Analysis of Tilt-Up Building Design and Industry Standard Practic

The Florida State University
DigiNole Commons
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations
The Graduate School
7-9-2013
Analysis Of Tilt-Up Building Design And Industry

Standard Practices
Desiderio Michael Maldonado
The Florida State University
Follow this and additional works at: http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd

Recommended Citation
Maldonado, Desiderio Michael, "Analysis Of Tilt-Up Building Design And Industry Standard Practices" (2013). Electronic Theses,
Treatises and Dissertations. Paper 7484.
This Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the The Graduate School at DigiNole Commons. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigiNole Commons. For more information, please contact
lib-ir@fsu.edu.
THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
ANALYSIS OF TILT-UP BUILDING DESIGN AND INDUSTRY STANDARD PRACTICES

IN TORNADO-PRONE REGIONS
By
DESIDERIO MALDONADO
A Thesis submitted to the

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
Degree Awarded:
Summer, 2013
Desiderio Maldonado defended this thesis on April 17, 2013.

The members of the supervisory committee were:
Michelle Rambo-Roddenberry
Professor Directing Thesis
Sungmoon Jung
Committee Member
Primus Mtenga
Committee Member
The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and
certifies that the thesis has been approved in accordance with university requirements.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. Roddenberry for her input and guidance on my thesis and
graduate studies. I am very grateful for the assistance along the way and could not have done it
without her.
Secondly, Id like to thank David Conrad for his insight and supervision throughout the
process of my research. His input and knowledge regarding the subject were invaluable and
absolutely essential to completing the research for my thesis. I cannot understate how much I
appreciate your support and guidance.
I would like to thank my parents, for always encouraging me to finish what I start and
pushing me to realize my potential.
Last, but certainly not least, loving and very patient wife Lauren. I cannot count the long
nights Ive spent in front of a computer completing my research and she was nothing but
supportive throughout the entire process. Without her strength and support, Im not sure I would
have ever finished my research. Thank you, from the bottom of my heart.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. viii
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... xii
1.
2.
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1
1.1
General ...........................................................................................................................1
1.2
Objectives ......................................................................................................................1
BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................3
2.1
Tornadoes.......................................................................................................................3
2.2
Building Codes and Wind Zones ...................................................................................4
2.3
Tornado vs. Hurricane Wind Speeds .............................................................................6
2.4
Recent Tornado-Related Tilt-Up Construction Studies .................................................9

2.4.1 FEMA Mitigation Assessment Team Report ........................................................9
2.4.2 Tilt-up Concrete Association Report ..................................................................14
2.4.3 Structural Engineers Association of Kansas and Missouri Report .....................16
3.
TILT-UP BUILDING COMPONENTS ...............................................................................18

3.1
Roof Deck ....................................................................................................................18
3.2
Roof Deck Fasteners ....................................................................................................19

3.2.1 Puddle Welds ......................................................................................................20
3.2.2 Screws .................................................................................................................22
3.2.3 Power Driven Pins ..............................................................................................23
3.3
Roof Steel Framing ......................................................................................................24
3.4
Roof Framing Connections to Steel Columns .............................................................25
3.5
Steel Columns ..............................................................................................................26
3.6
Roof Framing Connections to Concrete Panel.............................................................27
3.7
Concrete Panel Walls ...................................................................................................29
iv
4.
BUILDING COMPONENT DESIGN AND ANALYSIS ...................................................30

4.1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................30
4.2
Traditional Design and Analysis Methods...................................................................32

4.2.1 Wind Loading Analysis ......................................................................................32
4.2.2 ACI 551.2R-10 Tilt-Up Panel Manual Design ...................................................33
4.2.3 SPWall Software Analysis ..................................................................................36
4.2.4 STAAD.Pro Software Analysis ..........................................................................37
4.2.5 Roof Deck and Fastener Analysis .......................................................................40
5.
4.3
Tilt-up Building Retrofit Feasibility ............................................................................45
4.4
Reinforced Corner Refuge Area ..................................................................................46
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................49

5.1
Summary ......................................................................................................................49
5.2
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................49
5.3
Recommendations ........................................................................................................50
APPENDICES ...............................................................................................................................52
A.
WIND ANALYSIS .....................................................................................................52
B.
STAAD.PRO STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OUTPUTS ............................................62
C.
SPWALL ANALYSIS OUTPUTS ..............................................................................71
D.
HAND CALCULATIONS ..........................................................................................84
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................115
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................117
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Recorded Tornadoes from 1991 to 2010 .........................................................................6
Table 2 Relationship between Hurricane Wind Speeds and Tornado Wind Speeds ....................8
Table 3 Tornado Activity within 25 mile radius of Joplin, Missouri from 1950 to 2011 ............8
Table 4 EF Rated Tornado Wind Speed Effects on Design Velocity Pressure ..........................17
Table 5 Wind Loading Conditions Summary Using ASCE 7-05 ...............................................32
Table 6 Moment Calculations per ACI 551.2R-10 Tilt-up Panel Design...................................35
Table 7 Moment Calculations per SPWall Analysis...................................................................36
Table 8 Steel Roof Framing Member Stresses Summary Table .................................................39
Table 9 Diaphragm Shear Strength for 22 ga Roof Deck ...........................................................41
Table 10 Diaphragm Shear Strength for 20 ga Roof Deck .........................................................41
Table 11 Diaphragm Shear Strength for 18 ga Roof Deck .........................................................42
Table 12 Fastener Uplift Capacities for 22 ga Roof Deck ..........................................................43
Table 15 Cost Comparison for Metal Roof Deck Thicknesses...................................................44
Table 16 Cost Comparison for Fastener Installation Methods ...................................................45
Table 17 Moment and Shear Capacity for Precast Panels for Corner Refuge Area ...................47
Table 18 Wind Analysis for Building per ASCE 7-05 ...............................................................52
Table 19 Wind Roof Uplift Pressure Comparison: Enclosed vs. Partially Enclosed ................53
Table 20 Wind Loading Conditions Summary ...........................................................................53
Table 21 Design Wind Pressure Summary for Enclosed Building at 90 mph ............................54
Table 22 Design Wind Pressure Summary for Enclosed Building at 130 mph ..........................55
Table 25 Design Wind Pressure Summary for Partially Enclosed Building at 90 mph .............58
Table 26 Design Wind Pressure Summary for Partially Enclosed Building at 130 mph ...........59
Table 29 Maximum Roof System Anchorage Reactions Summary ...........................................65
Table 30 Maximum Column Anchorage Reactions Summary ...................................................66
vi
Table 31 Maximum Roof Framing Member Stresses Summary ................................................67

Table 32 Roof Deck Fastener Capacity Summary ......................................................................84
Table 33 Roof Deck Diaphragm Shear Capacity Summary .......................................................85
Table 34 Cost Estimate for Different Steel Roof Deck Thickness ...........................................114
Table 35 Cost Estimate for Different Roof Deck Fastener Types ............................................114
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Tornado Activity in the United States ............................................................................3
Figure 2 Basic Wind Speed Map for ASCE 7-05 .........................................................................4
Figure 3 Tornadic Gust Wind Speed with Mean Recurrence Interval of 100,000 years ..............5
Figure 4 Tornado Safe Room Design Wind Speed Map ..............................................................7
Figure 5 Aerial View of Home Depot in Joplin, MO and Center Line of Tornado Path ...........10
Figure 6 Failed Puddle Weld Locations along Open Web Steel Joists.......................................11
Figure 7 Aerial View of Tornado Path and Nearby Big Box Stores ..........................................12
Figure 8 Roof Structure in South End of Walmart in Joplin after Tornado ...............................13
Figure 9 Northwest End of Walmart Store .................................................................................13
Figure 10 Overhead View of Collapsed Home Depot Store in Joplin ........................................15
Figure 11 Common Types of Diaphragms Used in Tilt-Up Construction through the US ........18
Figure 12 Standard Roof Deck Fastener Layout Patterns ...........................................................19
Figure 13 Typical Puddle Weld at Side Lap for Metal Roof Deck ............................................20
Figure 14 Poor Quality Weld at Joist with Blow through on Right Side ...................................20
Figure 15 Typical Metal Deck-to-Wall Connection ...................................................................21
Figure 16 Standing Drill for Installation of Metal Roof Deck....................................................22
Figure 17 Hilti X-EDNK22 Power Driven Pin ...........................................................................23
Figure 18 Typical Steel Roof Framing Configuration used in STAAD.Pro Model ...................24
Figure 19 Typical Open Web Steel Roof Joist ...........................................................................24
Figure 20 Open Web Steel Roof Joist.........................................................................................25
Figure 21 Photo of Steel Joist Girder and Steel Column inside Tilt-Up Building .....................26
Figure 22 Typical Column and Roof Framing Connection ........................................................27
Figure 23 Seat Angle for Steel Joist at Wall Connection ...........................................................28
Figure 24 Typical Steel Joist Girder to Wall Embedded Plate Connection ................................28
Figure 25 Typical Tilt-Up Concrete Panel..................................................................................29
Figure 26 Plan View of Building with Wall Wind Load Convention ........................................31
Figure 27 Orthographic View of Building with Roof Wind Load Convention ..........................31
Figure 28 Tilt-up Wall Panel Configuration for ACI 551.2R-10 Analysis ................................34
Figure 29 Maximum Moment vs. Wind Speed, using ACI 551.2R-10 ......................................35
Figure 30 Maximum Moment vs. Wind Speed, using SPWall Analysis ....................................37
viii
Figure 31 Building Model in STAAD.Pro Analysis...................................................................38

Figure 32 Steel Roof Framing Elements and Steel Columns in STAAD.Pro Structural
Model ........................................................................................................................38
Figure 33 Maximum Combined Stresses vs. Wind Speed, using STAAD.Pro Analysis ...........39
Figure 34 Roof Diaphragm Loading Example............................................................................40
Figure 35 Reinforced Corner Refuge Area Structural Model .....................................................47
Figure 36 Plate Contour Output from STAAD.Pro for Moment about X-Axis .........................48
Figure 37 Plate Contour Output from STAAD.Pro for Moment about Y-Axis .........................48
Figure 38 Controlling Wind Loading Configurations ................................................................53
Figure 39 3D Whole Building Model for STAAD.Pro Analysis................................................62
Figure 40 3D Roof Truss Model for STAAD.Pro Analysis .......................................................62
Figure 41 North Wall Wind Loading in STAAD.Pro Analysis ..................................................63
Figure 42 South Wall Wind Loading in STAAD.Pro Analysis ..................................................63
Figure 43 Plate Contour Max Moments for Mx Axis from STAAD.Pro Analysis .....................64
Figure 44 Plate Contour Max Moments for My Axis from STAAD.Pro Analysis .....................64
Figure 45 Maximum Roof System Anchorage Reactions Graph ...............................................65
Figure 46 Maximum Column Anchorage Reactions Graph .......................................................66
Figure 47 Maximum Roof Framing Member Stresses Graph ....................................................67
Figure 48 Plate Contour Max Moments for Mx Axis for Reinforced Corner Model from
STAAD.Pro Analysis................................................................................................68
Figure 49 Plate Contour Max Moments for My Axis for Reinforced Corner Model from
STAAD.Pro Analysis................................................................................................68
Figure 50 8 inch thick Concrete Wall Panel Capacity Calculation ............................................69
Figure 51 12 inch thick Concrete Roof Capacity Calculation ....................................................70
Figure 52 General Condition for Single Wall Panel SPMats Analysis ......................................71
Figure 53 Pinned Connections for Single Wall Panel SPMats Analysis ....................................72
Figure 54 Applied Roof Loads for Single Wall Panel SPMats Analysis ...................................73
Figure 55 Applied Lateral Wind Pressure Applied to Single Wall Panel SPMats Analysis ......74
Figure 56 Max Unit Moment for My Axis for Single Wall Panel SPMats Analysis ..................75
Figure 57 Max Unit Moment for My Axis for Single Wall Panel SPMats Analysis ..................75
Figure 58 Output from SPMats Analysis for 90 mph Enclosed Building ..................................76
Figure 59 Output from SPMats Analysis for 130 mph Enclosed Building ................................78
ix
Figure 62 Metal Deck and Fastener Properties ...........................................................................86
Figure 63 Roof Deck Structural Fastener Capacity Calculations ...............................................87
Figure 64 Roof Deck Sidelap Fastener Capacity Calculations ...................................................88
Figure 65 Diaphragm Shear Strength Calculations for Enclosed 90 mph Design Wind
Speed.........................................................................................................................89
Speed.........................................................................................................................90
Speed.........................................................................................................................91
Speed.........................................................................................................................92
Figure 69 Diaphragm Shear Strength Calculations for Partially Enclosed 90 mph
Design Wind Speed ..................................................................................................93
Figure 73 Tilt-Up Panel Design Calculation General Parameters for ACI 551.2R-10 ..............97
Figure 74 Tilt-Up Panel Design Calculation for Enclosed 90 mph Design Wind using
ACI 551.2R-10 .........................................................................................................98
ACI 551.2R-10 .......................................................................................................100
ACI 551.2R-10 .......................................................................................................102
ACI 551.2R-10 .......................................................................................................104
Figure 78 Tilt-Up Panel Design Calculation for Partially Enclosed 90 mph Design Wind
using ACI 551.2R-10 ..............................................................................................106
Figure 79 Tilt-Up Panel Design Calculation for Partially Enclosed 130 mph Design
Wind using ACI 551.2R-10 ....................................................................................108
Wind using ACI 551.2R-10 ....................................................................................110
Wind using ACI 551.2R-10 ....................................................................................112
xi
ABSTRACT
Tilt-up buildings are a popular building construction method used across the United
States. These structures offer many benefits, but can also present unique design challenges when
compared to other building types. Recent tornado outbreaks have caused over $20 billion in total
damages and killed hundreds of people. As with most structures, tilt-up buildings tend to be
susceptible to tornado events. These events have brought building performance and safety in
tornado-prone regions to the forefront of consideration by residents, building owners, code
officials, and design professionals.
The research for this thesis was performed to study the major components and
connections used in typical tilt-up buildings using current standard wind analysis methods and to
identify limiting factors in building performance in hopes of improving future building designs.
Standard wind design and analysis methods were used for this research, not tornado-specific
wind design criteria.
The components focused on are generally regarded as current industry
standards and follow local building codes and manufacturer recommendations. Existing retrofit
options traditionally used in high seismic regions were also studied to see if any available
methods were suitable for preventing tilt-up building failure in tornado events. The construction
of internal storm shelters was also investigated as a potential additional method of reducing
injuries and deaths in tornado-prone regions. While large tornado-proof buildings may be
impractical or cost prohibitive, it is important for design professionals to continue to take
proactive approaches to region specific hazards in future designs to reduce property damage and
casualties.
xii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
Tilt-up building construction is a common method that has been used across the United
States for over 30 years, especially for big box stores and industrial buildings. It is a popular
method of construction because it can be completed quickly, is relatively inexpensive when
compared to other construction methods, and works well for buildings with large square footage.
Tilt-up construction consists of forming and casting concrete wall panels on site. Once
cured, the panels are lifted into position and braced until the roofing system is put into place. In
the earlier days of tilt-up construction, wall panels were supported by columns or pilasters. Wall
panels were also commonly tied together with horizontal beams. This configuration created
continuity along the entire length of wall, and the panels did not behave independently. Careful
design considerations had to be given to the connections to accommodate thermal expansion.
Starting in the 1970s, tilt-up buildings were designed to resist lateral loads imparted on the wall
panels using the self weight of the panels and connections to the structural roof system [24]. The
wall panels in these buildings are typically not rigidly connected to each other to allow for some
movement from normal thermal expansion differences between the building components.
Tilt-up buildings have had a public perception of being safe and hardened structures, due
to their generally large square footage and tall, reinforced concrete walls. This is especially true
when compared to buildings with masonry walls. While tilt-up buildings perform very well in
normal weather conditions, recent tornado outbreaks have brought this construction method into
the public eye and given a need for additional considerations by building design professionals.
1.2 Objectives
The goal of this research is to improve survivability of tilt-up building occupants by
studying the weaknesses in tilt-up buildings that lead to catastrophic failure from tornado events,
based on findings published after the Joplin, Missouri tornado outbreak in the Spring of 2011.
The objectives of the research performed were to:

1. Compare different existing code wind parameters and design wind speeds for
high-wind design regions in the United States.
2. Investigate standard practices in the tilt-up construction industry.
3. Identify potential areas that may improve building performance.
4. Investigate potential retrofit options used in seismic areas to see if they are
suitable for preventing roof failure from tornado wind forces.
5. Explore a feasible option for improving survivability of direct tornado impacts
inside tilt-up buildings using recommendations from FEMA 361 and ICC 500.
CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND
2.1 Tornadoes
Tornadoes are one of the most violent and extreme weather events on the planet. The
United States has more tornadoes than any other country, averaging over 1,200 tornadoes per
year [1]. Figure 1 shows the location of areas with high occurrence of tornadoes across the
United States. Certain parts of the year are more favorable than others for tornadoes to form, yet
it is very difficult to predict when and where they may form. Their vortex wind behavior and
extremely high wind speeds, as well as potential for missile impacts on structures, make them
difficult to design buildings to withstand.
Figure 1 Tornado Activity in the United States [2]

In the spring of 2011, the US experienced one of the deadliest tornado outbreaks in
almost a century. From April 25 to April 28, there were a total of 358 confirmed tornadoes,
3
resulting in 324 deaths [3]. Less than a month later, from May 21 to May 26, there was another
tornado outbreak resulting in 242 confirmed tornadoes and 178 deaths [4]. These two
meteorological events caused billions of dollars in damage, spanning across at least 9 states. The
death toll and property damage brings to question if there are ways to reduce or prevent
catastrophic damage and improve survivability of tornadoes by means already available and used
in other parts of the country.
2.2 Building Codes and Wind Zones

The United States is an expansive country, with a large variety of potentially challenging
building conditions ranging from seismic and snow to extreme wind zones. The high velocity
hurricane zones along the coast of Florida are among the highest basic wind speeds in the world
and can be challenging to accommodate in building design and construction. The central part of
the US is generally the lowest basic wind speed as outlined in ASCE 7-05, which is shown in
Figure 2 [5].
90 (40)
Figure 2 Basic Wind Speed Map for ASCE 7-05 [5]

