Although this topic was not discussed in the paper, it is a
topic that does merit attention. It should be mentioned at the outset that this condition is a long running topic of discussion among engineers and contractors and probably will continue to be debated. For example, in our own practice we have designed and detailed buildings both ways, with the choice chiefly depending upon each contractor's preference for sequencing the construction operation. The advantages of placing a joist next to and parallel to the wall is that the roof deck may be placed prior to the wall being in place. Disadvantages are:
Structural Details in Industrial Buildings
Paper by JAMES M. FISHER (3rd Quarter, 1981)
Discussion by Christopher Marx
I applaud Mr. Fisher for writing about a subject which I believe has been overlooked for too long. Perhaps it is viewed by many as being too simple, but there have been many failures of single-story industrial buildings. I can think of only one common problem omitted from the paper, which I would like to see discussed. That is where to place the first joist parallel to a rigid (masonry or tilt-up) wall, and how best to brace the wall. My reason for writing concerns the connection of a joist, or joist girder, bottom chord to a column. I agree that such attachment to one side of a brittle wall is very apt to crack the wall; but mainly this should not be done, because there is little if any structural benefit. Speaking now of columns, it seems to me that Mr. Fisher has jumped to a conclusion that bottom chord extensions must be treated as Type 1 Construction, fully rigid. Why; is Type 2 Construction eliminated? Isn't it possible to detail the connection to be "simple" for gravity loads, and design the extended ends for lateral loads only ? I believe the condition is somewhat akin to a seated connection upside down. If a relatively flexible angle (rather than the rigid stabilizer plate shown in Fig. 1 of the paper) is used, there will be sufficient deformation to prevent a fully rigid condition from developing. Most certainly I agree that "the designer should not create continuity" arbitrarily, but I disagree that this type of connection must be designed for gravity loads. The author's comments would be most appreciated.
1. Money is spent for an extra joist which is many times
not needed structurally, since the wall could support the deck. 2. Due to the amount of camber in long span joists, adjustable height connections are required to connect the roof deck to the wall. Also, the designer should be careful to consider the vertical and longitudinal movement of the joist relative to the rigid wall in order to prevent roofing tears and flashing problems. In either case, the deck must be positively attached to the wall if the roof diaphragm is being used to laterally brace the wall. Mr. Marx's second point is relative to the discussion about bottom chord extensions as Type 1 construction. The author did not mean to imply that this must be the case. The author's concern was one of cautioning engineers against arbitrarily creating such situations. There is no question that with proper design and detailing, connections approaching Type 2 construction as well as Type 1 construction can be successfully created. For many years Butler Manufacturing Co. has used an elastomeric pad between the bottom chord of their trusses and a side wall column.
Discussion by James M. Fisher
Mr. Marx has mentioned two major points in his discussion of the paper. The first point concerns the positioning of the first roof joist parallel to a non-load-bearing masonry or tilt-up wall. The two aproaches under consideration are (1) locating a joist immediately behind the wall or (2) locating the joist one deck-span away from the wall, with the deck at the wall supported by other means. Christopher Marx is a Consulting Engineer, New Haven, Connecticut. James M. Fisher is Vice President, Computerized Structural Design, Inc., Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Fig. 1. Bottom chord ofjoist girder at column
139 SECOND QUARTER / 1982
Because this pad has a low stiffness, its insertion reduces
the compressive force in the bottom chord of the truss and also reduces the moment in the side wall column. Although this connection detail is patented by Butler Manufacturing Co., other details that allow "flexing" can be used. For example, an end plate type connection can be used at the end of the bottom chord (see Fig. 1). By detailing a gap in the systefri, the joist girder, joist, or truss will not generate moments when subjected to gravity loads. However, when subjected to wind loads, the windward connection will try to open and the four bolts will act to transmit force.
140 ENGINEERING JOURNAL / AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION