Download - 2012.08.08 - Masonry Building Design
MASONRY BUILDING
An Overview of Masonry Building Design Methods
Presented by Scott W. Walkowicz, P.E., NCEES
Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC
SE University, August, 2012 www.LearnWithSEU.com 1
MASONRY BUILDING DESIGN
� To know the basic requirements for a masonry structured building� To know key changes in recent masonry code
updates
Learning Objectives
� To understand the specific defining limits and requirements related to different masonry elements
� To recognize the benefits of whole building or wall software
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 2
� Overview
� Software Overview
� Introduce the Example Building
Lintel Design
Seminar Outline
� Lintel Design
� Jamb Strip Design
� Bearing Wall Design
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 3
� Gravity and lateral loads
� Elements
� Sidetrack (s)….
Overview
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 4
� Gravity load path� First act on horizontal members:
� Roof or floor plates
� Transfer to beams
� Then to girders
Gravity and Lateral Loads
� Then to girders
� Then transfer to vertical elements� Columns
� Walls
� Terminate at foundations where they transfer to the earth
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 5
Diagram Credit: Luebkeman and PetingDiagram Credit: Luebkeman and Peting
Gravity and Lateral Loads
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 6
� Buildings must also resist lateral loads� Wind
� Seismic
� Fluid
Gravity and Lateral Loads
� Fluid
� Earth
� Act horizontally
� Cause sliding and/or overturning� Individual elements
� Building as a whole
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 7
� Lateral load path� First act on vertical surfaces perpendicular to
their direction
� Transfer load to horizontal supports
Gravity and Lateral Loads
� Foundation
� Floor plates
� Roof plate
� Flow through horizontal supports to vertical elements parallel to the load’s direction
� Transfer through to foundation
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 8
Gravity and Lateral Loads
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC
Diagram Credit: IMI InternationalDiagram Credit: IMI International
9
� Joints
� Connections
� Walls
Columns
Elements
� Columns
� Piers
� Beams
� Pilasters
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 10
� Not going to design joints today…
� May avoid joints with horizontal reinforcement
When using joints:
Joints
� When using joints:� Place to minimize and control cracking
� Utilize vertical control joints
� Utilize vertical and horizontal expansion joints
� Move them off openings in structural wythes
� Locate them in drawings and detail them
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 11
� Not going to design connections today…
� Must connect the walls receiving load to the diaphragm
� A 25’ tall wall with 20 psf wind load
Connections
� A 25’ tall wall with 20 psf wind load generates 250 lbs./ft. at top connection
� If anchors are at 4’ = 1000 lbs./anchor
� Compression and
� Tension
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 12
� Must connect the diaphragm to the lateral load resisting elements
� Shear
� A 25’ tall building that is 100’ long with 2 –
Connections
� A 25’ tall building that is 100’ long with 2 –40’ long shear walls and 15 psf MWFRS load generates 190 lbs./ft. of shear at the diaphragm connection
� If anchors are at 4’ = 760 lbs./anchor
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 13
� Pay attention to capacity and stiffness
� Axial
� Tension
� Compression
Connections
� Compression
� Unbraced length
� Eccentricity
� Shear
� Flexural
� If bridging cavities or other voids with transverse displacement
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 14
� Vertical Element
� Horizontal length : Thickness > 3 : 1
� Used to enclose space
Walls
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 15
� Vertical Element
� Not a wall: Length = 3 * nom. thickness
Walls
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 16
� Vertical Element
� Wall example:
Walls
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 17
� Vertical Element
� Wall example:
Walls
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 18
� Note:
� Within a wall…
� No confinement ties unless…
The reinforcement is being utilized
Walls
� The reinforcement is being utilized (through transformed section analysis) to resist axial compression
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 19
� An ISOLATED vertical member� Like at the corner of a Porte-cachere
� Not referring to seismic isolation
� Horizontal dimension : Thickness ≤ 3 : 1
Columns
� Horizontal dimension : Thickness ≤ 3 : 1
� Height : Thickness > 4 : 1
� Grouted solid – SD only
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 20
� Prescriptive confinement ties (≥ #2)
� Min. / max. longitudinal reinforcement
� Slenderness limit on height (ASD: 25 or SD: 30 * nominal dimension)
Columns
SD: 30 * nominal dimension)
� Minimum eccentricity (ASD: 0.1*dim.)