4
The basis for basic wind speeds is discussed in the ASCE Commentary [5], which
includes explanation for the variables and wind speeds as depicted on the wind speed map. It
also covers mean recurrence intervals (MRI) and how that correlates to assigning basic wind
speed values. Section C.6.5.4.3 of the ASCE 7-05 commentary explains tornadic wind speeds,
which are gusts associated with an annual probability of occurrence of 1x10-5 (100,000 year
MRI) as shown in Figure 3 [5].
Figure 3 Tornadic Gust Wind Speed with Mean Recurrence Interval of 100,000 years [5]
The commentary also goes on to state the following:
In recent years, advances have been made in understanding the effects of tornadoes on
buildings. This understanding has been gained through extensive documentation of
building damage caused by tornadic storms and through analysis of collected data. It is
recognized that tornadic wind speeds have a significantly lower probability of
occurrence at a point than the probability for basic wind speeds. In addition, it is found
that in approximately one-half of the recorded tornadoes, gust speeds are less than the
gust speeds associated with basic wind speeds. In intense tornadoes, gust speeds near the
ground are in the range of 150200 mi/h (6789 m/s). Sufficient information is available
to implement tornado resistant design for above-ground shelters and for buildings that
house essential facilities for post-disaster recovery. This information is in the form of
tornado risk probabilities, tornadic wind speeds, and associated forces.
5
This explanation correlates tornado probability with wind speed. Based on current
tornado information available from NOAA, over 62% of tornadoes reported between 1991 and
2010 were rated as EF 0, as shown in Table 1 [6]. A majority of recorded tornadoes fall within
the base design wind speed as outlined by ASCE 7-05.
Table 1 Recorded Tornadoes from 1991 to 2010 [6]
2.3 Tornado vs. Hurricane Wind Speeds

The highest basic wind speeds as outlined by ASCE 7-05 occur along coastal areas, which
are considered hurricane-prone regions. These areas use an annual probability of 0.02, or a 50year mean recurrence interval (MRI), for a 3 second gust wind speed at 33 ft above ground level
in exposure category C [5]. ASCE 7-05 clearly states in Section 6.5.4.3 that tornadoes have not
been considered in developing basic wind-speed distributions.
As discussed in Chapter 2.1, tornadic wind speeds are associated with a 100,000 year MRI.
These wind speeds are used to design community tornado shelters, as outlined in FEMA P-361,
which is shown in Figure 4. This document outlines recommendations for designing tornadoresistant and hurricane-resistant structures and takes into account wind speed, as well as windborne debris [2]. This document also outlines and acknowledges that there are three distinct
regions of tornadic winds within a tornado. These regions are described below:
Near the surface, close to the core or vortex of the tornado. In this region, the winds are
complicated and include the peak at-ground wind speeds, but are dominated by the
tornados strong rotation. It is in this region that strong upward motions occur that carry
debris upward, as well as around the tornado.
Near the surface, away from the tornados vortex. In this region, the flow is a
combination of the tornados rotation, inflow into the tornado, and the background wind.
The importance of the rotational winds as compared to the inflow winds decreases with
distance from the tornados vortex. The flow in this region is extremely complicated. The
strongest winds are typically concentrated into relatively narrow swaths of strong
spiraling inflow rather than a uniform flow into the tornados vortex circulation.
Above the surface, typically above the tops of most buildings. In this region, the flow
tends to become nearly circular.
FEMA P-361 also explains that tornado wind speeds vary greatly as the distance from the center
of the vortex increases. The highest wind speeds in a tornado may actually occur outside the
diameter of the vortex and cannot be determined solely from its appearance [2].
Figure 4 Tornado Safe Room Design Wind Speed Map [2]
Tornadoes and hurricanes both produce extremely high wind speeds. Table 2 outlines the
wind speeds associated with hurricane categories and tornado Enhanced Fujita (EF) wind speeds,
which were gathered from NOAA.com [1].
Table 2 Relationship between Hurricane Wind Speeds and Tornado Wind Speeds [6]
Joplin, Missouri is located within tornado alley and has a very high recurrence interval of
tornadoes within a 25 mile radius. In the years from 1950 to 2011, the Joplin area has
experienced 116 confirmed tornadoes, totaling 228 deaths and over 2,000 injuries, as shown in
Table 3 [7]. Many private residences in the surrounding area have private safe rooms; however,
this is not the case with most private businesses. Most businesses have emergency plans in place
with a designated refuge area; however, that does not mean the areas are guaranteed to provide
protection from tornadoes.
Table 3 Tornado Activity within 25 mile radius of Joplin, Missouri from 1950 to 2011 [7]
2.4 Recent Tornado-Related Tilt-Up Construction Studies

The tornado outbreak of Spring 2011 was one of the most destructive tornado outbreaks
in the past 50 years. As a result, there were many studies performed following the tornadoes,
especially the tornado that struck Joplin, Missouri on May 22, 2011. This section discusses the
findings of several credible studies and highlights areas related to the research later in this report.
2.4.1 FEMA Mitigation Assessment Team Report

Following severe natural disasters occurring within the United States, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may assemble Mitigation Assessment Teams (MATs)
to perform first-hand investigations of the affected areas. The MATs are comprised of a diverse
group of qualified professionals from FEMA, local government agencies, and professionals
within the private sector with various backgrounds to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the
events leading to the disaster, as well as the after effects.
According to FEMAs MAT Program Website,
The two important components of hazard mitigation are assessing the vulnerability of
buildings and increasing building resistance to damage caused by hazard events. The
recommendations address improvements in building design and construction, code
development and enforcement, and mitigation activities that will lead to greater
resistance to hazard events. [8]
The week after the Joplin tornado, a FEMA MAT was assembled, and their findings were
published as part of FEMA MAT Report P-908: Spring 2011 Tornadoes [8]. Chapter 5 of the
report discussed observations on commercial and industrial building performance, including tiltup concrete buildings. The report focused on construction methods, load path, and failure
modes. One of the structures investigated was the Home Depot in Joplin. The building was
described as being comprised of the following building components:
tilt-up concrete wall panels

metal roof deck and 5/8 puddle welded fasteners
open web steel joists and open web steel joist girders
Square tube columns supporting joists and girders
Shallow foundations
The report found that the building was located directly in line with the central path of the
tornado, as shown in Figure 5. The EF rating for the tornado at this point is estimated between
EF4 and EF5, or an approximate wind speed of 168 to 200 mph. Several of the residents in the
area tried to seek refuge inside local businesses due to the perception of safety inside large
buildings.
HOME DEPOT
LOCATION
CENTER LINE OF
TORNADO PATH
Figure 5 Aerial View of Home Depot in Joplin, MO and Center Line of Tornado Path [8]
The MAT report concluded that the roof deck to joist fasteners likely failed first, as
shown in Figure 6. This failure compromised the rest of the structural elements, leading to the
collapse of the building [8]. Joists likely began to fail, allowing the concrete panels to succumb
to the wind pressure exerted on the walls. The collapse of the wall panels then lead to the embed
plates to be torn away from the concrete wall panels and the racking of the steel columns. It is
not believed that wind directly caused the failure of the columns or joist-to-wall panel
connections.
The MAT also observed that one corner of the buildings panels remained intact and
partially standing. The metal product racks also appear to have acted as braces, preventing
additional collapse of the wall panels in that area. These racks, and many of the products on
them, were left still standing and received minimal damage compared to the building
10
components. These areas could have possibly been used as areas of refuge as a last resort,
however they were not originally designed to protect against wind-borne debris [8].
Figure 6 Failed Puddle Weld Locations along Open Web Steel Joists [8]
The FEMA report also investigated the performance of the nearby Walmart store, which
was constructed using reinforced concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls and a metal roof deck and
open web steel joist roof system. The store was located north of the Home Depot store, just
outside the main path of the tornado. Even though the Walmart store did not sustain a direct
11
blow from the center of the tornado, the structure suffered roof and wall collapse in the corner of
the building nearest to the tornado path.
The roof structure for the Walmart was very similar to the Home Depot building: 22
gauge (ga) roof deck with steel open-web roof joists and joist girders, supported by square tube
steel columns. The joist girders in the south part of the building remained mostly intact,
however, the roof deck, joists, and walls were completely torn away and failed in most of the
area, as shown in Figure 7. It was determined the roof deck and open web joists failed first,
leading to the collapse of the exterior CMU walls.
WALMART
LOCATION
ACADEMY
SPORTS
LOCATION
HOME DEPOT
LOCATION
CENTER LINE OF
TORNADO PATH
Figure 7 Aerial View of Tornado Path and Nearby Big Box Stores [8]
The North end of the building fared much better. This side of the building was further
from the centerline of the tornado, significantly reducing the wind forces exerted on the roof and
walls. Most of the damage sustained to the structure in this area was to the exterior finish of the
building. Most of the roof structure and main exterior walls in this area remained intact and still
standing after the tornado passed, as shown in Figures 8 and 9.
12
Figure 8 Roof Structure in South End of Walmart in Joplin after Tornado [8]
Figure 9 Northwest End of Walmart Store [8]
13
2.4.2 Tilt-Up Concrete Association Report

Tilt-up construction is a popular and common method for constructing buildings that has
been used across the US for the past 40 years. The term itself is a description of how the
buildings are erected: The concrete wall panels of the buildings are formed and cast in place at
the building site, then tilted into place using cranes. The walls are then braced, and the roof
structure is attached once all the walls are erected. Since the wall panels are generally not
connected to each other, tilt-up buildings require careful consideration of the roofing system and
connections between the walls and roof supports to properly withstand vertical and lateral forces.
Under normal conditions, the buildings perform very well and offer many advantages, including
low cost of construction and short overall construction schedule.
Over the past 30 years, the construction method has become the topic of discussion after
some notable seismic and extreme high wind events, particularly after the Joplin tornado. The
city of Joplin, Missouri was struck but a powerful tornado on May 22, 2011, resulting in 158
deaths [4].
One of the higher profile incidents from the storm was the collapse of the Home Depot
store, in which the falling panels killed 7 people seeking shelter inside the store. According to a
report prepared by the Tilt-Up Concrete Association [9], the building collapse began with the
failure of puddle welds that connect the roof deck to open web roof joists, due to high uplift on
the roof deck generated by negative wind pressure. The negative wind pressure was created as a
result of the glass doors and windows at the front of the building, changing the buildings wind
behavior from enclosed to partially enclosed. Figure 10 shows overhead view of the collapsed
Home Depot store
According to the report, the uplift created from the negative pressure caused the metal
roof deck to separate from the open web steel joist roof system. Once the roof deck was
removed, the building no longer had the roof diaphragm needed to resist the lateral loads
imparted on the building from the winds of the tornado. The bar joists and joist girders began to
cripple, leaving heavy concrete wall panels without the needed support to remain standing. The
100-kip wall panels collapsed outward, crushing the people who were attempting to enter the
store, seeking shelter. According to the report, the concrete wall panels themselves performed as
designed and may have withstood the effects of the tornado had the roof system not failed.
14
Figure 10 Overhead View of Collapsed Home Depot Store in Joplin [9]

