value of the K
provided by the
guides.
K=2.5
153
•153
Stability is Like Playing Hockey
The other team has the puck

in your endzone and is trying
to score– you want to get
that puck away from the net.
154
•154

Two Cases Where Getting High k
1) Evaluating Existing building without sufficient
stability helpers. Go with high k so that don’t get
false sense of security.
2) Designing New building – Add sufficient stability
helpers to get your k down.
155
•155
How to Design A Gerber System
1) Establish the Geometry and

loading
2m
12m 12m
156
•156

Design the drop in span
Design as any other roof beam:

a) Factored down load Factored (dead + Snow + wind down)
b) Factored up load Factored (Dead – wind uplift)
c) Check Serviceability
157
•157
Consider
Pattern
Loading
 Building Code clause 4.1.6.3 requires that we examine two load cases:
 1. Full snow load everywhere with appropriate factors applied.
 2. Use Ca=1.0 everywhere, use pattern loading of 100% and 50%
snow load to give the most unfavourable loading condition.
158
•158

Top Flange
Tension = Green
Bottom Flange
Compression = Red
159
•159
Station Square – Beam that

Failed Almost all in Negative
bending
160
•160

Gerber System – Design Back Span
• Check interior span – inflection point is not a brace point!

• Consider different load cases
• Take account of the stability
161
•161
Gerber System Design

Final Step – Make the Details Happy
Checklist:
 Bottom Chord Joist Extension YES
 Vertical Stiffener YES
 Joist support to top flange at cantilever tip YES
“Intellectuals solve
problems, geniuses prevent
them.” Albert Einstein
162
•162

Gerber System – What Matters #1
Provide positive bracing at column (top and bottom flange)
BAD GERBER GOOD GERBER
163
•163

Provide Web Stiffener at column
Web Stiffener
164
•164

The Web Stiffener is Really Important
No web stiffener is an issue with all of these failures.
165
•165
• Provide bracing at cantilever tip
5:15
5 166
•166

Gerber System – What Matters:
#4 Do Analysis with appropriate pattern Loading
167
•167

• Check cantilever span using appropriate k.
168
•168

• Check interior span – inflection point is not a brace point!
Interior Beam Moment
400
Factored Moment
200
Distance
(KNm)
0 Min
11
Max
-200
-400
Distance Along Beam
Watch out for Negative moment across full back-span
169
•169
Hopefully The Forgoing Gives An

Indication of How to Design
Gerber Framing
But put yourself in 1988.
170
•170

Put Yourself in the
Designer’s Shoes in 1988:
You are a young EIT recently graduated. You are working in a busy
structural engineering office. You have been given the job of
designing a roof system for a supermarket.
You are going to design a Gerber System roof

(because that is what everybody does)
Gerber Framing and cantilever beam stability has not been

discussed in your university classes.
Nobody has trained you how to do these designs.
171
•171
S16-M78 (Before Station Square)
No special flags for cantilever beams & no

mention of Gerber Framing using this edition of the
standard it would not have been unreasonable to
assume a cantilever beam is just like any other
unbraced beam.
172
•172

Clause 13.6 Covers Bending Resistance of Unsupported Beams
Clause 13.6(d)
Use rational analysis:
You are not quite sure what this is all about so you
go look in the references to try to find out. Not
much on Gerber framing published.
173
•173
What Does Your Design Look Like?
Would you know to:

• Add a vertical stiffener at the column?
• Consider the stability of the cantilever and use the correct unbraced length?
• Consider the stability of the backspan and figure the unbraced length?
174
•174

Now Put Yourself in 2017
• You are on the S16 Committee

• There are no specific Gerber Clauses in S16
• This is “the most common roof framing system” in
North America.
175
•175
Should you add Gerber Framing requirements to S16?
1. Do Nothing – keep status quo – (everyone should now

Options :
about this by now anyway)
Trouble is Gerber Framing is not being taught in school and

the engineers who have the knowledge are retiring or worse.
176
•176

Options
2) Provide
: methods of analysis and formulas in Code.
Trouble is Gerber Framing does not have good closed form

solutions that could appear in Code.
177
•177
3) Provide warnings in Code and more guidance in commentary.