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 21
Columns
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC
� Minimum Height and Maximum Length for an 8” nominal column thickness
22
Columns
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 23
� An ISOLATED vertical member� Not between windows
� Special case conceptually between walls and columns
� Strength Design only
Piers
� Strength Design only
� Load limit (0.3*An*f’m)
� Horizontal dimension : Thickness > 3 : 1 and ≤ 6 : 1
� Height : Length < 5 : 1
� No prescriptive confinement ties
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 24
Piers
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 25
Piers
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 26
� No specific definition
� Longitudinally reinforced
� May have transverse reinforcement
� Laterally braced at 32 x Thickness
Beams
� Laterally braced at 32 x Thickness
� Deflection control only to protect strength and serviceability
� l/600 for support of unreinforced masonry
� Do NOT require solid grout
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 27
� No specific definition
� Typically vertical spanning flexural element with walls spanning horizontally between
Pilasters
horizontally between
� Longitudinally reinforced
� May have confinement ties, if� Longitudinal reinforcement is utilized to resist axial
compression
� If unbonded and meet column criteria or to bond with wall wythe
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 28
� 2008 MSJC Adopted with 2009 IBC
� TMS now the lead sponsor
� Major changes� Relocation of certain information
Sidetrack… 1.
� Relocation of certain information
� Structural corbels allowed
� Removed 0.3” deflection for beams supporting unreinforced masonry
� Explicit Ieff requirements
� Light column provisions
� Self Consolidating Grout (SCG) added
� See “Transition Guide” published by TMS
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 29
� 2011 MSJC Adopted with 2012 IBC
� Major changes� Side by side layout with commentary
� 1/3 stress increase eliminated with stress
Sidetrack… 2.
� 1/3 stress increase eliminated with stress recalibrations
� ASD shear stress provisions significantly reworked
� Coordinated with ASCE 7-10
� AAC moved to Chapter 8 (from Appendix A)
� Design of Masonry Infill added as Appendix B
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 30
� Special Inspection
� Are they required?
� Put a list in the drawings?
What else?
Sidetrack… 3.
� What else?
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 31
Int’l Building Code
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 32
� Chapter 17
IBC 2009 Special Inspections
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 33
� Chapter 17
IBC 2009 Special Inspections
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 34
� Chapter 17
IBC 2009 Special Inspections
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 35
� Example Design of a Single-Story Building
� Masonry Structures Behavior and Design, 3rd Addition (Drysdale & Hamid)
Introduce the Example
Design, 3rd Addition (Drysdale & Hamid)
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 36
Introduce the Example
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 37
� 16.5 Example Design of a Single-Story Building (p. 655 ff)� 147’-4” x 96’-0”
� Single-story, T.O.M. = 18’-0” with no parapet
Introduce the Example
� Single-story, T.O.M. = 18’-0” with no parapet
� Small interior two-story office area
� Modify to Lansing, MI location
� Modify wind per ASCE 7-05
� Modify control joint layout to non-lintel ends per NCMA TEK 10-3
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 38
Introduce the Example
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 39
Introduce the Example
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 40
Introduce the Example
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 41
Graphic Credit: MIMGraphic Credit: MIM
Roof Framing Plan
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 42
West Elevation
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC
Graphic Credit: MIMGraphic Credit: MIM
43
North and South Elevations
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC
Graphic Credit: MIMGraphic Credit: MIM44
North and South Elevations
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC
Graphic Credit: MIMGraphic Credit: MIM
45
� Hand Calculations
� Component
� Whole Building
Analysis Introduction
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 46
� A combination of calculations and tabulated data…
� Current code provisions and values?
� Less time requires simplification and
Hand Methods…
� Less time requires simplification and assumption
� Simplification and assumption lead to conservatism
� Conservatism leads to inefficiency
� Inefficiency adds cost and time to projects
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 47
� Structural Masonry Design System (SMDS)
� Enercalc
Quick Masonry
Component Software
� Quick Masonry
� Digital Canal
� Many others….