The report also examined the performance of other big box stores near the Joplin Home
Depot store. These buildings were included in the study because a comment was made in a
newspaper article regarding the Joplin tornado that stated concrete block structures may be
safer in a collapse than Tilt-Up wall buildings [9]. The report found that the nearby Academy
Sports building was located north of the Home Depot and outside the direct path of the tornado
and lost only a portion of its roof. This building had an 18 ga roof deck, compared to the 22 ga
roof deck used in the Home Depot store. Beside the wall material itself, the building structure
did not vary considerably from a tilt-up building. The proximity of the building to the passing
tornado and the heavier roof deck appear to be the primary difference in the performance of the
building, compared to the Home Depot store. Since the building only sustained a glancing blow,
the wind forces exerted on the Academy Sports building were considerably lower than those
exerted on the Home Depot store.
The final recommendations of the report highlight the need for stronger roof deck and
roof system connections, and increased consideration for collapse factor of safety when
designing the roof system. The wall panels rely on the roof system for support, so the task force
suggested using similar overall structural performance methodology to collapse prevention
resistance used for a Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) seismic event [9]. The
conclusions also highlight the consideration for storm shelters or safe rooms to protect building
15
inhabitants, rather than attempting to design the entire building to withstand tornadoes in
tornado-prone regions.
2.4.3 Structural Engineers Association of Kansas and Missouri Report

Another independent study performed on the Home Depot collapse in Joplin, Missouri
was prepared by the Structural Engineers Association (SEA) of Kansas and Missouri, entitled
Investigations and Recommendations based on May 22, 2011 Joplin, Missouri Tornado [10].
The report made the following observations and conclusions of performance regarding the
collapse of the Home Depot building:
1. The load path resisting wind uplift appears to be a more significant concern than wind
induced in-plane shear at shear walls, and out of plane bending in walls.
2. Metal deck to joist welds appeared inadequate for the uplift forces (22 gauge deck)
that were encountered. A thicker gauge deck would help strengthen this limit state. It
was reported that a structure with an 18 gage deck performed significantly better than
neighboring 22 gauge roof deck structures.
3. The use of typical joist to joist girder welds appeared to be inadequate for the loads
incurred during this event. Connections of joists to joist-girders or beams should be
designed for all induced forces, including but not limited to the calculated uplift force,
diaphragm chord and collector forces.
4. Roof to wall connections, and joist to wall connections appeared inadequate for uplift.
Stronger connections, welds, stiffeners, and anchor bolts are encouraged. Use of long
rebar welded to embed plates would likely perform better than short headed studs. A
hook added to the top of vertical reinforcing bars in CMU walls would help prevent
detachment of bond beam from top of the wall.
5. Engineers should use good judgment when calculating dead loads for use in resisting
net uplift. Often the dead load is calculated as heavy, which is conservative for
downward load combinations. However the lighter extreme should be considered
when calculating net uplift. The actual dead load installed may be significantly less
than initially considered. Furthermore dynamic wind effects could temporarily negate
the downward contribution of dead load in resisting uplift. In fact, it may not be
unreasonable to completely neglect dead load for a roof when calculating net uplift
forces.
6. Building Codes should consider requirements for a more robust continuous cross ties
across the building diaphragm, so as to preserve walls when the roof diaphragm fails.
Wind force levels could be EF-0 or EF-1 and allowable stresses could be ultimate,
factor of safety equal to 1.0 and allow for significant damage, but minimize the
propensity for collapse of the hard wall system.
7. Attention to detail is appropriate for elements attached to the hard wall structures. If
an architectural element dislodges and causes harm, the structural engineer may be
accused of negligence.
8. Storm shelters or refuge areas need to be considered for any building type, with
consideration of tornado activity. ICC 500 or FEMA 361 can be used for developing a
16
storm shelter for a given occupancy, based on occupancy category and may be the
basis of design for an area of refuge.
Based on these findings and recommendations, several items were highlighted for further
consideration in research and analysis for this thesis. The items of particular importance were
roof deck and fasteners, improving roof-to-wall connections, and additional consideration for
storm shelters or designated refuge areas to be considered for tornado-prone areas based on
occupancy.
The SEA report also spoke to the difference between current wind design as specified by
current building codes and the extreme winds generated in tornadoes. While general estimated
tornado wind speeds are a good basis for design, the vortex nature of tornadoes makes it difficult
to design tornado-resistant structures. The report also discusses that an overwhelming majority
of tornadoes fall below 85 mph, which would be contained with the minimum based wind speed
as specified by ASCE 7-05 [10]. It also goes on to point out that velocity pressure increases
rapidly as design velocity increases. Using the equation for velocity pressure, (qz), from ASCE
7-05 [5], SEA found that the velocity pressure increases 672% for EF 5 rated tornadoes when
compared to the base design velocity for 90 mph, for EF 0 rated tornadoes. The actual velocity
pressure can be found in the Table 4.
Table 4 EF Rated Tornado Wind Speed Effects on Design Velocity Pressure [10]
17
CHAPTER 3
TILT-UP BUILDING COMPONENTS
This chapter outlines the major structural components for a typical tilt-up building, from
top to bottom. The components discussed include the roof deck, roof deck fasteners, metal roof
framing system, roof framing connections, steel columns, and concrete tilt-up wall panels. The
results of the analysis for each component will be discussed later in chapter 4.
3.1 Roof Deck

One of the most common roof systems used in large tilt-up buildings is light-gauge metal
roof deck with open web steel roof joists and joist girders, with intermediate steel columns. This
roofing system is commonly used around the country, including the Midwest, Southeastern and
Eastern Continental US, as shown in Figure 11. This metal roof deck diaphragm system was
used in the Home Depot building in Joplin as well.
Figure 11 Common Types of Diaphragms Used in Tilt-Up Construction through the US [13]
18
The roof diaphragm is provided by a thin metal roof deck with a special corrugated
shape. The shape of the deck provides a strong, light shape to transfer roof loads to the roof
joists, oftentimes without the need for additional steel purlins. The roof diaphragm system
provides shear resistance to out-of-plane wind forces applied to the vertical walls of the building,
and downward and uplift wind forces applied to the roof deck itself [11]. The roof deck typically
comes in 3-ft-wide x 3-ft-long panels. The most common fastener layout used when attaching
metal roof deck to roof framing members is 36/4, which consists of fasteners every 12 inches in
each direction.
3.2 Roof Deck Fasteners

Roof deck fasteners are a critical element to ensuring the roof deck performs adequately
as a diaphragm to resist shear forces, as well as uplift forces produced from high winds. There
are several roof deck fastener types used for standard tilt-up buildings. The fasteners that will be
discussed in this report include puddle welds, screws, and power driven pins.
Figure 12 shows the typical fastener pattern options used with metal roof decks. The
most common type of fastener pattern used is 36/4, which means there is a fastener in alternating
ridges in the roof deck. Since the standard roof deck comes in 36-inch-wide sections, this means
there are four fasteners across a typical section. These patterns typically repeat every foot,
resulting in a fastener pattern of 12 inch x 12 inch across the entire roof deck. Corner and side
areas of the roof deck may also be designed with tighter fastener patterns, such as 36/7.
Figure 12 Standard Roof Deck Fastener Layout Patterns [13]
19
3.2.1 Puddle Welds

The industry standard is to connect the deck to metal roof joists with puddle welds
performed in the field, and either weld or screw the deck along the side laps. Welding the roof
deck to the joists requires downward pressure to ensure the deck makes proper contact with the
top of the joist. If the deck does not make proper contact with the steel joist, the weld will not
create a proper bond and will not perform as designed [14]. Figure 13 shows a typical puddle
weld performed at the side lap of two roof deck panels.
Figure 13 Typical Puddle Weld at Side Lap for Metal Roof Deck [11]
Roof deck is a difficult medium to weld because the metal is very thin and does not leave
much of a margin for error. Also, the welding is performed from on top of the roof, which
means the welder cannot see the steel joists below. Often times, welders will miss the joist and
have to re-burn the weld. Figure 14 shows a poor quality weld performed on the roof deck at the
roof joist. You can see where the weld has blown a hole through the roof deck.
Figure 14 Poor Quality Weld at Joist with Blow through on Right Side [14]
Welding quality and suitability can also be limited by weather conditions. If the weather
is too cold or wet, welding may be difficult to complete properly. According to the Steel
20
Decking Institute (SDI) Manual for Construction with Steel Deck, welding should be performed
in accordance with AWS D1.3 and during proper weather conditions. [11].
Special care has to be taken to make and inspect each weld. In a building with over
120,000 square feet of roof area, this can be difficult to accomplish and leaves the roof with
potentially compromised diaphragm and uplift capacity. In the article Screw the Deck and
Welds, the author states one can actually hear welds failing on a deck in the early morning as
the sun heats the deck up and expands, shearing a deficient weld. [14]
The metal roof deck is typically attached to the concrete wall panels by a continuous steel
angle that is positioned around the interior side of the perimeter of the concrete walls. Figure 15
shows a typical wall-to-roof deck connection, as well as roof insulation and waterproof
membrane system in a typical tilt-up building. This angle offers support for the roof deck away
from the steel joist members. The angle can either be attached to an embed plate cast into the
wall panels, or bolted into the wall after the walls are formed [15].
Figure 15 Typical Metal Deck-to-Wall Connection [13]
21
3.2.2 Screws
Screws are commonly used for side lap fasteners, but can also be used to connect the roof
deck to the steel joists below. This method can be done using a standard drill or a stand-up drill,
as shown in Figure 16. Installation can typically be done as quickly as welding, and can be
completed by a single worker at each connecting location. Inspection is easier to complete
through visual inspection, as most deficiencies would be easier to notice than welding issues
[14]. However, applicability for using screws to attach to steel framing may be limited,
depending on the thickness of the steel framing being drilled into. This is especially true if steel
framing member sizes vary throughout the roof system [11].
Figure 16 Standing Drill for Installation of Metal Roof Deck [11]

