Allin? EllOlfl


L

National Bureau of Standards

AUG 1 7 1353

TA410

Cop' 2-
Live Loads on Floors in Buildings

United States Department of Commerce

National Bureau of Standards

Building Materials and Structures Report 133
BUILDING MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES REPORTS

On request, the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington

25. D. C, will place your name on a special mailing list to receive notices of new reports in

this series as soon as they are issued. There will be no charge for receiving such notices.

If 100 copies or more of any report are ordered at one time, a discount of 25 percent is allowed. Send all orders and remittances to the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing

Office, Washington 25, D. C.

The following publications in this series are available by purchase from the Superintendent of Document at the prices indicated:

BMS2 Methods of Determining the Structural Properties of Low-Cost House Constructions— 10^ BMS3 Suitability of Fiber Insulating Lath as a Plaster Base 15^ BMS4 Accelerated Aging of Fiber Building Boards 10^ BMS5 Structural Properties of Six Masonry Wall Constructions 20<5 BMS6 Survey of Roofing Materials in the Southeastern States 15^ BMS8 Methods of Investigation of Surface Treatment for Corrosion Protection of Steel 15^ BMS9 Structural Properties of the Insulated Steel Construction Co.'s "Frameless-Steel" Constructions for Walls, Partitions, Floors, and Roofs 10^ BMSIO Structural Properties of One of the "Keystone Beam Steel Floor" Constructions

Sponsored by the H. H. Robertson Co lOji BMSll Structural Properties of the Curren Fabrihome Corporation's "Fabrihome" Constructions for Walls and Partitions 10(S BMS12 Structural Properties of "Steelox" Constructions for Walls, Partitions, Floors, and

Roofs Sponsored by Steel Buildings, Inc 15fi BMS15 Structural Properties of "Wheeling Long-Span Steel Floor" Construction Sponsored by

the Wheeling Corrugating Co 10^ BMS16 Structural Properties of a "Tilecrete" Floor Construction Sponsored by Tilecrete

Floors, Inc 10^ BMS17 Sound Insulation of Wall and Floor Constructions 20^ Supplement to BMS17, Sound Insulation of Wall and Floor Constructions 5^ Supplement No. 2 to BMS17, Sound Insulation of Wall and Floor Constructions 15^ BMS18 Structural Properties of "Pre-fab" Constructions for Walls, Partitions, and Floors Sponsored by the Harnischfeger Corporation 10^ BMS20 Structural Properties of "Twachtman" Constructions for Walls and Floors Sponsored

by Connecticut Pre-Cast Buildings Corporation 10(t BMS21 Structural Properties of a Concrete-Block Cavity-Wall Construction Sponsored by the National Concrete Masonry Association lOji BMS23 Structural Properties of a Brick Cavity-Wall Construction Sponsored by the W. E. Manufacturers Association of New York, Inc lOjJ BMS24 Structural Properties of a Reinforced-Brick Wall Construction and a Brick-Tile CavityWall Construction Sponsored by the Structural Clay Products Institute 15^ BMS25 Structural Properties of Conventional Wood-Frame Constructions for Walls, Partitions, Floors, and Roofs 20^ BMS26 Structural Properties of "Nelson Pre-Cast Concrete Foundation" Wall Construction

Sponsored by the Nelson Cement Stone Co., Inc 10(i BMS27 Structural Properties of "Bender Steel Home" Wall Construction Sponsored by the Bender Body Co 10^ BMS28 Backflow Prevention in Over-Rim Water Supplies 15^ BMS29 Survey of Roofing Materials in the Northeastern States 20^ BMS30 Structural Properties of a Wood-Frame Wall Construction Sponsored by the Douglas

Fir Plywood Association 15^ BMS32 Structural Properties of Two Brick-Concrete-Block Wall Constructions and a Concrete-Block Wall Construction Sponsored by the National Concrete Masonry

Association 15^ BMS34 Performance Test of Floor Coverings for Use in Low-Cost Housing: Part 1 15^

[List continued on cover page iii]
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE • Charles Sawyer, Secretary NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS • A. V. ASTIN, Director

Live Loads on Floors in Buildings

John W. Dunham, Guttorm N. Brekke

and George N. Thompson

Building Materials and Structures Report 133

Issued December 19, 1952

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. - Price 20 cents
Foreword

This report summarizes available information on floor loads in buildings,

including the results of a recent survey that has provided data on several

occupancies about which detailed information has been lacking. Variations in loading within the same occupancy are shown, and a method of live-load re- duction for structural members supporting large floor areas is described.

It has been found possible to increase allowable stresses for some budding

materials as a result of better quality control and increased loiowledge of

strength characteristics. However, loads and stresses are so intimately as- sociated that good mformation on loads is essential in order to realize the full advantage of economical design and to conserve scarce materials. It is believed that the data presented in this report will assist in accomplishing these

objectives.

A. V. AsTiN, Director.

CONTENTS

Face Foreword ii 1. Introduction 1

2. Residential occupancj' 2

3. Business occupancy 3

Offices 3 Method of conducting surveys 4

4. Mercantile occupancy 4

5. Assembly occupancy 8

School's _" 9 Crowded rooms 9

6. Institutional occupancy 9 Hospitals 10

7. Industrial occupancy 10 Mattress factory, Chicago, 111 11

Page

7. Industrial occupancy—Continued

Mattress factory, Atlanta, Ga 11 Men's clothing factory. New York, N. Y 13 Dress factory, Philadelphia, Pa 15 Furniture factory, Gettysburg, Pa 15

Furniture factory, Grand Rapids, Mich 17 Newspaper plant, Washington, D. C 18

Printing plant, Washington, D. C 20

8. Storage occupancy 21 Warehouse, New York, N. Y 21 Warehouse, Washington, D. C 25

9. Variation in loading 25

10. Discussion 26

11. Selected references 27

Tables

Pas* Maximum, minimum, and average live loads in Equitable Building 3

Office hve loads in Union Central Life Insurance

Building 3 Live loads in Boston office buildings 4

1. Live loads in department store. New York, N. Y_ 5

2. Variation in live loads in department store, New

York, N. Y 7

3. Live loads in department store, Washington, D. C_ 7

4. Variation in loads in department store, Wasliington, D. C 8

Live loads in crowded wards 10

5. Live loads in mattress factory, Chicago, 111 11

6. Variation in live loads in mattress factory, Chicago, 111 11

7. Live loads in mattress factory, Atlanta, Ga 11

8. Variation in live loads in mattress factory,

Atlanta, Ga 13

9. Live loads in men's clothing factory. New York, N. Y 13

10. Variation in live loads in men's clothing factory,

New York, N. Y ^_ 13

Page

11. Live loads in dress factory, Philadelphia, Pa 15

12. Variation in hve loads in dress factory, Philadelphia, Pa 15

13. Live loads in furniture factory, Gettysburg, Pa-_ 15

14. Variation in live loads in furniture factory,

Gettj'sburg, Pa I_ 15

15. Live loads in furniture factory. Grand Rapids,

Mich 17

16. Variation in live loads in furniture factory. Grand

Rapids, Mich I 18

17. Live loads in newspaper plant, Washington, D. C_ 18

18. Variation in live loads in newspaper plant, Washington, D. C 20

19. Live loads in printing plant, Washington, D. C-- 21

20. Variation in hve loads in printing plant, Washington, D. C 21

21. Live loads in warehouse, New York, N. Y 22

22. Variation in live loads in warehouse. New York, N. Y 22

23. Live loads in warehouse, Washington, D. C 25

24. Variation in live loads in warehouse, Washington

D. C 25

II
Live Loads on Floors in Buildings

John W. Dunham,* Guttorm N. Brekke, and George N. Thompson

Information is presented on floor loads found in various occupancies such as office buildings, stores, factories, and warehouses. Most of this consists of the results of a recent survey in which the weight and distribution of g;oods, equipment, and occupants were obtainefl

floor by floor and area by area. Such data are needed as a clieck on permissible minimum

live loads in building codes and as a basis for design of buildings. Althougli there are indi- cations in the survey that building codes may set higher figures than arc warranted for certain occupancies, the amount of information available is still too small to justify firm conclusions. A method of reducing the assumed value for live load on structural members supporting

large floor areas is described. Supplementary investigations of floor loading are recommended

to clear up questions that have arisen in connection with the survey.

1. Introduction

Structural design of buildings is dependent upon

Imowledge of the loads to which such structin/es

may be subjected and upon knowledge of building

materials and structural systems. Through acI cumulation of data obtained in laboratory tests, much progress has been made in knowledge of the

Istrength of building materials. The approximate

[weights of such materials have also been estabjlished. The characteristic behavior of different

structural systems is receiving increased attention.

jData on the loads affecting buildings are, however,

"'rather meager, particularly with respect to the

J

^' actual loads imposed by goods, equipment, and

3 jjpersons in typical occupancies such as offices,

} clstores, and factories. Building regulations are in

'|('fairly close agreement as to the minimum loads to

!||be assumed in designing buildings that contain

I jisuch occupancies, in spite of the small amount of

. information upon which to base such requii-ements.

However, with increasing urgency for conservation

' ;of materials, because of considerations of both

I I scarcity and cost, it seems advisable to review

! pertinent data on loads and to summarize them

I for the use of designers and building code author-

'ities. The information presented herein consists

of results of investigations previously published,

jmuch of which is not readily available, and of a

'jrecent survey that has provided many new data,

i There appear to be se veral reasons why relatively

little work has been done in the past in the way of

^checking up the weight of buildmg contents.

[Values given m handbooks, although of uncertain

. origin in some instances, have been in good agree-

'iment and have been generally assumed to repreisent a reasonable approximation of probable loads.

[The expense and trouble associated with actually

weighing the contents of buildings have deterred

[efforts to obtain more comprehensive information.

ilRelatively few cases of building collapse due to lincorrect load assumptions have occurred, and so

jthere has been no compelling reason for intensive

work on load determinations.

Although there has been general acceptance of

{ *Supervising Structural Engineer, Public Buildings Service, General Serv

,jices Administration.

conventional load values, investigations from time

to time by interested persons have been made

that have thrown some light on the accuracy of

common load assumptions. Most of these have

been concerned with office buildings. [1, 2].

^ An early study of available data was that made

by the Department of Commerce Building Code

Committee, which prepared a report on recom- mended live-load assumptions, published by the

Bureau in 1925 [3]. The report, now out of print,

makes reference to information on loads foimd m

a variety of occupancies, including dwellings,

hotels, and other residential occupancies, hospitals, schools, office buildings, library stack rooms,

manufacturing buildings of different kinds, and

packing plants. Data on densely crowded groups

of persons, as in elevators, are also given.

With reference to the loads in manufacturing

buildings, the committee observed that the data were regrettably scant but were all that could be

obtained from an earnest appeal to the architectural and engineermg professions.

Although during the next quarter centmy,

practices changed to some extent in the loading of some occupancies, such as offices and storerooms,

little information was published giving the results

of actual surve^ys. However, results of an mvestigation of loads in two Federal office buildings

undertaken by the Public Buildings Administration were published in 1946 [4]. One building,

the Internal Revenue Buildmg in Washington,

D. C, proved to have floor loads of 40 lb/ft - or less in 88 percent of its area. Certain areas were foimd

to be much more heavily loaded, the maxunum

average live load of 106 Ib/ft^ occurring on 825 ft- of the second floor. In the other case, the Veterans' Administration Buildmg in Washmgton,

D. C, 97% percent of the area carried an average

live load of 40 lb/ft ^ or less, but there was a maximum average live load on 1,176 ft- of 90 lb/ft-. In 1945, when the National Bureau of Standards

published a report containing the recommendations of the Sectional Committee on Biiildmg

Code Requirements for Minimum Design Loads

in Buildings—ASS, of the American Standards

' Figures in brackets refer to references at the end of this report.

1X
Association [5J, no new information obtained in

surveys was presented and recommended minimum design values were about the same as in the

previous document, although there was one notable

exception in the case of the recommended assumption for office loads, which was increased from

50 lb/ft ^ in the case of the previous recommendation to 80 lb/ft 2 in the new report.

