Existing PEMB - Multi Column Removal/Jack Truss

[BuildWithSteel]

Modifying PEMB- am interested to hear what solutions others might have gone with in my situation, even if I end up regretting the final solution I landed on.

Multispan, existing pre-engineered metal building- 4 bays, 54’ wide, PEMB bents at 25’ on center- total building length about 350’ long. Interior columns are Pipe 8”- couldn’t say for certain wall thickness at time of design other than tapping the column to hear the tone of “ping” it made- it sounded thin LOL. I wouldn’t have actually trusted that “test” if I had actually planned on somehow attaching to existing columns. Exterior columns are typical built up tapered plate columns.

Assumed interior columns are pinned top and bottom for only gravity based off of light, simple beam over column cap plate connections and base plate configuration- bolts from cap plate to PEMB bent was only 1/2” diameter as an example.

I needed to remove 2 of the interior ridge line columns for a 75’ clear span.

Attached photos was my solution- reinforced/enlarged the existing footings each end, 2-new pairs of columns added each end, sandwiched existing column line with a trusses braced to eachother each side as a jack beam/truss, existing columns cut out once all connections made- no shoring was needed this route. It’s not a fancy solution- one that you can look at and logically see exactly how it works. Possibly a bit overdone.

What might have you done differently in situation?

 

[Ron247]

Actually looks simple and reasonably conservative to me. I do not know how much wind load you have where you are at, but I assume you checked the truss for LTB of the lower chord for wind uplift. I did not see any lower chord lateral braces at the frame lines but not needed if the lower chords can span 75' with no lateral bracing. I assume your top chord unbraced length is 25'

Also it does look reasonable to assume the interior columns are pin-pin. Most PEMBs are designed that way even though there are no guarantees and your baseplates and top plates look like pinned.

 

[human909]

Is this a new approach to a "humble brag"? Post something clever you have done and ask others how they would have done it differently? ( joking)

I agree with Ron. This seems like a good solution. The best choice here IMO was to design an approach that didn't need shoring. That makes life signifcantly easier for the guys on site. And saves money even if you end up with more steel than a non shored outcome.

The truss seems to be on the heavy side. But maybe you needed that for the deflection or LTB. LTB could have been restrained by the rafters (fly braces for uplift) but that would start making things more complicated. You seemed to have adopted, clever, simple but not necessary weight efficient. But sometimes that is the best approach.

If I was designing that truss I likely wouldn't have back to back angles. You are increasing the welding significantly and likely making painting harder. I would have chosen H-sections for my cord and angle or HSS for the web member depending on loads.

But that is just my initial thoughts and comments there are many was to skin this cat. Your way seems very effective.