The use of screws for all connections of the roof deck is becoming more common and
even preferred by some designers and building constructors [14]. No special training or
certifications are needed to operate the drills used for installing screws correctly.
22
3.2.3 Power Driven Pins

Another roof deck connection type commonly used in the industry is power driven pins.
Hilti makes several types of powder actuated pins that have become industry standards and are
commonly referred to as Hilti Pins, as shown in Figure 17. Hilti pins are installed about twice as
fast as screws or welding, and they offer excellent strength per fastener connection. The pins can
be installed using a stand-up tool, allowing the installer to move more quickly.
`
Figure 17 Hilti X-EDNK22 Power Driven Pin [11]
Attaching roof deck using Hilti pins requires location and marking the layout of the steel
joists prior to making connections. Using the installation tool for Hilti pins may require special
training to apply proper pressure to reduce rebound. Most power driven pins are installed using
powder actuated tools. These tools use .22 caliber cartridges to drive the pins into the steel
framing below and must be carefully adjusted to ensure the pins are installed correctly. Using
the tools to install the pins is very loud and requires workers to wear ear protection. Selecting
the correct power driven pin type for the roof deck gauge and the steel framing thickness is
critical to ensure each connection is installed correctly. The pins can also be expensive, as they
cost about 10 times more per pin than screws [11]. The additional cost may be made up for with
faster installation times, in certain circumstances.
23
3.3 Roof Steel Framing

Steel framing is the most common roofing support system used in tilt-up buildings. The
roof systems can be selected from catalogs, such as Vulcraft. The design of the steel frame
members is handled by the manufacturer, not the engineer. Many of the designs are proprietary,
and thus not all component sizes are made available to building design engineers. Generally, the
load from the deck is transferred to open web steel joists, which then transfer the load to primary
joist girders and concrete wall panels, as shown in Figure 18.
Figure 18 Typical Steel Roof Framing Configuration used in STAAD.Pro Model

Joist spacing is a factor of the design of the roof deck and the load capacity of the joists.
Joists are commonly spaced at 5feet to ensure the roof deck is within allowable spans. This
spacing also lends itself well to standard column spacings of 40feet or 50 feet. Figures 19 and 20
show typical open web steel roof joists.
Figure 19 Typical Open Web Steel Roof Joist

24
The joists connect to joist girders along the top chord of the joist girders, and at columns
and concrete wall panels. There is typically a continuous steel angle along the perimeter of the
wall panel called a seat angle, to which the top chord of the steel joists and roof deck are
attached.
Careful detailing of connections at the ends of the roof joists is needed to ensure the loads
are transferred properly down to the foundation through the joist girders, wall panels and
columns.
Figure 20 Open Web Steel Roof Joist
3.4 Roof Framing Connections to Steel Columns

In a typical Home Depot building, roof framing transfers the load from the roof to the
steel columns in the interior bays of the building system. The columns used in the interior of the
buildings are typically spaced 40feet to 50feet apart, and their placement determines the span for
the steel joists and joist girders. Detailing connections between steel roof framing and columns
should follow recommendations from the steel joist manufacturer. Figure 21 shows a typical
joist girder-to-steel column connection inside a tilt-up building.
Typically, joists and joist girders are connected with a rigid connection at the top chord
and a sliding connection on the bottom chord. This ensures the roof framing members behave as
simply supported members and loads are transferred properly to all components. If a rigid
25
connection of the bottom chord is desired at the columns by the building designer, the joists and
joist girders are no longer considered simply supported and should be designed as a continuous
frame by the design engineer [15].
STEEL JOIST
GIRDER
STEEL COLUMN
Figure 21 Photo of Steel Joist Girder and Steel Column inside Tilt-Up Building
3.5 Steel Columns

Steel columns are the most common type of interior vertical support used in large tilt-up
buildings. They are relatively inexpensive, and help building designers achieve acceptable
column spacings to reduce member size requirements and keep overall costs down. Typical
column spacing for large buildings, such as big box stores, is typically between 40feet to 50feet
in each direction. This spacing also lends itself well to joist spacings of 5feet, which falls within
an acceptable span for most roof deck requirements.
Steel columns are typically connected to the roof framing systems, as outlined in Section
3.4, and as shown in Figure 22. Steel columns can be round or square, although square tube
columns are more popular as they are easier to make welded or bolted connections. Typically
columns are connected to the foundation through embedded steel plates in concrete footings.
The primary forces resisted by the columns are vertical downward and uplift forces received
from the steel roof framing above. The steel columns are typically not designed to offer any
moment resistance.
26
OPEN WEB
STEEL JOIST
STEEL JOIST GIRDER
STEEL COLUMN
Figure 22 Typical Column and Roof Framing Connection
3.6 Roof Framing Connections to Concrete Panel

Roof framing transfers the load from the roof to the exterior concrete wall panels. These
walls are the primary structural support members in tilt-up buildings and require careful design
considerations to ensure the connections provide adequate vertical and lateral resistance to the
design loads of the building.
One of the most common types of steel roof framing-to-wall connections is embedded
steel plates with stud anchors welded to the top chord of the steel joist or joist girder, as shown in
Figures 23 and 24 [16]. These embed plates are placed and cast into the concrete wall panels
when they are being poured in the field.
27
Figure 23 Seat Angle for Steel Joist at Wall Connection [16]
STEEL EMBEDDED
PLATE CONNECTIONS
Figure 24 Typical Steel Joist Girder-to-Wall Embedded Plate Connection
28
3.7 Concrete Panel Walls

The concrete panels of a tilt-up constructed building are the most critical element in tiltup building design. Concrete is a very versatile material and offers additional benefits, such as
natural temperature and sound insulation properties, and it performs better than most other
materials for protection against flying debris and missile impacts.
Tilt-up panels are comprised of reinforced concrete panels typically between 7inches and
10 inches thick, as shown in Figure 25. These panels can be composed of two concrete layers
separated by a layer of insulation. This is typically referred to as a sandwich panels, and is fairly
common in tilt-up buildings [16]. Many concrete wall panels, including the ones used in the
Home Depot in Joplin, are designed with 7.5-inch-thick concrete wall panels. This wall
thickness is commonly chosen to stay within ACI 318 requirements for a single layer of
reinforcing [17]. Design moment and deflection limits are determined by ACI 551.2, which will
be covered in Section 4.2.2.
Figure 25 Typical Tilt-Up Concrete Panel
29
CHAPTER 4
BUILDING COMPONENT DESIGN AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Introduction
In this research, a typical tilt-up building was analyzed. The building was similar to the
Home Depot in Joplin, Missouri that collapsed when it incurred a direct hit from a powerful
tornado. The approach taken was to evaluate the major building components from the wall
panels to the structural roof system, as these are the areas of interest discussed in the independent
studies reviewed in the available literature. Each major component was be evaluated with wind
speeds ranging from the typical basic wind speed specified in the Midwest, to higher velocity
coastal wind speeds as outlined in ASCE 7-05. Note that the typical wind analysis for a standard
building was performed for regular wind design, not tornado wind analysis, as may be done with
critical structures such as nuclear facilities. Figures 26 and 27 show the typical wind loading
convention used for the building, per ASCE 7-05. The analysis methods included the following:
typical hand calculations as outlined in ACI 551.2R-10, a typical tilt-up wall analysis using
SPWall for concrete wall design and analysis, and a complete building component analysis using
STAAD.Pro finite element model analysis software. The results from each method are
summarized and plotted in graphs to gain a better understanding of the limitations of each
building system. This information may be used to improve future designs and potentially
improve existing buildings.
The building that was analyzed for this study had similar dimensions and construction as
a typical big box tilt-up building in the Midwest United States, such as the Home Depot in
Joplin. The building dimensions selected for this analysis are 450-feet- long x 300-feet- wide,
with 30-foot-tall wall panels. The wall panels were similar to those in the Home Depot building:
7.5 thick reinforced concrete panels with 30-feet wide x 30-feet- tall tilt-up wall panels.
Concrete with 4,000 psi compressive strength, fc, was used for all calculations, with 60 ksi steel
rebar. A single layer of steel reinforcing was used for wall panels, based on ACI 318 code
requirements [18].
Column spacing for the building was specified as 50 ft in each direction. This spacing is
consistent with the typical maximum span for open web joists and joist girders as used in Home
30
Depot stores. The columns selected in this analysis were steel HSS8x8x1/4 sections with 46 ksi
allowable stress.
Figure 26 Plan View of Building with Wall Wind Load Convention
Figure 27 Orthographic View of Building with Roof Wind Load Convention
Based upon inspection of the photographs taken of the Home Depot store in Joplin, the
steel roof framing members were estimated as being similar to LH Series open web joists with an
approximate joist depth of 36 inches. The maximum span for the joists was 25 feet with a
typical spacing of 5 feet between joists. The joist girders appear to be approximately 60 inches
in depth, with a maximum span of 25 feet. The allowable stress of all roof framing members was
31
30 ksi. The roof deck selected for the building analysis was 22 ga type B steel roof deck. The
roof deck has a 1.5-inch deck depth, with a minimum yield stress of 33 ksi.
4.2 Traditional Design and Analysis Methods

