Reuse of pre-engineered building. Concerns? 1

[hockeychic25]

Our client will be re-using a pre-engineered building. We believe that it was originally put up in the late 70's and was taken down in 1998. We have the manufacturing company of the building getting the loads used to design the building and the current loads so we can look at the member sizes.

Do you know of any information pertaining to the reuse of a pre-eng building? Our thoughts were that all of the old bolts should be discarded and replaced with new ones. Do you feel that this is necessary? Are there any other items that should be of concern to us? Do you know of any other buildings that were taken down and put back up in New York State or other places? Do you have any information suggesting that we should require special inspections on any parts of the building?

Any timely information or suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

 

[Ron]

hockeychi25....It is common to re-use these buildings. You've done the right thing to check the loads and I agree with replacing all bolts.

Further, inspect each member for cracked welds to make sure that damage has not occurred during disassembly and handling. As well, check for damage or obvious deformation.

Good luck.

Ron

 

[waytsh]

hockeychi25...I agree with Ron that the bolts should be replaced. The AISC publication "Specification for Structural Joints Using ASTM A325 or A490 Bolts" does address the reuse of bolts on page 14. It basically prohibits the reuse of A490 bolts and galvanized A325 bolts, but allows for the reuse of standard A325 bolts if approved by the engineer responsible.

As for the rest of the building, you may want to check out the latest MBMA manual to see if they have anything additional to say about the subject.

Hope this helps.

 

[JAE]

There is also the concern that the building was designed not only structurally but architecturally from a previous building code....so wind/seismic/snow, etc. are all probably different - and exiting, door clearances, fire-resistance, etc. are also things to think about.

Generally, over the years, roof live loads haven't changed much, but snow, wind and seismic have.

 

[epr]

hockeychic25,

One of the main problems with re-using metal buildings is not the frame, but the skin.

In my geographic area, the skin only lasts 25 to 35 years due to the salt in the air (near the shore). If your skin is in good condition, the only other thing is to make sure that the skin is attached using the same holes, and that TEK screws with integral sealing washers are used. At least a few leaks are still likely.

And yes, as the others have said, check the building codes of the time, or perform your own structural analyses. The analysis of the primary frame may be complex, but you can model it on a frame analysis program using a suitable number of size-graduated prismatic sections for each member.

Also, you may get lucky and find that the secondary members (purlins especially) will tell you the design loads. Check the spacing along the top flange of the primary frames, use a caliper for the thickness, and compute the section properties. Realize that most manufacturers of cold-formed secondary members used 50 ksi steel in the 70's. Make sure you measure the cross-section accurately, because some manufacturers made their own members, and instead of 8", they could be 8-1/4" deep for an example.

Unfortunately, the girts never seem to be designed as closely, or as economocally as the purlins, so the wind forces may not be that easy to ascertain.

 

[haynewp]

I would expect to have to buy whatever water sealing products to replace the existing when the building goes back together. Like that tape mastic stuff that goes around openings.

 

[Ibeam]

Girt/purlin depths - I had an experience of refurbishing and adding on to an existing metal building, built in the 70's, a few years ago in Lakeland Florida. The secondary members were all 6 inch depth. With today's wind loads and available sections on the market, I had to replace with 8.5". I don't know if it goes for all metal bldg manufacturers but I know of a couple that used to make 6 inch members, but now fabricate nothing less than 8 inches for z's and c shapes.

 

[whyun]

Aside from checking the design of the structure itself against current codes, there are geotechnical concerns based on the location that may affect the foundation system.

 

[hockeychic25]

Just thought I'd let you know that there aren't really any concerns with water leakage etc into the building. It will house scrap metal that is currently just laying on the ground in the open air. The building is meant to keep the metal out of sight. Thank you all for the information you provided!