Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1541

Indiana State Fair Commission

August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident


Investigative Report

Indiana State Fair Commission


1202 East 38th Street
Indianapolis, IN 46205-2869

Thornton Tomasetti Inc.


330 North Wabash Avenue
Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60611-7622
Phone: 312.596.2000
Fax: 312.596.2001

Scott G. Nacheman, MSc.Eng., AIA


Vice President

April 3, 2012

Gary A. Storm, P.E.


Principal

[This page left blank intentionally]

CONTENTS
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 5
Assignment and Role of Thornton Tomasetti .......................................................................................... 5
Limitations ................................................................................................................................................... 6
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 7
Summary of Key Findings .......................................................................................................................... 9
Summary of Key Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 10
1.0

Incident Description .................................................................................................................. 15

1.1

Location, Date and Timeline ................................................................................................... 15

1.2

Meteorological Information ...................................................................................................... 15

1.3

Relevant Parties ...................................................................................................................... 16

2.0

Information Sources ................................................................................................................. 19

2.1

Document Requests ................................................................................................................ 19

2.2

Sugarland Plot (Epic) .............................................................................................................. 19

2.3

Black and White Grid Layout................................................................................................... 19

2.4

Data in Band Contracts ........................................................................................................... 20

2.5

James Thomas Engineering Catalog ...................................................................................... 20

2.6

James Thomas Engineering Calculations by Jesse Mise ....................................................... 20

2.7

Indiana Department of Labor Interview Notes ........................................................................ 20

2.8

Imagery ................................................................................................................................... 20

3.0

Data acquisition and Protocols ............................................................................................... 23

3.1

Documentation ........................................................................................................................ 23

3.2

Site Protocols and Procedures................................................................................................ 27

4.0

Site and Structure Description ................................................................................................ 31

4.1

Site Description ....................................................................................................................... 31

4.2

Description of the ISF Structure .............................................................................................. 33

5.0

Codes and Standards ............................................................................................................... 49

5.1

Relevant Codes and Standards .............................................................................................. 49

5.2

Governing Codes and Standards ............................................................................................ 53

6.0
6.1

Analysis...................................................................................................................................... 57
Wind Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 58

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 1 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

6.2

Guy Line Tensioning Forces ................................................................................................... 59

6.3

SAP Finite Element Model ...................................................................................................... 60

6.4

Linear Elastic Analysis ............................................................................................................ 86

6.5

Simplified Analysis (Reasonable Engineer) Study ............................................................... 88

7.0

Summary & Conclusions.......................................................................................................... 97

7.1

ISF Structure Component Deficiencies and Commentary ...................................................... 97

7.2

Roles of Relevant Parties........................................................................................................ 98

8.0

Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 107

8.1

Permit and Enforcement Process ......................................................................................... 107

8.2

Codes and Standards Requirements .................................................................................... 107

8.3

Lateral Systems..................................................................................................................... 109

8.4

Operations ............................................................................................................................. 109

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 2 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: INCIDENT DESCRIPTION
A.1 Sugarland Schedule
APPENDIX B: INFORMATION SOURCES
B.1 IOSHA Log of Redactions & Documents Withheld
B.2 Black and White Grid Layout
B.3 Sugarland Rigging Plot 2011
B.4 2011 Contract and Related Documents
APPENDIX C: METHODOLOGY
C.1 Tagging Nomenclature
C.2 Laser Scan Locations
C.3 Site Access Protocol
C.4 Safety Plans and Procedures
C.5 Storage Facility Protocol
C.6 Chain of Custody Protocol
C.7 Damage Observation Summary
APPENDIX D: ANALYSIS
D.1 RWDI Report
D.2 Dead Weight Calculations
D.3 Jersey Barrier Capacity Calculations
D.4 TT Column Splice Capacity Calculations
D.5 TT Fin Plate Capacity Calculations
D.6 Wind Loading Analysis
D.7 Distributed Component Weights
D.8 Wire Rope Stiffness Calculations
D.9 Simplified Analysis Calculations
D.10 TT Review of James Thomas Engineering Calculations

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 3 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

APPENDIX E: TESTING
E.1 Jersey barrier Friction Testing Protocol
E.2 Jersey barrier Friction Testing Results
E.3 Metallurgical Testing Protocol
E.4 Metallurgical Testing Extracted Sample Locations
E.5 Metallurgical Testing Summary
E.6 Lucius Pitkin, Inc. (LPI) Metallurgical Testing Results
APPENDIX F: PHOTOGRAPHS AND MISCELLANEOUS DATA SOURCES
F.1 Select Recent Entertainment Rigging Collapses
F.2 2003 2011 Structure Configuration
F.3 James Thomas Engineering Catalog - 2006
F.4 Chain Hoist Specifications
F.5 Suspended Lighting Specifications
F.6 Applied Truss Triangular Truss Specifications
F.7 Tyler Truss Specifications
F.8 TomCat Truss Specifications
F.9 Electrical Cable Information
F.10 LED Screen/Scrim Specifications
F.11 Speaker and Speaker Components Specifications
F.12 FARO Laser Scanner Specifications
F.13 ETCP Certification and Local Records
F.14 Photos Wolf Technical Services
F.15 Photos Site Description
F.16 Photos Site Representative Components
F.17 Photos Site Component Weighing
F.18 Photos Extracted Metallurgical Samples
F.19 Photos Database Report Output
F.20 Photos Post - Collapse FIM - All Components

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 4 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

INTRODUCTION
On the evening of August 13, 2011, the Temporary Ground-Supported Structure Used to Cover the Stage
Area and Support Equipment in the Production of Outdoor Entertainment Events (hereinafter referred to
as the ISF Structure) that was erected over the Grandstand Stage at the Indiana State Fairgrounds
collapsed prior to the commencement of the evenings headline music event. This failure resulted in
seven (7) fatalities and many injuries.

Figure 1. Post-collapse image from video


Image Source: Wolf Technical Services Image capture on 8/13/2011

ASSIGNMENT AND ROLE OF THORNTON TOMASETTI


Thornton Tomasetti (TT) was retained by the Indiana State Fair Commission (ISFC) for the purposes of
rendering an independent Cause and Origin opinion regarding the failure of the ISF Structure. TT was
initially contacted on Sunday, August 14, 2011 regarding its availability and expertise in relation to
undertaking such an investigation. On Monday, August 15, 2011, TT was requested to be present at the
incident site in order to commence an investigation. TT performed initial reconnaissance and attended a
briefing on the afternoon of August 15, and began a formal investigation on Tuesday, August 16, 2011.
Through the month of November 2011, TT deployed an on-site investigative staff of two to seven forensic
engineers and/or architects. This on-site staff was supported by office-based professionals who provided
additional subject matter expertise, as well as post-processing and analysis of the data collected at the
site.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 5 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

TTs role consisted of defining the engineering-based causation of the failure, in addition to documenting
and archiving the collapse scene including structural and non-structural components in a highly detailed
manner (refer to Section 3.0). This investigation required TT to perform a code analysis and an
evaluation of relevant best practices of the engineering and entertainment industries. TT was responsible
for coordination of on-site activities and personnel involved with the investigation of the ISF Structure.
This role included collaboration with Indiana Department of Homeland Security and Indiana State Police
personnel to establish a credentialing and site access control system (refer to Site Access Protocol in
Appendix C.3), interaction with other agencies and personnel involved with investigative work and
coordination of third-party contractors for the stabilization and subsequent relocation of the debris. A
chain of custody system for components from the ISF Structure was established and maintained for
evidence that was transported off-site. TT was also asked to provide recommendations for improvements
in the practices surrounding the design, erection and use of similar structures at the Indiana State Fair
and other venues in the State of Indiana.
Based on TTs lack of access to both Interested Parties for interviews and documents from formal
discovery proceedings, the investigation did not include an evaluation of decision-making associated with
the collapse incident.
A second professional services firm, Witt Associates, is preparing an assessment focusing on the state of
preparedness and plans in place before the incident and how actions taken on August 13, 2011 compare
to those plans, standards and best practices.
However, notwithstanding the aforementioned, the reader should note that TT has investigated and is
presenting here a discussion of deviations from Building Code, Industry Standards and Best Practices in
this document.

LIMITATIONS
TTs professional services have been performed in accordance with the standards of skill and care
generally exercised by other professional consultants acting under similar circumstances and conditions
at the time the services were performed.
TTs findings, conclusions and opinions are based on TTs visual observations, professional experience,
interviews with those knowledgeable about the conditions pertinent to the subject of the investigation,
evaluation of reviewed documentation, and sound investigation practices.
While TTs findings are summarized as of the date of issuance, should new information or additional
documentation become available, TT may amend or revise its opinions and recommendations
accordingly.
No warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the findings presented in this report.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 6 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Thornton Tomasettis investigation of the August 13, 2011 Indiana State Fair Collapse Incident has
resulted in findings that identify deficiencies in the design, erection and use of the ISF Structure. These
findings are summarized below and are presented in greater detail within the sections of this report.
Structure Description
The ISF Structure is the property of Mid America Sound Corporation (MAS), and is erected on the Indiana
State Fairgrounds on an annual basis to serve as the roof and rigging support for concerts and other
entertainment events associated with the State Fair that are located on the Grandstand Stage. MAS
personnel coordinate the erection of the structure utilizing labor from the International Alliance of
Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States,
Its Territories and Canada (IATSE) Local #30. The ISFC contracts directly with both MAS and IATSE for
the delivery of these services.
The ISF Structure is a modular aluminum lattice superstructure comprising multiple pre-fabricated truss
components manufactured by James Thomas Engineering, a company based in the United Kingdom with
United States operations and manufacturing. The roof portion of the system is supported by truss
columns bearing on the top surface of the reinforced concrete slab that forms the roof of the below-grade
back of the house spaces (dressing rooms, offices, etc.) for the Grandstand Stage, which is situated
alongside the southern straightaway of the racetrack north of the main grandstands. This overhead
structure is utilized to support suspended entertainment technology equipment for the various
performances at the Grandstand Stage. The overall plan dimensions of the ISF Structure are
approximately 107 feet by 57 feet, and the top elevation of the ridge of the structure is 56 feet above the
ground/track elevation.
As noted above, the roof superstructure portion is supported on columns that resist gravity loads;
however, the primary lateral force resisting system employed at the ISF Structure is a guy line system.
This system consists of guy lines connected to Jersey barriers that provide lateral resistance through
self-weight and friction. The Jersey barriers utilized in the ISF Structure are located on various ground
surface conditions consisting of gravel, grass, sand and asphalt.
The guy line system at the ISF Structure comprises several different components including 3/8 diameter
wire rope, steel rigging shackles and synthetic webbing ratchet straps. The ratchet straps are used to
reduce slack in the guying system. A total of fourteen (14) guy lines connect to ten (10) Jersey barriers
within the system.
Investigation Methodology
TT conducted a detailed close-hand evaluation and documentation of debris from the ISF Structure.
Components of the structure and suspended equipment were identified using a unique nomenclature that
enabled investigators to locate the physical position from which a specific component originated. This
tagging system was used to develop an inventory and to identify components for TTs analytical studies.
Since design/engineering drawings of the ISF Structure were not available to Thornton Tomasetti, the
tagging system was utilized to generate a model of the as-built conditions of the structure. To aid in the
investigation, a database was established of the items tagged. Failures observed at each of the

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 7 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

components were recorded and photographed. The database was utilized to manage field-recorded data
while correlating related photographs and other field-recorded imagery. A laser scan of the post-collapse
site was also utilized to capture the collapse scene with millions of survey points in the form of threedimensional point cloud image of the collapsed structure. This point cloud was also utilized to establish
specific three-dimensional orthogonal locations for the evidence at the site.
Codes and Standards Review
TT evaluated both the governing codes and standards applicable to the ISF Structure in addition to the
available documents related to the design, erection and use of such structures. Evaluation of the
International Building Code (IBC) provisions for Use and Occupancy, Structural Loading, Temporary
Structures and Permitting was performed. In addition, the reference standards ASCE/SEI 7: Minimum
Design Loads for Building and Other Structures and ASCE 37: Design Loads on Structures during
Construction were utilized in TTs analysis.
Industry standards from the Entertainment Services and Technology Association (ESTA) and the
Professional Lighting and Sound Association (PLASA) were also reviewed and compared to international
standards of a similar nature.
The Indiana Building Code amendments to the International Building Code 2006 edition were evaluated,
in particular the variations between the boilerplate language and the modifications made within the State
of Indiana with regard to Use and Occupancy, Structural Loading and Temporary Structures, as well as
Permitting and Enforcement.
Analysis
TT performed several different types of analysis to evaluate the performance and capacities of the ISF
Structure utilizing detailed wind and weather analysis provided by RWDI. These studies included a
physical wind tunnel evaluation of a scale model of the ISF Structure to determine loads on the structure.
A finite element method (FEM) analysis was performed utilizing the detailed data that was collected
during the on-site investigation. Member sizes, configuration and geometry were replicated in the
analysis model. Two different types of FEM analysis were performed. The first, an incremental failure
analysis, determined the collapse mechanism and sequence. The second analysis applied the full wind
load case to determine whether the structure would have maintained stability if the guy line and ballast
had been sufficient.
As a check of the analysis results, a very simplified linear elastic hand calculation check was done of the
ISF Structure lateral resistance system. The capacity of the structure was analyzed by calculating the
stiffness of each component in the north and west direction and determining the distribution of lateral
forces based on stiffness.
A third study, the Simplified Analysis or Reasonable Engineer study was conducted to identify the types
of assumptions that would be appropriate in evaluating the stability of a structure of this type. Further, it
was intended to demonstrate the impact of those assumptions and highlight critical information essential
to reasonably carrying out an analysis of this type of structure.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 8 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS


1. The failure of the ISF Structure, as defined on Page 5 of this report, was due to the inadequate
capacity of the lateral load resisting system, which was comprised of guy lines connected to
concrete Jersey barrier ballast.
2. The ISF Structure was shown to fail at wind speeds lower than those specified under even the
most liberal provisions of applicable building codes and reference standards.
3. Based on testing and calculation, it was determined the lateral load resisting system of the ISF
Structure as rigged on August 13, 2011 was capable of resisting winds speeds ranging from 25
miles per hour to 43 miles per hour (depending on wind direction).
4. Calculations and in-situ physical testing determined the Jersey barrier ballast system had grossly
inadequate capacity to resist both the minimum code-specified wind speed (68 miles per hour)
and the actual wind speed that was present at the time of the failure (approximately 59 miles per
hour).
5. Even if the ballast system had provided sufficient resistance, the synthetic webbing ratchet straps
and wire rope guy lines used did not have sufficient strength to resist forces resulting from the
North wind case under the wind loads of August 13, 2011 that were of a smaller magnitude than
the code-specified requirements.
6. Even if the ballast system and guy line system had provided sufficient strength to resist the wind
loads, the fin plate connections to the structure did not have sufficient strength to resist forces
resulting from the North, West and Northwest wind cases under the wind loads of August 13,
2011 that were of a smaller magnitude than the code-specified requirements.
7. The ISF Structure was shown to fail at the August 13, 2011 wind speed without the addition of
loading caused by the roof tarp displacement.
8. Timing of the roof tarp ridge panel release would not have had an effect on maintaining stability of
the ISF Structure.
9. The technical information presented in the James Thomas Engineering catalog is insufficient to
adequately design a structure such as the ISF Structure, yet there is no explicit direction to
engage the services of a licensed design professional to analyze complex loading configurations
or conditions.
10. Structural analysis performed by James Thomas Engineerings structural engineer falls short of
adequately addressing the actual loading conditions of the Sugarland set and suspended
entertainment technology equipment for the 2010 show (for which the structure was analyzed) or
the code-defined environmental loading conditions to which the ISF Structure could be subjected.
11. There is no evidence of an engineering review of the 2011 Sugarland Rigging Plot by a licensed
design professional prior to August 13, 2011.
12. Regardless of the inadequacy of the directions of James Thomas Engineerings structural
engineer, Mid America Sound Corporations installation of the ISF Structure deviated from the
INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 9 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

directions provided in the calculations performed by that structural engineer with regard to the
lateral load resisting system.
13. Mid America Sound Corporations configuration and erection of the ISF Structure did not include
a review by a licensed design professional to determine the capacities or limitations of the ISF
Structure.
14. The current interpretation of governing code language in the State of Indiana waives
requirements for the appropriate design, review, permitting or inspection of structures such as the
ISF Structure, despite the fact that these are highly complex constructions erected in the vicinity
of high population densities.
15. The Indiana State Fair Commission staff has no records, documentation, plans, engineering
reports or related technical data regarding the ISF Structure that is erected at the Fairgrounds on
an annual basis.
16. The Indiana State Fair Commission staff does not have knowledge regarding the wind limitations
of the ISF Structure sufficient to establish an appropriate risk mitigation plan for the Grandstand
Stage site.

SUMMARY OF KEY RECOMMENDATIONS


1. Entertainment structures should be designed by a licensed design professional with experience in
the design and evaluation of temporary entertainment structures with complex loading
configurations. Analysis should be performed for the engineered structure and for the
establishment of highly specific rigging rules and limitations for its use. For productions that do
not conform to the resulting pre-approved rigging configurations, a separate engineering
analysis should be performed.
2. The design referenced above should be subject to all code and permitting requirements of Class
1 structures, in addition to a third-party peer review if the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) does
not have adequate capability to perform the plan review. This review should be performed for the
engineered structure and for the established rigging rules and limitations for its use. For
productions that do not conform to the pre-approved rigging configurations, a separate review
should be performed.
3. A Special Inspection of the completed structure should be completed by an independent licensed
design professional with experience in the design and/or evaluation of temporary structures.
4. Operational controls implemented or considered in the design and use of entertainment
structures should reflect the complexity of modern productions, including the limited ability to
rapidly reduce loads by removing the suspended entertainment technology used in these
productions. Systems should be designed for the appropriate code-prescribed wind speeds, and
operational contingency plans should also be developed to address extreme events such as high
winds.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 10 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

5. Environmental and site-specific loading conditions should be analyzed for the specific structure to
be erected and the suspended entertainment technology equipment to be suspended.
6. Structure Class and Occupancy classifications of entertainment structures should be based on
both the risk and hazards associated with their failure and on their cumulative exposure to risk
from wind loads and varying rigging loads, rather than their exposure in an individual season of
use.
7. Modifications to model codes and reference standards should not alter the intent of the original
code language with regard to life-safety, nor should local amendments partially delete model
provisions that are not properly addressed elsewhere in those local amendments.
8. Guy line anchor systems for entertainment structures should utilize fixed, mechanical anchors
whenever possible.
9. The entertainment industry would benefit from the development of comprehensive engineeringbased documents related to the design, construction and use of entertainment structures.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 11 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 12 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Section 1.0
Incident Description

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 13 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 14 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

1.0
1.1

INCIDENT DESCRIPTION
Location, Date and Timeline
According to timecard records obtained from the Indiana State Fair Commission, the ISF
Structure was erected on the permanent stage located north of the Hoosier Lottery Grandstand
between the dates of August 2 and August 4, 2011. The ISF Structure was to be used as the
overhead rigging grid for headliner concerts that were organized as part of the Indiana State Fair,
which took place between August 5 and August 21, 2011. Note: All dates and times mentioned
hereafter in this document are with reference to Eastern Daylight Saving Time (EDT).
According to tour information obtained during the investigation (see Appendix A.1), the timeline
for August 13, 2011 was scheduled as follows:
8:00 am

Load-in begins

3:00 pm

Sound checks begin

6:30 pm

Doors open for patrons

7:30 pm

Sara Bareilles opening act

8:45 pm

Sugarland performance

10:00 pm

Crew call back

As per the schedule, the live performance by Sara Bareilles was to commence at 7:30 pm and
end at 8:15 pm. After the Sara Bareilles performance, Sugarland was scheduled to perform on
the stage at 8:45 pm. At approximately 8:49 pm, the ISF Structure collapsed.
1.2

Meteorological Information
Thunderstorms developed in Indiana ahead of a cold front during the afternoon and into the early
evening of August 13, 2011. At 6:00 pm, the National Weather Services Storm Prediction Center
in Norman, Oklahoma issued Severe Thunderstorm Watch number 777 for central Indiana. At the
time, the Emergency Alert System bulletin noted that this particular thunderstorm line was
capable of producing wind gusts of up to 70 miles per hour. The severe weather reports started
after 7:00 pm. As these storms moved across central Indiana, they brought damaging winds and
large hail to the area. At 8:39 pm, the National Weather Service in Indianapolis issued a Severe
Thunderstorm Warning for all of Marion County effective until 9:45 pm. As per the warning
bulletin, this specific severe thunderstorm cell was capable of producing winds in excess of 60
miles per hour and was heading eastward at approximately 25 miles per hour.
According to the bulletin, at approximately 8:50 pm, the storms would be near Danville, Indiana, a
city that is approximately 20 miles west of the Indiana State Fairgrounds. The storms continued to
move eastward across the Indianapolis metropolitan area through 9:30 p.m., producing additional
wind and hail.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 15 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

1.3

Relevant Parties
Many organizations and agencies are involved with the concert productions at the Grandstand
Stage of the Indiana State Fair. Thornton Tomasettis investigation focused on those entities that
have an involvement with the ISF Structure. Refer to the chart below for a list of parties. Roles
and responsibilities of parties directly involved with the design and erection of the structure are
described in later sections of this report.

Figure 2. Organization of relevant parties

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 16 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Section 2.0
Information Sources

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 17 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 18 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

2.0
2.1

INFORMATION SOURCES
Document Requests
Throughout the course of the investigation, documentation provided to Thornton Tomasetti from
involved parties was extremely limited in nature. Despite multiple requests to representatives of
Mid America Sound and James Thomas Engineering, counsel for these firms denied the requests
for information made by both TT and counsel for the Indiana State Fair Commission. As a result,
TT was forced to rely heavily on field documentation and survey work to determine the geometry
and construction details of the ISF Structure. Components were field-surveyed, measured and
documented in a highly detailed manner so that a reverse engineering of the ISF Structure
could be completed.
The documents listed below represent the extent of technical
documentation received /obtained by TT.
It should be noted that, based on a review of the Indiana State Fair Stage Collapse Investigation
Occupational Safety and Health Administration Log of Redactions & Documents Withheld dated
February 2012, TT determined that many of the specific types of documents requested by TT
were produced for the Indiana Occupational Health and Safety Administration (IOSHA) as part of
the Department of Labor investigation, yet declared a Trade Secret by Mid America Sound
and/or James Thomas Engineering, thereby preventing release of said documents for review by
TT. Refer to Appendix B.1 for the IOSHA log.

2.2

Sugarland Plot (Epic)


The rigging plot dated May 16, 2011 for the production design of the 2011 Sugarland tour was
generated by Epic Production Technologies. TT was forwarded an electronic copy of this file on
August 15, 2011 from Margaret Davidson of the Indiana State Fair Commission who received it
on August 14, 2011 from Eric Milby, contractor for Dave Lucas Entertainment.
This plot was used to provide the geometry and weights of the suspended entertainment
technology equipment to the parties responsible for erecting and rigging the ISF Structure. It
provides details of the rigging chain hoists in terms of their quantity, approximate location on the
ISF Structure, capacities and the height at which the lighting trusses were to be supported or
suspended (trim height). Also, the rigging plot provides details of the chain hoists that were to be
suspended below the lighting trusses to support additional equipment, although a description of
these secondary suspended loads is not provided.

2.3

Black and White Grid Layout


This drawing was received from Indiana State Fair Commission staff and provides overall
geometry of the plan and elevation of the ISF Structure, as it was intended to be configured in
2010. It depicts a grid of trusses supported on columns. The structures dimensions are noted as
76-6 x 58-0 in plan and 35 in height from the stage surface to the bottom of the super truss
grid. The interior bays of the truss grid are depicted as 16 x 16. The allowable weight per span
was noted to be 10,000 lbs and the total weight of the structure was not to exceed 54,000 lbs
(including any loads to be suspended from the system).

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 19 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

2.4

Data in Band Contracts


The Sugarland 2011 Tour Contract Rider dated January 18, 2010 contains a paragraph (G) titled
Outdoor Performance on page 14. This section states that For outdoor performances, the stage
MUST have a 60 x 48 self-supporting, load-bearing stage roofThis load bearing roof should
span the performance stage by its fullest dimensions and be able to support a rigging weight
capacity minimum of 40,000 lbs.

2.5

James Thomas Engineering Catalog


The James Thomas Engineering (JTE) 2006 catalog (2006 Product Range) was downloaded by
TT on August 16, 2011 from http://www.jthomaseng.com. The document provides information
about the products and accessories offered by JTE for the entertainment industry. Information
with regard to the weight, available lengths and maximum allowable distributed and point loads
are specified for the trusses and the tower systems utilized in structures such as the ISF
Structure.
Information regarding operating instructions, procedures for assembly, erection and disassembly
of the various tower systems and inspection of the trusses to ensure safety and proper use of the
components is provided in the catalog.
The JTE 2006 catalog does not contain any information with regard to several of the key
structural components of the ISF Structure or the tarpaulin/membrane that was used to cover the
top of the ISF Structure.

2.6

James Thomas Engineering Calculations by Jesse Mise


Thornton Tomasetti reviewed a calculation package from Jesse Mise, P.E. titled Indiana State
Fair by Mid America Sound dated 7/22/10, 7/23/10 and 7/24/10. Refer to Appendix D.10 for a
discussion of this document.

2.7

Indiana Department of Labor Interview Notes


Thornton Tomasetti has reviewed the interview notes contained within the files of the Indiana
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration related to the Indiana State
Fair Collapse Incident Investigation. These documents were obtained by TT through a State of
Indiana Access to Public Records Act request made on January 12, 2012 and files were released
subsequent to the February 8, 2012 IOSHA citations.

2.8

Imagery
Thornton Tomasetti made a request for pre-collapse and post-collapse imagery to State of
Indiana agencies as well as the public through the use of the State Fair Commission Collapse
Incident web portal at http://www.in.gov/sfc/.
In response to these requests, TT received
numerous images from the Indiana State Fair Commission staff, the Indiana State Police, as well
as from many residents and non-residents of the State of Indiana.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 20 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Section 3.0
Data Acquisition and Protocols

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 21 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 22 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

3.0

DATA ACQUISITION AND PROTOCOLS


The investigation proceeded in accordance with ASTM E 1459-92 Standard Guide for Physical
Labeling and Related Documentation. Due to the catastrophic failure of the ISF Structure, all major
structural and load-imposing components of the structure were labeled to aid in searching for and/or
ruling out possible failure mechanisms. The labeling of the major components of the ISF Structure
required the implementation of a tagging nomenclature that would allow other parties having
various levels of familiarity with the site or the structure to clearly reconstruct the pre-collapse
scene. Nomenclature was developed to maintain a logical numerical inventory of the different types
of components in the structure and the failures observed, and to facilitate the diagrammatic
reconstruction of the pre-collapse scene utilizing post-collapse scene observations. Since drawings
of the collapsed structure were not available at the time of the investigation, the tagging
nomenclature was utilized to generate a model of the as-built conditions of the structure. To aid in
the investigation, a database was established of the items tagged. Failures observed at each of the
components were recorded and photographed. The database was utilized to manage field-recorded
data while correlating related photographs and other field-recorded imagery. A laser scan of the
post-collapse site was also utilized to capture the collapse scene with millions of survey points in the
form of a three dimensional point cloud image of the collapsed structure. This point cloud was
utilized to establish specific three-dimensional orthogonal locations for evidence at the site.

3.1

Documentation

3.1.1 Tagging System


A unique identifier code or tag was assigned to each major component in the ISF Structure
to generate a universal identification of the component as it pertained to its intended use
and/or location on the structure. See Appendix C.1 for a detailed diagrammatic description of
this tagging nomenclature system.
The unique identifier for each of the elements tagged was generated with the intent of having
the alpha-numeric tag indicate the specific location within the structure at which the
component was located relative to a pre-designated grid. The pre-designated grid was
established using the southwest corner of the structure as the datum from which other points
were located. Component identification was based on using the southwest corner as the
origin and numbering sequentially to the east, north and skyward as appropriate. Moreover,
the identification tags specifically indicate the points of connection of the various components
within the ISF Structure. To record specific failures in columns, main trusses and nodes, a
localized nomenclature was implemented to identify locations at which failures were
observed. The localized labeling of elements was only implemented if damage was observed.
This secondary system indicates which plane the element being labeled was in, the element
number on the face of the component counting from the bottom up for columns or from the
most western or most southern point for elements such as main trusses, purlins or gable roof
trusses. The failures recorded consisted of: Base Metal Failure; Weld Failure; Buckling;
Rupture; Yielding; Tearing; Impact; and Weld Delamination. The recording of localized
failures was of particular importance for the columns as it was imperative to identify failure
types on the column end-plate splices.
INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 23 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Other unique identifiers were utilized in documenting the guy line system. The wire rope and
ratchet strap lengths were measured so the pre-collapse location and connection points of
the Jersey barriers could be determined.
In addition to the components of the ISF Structure, the suspended entertainment technology
equipment components and hardware were also cataloged and tagged. Recorded information
consisted of location, geometry, size and mass of the suspended components. Moreover,
the points at which the suspended components connected to the main structure and purlins
were also recorded. Sling locations were noted and physically marked on the overhead
structure. Chain and sling lengths were also measured to determine the trim height of the
suspended components. This information was entered into the database and was utilized in
the calculation of weight distribution in TTs subsequent analysis (see Appendix F.20).

Figure 3. Annotated photo depicting representative tagging nomenclature


Background Image Source: Indiana State Police (ISP) Image capture on 8/14/2011

3.1.2 Database
Product code labels and years of manufacture were recorded and photographed when they
were located on the components. Photographs taken of the tagged evidence were entered
into the database, along with relevant information regarding the type of failure, location of the
failures, location of the component, manufacturer, year of manufacturing, place of
manufacturing for the truss elements or rigged component and rated capacities where
applicable (see Appendix F.20 for database report output.). The implementation of the
database permitted the information recorded in the field to be easily sorted and queried to
identify patterns that would aid the investigation process. The system also permitted field
verification and quality assurance/quality control checks of the data when anomalies were
identified.
INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 24 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

3.1.3 Photographs
All components identified, tagged and entered in the database were also photographed
during the on-site investigation. This information was utilized to facilitate both the modeling
and the analysis of the ISF Structure. Post-collapse photographs were also annotated with
the tagging nomenclature to aid in the investigation and to correlate close-hand images with
the overall geometry of the post-collapse scene.
3.1.4 Laser Scan
In order to accurately document the post-collapse geometry and configuration of the site, TT
employed laser scanning technology to generate a detailed electronic three-dimensional
model of the ISF Structure and surrounding elements. Laser scanning was conducted by
professionals from True Design Services, Inc.
3D

A FARO Laser Scanner Focus was utilized in this process. The unit is a three-dimensional
laser scanner capable of capturing highly detailed measurement data through the use of laser
technology.
The resulting image is an assembly of millions of three-dimensional
measurement points that provide a digital reproduction of existing conditions.
The scanner emits a laser beam from a rotating mirror out towards the area being scanned.
Then the unit distributes the laser beam at a maximum vertical range of 305 and a maximum
horizontal range of 360. The laser beam is reflected back to the scanner by objects in its
path. The distance to the objects is calculated as well as their relative vertical and horizontal
positions.
The scanner generates points with an x, y and z measurement assigned to each point.
Several scans from multiple locations are combined to generate a three-dimensional image of
an object (the point cloud). Before starting the data acquisition, spherical targets are placed
around the site in various locations. These are used as reference points by the scanner to
correlate images from the multiple scans into one contiguous image/model. A total of 37
scans were performed at the ISF Structure site (see Appendix C.2 for scan locations).
The scanner also has an integrated camera that allows photographs to be superimposed on
the point cloud. This imagery is used by the system to associate color with the scanned
points.
After the scans are completed and the data is processed, proprietary software can be used to
navigate through the three-dimensional electronic model and measure elements contained
within it.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 25 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Figure 4a. Image capture from laser scan location #1

3.1.5 Testing
Various types of specialized tests were performed in conjunction with the ISF Structure
Collapse Incident investigation. Some of this work was conducted by Thornton Tomasetti
and some by independent firms with specific areas of expertise. As noted in subsequent
sections of this report, RWDI performed meteorological and wind analysis studies in
cooperation with TT and Lucius Pitkin, Inc. performed metallurgical and mechanical
evaluation and testing of specimens from the ISF Structure.

Figure 4b. Wind tunnel testing of ISF Structure scale model at RWDI

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 26 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Figure 4c. Mechanical testing of column splice at Lucius Pitkin, Inc.

3.2

Site Protocols and Procedures


Thornton Tomasetti was responsible for coordination of on-site activities and personnel involved
with the investigation of the ISF Structure. This included coordinating site access control systems
and site protocols (see Appendix C.3 C.6 for copies of investigation Protocols).

3.2.1 ISFC Collapse Incident Investigation Protocol


The Indiana State Fair Commission Collapse Incident Failure Investigation Site Access
Protocol (see Appendix C.3) was developed and implemented to control and monitor the
access of parties who required access to the incident location. In addition, it also defines
control of the evidence and other materials within the collapse area. The following information
is contained in the protocol:

Definition of Authorized Individuals who are eligible for site access.

Description of security and control perimeters preventing access to the site by


unauthorized personnel.

Identification of access points that control entry for personnel and vehicles.

Location and number of uniformed security personnel on the site.

Definition of requirements for preservation of evidence.

Preliminary requirements for Personal Protective Equipment. A more detailed Safety


Plans and Procedures document was authored by Safety Management personnel
from Wilhelm Construction when the construction manager was mobilized to assist
with on-site stabilization and site safety management duties (see Appendix C.4).

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 27 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

3.2.2 Failure Investigation Evidence Storage Facility Protocol


The Failure Investigation Evidence Storage Facility Protocol (see Appendix C.5) was
developed and implemented to control and track the access of personnel who required
access to the evidence storage facility in addition to controlling the materials within the
evidence storage facility. The storage facility is used to store the various components from
the ISF Structure. The following information is contained in the protocol:

Definition of Authorized Individuals whom are eligible for storage facility access.

Description of security measures in place at the storage facility.

Location of control points and definition of the procedures in place at the control
points to limit access to the storage facility.

Identification of the components of the ISF Structure that will undergo evaluation and
testing.

Procedures regarding handling of the preserved evidentiary materials in the storage


facility by Authorized Individuals.

Procedures regarding disposal of ISF Structure components at the conclusion of TTs


investigation.

3.2.3 Failure Investigation Chain of Custody Protocol


The Failure Investigation Chain of Custody Protocol (see Appendix C.6) was developed and
implemented to appropriately track and control the materials collected from various locations
on the project site. This procedure applies to personal property that was located on-site as
well as components of the ISF Structure. Due to the evidentiary nature of the ISF Structure
components and samples collected, the chain of custody is established so the components
are traceable from the time the samples are collected until the time they are introduced as
evidence in legal proceedings. Evidence control procedures defined within the protocol are
utilized in the chain of custody. The following information is contained in the protocol:

Identification and labeling of materials removed from the site.

Specific information required to be provided on a sample tag/label.

Definition of conditions under which a sample is considered to be in custody.

Procedure for releasing and receiving materials in the Chain of Custody log.

Guidelines for material/sample handling, preservation and storage.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 28 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Section 4.0
Site and Structure Description

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 29 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 30 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

4.0
4.1

SITE AND STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION


Site Description
The ISF Structure was erected at the Indiana State Fairgrounds located at 1202 East 38th Street,
in Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana (see Figure 5). It was erected on a reinforced concrete
stage structure located alongside the southern straightaway of the racetrack, north of the
grandstands of the Indiana State Fairgrounds (see Figure 6 and Figure 7). To the south, an
approximately 85- foot-wide racetrack separated the ISF Structure from a steel-framed
grandstand structure. The ISF Structure was surrounded to the west, north and east by open
unobstructed terrain. At the time of the collapse there were numerous semi-trailers, box-trucks,
motor coaches, office trailers and other smaller vehicles in the direct vicinity of the ISF Structure.
Additionally, during the concert event, seats for concert viewers were located directly south of the
ISF Structure on the racetrack (see Figure 8. Note several vehicles and seating were removed
subsequent to the collapse and before this image was captured).

Figure 5. Image showing location and extent of the Indiana State Fairgrounds,
Indianapolis (looking north)
Source: Pictometry. Image capture on 4/10/2010

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 31 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Figure 6. View of the grandstands, racetrack and stage at the Indiana State Fairgrounds,
Indianapolis (looking south)
Source: Pictometry. Image capture on 4/10/2010

Figure 7. Location of the grandstands (Yellow) and stage (Red) at the Indiana State Fairgrounds,
Indianapolis (looking south)
Source: Pictometry. Image capture on 4/10/2010

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 32 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Figure 8. View of collapsed structure, grandstand and stage, Indiana State Fairgrounds,
Indianapolis (looking south)
Source: Indiana State Police (ISP) Image capture on 8/14/2011

4.2

Description of the ISF Structure


The ISF Structure is a modular aluminum lattice superstructure comprising multiple prefabricated
truss sections manufactured by James Thomas Engineering. The roof portion of the structure is
supported by truss columns bearing (without mechanical connection) on the top surface of the
reinforced concrete slab that forms the roof of the below-grade back of the house spaces
(dressing rooms, offices, etc.) for the Grandstand Stage. This concrete surface is located
approximately 3-6 above the surrounding ground/track elevation. The overall plan dimensions of
the ISF Structure are approximately 107 feet by 57 feet, and the top elevation of the ridge of the
structure is 56 feet above the ground/track elevation.
Based on the field survey of component labels and placards, the ISF Structures components
were manufactured between 1995 and 2010. Some components were manufactured
domestically, while others were produced in the United Kingdom. Details are provided in the
Photo Database (see Appendix F.20).
The weight of the structure and suspended entertainment technology equipment was established
by weighing representative components in the field. The total self-weight of the structure is
approximately 25,300 lbs and total weight of suspended entertainment technology equipment
supported by the ISF Structure is approximately 44,300 lbs.
For the purposes of this report, the components of the ISF Structure have been grouped into four
(4) sub-groups: superstructure, column truss towers, suspended entertainment technology

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 33 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

equipment and lateral load resisting elements. Figures 10 and 11 depict exploded views of the
ISF Structure. Note that for clarity, the suspended entertainment technology equipment and
lateral load resisting elements are not shown, and the blue roof tarp (membrane) is depicted as a
single one-piece component.
The lateral load resisting system consists of fourteen (14) guy lines that are connected to ten (10)
reinforced concrete Jersey barriers. The guy lines are 3/8" diameter steel wire ropes and are
tightened with the use of ratchet straps. The guy lines are connected by steel hooks to embedded
steel loops in the ends of the Jersey barriers to provide resistance to lateral loads and uplift via
friction and gravity only. There is no positive connection between the Jersey barriers and the
ground surface.

Jersey barrier similar to those used at the ISF Structure

4.2.1 Components and Configuration Terminology

Figure 9. Pre-collapse photograph of ISF Structure


Image Source: Meredith Gradle Image capture on 8/13/2011

4.2.1.1 Superstructure Components


Main trusses are located at the bottom chord of the gable roof lattice superstructure.
These trusses are composed of multiple 2-6 wide by 2-2 deep and 8-0 long trusses

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 34 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

pinned together with node components to span from both the west to east and north to
south. These trusses are referred to in the James Thomas Engineering 2006 catalog as
Super Pre-rigged trusses and are fabricated from 2 diameter tube chords and 1
diameter tube web members. These members are indicated in green in Figures 10 and
11 below.
Rafter trusses (rafters) are the sloped top chord of the superstructure that forms the
gable roof. These east-west spanning trusses are compression elements of the gable
roof lattice superstructure and support the roof tarp. The rafters are 1-0 wide by 1-0
deep truss elements of varying lengths and are fabricated from 2 diameter tube chords
and 1 diameter tube web members. Each of the tubular chords is connected at both
ends and interconnects to form one sloped face of the 35-0 gable roof span. Note the
rafter trusses do not have direct connections to the roof tarp. Rafter truss members are
indicated in orange in Figures 10 and 11 below.
Gable web trusses are located between the rafters and the main trusses. These
vertical members are 1-0 wide by 1-0 deep truss elements of varying lengths and are
fabricated from 2 diameter tube chords and 1 diameter tube web members that
connect the bottom chord of the main trusses of the gable roof truss to the rafters at
column lines C, D and E. Wire rope members also serve to provide tension capacity in
this plane. These members are indicated in light purple in Figures 10 and 11 below.
Ridge trusses span north-south and interconnect the rafters at each bay. These
members are indicated in blue and span between the rafters along column line D in the
Figures below. The blue tarp membrane is directly connected to the ridge via straps.
Purlin trusses bear on the top chords of the main trusses and support the majority of
the loads imposed by the suspended entertainment technology equipment such as the
lighting, rigged trusses, LED screen and the LED scrim curtain. The purlins vary in size
between 15 wide by 15 deep and 20.5 wide by 20.5 deep, comprising two 10-0 long
sections and fabricated from 2 diameter tube chords and 1 diameter tube web
members. The purlin trusses are secured to the main trusses with knotted web slings
and shackles. These slings are referred to as purlin tie slings in this report. The purlin
members in the ISF Structure are indicated in red in Figures 10 and 11 below.
Strut trusses are located at the extreme western and eastern wings of the ISF
Structure and are diagonal in plan orientation. The struts are composed of two 20.5
wide by 20.5 deep sections with a length of 8-0 and 10-0. The truss sections are
connected to the main trusses through other articulating components. These trusses
are used to stabilize the Public Address (PA) wings from which the speaker arrays are
suspended. These members are indicated in light green in Figures 10 and 11 below.
Chain hoists are 1-ton-rated chain hoists manufactured by Columbus McKinnon. The
hoists are connected to the exterior nodes and use a chain to transfer vertical loads
from the main trusses to the columns (see Figure 12). The chain hoists allow raising
and lowering of the superstructure along the columns. Note that once the
superstructure is raised to its proper height, the roof truss load, including the weight of

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 35 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

suspended entertainment technology equipment, is carried by ratchet straps extending


over the columns, perpendicular to the hoist chains.