4.2.1 Wind Loading Analysis
The first step in determining the loading conditions for comparing wind pressures for
corresponding wind speeds is to perform a wind loading analysis. The wind load analysis
method used for this research was based on ASCE 7-05. According to a report prepared by the
SEA, the wind pressure calculations have not varied greatly over the past 15 years when using
Chapter 6 of ASCE 7 [10]. The wind speeds selected for the structural calculations within this
research correspond to minimum code basic wind speed for Joplin, the wind speed for a
Category 3 Hurricane, and EF 3 tornado wind speeds. The controlling wind pressures are
summarized in Table 5. The direction for each loading case used in the analysis is shown in
Figures 26 and 27. Based on the wind analysis performed, it was determined that the wind load
in Case 1 and Case 3 controlled for the forces generated on the building being analyzed. These
loads were then used in the structural calculations contained later in this report. See Appendix A
for all diagrams and methods for calculating wind pressures using ASCE 7-05.
Table 5 Wind Loading Conditions Summary Using ASCE 7-05
32
Table 2 (Continued)
4.2.2 ACI 551.2R-10 Tilt-Up Panel Manual Design

A preliminary analysis for determining the moment capacity of a single tilt-up concrete
wall panel was performed using the design methods as outlined in ACI 551.2R-10 [17]. Wind
pressures were applied along the full length of the wall, as determined in the wind load analysis.
The equivalent vertical wind load, and uplift, was applied at an eccentricity of 4 inches from the
center of the wall panels. Figure 28 shows the typical loading configuration and summary when
using ACI 331.2R-10.
The factored vertical load from the roof at the top of the wall from roof live, dead, and
wind loads (Pum) divided by the gross area of concrete section (Ag) must be less than the
compressive strength of the concrete (fc). The first step in the design process for a conventional
tilt-up concrete wall panel is to check the vertical stress at mid height of the panel using the
equation below:
Pum / Ag < 0.06 fc
Next, check to confirm the factored moment capacity (Mn) is greater than or equal to the
cracking moment (Mcr) per Section 14.8.2.4, where:
Mcr = (fr *Ig)/ yt
Mn = *Ase*Fy*(d a/2)
33
The variables used in this section are modulus of rupture (fr), gross moment of inertia
(Ig), effective area of steel (Ase), yield stress of reinforcement (Fy), tension-controlled section
variable (), depth to centroid of primary reinforcement (d), and depth of compression block (a).
If moment capacity is acceptable, the next step is to check the minimum reinforcement
() required by Section 14.3.2. Set to equal the total area of steel (As) divided by the width of
the concrete member (b) times the height of the concrete member (h), as shown below:
= (As)/(b*h)
Table 6 summarizes the moment capacity, maximum moment, and percentage of moment
capacity utilized based on varying wind speeds as outlined in the wind analysis. Based on the
initial wall panel capacity design, it appears the wall panels are sufficient to withstand up to 150
mph winds with partially enclosed wind conditions and over 165 mph winds in enclosed wind
conditions, per ACI 551.2R-10 requirements and recommendations [17].
Figure 28 Tilt-up Wall Panel Configuration for ACI 551.2R-10 Analysis
34
Table 6 Moment Calculations per ACI 551.2R-10 Tilt-up Panel Design
Figure 29 is a graphical representation of the calculated values from Table 3. The

moment values begin to increase more rapidly after wind speeds reach 150 mph. Based on the
design criteria for ACI 551.2R-10, it appears the limiting wind speed value for the 7.5-inch-thick
concrete panels is 150 mph. See Appendix D for all hand calculations using ACI 551.2R-10 for
this report.
Figure 29 Maximum Moment vs. Wind Speed, using ACI 551.2R-10
35
4.2.3 SPWall Software Analysis

SPWall is a finite element structural analysis program produced by Structure Point. The
program is able to perform design analysis based on in-plane and out-of-plane loading for
concrete walls, and to check reinforcing requirements based on ACI 318. The program can also
take into account second-order effects due to cracking [19]. The same loading conditions from
the ACI 551.2R-10 manual design calculations as covered in Section 4.2.3 were also used with
SPWall to generate a thorough analysis of the tilt-up concrete wall panels.
Based on the results from the structural analysis using SPWall displayed in Table 7 and
Figure 30, the maximum moments generated for all wind speeds analyzed fall within the
allowable moment capacity provided by a single layer of reinforcing for the tilt-up wall panel
provided. Note the resulting moment capacities and maximum moments are displayed in kipfeet per foot units. The analysis generates moments based on two-way concrete wall behavior,
resulting in a more precise derivation of moments applied to the concrete wall, as compared to
the manual calculation using ACI 551.2R-10. See Appendix C for SPWall analysis outputs used
to create summary tables.
Table 7 Moment Calculations per SPWall Analysis
36
Figure 30 Maximum Moment vs. Wind Speed, using SPWall Analysis
4.2.4 STAAD.Pro Software Analysis

The primary structural analysis method used in this report is a full building structural
model using STAAD.Pro finite element analysis software. All primary steel and concrete
elements outlined in Chapter 3 were analyzed based on the wind loading analysis outlined in
Section 4.2.2. The main focus of the model was to replicate the transfer of wind load to steel
roof deck and roof framing members.
The roof deck was simulated by a 22 ga (0.0295 inch) steel plate at the roof deck
elevation. STAAD.Pro does not have a feature to model complex plate shapes, only plate
elements with uniform thickness, so the roof deck had to be analyzed by hand. See Section 4.2.6
in this report for roof deck and fastener analysis.
The building model as used in STAAD.Pro was 450 ft long x 300 ft wide, as shown in
Figure 31. The columns were spaced every 50 feet to provide a uniform bay size, as shown in
Figure 32. ASCE 7-05 was used to create the wind loading configuration for this analysis. See
Figures 26 and 27 for the orientation of primary wind loading conventions. The loads were
applied unfactored, and allowable stress design was used to compare calculated maximum
stresses to the design allowable stresses for steel members. The American Institute of Steel
Construction (AISC) Steel Construction Manual [20] specifies allowable stress as 2/3 of the steel
grades minimum yield stress. The steel roof frame members used were Grade A36, which have
a yield stress of 36 ksi and a calculated allowable stress of 24 ksi.
37
Based on the analysis for the controlling wind loading conditions applied to the structural
model, the 90-mph wind loading conditions were the only load cases that stayed below or around
the maximum allowable stress design value of 22 ksi. A summary of the resulting steel roof
framing member stresses from the analysis are shown in Table 8. A review of Figure 33, which
plots the results from Table 8, shows how significant a different the enclosure category used to
design the structure, can significantly affect the acceptability of the members. See Appendix B
for STAAD.Pro model outputs.
If the building can stay intact and remain enclosed, the roof framing members as
currently designed can operate below yield strength at 155 mph design wind speed, as shown in
Figure 33. The partially enclosed building, however, experiences stresses greater than yield for
wind speeds over 100 mph.
Figure 31 Building Model in STAAD.Pro Analysis
Figure 32 Steel Roof Framing Elements and Steel Columns in STAAD.Pro Structural Model
38
Table 8 Steel Roof Framing Member Stresses Summary
Figure 33 Maximum Combined Stresses vs. Wind Speed, using STAAD.Pro Analysis
39
4.2.5 Roof Deck and Fastener Analysis

The roof deck diaphragm in the structural model was checked for shear strength and
uplift capacity from the fasteners. The shear loads were resolved from the lateral wind loads
from the wind analysis, as shown in Table 5. The uplift forces were calculated using the Steel
Deck Institute Diaphragm Design Manual [20]. See Appendix D for hand calculations and
summary tables for roof diaphragm capacities.
The calculations for shear capacity were provided for roof deck thicknesses varying from
22 ga to 18 ga. The diaphragm design parameters used in all cases were 5/8 inch puddle welds, a
5 ft deck span, three side lap fasteners per span, and a 36/4 fastener pattern. The shear capacity
strengths were taken from the New Millennium Building Systems Deck Design Guide [21].
Based on the above criteria, 22 ga roof deck offers 290 plf shear capacity, 20 ga offers 349 plf,
and 18 ga offers 456 plf. The maximum applied shear force for all wind conditions was less than
the shear strength capacity provided for all roof deck thicknesses analyzed, as shown in Tables 9
through 11.
Figure 34 Roof Diaphragm Loading Example
40
Table 9 Diaphragm Shear Strength for 22 ga Roof Deck
41
According to the New Millennium Building Systems Deck Design Guide [21], all roof
decks provided by New Millennium provide a minimum of 30 psf uplift capacity. Based on a
5foot deck span and 36/4 fastener pattern, an uplift wind pressure of 30 psf would result in 150
lbs of uplift resistance required per fastener. A 36/3 fastener pattern would result in 225 lbs of
uplift resistance required. Next, the roof deck fasteners were checked for uplift capacity. A
comparison for each type of typical fastener used was performed. The highest resulting roof
pressure was used for each for each wind speed from the original wind loading analysis
performed. The results of this analysis are shown in Tables 12 through 14.
Based on these results, all fasteners tested meet the minimum capacity required to resist
wind uplift based on the roof deck thicknesses provided in each case. The important factor to
recall is these results assume all fasteners are installed correctly. If several fasteners in a single
row are defective, incorrectly installed, or failed over years of expansion and contraction on the
roof deck, the uplift forces will be significantly higher on the next available fastener. Once
fasteners begin to fail in this manner, the roof deck may begin to unzip, which creates openings
in the roof deck and intensify negative wind pressures.
42
A basic cost comparison was prepared for metal deck material between 18 ga and 22 ga
using AMS Roof Lifecycle Cost Comparison [22] and findings from FSIndustries.com [23]. The
cost difference between 22 ga and 20 ga roof deck is around 21%, while going from 22 ga to 18
ga is 65% higher cost. The summary of the roof deck cost comparison is presented in Table 15.
Table 12 Fastener Uplift Capacities for 22 ga Roof Deck
43
Table 15 - Cost Comparison for Metal Roof Deck Thicknesses
A basic cost comparison for deck fasteners was prepared using the findings from Field
Experience with Steel Deck Installation prepared by Gerry Weiler [10]. When compared to the
overall cost of the roof system, the cost difference between each roof fastener method is
negligible. The results of the roof fastener cost comparison are presented in Table 16.
44
Table 16 - Cost Comparison for Fastener Installation Methods
4.3 Tilt-Up Building Retrofit Feasibility