There were several reasons for this changed

recommendation. An impression had been obtamed bv some of the committee members that

office buildmg loads were mcreasing, partly

because of more intensive use of office space than

formerly and partly because of the growing use

of mechanical devices for calculating and other

purposes. Facilities were not available for field investigation at that time, but a questionnaire was addressed to building managers askmg for

their views. The results were inconclusive but a number of rephes indicating the possibihty of

loads greater than 50 lb/ft ^ was one factor in

mfluencing the committee's judgment. Another,

and perhaps more important development, was

the introduction of a new method of providing for

reduction of floor live loads in accordance with the

probability of loading over extensive areas that

permitted allowance for possible concentrations over limited areas and for a rather rapid reduction

in design live load as the area concerned increased.

In 1947, the Office of Technical Services in the

Department of Commerce sponsored a number of

investigations intended to assist in the solution of

various business and mdustrial problems. Among

the subjects selected was an investigation of the

weights of combustible contents in various occupancies. Accurate knowledge of such weights is important in establishing the potential fire severity

of such occupancies. When plans for this work

were under way, it was pointed out that the total

weight of the contents was also of interest because

of its relation to building design and that this

weight coidd be readily ascertained by a very

slight addition to the program. Accordingly, the

work was planned to include the total live load in

selected areas. The National Bureau of Standards

undertook responsibility for the program and

arranged to have the field work done by the Public

Building Administration (now the Public Buildings

Service) because of the long experience of that

organization in the design and management of

buildings. Reports of the results of the siu-vey

constitute the principal part of this publication.

Necessarily, the survey was somewhat limited

because the amount of work involved in such an

imdertaldng is much greater than is generally

realized, and the funds were sufficient to include

only a few buildings. Nevertheless, the work was

performed S3='stematically and provided an amount

of detail that threw much light on floor loadings

in typical occupancies, includiQg the extent to which such loadings varied on different parts of the same floor. Building codes require that all buildings shall be

designed to carry their loads safely, and give a list , of minimum assumed unit live loads for the more ! | common occupancies. Actual loading of these

occupancies may differ from the values given, but , it is probable ^ that in ordinary practice most ', j buildings are designed at the minimum values. , It thus becomes important that these values shall

^ ^ represent the worst conditions for which it is reasonable to provide. For occupancies not given,

values used must be approved by the building \ department. \ In the presentation of results of surveys and

other information that follows, an arrangement by ( broad groups, such as is used in building codes, is *

j employed. Within these groups, the minimum ' unit live loads usually found in building codes for >

typical occupancies in the groups, or in some cases *

a range of such loads, are given for comparison y mth unit live loads found in the surveys. The I maximum unit live loads in the sm-veys are of *

> principal interest. It should be remembered, how- ^

i ever, that even these may not represent the heaviest conditions of loading, since there may be load '

concentrations not evident in the unit flgures

which are based on average conditions over rather

large areas.

'

2. Residential Occupancy

The permissible minimum live load for pm-poses

of design given in most building codes for residen- i tial occupancy is 40 lb/ft ^ There are occasional | instances where codes permit 30 lb/ft ^ on upper ! floors of single-family dwellings, and the same i figure has been advocated by some authorities for : general use throughout dwellings. 1 Various reasons have been advanced for the se- u lection of 40 Ib/ft^ for residential occupancy. Some ; authorities have pointed out that it takes care of \ maximum possible loading when persons are as- sembled at teas, funerals, and other occasions.

Other authorities believe that the figm-e was not

intended to represent the actual loads in a dwelling but was selected because a wood-joist floor designed for a lesser load was generally considered i too limber for the comfort of the occupants. From

the latter point of view, the use of 40 Ib/ft^ is thus an mdirect method of obtaining desired rigidity

in wood-joisted construction.

Although there have been numerous estimates

and assumptions made as to live loads in residential occupancy, no published results of figures obtained from weighing the contents of dwellings

have been found. Figures for combustible contents given in BMS92, Fire-Resistance Classifications of Building Constructions, probably appro^:-

imate closely the total live loads so far as movable

property is concerned [6]. These figures show a maximum of 7.3 Ib/ft^ except in one portion occupied by a library, in which the figure is 10.6 lb/ft ^ Because the weight of persons is not included, some

assumption would have to be made for this and

added to the figm-es given. There is also the pos-
sibility of additional weight in the form of incombustible furnishings.

In the case of hotel rooms, which come within

the general residential group, there is a published

figure of 4.1 Ib/ft^ [3]. This applies only to the

weight of furniture, however, and therefore does

not represent the complete live load.

3. Business Occupancy

The permissible minimum live load for purposes

of design given in building codes for business oc- cupancy varies to some extent. If office space in

buildmgs is taken as an example, the range in

building codes recommended by various organiI zations for national or regional use and in building

icode standards is from 50 to 80 lb/ft".

1 More attention has been given to loading in

I office buildings than in any other occupancy. The

.results of early surve^ys are described in detail in

,|the following extract from a report of the Dopartliment of Commerce Building Code Committee [3].

Offices—The information available on this occu- pancy is much more complete than for any other. It

I has been carefully presented in recent technical periI odicals and only a resume sufficient to support the committee's recommendations is included here. Actual weights of furniture and occupants on three complete floors and in a number of selected heavy oc- cupancies in the Equitable Building, New York, N. Y., are reported by C. T. Coley, manager of the building, as follows:

\Maximum, minimum, and average live loads in Equitable

I Building

Ofiices Maxi- mum

Mini- mum Average

Lbs.lft 2 Lbs.lft^ Lbs.lft 2 Light-occupancy floor (twentieth) 67 55.4 0. 87 10. 26 Medium-occupancy floor (thirty seventh) _ 64 30.73 3.27 10. 67 Heavy-occupancy floor (elev- enth) 62 33.84 5.0 13.96

Total and average 193 11.6

Selected heavy occupancies throughout the building 14 78.3 21.4 42.4

The weights given do not include the radiators,

which would add approximately 1 pound per square

foot for all exterior bays.

' The weight of the partitions was not included in the calculations. These, in general, are 3-inch hollow tile plastered each side, and one which was

I being removed was found to weigh 30 pounds per

I square foot, or approximately 350 pounds per linear

j foot. The weight of occupants, taken at 150 pounds per

j person, is probably high, as most of the occupants

J are females, and some studies indicate that an average

' weight of same would not exceed 120 i^ounds.

j; Careful sketches of load arrangement prepared by

! Mr. Coley made it possible to throw some light on the

prevailing method of assuming uniformly distributed

j live loads as a basis for office floor design, and help

I to indicate what relation such assumptions should

I bear to actual total loads. Examination of bays for

|: which the live load was more than 25 pounds per square

foot showed wide variation in the distribution of such

loads. The larger proportion was found, as might

be expected, within a zone approximately 3 feet wide

around the walls, the remainder being distributed variously in the centers of the rooms. In one or two

cases, however, the major portion of the load was

located away from the walls and this conrlition must

be provided for by designers. There is also the

probability that practically all furniture may be

collected in the central portion of a floor area when

occupants are moving, or when decorating or cleaning

is in progress. The sketches show that the heavier loads, such as

library shelves and double filing cabinets, arc likely to be located away from walls and partitions. This

is obviously for ease of access, and the same consideration demands that when total loads per square

foot are high they must be quite uniformly distrib- uted. The heaviest loading discovered was one incidental

to office purposes, being made up chiefly of card

filing cases, but the stack room of a law library on

one floor would have averaged 87 pounds per square

foot if the shelves had been completely filled. Only eight articles of furniture (safes) were found

over 2,000 pounds in weight. A number of sectional

filing cases and bookcases with contents weighed

much more, but these weights were distributed over such a large area they could not be regarded as concentrated. Of 36 safes and safe cabinets, 23 weighed

less than 1,000 pounds; 5 between 1,000 and 2,000

pounds; 2 weighed 2,200 pounds; 2, 2,360 pounds;

1, 2,800 pounds; 1, 3,000 pounds; 1, 3,500 pounds,

and 1, 4,250 pounds. As would naturally be expected, the live loads were

found to be lighter next to the exterior walls of the

building. Single-row filing cases, cabinets, safes, bookcases, and bins are usually located against blank

interior walls. Whether by accident or otherwise, the heavier loads were not found where partitions cut up the floor space into small rooms, indicating that allowance may not be necessary both for movable partitions and heavy floor loads.^ Several instances were found where two adjacent

floor bays supported average loads of 25 pounds or more, but in no case were two adjacent bays found

loaded in excess of an average of 40 pounds per

square foot. There are but two or three instances in the floor plans discussed where three or more offices or store- rooms meet at the same column, and it is probable

that this condition will be found but rarely in buildings designed for a sufficiency of light and ventilation. An investigation by M. W. Mclntyre of the Union

Central Life Insurance Co.'s building in Cincinnati gave quite similar results. All files, desks, etc., were

considered as being 100 per cent full or furnished with all necessary accessories. Following are tabulated the results of Captain Mclntyre's investi- gations

Weight of employees, computed at the rate of 150 pounds each, added from 0.9 to 1 .75 pounds per square

foot of floor area.

Office live loads in Union Central Life Insurance Building

Number

of square

feet

Number

of pieces

of furniture

Total weight

of furniture

^Veight of fm-niture per square

foot

Section A 10, 339 9,303

7, 348

10, 339

635 Pounds

104, 47S Pounds

10.05 Section B._ 637 27,085 2. 91 Section C. 273 36. 306 4.92 Section D 702 121, 388 11.74

Average 9, 332 561.5 72, 314 7.405

2 Authors' note: Observation of loading under present conditions indicates some exceptions from this statement.
L£S£NO

/I.S, = >?/j/« Spans Figure 1. Second-floor plan, department store, New York, N. Y.

Table 1. Live loads in department store, New York, N. Y.- Continued

Table 1.

^ Department

Area Unit live load

Part

sur- veyed

Whole

depart- ment

Aisle space As sur- veyed With

aisles crowded "

Sixth floor

Women's shoes Storage (women's shoes). Towels

Blankets

Sheets and linens Notions

Patterns Yard goods.

Total.

ft' 1,720 1,100 2,020

1,470 970

1, 220

420

1,970

ft'

21, 358

12, 085

6, 882

6, 811

17, 379

2,238 2,525

26, 904

96, 182

Percent 64

04142

39

34

64

41

Iblft 2 15.4 42.0

12.8

11.8 20.3

14.1 19.9

15.6

Seventh floor

Linoleum Rugs

Candles. Lamps and shades. Curtains

Closet shop Wallpaper

Assorted yard goods.

Total

810

3, 360 200

990 970

510 900

(")

3, 070

27, 651 200

7, 868

14, 430

8,109

1, 190

23, 303

85, 821

6444

21

73

67

7877

41

7. 5 8.7

32.3

9.4 5.2

11.6

10.1

15. 6

lb/ft' 51.8

37.4

37.0

43.7

34.5

58.3 40.2

45.9 35.1

44.9

53.2 45.2

58.4

56.3 40.2

Live loads in department store, New York, N. Y.- Continued

Department

Area XXnit live load

Part

sur- veyed

Whole

depart- ment

Aisle space As sur- veyed With

aisles crowded »

Eighth floor

Food

Glassware.. - . Chinaware

1, 970

1,730

1,930

1,820

1,930

ft'

10, 190 9,438 19,244

7,253 8,149

Percent

6366

64

6938

Iblft 2 16. 7 10.6

14.7

7.0 7.4

Iblft' 54.5

50.2

53.1 48.4 30.2 Pictures and frames Luggage—

Total. __ 54,274

Ninth floor

Bedroom furnitiu'e-. . . . Dining room and occasional furniture _._ Modern fumitm'e ...

Total _.

3, 960

2,680

2,180

24, 929

55, 847

12, 513

53

3934

4.8

4.1 13.2

36.6

27.5 33.6

93, 289

790, 793

» At rate of 60 lb/ft ' additional loading for aisle space,

b See similar department on first floor.

1 See similar department on third floor. 4 See similar department on this floor.

« See "yard goods" on sixth floor.

6
FLOOR PLAN

Figure 1 —Continued

Table 2. Variation in live loads in department store, New York, N. Y. Table 3. Live loads in department store, Washington, D. C

Unit load Qb/ft 2) Area Portion of

total area

20.0 to 24.9 ft'

21, 282

74, 527 111,442

119, 305

198, 883

148, 463 86,688

23, 803 6,400

Percent

2.7

9.4

14.1

15.1 25.1

18.8

11.0 3.0 0.8

25.0 to 29.9 30.0 to 34.9 __ 35.0 to 39.9

40.0 to 44.9

45.0 to 49.9

50.0 to 54.9

55.0 to 69.9

60.0 to 64.9 -

Total 790, 793 100.0

Department

Area » Unit live load

Whole

depart- ment

Aisle space As sur- veyed With aisles crowded •>

First floor

ft- Percent Iblft'- Iblft- Dry cleaning counter 320 37 15.1 37.3 Books - --- 3, 450 28 2L4 38.2 Candy 1,600 29 16.5 33.9 Notions 9, 750 43 17.8 43.6 Umbrellas _ - 350 20 26.3 38.3

Service 150 60 30.7 66.7 Cosmetics 6, 350 40 16.6 40.6 Handbags and leather goods. 2,800 38 13.4 36.2 Hat bar 300 27 17.7 33.9 Stationery..- 5,500 41 16.0 40.6 Costume jewelry 2,900 37 13.2 35.4 Jewelry _ 3, 350 36 16.7 38.3

Total- 36, 820

Second floor

Drygoods, patterns, and art goods.- — Ladies' shoe stock room

Children's shoe stock room..

Shoe sale space... Storage (men's hats, shoes, tobacco, etc.) - Men's clothing

Total.

8, 752 32 9.7

2, 000 30 32.8

955 20 28.1 3,944 35 5.8

809 20 32.2

16, 227 50 15.1

32, 687

28.9

"26"

i"

"45'

i"

See footnotes at end of table.

220008-52 2 7
Figure 1. Second-floor -plan, department store, New York, N. Y.

Table 1 . Live loads in department store, New York, N. Y.—

Continued

Area Unit live load ^ Department

Part

sur- veyed

Whole

depart- ment

Aisle space As sur- veyed With

aisles crowded »

Sixth floor

Perft' ft' cent Iblft 2 Iblft 2 Women's shoes — 1, 720 21, 358 64 15.4 51.8 Storage (women's shoes) 1, 100 12, 085 0 42.0 Towels --- 2, 020 6, 882 41 12.8 37.4 Blankets .- . . _ 1,470 6, 811 42 11.8 37.0 Sheets and luiens 970 17, 379 39 20.3 43.7 Notions 1,220 2, 238 34 14.1 34.5 Patterns 420 2,525 64 19.9 58.3 Yard goods 1,970 26, 904 41 15,6 40.2 Total ___ 96, 182

Seventh floor

Linoleum 810 3, 070 64 7.5 45.9 RugS- 3, 360 27, 651 44 8.7 35.1 Candles 200 200 21 32.3 44.9 Lamps and shades 990 7, 868 73 9.4 53.2 Curtains 970 14, 430 67 5.2 45.2

Closet shop 510 8,109 78 11.6 58.4 Wallpaper 900 1, 190 77 10.1 56.3 Assorted yard goods. (.") 23, 303 41 15.6 40.2 Total _ 85, 821

Table 1. Live loads in department store, New York, N. Y.—

Continued

Area Unit live load

Department

Part

sur- veyed

Whole

depart- ment

Aisle space As sur- veyed With

aisles crowded »

Eighth floor

Perft' ft' cent Iblft 2 Iblft' Pood 1, 970 10, 190 63 16. 7 54.5 Glassware.-. ._ _ 1,730 9, 438 66 10.6 50.2 Chmaware __ 1,930 19, 244 64 14.7 53.1 Pictures and frames 1,820 7, 253 69 7.0 48.4 Luggage 1,930 8,149 38 7.4 30.2 Total 54,274

Ninth floor

Bedroom furniture. 3, 960 24, 929 53 4.8 36.6 Dining room and occasional fm'niture.. 2,680 55, 847 39 4.1 27.5 Modern furniture 2, 180 12, 513 34 13.2 33.6 Total 93, 289 Grand total 790, 793

» At rate of 60 lb/ft ' additional loading for aisle space,

b See similar department on first floor.

" See similar department on third floor.

<i See similar department on this floor.

• See "yard goods" on sLxth floor.

6
Figure 1 —Continued

Table 2. Variatiov in live loads in department store, New York, N. Y.

Unit load (lb/ft 2)

20.0 to 24.9.

25.0 to 29.9. 30.0 to 34.9.

35.0 to 39.9. 40.0 to 44.9.

45.0 to 49.9.

50.0 to 54.9. 55.0 to 59.9_

60.0 to 64.9.

Total

Area Portion of

total area

ft 2 Percent

21, 282 2.7

74, 527 9.4 111,442 14.

1

119, 305 15.1

198, 883 25.

1

148, 463 18.8 86,688

23, 803

11.0 3.0 6,400 0.8

790, 793 100.0

Table 3. Live loads in department store, Washington, D. C

Department

Area » Unit live load

Whole

depart- ment

Aisle space As sur- veyed With aisles crowded •>

First floor

fV- Percent Iblft'- MrDry cleaning counter 320 37 15.1 37.3 Books. . 3, 450 28 21.4 38.2 Candy 1,600 29 16.5 33.9 Notions - 9, 750 43 17.8 43.6 Umbrellas.- .-- 350 20 26.3 38.3

Service 150 60 30.7 66.7 Cosmetics. 6,360 40 16.6 40.6 Handbags and leather goods. 2,800 38 13.4 36.2 Hat bar 300 27 17.7 33.9 Stationery 5,500 41 16.0 40.6 Costume jewelry . 2,900 37 13.2 35.4 Jewelry . _ .. 3, 350 36 16.7 38.3

Total- 36, 820

Second floor

Drygoods, patterns, and art goods- - 8, 752 32 9.7 Ladies' shoe stock room- 2,000 30 32.8 Children's shoe stock room.. 955 20 28.1 Shoe sale space. 3,944 35 5.8 Storage (men's hats, shoes, tobacco, etc.) 809 20 32.2 Men's clothing 16, 227 50 15.1

Total 32, 687

See footnotes at end of table.

220008—52 2
Table 3. Live loads in department store, Washington,

D. C.—Continued

Table 3.

Department

Area ^ Unit live load

V.'holp depart- ment

Aisle space As sur- veyed With aisles crowded •>

Third floor

Fifth floor

Gift shop China and glass Linen and towels. -_. Bedding...

Bedi'oom fui-niture Carpenter and paint shop China and glass storage... Genera! wrapping

Total

2, 800 11,400

5, 500

4, 350

15, 800

2, fiOO 440

1,550

44, 440

30

3935

32

40

00

0

19.4

12.3

10.7 10.4 6.2

22.5

19.3

10.6

Si.xth floor

Furniture display rooms

Employees' cafeteria Rug department- - Foyer

Storage and shipping (rug and linoleum) Furniture

Miscellaneous furniture and

office Interior decorating

Total

8, 145 1,496

10, 925

780

822

14, 200

2, 468

1,420

40, 256

0

035

85

25

7.3

7.0

11.3

3.5

23.4

4.2

7.6

13.0

Seventh floor

Luggage

Pictures Lamps

Draperies Drapery storage No. 1 Drapery storage No. 2 Auditorium

Offices Waiting room at tearoom. .

Fountain room and fountain Tearoom

Linen storage (tearoom) Total

4, 250

2, 100

4, 100 9,000

960

550 800

4, 000

1,200

2, 900

8, 300

380

38. 540

39

386546

0

0 100

0

0

0

6.0

15.8 9.7

8.7 23.6

42.8

5.4

10.7 L6

1L9

8.6 30.2

ft' Percent Iblft" lb/ft 2 Women's hats. .

4,300 50 8.7 38.7 Lingerie and dresses 5,700 40 13.0 37.0 Ladies' ready-to-wear 16, 350 45 6.7 33.7 Ladies' gowns and furs 18, 500 53 6.5 38.3

Total 44, 850

Fourth floor

Bovs' clothing 3,830 33 15.9 35.7 Infant and juvenile clothing. 11,934 40 8.8 32.8 Camera and radio. 3,958 30 12.0 30.0 Music ... ... 2, 870 50 25.0 55.0 Junior m,isses. . 14, 022 60 5.6 41.6

Total...- 36, 614

37.4

35.7

31.7 29.6

.30.2

32.3

54.5

19.2

29.4 38.6

48.7

36.3

10.7 61.6

Live loads in department store, Wcshiy.gton D. C—Continued

Department

Area » Unit live load

Whole

depart- ment

Aisle space As sur- veyed With aisles crowded *>

Eighth floor

Paint. Household goodsG)-oceries Cold storage for groceries Refrigerators, etc

Electrical Bathroom fittings -.. Cafeteria -. Central wrapping

Bakery

Paper storage Fur fitting Office

Total Grand total

ft' 1,749

7. 781 3,500 400

2, 307

1,400 3,205

3,834

2, 556 3,210

360 2,000

7, 230

39, 532

313, 739

Percent

24

30

37

0

23

5046

00

0

0

0

0

lb/ft ^ 22.6

7.9

8.3 24.1

15.0

12.9

9.0 4.9

11.3 10.9

24.6

4.1 10.9

Iblft' 37.0

2.5.9 30.5

"'28^8'

42.9

36.6

f The entire department was surveyed in each ease.

•> At rate of 60 Ib/ft^ additional loading for aisle space. Table 4. Variation in live loads in department store, Washington, D. C.

Unit load Qb/ft ')

0.0 to 4.9-..

5.0 to 9.9---

10.0 to 14.9-

15.0 to 19.9. 20.0 to 24.9.

25.0 to 29.9-

30.0 to 34.9.

35.0 to 39.9. 40.0 to 44.9-

45.0 to 49.9.

50.0 to 64.9-

55.0 to 59.9.

60.0 to 64.9-

65.0 to 69.9-

Total

Area

ft' 5,834

21, 209

22, 866

14, 640

5,142

31, 384

54,447

91, 554

39, 336

20, 327

2,780

2, 870

1,200

150

313, 739

Portion of total area

Percent

1.7

6.8

7.3 4.7

1.6

10.0 17.4 29.2

12.5

6.5

0.

100.0

5. Assembly Occupancy

"Assembh^ occapancy" includes theaters, dance

halls, auditoriums, churches, and schools.

Building codes recommended by various organizations for national or regional use and building

code standards give permissible minimum live loads of from 50 to 60 Ib/ft^ for orchestra floors of

theaters and for floors of assembly halls with fixed

seats, and 100 Ib/ft^ for those with movable seats. Dance halls are assigned 100 to 120 Ib/ft^. For

schools, classrooms with fixed seats are required

to be designed for 40 to 60 Ib/ft^ and those with

movable seats from 40 to 100 Ib/ft^. Information on loading of school floors appears

in the report of the Department of Commerce

Building Code Committee already referred to [3]

8
C'O LEGEND (|) S.W. = Shov^ W'h^ovv

L.L. - Li\'<!. Loocf

A.S. - Aisle Spoca. © ®

4TM FLOOR PLAN

@ ® @

Figure 2. Fourth-floor plan, department store, Washington, D. C.

Schools.—According to investigations by Norman

M. Stineman (American Architect, April 11, 1923) a standard classroom has 736 square feet area and

accommodates 45 pupils. The average weight of furniture and inmates is about 7,500 pounds, or 10 pounds per square foot. He estimates the maximum

possible load as 2 adults in each seat and 30 around

walls, giving total live load of 28 pounds per square

foot. In the course of loading tests for schoolhouse floors made by the Milwaukee Board of Education (Engineering News-Record, May 6, 1920) a room 24 feet 5 inches by 32 feet (781.3 square feet) normally for the accommodation of a teacher and 48 pupils was

crowded with 258 pupils, filling all seats double, and

all aisles and open spaces. There resulted a total weight per square foot, including desks, of 41.7 pounds.

Under normal conditions with 48 pupils at an aver- age weight of 115.6 pounds, plus weight of desks and

teachers, the average floor load was 10.83 pounds per square foot. Filled under normal conditions with

adults, as in the case of night school, the load amounted to 12.9 pounds per square foot. Other investigators put the live load in school class- rooms normally filled at 14 pounds per square foot, and at 22 pounds if the aisles are crowded.

Crowded rooms.—Densely crowded groups have been

shown by several investigators to weigh at least 140 pounds per square foot, but those results were obtained by strenuous methods, and it is held unlikely that they will occur under ordinary conditions. Observations of the loading obtained under normal

conditions in the elevators at the Grand Central Terminal in New York showed a maximum of 73 persons on 92 square feet of floor area. With an

estimated weight of 130 pounds each this gives a load

of 100 pounds per square foot. Crowds of students at Iowa State University, packed for the purpose of testing balcon}- construction under dj'namic loads,

weighed 116 pounds per square foot.

6. Institutional Occupancy

Such occupancies as hospitals, sanitariums,

homes for the aged, and jails come under "Institutional" classification. Building codes recom- mended by various organizations for national or regional use and building code standards agree on

40 \h/W as a suitable figm-e for permissible mini9
mum live load in private rooms. Figures for

wards range from 40 to 80 lb/ft.- Other figures are given for special locations.

The report of the Department of Commerce

Building Code Committee [3] presents the following information:

Hospitals.—Through the courtesy of those in charge

of the New York State hospitals for the insane at Brooklyn and Rochester, actual live-load measure- ments were obtained for several large wards in each

institution. The data are in the following table.- A survey of a large dormitory in the Willard, N. Y., State hospital checks the above figures very closely. The room accommodated 86 beds in a total area of 2,600 square feet. The live loads were as follows:

Pounds

86 beds, at 85 pounds each 7, 300

86 mattresses, etc., at 45 pounds 3, 870

86 patients, at 135 pounds 11, 600

Total load 22, 770 Average load per square foot 8. 75 In 1940, inquiry was made of officials of the

above institutions as to whether there had been

an}^ changed conditions since the original sm-vey

that might have caused changes in the live loads

indicated. The information received was to the

effect that nothing significant had occurred and

that the live loads were probably about the same

as those given in the 1924 report, from which the

above is a quotation.

Live loads in crowded wards

Brooklyn State Hospital

Ward number Dimensions

Total number of beds

Average

weight of bed equip- ment and

occupant

Total floor load Load per square

foot

Sand 10" 43 feet by 58 feet 62

65

62

65

Pounds

275

275 295

295

Pounds

17, 050

17. 875

18, 290

19, 175

Pounds

6.9

7.2

7.3

7.7

9'.... do

21 dormitory ' do. —

22 dormitory ' do -

Rochester State Insane Hospital

9, east 2 9, west 2..- 52 2 53, dormitory 1 2, 53, dormitory 2 2 53, dormitory 3 2

49 feet 6 inches by 34 feet 6 inches

50 feet by 34 feet 6 inches.--

48 feet by 28 feet

.36 feet by 47 feet 21 feet by 36 feet 49 feet by 28 feet

46

5236

43

1845

256 11, 776 6.9

256 13,312 7.7

276 9,936 7.5 276 11, 868 7.0

276 4, 968 6.6

276 12, 420 9.0

' Wards 8, 9, and 10, females, average weight, 145 pounds; domitories 21 and 22, males, average weight, 165 pounds. Radiators not included.

2 Ward 9, females, average weight, 130 pounds; wards 52 and 53, males, average weight, 150 pounds. Radiators not included.

7. Industrial Occupancy

Obviously, the "Industrial" classification will contain widely varying examples of floor loading, since

it includes occupancies involved in manufacturing,

fabrication, and assembly of all kinds of industrial

products. Building codes recommended by vari- ous organizations for national or regional use and

building code standards give minimum design loads

from 75 to 125 Ib/ft^ for light manufacturing. For

heavy manufacturing, some give values of from 125

to 150 Ib/ft^, and others do not assign any particular value.

Information has become available on several oc- cupancies within this classification through the

survey made by the Public Buildings Administration. The results are given below. Floor plans

of each example surveyed are shown in figures

3 to 10. A number of dift'erent methods were employed

in determining the loading in the examples given

below. In some cases, all material found in the

areas indicated was weighed; in others, typical

items were weighed and the total weight computed.

Where neither of these methods seemed practicable, inquiry was made of the plant manager,

manufacturer, or other source of information as to the weight of the item involved, or catalogs were

consulted. In some instances, built-in items were measured and theh weight calculated; this method

was also used in the case of some movable items.

Where weight of persons was included, this was

based on the maximum niunber found to be pres- ent during normal operations and a unit weight of

150 lb a person.

The particular methods used depended upon the

conditions found. Special situations for which

allowance had to be made are given in each case.

It will be apparent that the weights of machines

and other heavy equipment have been averaged

over fairly large areas. Although there is a tendency to place heavy machinery on ground floors or on special foundations reaching to the ground, some machines encountered in the survey were on

upper floors and their weights shown in the tables were averaged over areas considerably greater than

those immediately adjacent to the machines, i Some instances of this kind will be cited in con- [ nection with buildings to which they apply.

10
Mattress Factory, Chicago, III.: Offices were omitted from this survey. The results of the survey are given in tables 5 and 6. Figure 3 shows a floor in the factory.

Table 5. Live loads in inattress factory, Chicago, III.

Building and area Occupancy or use Area

Unit

live load

Basement

South Storage.

ft' 3,881 1,058

3, 144 2,918

Iblft^- 28.2 34.2

28.7

39.0

S. Central do

Central S. side do - Central N. side... Storage and hair conditioningTotal 11,001

First floor

South A Shipping 3,017

2,495

4, 783 4,745

1,620

7, 063

6.0 8.8

9.5 25.6

27.2 36.0

S. Central B do

Central C do North (except re- pair shop). Repair shop

Garnett

do _ Machine repairs Garnettrng- _

Total 23, 723

Second floor

South _ Storage 3.804

3, 234 7,310 6,174

8.5

10.8

6.7

12.1

S. Central do

Central North

Tufting and edging

Tuftinsr and .storaee _ _ . _

Total - - 20, 522

Third floor

South A Storage, cloth 2,510

460 2,598

1,081 2,593

4, 355

152

135 6,100

25.2 9.7

25.2

10.3 9.7

6.6 36.8

11.0

14.8

South B__._

S. Central C

Cloth inspection Cloth storage __ S. Central D Sewing.

Central E _ do

Central F

Central G

Central H

Cutting cloth Repairing machines

Office North FUlinET mattresses

Total - 19, 984

Fourth floor

Central A Boxing mattresses 1,860 16.5

Fifth floor

South A

South B_

South C

Nailing bo.x spring frames Assembling box spring frames. Chair frames

235

1,271 460

648 1,222

1,088 456

2, 376

41.2

11.7

19.6

18.9

5.9 9.8

8.9

8.6

South T> South E.

Assembling beds _.- Painting . Central F

Central G

Box spring frames

Storage--

Centrfll TT do

Total 7,756 Grand total - 84, 846

Mattress Factory, Atlanta, Ga.: Only those buildings, or parts of buildings, in

which some operation concerned with the making

and shipping of felt and spring bed mattresses was

being conducted, were surveyed. Offices were

Table 6. Variation in live loads in rnallress factory,

Chicago, 111.

unit IUlIU, Area Portion of

total area

Ibljl 2 5.0 to 9.9 - 10.0 to 14.9-

ft'

33, 9.59 17,995 2,908

Percent

40.0

21.2 3.5

20.0 to 24.9 26 0 to 29 9 18 498

1, 058

10, 133

2.35

1.3 11.9 0.3

.35.0 to 39.9 40.0 to 44.9

Total 84, 846 100.0

omitted. Temporary wood partitions were in- cluded as live load.

The heaviest machines on a framed floor found

in either of the mattress factory surveys were

garnetting machines weighing about 25,500 lb apiece. The eft'ect of such concentrations may

be illustrated by reference to the second floor of

building 3, which is shown on figure 4. If the

weight of one of these machines is averaged over

the two bays that it occupies, the result is about

70 Ib/ft^. On the other hand, if the weight is divided by the area of the base of the machine

alone, the average load is about 154 Ib/ft^. The

results of the survey are given in tables 7 and 8. Figure 4 shows a floor in the factory.

Table 7. Live loads in mattress factory, Atlanta, Ga.

Panel or area Occupancy or use Area Unit liye load

Building 1, Second floor

A

B

CD

E

Spring assembly

Spring assembly do

/«2 805 900

1,124

453 207

Iblfl^ 12.6 5.6

5.8

17.6 Lockers 15.5

Total 3,489

Building 2, Second floor

A

B

CD

E

FG

H

IJK

L

Temporary storage Cotton felt mattress..1,743 1,312 635

635

942

1,243 440 472

472

864

1,115 950

8.0

6.6 6.2

4.4

7.9

8.0

24.0

11.9 8.0

9.0

6.8

7.8

Mattress stapling Mattress make-up.. - Mattress tape edging Mattress button tufting Mattress re-ginning Spring receiving Stapling - Cotton felt mattress Cotton tufting Roll edging - -

Total- 10,823

Building 2A, Second floor

A

B

CD

E

FG

Box spring assembly... Box spring make-up Box spring make-up Box spring storage.- .- Quilting tops Temporary storage -

816 900

648

1,263

1, 450

990

2,115

17.0

11.0

4.3 5.2

5.3

17.4 6.0

Total - 8, 182

11
I

Pane/ H

Afach/ne

l/i/^ load: Total, I396S'. lbs. perStift: 7S

I

Tof-afi 53115;. LbXper 5<^. Ft 3^.9

-I

s

a-

<«

5

PaJpeJ

CTovered f!a'77p f-o 'Z Je<zof?c/ Sharp MoffrrjuUn'ih

_n_

Lii^e Load

/i tferaqe - 3'^8 '*^p&r S<f.F:

J'lGURE 4. Second-floor plan, building 3, mattress factory, Atlanta, Ga. 12
Table 7. Live loads in mattress factory, Atlanta, Ga.—Con.

Panel or area Occupancj' or u?e Area Unit live load

Building 2B, Second floor

A

B

Stock room. /n1,556

2, 160

59.3 Sewing room _ 5.7

Total : 3, 716

Building 3, First floor

A

B

CD

Cotton cleaner, picker _. Cotton mixers Cotton stores. .... .

561

1, OSO

825

6, 170

22.4

6.5

9.3 Cotton batting, etc., stores 15.2

Total.. 8, 636

Building 3, Second floor

E

FG

H

Garnetting 1,750

2, 816

1,540

1, 853

60.3

36. 7 34.9

7.5

Qametting . Garnetting

Fales

Total... - 7,959

Building 4, Oamett Annex

All Gamett Annex 4, 810 21.4

Building 5, Cotton Warehouse

Whole Cotton warehouse 8,010 101.3

Building 6, Shipping

All Shipping 15, 640 27.6

Gamett Parts Stores

All Garnett parts stores 740 93.9

Grand total 72, 005

Table 8. Variation in live loads in mattress factory,

Atlanta, Ga.

Unit load Area Portion of total area

Iblft 2 0.0 to 4.9 -

ft'- 1,283 Percent

1.8

5.0 to 9.9 22, 046

2, 177 30.6

10.0 to 14.9 3.0

15.0 to 19.9 8, 626

5,811

15, 640 1,540

2, 816

12.0

20.0 to 24.9.. 8.1

25.0 to 29.9 21.7

30.0 to 34.9 2.

1

35.0 to .39.9 3.9

40.0 to 54.9 55.0 to 59.9 1,556 2.2

60.0 to 64.9 1,750 2.5

65.0 to 89.9

90.0 to 94.9 740 1.0

95.0 to 99.9 100.0 to 104.9 8,010 11.

1

Total 72, 005 100.0

Men's Clothing Factory, New York, N. Y.: The premises surveyed contain all operations

from the receiving of the original bolt of cloth to the shipping of the finished suit or coat. The

results of the survey are given in tables 9 and 10. Figure 5 shows a floor in the factory.

Table 9. Live loads in men's clothing factory,

New York, N. Y.

Department Area Unit

live load

First Building, Fifth floor

Cutting

ft16, 285

4, 275

440

7, 085

3,145

31, 230

ll)/ft 2 11.0 13.3 8.6

19.6

10.8

Shrinking and storage Pattern design..

Storage

Offices

Total

First Building, Sixth floor

Receiving and storage. . . . Suit storage .

5, 005

6,800

1,680 2,980 460

8.7

11.1 13.6

13.5

10.5

Labels and assembly. ... Packing

Corridor

Total 16, 925

Second Building, Third floor

Ofllee 190 465

315

115 1,350

5, 1.35 1,215

1,400

840

4, 445

1,475

1,860

11.1

15.1 27.9 47.0

6.9

7.9

8.0 8.8

20.3

19.9

16.0

17.3

Coat room and storage .. .. .. Storage (cloth in bundles) Machine repair Hand sewing No. 1.. Hand sewing No. 2 . Hand sewing No. 3 Storage and receiving Pressing No. 1 . Pressing No. 2 Machine sewing No. 1. Machine sewing No. 2

Total 18, 805 Grand total 66, 960

Table 10. Variation in live loads in men's clothing factory

,

New York, N. Y.

Unit load Area Portion of

total area

Ml'

5.0 to 9.9 10.0 to 14.9

15.0 to 19.9 20.0 to 24.9

25.0 to 29.9 30.0 to 44.9.

ft'

14, 545

35, 815

15, 330

840

315

Percent

21.7

53.5

22.9

1.3 0.4

45.0 to 49.5

Total -

iis . 2

66, 960 100.0
FIR.E. E.3CAPE

Scale in Feal

THIIZP FLOOR. PL/IN

(S ECOND euiL DIhJO)

FiGUEE 0. Third-floor -plan, men's clothing factory, New York, N. Y.

J4
Dress Factory, Philadelphia, Pa.: No aisle space was considered. The counts of

persons talien are beli'ived to represent adequately

the maximum live load caused by people under

similar factory conditions. The results of the

survey are given in tables 11 and 12. Figure 6 shows a floor in the factory.

Table 11. Live loads in dress factory, Philadelphia, Pa.

Furniture Factory, Gettysburg, Pa.: The results of the survey are given in tables

13 and 14. Figure 7 shows the plan of the factory.

Table 13. Live loads in furniture factory, C'ellysburg, Pa.

Department Area Unit live load

feecond floor

Cloth storage Buttons, thread, etc. (storage) Sample dresses (storage) Stationery storage Storage and shipping _ Women's dressing room.

Designers' office Financial office Front office Anteroom.- Men's room _ Closet _._ Hall

Total

ft' IblfO

850 38.9

515 24.2

160 9.4

125 41.5

5,420 9.5

280 7.7

1. 650 9.0

1, 060 11.

1

1,085 14.0

75 15.4

115 21.4

60 60.5

895 8.4

12, 290

Third floor

Emergency restroom 145 9.0

Office 195 15.1 Pattern storage 80 34.4 Restroom and reserve area 2,410 5.8 2,635 13.8 Examination and ins.bection 490 19.4 Pattern design j 700 6.7 Cutting .._ 2,415 7.1 Machine repair _ 250 36.7

Pressing, etc 2,915 5.5 Women's dressing rooms 215 15.2

Total 12, 450 Grand total 24, 740

Building Number

1316

17

18

18

Area

Basement-.

First floor.

Basement-,

First floor.

BasementFirst floorFirst floor Second floor.

First floor

20 i Second floor.

Total.

Occupancy or use

Millwork.. dodo

Glue room.

Office

Pattern room.

Staining Spraying

Finishing Paint shop Millwork

do...

storage (lumber from dry

kilns). Cabinet work and stor- age (plysvood panels loaded on trucks). Cabinet manufacturing

.doStorage (3-ply plywood). Spraying

Storage (veneer and

packing material). Storage (3-ply plywood). Vamish vault Rubbing and polishing.. Storage (furniture) do

storage (furniture and

packing material).

Finishing Shipping and storage

(funiitui'e.some crated ready to ship), storage (furniture,

chairs).

Area

unit

livo load

II- W/Jt'

a, 450 24. 2 3,100 27.8

7(/) 24.

1

1, 0.30 18.0

130 0. 2

1.30 10.7

.3, 900 7.9

10, 200 9.

4

5, 920 7.

5

210 60.8

5, OOO 28.9

5,600 598 29.2

98.0

7, 450 ol. 0

7,100 16.4

4,650 18.1

2, 800 62.

9

2,750 7.4

2, 750 30.

9

2,360 84.4

' ' 600 11.6

6, 200 5.1 5,850 12.2 7,400 17.8 7,400 12.0

1,750 6.5 9,675 15.

5

10, 625 13.7

121,994

Table 14. Variation in live loads in furniture factory,

Gettysburg, Pa.

Table 12. Variatiorv in live loads in dress factory,

Phild!delphia, Pa.

Unit load Area Portion of total area

Iblffi 5.0 to 9.9 -- - 10.0 to 14.9

15.0 to 19.9 20.0 to 24.9

25.0 to 29.9

fr16, 990

4, 780

975

630

Percent

68.8

19.4 3.9

2.5

30.0 to 34.9 .-- 35.0 to 39.9 40.0 to 44.5

45.0 to 59.9

80 1,100

125

0.3 4.4 0.5

60.0 to 64.9 .-

Total

60 0.2

24, 740 100.0

Unit load Area Portion of

total area

Iblft' 5.0 to 9.9

ft 2 30, 850 24,605

29, 855

6,210

14, 300

2, 750

Percent

25.3

20.1 24.5

5.1 11.7

2.3

10.0 to 14.9 -. 15.0 to 19.9..

20.0 to 24.9 25.0 to 29.9--

30.0 to 34.9 35.0 to 49.9

50.0 to 54.9 7,450 6.1

55.0 to 59.9

60.0 to 64.9-- 3, 016 2.5

65.0 to 79.9-

80.0 to 84.9 - 2, 360 1.9

85.0 to 94.9

95.0 to 99.9 598 0.5

Total 121,994 100.0

15
L.L. i5-/ /ii 'sc,ftPATTEl^N STORAGE

L.L 24.4 Ihs/scfff

o n

REST fZOQK^ $ R.E5efi\/E AR.EA

L.L. S 8 Ibs/sq o ()

EMERGENCY R.E5T ROOM

s rS

J F 1 I

CUTTING

L.L. 7.1 Ibs/sqff O

PATTERN DESIGN

L L. G.7 /hs/s^ ff o

EyAM/NATlOhJ 4 INSPECTiOt-J

L.L. /'R.4 Ibs/scj fio

SEWING

L.L I3.& Ibs/scfft o

LEGEND

L.L. ' Li-^z Load

3"" FLOOR. PLAN

Sc^U in Faaf Figure 6. Third-floor plan, dress factory, Philadelphia, Pa.

FiGiTRE 7. Furniture factory, Gettysburg, Pa. 16
No.7 No.(o

CABtNET WOaK-Ai

No. 5-N

OHY KILNS DRV LUMBER SHED L CABINET 4 ASSEMBLY WOfiK

finishing: polishing - GIL DING WOODWORKING -SANDING

No-I-A

MAINTENANCE SHOPS

\WW-OlfAF^ CAblNET WORK i RSPAIftS FINtSHtNG - FIflAL TOUCH- UP

STORAGE' PACK'^f^-CAHrONS

No. 3 No. 4

N0.4-D

Figure 8. Furniture jactory, Grand Rapids, Mich.

Furniture Factory, Grand Rapids, Mich.:

This furniture plant produces, as a specialty, a wide variety of utilitarian and decorative tables

that are of high quality in construction and design.

All of the buildings, or portions of buildings,

occupied in the actual production, shipping, and

display of furniture were surveyed. Office space

and service buildings were not included in the

survey. The heaviest of the machines found on

framed floors in this survey were an automatic

shaper, weighing 12,000 lb, on the first floor of building 3, a hydraulic press, weighing 15,000 lb, on the second floor of building 6, and a joiner,

gluer, and drier, weighing 12,000 lb, on the first floor of building 7. The areas occupied by these

machines were not available. The results of the

survey are given in tables 15 and 16. Figure 8

shows the basement plan of the factory and the

operations on the several floors. Table 15. Live loads in furniture factory, Grand Rapids,

Mich.

Table 15. Live loads in furniture factory, Grand Rapids,

Mich.—Continued

Building number Floor Occupancy or use Area

Unit

live load

fr- mt 2 1 B Maintenance shops, 11, 500 24.9

1 1 Woodworking _ . 11, 500 20.5

1 2 do. 11, 500 15.2

1 3 Cabinet and assembly work.. 11, 500 5.4

1 4 Finishing 11, 500 4.1

Building number

1-A B

1-A 1 1-A 2 3 B

3 1 3 22

3 3 3 4 4-A B

4-C B

4-A 1 4-A 1 4-B 1 4-C 1 4-D 1 4-E 1 4 2 4 3

4 4 5-N 1 5-S 1 5-S 1 5-N 2

5-S 2 5-N 3 5-S 3 5-N 4 5-S 4

Floor Occupancy or use

Storage Woodworking

do

Storage Leather room Woodworking

Woodworking and drafting.. Drafting Cabinet shop wood carving.. Finishing-rubbing

Storage do

Cabinet shop.. Saw setting and tool shop

Crating Shipment make-up

Crate manufacture

Cabinet shop...

Finishing-final- Cabinet work and repair shop.

Finishing-rubbing, gilding... Storage _ Shipping

Shipping office storage Packing and crating Cabinet work, assembly

Cabinet work, repaii'S Finishing do...

Unit

Area live load

/<2 Win 2 2,900 23.4

2,900 8.7

2, 900 30.0

5,730 27.9

500 27.6

8,800 22.5

7,990 11.

1

860 13.2 9,780 16.4 8,880 3.6

9, 280 30.9

1,200 24.1

4. 960 11.6

600 23.7

3,600 9.3

1,200 6.7 4,990 14.9

3, 750 7.3 10,932 fi.3 10,780 4.6

10, 732 4.4 15,400 23. S

15, 000 3.4 204 6.7

15, 200 7.0

15,200 4.4

15, 300 4.8

15, 300 2. 8 15,300 2.3

15. 300 3.

1

17
Table 15. Live loads in furniture factory, Grand Rapids,

Mich.—Continued

Building number

6 B-A

6 B-B

6 B-C

6 1 6 2

6 3 6 4

7 B

7 1 g 1

9 1 9-A 1 10 1 10-A 1 12 2

13 B

13 1 18 B

18 B

18 B

18 1 18 2 18 3 18 3 18 3

Floor Occupancy or use

Veneer cutting Veneer storage Maintenance parts storage Glue room

Glue room, veneer

Finishing _ Finisiiing, staining Veneer storage and drying. Sawing - Air drying building Dry kilns Lumber grading shed

Storage for shipment

do

Salesroom Lacquer vault do

Storage Kitchen Banquet and bar

Storage Exhibition Photo studio Smoking room

Storage -

Total

Area

TJnit

live load

ft'-

5, 300

2, 100

720 7,700

7,900

Iblft^ 12.8

119. 7 44.6

16.7

28.4

7,880

7, 880

7,660

7, 500

10, 200

7.4

6. 6 31.0

32.1 73.9

8,100

2, 600

6, 000

2, 380

1,200

105.

3

20.

9

8.5 29.8 4.0 •

830

830 6,426

750 1,900

18.1

43. 7 2.0 12.8

6.5

9,940

9,940

4, 970

720 4,100

6.2 3.6

2.1 7.0 8.7

418, 494

Table 16. Variation in live loads in furniture factory.

Grand Rapids, Mich.

Unit load

Iblft 2 0.0 to 4.9

5.0 to 9.9 10.0 to 14.9 15.0 to 19.9 20.0 to 24.9

25.0 to 29.9_ 30.0 to 34.9-

35.0 to 39.9, 40.0 to 44.9- 45.0 to 69.9.

70.0 to 74.9...

75.0 to 1019_-

105.0 to 109.9- 110.0 to 114.9- 115.0 to 119.9- Total.—

Area

ft'

155, 828

87. 706

24, 850

29, 810

54, 500

16, 510

27, 340

1,550

10, 200

'"8,~ioo "2," 100

418, 494

Portion

of total area

Percent

37.2 2L0

6.0

7.1 13.0

4.0

6.5

.........

2.4

0.5

100.0

Newspaper Plant, Washington, D. C:

This survey included the building housing the

printing plant and sonae offices of the newspaper.

The heaviest machines were the presses, which

were located on the first floor; however, these machines extended through the fu'st floor and were

supported on special pile footings, consequently were not included in the survey. The results of the survey are given in tables 17 and 18. Figure 9 shows a floor in the plant.

Table 17. Live loads in newspaper plant,

Washington, D. C.

Press room _ ft' 3,870 Wft'

24.8 Stereotype department - 648 77.4

Office 127 10.1

Oil room - -- 190 27.4 Machine room 426 46.0 Newsstand- 228 16.6 Corridor 550 4.1

Total 6,039

Department Area

First floor

Mezzanine floor

Delivery room

Offices Corridor

Total

7,177 865

292

8,334

Second floor

Storeroom-.- -- Art department Dark room

Etching department.

Offices Do

Workroom

Storeroom

Service department- Machine room

Corridor

Total

Third floor

Associated Press Wirephoto department. Library . Offices Storeroom Do

Corridor

Total

Fourth floor

Storeroom Dark room

Storeroom Workroom

Offices Do

Adv. photo department

Offices Do.- - -. Do

Corridor

Total

Fifth floor

Telephone switchboard and equipment. Storeroom

Offices Do

Conference room, board of trade

Offices Corridors

Total764 70.3

511 13.7

149 10.8 602 14.0

745 10.6

154 14.9 318 30.9

363 7L6

1, 082 30.2

2,549 13.7 470 L6

7,707

3, 880 10.2

1, 260 17.0

231 26.0 912 5.8

190 92.8

154 60.0

670 1.3

7, 197

272 59.6

222 15.0

145 49.

434 35. 2

502 15.7

671 6.6 276 9.6

390 7.7

639 1L2

2,040 1L9

1, 577 1.0

7,168

520 25.6

194 51.6 447 14.4 1,290 13.6

1, 294 7.6

2, 041 1L3

1, 348 1.

7, 134

18
Table 17. Live loads in newspaper plant,

Washington, D. C.—Continued

Table 17. Live loads in newspaper plant,

Washington, D. C.—Continued

Department Area Unit live load

Sixtb floor

Offices Corridor Lobby

Office - Advertising and accounting

Total _

Seventh floor

OfficeDo-.-_ Art oorm

Photographers De ntallaboratory- City room

Corridor _ Lobby

Total.—

ft 2 1,786 9.7

740 6.3

371 2.0

324 16.5 3,890 2L0

7,111

1, 900 11.4

140 32.5 496 18.6 439 9.9

126 17.5 3,446 15.2 692 3.2

371 2.0

7,610

Department Area Unit live load

Kighth floor

Stureotype room. Composing room

Office Lobby

Total

Ninth floor

Picture file room _ Monotype room

Composing room A_ Composing room B

Office _.. Storeroom .„

Office Lobby _ Locker room _ Total _ Grand total

»//<2

1,296 73.2

6,300 58.2

54 13.1 176 4.3

7,826

914 26.3 390 57.2

1,600 54.4 990 14.2 232 13.9

165 66.0

54 6.2

300 6.5

1, 494 13.8

6,139

72, 265

Figure 9. Eighth-floor plan, newspaper plant, Washington, D. C. 19
Table 18. Variation in live loads in newspapei- plant,

Washington, D. C.

Unit load Area Portion of total area

lb/ft 2 0.0 to 4.9- 6, 125 6,862

20, 709

6, 604

15, 229

1,855

1,540 434

Percent

8.5

9.5 28.7

9.1 21.1

2.6

2.1 0.6

5.0 to 9.9 10.0 to 14.9

15.0 to 19.9 20.0 to 24.9

25.0 to 29.9 30.0 to 34.9

35.0 to 39.9

40.0 to 44.9

45.0 to 49.9 571

1 794

6, 962 154

165

2, 423

648

•8

2. 5 9^6 0.2

.2

3.3

0.9

50.0 to 54.9 55.0 to 59.9 60.0 to 64.9

65.0 to 69.9

70.0 to 74.9 . .

75.0 to 79.9 80.0 to 89.9

90.0 to 94.9 _ _ 190 .3

Total 72, 265 100.0

1^

Pa£5S Hf^r OFFICE

L.L II. Z /I's/sq ft

PA NEL A

L.I.. 31.3 Ibs/stf ft

A.S. 3S'/. BU/LDJNG KIO. 5

L.L. :4^.S Ihs/sq : A.S lO % „

!r Q

L.L. = Llvt Load

A.S. = A/'s/z SpoCQ.

Printing Plant, Washington, D. C:

"Within each area the aisle space has been given

as a percentage of the total area. This aisle space was usually kept open to provide for the transfer

of large skids loaded Avith 20 to 30 reams of paper

from one part of the plant to another.

Very heavy machinery loads on framed floors were found in this survey. In panel B of the

second floor of building 4 a press, together with its feeders and operators, and a M-in. steel plate on the

floor weighecl 60,000 lb. An obsolete macliiner}^

layout of this area gives reason to believe that

this load occupied about one and one-half bays of

the budding, or 360 ft^. This would mean a load

of 168 lb/ft ^ In panel B of the second floor of

building 5 a rotary press, together with its crossfeed, operators, paper, and steel floor, weighed

151,400 lb. The old machine layout referred to above indicates that this load was probably carried on two full bays of floor, having an area of about

600 ft-, making an average load on two bays of

252 lb/ft ^ The results of the survey are given in

tables 19 and 20. Figure 10 shows a floor in the

plant.

D

L.L. SS 2 lb:/ St; ff

BUILDING NO. 4

PANEL A

L.L 44 4- lis /s

A.S. 25'/, T

Jk

n peoaucr/ou OFFICE

BU/LD/NG

PR. ESS QOOM

NO.

1 i>- $

5 9 g

5 -J

ACCOUNTING

OFFICE.

L.L. II.S Ibs/.i'J fl

i pa!:el c

•L.L. 21.4 /L.^/s)ff A 7.S'.'.

PANEL D

LL SI.2 Ihs/jqfl

A.S. 2£Vo

a, siw "jUmO/NG NO. 3

PK^ESS ROOM

PANEL A

L.L. GZ.G> Ibs/zo I A.S. /O

0,^

PANEL A \±

PANEL B

L.L. SI. 8 ll-sZ-^q fl A.S. IZ 'A PANEL C

L.L. 41. & Ihs/sq ff A.S. 35%

- PANEL D

L.L. Ibs/sq fl A .5. IZ %

PANEL E

L.L. SI. a Ibs/sgfl

A.S. lo'A

SECOND FLOOI^ PLAN

20

Figure 10. Second-floor plan, printing plant, Washington, D. C.

PANEL F

L.L. so. I Ihs/sqfl A S. 20%

rj
lBLE 19. Live loads in printing plant, Washington, D- C. Table 20.

Building No. Department Area Unit live load

First floor

Private office Reception office Shipping office Commercial bindery: Panel A__. .__ Panel B

Panel C.._

Panel D

Panel E

Panel F

Panel G

Panel H...

Panel I Panel J Commercial bindery: Panel A

Panel B

Panel C

Panel D

Commercial bindery: Panel A

Panel B

Panel C.__

Panel D

Sales office Private office. __, Panel A ___ Panel B

Panel C

Panel D

Panel E

Commercial bindery... Total

Second floor

Accounting office

.

Office Press room:

Panel A

Panel B

Panel C

Panel D

Panel E

Panel F

Press room

:

Panel A .. Panel B

Panel C

Panel D.

Panel E.... Panel F

Panel G

Press room: Panel A

Panel B

Panel C

Panel D

Production office.. Panel A... ... Panel B

Press room office.. Panel A . Panel B

Total.

747 11.5 304 8.7

1,185 26.3 610 110.4 600 3.3 1,200 108.3 662 6.0 880 76.1

466 42.6

738 61.8 880 41.6

738 89.1 880 81.6

598 50.8 534 92.5

2,293 62.6 1.988 47.1 450 21.4 502 51.2 380 8.4 3,200 44.4

4,850 85.8 438 11.2

3, 348 31.3 5,624 149.5

34, 095

Third floor

Composing room:

Panel A

Panel B

Panel C

Panel D.

Panel E...

Panel F

Panel G

Panel H

Panel I Monotype department

Composing room:

Panel A

Panel B

Panel C

Panel D

Proofreading room Type storage room

Job press department..

Total Grand- total

200 41.0

956 51.3 656 76.1 788 36.7

356 100.4 300 39.5 350 131.7

420 73.8

451 93.2 332 82.4

651 32.5 1,089 47.5 248 27.7 662 57.6

711 17.9

767 168.4

1,789 43.9

10, 726

77, 275

ft 2 lb/ft 2 384 8.3 476 5^4

245 5.6

453 32. 6 337 10.

0

610 36.2 610 39.

1

600 10.

0

602 23.

6

602 ' 34.

2

331 23.

5

331 18. 4 440 23.

8

437 32. 8 357 33.

2

1,254 50.

8

2, 664 17.

9

1,240 44.0

1,138 7.0

,365 59. 7 955 35.9

454 8.1 240 5.7 1,591 81.7

1,924 54.2

3, 248 35.2

549 50.4

767 29.3

9,250 63.1

32, 454

Variulion in live loads in 'printing plant,

Washington, D. C.

Unit load

5. 0 to 9. 9.

10. 0 to 14.

9

15.0 to 19.9

20. 0 to 24. 9.

25. 0 to 29. 9.,

30.0 to .34. 9.. 35. 0 to 39. 9.. 40. 0 to 44. 9.. 45.0 to 49.9..

50. 0 to 54. 9..

55.0 to 59. 9.. 60.0 to 64.9.. 65.0 to 69. 9.. 70.0 to 74. 9.. 75.0 to 79.9..

IblJfArea

80.0 to 84. 9...

8.5. 0 to 89. 9... 90.0 to 94.9...

95. 0 to 99. 9...

100. 0 to 104. 9.

105. 0 to 109. 9 110.0 to 114. 9 115.0 to 129.9 130.0 to 1.34.9 135. 0 to 144. 9

14.5. 0 to 149.9. 150.0 to 104.9. 165.0 to 169. 9.

Total

/<2 Percent

4, 883 6.3 2,122 2,8

3, 706 4.8 1,823 2.4 2,200 2,9

.5, 848 7. fi 6, 511 8.4

7, 775 10.1

3, 077 4.0

5, 783 7.5

1,027 1.3

12, 281 15.9

420 0.5 1,536 2.0

2,803 3.6

5,588 7.1 985 1.3

356 0,4

1,200 1.6 610 0.8

350 .4

5,624 7.3

767 1.0

77, 275 100.0

Poi tion of

total area

8. Storage Occupancy

The live loads on warehouse floors var}- widel}-

because of the many difl'erent kinds of materials

stored. Building codes recommended b}- various

organizations for national or regional use and

building code standards give permissible minimum

design load figures for light and heavy storage.

In the case of light storage, the range is narrow, from 120 to 125 lb/ft", while with heavy storage

a minimum value of 250 lb/ft- is customar}'

.

^lethods of determining loading used in common

for the two cases surveyed were the noting of

weights marked on barrels and other containei-s

and computing the weight of persons at 150 lb each for the number found in a given area. Other

methods are mentioned under the particular case

to which the}^ appl^y.

The results of the survey b}^ the Public Buildings Administration appear in tables 21, 22, 23,

and 24. Figures 11 and 12 show floor plans

having the heaviest unit loads in the case of this occuiianc3\

Warehouse, New York, N. Y.: Weights of various smaller items were established b}" weighing them dhectly. The walls and

partitions that were carried hy the floor slabs were measured and the weight computed.

In addition to the loads shown in the tables and

drawing, there was one electric fork truck on each

floor. The maximum live load caused \>x each

truck is 6,000 lb, and in computing column loads

this truck may be assumed in an}" position designated as aisle space on the nine floors.

