


|
Prepared for: BPI, International
Mr. Rick Bailey
Ph. 386-943-6222
Prepared
by: Michael A. Tharp P.E.
Date:
Distribution: Customer
Proprietary
Qsigma
Associates
Ph. 407-694-4865
Fax 407-888-1190
1.0
Executive Summary and
Recommendations
The
objective of this structural analysis was to confirm feasibility of the BPI
ShadeZone 12’x60’ Octagon Unit withstanding a design wind speed of 110 MPH for
an application in Porter Texas.
Both a finite
element structural model and structural analysis hand calculations using
Roark’s formulas for stress and strain indicate there is no margin of safety
for the current design if the design criteria is a constant design wind speed
of 110 MPH. Pipe bending stress and
foundation bearing pressure are too high.
The difference in
wind load pressure for the basic wind speed increasing from 90 MPH to 110 MPH
is 20.5 lb/ft2 increasing to 32.3 lb/ft2, or a 57% increase in forces that must be
resisted by the structure. The existing
structure does not have an adequate margin of safety to withstand a 57%
increase in wind load forces.
It is first recommended
the contractor/installer check the local
If a constant 110 MPH is the design criteria
the most promising method of modifying the existing structure to withstand this
wind speed is to increase the size of the column footings and also install a #5
vertical steel rebar in the center of each 8 inch diameter steel column and
fill the columns with concrete prior to installing the rafter corner.
The existing
column base bolt size and pattern may not be sufficient for 110 MPH and would
need to be checked.
A second method
of making the existing structure work would be to install 3/8 inch steel guy
wires to the top of the four of the columns to restrain the columns and
translate the lateral wind loads into a downward compressive force. This method was quickly ruled out because of
the safety issues concerning the use of the structure in a public playground.
A more
conventional method of changing the
structural design for 110 MPH constant wind speed would involve
increasing the size of the vertical columns to 12” diameter steel pipe and also
increasing the depth and diameter of the column footers.
A final less
conventional solution would be to investigate the possibility of designing a
fabric with a tensile strength that actually tears away from the structure at
wind speed above 90 MPH or change the general notes in the building plan to
indicate the fabric canopy is to be removed if wind speeds greater than 90 MPH
are anticipated.