Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Large Garages 7

Status
Not open for further replies.

medeek

Structural
Mar 16, 2013
1,104
I'm feeling pretty comfortable with conventionally framed structures as of late and most of my residential work falls with typical parameters that I've dealt with on similar projects.

Today a large garage landed on my desk, conventional light wood frame construction. The only thing that really jumps out at me is the size of this structure. 40'x60' rectangle with 40' trusses on 15' high 2x6 walls. I haven't ran all of the numbers yet but I'm sure I can get the stud walls to work with a minor upgrade as well as the shear walls, roof diaphragm and garage door header. The stemwall foundation and slab have been upgraded by the owner and my experience tells me already that bearing loads won't be a problem either.

Nothing really special going on here other than size which causes me to wonder if at some level I may be overlooking something with respect to a structure of this size. As we begin to scale things up are there other codes or factors that come into play that would not otherwise with a smaller structure. There are no internal walls, just the 4 exterior walls with a 18' wide garage door at one of the gable ends and a 3' man door. From a prescriptive standpoint I know this structure breaks all of the IRC braced wall line rules so the IRC is out of the question on this one.

The reason I have a concern here is based on a conversation I had with an architect on a personal project about 10 years ago. At the time I was involved with my brother in a roofing materials distribution business. Being very young and inexperienced I figured I would design our next warehouse. Ultimately we had to have a architect take it over after my initial attempts. His first comment at my conventially light woof framed structure (100'x60'x20' box) was that it was simply too flimsy at that size and we ended up going with CMU for the 20' high walls.

Also in a recent thread on tall walls I am left wondering if an upgraded wall is necessary on the side walls of this structure what would be easier and more "contractor friendly", 2x6 walls spaced at 12" o/c or 2x8 walls at 16" o/c. I typically don't try and specify over DF No. 2 for studs since I think the expense of No. 1 or SS would be unwarranted, easier to bump up to more studs or deeper studs, at least this is my current thinking which may or may not be correct.

A confused student is a good student.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson, PE
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

wannabeSE said:
This includes continuous ties between diaphragm chords

This is related to my point above. I've always found it strange that it's not required in low seismic areas. Obviously, it's more important in high seismic zones but, at the end of the day, load is load. Do people actually follow that requirement for houses in California? It's hard to imagine.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
 
I want to try and leverage a little bit out of the ceiling diaphragm since the client is drywalling the entire interior of the structure with 5/8" gypsum. Even with the kickers at 48" o/c I'm also afraid that with all of the force concentrated at this hinge point I'm still going to get enough deflection to possibly crack the drywall connection or compress it right at the end wall/ceiling interface. Blocking the ceiling diaphragm at least 4' into the space will help redistribute some of this load into the ceiling diaphragm and hopefully eliminate any localized buckling or cracking, at least so my thinking goes.

Double kickers in three places (where roof height exceeds 6'), with a horizontal brace attached to the gable truss at 4' height.

The question: Will they build this as I draw it up? I'm going to put a note somewhere stating that the EOR is required to inspect the installation of the kickers and blocking prior to them closing up the ceiling with gypsum. I love to do on site inspections but so far my clients that I have had the opportunity to inspect their work have not been very pleased with my findings or some of my comments.

A confused student is a good student.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson, PE
 
@Kootk- they can rip the LVL to 22.5" on site. If they use 5/8" roof decking, they can leave it 24". I like you box beam idea. Might have to use screws or straps for the wind suction case..
 
Your right boo1, totally missed something else.

At the garage door in the SWL2 detail (sheet 2) I don't show any holdowns. I'm actually more worried about lateral here since the garage doors will transfer all of their out of plane wind load directly to the two trimmers on each side, half of that force needs to be resisted at the trimmer/stemwall connection. Currently I have a 5/8" anchor bolt there, probably not enough considering my lateral load is about 1250 lbs.

A confused student is a good student.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson, PE
 
Yeah, I'm starting to like it too. I might draw up some details. I guess I'd still be subject to aspect ratio limitations though, wouldn't I?

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
 
My 5/8" anchor bolt with a double sill plate is good for about 736 lbs (using weakest lumber species from NDS Table 11E). I will probably put a STHD14 there for good measure, even though there is no rating for lateral loads only tension.

A confused student is a good student.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson, PE
 
Technically if I am considering the ceiling as a diaphragm I would be required by IRC Section R702.3.7 to limit the diaphragm aspect ratio to: 1.5:1, which means I would have to block 27 feet in from the gable ends.

