Lessons from Crane Runways

intermittent bracing is used, thermal effects will induce

large stresses in the runway. Unless the building is
free to expand from the braced bay there is a tendency
for the structure to " buckle" lengthwise because of the
large induced forces, thus throwing the runway out of
alignment.

Paper presented by JOHN E. MUELLER (January, 1965, Issue)

Discussion by J. J. MURRAY
M R . JOHN E. MUELLER'S article in the January, 1965,

J. J. Murray is Staff Civil Engineer, Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.

Pittsburgh, Pa.

issue of the Engineering Journal was most interesting.

The writer would agree in practically every respect with
the conclusions cited.
The writer cannot agree, however, with the suggestions submitted in the Discussions in the April issue of
the Engineering Journal.
Mr. V. R. P. Saxe suggests the attachment of the
crane girder web directly to the flange of the lower shaft
of the crane columns. We have a large number of buildings in which a similar practice was used. We have had
serious troubles with these structures.
The crane girder, when designed as a simple span,
will rotate at the supports under live load. This rotation,
unless permitted, will shear off the connection or produce
web failure. We have had both phenomena occur. O n
our buildings the connections were riveted. However,
whether riveted or welded the end connection, as illustrated by M r . Saxe's Figs. 1 a n d 2, will attempt to
induce negative moment in the crane girder. Unless
designed as a continuous girder, high stresses will be
induced at the supports. O u r practice has been to outlaw
this type of connection.
A further weakness in the illustrated design relates
to t h e fact that there is no provision for transfer of the
horizontal thrusts of the crane into the column shaft.
Even on relatively lightly loaded runways, carrying 15
or 20 ton cranes, we have had trouble with this detail.
Under service conditions we have experienced
horizontal cracking in the web as the horizontal thrust
effects have bent the top flange back and forth. This
detail we also do not allow in our work.
In the case of M r . T. Klayton's Discussion in the
April issue, the writer would again disagree (with his
comment (b)). We have had trouble with long runways
braced in the manner he suggests. In one case it was
necessary to eliminate all longitudinal bracing except
the bracing in the center of the building " r u n " . When

Failure of Simply-Supported Flat Roofs

by Ponding of Rain
Paper presented by JAMES GHINN (April, 1965, Issue)
Discussion by MARTIN P. WALSH, JR., P.E.
T H E ARTICLE BY Prof. Chinn, while a complete treatment
of an isolated simple beam, fails to caution the reader
that deflection of subframing members must also be
considered in the ponding problem. T h e typical framing
situation encountered is often considerably more serious
due to the additional deflection of joists, subpurlins and
other framing members which serve to transfer the roof
loads to the main girders.
The sample problems in the paper assume zero deflection in the members between adjacent girders;
this requires infinitely rigid subframing members. In
practice these subframing members often have deflections
equal in magnitude to those of the main girders. This
office has found this cumulative deflection ponding
effect neglected in many designs.
Also, the last equation on page 39 is inconsistent
unit-wise. T o make the answer 0.344 (instead of 344),
the unit weight of water must be expressed as 0.0624
kips per cubic ft instead of 62.4 pounds per cubic ft.

Martin P. Walsh, Jr., is Deputy Building Commissioner, City of

St. Louis, Mo.

107
JULY/1965