21
Table 21. Live loads in warehouse, New York, N. Y.

Bay Area Base- ment

First

floor Secondfloor Thirdfloor Fourth

floor Fifth

floor Sixth

floor Seventh

floor Eighth

floor Ninthfloor

/f 2 /6/ft2 lb/ft 2 Iblft 2 Iblft 2 Iblft 2 lb/ft 2 Iblft 2 Iblft 2 Iblft 2 Iblft 2 1 560 i. 1 17.1 46.3 93.8 109.4 49.2 171.5 118.7 41.8 73.8

2 526 77.4 22.5 70.9 118.9 194.8 73.4 49.6 223.1 82.7 112.7

3 492 156.6 25.9 40.2 0.0 80.3 96.2 60.4 256.6 59.5 181.0

4 454 97.0 32.3 39. 7 204.

115.2 92.5 82.3 241.7 144.6 114.9

6 432 (") 34. 9 14.105.

8

86. 5 79. 6 37.

9

175. 8 78.46. 4

6 405 (") 7.8 36.2 60.6 64.0 64.2 79.2 88.4 38.0 72.7

7 396 72.2 72.6 64.4 21.8 17.1 48.5 16.8 105.9 57.2 75.7

8 399 225.7 42.5 59.8 41.7 39.9 55. 5 67.2 122.8 45.2 62.9

9 399 55.1 55.9 87.7 59.2 63.1 68.8 67.7 90.4 43.3 55.2

10 399 36.

6

26.

90. 5 23.43.

5

52.102.71.

4.37.

11 547 136.1 25.9 65.6 155.4 147.3 78.3 135.9 194.6 139.4 150.9 12 405 129.4 66.4 138.7 127.9 90.9 46.9 197.5 161.1 157.3 197.0

13 399 134.6 73.4 80.9 53.3 80.1 62.9 150.8 102.2 6.4 45.4

14 399 121.0 106.2 94.4 139.6 152.5 70.2 111.8 174.1 86.4 83.0

15 399 178.

8

30. 2 44.157.

105.87.50.198.86. 7 64. 6

16 396 78.6 37.0 70.7 83.0 179.7 180.2 60.6 212.4 72.2 86.0

17 l>405 94.5 24.1 87.3 80.6 74.8 72.4 131.1 116.1 53.6 99.1

18 406 40.2 23.4 8.4 42.6 43.4 27.4 63.8 18.4 16.2 68.7

19 396 92.2 49.8 50.9 117.4 122.9 132.3 105.2 160.3 28.7 46.0

20 400 99. 5 106.

9

55.

136.

8

110.

123. 5 92.

160.

9

45.96.

21 400 88.5 48.4 62.3 71.3 133.2 92.1 111.7 67.9 53.1 39.7

22 400 93.2 55.0 80.8 143.5 122.3 184.2 150.0 57.6 6.8 53.3

23 406 96.1 54.8 63.0 228.3 139.3 59.1 112.1 50.9 158.6 139.1 24 411 213.7 65.7 90.3 198.4 97.5 155.1 163.4 155.3 229.5 75.0 25 405 137.6 62.5 156.5 154.1 134.3 81.6 194.4 155.1 89.3 73.4

26 405 79.8 68.7 85.6 141.6 100.7 106.0 131.1 157.4 80.2 65.0 27 405 78.5 118.2 126.4 33.8 124.6 78.9 146.0 100.3 97.8 75.3

28 402 24.8 55.6 135.6 56.3 66.9 72.2 105.4 98.9 101.7 58.2

Total area, all bays on all floors, 117,438 ft '

» Bays 5 and 6 in basement were not surveyed.

i) Area of bay 17 in basement, 200 ft 2; in all floors above, 406 ft 2.

Table 22. Variation in live loads in warehouse,

New York, N. Y.

Unit load Area Portion of

total area

Ibjft^ ft'- Percent

0.0 to 4.9 _. 1,451 1.2

6.0 to 9.9 1,610 1.4

10.0 to 14.9.. 432 0.4

15.0 to 19.9 2,164 1.8

20.0 to 24.9 2,534 2.2

25.0 to 29.9- 2, 240 1.9

30.0 to 34.9 1,690 1.4

35.0 to 39.9 _ 3,689 3.1

40.0 to 44.9 _ 4,265 3.6

45.0 to 49.9 5,269 4.5

50.0 to 54.9 3,610 3.1

55.0 to 59.9 6,899 5.9

60.0 to 64.9 5,712 4.9

65.0 to 69.9 3, 773 3.2

70.0 to 74.9 6,815 5.8

75.0 to 79.9 6,165 4.4

80.0 to 84.9. _ 4, 680 4.0

85.0 to 89.9 4,444 3.8

90.0 to 94.9 4,823 4.1

95.0 to 99.9 3,776 3.2

100.0 to 104.9 2,010 1.7

106.0 to 109.9 3, 789 3.2

110.0 to 114.9 2,585 2.2

115.0 to 119.9. 2,746 2.3

120.0 to 124.9 2, 399 2.0

Table 22. Variation in live loads in warehouse. New York, N. Y.—Continued

Unit load Area

125.0 to 129.9. 130.0 to 134.9. 135.0 to 139.9. 140.0 to 144.9. 145.0 to 149.9.

160.0 to 164.9. 156.0 to 159.9. 160.0 to 164.9. 165.0 to 169.9. 170.0 to 174.9.

175.0 to 179.9. 180.0 to 184.9. 185.0 to 189.9. 190.0 to 194.9. 196.0 to 199.9.

Ib/ft'-

200.0 to 204.9. 206.0 to 209.9- 210.0 to 214.9. 216.0 to 219.9. 220.0 to 224.9.

226.0 to 229.9- 230.0 to 239.9- 240.0 to 244.9- 246.0 to 254.9.

256.0 to 259.9.

Total-

/<2 1,215

2,410

4, 464

1,259 952

2,666

4,286

1,207

969

1,227

1,288

"l,"478" 1,620

464

807

526'

1,216

454"

492'

117,438
Figure 11. Seventh-floor •plan, warehouse, Neio York, N. Y.

23
-QDPANEL A

L.L. S/. 7 Ibs/sq U

A S 25 %

PANEL D

(Ernpiy)

a

PA NELS A-l, A-Z,& ToD incl

-o- PANEL A-l

L.L SI. 7 Ibs/sq ff A.S 2.5%-

PANEL C

L.L.ZI^.O Ibs/sqftI

PANEL B

is: 1=4 MM " M=i 1=1

F/^£- ESCAPE

LEGEND

L.L. = Liva. Load

A.S. - Aisliz. Sp<3c<2 FLOOR. PLAN

Figure 12. Second-floor plan, warehouse, Washington, D. C.

24
Warehouse, Washington, D. C:

A general merchandise warehouse and its offices were the subject of this surve}'.

Weights of typical items, such as furniture,

packages of canned fruit, canned vegetables, cooking oil, etc., were established by weighing representative pieces. Some items, such as built-in

construction, that could not be weighed were measured and the weight computed.

Table 23. Live loads in warehouse, Washington, D. C.

Department Area Unit live load

First floor

ft' mi 2 Private office 192 10.2 General office - 1,167 8.8 Vestibule 236 3.2

Sales office 6S3 9.5 Storage room A 95 24.2 Panel A 234 22.9 Panel B 234 29.8 Panel C_ 684 35.3 Panel D 225 181. 5 Panel E..._ 410 27.5 Panel F 2,640 8.1 Panel G 270 0.0

Total 7, 040

Second floor

Panels A-1 and A-2 5, 100 51.7 Panel B 221 129.2 Panel C 231 219.0 Panel D 3,425 0.0

Total 8, 977

Third floor

Stnreronm A 95 2.

1

Panels A-1 and A-2 .- 3, 295 j 54.9 Panel B 468 121.8 Panel C __. 234 63.0 Panel D 710 11.8 Panel E 473 24.4 Panel F 238 75.8 Panel G 238 34.6 Panel H 239 280.7 Panel I 958 0.0 Panel J 1,763 .0

Total 8,711

Fourth floor

Storeroom A .. 95 41.1 Panel A 7,600 77.4 Panel B 474 303.5 Panel 0 589 0.0

Total 8, 758

Fifth floor

Storeroom B 650 118. S Panel A 7, 760 95.1 Panel B 589 0.0

Total 8, 999

Sixth floor

Storeroom A 95 20.2 Storeroom B... ... 255 18.6 Storeroom C __ 518 40.0 Panel A 6,890 33. 6 Panel B 958 0.0 Panel C 589 .0

Total _ _ 9, .305

Table 23. Live\loads in warehouse, WashingLon, I). C.—

Continued

Department Area Unit live load

Seventh floor

Storeroom A

Storeroom B

Storeroom C

Panel A

95

184

589 7,848

589

IblfO

70.7

6.0 13.2

30.4 Panel B ___ 0.0

Total 9,305

Eighth floor

Storeroom A _. 95

2, 213

4, 287

713 754

18.8

22.3

21.1 39.3 0.0

Panels A-1 and A-2

Panel B

Panel C

Panel D

Total 8,062 Grand total 69, 157

T.A.BLE 24. Variation in live loads in warehouse, Washington, D. C.

Unit load Area Portion of total area

Iblft 2 0.0 to 4.9

5.0 to 9.9.__ _ 10.0 to 14.9

15.0 to 19.9 20.0 to 24.9

25.0 to 29.9

.30.0 to 34.9

35.0 to 39.9 40.0 to 44.9 -- 45.0 to 49.9

/<2 10,815 4,644

1, 491 350

7, 397

644

14, 976

1, 397

613

Percent

15.7 6.7 2.2

0.5

10.7

0.9 2L7

2.0 0.9

50.0 to 54.9

55.0 to 59.9.

8, 395 12.2

60.0 to 64.9

65.0 to 69.9 234 0.3

70.0 to74.9_._

75.0 to 79.9 ---

80.0 to 94.9

95

7, 838

.1

11.4

95.0 to 99.9 100.0 to 114.9 7,760 11.2

115.0 to 119.9

120.0 to 124.9

125.0 to 129.9

130.0 to 179.9

650

468

221

0.9

. 7

.3

180.0 to 184.9 185.0 to 214.9 255 .3

215.0 to 219.9 220.0 to 279.9 231 .3

280.0 to 284.9

285.0 to 299.9 239 .3

300.0 to 304.9 -

Total

474 0.7

69, 157 100.0

9. Variation in Loading

The data show faii'ly large differences in loading on different areas within the same occupancj^. In some cases, such as a library or storage room in

office occupancy, it may be possible to anticipate

and provide for unusualty heavy loads. In others,

as in department stores, there may be frequent

shifts of goods from one part of a floor to another

or from floor to floor in response to changes in

25
sales policy, seasonal demands, or other considerations, witii the result that unit loads on given

areas may change several hundred percent.

It is apparent that there is a problem in the

selection of a representative minimum unit-load

value for each typical occupancy and in the determination of a reasonable reduced unitdoad value

for a large area supported by a given structural

member. In the case of a small area, the total

load wUl be the minimum unit load multiplied by

the area; but in the case of larger areas, a reduction is considered permissible for loads carried by

columns and girders, and sometimes beams, based on recognition of the fact that in many occupancies

such members seldom, if ever, are loaded to the extent of the unit live load multiplied by the total area supported. A method of reduction that is gaining wide acceptance in building codes is as follows [5]: For live loads of 100 pounds or less per square foot,, the design live load on any member supporting 150

lb/ft 2 or more may be reduced at the rate of 0.08 percent

per square foot of area supported by the member, except

that no reduction shall be made for areas to be occupied

as places of public assembly. The reduction shall exceed

neither R as determined by the following formula, nor

60 percent:

in which

i?=reduction in percent

Z) = dead load per sciuare foot of area supported

by the member

L=design live load per square foot of area sup- ported by the member.

For live loads exceeding 100 Ib/ft^, no reduction

shall be made, except that the design live loads on columns may be reduced 20 percent.

The design load L in the above formula is the

highest average live load that it is proposed to permit on room-sized areas (specifically, areas up

to 150 ft^). An individual member carrying less than 150 ft^ of floor would be designed for L. It can also be thought of as the allowable load for which the floor should be posted, in situations

where posting is advisable.

High concentrations of load on very small areas, such as safes, are ordinarily provided for in building codes by a requirement that the floor must be

capable of supportin.g a 2,000-lb load on a specified

limited area at any location.