My idea with the blocking is not to really treat the ceiling as a diaphragm but to prevent localized cracking and buckling, whether this actually does what I intend is currently in question.

A confused student is a good student.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson, PE
 
Okay, I might be reading/interpreting this incorrectly. Section 2508.5 does not specifically state that all panel edges need to be blocked only the diaphragm perimeter edge.

But then in section 2508.3.1 it appears that blocking/nailing at all panel edges is required but this particular sections wording is confusing to me.

A confused student is a good student.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson, PE
 
@Kootk - I didn't think there was aspect limitations for plywood box beams (if that was what you were referring to)
 
Right. But there are limits for plywood diaphragms. And I think that we'd be kidding ourselves to think that these box beams are anything other than diaphragms by another name.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
 
RFreund said:
Kootk -> why are you insisting on blocking the gypsum board ceiling? For unblocked you wouldn't need any blocking at all, right?

There are two distinct kinds of blocking in my opinion. The first kind improves shear transfer between sheathing units and is optional. The second kind transfers the applied load into the diaphragm and is not optional. It's this later kind of blocking that I'm getting at.

The sketch that I'll post for Medeek will deal with this too. Stay tuned.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
 
I'm not entirely happy with the connection of the diagonal brace to the blocking at the ceiling. In compression it would work fine but if the wall is sucked out and the brace is in tension the nails connecting the block to the gable truss are subject to withdrawal.

A confused student is a good student.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson, PE
 
I'd recommend attaching your braces and your gable end truss to the sill plates, separately.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
 
Yesterday I walked the structural documents over to the client. I just called him to let him know I need to add a few details and upgrade some connections (garage door), back to the drawing board on this one.

I think I will continue to develop the bracing solution using kickers and blocking similar to what is shown above but I will also include the option to sheath the entire ceiling with OSB if that is easier.

A confused student is a good student.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson, PE
 
Okay, tell me if this makes sense.

I'm assuming, based on my most recent interpretation of IBC 2508.5, that I can use the gypsum ceiling diaphragm as unblocked diaphragm. Given that I'm in seismic D cat. my max. shear capacity will be 50% of the 70 plf allowable => 35 plf.

My ceiling diaphragm load that I'm allowed would be wD = 2vB/L = 105 plf

I have a diaphragm load at the top plt. of 226.6 plf, if the ceiling diaphragm takes its share of 105 plf I am left with 121.6 plf to be picked up by the kickers.

At 48" o/c that would be 486 lbs per kicker, the center ones would be a little more since the loading is actually trapezoidal but this would be averaged out since the three central kickers utilize a two brace method shown above.

At 486 lbs I am overloaded by 14% when the brace is in tension, however based on footnote 1 of the Simpson GBC connector and also on the fact that the loading is trapezoidal and will diminish as the braces approach the sidewalls I can probably give this a pass.





A confused student is a good student.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson, PE
 
I forgot to add that I'm assuming the kickers are attached to the top plt. using the Simpson GBC (Gable Brace Connector). This allows me to connect directly to the top plt. and not to the gable truss with my kickers.

The secondary kickers will connect to the gable truss at 4' above the bottom chord as previously noted.

The only problem with the GBC bracket is that it gets in the way of any blocking I may want to insert between the gable truss and the next common truss.

A confused student is a good student.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson, PE
 
How are you going to get 226 plf into the diaphragm?
Also, are you sure the trusses have vertical webs at 48" o.c.?
 
XR250, I'm not.

105 plf of the diaphragm load will be picked up by the ceiling diaphragm.

122 plf of the diaphragm load will be picked up by the kickers and transferred to the roof diaphragm.

Of course the problem with all of this is I don't really know how the load will really be shared between the two elements so I'm kind of stuck. If I design the kickers as if they take all of the load then I'm probably at 24" o/c with them which is absurd.

I could theoretically create 2 ply kickers (sister two 2x6 or two 2x4) together, but the problem really is the connection capacity on each end. If I want to connect directly to the top plate of the wall I don't really see any other option except to utilize a Simpson GBC.

I really don't want to go to a balloon framed wall since the client has already purchased his studs and he is pretty dead set on using them. Also for reasons given above some bracing at the ceiling line will be required either way.

I've added in the holdowns at the garage door at least, as you can see from the updated image above. At least I can figure that much out.



A confused student is a good student.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson, PE
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor