Design of Braced Frames in Open Buildings

for Wind Loading

W. LEE SHOEMAKER, GREGORY A. KOPP, and JON GALSWORTHY

Abstract
Open-frame buildings are often used to provide a measure of weather protection over equipment or other sheltered storage on industrial sites.
These shelters have a roof covering and minimal wall cladding, if any. ASCE 7 provides no guidance on the wind loads acting perpendicular to
the frames that would control the design of the longitudinal braces. This paper summarizes wind tunnel tests that were performed on open-
frame, low-rise buildings with a roof covering to determine the base shear and bracing loads parallel to the ridge. Two examples are provided
to illustrate how the results of this study may be used to obtain the forces in longitudinal bracing.

Keywords: open-frame buildings, wind bracing.

A common application, particularly on industrial sites, is

the utilization of an open-frame building to provide a
measure of weather protection over equipment or other shel-
the presence of both a roof and the ground would be ex-
pected to play a significant role on the flow speeds and di-
rections through the open building, perhaps leading to quite
tered storage, as shown in Figures 1 and 2. These shelters different loads, when compared to open-lattice structures.
have a roof covering, but there is usually minimal, or no wall Specifically, shielding factors may be different for low-rise
cladding. ASCE 7-05 (ASCE, 2005) provides no guidance building frames compared to lattice tower frames.
on the wind loads acting perpendicular to the frames that
would control the design of the longitudinal braces. This WIND TUNNEL STUDY
paper will summarize the wind tunnel tests that were per-
The details of the wind tunnel study are documented in both
formed on open-frame, low-rise buildings with a roof cov-
the final report (Kopp et al., 2008) and a recent paper (Kopp
ering to determine the drag (base shear) and bracing loads
et al., 2010). A brief summary will be provided here as a
in the longitudinal direction, i.e., parallel to the ridge. Two
basis for the proposed design method.
examples are provided to illustrate how the results of this
There is a wide range of parameters to be considered for
wind tunnel study can be used to obtain the forces to design
these open buildings; therefore, many test configurations
the longitudinal bracing.
were required to account for practical building applications.
Prior to the latest research conducted at the University of
Three different combinations of frame widths, B, and eave
Western Ontario (UWO), as discussed in this paper, the only
heights, H, were used:
available method to determine these longitudinal drag loads
utilized data from studies of open lattice structures (Geor- 1. B = 40 ft and H = 12 ft
giou and Vickery, 1979; Georgiou et. al., 1981; MBMA,
2. B = 70 ft and H = 20 ft
2006). The new UWO study addresses the concern that the
use of wind loads derived for open lattice structures may 3. B = 100 ft and H = 30 ft
lead to inappropriate loads for low-rise buildings. That is,
The roof slope was 2 on 12 (9.46°) for all combinations.
Building models consisting of three, six and nine frames
(see Figures 3 through 5) were evaluated, along with four
different solidity ratios, because this is an important param-
W. Lee Shoemaker, Ph.D., P.E., Director of Research & Engineering, Metal eter with regard to wind flow through the open building. The
Building Manufacturers Association, Cleveland, OH (corresponding author). solidity ratio refers to a ratio of the blocked area, Ao, to the
E-mail: [email protected]
total area enclosed by the end frame, AE. The lowest value of
Gregory A. Kopp, Ph.D., P.Eng., Professor and Canada Research Chair in
solidity was based on a bare-end frame, while larger solidi-
Wind Engineering, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada. E-
mail: [email protected] ties either represented deeper end frame members, partial
Jon Galsworthy, Ph.D., P.Eng., Principal, Rowan Williams Davies & Irwin, Inc., end wall cladding (gable in-fill) or full end wall cladding as
Guelph, ON, Canada. E-mail: [email protected] shown in Figures 6 and 7. In total, 18 configurations were
tested, as listed in Table 1.

ENGINEERING JOURNAL / THIRD QUARTER / 2011 / 225

225_234_EJ3Q_2011_2010_21.indd 225 9/13/11 3:03 PM

 Table 1. Wind Tunnel Test Configurations
Frame Eave End Wall Blocked Solidity
Number of
Case Description Width, Height, Area, Area, Ratio,
Frames
W (ft) H (ft) AE (ft 2 ) Ao (ft 2 ) Ao/AE
1 Nominally open 3 40 12 547 88 0.161
2 Nominally open 6 40 12 547 88 0.161
3 Nominally open 9 40 12 547 88 0.161
4 Nominally open 9 100 30 3417 315 0.092
5 Nominally open 6 100 30 3417 315 0.092
6 Nominally open 3 100 30 3417 315 0.092
7 End wall members larger 3 70 20 1604 253 0.158
8 Nominally open 3 70 20 1604 154 0.096
9 Gable end filled in 3 70 20 1604 563 0.351
10 End wall filled in 3 70 20 1604 1604 1.00
11 End wall members larger 6 70 20 1604 253 0.158
12 Nominally open 6 70 20 1604 154 0.096
13 Gable end filled in 6 70 20 1604 563 0.351
14 End wall filled in 6 70 20 1604 1604 1.00
15 End wall members larger 9 70 20 1604 253 0.158
16 Nominally open 9 70 20 1604 154 0.096
17 Gable end filled in 9 70 20 1604 563 0.351
18 End wall filled in 9 70 20 1604 1604 1.00

The wind tunnel models (1:100 scale) were designed

to determine both the total base shear (drag) as well as a
reasonable estimate of the proportion of wind load going
through the longitudinal brace as shown in Figure 3. The
entire model was mounted to a plate that was positioned on
a force balance to directly measure the overall base shear.
The attachment of the frames to the base plate replicated pin
connections. The longitudinal bracing was connected to the
base plate through small load cells that measured the axial
load in the bracing members. A typical model drawing is
shown in Figure 8. Fig. 2. Example of large open-building application.

Fig. 3. Wind tunnel model with three frames, showing

Fig. 1. Example of small open-building application. longitudinally braced bay.

226 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / THIRD QUARTER / 2011

225_234_EJ3Q_2011_2010_21.indd 226 9/13/11 3:03 PM

 Fig. 4. Wind tunnel model with six frames. Fig. 5. Wind tunnel model with nine frames.

Fig. 6. Gable in-filled end wall Fig. 7. End wall totally filled with cladding
(configuration 9, solidity ratio = 0.351). (configuration 10, solidity ratio = 1.00).

Fig. 8. Typical model drawing: (a) roof plan (three, six and nine frames); (b) end elevation showing
transverse moment frame; (c) side elevation showing braced frame being evaluated.

ENGINEERING JOURNAL / THIRD QUARTER / 2011 / 227

225_234_EJ3Q_2011_2010_21.indd 227 9/13/11 3:03 PM

 No testing was done with obstructions underneath the Kzt = topographic factor
building, i.e., from stored materials, etc. The worst case for Kh = factor that converts wind pressure to eave
the horizontal loads is expected with the building open to height
free unobstructed wind. It should be noted that this would
Kd = directionality factor
not be the case for uplift on the roof, but that is not the
subject considered in the current study. ASCE 7-05 does I = importance factor
have provisions to determine the wind uplift on the roof of ĈSx = peak load coefficient, which is the sum of
an open building such as evaluated in this study (Section the mean coefficient and gust coefficient
6.5.13.2 for MWFRS and Section 6.5.13.3 for Components
The worst wind angle for each configuration was between
and Cladding); the uplift is dependent on any obstructions to
0° and 40°, with 20° to 30° typically yielding slightly higher
the wind flow that might be present.
load coefficients. For all frame sizes, the number of frames
is an important factor because the load was observed to in-
Wind Tunnel Results
crease monotonically with the number of frames.
Load cell measurements were taken for 19 wind angles
between 0° and 180°, where the minimum and maximum Empirical Model for Base Shear (Longitudinal Drag)
angles represent wind direction parallel to the ridge and 90°
The UWO wind tunnel study (Kopp et al., 2008; Kopp et
would be at an angle perpendicular to the ridge. Horizon-
al., 2010) determined that the major parameters that affect
tal loads from the force balance (Sx and Sy) were measured
the wind-induced base shear loads on low-rise open-frame
along with horizontal component of the longitudinal bracing
buildings in the longitudinal direction are frame size (width
load, Bx.
and height), number of frames and solidity ratio. The analy-
The base shear coefficient can be defined as
sis of the load coefficient variations—holding two of these
parameters constant and varying the third—suggested that
sx
CSx = (1) multiplicative factors accounting for the load effects of these
1 ρV 2 A
2 H o parameters would be a reasonable model. The aerodynamic
where behavior and load magnitude also suggested that a model
based on enclosed low-rise buildings rather than open lat-
ρ = density of air
tice structures such as electrical power transmission towers
VH = mean hourly wind speed at the eave height would be more appropriate.
Ao = blocked area as listed in Table 1 The ASCE 7-05 method for defining the pressure loads
due to wind for enclosed low-rise buildings can be modified
The base shear coefficient could also be defined in terms
for open-frame buildings by introducing two multiplicative
of the total area of the end wall, if it were totally clad, AE.
factors: KB, which accounts for building width effects, and
This coefficient would be defined as, CSxφ, where φ is the
Ks, which accounts for both the solidity ratio and number of
solidity ratio Ao /AE.
frames.
The horizontal component of the bracing force can be
Therefore, Equation 6-18 of ASCE 7-05 is replaced with:
normalized in the same way such that
p = qh (GC pf )( K B K S ) (4)
Bx
C Bx = (2) where
1 ρV 2 A
H o
2 GCpf = pressure coefficient from Figure 6-10,
More relevant to design practice, these force coefficients ASCE 7-05
can be converted to ASCE 7-05 format as follows: qh = velocity pressure at mean roof height as de-
fined by Equation 6-15, ASCE 7-05
qH CSx Ao
(GC p )eq = (3) ⎧1.8 − 0.010 B for B < 100 ft
q33,3S K zt Kh K d IAo KB = ⎨ (5)
⎩ 0.8 for B ≥ 100 ft
where
(GCp)eq = equivalent wind tunnel pressure KS = 0.2 + 0.073 ( n − 3) + 0.4e1.5φ (6)
coefficient
n = number of frames
qH = wind pressure at the eave height
ϕ = solidity ratio, Ao /AE
q33,3S = basic wind pressure from ASCE 7-05 (3 s
gust measured at 33 ft height)

