Mt. Barker Winery by Mitchell Cook

Contents

1.0 Structure 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

Design Description Structure Description + Multiframe Model Primary Structural Sections Material Description + Specifications Definition of Stresses

2.0 Load Calcualtions 2.1 Self Weight + Dead Load Calculations 2.2 Live Load Calculations 2.3 Wind Load Calculations 3.0 Load Cases 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11

Self Weight (Static) Self Weight + Dead Load Self Weight + Live Load Wind Load Maximum North Wind Load Maximum South Dead Load x 1.2 + Live Load x 1.5 Dead Load x 0.9 + Wind Load Maximum North Dead Load x 0.9 + Wind Load Maximum South Dead Load + Live Load x 0.5 Dead Load + Live Load x 0.5 + Wind Load Normal North Dead Load + Live Load x 0.5 + Wind Load Normal South

4.0 Results 4.1 Analysis of Maximum Deflections 4.2 Analysis of Maximum Stresses 4.3 Conclusion + Solution

Date/ Client/ Designed/ Class/

*Assumptions are clearly stated throughout the report

April 2014 Marco Vittino Mitchell Cook ARCT 3030

Drawing/

Contents Page #

Structural Report + Simulation/

Mt Barker Winery 1.0 W.A.

COOI< 20942043@students.uwa.edu.au

_Project Description *This winery is located in Mt Barker; one of the 5.00 nominated subregions of the Great Southern Wine Region in Western Australia. This region is in fact Australia’s largest Wine Region spanning 200.00km from east to west and over 100.00km from north to south. The layout of the building is informed by the site’s contours and the linear process of wine making. Working with the slope of the land, the building’s horizontal form is fractured about the axis where the contours change. Essentially the building is divided into 3.00 main parts; Wine production Building, Dispatch Building, and the Administration + Public Building. As the wine-making process is rather loud, it was thought appropriate to separate it from the Public Tasting Areas to ensure the tranquillity of the site is enjoyed by the guests.

_01

*For this analysis, a section of the structure of the Tank Room will be tested and analysed. The brief required that the Tank room has a floor area of 1000.00m2, (50.00m x 20.00), and that the minimum height of the room is 9.00m.

_02

d c b a

Date/ Client/ Designed/ Class/

April 2014 Marco Vittino Mitchell Cook ARCT 3030

North

Structure/

Structural Report + Simulation/

Project Description Mt Barker Winery Page # 1.1 W.A.

COOI< 20942043@students.uwa.edu.au

*The Tank Room consists of 8.00, 1.500m deep Trusses, each spanning 20.00m across the short axis of the building. Where possible, trusses always span across the short axis of the building as it means they can be smaller; thus saving construction costs. These trusses are spaced 6.00m apart. This particular spacing was chosen as 6.00m is a basic module of construction and because this spacing would support the secondary structure, (Z Purlins), that could easily support the roofing elements, (Structurally Insulated Panels). For the purpose of this analysis, only the middle 5.00 Trusses were modelled in Multiframe. For the purpose of this analysis, Toggle Clipping was used to isolate the middle 3.00 trusses as the 2.00 end trusses were producing inaccurate results, (because Multiframe assumed it was the end of the structure).It is assumed that the isolated 18.00m section of the building is an adequate representation of the structure and that the Load Cases applied to this middle-section produce results that more-accurately represent the whole structure. *For the purpose of this analysis, all members concerned with the Primary structure, (i.e. the primary column members, primary beam members and truss members), were modelled in Multiframe. Load Panels representing the weight of the Polycarbonate facade members were also modelled. Load Panels, (not shown here), were also modelled to provide surfaces for the wind to apply pressure to. Members concerned with the Secondary and Tertiary structure, (i.e. Z-Purlins, Girts, Window framing members and diagonal cross-bracing members), were not modelled and instead applied as part of the Dead Load calculations. As only part of the structure was to be analysed, (SHS) diagonal-bracing members that would brace the end primary columns were not modelled.

Top Chord

*Trusses are structures comprising of five or more triangular units constructed with straight members whose ends are connected at joints (refereed to as nodes). External forces, (and thus reactions to those forces), are considered to act only at the nodes and result in member stresses. The most simplest form of a truss is a planar truss; a truss where all the members and nodes lie within a two-dimensional plane. The top member of a truss is referred to as the Top Chord, the bottom member is referred to as the Bottom Chord and inner beams are called webs. It is assumed that trusses are composed of triangles because of the structural stability of that particular shape and design. The way a truss works can be likened to a beam, where the web consists of a series of separate members instead of a continuous plate. Essentially, the chords resist tensile and compressive forces much like the flange of a Universal Beam. The obvious advantage of the Truss though is that it is more structurally-efficient than a solid beam of equal strength as that beam would have substantially larger weight and material cost compared to a planar truss. *For this structure, a Pratt Truss was used. This design uses vertical members to resist compressive stress whilst the horizontal members response to tensile stress. A Pratt configuration was used because this particular configuration is usually the most efficient under, static vertical loading. It does this firstly because the longer, diagonal web-members are only effected by the load of gravity, (and thus only experience axial and shear stresses). This allows these members to be used more efficiently as slenderness-effects will typically not control the design of the Truss. Secondly, the web-members serve additional functions of stabilizing eachother, which prevents buckling; increasing the stability of the truss.

*Fixed restraints have been assigned to the bottom of the North-face columns (400 WC 303) where the member meets the ground. Fixed restraints are ‘fixed’ in every aspect; they do not permit rotation or movement, and thus it ensures the the structural member does not collapse. For the purpose of this analysis, a fixed restraint has also assigned to the bottom of the South-face columns (400 WC 361) where the member meets the top of the concrete retaining wall. In reality it would perhaps be more appropriate to assign a pinned restraint here. Pinned restraints permit rotation, (so there is no resistance to moment), but they can not move horizontally or vertically. For a pinned restraint to work however, there must be both horizontal and vertical reactions present to ensure the structural member does not collapse. For this anaylsis, all nodes of the structure have been assigned rigid joints. Rigid Joints are joints which are capable of transferring Axial forces as well as moment; essentially this means that relative rotations between two members are not possible. All web members of the trusses, (except the peripheral members), have member releases at both ends; thus My’ and Mz’ is released at both joints. The peripheral members only have a single member release at the end where the web member connects to the Column; thus My’ and Mz’ is only released at the corresponding joint. All members of the Top Chords and Bottom Chords, (except the peripheral members of the Top Chord), have no member releases. The peripheral members only have a single member release at the end where the chord member connects to the column; thus My’ and Mz’ is only released at the corresponding joint.

Bottom Chord

Resist Shear

Brace Chords

_Forces Compression Tension

2523.88mm y

1500mm 2000mm

_Legend Rigid Restraints Primary Structure Secondary Structure Fixed Joint Member Release

2.00 2.00

6.00

2.00

20.00 2.00 2.00

6.00

2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

6.00 6.40

2.00

2.50

/Diagramatic Section Structurally Insulated Panel Z-Purlins

Box Gutter Steel WC Column

Tilt-up Sandwich Panel Concrete Retaining Wall

Date/ Client/ Designed/ Class/

April 2014 Marco Vittino Mitchell Cook ARCT 3030

Structure/

Structural Report + Simulation/

Description + Model Mt Barker Winery Page # 1.2 W.A.

COOI< 20942043@students.uwa.edu.au

_Sections 65 x 65 x 1.6 SHS 100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS 200 UB 22.3 400 WC 303 400 WC 361

_UB *A UB (Universal Beam) is a beam characterised as having an I-shaped cross-section. UBs are generally not square in profile; they are generally taller than they are wider. The horizontal element of the ‘I’ are termed flanges, while the vertical element is termed the web. According to Beam Theory, the two elements resist different forces, thus the orientation of the member is critical. The flanges are efficient at resisting most of the bending moments whilst the webs are efficient at resisting the shear forces experienced by the member. This structure uses hot-rolled Structural Steel UBs that are manufactured in accordance with the requirements of AS 3679.1. In this structure, UBs,(section: 200 UB 22.3) are used to brace between the primary columns as well as support the weight of the polycarbonate panels. The members are orientated with the webs aligned in the vertical direction. _WC *A WC (Welded Column) is a column characterised as having an I-shaped cross-section. The horizontal element of the ‘I’ are termed flanges, while the vertical element is termed the web. According to Beam Theory, the two elements resist different forces, thus the orientation of the member is critical. The flanges are efficient at resisting most of the bending moments whilst the webs are efficient at resisting the shear forces experienced by the member. Flanges and web dimensions are engineered to match the load requirements along the length of the column. This structure uses sections welded from plate that are manufactured in accordance with the requirements of AS 3679.2. In this structure, WCs,(section: 400 WC 361, 400 WC 303) are to transfer the loads on the Primary Structure down to the ground. The members are orientated with the web perpendicular the building’s surface. *The Southern WCs (400 WC 361) are shorter in length than those on the North face as they are fixed on top of a Concrete Retaining Wall. As their height is shorter, the allowable deflection in those members, (given by height/500), is less than that of the Northern WCs (400 WC 303). To ensure the Southern WCs deflections did not exceed the allowable limit, they were assigned a stronger Section Profile. *Ultimately, the entire super-structure will transfer its loads to the ground through the WCs. For this analysis, it is assumed that there is an adequate Concrete sub-structure system capable of transferring these loads such that the resulting soil stability and deformations are acceptable. _SHS *SHS (Square Hollow Section) is a type of metal profile with a squareshaped, hollow, tubular cross-section. SHS are commonly used in Steel -frame structures where members experience loading in multiple directions, (thus where members experience various stresses). Although in many cases UB’s are in many cases a more efficient structural shape, SHS has superior resistance to lateral torsional buckling. (Lateral Torsional buckling is when a simply supported member is loaded in flexure and the member fails due to bending stresses rather than of direct compression of the material). For this reason, SHS, (section; 65 x 65 x 1.6, 100x 100 x 9.0), is used in this structure for all members of the truss. Not modelled in this structure, SHS section would also be used for diagonal cross bracing to brace the end Primary portals. (By stabilising the end portals, it would effectively stabilise the middle portals).

Date/ Client/ Designed/ Class/

April 2014 Marco Vittino Mitchell Cook ARCT 3030

Structure/

Structural Report + Simulation/

Structural Sections Mt Barker Winery Page # 1.3 W.A.

COOI< 20942043@students.uwa.edu.au

_Structural Insulated Panels

_Z Purlins

_Concrete Tilt-up Panels

_Polycarbonate Panels

*Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) area a composite building material, consisting of an insulating layer of rigid core, sandwiched between two layers of structural facing. SIPs share the same structural properties as Universal Beams (UB’s) or Universal Columns (UC’s) in how the rigid insulation core acts as a web, whilst the sheathing fulfils the function of the flanges. SIPs are manufactured under factory controlled conditions and can be custom-fabricated to accommodate any building design. The result is a building system that is is extremely strong, energy efficient and cost-effective.

*Z purlins are a type of Purlin. Steel Purlins are any longitudinal or horizontal member used for structural support in buildings, (most commonly in a roof). The purlins of a roof support the weight of the roof, which in this case are the SIPs. A secondary function of Z-purlins is bracing the trusses, which increases the building’s stability. (This is usually reinforced with additional diagonal-bracing; this has been disregarded for the purpose of this analysis). Z Purlins are characterised by their ‘Z’ shape which allows the purlin to ‘lap’ with others at the joints, which gives them to potential to be much stronger than other Purlins, (specifically C Purlins). It is assumed lapping Z Purlins for a structure this large is the most efficient approach. The top and bottom flanges of a Z purlin face opposite directions and one flange is ‘wide’ and the other ‘narrow’ to accommodate lapping.

*Tilt-up is a type of building and construction technique using concrete that is particularly suited for industrial buildings. It has a shorter completion time and is a more cost-effective technique than that of traditional in-situ concrete construction. Concrete Tilt-up Panels are usually formed horizontally on site inside rebar-reinforced forms and then they are ‘tilted’ to a vertical position (after they have cured) and then braced until the remaining building structural components are secured.

*Polycarbonate panels are plastic facade elements that make an excellent substitute for traditional glazing. Polycarbonate plastic is moldable, durable, light-weight and energy-efficient. Danpalon Polycarbonate panels are available in a range of thickness’s and widths and offer a more superior alternative than other materials. Polycarbonate sheets can be as clear as glass, translucent, or completely opaque, depending on the specific use.

*Most Concrete Tilt-up Panel are engineered to work with the roof structure and(/or) floor structures to resist all forces; that is, to function as load-bearing walls. The connections to the roof and floors are usually steel plates with headed-studs that were secured into the forms during the casting stage. These attachment points then usually connect to the structure through welding or bolting. For the purpose of this analysis however, it is assumed they are free-standing structures that are nonload bearing. Concrete Tilt-up panels can be custom-made and, thus, (with the aid of advice from the engineer), custom-sized panels can be manufactured to complete this structure’s facade.

*Danpalon Polycarbonate panels will be used for the upper-section of both the North and South facade system. They offer a complete daylighting solution which provides exceptional quality of light, thermal insulation, (R value: 0.65), 99.9% UV protection and an intriguing aesthetic. The qualities of this material justify having large openings. The panels come in range of colours and opacities. For this structure, the colour Bronze was chosen as it will compliment the rural landscape of Mt Barker. The panels of the North facade will have a lower LT% (-visible light transmission) and ST%(solar radiation transmission) than that of the Southern facade to best deal with Northern insolation. South light is very helpful for working environments which is why the amount of openings on the South facade is so high. The connection system will have LEDs incorporated into them allowing the building the glow at night. It is assumed that DP16 Multicell is the best panel type best suited for this structure.

*Versiclad Structural Insulated Panels will be used for the roofing system. Versiclad is the leading Australian brand of high-performance roofing panels used in industrial applications. It is assumed that the Versiclad Spacemaker is the SIP best suited for this structure, *The Spacemaker SIP requires a minimum 10 roof pitch meaning it can accommodate the 10 roof pitch of the structure. SIPs can generally achieve incredible spans; Versiclad Spacemaker (142.00mm overall thickness) has a trafficable unsupported span of up to 6.50m. The minimum and maximum length is 1800.00mm and 15000.00mm respectively, meaning a that a custom-fabrication of 2000.00mm x 6000.00 (to match the structure) is possible. This type of roofing system was chosen as it meant less, un-sightly secondary structural members was needed. As a whole, the mass of this particular SIP is 9.57kg/m2 . Although it is relatively light-weight, this is the heaviest SIP Versiclad manufacture. The justification of using such a massive SIP is that it yields great thermal performance with a Mean RT Value (Summer/ Winter) of 2.90/3.00. *Versiclad Spacemaker is composed of several building materials. The external-cladding layer is a high-tensile, Zincalume roof sheeting with a 37.00mm high trapezoidal profile. The corrugated profile gives the layer more strength as it increases the layer’s structural depth. Essentially, it is an example of a Form-Resistant Structure. The inner layer is a fireretardant EPS insulated core which which dramatically reduces radiant heat transfer, condensation and rain noise. The internal-cladding layer is a Lysaught Panelrib Zincalume sheeting which is very durable and expresses an industrial aesthetic that will compliment the industrial nature of the Tank Room. The surface’s reflective properties will also aid to better illuminate the space.

*Lysaught Purlins are light-weight structural steel members, designed in accordance with the Australian Standards (AS 4600: 1996 Cold Formed Steel Structures utilising high strength zinc-coated steel). It is assumed that the Lysaught Super Zed is the Purlin best suited for this structure. *Lysaught Super Zeds, (product code: SZ 25024 1-B), are accurately rollformed from high strength, hot-dipped zinc-coated (BlueScope) steel to provide an efficient, light-weight, economical roofing system for framed structures. 4.00 longitudinal lip stiffeners point back towards the web of the profile which increases the Purlin’s strength. A maximum span of 6000.00mm can be accommodated by a Purlin spacing of 2100.00mm, meaning that a system of Z Purlins spanning 6000.00mm and spaced 2000.00mm apart (to match this structure) is possible. As a whole, the mass of this particular Z Purlin per unit length is 5.73kg/m. *Lysaught Super Zeds are easy to install. Lysaught recommends that that the Purlin should be bolted to a support member, (in this case a Cleat that is welded on the Primary truss structure. Cladding, (in this case SIPs), can be fastened to the top flange with a Butt-joint with four Purlin Bolts. Using this technique, the secondary system is never physically sitting on the primary structure which allows it more tolerance

*Rapid Tilt Concrete Tilt-up panels will be used in this structure. Concrete Tilt-up panels have the thermal ability to absorb and store energy due to their high mass. As a result, they regulate interior temperature (through thermal mass) and also provide sound-proofing, which minimises the disturbance to the tranquility of the site.

*Danpalon is available in sheet lengths of up to 36.00m meaning that custom lengths of 6.00m and 6.40m could be manufactured to suit this structure. THe DP16 Multicell Panel has a sheet size width of 600mm, meaning that 10.00 panels could fit into the 6.0m wide openings in this structure’s facade. As a whole, the mass of this particular Polycarbonate panel is 3.6kg/m2.

*This structure concrete facade employs a ‘sandwich’ technique as it is assumed to be the most effective way of insulating Tilt-up walls. This involves placing a layer of (75mm wide) insulation between two (150mm wide) concrete panels. This method is made possible by connecting the two concrete panels through the insulation steel-ties. *Rapid Tilt employ modern techniques, expanding the range of appearance and shape of the Panels. Many finish-options are available, such as paints, stains, pigmented concrete, cast in features like brick and stone, and aggresive-erosion finishes like sandblasting and acid-etching. For this project, an iron-oxide pigment and aggressiveerosion finish will be used for the panels; allowing the concrete to better compliment the earthiness of the site and the traditional wine-making process. An interesting contrast will be created between the roughness of the Concrete panels and then clean-ness of the Polycarbonate panels.

*Danpalon Polycarbonate panels are relatively easy to install with Danpalon’s Concealed-fixing System. This system utilises a standingseam connection method uses various aluminium and polycarbonate connectors creating a relatively seamless aesthetic.

*Versiclad Spacemaker is self-mating and thus easy to install. Versiclad recommends that the SIP should be fixed to a support member, (in this case Z-purlins), with 14.00g self-drilling screws at every crest. Typically, 3.00 screws to each panel at each support should suffice.

Date/ Client/ Designed/ Class/

April 2014 Marco Vittino Mitchell Cook ARCT 3030

Structure/

Material Specs. Page #

Structural Report + Simulation/

Mt Barker Winery 1.4 W.A.

COOI< 20942043@students.uwa.edu.au

_Stress *When loads are applied to a body, the body tries to absorb its effects by developing internal forces that, in general, vary from one point to another. The intensity of these internal forces is called stress. Stress is a vector; described by magnitude, direction, and the plane on which it acts. The state of stresses at a point is fully described by the following components; Sx, Stress in the X-direction acting normal to the YZplane; Sy, Stress in the Y-direction acting normal to the XZ-plane; Sz, Stress in the Z-direction acting normal to the XY-plane. _Deflections (Dx’, Dy’, Dz’) *Deflection is the degree to which a structural element, (be it a member or joint), is displaced under a load; for this analysis it refers to a distance. Deflections are the result of a number of factors including material qualities (modulus of elasticity, strength), loading and spans. According to Table C1 of AS 1170.0, the element response, (or maximum deflection), for Roof-supporting elements (such as Trusses) is given by Span/300.00. For this structure, the maximum allowable deflection is given by 20.000/300; 66.67mm. The element response for Columns is given by Height/500.00. For this structure, the maximum allowable deflection for the North columns is 10900.00/500.00; 21.80mm, and for South Columns it is 9000.00/500.00; 16.00mm. _Axial Stress (Sx’) *Axial Stress is a stress that tends to change the length of a body (along it’s x-axis). There are two main types of axial stress; Compressive Stress and Tensile Stress. Compressive Stress is Axial Stress that tends to cause a body become shorter along the direction of the applied force whilst Tensile Stress is Axial Stress that tends to cause a body to become longer along the direction of applied force. For the purpose of this analysis, positive values of Sx’ indicate a member is under Compressive Stress whilst negative values of Sx’ indicate a member is under Tensile Stress. For the purpose of this analysis, the maximum allowable Shear Stress is given as 250.00MPa. _Shear Stress (Sy’, Sz’) *Shear Stress is defined as the component of stress co-planar with a material cross section; in essence, it is a state of stress in which the particles of the material ‘slide’ relative to one another. This type of stress introduces deformations capable of changing the shape of an element. The difference between a positive Shear force and a negative Shear force is simply the direction in which a member is distorted. For the purpose of this analysis, the maximum allowable Shear Stress is given as 250.00MPa. _Bending Stress (Sby’ Left, Sbz’ Top) *Bending characterises the behaviour of a slender structural element subjected to an external load applied perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis of the element. When a load is applied perpendicular to the length of a member with two supports on each end, (ie the trusses in this structure), bending moments are induced in the beam. Sby’; Bending stress in the element local Y-direction due to the bending moment about the element’s Z-axis. Sbz’; Bending stress in the element local Z-direction due to the bending moment about the element’s local Y-axis. According to Flexural theory, most materials will respond to an applied load by deflecting and will return to their original shape and form when the load is removed. This stress-strain relationship only exists up until a certain load, after which the material will undergo some irreversible deformation and ultimately fail. For the purpose of this analysis, the maximum allowable Bending Stress is given as 250.00MPa.

Date/ Client/ Designed/ Class/

April 2014 Marco Vittino Mitchell Cook ARCT 3030

Structure/

Structural Report + Simulation/

Stress Description Mt Barker Winery Page # 1.5 W.A.

COOI< 20942043@students.uwa.edu.au

_Dead Loads

_Polycarbonate Facade Panels

*Dead loads are a type of Structural Load. Structural Loads are forces, deformations or accelerations applied to a structure or its components. Dead loads are static forces that are relatively constant for an extended period of time. In essence, Dead Loads are the weight of the structure itself and the weight of all permanent loads on it.

*As no information on the mass of the Danpalon Supporting Accessories was given, for this analysis it is assumed that a Supporting Structure constructed of 50.00 x 50.00 x 5.00 SHS would have a comparable mass. (In reality, the weight of the Danpalon Supporting Structure would be considerably less than that calculated below).

_Self Weight *Self Weight is the weight of the Primary Structure itself. Multiframe calculates the total mass of the structure automatically. For this analysis, the weight of Cleats welded onto the Primary Structure (that connect to the secondary structure) is assumed negligible and thus it was not included into the Dead Load Calculations.

North Facade

Mass of Structure 38036.55kg FW of Structure Mass of Structure x Gravity 38036.55 x 9.81 373138.55N 373.14kN _Concrete Tilt-up Panels *Concrete Tilt-up Panels form the lower section of the facade. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed they are free-standing structures that are non-load bearing. It is assumed that they do not contribute to the Dead Load calculations. _Structural Insulated Panels

Material Description Supporting Structure

*It is assumed that the additional Dead Load of any services and fittings, such as lighting rigs, gutters, exhaust flumes, flashing, airconditioning ducts and 12.00mm rod bracing between the Z Purlins are relatively negligible and thus they are not included in the Total Dead Load. Similarly, the Dead Load of the Wire-supported Green Facade (that attaches to the external flange of the WCs), is negligible and thus it is not included in the Total Dead Load. Loads of services and fittings are not normally calculated on a case by case basis; instead they are established using AS 1170 Part 1. For this analysis however, it is assumed that the Dead Loads of any services and fittings is adequately covered in the Load Case ‘Dead Load x 1.200 + Live Load x 1.500’. FW Dead Load FW of SIPs + FW of Z Purlins 11.27 + 3.71 14.98kN *Each Truss’ AT is comprised of 11.00 nodes. It is assumed that the dead load on the 2.00 end nodes will half that on the intermediate nodes as the AT of the 2.00 end nodes is half that of the intermediate nodes.

Length of SHS Structure 62.80m Mass of SHS Section 6.40kg/m Mass of SHS Frame Mass of Section x Length of Structure 6.40 x 62.80 401.92kg

_Z Purlins

South Facade

Material Description Lysaght SupaZed Purlins Material Mass 5.73kg/m2 Span of AT 6.00m # Purlins 11.00 Mass of AT Material Mass x Span of AT x # Purlins 5.73 x 6.00 x 11.00 378.18kg/m2

Area of Opening 6.00 x 6.00 36.00m2 Mass of Opening Mass of Polycarbonate x Area of Opening 3.67 x 36.00 132.12kg FW of Opening Mass of Opening x Gravity 132.12 x 9.81 1266.09N 1.27kN

*There are 3.00 Steel Gantries that run the length of the Tank Room; 2.00 on the peripheries of the room and 1.00 in the middle. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that the 2.00 peripheral Gantries are supported by the Concrete Tilt-up Panels that form the lower section of the facade. These Concrete Tilt-up Panels are free standing, nonload bearing structures and thus the Steel Gantries are not included in the Dead Load calculations. Likewise, the central Gantry is supported by columns which transfer the load to the ground-floor slab , thus this Gantry is not included in the Dead Load calculations.

*In Multiframe, Dead Loads are applied as Local Joint Loads to the nodes. The Pressure of Polycarbonate Facade Panels is not included in the Total Dead Load as they are applied seperately as Load Panels.

Mass of Polycarbonate 3.67kg/m2 Area of Opening 6.00 x 6.400 38.40m2 Mass of Opening Mass of Polycarbonate x Area of Opening 3.67 x 38.40 140.93kg FW of Opening Mass of Opening x Gravity 140.93 x 9.81 1328.50N 1.33kN

FW of SHS Frame Mass of SHS Structure x Gravity 401.92 x 9.81 3942.84N 3.94kN

_Steel Gantry

_Total Dead Load

20.00

Danpalon DP16 Multicell 50.00 x 50.00 x 5.00 SHS

Material Description Versiclad Spacemaker Material Mass 9.57kg/m2 Tributary Area (AT) 6.00 x 20.00 120.00m2 Gravity 9.81ms-2 Mass of AT Material Mass x AT 9.57 x 120.00 1148.4kg FW of AT Mass of AT x Gravity 1148.40 x 9.81 11265.80N 11.27kN

FW of AT Mass of AT x Gravity 378.18 x 9.81 3709.95N 3.71kN

6.00

FW on intermediate nodes 14.98 / (11.00 - 1.00) 1.49kN

Total FW of 1.00 Opening Mass of Polycarbonate + Mass of Frame 1.33 + 3.94 5.27kN *In Multiframe, Load-panels are loaded with Pressure (kPa) Pressure (Downwards) FW of 1.00 Opening / Area of Opening 5.27 / 38.400 0.13kPa

Length of SHS Structure 60.00m Mass of SHS Frame Mass of Section x Length of Structure 6.40 x 60.00 384.00kg FW of SHS Frame Mass of SHS Structure x Gravity 384.00 x 9.81 3767.04N 3.77kN Total FW of 1.00 Opening Mass of Polycarbonate + Mass of Frame 1.27 + 3.77 5.04kN Pressure (Downwards) FW of 1.00 Opening / Area of Opening 5.04 / 36.00 0.14kPa

Date/ Client/ Designed/ Class/

April 2014 Marco Vittino Mitchell Cook ARCT 3030

Load Calculations/ Self Weight + Dead Loads Page #

Structural Report + Simulation/

Mt Barker Winery 2.1 W.A.

COOI< 20942043@students.uwa.edu.au

_Live Loads

_Total Live Load

*Live loads are a type of Structural Load. Structural Loads are forces, deformations or accelerations applied to a structure or its components. Live Loads are dynamic forces that are not permanent; they can move and change. For this analysis, Live Loads are the weight of rain and the weight of maintenance people on the roof. Wind Loads on structures are also considered to be Live Loads, but for this analysis they will be calculated and treated separately. Live Loads are generally estimated using codes and statistical data rather than calculated. Live Loads are generally assumed to be uniformly distributed and estimated to be ‘worst case scenarios’. For this analysis however, Live Loads will be calculated and applied as Joint Loads to the nodes of the structure.

*In Multiframe, Live Loads are applied as Local Joint Loads to the nodes. The Wind loads are not included in the Total Live Load as Multiframe calculates them separately.

_Rain

FW Live Load FW of Rain 2.35kN *Each Truss’ AT is comprised of 11.00 nodes. It is assumed that the dead load on the 2.00 end nodes will half that on the intermediate nodes as the AT of the 2.00 end nodes is half that of the intermediate nodes. 6.00

FW on intermediate nodes 2.35 / (11.00 - 1.00) 0.24kN FW on end nodes 0.24 / 2.00 0.12kN

20.00

*Table 3.2 of the Australian and New Zealand Standards 1170.1; states that a uniformly distributed action (load) can be applied to a structure to represent rainfall weight. For this analysis however, rainfall weight has been calculated. It is assumed that load of the rain is passed directly onto the nodes of the truss, thus the AT is that of the truss.

*There is an additional Local Joint Load on Joint 73 representing the concentrated weight of the Maintenance People. FW on Joint 73 0.24kN + 3.68 3.92kN

*With the assistance of Gravity, the 1.000 pitch of the roof will allow rain to drain off. However, it is assumed that a maximum of 2.00mm may be collected by the roof. Height 2.00mm 0.002m AT 6.00 x 20.00 120.00m2 VR Height x AT 0.002 x 120.00 0.24m3 Mass of 1m3 Water 1000kg/m3 Mass of AT 0.24 x 1000 240.00kg FW of AT Mass of AT x Gravity 240.00 x 9.81 2354.40N 2.35kN

Joint #73

x 5.00

_Maintenance People *Table 3.2 of the Australian and New Zealand Standards 1170.1; states that a concentrated action (load) of 1.80kN can be applied to a structure to represent human weight. For this analysis however, the load of Maintenance People will be calculated. *It is assumed that there could be a maximum of 5.00 people working the roof simultaneously. It is also assumed that, (although unlikely), that these 5.00 people are working within 1m2. Section 3.2 (a) of AS 1170.1 states that a load should be applied where it would have most effect. It is assumed that if the weakest node on the roof can support this concentrated load, then any point on the roof would also be able to. The weakest node of the structure is that of Joint #73, which represents the middle of the central truss’ span. Mass of Average Person 75.00kg Mass of 5.00 Persons 75.00 x 5.00 375.00kg FW of 5.00 Persons Mass of 5 Persons x Gravity 375.00 x 9.81 3678.75N 3.68kN

Date/ Client/ Designed/ Class/

April 2014 Marco Vittino Mitchell Cook ARCT 3030

Load Calculations/ Live Loads Page #

Structural Report + Simulation/

Mt Barker Winery 2.2 W.A.

COOI< 20942043@students.uwa.edu.au

_Wind Loads

_Design Wind Pressures

*Wind loads are a type of Live Load, though they are usually calculated separately. It is very important to calculate Wind Loads, (especially Wind Load Maximums), as high-winds can be very destructive. The velocity of the wind acts as a pressure when it meets with a structure’s surface. The intensity of that pressure is the wind load (kPa)+.

pDES

*AS 1170.2 sets out procedures for determining wind speeds and resulting wind actions to be used in the structural design of structures subjected to wind actions. Vsit,B

VR x Md x MZ,cat x MS x Md

*where VR (m/s) Md Mz,cat MS Mt

Regional 3.00s gust wind velocity Wind direction multiplier Terrain/Height Multiplier Sheidling Multiplier Topographic Multiplier

*According to Figure 3.1,Mt Barker falls under Region A1. According to Table 3.1, VR for Regions A (1-7) is 41.00m/s (which will be considered as maximum) and 32.00m/s (which will be considered as normal). According to Table 3.2, Md for North winds in Region A1 is 0.90; for South Winds it is 0.85 . Assuming site falls under Terrain Category 2, Table 4.1 (A) stipulates that Mz,cat is 1.05 as Height of structure is ~15m. MS is assumed to be 1.00 as the effects of shielding on this structure are not applicable. For this analysis, it will be assumed that Mt is negligible and thus it will be assumed as 1.00. *The Structure being tested is orientated towards the north-west and south-east. For this analysis, it will be assumed that the building is orientated towards the north and south, so that wind loads are perpendicular to building. *In Multiframe, Wind Loads are applied only to Load Panels and not to Members.

0.5 x pair x (Vdes,0)2 x Cfig x Cdyn

*where pair (Pa) Vdes,0 (kg/m3) Cfig Cdyn

Density of Air Building orthagonal design wind speed Aerodynamic shape factor Dynamic Response factor

Vsit,B

Vdes,0

Cfig

Cp,e x Ka x Kc x Kl x Kp

Vsit,B 41.00 x 0.85 x 1.05 x 1.00 x 1.00 36.59m/s _Site Wind Speed Normal North Vsit,B 32.00 x 0.90 x 1.05 x 1.00 x 1.00 30.24m/s _Site Wind Speed Normal South Vsit,B 32.00 x 0.85 x 1.05 x 1.00 x 1.00 28.56m/s

*For South Faces pDES 0.50 x 1.2 x (36.59)2 x 0.64 514.11Pa 0.51kPa *For North Faces pDES 0.50 x 1.2 x (36.59)2 x 0.40 321.32Pa 0.32kPa *For Roof pDES 0.50 x 1.2 x (36.59)2 x 0.72 578.37Pa 0.58kPa

*Multiframe automatically calculates Design Wind Pressures. In the Wind Load Case tab, you can see that AS 1170 is considered in the calculations. For this analysis, Multiframe’s calculations will be used instead of the manual calculations shown adjacent. Thus it is assumed, that Wind Load Normal is 20.00m/s and Wind Load Maximum is 41.00m/s. It is also assumed that the Wind Profile is uniform, and thus wind velocity does not change between the heights of 0.00m and 10.00m.

_Wind Load Normal North

Cp,e External Pressure Coefficent Ka Area reduction factor Kc Combination factor Kl Local Pressure Kp Porous Cladding reduction factor

*For North Faces pDES 0.50 x 1.2 x (30.24)2 x 0.64 351.15Pa 0.35kPa *For South Faces pDES 0.50 x 1.2 x (30.24)2 x 0.40 219.47Pa 0.22kPa *For Roof pDES 0.50 x 1.2 x (30.24)2 x 0.72 395.04Pa 0.40kPa

*It is assumed Buillding is treated as ‘Building Envelope’. *According to Table 5.2 (A), Cp,e for windward wall is 0.80 as building height is <25.00m. According to Table 5.2 (B), C p,e for leeward wall is -0.50 as Roof pitch is <10.000 (and assuming d/b is <1). According to Table 5.3 (A), Cp,e for roof for downwind slope is 0.90 (assuming h/d is <0.50 and Horizontal distance form windard edge of roof is 0.00 to 0.50h). For the purpose of this analysis, Internal Pressure coefficients are disregarded. According to Table 5.4, Ka for North Face, South Face and Roof is 0.80 as Tributary area is assumed as >100.00. According to Table 5.5, KC is 1.00 as it is assumed that wind actions from any single surface contributes 75% or more to an action effect. According to clause 5.4.4, Kl will be taken as 1.00. According to clause 5.4.5, K p shall be taken as 1.00 as it is assumed that no surfaces of the structure consist of permeable cladding. For this analysis, Cdyn is disregarded. _Aerodynamic Shape Factors

_Site Wind Speed Maximum South

_Total Wind Loads

*where

_Site Wind Speed Maximum North Vsit,B 41.00 x 0.9 x 1.05 x 1.00 x 1.00 38.75m/s

_Wind Load Maximum South

Cfig Windward Faces 0.80 x 0.80 x 1.00 x 1.00 x 1.00 0.64 Cfig Leeward Faces -0.50 x 0.80 x 1.00 x 1.00 x 1.00 -0.40 Cfig Roof 0.90 x 0.80 x 1.00 x 1.00 x 1.00 0.72 _Wind Load Maximum North

-0.50

0.90

0.80

_Wind Load Normal South *For South Faces pDES 0.50 x 1.2 x (28.56)2 x 0.64 522.03Pa 0.52kPa *For North Faces pDES 0.50 x 1.2 x (28.56)2 x 0.40 195.76Pa 0.19kPa *For Roof pDES 0.50 x 1.2 x (28.56)2 x 0.72 352.37Pa 0.35kPa

*For North Faces pDES 0.50 x 1.2 x (38.75)2 x 0.64 576.60Pa 0.57kPa *For South Faces pDES 0.50 x 1.2 x (38.75)2 x 0.40 360.38Pa 0.36kPa *For Roof pDES 0.50 x 1.2 x (38.75)2 x 0.72 1081.13Pa 1.08kPa

Date/ Client/ Designed/ Class/

April 2014 Marco Vittino Mitchell Cook ARCT 3030

Load Calculations/ Wind Loads Page #

Structural Report + Simulation/

Mt Barker Winery 2.3 W.A.

COOI< 20942043@students.uwa.edu.au

*Various joints were tested to give a better idea of how different parts of the structure are behaving

_Maximum Deflections

_Maximum Axial Stresses

Displacement

Joint #

Allowable Deflection (mm)

Deflection (mm)

Pass

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

dx’

< 21.800

-0.252

Yes

Sx’

Diagonal

113

65 x 65 x 1.6 SHS

< 250

-18.941

Yes

dy’

< 66.667

-2.891

Yes

Top Chord

100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS

< 250

5.590

Yes

dz’

< 66.667

0.012

Yes

Girt

181

200 UB 22.3

< 250

0.057

Yes

106

Column

196

400 WC 303

< 250

0.683

Yes

80 62

_Maximum Shear Stresses

106

_Maximum Bending Stresses

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

Sy’

103

Girt

169

200 UB 22.3

< 250

-0.650

Yes

Sby’ Left

Top Chord

100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS

< 250

8.376

Yes

Column

193

400 WC 303

< 250

-0.012

Yes

Diagonal

122

65 x 65 x 1.6 SHS

< 250

4.246

Yes

Top Chord

100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS

< 250

0.335

Yes

103

Girt

168

200 UB 22.3

< 250

-3.156

Yes

Diagonal

113

65 x 65 x 1.6 SHS

< 250

0.197

Yes

116

Column

194

400 WC 361

< 250

-0.283

Yes

Sz’

103

Sbz’ Top

103

Date/ Client/ Designed/ Class/

April 2014 Marco Vittino Mitchell Cook ARCT 3030

Load Cases/ Self Weight Page #

116

Structural Report + Simulation/

Mt Barker Winery 3.1 W.A.

COOI< 20942043@students.uwa.edu.au

*Various joints were tested to give a better idea of how different parts of the structure are behaving

_Maximum Deflections

_Maximum Axial Stresses

Displacement

Joint #

Allowable Deflection (mm)

Deflection (mm)

Pass

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

dx’

< 21.800

-0.629

Yes

Sx’

Diagonal

113

65 x 65 x 1.6 SHS

< 250

-46.915

Yes

dy’

< 66.667

-7.116

Yes

Top Chord

100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS

< 250

13.661

Yes

dz’

< 66.667

0.029

Yes

Girt

181

200 UB 22.3

< 250

0.120

Yes

104

Column

190

400 WC 361

< 250

1.041

Yes

104

_Maximum Shear Stresses

_Maximum Bending Stresses

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

Sy’

103

Girt

168

200 UB 22.3

< 250

1.229

Yes

Sby’ Left

Top Chord

100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS

< 250

19.440

Yes

Column

193

400 WC 303

< 250

-0.029

Yes

Diagonal

122

65 x 65 x 1.6 SHS

< 250

8.610

Yes

Top Chord

100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS

< 250

0.648

Yes

103

Girt

168

200 UB 22.3

< 250

-6.673

Yes

Diagonal

122

65 x 65 x 1.6 SHS

< 250

0.284

Yes

116

Column

194

400 WC 361

< 250

-0.684

Yes

Sz’

103

Sbz’ Top

103

Date/ Client/ Designed/ Class/

April 2014 Marco Vittino Mitchell Cook ARCT 3030

Load Cases/ Dead Load Page #

116

Structural Report + Simulation/

Mt Barker Winery 3.2 W.A.

COOI< 20942043@students.uwa.edu.au

*Various joints were tested to give a better idea of how different parts of the structure are behaving

_Maximum Deflections

_Maximum Axial Stresses

Displacement

Joint #

Allowable Deflection (mm)

Deflection (mm)

Pass

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

dx’

< 21.800

-0.458

Yes

Sx’

Diagonal

131

65 x 65 x 1.6 SHS

< 250

-30.888

Yes

dy’

< 66.667

-5.400

Yes

Top Chord

100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS

< 250

10.721

Yes

dz’

< 66.667

0.040

Yes

Girt

180

200 UB 22.3

< 250

0.057

Yes

103

Column

194

400 WC 361

< 250

0.842

Yes

103

_Maximum Shear Stresses

67 74

_Maximum Bending Stresses

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

Sy’

101

Girt

168

200 UB 22.3

< 250

0.650

Yes

Sby’ Left

Top Chord

100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS

< 250

13.535

Yes

103

Column

191

400 WC 303

< 250

0.015

Yes

Diagonal

140

65 x 65 x 1.6 SHS

< 250

6.354

Yes

Top Chord

100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS

< 250

0.478

Yes

Girt

176

200 UB 22.3

< 250

-3.160

Yes

Diagonal

140

65 x 65 x 1.6 SHS

< 250

0.237

Yes

116

Column

194

400 WC 361

< 250

-0.495

Yes

Sz’

103

101

Sbz’ Top

116

Date/ Client/ Designed/ Class/

April 2014 Marco Vittino Mitchell Cook ARCT 3030

Load Cases/ Live Load Page #

Structural Report + Simulation/

Mt Barker Winery 3.3 W.A.

COOI< 20942043@students.uwa.edu.au

*Wind Load Maximum is based on the Code wind velocity of Perth: 41ms-1 *Various joints were tested to give a better idea of how different parts of the structure are behaving

_Maximum Deflections

_Maximum Axial Stresses

Displacement

Joint #

Allowable Deflection (mm)

Deflection (mm)

Pass

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

dx’

< 21.800

-15.431

Yes

Sx’

Diagonal

131

65 x 65 x 1.6 SHS

< 250

-191.541

Yes

dy’

< 66.667

-30.411

Yes

Top Chord

100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS

< 250

60.683

Yes

dz’

< 66.667

2.841

Yes

108

Girt

172

200 UB 22.3

< 250

-0.319

Yes

117

Column

196

400 WC 303

< 250

2.268

Yes

_Maximum Shear Stresses

108

117

_Maximum Bending Stresses

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

Sy’

Girt

176

200 UB 22.3

< 250

3.849

Yes

Sby’ Left

109

Girt

173

200 UB 22.3

< 250

-212.469

Yes

Column

193

400 WC 303

< 250

0.316

Yes

Top Chord

100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS

< 250

117.275

Yes

Top Chord

100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS

< 250

-3.676

Yes

113

Column

188

400 WC 303

< 250

27.693

Yes

109

Diagonal

173

65 x 65 x 1.6 SHS

< 250

-3.523

Yes

Girt

176

200 UB 22.3

< 250

-22.182

Yes

Sz’

109

Sbz’ Top

113

109

Date/ Client/ Designed/ Class/

April 2014 Marco Vittino Mitchell Cook ARCT 3030

Load Cases/ Wind Load Max North Page #

Structural Report + Simulation/

Mt Barker Winery 3.4 W.A.

COOI< 20942043@students.uwa.edu.au

*Various joints were tested to give a better idea of how different parts of the structure are behaving

_Maximum Deflections

_Maximum Axial Stresses

Displacement

Joint #

Allowable Deflection (mm)

Deflection (mm)

Pass

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

dx’

< 16.000

-15.284

Yes

Sx’

Diagonal

131

65 x 65 x 1.6 SHS

< 250

-192.892

Yes

dy’

< 66.667

-29.622

Yes

Top Chord

100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS

< 250

55.452

Yes

dz’

< 66.667

2.894

Yes

Girt

180

200 UB 22.3

< 250

0.321

Yes

117

Column

196

400 WC 303

< 250

2.268

Yes

_Maximum Shear Stresses

117

_Maximum Bending Stresses

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

Sy’

Girt

177

200 UB 22.3

< 250

-3.851

Yes

Sby’ Left

104

Girt

169

200 UB 22.3

< 250

186.048

Yes

114

Column

190

400 WC 361

< 250

2.599

Yes

Top Chord

100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS

< 250

41.978

Yes

104

Girt

169

200 UB 22.3

< 250

3.257

Yes

114

Column

190

400 WC 361

< 250

-35.711

Yes

Top Chord

100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS

< 250

3.191

Yes

Girt

177

200 UB 22.3

< 250

-22.205

Yes

Sz’

114

104

Sbz’ Top

104

114

Date/ Client/ Designed/ Class/

April 2014 Marco Vittino Mitchell Cook ARCT 3030

Load Cases/ Wind Load Max South Page #

Structural Report + Simulation/

Mt Barker Winery 3.5 W.A.

COOI< 20942043@students.uwa.edu.au

*Various joints were tested to give a better idea of how different parts of the structure are behaving

_Maximum Deflections

_Maximum Axial Stresses

Displacement

Joint #

Allowable Deflection (mm)

Deflection (mm)

Pass

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

dx’

< 21.800

-1.101

Yes

Sx’

Diagonal

131

65 x 65 x 1.6 SHS

< 250

-70.431

Yes

dy’

< 66.667

-11.724

Yes

Top Chord

100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS

< 250

22.971

Yes

dz’

< 66.667

0.073

Yes

Girt

180

200 UB 22.3

< 250

0.133

Yes

116

Column

194

400 WC 361

< 250

1.192

Yes

116

_Maximum Shear Stresses

67 74

_Maximum Bending Stresses

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

Sy’

103

Girt

168

200 UB 22.3

< 250

1.345

Yes

Sby’ Left

Top Chord

100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS

< 250

29.387

Yes

103

Column

191

400 WC 303

< 250

0.032

Yes

Diagonal

140

65 x 65 x 1.6 SHS

< 250

12.642

Yes

Top Chord

100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS

< 250

0.924

Yes

Girt

176

200 UB 22.3

< 250

-7.380

Yes

Diagonal

140

65 x 65 x 1.6 SHS

< 250

0.324

Yes

103

Column

194

400 WC 361

< 250

-1.082

Yes

Sz’

103

Sbz’ Top

103

Date/ Client/ Designed/ Class/

April 2014 Marco Vittino Mitchell Cook ARCT 3030

Load Cases/ Dead x 1.2 + Live x 1.5 Page #

Structural Report + Simulation/

Mt Barker Winery 3.6 W.A.

COOI< 20942043@students.uwa.edu.au

*Wind Load Maximum is based on the Code wind velocity of Perth: 41ms-1 *Various joints were tested to give a better idea of how different parts of the structure are behaving

_Maximum Deflections

_Maximum Axial Stresses

Displacement

Joint #

Allowable Deflection (mm)

Deflection (mm)

Pass

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

dx’

< 21.800

-15.810

Yes

Sx’

Diagonal

131

65 x 65 x 1.6 SHS

< 250

-216.719

Yes

dy’

< 66.667

-34.151

Yes

Top Chord

100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS

< 250

67.947

Yes

dz’

< 66.667

2.902

Yes

Girt

176

200 UB 22.3

< 250

0.357

Yes

116

Column

196

400 WC 303

< 250

2.557

Yes

116

_Maximum Shear Stresses

_Maximum Bending Stresses

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

Sy’

Girt

176

200 UB 22.3

< 250

4.371

Yes

Sby’ Left

109

Girt

173

200 UB 22.3

< 250

-212.481

Yes

113

Column

188

400 WC 303

< 250

-3.188

Yes

Top Chord

100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS

< 250

127.233

Yes

Top Chord

100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS

< 250

3.883

Yes

113

Column

188

400 WC 303

< 250

28.325

Yes

Diagonal

122

65 x 65 x 1.6 SHS

< 250

1.354

Yes

106

Girt

200 UB 22.3

< 250

-25.347

Yes

Sz’

113

Sbz’ Top

113

109

Date/ Client/ Designed/ Class/

April 2014 Marco Vittino Mitchell Cook ARCT 3030

Load Cases/ Dead x 0.9 + Wind Load Max North Page #

Structural Report + Simulation/

Mt Barker Winery 3.7 W.A.

106

COOI< 20942043@students.uwa.edu.au

*Wind Load Maximum is based on the Code wind velocity of Perth: 41ms-1 *Various joints were tested to give a better idea of how different parts of the structure are behaving

_Maximum Deflections

_Maximum Axial Stresses

Displacement

Joint #

Allowable Deflection (mm)

Deflection (mm)

Pass

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

dx’

< 16.000

15.220

Yes

Sx’

Diagonal

131

65 x 65 x 1.6 SHS

< 250

-218.073

Yes

dy’

< 66.667

-33.426

Yes

Bot. Chord

100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS

< 250

-62.882

Yes

dz’

< 66.667

3.911

Yes

Girt

180

200 UB 22.3

< 250

0.378

Yes

117

Column

196

400 WC 303

< 250

2.575

Yes

_Maximum Shear Stresses

117

_Maximum Bending Stresses

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

Sy’

Girt

177

200 UB 22.3

< 250

-4.372

Yes

Sby’ Left

104

Girt

169

200 UB 22.3

< 250

186.043

Yes

113

Column

188

400 WC 361

< 250

2.609

Yes

Top Chord

100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS

< 250

51.932

Yes

104

Girt

169

200 UB 22.3

< 250

3.257

Yes

114

Column

190

400 WC 361

< 250

-36.070

Yes

Top Chord

65 x 65 x 1.6 SHS

< 250

3.255

Yes

Girt

177

200 UB 22.3

< 250

-25.370

Yes

Sz’

103

104

Sbz’ Top

104

114

Date/ Client/ Designed/ Class/

April 2014 Marco Vittino Mitchell Cook ARCT 3030

Load Cases/ Dead x 0.9 + Wind Load Max South Page #

Structural Report + Simulation/

Mt Barker Winery 3.8 W.A.

COOI< 20942043@students.uwa.edu.au

*Various joints were tested to give a better idea of how different parts of the structure are behaving

_Maximum Deflections

_Maximum Axial Stresses

Displacement

Joint #

Allowable Deflection (mm)

Deflection (mm)

Pass

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

dx’

< 21.800

-.0.729

Yes

Sx’

Diagonal

131

65 x 65 x 1.6 SHS

< 250

-52.889

Yes

dy’

< 66.667

-8.371

Yes

Top Chord

100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS

< 250

16.226

Yes

dz’

< 66.667

0.038

Yes

Girt

181

200 UB 22.3

< 250

0.120

Yes

115

Column

192

400 WC 303

< 250

1.389

Yes

_Maximum Shear Stresses

115

_Maximum Bending Stresses

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

Sy’

103

Girt

168

200 UB 22.3

< 250

1.229

Yes

Sby’ Left

Top Chord

100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS

< 250

22.013

Yes

Column

193

400 WC 303

< 250

-0.034

Yes

Diagonal

140

65 x 65 x 1.6 SHS

< 250

9.660

Yes

Top Chord

100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS

< 250

0.719

Yes

103

Girt

168

200 UB 22.3

< 250

-6.672

Yes

Diagonal

140

65 x 65 x 1.6 SHS

< 250

0.305

Yes

116

Column

194

400 WC 361

< 250

-0.790

Yes

Sz’

103

Sbz’ Top

103

Date/ Client/ Designed/ Class/

April 2014 Marco Vittino Mitchell Cook ARCT 3030

Load Cases/ Dead + Live x 0.5 Page #

116

Structural Report + Simulation/

Mt Barker Winery 3.9 W.A.

COOI< 20942043@students.uwa.edu.au

*Wind Load Maximum is based on the Code wind velocity of Perth: 41ms-1 *Various joints were tested to give a better idea of how different parts of the structure are behaving

_Maximum Deflections

_Maximum Axial Stresses

Displacement

Joint #

Allowable Deflection (mm)

Deflection (mm)

Pass

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

dx’

< 16.000

-4.271

Yes

Sx’

Diagonal

131

65 x 65 x 1.6 SHS

< 250

-93.960

Yes

dy’

< 66.667

-14.905

Yes

Top Chord

100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS

< 250

29.249

Yes

dz’

< 66.667

0.712

Yes

Girt

181

200 UB 22.3

< 250

0.178

Yes

115

Column

192

400 WC 303

< 250

1.683

Yes

_Maximum Shear Stresses

115

_Maximum Bending Stresses

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

Sy’

Girt

176

200 UB 22.3

< 250

1.990

Yes

Sby’ Left

109

Girt

173

200 UB 22.3

< 250

-50.590

Yes

113

Column

188

400 WC 303

< 250

-0.783

Yes

Top Chord

100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS

< 250

-8.381

Yes

Top Chord

100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS

< 250

1.475

Yes

Girt

176

200 UB 22.3

< 250

-11.196

Yes

109

Girt

173

200 UB 22.3

< 250

-0.839

Yes

113

Column

188

400 WC 303

< 250

7.295

Yes

Sz’

113

109

Sbz’ Top

113

109

Date/ Client/ Designed/ Class/

April 2014 Marco Vittino Mitchell Cook ARCT 3030

Load Cases/ Dead x 0.9 + Live x 0.5 + Wind North Page #

Structural Report + Simulation/

Mt Barker Winery 3.10 W.A.

COOI< 20942043@students.uwa.edu.au

*Wind Load Maximum is based on the Code wind velocity of Perth: 41ms-1 *Various joints were tested to give a better idea of how different parts of the structure are behaving

_Maximum Axial Stresses

_Maximum Deflections Displacement

Joint #

Allowable Deflection (mm)

Deflection (mm)

Pass

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

dx’

< 16.000

4.022

Yes

Sx’

Diagonal

131

65 x 65 x 1.6 SHS

< 250

-94.270

Yes

dy’

< 66.667

14.731

Yes

Top Chord

100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS

< 250

28.090

Yes

dz’

< 66.667

0.680

Yes

Girt

180

200 UB 22.3

< 250

0.183

Yes

115

Column

192

400 WC 303

< 250

1.687

Yes

_Maximum Shear Stresses

115

_Maximum Bending Stresses

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

Stress

Joint #

Member

Member #

Section

Allowable Stress (MPa)

Result Stress (MPa)

Pass

Sy’

Girt

177

200 UB 22.3

< 250

-1.991

Yes

Sby’ Left

104

Girt

169

200 UB 22.3

< 250

44.262

Yes

114

Column

190

400 WC 361

< 250

0.637

Yes

Top Chord

100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS

< 250

30.009

Yes

Top Chord

100 x 100 x 9.0 SHS

< 250

1.013

Yes

Girt

177

200 UB 22.3

< 250

-11.201

Yes

104

Girt

169

200 UB 22.3

< 250

0.775

Yes

114

Column

190

400 WC 361

< 250

-9.141

Yes

Sz’

114

104

Sbz’ Top

104

114

Date/ Client/ Designed/ Class/

April 2014 Marco Vittino Mitchell Cook ARCT 3030

Load Cases/ Dead x 0.9 + Live x 0.5 + Wind South Page #

Structural Report + Simulation/

Mt Barker Winery 3.11 W.A.

COOI< 20942043@students.uwa.edu.au

*Efficiency % is calculated by Deflection / Allowable Deflection

_Maximum Deflections

_Analysis of Tables + Graph

Load Cases

Dx’ (mm)

Dx’ Efficiency (%)

Dy’ (mm)

Dy’ Efficiency %

Dz’ (mm)

Dz’ Efficiency %

Self Weight

0.252

1.58

2.891

4.34

0.012

0.02

Dead Load

0.692

4.33

7.116

10.73

0.029

0.04

Live Load

0.458

2.10

5.400

8.09

0.040

0.06

Wind Load Maximum North

15.431

96.44

30.411

45.61

2.841

4.26

Wind Load Maximum South

15.284

70.11

29.622

44.43

2.893

4.34

Dead Load x 1.2 + Live Load x 1.5

1.101

5.05

11.724

17.58

0.073

0.11

Dead Load x 0.9 + Wind Load Maximum North

15.810

98.81

34.151

51.91

2.902

4.35

Dead Load x 0.9 + Wind Load Maximum South

15.220

69.82

33.426

50.13

3.911

5.87

Dead Load + Live Load x 0.5

0.729

3.34

8.371

12.56

0.038

0.057

Dead Load + Live Load x 0.5 + Wind Load Normal North

4.271

19.59

14.905

22.34

0.712

1.07

Dead Load + Live Load x 0.5 + Wind Load Normal South

4.022

18.45

14.731

22.09

0.680

1.02

*After Tabulating and graphing the various maximum deflections of each Load Case, patterns in how the structure deflected under different Load Cases became prevalent. In all cases, the displacement about the Y-axis (Dy’) was the largest deflection. It was the SHS members of the Trusssystem that were deflecting the most. This tended to occur to the joints in the middle of the truss-span (i.e. Joint #73, Joint# 62), which makes sense as these points are futherest from the supporting structures, and thus the force of gravity (9.8m/s2) causes them to deflect the most. In all cases, the displacement about the X-axis (Dx’) was the second largest deflection and the displacement about the Z-axis (Dz’_) was the smallest deflection. In fact, there was hardly any Dz’ produced in any of the cases; the deflections were way under the allowable limits. This is probably because the building is braced in that direction and because the winds tested were perpendicular the north and south faces. Assuming the building is an enclosed envelope, if we tested it under winds perpendicular to the east and west faces, there would be considerable deflection in the Z-axis.

_Legend

The Load Case ‘Dead Load x 0.9 + Wind Maximum North’ produced the greatest deflections with the maximum Dx’ of -15.810mm, maximum Dy’ of -34.151mm and maximum Dz’ of 2.902mm. The results how considerably more the wind loads affect the structural members than any other loads (such as the load of gravity).

Dx’ Dy’ Dz’ 66.7

The Load Case ‘Self-weight’ produced the least deflections which makes sense as the only forces on the structure is the downwards force of gravity applied to all of the structural members.

33.426

34.151 29.622

30.411

Deflections (mm)

With regards to efficiency, the ‘Wind Load Maximum’ Cases, (being the worst case scenarios), were the most efficient. The allowable Dx’ was 16.00mm; for these cases Dx’ averaged at 15.42mm, i.e, very close to the allowable limit. The allowable Dy’ was 66.67mm; for these cases Dy; averaged at 33.40mm, ie about half of the allowable limit.

Load Cases #

0.680

0.712

0.038

0.729 7

4.022

4.271

3.911

2.902 0.073

1.101

2.841

2.893

5.400 0.400

0.458

0.029

0.692

0.012

0..252

2.891

7.116

8.731

11.724

14.731

14.905

15.220

15.284

15.431

15.810

21.8

11 Date/ Client/ Designed/ Class/

April 2014 Marco Vittino Mitchell Cook ARCT 3030

Results/

Structural Report + Simulation/

Mt Barker Winery 4.1 W.A.