Options:
At least this gives a warning and the S16-19 commentary

(Available only in the CISC Handbook 12th edition) has a full
page on Gerber Construction.
Only 12th edition has commentary

for Gerber Framing
178
•178

Solution – Add Clauses that Flag the Issue
S16-19:
179
•179
a) Look After the

Cantilever
(a) the stability and strength of the Gerber beam accounting
for the effect of rotational restraint at the column; rotational
restraint in the cantilevered span; relative lengths of cantilever
and back-span; and portion of load that is applied to the top
flange of the cantilever
180
180
•180

b) Look after the Web at the column
(b) the stability and strength of the web of the Gerber beam
at the column including the effect of stabilizing connections
to the bottom and top flanges and the presence of a
vertical stiffener
181
•181
c) Look After the Backspan
c)The stability and strength of the back-span of the Gerber beam

taking account of support conditions at bottom and top flange
and the shape of the moment diagram taking account of full and
partial loading.
182
•182

Why Not a Closed Form Solution?
Lots of debate about what formulas / methods to use.

Not everyone agrees with the methods presented today.
Hard to find a better solution that can be used reasonably in a design situation.
183
•183
Back to Save-On Foods:

Issues During Construction
During construction there were concerns about the structure.
Excessive deflection
Very “lively” / “bouncy” structure.
Reviewed by two consultants and found OK by using

higher strength from mill certificates.
184
•184

The Problem with Mill Certificates
Beam resistance formulas based on Specified Yield for grade of steel.
Formulas expect mill certificates to be higher than specified strength.
Due to residual stresses – test results will vary depending on where you
take test sample.
185
•185
How S16 covers (now)
 Not allowed to use mill certificates to increase capacity of beam.
186
•186

Result of Failure: Inquiry to the Roof Collapse
The provincial government

convened a Commissioner
Inquiry (Closkey Inquiry) to
look at causes of failure and
try to prevent occurring again.
After the failure & inquiry there

were several changes in the
structural design industry in
British Columbia and Canada.
187
•187
Inquiry Results: Load Calculation Errors

Enquiry finds several issues with the calculation of loads.
Loads had increased as design proceeded (concrete topping

increased, heavy concrete sidewalk added). Lighter weight option for
sidewalk not used by contractor.
Changes in loads not reflected in the design.
188
•188

Inquiry Results Resistance
Inquiry finds lots of issues with the beam resistance calculations 

Concentrated Research on Gerber Framing and Engineer Education
Unfortunately, much of this has faded away.
189
•189
Concerns About Consulting Industry

Practice
Fast-tracking – creates more chance for error.
Bidding for professional services, and
Fragmentation of contractual responsibility.
There were desires to have minimum fees so that professionals were chosen on
merit and service rather than fee driven. This desire still remains.
190
•190

Increased
Emphasis on
Checking
Concept reviews now a
mandatory part of
design.
Much more emphasis on

checking what has been
produced.
191
•191
Increased Experience Required for Structural

Engineers
Minimum years of experience to get a P.Eng. In BC raised from 2 years to 4 Years.
Increased emphasis in BC on getting additional education and mentoring during your EIT period.
Struct.Eng. Program introduced in BC requiring 10 years experience and exams to achieve.

Mandatory continuing education.
192
192
•192

Struct.Eng.
Higher designation than P.Eng. Required for

structural engineers for public buildings.
• Ten years of experience minimum.
• Write exams
• Continuing education requirement.
193
•193
Continuing Education For Structural Engineers
Codes change – how to keep current?

Subjects such as Seismic & Gerber design not taught in engineering schools.
Methods of analysis and design change.
 Continuing education program started with evening courses for structural engineers.
SEABC Courses continue to this day.
194
•194

Another Issue
Treatment of bolted joist connections
Can the bolt holes lead to fracture in

tension zone?
(Apparently in Quebec have to bolt all joists in

place (“it’s the law”))
195
•195
Montreal Failure
Photos courtesy: Elie Chakieh, P.Eng, ing., M.Eng. BDS Director of Engineering & Expertise
E.E.Chakieh Consultants Montreal, QC
196
•196

