sji joist as lateral bracing

huangyhg

sji joist as lateral bracing
roof joist bearing on a supporting beam can be counted on as providing lateral support for the beams top flange.  as a consequence of this, the sji roof joist receives an axial load.
this also could be the case where, at an exterior wall, the joist provides support for the perimeter beam, which could also transmit some wind load from wall panel to beam to joist.
and of course, there is the osha requirement that the joist at column lines be a bolted connection to provide lateral support for the top of a column during erection.
my question is, how do we determine how much axial load a  joist can receive?  i haven't seen a reference to this in joist load tables, surely there is a limit.
find a job or post a job opening
we sometimes end up with this problem when we want to use a joist for a drag strut.  we post the load on the drawing and leave it to the joist manufacturer to design it.  they sometimes add additional bridging to brace the joist and sometimes don't.  of course the loads are relatively small (<6000 lb.).
i would advise against trying to calculate joist capacities yourself.  the joist manufacturers are notoriously stingy with section properties, much less material properties, so any calculation would be starting on shaky ground.
jheidt2543,
your thought process is very true. however, it is more complex to determine the force. you have the diaphragm be it floor slab or roof deck that will also provide resistance (that is what the roof diaphragm theory is all based on). theoretically, the joists bearing on exterior cmy wall, they will see the load and the roof deck will resist the lateral load to the shear walls or vertical lateral bracing system.
how much force does it take to laterally brace a steel beam compression flange? i have heard many stories. the one i respect a lot came from researchers at some national universities. they did flange bracing using trivial methods such as tape/cardboard combinations. it works to certain extent.
i practice in florida, for roof trusses, i always ask contractors to supply me a truss seat/strap that will resist the following forces:
1. the uplift
2. the force parallel with the wall (normal to the truss)
3. the force normal to the wall (parallel to the truss).
for a steel joist, you can determine a tributary area for each joist; compute the wind load and request the joist designer to design for additional axial load.
joists and joist girders can also be used as part of frame system that carried lateral loads (by anchoring the seat and the bottom chord). dr. james fisher done an outstaying job along with vulcraft in the book titled: “Designing with vulcraft steel joist, joist girders and steel deck". i recommend that all structural engineers get a copy of it by contacting vulcraft. i think it is around $14.99, a barging in opinion. actually i won my copy at the aisc annual conference few years back in seattle. the link to their page is
well, for horizontal steel joists that are perpendicular to the wall that they are bracing, keep in mind that the lateral force coming up through the wall and into the joist begins to diminish linearly as the attached metal deck begins to receive it.  
a steel deck may have an attachment pattern that provides, say 200 plf shear.  or you can directly calculate the fastener capacity along the joist and determine a plf.
so you joist gets the "full" lateral force at its end, directly at the wall, and then linearly gives this axial load up to the deck as you proceed down the top chord of the joist.  at midspan, where the joist bending chord compression is max., the load may be essentially "gone".
i think that for example on a standing seam roof with cross bracing betweeen joists, you wouldn't have the diaphragm distribution effect and it would be best to specify the axial load to the joist top chord if it is significant.
when i have an existing joist that receives new axial load (like a drag strut at the roof edge of a new addition) i have taken the axial load to the top chord and found the equivalent moment about the joist that would cause that axial force. then i would take that moment and get an equivalent distributed gravity load that would cause that moment and add it to the distributed gravity load the joist would see anyway.
i would then compare the total equivalent distributed load on the joist to the table value to see if joist reinforcing was required. then if it was within the table value, i would calculate the allowable moment diagram and compare that to the new diagram with the constant equivalent moment along the joist due to the axial load plus actual gravity load moment.
yes - i agree that with standing seam roofs you don't have the ability to transfer the load away from the joist.
good idea on the equivalent moment technique.
good discussion.  i agree with haynewp regarding the standing seam roofing. i have used and continue to use the equivalent moment method as well. on new designs, i indicated free body diagram with loads for all special joists. it is a little tougher if an existing joist receives new or revised loads are being applied. i had a tough time getting the joist designers to go back and pull their files and have them perform calculations. to be fair, they did do that for me in some cases where i was able to supply them with data and joist tags.
thanks guys for some really thoughtful and thought provocing responses.  i guess that i had two conditions in mind when i asked the question.
condition 1:  sji joist perpendicular to the wall, whether the wall is masonry or metal panel with the joist bearing on a beam.  i'm wondering why rely on the diaphram action of the roof deck in it's "weak direction" when you could resolve the wind load into the joist as an axial load?
condition 2:  sji joist parrallel to the wall, either masonry or metal wall panel.  in this situation, the roof deck edge is receiving the wind load in the "strong direction".
so, in essence, you would have a one-way deck diaphram, the joist are already there, why not make use of them for both lateral bracing of the perimeter beam and resisting the wind load in the one direction and the deck in the other direction?  
i guess i like the idea of showing the axial load on the plan and having the joist manufacturer design the joist for it.  i was just wondering how big that force could required to be.
i guess it is just the added expense of designing the joists to take the load instead of relying on the diaphragm to take it when it is there. when properly fastened, the deck can take a lot of axial load in the strong direction. for the weak direction, apparently it has historically performed well enough with adequate capacity (i have never seen drawings that state to design the joists for axial load when you have a legitimate diaphram to take it).
if the load combinations you are using does not have a full dead+roof_live+wind case, then you could check your dead+roof_live moment versus the dead+wind moment diagram(if you do not have a net uplift on the joist).
if you do have net uplift, your top chord would be in tension to help reduce the axial compression load you are concerned with.
weak direction vs. strong direction??????
yes, i know the flutes are one way and if you push on the edge of a deck in that direction it will accordian on you.  however, you are not pushing on the edge of the deck as though the deck were out in space, free of any constraints.
the deck would be part of a semi-rigid diaphragm that has a shear stiffness g' that is independent of shear direction.  you are essentially dragging the load into a deck that resists shear deformation across its width (from brace to brace or shearwall to shearwall).  i suppose you could get some degree of accordian action, but it would be limited by the adjacent joists and their connection to the deck (i.e. the accordian action only occurs between the joists, not across the full width of the diaphragm).
haynewp has a very good point 'when properly fastened...',