Figure 10. Exploded View: All components

Figure 11. Exploded View: Superstructure, columns and tarp

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 36 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Nodes / Sleeve blocks as referenced in the James Thomas Engineering 2006 catalog
are divided into five types of nodes: interior main truss to main truss node, exterior
main truss to main truss node, column to exterior main truss node, column to interior
main truss clamped node and strut to column and main truss node. For detailed
photographs of the specific nodes, please refer to Appendix F.20.

The main truss to main truss nodes are composed of a thick aluminum plate
at the bottom face used to connect the bottom chords of four (4) intersecting main
trusses and the vertical gable web trusses. The top face of the nodes is framed by a
thick aluminum plate with a large opening to permit the gable web truss
members to pass through and to be connected to the bottom face plate of the node
described above. The top plate of the node connects the top chord of four (4)
intersecting main trusses. The remaining faces of the node are framed by the end
elements that are part of the main trusses. These nodes are indicated in orange in
Figure 13.

At the exterior main truss to main truss nodes the thick aluminum plates
connect the three main truss elements and place a gate at the exterior face. The
exterior gate is composed of 1 diameter tubes arranged in a cross-brace fashion
with 1 diameter tubes in a vertical orientation, and 2 diameter tubes in the
horizontal plane that frame the cross-brace and connect to the adjacent main
trusses with pins. These nodes are indicated in blue in Figure 13.

The column to exterior main truss nodes are composed of thick plates with
an interior opening at the top and bottom. The opening at the top and bottom plates
of the node permits the column to pass through the node, allowing the
superstructure to climb. These nodes have a total of four (4) roller bearings
(casters) at both the top and bottom plates of the node, resisting in-plane and outof-plane horizontal displacements of the column within the node but permitting
vertical movement. Per the James Thomas Engineering 2006 catalog 12 and 15
Ground Supported Support Towers Operating Instructions The stability of the
tower is derived from the sleeving action of the sleeve block. Note these nodes at
the exterior also have chain hoists attached to either 1 thick fin plates or rigging
slings attached to the bottom plate of the nodes. The fin plates connect two critical
components of the ISF Structure: the chain hoists and the guy line system. The
chain hoists connect to the fin plate, extend over the top of the roller beam at the
top of the column and connect to the main trusses adjacent to the node. The fin
plate connection to the guy line system transfers the lateral loads imposed on the
ISF Structure to the lateral force resisting guy line system. These nodes are
indicated in red in Figure 13.

The column to interior main truss clamped nodes are composed of rectangular
tube sections clamped to the bottom chord of the main trusses on column lines C, D
and E between column lines 3 and 4. These nodes are connected to the top of the
three interior black supplemental columns (see Column truss towers section below).
These nodes are indicated in green in Figure 13.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 37 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

The strut to column and main truss nodes are located at the easternmost and
westernmost ends of the PA wings of the ISF Structure. These nodes connect the
main trusses to the strut and the columns. Each node consists of rectangular tube
sections on both the top and bottom faces. The top and bottom faces also have
wheels that restrict the columns, horizontal in-plane and out-of-plane displacement
but permit vertical movement up and down the columns, similar to the column to
exterior main truss nodes. The face connected to the strut consists of a thick
prefabricated aluminum plate that connects the strut to the node in an end plate
connection manner. The other faces of the nodes consist of 2 diameter tubes
welded together to make a cube. Note that while small corner gussets are utilized,
cross-bracing is not present at any of the faces of these nodes. These nodes are
indicated in cyan in Figure 13.

Figure 12. Column nodes and Chain hoist

Tarp/Membrane. The blue-colored roof tarp is composed of three separate panels.


The east and west panels are directly connected to the ISF Structure via ratchet straps
at the eaves (main trusses) and ridge truss. Knotted rope is used to secure the tarp
along the gable ends. The middle ridge panel is attached to the east and west panels
via four 2 wide Velcro strips along each side of the ridge, distributed from north to
south. The tarp membrane is indicated in blue in Figures 10 and 11.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 38 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Figure 13. Node/Sleeve Locations and Types

4.2.1.2 Column truss towers (Columns)


Column truss towers are composed of various modular sections ranging from 3-6 to
10-0 in length. At the top of the column are aluminum cross-head roller beams
fabricated from channel sections. The lower pair is used as a guide for the chain
associated with the chain hoists used to lift the roof system. The upper pair is
perpendicular to the lower pair and is used as a guide for the ratchet strap that acts as
a safety lock-off to secure the roof superstructure system at its designated trim height.
There are three column types used within the ISF Structure. The total height of the
columns bearing on the stage is 46-0. These columns are indicated in gray in Figure
10 and Figure 11. The total height of the columns that are off the stage surface and
bearing on the ground/track is 50-0. These columns are indicated in cyan in Figure 10
and Figure 11. The columns indicated in black in Figure 10 and Figure 11 are
approximately 40-0 in height and are bearing on the stage. The 40- 0 black columns
are clamped to the bottom side of the main trusses on column lines C, D and E
between column lines 3 and 4. This node connection to the bottom chord of the main
trusses restricts the extent of downward movement of the superstructure to the height
of the 40- 0 black columns. Therefore, in order for the superstructure to be lowered,
these columns must be removed.
Each of the column modules is spliced utilizing connections in an end plate connection
configuration and is fastened with four (4) diameter steel bolts, two (2) on the south
face and two (2) on the north face of the column.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 39 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

4.2.1.3 Suspended light fixture trusses and miscellaneous equipment:


The suspended light fixture trusses (rigged trusses) are supported from the purlins and
the main trusses. These light fixtures trusses comprise the majority of the overhead
dead load from the suspended entertainment technology equipment utilized at the ISF
Structure. The rigged trusses are suspended from the main trusses and/or the purlins
via a system of rigging slings and chain hoists that permits raising or lowering of the
rigged trusses. There are a total of five (5) manufacturers of the rigged trusses: Total
Structures, TomCat, Applied Structures, James Thomas Engineering and Tyler
Trusses. The different rigged trusses are assigned an identifying color by the production
crew through the use of colored tape that can be observed on the individual trusses.
The different trusses are referred to as red, orange, white, blue and purple. Refer to
Figure 14 below for a graphical representation of these trusses. Identification of the
specific manufacturers for each rigged truss is provided in Appendix F.20.

Figure 14. Truss color nomenclature for suspended entertainment technology equipment

The LED screen, the LED scrim curtain and other components of the suspended
entertainment technology equipment are suspended from the rigged trusses with hoists
of ton, 1 ton or 2 ton capacities. Based on on-site weighing, the combined weight of
the suspended entertainment technology equipment including the rigged trusses and
hoists/rigging slings connecting it to the superstructure is approximately 44,300 lbs.
4.2.1.4 Lateral force resisting system
In addition to some rigidity provided by the column/sleeve block connections, the
primary lateral force resisting system employed at the ISF Structure is a guy line
system. This system consists of guy lines connected to Jersey barriers that provide
lateral resistance through self-weight and friction. The Jersey barriers (also referred to
as k-rails in many western states) are reinforced concrete modular barriers originally

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 40 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

designed for dividing traffic lanes. The Jersey barriers utilized in the ISF Structure are
located on varying surface conditions consisting of gravel, grass, sand and asphalt
surfaces.
The guy line system at the ISF Structure comprises several different components,
including 3/8 diameter wire rope, steel rigging shackles and synthetic webbing ratchet
straps. The ratchet straps are used to induce a pre-stress (tension) in the guying
system. A total of fourteen (14) guy lines connect to ten (10) Jersey barriers within the
system. A total of six (6) guy lines connected to four (4) Jersey barriers contribute to
lateral load resistance in the west to east or east to west direction. A total of six (6) guy
lines connected to four (4) Jersey barriers contribute to lateral load resistance in the
north to south direction and a total of four (4) guy lines connected to two (2) Jersey
barriers contributed to lateral load resistance in the south to north direction (see Figures
15, 16 and 17).

Figure 15. Plan view of lateral force resisting system

The guy line system is connected to the structure at the 1 thick aluminum fin plates of
the column to exterior main truss nodes. The fin plate on the node is also connected to
a chain hoist that is utilized to raise and lower the superstructure. The fin plate and its
connection to the superstructure and to the guy line system is eccentric in geometry,
meaning the loads must pass through multiple components in different planes and
orientations in order to create a continuous load path. These fin plate members are
considered critical components of the lateral force resisting system. The fin plates are
located at nodes B2, B3, B4 and F2, F3, F4. Note that nodes B4 and F4 have multiple
guy lines connected to them: two (2) on the east face of F4 and two on the west face of
B4, respectively, and one (1) on the north face of both nodes.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 41 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Figure 16. Jersey barrier locations, east side


(Background image source: Courtney Bozarth)

Figure 17. Jersey barrier locations, west side


(Background image source: Margaret Ritzer)

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 42 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

4.2.2 Assembly and Erection


As noted above, the ISF Structure is a self-climbing, demountable aluminum structure
manufactured to facilitate assembly/disassembly at multiple sites.
The ISF Structure was assembled and erected at the start of the Indiana State Fair and
utilized for several different events through the first two weeks of August 2011. When stage
lighting and related equipment are required, the traveling production brings show-specific
components to be suspended from the ISF Structure. However, the two speaker arrays
suspended at the easternmost and westernmost bays of the structure (PA wings) are leased
with the structure and remain in place for the duration of the Fair.
The sections below describe the general assembly and erection sequence for the primary
components of the main roof structure and related components described in Section 4.2.1
above. This summary is based on TTs understanding, derived from reviews of information in
the JTE 2006 catalog and personnel interviews.
Erection begins by determining the proper placement of the structure and supporting
columns. The lowest hinged sections of the columns are connected to the cruciform bases
and placed at the locations on which the columns will be erected. In the case of the ISF
Structure, these first sections of the columns are 2-6 in height. These smaller sections have
hinges on top to permit horizontal assembly of the remainder of the columns (see Figure 18).

Figure 18. Typical hinged column section


(Source: JTE 2006 Catalog)

Once the column bases are positioned, assembly of the superstructure commences. Per the
unsigned September 21, 2011 Indiana Occupational Safety and Health Administration
interview Statement of Robert Williams of Mid America Sound, the assembly of the
superstructure begins with the front of the grid (main trusses). The nodes are assembled
around each column to permit the structure to climb up the columns (see Figures 19 and 20).

Figure 19. Typical hinged column section with node


(Source: JTE 2006 Catalog)

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 43 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Figure 20. Superstructure assembled without full columns erected (View from below. For clarity,
concrete stage not shown)

Once the main trusses are in place, the rafters are assembled. This includes assembly of the
gable web members and wire rope elements between the main trusses and the rafters. The
remainder of the column sections are assembled horizontally and in the case of the ISF
Structure, lifted into their vertical position by a crane (see Figure 21).

Figure 21. Column horizontally assembled


(Source: JTE 2006 Catalog)

Figure 22. Structure prior to self-climbing

The chain hoists are then connected to the main trusses with their chains looped over the top
of the column channel cross-heads and connected back to the main trusses (see Figure 12).
The chain hoists then begin to simultaneously lift the superstructure. At this point the
superstructure is fully suspended from the columns by the chains.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 44 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Once the superstructure is at the desired trim height, ratchet straps are looped over the tops
of the columns and connected to the main trusses. The straps are placed in the second set of
cross-head channels perpendicular to the direction of the chains suspending the
superstructure (see Figure 12). Once the structure is loaded with the primary framing, the
straps are tightened until the load is transferred from the chain hoists to the ratchet straps.
The guy line system is tightened once the roof system is at its proper trim height, and the
black columns with a height of 40-0 located at column lines C, D and E are then installed
below the main roof trusses.
On the day of the specific concert or other entertainment event, the suspended entertainment
technology equipment and trusses are positioned on the stage surface and connected to the
purlins bearing on the main trusses above. With the use of additional chain hoists, these
components are then elevated to their proper trim height.

Figure 23. Superstructure being raised

Figure 24. Superstructure completed (for clarity, tarp and suspended entertainment technology
equipment not shown)

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 45 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

4.2.3 Load Path and Stability


The load on the superstructure is a combination of the self-weight of the structure and the
total weight of suspended entertainment technology equipment on the rigged trusses. These
loads are supported by the purlins and main trusses of the superstructure and delivered to
the straps that suspend the superstructure from the top of the columns. Due to the large load
of the LED screen near the center of the ISF Structure, the three black columns with a height
of 40-0were installed to reduce the span of the main trusses near the LED screen for this
configuration. Therefore, these columns supported the majority of the load attributed to the
LED screen.
Plan distribution of gravity loads acting on columns can vary based on the uniformity with
which the chain hoists lift and suspend the roof structure. Furthermore, plan distribution of
gravity loads from suspended entertainment technology equipment can vary based on the
uniformity with which hoists act at multiple lift points along the rigged trusses.
The largest lateral loads imposed on the structure are attributed to wind. The projected
surfaces exposed to wind are subjected to lateral loads imposed by wind pressure. Larger
surfaces such as the roof tarp, the LED scrim curtain and the LED screen comprise the
majority of the surfaces exposed to wind and therefore are subjected to the majority of the
lateral drag forces imposed on the structure. Note that wind also imposes uplift forces on the
ISF Structure. For the larger surfaces such as the roof tarp, the wind pressure is applied
perpendicular to the rafters on the windward side; however, since on the leeward side the
roof tarp is not directly connected to the rafters, the wind load is transferred to the eave and
the ridge where the tarp is attached. These drag and uplift forces on the structure are added
to the drag and uplift forces imposed on the other wind-exposed surfaces.
The drag forces imposed by wind are transferred to the guy line system utilized to resist
lateral loads. The guy lines are connected to the superstructure either by fin plates or straps
tying the end of the wire ropes directly to the main trusses. The guy lines in turn transfer the
load to the Jersey barriers. The Jersey barriers resist drag forces through friction with the
ground surface. Due to the angle of the guy lines, the Jersey barriers also resist uplift forces
in conjunction with horizontal lateral drag forces. The vertical upward forces on the Jersey
barriers are resisted by their weight. The only lateral resistance provided by the Jersey
barriers is due to friction, which is dependent on the normal load between the barrier and the
ground, so that any imposed uplift force decreases the amount of frictional resistance,
thereby reducing the total resistance of the lateral system.
It is important to note that due to the height of the structure, the slenderness of the columns
and the space between the columns and node wheels, the structure has limited lateral force
resisting capacity without the guy line system installed.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 46 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Section 5.0
Codes and Standards

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 47 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 48 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

5.0

CODES AND STANDARDS


Several reference standards and codes are readily available that can provide guidance and
recommendations for the design and stabilization of aluminum demountable gable lattice structures
used to support suspended entertainment technology equipment. The requirement to follow or
adhere to these or other standards is set by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). Note: unless
listed in Section 5.2 below, the standards listed here are not specifically adopted by the AHJ.
However, in the absence of an enforceable code or standard, the following references provide
useful guidelines and industry standards for the design and stabilization of structures. Additional
standards and codes may apply for specific materials or may be referenced by the following
standards and codes. The discussions below focus primarily on the wind-related provisions of the
subject codes and standards.

5.1

Relevant Codes and Standards

5.1.1 International Building Code


The International Building Code (IBC) is a model building code published by the International
Code Council (ICC) that has been adopted by several federal agencies and in the 50 states
at either the state or local/municipality level. This code provides minimum requirements for
the design of building systems and administrative methodologies for the adopting authority.
Also included are building Use and Occupancy classifications. The IBC was first issued in
2000, with subsequent revisions issued in 2003, 2006, 2009 and 2012.
5.1.1.1

Use and Occupancy Classification


There are two Use and Occupancy classifications that could be applied to the ISF
Structure, although neither classification adequately reflects the uniqueness of such a
structure. Assembly Group A-5 applies to amusement park structures, bleachers,
grandstands and stadia; although strictly speaking the ISF Structure itself is not
intended for high occupancy, the adjacent area and buildings are intended for high
occupancy.
Buildings and structures classified as Utility and Miscellaneous Group U are of an
accessory character or miscellaneous structures not classified in any specific
occupancy. According to the IBC, these structures are to be constructed, equipped,
and maintained to conform to the requirements of this code commensurate with the fire
and life hazard incidental to their occupancy. Although this use group is generally
intended for low-occupancy, low-risk buildings and structures such as barns, sheds,
carports, etc., the same methodology can be applied in reverse fashion to determine an
Occupancy classification.
No specific guidance is contained within the IBC as to how to assign an Occupancy
classification to an open area adjacent to a building or structure. Nor is there specific
guidance as to how to assign an Occupancy to a building or structure based on an
adjacent open area where a crowd can gather.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 49 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

5.1.1.2 Structural Loading


The assessment of loading applied to a structure or building is influenced its Occupancy
Category and the assignation of Importance Factors. A building with higher occupancy,
that serves critical functions or the failure of which may cause harm or significant
economic loss to the surrounding public is assigned higher Importance Factors, which
are then reflected in the structural design with more stringent load requirements.
Importance Factors for various environmental loads (wind, snow, seismic) are assigned
based on Occupancy Category. The IBC assigns to each building or structure to an
Occupancy Category of I, II, III or IV. Category I structures represent a low risk to
human life in the event of failure. Category III structures represent a substantial risk to
human life in the event of failure. Category IV structures are essential facilities critical
to public safety. Category II structures are all those buildings not meeting the
requirements of Categories I, III, or IV.
It should be noted that Category III buildings also include jails, detention centers, and
buildings containing toxic or explosive materials, which do not meet the more stringent
requirements of Category IV. Failure of these facilities may result in substantial hazard
not only to the occupants, but also to the public at large. Had an equivalent
entertainment structure, with a primary purpose of public assembly of 300 or more
occupants been constructed, it would be assigned to Occupancy Category III. In terms
of the ramifications resulting from structural loading, the intent of the code is clear.
The IBC does not specifically designate Importance Factors; however, it refers to
ASCE/SEI 7: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7) for
these values (see Section 5.1.2). The IBC similarly references Chapter 6 of ASCE 7 to
identify methodologies for calculating wind loads on buildings and other structures.
5.1.1.3

Temporary Structures
Sections 107 and 3103 of the IBC allow a building official to issue permits for temporary
structures which have a limited service period of less than 180 days. Temporary
structures are also to conform to the structural strength, fire safety, , requirements
of this code to ensure public health, safety and general welfare.

5.1.1.4

Permitting/Inspection/Enforcement
The IBC requires the owner to obtain a permit in order to construct, enlarge, alter,
repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure. Inspections
must be performed for work requiring a permit and it is the responsibility of the owner to
notify the building official when sufficient work has been done to warrant an inspection.
Approval for occupancy is issued by the building official when inspections are
completed and compliance with the building code is achieved. The building official may
issue violation notices for work performed without a permit, or outside the scope of the
issued permit.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 50 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

5.1.2 ASCE/SEI 7-05 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures
ASCE/SEI 7 is referenced by the IBC and published by the American Society of Civil
Engineers and the Structural Engineering Institute. It contains minimum loadings for live,
dead, wind, seismic and other environmental loads and defines Importance Factors. Further,
it provides methodologies for load application in the analysis of building structures.
The ASCE 7 Importance Factors for wind in non-hurricane prone regions with basic wind
speed of less than 100 mph are as follows:
Occupancy
Category
I
II
III
IV

Importance
Factor
0.87
1.0
1.15
1.15

The magnitude of necessary wind load resistance determined for a building or structure is
based on several factors. The most basic include: the basic wind speed, the site exposure,
the height of the building or structure above ground, and whether the building is classified as
open, enclosed or partially enclosed. Refer to Section 6 in this report for application of these
provisions.
5.1.3 SEI/ASCE 37-02 Design Loads on Structures during Construction
This standard is published by the Structural Engineering Institute and the American Society of
Civil Engineers. This standard is generally used to evaluate temporary conditions for
buildings under construction and temporary structures. A reduction in provisions for basic
wind speed resistance is permitted through this standard based on the length of time the
structures will remain in place.
Construction Period
Less than 6 weeks
6 weeks to 1 year
1 to 2 years
2 to 5 years

Factor
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90

5.1.4 ANSI E1.2 2006


The ANSI E1.2 (Entertainment Technology Design, Manufacture and Use of Aluminum
Trusses and Towers) standard is published by the Entertainment Services and Technology
Association (ESTA). This document was authored by the Rigging Working Group under the
ESTA Technical Standards Program which is accredited by the American National Standards
Institute. The document includes recommendations and guidelines with respect to the
design, manufacture, and use of aluminum components comprising entertainment structures.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 51 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

5.1.5 ANSI E1.21 2006


The ANSI E1.21 (Entertainment Technology Temporary Ground Supported Overhead
Structures Used to Cover the Stage Areas and Support Equipment in the Production of
Outdoor Entertainment Events) standard is published by the Entertainment Services and
Technology Association (ESTA). This document was authored by the Rigging Working
Group under the ESTA Technical Standards Program, which is accredited by the American
National Standards Institute. The document includes recommendations and guidelines with
respect to the design, engineering, manufacturing, installation and inspection of
entertainment structures. Specific references to ASCE 37 are provided for the reduction of
provisions for basic wind speed resistance as well as suggested safety measures for use
when ballasted systems are used to provide structural stability.
The commentary portion of this document includes additional recommendations for
monitoring the installation with respect to weather conditions, allowable bearing pressures on
various ground types, and recommended coefficients of friction between various materials for
use in ballast requirement calculations.
5.1.6 BSR E1.21-201X
The BSR E1.21 (Entertainment Technology Temporary Ground Supported Overhead
Structures Used to Cover the Stage Areas and Support Equipment in the Production of
Outdoor Entertainment Events) standard is a draft revision to the 2006 ANSI document
currently in development by the Professional Lighting and Sound Association (PLASA) and
ESTA, as these two organizations have merged. The public review period for this document
has ended and at the date of this reports issue, the document is no longer available for
download.
5.1.7 IStructE Temporary Demountable Structures 3rd Edition
rd

Temporary Demountable Structures Guidance on Procurement, Design and Use 3 Edition


is published by the Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE) in the United Kingdom and
provides guidance for a variety of temporary structures, including grandstands, bleachers,
tents and marquees, in addition to stage structures. Although not a U.S. standard, the
document is comprehensive in nature and addresses many structural and non-structural
requirements for the safe use of entertainment structures. Of note is the fact that the content
was developed by members of IStructE, an engineering professional association with
assistance from trade industry and government. This is in contrast to the U.S. ANSI
standards, which were developed by entertainment trade associations. Roles and
responsibilities of the client/user, the contractor/supplier and the local authority are clearly
defined in this document. Additionally, it should be noted the provisions for reduction of basic
wind speed is not permitted, as it is in ASCE 37. Rather, an operational wind speed may be
determined for the structure and related provisions must be implemented in conjunction with
a management plan, for which recommendations are also provided.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 52 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

5.2

Governing Codes and Standards

5.2.1 Indiana Building Code


The Indiana Building Code, 2008 Edition, referencing the International Building Code, 2006
st
Edition, 1 Printing, was adopted by the Fire Prevention and Building Safety Commission
under the Indiana Department of Homeland Security, effective June 16, 2008. Also adopted
by reference was ASCE/SEI 7-2005, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures. The Indiana Building Code contains amendments to the IBC based on the
Indiana Administrative Code (IAC).
5.2.1.1 IAC Amendments
5.2.1.1.1 Use and Occupancy Classifications
Amendments under the Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) include the deletion
of Chapter 1 of the IBC. A portion of the substituted Section 101.2 states that
the intended purpose of the code is to establish minimum requirements for the
construction, addition, alteration or assembly of any part of a Class 1 structure
at the site where the structure will be used. A Class 1 structure is defined in
675 IAC 12-6-2 as a building or structure that is intended to be or is occupied
or otherwise used in any of the following: the public, three (3) or more tenants,
or one (1) or more persons who act as the employees of another. A structure
is defined in the Indiana Building Code as that which is built or constructed.
5.2.1.1.2 Structural Loading
Amendments to Chapter 16 Structural Design of the IBC include the deletion
of Section 1609.1.1 Determination of wind loads. This section in the IBC
indicates that wind loads on every building or structure shall be determined in
accordance with Chapter 6 of the ASCE 7. The substituted text in the Indiana
Building Code indicates that Wind loads on every building or structure shall be
determined in accordance with Table 1608.2, which is provided in the IAC.
This modification to the IBC is apparently an inadvertent error. Only basic wind
speeds are provided in Table 1608.2. Wind speed is only one aspect of
determining wind load. No information regarding wind loading is provided.
Neither the IBC nor the Indiana Building Code provides methodologies for
calculating wind loads which cannot be calculated based solely on wind speed.
The deleted section of the IBC (Section 1609.1.1) references ASCE 7 for this
purpose. Similar sections of the Indiana Building Code for determination of
snow and seismic loads do not repeat this error.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 53 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

675 IAC 13-2.5-17: Note 8 deletes Section 1609.1.1 of IBC-2006

IBC-2006, Section 1609.1.1: Incorporating Wind Provisions of ASCE-7

5.2.1.1.3 Temporary Structures


Amendments under the Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) include the deletion
of Chapter 1 of the IBC, which also includes provisions for temporary
structures. However, a temporary structure is defined in 675 IAC 12-6-2 as
either a Class 1 structure that is erected or installed for a period of not more
than ninety (90) days after which it will be demolished or relocated, portable
structures on construction job sites for use by persons involved in the
construction process, or mobile structures as set forth at IC 22-12-1-17. In 675
IAC 12-6-4, temporary structures are exempted from the design release
requirement of 675 IAC 12-6-3 for Class 1 structures. See Section 5.2.1.1.4
below for an explanation of the design release requirement.
5.2.1.1.4 Permitting/Inspections/Enforcement
The IAC deletion of Chapter 1 of the IBC also deletes provisions for permitting,
inspections and enforcement. The IAC instead facilitates this process through
a design release program. Design releases are required for most Class 1
structures, although there are a multitude of exclusions identified in 675 IAC 126-4; one such exclusion is for temporary structures. Similarly, the plans and
specifications for Class 1 structures are required to be prepared by a design
professional (registered architect or engineer), unless excluded in 675 IAC 126-9. Had the ISF Structure not been excluded from the design release
requirement as a temporary structure, it would have required an architect or
engineer to prepare, or supervise preparation of, plans and specifications.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 54 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Section 6.0
Analysis

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 55 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 56 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

6.0

ANALYSIS
Utilizing the post-collapse data and information obtained on-site, Thornton Tomasetti engaged in an
analysis to determine the following:
1. What were the wind forces imposed on the ISF Structure the day of August 13, 2011, and
how do they compare to code/design provisions for resistance to wind forces?
2. Given the as-built configuration, how would the ISF Structure be expected to perform under
the imposed wind forces?
3. How would a reasonable engineer design a temporary stage structure with provisions for
the required resistance to forces that meet code-stipulated factors of safety?
To answer these questions, TT performed a detailed study of the code-required provisions for wind
loads and retained RWDI, a wind consultant located in Ontario, Canada, to perform a detailed
meteorological study and wind tunnel tests to determine the wind speeds on the site on August 13
(day-of winds) and the loads imposed on the structure. The design and day-of winds were used to
load two separate studies of the structure. TTs first study utilized structural analysis software to
build a detailed finite element model of the as-built conditions based on field measurements and
data. This analysis determined the performance of the structure under the day-of wind loads and at
what wind load level the failures of the system began. A second study looked at how a reasonable
engineer presented with the job of designing a temporary stage structure would account for the
code-required wind loads and factors of safety. The end product is then compared to what was built
on-site.

Figure 25. Analytical model of ISF Structure

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 57 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

6.1

Wind Analysis
RWDI performed a study of the meteorological conditions and determined the 3-second gust wind
speed recorded near the site at or about the time of the collapse was approximately 52 mph.
RWDI then used the Wind Atlas Analysis and Application Program (WAsP) to calculate the wind
speed at the specific ISF Structure site and found that it ranged between 57 and 59 mph. Video
footage of the collapse shows the wind direction at the site to be predominantly from the west,
which is within the range anticipated from RWDIs analysis (see RWDI report in Appendix D.1).
RWDI also performed a wind tunnel test on a rigid scale model of the ISF Structure with and
without the stage equipment to ascertain the total wind force on the structure imposed by a 52
mph wind speed and under wind directions ranging from 260 degrees to 360 degrees, where 360
degrees is a wind from due north and 270 degrees is a wind from the west. The drag forces on
the structure without the stage equipment under westerly winds were 8,100 lbs in the east
direction and 400 lbs in the south direction (see RWDI report in Appendix D.1). These results
differ by less than 3% from the forces calculated by Thornton Tomasetti using ASCE 7-05 for a
rigid structure (see TT wind calculations in Appendix D.6). RWDI determined the suspended
entertainment technology equipment added 5,300 lbs of force in the east direction and 100 lbs in
the south direction, for a total resultant force of 13,400 lbs on the structure and suspended
entertainment technology equipment. Based on TTs calculations for forensic wind load cases,
the wind uplift on the ISF Structure will be less than the total dead load of the structure when it is
fully loaded with suspended entertainment technology equipment.
TT calculated the unloaded structure (superstructure and speaker arrays only) has a period of
1.04 seconds west to east and 0.99 seconds north to south; however, when fully loaded on the
day of the collapse, the period increased to 1.5 seconds, so the structure would be classified as a
flexible structure according to ASCE 7-05. ASCE 7-05 stipulates an increase in the gust effect
factor for flexible structures, which results in an overall increase in the wind loads. Therefore
RWDIs tested values in fact reflect a lower bound, and the actual wind loads may be better
approximated by amplifying the test values by the ratio of the gust effect factor for the flexible
condition to the gust effect factor for the rigid condition. This results in a total wind load of 14,400
lbs for the structure with the stage equipment under 52 mph westerly winds. This load increases
to 19,300 lbs for the upper bound wind speed of 59 mph as calculated by RWDI using WAsP.
The design wind speed in Indiana is 90 mph according to the IAC. Although not code-referenced
documents, industry standard ASCE 37-02 permits a 75% reduction in provisions for wind speed
for temporary structures resulting in a design wind speed of 68 mph. Further, ANSI E.1.2.1-2006
permits a reduced wind speed of 40 mph for structures capable of being disassembled quickly in
a high wind event.
TT calculated the design wind loads on the structure without the suspended entertainment
technology equipment for the three wind speeds discussed above in the four cardinal directions
and one intercardinal direction. TT added scaled scrim wall loads from RWDIs wind tunnel test
results and applied the wind Directionality Factor and Importance Factor to the total wind forces
as would be appropriate for the design loading of such a structure. The total design forces for the
westerly wind direction (with the structural equipment configuration at the time of the collapse) are
52,100 lbs, 28,000 lbs, and 9,100 lbs for 90 mph, 68 mph, and 40 mph design wind speeds

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 58 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

respectively. The largest design wind forces from all the directions considered are 83,800 lbs,
44,600 lbs, and 27,700 lbs respectively (see Appendix D.6). As previously stated, the ISF
Structure would have experienced a total resultant lateral force of 14400 lbs to 19,300 lbs for the
52 to 59 mph wind speeds that occurred at the site at or about the time of the collapse.
It was reported to TT that high winds damaged the roof tarp, causing the center closure strip to be
disengaged from the adjoining two tarp segments (the west and east panels). Climatic data
research found reported wind speeds ranging between 40 mph and 60 mph on both August 8,
2011 and August 9, 2011. It should be noted that on these dates no LED scrim curtain or LED
screen was installed and the total mass of the structure was significantly less.
6.2

Guy Line Tensioning Forces


As described in Section 4.2.2, once the stage tower columns and roof trusses are in place and
secure, guy lines extending from the roof level trusses to ground level concrete Jersey barriers
are tensioned using a ratchet device on the Jersey barrier end of the guy line. This is a
necessary step for a guyed structure.
The stiffness of the wire rope used in a guying system is dependent on the amount of sag or
drape in it: an increase in sag correlates to a decrease in guy axial stiffness and in the tension
force on the wire rope. The guy lines need to have excess slack removed if they are to act as
axial tension members sufficiently stiff to attract the lateral loads imposed on the structure and
then transfer the force down to the anchor points on ballast located at the ground.
The initial tensioning of the guy lines impose a load on the Jersey barriers as well, which the
Jersey barriers must resist in addition to any lateral forces due to wind. Force required to achieve
a desired sag in a guy line can impose a significant load on the ballast to which the guy line is
connected. The longer the guy line, the larger the force needed to meet a specific sag
dimension. Any variable that affects the ability of the Jersey barrier ballast to resist lateral loads
will also affect the overall capacity of the ISF Structure under wind forces. To gauge the
sensitivity of the structure to variations in guy line tension forces, several values were used when
determining the maximum wind forces the ISF Structure can support.
Within the calculations and design documents for the ISF Structure obtained by TT, there was no
indication as to the initial force for guy line tension or the permissible sag in the wire rope. A test
of the ratchet assembly on-site showed the average force it could reasonably develop by hand
tensioning was approximately 950 lbs, which provided an upper bound for the guy line initial
tension force.
AISC Design Guide 10: Erection Bracing of Low-Rise Structural Steel Buildings provides
guidance for the tensioning of guy lines used to brace low-rise structures and gives an equation
calculating the tension force necessary to obtain a specified sag in a cable based on weight and
geometry (it neglects elongation of the wire rope as the tensioning device would take up this
stretch). For a 3/8 inch wire rope, the maximum permissible sag is defined as 1 inch. Figure 26
shows the tension force required to achieve this amount of sag or drape in four of the main guy
lines in the ISF Structure is quite large. The forces increase sharply as drapes become smaller
than 3 inches, but for greater sags the guy line tension force required levels out, and there are

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 59 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

only small differences from 8 to 12 inches of drape. Based on the 950 lbs hand tightening limit on
the ratchet assembly, a rigging crew would not have been able to achieve drapes much less than
3 inches.

Figure 26. Guy line tension in lbs required to achieve drape in guy lines attached to JB.W1,
JB.W2, JB.NW1 and JB.NE1

For the Finite Element Analysis, the initial guy line tension force was estimated based on the
capacity of the ratchet assembly used on-site. Considering the guy lines may not have been
tightened to the 950 lbs limit, 80% of the maximum (760 lbs) was used.
6.3

SAP Finite Element Model


To understand the as-built performance of the ISF Structure based on the data gathered from the
site TT created a Finite Element Model (FEM) using the structural analysis software SAP 2000.
Two separate analyses within SAP were performed. In each of the SAP analyses, two different
load conditions are considered. The first SAP analysis (A) is an incremental failure analysis to
determine the collapse mechanism and sequence. The second SAP analysis (B) applies the full
wind load case to the structure with all elements functioning, to determine if the structure would
have maintained stability if the guy line tie-backs and the Jersey barrier ballast had been
sufficient. Two load conditions are evaluated for each SAP analysis because the LED scrim
curtain and LED screen represent a large sail area that greatly increases the imposed wind loads.
Therefore TT load cases determined the performance of the structure both with and without the
LED screen and LED scrim curtain to establish their effect on ISF Structure performance.
Member forces from the model runs were then used to check member and connection
demand/capacity ratios and determine where failures occurred and under what load conditions.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 60 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

6.3.1 Second Order Analysis


A second order analysis (also known as a P-Delta analysis) is a geometric nonlinear analysis
which accounts for the effect of the displacement of the structural components on their
stiffness and applied forces. A simple example of this is a vertical column subject to a
vertical axial load and a horizontal lateral load. As the column displaces under the horizontal
load, the vertical load is no longer perfectly centered and begins to induce bending in the
column, as illustrated in Figure 27. In the case of a guyed system, the deflection of the
system will also change the tension, resulting sag and corresponding axial stiffness of the
guy lines. SAP gives the option to account for P-Delta effects within its analysis and to
account for the change in stiffness of the cable elements as the elements move. Each of the
analyses described in this section account for second order effects.

Figure 27. Illustration of P-delta effect

6.3.1.1 Assumptions
Superstructure Components: The ISF Structure tower truss columns, main trusses,
rafter trusses, gable roof trusses, ridge trusses and purlins are modeled using frame
elements (Figure 28). Each vertical, horizontal, and diagonal member is included in the
model with dimensions based on field measurements. Linear elastic material behavior
is assumed with frame elements using aluminum properties. The guy line elements are
modeled as steel.

Figure 28. SAP model of ISF Structure

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 61 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Welded Connections: Welded connections within truss sections are treated as fixed,
allowing moment, shear and axial forces to be transmitted between members. A typical
truss section as modeled is shown in Figure 29.

Figure 29. Main truss component as modeled in SAP

Column Bases: The tower truss columns are seated on the stage on crossed channel
sections. These channels provide a flexible base that allows rotation of the base of the
column lower end with little resistance, and are modeled accordingly within SAP.
Truss Splices: Based on TTs field documentation, the connections between truss
sections varied. For example, as illustrated in Figure 30, the truss sections forming the
roof level trusses are pinned in one direction, therefore the moments in that direction
are released in the model. All of the frame elements are linear-elastic elements.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 62 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Figure 30. Image of pin connections in gable roof truss and view from the SAP FEM
model.

Rigging Trusses: The suspended components below the superstructure are not
included in the model as elements. Instead the loads from these components are
applied to their support points on the main trusses and purlins. Additional information is
provided below under Loads.
Nodes: As described in Section 4.2.1, the columns at column lines A, B, F and G pass
through and extend above the main roof level, where wheels (casters) brace the column
at each corner at the top and bottom of the node. This creates a moment connection
between the main trusses and the columns. The wheel/plate assemblies allow
movement of the truss up and down, but transfer any lateral forces from the column to
the trusses and vice versa. The wheels are modeled as short stiff elements that
connect the corners of the nodes to the corners of the column but have end releases
that permit motion up and down along the column. Figure 31 depicts a detailed view of
the column/truss node as modeled in SAP.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 63 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Figure 31. Node B3 as modeled in SAP

Wire Rope Components: Cable elements are utilized to model the guy lines, the wire
ropes within the gable roof structure, and the chains supporting the roof trusses.
Although the final support of the superstructure is provided by the ratchet straps at the
heads of the columns, this has no effect on the stability of the model. Cables are
nonlinear elements which can only be loaded in tension. Each cable has an initial
tension force which corresponds to a sag along that cable. As the structure deflects,
the geometry of the cable changes, which in turn changes the tension force and also
the axial stiffness of that cable. Within SAP the cable elements adjust for the changes
in stiffness. Because the guy lines are primarily configured with wire rope, a modified
modulus of elasticity (E) and area are used in the model. Those values and the
breaking strength are based on ASTM Standard A603: Standard Specification for Zinc
Coated Steel Structural Wire Rope. For the guy lines and the wire rope in the gable roof
an E equal to 20,000 ksi is used. (Note: the abbreviation ksi stands for kips per square
inch. One kip equals 1,000 lbs of force and is a common unit in structural engineering)
2
An area of 0.065 in is based on the Gross Metallic Area, and the Minimum Breaking
Strength is 13 kips, as given in ASTM A 603 for a 3/8 inch diameter wire rope utilizing a
Class A coating. Note: no reduction in rope capacity was assumed for the terminations
and fittings on the wire rope, thus the actual capacity of the as-built system is less than
the results achieved in the analytical model.
Loads: For the analysis of the conditions observed during TTs investigation, four main
load types were considered: self-weight of the structure; applied dead loads of the
suspended entertainment technology equipment, and other suspended elements; preINDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 64 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

stress of the guy lines; and wind. Since this analysis is only interested in the actual
stresses rather than what the stresses the structure should to be designed for, these
loads are applied without any load factors.
The Dead Load of the structure consists of its self-weight and any other static gravity
loads such as the suspended entertainment technology equipment. The self-weights of
typical structural components were compared to values obtained from the on-site
weighing and then adjusted accordingly. The weights of the suspended entertainment
technology equipment and the trusses that support them are also based on actual fieldrecorded values, rather than what is shown in rigging plots. The loads were applied as
vertical point loads where they were supported by the main roof trusses or purlins.
Within SAP, a cable element is pre-tensioned by designating a target force for that
cable. For the elements supporting the main trusses and the wire ropes in the gable
web trusses, no target force is assigned. These cable elements are only stressed by
dead load deflection and the applied lateral loads.
However, the guy lines were tensioned after erection of the structure using a ratchet
strap located at the connection to the Jersey barrier ballast. As discussed in Section
6.2 above, no information has been obtained concerning what instructions were
provided regarding tensioning of the guy lines. For the purpose of the FEM model it is
assumed the cables are at approximately 80% of the maximum practical force, or 760
lbs. In the absence of information on guy line tensioning order, the target force was
applied to all cables simultaneously.
The wind tunnel test data provided by RWDI consists only of base reactions. Since the
base reactions calculated utilizing ASCE 7 procedures were similar to the wind tunnel
test data, the analytical model was loaded with the wind tunnel loads based on the force
distribution calculated through ASCE 7 procedures. Since the wind test data is easily
scaled to any wind velocity, the analysis can be performed for a range of wind speeds.
(Note: other modifications to the wind tunnel test data are discussed in Section 6.1)
As stated in its report, RWDI concluded from reviewing meteorological data the wind
speed on August 13 could have reached up to 59 mph. Therefore, the FEM analysis
reviewed possible failure mechanisms for wind speeds up to 59 mph, while calculating
the wind speed at which each component fails. Furthermore, since the tunnel tests
looked at the forces on the structure both with and without the hanging LED scrim
curtain and LED screen in place, the analysis could be performed for both
configurations.
RWDI also concludes the wind at the time and location of the collapse incident was an
approximately west to northwest wind, based on review of video footage and evaluation
of objects being displaced by the wind. In order to determine the effect of direction and
bound the results, the FEM analysis considers three wind directions: from the west (a
West wind), from the north and from the northwest. Figure 32 below shows the applied
wind load for a West wind and a North wind.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 65 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Figure 32. SAP model showing applied forces for a West wind and a North wind

Because of the nonlinear cable elements, the loads must be applied in the order they
affected the structure and their results cannot be simply totaled. Based on the
construction sequence described in Section 4.2.2 the order of applied loads in the
model was as follows:

Self-weight (roof structure on columns).