� We’ll use SMDS
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 48
� Some more accurate than others
� Some very inaccurate and even unconservative
Limited applications
Component Software
� Limited applications
� Multiple evaluations required
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 49
� Ram Elements
� RisaMasonry
� We’ll use Ram Elements…
And Ram Structural System
Whole Building Software
� And Ram Structural System
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 50
� Ram Elements for Masonry Design
� Build model in Ram Structural System
� Rapid generation
� Grid lines and Story Levels
Whole Building Software
� Grid lines and Story Levels
� Easy member and material designation
� Easy generation of openings
� Easy modification
� Generate Seismic and Wind Shear Story Loads
� Direct interface with Revit
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 51
� Ram Elements for Masonry Design
� Build model in Revit
� Technician generation
� Single model path with documentation
Whole Building Software
� Single model path with documentation model
� Bi-directional integration with Revit through Structural Synchronizer
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 52
� Build model in Ram Structural System
� Some drawbacks to consider� Wind loads may be higher than necessary
� Cannot designate walls as masonry
Whole Building Software
� Cannot designate walls as masonry
� Stories interrupt entire levels even when partial areas
� Out-of-plane pressures are not applied and do not transfer to RE (only story lateral forces and gravity loads)
� Once in RE will require some modifications
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 53
� Before we begin
� Must determine basic loads� Dead Load
� Live Load
All Methods…
� Snow Load
� Wind Load
� Seismic, etc…
� Then…
� We’ll look at several element designs using various methods
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 54
� Roof Dead Load:
� Roof membrane (60 mil EPDM): 0.4 psf
� Insulation (2” polyiso + ½” fiberboard): 1.7 psf
� Deck (1.5 B 22): 1.8 psf
Basic Loads
� Deck (1.5 B 22): 1.8 psf
� Joists (30K10 at 6’ o.c. – 12 plf): 2.0 psf
� Mech/Elect/Misc: 5.0 psf
� Total Dead Load: 10.9 psf
Say: 11.0 psf
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 55
� Roof Live Load (ASCE 7-05):
� 20 psf base live load (reducible)
� To the perimeter walls: Joist Tributary areas:
� 6’ spacing
58’ span maximum
Basic Loads
� 58’ span maximum
� 6’ x 58’/2 = 174 SF – not eligible for reduction
� Use 20 psf
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 56
� Roof Snow Load (ASCE 7-05):
� Pf = 0.7 x Ce x Ct x I x Pg
� Ce = 1.0 (Table 7-2, Partially exposed, Terrain Category B or C)
Basic Loads
� Ct = 1.0 (Table 7-3, standard roof performance)
� I = 1.0 (Table 7-4, Occupancy Category II, Table 1-1)
� Pg = 30 psf (Figure 7-1)
� Pf = 0.7 x 1.0 x 1.0 x 1.0 x 30 = 21 psf
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 57
� Wind Load - MWFRS (ASCE 7-05):
� Simplified Method
� Ps = λ x Kzt x I x PS30
� λ = 1.26 (Figure 6-2, Interpolated, Exposure C)
Basic Loads
� λ = 1.26 (Figure 6-2, Interpolated, Exposure C)
� Kzt = 1.0 (Section 6.5.7.2)
� I = 1.0 (Table 6-1, Category II)
� PS30-C = 8.5 psf (Figure 6-2, Area C, 90 mph, flat roof)
� Ps = 1.26 x 1.0 x 1.0 x 8.5 = 10.71 psf
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 58
� Wind Load - MWFRS (ASCE 7-05) – In-plane loads:
� Analytical Method
� qz = 0.00256 x 0.882 x 0.85 x 902 x 1.0 = 15.55 psf
Basic Loads***
� qz = 0.00256 x 0.882 x 0.85 x 90 x 1.0 = 15.55 psf
� Ps = 15.55 x 0.85 x (0.8 + 0.5) = 17.2 psf***
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 59
� Wind Load - MWFRS (ASCE 7-05):
� East & West Walls
� V = (96’ x 18’/2 x 10.71 psf) / 2 = 4627 lbs./wall
� V = 4627 lbs. / 147.3’ = 31.4 plf
Basic Loads
� V = 4627 lbs. / 147.3’ = 31.4 plf
� North & South Walls
� V = (147.3’ x 18’/2 x 10.71 psf) / 2 = 7099 lbs./wall
� V= 7099 lbs. / 96’ = 74 plf
� Combine with appropriate out-of-plane loads
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 60
� Wind Load - Components and Cladding (Out of Plane Loads) (ASCE 7-05):
� Simplified Method
� Pnet = λ x Kzt x I x Pnet30
λ = 1.26 (Figure 6-3, Interpolated, Exposure C)
Basic Loads
� λ = 1.26 (Figure 6-3, Interpolated, Exposure C)
� Kzt = 1.0 (Section 6.5.7.2)
� I = 1.0 (Table 6-1, Category II)
� Pnet30-C = +12.4/-13.6 psf (Figure 6-3, Area 4, 100 SF, 90 mph, flat roof)
� Pnet = 1.26 x 1.0 x 1.0 x -13.6 = -17.14 psf (neg. pressure controls - magnitude & direction)
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 61
� Wind Load (ASCE 7-05):
� Don’t forget to include edge and corner zone pressures in actual design…
Basic Loads
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 62
� Seismic Loads (ASCE 7-05):
� Michigan Location
� Light roof
� Modest building mass
Basic Loads
� Modest building mass
� Even with bearing wall/shear wall configuration:
� Wind will govern… no calc’s for example
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 63
� Hand Methods
� Wall Weight Only with Min. Roof Trib� wDL = (10.67’ x 41 psf) + (6’/2 x 9 psf) = 465 plf
� wLL = 6’/2 x 20 psf = 60 plf
w = 6’/2 x 21 psf = 63 plf
Lintel DesignLintel in Non-load Bearing Wall:
� wSN = 6’/2 x 21 psf = 63 plf
� wTL = 528 plf
� MTL = 528 x 10.672/8 = 7514 lb.-ft. = 90,168 lb.-in.
