Section:

DESIGN PROCEDURES DP 2.8.1

Page
PRIMARY STRUCTURAL 1 of 7
Revision
Piggy-Back Canopy & Date
1 (08/11)

A. GENERAL

The Piggy Back Canopy is a 3-plate built-up beam attached to the top of the frame rafter at the
haunch and extending past the building line by a specified nominal extension length (E). At
both support points, the canopy beam-to-frame attachments are made with (4) A325T
bolts (see Figure 1). The canopy design is fully automated by VISION; therefore fully
dependant on the applied loads and geometry. Two common beam cross-sections are shown
in Table 1 below.

Canopy Eave Eave Strut

Cee Member Canopy
Beam
d
Frame
c

Welded clip
E (stiffeners)
Canopy Extension

Figure 1B.L.Piggy back canopy

Table 1 Common canopy beam sections

Canopy Extension E (ft)
Purlin Depth
E 4.25 ft 4.25 ft < E 6 ft
d (in) Design A Design B

5 0.1345 5 0.25
7
8.5 d d
10 1/8 1/8
11.5 0.1345 0.1345

S e c t i o n P r o p e r t i e s (Ref. Only)
d 7 8.5 10 11.5 7 8.5 10 11.5
Ix (in4) 19.3 29.78 43.1 59.3 31.6 48.3 69.0 94.0
Sx (in3) 5.51 7.01 8.61 10.3 9.02 11.4 16.4 16.4

When printed, this document becomes uncontrolled. Verify current revision number with controlled, on-line document. Author:
Igor Marinovic
 Section:

DESIGN PROCEDURES DP 2.8.1

Page
PRIMARY STRUCTURAL 2 of 7
Revision
Piggy-Back Canopy & Date
1 (08/11)

When the canopy beam interferes with a purlin line in the eave space, an additional pair of
stiffeners will be welded to the canopy beam. This will allow for continuous purlin lines to be
broken and bolted to the clip on each side of the beam. Consequently, there will be no load
path interruption for the axially loads, and the affected purlin(s) will be designed as simply
supported at the piggy back end.

Each clip connection uses (2) A325T bolts.

A1. Canopy Beam Analysis

All prescribed loads, such as roof live load, snow load and wind loads are accounted for in the
design of the canopy beam, its connections and the supporting parts. Both the magnitude and
the distribution of loads will follow the requirements of the Applicable Building Code.

For low roof slopes, the design forces in the member can be calculated with sufficient accuracy
using the simple analytical model shown in Figure 2. For steeper roofs, the loads and the
beam geometry must be adjusted accordingly.

PE
q

R1 R2

E c

V2
SHEAR
V1

Msup

MOMENT

Figure 2 Simplified canopy beam analysis

When printed, this document becomes uncontrolled. Verify current revision number with controlled, on-line document. Author:
Igor Marinovic
 Section:

DESIGN PROCEDURES DP 2.8.1

Page
PRIMARY STRUCTURAL 3 of 7
Revision
Piggy-Back Canopy & Date
1 (08/11)

A1.1 Reactions (normal to roof plane):

E
R1 qE 1 PE (Equation A1)
2c
q E2
R2 (Equation A2)
2c

A1.2 Section forces:

q E2
M sup R2 c (Equation A3)
2
q E E 2c
Vmax q E2 (Equation A4)
E 2c
2c

For variables description and sign convention see Figure 1 and Figure 2 .

A2. Canopy Beam Design

=Effective weld length

1:1
1:1
3 5 3

3 3
6 N=6

a) Interior support (R1) a) End support (R2)

Figure 3 Canopy beam support details

When printed, this document becomes uncontrolled. Verify current revision number with controlled, on-line document. Author:
Igor Marinovic
 Section:

DESIGN PROCEDURES DP 2.8.1

Page
PRIMARY STRUCTURAL 4 of 7
Revision
Piggy-Back Canopy & Date
1 (08/11)

The following limit states are considered in accordance with AISC Specification and Canadian
S16 Specification, as applicable:

Table 2 Applicable limit states and design references

Limit State / Design Consideration References

DP 2.3.1 (AISC: ASD & LRFD)

Beam flexure and shear Frame member strength check
DP 2.3.2 (Canada, S16: LSD)
Fillet weld shear DP 3.5
Bolt tension DP 3.4
Web crippling (compression only) DP 2.13, Table 1
Web local yielding (tension or compression) DP 2.13, Table 1
Rafter and canopy beam flange bending due to conc. tension DP 3.13, DP 3.9.DA

Canopy beam deflection DP 6.2

A2.1 Design notes:

Flange-to-web weld - one-sided fillet weld in the support region, assuming 70 ksi weld material
and the corresponding effective weld length as shown in Figure 3:
For the beam end reaction (R2) the effective weld length is 6 inches.
For the interior support location (R1), an additional weld length is available along
stiffeners; therefore, the effective weld length is taken as 10.85.
Web crippling strength - compression at the end support only (R2, wind case, using bearing
length of N=6).
Web local yielding strength (also using bearing length of N=6) applies to both tension and
compression cases at the beam end support (R2).
Rafter and canopy beam flange bending due to concentrated tension. This limit state applies to
the interior reaction (R1) when the canopy is subjected to high wind loads, or the end
reaction (R2) when subjected to high gravity loading. This limit state can govern design
when using canopy Design A beam or the rafter flange is thin (tf = 0.1345 or 0.1875).
With the back-to-back cold-formed steel rafters, a set of rafter stiffeners must be
provided.