Cable target forces (guy lines are tensioned).

Suspended entertainment technology equipment and rigging trusses.

Wind.

Nonlinear analysis proceeds in step-wise fashion so each load case in the analysis
uses the conditions at the end of the previous load case (applied loads, stresses,
displacements, stiffness) as its initial conditions.
6.3.1.2 Analysis Procedure
Analysis A: Staged Construction Module
To determine the actual sequence of failure, TTs analysis makes use of SAPs Staged
Construction Module. This feature allows elements and loads to be added or removed
in steps as needed. It is typically used to model construction sequences, such as
removing the forms from under a concrete deck or adding another floor to a building.
The analysis of the ISF Structure utilizes this feature to capture the effect of individual
component failures on the remaining structure and its overall performance, and to

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 66 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

answer this question: would a particular localized failure lead to the total collapse of the
structure, or could the structure redistribute the load and carry that load or more?
The general procedure is as follows:

Apply self-weight, cable target forces, and the suspended entertainment


technology equipment loads.

Apply percentage of wind load until first component fails.

Adjust model to account for failed component.

Check for further failures.

Increase wind load until next component fails.

The process is repeated until the structure becomes unstable.


Two different wind load conditions are analyzed using the Staged Construction Module:
with the LED scrim/LED screen and without. The LED scrim curtain and LED screen
installed on August 13 greatly increase the wind load imposed on the ISF Structure.
The separate load cases allow a comparison of the performance of the structure with
and without these additional panels.
Several essential components of the structure are checked at each stage to ensure
their capacities are not yet exceeded. Within the lateral system, the sliding/tipping
capacity of the Jersey barriers and the capacity of the guy lines and their connection to
the superstructure govern the overall system capacity.
The tower truss column components are spliced utilizing shop welded end plates and
field bolted connections with less tensile capacity than the tower trusses themselves.
The column bases are modeled as connected to their supports but in fact have no
ability to resist net uplift. These areas are checked at each stage and modified if
necessary to account for a localized failure.
Jersey barriers
The performance of the system is governed overall by the Jersey barrier ballast, so
more detail is presented regarding their capacities and modeling a failure. There were
a total of 10 Jersey barriers attached to guy lines four each on the east and west
sides of the stage and two on the north side. Their placement and nomenclature are
illustrated in Figure 33 below. In the model the Jersey barriers are modeled as pin
supports. Jersey barriers designated as JB.W2, JB.W3, JB.E2, and JB.E3 have a guy
line attached at each end. The remainder only have one guy line attached at one end.
Whether the attached end is toward or away from the stage varies by location.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 67 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Figure 33. Jersey barrier layout with nomenclature utilized.


(Note: The red lines represent the guy lines connecting at the structure roof level and connected
near ground level to the Jersey barriers.)

A Jersey barrier could fail in one of two ways: by overcoming its frictional resistance
and sliding, or by pivoting about the edge closest to the stage. If the horizontal force
applied to the Jersey barrier is greater than its frictional capacity, it begins to move and
is unable to take additional lateral load. However, it continues to resist some load as it
slides. For a sliding Jersey barrier, the guy line in the model is removed so that no
additional force is transmitted to that particular Jersey barrier, while a point load in the
same direction as the guy tension but at 90% of the previous force is applied to
simulate the resistance of the sliding barrier.
The pivot failure case is only checked when a guy line is attached to the end of the
Jersey barrier further from the stage. In this case, when a barrier begins to pivot about
its stage-end tip, it swings sideways and acts as a mechanism that completely releases
its load. Within SAP the guy line is removed, but no point load replaces it. Any force it
is carrying must be redistributed within the model.
Note that a guy line attached to the near end of a Jersey barrier can lift that end, but the
barrier dead load will still maintain tension in the guy line, so it is not considered a
failure.
A description of the failure mechanisms and capacities of each Jersey barrier can be
found in Appendix D.3.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 68 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Analysis B: Full 59 mph wind gust


As a starting point, the full wind force under a 59 mph gust is applied to the model for
wind from each of three directions: north, west and northwest. One analysis is
performed including the forces imposed on the LED screen and LED scrim curtain. A
second analysis is then performed omitting them. Both analyses include second order
effects. The performance of the structure is then gauged by comparing the resultant
forces (demands) in the model to the resistance provided by supports and members
(capacities). Checks of the structure focused on the lateral system, including Jersey
barrier ballast, guy lines and fin plates connecting guy lines to roof trusses, and on the
truss columns, including the forces in the splice connections and at bases. A stress
check of the truss tower columns was performed following the Aluminum Design
Manual (ADM) Allowable Stress Design (ASD) Section. Overall deflection of the ISF
Structure was also checked and compared to the anticipated deflection based on
simplified stiffness of the guy lines. The results are discussed below in Section 6.4.
6.3.1.3 Wind Tunnel-Based Results
Analysis A Results
Performance of the ISF Structure under the applied wind loads varies depending on the
direction of the load, but for the three wind directions considered: from the north, from
the west and from the northwest of the stage are controlled by the capacity of the
Jersey barriers to resist lateral loads. In all three cases the Jersey barrier ballast is
insufficient to resist the wind forces imposed on the structure on August 13 which are
less than the 68 mile per hour wind speed resistance required by the most liberal
interpretation of the codes (ASCE 37 Construction Period Factor of 0.75 x 90 mile per
hour Indiana design speed).
North Wind Case
With the suspended entertainment technology equipment that was installed on August
13, the maximum wind speed the Jersey barriers ballast can resist is 25 mph. The
sequence of failures is rapid and does not allow for any increase in wind speed after the
first failure. The sequence is as follows:
1. JB.NW1 and JB.NE1 are both lifted and rotated about their south end.
2. The loss of the north two Jersey barriers causes JB.W3 and JB.E3 to both
immediately fail.
3. There is no remaining support for lateral load from the north, and the structure
collapses.
This sequence is illustrated in Figures 34a through 34c below.
The LED screen and LED scrim curtain add considerably to the wind forces imposed on
the ISF Structure. If the effect of this suspended entertainment technology equipment
that was installed on August 13 is removed, the collapse sequence remains the same,
but the maximum wind speed resisted increases to 38 mph for the North wind case.
INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 69 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

WIND SPEED 25 MPH

Figure 34a. North Wind, 25 mph, Collapse Step 1

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 70 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

WIND SPEED 25 MPH

Figure 34b. North Wind, 25 mph, Collapse Step 2

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 71 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

WIND SPEED 25 MPH

Figure 34c. North Wind, 25 mph, Collapse Step 3

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 72 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

West Wind Case:


The performance of the ISF Structure under a West wind differs from that of a North
wind. Specifically, the structure is able to carry an increase in wind load after the initial
failure. The initial failure occurs at a wind speed of 33 mph, and collapse occurs at 43
mph. The sequence is illustrated in Figures 35a through 35d and is as follows:
1. At 33 mph JB.W2 begins to slide.
2. The structure is able to resist an increase in wind speed, and at 41 mph JB.W4
starts to slide.
3. The structure stabilizes and is able to resist another increase in wind speed. At
43 mph JB.W3 starts to slide.
4. Immediately JB.W1 begins to slide. At this point there is no way to mobilize
additional lateral support to resist a west wind. It is understood that wind is still
being resisted as the ballast initially slides; however, P-Delta increases the lateral
load to the point of uncontrolled sliding and subsequent collapse of the structure.
The sequence and wind speeds above are based on the LED screen and LED scrim
curtain being in place. If the effect of these two elements is neglected, there is a
change in the order of events JB.W3 slides before JB.W4 and the maximum wind
speed that can be resisted increases. The initial failure occurs at 46 mph, and the final
wind speed causing collapse is 53 mph.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 73 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

WIND SPEED 33 MPH

Figure 35a. West Wind, 33 mph, Collapse Step 1

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 74 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

WIND SPEED 41 MPH

Figure 35b. West Wind, 41 mph, Collapse Step 2

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 75 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

WIND SPEED 43 MPH

Figure 35c. West Wind, 43 mph, Collapse Step 3

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 76 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

WIND SPEED 43 MPH

Figure 35d. West Wind, 43 mph, Collapse Step 4

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 77 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Northwest Wind Case


Similar to the West wind case, the ISF Structure is able to carry an increase in wind
load after the initial failure. The first failure of a Jersey barrier occurs at 25 mph. The
maximum Northwest wind speed the ISF Structure could resist as configured on August
13 is 28 mph. The collapse sequence is as follows:
1. At 25 mph JB.W3 starts to slide.
2. The structure stabilizes and is able to resist more wind load. At 28 mph the two
north barriers, JB.NW1 and JB.NE1, both pivot about their south ends.
3. Immediately JB.W1 and JB.E3 start to slide. Collapse of the structure follows.
This sequence is illustrated in Figures 36a through 36c.
The sequence and wind speeds above are based on the LED screen and LED scrim
curtain being in place. If the effect of these two elements is neglected the collapse
sequence remains the same, but higher wind speeds can be resisted. The initial failure
of JB.W3 occurs at 35 mph, and final collapse of the structure occurs at 40 mph.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 78 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

WIND SPEED 25 MPH

Figure 36a. NorthWest Wind, 25 mph, Collapse Step 1


INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 79 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

WIND SPEED 28 MPH

Figure 36b. NorthWest Wind, 28 mph, Collapse Step 2

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 80 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

WIND SPEED 28 MPH

Figure 36c. NorthWest Wind, 28 mph, Collapse Step 3

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 81 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Analysis B Results
To better understand the capacities of key elements of the structural system and their
potential abilities to resist wind load forces, the Analysis B model assumes Jersey
barriers do not slide or pivot, and all other elements remain in place. For this model
approach, under the conditions that existed on August 13 (59 mph wind gust, LED
screen and LED scrim curtain in place) loads imposed on the Jersey barriers exceed
their resistance, which is a finding consistent with the Analysis A staged failure results.
Table 1A below provides the horizontal force on each Jersey barrier under a 59 mph
wind with the LED screen and LED scrim curtain installed, in the hypothetical case that
all barriers remain functional.

59 mph Wind Speed (with LED Screen and Scrim Curtain)


North Wind
West Wind
Northwest Wind
Barrier
JBW1
JBW2
JBW3
JBW4
JBNW
JBE1
JBE2
JBE3
JBE4
JBNE

Case A
612
27
9718
890
9811
498
37
9451
91
10642

Case B
518
24
9377
815
10600
426
34
9012
73
11545

Case A
3550
3932
3477
3868
827
60
60
47
45
716

Case B
3420
4171
3750
3812
789
62
67
50
48
800

Case A
3031
277
8254
6245
6450
64
28
3025
30
9345

Case B
3119
768
8738
6287
6250
65
29
3046
31
8968

Table 1A: Horizontal forces on Jersey barriers (with LED Scrim / LED Screen)
(Note: The values in yellow indicate the capacity of the barrier has been exceeded)

A significant portion of the wind loads imposed on the ISF Structure is a result of the
suspended entertainment technology equipment added to the structure on the morning
of August 13 chiefly the LED scrim curtain and LED screen. As a further check of the
structure, the wind loads imposed on the structure by the LED screen and LED scrim
curtain are removed, and the resulting forces in the Jersey barriers are checked. The
Jersey barrier capacities are insufficient even under these reduced loads and would fail
under a 59 mph gust.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 82 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

59 mph wind speed neglecting LED and scrim wind forces


North Wind
West Wind
Northwest Wind
Barrier
JBW1
JBW2
JBW3
JBW4
JBNW
JBE1
JBE2
JBE3
JBE4
JBNE

Case A
645
50
4779
909
4732
503
75
4832
485
5181

Case B
482
37
3927
538
5159
475
54
3808
210
5452

Case A
2708
2438
2241
2512
767
72
95
54
65
513

Case B
2485
2566
2417
2350
718
79
180
60
83
630

Case A
1801
62
4423
3161
4412
95
39
1685
45
5654

Case B
2027
182
5010
3544
4057
92
42
1747
45
5458

Table 1B: Horizontal forces on Jersey barriers (without LED Scrim / LED Screen)
(Note: The values in yellow indicate the capacity of the barrier has been exceeded)

The tower truss columns are checked for overstressed members under the full 59 mph
wind. Member forces exported from SAP are imported into a Microsoft Access
database, where they are checked for overstress per the Aluminum Design Manual
ASD section. Since the purpose of this analysis is to determine as-built loads and
stresses, safety factors are set to 1.0 (a code compliance check would require a factor
of safety well above 1.0). Axial and moment ratios are combined to give an overall
demand-capacity ratio (DCR) for each component of the truss tower columns. Given
the variation that is possible in material strengths ratios (actual material properties are
generally greater than minimum specified properties), DCR values less than 110% are
considered sufficient to indicate that failure is not occurring.
Twenty-two individual members out of almost 5,000 that comprise the truss tower
columns are overstressed under the 59 mph load case (have DCR greater than 110%).
The overstressed individual members are the lowest vertical tube members and are
located in columns B2, B4, F2 and F4. A large portion of the DCR of these members is
due to moment induced stresses, which points to a local effect caused by the flexibility
of the column base. As noted, the tower columns are seated on two intersecting
aluminum channels. Each vertical tube leg is connected through a combination of a
pocket in which the leg sits and a bolt, giving a connection that is not quite a full
moment connection, but also not a pin. In the model the connection between the
vertical column tube and the channel base is kept as a moment connection and no
releases are included. As the channel deflects under the vertical loads from the tubes,
it imposes a rotation on the tube, which induces a moment force. This is a highly
localized condition as the additional moment is quickly distributed in the truss and does
not affect the vertical tubes above the lowest one. Because the DCRs for axial forces
alone on the same tubes are below 1.0, and the as-built connection will have some

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 83 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

ability to rotate and relieve the imposed rotation, the truss tower columns are
considered sufficient for the 59 mph wind load conditions.
The guy lines are compared to the minimum breaking strength given in ASTM 603 for a
3/8 inch diameter wire rope. Under the full 59 mph north wind with the LED scrim
curtain and LED screen in place, the wire rope attached to the north face of F4 exceeds
its breaking strength of 13 kips. The guy line attached to the north face of B4 is within
one kip (1,000 lbs) of exceeding the breaking strength as well. Note that for both nodes
B4 and F4, the ratchet straps ultimate capacity of 10 kips (10,000 lbs) is exceeded
under the North wind. For the Northwest wind case the ratchet straps ultimate capacity
of 10 kips is exceeded for node F4. This is not an issue in the load cases where the
LED screen and LED scrim curtain are not installed.
Based on the calculated capacities the fin plate connections between the guy lines and
the roof trusses are failing under the 59 mph wind speed. Calculations of the fin plate
gate assembly show the governing capacity to be the bending capacity of the bottom
tube. This failure mode is evident in post-collapse photos from node B4 and is shown
in Figure 37 below. Table 2 below lists the fin plates that are failing for each load case
and the associated DCR. Of particular note is the fin plate on the west face of node B4,
which has a load demand of more than twice its capacity for the West wind and
Northwest wind load cases, and the fin plate on the north face of F4, which is loaded to
approximately three times its capacity under the Northwest wind case.

Figure 37. Post-collapse condition of the west face of node B4


(Yellow line shows the location of fin plate prior to tearing off. The failure of the bottom tube is
circled in red.)

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 84 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Load Case

Node

DCR

Node

DCR

Node

DCR

North Case A

F2

1.53

B4-N

1.23

F4-N

1.66

North Case B

B2

1.15

F2

1.7

B4-N

1.31

West Case A

B4-W

2.66

B3

1.23

B2

1.02

West Case B

B4-W

2.5

B3

1.13

Northwest Case A

B4 -W

2.57

B2

1.5

B4 -N

1.22

B4-N

Northwest Case B

B4 -W

2.47

B2

Node

DCR

F4-N

1.81

2.25

F4-N

3.28

2.15

F4-N

3.14

Table 2: Demand-capacity ratios (DCR) of fin plates under 59 mph wind load cases
(Note: Only connections whos DCR exceeds 1.0 are listed.)

6.3.1.4 Comparison of Analysis Results to Observed Damage


As reported by RWDI, the wind on the day of August 13 at the ISF Structure site was
originating from the west and northwest directions, but predominantly from the west.
The barriers that displaced from their original location are JB.W1, JB.W3, JB.W4,
JB.NW1 and JB.NE1 as described in Appendix D.3. JB.W1 slid forward from its initial
position before being stopped by a guard rail; JB.W3 moved southeast until it fell down
a stairwell; and JB.W4 moved forward before coming to rest. None of the barriers on
the East side moved.
On the north side of the stage, JB.NW1 and JB.NE1 were both lifted up by the guy line
connection and rotated so their north ends pointed south. This correlates well with the
failure mechanism predicted for these barriers instead of sliding, they pivot about the
south end of each barrier due to the simultaneous vertical and lateral pull of the guy line
on the barrier.
The observed movements of the Jersey barriers correlate well with the predicted
movement of the stage under a west northwest wind based on the FEM analysis.
Under the force of a west wind it is expected that all west side Jersey barriers would
move, and none of the north and east barriers would move. By rotating the wind from
true west towards northwest, the forces are reduced on JB.W2, whose guy lines are
oriented to resist southwest forces, and are increased on JB.NW1 and JB.NE1, the
primary resistance to north winds. The final position of the stage is east and south of its
original footprint.
6.3.1.5

Summarized Conclusions of Finite Element Analysis


The Jersey barrier ballast as arranged provided insufficient resistance for the guy line
system forces imposed by the wind loads of August 13, 2011.
Under the conditions that existed on August 13, 2011 with the LED screen and LED
scrim curtain installed, the ISF Structure lateral system could only be expected to
withstand a 25 mph wind from the north or 43 mph wind from the west.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 85 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

If the guy line ballast had been sufficient, the structure would have failed under the
59 mph wind gust experienced on August 13.

6.4

The fin plate connections between the guy lines and the main roof level
trusses did not have enough capacity to meet the loads imposed and would
have failed.

The wire rope breaking strength and ratchet straps ultimate capacity would
have been exceeded under a 59 mph wind from the north or the northwest.

Linear Elastic Analysis


As another check of TTs analysis results, a very simplified hand calculation check was performed
of the ISF Structure lateral system. The guy lines were assumed to be tension-only straight line
weightless elements with no contribution provided by wire ropes in compression. The capacity of
the structure was analyzed by calculating the stiffness of each component in the north and west
direction and determining the distribution of lateral forces based on stiffness. Guy line pretension forces were included in the forces imposed on the Jersey barriers, but not in the guy line
stiffness calculation. For this analysis several assumptions were made:

Wire rope upper-bound stiffness used: cables are taken as straight lines (weightless and
no sag).

Truss tower columns are pinned at the base and moment connected to the roof level
trusses. In a comparison of relative stiffness, the roof level trusses are much more rigid
than the columns.

The Modulus of Elasticity (E) of the steel wire rope = 20,000 ksi based on the minimum
modulus of elasticity given in ASTM A 603-98.

The E of the aluminum structure = 10,000 ksi.

Area of the steel wire rope = 0.065 in based on the Gross Metallic Area for steel

structural wire rope given in ASTM A 603-98.


4

Moment of Inertia of the column towers = 152 in .

No factors of safety used in calculating capacities.

On-site friction test values used for Jersey barrier sliding calculations rather than design
values.

The wind forces considered are based on the RWDI wind tunnel tests assuming minimal
suspended entertainment technology equipment and a rigid structure.

The lateral forces imposed on the structure are distributed based on the stiffness of each
component, with the stiffest load paths taking the most force. The primary lateral capacity and
stiffness is provided by the steel guy lines with the aluminum structure accounting for only 8 to
9%. Guy lines act only in tension and offer no resistance once placed in compression. The guy
lines that provide resistance to west winds are WR.A1.JB.W1.E, WR.B3.JB.W2.W,

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 86 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

WR.B4.JB.W2.E, WR.B2.JB.W3.W, WR.B1.JB.W3.E and WR.B4.JB.W4.E. For North winds,


those guy lines are WR.B1.JB.W3.W, WR.B2.JB.W3.E, WR.B4.JB.NW1.S, WR.F4.JB.NE1.S,
WR.F1.JB.E3.E, and WR.F2.JB.E3.W.

Figure 38. Guy lines contributing to the stiffness against wind from the a) West b) North direction

The stiffness contribution from each guy line is a function of its length, angle
plan orientation. The flexibility of the frame is calculated by treating it as an
frame. See Appendix D.8 for more details on the calculations performed.
stiffness of each component in both the north and west directions and what
lateral forces each will carry.
North Wind

Component

stiffness

to the ground and


un-guyed moment
Table 3 gives the
percentage of the

West Wind
% of
total
stiffness

Component

lbs/in

% of
total
stiffness

stiffness
lbs/in

WR.B1.JB.W3.W

482

15%

WR.A1.JB.W1.E

935

25%

WR.B2.JB.W3.E

175

5%

WR.B4.JB.W4.E

985

26%

WR.B4.JB.NW1.S

965

29%

WR.B2.JB.W3.W

430

12%

WR.F4.JB.NE1.S

950

29%

WR.B1.JB.W3.E

335

9%

WR.F1.JB.E3.E

325

10%

WR.B3.JB.W2.W

500

13%

WR.F2.JB.E3.W

100

3%

WR.B4.JB.W2.E

235

6%

Frame

310

9%

Frame

310

8%

Total

3307

100%

Total

3730

100%

Table 3: North and West Lateral stiffness of ISF Structure

Based on the RWDI report and as discussed in Section 6.1, the largest gusts from August 13
were from the west and the primary wind direction on August 9 was from West Northwest. The
INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 87 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

performance of the structure under wind coming from both of these directions was checked along
with winds from the Northwest and North. The intent was to determine the lateral wind force that
would cause the system to fail and the corresponding wind speed.
The forces due to initial pre-tension of the guy lines were also included in the total forces that
must be resisted by the Jersey barriers. Two values formed the upper and lower bound: 760 lbs,
as was used in the FEM analysis, and 380 lbs, half of that value.
As described in Appendix D.3, there were two failure modes possible: sliding and pivoting about
one end. The demand on each Jersey barrier by the applied lateral force was compared to the
capacity of the Jersey barrier to resist sliding and pivoting. The structure was considered to be
failing when the demand-capacity ratio (DCR) of one of the main guy line supports, JB.W1,
JB.W4, JB.NW1 and JB.NE1, exceeded one.

Wind Speeds

Without Suspended
Equipment

With Suspended
Equipment

lower
bound

upper
bound

lower
bound

upper
bound

North Wind

35 mph

38 mph

24 mph

26 mph

West Wind

42 mph

46 mph

32 mph

36 mph

Northwest Wind

36 mph

39 mph

29 mph

31 mph

WNW Wind

37 mph

42 mph

31 mph

34 mph

Table 4: Wind speeds reached at initial failure of a main Jersey barrier


(Note: The lower bound is based on an initial guy line tension of 760 lbs in all guy lines.
The upper bound assumes a 6 inch drape in all guy lines)

The results in Table 4 above are the wind speeds at which the forces imposed exceed the
capacity for one of the primary ballast locations (JB.W1 and JB.W4 for west winds, JB.NW1 and
JB.NE1 for north winds). These results are in line with the speed at first failure as determined
using the FEM analysis. What this analysis does not capture is the capacity of the structure to
redistribute imposed lateral forces. The failure of one Jersey barrier does not necessarily mean
the failure of the entire structure. It is clear even with this very basic analysis that the structure
as erected had a lateral system insufficient for its design wind speeds.
6.5

Simplified Analysis (Reasonable Engineer) Study


In addition to the forensic FEM analysis, TT conducted a simplified analysis based on the
information known to be available prior to August 13.
This information is limited in nature and differs from what was actually constructed. Furthermore,
several assumptions were made where information was not available. The results of this analysis
cannot be readily compared to the previously described FEM analysis due to differences in
geometry, loading, ballast arrangement, etc. This analysis is also intended to determine the level
of engineering can be achieved within a reasonable time frame and reasonable fee structure. It
also recognizes the limited information available regarding behavior and capacity of the
components and assemblies of the proprietary system utilized to construct the Structure.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 88 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

The analysis also presents some types of assumptions that might be appropriate in evaluating the
stability of a structure of this type. Further, it is intended to demonstrate the impact of those
assumptions and to highlight critical information essential to reasonably carrying out an analysis
of this type of structure.
6.5.1 Simplified Analysis Assumptions
Codes and Standards
Several codes and standards were used in this analysis including the following:

IBC 2006, referencing ASCE 7-05. The methodologies of ASCE 7 are employed
including the calculation of velocity pressures and provisions for open buildings with
pitched roofs and trussed towers.

ASCE 37-02. The effects of permitting basic wind speed provision reductions for
temporary structures is evaluated.

ANSI E1.21. Methodologies for determining ballast requirements are employed.

Reference Documents
Several reference documents utilized include:

Indiana State Fair Roof 2010 Thomas Engineering Supertruss Grid and Towers (refer
Appendix B.2) This document depicts the general arrangement of components in
plan and one side elevation.
Information regarding the truss top chords, roof
members, tarps, etc. is not indicated. The height indicated varies from the 2011
installation and the permanent stage is graphically depicted; however, no dimensions
are indicated. This analysis utilizes the information included in the drawing and
missing information is approximated based on scale and geometry.

James Thomas Engineering Inc. Product Range 2006 catalog (See Appendix F.3,
JTE Catalog) Member sizes; weights and geometry are based on the catalog
wherever possible. This information for other members is extrapolated.

2011 Sugarland Rigging Plot Suspended loading is limited to known loads


identified on the rigging plot.

System Assumptions

The proprietary system is assumed to be capable of collecting environmental loads


and able to internally carry and/or transfer applied loads between components, and
finally transmit those loads to the ground or into the guy line system. The JTE
catalog indicates that bending moments can be developed between the column and
spandrel elements; however the magnitude of those moments is not indicated.
Capacities for the fin plates are not indicated, nor are best practices outlined for
attachment of guy lines to the fin plates with regards to directionality.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 89 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Modeling Assumptions

All column base supports are modeled as compression-only springs.

Guy line system layout is optimized from an analysis standpoint it is assumed the
ballast arrangement can be laid out such that guy lines are in line with the main
structural frames, allowing for a 2-D analysis (see Figures 39 and 40). Ballast at each
location is intended to resist wind loads from one direction only.

Cables are modeled as tension-only rods cable elements were not used due to the
added complexity of accurately modeling cables and the unrealistic expectation that
the assumed pre-tension would be achieved during erection.

P- Delta effects were not included in the analysis actual stiffness of members and
assemblies, and actual fixities of component joints are not available in the JTE
catalog.

Loading Assumptions

Information regarding the LED scrim curtain and LED screen was unavailable prior to
erection of the structure; however, the effects of clear wind flow versus obstructed
wind flow are compared within the context of the provisions of ASCE 7.

The structure is assumed to be rigid as it relates to the Gust Effect Factor in ASCE 7;
an accurate determination of the natural frequency of the structure or the damping
ratio is unlikely given the limited information available.

Suspended loads are assumed to be evenly distributed over a given area.

Wind loads applied to the tarp are assumed to be transferred to the nearest structural
member. Actual anchorage points of the tarp occur only at the ridge and eave except
at the gable ends.

Wind Load Criteria

Mean roof height

Length of building perpendicular to ridge L = 76.5 feet

Width of building parallel to ridge

B = 58 feet

Basic Wind Speed

V = 90 mph

Importance Factor

I = 1.15

Exposure Category

Topographic Factor

Kzt = 1.0

Gust Effect Factor

G = 0.85

Enclosure Classification

Open

Internal Pressure Coefficient

Velocity Pressure Coefficient

Kh = 1.06

Directionality Factor

Kd = 0.85

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

h = 44 feet

Page 90 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

6.5.2 Simplified Analysis Procedure


Two frames were modeled separately: one frame parallel to the ridge and one frame
perpendicular to the ridge. Wind loads for both frames were calculated per ASCE 7
provisions for pitched free roofs. Cases A and B as defined by ASCE 7 were evaluated for
both clear wind flow and obstructed wind flow. The basic wind speed reduction provision of
ASCE 37 was also evaluated. Each frame was evaluated with the guy line angle from
horizontal at 30, 45 and 60 degrees for comparison. Absolute minimum loads per ASCE 7
Section 6.1.4.1 were also calculated. Calculation methodologies are outlined further in
Appendix D.9.

Figure 39. Wind loads applied parallel to ridge

Figure 40. Wind loads applied perpendicular to ridge

Horizontal and vertical ballast requirements on the windward side of each frame were
determined for each of the cases above utilizing two allowable stress load combinations from
ASCE 7. The first case, 0.6D+1.0W, utilized a safety factor of 1.5 based on the
recommendations of the ANSI 1.21 document. This load combination and safety factor

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 91 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

represent the typical design approach for stability. The second combination, 1.0D+1.0W,
utilized a safety factor of 1.0 and represents a best case scenario of the likely actual
behavior at the wind speed investigated. The results are presented in Tables 5 and 6.
6.5.3 Simplified Analysis Results
Three main factors significantly influence the amount of ballast required to restrain the
Structure. These factors are the total weight of the structure and suspended elements, the
type of flow, and the use of the ASCE 37 basic wind speed reduction.
The total dead load including the weight of the structure and suspended rigging and
suspended entertainment technology equipment has a significant impact on the ballast
requirements. Further, these loads may vary from one event to the next and are not truly
dead loads in that respect. Once the dead load of the structure and suspended elements is
overcome by wind uplift forces, the ballast requirements increase rapidly. Therefore it is
important that all of the suspended loads are known in advance and each loading
configuration is evaluated when determining the ballast requirements.
The next factor significantly affecting the ballast requirements is the type of flow. The
methodology for free roofs in ASCE 7 that was utilized to determine wind loads affects only
the pressures applied to the roof. Additional loads on surfaces suspended from the structure
must be calculated separately, and applied to the structure. In addition to the weight of
suspended entertainment technology equipment, it is important that the size, porosity and
shape of the suspended entertainment technology equipment are also known in advance and
evaluated when determining the ballast requirements. It is possible that a case with no
additional rigging load could control the ballast requirements.
The 25% reduction in the basic wind speed provision in ASCE 37 clearly has a significant
impact on the magnitude of the ballast requirements. This is especially true when the uplift
forces are sufficiently reduced such that there is no longer a net uplift. Although this structure
is erected for only a few weeks a year, it is reconstructed year after year during a time when
the occupancy is at its highest, and the cumulative installation period can exceed that of a
truly temporary structure.
In lieu of an arbitrary wind speed reduction, a more rational design method is to design to a
target wind speed based on several factors. One is the performance limits of the base
structural system erected in its intended configuration. Another factor is the creation of an
operational plan based on the limits of the structure that clearly outlines procedures to be
followed for specific weather conditions to protect the public, personnel and property.
For example, the guy line system and the connections to the structure may not have sufficient
capacity to meet some of the calculated ballast requirements. When determining the ballast
requirements, the ability of the structure to transfer load into the restraint system should be
considered. It is not practical to provide ballast for a condition which is beyond the capacity
of the structure. However this limit should then influence the operational plan.
The equivalent quantities of Jersey barriers for individual frame lines provided in Tables 5
and 6 show that a ballasted system that relies solely on its dead weight and friction can
INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 92 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

quickly become impractical to implement depending on the design requirements. This can be
shown by looking at the total number of Jersey barriers that would be required for a structure
based on a full design load, a safety factor of 1.5, obstructed flow and guy lines at 45 degrees
from horizontal: based on Tables 5 and 6, a total of 180 Jersey barriers would be required in
this case. Even for a best case scenario using the basic wind speed reduction, a safety factor
of 1.0 and no reduction of dead load, a total of 28 barriers would be required. This is a
significant increase from the 10 barriers that are provided to stabilize the Structure.
More efficient ballast arrangements can also reduce the demand on the structure and prevent
large accumulations of load at a single point of the structure. One method is to provide
ballast at the base of each column, which eliminates the additional horizontal component
applied to ballast connected by guy line systems. If the stage is erected above another
structure, the base structure should be evaluated for the weight of the ballast in addition to
the rigging structure. For lightly loaded structures where net uplift can control the design, this
method can help prevent the columns from getting knocked out from under the structure.
Another method of increasing the efficiency of ballast systems is to provide restraint for the
ballast so that it does not rely on friction (i.e. mechanical anchors). Care must also be taken
to ensure ballast systems do not overturn.
Some additional efficiency can be achieved with thoughtful guy line arrangement. For cases
where there is no net uplift, the angle between the guy line and the ground surface does not
have a major influence on the total amount of ballast required. However, when there is a net
uplift, the shallow angled guy lines are affected more noticeably.
This simple analysis also shows that regardless of the ASCE 37 provision of reduction in
basic wind speed, variations in wind flow and guy line angle, and different load combinations
or safety factors used in the calculations, the amount of ballast required can be significant.
The clear conclusion is that ballasted systems are not ideal for stabilizing these types of
structures.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 93 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Table 5: Ballast requirements along one frame line parallel to the ridge

Table 6: Ballast requirements along one frame line perpendicular to the ridge

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 94 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Section 7.0
Conclusions

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 95 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 96 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

7.0

SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS

7.1

ISF Structure Component Deficiencies and Commentary


The failure modes of the ISF Structure were analyzed using the calculated wind speeds present
at the ISF Structure site on August 13, 2011. These wind speeds are lower than the minimum specified wind speed resistance required under even the most liberal provisions of applicable
building codes and reference standards. Further, the prescriptive requirements of the building
codes set the minimum level of performance expected of structures and do not necessarily
represent the standard of care that should be met when designing unique or complex structures.
Failure to meet that standard can result in undesirable performance or failures. Five aspects of
the ISF Structure failure are discussed below.

7.1.1 Lateral Guying System


7.1.1.1 Jersey Barrier Capacity
Both the Forensic Finite Element Analysis and the Reasonable Engineer analysis
conducted by TT found the Jersey barriers as arranged at the site provided insufficient
restraint for the guy line system for both code-specified wind loads and the lesser wind
loads of August 13, 2011.
Further, as demonstrated by TTs full-scale evaluation of the ballast capacity provided
by the Jersey barriers utilized at the ISF Structure, the as-built ballast system actually
provided more resistance than would be indicated by the more conservative published
design values that would customarily be used by an engineer manually calculating
these capacities. Therefore, a competent engineers desk-top design/review of the
ballast capacity utilizing accepted coefficients for concrete sliding should have shown
even less resistance, (i.e. an even larger deficiency) than found by TTs allowable
capacity forensic analysis.
7.1.1.2 Guy Line Capacity
Based on both the Forensic Finite Element Analysis and Reasonable Engineer
analysis conducted by TT, it was determined the guy line system installed at the ISF
Structure provided insufficient resistance against both code-required loads and the
lesser wind loads of August 13, 2011. Specifically, the synthetic ratchet strap and wire
rope breaking strengths would have been exceeded in the North wind case under the
59 mph wind loading had the ballast system been adequate.
7.1.1.3 Fin Plate Capacity
Based on both the Forensic Finite Element Analysis and the Reasonable Engineer
analysis conducted by TT, it was determined the fin plates located on the gate
members of the ISF Structure were insufficient to resist the guy line forces applied for
both code-specified wind loads and the lesser wind loads of August 13, 2011.
Specifically, if Jersey barrier ballast and guy lines had not failed first, the strength of fin
INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 97 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

plate connections to the structure still would have been exceeded in the North, West
and Northwest wind cases under the 59 mph wind loading.
7.1.2 Roof Tarp/Membrane
7.1.2.1 Tarp Displacement
The ridge panel of the tarp tore away during the collapse, causing the eastern, leeward
half of the tarp to billow up and tear away from the ridge trusses. It was apparent the
wind was captured by the deformed tarp, thereby creating a parachute and catching
wind for an instant. Based on TTs analysis the effect observed did impose additional
drag forces on the ISF Structure main wind load resisting system; however, it is
important to note the ISF Structure was already in a collapse sequence by this point.
The total lateral force applied to the ISF Structure prior to this billowing was greater
than its lateral load resistance capabilities. Therefore, although the billowing roof tarp
might appear to have contributed a triggering lateral force, TT finds the structure was
already in a state of failure without the contribution of the roof tarp displacement.
7.1.2.2 Tarp Ridge Panel Release
The roof tarps ridge panel inherently acted as a fusible link because it was less
restrained than the mechanically connected (with ratchet straps and knotted ropes) east
and west halves. However, pressure relief of the ridge panel tearing away would have
contributed a negligible reduction to total lateral force. The RWDI wind tunnel test
without the eastern half of the roof tarp in place (simulating its failure during the
collapse) demonstrated that the lateral forces on the structure increased when the roof
panel was removed. Therefore, it appears that this ridge panel release would have
contributed to a reduction in uplift forces, but not lateral forces, imposed on the ISF
Structure.
Based on wind tunnel test results, TT finds that regardless of the ridge panel release,
the lateral forces on the structure were significant enough to cause the collapse without
considering the uplift on the roof. Even without the loading on the eastern half of the
roof, the lateral capacity of the structure would still have been exceeded. Therefore, TT
concludes the timing of the ridge panel release would not have had an effect on
maintaining stability of the ISF Structure.
7.2

Roles of Relevant Parties


The summary below identifies the roles of those parties involved with the manufacture, design,
erection, rigging and use of the ISF Structure.