228 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / THIRD QUARTER / 2011

225_234_EJ3Q_2011_2010_21.indd 228 9/13/11 3:03 PM

 Because the wind tunnel tests were run with three, six and Blocked area, Ao:
nine frames, the applicability of the method for less than
Column area = [(8 + 24)/2](20/12) = 26.67 ft2
three frames and more than nine frames was evaluated. For
solidity ratios that were due only to the transverse frames— Rafter area = [(24 + 12)/2](33/12) = 49.5 ft2
i.e., no end wall cladding—the loads increased linearly with
Ao = 2(26.67 + 49.5) = 152 ft2
the number of frames in the range tested. This would likely
continue for a larger number of frames, but not necessarily Total area of end wall, AE:
for fewer than three due to relative changes in shielding of
AE = 2[(20 + 25.83)/2](35) = 1604 ft2
the members. However, the data shows that three frames are
sufficient for this asymptotic behavior to occur. On the other Solidity ratio, ϕ:
hand, there is no linear variation with end wall cladding in
ϕ = Ao /AE = (152/1604) = 0.095
place, perhaps due to changes in the flow through the build-
ing because of large blockage at the ends. The data show that Building width factor, KB:
extrapolating beyond nine frames would be conservative.
KB = 1.8 – 0.010(70) = 1.1
Therefore, Equation 6 is determined applicable to applica-
tions where the number of frames exceeds nine, but for less Solidity factor, KS:
than three frames, use n = 3. Also, with regard to GCpf from
KS = 0.2 + 0.073(5 – 3) + 0.4e1.5(0.095) = 0.81
Figure 6-10 in ASCE 7-05 for the “longitudinal direction”,
building surfaces 1 and 1E would be used for the windward Pressure coefficient, GCpf :
end wall, and building surfaces 4 and 4E would be used for
First, determine the width (2a) of the edge zone—see
the leeward end wall, with the coefficients from Figure 6-10
Note 9 of Table 6-10 of ASCE 7-05.
based on a flat roof (θ = 0°).
The total wind force on the main wind force resisting sys- a = 10% of the least horizontal dimension or 0.4h,
tem (MWFRS) in the longitudinal direction is given by: whichever is smaller, but not less than either 4% of the
least horizontal dimension or 3 ft.
F = qh (GC pf )( K B K S ) AE (7) (1) Smaller of
a. 10% of 70 ft = 7 ft ⇐ governs
DESIGN EXAMPLE 1 b. 0.4h = 0.4(20 ft) = 8 ft
Design the longitudinal cross bracing for the building shown Note: h is the mean roof height, but except the
in Figure 9 using ASCE 7-05 and the procedure outlined eave, height shall be used for θ ≤ 10°.
in this paper. The building is a storage facility located in
(2) But not less than
Mobile, Alabama, in Open Country—Exposure Category
C, and the basic wind speed is V = 130 mph. Building rep- a. 4% of 70 ft = 2.8 ft
resents a low hazard to human life in the event of failure;
b. 3 ft
therefore, Occupancy Category I is appropriate.
Determine velocity pressure qh (Equation 6-15, ASCE End wall surface area in zones 1E (windward wall) and 4E
7-05): (leeward wall) as depicted in Figure 10:

qh = 0.0256 Kh K zt K d V 2 I ⎛ 20 + 22.33 ⎞
A1E = A4 E = 2 ⎜ ⎟ (14) = 592.62 ft
2

where ⎝ 2 ⎠
Kh = 0.90 From Table 6-3, ASCE 7-05, (note: h = eave End wall surface area in zones 1 (windward wall) and 4 (lee-
height because roof slope < 10°) ward wall):
Kzt = 1.0 (no topographic effects)
⎛ 22.33 + 25.83 ⎞
Kd = 0.85 From Table 6-4, ASCE 7-05 A1 = A4 = 2 ⎜ ⎟ (21) = 1011.36 ft
2
⎝ 2 ⎠
I = 0.77 From Table 6-1, ASCE 7-05
GCpf = 0.61 + 0.43 = 1.04 in zones 1E and 4E (From
Therefore,
Table 6-10, ASCE 7-05)
qh = 0.00256(0.90)(1.0)(0.85)(130)2(0.77) = 25.5 psf
GCpf = 0.40 + 0.29 = 0.69 in zones 1 and 4 (From
Table 6-10, ASCE 7-05)

ENGINEERING JOURNAL / THIRD QUARTER / 2011 / 229

225_234_EJ3Q_2011_2010_21.indd 229 9/13/11 3:03 PM

 Fig. 9. Design example 1: (a) building layout; (b) typical frame dimensions.

Zones 1E, 4E

Zones 1, 4

22 ft, 4 in. 25 ft, 10 in.

20 ft

2a = 14 ft 21 ft
35 ft

Fig. 10. End zone locations.

230 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / THIRD QUARTER / 2011

225_234_EJ3Q_2011_2010_21.indd 230 9/13/11 3:03 PM

 Total effective GCpf for end wall: As a comparison, the total longitudinal force can be cal-
culated for this same design example using the method de-
1.04(592.62) + 0.69(1011.36)
GC pf = = 0.819 rived from open lattice structural research described in the
1604 Metal Building Systems Manual (MBMA, 2006).
Total longitudinal force: Using the same solidity ratio (ϕ = 0.095), the gust response
factor for a single frame is calculated as:
F = qh (GC pf )( K B K S ) AE =
GCp(0) = 1.71 – 4.10ϕ = 1.32 (see Figure A7.3.3(a); MBMA
= (25.5 psf)(0.819)(1.1)(0.81)(1604 ft2) = 29,847 lb
2006)
The next step in designing the longitudinal cross bracing Then, from Figure A7.3.3(b), the shielding coefficient (n2)
is to determine the portion of this total longitudinal load that based on two frames is determined as:
is carried by the bracing and how much is carried directly
n2 = 0.95 (using S/B = 25/70 = 0.357)
through the columns to the foundation. The paper on the
UWO research (Kopp et al., 2010) recommends that 75% From Figure A7.3.3(c), the shielding coefficient (nN) for N
of the total base shear (drag) be used to design the brac- frames is determined as:
ing members, based on the measurements taken on the wind
nN /n2 = 0.85
tunnel models. However, this recommendation is limited to
the construction and assumptions used in the wind tunnel Therefore, nN = 0.85n2 = 0.81
models, so a rational analysis can alternately be done on the
Then, the total longitudinal force is:
building with the longitudinal force applied to determine the
force distribution to the bracing members. GCp(0)qh Ao[1 + (N − 1)nN] = 1.32(25.5 psf)(152 ft2)[1 +
4(0.81)] = 21,693 lb
The design wind forces for the braced bay, for each side of
the building, are shown in Figure 11 as follows: This is compared to 29,847 lb, determined earlier using the
method outlined in this paper.
Using the 75% recommendation:
FH = 0.75 Fside = 0.75(14,924 lb) = 11,193 lb
11,193
Required strength of brace = = 14,334 lb
cos(38.66)

Fside = 14,924 lb

38.66q FH = 11,193 lb

Fig. 11. Design example 1: horizontal force for bracing design.