The significance of R is that it is a limiting value

of the reduction in terms of the live load and dead

load such that, if the entire structure were loaded

at the rate of L, no part would be overstressed

by more than 30 percent.

The effect of the foregoing method of reducing

design live loads can be illustrated by an exam.ple.

Assume, for instance, that L equals 100 lb/ft-, D

equals 100 Ib/ft^ and that the floor bays are 20 ft sq with the slabs spanning in one direction. The

slabs would be designed for a live load of 100

Ib/ft^. The beams and the top stories of columns

carrying 400 ft^ each Avould be designed for 68

Ib/ft^. The lower stories of the columns would be

designed for 54 Ib/ft^, Avhich is the maximum re- duction permitted by the formula. It is of in- terest to compare this value with the range of

values found for large areas in the departmentstore surveys in this report.

10. Discussion

Safe buUding design requires the use of a combination of assumed loads and working stresses which wUl result in structures that will not be

seriously overstressed in any part by the imposed

loads.

The data obtained in the survey made by the

Public Buildings Administration afford a chance

of seeing in specific instances what the result of

any given combination of live loads and stresses would have been. The more extensive and detailed such surveys are for a given occupanc}'', the

firmer are the conclusions to be drawn from them.

The data represent not the most severe loading

possible, but the actual average loading in each

case on a given area of a given occupancy. It appears from the data that a large percentage of

the floor area in most occupancies is much less heavily loaded than the m.ost heavily loaded bay.

This suggests possible further economies in the

design of members carrying large floor areas. However, the data available are still small in

quantity and there are conditions of local load

concentrations that must not be overlooked.

With additional information gain.ed from further

surveys, it should be possible to answer more

definitely several questions, among them how rep- resentative are the minimum live-load assumptions

now given in building codes recommended by various organizations for national or regional use. Consideration of the use of the data presented

herein leads to several suggestions for future sur- veys that would clear up some of the questions

left open.

One such survey would be an investigation of

the actual loads in department stores during the

Christmas season. This could be done by select- ing several bays that appeared to be busiest,

measuring the areas therein that might be occupied

by people, and subsequently counting the number

of people in those areas from time to time during

the Christmas shopping period. Photographs

could also record the extent of crowding.

Another survey, or series of suiweys, which

would not be unduly expensive, would be to determine the most heavily loaded single bay of a

floor in each of a number of manufacturing plants.

This could be done by selecting the five bays that

appeared, upon casual examination, to be most

heavily loaded, and surveying those five bays in

detail. A third type of survey would consist of checking

the loading in a number of occupancies where no

published information is avaflable that is less than

twenty years old. Conditions may have changed

26
to such an extent as to make a redetermination of

values for use in assumptions for design desirable.

If it is foimd through additional work in this

field that substantial reductions can be made in minimum assumed unit loads for some occupancies

and that significant economies in construction are

indicated thx'ough use of the lowered figures, there

are still some considerations that merit attention.

One of these is the fact that local authorities are not always in a position to keep a close check on

changes in occupancy and, consequently, building's

may become overloaded although they were safe

as designed for then- original tenant. Another

consideration is that it may be economically desirable to design for such future changes through

usmg a higher unit load figure than is absolutely

necessary because it then becomes possible to accommodate a greater variety of occupancies as time goes on. In this case, the problem becomes

one of weighing initial savings against the advantages of flexibility of use over a long period.

In any event, it is important to have available a reasonably complete and up-to-date set of figures

that can serve as the basis for engineering design.

11. Selected References

[1] The amount of possible strain on a crowded floor, American Architect and Building News, p. .34 (.\nril 15, 1893).

[2] A study of office-building live loads, Eng News-Record,

90, 584 (March 29, 1923).

[3] Minimum live loads allowal)le for use in design of

buildings, Report of the Department of Commerce

Building Code Committee, Nov. 1, 1924. (out of

print)

[4] .John W. Dunham, Design live loads in buildings, Trans. Am Soc Civil Engrs. 113, 725 (1947).

[5] American standard building code requirements for minimum design loads in buildings and other structures, NBS Miscellaneous Publications M179 (194.5).

[6] Report of Subcommittee on Fire-Resistance Classifica- tions of the Central Housing Committee on Research,

Design, and Construction, Fire-resistance classifica- tions of building constructions, NBS Building

Materials and Structures Report BMS92 (1942).

Washington, January 24, 1952.

U, S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1952 27
i
BUILDING MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES REPORTS

{Continued from cover page iij BMS36 Structural Properties of Wood-Frame Wall, Partition, Floor, and Roof Constructions

With "Red Stripe" Lath Sponsored by The Weston Paper and Manufacturing Co.. 10^ BMS38 Structural Properties of Two "Dunstone" Wall Constructions Sponsored by the W. E. Dunn Manufacturing Co 10^ BMS39 Structural Properties of a Wall Construction of "Pfeifer Units" Sponsored by the Wisconsin Units Co 10^ BMS44 Suiface Treatment of Steel Prior to Painting 10^ BMS47 Structural Properties of Prefabricated Wood-Frame Constructions for Walls, Partitions, and Floors Sponsored by American Houses, Inc 20^ BMS48 Structural Properties of "Precision-Built" Frame Wall and Partition Constructions

Sponsored by the Homasote Co 15(i BMS50 Stability of Fiber Building Boards as Determined by Accelerated Aging lOji BMS51 Structural Properties of Tilecrete Type A" Floor Construction Sponsored by the

Tilecrete Co _ 10^ BMS52 Effect of Ceiling Insulation Upon Summer Comfort 15j5 BMS53 Structural Properties of a Masonry Wall Construction of "Munlock Dry Wall Brick"

Sponsored by the Munlock Engineering Co 10(t BMS54 Effect of Soot on the Rating of an Oil-Fired Heating Boiler 10^ BMS55 Effects of Wetting and Drying on the Permeability of Masonry Walls lOfi BMS58 Strength of Soft-Soldered Joints in Copper Tubing 10^ BMS60 Strength, Absorption, and Resistance to Laboratory Freezing and Thawing of Building

Bricks Produced in the United States. 30^

BMS62 Structural Properties of a Precast Joist Concrete Floor Construction Sponsored by

the Portland Cement Association 15(i BMS63 Moisture Condensation in Building Walls 15^ BMS65 Methods of Estimating Loads in Plumbing Systems 15^ BMS66 Plumbing Manual „

BMS67 Structural Properties of "Mu-Steel" Prefabricated Sheet-Steel Constructions for Walla,

Partitions, Floors, and Roofs, Sponsored by Herman A. Mugler 15<5 BMS68 Performance Test for Floor Coverings for Use in Low-Cost Housing: Part 3 20jS BMS69 Stability of Fiber Sheathing Boards as Determined by Accelerated Aging 10^ BMS70 Asphalt-Prepared Roll Roofings and Shingles 20^ BMS71 Fire Tests of Wood- and Metal-Framed Partitions 20^ BMS72 Structural Properties of "Precision-Built, Jr." Prefabricated Wood-Frame Wall Construction Sponsored by the Homasote Co 10(i BMS73 Indentation Characteristics of Floor Coverings 10f5 BMS74 Structural and Heat-Transfer Properties of "U. S. S. Panelbilt" Prefabricated SheetSteel Constructions for Walls, Partitions, and Roofs Sponsored by the Tennessee

Coal, Iron & Railroad Co 20^ BMS75 Survey of Roofing Materials in the North Central States 15^ BMS77 Properties and Performance of Fiber Tile Boards lOfi BMS78 Structural, Heat-Transfer, and Water-Permeability Properties of Five Earth-Wall

Constructions 25^

BMS79 Water-Distributing Systems for Buildings 20f5 BMS80 Performance Test of Floor Coverings for Use in Low-Cost Housing: Part 4 15^ BMS81 Field Inspectors' Check List for Building Constructions (cloth cover, 5 x 7)^ inches) 30^5 BMS82 Water Permeability of Walls Built of Masonry Units 25^

BMS83 Strength of Sleeve Joints in Copper Tubing Made With Various Lead-Base Solders 15ji BMS84 Survey of Roofing Materials in the South Central States 15^ BMS86 Structural, Heat-Transfer, and Water-Permeability Properties of "Speedbrik" Wall

Construction Sponsored by the General Shale Products Corporation 15^ BMS87 A Method for Developing Specifications for Building Construction—Report of Subcommittee on Specifications of the Central Housing Committee on Research,

Design, and Construction 20^ BMS89 Structural Properties of "Precision-Built, Jr." (Second Construction) Prefabricated Wood-Frame Wall Construction Sponsored bv the Homasote Co 15^ BMS90 Structural Properties of "PHC" Prefabricated Wood-Frame Construction for Walla,

Floors, and Roofs Sponsored by the PHC Housing Corporation 15^ BMS92 Fire-Resistance Classifications of Building Constructions 30)t

[List continued on cover page iv]
BUILDING MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES REPORTS

[Continued from cover page iii] BMS94 Water Permeability and Weathering Resistance of Stucco-Faced, Gunite-Faced, and

"Knap Concrete-Unit" Walls 15^ BMS95 Tests of Cement-Water Paints and Other Waterproofings for Unit- Masonry Walls 25^

BMS96 Properties of a Porous Concrete of Cement and Uniform-Sized Gravel 10^ BMS99 Structural and Heat-Transfer Properties of "Multiple Box-Girder Plywood Panels" for Walls, Floors, and Roofs 15fi BMSlOO Relative Slipperiness of Floor and Deck Surfaces 10^5 BMSlOl Strength and Resistance to Corrosion of Ties for Cavity Walls 10^ BMS102 Painting Steel 10^ BMS103 Measurements of Heat Losses From Slab Floors 15^^ BMS104 Structural Properties of Prefabricated Plywood Lightweight Constructions for Walls,

Partitions, Floors, and Roofs Sponsored by the Douglas Fir Plywood Association. 30^

BMS105 Paint Manual With Particular Reference to Federal Specifications $1. 25

BMS106 Laboratory Observations of Condensation in Wall Specimens 10^ BMS108 Temperature Distribution in a Test Bungalow With Various Heating Devices 15^ BMS109 Strength of Houses: Application of Engineering Principles to Structural Design $1. 50

BMSllO Paints for Exterior Masonry Walls __ 16^ BMSlll Performance of a Coal-Fired Boiler Converted to Oil Ibifs BMS112 Properties of Some Lightweight-Aggregate Concretes With and Without an Air-Entraining Admixture lOji BMS113 Fire Resistance of Structural Clay Tile Partitions 15^ BMS114 Temperature in a Test Bungalow With Some Radiant and Jacketed Space Heaters 25^

BMS115 A Study of a Baseboard Convector Heating System in a Test Bungalow 15^ BMS116 Preparation and Revision of Building Codes 15f5 BMS117 Fire Resistance of Walls of Lightweight Aggregate Concrete Masonry Units 200 BMS118 Stack Venting of Plumbing Fixtures IS** BMS119 Wet Venting of Plumbing Fixtures .._ 200

BMS120 Fire Resistance of Walls of Gravel-Aggregate Concrete Masonry Units 150 BMS121 Investigation of Failures of White-Coat Plasters 250

BMS122 Physical Properties of Some Samples of Asbestos-Cement Siding 150 BMS123 Fire Tests of Wood-Framed Walls and Partitions With Asbestos-Cement Facings 150 BMS124 Fire Tests of Steel Columns Protected With Siliceous Aggregate Concrete 150 BMS125 Stone Exposure Test Wall 300

BMS126 The Self-Siphonage of Fixture Traps 200 BMS127 Effect of Aging on the Soundness of Regularly Hydrated Dolomitic Lime Putties 150 BMS128 Atmospheric Exposure Tests of Nailed Sheet Metal Building Materials 200 BMS129 Fire Endurance of Shutters for Moving-Stairway Openings 100 BMS130 Methods and Equipment for Testing Printed-Enamel Felt-Base Floor Covering 150 BMS131 Fire Tests of Gunite Slabs and Partitions- -_ ___ 150 BMS132 Capacities of Plumbing Stacks in Buildings 200

BMS133 Live Loads on Floors in Buildings 200