7.2.1 Structure Manufacturer: James Thomas Engineering


James Thomas Engineering (JTE) is a designer and manufacturer of truss and lighting
systems for the entertainment industry based in the United Kingdom with United States
operations as well. JTE engineers and manufactures components in its U.K. facility as well
INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 98 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

as in the United States. According to the www.jthomaseng.com website, James Thomas


Engineering offers Truss Design and designs including Stage Roof Truss design and
aluminum truss design.
7.2.1.1 Unclear Intent of JTE Catalog
The James Thomas Engineering catalog (PRODUCT RANGE 2006) available on the
company website provides details regarding the components of the JTE systems;
however, the catalog falls short of being a design or users guide for the truss systems.
It is unclear based on the documentation provided if additional engineering guidance is
supplied to the erector/end-user regarding system capacities, limitations and erection
requirements of the structures. In addition, because documentation was withheld from
Thornton Tomasetti, it is unclear how much flexibility is provided to the end-users of the
systems with regard to configuration of the components and the resulting structural
limitations. Moreover, there is no explicit direction to engage the services of a licensed
design professional to analyze complex loading configurations or conditions. Examples
of other deficiencies are noted below.
7.2.1.2 Incompleteness of Load Data in JTE Catalog
Allowable Load data is presented in a tabular format and annotated as data that has
been extracted from the structural report by Broadhurst, Goodwin, and Dunn and/or
Jesse Mise. No attempt is made to discuss the ramifications of using multiple
components in an assembly or the fact these capacities from different components are
generally not additive in nature when multiple components are used together to
construct a roof/grid structure. For example, a structure using 10 columns, each with X
kips capacity, will not necessarily be capable of carrying a total load of 10X kips
because distribution of the load among the columns can vary.
7.2.1.3 Incompleteness of Lateral Bracing Guidance
The discussion of lateral bracing requirements is significantly lacking in detail. On page
6 of the 12 and 15 Ground Support Tower Operating Instructions, there is one
sentence regarding lateral bracing of the system: As noted in Safety Notes on page
2. If the truss is to be used outdoors then the whole system must be restrained against
wind loading on the truss; please refer to Guy Wire set" sheet. The subsequent page
depicts a column with a single guy line connected to a shallow helical ground anchor
and contains the note: Figure showing a Guy wire set up on one corner of the Tower
system. This must be used on all corners, if the Rig is used outdoors. These diagrams
should specifically identify the types of lateral systems required and/or state that
services of a licensed design professional are required to design an adequate system.
7.2.1.4 Incomplete Structural Calculations
It should be noted that representatives of James Thomas Engineering did provide
Thornton Tomasetti with one copy of an engineering report on approximately August
16, 2011. This hand-written calculation package was prepared by Jesse Mise, P.E. for
INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 99 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

James Thomas Engineering. The document, with pages dated 7/22/10, 7/23/10 and
7/24/10 analyzes three different concert rigging systems that were to be installed at the
Indiana State Fair. Based on the content of this report it is clear that Mr. Mise had
access to structural data that is not contained in the JTE Product Range 2006 catalog.
However, the analysis falls short of adequately addressing the actual loading conditions
of the Sugarland set and suspended entertainment technology equipment, or the actual
code-defined environmental loading conditions to which the ISF Structure would be
subjected. The most significant deficiency with regard to this review is the decision to
blindly apply the requirements of the 2010 installation, which were inadequate, to the
2011 installation and the further failure to implement even the totality of the
requirements specified in 2010. Moreover, the calculations reflect a misapplication of
the wind load provisions of ASCE 7, a haphazard and incorrect application of provisions
not specific to the structure, and a failure to provide a complete load path including
ballast requirements. Lastly, the operational recommendations (lowering of the roof
structure) stipulated for a high-wind event could not be implemented in a time frame
consistent with typical weather warning systems. Refer to Appendix D.10 for a detailed
discussion of these deficiencies.
7.2.2 Structure Owner/Erector: Mid America Sound (MAS)
According to the contract data posted on http://www.in.gov/sfc, Mid America Sound
Corporation (MAS) was contracted by the Indiana State Fair Commission for the procurement
and erection of the roof structure for the Grandstand Stage. Per 2011 correspondence from
MAS, the company has been providing service to the ISFC for over twenty years.
7.2.2.1 Variations in Configuration
According to interview notes contained within the Indiana Department of Labor
statement files, it was reported by Allen Story of Mid America Sound that the ISF
Structure was first erected in 1995 with assistance from personnel from James Thomas
Engineering. Based on photographs reviewed by TT, 2005 appears to be the first year
that a variation of the current ISF Structure (10 columns with super pre-rig truss roof
system) was used; however, in subsequent years there have been multiple
configurations and significant adaptations of the structure (refer to Appendix F.2
Comparison of Previous Configurations 2003 2011 for details).
7.2.2.2 Review of Structure Capacity
As the owner and contractor responsible for the erection of the ISF Structure, MAS has
a responsibility to review the proposed show loading and determine if the structure is
capable of supporting said loads. According to Robert Williams statement to IOSHA,
the bands provide diagrams months before the concert that indicate where the lighting
goes. This fact was corroborated by the August 14, 2011 email from Eric Milby to
Margaret Davidson where he stated: I received the rigging plot for Sugarland on July
5th from the tour. It was sent off to Kerry and Bob [at Mid America Sound] for approval
on the same day. from (sic) that point on I normally dont hear anything unless there is
a problem with the weight. Refer to the Sugarland Rigging Plot in Appendix B.3 for a
INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 100 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

copy of this diagram. Based on the information received and reviewed by TT, there
was no apparent review of the 2011 rigging plot by a licensed design professional.
7.2.2.3 Oversight for Erection of ISF Structure
It is clear from the statements made to IOSHA by Allen Story, Garod Cavanaugh, John
Robison and Robert Williams of MAS that Mid America Sound personnel provided
guidance and oversight to IASTE Local #30 personnel who erected the ISF Structure
between August 2 and August 4, 2011. In addition, Robert Williams reported that four
MAS personnel were on-site during the August 13, 2011 load-in for Sugarland.
7.2.2.4 Misunderstanding of Structure Limitations
The IOSHA interview summaries identify there were significant misunderstandings
regarding the configuration and limitations of the ISF Structure. Specifically, Mr.
Cavanaugh indicated a concern regarding a 40 mile per hour wind speed; John
Robison also referred to a dialogue in the production trailer and Mr. Cavanaughs
concern regarding 40 mile per hour winds. He also stated: we were taught that the roof
would handle 50 or 55 mile per hour winds safely, Al and Bob taught me that. As
demonstrated by TTs various analyses, the ISF Structures stability is highly dependent
on the weight and surface area of the suspended entertainment technology equipment
and scenery. Therefore, statements regarding a safe wind speed threshold are only
relevant to an unloaded structure (with no lighting or suspended entertainment
technology equipment). Further, this capacity would be contingent on establishing an
adequate ballast system, which was not present at the ISF Structure.
There is further misunderstanding regarding the center strip of the tarp membrane.
Allen Story indicated the center is designed to blow away in severe weather, a
statement corroborated by John Robison. However, as noted above, based on analysis
by Thornton Tomasetti, no significant pressure affecting the ISF Structure lateral wind
forces would be relieved from the structure by the removal of the center strip.
7.2.2.5 Misunderstanding of Jersey Barrier Configuration
The use of Jersey barriers as ballast is a practice that has been employed repeatedly at
the Indiana State Fair, yet it appears that those responsible for the design and erection
of the ISF Structure do not have a clear understanding of how the systems are utilized.
Allen Story states in his interview that the Guy wire is a standard 45 degree angle and
that the Guy wires go in the same place every year. Based on TTs review of the site
and previous years configurations, it is apparent that none of the guy lines are oriented
at a 45 degree angle and that various configurations of guy lines have been used in the
past.
7.2.2.6 Deviations from JTE Recommendations
As noted above, several different variations of the ISF Structure have been used in
recent years. Of significant interest is the fact that five extra support columns were
INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 101 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

specified by JTEs engineer (Jesse Mise) in the 2010 engineering report. Based on
review of 2010 and 2011 State Fair photographs, it appears the 2010 structure
contained five extra columns until the night of the 2010 Sugarland show when two of
the rear supplemental towers were removed. In 2011, all three rear supplemental
towers were installed during the initial erection of the ISF Structure, yet the two side
columns (at column line 3) were never installed. It should be noted that while these
elements contributed to the gravity-load carrying capacity of the structure, due to the
manner in which they were connected to the main trusses, they did little to increase its
rigidity or lateral support. Of similar interest is the fact that JTEs engineering report
called for 1/2 diameter guy lines at all four corners, yet the as-built configuration
utilized multiple 3/8 diameter guy lines in various configurations. Further, snap
bracing at the sloped roof plane was called for in the report, yet none of these
components were observed within the ISF Structure. Note: this discussion is not to
define a cause of the failure, but rather to present the ongoing lack of uniformity and
understanding of the requirements of the ISF Structure by those contracted to erect the
structure at the Indiana State Fair.
7.2.3 Structure Erector: IATSE Local #30
The International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists
and Allied Crafts of the United States, Its Territories and Canada (IATSE) Local #30 provided
union labor to assist with the erection of the ISF Structure. As noted above, under the
direction of Mid America Sound, the IATSE personnel worked in early August to erect the
structure as well as on August 13, 2011 during the load-in for the Sugarland show. According
to IATSE labor invoices, three to four riggers and over 20 stagehands were utilized on a daily
basis to erect the ISF Structure over a three-day period spanning August 2 4, 2011.
7.2.3.1 Use of Certified Riggers
According to http://etcp.plasa.org, The Entertainment Technician Certification Program
(ETCP) is a program that offers certification in entertainment industry rigging. This
voluntary program was initiated to enhance safety, reduce workplace risk and to
improve performance of the rigging operation. Two types of rigging certifications are
offered by ETCP: Theater and Area. According to PLASA, the Rigger Arena
certification encompasses rigging that employs chain hoists and truss system
to
temporarily suspend objects from overhead structures in any environment.
It should be noted that a search of the online ETCP technician database
(http://etcp.plasa.org/cert_technicians/search.php) shortly after the ISF Structure
collapse indicated that only three riggers affiliated with Local 30 have been ETCP
certified as Rigger-Arena (see Appendix F.13). According to IATSE labor invoices one
ETCP-certified rigger was involved at the Indiana State Fair during the erection of the
ISF Structure on August 2 - 4, 2011; however, there are no records indicating if any
were present on August 13, 2011 during the installation of Sugarlands equipment.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 102 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

7.2.4 Structure User: Indiana State Fair Commission Staff


The Indiana State Fair Commission staff assumed multiple roles related to the erection and
use of the ISF Structure. As noted above, the ISFC contracted with Mid America Sound to
provide and erect the ISF Structure, as well as contracting with IATSE Local #30 for labor to
assist in the erection.
7.2.4.1 Responsibility for Site Safety
As the controlling entity of the property at which a structure is being erected, the ISFC
staff should have a vested interest in the safety of the operations on their property.
However, based on discussions and from review of transcripts and interview statements
of ISFC staff, it is Thornton Tomasettis opinion that ISFC personnel lack technical
knowledge regarding the ISF Structure and its environmental load limitations and have
little to no involvement with the annual erection of the structure. The ISFC has no
records, documentation, plans, engineering reports or related technical data regarding
the structure that is erected at the property on an annual basis. Without having
technical information regarding the loading and environmental limitations of a structure,
one is not able to conduct an adequate risk assessment or develop adequate
contingency plans regarding said structure.
7.2.4.2 Need for Knowledge by Facilities Management Staff
At approximately 250 acres in size and with dozens of permanent structures, the
Indiana State Fairgrounds is a sizable campus with complex facilities management
needs. These responsibilities should be coordinated by a facilities management team
whose members fully understand the built improvements on the fairgrounds. Despite
the non-permanent nature of the ISF Structure, due to the fact that it is used on an
annual basis at a time when the fairgrounds have their highest population density, ISFC
facilities management employees should have a basic knowledge of the loading and
environmental limitations of the ISF Structure.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 103 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 104 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Section 8.0
Recommendations

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 105 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 106 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

8.0

RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are based on Thornton Tomasettis review of the Indiana State Fair
Collapse Incident through independent analysis, code review and related document evaluations.

8.1

Permit and Enforcement Process

8.1.1 Design by Competent Licensed Design Professional


Entertainment structures should be designed by licensed design professionals with
experience in the design and evaluation of temporary entertainment structures with complex
loading configurations. Calculations and drawings should be generated for each proposed
configuration of the structure as well as parameters for the proposed suspended trusses,
suspended entertainment technology equipment, lighting and scenery elements.
Overly
general empirical design guides or capacity tables for end-users to interpret are not sufficient.
Well documented rigging guidelines with defined assumptions, constraints and limitations
should be provided.
8.1.2 Submission of Permit Applications and Design Review
The above-referenced calculations and drawings should be submitted to the Authority Having
Jurisdiction (AHJ) for a formal permit review process as required for other Class 1 structures.
If the AHJ does not have adequate staff to properly evaluate the documents submitted with
the permit application, the AHJ should require an independent design check by a licensed
design professional with experience in the design and evaluation of temporary structures with
complex loading configurations. The cost associated with this review should be paid by the
applicant. This peer review process is employed in many jurisdictions for plan review of
both ordinary and complex structures.
8.1.3 Inspection of Completed Structure
A Special Inspection of the completed structure should be completed by an independent
licensed design professional with experience in the design and evaluation of temporary
structures.
8.2

Codes and Standards Requirements

8.2.1 Design Parameters Based on Use


Despite the fact these structures are temporary in nature; the ramifications of their failure
can be significant and severe. In fact, most entertainment structure installations are in
locations with dense crowds that are unfamiliar with their surroundings. Such Occupancy
characteristics generally require enhanced safety and redundancy in permanent structures
of a similar Assembly use. In addition, many entertainment structures are erected annually
over multiple years. This makes permanent design parameters more appropriate even
though there are periods of inactivity. Therefore, duration-related reductions in capacities

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 107 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

and safety provisions are not necessarily warranted in the design or construction of such
structures.
8.2.2 Design Parameters Based on Variability
Entertainment structures are highly variable in configuration and loading.
Design
requirements must specifically define the need to check all proposed loading configurations
for both gravity and lateral resistance capacities. Consideration should be given to
environmental loads due to wind and seismic activity.
8.2.3 Design Parameters Based on Site Conditions
The structure design must be appropriate for the site at which the structure is to be erected
and used. Varying elevations, environmental conditions, ground conditions, soil conditions,
etc. will affect the performance of a system. A one size fits all approach cannot be utilized
when establishing limitations for a pre-engineered system.
8.2.4 Factors of Safety Based on Variability
These structures are highly variable in configuration and loading. In addition, the time
available for planning, design, analysis and construction is often limited. A well-established
approach to accommodate the multitude of unknowns associated with the aforementioned
conditions is through the application of increased factors of safety.
8.2.5 Specialty Reference Standards
Specialized structures such as the ISF Structure are complex systems that need to be
analyzed and designed as such. Therefore, it would be prudent for a US-based engineering
standards body to develop a comprehensive engineering-based document related to the
design, construction and use of these structures. A good example of such a document is the
guide published by the Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE) in the United Kingdom in
conjunction with participants from the entertainment rigging industry. The document,
Temporary demountable structures, Guidance on procurement, design and use, is a 100+
page manual that provides direction for design, erection and operation of such structures.
While not a code document, it provides detailed guidance for designers, constructors and
users/clients of temporary structures.
8.2.6 Modifications to Model Building Codes and Reference Standards
When an Authority Having Jurisdiction enacts local modifications to the boilerplate language
of model codes and/or reference standards (as done in 675 IAC 13-2.5-17), the amended
language should not change the intent of the code provisions nor should it eliminate content
that is not properly addressed elsewhere in the local amendments. In addition, the number of
exclusions or exemptions for specific structure types should be limited unless there is sound
engineering and life-safety justification thereof.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 108 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

8.3

Lateral Systems

8.3.1 Ballast
The use of movable ballast elements relying on self-weight and friction is not a desirable
method by which to restrain an Entertainment Technology Temporary Ground-Supported
Structure Used to Cover the Stage Area and Support Equipment in the Production of Outdoor
Entertainment Events. As demonstrated in the Analysis sections of this report, an impractical
number of Jersey barriers would be required to adequately restrain a structure large enough
to accommodate the current suspended entertainment technology equipment used in
professional entertainment productions under normal code-specified loading provisions.
8.3.2 Mechanical Anchor Points
Mechanical anchoring systems should be utilized whenever possible for installations of
temporary ground-supported structures. Helical piers or other ground anchors can much
more readily achieve the load capacities required by such systems while also providing better
fixity in the event of dynamic loading conditions such as high winds or seismic activity.
8.3.3 Shared Anchor Points
Particularly if movable ballast is utilized, it is imperative that the designer and erector
understand the ramifications of grouping/shared guy line anchors. Whenever multiple guy
lines are attached to a single anchor point or ballast element, the effects of guy line geometry
may further reduce maximum resistance provided by that anchor or element.
8.3.4 Geometry of Guy Line Systems
Lateral guying must be provided to resist loads in all directions through the guy line system.
While actual site conditions/constraints and audience location/sight lines must be considered
when developing a practical arrangement for guy lines, there is never justification for
providing inadequate lateral restraint.
8.4

Operations
While beyond the scope of TTs investigation, it is the opinion of Thornton Tomasetti that several
operational changes should be implemented during the use of an Entertainment Technology
Temporary Ground-Supported Structures Used to Cover the Stage Area and Support Equipment
in the Production of Outdoor Entertainment Events.
An appropriate, feasible and cost-effective design cannot resist all possible environmental
conditions. Therefore operational constraints and limitations should be considered for the use of
such structures, with limitations and operational guideline plans formalized in a written document
drafted with input from all relevant stakeholders (client, manufacturer, owner, designer, erector,
performers/users, and public safety agencies responsible for any response operations at the
venue). Such plans should include, but not be limited to: limitations of the structure, atmospheric
monitoring requirements, evacuation requirements and emergency response operations

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 109 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

requirements. In addition to wind storms and snow loads (where applicable), risk assessment
and site safety plans should account for no-notice events such as seismic activity when such
events are probable risks at the subject venue.
However, operational guidelines must be realistic. Based on a review of recent failures, it is TTs
position that the operational actions recommended in ANSI/ESTA/PLASA 1.21 Section A.5.2 Pre
Use are not practical life-safety measures for the complex stage set and suspended
entertainment technology equipment arrays used in modern concert productions. Specifically, it is
often not practical to lower or remove scrims, much less the entire roof grid structure, in a timely
manner in the event of locally generated high wind conditions such as thunderstorms.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Page 110 of 110

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Appendix A.1
Sugarland Schedule

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix A.1

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix A.1

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

Appendix B.1
IOSHA Log of Redactions
& Documents Withheld

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix B.1

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix B.1

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Appendix B.2
Black and White Grid Layout

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix B.2

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix B.2

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

Appendix B.3
Appendix
1A
Rigging Plot

Sugarland Rigging Plot 2011

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix B.3

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix B.3

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Total Light Weight = lbs


Total Sound Weight = lbs
Total Video Weight = lbs
Total Rig Weight = lbs

Point
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
L10
L11
L12
L13
L14

X
-28'0"
-26'0"
-9'0"
9'0"
26'0"
28'0"
-20'0"
-10'0"
0"
10'0"
20'0"
-23'0"
-10'0"
10'0"

Meters
0
1

Y
26'0"
41'6"
42'0"
42'0"
41'6"
26'0"
35'0"
35'0"
35'0"
35'0"
35'0"
28'0"
28'0"
28'0"

Feet
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Scale Rulers

WEIGHT
1450 lbs
1275 lbs
1275 lbs
1250 lbs
1250 lbs
1350 lbs
1600 lbs
1650 lbs
2650 lbs
1650 lbs
1600 lbs
1200 lbs
1750 lbs
1750 lbs

SR3

O1

SR4

TRIM
38'0"
38'0"
38'0"
38'0"
38'0"
38'0"
38'0"
38'0"
43'0"
43'0"
43'0"
43'0"
43'0"
43'0"

Point
L15
L16
L17
L18
L19
L20
L21
L22
L23
L24
D1
D2
D3
CP1

SR1

SR2

SR5

SR6

L20

L19

TRIM Point
43'0" CP2
43'0" CP3
43'0" CP4
43'0" SR1
43'0" SR2
43'0" SR3
43'0" SR4
43'0" SR5
43'0" SR6
43'0" SL7
43'0" SL1
43'0" SL2
43'0" SL3
43'0" SL4

L21

10' HUD TRUSS

X
-32'0"
-31'0"
-34'0"
-34'0"
-34'0"
-41'4"
-37'4"
-34'0"
-34'0"
34'0"
34'0"
34'0"
41'4"
37'4"

10' HUD TRUSS

Y
WEIGHT
23'0"
525 lbs
14'6"
650 lbs
8'6"
525 lbs
-4'0"
885 lbs
0"
885 lbs
2'0 1/2" 675 lbs
2'9 1/2" 675 lbs
5'0"
1000 lbs
7'3 1/2" 1000 lbs
14'0"
TBD
-4'0"
885 lbs
0"
885 lbs
2'0 1/2" 675 lbs
2'9 1/2" 675 lbs

Datum

0,0

TRIM Point
43'0" SL5
43'0" SL6
43'0" SL7
TBD
K1
TBD
K2
TBD
K3
TBD
O1
TBD
O2
TBD
U1
TBD
U2
TBD
U3
TBD
U4
TBD
U5
TBD
U6

L22

10' HUD TRUSS

X
34'0"
34'0"
34'0"
-27'6"
0"
27'6"
-37'4"
37'4"
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted

L23

L24

K3
10' HUD TRUSS

SL1

SL2

SL5

SL6

SL7

Y
WEIGHT TRIM
5'0"
1000 lbs TBD
7'3 1/2" 1000 lbs TBD
14'0"
TBD
TBD
12'6"
TBD
TBD
12'6"
TBD
TBD
12'6"
TBD
TBD
0"
TBD
TBD
0"
TBD
TBD
Inverted
TBD
43'0"
Inverted
TBD
43'0"
Inverted
TBD
43'0"
Inverted
TBD
43'0"
Inverted
TBD
43'0"
Inverted
TBD
43'0"

10' HUD TRUSS

L15

10' HUD TRUSS

K2

L14

10' HUD TRUSS

L11

D3

K1

10' HUD TRUSS

L10

L5

L18

L13

10' HUD TRUSS

L9

L4

L17

10' HUD TRUSS

10' HUD TRUSS

L8

L3

D2

L16

WEIGHT
1200 lbs
425 lbs
550 lbs
425 lbs
850 lbs
900 lbs
1500 lbs
1500 lbs
900 lbs
850 lbs
450 lbs
450 lbs
450 lbs
500 lbs

L7

L6

L12

Y
28'0"
14'6"
14'6"
14'6"
5'8"
-1'0"
-1'0"
-1'0"
-1'0"
5'8"
47'8"
47'8"
47'8"
35'0"

L2

L1

D1

X
23'0"
-27'6"
0"
27'6"
-29'0"
-29'0"
-10'4"
10'4"
29'0"
29'0"
-28'6"
0"
28'6"
-34'3"

CP3

CP2

SR7

CP1

CP4

NOTE# ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE BASED ON


X & Y POINTS STARTING AT 0' DEAD CENTER
TO THE DOWNSTAGE EDGE OF STAGE
ALL TRIMS ARE BASED FROM ARENA FROM
NOT THE STAGE.
All Rigging Weights Are Estimates Only!

0'

Sound 1 Ton Motor


(14) Active

CM 1/2 Ton Motor


(23) Active

CM 1 Ton Motor
(28) Active

CM 2 Ton Motor
(3) Active

Symbol Key

10' HUD TRUSS

Point
U7
U8
U9
U10
U11
U12
U13
U14
U15
U16

O2

SL4

X
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted

SL3

Y
WEIGHT TRIM
Inverted
TBD
43'0"
Inverted
TBD
43'0"
Inverted
TBD
43'0"
Inverted
TBD
43'0"
Inverted
TBD
43'0"
Inverted
TBD
43'0"
Inverted
TBD
43'0"
Inverted
TBD
43'0"
Inverted
TBD
43'0"
Inverted
TBD
43'0"

Drawnby:
CurtisE.Beall

NOTES:
1.Thesedesignsand/ordrawingsare
arepresentationonly!!!Thedesigner
and/ordraftspersonisnotalicensed
engineerandisnotqualifiedto
determinewhetherthe
drawingand/ordesignmeetsstructual
safetyand/orbuildingcoderequirements
2:Alllightingfixturesmusthave
wiresafetycables
3:Allelectricalconnectorstobe
madewithapproved,polarizedand
groundedconnectors.
4:Allfeedermustbeapproved
EntertaimentGrade.

10

10

PRODUCTION
TECHNOLOGIES

EPIC

RiggingPlot

Date:
Version: Sheet:
5/16/11
2.2
24x36

Phone:
(615)4786404
Email:
RMastrangelo@clairglobal.com

Audio
RalphMastrangelo
ClairBros

Phone:
(615)8043817
Email:
CCCrawford1@live.com

ProductionManager:
ChrisCrawford

Designer/ProductionDesign:
StevenCohenProductions,LTD
SteveCohen
Designer:
MarkFoffano

Project
Image

Sugarland
2011

Total Light Weight = lbs


Total Sound Weight = lbs
Total Video Weight = lbs
Total Rig Weight = lbs

Point
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
L10
L11
L12
L13
L14

Meters
0
1

X
-28'0"
-26'0"
-9'0"
9'0"
26'0"
28'0"
-20'0"
-10'0"
0"
10'0"
20'0"
-23'0"
-10'0"
10'0"

Y
26'0"
41'6"
42'0"
42'0"
41'6"
26'0"
35'0"
35'0"
35'0"
35'0"
35'0"
28'0"
28'0"
28'0"

WEIGHT
1450 lbs
1275 lbs
1275 lbs
1250 lbs
1250 lbs
1350 lbs
1600 lbs
1650 lbs
2650 lbs
1650 lbs
1600 lbs
1200 lbs
1750 lbs
1750 lbs

Sound 1 Ton Motor


(14) Active

CM 1/2 Ton Motor


(23) Active

CM 1 Ton Motor
(28) Active

CM 2 Ton Motor
(3) Active

Symbol Key

Feet
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Scale Rulers

TRIM
38'0"
38'0"
38'0"
38'0"
38'0"
38'0"
38'0"
38'0"
43'0"
43'0"
43'0"
43'0"
43'0"
43'0"

NOTE# ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE BASED ON


X & Y POINTS STARTING AT 0' DEAD CENTER
TO THE DOWNSTAGE EDGE OF STAGE
ALL TRIMS ARE BASED FROM ARENA FROM
NOT THE STAGE.
All Rigging Weights Are Estimates Only!

0'

Point
L15
L16
L17
L18
L19
L20
L21
L22
L23
L24
D1
D2
D3
CP1

10' HUD TRUSS

X
23'0"
-27'6"
0"
27'6"
-29'0"
-29'0"
-10'4"
10'4"
29'0"
29'0"
-28'6"
0"
28'6"
-34'3"

U1

Y
28'0"
14'6"
14'6"
14'6"
5'8"
-1'0"
-1'0"
-1'0"
-1'0"
5'8"
47'8"
47'8"
47'8"
35'0"

WEIGHT
1200 lbs
425 lbs
550 lbs
425 lbs
850 lbs
900 lbs
1500 lbs
1500 lbs
900 lbs
850 lbs
450 lbs
450 lbs
450 lbs
500 lbs

U15

U16

U2

TRIM Point
43'0" CP2
43'0" CP3
43'0" CP4
43'0" SR1
43'0" SR2
43'0" SR3
43'0" SR4
43'0" SR5
43'0" SR6
43'0" SL7
43'0" SL1
43'0" SL2
43'0" SL3
43'0" SL4

10' HUD TRUSS

10' HUD TRUSS

U7

X
-32'0"
-31'0"
-34'0"
-34'0"
-34'0"
-41'4"
-37'4"
-34'0"
-34'0"
34'0"
34'0"
34'0"
41'4"
37'4"

10' HUD TRUSS

10' HUD TRUSS

U8 U9

U3

U11

10' HUD TRUSS

10' HUD TRUSS

U17

U5

10' HUD TRUSS

X
34'0"
34'0"
34'0"
-27'6"
0"
27'6"
-37'4"
37'4"
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted

U14

10' HUD TRUSS

TRIM Point
43'0" SL5
43'0" SL6
43'0" SL7
TBD
K1
TBD
K2
TBD
K3
TBD
O1
TBD
O2
TBD
U1
TBD
U2
TBD
U3
TBD
U4
TBD
U5
TBD
U6

U12U13

U4

Y
WEIGHT
23'0"
525 lbs
14'6"
650 lbs
8'6"
525 lbs
-4'0"
885 lbs
0"
885 lbs
2'0 1/2" 675 lbs
2'9 1/2" 675 lbs
5'0"
1000 lbs
7'3 1/2" 1000 lbs
14'0"
TBD
-4'0"
885 lbs
0"
885 lbs
2'0 1/2" 675 lbs
2'9 1/2" 675 lbs

U10

10' HUD TRUSS

10' HUD TRUSS

10' HUD TRUSS

Y
WEIGHT TRIM
5'0"
1000 lbs TBD
7'3 1/2" 1000 lbs TBD
14'0"
TBD
TBD
12'6"
TBD
TBD
12'6"
TBD
TBD
12'6"
TBD
TBD
0"
TBD
TBD
0"
TBD
TBD
Inverted
TBD
43'0"
Inverted
TBD
43'0"
Inverted
TBD
43'0"
Inverted
TBD
43'0"
Inverted
TBD
43'0"
Inverted
TBD
43'0"

U18

U6

Point
U7
U8
U9
U10
U11
U12
U13
U14
U15
U16

X
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted
Inverted

Y
WEIGHT TRIM
Inverted
TBD
43'0"
Inverted
TBD
43'0"
Inverted
TBD
43'0"
Inverted
TBD
43'0"
Inverted
TBD
43'0"
Inverted
TBD
43'0"
Inverted
TBD
43'0"
Inverted
TBD
43'0"
Inverted
TBD
43'0"
Inverted
TBD
43'0"

Drawnby:
CurtisE.Beall

NOTES:
1.Thesedesignsand/ordrawingsare
arepresentationonly!!!Thedesigner
and/ordraftspersonisnotalicensed
engineerandisnotqualifiedto
determinewhetherthe
drawingand/ordesignmeetsstructual
safetyand/orbuildingcoderequirements
2:Alllightingfixturesmusthave
wiresafetycables
3:Allelectricalconnectorstobe
madewithapproved,polarizedand
groundedconnectors.
4:Allfeedermustbeapproved
EntertaimentGrade.

10

10

PRODUCTION
TECHNOLOGIES

EPIC

Rigging
InvertedPlot

Date:
Version: Sheet:
5/16/11
2.2
24x36

Phone:
(615)4786404
Email:
RMastrangelo@clairglobal.com

Audio
RalphMastrangelo
ClairBros

Phone:
(615)8043817
Email:
CCCrawford1@live.com

ProductionManager:
ChrisCrawford

Designer/ProductionDesign:
StevenCohenProductions,LTD
SteveCohen
Designer:
MarkFoffano

Project
Image

Sugarland
2011

Appendix B.4
2011 Sugarland Contract and
Related Documents

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix B.4

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix B.4

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

The 2011 Sugarland Document File


Numerous requests for The Sugarland Contract have been submitted. Because
of the events of August 13, 2011, the customary execution of a final written
contract and payment for services was not completed. While gathering and
identifying documents responsive to this request, we have compiled many
documents that provide insight into the negotiation of terms and are providing the
linked documents to show the terms of the negotiation and rider.
A final version of the 2010 contract has also been requested and is posted below.

Appendix C.1
Tagging Nomenclature

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix C.1

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix C.1

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

INDICATES JERSEY BARRIERS

NS.A1.JB.W1.E

INDICATES GUY SYSTEM


T= TRUSS
C= COLUMN TOWER
S= STRUT
WR= WIRE SYSTEM
NS= RATCHET STRAP
PL= PLYWOOD PAD
PD= PADS
WH= WHEELS
H= HOIST AND CHAINS
RF= RAFTER TRUSS
RG= RIDGE TRUSS
P= PURLIN TRUSS
X= FRACTURED PIECE THAT IS PART OF A
TAGGED SECTION. NOTE MUST BE COMPLETELY
SEPARATED FROM TAGGED SECTION
JB= JERSEY BARRIER

LEGEND

JB.W1

20.5X20.5

JB.W3

PL.A1

JB.W2

S.
A
S. B.2
AB
.1
RS

NS

NS

PL.B3

.5

20

X2

5
0.

PL.B1

S.
AB
.

PL.B2

3.

E
2.

S
S. .AB
AB .6
.5

.
JB

3.
.B

2.
W

T.1AB.W

S.
AB
.3

B.
W

R
B2 W
.J
B.
W

R.

R.
B4
.J

T.1AB.E

NS.B4.JB.NW1.S

T.4BC.W

T.3BC.W

T.2BC.W

T.1BC.W

INDICATES TRUSS TO COLUMN NODES


(CLAMPED)
INDICATES TRUSS CROSSSECTION
DIMENSION

INDICATES TRUSS TO COLUMN NODES

INDICATES TRUSS TO TRUSS NODES

INDICATES TRUSS PURLINS

WR.A1.JB.W1.E

3.5

WR.B4.JB.W4.E

NS

JB.W4

NS.B4.JB.W4.E

T.4BC.E
20.5X20.5

WR.B4.JB.NW1.S

T.B3.4.N

T.B3.4.S

T.B2.3.N

T.B2.3.S

T.B1.2.S T.B1.2.N

T.C3.4.N

T.3BC.E

T.1BC.E

T.2BC.E

T.4CD.W

COLUMN
BELOW

T.3CD.W

PL.C3.5

T.1CD.W

T.2CD.W

T.4CD.E

T.1CD.E

T.2CD.E

T.3CD.E

PL.D3.5

P.CD.3.4
20.5X20.5

PL.B4

15X15

T.1DE.W

T.2DE.W

T.3DE.W

T.3DE.E

PL.E3.5

T.4DE.E

COLUMN
BELOW

T.4DE.W
T.D3.4.N
T.D3.4.S

15X15

P.BC.3.4W

P.BC.2
.3W

P.BC.3.4E
P.BC.2.3E
20.5X20.5

20.5X20.5

COLUMN
BELOW

15X15

P.BC.1.2

T.2DE.E

20.5X20.5

20.5X20.5

P.CD.2.3

P.DE.3.4
P.DE.2.3

T.E3.4.N
T.E3.4.S
T.E2.3.N

26X30 TYP

T.1DE.E

T.4EF.W

15X15

T.3EF.W

20.5X20.5
0.5

T.2EF.W

20.5X2

T.C3.4.S
T.C2.3.N

T.C2.3.S
T.C1.2.N
T.C1.2.S

T.D2.3.N
T.D2.3.S
T.D1.2.N
T.D1.2.S

.W
P.EF.2.3

T.4EF.E

T.2EF.E

T.3EF.E

T.1EF.E

PL.F1

T.1EF.W

26X30 TYP

T.E2.3.S
T.E1.2.N
T.E1.2.S

P.EF.3.4.W
.3E

P.EF.3.4.E
15X15
15X15

P.EF.2
P.EF.1.2

NS.F4.JB.NE1.S
WR.F4.JB.NE1.S
T.F3.4.N
T.F3.4.S

T.F2.3.N
T.F2.3.S

JB.NW2

STRUT
NOMENCLATURE

S.AB.1

CABLE NOMENCLATURE

WR.B4.JB.W4.W

.5

20

.5
X

PL.G1

P.EF.1.2.W.S

.E

NS

WR.G1.JB.E1.W

NS

T.B1.2.N

TRUSS N-S SPAN


DIRECTION

NS.B4.JB.W4.W

Main Structure Nomenclature


09/14/2011

NS

JB.E2

JB.E3

C11137.00

NS.G1.JB.E1.W

JB.E4

TRUSS E-W SPAN


DIRECTION

T.1BC.W

NS.F4.JB.E4.E

JB.E1

FOR
DISTRIBUTION

NYLON STRAP NOMENCLATURE

Structure Component Identification

PURLIN NOMENCLATURE

NOTE: NORTH/SOUTH SECTION NOT SHOWN ON PLACE


FOR CLARITY

.2
FG 1
S. G.
F
S.
RS

.3

3
.E
JB
1.
.F

NS

WR.F4.JB.E4.E

3.W
B.E
2.J

B.
E2
.E

4.
J

.F
WR

R.
F

R
W

FG
S.

.W

T.1FG.W T.1FG.E

RS

20

.4
G

F
S.

.6
FG .5
S. .FG
S

PL.F2

.JB

.F3

WR
.E2

PL.F4

PL.F3

JB.NE2

RA
ST TCH
CORAP ET
NN
E
C
TE
D
CO
TO
NO
B NN
A
RR EC
DE
IER TED
B4
W T
C
O
4
A
JE
WE BLE
RS
ST CO
EY
E
ND NNE
OF CT
JE ED A
RS T
EY TH

JB.NE1

B E
T
R
A
US
RR
IER
ON S
GR CO
I
D LUM
LIN N
ES LIN
NO
1
E
A
R
ND B B
T
H
2 ETW
SE
EE
CT
N
IO
N
OF
SP
AN
TR
US
S
ON
GR CO
ID L
LIN UMN
ES LIN
WE
BA E1
ST
N
S
D BET
EC
C
WE
TI
EN

JB.NW1

T.F1.2.N
T.F1.2.S

WI
R
ER
OP
CO
E
NN
E
C
TE
D
CO
TO
JE NN
N
E
R
O
S
DE
EY CTE
B4
BA D T
CA
RR O
W BL
I
ER
E
S EC
W4
T
EN ONN
E
D
OF CT
JE ED A
RS T
PU
EY TH
R
E
L
B
BE IN
AR
RI
E A TWE
ER
E
N
N
GR
BE D F
ID
LI TW
S
N
E EE
WE S 1 A N CO
N
LU
ST
PU D 2 MN
SO
U
TH RLI
SE N BA
CT
Y
IO
N
ST
RU
T
BE
TW
EE
#
N
D
GR
MO ESI
ID
ST ST GNA
LIN
E
IN ART AND TIO
S
CR IN
N
AA
EA G A WES FOR
ND
S
IN T 1 TER EA
B
G
IN AND NMO STE
WA
ST RN
RD

SP
A

W
3.

OF

NS

W
B.
.J

ON

B1
R.
W

RS

INDICATES JERSEY BARRIERS

INDICATES GUY SYSTEM


T= TRUSS
C= COLUMN TOWER
S= STRUT
WR= WIRE ROPE
NS= RATCHET STRAP
PL= PLYWOOD PAD
PD= PADS
WH= WHEELS
H= HOIST AND CHAINS
RF= RAFTER TRUSS
RG= RIDGE TRUSS
P= PURLIN TRUSS
X= FRACTURED PIECE THAT IS PART OF A
TAGGED SECTION. NOTE MUST BE COMPLETELY
SEPARATED FROM TAGGED SECTION
JB= JERSEY BARRIER

LEGEND

JB.W1

NS.A1.JB.W1.E

NS.B4.JB.W4.E

20.5X20.5

WR.A1.JB.W1.E

3.5

JB.W3

WR.B4.JB.W4.E

PL.A1

JB.W2

S
S. .AB
AB .2
.1
RS

NS

NS

5X

.
20

T.1AB.E

PL.B1

T.1AB.W

AB
.

S.

5
0.

S
S. .AB
AB .6
.5

B.
4

S.
A

3.
E

R.

B2 W
.J
B.
W

R.

2.
.W

B
.J
B3

PL.B3

PL.B2

PL.B4

NS.B4.JB.NW1.S

T.4BC.W

T.3BC.W

T.2BC.W

T.1BC.W

T.4BC.E
T.C3.4.N

T.3BC.E

T.2BC.E

T.1BC.E

INDICATES TRUSS TO COLUMN NODES


(CLAMPED)
INDICATES TRUSS CROSSSECTION
DIMENSION

INDICATES TRUSS TO COLUMN NODES

INDICATES TRUSS TO TRUSS NODES

INDICATES TRUSS PURLINS

NS

JB.W4

R.

2.
W

.W

B4
.J
B

T.4CD.W

COLUMN
BELOW

T.3CD.W

PL.C3.5

T.1CD.W

T.2CD.W

T.4CD.E

T.3CD.E

PL.D3.5

T.1CD.E

T.2CD.E

T.1DE.W

T.2DE.W

T.3DE.W
T.3DE.E

PL.E3.5

T.4DE.E
T.E3.4.N
T.2DE.E

T.1DE.E

26X30 TYP

T.4EF.W

15X15

T.3EF.W

T.2EF.W

X2
0.
5

PL.G1

T.1FG.W T.1FG.E

.5

20

.4
G

F
S.

.W

.E2

.JB

.F3

PL.F2

.6 5
FG .
S. .FG
S

RS

PL.F4

PL.F3

WR

JB.NE2

.2
FG .1
S. .FG
S
RS

.3

E
3.
.E
JB
1.

NS

NS

PTS.P.BC.W.2.3.S

09/26/2011

C11137.00

Hoist, Slings and Rigging Nomenclature

Structure Component Identification

NS.F4.JB.E4.E

NS.G1.JB.E1.W

JB.E4

FOR
DISTRIBUTION

WR.G1.JB.E1.W

JB.E2

JB.E3

NOTES
* SLING COUNT ON MEMBER COUNTING FROM SOUTHERN OR WESTERN MOST SLING
1. FOR HOIST SUPPORTING LIGHT TRUSSES, USE SAME TAG AS SLINGS SWITCH FIRST CHARACTER TO H

SLING NOMENCLATURE

NS

NS

WR.F4.JB.E4.E

3.W
B.E
2.J

B.
E2
.E

4.
J

.F
WR

R.
F

F
R.
W

FG
S.

ECS.T.B1.2.S.1

T.1EF.E

T.2EF.E

T.3EF.E

T.4EF.E

PL.F1

T.1EF.W

RS.P.BC.2.3.W.N.1

T.4DE.W

COLUMN
BELOW

20.5X20.5

WR.B4.JB.NW1.S

T.B3.4.N

T.B3.4.S

T.B2.3.N

T.B2.3.S

T.B1.2.S T.B1.2.N

T.D3.4.N
T.D3.4.S

15X15

P.BC.3.4W

15X15

20.5X20.5
20.5X20.5

P.BC.2
.3

P.BC.3.4E
P.BC.2.3E

P.CD.3.4
20.5X20.5

P.DE.3.4
P.DE.2.3

20.5X20.5

P.CD.2.3

P.EF.3.4.W

COLUMN
BELOW

15X15

P.BC.1.2

20.5X20.5

T.C3.4.S
T.C2.3.N
T.C2.3.S
T.C1.2.N
T.C1.2.S

T.D2.3.N
T.D2.3.S
T.D1.2.N
T.D1.2.S

.W

T.E3.4.S
T.E2.3.N
T.E2.3.S
T.E1.2.N
T.E1.2.S

20.5X20.5

P.EF.2.3
26X30 TYP

RI
GG
IN
G
SL
IN
GS
SU
TR PPO
US RT
S
/PU ING
RL
IN

P.EF.3.4.E
15X15
15X15

0.5
20.5X2

TA
G

T.F1.2.N
T.F1.2.S

.3E
P.EF.2
P.EF.1.2

SL
IN
G

C
O
UN
T*

NS.F4.JB.NE1.S
WR.F4.JB.NE1.S
T.F3.4.N
T.F3.4.S
T.F2.3.N
T.F2.3.S

EL
EC
TR
I
CA
LC
SU
AB
L
ES
T PP
R
US ORT
LIN
S/P IN
GS
U G
R
LIN
SL
TA
IN
G
G
CO
UN
T*

JB.NW2

LIN

JB.NE1

IN

TIE
S
PU
RL

GS
PU
RL
IN

H.A1

JB.E1

FOR HOIST SUPPORTING ROOF TRUSSES AT THE NODES

EN
D
S
O
OF UTH
PU OR
R
LIN NO
RT
H

JB.NW1

HOIST NOMENCLATURE

H.P.BC.2.3.W.1.LTP.1

HO

R.

AG

W
3.

HO
IST
NO
DE
T

IST

.
JB

SU
TR PPO
U
SS RTI
/PU NG
R
L
IN
TA
SL
G
IN
G
CO
LO
UN
T*
RI ADI
GG NG
I
NG
TA
G

NS

.
B1

RS

RIGGED TRUSS NOMENCLATURE

LTP.10
T TRIANGLE
B BLUE
W WHITE
O ORANGE
R RED
V VERTICAL

LTR.0

LTP.1

LTP.2

LT.244
LT.243

LTW.1

LTP.5

LTO.2.S

LTO.2.N

LTR.2

LTB.2

.13
5

LTW.2

CHAIR

LTP.6
LTV.3

.
LT

LTO.3.S

54
52
53
.2
.2 T.2
LT
LT
L

LTP.8

Ladder

LTV.4

LTO.4.S

LTO.4.N

LTW.3

LTB.4

LED SCREEN

1
25

LTP.7

LTB.3

LTO.3.N

LTR.3

LIGHTING TRUSS NOMENCLATURE

LTR.1

LTV.2

LTB.1

LT.10

LT.304

LT.303

LT.302

LT.301

LTO.1.S

LTO.1.N

CHAIR

Ladder

Ladder

LT.241

LT.242

LT.246

LT.248
LT.247

LTP.4

1
.10

LT.245

1
.10

LTP.3

LT

1
LT
.13
L
3

.11
LT

2
LT
.13
.1
LT
4

LT
2
LT
.10

L
1

34
LT
.1
LT
.20
3

13
LT
.20

4
.22

LT
.13
3
02

LT
LT
LT
.20
4

LTR.4

CHAIR

LTP.10

.13
7

LTB.5

LTV.5

LTP.9

LTO.5.S

LTO.5.N

LTW.4

LTR.5

.13
8

LTT.5
LTP.11
LTV.6

LTB.6

LTO.6.S

LTO.6.N

LTW.5

LTR.6

LTT.7

LT.308

LT.307

LT.306

LT.305

LTO.7.S

LTO.7.N

CHAIR

Ladder

FOR
DISTRIBUTION

08/13/2011
09/26/2011

C11137.00

Rigging Truss and Equipment

Structure Component Identification

Image source: Steven Cohen Productions, LTD

LTR.7

LTR.8

LTP.14

LTP.13

LTP.12

LT.268

LT.267

LT.266

LT.265

LT.264

LT.262
LT.263

LT.261

LTT.6

.13
9
.11
6

LTV.1

.20
5

T.1
14
LT
.2

LT
.22
3
LT

6
.22
L

LTT.4

.20
9

24
.20
6

LT
T.2
08

.14

LTT.3

LT

LT
.2

LT

.22
8

LT

.21
0

LT
.22
5
LT
.20
7

LT
.22
7
LT

.23
0
.21
2

29
LT
.2
LT
.21
1

T.1
1
LT

.10

LT
LT

LT
LT

LT
LT
.23
1
LT
.21
3

LT
.23
2

LT
.21
4
LT

LT
.11
5
LT
.21
5

T.1
41

LT
.
2
16
LT
.10
5

LTT.2

LT
.10
6

LTT.1

.10

LT
.11
7
LT

LT
.11
8
LT

* KEY FROM STEVE COHEN


PRODUCTIONS, LTD. HAS
NOT BEEN VERIFIED

10

LIG
T R HT
U
PU SS
RP
SE LE
CT
IO
N

.10
8

LT
.22
1

LIG
HT
NU
PE MBE
R
FIE R D
LD ES
LA IGN
BE AT
LS ION

LT

S1

CHAIN

HOIST

CHAIN

SLING

WHERE TWO SLINGS ARE


ATTACHED TO THE SAME HOIST,
ADD A,B,... ON TAGS.

LTR.2

MARK EITHER SIDE OF


STRAP WITH MARKER.
RECORD LOCATION OF
SLINGS S2 - S3.

BLUE REPRESENTS
CHANGE FOR HOIST,
SLINGS AND RIGGING
SUPPORTING
ELECTRIC CABLES

LIGHT TRUSS

SPRAY
PAINT

SPRAY
PAINT

S3

RI
GG
IN
G
SL
S
IN
U
G
EL PPO
EM R
T
E
NT ING
SL
TA
IN
G.
G

BOTTOM SLING

RS.T.1.BC.1.LTR.2
ECS.
.ECS

INDICATES RIGGING SLING

LOCATION OF SLINGS TO BE NOTED ON THE TAG IN


PARENTHESIS (LOCAL ELEMENT NOMENCLATURE)

* SLING COUNT ON MEMBER COUNTING FROM SOUTHERN OR WESTERN MOST SLING

HOIST

H.T.1.BC.1.LTR.2
.ECS

HO
IS
T
&C
SU
HA
IN
E P
P
L
EM OR
EN TIN
G
T
SL
TA
IN
G.
G
CO
L
UN
O
SE ADI
T*
CT NG
I
O
N ELEM
TA
G ENT
08/13/2011
09/26/2011

Rigging
Slings and Hoists
C11137.00
C11137.00

Structure Component Identification

Image source: Thomas Engineering, 2006 Catalog

INDICATES CHAIN
S= SOUTH
LTR.2= LIGHT TRUSS RED, SECTION 2

LEGEND

TOP SLING

RS.T.1.BC.1
ECS.

SLING NUMBER
ALONG ELEMENT.
COUNTING FROM
SOUTH OR WEST

NT
*

CO
U

FOR
DISTRIBUTION

RI
GG
I
NG
SL
IN
G
SU
EL PPO
EM R
EN TIN
G
SL
T
TA
IN
G
G.
CO
UN
LO
T*
SE ADI
CT NG
IO E
L
N
TA EME
G
NT

S2

T= TOP
S= SOUTH
N= NORTH
B= BOTTOM
E= EAST
W= WEST

LEGEND

T.B1.2.S

N-S SPAN DIRECTION

T.B1.2.N
T.1BC.E

S2

E-W SPAN DIRECTION

S1

T.1BC.W

WEST
T1

S3

STRUT

S.AB.1

S4

T2

SB
S5

ST

TR
US
O S
N
GR CO
ID LU
M
L
NO INE N L
S 1 INE
RT
H
AN B
B
SE
D
TR
2 ETW
CT
US
IO
EE
S
N
N
ON
OF
LIN CO
SP
AN
E
S LUM
SO 1 A N L
UT ND IN
E
2
H
BB
SE
ET
CT
W
I
O
TR
E
EN
N
U
OF
SS
GR
SP
ON
ID
AN
GR CO
ID LU
WE LIN MN
ST ES LIN
SE B A E 1
C
TIO ND C BET
WE
N
OF
EN
TR
SP
U
AN
ON SS
GR CO
ID LU
E LIN MN
A
ST ES LIN
SE B A E 1
CT N
B
D
E
I
O
N C TWE
OF
EN
ST
SP
RU
AN
BE T
TW
EE
SE
N
GR
F C
T
ID
R
OM ION
L
SO NUM INES
U
A
TH BER
AN
D
ST
B
A
RT
IN
G

S6

T3
NT

S7
S8

08/13/2011
09/14/2011

EAST

C11137.00

Structure Component Identification

E2

Typical Truss Nomenclature Detail

Image source: Thomas Engineering, 2006 Catalog

E1

T4

N
S3

FOR
DISTRIBUTION

C.2

RF.B

C2

GW.C1.2

GW.C2.2

2.W
RF.N

C1

GW.C2.1
GW.C1.1

WR

D.2

.C

GW.D1.1

GW.D1.2

GW.D2.2

GW.D3.2

MAIN STRUCTURE NODE

GABLE NODE

RF.D

.2

E.2.E

RF.D

Symmetrical

.DE

WR

E.2.W

Symmetrical

E.1.E

RG.2.3.C

RF.D

.1

.DE

WR

E.1.W

RG.N1

RF.D

RG.N2

D1

D2

GW.D2.1

GW.D3.1

.2.E
F.CD

.1

.CD

WR

D.2.W

RF.C

.W

D.1
RF.C

.1.E
F.CD

RAFTER TRUSS AND GABLE WEB TRUSS

B2

B1

RF.B

C.1

RF.N1.W

RIDGE TRUSS

RG.N2

WIRE ROPE
T= TRUSS
C= COLUMN TOWER
S= STRUT
WR= WIRE ROPE
NS= RATCHET STRAP
PL= PLYWOOD PAD
PD= PADS
WH= WHEELS
H=HOIST AND CHAINS
RF=RAFTER TRUSS
RG=RIDGE TRUSS
P=PURLIN TRUSS
GW= GABLE WEB TRUSS
X= FRACTURED PIECE THAT IS PART OF ANOTHER
SECTION. NOTE MUST BE COMPLETELY SEPARATED
FROM TAGGED SECTION
JB=JERSEY BARRIER

LEGEND

RG.N1

RG.1.2.S

E2

E1

GW.E1.2

GW.E2.2

RF.E
F.1

F.2

RF.E

RF.N2.E

GW.E2.1
GW.E1.1

RF.N1.E

RG.N3

F2

F1

RG.3.4.N

B4

B3

RF.CD.1.W
RAFTER TRUSS

RG.N4

C.4

RF.B

.3

C
RF.B

C4

GW.C1.4

GW.C2.4

4.W
RF.N

C3

GW.C1.3

GW.C2.3

3.W

RF.N

.W

D.3.W

D.4
RF.C

RF.C

.C
WR

GW.D2.3
GW.D1.3

GW.D1.4

GW.D2.4

D.4.E
RF.C
GW.D3.4

D.3

D.4

.C
WR

GW.D3.3

D.3.E

RF.C

D4

08/13/2011
09/26/2011

GableC11137.00
Roof Nomenclature

E.4

C11137.00

E.4.E

RF.D

Symmetrical

WR
.D

E.3.E

RF.D

Symmetrical

E.3

E.4.W

RF.D

RG.N4

D3

WR
.D

E.3.W

RF.D

RG.N3

Structure Component Identification

GABLE TRUSS

GW.C1.1

RA
FT
E
R
TR
BE
US
T
W
S
ON EEN
G
CO
R
WE LUM ID L
IN
ST
N
E
L
S
S
BA
EC INE
TIO 1
ND
N
C

G
A
BL
EW
E
CO
B
TR
SE LUM
US
C
N
S
GR TION LIN
EC
I
D
LIN 1
E1

E4

E3

GW.E1.4

GW.E2.4

RF.E
F.4

RF.N4.E

GW.E1.3

GW.E2.3

RF.E
F.3

RF.N3.E

F4

F3

FOR
DISTRIBUTION

T= TOP
B= BOTTOM
N= NORTH
S= SOUTH
W= WEST
E= EAST
T= TRUSS
C= COLUMN TOWER
S= STRUT
WR= WIRE ROPE
NS= RATCHET STRAP
PL= PLYWOOD PAD
PD= PADS
WH= WHEELS
H= HOIST AND CHAINS
RF= RAFTER TRUSS
RG= RIDGE TRUSS

LEGEND

TYPICAL
COLUMN NODE

BS

BW

TS

TW

BN

BE

TE

TN

WH.SE.S.B

TH
U

SO

ONLY TAG IF DETACHED FROM NODE

E
TH
E
AT AC
D F
E
L
M
T H
EE CA UT TO
H
T
W LO SO BO

N
ST
EA

ER

08/13/2011
09/26/2011

C11137.00

Node,C11137.00
Hoist and Wheel Nomenclature

Structure Component Identification

Image source: Thomas Engineering, 2006 Catalog

NOTE: DIAGRAM USED TO COMMUNICATE TAGGING NOMENCLATURE.


DOES NOT REPRESENT STRUCTURAL SYSTEM USED

NODE: F1
IDENTIFY ALL
PRE-COLLAPSE
FACES

CHAIN SUPPORT IS
CONSIDERED PART OF
THE TOP COLUMN
SECTION

FOR
DISTRIBUTION

N = NORTH WEB MEMBER


S= SOUTH WEB MEMBER
E= EAST WEB MEMBER
W= WEST WEB MEMBER
C= COLUMN TOWER
S= STRUT
WR= WIRE ROPE
NS= RATCHET STRAP
PL= PLYWOOD PAD
PD= PADS
WH= WHEELS
P=PURLIN TRUSS
X= FRACTURED PIECE THAT IS PART OF
ANOTHER SECTION. NOTE MUST BE
COMPLETELY SEPARATED FROM TAGGED
SECTION

PD.B1.SE

S
W

TO
M

BO
T

N1

W3

E1

E2

W5

E4

E1

E1

E2

LIC
E

SP
3

E4

E5

E6

N3

TO
P

SP
LIC
E4
=S
P4

Structure Component Identification


08/13/2011
09/26/2011

C11137.00

Typical
Column Nomenclature
C11137.00

*Sample Only

COLUMN SECTION TAGS

C.B1.1

C.B1.2

C.B1.3

C.B1.4

C.B1.5

FOR
DISTRIBUTION

Image source: Thomas Engineering, 2006 Catalog

=S
Note: Diagonals
P3must
form a continuous pattern

E5

N3

N1

N2

COLUMN PANEL POINTS

2=
SP

E3

N2

LIC
E

SP

S
E

PANEL POINT LEGEND

PD.B1.NE

1.3
C.B
N
W
N
E

COLUMN BASE TAGS

1.4
C.B

S
E

SE

NE

SPRAY PAINT
SCREW
JACKS
N
W

SW

NW

PLYWOOD PAD:
PL.B1

N
E

Appendix C.2
Laser Scan Locations

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix C.2

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix C.2

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Figure 1. View from scan 1 (South area of the stage)

Figure 2. Point cloud (view from scan 1)

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix C.2
Page 1 of 6

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Figure 3. Scan locations (view from scan 2)

Figure 4. Scan locations (view from scan 1)

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix C.2
Page 2 of 6

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Figure 5. Scan locations (view from scan 1)

Figure 6. Scan locations (view from scan 1)

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix C.2
Page 3 of 6

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Figure 7. Scan locations (view from scan 16)

Figure 8. Scan locations (view from scan 14)

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix C.2
Page 4 of 6

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Figure 9. Scan locations (view from scan 33)

Figure 10. Scan locations (view from scan 23)

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix C.2
Page 5 of 6

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Figure 11. Scan locations (view from scan 25)

Figure 12. Scan locations (view from scan 32)

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix C.2
Page 6 of 6

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Appendix C.3
Site Access Protocol

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix C.3

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix C.3

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Indiana State Fair Collapse Incident


Failure Investigation Site Protocol
17 August 2011
I.

Intent
In order to maintain the integrity of the incident scene and aid in evidence preservation, the
following protocol has been developed and implemented to control and track the access of
Interested Parties who wish to gain access to the incident location in addition to controlling the
materials within the collapse area.

II.

Secured Scene Perimeters


Outer Perimeter:
A secured outer perimeter has been established to define the boundary of access control. This
secured and patrolled perimeter is intended to prevent access to the site by unauthorized
individuals. The Outer Perimeter consists of the following elements:
North: Fence (pedestrian barricades) between the south side of infield parking lot and the
inner track. This fence is supplemented by a livestock fence that was installed
approximately 100 feet south of the aforementioned barricade.
East: Pedestrian barricade, livestock fence and concrete pedestrian tunnel wall.
South: Grandstands/chain link fence at south face of grandstands.
West: Pedestrian barricade, livestock fence and concrete pedestrian tunnel wall.
Inner Perimeter
An inner control perimeter has been established around the debris pile through the use of
Caution tape, traffic cones and other barricade methods. These elements are intended to create
a visual barriers and define access restrictions for the representatives from Interested Parties
who are on site.

III.

Control Points
Site access is currently obtained through one of two control points at the outer perimeter. All
personnel are required to enter at the south gate. Entry permission is based on the following:
Initial Entry: Representatives from Interested Parties shall submit the names of Authorized
Individuals by 2100 (9:00 PM) of the evening before they need access to David Hummel
at the Indiana State Fair. All information shall be transmitted via email to:

330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 1500 | Chicago IL 60611-7622 | T 312.596.2000 | F 312.596.2001 | www.ThorntonTomasetti.com

dhummel@indianastatefair.com All names received by this deadline shall be added to


the Authorized Access list.
Following verification that an individual is listed on the Authorized Access list and a valid
State-issued Driver License or Passport is verified, the individual will be permitted to
proceed to the Indiana Department of Homeland Security electronic credentialing
database system. At this location the Authorized Individual will use their State-issued
Driver License to populate a printed credential that shall be visibly displayed at all times
while the Authorized Individual is on site.
Ongoing Site Access. For the duration of time that the subject remains compliant with the
Site Regulations and is engaged as a representative of an Interested Party, the individual
will remain and Authorized Individual and their credential shall remain active. All
subsequent entries and exits from the site shall be cataloged through the use of a barcode reader operated by Indiana State Police personnel or other authorized security
personnel at the Control Point.
Vehicular Access at North Gate. If approved and scheduled in advance with Indiana
State Fair and Thornton Tomasetti personnel, once credentialed, Authorized Individuals
shall be permitted to bring a vehicle onto the infield track through the North Gate.
Requests for access shall be granted when there is a bona-fide need for vehicular access
to drop off or pick up heavy equipment (construction equipment, rigging equipment,
moving vans, etc.)
IV.

Scene security
The site is secured by Uniformed personnel of the Indiana State Police. At the present time there
are no less than:
Two Troopers at the South Gate Control Point.
One Trooper in a patrol car at the south side of the stage.
Two Troopers in patrol cars at the north side of the stage/North Control Point.

V.

Site Regulations
Personal Protective Equipment
All personnel on the incident site shall procure and wear at a minimum and ANSI Z89.1
compliant head protection, eye protection, a fluorescent retro reflective vest and
protective footwear.
Preservation of Evidence
Until such time as the incident site has been approved for materials testing or material
relocation, every effort should be taken to preserve the integrity of the scene. No
structural components shall be moved or displaced. The scene has been documented
through photography, laser survey and land survey techniques thereby allowing
Interested Parties to verify the undisturbed condition of the site. When equipment or
personal effects that are ancillary to the investigation are approved for removed from the

site, a detailed manifest shall be prepared and submitted to Indiana State Fair officials
prior to departure.
Thornton Tomasetti has developed and implemented a detailed component cataloging
methodology for the identification of all structural members and suspended production
equipment located at the collapse location (see Site Documentation Protocol). Said
protocol provides for the documentation of member size, location, orientation, and
condition in addition to providing for a unique identifier for each member.
Chain of Custody
At such time as materials are being removed for testing and/or relocation for further
evaluation a Chain of Custody protocol shall be implemented by all Interested Parties.
See Chain of Custody form and labels for additional information.

[This page left blank intentionally]

Appendix C.4
Safety Plans and Procedures

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix C.4

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix C.4

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

SafetyPlan&Procedures
IndianaStateFairCommissionCollapseIncident
NonConstructionVisitors
September3,2011
Overview
TherearetwoPerimetersset,theOuterPerimeterandInnerPerimeter.Pleasenotethatthespecific
clothingandpersonalprotectivegeararedifferentforeachPerimeter.Aftercompletingthesiteaccess
procedures,asafetybriefingmustbeattendedbeforeentrywillbeallowed.Accesswillnotbe
permittedand/orwillbeterminatedwhenprecipitationispresent.Thisisalivingdocumentsubjectto
changebasedondevelopingsiteconditions.

Parking
ParkingisbeingmadeavailableinthelotlocatedontheEastSideoftheGrandstands(betweenthe
GrandstandsandtheCommunicationsBuilding).DONOTPARKonMainStreetSouthofthe
Grandstands,yourvehiclewillbetowedatyourexpense.

Entrance
SouthGateoftheGrandstands

EmergencyProcedures
1. Injuries
Intheeventthereisaminorinjurythatoccurstherewillbeafirstaidkitavailableforuse.In
theeventthatanyonesuffersasevereinjuryorsuffersalifethreateningoccurrence(suchasa
heartattackorstroke)call911.

2. WeatherRequiredEvacuation
Iflightningiswithin5milesorinclementweatherisapproaching,3longblastsfromanairhorn
willbesoundedfollowedbyinstructionstoevacuatethroughtheSouthentrancetoan
appointedstructure.

3. AudibleAlertingSystem
Intheeventofachangeinconditionsortheneedforsiteevaluationorevacuation,the
followingsignalsshallbeused.Signalmaybetransmittedbyairhornorwhistle:
1BlastALLQUIET

3BlastsEvacuate

1Long/1ShortResumeOperations

FireExtinguishers
20poundABCtypeFireextinguisherswillbelocatedalongtheOuterPerimeterBarricade.These
extinguishersaretobeusedforincipientfiresonly.Theemergencynumbertoreportafireis911.
Indiana State Fair Commission Collapse Incident Safety Plan and Procedures
3 September 2011

Page 1/2

SafetyRepresentative,StatePoliceandOtherAuthorities
TheSiteSafetyRepresentative,StatePoliceandotherAuthorizedPersonnelareonsitetomonitor
complianceofpoliciesandprocedures.Failuretocomplywiththeirrequestorbeing
combative/argumentativeoverarequestcanandwillresultinyourremovalfromtheproperty.

TobaccoUse:
Theuseoftobaccoproductsisstrictlyprohibited.Thisincludesallformsofsmokeand
smokelesstobaccoproducts.

OuterPerimeter
Thisareawillbebarricadedwithyellowpennantflaggingattachedtosafetycones.Clothingattireand
PersonalProtectiveequipmentthatismandatoryforeachpersontohaveonandinusetoenterand
duringoccupancyisasfollows;
HardHat
EyeProtection
HighVisibilityVestOrShirt
LongPants/Jeans
ShirtSleevesMustBeAtLeast4InchesLong
ClosedToeShoes
Thewalkingsurfacesinthisarearangefromhardsurfacessuchasasphalttolosesandytypesoilwith
someunevensurfaces.

InnerPerimeter
Thisareawillbebarricadedwithorangepennantflaggingattachedtosafetycones.Clothingattireand
PersonalProtectiveequipmentthatismandatoryforeachpersontohaveonandinusetoenterand
duringoccupancyisasfollows;
HardHat
EyeProtection
HighVisibilityVestOrShirt
LongPants/Jeans
ShirtSleevesMustBeAtLeast4InchesLong
SturdyLeatherWorkBoots
CutResistantGloves
FallProtectionEquipment(ifover4offthegroundotherthantotransverse)
Thisareacontainsthestructure.Althoughshoringhasbeenplacedinanefforttostabilizethestructure,
pleasebeawarethatthisentireareaisconsideredaliveload.Otherhazardsincludecutsfromseveral
piecesofmetalandbrokenglass.Walkingsurfacesrangefromhardsurfacessuchasasphalttolose
sandytypesoilwithsomeunevensurfaces.Thereareseveralpiecesofmaterialtostepoverandbend
under,sopleasetakethatintoconsiderationwhenchoosingpersonneltoenter.Threepersonsmaxin
thisPerimeter.
Indiana State Fair Commission Collapse Incident Safety Plan and Procedures
3 September 2011

Page 2/2

Appendix C.5
Storage Facility Protocol

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix C.5

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix C.5

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Indiana State Fair Commission Collapse Incident


Failure Investigation Evidence Storage Facility Protocol
23 November 2011

I.

Intent
The components from the Indiana State Fair Grandstand Stage roof system and all
suspended production equipment have been relocated to an off site evidence
storage facility. Within the facility all components are organized in a manner that
permits easy access for evaluation, documentation, measurement, etc. Some
components have been assembled per their pre relocation condition, while others
are staged and organized in adjacent positions.
In order to maintain the integrity of this evidence storage facility and aid in evidence
preservation, the following protocol has been developed and implemented to control
and track the access of personnel who wish to gain access to the evidence storage
facility in addition to controlling the materials within the evidence storage facility.

II.

Definition of Authorized Individual


An Authorized Individual is a person who meets one of the following criteria:
A. A lawyer (with a proper engagement letter) for any client who has filed a
notice with the Office of the Indiana Attorney General under the Indiana Tort
Claims Act or who has filed a claim against another party asserting a claim
arising from the Saturday, August 13, 2011 accident at the Indiana State Fair.
B. A lawyer (with proper engagement letter or proof of in house counsel status)
for any Client who reasonably might be required to defend the client or
employer against any claim arising from the Saturday, August 13, 2011
accident at the Indiana State Fair.
C. An engineer or other such technically qualified person with proof of
employment or engagement by a client described in either of the first two
paragraphs or by a third party with a significant financial interest in the site,
including, but not limited to, insurance companies and their representatives
and owners of real or personal property contained in or affected by the
accident site. Thornton Tomasetti retains the sole discretion regarding the
admittance of said individuals.

330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 1500 | Chicago IL 60611-7622 | T 312.596.2000 | F 312.596.2001 | www.ThorntonTomasetti.com |

RE: INDIANA STATE FAIR COLLAPSE INCIDENT INVESTIGATION EVIDENCE STORAGE FACILITY PROTOCOL
23 November, 2011

Page 2 of 5

D. A state or local governmental or quasi governmental entity conducting an


investigation pursuant to Indiana or municipal code, or as authorized by
Thornton Tomasetti.

III.

Facility Security
The evidence storage facility is monitored by private uniformed security personnel
during hours at which Authorized Individuals will be permitted on site.
A central station monitored intrusion detection and alerting system has been installed
and will be operational during hours when no TT personnel are on site.
In addition, a high definition time lapse camera is installed to document site activity
24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

IV.

Facility Access
Access to the facility is currently obtained through the doorway at the end of the
ramp located to the north side of the office bustle at the west side of the evidence
storage facility. This Control Point shall serve as the entry for all personnel entering
and exiting the facility. Entry permission is based on the following:
A. Initial Entry. Representatives from Interested Parties shall submit the
names of Authorized Individuals by 5:00PM of the evening before access
is desired. All information shall be transmitted via email to:
siteaccess@sfc.in.gov. Please provide the nature of your involvement
with the Incident and names and employer of all persons that will be
requesting site access. All names received by this deadline and verified
by State personnel as a bona fide Interested Party shall be added to the
Authorized Access list.
B. Entry Location. Individuals wishing to gain access to the facility shall
report to the above referenced door at the west elevation of the facility.
Following verification that an individual is listed on the Authorized Access
list and a valid State issued Driver License or Passport is verified, the
individual will be permitted to proceed to the Indiana Department of
Homeland Security electronic credentialing database system. At this
location the Authorized Individual will use their State issued Driver
License to populate a printed credential that shall be visibly displayed at
all times while the Authorized Individual is on site.

RE: INDIANA STATE FAIR COLLAPSE INCIDENT INVESTIGATION EVIDENCE STORAGE FACILITY PROTOCOL
23 November, 2011

Page 3 of 5

C. Ongoing Site Access. For the duration of time that this Protocol is in
effect, the subject remains compliant with the Site Regulations and is duly
engaged as a representative of an Interested Party, the individual will
remain an Authorized Individual and their credential shall remain active.
All subsequent entry and exit from the site shall be cataloged through the
use of a bar code reader operated by authorized security personnel at the
Control Point.
D. Vehicular Access to Facility. If approved and scheduled in advance with
Indiana State Fair Commission and Thornton Tomasetti personnel, once
credentialed, Authorized Individuals shall be permitted to bring a vehicle
to the grade level dock at the east side of the evidence storage location.
Requests for access shall be granted when there is a need for vehicular
access to drop off or pick up large or cumbersome equipment that cannot
fit up the ramp or through the doorway at the Control Point.
E. Access Requirements. Following a site briefing and execution of a
Waiver and Release (Refer to the tab on the incident Home Page at
http://www.in.gov/sfc for a copy of the Waiver and Release) authorized
Individuals will have access to the evidence storage location during the
times posted on the Indiana State Fair Commission Incident website at
http://www.in.gov/sfc

V.

Access Schedule
Access Times shall be posted on the Indiana State Fair Commission Incident
website at http://www.in.gov/sfc

VI.

Materials Testing
At such time that specimen location are identified, a materials testing protocol will be
initiated for the evaluation of structural components associated with the incident.
Said evaluation and testing will consist of:
A. Metallurgical evaluation of representative welds to determine conformance
with AWS D1.2/D1.2M
B. Metallurgical evaluation of representative components manufactured from
Aluminum alloys for conformance with specifications
C. Evaluation of guy wire components.
D. Evaluation of ballast components and resulting anchor capacity.
E. Evaluation of mass of suspended rigging and production equipment.

RE: INDIANA STATE FAIR COLLAPSE INCIDENT INVESTIGATION EVIDENCE STORAGE FACILITY PROTOCOL
23 November, 2011

Page 4 of 5

A detailed Materials Testing Protocol will be issued and will define the exact
parameters and locations of the above referenced evaluations.
Said testing shall be conducted by an independent testing laboratory and test results
shall be disseminated to all Interested Parties.
Interested Parties wishing to conduct their own testing of components shall be
permitted to do so at their own cost at such time that the components are released
from the evidence storage location. Requests shall be submitted to
siteaccess@sfc.in.gov for review and scheduling. No testing shall commence until
such time that materials are approved for removal from the evidence storage
location. In addition, all Chain of Custody requirements shall be adhered to.

VII.

Preservation of Evidence
All on site components deemed associated with the collapse incident have been
cataloged and documented. Thornton Tomasetti has developed and implemented a
detailed component cataloging methodology for the identification of all structural
members and suspended production equipment located at the collapse location.
Said protocol provides for the documentation of member size, location, orientation,
and condition in addition to providing for a unique Identifier for each member. This
Identifier has been utilized for all tracking of the subject components.
Until such time as the evidence has been released for materials testing every effort
should be taken to preserve the integrity of the evidence. No structural or production
equipment components shall be moved or displaced.
Electrical, data, and/or sound cables can be removed from their containers for
evaluation purposes but shall be returned to their proper storage location by the end
of the access hours for that day. Labor for said work shall be provided by the
Interested Party requiring evaluation of the cables.

VIII.

Relocation of Evidence
Once evaluation and testing is complete and a Final Report issued, the Indiana State
Fair Commission will provide a sixty (60) day notice for all Interested Parties wishing
to preserve, recover and/or relocate components. Any such subsequent
preservation, recovery or relocation efforts shall be at the cost of the Interested Party
making said request. After this sixty (60) day period has elapsed, all remaining
components shall be disposed of.

RE: INDIANA STATE FAIR COLLAPSE INCIDENT INVESTIGATION EVIDENCE STORAGE FACILITY PROTOCOL
23 November, 2011

X.

Page 5 of 5

Limitations
In the event that facility access is affected because of natural disaster or decrees of
governmental bodies not the fault of the Indiana State Fair Commission (hereinafter
referred to as a Force Majeure Event), ISFC shall immediately give notice via the
Incident website or other available means. ISFC and their consultants will endeavor
to resume access to the site as soon as practical and safe.

END OF DOCUMENT

[This page left blank intentionally]

Appendix C.6
Chain of Custody Protocol

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix C.6

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix C.6

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Indiana State Fair Collapse Incident


Failure Investigation Chain of Custody Protocol
21 August 2011
I.

Intent
This Protocol is applicable to the evidence control procedures used for chain of
custody of representative samples collected from various locations on the project
site.
The subject materials may consist of representative samples or entire components
that are deemed of interest to the investigation. It is critical that all materials and
evidence be controlled and tracked appropriately. Therefore, the following Chain of
Custody procedures will be utilized.

II.

Requirements:
A. Materials will be removed from the sample location and transported to a
laboratory for analyses or a secured facility for storage. Each
component/material/container must be properly identified and labeled prior to
removal from site.
B. Sample tags / labels shall be completed for each sample, using waterproof ink,
unless prohibited by weather conditions. The information recorded on the sample
tag/label includes:
Project Location Identifier
Component Name Unique sample identifier
Date in the format of YYYYMMDD (20110821)
Time 4 digit Military Time (i.e. 1:30PM = 1330)
Name of Person Relinquishing Material
Name of Person Receiving Material
C. Due to the evidentiary nature of samples collected during enforcement
investigations, possession must be traceable from the time the samples are
collected until they are introduced as evidence in legal proceedings. To maintain
and document sample possession, chain of custody procedures are followed.

330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 1500 | Chicago IL 60611-7622 | T 312.596.2000 | F 312.596.2001 | www.ThorntonTomasetti.com |

RE: INDIANA STATE FAIR COLLAPSE INCIDENT CHAIN OF CUSTODY PROTOCOL


August 21, 2011 Page 2 of 2

D. A sample is under custody if:


1. It is in your possession, or
2. It is in your view, after being in your possession, or
3. It was in your possession and then secured it to prevent damage or
tampering, or
4. It is in a designated secure area.
E. If samples are being collected for testing purposes, the sample should be
representative of the conditions observed at the site
F. A Chain of Custody log shall accompany all components that leave the site for
storage or testing. Individuals relinquishing and receiving the materials will sign
and date the labels/tag and forms.
G. All materials will have a unique Identification number. Refer to the Site
Documentation Protocol for the nomenclature used to identify the components.
H. Material/Sample Handling, Preservation, and Storage
a. All materials and samples shall be transported in an approved,
appropriate container. Large scale components that cannot be enclosed
within a container shall be covered with a securely fastened tarpaulin.
b. Record all pertinent data on the tags.
c. Complete the Chain of Custody Form Ship/Receive Form.
d. If materials require storage prior to departure from the site, materials shall
be secured in a locked vehicle.
END OF DOCUMENT
FORMS AND LABELS ON FOLLOWING PAGES

Sample/Evidence - Shipping/Receiving Form


1. Project: ___________________________
2. Sender

Project #: ________________
3. Carrier

4. Receiver
Courier from Depot
Signature ________________

Name___________________

Company ________________

Signature ________________

Signature ________________

Date ____________________

Date ____________________

Date ____________________
Lab Custodian
Signature ________________

Location ________________

B/L No. __________________

Date ____________________

________________________

Pkg Tracking No. __________

Condition upon Receipt


_________________________
_________________________

_________________________

5. Shipment Description

No. of containers/components_______
Sealed (yes or no) _______________
Types of containers _______________
Condition prior to shipment __________
________________________________
________________________________

6. Contents
I.D. Number

Custody
Seal No.
(if any)

Seal Intact?

Custody
Seal No.
(if any)

Seal Intact?

_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________

_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________

_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________

_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________

Type of
Sample/Component

Legal Seal
Intact?
(yes or no)

Legal Seal
No.
(if any)

Condition

I.D. Number

Type of
Sample/Component

Legal Seal
Intact?
(yes or no)

Legal Seal
No.
(if any)

Condition

CHAIN OF CUSTODY TAG. PART NO.________________


1. Received From:
By:
Time:
Date:
2. Received From:
By:
Date:
Time:
3. Received From:
By:
Time:
Date:
4. Received From:
By:
Time:
Date:

CHAIN OF CUSTODY TAG. PART NO.________________


1. Received From:
By:
Time:
Date:
2. Received From:
By:
Date:
Time:
3. Received From:
By:
Time:
Date:
4. Received From:
By:
Time:
Date:

CHAIN OF CUSTODY TAG. PART NO.________________


1. Received From:
By:
Time:
Date:
2. Received From:
By:
Date:
Time:
3. Received From:
By:
Time:
Date:
4. Received From:
By:
Time:
Date:

CHAIN OF CUSTODY TAG. PART NO.________________


1. Received From:
By:
Time:
Date:
2. Received From:
By:
Date:
Time:
3. Received From:
By:
Time:
Date:
4. Received From:
By:
Time:
Date:

CHAIN OF CUSTODY TAG. PART NO.________________


1. Received From:
By:
Time:
Date:
2. Received From:
By:
Date:
Time:
3. Received From:
By:
Time:
Date:
4. Received From:
By:
Time:
Date:

CHAIN OF CUSTODY TAG. PART NO.________________


1. Received From:
By:
Time:
Date:
2. Received From:
By:
Date:
Time:
3. Received From:
By:
Time:
Date:
4. Received From:
By:
Time:
Date:

[This page left blank intentionally]

Appendix C.7
Damage Observation Summary

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix C.7

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix C.7

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

DAMAGE OBSERVATION SUMMARY


Jersey Barriers

JBW1-The Jersey barrier has slid approximately 3 to 6 in the easterly direction. The Jersey barrier slid
until the sliding was impeded by the guard rail post that lines the inside perimeter of the race track.
JBW2-The Jersey barrier does not appear to have moved significantly. This is evident by the
measurement of the wire rope and ratchet strap lengths and the approximate location of the
connection points of the guy lines to the main structure. Based on our geometrical calculations the
Jersey barrier does not appear to have slid significantly.
JBW3-The Jersey barrier slid and was lifted by the guy lines and landed in the stair way leading in to the
rooms under the stage.
JBW4-The Jersey barrier slid in the easterly direction approximately 14-0 .
JBNW1-The guy line attached to this Jersey barrier is located on the north face. Note that preliminary
observations appeared to indicate that the guy line connection to the wire rope is located on the south
end, however, based on the wire rope lengths measured it was determined that connection point is on
the north side of the Jersey barrier. This Jersey barrier was lifted from the north end and then rotated
clock wise about its south end then impacting a temporary fence and a fork lift.
JBNW2-No movement of the Jersey barrier is evident, note that guy lines were not directly attached to
this Jersey barrier.
JBE1- No movement of the Jersey barrier is evident.
JBE2- No movement of the Jersey barrier is evident.
JBE3- No movement of the Jersey barrier is evident.
JBE4- No movement of the Jersey barrier is evident.
JBNE1-The guy line attached to this Jersey barrier is located on the north face. Note that preliminary
observations appeared to indicate that the guy line connection to the wire rope was located on the
south end, however, based on the wire rope lengths measured it was determined that connection point
is on the north side of the Jersey barrier. This Jersey barrier was lifted from the north end and then
rotated clock wise about its south end then impacting a temporary fence.
JBNE2- No movement of the Jersey barrier is evident, note that guy lines were not directly attached to
this Jersey barrier.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix C.7
Page 1 of 5

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Wire Rope and Ratchet Straps


WEST:
NS.A1.JB.W1.E- The ratchet strap is torn. Based on our examination of the failed ratchet strap, the failure
appeared to be attributed to a significant amount of tension. Evidence of strain hardening of fibers and
necking of the webbing material is observed. Note that one piece of the strap was found on top of Jersey
barrier JBW1, however, the second ratchet strap segment was found within the debris field near the
collapsed location of node E1. This ratchet strap had a knot tied in the tension plane. The failure of the
strap did not occur near the knot. It is also important to note that this ratchet strap is the only strap
observed on site that had a fixed take-up/travel distance. Specifically, the webbing is connected to the
ratchet hub in a manner that limited the variable length of strap. Therefore the knot is used in order to
shorten the strap length and allow it to be tensioned by the ratchet.
WR.A1.JB.W1.E- The guy line had no visible distress. Note that this guy line is connected to the rigged
sling that is connected to node A1.
NS.B3.JB.W2.E- No damage to the ratchet strap is evident.
WR.B3.JB.W2.E- No damage to the guy line is evident.
NS.B4.JB.W2.W- No damage to the ratchet strap is evident.
WR.B4.JB.W2.W- No damage to the guy line is evident. Note that the fin plate in node B4 is torn out from
the remaining components on the nodes west face.
NS.B3.JB.W3.W- Note the ratchet strap is torn. Based on our examination of the failure at the strap, it
was determined that the strap appeared to have come in contact with a sharp edge such as the wires
from the chain link fence. The second piece of the ratchet strap was found near the west speakers just
west of node B1 in the debris field.
WR.B3.JB.W3.W- No damage to the guy line is evident. Note that sections of the wire rope appear to
have been unshackled during the rescue efforts.
NS.B2.JB.W3.E- No damage to the ratchet strap is evident.
WR.B2.JB.W3.E- No damage to the guy line is evident
NS.B4.JB.W4.E- No damage to the ratchet strap is evident
WR.B4.JB.W4.E- No damage to the guy line is evident. Note that the fin plate in node B4 is torn out from
the remaining components on the nodes west face.
EAST:
NS.G1.JB.E1.W- No damage to the ratchet strap is evident.
WR.G1.JB.E1.W- No damage to the ratchet strap is evident.
NS.F3.JB.E2.W- No damage to the ratchet strap is evident.
INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix C.7
Page 2 of 5

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

WR.F3.JB.E2.W- No damage to the guy line is evident.


NS.F4.JB.E2.E- No damage to the ratchet strap is evident.
WR.F4.JB.E2.E- No damage to the guy line is evident.
NS.F2.JB.E3.W- No damage to the ratchet strap is evident.
WR.F2.JB.E3.W- No damage to the guy line is evident.
NS.F1.JB.E3.E- No damage to the ratchet strap is evident.
WR.F1.JB.E3.E- No damage to the guy line is evident.
NS.F4.JB.E4.E- No damage to the ratchet strap is evident.
WR.F4.JB.E4.E- No damage to the guy line is evident.
NORTH:
NS.B4.JB.NW1.S- No damage to the ratchet strap is evident.
WR.B4.JB.NW1.S - No damage to the ratchet strap is evident. Note that sections of the wire rope appear
to have been unshackled during the rescue efforts. Note regarding nomenclature: Based on overall
length measurements of the ratchet straps and guy line at the warehouse it was determined that the guy
line connection point to the Jersey barrier is located in the north end of the Jersey barrier and not the
south end.
NS. B4.JB.NE1.S -No damage to the ratchet strap is evident.
WR.B4.JB.NE1.S - No damage to the guy line is evident. Note that sections of the wire rope appear to
have been de-shackled during the rescue efforts. Note regarding nomenclature: Based on overall length
measurements of the ratchet straps and guy line at the warehouse it was determined that the guy line
connection point to the Jersey barrier is located in the north end of the Jersey barrier and not the south
end.

Vertical Aluminum Truss Elements


WEST:
C.A1- Failure of welds and base metal at splice connection between the two top sections is evident. All
other damage appears to be attributed to the impact. No damage to the safety straps is evident.
C.B1- Failure of welds and base metal at splice connection between the two top sections is evident. All
other damage appears to be attributed to the impact. No damage to the safety straps is evident.
C.B2- Failure of welds and base metal at splice connection between the two top sections is evident. All
other damage appears to be attributed to the impact. No damage to the safety straps is evident.
INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix C.7
Page 3 of 5

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

C.B3- Failure of welds and base metal at the top two splice connection between the three top sections is
evident. All other damage appears to be attributed to the impact. No damage to the safety straps is
evident.
C.B4- Failure of welds and base metal at splice connection between the two top sections is evident. All
other damage appears to be attributed to the impact. Note that column is supported by plywood sheets
and shims that are bearing on partially on concrete and partially on gravel. No damage to the safety
straps is evident.
EAST:
C.F1- Failure of welds and base metal at splice connection between the two top sections is evident. All
other damage appears to be attributed to the impact. No damage to the safety straps is evident.
C.F1- Failure of welds and base metal at splice connection between the two top sections is evident. All
other damage appears to be attributed to the impact. No damage to the safety straps is evident.
C.F2- Failure of welds and base metal at splice connection between the two top sections is evident. All
other damage appears to be attributed to the impact. No damage to the safety straps is evident.
C.F3- Failure of welds and base metal at the top two splice connection between the three top sections is
evident. All other damage appears to be attributed to the impact. No damage to the safety straps is
evident.
C.F4- Failure of welds and base metal at splice connection between the two top sections is evident. All
other damage appears to be attributed to the impact. Note that column is supported by plywood sheets
and shims that are bearing on partially on concrete and partially on gravel. No damage to the safety
straps is evident.
Black:
C.C3.5- Failure of clamped connection to the main trusses is evident.
C.B3.5- Failure of clamped connection to the main trusses is evident.
C.D3.5- Failure of clamped connection to the main trusses is evident.

Roof Trusses
Rafters- All significant damage to the rafters has been attributed to the impact.
Gable web- All significant damage to the gable web members has been attributed to the impact.
Ridge- The majority of the damage observed at ridge members is attributed to the impact.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix C.7
Page 4 of 5

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Nodes
WEST:
A1. No damage to node A1 is evident.
B1. No damage to node A1 is evident.
B2. Fin plate on west face of node is torn out.
B3. No damage to node B3 is evident.
B4. Fin plates on the north and west faces of node are torn out.
EAST:
G1. Damage to node attributed to impact.
F1. Damage to node attributed to impact.
F2. Damage to node attributed to impact.
F3. No damage to node F3 is evident.
F4. No damage to node F4 is evident.

Miscellaneous
Main trusses
The damage observed on the main trusses is attributed to the impact.
Rigged trusses
The damage observed on the rigged trusses is attributed to the impact. Note that the chain hoist length
and trim heights of each rigged truss was measured on site and verified at the warehouse during our off
site examination of the collapsed structure.
Roof Tarp
Based on comparison of on-site observations and collapse sequence photo and video, the damage to the
west half of the roof tarp membrane is attributed to the impact. However, the middle and east panel
sustained damage prior to collapse. The center panel disengaged and tore along the Velcro seam. The
hooks on the straps connecting the east panel to the ridge members pulled the grommets in the panel out
of the tarp material, releasing the tarp from its mechanical connection to the ridge components. The East
panel tore into multiple pieces and landed near the south east corner of the structure.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix C.7
Page 5 of 5

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

Appendix D.1
RWDI Report

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.1

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.1

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

INDIANA STATE FAIR COLLAPSE INCIDENT (ISFCI)


INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA

Final Report
Wind Engineering Services
RWDI # 1200100
March 16, 2012

SUBMITTED TO

Scott G Nacheman, MSc.Eng., AIA


Vice President
Thornton Tomasetti
330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60611
SNacheman@ThorntonTomasetti.com
Cc: Gary Storm, P.E.
GStorm@ThorntonTomasetti.com

SUBMITTED BY

Derek Kelly, M.Eng., P.Eng.


Principal - Project Manager
derek.kelly@rwdi.com
Scott Gamble
Principal Project Director
Scott.gamble@rwdi.com
Val Sifton, P.Eng.
Senior Engineer
Valerie.sifton@rwdi.com
Will Yakymyk M.A.Sc.
Technical Coordinator
Will.yakymyk@rwdi.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1

2.

WIND TUNNEL TESTS ........................................................................................................................ 1

3.

2.1

Study Model and Surroundings .................................................................................................... 1

2.2

Approaching Wind Simulation in the Wind Tunnel ....................................................................... 2

2.3

Scaling of Wind Tunnel Data........................................................................................................ 2

LOCAL WIND CONDITIONS................................................................................................................ 3


3.1 On Day of Incident August 13, 2011 ............................................................................................. 3
3.2 August 9, 2011 .............................................................................................................................. 4

4.

CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................... 4
4.1 Predicted Wind Speeds ................................................................................................................. 4
4.2 Base Moment and Shear Forces .................................................................................................. 5

5.

APPLICABILITY OF CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................. 5


5.1 Exposure ....................................................................................................................................... 5
5.2 Wind Loads ................................................................................................................................... 6
5.3 The Proximity Model ..................................................................................................................... 6
5.4 Study Model and Structural Properties Information ...................................................................... 6

Tables
Table 1: Gust Overall Base Moments and Shear Forces
Table 2: Wind Load Conversion Factors
Table 3: Weather Stations and Maximum Gust on August 13, 2011

Figures
Figure 1-1: Wind Tunnel Study Model Configuration 1 Full Stage Equipment Full Roof
Figure 1-1: Wind Tunnel Study Model Configuration 2 Full Stage Equipment Half Roof
Figure 1-1: Wind Tunnel Study Model Configuration 3 No Stage Equipment Full Roof
Figure 1-1: Wind Tunnel Study Model Configuration 4 No Stage Equipment Half Roof
Figure 2: Site Plan
Figure 3-1: Map of Meteorological Stations
Figure 3-2: Measured Wind Speeds around time of Stage Collapse
Figure 4: Co-ordinate System for Structural Loading
Figure 5: Gust Overall Base Moments and Shears Full Stage

1.

INTRODUCTION

Rowan Williams Davies & Irwin Inc. (RWDI) was retained by Thornton-Tomasetti to study the overall wind
loading on the Indiana State Fair Performance Stage located in Indianapolis, Indiana. On August 13,
2011 the performance stage overhead structure at the Indiana State Fair failed during an apparent high
wind event. Additionally, the fairgrounds had previously, on August 9, 2011, experienced a strong wind
event which apparently did not cause structural damage to the overhead structure.
This report outlines the results of the analyses that RWDI conducted to determine the probable overall
th
wind loads acting on the structure at the time of the failure and a comparison with the August 9 weather
event. These analyses include:
I.

A review of the available meteorological data to determine the range of possible wind speeds at
the time of the failure on August 13, 2011.

II.

A review of the available meteorological data to determine the possible wind speeds during the
earlier wind event on August 9, 2011.

III.

A wind tunnel study to determine the overall wind loading of the overhead structure for various
wind speeds and wind directions.

The following table summarizes relevant information about methods used, results of the study and the
governing parameters:
Project Details:
Investigative Technique
Key Results and Recommendations:
Coordinate System for Structural Loading
Summary of Calculated Peak Overall Structural Wind Loads
Selected Analysis Parameters:
Local Peak Wind Speed 3-second gust

Scale Model in Wind Tunnel on Force Balance


Figure 4
Table 1
52 mph

The following sections outline the test methodology for the current study, and discuss the results.

2.

WIND TUNNEL TESTS

2.1

Study Model and Surroundings

A 1:32 scale model of the stage was constructed using information provided by Thornton-Tomasetti. The
model was constructed in two halves to facilitate the measurement of the wind loads on each of the east
and west halves of the overhead structure. The wind loads for each half were then combined to
determine the wind loads on the entire structure. The wind tunnel model was constructed in such a way
as to isolate the wind load on the permanent stage platform as well as the tents on the east and west half
of this platform. This then focused the investigation solely on the overhead structure which failed during

the event. The model was tested in the presence of upwind surroundings such as transport trailers and
performance support equipment within a full-scale distance of 128 ft from center stage, in RWDIs 8 ft
6.5 ft wind tunnel facility in Guelph, Ontario for the following test configurations:
Configuration 1 Indiana State Fair stage and overhead structure with complete roof tarps and
all stage equipment (LED screen and moustache-shaped curtain).
Configuration 2 Same as Configuration 1 but with east half of roof tarps removed as observed
in video records approximately coincident with initiation of failure.
Configuration 3 Indiana State Fair stage and overhead structure with complete roof tarps and
no stage equipment (LED screen and moustache-shaped curtain).
Configuration 4 Same as Configuration 3 but with east half of roof tarps removed.
Photographs of the wind tunnel study model are shown in Figures 1-1 through 1-4, corresponding to test
Configurations 1 through 4, respectively. An orientation plan showing the location of the study site is
given in Figure 2.

2.2

Approaching Wind Simulation in the Wind Tunnel

As will be discussed in section 3, at the time of the failure a localized storm front was moving through the
area of Indianapolis. Since these storm fronts are associated with localized thunderstorm activity, they
are not typically associated with standard synoptic (weather patterns over large areas) type boundary
layer profiles (those generated by primarily horizontal wind flow over long stretches of ground terrain and
buildings), the wind tunnel model was tested in smooth, uniform flow. The resulting wind load coefficients
are then applicable to the gust wind speed as indicated from the review of the local meteorological data
for the event. Review of the video footage showing the flapping of the American flag and the banner
hanging on the south face of the gable indicates that the wind was blowing from a westerly direction at
the specific site of the stage. Since the precise wind direction acting on the overhead structure during the
event is unknown, the wind tunnel tests were conducted for a range of wind directions from the west
o
o
through north (i.e. 260 through 360 ). Wind direction is defined as the direction from which the wind
blows, measured clockwise from true north.

2.3

Scaling of Wind Tunnel Data

Since the wind tunnel tests were carried out using a geometric replica of the site and the overhead
structure which had a size which was 1/32nd of the size of the real structure, and the wind speed in the
wind tunnel was set to a value which was appropriate for the model, the question may arise as to how
forces measured on the model are scaled up to represent the forces experienced on the real structure at
the time of failure. This is done routinely in wind tunnel testing by formulating the results as force and
moment coefficients which are then applicable to the full scale situation.

However, in a simplified form it can be explained as the wind tunnel measures two basic quantities: 1) the
force or moment being applied to the model; and 2) the wind pressure created by the wind flow in the
tunnel. The forces can be presented in pounds and the wind pressures can be presented in pounds per
square foot.
To take these quantities and scale them to the full-scale situation requires two steps. First the forces in
th
pounds are on the model which presents a frontal area to the wind which is 1/1024 that of the real
structure due to its smaller size. Therefore the forces need to be multiplied by 1024 in order to determine
the force that the real structure would have experienced under the wind speed created in the wind tunnel.
Secondly, since there is a range of possible wind speeds that could be experienced at the fairgrounds
site, the forces need to be scaled to the desired wind pressure which is created by the target wind speed.
To do this the target full-scale speed is converted to wind pressure using a standard method incorporating
the air density. This method is described in building codes and is in common use in structural design.
Then a ratio is created between the target wind pressure and the wind tunnel test wind pressure. The
forces previously scaled for model size are then multiplied by this ratio to produce the desired full-scale
forces at the target wind speed.

3.

LOCAL WIND CONDITIONS

The wind speeds cited in this report and used in our analysis correspond to peak gust speeds. Wind
speeds are often quoted based on different averaging times and referenced to different heights.
However, in the United States, the ASCE 7 Standard, which is the national guideline referenced by
various building codes, uses the 3-second gust wind speed, as its basic wind speed for deriving wind
loads on structures. Hence, for consistency RWDI has adopted a similar approach in deriving wind
speeds, and in turn, estimating wind loads that correspond to 3-second gust wind speeds which translate
to the peak load acting on the structure.

3.1

On Day of Incident August 13, 2011

Thunderstorms had been developing across much of central Indiana ahead of a cold front in the
afternoon and early evening the day of the stage overhead structure collapse, with the majority of severe
weather reports occurring between the hours of 7:00 pm and 9:30 pm.
Local meteorological records were obtained from four principal weather stations from the National
Climatic Data Center (NCDC) for the day of the collapse, as well as records from 2 additional stations
managed by the Indiana Department of Transportation. These stations are listed in Table 3 and their
locations are indicated in Figures 3-1 and 3-2.
The mean and gust wind speed data were reviewed at each station. All stations reviewed indicated that
mean wind speeds were generally less than 10 mph and primarily from directions south-southwest
through west for most of the day, but increased quickly sometime after 8:00 pm EDT, with a
corresponding shift in wind direction to the northwest through north-northwest. The wind speeds at these
stations peaked at varying times between 8:30 pm to 10:00 pm EDT. The maximum gust wind speed

measured at these stations was a gust wind speed of 52 mph. The winds were typically from the
southwest prior to the event, and became more from the northwest during and immediately after the
event. The time series of the wind speeds at these stations are included in Figure 3-2. Weather radar
records for the event indicate that the variability of the gust speeds over the city can be attributed to the
fact that this storm system was made up of several thunderstorm cells, and as such the maximum wind
speeds varied both temporally and spatially as the system passed over Indianapolis.

In addition to the review of the local surface level measurements, RWDI used the Wind Atlas Analysis
and Application Program (WAsP) to evaluate the wind conditions at the Stage site. This software was
developed by the Wind Energy Division at Ris Danish Technical University, Denmark and is widely used
in the Wind Energy Production Industry. The program extrapolates the wind speeds over an area given a
measured wind speed and direction at a specific point, taking into consideration the changes in ground
elevation and surface terrain roughness in moderately complex terrain. Based on the WAsP analysis, the
peak gust wind speeds at the site near the time of the collapse were predicted to be in the range of 57
mph to 59 mph. It is important to note that WAsP spatially extrapolates winds assuming neutrally stable
atmospheric conditions, and cannot accurately account for the spatial variability of the mean wind speeds
or the turbulence created by the thunderstorm system, however it does account for the variation in the
mean speed and turbulence due to the terrain differences between the station locations and the stage
site.

3.2

August 9, 2011

On August 8 and 9, 2011 in the days leading up to the collapse incident, thunderstorms had been
reported across the state of Indiana. Measured data collected in the area directly indicated a peak gust
at approximately 6 pm EST (7pm EDT) on Aug 9, 2011 of 57.5 mph recorded at the Indianapolis
International Airport, and 47.2 mph recorded at Eagle Creek Airpark. On these two days, winds were
generally from the southwest through to west-southwest, and switched more northward to westnorthwest. Data from these two stations were the only wind speed data available to us at the time of
writing. The difference between these two stations reflects the localized nature of the wind gusts
produced by the thunderstorms that moved through the area on that day, and in turn, the range of wind
speeds for these days can assumed to be between 40 mph and 60 mph.
th

Reviewing the radar records for this August 9 event shows that the area covered by the storm on this
day was not as large as noted for the day of the collapse incident. This is consistent with the difference in
speeds reported from the two stations.

4.

CONCLUSIONS

4.1

Predicted Wind Speeds

The weather system that passed through Indianapolis on the day of the incident was driven by a cold
front in advance of which many thunderstorm cells developed. Since thunderstorms are highly localized

and short term events, wind speeds during these events will be highly variable spatially and temporally.
There is considerable uncertainty in trying to predict an actual wind speed or direction at a particular
place and time during such an event, however, given the extensive reported and measured wind speeds
in the area, a likely range of peak wind speeds can be estimated. From the peak wind speeds reported in
the surrounding area, and our predicted speeds at the site, it is our opinion that the peak gust speed was
at least a 3-second gust speed 52 mph and upwards of 59 mph.

4.2

Base Moment and Shear Forces

The reference axis system used to define the forces and moments is illustrated in Figure 4. The overall
wind-induced overturning moments and shear forces acting at grade have been calculated for the 52 mph
3-second gust wind speed and are presented for all test configurations in Table 1. Table 2 provides
conversion factors to calculate wind loads based on alternate wind speeds
The wind loads presented in Table 1 only include the effect of the overhead structure and all associated
elements attached to that structure, including the roof and stage equipment described in section 2.1. The
wind loads do not include the effects of the permanent stage platform or the tents on the east and west
half of this platform.
For illustrative purposes, the overall wind-induced loads for each wind direction tested are presented in
Figure 5 for all test configurations. The loads in this figure are the values based on the predicted wind
speed at the time of the failure as discussed in Section 3.
In reviewing the wind loads presented in Table 2 it can be seen that for wind directions in the range of
o
o
260 through 300 the X-direction shear wind loads increase with the removal of the tarp on the east half
of the roof. These are the wind directions that are the most probable to have occurred at the time of the
failure. With the loss of the tarp on the east half of the roof, a considerable proportion of the interior
structure becomes more exposed to the wind and the overall drag (X-direction) increases. Similarly, for
these wind directions the measured wind loads increase on average by 52% when all stage equipment
(LED screen and moustache-shaped curtain) is included.

5.

APPLICABILITY OF CONCLUSIONS

5.1

Exposure

The wind loads provided in this report are applicable to the exposure as described in section 2.2 of this
report. At the time of the failure a localized storm front was moving through the area of Indianapolis.
Since these localized storm fronts are not typically associated with standard synoptic type boundary layer
profiles (those generated by primarily horizontal wind flow over long stretches of ground terrain and
buildings), the wind tunnel model was tested in smooth, uniform flow. This is approximately equivalent to
an exposure D for the ASCE standard. If, in the course of the analysis of the structure, the wind loads
need to be scaled to a different exposure for comparison with building code approaches, the provided

wind loads may be multiplied by the ratio of the velocity pressure coefficients as an approximate
adjustment (Kz, or Kh).
For example if the wind loads were to be scaled to synoptic type wind event then the appropriate
exposure at the Indiana State Fair would be that of a C type. The wind loads could then be multiplied by
0.85 (1.09/1.27).

5.2

Wind Loads

The wind loads provided in this report are based on the assumption that the stage is a rigid structure as
defined in the Section 6 of the ASCE standard. Therefore they are equivalent to the wind loads that
would be calculated using the Rigid Structure gust effect factor in the standard. This assumes that the
structure has a natural frequency greater than 1 Hz. If it is determined that the structure has natural
frequencies less than 1 Hz, the wind loads provided may be scaled approximately using the ratio of the
gust effect factor as calculated by the Flexible or Dynamically Sensitive Structure to the gust effect
factor calculated by the Rigid Structure method.
This calculation of gust effect factor requires a value for the inherent structural damping of the system.
Damping is the ability for the structure to stop vibrating (eg. swaying back and forth) once it has been
caused to move. The actual value for the main overhead structure is unknown but it is anticipated to
have been within the range of 0.5% of critical damping up to 1.5%. A reasonable value to take would be
1.0%. The scrim wall made of a woven has greater inherent damping than the structure and the
aerodynamic damping produced by forcing air through the numerous openings is high but since it was
hung directly from the structure, adopting the recommended structural value of 1.0% is reasonable for
current purposes.
For example, if using the Flexible or Dynamically Sensitive Structure method the gust effect factor is
determined to be 0.97 then the wind loads provided would be scaled by 1.14 (0.97/0.85).

5.3

The Proximity Model

The structural wind loads determined by the wind tunnel tests and the associated analysis are applicable
for the particular configurations of the stage site at the time of the failure of the overhead structure on
August 13, 2011.

5.4

Study Model and Structural Properties Information

The results presented in this report pertain to: 1) the scale model of the Indiana State Fair stage,
constructed using the information supplied by Thornton-Tomasetti; and, 2) the different configurations of
the stage as discussed in section 2.

Employee Job Title

TABLES

447000
462000
494000
517000
520000
455000
357000
249000
162000
65000
-19000

-100000
21000
154000
307000
467000
609000
686000
769000
835000
901000
931000

12900
13400
14000
15000
15500
13500
10700
7800
5800
2900
900

2900
-500
-4400
-8600
-13200
-17300
-20000
-22300
-24700
-26200
-27100

Configuration 1
Full Stage Equipment - Full Roof
My
Mx
Fx
Fy
(lb-ft)
(lb-ft)
(lb)
(lb)
424000
417000
456000
477000
463000
402000
319000
226000
138000
40000
-63000

-88000
23000
142000
269000
402000
522000
614000
687000
747000
794000
834000

14100
14000
14900
15800
15600
13500
10400
7400
5000
2100
-400

3200
-500
-4500
-8600
-13300
-16800
-19200
-21000
-23300
-25100
-25700

Configuration 2
Full Stage Equipment - Half Roof
My
Mx
Fx
Fy
(lb-ft)
(lb-ft)
(lb)
(lb)
334000
320000
360000
394000
394000
358000
274000
187000
116000
43000
-9000

-80000
12000
119000
232000
345000
447000
520000
555000
594000
603000
597000

8500
8100
9300
10000
9800
8800
6900
5100
3500
1700
400

2000
-400
-3300
-6200
-9200
-11400
-13600
-14500
-14900
-14000
-12900

Configuration 3
No Stage Equipment - Full Roof
My
Mx
Fx
Fy
(lb-ft)
(lb-ft)
(lb)
(lb)
315000
312000
351000
376000
354000
302000
233000
167000
103000
35000
-24000

-73000
16000
116000
209000
312000
394000
464000
522000
558000
552000
547000

9400
9100
10200
10800
10300
8700
6700
4800
3200
1300
-100

2400
-400
-3600
-6400
-9400
-11400
-12900
-14200
-15000
-14100
-13200

Configuration 4
No Stage Equipment - Half Roof
My
Mx
Fx
Fy
(lb-ft)
(lb-ft)
(lb)
(lb)

1. The provided overall wind induced overturning moments, and shear forces are the summation of the wind load on the entire stage structure
acting at grade.
2. The overall wind loads are mean loads based on a 3-second gust wind speed of 52 mph at 33 ft.
3. The reference axis system used to define the forces and moments is illustrated in Figure 4.

Notes:

260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360

Wind
Direction
(degrees)

TABLE 2: WIND LOAD CONVERSION FACTORS


The results presented in this report are based on a basic 3-second Gust wind speed of 52 mph. If the
project team wishes to convert the wind loads to an alternate wind speed then the wind loads can be
multiplied by the factors listed below. The conversion factors are based on the square of the ratio of the
wind speeds. For example, a wind load factor for converting to a basic 3-second Gust wind speed of 57
2
mph was arrived at by: (57/52) = 1.20.
3-Second Gust Wind Speed (mph)

Factor

40

0.59

41

0.62

42

0.65

43

0.68

44

0.72

45

0.75

46

0.78

47

0.82

48

0.85

49

0.89

50

0.92

51

0.96

52

1.0

53

1.04

54

1.08

55

1.12

56

1.16

57

1.20

58

1.24

59

1.29

60

1.33

TABLE 3: WEATHER STATIONS AND MAXIMUM GUST ON AUGUST 13, 2011


Weather Station
Indianapolis International Airport
Eagle Creek Airpark
Indianapolis Executive Airport
Shelbyville Municipal Airport
Market St. INDOT Weather Station
I-74 INDOT Weather Station

Data Recording
Interval
1-minute
1-minute
hourly
1-minute
10-minute
10-minute

Maximum Gust
(mph)
51
46
30
47
41
52

Employee Job Title

FIGURES

Wind Tunnel Study Model

Figure:

1-1

Configuration 1 - Full Stage Equipment - Full Roof


Indiana State Fair Collapse Incident - Indianapolis, Indiana

Project #1200100

Date:

March 13, 2012

Wind Tunnel Study Model

Figure:

1-2

Configuration 2 - Full Stage Equipment - Half Roof


Indiana State Fair Collapse Incident - Indianapolis, Indiana

Project #1200100

Date:

March 13, 2012

Wind Tunnel Study Model

Figure:

1-3

Configuration 3 - No Stage Equipment - Full Roof


Indiana State Fair Collapse Incident - Indianapolis, Indiana

Project #1200100

Date:

March 13, 2012

Wind Tunnel Study Model

Figure:

1-4

Configuration 4 - No Stage Equipment - Half Roof


Indiana State Fair Collapse Incident - Indianapolis, Indiana

Project #1200100

Date:

March 13, 2012

RACE TRACK

RACE TRACK

Site Plan

True North Drawn by: DJM Figure:


Approx. Scale:

Indiana State Fair Collapse Incident - Indianapolis, Indiana

1"=30'

Project #1200100 Date Revised: Mar. 13, 2012

15

30ft

Indiana State Fair Incident Collapse - Indianapolis, Indiana

Indianapolis, Indiana

Map of Meteorological Stations

Project #1200100

Date:

3-1
2012-02-24

Figure No:

Indianapolis Executive AP Gust


I-74 Mean Wind Speeds

Indianapolis Executive AP Mean Wind Speed

Market St. Gust

Indiana State Fair Incident Collapse - Indianapolis, Indiana

2011-08-13 21:30

Project #1200100

Shelbyville Mean Wind Speed

Date and Time EDT

2011-08-13 21:00

Indianapolis IAP Gust

2011-08-13 20:30

Eagle Creek Gust

2011-08-13 20:00

Indianapolis IAP mean speed

0.0
2011-08-13 19:30

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Measured Wind Speeds around time of Stage Collapse

Wind Speed mph

2011-08-13 22:30

Date:

3-2
2012-02-24

Figure No:

I-74 Gust

Market St. Mean Wind Speed

Shelbyville Gust

Eagle Creek Mean Wind Speed

2011-08-13 22:00

My

X
Mx

TOP VIEW

Co-ordinate System for Structural Loading

True North Drawn by: DJM Figure:


Approx. Scale:

Indiana State Fair Collapse Incident - Indianapolis, Indiana

1"=16'

Project #1200100 Date Revised: Mar. 13, 2012

16ft

My

5.00E+05
4.00E+05
3.00E+05
2.00E+05
1.00E+05
0.00E+00

6.00E+05
4.00E+05
2.00E+05
0.00E+00

260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360

260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360

Wind Direction (degrees)

Wind Direction (degrees)

Fx

Fy

5.00E+03
0.00E+00
Shear Force (lbf)

Shear Force (lbf)

8.00E+05

-2.00E+05

-1.00E+05

1.80E+04
1.60E+04
1.40E+04
1.20E+04
1.00E+04
8.00E+03
6.00E+03
4.00E+03
2.00E+03
0.00E+00
-2.00E+03

Mx

1.00E+06
Base Overturing Moment (lbf-ft)

Base Overturing Moment (lbf-ft)

6.00E+05

-5.00E+03
-1.00E+04
-1.50E+04
-2.00E+04
-2.50E+04
-3.00E+04

260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360

260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360

Wind Direction (degrees)

Wind Direction (degrees)

Full Stage Equipment - Full Roof

Full Stage Equipment - Half Roof

No Stage Equipment - Full Roof

No Stage Equipment - Half Roof

Notes:
1)
2)
3)

The provided overall wind induced overturning moments, and shear forces are the
summation of the wind load on the entier stage structure acting at grade.
Theoverall wind loads are mean loads based on a 3-second gust wind speed of 52 mph at 33 ft.
The reference axis system used to define the forces and moments is illustrated in Figure 4.

Gust Overall Base Moments, and Shears - Full Stage

Figure No.

at Grade - 52 mph 3-second Gust Wind Speed


Indiana State Fair Collapse Incident - Indianapolis, Indiana

Project #1200100

Date: Feb. 28, 2012

Appendix D.2
Dead Weight Calculations

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.2

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.2

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

PURPLE TRUSS/ MUSTACHE

LTV.1

42.63
LTV.2

42.63
LTV.3

42.63
LTV.4

42.63
LTV.5

42.63
LTV.6

0.23
5.94
0.63
0.27
3.13
10.19
32.44
1.71
0.19
0.27
0.48
8.58
1.04
10.00
10.00
32.27

1.22
4.60
0.63
0.27
3.75
10.47
32.44
1.71
0.76
0.27
0.48
13.22
1.17
7.50
7.50
32.60

0.56
4.85
0.63
0.27
3.75
10.06
32.44
1.71
0.25
0.27
0.48
13.80
1.21
7.50
7.50
32.72

0.58
4.79
0.63
0.27
3.71
9.98
32.44
1.71
0.88
0.27
0.48
13.00
1.58
7.50
7.50
32.92

1.25
4.48
0.63
0.27
3.75
10.38
32.44
1.71
0.29
0.27
0.48
13.38
1.58
7.50
7.50
32.71

0.25
5.35
0.63
0.27
3.56
10.06
32.44
1.71
0.92
0.27
0.48
7.75
1.60
10.00
10.00
32.73

0.17

-0.16

-0.27

-0.47

-0.26

-0.29

On Stage

On Stage

On Stage

M.H.HOOK
M.HOUSING
M.RS.BOTT

On Stage

LTP

On Stage per photos On Stage

M.RS
MAIN TRUSS

Length Measurement
M.RS
M.H.CHAIN
M.HOUSING
M.H.HOOK
M.RS.BOTT.
Sum of Lengths
Top Chord Elevation
LTP
LTP.RS.BOTT.
LTP.H.HOOK.a
LTP.H.HOUSING.b
Hoist Chain c
RS.LTV
LTV.zz.1
LTV.zz.2
Sum of Lengths
Elevation of LTV
Bottom

42.63

M.H.CHAIN

Purlin Truss Bot. Chord


Elev. (ft)

LTP.RS.BOTT
LTP.H.HOOK.a

LTP.H.CHAIN.c

LTP.HOUSING.b

LTV.RS.BOTT

Indicates assumed #
PURPLE TRUSS/ MUSTACHE

LTV.1
2.75
71.25
7.50
3.25
37.50
122.25
389.33
20.50
2.25
3.25
5.75
103.00
12.50
120.00
120.00
387.25
2.08

511.60

511.60

511.60

511.60

LTV.2
LTV.3
LTV.4
LTV.5
LTV.6
14.63
6.75
7.00
15.00
3.00
55.25
58.25
57.50
53.75
64.25
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
3.25
3.25
3.25
3.25
3.25
45.00
45.00
44.50
45.00
42.75
125.63
120.75
119.75
124.50
120.75
389.33
389.33
389.33
389.33
389.33
20.50
20.50
20.50
20.50
20.50
9.13
3.00
10.50
3.50
11.00
3.25
3.25
3.25
3.25
3.25
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
158.63
165.63
156.00
160.50
93.00
14.00
14.50
19.00
19.00
19.25
90.00
90.00
90.00
90.00
120.00
90.00
90.00
90.00
90.00
120.00
391.25
392.63
395.00
392.50
392.75
-1.92

On Stage per photos On Stage

ASSUMING TRUSS IS
LEVEL AS AVERAGE
(Y/N)

511.60

-3.30
On Stage

-5.67
On Stage

-3.17
On Stage

LTV.zz.1

Length Measurement
M.RS
M.H.CHAIN
M.HOUSING
M.H.HOOK
M.RS.BOTT.
Sum of Lengths
Top Chord Elevation
LTP
LTP.RS.BOTT.
LTP.H.HOOK.a
LTP.H.HOUSING.b
Hoist Chain c
RS.LTV
LTV.zz.1
LTV.zz.2
Sum of Lengths
Elevation of LTV
Bottom

511.60

LTV.zz.2

Purlin Truss Top Chord


Elev. (in)

TOP OF STAGE EL. 0'-0"

-3.42
On Stage
See photos

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.2
Page 1 of 32

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

NO LOAD BASED ON INSPECTION

LTV.1

LTV.6
LTV.2

LTV.5

LTV.2

LTV.5

LTV.2
LTV.1
LTV.1

LTV.6

LTV.4
LTV.4

LTV.3

LTV.3

LTV.6

* Photographs by
Merideth Gradle

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.2
Page 2 of 32

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

BLUE TRUSS
42.63

40.47

42.63

40.47
M.RS
MAIN TRUSS

Length Measurement
M.RS
M.H.CHAIN
M.HOUSING
M.H.HOOK
M.RS.BOTT.
Sum of Lengths
Top Chord Elevation
LTB
LTB.PROP.BOTT.
LTB.H.HOOK.a
LTB.H.HOUSING.b
Hoist Chain c
LENGTH OF GEARS

40.47
LTB.1

LTB.2
LTB.3
LTB.5
LTB.6
1.31
0.54
1.29
0.46
1.40
2.48
3.38
2.81
3.35
2.42
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.27
0.27
1.17
0.27
0.27
3.19
2.25
1.85
3.15
3.25
7.88
7.06
7.75
7.85
7.96
32.77
34.93
32.77
34.93
32.77
HOIST CONNECTED TO TRUSS TOP CHORD
0.31
0.31
0.27
0.27
0.48
0.48
18.94
18.92
16.67
16.67

M.H.CHAIN

Main or Purlin truss Top


Chord Elev. (ft)

M.H.HOOK

Sum of Lengths

0.00

Elevation of LTV Bottom

36.67

0.00

-1.73

36.65

M.HOUSING

0.00

M.RS.BOTT

-1.71
LTB

LTB.H.HOOK.a
LTB.HOUSING.b

LTB.H.CHAIN.c

LTB.PROP.BOTT

Indicates assumed #
BLUE TRUSS

Length Measurement
M.RS
M.H.CHAIN
M.HOUSING
M.H.HOOK
M.RS.BOTT.
Sum of Lengths
Top Chord Elevation
LTB
LTB.PROP.BOTT.
LTB.H.HOOK.a
LTB.H.HOUSING.b
Hoist Chain c
LENGTH OF GEARS

485.60

511.60

485.60

511.60

485.60

LTB.1
LTB.2
LTB.3
LTB.5
LTB.6
15.75
6.50
15.50
5.50
16.75
29.75
40.50
33.75
40.25
29.00
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
3.25
3.25
14.00
3.25
3.25
38.25
27.00
22.25
37.75
39.00
94.50
84.75
93.00
94.25
95.50
393.20
419.20
393.20
419.20
393.20
HOIST CONNECTED TO TRUSS TOP CHORD
3.75
3.75
3.25
3.25
5.75
5.75
227.25
227.00
200.00
200.00

GEARS EAST OF WEST

Main or Purlin truss Top


Chord Elev. (in)

TOP OF STAGE EL. 0'-0"

Sum of Lengths

0.00

Elevation of LTV Bottom


ASSUMING TRUSS IS
LEVEL AS AVERAGE
(Y/N)

440.00
-20.80

0.00

439.75

0.00

-20.55

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.2
Page 3 of 32

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

*Photograph by
Shelia Mayfield

LTV.6
LTV.6

400.00

ELEVATION (IN)

250.00
Elev. LTP

Elev. LTV
Elev. LTP Leveled Average
Elev. LTV with Average LTP Elev.

100.00

-50.00

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

POINT OF MEASUREMENT

Appendix D.2
Page 4 of 32

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Suspended Trusses Trim Heights

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.2
Page 5 of 32

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

WHITE TRUSS (WEIGHT CALCULATIONS)


Schematic Drawing of White Truss
LTW.1

LTW.2

LTW.3

LTW.4

LTW.5

10'

10'

10'

10'

10'

White Truss Reactions and Tributary Lengths


LTW-P2

LTW-P3

LTW-P4

Lo
ca
t
Re ion
ac of
tio
ns

LTW-P1

2.5'

12.4'

11.3'

LTW-P2

LTW-P3

2.5'
LTW-P4

Tr
ib

ut
ar
y

Le
ng

th
s

LTW-P1

21.3'

8.7'

16.85'

16.3'

Weights:
Self Weight of White Truss: 0.02 kips/ft
Hoist Weight: 0.15 kips each
Lights Weight:
VL3000: 0.091 kips
VL3500W: 0.096 kips
Electrical Cable Weight: 0.0072 kips/ft

8.15'

Refer Appendix F.8


Refer Appendix F. 4
(Hoist Weight + 14' Chain Weight)
Refer Appendix F. 5
Refer Appendix F. 5
Refer Appendix F. 9

Lights connected to White Trusses


- LTW.1 and LTW.5 have 4 eachlights (VL3000) each. Each VL3000 weighs 0.91 kips.
- LTW.2, LTW.2 and LTW.4 each have 4 lights (LV3500W). Each VL3500W weighs 0.96 kips
Lights - Uniformly Distributed Weight:
LTW.1 = 4 X 91 lbs / 10'
:
0.0364 kips/ft
( 4 Lights @ 91 lbs each over 10' span of LTW.1)
LTW.2 = 4 X 96 lbs / 10'
:
0.0384 kips/ft
LTW.3 = 4 X 96 lbs / 10'
:
0.0384 kips/ft
LTW.4 = 4 X 96 lbs / 10'
:
0.0384 kips/ft
LTW.5 = 4 X 91 lbs / 10'
:
0.0364 kips/ft
Tributary Length:
LTW - P1
LTW - P2
LTW - P3
LTW - P4
INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

:
:
:
:

8.7'
16.85'
16.3'
8.15'

Appendix D.2
Page 6 of 32

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Truss Reactions:
LTW -P1 = 8.7' X 0.0364 + 8.7' X 0.02 + 6' (Hanging cable) x 0.0072 + 0.15
+ 8.7' x .0072 (Electrical cable on truss) + 0.5
= 1.25 kips
LTW-P2 = 1.3' X 0.0364 + 15.55' X 0.0384 + 16.85' x 0.02 + 16.85' x 0.0072
+ 0.15 + 0.5
= 1.75 kips
LTW -P3 = 14.45' X 0.0384 + 1.85' x 0.00364 + 16.3 x 0.02 + 16.3 x 0.0072
+ 0.15 hoist + 0.5
= 1.72 kips
LTW-P4 = 8.15' X 0.0364 + 8.15' X 0.02 + 8.15' x 0.0072 + 0.15 + 0.5
= 1.17 kips
PRELIMINARY CALCULATION BASED ON FIELD INVENTORY AND AVAILABLE CATALOG DATA
Based on 14ft long chain weight of 0.95 lb/ft, CM Catalog (1.42kg/meter)

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.2
Page 7 of 32

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

PURPLE / MOUSTACHE TRUSS (WEIGHT CALCULATIONS)


Schematic Drawing of Moustache Truss

Moustache Truss Reactions and Tributary Lengths

Purple Truss Reactions


Truss Lengths:
LTP.1 = LTP.4 = LTP.7 = LTP.8 = LTP.10 = LTP.11 = LTP.14 = 9'
LTP.2 = LTP.3 = LTP.5 = LTP.6 = LTP.9 = LTP.12 = LTP.13 = 6'
Weights:
Self Weight of Purple Truss: 0.0115 kips/ft
Hoist Weight: 0.15 kips each
Lights Weight:
VL3500W: 0.096 kips
Spotlight + Chair: 0.3 kips*
Elec Cable Weight: 0.0062 kips/ft
Stage Bar 54S: 0.012 kips

Refer Appendix F. 8 (Based on 10' section)


Refer Appendix F. 4
(Hoist Weight + 14' Chain Weight)
Refer Appendix F. 5
Refer Appendix F.9
Refer Appendix F. 5

Lights Weights:
= 1 Spotlight + Chair = 0.3 kips
LTP.1
LTP.2 = 2 VL3500W + 1 Stagebar 54S = 0.096 X 2 + 0.012 =
LTP.3 = 2 VL3500W + 1 Stagebar 54S = 0.096 X 2 + 0.012 =
LTP.4 = 3 VL3500W + 1 Stagebar 54S = 0.096 X 3 + 0.012 =
LTP.5 = 1 VL3500W = 0.096 kips
LTP.6 = 2 Stagebar 54S = 2 X 0.012 = 0.0024 kips
LTP.7 = 2 VL3500W = 2 x 0.0096 = 0.192 kips
LTP.8 = 2 VL3500W = 2 x 0.0096 = 0.192 kips
LTP.9 = 2 Stagebar 54S = 2 X 0.012 = 0.0024 kips
LTP.10 = 1 VL3500W = 0.096 kips
LTP.11 = 3 VL3500W + 1 Stagebar 54S = 0.096 X 3 + 0.012 =
LTP.12 = 2 VL3500W + 1 Stagebar 54S = 0.096 X 2 + 0.012 =
LTP.13 = 2 VL3500W + 1 Stagebar 54S = 0.096 X 2 + 0.012 =
LTP.14 = 1 Spotlight + Chair = 0.3 kips
INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.2
Page 8 of 32

0.204 kips
0.204 kips
0.3 kips

0.3 kips
0.204 kips
0.204 kips
April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Distributed and Point Loads on Truss Sections:


LTP.1
LTP.2
LTP.3
LTP.4
LTP.5
LTP.6
LTP.7
LTP.8
LTP.9
LTP.10
LTP.11
LTP.12
LTP.13
LTP.14

= 0.3 kips
= 0.204 / 6.3 ' = 0.032 kips/ft
= 0.204 / 6.3 ' = 0.032 kips/ft
= 0.3 / 9.55 ' = 0.031 kips/ft
= 0.096/ 6.3' = 0.015 kips/ft
= 0.024 / 6.3' = 0.004 kips/ft
= 0.096 x 2/ 9.55' = 0.02 kips/ft
= 0.096 x 2/ 9.55' = 0.02 kips/ft
= 0.024 / 6.3' = 0.004 kips/ft
= 0.096/ 6.3' = 0.015 kips/ft
= 0.3 / 9.55 ' = 0.031 kips/ft
= 0.204 / 6.3 ' = 0.032 kips/ft
= 0.204 / 6.3 ' = 0.032 kips/ft
= 0.3 kips

Reactions:
LTP - P1 =0.3 + 11.55' X 0.0115 + 2.7' X 0.032 + 11.55' X 0.0062 + 0.15
= 0.75 kips
LTP - P2 =22.05' x 0.0115 + 4.3' x 0.032 + 6.3' x 0.032 + 10.5' x 0.031 + 0.95' x 0.015
+ 22.05' x 0.0062 + 0.15
= 1.22 kips
LTP - P3 =19.05' x .0115 + 5.35' x 0.015 + 6.3' x 0.004 + 7.4' x 0.02 + 19.05' x 0.0062 + 0.15
= 0.75 kips
LTP - P4 =19.05' x .0115 + 5.25' x 0.015 + 6.3' x 0.004 + 7.4' x 0.02 + 19.05' x 0.0062 + 0.15
= 0.75 kips
LTP - P5 =22.05' x 0.0115 + 4.3' x 0.032 + 6.3' x 0.032 + 10.5' x 0.03 + 0.95' x 0.015
+ 22.05' x 0.0062 + 0.15
= 1.22 kips
LTP - P6 =0.3 + 11.55' X 0.0115 + 2.7' X 0.032 + 11.55' X 0.0062 + 0.15
= 0.60 kips

PRELIMINARY CALCULATION BASED ON FIELD INVENTORY AND AVAILABLE CATALOG DATA


* - Estimate based on similar product

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.2
Page 9 of 32

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

ORANGE TRUSS (WEIGHT CALCULATIONS)


Schematic Drawing of Orange Truss
LTO.1N

LTO.2N

LTO.3N

LTO.4N

LTO.5N

LTO.6N

10'

10'

10'

10'

10'

10'

LTO.1S

LTO.2S

LTO.3S

LTO.4S

LTO.5S

LTO.6S

10'

10'

10'

10'

10'

10'

Schematic Drawing of Orange Truss Reactions


LTO.N/S - P1

10'

LTO.N/S - P2

10'

10'

LTO.N/S - P3

10'

10'

10'

North Truss 18" x 12" (LTO.N):


Weights:
Section 18" x 12" (North Orange Truss): 0.0076 kips/ft
Electrical Cable: 0.00135 kips/ft
Hanging Electrical Cable: 0.05 kips
Hoist: 0.10 kips

Refer Appendix F.3


Refer Appendix F. 9
Refer Appendix F. 9
Refer Appendix F.4

Tributary Lengths:
Tributary Length for Reaction LTO.N - P1 = 15'
Tributary Length for Reaction LTO.N - P2 = 30'
Tributary Length for Reaction LTO.N - P3 = 15'
Reactions:
LTO.N - P1 = 15' X 0.0076 + 15' x 0.00135 + 0.05 + 0.1 = 0.284 kips
LTO.N - P2 = 30' x 0.0076 + 30' x 0.00135 + 0.1
= 0.368 kips
= 0.234 kips
LTO.N - P3 = 15' x 0.0076 + 15' x 0.00135 + 0.1
South Truss 12" x 12" (LTO.S):
Weights:
Section 12" x 12" (South Orange Truss): 0.0072 kips/ft
Electrical Cable: 0.00078 kips/ft
Hanging Electrical Cable: 0.27 kips
Hoist: 0.10 kips
INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.2
Page 10 of 32

Refer Appendix F.4


Refer Appendix F.10
Refer Appendix F.10
Refer Appendix F.5
April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Tributary Lengths:
Tributary Length for Reaction LTO.N - P1 = 15'
Tributary Length for Reaction LTO.N - P2 = 30'
Tributary Length for Reaction LTO.N - P3 = 15'
Reactions:
LTO.S - P1 = 15' X 0.0072 + 15' x 0.00078 + 0.27 + 0.1 = 0.49 kips
LTO.S - P2 = 30' x 0.0072 + 30' x 0.00078 + 0.1
= 0.340 kips
LTO.S - P3 = 15' x0.0072 + 15' X 0.00078 + 0.1
= 0.220 kips

PRELIMINARY CALCULATION BASED ON FIELD INVENTORY AND AVAILABLE CATALOG DATA

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.2
Page 11 of 32

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

BLUE TRUSS (WEIGHT CALCULATIONS)


Schematic Drawing of Blue Truss
LTB.1

LTB.2

LTB.3

LTB.4

LTB.5

LTB.6

8'

8'

8'

8'

8'

8'

Blue Truss Reactions and Tributary Lengths


LTB-P2

LTB-P3

LTB-P4

LTB-P5

Lo
ca
t
Re ion
ac of
tio
ns

LTB-P1

9.1'

8.4'

10 '

LTB-P2

11.25'
LTB-P3

7.25'

LTB-P4

LTB-P5

Tr
ib

ut

ar
yL

en
g

th
s

LTB-P1

8'

1.1'

4.2'

2.7'

1.5'

5'

5'

4.5'

1.13'

5.63'

1.25' 2.38'

Weights:
Self Weight of Blue Truss: 0.034 kips/ft*
Hoists Weight:
LTB - P1: 0.21 kips LTB - P2: 0.15 kips LTB - P3: 0.21 kips
LTB - P4: 0.21 kips LTB - P5: 0.21 kips

5.63'

Refer Appendix F. 4

Weights on LTB.1 , LTB.6 :


Lights
Truss Self Weight
Electrical Cable
Total Weight

= 0.034 kips/ft
= 0.034 kips/ft*
Refer Appendix F.6
= 0.005 kips/ft
Refer Appendix F.10
= 0.034 + 0.034 + 0.005 = 0.073 kips

Weights on LTB.2, LTB.5 :


Lights
Truss Self Weight
Electrical Cable
Total Weight

Refer Appendix F.6


= 0.023 kips/ft
= 0.034 kips/ft
= 0.005 kips/ft
Refer Appendix F.10
= 0.023 + 0.034 + 0.005 = 0.062 kips

Weights on LTB.3, LTB.4 :


Spotlights + Chair
Truss Self Weight
Electrical Cable
Total Weight

= 0.3 kips * (Point Load only)


= 0.034 kips/ft
= 0.005 kips/ft
= 0.034 + 0.005 = 0.039 kips

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.2
Page 12 of 32

Refer Appendix F.10

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Reactions:
LTB - P1 = 8' X 0.073 + 1.1' X 0.073 + 4.2' X 0.062 + 0.21
= 1.13 kips
LTB - P2 = 2.7' x 0.073 + 1.5' x 0.04 + 5' x 0.04 + 0.3 + 0.15
= 0.91 kips
LTB - P3 = 1.5' x 0.04 + 3.5' x 0.04 + 4.5' x 0.04 + 1.13' x 0.062 + 0.3 + 0.21
= 0.96 kips
LTB - P4 = 5.63' x 0.062 + 1.25' x 0.06 + 2.38' x 0.073 + 0.21
= 0.81 kips
LTB - P5 = 5.63' x 0.073 + 0.21
= 0.62 kips
Weight of the LED screen and the LED surround :
LTB-P1
= 0.5 kips
LTB-P2
= 1.0 kips
LTB-P3
= 1.5 kips
LTB-P4
= 1.0 kips
Total Reaction on Blue Truss:
LTB - P1 = 1.13 + 0.5 = 1.63 kips
LTB - P2 = 0.91 + 1.0 = 1.91 kips
LTB - P3 = 0.96 + 1.5 = 2.46 kips
LTB - P4 = 0.81 + 1.0 = 1.81 kips
LTB - P5 = 0.62 kips
PRELIMINARY CALCULATION BASED ON FIELD INVENTORY AND AVAILABLE CATALOG DATA
* - Estimate based on similar product

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.2
Page 13 of 32

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

DETERMINATION OF COMPONENT WEIGHTS


The various components of the ISF structure were dismantled and weighed. The weighing of certain
components was done at the ISF Fairgrounds between 30th October 2011 and 1st November, 2011. The
weighing of various other components at the warehouse was performed between 7th November to 18th
November, 2011.
The following equipment was used to lift and weigh the dismantled parts:
2 Point bridles
Chain Hoists
Shackles
Wire Rope Choker
Dillon Dynamometer
Dillon Receiver
Wedgelink, a keyboard wedge software application was used to import the measured data from the
Dillon equipment into Microsoft Excel. A software keyboard wedge reads data from a serial port and
passes this data to a PC application in such a manner that the application thinks the data is entered via
the keyboard. Hoisting was performed with the use of the crane utilized for dismantling of the structure.
Additional components were hoisted in the warehouse by the forklift at that location. Some of the ranges
of weights of standard components used in the rigging of the ISF Structure are shown in the table below.