Most building systems have redundancy that will allow a component of the structure to
yield without leading to catastrophic failure of the entire structure. Tornado events and
earthquakes have exposed that this lack of redundancy in building systems. In the late 1980s,
there were several significant seismic events in California resulted in the catastrophic failure of
many tilt-up buildings. Retrofitting existing structures with strengthened connections was one
method of ensuring that existing buildings complied with new seismic requirements of local
building codes [24]. For tornadoes in this research, tilt-up building retrofit solutions that were
considered, including reinforcing roof-to-wall anchorage, adding steel ties across girders, using
steel rods as cross bracing and adding steel braced frames in intermediate bays [25]. Ultimately,
however, the wind loads applied to the walls of the structure proved to be too great for the
considered retrofits to prevent failure of the roof structure members. Cross bracing appears to be
45
one of the most promising options, but restricts access between columns which is not practical in
most big box stores.
4.4 Reinforced Corner Refuge Area

Designing a fully tornado-resistant structure is cost prohibitive and not always practical
for existing buildings. The typical recommendation for tornado-prone areas is to build a FEMA
361 compliant safe room, or ICC 500 compliant storm shelter. These structures have specific
guidelines that must be met, including wind speeds, occupancy density, missile impact testing,
and reinforced doors. Building a FEMA 361 or ICC 500 compliant structure is the only way to
guarantee that a structure will be able to withstand tornado events [26].
An alternative to building a stand-alone safe room would be to reinforce a corner to
create a hardened protected structure in which to seek refuge during tornado events. This room
could function as a break room or meeting room, and must remain free of obstructions that
would otherwise render the space unavailable during an emergency. This alternative would be
suitable for some cases, but may require additional reinforcement or connections to the
foundation.
For the tilt-up building in this research,, a corner of the existing buildings wall panels
was utilized, in conjunction with new precast concrete wall panels to form a reinforced corner
structure. A STAAD.Pro structural analysis was performed for a 30-foot x 30-foot corner
structure using an 8-inch-thick reinforced concrete wall and 12-inch-thick precast concrete roof
panels, as shown in Figure 35. This configuration results in approximately 900 sq ft of interior
space in the room. ICC 500 occupancy density requires 5 square feet per person and 10 square
feet per wheel chair. According to ICC 500 Section 501.1.3, each storm shelter shall be sized
to accommodate a minimum of one wheel chair space for every 200 shelter occupants or portion
thereof [26]. Using this requirement, 900 sq ft can accommodate 170 standing occupants and
five wheel chair occupants.
The reinforcing for the walls was #6 bars at 12-inch spacing each way. The reinforcing
for the roof panels was #7 bars at 12-inch spacing each way, top and bottom. All connections
were modeled as pinned to produce conservative moment values. Wind load pressures for 250mph design wind were placed on the structure, in accordance with FEMA 361 guidance [2],
which ensures the structure can withstand a tornado. The results of the analysis are summarized
46
in Table 17 and Figures 36 and 37. All concrete panels met ACI318-05 reinforcement
requirements for moment and shear. A rough cost, assuming a cost of constructed concrete of
$650 per cubic yard, is to approximately $70,000 for this structure to be constructed within an
existing building.
Figure 35 Reinforced Corner Refuge Area Structural Model
Table 17 - Moment and Shear Capacity for Precast Panels for Corner Refuge Area
47
Figure 36 Plate Contour Output from STAAD.Pro for Moment about X-Axis
Figure 37 Plate Contour Output from STAAD.Pro for Moment about Y-Axis
48
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary
The objective of this research was to investigate potential weaknesses in conventional
tilt-up constructed buildings. Industry standard practices were studied, and conventional
methods of structural analysis were performed to determine performance limitations in an
existing building. Further consideration was given to propose a feasible cost-effective method
for accommodating vulnerabilities of tilt-up buildings, to prevent future fatalities associated with
tornadoes. Existing guidance from FEMA 361 and ICC 500 were used. The goal of this
research is to help designers recognize limitations in building systems in tornado-prone regions
and consider incorporating refuge areas into building designs.
5.2 Conclusions
The results of the studies of standard construction methods and technologies yielded
some surprising results. The following is a summary of notable conclusions reached during the
course of this research:
1. Changing enclosure category from enclosed to partially enclosed results in a 40%
increase in wind pressure exerted on structures.
2. Welded roof fasteners theoretically have higher capacity than other fastener types, but
questionable reliability.
3. Difficulty verifying successful welds reduces their effectiveness and building
performance.
4. Screws and power driven pin roof fasteners are faster to install than traditional puddle
welds, are easier to install, and have higher reliability than puddle welds.
5. Steel roof framing systems are designed very efficiently, with very little excess capacity.
6. Existing concrete panel walls have considerable excess shear and moment capacity.
7. Wall performance and capacity is limited by the strength and design of the roof framing
system.
49
8. Some tilt-up buildings can be retrofitted to contain structures that serve as refuge areas
that also comply with FEMA 361 and ICC 500 guidelines.
5.3 Recommendations
The tornado outbreak of Spring 2011 serves as a reminder that powerful storms will
continue to be a serious threat to many parts of the United States, especially the Midwest region.
As technology advances, researchers will continue to improve methods for early detection of
tornadoes and sending warnings out to residents in surrounding areas. Detecting tornadic
activity is only part of the challenge. Improving building performance and striving to decrease
casualties due to tornadoes should be considered by building designers and building owners.
Designing and constructing tornado-proof buildings, particularly tilt-up buildings, may
never be cost-feasible or even possible in some cases, but there are proactive steps that can be
taken for new construction and in existing buildings that can increase survivability within tilt-up
buildings. New buildings can be designed with more reliable roof deck fasteners to ensure the
roof deck performs as designed. The designer and building owner may also consider using a
thicker roof deck to accommodate higher uplift capacity. These considerations can keep the roof
deck intact during higher uplift conditions and prevent the roof system from being compromised
in extreme wind events. Keeping the roof deck attached to the roof framing is critical for
ensuring that the loads applied to the roof are transferred to the foundation through the proper
load paths, as designed.
Concrete tilt-up wall panels are very strong and are generally good at providing
protection from flying debris and missile damage; however, the wall panels require support at
the top to keep the walls upright. Other than the wall panels themselves, the roof and column
systems used are very similar to CMU buildings. Concrete wall panels can offer protection from
airborne missiles. The wall panels can also become destructive entities themselves when they
are no longer supported at the top end of the panels. It is not practical to design wall panels with
a cantilevered wall at the foundation due to the required height of the walls, so consideration
should be given to improve reliability of roof-to-wall structural connections.
One potential method of keeping the wall panels upright if the roof system fails is to
utilize the heavy steel racks that are already being used for merchandise storage and display.
These racks are made of heavy steel members and can act as wall bracing during a tornado event.
50
While this method may not be feasible as a retrofit option, it might be considered when
designing new buildings in tornado-prone areas. If the building will not have large steel rack
frames, additional steel bracing can be added to provide additional support against lateral wind
loads applied to the wall panels. Panel-to-panel connections may be required to ensure that loads
transfer from the upright panels to the bracing, should this method be considered.
In cases where buildings are too large to retrofit to provide tornado wind, the best option
to prevent injury or loss of life is to provide a stand-alone storm shelter or utilize the natural
properties of the existing tilt-up panels to construct a hardened and protected corner in the
building. To ensure that the structure can withstand any tornado, it should comply with FEMA
361 or ICC 500 requirements for wind speed, occupancy, and ventilation. If these types of
tornado shelters are considered during the design and construction of a large tilt-up building, the
cost to include them in the final building could be minimized. This can be an excellent proactive
approach to furthering the safety of the building occupants.
51
APPENDIX A
WIND ANALYSIS
Table 18 Wind Analysis for Building per ASCE 7-05
52
Table 19 Wind Roof Uplift Pressure Comparison: Enclosed vs. Partially Enclosed
Table 20 Wind Loading Conditions Summary
Figure 38 Controlling Wind Loading Configurations
53
Table 21 Design Wind Pressure Summary for Enclosed Building at 90 mph
54
55
56
57
Table 25 Design Wind Pressure Summary for Partially Enclosed Building at 90 mph
58
59
60
61
APPENDIX B
STAAD.PRO ANALYSIS OUTPUTS
Figure 39 3D Whole Building Model for STAAD.Pro Analysis
Figure 40 3D Roof Truss Model for STAAD.Pro Analysis
62
Figure 41 North Wall Wind Loading in STAAD.Pro Analysis
Figure 42 South Wall Wind Loading in STAAD.Pro Analysis
63
Figure 43 Plate Contour Max Moments for Mx Axis from STAAD.Pro Analysis
Figure 44 Plate Contour Max Moments for My Axis from STAAD.Pro Analysis
64
Table 29 Maximum Roof System Anchorage Reactions Summary
Figure 45 Maximum Roof System Anchorage Reactions Graph
65
Table 30 Maximum Column Anchorage Reactions Summary
Figure 46 Maximum Column Anchorage Reactions Graph
66
Table 31 Maximum Roof Framing Member Stresses Summary
Figure 47 Maximum Roof Framing Member Stresses Graph
67
Figure 48 Plate Contour Max Moments for Mx Axis for Reinforced Corner Model from
STAAD.Pro Analysis
Figure 49 Plate Contour Max Moments for My Axis for Reinforced Corner Model from
STAAD.Pro Analysis
68
Figure 50 8 inch thick Concrete Wall Panel Capacity Calculation
69
Figure 51 12 inch thick Concrete Roof Capacity Calculation
70
APPENDIX C
SPWALL ANALYSIS OUTPUTS
Figure 52 General Condition for Single Wall Panel SPMats Analysis
71
Figure 53 Pinned Connections for Single Wall Panel SPMats Analysis
72
Figure 54 Applied Roof Loads for Single Wall Panel SPMats Analysis
73
Figure 55 Applied Lateral Wind Pressure Applied to Single Wall Panel SPMats Analysis
74
Figure 56 Max Unit Moment for Mx Axis for Single Wall Panel SPMats Analysis
Figure 57 Max Unit Moment for My Axis for Single Wall Panel SPMats Analysis
75
Figure 58 Output from SPMats Analysis for 90 mph Enclosed Building
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
APPENDIX D
HAND CALCULATIONS
Table 32 Roof Deck Fastener Capacity Summary
84
Table 33 Roof Deck Diaphragm Shear Capacity Summary
85
Figure 62 Metal Deck and Fastener Properties
86
Figure 63 Roof Deck Structural Fastener Capacity Calculations
87
Figure 64 Roof Deck Sidelap Fastener Capacity Calculations
88
Figure 65 Diaphragm Shear Strength Calculations for Enclosed 90 mph Design Wind Speed
89
90
91
92