Effect of Bolt Holes to Secure Joists
197
17mm holes for

5/8” bolts to
secure joists
Simple Span Beam (Tension at

bottom Compression at top))
• Above from shop drawing on one of our
jobs  bolting can happen in BC.
197
•197
First Question:
Do the bolt holes reduce the capacity at the critical section?
(Are we taking away moment capacity at the critical section?)
What S16-19 says:
If bolt hole in compression  No worries as long as stuffed standard bolt

hole.
If bolt in tension  Max 15% of flange permitted.
198
•198

Typical Simple Span Beam
199
17mm holes for

5/8” bolts to
secure joists
Simple Span Beam
(Tension at bottom
Compression at top)
• Bolt in compression so no worries
199
5:30
•199
How About our Gerber System?
Joist Connection
in Tension Zone
• To take away only 15%

• 5/8” bolt: 17mm hole 2 bolts need a 226mm flange
• ¾” bolt: 22mm hole 2 bolts need a 293mm flange
200
•200

Say Have Gerber Girder W530x74
• Flange width = 166mm (Flange thickness = 13.6mm)
• Shop drawings come back with 2 – 5/8” bolts (2x17mm
holes)
Flange reduction = 2*17mm / 166mm = 20%

(Does not work by 14.1.2)
Flange Gross Area = ØAgFy= 0.9*166*13.6*350/1000 = 711 kN
Flange Net Area = ØuAnFu

0.75*(166-2(17))*13.6*450/1000 = 605 kN
(The 15% is generous at 15% you still get net section failure)
(Get net section failure) 201
•201
For 15% flange Reduction with 2 bolt holes:
Min Flange Width

Hole Size
for 2 bolts
½” Bolt 14mm 186mm
5/8” Bolt 17mm 226mm
Often “most efficient” beams have
skinny flanges: ¾” Bolt 22mm 293mm
W610x82 bf=178mm By S16-19 can’t even

use ½” bolt in these
W530x74 bf=166mm
W530x66 bf=165mm
202
•202

Next Question:
If the bolt holes do reduce the capacity who should fix

the issue?
• A) Engineer should have oversized beam based on assuming bolts.
• B) Detailer should tell fabricator to add extra plates to help beam.
• C) Joist supplier should just use welded connections.
My Take: Design engineer using Gerber System should account for

possibility of bolt holes for joist fastening and state maximum size of
bolt holes that can be used without adding reinforcing on drawing.
203
•203
Second Way: Select Beam With Sufficient

Capacity Such that Net Section works
Looking for 368kNm at the column – tension in top flange
Beam Mr Mr’ Flange Max bolt Size for
Lu=4.0m Width 15% flange W460x74
(mm)
bf=190
W610x82 683 kNm 443kNm 178 <1/2”
tf=14.5
W530x74 562 kNm 357kNm 166 <1/2”
d=457
W460x74 469 kNm 379kNm 190 ½”
W360x91 522 kNm 513 kNm 254 5/8”
Web moment resistance adds: Try: W460 with two 1/2” bolts
ØFyZ=0.9(345MPa)(412)= 128kNm
Flange Net Area = ØuAnFu
0.75*(190-2(14))*14.5*450/1000 = 793 kN
Mr~793kN*(.457-0.0145) + 128kNm = 350 kNm + 128kNm = 478kNm
(Net Section Mr slightly greater than gross section - OK)
204
(Should say on drawings “Maximum ½” diameter bolt for fastening joists”)
•204

Bolt Holes in Gerber Beam Flanges
• Bolt holes in tension zone do make a difference
• Can govern design if think of allowing for bolts
• In example better solution choose a beam not in the bold
sections – wider flange is better – gives more stability and
better option for bolts.
• State on drawings maximum bolt size permitted.
Best option
Maximum Joist fastening Bolt = ½”
205
•205
What’s Happening to Gerber System Now
• Included in S16-19 which is being used more as projects move to NBC 2020.
• University of Alberta Testing Program.
• Talks on Gerber Framing such as this.
• Both UBC and BCIT teach Gerber system in their undergrad steel course.
• Textbooks cover Gerber framing
All of today’s session covered in
this book (except the bolt bit)
206
•206

University of Alberta Steel Centre
Doing Extensive Study on Gerber Design
Advisory Committee Members:

Charles Albert, Elie Chakieh, Hesham Essa, Michael Holleran, Mark Lasby, Andy
Metten, Samuel Richard, Elie Saint-Onge, Michael Samuels, Logan Callele and Alfred
Wong
•207
•207
Structural
Design of
the Gerber
Girder
Cantilever
System
(Filling the knowledge gap)
208
•208