� VTL = 528 x 10.672/2 = 2817 lbs.
� NCMA TEK 17-01C: 8” x 16” with (1) #6
� NCMA Lintel Manual: 8” x 16” with (1) #4 and f’m = 2500 psi
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 64
� Hand Methods:� Strength of method:
� Fairly quick� No software investment� Decent results� Could incorporate triangular, reduced load due to arching
Lintel DesignLintel in Non-load Bearing Wall:
� Could incorporate triangular, reduced load due to arching
� Weaknesses of method:� This building probably has 6 different lintels….� No out-of-plane load consideration� No ability to add load/moment/torsion from anchored lintel� f’m = 1500 psi (only) or purchase NCMA Lintel Manual or
more involved hand calcs….� Pinned-Pinned only
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 65
� Component Software:
� Same loads and geometry as hand method
� Increase f’m to 2500 psi per local availability
� 8” x 16” with (1) #6 (no arching)
Lintel DesignLintel in Non-load Bearing Wall:
� 8” x 16” with (1) #6 (no arching)
� 8” x 8” with (2) #5’s (with arching)
� (No Control Joints to maintain thrust resistance)
� Proper height above opening
� No point loads within ‘triangle’
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 66
� Component Software:� Strength of method:
� Very quick� Minimal software investment� No software investment� Decent results
Lintel DesignLintel in Non-load Bearing Wall:
� Decent results� Easily incorporate benefits of arching� Easily allows trials of different materials and configurations
� Weaknesses of method:� This little building probably has 6 different lintels….� No out-of-plane load consideration� No ability to add load/moment/torsion from anchored lintel� Pinned-Pinned only
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 67
� Build in RSS and import the model into RE
� About 2 hours to build this model
� About 20 minutes to modify the model and set load combinations, etc…
Or build in RE directly
Whole Building Software
� Or build in RE directly
� Longer to generate due to nodal entry method
� Can do five story simple building in 8 hours
� Or jump to the wall module…
� 10 to 15 minutes for a wall segment
� Includes openings and all loads
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 68
� RSS model imported into RE
Whole Building Software
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 69
� Import the model into RE
� Assign materials, etc…
� Masonry (f’m = 2500 psi)
� Bar Joist Sections and Material
Whole Building Software
� Bar Joist Sections and Material
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 70
� Whole Building Software
� We’re only after lintel design right now…
� Don’t analyze the model!
� Select the appropriate wall stack
Lintel DesignLintel in Non-load Bearing Wall:
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 71
� Whole Building Software
� A rendered look…
Lintel DesignLintel in Non-load Bearing Wall:
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 72
� Whole Building Software
� Open the appropriate wall stack in Module
Lintel DesignLintel in Non-load Bearing Wall:
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 73
Lintel DesignLintel in Non-load Bearing Wall:
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 74
� Whole Building Software
� Change the number of levels to (1) and adjust the height
Lintel DesignLintel in Non-load Bearing Wall:
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 75
Lintel DesignLintel in Non-load Bearing Wall:
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 76
� Whole Building Software
� Create Load Cases and Combinations
� Add distributed Roof Live and Snow Loads
� e=0 to match other methods for now…
Lintel DesignLintel in Non-load Bearing Wall:
� e=0 to match other methods for now…
� Analyze without veneer lintel loads…
� Analyze without lateral loads…
� Lintel: 8” x 16” with (1) #4
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 77
� Look ahead:
� Add additional strips
� Adjust base fixity to “pinned”
� Will get a lot of “bang for our lintel buck”
Whole Building Software
� Will get a lot of “bang for our lintel buck”
� Ready for the “jamb strip” analysis (and others)
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 78
� Revisit RE Lintel Results: 8” x 16” with (1) #4
� Interesting…
� M = 4,544 lb.-ft. (flexure controls)
� SMDS without arching: M = 7,910 lb.-ft.