Component Type
Weight (lbs)
Typical Columns
506 to 582
Typical SuperTruss Section
115
Typical Purlins
160
Typical Hoists
98 to 269
Strut
350
Gable Roof Section
859
Typical Black Column
361
Lighting Trusses
1144 to 5286
LED Display
2856
Typical Speakers
126 to 263
Speaker Hoists
172 to 243
Table 1. Typical Component Weights

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.2
Page 14 of 32

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.2
Page 15 of 32

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

0.2
0.9
1.24

T.B2.3.N-P1

0.49
0.34
0.22
1.93
1.2

LTOS-P1

LTOS-P2

LTOS-P3

1.06

1.1
6
0.3

LTP-P5

LTP-P6

1.13
1.13
11.36
41.02

SPKE-P2

SPKE-P3

ELECT CABLE
WHITE SUM
RED SUM
BLUE SUM
ORANGE SUM
PURPLE SUM
TRIANGLE SUM
SPEAKER SUM

Electrical cable plan


White Truss
Red Truss
Blue Truss
Orange Truss
Mustache Truss
Triangular Truss
Speakers
TOTAL

Comments

3.42

SPKE-P1

Locations

3.42

SPKW-P3

SPEAKER SUM
TOTAL (kips)

1.13

SPKW-P2

SPKW-P1

LTT-P2

TRIANGLE SUM

0.79

LTP-P4

0.3
0.6
1.13

0.79

LTP-P3

LTT-P1

1.06

LTP-P2

PURPLE SUM

0.23

LTON-P3

LTP-P1

0.37

ORANGE SUM

BLUE SUM

LTON-P2

LTON-P1

LTB-P1
LTB-P2
LTB-P3
LTB-P4
LTB-P5

5.99
1.63
1.91
2.46
1.81
0.62
8.43
0.28

1.17
5.81
0.99
1.41
1.41
0.99
0.61
0.58

LTW-P4

RED SUM

1.65

LTW-P3

LTR-P1
LTR-P2
LTR-P3
LTR-P4
LTR-P5
LTR-P6

1.75

LTW-P2

WHITE SUM

0.29

T.B2.3.S-P2

LTW-P1

0.34

T.B2.3.S-P1

ELECT CABLE

0.07

TT Loads calculated
(Kips)

T.B1.2.S-P1

Locations

TT Loads calculated
(Kips)
0.90
5.81
5.99
8.43
1.93
6.00
0.60
11.36
41.02

Speakers

Speakers

Speakers

Speakers

Speakers

Speakers

Triangular Truss

Triangular Truss

Mustache Truss

Mustache Truss

Mustache Truss

Mustache Truss

Mustache Truss

Mustache Truss

Orange Truss

Orange Truss

Orange Truss

Orange Truss

Orange Truss

Orange Truss

Blue Truss
Blue Truss
Blue Truss
Blue Truss
Blue Truss

Red Truss
Red Truss
Red Truss
Red Truss
Red Truss
Red Truss

White Truss

White Truss

White Truss

White Truss

Electrical cable plan

Electrical cable plan

Electrical cable plan

Electrical cable plan

Comments

0.45

31.7

5.90
6.50
9.15
1.40
7.85
0.90

0.9
5.97
5.88
9.50
1.73
6.84
0.90
12.63
44.33

Field Totals
(Kips)

1.35 LTV.1.1 AND LTV.1.2


Including LTVs
0.45

1.25 LTV.3.1 AND LTV.3.2

1.25 LTV.2.1 AND LTV.2.2

1.275 LTV.5.1 AND LTV.5.2

Sugarland Loads
(SL) (Kips)

31.7

1.45 LTV.6.1 AND LTV.6.2


1.275 LTV.4.1 AND LTV.4.2

To be defined
1.4

0.9

Gear East (PROP 2)


Bottom Surround
Gear West (PROP 1)
LTB.1 - LTB.6
Spotlight (LTB WEST)

0.55 LTO.1.N-LTO.7.N
0.425
To be defined

7.85

1.6
1.65
2.65
1.65
1.6

0.9 LTR.1 -LTR.7


1.5 LTR.8
1.5 LTR.0
0.9
0.85
0.85

1.2

1.75 West Chandelier (CH1, LTW.4)

0.425 LTO.1.S - LTO.7.S

To be defined

9.15

6.5

5.9

1.75 East Chandelier (CH2, LTW.2)

1.2 LTW.1 - LTW.5

Sugarland Loads
(SL) (Kips)

LCD Display
LCD Surround - 1 (CIRC LTB.3 AND LTB.4)
LCD Surround - 2 (CIRC LTB.3 AND LTB.4)
LCD Surround - 3 (CIRC LTB.3 AND LTB.4)

1.23

1.23

3.85

3.85

1.23

1.23

0.54 LTP.1 - LTP.4

0.52 LTP.5 -LTP.7

0.57 LTP.8 -LTP.10

0.69 LTP.11 - LTP.14

NOT Including LTVs

0.54 LED Soft Screen Fabric (Lift No :1 to 5 )

0.82 12.LTP (ELECTRICAL CABLE)

1.04

0.69

0.19
0.04
0.18
5.17
0.17

4.58
0.56
0.74

0.66

Loads Applied in SAP


[kips]
0.90
5.97
5.88
9.50
1.73
6.84
0.90
12.63
44.33

12.63
42.53

10.51

1.73

5.88

5.97

4.64
0.67

Field Totals (Kips)

1.79
6.836

0.926

0.944

1.724

1.058

0.394

9.497

2.856
0.202
0.474
0.218

1.139

0.894

1.127

0.981

1.027

FIELD/TT calc

0.871

1.232

1.038

0.904

1.011

FIELD/SL Plot

SUMMARY OF WEIGHTS

Piece Type
Nodes
Columns
Roof Trusses
Struts
Purlins
Gable Roof
Column Hoist
Roof Tarp
Guy Wires
Total (lb)

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Field
(lb)
2119
6399
7183
516
2258
3787
2200
887
338

Catalog
(lb)
1954
6632
6380
406
2306
3329
2171
0
220

25687

23398

Appendix D.2
Page 16 of 32

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.2
Page 17 of 32

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

B3801
B0200-CL
B0200-CL
B0200-CL
B0200-CL
B3801
B3801
B0200-CL
B0200-CL
B0200-CL
B0200-CL
B3801
B3801
B0200-CL
B0200-CL
B0200-CL
B0200-CL

Product
Code
B4200
B0203
B0200-CL
B0200-CL
B0200-CL
B0200-CL

123.5
97
97
97
97

123.5
97
97
97
97

Catalog
Weight
(lb)
85
32
97
97
97
97
85
NI
32
97
97
97
97

Tag ID
C.B4.1
C.B4.2
C.B4.3
C.B4.4
C.B4.5
C.B4.6
C.B4.7
C.C3.5.1
C.C3.5.2
C.C3.5.3
C.C3.5.4
C.D3.5.1
C.D3.5.2
C.D3.5.3
C.D3.5.4
C.E3.5.1
C.E3.5.2
C.E3.5.3
C.E3.5.4
C.F1.1
C.F1.2
C.F1.3
C.F1.4
C.F1.5
C.F1.6
C.F1.7
B0203
B0200-CL
B0200-CL
B0200-CL
B0200-CL

B4201

B3801
B3801
B0200-CL
B0200-CL
B0200-CL
B0200-CL

Product
Code

70.5
97
97
97
97
150
97
97
97
150
97
97
97
150
97
97
97
85
NI
32
97
97
97
97

Catalog
Weight
(lb)
85

Tag ID
C.F2.1
C.F2.2
C.F2.3
C.F2.4
C.F2.5
C.F2.6
C.F3.1
C.F3.2
C.F3.3
C.F3.4
C.F3.5
C.F3.6
C.F4.1
C.F4.2
C.F4.3
C.F4.4
C.F4.5
C.F4.6
C.F4.7
C.G1.1
C.G1.2
C.G1.3
C.G1.4
C.G1.5
C.G1.6
C.G1.7

Note: Weights for pieces without product codes approximated based on weights of similar pieces
NI - Not Included in Thomas Product Range 2006
Column base weights included with weight of bottom piece

Tag ID
C.A1.1
C.A1.2
C.A1.3
C.A1.4
C.A1.5
C.A1.6
C.B1.1
C.B1.2
C.B1.3
C.B1.4
C.B1.5
C.B1.6
C.B1.7
C.B2.1
C.B2.2
C.B2.3
C.B2.4
C.B2.5
C.B2.6
C.B3.1
C.B3.2
C.B3.3
C.B3.4
C.B3.5
C.B3.6

Columns

CATALOG WEIGHTS BY PIECE

TOTAL (lb)

B0200-CL
B0200-CL
B0200-CL
B0200-CL

B0200-CL
B0200-CL
B0200-CL
B0200-CL
B0203
B3801
B3801
B0200-CL
B0200-CL
B0200-CL
B0200-CL

Product
Code
B3801
B3801
B0200-CL
B0200-CL
B0200-CL
B0200-CL

6476

70.5
97
97
97
97
85
NI
32
97
97
97
97

123.5
97
97
97
97
53
70.5
97
97
97
97
85

Catalog
Weight
(lb)

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.2
Page 18 of 32

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

B1424
B1424
B1424
B1424

B1424
B1424

B1424
B1424
B1424
B1424

B1424
B1416
B1424
B1424

B1424
B1424
B1424
B1424

B1424

Product
Code
B1424

Catalog
Weight
(lb)
97
86
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
86
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97

Tag ID
T.3EF.E
T.3EF.W
T.4BC.E
T.4BC.W
T.4CD.E
T.4CD.W
T.4DE.E
T.4DE.W
T.4EF.E
T.4EF.W
T.B1.2.N
T.B1.2.S
T.B2.3.N
T.B2.3.S
T.B3.4.N
T.B3.4.S
T.C1.2.N
T.C1.2.S
T.C2.3.N
T.C2.3.S
T.C3.4.N
T.C3.4.S
T.D1.2.N
T.D1.2.S
T.D2.3.N
T.D2.3.S
B1424

B1424

B1424
B1424
B1424
B1424

B1424
B1424

Product
Code

Catalog
Weight
(lb)
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97

Tag ID
T.D3.4.N
T.D3.4.S
T.E1.2.N
T.E1.2.S
T.E2.3.N
T.E2.3.S
T.E3.4.N
T.E3.4.S
T.F1.2.N
T.F1.2.S
T.F2.3.N
T.F2.3.S
T.F3.4.N
T.F3.4.S

Note: Weights for pieces without product codes approximated based on weights of similar pieces

Tag ID
T.1AB.E
T.1AB.W
T.1BC.E
T.1BC.W
T.1CD.E
T.1CD.W
T.1DE.E
T.1DE.W
T.1EF.E
T.1EF.W
T.1FG.E
T.1FG.W
T.2BC.E
T.2BC.W
T.2CD.E
T.2CD.W
T.2DE.E
T.2DE.W
T.2EF.E
T.2EF.W
T.3BC.E
T.3BC.W
T.3CD.E
T.3CD.W
T.3DE.E
T.3DE.W

Trusses

CATALOG WEIGHTS BY PIECE

TOTAL (lb)

B1424

B1424

B1424
B1424

Product
Code
B1424

6380

Catalog
Weight
(lb)
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.2
Page 19 of 32

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

TOTAL (lb)

Product Code
23830-01
135 degree gate
B1361
B1362
135 degree gate
23830-01
23830-01
135 degree gate
B1361
B1362
135 degree gate
23830-01

406

Catalog
Weight
(lb)
19.25
8.5
77
70.5
8.5
19.25
19.25
8.5
77
70.5
8.5
19.25
*

*
*

Tag ID
OR.A1.B.NW
OR.A1.B.SW
OR.A1.T.NW
OR.A1.T.SW
OR.G1.B.NE
OR.G1.B.SE
OR.G1.T.NE
OR.G1.T.SE

Outriggers

TOTAL (lb)

Product
Code

156

Catalog
Weight**
(lb)
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5

Tag ID
P.BC.1.2.N
P.BC.1.2.S
P.BC.2.3.E.N
P.BC.2.3.E.S
P.BC.2.3.W.N
P.BC.2.3.W.S
P.BC.3.4.E.N
P.BC.3.4.E.S
P.BC.3.4.W.N
P.BC.3.4.W.S
P.CD.2.3.N
P.CD.2.3.S
P.CD.3.4.N
P.CD.3.4.S
P.DE.2.3.S
P.DE.3.4.N
P.DE.3.4.S
P.EF.1.2.N
P.EF.1.2.S
P.EF.2.3.E.N
P.EF.2.3.E.S
P.EF.2.3.W.N
P.EF.2.3.W.S
P.EF.3.4.E.N
P.EF.3.4.E.S
P.EF.3.4.W.N
P.EF.3.4.W.S

Purlins

Note: Weights for pieces without product codes approximated based on weights of
similar pieces
* Exact Product Code not included in Thomas Product Range 2006;
weight approximated as 1/2 x weight of 2'-6" piece
** Outrigger weights approximated based on typical sections in Thomas Product Range 2006

Tag ID
S.AB.1
S.AB.2
S.AB.3
S.AB.4
S.AB.5
S.AB.6
S.FG.1
S.FG.2
S.FG.3
S.FG.4
S.FG.5
S.FG.6

Struts

CATALOG WEIGHTS BY PIECE

Catalog
Weight
(lb)
97
97
77
77
97
97
77
77
97
97
77
77
77
77
77
70.5
77
97
97
97
97
77
70.5
97
97
77
77
2306

Product
Code
B0200-CL
B0200-CL
B1361
B1361
B0200-CL
B0200-CL
B1361
B1361
B0200-CL
B0200-CL
B1361
B1361
B1361
B1361
B1361
B1362
B1361
B0200-CL
B0200-CL
B0200-CL
B0200-CL
B1361
B1362
B0200-CL
B0200-CL
B1361
B1361
TOTAL (lb)

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.2
Page 20 of 32

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Tag ID
GW.C1.1
GW.C2.1
GW.D1.1
GW.D2.1
GW.D3.1
GW.E1.1
GW.E2.1
GW.C1.2
GW.C2.2
GW.D1.2
GW.D2.2
GW.D3.2
GW.E1.2
GW.E2.2
GW.C1.3
GW.C2.3
GW.D1.3
GW.D2.3
GW.D3.3
GW.E1.3
GW.E2.3
GW.C1.4
GW.C2.4
GW.D1.4
GW.D2.4
GW.D3.4
GW.E1.4
GW.E2.4

Gable Roof

Product
Code

51

67

51

51

67

51

51

67

51

51

67

51

Catalog
Weight
(lb)

CATALOG WEIGHTS BY PIECE

3262

75 *

T SR ST 30.5 CM Apex
30.5 cm Apex 4 way

RG.N4

TOTAL (lb)

75 *

75 *

75 *

T SR ST 30.5 CM Apex
30.5 cm Apex 4 way

T SR ST 30.5 CM Apex
30.5 cm Apex 4 way

T SR ST 30.5 CM Apex
30.5 cm Apex 4 way

Product Code

RG.N3

RG.N2

RG.N1

Tag ID
RF.N1.E.1
RF.N1.W.1
RF.N2.E
RF.N2.W
RF.N3.E
RF.N3.W
RF.N4.E
RF.N4.W
RG.1.2.S
RG.2.3.C
RG.3.4.N

Catalog
Weight
(lb)
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
123
123
123

Note: Gable roof weights approximated based on typical weights of


Thomas 12 x 12 super truss pieces
* RG Node weight approximated at 75 lbs based on median weight of main truss nodes

Tag ID
RF.BC.1
RF.BC.2
RF.BC.3
RF.BC.4
RF.CD.1.E
RF.CD.1.W
RF.CD.2.W
RF.CD.3.E
RF.CD.3.W
RF.CD.4.E
RF.CD.4.W
RF.DE.1.E
RF.DE.1.W
RF.DE.2.E
RF.DE.2.W
RF.DE.3.E
RF.DE.3.W
RF.DE.4.E
RF.DE.4.W
RF.EF.1
RF.EF.2
RF.EF.3
RF.EF.4

Product
Code

Catalog
Weight
(lb)
87
87
87
87
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
87
87
87
87

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.2
Page 21 of 32

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

D2

D1

C4

C3

C2

C1

B4

B3

B2

B1

A1

109.2

NA, B1405A, NA, NA, ST PRT


15in Top Sleeve, B1409B

NA, NA, NA, 1405A,


B1405A, B1409B
B1405A, NA, NA, B1405A,
B1409B, NA
NA, Illegible, NA, B1405A,
B1409B, NA
NA, NA, NA, NA, B140__,
B1408V
NA, NA, NA, NA, B1408V,
B1408_
B1404, NA, NA, NA,
B1408V, Illegible
NA, B1404, NA, NA,
B1408, B1408V
NA, NA, NA, NA, B1408,
B1408V

74.9

77.3

74.9

74.9

77.3

77.3

74.9

74.9

109.2

152

Product Code
238830-02, NA, NA, NA,
NA, NA
NA, B1405A, NA, NA,
B1408, B1408V

Catalog
Weight
(lb)

G1

F4

F3

F2

F1

E4

E3

E2

E1

D4

D3

Tag ID

TOTAL (lb)

Product Code
NA, NA, NA, NA, B1408V,
B1408
B1404, NA, NA, B1408V,
B1408, NA
NA, B1404, NA, NA,
B1408, Illegible
NA, NA, NA, NA, B1408,
B1408V
NA, NA, NA, NA, B1408,
B1408V
NA, NA, B1405A, NA,
B1409B, B1405A
NA, B1405A, NA, NA, NA,
B1409B
NA, B1405A, NA, NA,
B1409, B1409B #208
NA, NA, B1405A, NA, NA,
B1405A #279
B1405A, NA, NA, NA, NA,
B1405A #279
23830-02, NA, NA,
Illegible, Illegible, NA

1953.6

152

74.9

109.2

109.2

74.9

74.9

77.3

77.3

74.9

74.9

77.3

Catalog
Weight
(lb)

Note: Weights for pieces without product codes approximated based on weights of similar pieces

Tag ID

Nodes

CATALOG WEIGHTS BY PIECE

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.2
Page 22 of 32

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Group1
Group2
Group3
Group4
Group5
Group6
Group7
Group8
Group9
Group10
Group11
Group12
Group13
Group14
Group15
Group16
Group17
Group18
Group19
Group20
Group21
Group22
Group23
Group24
Group25
Group26

Groups
FIELD
Catalog
Weight (lb) Weight (lb)
296
247.5
350
327.25
115
86
140
75
187
97
496
465.3
405
268.9
387
303.2
102
97
92
97
165
152
169
74.9
70
77.3
74
75
124
109.2
108
152
582
583
525
505
506
511.5
508
511.5
537
543.5
361
441
160
154
163
194
117
123
859
740

FIELD TO CATALOG WEIGHT COMPARISON

Piece
A1
B1
B2
B3
B4
C1
C2
C3
C4
D1
D2
D3
D4
E1
E2
E3
E4
F1
F2
F3
F4
G1
Total (lb)

Nodes
Group #
11
14
15
15
12
14
13
13
14
14
13
13
14
14
13
13
14
14
15
15
12
16

FIELD
CATALOG
Weight (lb) Weight (lb)
165
152
74
74.9
124
109.2
124
109.2
169
74.9
74
74.9
70
77.3
70
77.3
74
74.9
74
74.9
70
77.3
70
77.3
74
74.9
74
74.9
70
77.3
70
77.3
74
74.9
74
74.9
124
109.2
124
109.2
169
74.9
108
152
2119
1953.6

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.2
Page 23 of 32

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Piece
C.A1
C.B1
C.B2
C.B3
C.B4
C.C3.5
C.D3.5
C.E5.5
C.F1
C.F2
C.F3
C.F4
C.G1
Total (lb)

Columns
Group #
17
18
19
20
21
22
22
22
18
19
20
21
17

FIELD
CATALOG
Weight (lb) Weight (lb)
582
583
525
505
506
511.5
508
511.5
537
543.5
361
441
361
441
361
441
525
505
506
511.5
508
511.5
537
543.5
582
583
6399
6632

FIELD TO CATALOG WEIGHT COMPARISON

Piece
P.BC.1.2
P.BC.2.3.E
P.BC.2.3.W
P.BC.3.4.E
P.BC.3.4.W
P.CD.2.3
P.CD.3.4
P.DE.2.3
P.DE.3.4
P.EF.1.2
P.EF.2.3.E
P.EF.2.3.W
P.EF.3.4.E
P.EF.3.4.W
Total (lb)

Purlins

24
23

24
24

Group #
24
23
24
23
24
23
23

FIELD
CATALOG
Weight (lb) Weight (lb)
163
194
160
154
163
194
160
154
163
194
160
154
160
154
160
77
160
147.5
163
194
163
194
160
147.5
163
194
160
154
2258
2306

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.2
Page 24 of 32

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Piece
T.1AB.E
T.1AB.W
T.1BC.E
T.1BC.W
T.1CD.E
T.1CD.W
T.1DE.E
T.1DE.W
T.1EF.E
T.1EF.W
T.1FG.E
T.1FG.W
T.2BC.E
T.2BC.W
T.2CD.E
T.2CD.W
T.2DE.E
T.2DE.W
T.2EF.E
T.2EF.W
T.3BC.E
T.3BC.W
T.3CD.E
T.3CD.W

Roof Trusses

FIELD
CATALOG
Group # Weight (lb) Weight (lb)
9
102
97
3
115
86
9
102
97
5
187
97
9
102
97
9
102
97
9
102
97
9
102
97
5
187
97
10
92
97
3
115
86
9
102
97
9
102
97
5
187
97
9
102
97
9
102
97
9
102
97
9
102
97
5
187
97
5
187
97
9
102
97
5
187
97
9
102
97
9
102
97

FIELD TO CATALOG WEIGHT COMPARISON

Piece
T.3DE.E
T.3DE.W
T.3EF.E
T.3EF.W
T.4BC.E
T.4BC.W
T.4CD.E
T.4CD.W
T.4DE.E
T.4DE.W
T.4EF.E
T.4EF.W
T.B1.2.N
T.B1.2.S
T.B2.3.N
T.B2.3.S
T.B3.4.N
T.B3.4.S
T.C1.2.N
T.C1.2.S
T.C2.3.N
T.C2.3.S
T.C3.4.N
T.C3.4.S

FIELD
CATALOG
Group # Weight (lb) Weight (lb)
9
102
97
9
102
97
5
187
97
10
92
97
10
92
97
5
187
97
9
102
97
9
102
97
9
102
97
9
102
97
5
187
97
10
92
97
10
92
97
10
92
97
10
92
97
10
92
97
10
92
97
10
92
97
10
92
97
10
92
97
10
92
97
10
92
97
10
92
97
10
92
97

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.2
Page 25 of 32

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Piece
T.D1.2.N
T.D1.2.S
T.D2.3.N
T.D2.3.S
T.D3.4.N
T.D3.4.S
T.E1.2.N
T.E1.2.S
T.E2.3.N
T.E2.3.S
T.E3.4.N
T.E3.4.S
T.F1.2.N
T.F1.2.S
T.F2.3.N
T.F2.3.S
T.F3.4.N
T.F3.4.S
Total (lb)

FIELD
CATALOG
Weight (lb) Weight (lb)
Group #
10
92
97
10
92
97
10
92
97
10
92
97
10
92
97
10
92
97
10
92
97
10
92
97
10
92
97
10
92
97
10
92
97
10
92
97
10
92
97
10
92
97
10
92
97
10
92
97
10
92
97
10
92
97
7183
6380

Roof Trusses (continued)

FIELD TO CATALOG WEIGHT COMPARISON

Piece
S.AB.1
S.AB.2
S.AB.3
S.AB.4
S.AB.5
S.AB.6
S.FG.1
S.FG.2
S.FG.3
S.FG.4
S.FG.5
S.FG.6
Total (lb)

Struts
FIELD
CATALOG
Weight (lb) Weight (lb)
19.25
8.5
2
223
77
70.5
8.5
35
19.25
19.25
8.5
2
223
77
70.5
8.5
35
19.25
516
406
Group #

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.2
Page 26 of 32

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Piece
RF.BC.4
GW.C1.4
GW.C2.4
RF.N4.W
RF.CD.4.W
RF.CD.4.E
GW.D1.4
GW.D2.4
GW.D3.4
RF.EF.4
RF.N4.E
RF.DE.4.E
RF.DE.4.W
GW.E2.4
GW.E1.4
RG.N4
Total (lb)

Piece
RG.1.2.S
RG.2.3.C
RG.3.4.N
Total (lb)

Gable roof

Group #

26

859

859

51
75
740

67
87
27
67
67

51
27
67
67

FIELD
CATALOG
Weight (lb) Weight (lb)
87

FIELD
CATALOG
Group # Weight (lb) Weight (lb)
117
123
25
117
123
25
25
117
123
351
369

FIELD TO CATALOG WEIGHT COMPARISON

Total (lb)

Weight
(lb)
FIELD
CATALOG
3787
3329

FIELD
CATALOG

Additional Group 26
Piece
Piece
RF.BC.3
RF.BC.2
GW.C1.3
GW.C1.2
GW.C2.3
GW.C2.2
RF.N3.W
RF.N2.W
RF.CD.3.W
RF.CD.2.W
RF.CD.3.E
RF.CD.2.E
GW.D1.3
GW.D1.2
GW.D2.3
GW.D2.2
GW.D3.3
GW.D3.2
RF.EF.3
RF.EF.2
RF.N3.E
RF.N2.E
RF.DE.3.E
RF.DE.2.E
RF.DE.3.W
RF.DE.2.W
GW.E2.3
GW.E2.2
GW.E1.3
GW.E1.2
RG.N3
RG.N2
859
859
740
740

Piece
RF.BC.1
GW.C1.1
GW.C2.1
RF.N1.W
RF.CD.1.W
RF.CD.1.E
GW.D1.1
GW.D2.1
GW.D3.1
RF.EF.1
RF.N1.E
RF.DE.1.E
RF.DE.1.W
GW.E2.1
GW.E1.1
RG.N1
859
740

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.2
Page 27 of 32

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

FIELD
CATALOG
Weight
Weight
250
220
214
220
213
220
210
220
212
220
213
220
213
220
215
220
218
220
213
220
2171
2200

Piece
West Roof Tarp
SE on Megaphone Pole.1
SE on Megaphone Pole.2
Tarp Rods
Total (lb)

Roof Tarp
FIELD
Weight
250
214
213
210
887

*Hoist weight for catalog assumed due to chain length weight

Piece
H.A1
H.B1
H.B2
H.B3
H.B4
H.F1
H.F2
H.F3
H.F4
H.G1
Total (lb)

Hoist on Columns

FIELD TO CATALOG WEIGHT COMPARISON

FIELD
CATALOG
Weight
Weight
Piece
West Roof Tarp 338
220
Total (lb)
338
220
*Catalog cable weight for 3/8" diameter cable 0.236lb/ft

Guy Wires

Group 1
296 lb
T.1CD.E, T.1CD.W, Node C1 (south, top, bottom)

Group 2
350 lb
S.FG.1, S.FG.2, S.FG.3, S.FG.4, Node G1

Group 3
T.1FG.E

115 lb

Group 4
140 lb
Node F1 (south, top, bottom), T.1FG.W.X8

Group 5
T.1EF.E

187 lb

Group 6
496 lb
T.D1.2.N, T.D1.2.S, D2 (top, bottom), T.2DE.E, T.2DE.W

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.2
Page 28 of 32

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Group 7
405 lb
T.F3.4.N, T.F3.4.S, Node F4 (north, east, top, bottom)

Group 9
T.1DE.E

102 lb

Group 8
387 lb
T.F2.3.N, T.F2.3.S, Node F3 (east, top, bottom)

(node weight)

Group 10
T.C1.2.S

92 lb

(node weight)

Group 17
582 lb
C.A1.1 - C.A1.5, OR.A1.B.NW, OR.A1.B.SW, OR.A1.T.NW, OR.A1.T.SW, C.A1.6

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.2
Page 29 of 32

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Group 18
525 lb
C.B1.1 - C.B1.6, C.B1.7

Group 19
506 lb
C.B2.1 - C.B2.5, C.B2.6

Group 20
508 lb
C.B3.1 - C.B3.5, C.B3.6

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.2
Page 30 of 32

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Group 21
537 lb
C.B4.1 - C.B4.6, C.B4.7

Group 22
CE.3.5.1 - CE.3.5.4

361 lb

Group 23
160 lb
P.EF.3.4.W.N, P.EF.3.4.W.S

Group 24
163 lb
P.EF.3.4.E.N, P.EF.3.4.E.S

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Group 25
RG.3.4.N

Appendix D.2
Page 31 of 32

117 lb

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Group 26
859 lb
RF.BC.4, GW.C1.4, GW.C2.4, RF.N4.W, RF.CD.4.W, RF.CD.4.E,
GW.D1.4, GW.D2.4, GW.D3.4, RF.EF.4, RF.N4.E,
RF.DE.4.E, RF.DE.4.W, GW.E2.4, GW.E1.4, RG.N4

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.2
Page 32 of 32

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Appendix D.3
Jersey Barrier Capacity Calculations

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.3

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.3

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

JERSEY BARRIER CAPACITY CALCULATIONS


The lateral support system of the Indiana State Fair Structure consists of guy lines attached to the
structure at roof level and restrained at ground level by concrete Jersey barriers. The Jersey barriers act
as ballast restraints resisting the guy wire force only with dead weight and friction with the ground. The
performance and capacity of the ISF structure under the influence of wind loads depends on the capacity
of the Jersey barriers. This appendix outlines the capacities calculated and expected failure
mechanisms of the Jersey barriers.
There are a total of 10 Jersey barriers attached to guys four on the East and West sides of the stage
and two on the north side. Their placement and nomenclature is illustrated in Figure 1 below. In the
finite element analysis model the Jersey barriers are modeled as pin support.
JB.W2, JB.W3, JB.E2, and JB.E3 have a guy line attached to both sides. The balance of the Jersey
barriers only connect to one guy line each.

Figure 1A. Jersey Barrier layout with tagging nomenclature shown. The red lines represent where the guy
lines connect to the Jersey barriers and Structure.

Wind forces from the north are resisted by 4 barriers: JB.NW, JB.NE, JB.W3 and JB.E3 with the NW and
NE barriers providing most of the resistance. JB.W1, JB.W2, JB.W3, and JB.W4 resist westerly wind

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.3
Page 1 of 11

Apriil 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

forces. For wind forces from the south only JB.W2 and JB.E2 provide support to the ISF structure in
such cases.
The Jersey barriers used at the Indiana State Fair are 10 feet long and 32 inches high with a flared foot
at the base that is typical of such barriers. The guys are attached to steel hooks embedded in the face
of the barrier and located 28 inches off the ground.
The sliding resistance of each Jersey barrier was determined using on-site static friction tests of 5 of the
barriers. For the barriers that were not tested, it is assumed the coefficient of static friction () is similar
for a similarly placed barrier. For example JB.W2, JB.W3, JB.E2, and JB.E3 are all located near the
stage on the west and east side. The force needed to cause JB.W2 to start sliding was measured in the
field and the determined. This same value of was then used far JB.W3, JB.E2, and JB.E3. Table 1
gives the used for each barrier. If is based on the test of another similarly place barrier, then the
value is shown in red. Every barrier was weighed.
Jersey
Barrier

Weight (lbs)

JB.W1

4190

0.77

JB.W2

4354

0.66

JB.W3

4378

0.66

JB.W4

4345

0.69

JB.NW1

4109

0.73

JB.NE1

4249

0.72

JB.E4

4280

0.69

JB.E3

4279

0.66

JB.E2

4102

0.66

JB.E1

4368

0.77

Table 1: Jersey barrier weights and friction tests results.

The sliding capacity of the barriers is equivalent to the value given above times the weight of the
Jersey barrier minus any uplift on the barrier due to the angle of the cable. The steeper the angle of the
cable, the more uplift will be imposed on the barrier, and the less the frictional resistance available. It
should be noted that the values obtained are actually greater (i.e. providing more resistance) than the
published design values that would customarily be used by an engineer manually calculating capacities
provided by such ballast.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.3
Page 2 of 11

Apriil 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Figure 2: Forces imposed on Jersey barrier.

In addition to the angle of the guy line to the ground, the guys have a plan orientation that determines
which direction they resist loads from. The 10 barriers can be grouped as follows

Provides resistance against north winds: JB.NW1, JB.NE.1, JB.W3, JB.E3


Provides resistance for west winds: JB.W1, JB.W2, JB.W3, and JB.W4
Provides resistance against east winds: JB.E1, JB.E2, JB.E3, and JB.E4
Provides resistance against south winds: JB.W2, and JB.E2

The maximum capacity of each Jersey barrier for lateral forces in the north and west directions are
calculated and shown below in table 2. For the Jersey barriers with two guys attached, it was assumed
that each guy is carrying the same tension force for this calculation. In the Finite Element analysis the
actual force carried by each will be used to determine if the barrier has exceeded its sliding capacity.
Available Resistance (lbs)
Jersey Barrier

West

North

JB.W1

2198

JB.W2

1052

JB.W3

1111

970

JB.W4

2031

JB.NW1

2071

JB.E1

JB.E2

JB.E3

750

JB.E4

JB.NE1

2119

Table 2. Frictional Resistance of Jersey Barriers.


Note 1: Where resistance is < 100 pounds, zero (0) capacity has been shown.
Note 2: Values are for initial resistance only and do not consider resistance provided subsequent to displacement of Jersey barrier.
Note 3: As noted below, governing failure mechanism of JB.NW1 & JB.NE1 is tipping, not the sliding capacity noted above.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.3
Page 3 of 11

Apriil 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

On the north side of the stage JB.NW1 and JB.NE1 are both positioned to the north of another Jersey
barrier that has no guy wire attached. It is believed that arrangement was to provide the two north side
Jersey barriers additional resistance. When JB.NW1 and JB.NE1 started to slide, they will push up
against the second barrier. In the arrangement as constructed at the ISF, however, the governing failure
mechanism for the north side Jersey barriers was tipping, not sliding. Figure 3 below shows the forces
that would cause a Jersey barrier to pivot around its front edge. Table 3 gives the values at which
tipping would occur in Jersey barrier JB.NW1 and JB.NE1.
Tipping limit (lbs)
JB.NW

2417

JB.NE

2439

Table 3. Horizontal component in guy wire force tied to JB.NE and JB.NW which causes movement of the
barrier by tipping.

Figure 3. Forces in a Jersey barrier that would lead to tipping

Within the Finite Element analysis a Jersey barrier was considered to have failed if it surpassed its
sliding or tipping capacity. If the barrier started to slide, the model was adjusted so that barrier could not
take on any more load, but that it did not release all of the load it was already carrying. This was
accomplished by removing the cable and replacing it with a force in the same direction with 90% of the
cable load as a very conservative estimate of kinetic friction capacity. If a barrier failed by pivoting about
one end, instead, then the barrier not only could not carry any additional load, it would release the load it
was carrying. This was modeled by removing the cables attached to that Jersey barrier.
Assuming the Jersey barriers are all loaded to their capacity, then the maximum lateral forces the Jersey
barrier tie backs can support are:

6400 lbs for a west wind


6576 lbs for a north wind

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.3
Page 4 of 11

Apriil 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

JERSEY BARRIER FRICTION MEASUREMENT


As noted above, a series of tests were performed to determine the static friction resistance offered by the
th
Jersey barriers. The testing took place at the ISF Fairgrounds on 10 November, 2011. The tests were
performed on the following categories of Jersey barriers:
Displaced: Displaced Jersey barriers serving as ground anchor points that were moved by the
collapsing structure. These Jersey barriers were moved back to their approximate pre-collapse location
to be evaluated.
Non-displaced: Jersey barriers serving as ground anchor points that were not displaced by the
collapsing structure and are still in their original pre-collapse location. The testing procedure displaced
these barriers from their undisturbed positions.
The location of each barrier was documented and photographed before, during and after each test.

Figure 4: Jersey barrier friction evaluation - Setup

The friction evaluation involved four configurations:

Longitudinal - Horizontal
Longitudinal - Inclined
Transverse - Horizontal
Transverse - Inclined

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.3
Page 5 of 11

Apriil 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

The frictional resistance of the Jersey barriers was evaluated using the angles of inclination at
which they were originally attached by the guy lines to the ISF Structure. The angles of
inclination varied between 31 and 61 to the horizontal plane (i.e. to the ground).
By mean of this evaluation, the inclined static friction resistance of the Jersey barriers was
determined. The Jersey barriers were also evaluated for their horizontal static friction resistance
where the Jersey barriers were drag tested with the cables parallel to the ground (i.e. angle of
inclination = 0 ).
Photographs of the types of tests are shown below. It must be noted not all four tests not
performed on all Jersey barriers and in some cases the Jersey barriers were only weighed.

Figure 5. Orthogonal view of Jersey Barrier Lateral Force Resisting System.

Figure 6. Photograph depicting Longitudinal Inclined friction test.


