Building Height To Width Ratios

[stallion0002]

Here is the scenerio...

A client wants to keep the overall footprint of the building as small as possible but in order to do so, the structure must get taller to accomodate all the equipment that must be present.

The engineers point out that by increasing the height, the structural aspects (columns, bracing, foundations, etc.) must increase to withstand the slenderness effects and could ultimately negate the up front cost savings of the smaller footprint.

Obviously, site conditions, industry standards, mechanical requirements, etc. all play a role on structure dimensions and can vary significantly depending on circumstances. Just wondering what ratio 'rules-of-thumb' everyone has found to work well for their respective industry fields?

 

[concretemasonry]

Your client has his wishes and the "standard" ratios mean nothing to him.

What type of structure? - High rise or a low rise manufacturing building or something in between. What is the reason for the small footprint? - Zoning, amount of available land, green requirements or just a preconceived notion?

Since you mentioned equipment, there MIGHT be a process involved. No rule-of-thumb will give you and real reason to hang your hat on and it takes more information to give any guidance.

Dick

Engineer and international traveler interested in construction techniques, problems and proper design.

 

[msquared48]

Would this structure be subject to the whims of a local Architectural Review Board? What are the local height restrictions due to zoning? Laterally, the thinner and the taller the structure, the costlier the lateral resisting system is going to be.

If so, what your client "wants" as opposed to what he will be allowed to have, could be two entirely different things.

I always like to make positive comments.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask

 

[stallion0002]

This is a bulk material processsing plant out in the middle of nowhere. There are no zoning, building, or archtiectural review board constrictions. The client owns all the land around it so real estate is not an issue. They just simply want as small of a footprint of possible.

Our office has done many of these facilities all over the world and we have done all shapes, sizes, and possible configurations immaginable. The current trend though is that the clients keep pushing for smaller and smaller building footprints and using engineered metal buildings as shell structures. I have found for our work that a ratio of height/width somewhere around 1.25 seems to keep all the forces, stresses, structural members, and foundations reasonable.

So maybe what I really should be asking is what kind of ratios do you use for engeineered metal buildings?

 

[JStephen]

Reading me of the original post reminds me of the "Flatiron Building" over in Fort Worth. I think it is modeled on a more famous one in Chicago or NYC, which seems like that one is pictured on some of the Subway restaurant wallpaper. Anyway, the building in that case was shoehorned onto a small triangular plot of land.

 

[BAretired]

I have no rule of thumb as to the most efficient height/width ratio for a building. I think it would depend on location, occupancy and a host of other variables. You are likely not going to find a very satisfactory answer on this or any other engineering forum.

BA