Lintel DesignLintel in Non-load Bearing Wall:
� SMDS without arching: M = 7,910 lb.-ft.
� SMDS with arching: M = 2,930 lb.-ft.
� So neither arching nor simple span are accurate???
� Actual moment somewhere in between?
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 79
� Whole Building Software:� Strength of method:
� Very efficient results� Automatically incorporates benefits of finite element force
distribution� Full out-of-plane load consideration
Lintel DesignLintel in Non-load Bearing Wall:
� Full out-of-plane load consideration� Full ability to add load/moment/torsion from anchored lintels
or other elements� Easily allows trials of different materials and configurations� Very quick to select multiple walls sequentially from 3-d model� Multiple level and fixity condition capability
� Weaknesses of method:� Moderate to high software investment� Not as quick for a single element unless really streamline input
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 80
� Whole Building Software� Add lateral out-of-plane pressure: -17.14 psf� Jamb strip(s) okay with (1) #6 in first 16” then
#6 at 40” or 72” o.c. in rest of wall� Or (2) #5’s in first 24” then more variety in
Jamb Strip DesignJamb Strip in Non-load Bearing Wall:
� Or (2) #5’s in first 24” then more variety in required spacing…
� Then…� Add in shear, eccentricity for gravity – no
change!� Could add veneer lintels, canopy reactions,
etc…
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 81
� Whole Building Software:� Strength of method:
� Already had the wall entered� Very efficient results� Automatically incorporates benefits of finite element force
distribution
Jamb Strip DesignJamb Strip in Non-load Bearing Wall:
distribution� Full out-of-plane load consideration� Full ability to add load/moment/torsion from anchored lintels
or other elements� Easily allows trials of different materials and configurations� Very quick to select multiple walls sequentially from 3-d model� Multiple level and fixity condition capability
� Weaknesses of method:� Moderate to high software investment� Not as quick for a single element unless really streamline input
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 82
� Component Software
� First: Calculate collected loads
� Assume same 16” strip as RE
� Assume window load distributes to jamb like RE
Jamb Strip DesignJamb Strip in Non-load Bearing Wall:
� Assume window load distributes to jamb like RE
� Wind Loads:
� Direct wind on jamb = -17.14 psf
� Window distribution = (-17.14 psf x 10’/2) / 1.33’
� Window distribution = -57.28 psf
� Total wind load on jamb = -74.42 psf
� Then apply gravity loads with eccentricity
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 83
� Component Software
� #6 @16” o.c. - No Good!
� #10 @ 8” o.c.!
Jamb Strip DesignJamb Strip in Non-load Bearing Wall:
� #10 @ 8” o.c.!
� Distribute over 48”… 38.57 psf
� #6 @ 24” or (3) bars in 48”
� Still not as efficient
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 84
� Component Software:
� Strength of method:� No software investment
� Rapid analysis for a single element
� Easily allows trials of different materials and configurations
Weaknesses of method:
Jamb Strip DesignJamb Strip in Non-load Bearing Wall:
� Weaknesses of method:� New data entry
� Less efficient results
� Limited out-of-plane load consideration
� No multiple level and limited fixity condition capability
� No ability to add load/moment/torsion from anchored lintels or other elements
� No in-plane shear included
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 85
� Hand Methods
� First: Calculate collected loads same as SMDS
� Probably ignore minor gravity loads and their eccentricity
� Multiple load combinations will take time…
Jamb Strip DesignJamb Strip in Non-load Bearing Wall:
� Multiple load combinations will take time…
� Drysdale takes 5 pages, less than 2 pages of hand calcs, or use
� Spreadsheet interaction diagram
� Few old charts and graphs
� Rigorous calcs equate to SMDS results
� Others more conservative depending on effort
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 86
� Hand Methods:
� Strength of method:� No software investment
� Excellent to decent results depending on ability and effort
Jamb Strip DesignJamb Strip in Non-load Bearing Wall:
effort
� Could incorporate any material, load and boundary conditions
� Weaknesses of method:� Not fast at all, no tabulated methods
� This building probably has multiple jamb strips….