Sample strengths for two common canopy beam sections are given in the next table.

When printed, this document becomes uncontrolled. Verify current revision number with controlled, on-line document. Author:
Igor Marinovic
 Section:

DESIGN PROCEDURES DP 2.8.1

Page
PRIMARY STRUCTURAL 5 of 7
Revision
Piggy-Back Canopy & Date
1 (08/11)

Table 3 Canopy beam strength/resistance (Rn/ and Rn) for all applicable limit states

Design A Design B
ASD LRFD LSD LRFD LSD
Limit State d ASD (Rn/ )
(Rn/ ) ( Rn) ( R) ( Rn) ( R)
7.0 136 201 187 237 355 441

Beam flexure 8.5 162 244 244 298 447 558

(in-kips) 10 189 284 358 362 544 680
11.5 214 321 375 429 644 808
7.0 18.6 28.0 29.6 18.6 28.0 20.6

Beam shear 8.5 20.9 31.3 30.8 21.5 32.2 30.8

(kips) 10 20.3 30.4 30.8 21.3 31.9 30.8
11.5 17.5 26.3 27.2 31.9 27.3 27.7
Int. End Int. End Int. End Int. End Int. End Int End
Reaction >
R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2

Flange-to-web weld
(tension only) - 30.2 16.7 45.3 25.1 45.3 25.1 30.2 16.7 45.3 25.1 45.3 25.1
(kips)

Bolt tension (kips) - 35 53 56.6 35 53 56.6

7.0 19.3 29.0 14.2 21.3

Web crippling 8.5 16.6 24.8 12.7 19.0
(compression only) 10.3 10.3
(kips) 10 14.6 21.9 11.6 17.5
11.5 13.2 19.8 10.9 16.3

Web local yielding

(tension & compr.) - 32.8 49.2 39.1 34.2 51.3 41.6
(kips)

Flange Special or Rafter flange Tension strength

Canopy beam and (Design A and Design B)
Main frame Flange size ASD (Rn/ ) LRFD ( Rn) LSD ( R)
flange bending
5 x 0.1345 6.1 10.1 10.1
(R1, R2, tension only) 5 x 0.1875 13.0 19.6 19.6
(kips) 5 x 0.25) 23.8 34.9 34.9
6 x 0.25 30.2 45.3 45.3

When printed, this document becomes uncontrolled. Verify current revision number with controlled, on-line document. Author:
Igor Marinovic
 Section:

DESIGN PROCEDURES DP 2.8.1

Page
PRIMARY STRUCTURAL 6 of 7
Revision
Piggy-Back Canopy & Date
1 (08/11)

A3. Design Example:

Building geometry: 80 (wide) x 125 (long) x 20 (EH), 1:12 roof slope, 8 bays at 25
Canopy - Piggy back, 4 extension, along both sidewalls
c = 24 in, E = 48 in, d=8.5, Flange special 6 x 0.5

Loading: 2006 IBC / Standard occupancy

Lr = 20 psf (reducible) / CG = 3 psf, Wind = 100 mph / Exposure C
Ground snow = 40 psf / Unobstructed / Partially sheltered

Canopy design loads:

Dead + Unbalanced Snow = 1.13 psf + 3 psf + 1.5(33.6) psf = 54.5 psf
Dead Wind (uplift) = 1.13 psf 25.6 psf = -24.5 psf

Canopy beam check under gravity loading:

48"
R 1 54.5 / 12000 25' 48" 1 Pe 10.9 kips Pe (compression)
2 24"
2
54.5 / 12000 25' 48"
R2 5.45 kips (uplift)
2 24"
M sup 5.45 24" 130.8 in kips
Vmax 54.5 / 12000 25' 48" 5.45 kips

Limit state (Design Section A) Calculated Allowable

(Required) Strength
Beam flexure 130.8 162 OK
Beam shear 5.45 20.9 OK
Web crippling (interior compression) n/a - -
Web local yielding (interior compression) n/a - -
Web local yielding (end tension/uplift) 5.45 32.8 OK
Weld tension (interior) n/a 30.2 -
Weld tension (end) 5.45 16.7 OK
Bolt tension (end) 5.45 35.3 OK
Rafter flange (FS) bending uplift 5.45 Not shown but must be checked
Canopy beam flange bending (end) 5.45 5.62 OK
Deflection - Not shown but must be checked

Similar design check is required for the controlling uplift case. However, in this example the
downward load is dominant; hence, the canopy selection is adequate.

When printed, this document becomes uncontrolled. Verify current revision number with controlled, on-line document. Author:
Igor Marinovic
 Section:

DESIGN PROCEDURES DP 2.8.1

Page
PRIMARY STRUCTURAL 7 of 7
Revision
Piggy-Back Canopy & Date
1 (08/11)

Document and Revision History

REV. # DATE NAME DESCRIPTION
0 05/10 Igor Marinovic Original Document
1 08/01/11 Allen Harrold Update to S16-09 / 2010 NBCC

When printed, this document becomes uncontrolled. Verify current revision number with controlled, on-line document. Author:
Igor Marinovic