Sample Problem – Two
Span Beam With Cantilever
Numbers covered in Structural

Steel for Canadian Buildings
For talk let’s cover principals
209
•209
What We Want to Do:

1. Determine loads using appropriate pattern
loading
2. Check cantilever using appropriate unsupported
length and consideration of lateral buckling.
3. Check backspan using appropriate unsupported
length.
4. Check support at column – add vertical stiffener.
5. Check Serviceability.
210
•210

Find K for
Cantilever
• Restrained top &
bottom at root.
• Restrained at top at tip
• Loads from top flange
211
•211
Six Load Cases to Consider
Case Live Load Dead Load

#1 Live Load both Spans 1.25 D
#2 Live Load Cantilever Only 1.25D
#3 Live load Interior Span Only 1.25D
#4 Live Load both Spans 0.9D
#5 Live Load Cantilever Only 0.9D
#6 Live load Interior Span Only 0.9D
212
•212

Resulting Moment Curves
213
•213
Next:
1. Check cantilever using appropriate unsupported
length and consideration of lateral buckling.
2. Check backspan using appropriate unsupported
length.
3. Check support at column – add vertical stiffener.
4. Check Serviceability.
Won’t go through numbers here but
this is where you find this.
214
•214

P-Delta Effects
• An issue in flexible structures
especially those that are moment frames
or cantilevered structures
215
•215
P-Delta – Axial load offset from

base
Vertical load
results in lateral
movement
216
•216

Sometimes you
want the P-Delta
Artist: Liz Magor
look Foundry: Steve Harman
217
•217
P-Delta Effects
V * H 3 6 KN * (5m) 3
   0.083m
3 * EI 3 * 200 *15.1
M =V*H + P* Δ = (6kN * 5m) + (25 kN * 0.083m)

= 30 kNm + 2.08 kNm = 32.1 kNm 218
•218

Use Clause 8.6.1 as an amplification factor for
multiplying the results of a first order analysis to
obtain the second order results.
1
U2 
 C f  f 
1  
 V f h 
1
U2   1.07
 25KN * 0.083m 
1 
 6 KN * 5m 
Mf=Mfy + U2 Mft = 30 kNm + 1.07*(2.08 kNm) = 32.2 kNm

(OK less than Mr of 74.7 kNm) 219
•219
P-Delta By Computer:
Delta = (0.083 * 1.074) = .089 (PFrame gives 90.3mm)

M= 30 kNm +1.07(25kN*.083m) = 32.23 kNm
(PFrame gives 32.3 kNm 220
•220

Overly flexible problems –
Beware of U2 > 1.4
1
U2 
 C f  f 
1  
 V f h 
1
U2   2.239
 200 KN * 0.083m 
1  
 6 KN * 5m 
221
•221
Notional Loads - 8.7.2

The translational load effects produced by notional lateral
loads, applied at each story, equal to 0.005 times the
factored gravity loads contributed by that storey, shall be
added to the sway effects for all load combinations.
•Factored D+L
0.005 * Factored
Gravity Load
222
•222

Moment Frames – Get load at
each floor to start P-Delta Load
0.005 * Factored
Gravity Load Roof
0.005 * Factored
Gravity Load level 2
223
•223
Calculate the Notional Loads Under

Factored Dead + Live + Snow
Snow = 0.0 kPa

Dead = 4.7kPa
Live = 4.8 kPa
224
•224

Calculate the Notional Loads - Roof
Under Factored Dead and Live & Companion Snow
13kN Snow = 1.7 kPa

? Dead = 1.6kPa
Live = 1.0 kPa
Total Notional Load on roof level:

= 0.005(1.25(Dead) + 1.5(Live) + 1.0(Snow))
= 0.005(1.25(1.6kPa) + 1.5(1.0kPa) + 1.0(1.7kPa)) * (22.5m x 45m) = 26.3kN
As a uniformly distributed load = 26.3kN/45m = 0.59kN/m
225
•225
Calculate the Notional Loads - Floor

Under Factored Dead and Live & Companion Snow
13kN Snow = 0.0 kPa

33kN Dead = 4.7 kPa
Live = 4.8 kPa
Snow = 0.0 kPa
Dead = 4.7kPa
Live = 4.8 kPa
Total Notional Load on Floor level:

= 0.005(1.25(Dead) + 1.5(Live) + 1.0(Snow))
= 0.005(1.25(4.7kPa) + 1.5(4.8kPa) + 1.0(0.0kPa)) * (22.5m x 45m) = 66.0kN
As a uniformly distributed load = 66kN/45m = 1.47kN/m
226
•226

Notional Loads Must be
Considered With All Load Cases
1.25D+1.5L + 1.0S
13kN
33kN
1.25D+1.5L + 1.0S
227
•227
Overall Frame Stability

 Design for local buckling of individual
members may not insure stability of overall
frame.
 Differs from P-Delta analysis in that it is
not necessary to laterally displace the
structure to get a buckling failure.
228
•228

Overall Frame Stability
 2 ( EI )
Pcrit 
( KL) 2
 2 ( 200 * 15.1)
 298KN
(2.0 * 5m) 2
229
•229
Computer Buckling Analysis

Results for first
buckling mode.
Buckling Force =
200 kN * 1.49935
= 299.9 kN
Compares well
with 298 kN
found by hand
analysis.
230
•230

Ultimate Limit States - Fatigue
• NBCC / BCBC Clause 4.1.3.3
• “A building and its structural components
shall be checked for serviceability limit
states as defined in Clause 4.1.3.1(1)(a) and
fatigue under the effect of the specified
loads as required in the standards described
in Section 4.3.”
231
•231
Building Code Clause 4.3 –

Material Standards
• 4.3.1 Wood  086.1  No fatigue
• 4.3.2 Masonry  S304  No fatigue
• 4.3.3 Concrete  A23.3  No Fatigue
• 4.3.4 Steel  S16-14  Clause 26
5:45 232
•232

S16 – Clause 26
• Clause 26.1
• “The life of the structure shall be taken as
50 years unless otherwise stated.”
• Clause 26.3.5
• Generally ignore fatigue if number of cycles
is less than 20,000.
233
•233
20,000 in 50 years
• The number of “stress cycles” per day must
average
20,000Cycles
 1.1Cycles / day
50Years * 364 Days
234
•234

Clause 26.1
• “Members subjected to fatigue loading shall
be designed, detailed, and fabricated so as
to minimize stress concentrations and
abrupt changes in cross section”
235
•235
Fatigue Requirements
• Number of Cycles
• Significant Stress Range
• Stress range includes tension (not an issue
for compression only)
• For most buildings both are considered low
and fatigue is ignored.
• Fatigue is an issue in industrial buildings
with crane rails and in bridge design.
236
•236

Bridge Cable Fatigue Testing
ALRT Bridge (Skybridge)
237
•237
Ultimate Limit State-Overturning

• Generally an issue with the support of
lateral elements
• Clause 6.3.2 tells you take care of the
situation.
238
•238

Geotechnical Issue
239
•239
Ultimate Limit State-Sliding

• Generally an issue with the support of
lateral elements (eg: Cantilever retaining
walls).
• Nothing in the steel code
240
•240

Serviceability Limit States -
Deflection
• Worked out using service live load only.
• No dead load included.
• Use S16 Annex D to find “acceptable”
values.
241
•241

Vibration
• Long span, light structures affected.
• Clause 6.3.3 refers to dynamic loading
• S16-14 - Annex E gives reference to use for
calculation and guide.
• See discussion from Session 2
242
•242

Permanent Deformation
• Used to be covered directly in Code
• Composite beams that are unshored during
construction must not have stresses that
exceed Fy.
• Slip critical joints to be proportioned to
carry loads without slipping.
• Generally trying to keep beams below Fy
under “normal” circumstances
• No longer covered as separate issue.
243
•243
•CISC Publication – Free Download 244
•244

Caracas October 2004 –
Uncontrolled fire steel high-rise
No Total Collapse
245
•245
Fire Effects
•Reduction in strength 50% at 600oC
•Reduction in stiffness 70% at 600oC
•Increased elongation
246
•246

Fire Protection
•Active:
•Sprinklers
•Fire Department
•Passive:
•Spray Fire proofing
•Thickness of concrete topping on deck
•Non-combustible construction
247
•247
Occupied Floors usually need to be

fire rated – unoccupied roofs don’t
•Columns and beams

of Unoccupied roof
unrated
•Columns and beams

of Occupied Floor
Fire rated 248
•248

Roof beam –
needs to be fire
rated if supporting
occupied floor
Floor will need to

be fire rated
249
•249
Fire aspects from designer’s

standpoint
•Some fire assemblies
use 115mm reinforced •Design load
topping on deck rather implications
than fire proofing deck
= 2 hour rating
•115mm
250
•250

Fire aspects from designer’s
standpoint
•Some fire assemblies •Structural size
require minimum M/D implications
ratios for beams and
columns.
SI (kg /m / m) Imperial (Lb/ft/in)

Designation
Beam Column Beam Column
W200
x42 47.6 40.0 0.813 0.683
x36 41.4 34.8 0707 0.594 251
•251
Column mass may have to

accommodate rating
Minimum wall thickness of HSS 127x127 steel column to satisfy the
fire resistance rating of
Fire Proofing Minimum 1 Hour Fire 2 Hour Fire

Thickness of Resistance Resistance
Type X Gyproc Rating Rating
1 layer 5/8” 15.9mm HSS 127X127 x Not Possible
Type X 8.0
2 layer 5/8” 31.8mm HSS HSS
Type X 127x127x4.8 127x127x13
252
•252

Intumescent Paint – exposed steel
that needs fire rating
•It is not uncommon

for fires to start in
buildings due to
welding
253
•253
Thank you for being here
Next Week– Deck Design
Next week almost all from

Chapter 7
254
•254

68 36 300-1-SEABC C13 Session 4 Stability 2PerPageColor

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

68 36 300-1-SEABC C13 Session 4 Stability 2PerPageColor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

•C13 2022- Session 4 Stability Analysis •1

Make your Life Easier

(People not doing this often claim assignments

•C13 2022- Session 4 Stability Analysis •2

Aim For Today’s Session

Chapter 1 (Limit States Design)

•C13 2022- Session 4 Stability Analysis •3

Mf=36.9kN/m*(8m)2 / 8 = 295 kNm Lu=2.0m 7

Downward Snow Strength

•C13 2022- Session 4 Stability Analysis •4

Beam tributary length=10m

Mf=6.3kN/m*(8m)2 / 8 = 50.4 kNm Lu=8m 9

Upward Wind Strength

•C13 2022- Session 4 Stability Analysis •5

Factored Factored Up Deflection

Least weight from above list is W410x60 but

•C13 2022- Session 4 Stability Analysis •6

Use 1.0L for this:

Use 1.2L for this:

Use 1.4L for this:

S16-19 Clause 13.6 5 5 pages of Unbraced Beams

•f) Biaxial Bending

•Unbraced beam segments

•C13 2022- Session 4 Stability Analysis •7

•Load applied at level of top flange and not restrained by load:

For beam with joists attached to deck

If near center and Mmax ~ Ma ~ Mb ~ Mc

•Very important point to note: Joists are attached to

•C13 2022- Session 4 Stability Analysis •8

Use 1.2L for Unsupported Length:

Top Flange Restrained Laterally By Diaphragm

•C13 2022- Session 4 Stability Analysis •9

(Zero moment at ends of beam)

Topics for Today

1. Limit states for steel design

•C13 2022- Session 4 Stability Analysis •10

Put out by CISC after Save-On roof

•C13 2022- Session 4 Stability Analysis •11

There is a 6th edition

(C$254.70 from Amazon) 24

•C13 2022- Session 4 Stability Analysis •12

Ultimate Limit States

•C13 2022- Session 4 Stability Analysis •13

Typical Serviceability Check

Steel Does not creep – we do not include dead load

•C13 2022- Session 4 Stability Analysis •14

Consider “non-permanent” partition loading if

Table of recommended maximums based on building type

•C13 2022- Session 4 Stability Analysis •15

For the most part limit deflection to L/360.

L/300 will lead to complaints in quality buildings

No guidance on combining wind

•C13 2022- Session 4 Stability Analysis •16

• Eliminated any reference to working stress

•C13 2022- Session 4 Stability Analysis •17

Serviceability Combination Snow + Wind

Use 1.0S +0.3W

•C13 2022- Session 4 Stability Analysis •18

If your design is too bouncy your client will

Ultimate Limit States

•C13 2022- Session 4 Stability Analysis •19