long spans

Designing for Long Spans

By Jay Ruby, P.E.

Long-span designs present structural challenges

that go beyond spanning longer distances.

D
Design of long-span systems—struc- the engineer is able to develop designs that facili-
tural systems that cross long dis- tate sequencing of construction and allow efficient
tances with large open spaces—is use of temporary shoring. Addressing instabil-
characterized by unique challenges. ity issues that occur during construction impacts
Typically found in arenas, convention centers, and member size, temporary shoring requirements,
hangars, these structural systems push the enve- and construction sequencing—all of which have
lope of what buildings can do. a significant impact on overall project cost and
Designing long-span structures requires an schedule. Modeling structures as-constructed, rec-
obsession with stability. Certainly, the structure has ognizing the various temporary load paths, and
to hold up its own weight; just to span the required designing connections accordingly—while address-
distance a structure has to support significant ing construction sequencing—allow the structural
dead load. But the complexity of long-span design engineer to develop an enhanced decision matrix
increases exponentially when snow load, wind load, and lead to design decisions that reduce costs and
seismic load, deflection, serviceability, and the dead improve constructability.
weight of the floor or roof system are all factored
in. Architectural appeal drives the design of such Non-Traditional Approach
structures, but many factors working simultane- Long spans frequently occur adjacent to a more
ously and in varying degrees must be analyzed in conventional column grid system. Oftentimes,
long-span design. The challenge in developing a this conventional grid system is merely contin-
long-span design is to integrate the architectural ued to accommodate the long-span requirements,
concept and appeal with the most efficient, purest instead of considering the two areas as individual
structural system. Relevant questions include: components. While this approach may simplify
➜ What are the site constraints? the decision matrix, it sacrifices the opportunity
➜ Should the pieces be preassembled, or must the to reevaluate the unique structural needs of long-
structure be “stick built?” span structures.
➜ What type of temporary support is needed? Investing in a structural analysis to uncover the
➜ What is the nature of the field connections? unique opportunities inherent to long-span struc-
➜ What is the inherent stability of the elements tures can positively impact the materials cost and
during assembly? construction schedule; costs associated with the
➜ How will differential deflection impact the steel structure are a major component of the total
structure? construction cost, and structural engineering con-
➜ How can load be transferred from temporary siderations drive the critical path for completion of
shores to the permanent structure? design and construction. Because all other trades
Perhaps the greatest challenge is creating a follow the structural system, it must be constructed
model of the structure that describes how loads as quickly as possible. Investing in structural
change in an as-constructed sequence. Typically, analysis, framing system evaluation, site analysis,
structural models are developed assuming a zero- member and element selection, and construction-
gravity system—i.e., they assume a 100% con- friendly connections of the long-span elements will
structed structure prior to any load application. In go a long way in controlling the constructability
reality, the structure is built one piece or assembly and final cost of the facility.
at a time, and the load path for the dead loads may
vary significantly from that assumed in the struc- Inserting Constructability
tural design model. In addition, when and how the Long-span design demands attention as an
structure is temporarily braced creates different independent system. Following the architectural
gravity and lateral load paths. grid of the building may not deliver the most effi-
By addressing the various load paths as the cient structure. However, structural analysis and
structure is being constructed, the engineer can framing system evaluation can provide the optimal
adjust the design for erection too—not just the spacing for the main structural elements to sustain Jay Ruby is an associate with
final state. By considering the load paths and how the unique loading criteria, balance the weight of Ruby+Associates, Farmington
the structure responds as it is being constructed, the structure, and support the additional loads of Hills, Mich.

 august 2007 MODERN STEEL CONSTRUCTION

Designing Constructability into an Aircraft Hangar
Aircraft hangars can provide powerful Figures 1 through 3 illustrate the ures show, the structural elements are
examples of how to effectively integrate impact of altering this basic design reduced tremendously moving from a
constructability into long-span design. parameter on the truss system, columns, grid of 30 ft to a grid of 40 ft—and struc-
Structural design of hangars requires the connections, and bracing. As these fig- tural needs are still met.
consideration of multiple elements:
• Bay sizes
• Truss depth, framing direction, and
specific truss framing concepts
• Sway frame spacing
• Panel points
• Lateral bracing
• Foundations
Even more important is accurately 11 trusses
defining the loads that the long-span 11 bays of joists
structure is required to carry. The impact 786 joists
of design load criteria on long-span 110 bottom chord braces
design is tremendous. For example, the 220 connections
impact of 5  psf of additional assumed
145 struts
dead load in the design of a typical 30-ft 290 connections
by 30-ft grid building generally does not
affect the design of beams, columns, or Design with 30’ Bays
foundations. But in a long-span struc-
ture with a supported area of 100,000
sq. ft, 5 psf translates into 500,000 lb of
additional load that must be supported.
Defining actual load criteria to reflect
realistic conditions can significantly
impact design.
Challenging a building’s layout param-
eters can also deliver significant savings.
8 trusses
For instance, increasing bay spacing in
a structural framing system from a grid 8 bays of joists
of 30 ft to 40 ft can deliver the following 576 joists
results: 48 bottom chord braces
96 connections
30% fewer pieces
Trusses 26% fewer connections 72 struts
27% fewer trusses 144 connections
Top chord Design with 40’ Bays
27% fewer joists
framing
Bottom chord 53% fewer pieces
Figure 1.
bracing 53% fewer connections
11 columns
Vertical lateral 28% fewer pieces
11 foundations
bracing 28% fewer connections
27% fewer foundations 40 bracing pieces
Foundations
80 connections
40 struts
80 connections
Design with 30’ Bays

11 trusses
Design with 30’ Bays 14 panels
30 connections
330 total connections 8 columns
8 foundations
30 bracing pieces
60 connections
8 trusses
28 struts
Design with 40’ Bays 10 panels
56 connections
22 connections
176 total connections Design with 40’ Bays

Figure 2. Figure 3.

MODERN STEEL CONSTRUCTION august 2007

the roof or floor system. This approach
considers:
Structural framing. What is the load
path? How can each structural element’s
efficiency—from the deck/slab to the
supporting beams and joists to the truss-
es—be maximized? Efficiency in size, span,
constructability, number of pieces, etc.
must all be considered.
Bracing. Bracing established by archi-
tectural considerations alone may be insuffi-
cient, unbalanced, difficult to install, or very
inefficient. First, establish a minimum brac-
ing requirement to accommodate structural
demands. Then, determine how this bracing
requirement can be made efficient and inte-
grated within the architectural grid.
Fabrication. Can shop fabrication be
maximized to reduce pieces, improve qual-
ity, and minimize field costs? Should the
trusses be built to facilitate shipping? If
field subassembly is necessary, can connec-
tions and member elements be minimized?
Erection. Provide a suggested sequence
of construction, not just final build-
ing design. How should construction be
sequenced to minimize temporary shoring
and maximize the efficiency of member
sizes? Where should temporary bracing
be located? How do load paths change as
the structure is being built? Who better
to direct how the structure should be built
safely than the structural engineer who
designed the structure?
Design of the trusses provides an excel-
lent example of balancing material, fab-
rication, and erection costs. As the depth
of the truss increases, material costs
decrease. However, fabrication and ship-
ping costs may increase or decrease based
on the fabrication shop’s capabilities and
design requirements. Field time is mini-
mized since deeper trusses carry more load,
allowing framing optimization and element
reductions. Ultimately, constructability
integrates the design decision matrix with
construction considerations and drives the
lowest total cost alternative.

Optimal Design
Integrating constructability into long-
span delivers the optimal structural design.
The structural engineer can help the fab-
ricator/erector perform better by guiding
construction sequencing based on struc-
tural considerations—and without getting
into means and methods of construction.
With a focus on constructability, the engi-
neer can produce the owner’s ultimate
goal: an economical, serviceable long-
span structure.

MODERN STEEL CONSTRUCTION august 2007