Design Wind Speed
93
Design Wind Speed
94
Design Wind Speed
95
Design Wind Speed
96
Figure 73 Tilt-Up Panel Design Calculation General Parameters for ACI 551.2R-10
97
ACI 551.2R-10
98
99
ACI 551.2R-10
100
101
ACI 551.2R-10
102
103
ACI 551.2R-10
104
105
Figure 78 Tilt-Up Panel Design Calculation for Partially Enclosed 90 mph Design Wind using
ACI 551.2R-10
106
107
using ACI 551.2R-10
108
109
using ACI 551.2R-10
110
111
using ACI 551.2R-10
112
113
Table 34 Cost Estimate for Different Steel Roof Deck Thickness
Table 35 Cost Estimate for Different Roof Deck Fastener Types
114
REFERENCES
1.
http://www.NOAA.com, Accessed March 2013
2.
FEMA, FEMA P-361: Design and Construction Guidance for Community Safe Rooms,
Second Edition, August 2008.
3.
April 2011 tornado information". NOAA, Accessed March 2013.
4.
NWS Central Region Service Assessment Joplin, Missouri, Tornado May 22, 2011.
US Department of Commerce, July 2011.
5.
ASCE 7-05: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Jan 2006.
6.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/tornadoes.html, Accessed March

2013.
7.
National Institute of Science and Technology, Joplin, MO Tornado Study: Draft Study
Plan and Research Overview, November 7, 2011.
8.
FEMA, Mitigation Assessment Team Report - Spring 2011 Tornadoes: April 25-28 and
May 22, FEMA P-908, May 2012.
9.
Analysis of Damage from Historic Tornado in Joplin, Missouri, U.S.A. on May 22, 2011:
A Report to the Technical Committee of the Tilt-Up Concrete Association, Tilt-Up
Concrete Association, January 12, 2012.
10.
Structural Engineers Association of Kansas and Missouri Report: Investigations and

Recommendations based on the May 22, 2011 Joplin, Missouri Tornado, Structural
Engineers Association of Kansas and Missouri, May 2012.
11.
Weiler, Gerry, Field Experience with Steel Deck Installation, CISC Presentation,
November 2004.
12.
Steel Deck Institute, Manual of Construction with Steel Deck, 1992.
13.
Carter, James W., Hawkins, Neil M., Wood, Sharon L., Seismic Response of Tilt-Up
Construction, December 1993.
14.
Canon, Richard P., Screw the Deck and the Welds, RCI Inc., October 2007.
15.
Vulcraft, Steel Joists and Joist Girders, 2001.
16.
American Concrete Institute, ACI 551.2R-92 Tilt-Up Concrete Structures, 1997.
17.
American Concrete Institute, ACI 551.2R-10 Design Guide for Tilt-Up Concrete
Structures, March 2010.
18.
American Concrete Institute, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI
318-05), 2005. pp. 237 241.
19.
http://www.structurepoint.org, Accessed April 2013.
20.
Steel Deck Institute, Diaphragm Design Manual, Second Edition, Fox River Grove, IL,
1991.
21.
New Millennium Building Systems, Deck Design Guide,2009.

115
22.
Architectural Metal Systems, Roof Lifecycle Cost Comparison, August 2008.
23.
http://www.fsindustries.com/more_info/corrugated_steel_decking/corrugated_steel_decki
ng.shtml, Accessed April 2013.
24.
Structural Engineers Association of California, SEAOC Blue Book Seismic Design

Recommendations: Tilt-up Buildings, September 2008.
25.
Saunders Commercial Seismic Retrofit, What is Seismic Retrofitting, March 19, 2008.
26.
International Code Council, ICC/NSSA Standard For the Design and Construction of
Storm Shelters, Washington D.C., 2008.
116
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Mr. Maldonado was born September 15, 1982 in San Antonio, Texas. He attended Florida State
University from 2001 to 2005, where he obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in civil
engineering in December 2005. After completing his undergraduate studies, he began working
for PBS&J Engineering in Tallahassee, Florida in January, 2006. He began his graduate studies
in Spring 2010, working under the direction of Dr. Michelle Rambo-Roddenberry. Mr.
Maldonado served on a FEMA Mitigation Assessment Team in April 2011 as part of the tornado
outbreak that affected the southeastern United States, primarily northern Alabama. The
experience served as motivation for further research into ways to improve building performance
and survivability in tornado events.
117

Analysis of Tilt-Up Building Design and Industry Standard Practic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis of Tilt-Up Building Design and Industry Standard Practic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis of Tilt-Up Building Design and Industry Standard Practic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Florida State University

The Graduate School

Analysis Of Tilt-Up Building Design And Industry

Follow this and additional works at: http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

ANALYSIS OF TILT-UP BUILDING DESIGN AND INDUSTRY STANDARD PRACTICES

A Thesis submitted to the

Desiderio Maldonado defended this thesis on April 17, 2013.

Building Codes and Wind Zones ...................................................................................4

Tornado vs. Hurricane Wind Speeds .............................................................................6

Recent Tornado-Related Tilt-Up Construction Studies .................................................9

TILT-UP BUILDING COMPONENTS ...............................................................................18

Roof Deck ....................................................................................................................18

Roof Deck Fasteners ....................................................................................................19

Roof Steel Framing ......................................................................................................24

Roof Framing Connections to Steel Columns .............................................................25

Steel Columns ..............................................................................................................26

Roof Framing Connections to Concrete Panel.............................................................27

Concrete Panel Walls ...................................................................................................29

BUILDING COMPONENT DESIGN AND ANALYSIS ...................................................30

Traditional Design and Analysis Methods...................................................................32

Tilt-up Building Retrofit Feasibility ............................................................................45

Reinforced Corner Refuge Area ..................................................................................46

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................49

WIND ANALYSIS .....................................................................................................52

STAAD.PRO STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OUTPUTS ............................................62

SPWALL ANALYSIS OUTPUTS ..............................................................................71

HAND CALCULATIONS ..........................................................................................84

Table 31 Maximum Roof Framing Member Stresses Summary ................................................67

Figure 31 Building Model in STAAD.Pro Analysis...................................................................38

The components focused on are generally regarded as current industry

The objectives of the research performed were to:

Figure 1 Tornado Activity in the United States [2]

2.2 Building Codes and Wind Zones

Figure 2 Basic Wind Speed Map for ASCE 7-05 [5]

2.3 Tornado vs. Hurricane Wind Speeds

Figure 4 Tornado Safe Room Design Wind Speed Map [2]

2.4 Recent Tornado-Related Tilt-Up Construction Studies

2.4.1 FEMA Mitigation Assessment Team Report

tilt-up concrete wall panels

Figure 9 Northwest End of Walmart Store [8]

2.4.2 Tilt-Up Concrete Association Report

Figure 10 Overhead View of Collapsed Home Depot Store in Joplin [9]

2.4.3 Structural Engineers Association of Kansas and Missouri Report

3.1 Roof Deck

3.2 Roof Deck Fasteners

Figure 12 Standard Roof Deck Fastener Layout Patterns [13]

3.2.1 Puddle Welds

Figure 15 Typical Metal Deck-to-Wall Connection [13]

Figure 16 Standing Drill for Installation of Metal Roof Deck [11]

3.2.3 Power Driven Pins

3.3 Roof Steel Framing

Figure 18 Typical Steel Roof Framing Configuration used in STAAD.Pro Model

Figure 19 Typical Open Web Steel Roof Joist

Figure 20 Open Web Steel Roof Joist

3.4 Roof Framing Connections to Steel Columns

3.5 Steel Columns

STEEL JOIST GIRDER

Figure 22 Typical Column and Roof Framing Connection