� Multiple load combinations will cost time…
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 87
� Hand Methods
� First: Calculate loads and eccentricities� Cannot ignore gravity loads and their eccentricity
� Multiple load combinations will take time…
Drysdale takes 5 pages, less than 2 pages of
Load Bearing Wall DesignGeneral Field Strip in Bearing Wall:
� Drysdale takes 5 pages, less than 2 pages of hand calcs, or use
� Spreadsheet interaction diagram
� Few old charts and graphs
� Rigorous calcs equate to SMDS results
� Others more conservative depending on effort
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 88
� Component Software
� First: Calculate Loads
� Same as hand calcs except software does self-wgt.
� DL = 11 psf x 58’/2 = 319 plf
Load Bearing Wall DesignGeneral Field Strip in Bearing Wall:
� DL = 11 psf x 58’/2 = 319 plf
� LLr = 20 psf x 58’/2 = 580 plf
� SnL = 21 psf x 58’/2 = 609 plf
� WL = -17.14 psf
� Gravity load eccentricity = -2”
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 89
� Component Software
� #5 @ 48” o.c. No Good
� #5 @ 40” o.c. OK
Load Bearing Wall DesignGeneral Field Strip in Bearing Wall:
� #5 @ 40” o.c. OK
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 90
� Whole Building Software
� Select the appropriate wall stack
� Make quick changes
� Same loads applied as SMDS
Load Bearing Wall DesignGeneral Field Strip in Bearing Wall:
� Same loads applied as SMDS
� Include eccentricity for gravity
� Add in shear – no change!
� Could add canopy reactions or other point loads…
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 91
Load Bearing Wall DesignGeneral Field Strip in Bearing Wall:
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 92
� Wire-frame model
Load Bearing Wall DesignGeneral Field Strip in Bearing Wall:
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 93
� Rendered view
� Whole Building Software – Wall Module
Load Bearing Wall DesignGeneral Field Strip in Bearing Wall:
� #5’s @ 40” o.c.
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 94
� Lintel:� Lintel design most shallow by SMDS with arching – is it
accurate?� Lintel design lightest steel at 16” depth by RE and NCMA
manual� 2 cs. grout and (1) #4 v. 1 cs. and (2) #5’s
Summary
� 2 cs. grout and (1) #4 v. 1 cs. and (2) #5’s� Not a bad selection to choose from� Hand: 15 minutes with tabulated values� Hand: 30 to 60 minutes to calculate� SMDS: 10 minutes� RE: Wall Module: 10 – 15 minutes but includes entire
wall� RE: 3D: Well… � Wouldn’t do that for a lintel
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 95
� Jamb Strip:� Much more efficient with RE� Hand: 30 to 60 minutes or more to calculate� SMDS: 20 minutes� RE: Wall Module:
Summary
RE: Wall Module:� Still the same 10 – 15 minutes from the lintel analysis� Includes all jamb strips, lintels, general field areas
� RE: 3D: Well… � Wouldn’t do that for one wall strip, either� But we’re getting closer… how many walls do you have?� RSS took about 2 hours to build model from start� RE import and modification took about 20 minutes� Wall Module modification use took about 5 minutes
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 96
� Load Bearing Wall:� Hand: 30 to 60 minutes or more to calculate
� SMDS: 10 to 15 minutes
� RE: Wall Module: 10 minutes, more if openings, etc…
Summary
etc…
� RE: 3D: Well… � Still wouldn’t do that for one wall segment
� But we’ve now used another part of the model
� RSS took about 2 hours to build model from start
� RE import and modification took about 20 minutes
� Wall Module modification and use took about 5 minutes
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 97
� Single elements� Can be done about as quickly in SMDS or RE as by
simplified hand methods
� Can be done more quickly in SMDS or RE than by full hand calculations
Conclusions
full hand calculations
� RE offers ability to consider aspects of design that others don’t
� RE Wall Module is as quick as SMDS for blank walls and
� RE Wall Module offers concurrent design of multiple elements if openings are present
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 98
� Multiple Elements
� The greater the number of elements the greater the design time savings with RE
� The greater the number of elements the greater the impact of efficiency on the project cost and schedule
Conclusions
impact of efficiency on the project cost and schedule and therefore the greater the project savings with RE
� And if you need to model floor and roof structures anyway…
� Use one model for the entire building
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 99
Questions and Discussion
� Scott W. Walkowicz, P.E., N.C.E.E.S.� [email protected]
� (517) 339-0314
Copyright © 2012, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC 100
Questions and Discussion