Max Deflections Analysis Page #

COOI< 20942043@students.uwa.edu.au

*Efficiency % is calculated by Result Stress / Allowable Stress

_Maximum Stresses #

Load Cases

Sx’ (MPa)

Sx’ Efficiency %

Sy’ (MPa)

Sy’ Efficiency %

Sz’ (MPa)

Sz’ Efficiency %

Sby’ Left (MPa)

Sby’ Left Efficiency %

Sbz’ Top (MPa)

Sbz’ Top Efficiency %

Self Weight

18.941

7.58

0.650

0.26

0.335

0.13

8.376

3.49

3.156

1.26

Dead Load

46.915

19.96

1.229

0.49

0.648

0.26

19.440

7.78

6.673

2.66

Live Load

30.888

12.35

0.650

0.26

0.478

0.19

13.535

5.41

3.160

1.26

Wind Load Maximum North

191.541

76.60

3.849

1.54

3.676

1.45

182.469

84.99

27.693

12.56

Wind Load Maximum South

192.892

79.93

3.851

1.49

3.257

1.30

186.048

74.42

35.711

14.28

Dead Load x 1.2 + Live Load x 1.5

70.431

28.17

1.345

0.54

0.924

0.37

28.387

11.30

7.380

2.95

Dead Load x 0.9 + Wind Load Maximum North

216.719

86.47

4.371

1.73

3.883

1.76

212.481

84.99

28.325

11.33

Dead Load x 0.9 + Wind Load Maximum South

218.073

87.23

4.372

1.72

3.257

1.30

186.043

74.42

36.070

14.41

Dead Load + Live Load x 0.5

52.889

21.16

1.229

0.52

0.719

0.33

22.013

8.81

6.672

2.67

Dead Load + Live Load x 0.5 + Wind Load Normal North

93.960

37.44

1.990

0.79

1.475

0.59

50.590

20.24

11.196

4.52

Dead Load + Live Load x 0.5 + Wind Load Normal South

94.270

37.71

1.991

0.80

1.013

0.40

44.262

17.86

11.201

4.48

_Legend

_Analysis of Tables + Graph *After tabulating and graphing the various maximum stresses of each Load Case, patterns in how the structure performed under different Load Cases became prevalent. In all cases, the Axial (Sx’) stress was the largest stress experienced by the members (with a maximum of 218.073MPa) whilst Shear (Sz’) was the smallest stress experienced by the members (with a maximum of 3.883MPa).

Sx’ Sy’ Sz’ Sby’ Left Sbz’ Top

The 20.00m span of the truss means that the truss-members experience large compressional and tensile forces so it is appropriate that Sx’ is the largest force. The Axial (Sx’) and Bending (Sby’ Left) stresses were considerably higher than the Shear (Sy’, Sz’) and Bending (Sbz’ Top) stresses experienced by the members. This is most evident in the Load Case ‘Dead Load x 0.9 + Wind Maximum South) where the Sx’ is 218.073MPa and the Sby’ Left is 188.043MPa whilst the Sy’, Sz’ and Sbz’ Top average out around only 14.78MPa.

218.073

212.481

93.960 5

Load Cases #

44.262 11.201

1.991 1.013

50.590 1.990 1.475

22.013 9

6.672

11.196

36.070

28.325 4.371 3.257

28.387 6

7.380

1.345 0.924

27.693 3.851 3.257

3.849 3.676 4

1.229 0.719

3.160

13.535

3.156

30.888 0.650 0.478

6.673

19.440 2

4.371 3.883

1.229 0.648

18.941 0.650 0.335 8.376 3.156

46.915

52.889

70.431

94.270

186.043

186.048

192.892

In all cases, Sbz’ Top is considerably larger than Sy’ and Sz’. From these results, it is clear that the wind loads affect the structural members considerably more than any other loads (such as Dead Loads and Live Loads). (It is assumed that this is because the Wind Load Panels are so large).

Stresses (MPa)

182.469

191.541

216.719

250

11 Date/ Client/ Designed/ Class/

April 2014 Marco Vittino Mitchell Cook ARCT 3030

Results/

-W Page #

Structural Report + Simulation/

Mt Barker Winery 4.2 W.A.

COOI< 20942043@students.uwa.edu.au

_Multiframe Inaccuracies

_Proposed Alternative-Solutions

*For this analysis, many assumptions were made which would

*Although the tested solution is considered structurally successful, the structure could be improved economically and aesthetically through the reduction of material mass and reduction of total-construction time.

*It is important to acknowledge the inaccuracies of the ‘Wind Load Maximum’ Cases which assume a wind velocity of 41.00m/s is applied perpendicular to the North and South Faces (which are the largest faces). Firstly; a wind velocity of 41.00m/s is very high and it is rather unlikely to ever occur in this region. Secondly, an analysis of Mt Barker’s wind patterns shows that the highest winds don’t come from the North and South; instead they come from the North-East and the South-West. In reality, the building is orientated along the North-East/South-West axis so again it is highly unlikely that that a 41.00m/s wind would ever be applied perpendicular to these faces. Thirdly, this analysis assumed that the Tilt-up Concrete Panels (forming the lower section of the facade) transferred all the Wind Load pressure directly to the columns. In reality, these massive panels would absorb most of the wind energy and transfer it directly to the ground, thus the actual load applied to the WCs would be much less than what was calculated. Taking all these factors into account, it is clear that in reality, this structure is over-engineered. If these factors were taken into account, the Wind Loads on the building would have been dramatically reduced, and thus the deflections and member stresses would have also been reduced. Acknowledging this, it would seem appropriate that many of the member sections could be reduced. In particular, the WCs (section 400 WC 361 and, 400 WC 303) could be replaced by UBs (section: 360 UB 50.7) which would deal with the Wind Loads more efficiently. This reduction in material mass would have significant cost benefits without compromising the structural integrity of the building. *It is important to acknowledge the inaccuracies of the results given from Multfirame as not all of the structure was modelled. As only the Primary Structure was modelled in Multiframe, the bracing effect that the Secondary Structure (Z Purlins) would exert on the Primary Structure was not taken into consideration. In reality, the resultant Maximum stresses and deflections, (particularly Dz’), would be less as the Secondary Structure would strengthen the structure. It was assumed that modelling a section of the structure would accurately represent how the whole structure would act under various Loads. In reality, the end walls to the East and South of the building would have considerable effects on the structure and would make it more stable. If the whole structure had been modelled, it would have been possible to improve the efficiency of the structure by reducing the size of the member sections.

*The existing truss is a very efficient and aesthetic structural member, however manufacturing a truss of this depth, (1.50m), is an extremely time consuming process that draws a hight cost. A shallower truss could be used instead if there were WCs in the middle of the room to support it. Although the brief requested the floor of the Tank Room to be column free, it could possibly be permitted if the layout of the columns was designed in a way that didn’t affect the tanks and didn’t disrupt forklift circulation. This solution would allow a shallower truss because it’s span has effectively been reduced by 50%, As well as being shallower, the section type of the structural members used could be reduced. A reduction of material mass would have significant cost benefits without compromising the structural integrity of the building. It could also be argued that the a shallower and thinner truss-system would be more aesthetically pleasing. *After re-visiting Versiclad’s SIP catalogue, it was noticed that there were other sizes of the Spacemaker SIP that would have possibly been more efficient and aesthetically pleasing. Originally, it was suggested that a profile of 105.00mm (overall thickness) would be the most suitable size. This size yielded a maximum trafficable span of 2.400m, thus, it was decided that, (in this structure), the Z Purlins would be 2.00m apart. If instead the 150mm (overall thickness) profile was used, Z Purlins could have been spaced 5.00m apart as this size yielded a maximum trafficable span of 6.00m. Effectively, changing to this SIP size would have meant the number of rows of Z Purlins required would have been reduced from 10.00 to 4.00. Thus, the mass-addition incurred by changing to 150mm SIP (10.22kg/m2) from 105mm SIP (9.57kg/m2), is assumed to be negligible as there is mass-reduction incurred by reducing the number of Z Purlins. Aesthetically, the structure would be improved as there would be less un-sightly secondary structural members.

_Conclusion *After testing the structure in Multiframe under various Load Cases, an analysis of the results can be undertaken. The various loads applied were all calculated at ‘worst case scenarios’ and, (where applicable), applied to the weakest joints of the structure in an attempt to accentuate any structural-faults in the building, Under all these Cases, no member deflected more than the calculated-allowable limits, and no member experienced a stress >250MPa; it can be concluded that this proposed structural system is successful. As not all of the deflections and stresses were close to their allowable limits, it can be concluded that some structural members could have been more efficient, and thus, ‘more’ successful. The building could however, been improved both economically and aesthetically through the reduction of material mass and the reduction in total-construction time. *Though the proposal was successful structurally, it is important to acknowledge that the structural members are only close to the allowable limits under the various ‘Wind Load Maximum’ Load Cases. Under all other Load Cases, the structure is over-engineered as the members hardly deflect and are significantly under-stressed. Essentially, this means that the building members were not always being used to their full-potential. Date/ Client/ Designed/ Class/

April 2014 Marco Vittino Mitchell Cook ARCT 3030

Results/

Conclusion Page #

Structural Report + Simulation/

Mt Barker Winery 4.3 W.A.

COOI< 20942043@students.uwa.edu.au