10

Metal Building Roof and Wall Systems

10.1 INTRODUCTION
Metal building roof and wall systems are generally
constructed with cold-formed C- and Z-sections. Roof
members are called purlins, and wall members are referred
to as girts, although the sections may be identical. Gener-
ally, purlins are lapped, as shown in Figure 10.1, to provide
continuity and, therefore, greater efficiency. The lap
connection is usually made with two machine-grade bolts
through the webs of the lapped purlins at each end of the
lap as shown in the figure. In addition, the purlins are
flange-bolted to the supporting rafter or web-bolted to a
web clip or an antiroll device. Z-section purlins are gener-
ally point symmetric; however, some manufacturers
produce Z-sections with unequal-width flanges to facilitate
nesting in the lapped region. Girts are generally not lapped
but can be face- or flush-mounted as shown in Figure 10.2.

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 Building
rafter

Buikiing
rafter

FIGURE 10.1 Continuous or lapped purlins: (a) lapped C-

sections; (b) lapped Z-sections

•V Building.
"^ column
Girt ,- Girt

XT

(fO (b)

FIGURE 10.2 Face- and flush-mounted girts: (a) face mounted

girt; (b) flush mounted girt.

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 Metal building roof systems are truly structural
systems: the roof sheathing supports gravity and wind
uplift loading and provides lateral support to the purlins.
In turn, the purlins support the roof sheathing and provide
lateral support, by way of flange braces, to the supporting
main building frames. In addition, purlins may be required
to carry axial force from the building end walls to the
longitudinal wind bracing system. These purlins are
referred to as strut purlins. Figure 10.3 shows typical
framing for a metal building.
Roof panels are one of two basic types: through- or
screw-fastened and standing seam. Panel profiles are
commonly referred to as pan-type (Figure 10.4a) or rib-
type (Figure 10.4b). Through-fastened panels are attached
directly to the supporting purlins with self-drilling or self-
tapping screws (Figure 10.5a). Thermal movement of
attached panels can enlarge the screw holes, resulting in
roof leaks. However, through-fastened panels can provide
full lateral support to the connected purlin flange.
Standing seam roofing provides a virtually penetra-
tion-free surface resulting in a watertight roof membrane.
Except at the building eave or ridge, standing seam panels
are attached to the supporting purlins with concealed clips
which are screw-fastened to the supporting purlin flange
(Figure 10.5b). There are two basic clip types: fixed (Figure

.-Purlin
iisive

Roof
panel

Wall _r-

frame

FIGURE 10.3 Typical metal building framing.

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 S

FIGURE 10.4 Roof panel profiles: (a) pan-type panel profile;

(b) rib-type panel profile.

10.6a) and sliding or two-piece (Figure 10.6b). Thermal

movement is accounted for by movement between the roof
panel and the fixed clip or by movement between the parts
of the sliding clips. The lateral support provided by stand-
ing seam panels and clips is highly dependent on the panel
profile and clip details.

,- Sheer ro shee,r fasi

I
,,•-- Sheet to srructural fastener

Z - purlin

(a)

1 f Clip fastener r Standing icani dip

/,T_y rp( \
3
f- Z purlin J-

FIGURE 10.5 Through-fastened and standing seam panels:

(a) through-fastened panel; (b) standing seam panel.

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 FIGURE 10.6 Types of standing seam clips: (a) fixed clip;
(b) sliding or two-piece clip.

Wall sheathing is cold-formed in a large variety of

profiles with both through-fastened and fixed-clip fastening
systems. Design considerations for wall sheathing are
basically the same as for roof sheathing.
The effective lateral support provided by the
panel/attachment system is a function of the system details
as well as the loading direction. Generally, through-
fastened sheathing is assumed to provide continuous
lateral and torsional restraints for gravity loading in the
positive moment region (the portion of the span where the
panel is attached to the purlin compression flange). Design
assumptions for the negative moment region (the portion of
the span where the panel is attached to the purlin tension
flange) vary from unrestrained to fully restrained. A
common assumption is that the purlin is unbraced between
the end of the lap and the adjacent inflection point (Ref.
10.1). However, recent testing has shown that this assump-
tion may be unduly conservative (Ref. 10.2).
For uplift loading, through-fastened sheathing
provides lateral, but not full torsional, restraint. Attempts
have been made to develop test methods to determine the
torsional restraint provided by specific panel profile/screw
combinations as described in Section 5.3. However, the

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 variability of the methods and their complexity necessi-
tated something simpler for routine use. Consequently, the
empirical R-factor method was developed for determining
the flexural strength of through-fastened roof purlins
under uplift loading. The method is described in Section
10.2.2.
The lateral and torsional restraints provided by stand-
ing seam roof systems vary considerably, depending on the
panel profile and the clip details. Consequently, a generic
solution is not possible. The so-called base test method was
therefore developed; it is described in Section 10.2.3.

10.2 SPECIFIC AISI DESIGN METHODS FOR

PURLINS
10.2.1 General
The AISI Specification provides empirical and test-based
methods for determining the uplift loading strength of
through-fastened panel systems (R-factor method) and for
the gravity and uplift loading strength of standing seam
panel systems (base test method). Determination of the
gravity loading strength of through-fastened panel systems
is not specified. The industry practice is to assume full
lateral and torsional support in the positive moment region
and no lateral support between an inflection point and the
end of the lap in the negative moment region. However,
recent testing (Ref. 10.2) has shown that full lateral and
torsional support can also be assumed in this region.
Rational methods, such as that presented in Section
5.3, are permitted by the AISI Specification for certain
circumstances. For instance, in Section C3.1.3, Beam
Having One Flange Through-Fastened to Deck or Sheath-
ing, it is stated that "if variables fall outside any of the
above the limits, the user must perform full scale tests...
or apply a rational analysis procedure."

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 10.2.2 R-Factor Design Method for Through-
Fastened Panel Systems and Uplift
Loading
The design procedure for purlins subject to uplift loading in
Section C3.1.3 of the AISI Specification Supplement No. 1 is
based on the use of reduction factors (R-factors) to account
for the torsional-flexural or nonlinear distortional behavior
of purlins with through-fastened sheathing. The R-factors
are based on tests performed on simple span and contin-
uous span systems. Both C- and Z-sections were used in the
testing programs; all tests were conducted without inter-
mediate lateral bracing (Ref. 10.3).
The R-factor design method simply involves applying a
reduction factor (R) to the bending section strength (SeFy),
as given by Eq. (10.1), to give the nominal member moment
strength:
Mn = RSeFy (10.1)
with R = 0.6 for continuous span C-sections
= 0.7 for continuous span Z-sections
= values from AISI Specification Supplement No. 1
Table C3.1.3-1 for simple span C- and Z-sections.
The rotational stiffness of the panel-to-purlin connec-
tion is due to purlin thickness, panel thickness, fastener
type and location, and insulation. Therefore, the reduction
factors only apply for the range of sections, lap lengths,
panel configurations, and fasteners tested as set out in
Section C3.1.3 of the AISI Specification Supplement No.
1. For continuous span purlins, compressed glass fiber
blanket insulation of thickness between 0 and 6 in. does
not measurably affect the purlin strength (Ref. 10.4). The
effect is greater for simple span purlins (Ref. 10.5), requir-
ing that the reduction factor (R) be further reduced to rR,
where
r= 1.00 -0.01*; (10.2)

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 with ti = thickness of uncompressed glass fiber blanket
insulation in inches.
The resulting design strength moment ((j)bMn) or
allowable stress design moment capacity (Mn/Qb) is
compared with the maximum bending moment in the
span determined from a simple elastic beam analysis. The
resistance factor (<£fe) is 0.90, and the factor of safety (Qb) is
1.67.
The AISI Specification R-factor design method does
not apply to the region of a continuous beam between an
inflection point and a support nor to cantilever beams. For
these cases, the design must consider buckling as described
in Section 5.2. If variables are outside of the Specification
limits, full-scale tests or a rational analysis may be used to
determine the design strength.

10.2.3 The Base Test Method for Standing

Seam Panel Systems
The lateral and torsional restraints provided by standing
seam sheathing and clips depend on the panel profile and
clip details. Lateral restraint is provided by friction in the
clip and drape or hugging of the sheathing. Because of the
wide range of panel profiles and clip details, a generic
solution for the restraint provided by the system is impos-
sible. For this reason, the base test method was developed
by Murray and his colleagues at Virginia Tech (Refs. 10.6-
10.10). The method uses separate sets of simple span, two-
purlin-line tests to establish the nominal moment strength
of the positive moment regions of gravity-loaded systems
and the negative moment regions of uplifted loaded
systems. The results are then used to predict the strength
of multispan, multiline systems for either gravity or wind
uplift loadings.
The base test method was verified by 11 sets of gravity
loading tests and 16 sets of wind uplift loading tests. Each
set consisted of one two-purlin-line simple span test and

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 one two- to four-purlin line, two or three continuous span
test. Failure loads for the multiple-span tests were
predicted using results from the simple span tests for the
positive moment region strength and AISI Specification
provisions for the negative moment region strength. The
procedure for determining the predicted failure load of the
continuous span test using the results of the single-span
base test is illustrated in Figure 10.7 for gravity loading.

^ — failure load of single span test

•^ M,H - Maximum moment of single span

fc.___^_»___________»____J * corresponding to \vus

^,-w= MMlpIf
=
\ MUSK' Maximum positive moment at a
3~'jL31jLlGLllIjQ
_0_A_t_l._i_»_i_J_ nominal load of" 100 plf
'"'*,*' "'*'"" M mri< " = Maximum negative nttJtneiii at
j»<^^~---«^l a nominal of 100 pJf at
\ either ihc interior or exterior
M
»«in;»:
- side of the
'
lap splice
* *

tb'J

AJS1 noniin.'i! flcxiiral strength

PKilicted of the nutlti-spaii systcm.plf

——,,, x

FIGURE 10.7 Verification of base test method: (a) single-span test

case; (b) multi-span stiffness analysis; (c) predicted failure load.

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 Chapter 10

The predicted failure load is then compared to the experi-

mental failure load of the continuous span test.
The gravity loading series included tests with lateral
restraint only at the rafter supports and tests with lateral
restraint at the rafter supports plus intermediate third-
point restraint. The ratio of actual-to-predicted failure
loads for the three-span continuous tests was 0.87 to 1.02.
The uplift loading tests were also conducted with rafter and
third-point lateral restraints. The ratio of actual-to-
predicted failure loads for the three-span continuous tests
was 0.81 to 1.25.
Section C3.1.4 of the 1996 AISI Specification allowed
the use of the base test method for gravity loading; Supple-
ment No. 1 expands its use to wind uplift loading. The
nominal moment strength of the positive moment regions
for gravity loading or the negative moment regions for
uplift loading is determined by using Eq. (C3.1.4-1) of the
AISI Specification, given as
Mn = RSeFy (10.3)
where R is the reduction factor determined by the "Base
Test Method for Purlins Supporting a Standing Seam Roof
System," Appendix A of AISI Specification Supplement No.
1. The resistance factor (<£fe) is 0.90, and the factor of safety
(Q6) is 1.67.
To determine the relationship for R, six tests are
required for each load direction and for each combination of
panel profile, clip configuration, purlin profile, and lateral
bracing layout. A purlin profile is defined as a set of purlins
with the same depth, flange width, and edge stiffener angle,
but with varying thickness and edge stiffener length. Three
of the tests are conducted with the thinnest material and
three with the thickest material used by the manufacturer
for the purlin profile. Components used in the base tests must
be identical to those used in the actual systems. Generally,
the purlins are oriented in the same direction (purlin top
flanges facing toward the building ridge or toward the

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 building eave) as used in the actual building. However, it is
permitted to test with the purlin top flanges facing in
opposite directions if additional analysis is done, even
though that will not be the orientation in the actual building.
The required analysis uses diaphragm test results.
Results from the six tests are then used in Eq. (10.4) to
determine an R-factor relationship:
Rt -R
___ _
t
*max m - 1.0

\
M nt
'"max
-M nt
"'min

(10.4)
with Rtmin, Rtmax = mean minus one standard deviation of
the modification factors for the thinnest and thickest
purlins tested, respectively. The values may not be
taken greater than 1.0.
Mn = nominal flexural strength (SeFy) for the section
for which^-R is being determined.
Mnf"'min , Mnf"'max = average
°
tested flexural strength
°
for
the thinnest and thickest purlins tested, respectively.
The reduction factor for each test (Rt) is computed from

with Mts = maximum single-span failure moment from the

test
Mnt = flexural strength calculated using the measured
cross section and measured yield stress of the purlin.
Reduction factor values generally are between 0.40
and 0.98 for gravity and uplift loading, depending on the
panel profile and clip details. For some standing seam
Z-purlin systems, the uplift loading reduction factor is
greater than the corresponding gravity loading reduction
factor. Gravity loading tends to increase purlin rotation as
shown in Figure 10. 8a, and uplift loading tends to decrease
Z-purlin rotation, as shown in Figure 10. 8b. If sufficient

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 Chapter 10

torsional restraint is provided by the panel/clip connection,

a greater strength may be obtained for uplift loading than
for gravity loading.
The maximum single-span failure moment (Mnt) is
determined by using the loading at failure determined from

wta = (pta+pd)s + 2PL(-] (10.6)

with
fcl.5
PL = 0.041 dO.90gO.60 "

and where pts = maximum applied load (force/area) in the

test
pd = weight of the purlin and roof panel
(force/area), positive for gravity loading
and negative for uplift loading
s = tributary width for the tested purlins
b = purlin flange width
d = depth of purlin
t = purlin thickness
B = purlin spacing.
The force PL accounts for the effect of the overturning
moment on the system due to anchorage forces. It applies
only to Z-purlin gravity loading tests without intermediate
lateral restraint, when the top flanges of the purlins point
in the same direction and when the eave (or "downhill")
purlin fails before the ridge (or "uphill") purlin.

I 1 UU- I t 1 i I ? I? f !t M M M t

fa) (b)

FIGURE 10.8 Purlin rotation due to gravity and uplift loading:

(a) gravity loading; (b) uplift loading.

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 The AISI base test procedure requires that the tests be
conducted with a test chamber capable of supporting a
positive or negative internal pressure differential. Figure
10.9 shows a typical chamber. Construction of a test setup
must match that of the field erection manuals of the
manufacturer of the standing seam roof system. The lateral
bracing provided in the test must match the actual field
conditions. For example, if antiroll devices are installed at
the rafter support of each purlin in the test, then antiroll
devices must be provided at every purlin support location in
the actual roof. Likewise, if intermediate lateral support is
provided in the test, the support configuration is required
in the actual roof. If antiroll clips are used at the supports
of only one purlin in the test, the unrestrained purlin can
be considered as a "field" purlin as long as there is no
positive connection between the two purlins. That is, if
standing seam panels or an end-support angle are not
screw-connected to both purlins, the actual "field" purlins

Standing seam
pare Is

Gave angle

FIGURE 10.9 Base test chamber.

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 need only be flange-attached to the primary support
member.
Example calculations for the determination of the
R-relationship and its application are in Section 10.5.1.

10.3 CONTINUOUS PURLIN LINE DESIGN

Because Z-purlins are point symmetric and the applied
loading is generally not parallel to a principal axis, the
response to gravity and wind uplift loading is complex. The
problem is somewhat less complex for continuous C-purlins
since bending is about principal axes. Design is further
complicated when a standing seam roof deck, which may
provide only partial lateral restraint, is used. In addition to
AISI Specification provisions, metal building designers use
design and analysis assumptions, such as the following:
1. Constrained bending—that is, bending is about an
axis perpendicular to the web.
2. Full lateral support is provided by through-
fastened roof sheathing in the positive moment
regions.
3. Partial lateral support is provided by standing
seam roof sheathing in the positive moment
regions, or the Z-purlins are laterally unrestrained
between intermediate braces. For the former
assumption, the AISI base test method is used to
determine the level of restraint. For the latter
assumption, AISI Specification lateral buckling
equations are used to determine the purlin
strength.
4. An inflection point is a brace point.
5. For analysis, the purlin line is considered pris-
matic (e.g., the increased stiffness due to the
doubled cross section within the lap is ignored),
or the purlin line is considered nonprismatic (e.g.,
considering the increased stiffness within the lap).

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 6. Use of vertical slotted holes, which facilitate erec-
tion of the purlin lines, for the bolted lap web-to-
web connection does not affect the strength of
continuous purlin lines.
7. The critical location for checking combined bend-
ing and shear is immediately adjacent to the end of
the lap in the single purlin.
Constrained bending implies that bending is about an
axis perpendicular to the Z-purlin web and that there is no
purlin movement perpendicular to the web. That is, all
movement is constrained in a plane parallel to the web.
Because a Z-purlin is point symmetric and because the
applied load vector is not generally parallel to a principal
axis of the purlin, the purlin tends to move out of the plane
of the web, as discussed in Section 10.4.1. Constrained
bending therefore is not the actual behavior. However, it
is a universally used assumption and its appropriateness is
even implied in the AISI Specification. For instance, the
nominal strength equations for Z-sections in Section C3.1.2,
Lateral Buckling Strength, of the 1996 AISI Specification
apply to "Z-sections bent about the centroidal axis perpen-
dicular to the web (jc-axis)." All of the analyses referred to
in this section are based on the constrained bending
assumption.
It is also assumed that through-fastened roof sheath-
ing provides full lateral support to the purlin in the positive
moment region. However, it is obvious that this assumption
does not apply equally to standing seam roof systems. The
degree of restraint provided depends on the panel profile,
seaming method, and clip details. The restraint provided
by the standing seam system consists of panel drape (or
hugging) and clip friction or lockup. Lower values are
obtained when "snap together" (e.g., no field seaming)
panels and two-piece (or sliding) clips are used. Higher
values are obtained when field-seamed panels and fixed
clips are used. However, exceptions apply to both of these
general statements.

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 The 1996 AISI Specification in Section C3.1.4, Beams
Having One Flange Fastened to a Standing Seam Roof
System, allows the designer to determine the design
strength of Z-purlins using (1) the theoretical lateral-
torsional buckling equations in Section C3.1.2 or (2) the
base test method described in Section 10.2.3. The base test
method indirectly establishes the restraint provided by a
standing seam panel/clip/bracing combination.
If intermediate braces are not used, a lateral-torsional
buckling analysis predicts an equivalent R-value in the
range 0.12—0.20. The corresponding base-test-generated
R-value will be three to five times larger, which clearly
shows the beneficial effects of panel drape and clip
restraint. However, if intermediate bracing is used, base-
test-method-generated R-values will sometimes be less
than that predicted by a lateral-torsional analysis with
the unbraced length equal to the distance between inter-
mediate brace locations. The latter results are somewhat
disturbing in that panel/clip restraint is not considered in
the analytical solution, yet the resulting strength is greater
than the experimentally determined value. Possible expla-
nations are that the intermediate brace anchorage in the
base test is not sufficiently rigid, that the Specification
equations are unconservative, or that distortional buckling
contributes to the failure mechanism (Ref. 10.11). The AISI
Commentary to Section C3.1.2 states for Z-sections that "a
conservative design approach has been and is being used in
the Specification, in which the elastic critical moment is
taken to be one-half of that of for I-beams," but no reference
to test data is given.
One of two analysis assumptions are commonly made
by designers of multiple-span, lapped, purlin lines: (1)
prismatic (uniform) moment of inertia or (2) nonprismatic
(nonuniform) moment of inertia. For the prismatic assump-
tion, the additional stiffness caused by the increased
moment of inertia within the lap is ignored. For the
nonprismatic assumption, the additional stiffness is

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 accounted for by using the sum of the moments of inertia of
the purlins forming the lap. Larger positive moments and
smaller negative moments result when the first assumption
is used with gravity loading. The reverse is true for the
second assumption. For uplift loading the same conclusions
apply except that positive and negative moment locations
are reversed. It follows then that the prismatic assumption
is more conservative if the controlling strength location is
in the positive moment region and that the nonprismatic
assumption is more conservative if the controlling strength
location is in the negative moment region, i.e., within or
near the lap.
Since the purlins are not continuously connected
within the lap, full continuity will not be achieved.
However, the degree of fixity is difficult to determine
experimentally. A study by Murray and Elhouar (Ref.
10.12) seems to indicate that the nonprismatic assumption
is a more accurate approach. A more recent study by
Bryant and Murray (Ref. 10.2) confirmed this result.
Murray and Elhouar (Ref. 10.12) analyzed the results
of through-fastened panel multiple-span, Z-purlin-line,
gravity-loaded tests conducted by 10 different organiza-
tions in the United States. The nonprismatic assumption
was used to determine the analytical moments for the
comparisons. Of the 24 (3 two-span and 21 three-span)
continuous tests analyzed, the predicted critical limit
state for 18 tests was combined bending and shear at the
end of the lap in the exterior span and for two tests it was
positive moment failure in the exterior span. The predicted
critical location for the remaining three tests was at the end
of the lap in the interior span. The average experimental-
to-predicted ratio when combined bending and shear
controlled was 0.93 with a range of 0.81-1.06. The corre-
sponding ratios for the three tests when positive moment
controlled were 0.93 and 0.94. If the prismatic assumption
had been used to determine moments from the experimen-
tal failure load, the combined bending and shear ratios

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 would have been somewhat less and the positive moment
ratios somewhat higher. A ratio less than one indicates that
the predicted value is less than the experimental value or
an unconservative result; therefore the prismatic assump-
tion would be more unconservative.
Seven two- and three-span continuous, simulated
gravity loading, two-Z-purlin-line tests were conducted by
Bryant and Murray (Ref. 10.2) in which strain gauges were
installed on the tension flange at and near the theoretical
inflection point of one exterior span. The location of the
inflection point was determined under the nonprismatic
assumption. Three of the tests were conducted with
through-fastened sheathing and four with standing seam
sheathing. Figure 10.10 shows typical applied load versus
measured tension flange strain results. Position 8 is at the
theoretical inflection point location (I.P.), positions 6 and 10
are 12 in. each side of the I.P. location, and positions 7 and 9
are 6 in. each side of the I.P. The initial strains at position 8
are essentially zero and were not above 150 microstrain by

300
r - TlicordiciiJ inflection point
250

200

- 150

Kit)

0
-300 -7.00 -ion o mn KM KXI 400 500=
.Strain {Jl£!

FIGURE 10.10 Load vs. measured strain near a theoretical inflec-

tion point.

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 the end of the test. From these studies, it is apparent that
non-prismatic analysis is appropriate for the design of
continuous Z-purlin lines.
For many years it has been generally accepted that an
inflection point is a brace in a Z-purlin line. Work by Yura
(Ref. 10.13) on H-shapes led him to conclude that an
inflection point is not a brace point unless both lateral
and torsional movement are prevented. The 1996 AISI
Specification is silent on this issue; however, the expression
for the bending coefficient, Q, (Eq. 5.16), which is depen-
dent on the moment gradient as shown in Figure 5.7, is
included. This expression was adopted from the AISC Load
and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Specification (Ref.
10.14). The Commentary to this specification states that an
inflection point cannot be considered a brace point. In the
AISI Design Guide, A Guide For Designing with Standing
Seam Roof Panels (Ref. 10.1), the inflection point is not
considered as a brace point and Cb is taken as 1.0. In Ref.
10.15, the inflection point is considered a brace point and
Cb is taken as 1.75.
Because C- and Z-purlins tend to rotate or move in
opposite directions on each side of an inflection point, tests
were conducted by Bryant and Murray (Ref. 10.2) to deter-
mine if in fact an inflection point is a brace point in
continuous, gravity-loaded, C- and Z-purlin lines of
through-fastened and standing seam systems. In the
study, instrumentation was used to verify the actual loca-
tion of the inflection point as described above and the
lateral movement of the bottom flange of the purlins on
each side of the inflection point, as well as near the
maximum location in an exterior span. The results were
compared to movement predicted by finite element models
of two of the tests. Both the experimental and analytical
results showed that, although lateral movement did occur
at the inflection point, the movement was considerably less
than at other locations along the purlins. The bottom
flanges on both sides of the inflection point moved in the

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 same direction, and double curvature was not apparent
from either the experimental or finite element results. The
lateral movement in the tests using lapped C-purlins was
larger than the movement in the Z-purlin tests, but was
still relatively small. From these results it would seem that
an inflection point is not a brace point.
The predicted and experimental controlling limit state
for the three tests using through-fastened roof sheathing
was shear plus bending failure immediately outside the lap
in the exterior test bay. The experiment failure loads were
compared to predicted values using provisions of the AISI
Specifications and assuming (1) the inflection point is not a
brace point, (2) the inflection point is a brace point, and (3)
the negative moment region strength is equal to the effec-
tive yield moment, SeFy. All three analysis assumptions
resulted in predicted failure loads less than the experimen-
tal failure loads: up to 23% for assumption (1), up to 11% for
assumption (2), and approximately 8% for assumption (3).
It is difficult to draw definite conclusions from this data.
However, it is clear that the bottom flange of a continuous
purlin line moves laterally in the same direction on both
sides of an inflection point but the movement is relatively
small. It appears that even the assumption of full lateral
restraint for through-fastened roof systems is conservative.
The web-to-web connection in lapped Z-purlin lines is
generally two ^-in.-diameter machine bolts approximately
1^ in. from the end of the unloaded purlin as shown in
Figure 10.1. To facilitate erection, vertical slotted web holes
are generally used, which may allow slip in the lap invali-
dating the continuous purlin assumption. Most, if not all, of
the continuous span tests referred to above used purlins
with vertical slotted holes. There is no indication in the
data that the use of slots in the web connections of lapped
purlins has any effect on the strength of the purlins.
Both the shear and moment gradients between the
inflection point and rafter support of continuous purlin
lines are steep. As a result, the location where combined

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 bending and shear is checked can be critical. The metal
building industry practice is to assume the critical location
is immediately outside of the lapped portions of continuous
Z-purlin systems—that is, in the single purlin, as opposed
to at the web bolt line. The rationale for the assumption is
that, for cold-formed Z-purlins, the limit state of combined
bending and shear is actually web buckling. Near the end of
the lap and, especially, at the web-to-web bolt line, out-of-
plane movement is restricted by the nonstressed purlin
section; thus buckling cannot occur at this location. Figure
10.11 verifies this contention. The corresponding assump-
tion for C-purlin systems is that the shear plus bending
limit state occurs at the web-to-web vertical bolt line.
The design of a continuous Z-purlin line is illustrated
in Section 10.5.2.

FIGURE 10.11 Photograph of failed purlin at end of lap.

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 10.4 SYSTEM ANCHORAGE REQUIREMENTS
10.4.1 Z-Purlin Supported Systems
The principal axes of Z-purlins are inclined from the center-
line of the web at an angle 6p, as shown in Figure 10.12a.
For Z-purlins commonly used in North America, 6p is
between 20° and 30°. For an unrestrained purlin, the
component of the roof loading that is parallel to the web
causes a Z-purlin to deflect in the vertical and horizontal
directions, as shown in Figure 10.12b. The component of
the roof loading perpendicular to the purlin web decreases
the deflection perpendicular to the web. For steep roofs this
component can even cause movement in the opposite direc-
tion, as shown in Figure 10.12c. Since the bottom flange of
the purlin is restrained at the rafter connection and the top
flange is at least partially restrained by the roof deck, a
purlin tends to twist or "roll" as shown in Figure 10.12d.
Devices such as antiroll clips at the rafters or intermediate
lateral braces are used to minimize purlin roll. The force

y
<*.| />V
Initial
- ,
'
I
::> y position

(b)

Pane)
Wsin<)

FIGURE 10.12 Z-purlin movement: (a) axes; (b) unrestrained

movement; (c) movement because of large downslope component;
(d) panel and anchorage restraints.

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 induced in these devices is significant and must be consid-
ered in design.
From basic principles (Ref. 10.16), the required
anchorage or restraint force for a single Z-purlin with
uniform load (W) parallel to the web is

Pr = 0.5 (10.7)

where Ixy is the product moment of inertia and Ix is the

moment of inertia with respect to the centroidal axis
perpendicular to the web of the Z-section as shown in
Figure 10.12a. For this formulation, the required anchor-
age force for a multi-purlin-line system is directly propor-
tional to the number of purlins (np). However, Elhouar and
Murray (Ref. 10.17) showed that the anchorage force
predicted by Eq. (10.7) is conservative because of a system
effect. Figure 10.13 shows a typical result from their study.
The straight line is from Eq. (10.7), and the curved line is
from stiffness analyses of a multi-purlin-line system. The
difference in the anchorage force between the two results is
a consequence of the inherent restraint in the system due to
purlin web flexural stiffness and a Vierendeel truss action

Without syslem
effects

0.
t>
t!
,o

2 4 6
"Number nf purl in lines, n_,

FIGURE 10.13 Anchorage forces vs. number of purlin lines.

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 caused by the interaction of purlin webs with the roof panel
and rafter flanges. This Vierendeel truss action explains the
relative decrease in anchorage force as the number of purlin
lines (np) increases, as shown in the figure.
Section D3.2.1 of the AISI Specification has provisions
that predict required anchorage forces in Z-purlin-
supported roof systems supporting gravity loading and
with all compression flanges facing in the same direction.
The provisions were developed by using elastic stiffness
models of flat roofs (Ref. 10.17) and were verified by full-
scale and model testing (Ref. 10.18). For example, the
predicted anchorage force in each brace (PL) for single-
span systems with restraints only at the supports, Figure
10.14, is

0.22061-5
PL = 0.5/3W, with p = ^0.72^0.90^0.60
(10.8)

where W = applied vertical load (parallel to the web) for

the set of restrained purlins
b = flange width
d = depth of section
t = thickness
n = number of restrained purlin lines

FIGURE 10.14 Single-span purlin system with anchorage at

rafters.

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 The restraint force ratio, /?, represents the system effect
and was developed from regression analysis of stiffness
model results.
Assuming that the top flange of the Z-purlin is in the
upslope direction, the anchorage force PL for single-span
systems with restraints only at the rafter supports becomes

PL = 0.503cos 9 - sin&)W (10.9)

with 6 = roof slope measured from the horizontal as shown

in Figure 10.12c. The terms Wft cos 6 and WsinO are the
gravity load components parallel and perpendicular to the
purlin web, respectively. The latter component is also
referred to as the downslope component. Equations of this
form are included in AISI Specification Supplement No. 1.
Two important effects were not taken into account in
the development of Eq. (10.9). First, the internal system
effect fi applies to the forces WcosO and WsinO. Second,
the internal system effect reverses when the net anchorage
force changes from tension to compression with increasing
slope angle. Further, the stiffness models used to develop
the AISI provisions assume a roof panel shear stiffness of
25001b/in., whereas the actual shear stiffness can be
between lOOOlb/in. (standing seam sheathing) to as high
as 60,000-100,000 Ib/in. (through-fastened sheathing).
Neubert and Murray (Ref. 10.19) have recently
proposed the following model, which eliminates the defi-
ciencies inherent in Eq. (10.9). They postulate that the
predicted anchorage force in any given system is equal to
the anchorage force required for a single purlin (P0) multi-
plied by the total number of purlins (np), a brace location
factor (Ci), a reduction factor due to system effects (a), and
modified by a factor for roof panel stiffness (y). Thus,

PL = PoC^ri** + npy) (10.10)

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 Figure 10.15a shows a Z-purlin with zero slope and
applied load Wp, which is the total gravity load acting on
each purlin span:
Wp = wL (10.11)
where w = distributed gravity load on each purlin
(force/length)
L = span length
The fictitious force Wp(IxyII^ is the fictitious lateral force
from basic principles (Ref. 10.16). The couple Wp3b results
from the assumed location of the load Wp on the flange—
that is, 5b from the face of the web as shown in Figure
10.15a. Figure 10.15b shows the set of real and fictitious
forces associated with a single purlin on a roof with slope 9.
The purlin is assumed to be pinned at the rafter connection.
The set of forces accounts for the following effects: Wp sin 9
is the downslope component, Wp cos 0(Ixy/I^> is the down-
slope component of the fictitious lateral force, and
Wp cos 9(3b) is the net torque induced by eccentric loading
of the top flange. Summation of moments about the pinned
support results in

cos 9 — sin 9 (10.12)

For low slopes, P0 is positive (tension) and for high

slopes P0 is negative (compression). A positive value indi-
cates that the purlin is trying to twist in a clockwise

All
Wp(fib) C. —— •-£> W I t fosO(Sb)
J/2

FIGURE 10.15 Modeling of gravity loads: (a) forces for a single

purlin on a flat roof; (b) forces for a single purlin on a sloping roof.

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 direction; a negative value means twist is in the counter-
clockwise direction. The anchorage force is zero for

(10.13)

For 6 < OQ, PQ is in tension, and for 6 > 0 0 , P0 is in compres-

sion. The distance 5b has a significant effect on the value of
the intercept angle 60. In Ref. 10.19, 5b was taken as 6/3,
based on anchorage forces measured in tests of zero-slope
roof systems (Ref. 10.17).
Statistical analysis of stiffness model results was used
to develop a relationship for the system effect factor a:

(10.14)

with C2 a constant factor that depends on the bracing

configuration and n* is described below. The factor a is
dimensionless and, when included in Eq. (10.10), models
the reversal of the system effect when P0 changes from
tension to compression. The coefficient C2 was determined
from a set of regression analyses with values tabulated in
Table 10.1. The value of the coefficient differs for each
bracing configuration because bending resistance changes
depending on the distance between a brace and rafter
supports or other braces.
Equation (10.10) is quadratic with respect to np,
because a is linear with np. For some value of np, denoted
as
^(max) ' PL wiH reach a maximum and then decrease as
np is increased above ftp(max). From basic calculus, ftp(max) is
determined as

. (10.15)
Zi

However, the required anchorage force can never decrease

as the number of purlins is increased. Therefore n* is used
in Eqs. (10.10) and (10.14) instead of np, where n* is the

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 TABLE 10.1 Anchorage Force Coefficients for Use in Eq. (10.10)
Bracing configuration C\ C2
Support anchorages only
Single span 0.50 5.9 0.35
Multispan, exterior supports 0.50 5.9 0.35
Multispan, interior supports 1.00 9.2 0.45
Third-point anchorages
Single span 0.50 4.2 0.25
Multispan, exterior spans 0.50 4.2 0.25
Multispan, interior spans 0.45 4.2 0.35
Midspan anchorages
Single span 0.85 5.6 0.35
Multispan, exterior spans 0.80 5.6 0.35
Multispan, interior spans 0.75 5.6 0.45
Quarter-point anchorages
Single span, outside | points 0.25 5.0 0.35
Single span, midspan location 0.45 3.6 0.15
Multispan, exterior span | points 0.25 5.0 0.40
Multispan, interior span | points 0.22 5.0 0.40
Multispan, midspan locations 0.45 3.6 0.25
Third-point plus support anchorages
Single span, at supports 0.17 3.5 0.35
Single span, interior locations 0.35 3.0 0.05
Multispan, exterior support 0.17 3.5 0.35
Multispan, interior support 0.30 5.0 0.45
Multispan, third-point locations 0.35 3.0 0.10

minimum of ^p(max) and np. In other words, PL remains

constant when the number of purlin lines exceeds ftp(max).
The brace location factor Cl in Eq. (10.10) represents
the percentage of total restraint that is allocated to each
brace in the system. The sum of the Cl coefficients for the
braces in a span length is approximately equal to unity. The
values for C± were determined from a regression analysis
and are tabulated for each bracing configuration in Table
10.1. For multiple span systems, the Cl values are larger
for exterior restraints than the corresponding interior
restraints, as expected from structural mechanics.
Figure 10.16 shows a typical plot comparing the Eq.
(10.10) with, y = 0, to the AISI Specification Eq. (10.9) with
respect to slope angle 9. Equation (10.10) predicts slightly

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 Equation 10 9

Compression

Slope angle S

FIGURE 10.16 Anchorage force vs. roof slope: Eqs. (10.9) and
(10.10).

greater anchorage force for low-slope roofs and significantly

less anchorage force for high-slope roofs. The latter is due
to the inclusion of system effects in the downslope direction
which are ignored in the AISI provisions. Figure 10.17
shows a similar plot with respect to the number of
restrained purlin lines.

4 6
Number ul purlin hues tip

FIGURE 10.17 Anchorage force vs. number of purlins: Eqs. (10.9)

and (10.10).

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 The stiffness models used to develop the AISI provi-
sions, Eq. (10.9), included a roof deck diaphragm stiffness of
G' = 2500 Ib/in. with the assumption that the required
anchorage force for systems with roof decks stiffer than
2500 Ib/in. is negligible. Roof deck diaphragm stiffness was
taken as
PL
G> = —— (10.16)
where P = point load applied at midspan of a rectangular
roof panel,
L = panel's span length
a = panel width
and
A = deflection of the panel at the location of the
point load.
In Ref. 10.19 stiffness models of roof systems with up
to eight restrained purlins were analyzed, and it was found
that deck stiffness above 2500 Ib/in. caused significant
increases in the anchorage forces for systems with four or
more purlin lines. The panel stiffness modifier (y) in Eq.
(10.10) accounts for this effect. As shown in Figure 10.18,

u
,o

G' = 2500 Ib/in

100 101)00 1000000

P;inc] sliciir ritit'fm\ss Ci' (Ib/in)

FIGURE 10.18 Anchorage force vs. panel stiffness (stiffness

model).

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 the anchorage force varies linearly with the common loga-
rithm of the roof panel shear stiffness over a finite range of
stiffnesses, which leads to the following equation for the
panel stiffness modifier:

where G' = roof panel shear stiffness (Ib/in.)

C3 = constant from regression analysis of stiffness
model
When G' = 25001b/in., y = 0 as necessary, and y is
positive for G' > 25001b/in. and negative for
G' < 25001b/in. Thus, when G' > 25001b/in., the ancho-
rage force is increased, and when G' < 25001b/in., the
required anchorage force is decreased. The values of C3,
which depend on the location of a brace relative to rafter
supports and other braces, are tabulated for each bracing
configuration in Table 10.1.
The effect of y is to adjust the system effect factor, a. In
Eq. (10.10) y is multiplied by np instead of n*, because as
panel stiffness changes, change in anchorage force depends
on the total number of purlins in the system and ^p(max) no
longer applies. The panel stiffness modifier y is valid only
for 1000 Ib/in. < G' < 100,000 Ib/in. This is the range of
linear behavior and most roof decks have shear stiffness
within this limitation.
For very large panel stiffness, Eq. (10.10) can predict
an anchorage force greater than that obtained from basic
principles [Eq. (10.7)]. However, the maximum anchorage
force is the anchorage force ignoring system effects. Thus,
PL < P0Cinp (10.18)
Figure 10.19 is a typical plot of anchorage force versus
panel stiffness for Eq. (10.10), compared with stiffness
model results.
Since the stiffness models used to develop Eq. (10.10)
had eight purlin lines or fewer, Eq. (10.10) must be used

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 S'.iiTness model
&
in
G = 100,000 Ib/iu

1000 Ib/in

100 HUM) 10000 100001)

stiffness C'(N/mm)

FIGURE 10.19 Anchorage force vs. Panel stiffness: Eq. (10.10)

and stiffness model results.

with caution when there are more than eight purlin lines. If
the top flanges of adjacent purlins or sets of purlins face in
opposite directions, an anchorage is required to resist only
the net downslope component.
Anchorage force calculations for a Z-purlin supported
roof system are illustrated in Section 10.5.3.

10.4.2 C-Purlin Supported Systems

The anchorage requirements for C-purlins are much less
than those for Z-purlins since bending is about a principal
axis. The eccentricity caused by the load not acting through
the shear center requires a resisting force of about 5% of
the load parallel to the web of the C-section. AISI Specifica-
tion Supplement No. 1 Section D3.2.1(a), C-Sections, gives
the anchorage force for a C-section-supported roof system
with all compression flanges facing in the same direction
(Eq. D3.2.1-1) as
(10.19)
with a = +1 for purlins facing in the upslope direction and
= — 1 for purlins facing in the downslope direction. A

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 positive value of P^ means that anchorage is required to
prevent movement of the purlin flanges in the upslope
direction, and a negative value means that anchorage is
required to prevent movement in the downslope direction.
As with Z-purlin systems, if the top flanges of adjacent
C-purlin lines face in opposite directions, the anchorage
need only resist the downslope component of the gravity
load.

10.5 EXAMPLES
10.5.1 Computation of R-value from Base
Tests
Problem
Determine the R-value relationship for the gravity loading
base test data shown. The tests were conducted using Z-
sections with nominal thicknesses of 0.060 in. and 0.095 in.
and nominal yield stress of 55 ksi. The span length was 22 ft
9in., and intermediate lateral braces were installed at the
third points. The total supported load (wts) is equal to the
sum of the applied load (w) and the weight of the sheathing
and purlins (wd). The maximum applied moment is Mts.

Solution

A. Summary of Test Loadings

Max. applied Deck Purlin Total
Test load weight weight wd load, wts Mts
no. w (Ib/ft) (Ib/ft) (Ib/ft) (Ib/ft) (Ib/ft) (K-in.)
1 91.79 4.0 3.10 7.10 98.9 76.8
2 86.29 4.0 3.14 7.14 93.4 72.5
3 81.84 4.0 3.10 7.10 88.9 69.0
4 186.4 4.0 5.05 9.05 195.4 151.7
5 189.1 4.0 5.01 9.01 198.1 153.8
6 184.5 4.0 4.91 8.91 193.4 150.2

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 B. Reduction Factor Data
Test Mts
no. t (in.) (5 (ksi) "(K-in!) (K-in.) <%)
1 0.059 1.88 60.0 112.8 76.8 68.1
2 0.059 1.90 59.2 112.5 72.5 64.5
3 0.060 1.92 57.3 110.0 69.0 62.8
Average 111.8 65.1
4 0.097 3.38 68.4 231.2 151.7 65.6
5 0.096 3.38 67.1 226.8 153.8 67.8
6 0.097 3.30 66.5 219.4 150.2 68.5
Average 225.8 67.3

°"max = one standard deviation of the modification

factors of the thickest purlins tested = 0.0148
one
°"min = standard deviation of the modification
factors of the thinnest purlins tested =
0.0271
^t max = 0-673 - 0.0148 = 0.658
_J^min = °-651 - 0.0271 = 0.624
M,
——I t' max
11 = 225.8 kip-in.
Mnt"• l = 111.8 kip-in.
*

C. Reduction Factor Relation

Equation (10.4):

The variation of R with purlin strength for the stand-

ing seam roof system tested is shown in Figure 10.20.
(Figure 10.20 shows the R-value line sloping upward to
the right. For some standing seam roof systems, the
line will slope downward to the right.)

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 100 i i i i
90
£
e!
5 70
3a 60
50
40

a
5 20
10
0
50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250
Nominal moment KircngLh (K. - in)

FIGURE 10.20 Reduction factor vs. nominal moment strength.

D. Application
For a purlin having the same depth, flange width, edge
stiffener slope, and material specification as those used
in the above example and with a nominal flexural
strength Mn = SeFy = 135 in. -kips, the reduction
factor is
„ 0.298(135-111.77)
fl = ——— ———— ' + 0.624 = 0.631

The positive moment design strength:

1. LRFD

$b = 0.90
n = (f)bRSeFy = 0.90 x 0.631 x 135 = 76.7 kip-in.

2. ASD

= 1.67
0.631 x 135
= 51.0 kip-in.
L67

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 10.5.2 Continuous Lapped Z-Section Purlin
Problem
Determine the maximum uplift and gravity service loads
for a three-span continuous purlin line using the Z-section
purlins (8Z060) shown in Figure 4.14. The spans are 25ft
with interior lap lengths of 5ft (3-ft end spans and 2-ft
interior span) as shown in Figure 10.21. The purlin lines
are 5 ft on center, and the roof sheathing is screw-fastened
to the top flange of the purlins. The weight of the sheath-
ing, insulation, and purlin is equivalent to 13.5 pounds per
linear foot (Ib/ft).
The following section, equation, and table numbers
refer to those in the AISI Specification.
Fy = 55 ksi E = 29,500 ksi H = 8 in. ycg = 4 in.

Solution

A. Full Section Properties

Area (A), second moment of area about centroidal axis
perpendicular to web (Ix), second moment of area about

FIGURE 10.21 Three-span continuous lapped Z-purlin.

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 centroidal axis parallel to the web (Iy), and section
modulus of compression flange (wide) for full section
(Sf) accounting for rounded corners (from THIN-WALL
(Ref. 11.3)):
A = 0.8876 in.2 /„**- = 8.858 in.4 Ly = 1.714 in.4

I= = 0.857 in.4

Sf=- = 2.215 in.3

Jcg

B. Design Load on Continuous Lapped Purlin under

Uplift Loading
1. Strength for Bending Alone Braced by Sheathing
Section C3.1.3 Beams Having One Flange
Through-fastened to Sheathing
a. Uplift Loading: Continuous Lapped Z- Section
LRFD
R = 0.70
Se = 1.618 in.3 (see Example 4.6.4)
Mn = RSeFy = 62.29 kip-in. = 5.191 kip-ft
fa = 0.90 (LRFD)
faMn = 4.672 kip-ft (Eq. C3.1.4-1)
LRFD design load per unit length (see moment
diagram in Figure 10.21 w = 1201b/ft, where
maximum moment = 5.715 kip-ft).

wu (LRFD) = " = 98.1 Ib/ft (LRFD)

5.715
ASD
Q6 = 1.67 (ASD)

= 3.108 kip-ft

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 ASD design load per unit length (see moment
diagram in Figure 10.21 at w = 1201b/ft,
where maximum moment = 5.715 kip-ft):

w (ASD) = x - - = 65.3 Ib/ft (ASD)

ili, 5.715

2. Strength for Shear Alone

Section C3.2 Strength for Shear Only

kv = 5.34 for an unreinforced web

h = H-2(R + £) = 8- 2(0.20 + 0.06)
= 7.48 in.
h 7A8
= 124.7
t ~ 0.060

Ekv /29,500x5.34
—— = 53.51
j 55

Since

> 1.415 =75.73

t

then

v
Vn = h = 4.12 kips ((Eq. C3.2-3)

(f)v = 0.90 (LRFD)

Qy = 1.67 (ASD)

Maximum Vat end of lap in end span= 1.468 kips

when w = 1201b/ft

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 LRFD
Assuming that bending alone controls
wu (LRFD) = 98.1 Ib/ft (B.I), then
98 1
VMu = —— x 1.468 = 1.20 kips
120
V L2
* ° = 0.324 < 1.0
<t>vV» 0.90x4.12
Hence, shear alone is satisfied for LRFD under
uplift loading.

ASD
Assuming that bending alone controls
w (ASD) = 65.31b/ft (B.I), then
CC Q
V = —— x 1.468 = 0.80 kips

V
°'8° = 0.324 < 1.0
VJO, 4.12/1.67
Hence, shear alone is satisfied for ASD under
uplift loading.
3. Strength for Bending at End of Lap
Section C3.1.1 Nominal Section Strength

Se = 1.618 in.3 (at Fy)

Mnxo = SeFy (see Example 4.6.4)
= 1.618x55 (Eq. C3.1.1-1)
= 89.0 kip-in. = 7.42 kip-ft
fa = 0.95 (LRFD)
Q6 = 1.67 (ASD)

Maximum M at end of lap in interior span =

5.452 kip-ft when w = 1201b/ft.

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 LRFD
Again assuming that bending alone controls with
wu (LRFD) = 98.lib/ft (B.I), then
98 1
Mu = —— x 5.452 = 4.457 kip-ft
vJ

4 457
' = 0.632 < 1.0
$bMnxo 0.95 x 7.42

ASD
Again assuming that bending alone controls with
w (ASD) = 65.3Ib/ft (B.I), then
65 3
M = —— x 5.452 = 2.97 kip-ft
M 2 97
' = 0.668 < 1.0
7.42/1.67

4. Strength for Combined Bending and Shear

Section C3.5 Combined Bending and Shear
LRFD
For Mu and Vu based on bending alone (B.I) with
wu (LRFD) = 98. lib/ft. Maximum Vat end of lap
in interior span = 1.260 kips when w; = 1201b/ft.
Hence
Vu 98.1/120 x 1.260
<l)vVn 0.90 x 4.12
/ Mu \2+ ( Vu \2 2
") (drlH
nxo/ \iv H /
=(°- 632 ) +( (
= 0.477 < 1.0

Hence, combined bending and shear are satisfied

for LRFD at end of lap in interior span. Checking
end of lap in end span produces a lower (safer)
result due to significantly lower moment.

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 ASD
For M and Vbased on bending alone (B.I) with w
(ASD) = 65.3 Ib/ft:
/ T 7" \ 2

= (0.668)2 + (0.278)2

= 0.524 < 1.0

Hence, combined bending and shear are satisfied
for ASD at end of lap in interior span. Checking
end of lap in end span produces a lower result due
to significantly lower moment.
C. Design Load on Continuous Lapped Purlin under
Gravity Loading
1. Strength for Bending with Lateral Buckling
Section C3.1.2 Lateral Buckling Strength
The Center for Cold-Formed Steel Structures
Bulletin (Vol. 1, No. 2, August 1992) suggests
using a distance from inflection point to end of
lap, as unbraced length for gravity load with
Cb = 1.75. Check interior span since it is more
highly loaded in negative moment region.
L = distance from end of lap to inflection point
as shown in Figure 10.21
= 73.1 in. based on statics using Figure
10.21 with zero moment at inflection
point
Cb = 1.75
n2ECbd!vc
Me = ———^-^- = 326.8 kip-in. = 27.2 kip-ft
2LZ
(Eq. C3.1.2-16)
Critical Moment (Mc)
My = SfFy = 121.8 kip-in. = 10.15 kip-ft
(Eq. C3.1.2-5)

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 Since
Me = 27.2 kip-ft < 2.78 My = 28.2 kip-ft

(Eq. C3.1.2-3)

Fc = = 54.73 ksi

Sc is the effective section modulus at the stress,

Fc = 54.73 ksi. Using the method in Example
4.6.4, but with / = Fc, gives
Sc = 1.621 in.3
Mn = SCFC = 88.99 kip-in. = 7.416 kip-ft
(Eq. C3.1.2-1)
LRFD
fa = 0.90 (LRFD)
faMn = 6.674 kip-ft
LRFD design load per unit length (see moment
diagram in Figure 10.21 at w = 1201b/ft, where
maximum moment in interior span equals
5.452 kip-ft):

wu (LRFD) = " = 146.9 Ib/ft

5.452
ASD
Q6 = 1.67 (ASD)

= 4.44 kip-ft

ASD design load per unit length (see moment

diagram in Figure 10.21 at w = 1201b/ft, where

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 maximum moment in interior span equals
5.452 kip-ft):
M 120
w (ASD) = —^ x ——- = 97.74 Ib/ft
ilj, 5.452

2. Strength for Shear Alone

Section C3.2 Strength for Shear Only
See B.2 since loading direction does not affect
shear strength.
Vn = 4.12 kips
<£„ = 0.90 (LRFD)
Qy = 1.67 ASD
LRFD
Assuming that bending alone controls with
wu = 146.9 Ib/ft (C.I), then
146 9
Vu = - x 1.468 = 1.797 kips

V 1 797
= 0.485 < 1.0
<l>vVn 0.90 x 4.12
Hence, shear alone is satisfied for LRFD under
gravity loading.
ASD
Assuming that bending alone controls with w
(ASD) = 97.74 Ib/ft (C.I), then
97 74
V = ——— x 1.468 = 1.196 kips

V 1 196
' = 0.485 < 1.0
VJQL, 4.12/1.67
Hence, shear alone is satisfied for ASD under
gravity loading.

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 3. Strength for Bending at End of Lap
Section C3.1.1 Nominal Section Strength
See B.3 since loading direction does not affect
bending strength.

Mnxo = 7.42 kip-ft

fa = 0.95 (LRFD)
Qb = 1.67 (ASD)
Maximum M at end of lap in interior span =
5.452 kip-ft when w = 1201b/ft.
LRFD
Assuming that bending alone controls with
wu (LRFD) = 146.9 Ib/ft (C.I), then
146 9
Mu = ——— x 5.452 = 6.654 kip-ft
J_^vJ

6 654
' = 0.944 < 1.0
faMnxo 0.95 x 7.42
Hence, bending alone at end of lap is satisfied for
LRFD under gravity loading.
ASD
Assuming that bending alone controls with w
(ASD) = 97.74 Ib/ft (C.I), then
97 74
M = -—— x 5.452 = 4.44 kip-ft
M 4 40
Mnxo/ttb
'
7.42/1.67
= i.o < i.o
Hence bending alone at end of lap is satisfied for
ASD under gravity loading.
4. Strength for Combined Bending and Shear
Section C3.5 Combined Bending and Shear

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 LRFD
For Mu and Vu based on bending alone (C.I) with
wu (LRFD) = 146.9 Ib/ft. Maximum Vat end of lap
in interior span =1.260 kips when w = 1201b/ft.
Hence

Vu 146.9/120 x 1.260
<l>vVn 0.90 x 4.12
= 0.415
M
^— = 0.944 (from C.3)

2
I = (0.944)2 + (0.415)2
v n

= 1.064 > 1.00

Hence, combined bending and shear are not satis-

fied for LRFD. Revise load down to

146 9
wu (LRFD) = , ' = 142 Ib/ft
VT064

Checking end of lap in end span produces a lower

(safer) result due to significantly lower moment.
ASD
For M and V based on bending alone (C.I) with
w = 97.74 Ib/ft. Maximum V at end of lap in

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 interior span =1.260 kips when w; = 1201b/ft.
Hence

V 97.74/120 x 1.260
4.12/1.67
= 0.415
M
= 1.00 (from C.3)

M V / V X2
= (1.00)2 + (0.415)2

= 1.172 > 1.00

Hence combined bending and shear is not satisfied

for ASD. Revise load down to

Q7 Q4
w (ASD) = = 90.3 Ib/ft

Checking end of lap in end span produces a lower

(safer) result due to significantly lower moment.
5. Web Crippling
The web crippling strength at the end and interior
supports must be checked according to Section
C3.4 of the AISI Specification if the purlins are
supported in bearing by the building rafter
flanges. The method set out in Example 6.8.1
should be used. If the purlins are web-bolted to
antiroll devices or web shear plates, bearing and
tearout at the web bolts, as well as bolt shear
rupture, must be checked.

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 D. Service Loads
The following calculations assume that web crippling
or bearing and tearout is satisfied.
1. LRFD
a. Uplift Loading
Using load combination 6 in Section A6.1.2,
Load Factors and Load Combinations, (0.9D —
1.3W), the controlling design load 98.1 Ib/ft
(B.I), and applying Exception 3 "For wind
load on individual purlins, girts, wall panels
and roof decks, multiply the load factor for W
by 0.9."
0.9 x 13.5 - (1.3 x 0.9)ww = -98.1 Ib/ft
ww = 94.2 Ib/ft
which is equivalent to a service uplift load of
IS.lpsf for a 5-ft purlin spacing.
b. Gravity Loading
Using load combination 2 (1.2Z)+1.6S) and
the controlling design load 142 Ib/ft (C.4) give
1.2 x 13.5 + l.6ws = 142 Ib/ft
ws = 78.6 Ib/ft
which is equivalent to a service snow load of
15.7psf for a 5-ft purlin spacing.
2. ASD
a. Uplift Loading
Using load combination 3 in Section A5.1.2,
Load Combinations (D + W) and the control-
ling design load 65.3Ib/ft (B.I) give
13.5 -ww = 65.3 Ib/ft
ww = 78.8 Ib/ft

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 which is equivalent to a service uplift load of
15.8psf for a 5-ft purlin spacing,
b. Gravity Loading
Using load combination 2 (D + S) and the
controlling design load 90.31b/ft (C.4) give

13.5 + ws = 90.3 Ib/ft

was = 78.6 Ib/ft

which is equivalent to a service snow load of

15.4psf for a 5-ft purlin spacing.

Problem
Determine the gravity service load for the conditions of the
previous problem except with standing seam roof sheeting.

Solution
From the base test method, the .R-factor relationship for the
standing seam system is

B= - 0 ' + 0.691

with

Mn = SeFy = 1.618 x 55 = 89.0 kip-in.

7
B= - °'6) + 0.691 = 0.697

LRFD
Positive moment design strength

<£6 = 0.90
<j)bMn = (f)bRSeFy = 0.90 x 0.697 x 89.0 = 55.8 kip-in.
= 4.65kip-ft

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 LRFD design load per unit length (see moment diagram
Figure 10.21 at 1201b/ft, where maximum positive
moment = 5.715 kip -ft):

Since 97.61b/ft is less than 1421b/ft determined in the

above problem for through-fastened sheeting, the control-
ling factored gravity loading is this value. Using load
combination 6 in Section A6.1.2, Load Factors and Load
Combinations (1.2Z)+ 1.6VF) gives

1.2 x 13.5 + l.6ws = 97.61b/ft

ws = 50.91b/ft

which is equivalent to a service snow load of 10.2 psf for a

5-ft purlin spacing.

ASD
Positive moment design strength:

Q6 = 1.67
M, RSeF 0.697 x 89.0
n i.67
= 3.10kip-ft

ASD design load per unit length (see moment diagram

(Figure 10.21 at 1201b/ft, where maximum positive
moment = 5.715 kip -ft):

Since 65. lib/ft is less than 90.31b/ft determined in the

above problem for through-fastened sheeting, the control-

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 ling service gravity loading is this value. Using load combi-
nation 3 in Section A5.1.2, Load Combinations (D + W):

13.5+ w;fi = 65. lib/ft

w = 51.61b/ft

which is equivalent to a service snow load of lO.Spsf for a

5-ft purlin spacing.

10.5.3 Anchorage Force Calculations

Problem
Determine anchorage forces for a three-span continuous
system having six parallel purlin lines with support
restraints. The purlin section is 8Z060, the span length is
25 ft, and purlin lines are spaced 5 ft apart. The roof slope is
2:12 (9.46°), and the roof sheathing shear stiffness is
35001b/in. Uniform gravity loads of 2.7psf dead load and
15 psf live load are applied to the system. Use the method
in Ref. 10.19 as described in Section 10.4.1 with Sb = 6/3.

d = 8.0in. b = 2. Sin. £ = 0.060in. 4 = 8.15in.4

1 = 2 . 3 0 in.4

From Table 10.1, for a multiple-span system with support

anchorage only:

Exterior restraints CT = 0.50 C2 = 5.9 C3 = 0.35

Interior restraints CT = 1.00 C2 = 9.2 C3 = 0.45

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 Solution

A. Anchorage Force per Purlin

p + cos0 s 0w (Eq iai2)
°=\(k ii) - ™ > -
L\2(8.15) 3(8.0)
= 0.07758 Wplb

B. Anchorage Force at Restraint

n*p =

. (Eq.10.15)
Zi

For the exterior restraints:

= 0.5 + = 11-80 > 6 -+ n* = 6

.) (Eq. 10.14)

- 1) = 0.7788

For the interior restraints:

2(9.2)(0.060)

a = 1 - 9.2 (———)(6 - 1) = 0.6550

\ * /

Roof panel shear stiffness modifier:

/ f^1 \
(Eq. 10.17)

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 For the exterior restraints:

For the interior restraints:

Support anchorage force:

PL = PQCv(n*pa + npy) (Eq. 10.10)
Exterior anchorage force:
PL = (0.07758Wp)(0.50)[(6)(0.7788) + (6)(0.05114)]
= 0.1931Wplb (tension)
Interior anchorage force:
PL = (0.07758 Wp)(1.00)[(6.0)(0.6550)
+ (6)(0.06576)]
= 0.3354 Wplb (tension)

C. Design Anchorage Forces

LRFD
Using load combination 2 in Section A6.1.2, Load
Factors and Load Combinations (1.2Z) + 1.6S):
wu = 1.2 x 2.7 + 1.6 x 15 = 27.24 psf
The uniform load is evenly distributed to all purlin
lines. The total average load on each purlin in a bay is
then
27-24 >< 5 x S x (6 - 1)

Exterior anchorage force:

PLu = 0.1931 x 2838 = 548.0 lb

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 Interior anchorage force:
PLu = 0.3354 x 2838 = 951.8 Ib
ASD
Using load combination 3 in Section A5.1.2, Load
Combinations (D + W):
w = 2.7 + l5 = 17.7 psf
The uniform load is evenly distributed to all purlin
lines. The total average load on each purlin in a bay is
then

Exterior anchorage force:

PL = 0.1931 x 1844 = 356.1 Ib
Interior anchorage force:
PL = 0.3354 x 1844 = 618.5 Ib
The required anchorage forces are shown graphically
in Figure 10.22.

2511 2511
r-
r
P, = PL = 6 1 Bib PT = 3

FIGURE 10.22 Anchorage forces for example.

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 REFERENCES
10.1 American Iron and Steel Institute, A Guide for
Designing with Standing Seam Roof Panels,
Design Guide 97-1, American Iron and Steel Insti-
tute, Washington, DC, 1997.
10.2 Bryant, M. R. and Murray, T. M., Investigation of
Inflection Points as Brace Points in Multi-span
Purlin Roof Systems, Research Report No. CE/
VPI-ST-00/11, Department of Civil and Environ-
mental Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 2000.
10.3 LaBoube, R. A., Golovin, M., Montague, D. J., Perry,
D. C. and Wilson, L. L., Behavior of Continuous
Span Purlin System, Proceedings of the Ninth Inter-
national Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed
Structures, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla,
MO, 1988.
10.4 LaBoube, R. A., Roof Panel to Purlin Connection:
Rotational Restraint Factor, Proceedings of the
ISABSE Colloquium on Thin-Walled Structures in
Buildings, Stockholm, Sweden, 1986.
10.5 Fisher, J. M., Uplift Capacity of Simple Span Gee
and Zee Members with Through-Fastened Roof
Panels, Final Report MBMA 95-01, Metal
Building Manufacturers Association, Cleveland,
OH, 1996.
10.6 Brooks, S. and Murray, T. M. Evaluation of the Base
Test Method for Predicting the Flexural Strength of
Standing Seam Roof Systems under Gravity Load-
ing', Research Report No. CE/VPI-ST-89/07,
Department of Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytech-
nic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA,
1989.
10.7 Rayburn, L. and Murray, T. M., Base Test Method
for Gravity Loaded Standing Seam Roof Systems,
Research Report CE/VPI-ST-90/07, Department of

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 1990.
10.8 Anderson, B. B. and Murray, T. M., Base Test
Method for Standing Seam Roof Systems Subject to
Uplift Loading, Research Report CE/VPI-ST-90/06,
Department of Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytech-
nic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA,
1990.
10.9 Pugh, A. D. and Murray, T. M., Base Test Method for
Standing Seam Roof Systems Subject to Uplift Load-
ing—Phase II, Research Report CE/VPI-ST-91/17,
Department of Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytech-
nic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA,
1991.
10.10 Mills, J. F. and Murray, T. M., Base Test Method for
Standing Seam Roof Systems Subject to Uplift Load-
ing—Phase III, Research Report CE/VPI-ST-92/09,
Department of Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytech-
nic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA,
1992.
10.11 Ellifritt, D., Sputo, T. and Haynes, J., Flexural
Capacity of Discretely Braced C's and Z's, Proceed-
ings of the Eleventh International Specialty Confer-
ence on Cold-Formed Structures, University of
Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, 1992.
10.12 Murray, T. M. and Elhouar, S., North American
approach to the design of continuous Z- and C-
purlins for gravity loading with experimental veri-
fication, Engineering Structures, Vol. 16, No. 5,
1994, pp. 337-341.
10.13 Yura, J. A., Bracing for Stability—State-of-Art,
University of Texas-Austin, 1999.
10.14 American Institute of Steel Construction, Load and
Resistance Design Specification for Structural Steel
Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction,
Chicago, IL, 1993.

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 10.15 Center for Cold-Formed Steel Structures, Bulletin
Vol. 1, No. 2, August 1992.
10.16 Zetlin, L. and Winter, G., Unsymmetrical bending of
beams with and without lateral bracing, Proceed-
ings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol.
81, 1955.
10.17 Elhouar, S. and Murray, T. M., Stability Require-
ments of Z-Purlin Supported Conventional Metal
Building Roof Systems, Annual Technical Session
Proceedings, Structural Stability Research Council,
Bethlehem, PA, 1985.
10.18 Seshappa, V and Murray, T. M., Study of Thin-
Walled Metal Building Roof Systems Using Scale
Models, Proceedings of the IABSE Colloquium on
Thin-Walled Metal Structures in Buildings, IABSE,
Stockholm, Sweden, 1986.
10.19 Neubert, M. C. and Murray, T. M., Estimation of
Restraint Forces for Z-Purlins Roofs under Gravity
Load, Proceedings of the Fifteenth International
Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Structures,
University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, 2000.

TM

Copyright n 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.