ENGINEERING JOURNAL / THIRD QUARTER / 2011 / 231

225_234_EJ3Q_2011_2010_21.indd 231 9/13/11 3:03 PM

 DESIGN EXAMPLE 2 Blocked area, Ao:
Same as design example 1, but add partial end wall cladding Column area = [(8 + 16)/2](20/12) = 20 ft2
as shown in Figure 12. Note that this would be a similar con-
End wall clad area = [(15.83 + 10)/2](35) = 452 ft2
figuration to the buildings shown in Figures 1 and 2.
Design the longitudinal cross bracing for the preceding Ao = 2(20 + 452) = 944 ft2
building using ASCE 7-05 and the procedure outlined in this
Total area of end wall, AE:
paper. The building is a storage facility located in Mobile,
Alabama, in Open Country—Exposure Category C, and the AE = 2[(20 + 25.83)/2](35) = 1604 ft2
basic wind speed is V = 130 mph. Building represents a low
Solidity ratio, ϕ:
hazard to human life in the event of failure; therefore, Oc-
cupancy Category I is appropriate. ϕ = Ao /AE = (944/1604) = 0.589
Note that the only changes from design example 1 are the
Solidity factor, KS:
calculation of the blocked area (Ao), the solidity ratio (ϕ) and
the solidity factor (KS). KS = 0.2 + 0.073(5 − 3) + 0.4e1.5(0.589) = 1.31

Fig. 12. Design example 2: (a) building layout; (b) end wall cladding.

232 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / THIRD QUARTER / 2011

225_234_EJ3Q_2011_2010_21.indd 232 9/13/11 3:03 PM

 Total longitudinal force: REFERENCES
ASCE (2005), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
F = qh (GC pf )( K B K S ) AE
Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-05, American Society of
= (25.5 psf)(0.819)(1.1)(1.31)(1604 ft2) = 48,272 lb Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
The design wind forces for the braced bay, for each side of Georgiou, P. and Vickery, B.J. (1979), “Wind Loads on
the building, are shown in Figure 13 as follows: Building Frames,” Proc. 5th International Conference on
Wind Engineering, Fort Collins, CO, July, pp. 421–433.
Using the 75% recommendation: FH = 0.75 Fside = Georgiou, P., Vickery, B.J. and Church, R. (1981), “Wind
0.75(24,136 lb) = 18,102 lb Loading on Open Framed Structures,” Proc. 3rd Cana-
dian Workshop on Wind Engineering, Vancouver, BC,
18,102
Required strength of brace = = 23,182 lb Canada, April.
cos(38.66)
Kopp, G., Galsworthy J. and Oh, J.H. (2008), “Wind Loads
It is clear that in design example 2, more than one braced on Open-Frame Buildings,” Boundary Layer Wind Tun-
bay will likely be needed to economically carry the required nel Report, BLWT-SS4-2008, University of Western On-
brace force. The final sizing of the brace and connections tario, London, ON, Canada.
will determine this.
Kopp, G., Galsworthy, J. and Oh, J.H. (2010), “Horizontal
Wind Loads on Open-Frame, Low-Rise Buildings,” Jour-
CONCLUSIONS
nal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, January.
This paper summarizes the wind tunnel tests that were per- MBMA (2006) Metal Building Systems Manual, 2006 edi-
formed on open-frame, low-rise buildings to determine the tion, Metal Building Manufacturers Association, Cleve-
drag (base shear) and bracing loads in the longitudinal direc- land, OH.
tion. Two examples are provided, illustrating how the results
of this wind tunnel study can be used to design longitudinal
bracing for this type of common open-frame building.

Fside = 48,272 lb

38.66q FH = 36,204 lb

Fig. 13. Design example 2: horizontal force for bracing design.

ENGINEERING JOURNAL / THIRD QUARTER / 2011 / 233

225_234_EJ3Q_2011_2010_21.indd 233 9/13/11 3:03 PM

 234 / ENGINEERING JOURNAL / THIRD QUARTER / 2011

225_234_EJ3Q_2011_2010_21.indd 234 9/13/11 3:03 PM