Source: Thornton Tomasetti. Image capture on 11/10/2011

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.3
Page 6 of 11

Apriil 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Figure 7. Photograph depicting Longitudinal Horizontal friction test.


Source: Thornton Tomasetti. Image capture on 11/10/2011

Figure 8. Photograph depicting Transverse - Horizontal friction test.


Source: Thornton Tomasetti. Image capture on 11/10/2011

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.3
Page 7 of 11

Apriil 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Figure 9. Photograph depicting Transverse Inclined friction test.


Source: Thornton Tomasetti. Image capture on 11/10/2011

WIRE ROPE PRE-TENSION CAPACITY EVALUATION:


The ratchet straps that connected the wire rope to the Jersey barriers were tested to assess the
maximum amount of pre-tensioning force that could be applied on them.
The ratchet straps were attached to the Jersey barriers at an angle that would effectively capture the
behavior of the various configurations (i.e. location and orientation, of the straps.) A Dillon dynamometer
was attached between the shackle and the strap so that the pre-tensioning force in the strap could be
measured. The strap was tensioned by means of the ratchet and the maximum pre-stressing force that
could be applied until the ratchet could no longer tension the strap was recorded on the dynamometer.
The average pre-stress force that could be ratcheted into the strap was found to be approximately 950
lbs.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.3
Page 8 of 11

Apriil 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Figure 10. Photo showing ratchet strap being pre-tensioned.


Source: Thornton Tomasetti. Image capture on 11/10/2011

Figure 11. Photograph showing a sample pre-tension force recorded on the Dillon Dynamometer
Source: Thornton Tomasetti. Image capture on 11/10/2011

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.3
Page 9 of 11

Apriil 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

JB.W1

JB.W4

JB.W2

JB.W
3

Pre / Post Collapse Jersey Barrier Locations

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.3
Page 10 of 11

Apriil 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

JB
.

NE
1

Pre / Post Collapse Jersey Barrier Locations

W
B.N

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.3
Page 11 of 11

Apriil 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

Appendix D.4
TT Column Splice Capacity Calculations

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.4

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.4

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Preliminary field analysis based on available data and dimensions


INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.4
Page 1 of 9

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Preliminary field analysis based on available data and dimensions


INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.4
Page 2 of 9

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Preliminary field analysis based on available data and dimensions


INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.4
Page 3 of 9

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Preliminary field analysis based on available data and dimensions


INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.4
Page 4 of 9

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Preliminary field analysis based on available data and dimensions


INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.4
Page 5 of 9

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Preliminary field analysis based on available data and dimensions


INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.4
Page 6 of 9

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Preliminary field analysis based on available data and dimensions


INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.4
Page 7 of 9

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Preliminary field analysis based on available data and dimensions


INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.4
Page 8 of 9

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Preliminary field analysis based on available data and dimensions


INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.4
Page 9 of 9

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

Appendix D.5
TT Fin Plate Capacity Calculations

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.5

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.5

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Preliminary field analysis based on available data and dimensions


INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.5
Page 1 of 14

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Preliminary field analysis based on available data and dimensions


INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.5
Page 2 of 14

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Preliminary field analysis based on available data and dimensions


INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.5
Page 3 of 14

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Preliminary field analysis based on available data and dimensions


INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.5
Page 4 of 14

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

2" DIAMETER
PIPE

Preliminary field analysis based on available data and dimensions


INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.5
Page 5 of 14

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Preliminary field analysis based on available data and dimensions


INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.5
Page 6 of 14

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Preliminary field analysis based on available data and dimensions


INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.5
Page 7 of 14

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Preliminary field analysis based on available data and dimensions


INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.5
Page 8 of 14

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Preliminary field analysis based on available data and dimensions


INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.5
Page 9 of 14

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Preliminary field analysis based on available data and dimensions


INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.5
Page 10 of 14

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Preliminary field analysis based on available data and dimensions


INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.5
Page 11 of 14

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Preliminary field analysis based on available data and dimensions


INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.5
Page 12 of 14

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

59 mph wind case with scrim and LED loads

Pin
M=PL/4

Pin
Mmax=M/2

F1

Fix
M=PL/8

L/2

F3
F2*4''

L=

F3*4''
F3
M=F3*4''

28 in

Mcz=
Mcxy=
F limit=

6.76 kip-in
12.25 kip-in
8.8 kip

IF MEMBER WITH CROSS SECTION WELD AFFECTED


2'' pipe
from LPI testing

Load case 1a-59mph North Case A


TABLE: Element Joint Forces - Frames
Frame
Joint
StepNum
F1
Text
Text
Unitless
Kip
233
151
1
-0.18
234
151
1
-0.72
239
163
1
0.01
240
163
1
-0.01
245
164
1
-0.82
246
164
1
-1.79

F2
Kip
-0.01
-0.04
0.00
-0.01
0.11
1.88

F3
Kip
-0.61
-0.03
-0.02
0.00
-6.10
0.15

M1
Kip-in
0.03
-0.03
0.01
-0.01
-0.70
0.73

M2
Kip-in
-6.63
3.93
0.05
-0.13
-27.70
2.47

M3
Kip-in
0.20
0.04
0.31
-0.29
-0.92
-7.52

302
303
280
281
278
279

214
214
198
198
189
189

1
1
1
1
1
1

-0.11
0.22
-0.01
0.02
0.95
2.15

0.00
-0.02
0.00
-0.01
0.10
1.21

-0.01
-0.09
-0.05
0.03
-4.58
0.20

-0.03
0.03
0.02
-0.02
-0.69
0.19

0.33
0.07
-0.22
0.32
21.59
-2.97

0.14
-0.23
-0.08
0.04
0.43
4.80

F4 pipe 303

210

-0.22

0.02

0.09

-0.05

-0.29

B4 north 235
236

162
162

1
1

-0.04
-0.03

2.44
7.33

-5.86
-0.10

-40.21
11.92

F4 north 304
305

215
215

1
1

0.00
0.36

2.54
8.05

-6.79
0.27

Load case 1b-59mph North Case B


TABLE: Element Joint Forces - Frames
Frame
Joint
StepNum
F1
Text
Text
Unitless
Kip
233
151
1
0.14
234
151
1
-0.96
239
163
1
0.65
240
163
1
-0.66
245
164
1
0.10
246
164
1
-2.34

F2
Kip
-0.01
-0.04
0.00
-0.01
0.10
1.62

302
303
280
281
278
279

214
214
198
198
189
189

1
1
1
1
1
1

-0.43
0.52
-0.54
0.55
-0.04
2.60

F4 pipe 303

210

B4 north 235
236

162
162

F4 north 304
305

215
215

NODE
B4

3
2

Md
pin [x dir] pin [y dir] pin [X +Y dir] fix [z dir]
kip-in
kip-in
kip-in
kip-in

D/C
pin[xy] fix[z]

-5.05

-0.08

-5.14

-0.11

0.42

0.02

0.43

-0.08

-0.01

-0.09

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.01

-12.55

3.75

-8.80

0.53

0.72

0.08

0.80

1.56

-0.04

1.52

-0.30

0.12

0.05

0.17

0.17

-0.02

0.15

0.10

0.01

0.02

0.03

15.08

2.42

17.50

0.71

1.43

0.10

1.53

0.23

-1.56

0.04

-1.52

0.30

0.12

0.05

0.17

-0.39
0.44

-0.71
1.11

-0.22

14.66

14.44

-0.35

1.18

0.05

1.23

-44.72
13.75

0.17
-0.15

-0.53
-1.16

2.55

16.09

18.64

0.95

1.52

0.14

1.66

F3
Kip
-0.46
-0.12
0.17
-0.18
-4.96
-0.15

M1
Kip-in
0.04
-0.04
0.00
0.00
-0.66
0.68

M2
Kip-in
-7.96
5.50
-1.69
1.61
-26.06
4.36

M3
Kip-in
0.23
-0.02
0.27
-0.25
-0.79
-6.53

0.00
-0.02
0.00
-0.01
0.10
1.00

0.10
-0.18
0.09
-0.12
-3.51
-0.10

-0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
-0.64
0.23

1.26
-0.92
1.12
-1.03
20.05
-4.72

0.08
-0.16
-0.10
0.07
0.33
4.02

-0.52

0.02

0.18

-0.03

0.40

0.16

1
1

-0.04
-0.04

2.67
7.97

-6.42
-0.06

-43.59
12.84

-0.40
0.45

1
1

0.01
0.39

2.80
8.77

-7.41
0.29

-48.75
14.94

Load case 1c-59mph West Case A


TABLE: Element Joint Forces - Frames
Frame
Joint
StepNum
F1
Text
Text
Unitless
Kip
233
151
1
-1.71
234
151
1
-4.18
239
163
1
0.07
240
163
1
-1.68
245
164
1
0.36
246
164
1
-1.92

F2
Kip
-0.56
-1.50
-0.06
-1.40
0.06
1.04

F3
Kip
-5.20
0.05
-3.57
-0.07
-3.28
-0.19

302
303
280
281
278
279

214
214
198
198
189
189

1
1
1
1
1
1

0.01
0.06
-0.15
0.16
-0.37
0.38

0.00
-0.03
0.00
-0.01
0.00
0.00

F4 pipe 303

210

-0.06

B4 north 235
236

162
162

1
1

F4 north 304
305

215
215

1
1

B3
B2

F4
F3
F2

NODE
B4
B3
B2

F4
F3
F2

NODE
B4
B3
B2

F4
F3
F2

Md
pin [x dir] pin [y dir] pin [X +Y dir] fix [z dir]
kip-in
kip-in
kip-in
kip-in

D/C
pin[xy] fix[z]

-6.72

-0.08

-6.80

-0.41

0.55

0.06

0.61

-4.61

-0.01

-4.62

-0.64

0.38

0.10

0.47

-16.40

3.24

-13.16

-0.53

1.07

0.08

1.15

3.61

-0.03

3.58

-0.64

0.29

0.09

0.39

3.84

-0.02

3.83

-0.40

0.31

0.06

0.37

18.20

1.99

20.19

-0.34

1.65

0.05

1.70

-3.61

0.03

-3.58

0.64

0.29

0.09

0.39

-0.84
1.28

-0.26

15.93

15.67

-0.21

1.28

0.03

1.31

0.23
-0.20

-0.47
-1.36

2.72

17.54

20.25

1.03

1.65

0.15

1.81

M1
Kip-in
3.12
-3.13
0.55
-0.57
-0.41
0.42

M2
Kip-in
-42.60
20.76
-18.62
3.16
-18.78
4.04

M3
Kip-in
2.44
6.31
0.84
5.39
-0.67
-3.99

-0.09
0.02
0.02
-0.05
0.09
-0.11

0.01
-0.01
0.02
-0.02
0.00
0.00

0.28
0.03
0.29
-0.18
1.07
-0.97

0.00
-0.13
0.29
-0.33
0.04
-0.02

0.03

-0.01

-0.02

-0.09

-0.04
0.03

0.24
0.60

-0.64
0.11

-3.77
1.26

0.00
0.02

0.19
0.59

-0.52
0.03

-3.34
1.02

Md
pin [x dir] pin [y dir] pin [X +Y dir] fix [z dir]
kip-in
kip-in
kip-in
kip-in

D/C
pin[xy] fix[z]

-29.25

-2.99

-32.25

0.17

2.63

0.02

2.66

-11.75

-2.80

-14.55

-0.26

1.19

0.04

1.23

-13.41

2.08

-11.34

-0.67

0.93

0.10

1.02

0.39

-0.06

0.33

0.05

0.03

0.01

0.03

1.10

-0.02

1.08

-0.16

0.09

0.02

0.11

2.67

0.00

2.67

-0.39

0.22

0.06

0.28

0.13

-0.39

0.06

-0.33

-0.05

0.03

0.01

0.03

-0.33
0.33

-0.10
0.15

-0.30
0.24

0.48
1.20

0.18
1.44

-2.24
0.39

0.01
0.12

0.33
0.06

0.35
0.18

0.04
-0.03

-0.11
0.01

0.03
0.13

0.37
1.17

0.40
1.31

-1.80
0.09

0.03
0.11

0.27
0.01

0.30
0.12

Preliminary field analysis based on available data and dimensions


INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.5
Page 13 of 14

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Load case 1d-59mph West Case B


TABLE: Element Joint Forces - Frames
Frame
Joint
StepNum
F1
Text
Text
Unitless
Kip
233
151
1
-1.71
234
151
1
-3.89
239
163
1
-0.11
240
163
1
-1.55
245
164
1
0.10
246
164
1
-1.72

F2
Kip
-0.55
-1.47
-0.07
-1.44
0.06
1.08

F3
Kip
-5.02
0.07
-3.74
-0.02
-3.50
-0.10

M1
Kip-in
3.06
-3.07
0.56
-0.58
-0.42
0.44

M2
Kip-in
-40.23
19.28
-18.71
2.79
-18.68
3.42

M3
Kip-in
2.40
6.19
0.87
5.54
-0.69
-4.13

302
303
280
281
278
279

214
214
198
198
189
189

1
1
1
1
1
1

0.01
0.07
-0.02
0.04
-0.03
0.04

0.00
-0.03
0.00
-0.01
0.00
0.01

-0.10
0.02
-0.02
-0.01
-0.02
-0.01

0.00
0.00
0.03
-0.03
0.03
-0.03

0.20
0.14
-0.14
0.26
0.19
-0.09

0.05
-0.20
0.47
-0.51
0.04
-0.02

F4 pipe 303

210

-0.07

0.03

-0.02

-0.03

-0.22

B4 north 235
236

162
162

1
1

-0.04
0.03

0.22
0.57

-0.57
0.08

-3.58
1.23

F4 north 304
305

215
215

1
1

0.00
0.02

0.20
0.65

-0.57
0.04

Load case 1e-59mph North West Case A


TABLE: Element Joint Forces - Frames
Frame
Joint
StepNum
F1
Text
Text
Unitless
Kip
233
151
1
-1.31
234
151
1
-4.36
239
163
1
1.09
240
163
1
-1.12
245
164
1
0.54
246
164
1
-2.77

F2
Kip
-0.09
-0.25
0.00
-0.03
0.10
1.53

302
303
280
281
278
279

214
214
198
198
189
189

1
1
1
1
1
1

-0.43
0.47
-0.72
0.73
-0.94
0.96

F4 pipe 303

210

B4 north 235
236

162
162

F4 north 304
305

215
215

NODE
B4

Md
pin [x dir] pin [y dir] pin [X +Y dir] fix [z dir]
kip-in
kip-in
kip-in
kip-in

D/C
pin[xy] fix[z]

-27.24

-2.94

-30.18

0.26

2.46

0.04

2.50

-10.83

-2.88

-13.71

-0.06

1.12

0.01

1.13

-12.01

2.15

-9.85

-0.35

0.80

0.05

0.86

0.50

-0.07

0.44

0.05

0.04

0.01

0.04

0.27

-0.02

0.25

-0.04

0.02

0.01

0.03

0.31

0.02

0.32

-0.03

0.03

0.00

0.03

0.20

-0.50

0.07

-0.44

-0.05

0.04

0.01

0.04

-0.34
0.35

-0.11
0.15

0.24

1.13

1.37

0.28

0.11

0.04

0.15

-3.64
1.10

0.02
-0.02

-0.21
0.10

0.15

1.29

1.44

0.12

0.12

0.02

0.14

F3
Kip
-3.80
-0.07
0.23
-0.30
-4.64
-0.32

M1
Kip-in
0.51
-0.52
0.01
-0.01
-0.65
0.67

M2
Kip-in
-38.54
22.16
-3.25
2.95
-26.70
5.65

M3
Kip-in
0.52
0.89
0.09
0.02
-0.88
-6.03

0.00
-0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00

0.11
-0.17
0.19
-0.21
0.25
-0.29

-0.01
0.01
0.03
-0.03
-0.05
0.05

1.24
-1.02
1.78
-1.70
2.54
-2.38

-0.06
-0.01
-0.06
0.04
-0.15
0.18

-0.47

0.01

0.17

-0.02

0.55

1
1

-0.06
-0.03

1.58
4.67

-3.92
0.09

-25.89
7.71

1
1

0.00
0.24

2.15
6.70

-5.67
0.20

Load case 1f-59mph North West Case B


TABLE: Element Joint Forces - Frames
Frame
Joint
StepNum
F1
Text
Text
Unitless
Kip
233
151
1
-1.53
234
151
1
-4.24
239
163
1
0.52
240
163
1
-0.89
245
164
1
-0.03
246
164
1
-2.51

F2
Kip
-0.10
-0.25
-0.01
-0.31
0.11
1.75

302
303
280
281
278
279

214
214
198
198
189
189

1
1
1
1
1
1

-0.17
0.22
-0.03
0.04
-0.24
0.27

F4 pipe 303

210

B4 north 235
236

162
162

F4 north 304
305

215
215

B3
B2

F4
F3
F2

NODE
B4
B3
B2

F4
F3
F2

NODE
B4
B3

B2

F4
F3
F2

Md
pin [x dir] pin [y dir] pin [X +Y dir] fix [z dir]
kip-in
kip-in
kip-in
kip-in

D/C
pin[xy] fix[z]

-30.55

-0.49

-31.04

-0.24

2.53

0.04

2.57

-7.83

-0.05

-7.88

-1.05

0.64

0.15

0.80

-19.36

3.06

-16.30

-1.13

1.33

0.17

1.50

3.31

-0.03

3.29

-0.58

0.27

0.09

0.35

5.10

0.00

5.10

-0.74

0.42

0.11

0.53

6.70

-0.01

6.69

-1.01

0.55

0.15

0.70

0.01

-3.31

0.03

-3.29

0.58

0.27

0.09

0.35

-0.48
0.51

-0.59
1.03

-0.40
-0.18

3.16
9.35

2.76
9.17

-13.72
0.32

0.23
0.75

2.03
0.05

2.25
0.80

-37.70
11.75

0.16
-0.14

-0.28
-0.85

0.01
1.71

4.30
13.41

4.30
15.12

-19.83
0.70

0.35
1.23

2.93
0.10

3.28
1.34

F3
Kip
-3.94
0.00
-0.68
-0.15
-5.55
-0.13

M1
Kip-in
0.52
-0.52
0.12
-0.12
-0.69
0.72

M2
Kip-in
-37.97
21.26
-5.53
2.01
-28.82
4.70

M3
Kip-in
0.50
0.98
0.30
1.07
-1.00
-6.89

0.00
-0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01

0.03
-0.08
0.01
-0.03
0.01
-0.06

-0.02
0.02
0.04
-0.04
0.01
-0.02

0.26
-0.03
-0.21
0.30
0.86
-0.65

0.06
-0.13
0.11
-0.14
-0.17
0.23

-0.22

0.01

0.08

-0.04

-0.19

1
1

-0.06
-0.02

1.52
4.49

-3.74
0.06

-24.90
7.44

1
1

0.01
0.23

2.04
6.42

-5.41
0.19

-36.00
11.20

Md
pin [x dir] pin [y dir] pin [X +Y dir] fix [z dir]
kip-in
kip-in
kip-in
kip-in
-29.71

-0.50

D/C
pin[xy] fix[z]

-30.21

-0.02

2.47

0.00

2.47

-6.22

-0.62

-6.84

-0.52

0.56

0.08

0.63

-17.60

3.50

-14.10

-0.47

1.15

0.07

1.22

1.53

-0.03

1.51

-0.29

0.12

0.04

0.17

0.25

-0.01

0.24

-0.09

0.02

0.01

0.03

1.90

0.03

1.93

-0.20

0.16

0.03

0.19

0.13

-1.53

0.03

-1.51

0.29

0.12

0.04

0.17

-0.50
0.53

-0.49
0.91

-0.41
-0.14

3.03
8.97

2.62
8.83

-13.08
0.21

0.21
0.72

1.93
0.03

2.15
0.75

0.14
-0.12

-0.46
-0.62

0.05
1.60

4.07
12.84

4.12
14.44

-18.92
0.65

0.34
1.18

2.80
0.10

3.14
1.27

Preliminary field analysis based on available data and dimensions


INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.5
Page 14 of 14

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Appendix D.6
Wind Loading Analysis

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

1.0

WIND ANALYSIS
1.1

Wind Analysis Procedures and Factors


TT calculated the wind forces to the main wind force resisting system of the ISF Structure
using ASCE 7-05, the standard adopted by the Indiana State Building Code. The following
procedures and factors were used:
The ISF Structure has an open gable roof structure with the suspended scrim curtain
causing an obstructed wind flow in the north-south direction. (Note: the scrim curtain does
not account for 50% or more of the blockage in the underside of the canopy in the west to
east direction but does in the north to south direction.) Loading of the roof is calculated in
accordance with ASCE 7-05 section 6.5.13.2 and Figure 6-18B and Figure 6-18D for cases
Case A and B.
The superstructure and columns are lattice frameworks, and wind loads on these elements
are calculated in accordance with ASCE 7-05 section 6.5.15 and Figure 6-22.
The wind loads on the eaves of the structure are assumed to behave as free standing signs
partially covered with the tarp. This is done to account for the drag loads imposed at the
eave by the roof tarp covering a portion of the perimeter trusses. The loading on the main
wind force resisting system was performed in accordance with ASCE 7-05 section 6.5.14
design wind loads on solid free standing walls and solid signs (See Figure 6).
Gable end (triangle) of the gable roof loaded in the North-South direction is assumed to be
loaded in a similar manner as a free standing sign in accordance with ASCE 7-05 section
6.5.14 design wind loads on solid free standing walls and solid signs. Note that in both the
eave and gable end wind forces, windward and leeward pressures are applied to each side
of the structure as the plan dimensions of the structure (See Figure 7) are too large to
develop any shielding effect.
Wind loads on the rigged trusses, light fixtures and other smaller overhead entertainment
equipment are not included in analysis as part of the TT wind loads. Note that the loads on
the scrim curtain are calculated but are not added as part of the total drag in the forensic
wind load cases calculated by TT as the range in potential wind forces on the scrim were
large. The total scrim curtain and LED screen loads added to the final forensic wind loads
cases on the ISF Structure were derived from the RWDI wind tunnel rest results described in
the RWDI report.
The fundamental period of vibration for the structure, based on TTs SAP model is 1.5
seconds when the structure is fully loaded (Note: the gust factors for flexible structures are
dependent on the natural frequency, and therefore also the mass of the structure.)
Therefore, the fully-loaded structure falls into ASCE 7s definition of a flexible structure, and
the gust effect factors, G, are calculated in accordance with ASCE 7-05 Section 6.5.8.2, and
range between 0.90 and 1.04 depending on the direction of the wind and wind speed. The
damping ratio is assumed to be 1% due to the friction and column bending inducing
connections between the columns and the main truss.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 1 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Given the open field and race track to the north, east, and west and the small scattered
obstructions beyond, the exposure category is C in accordance with ASCE 7-05 section
6.5.6.3. Please refer to the site description section of this report for detailed site specifics
and exposures. Based on the exposure category and the height of the ISF Structure the
velocity pressure exposure coefficient, Kh, is 1.09 in accordance with ASCE 7-05 section
6.5.6.6 and Table 6-3. In accordance with ASCE 7-05 section 6.5.7.2, the topographical
factor, Kzt, is 1.0.
The wind directionality factor, Kd, and the importance factor, I, are applied to design wind
load cases only. The Kd factor, according to ASCE 7-05 Table 6-4, is 0.85. Assuming
Occupancy Category III as per Table 1-1 of ASCE 7-05 and Section Exposure C section
6.5.6.6 and Table 6-3, the importance factor is taken as 1.15.
Wind loads are applied in 4 orthogonal directions and 1 skewed/ angular wind load case
from the North West Direction at a 315 degree wind load direction (See Figure 1).

Figure 1. Wind Analysis Directions

These wind load calculations do not change when the latest version of ASCE 7, ASCE 7-10,
is used instead of ASCE 7-05 when the importance factor is not considered (See the ASCE
7-05 to ASCE 7-10 comparison in this Appendix).

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 2 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Figure 2. Overall Dimensions

1.2

Forensic Wind Loads


1.2.1

ASCE 7-05 Forensic Loads V=52 mph


Based on the RWDI research and analysis, the highest reported wind speed was 52
mph at the time of the collapse. TT calculated wind forces in accordance with the ASCE
7-05 analytical method using this wind speed and considering the factors appropriate for
a forensic investigation as opposed to a design case. These factors are described
below:
Wind Directionality Factor, Kd: Per video reviewed and information provided by RWDI
the wind flow during the collapse was a west to east direction, with some minor north to
south wind flow. Note that the exact angle to which the wind direction came from is not
known but it is known that west to east was the predominant wind direction. As
mentioned in the ASCE 7-05 section C6.5.4.4 this factor accounts for two effects: (1)
The reduced probability of maximum winds coming from any given direction and (2) the
reduced probability of the maximum pressure coefficient occurring for any given wind
direction. Therefore, since this is a forensic wind load case, and the analysis considers
the actualized wind speed and direction, this reduction factor does not apply.
Importance Factor, I: This factor is not applied to the forensic case as this factor is only
applied during design cases to adjust the reliability of the structure relative to building
use classification. Note that specific design importance factors are specified in ASCE 705 Table 6-1. For the forensic wind load case the importance factor is not applied.
Gust Effect Factor, G: The ISF Structure, loaded as it was at the time of the collapse,
had a period of 1.5 seconds, which classifies it as a flexible structure according to
ASCE 7-05. Therefore, the gust effect factor is increased to 0.93 in the north-south

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 3 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

direction and 0.92 in the east-west direction from the 0.85 factor used for rigid
structures.
The forces calculated were applied in all orthogonal directions and one diagonal wind
load from the northwest direction. TT calculated wind loads using ASCE 7-05 for the ISF
Structures roof and columns. TT did not calculate the scrim curtain loads using ASCE
7-05 and instead relied upon data from RWDI.
RWDI performed a wind tunnel test on a scaled rigid model of the ISF structure with and
without the suspended production equipment to ascertain the total wind force on the
structure incurred from their established time-of-collapse wind speed. It is RWDIs
opinion that this type of downburst which occurred at the time of the collapse produces
wind contours more similar to that found with an Exposure Category D than the
Exposure Category C specified by ASCE 7-05 for the sites surface roughness.
Therefore, RWDI performed the test with Exposure Category D conditions. When
compared with TTs calculated ASCE 7-05 wind loads for a rigid structure assumption
(G=0.85), RWDIs results for the model without the suspended production equipment
differ by 2.5% from ASCE 7-05 loads in the west to east direction for case B and 13%
for case A, and RWDIs values differ by 17% from ASCE 7-05 wind loads for both cases
in the south to north direction. This larger difference in the north to south direction can
be attributed to the fact that RWDI included the suspended production equipment in their
model while TT considered only the aluminum structure, the fabric roof and the gable
end.
TTs rigid structure wind loads (G = 0.85) were scaled to match the wind tunnel test
results for the final forensic wind load cases. The total scaled drag loading the ISF
Structure is the following:
ASCE 7-05 Scaled Base Reactions, per Wind Tunnel Test: Without Scrim
Curtain
Drag Force
Drag Force
West to East
Scale Factor Scale Factor
North South or
or East to
West
to East
North South
South to North
Load Case
West
or East to
or South to
RWDI
RWDI
West
North
52 mph
52 mph
Lb
Lb
Lb
Lb
NW 52 A
7900
12500
1.48
1.56
NW 52 B

7900

12500

1.29

1.56

WE 52 A

8100

0.87

0.87

WE 52 B

8100

0.97

0.98

NS 52 A

13000

1.17

1.17

NS 52 B

13000

1.17

1.17

Note: Values are rounded


Table 1: ASCE 7-05 Scaled Base Reactions, Per Wind Tunnel Test
(See Wind Load Calculation Section in this Appendix for detailed wind load data)

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 4 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Scrim curtain loads were derived from wind tunnel test results provided by RWDI (Refer
the RWDI Report in the Analysis Appendix). Based on the wind tunnel test results the
scrim curtain loads for a wind speeds of 52 mph are the following:

West to east a total of 5300 lbs of drag


East to West a total of 5300 lbs of drag (assumed equal to west to east
direction)
North to South a total of 14200 lbs of drag
South to North a total of 14200 lbs of drag (assumed equal to north to south
direction)
North West direction drag receives contribution from both orthogonal wind directions. A
total of 4300lbs from the west to east direction and 6200 lbs of drag from the north to
south direction. Therefore, making the resultant North West drag force equal to 7500
lbs.
The above rigid ISF structure and scrim curtain loads must be amplified by 1.08 for the
west to east direction and 1.09 for the north to south direction to account for the
increase in the gust effect factor for a flexible structure from the rigid value of 0.85.
1.2.2

ASCE 7-05 Forensic Loads V=59 mph


RWDI determined using the Wind Atlas Analysis and Application Program (WAsP), that
the local wind speeds at the time of the collapse may have been as high as 59 mph at
the site. TT calculated wind forces in accordance with the ASCE 7-05 analytical method
for the time-of-collapse wind speed of 59 mph considering the factors appropriate for a
forensic investigation as opposed to a design case. These factors are the same as the
above section for 52 mph wind speeds with the exception of the gust effect factor, which
changes slightly. Note that these wind loads are only calculated to facilitate answers in
regards to the resistance of the lateral wind force resisting system of the ISF Structure if
anchor points to guy wire system were to be considered immovable.
Gust Effect Factor, G: The ISF Structure, loaded as it was at the time of the collapse,
had a period of 1.5 seconds, which classifies it as a flexible structure according to
ASCE 7-05. Therefore, the gust effect factor is increased to 0.95 in the north-south
direction and 0.93 in the east-west direction from the 0.85 factor used for rigid
structures.
TTs scaled 52 mph wind loads (see Table 1 above) were amplified for the increase in
2
wind speed by a factor of 1.29 [(59mph/52mph) ]. The total scaled drag loading the ISF
structure is the following:

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 5 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

ASCE 7-05 Scaled Base Reactions: Without Scrim


Curtain (Flexible)
Drag Force
West to East or
East to West

Drag Force
North South or
South to North

Lb

Lb

NW 59 A

11300

17300

NW 59 B

13600

18100

WE 59 A

11700

WE 59 B

11700

NS 59 A

60

18600

NS 59 B

18600

EW 59 A

11700

EW 59 B

11700

Load Case

Table 2: ASCE 7-05 Base Reactions w/o Scrim Curtain

Table 2 values are amplified by 1.10 for the west to east direction and 1.12 for the north
to south direction to account for the increase in the gust effect factor for a flexible
structure from the rigid value of 0.85. (See Wind Pressure section of this Appendix for
detailed calculations.).
Scrim curtain loads were derived from wind tunnel test results provided by RWDI and
2
scaled for the increase in wind speed by a factor of 1.29 [(59mph/52mph) ]. The above
rigid-to-flexible structure amplification factors were also applied.
Wind Tunnel Scrim Wall Drag Forces (Lb)
Original Wind
Test Results
Tunnel
Adjusted for
59 mph Wind
Results
(52 mph)
West East / East-West
5300
6000
North-South / South-North
14200
15900
North -West
7500
8300

Adjusted
for
Flexible
Structure
7600
20400
10600

Table 3: Scrim Wall Drag Forces

1.2.3

August 8 and August 9, 2011 Wind Loads V=40mph (Using ASCE 7-05)
TT calculated wind forces in accordance with the ASCE 7-05 analytical method for the
maximum wind speeds that occurred during days subsequent to the erection of the ISF
Structure but prior to the collapse. It was reported to TT that high winds damaged the
roof tarp causing the center closure strip to be disengaged from the adjoining two tarp
segments (the west, east panels). Climatic data research resulted in a reported wind
speeds between 40 mph and 60 mph with a wind direction from west north west. TT
analyzed this wind load case similarly as a forensic wind load case, considering the
factors appropriate for a forensic investigation as opposed to a design case. These
factors are described below:

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 6 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Wind Directionality Factor, Kd and Importance Factor, I: Similarly to the 52 and 59 wind
load case these factors are not applied.
Gust Effect Factor, G: Due to the reduced amount of suspended production equipment
(i.e. minimal lighting and no scrim curtain or LED screen), the ISF Structure had a
smaller mass during the aforementioned date than during the August 13 collapse. Based
on TTs analyses of the approximate mass loads on this date, it is TTs opinion that the
fundamental period of the structure was approximately 1.2 seconds. Therefore, the gust
factors in the west to east to direction and the north to south direction are 0.88 and 0.89
respectively. The flexural amplification factors are 1.04 and 1.05 for the west to east and
north to south respectively.
TTs scaled 52 mph wind loads (see Table 1) were reduced for the decrease in wind
2
speed by a factor of 0.57 [(40mph/52mph) ]. The total scaled drag loading the ISF
structure is the following:
ASCE 7-05 Scaled Base Reactions: Without Scrim
Curtain (Flexible)
Load Case
Drag Force
Drag Force
West to East or North South or
East to West
South to North
Lb

Lb

NW 40 A

4200

6600

NW 40 B

4200

6600

WE 40 A

4300

WE 40 B

4300

NS 40 A

20

6800

NS 40 B

6800

Table 4: ASCE 7-05 Base Reactions (w/o Scrim Curtain)


(See the Wind Pressure section of this Appendix for detailed calculations)

Note that no scrim curtain was present during the aforementioned date and therefore the
additional wind load from the scrim is not added to this analysis.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 7 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

1.3

Design Wind Loads


1.3.1

ASCE 7-05 Design Wind Loads V=90mph


Neglecting temporary structure provisions, in accordance with ASCE 7-05 the design
wind speeds for the ISF Structure should be 90 miles per hour (mph). A wind
directionality factor of 0.85, an importance factor of 1.15, and gust effect factors of 1.02
for the west to east direction and 1.04 for the north to south direction are considered.
ASCE 7-05 Base Reactions: Without Scrim
Curtain
Load Case
Drag Force
Drag Force
West to East
North South or
or East to
South to North
West
Lb
Lb
NW 90 A

20000

29300

NW 90 B

23300

29300

WE 90 A

36200

WE 90 B

32100

NS 90 A

140

40000

NS 90 B

40000

EW 90 A

36200

EW 90 B

32100

10

SN 90 A

100

40800

SN 90 B

40800

Table 5: ASCE 7 05 Base Reactions without Scrim Curtain

Based on the assumptions made above, TT calculated wind forces in accordance with
the ASCE 7-05 analytical method for calculating wind forces. Similar to the forensic wind
load case, the loads on the scrim are based on the wind tunnel testing. The loads from
the wind tunnel however are amplified for the increase in wind speed by a factor of 3.00
2
[(90mph/52mph) ]. Based on the wind tunnel test results the scrim curtain loads for a
wind speeds of 90 mph are the following:
Wind Tunnel Scrim Curtain Drag Forces (Lb)
Original Wind Test Results
Adjusted
Tunnel
Adjusted for for ASCE 7
Results
90mph Wind
Design
(52 mph)
Parameters
West East / East-West
5300
15900
15900
North-South / South-North
14200
42600
43800
North -West
7500
22400
22700
Table 6: Scrim Curtain Drag Forces

These scrim curtain wind tunnel loads are adjusted as follows to conform to ASCE 7-05
design criteria:
INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 8 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Due to design load requirements, the importance factor of 1.15 and the
directionality factor of 0.85 are included.
Due to the flexibility of the structure, the loads are amplified by 1.20 for the west
to east direction and 1.23 for the north to south direction to account for the
increase in the gust effect factor from the rigid value of 0.85.
Due to the difference between the design exposure category and the exposure
category tested in the wind tunnel, the loads are factored by 0.86 to account for
the difference between the Exposure C Pressure Coefficient and the Exposure
D Pressure Coefficient. Using an elevation located at the center of the scrim
curtain

.
1.3.2

ASCE 7-05 Design Wind Loads V=68mph (ASCE 37-02 temp. structure
reduction)
In accordance with the ASCE 37-02 section 6.2.1 Design Velocity and ASCE 7-05 Table
C6-6, the wind speed is 68 mph. This wind speeds takes into account that the ISF
Structure is a temporary structure with duration of less than 6 weeks. A wind
directionality factor of 0.85, an importance factor of 1.15, and gust effect factors of 0.95
for the west to east direction and 0.97 for the north to south direction are considered.
ASCE 7-05 Base Reactions: Without Scrim Curtain
Load Case

Drag Force
West to East
or East to
West
Lb

Drag Force
North South or
South to North

NW 68 A

10700

15500

NW 68 B

12500

15500

Lb

WE 68 A

19400

WE 68 B

17200

NS 68 A

70

21300

NS 68 B

21300

EW 68 A

19400

EW 68 B

17200

SN 68 A

50

21700

SN 68 B

21700

Table 7: ASCE 7 -05 Base Reactions (Without Scrim)

Based on the assumptions made above, TT calculated wind forces in accordance with
the ASCE 7-05 analytical method for calculating wind forces. Similarly to the forensic
wind load case the loads on the scrim are based on the wind tunnel testing. The loads
from the wind tunnel however are amplified for the increase in wind speed by a factor of
2
(68mph/52mph) =1.71. Based on the wind tunnel test results the scrim curtain loads for
a wind speeds of 68 mph are the following:

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 9 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Wind Tunnel Scrim Wall Drag Forces (Lb)


Original
Test Results
Wind Tunnel Adjusted for
Results
68mph Wind
(52 mph)
West East / East-West
5300
9100
North-South / South-North
14200
24300
North -West
7500
12800

Adjusted
for ASCE 7
Design
Parameter
8500
23300
12100

Table 8: Scrim Wall Drag Forces

These scrim wall wind tunnel loads are adjusted as follows to conform to ASCE 7 design
criteria:

1.3.3

Due to design load requirements, the importance factor of 1.15 and the
directionality factor of 0.85 are included.
Due to the flexibility of the structure, the loads are amplified by 1.12 for the west
to east direction and 1.14 for the north to south direction to account for the
increase in the gust effect factor from the rigid value of 0.85.
Due to the difference between the design exposure category and the exposure
category tested in the wind tunnel, the loads are factored by 0.86 to account for
the difference between the Exposure C Pressure Coefficient and the Exposure
D Pressure Coefficient.

ANSI E.1.2.1-2006 Design Wind Loads V= 40mph (Using ASCE 7-05)


As specified in the ANSI E.1.2.1-2006 the design wind speed is required to be 40 mph if
the structure is capable to being lowered in the event that wind speeds in excess of that
value are expected. A wind directionality factor of 0.85, an importance factor of 1.15,
and gust effect factors of 0.90 for the west to east direction and 0.90 for the north to
south direction are considered.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 10 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

ASCE 7-05 Base Reactions: Without Scrim Curtain


Drag Force
West to East or
East to West

Drag Force
North South or
South to North

Lb

Lb

NW 40 A

3500

4900

NW 40 B

4100

4900

WE 40 A

6300

WE 40 B

5600

NS 40 A

20

6800

NS 40 B

6800

EW 40 A

6300

EW 40 B

5600

SN 40 A

10

7000

SN 40 B

7000

Load Case

Table 9: ASCE 7-05 Base Reactions (w/o Scrim Curtain)


(See the Wind Pressure section of this Appendix for detailed calculations)

Based on the assumptions made above, TT calculated wind forces in accordance with
the ASCE 7-05 analytical method for calculating wind forces. Similarly to the forensic
wind load case the loads on the scrim are based on the wind tunnel testing. The loads
from the wind tunnel however are reduced for the decrease in wind speed by a factor of
2
(40mph/52mph) =0.59. Based on the wind tunnel test results the scrim curtain loads for
a wind speeds of 40 mph are the following:
Wind Tunnel Scrim Wall Drag Forces (Lb)
Original
Test Results
Wind Tunnel Adjusted for
Results
40mph Wind
(52 mph)
West East / East-West
5300
3100
North-South / South-North
14200
8400
North -West
7500
4400

Adjusted for
ASCE 7
Design
Parameter
2800
7600
3900

Table 10: Scrim Wall Drag Forces

These scrim wall wind tunnel loads are adjusted as follows to conform to ASCE 7 design
criteria:

Due to design load requirements, the importance factor of 1.15 and the
directionality factor of 0.85 are included.
Due to the flexibility of the structure, the loads are amplified by 1.05 for the west
to east direction and 1.06 for the north to south direction to account for the
increase in the gust effect factor from the rigid value of 0.85.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 11 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

2.0

Due to the difference between the design exposure category and the exposure
category tested in the wind tunnel, the loads are factored by 0.86 to account for
the difference between the Exposure C Pressure Coefficient and the Exposure
D Pressure Coefficient.

LOAD DISTRIBUTIONS TO THE STRUCTURE (IMPLEMENTATION) TT WIND LOADS


Roof Tarp (See Figure 3 and Table 11):

Windward side pressure on the tarp transfer the loads to the rafters

Leeward side pressures on the tarp are transferred to the ridges and the eave only as there
is no connection between the rafters and the tarp. See magenta colored arrows below for
location of the loads.

Figure 3. Roof Tarp Load Distributions

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 12 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Rafter Loads (See Figure 4, 10, 11 and Table 11):

Load on rafters on the windward side are applied directly from the transfer of the pressure
from the roof tarp to the rafter

Loads on the leeward side are applied to the effective area of the rafter only, loads from the
tarp are transferred to the ridge and eave (See Figure 3)

Figure 4. Rafter Lattice Loads

Column Loads:
Wind loads on columns are applied in an increasing manner from the bottom to the top at
approximately 10-0 intervals (See Table 12 and Figure 10 and 11).
Effective area:
Effective area includes front face 2 diameter pipes plus the web members in the windward face
and only the web members in the back face (See Figure 5).

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 13 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Figure 5. Column Effective Area

Main Trusses and Purlin Loads:

TT has not loaded the purlins with additional uplift, as we assume that the obstructions
(lights and light rigged trusses will shelter these members from taking significant up-lift.

Note that the purlins and the interior main trusses will not experience any drag as they are
sheltered by the roof tarp the lights and light rigged trusses.

Please refer to the structure description section to for superstructure nomenclature.

The eave trusses are loaded assuming the eave is a solid free standing sign as shown in
Figure 6.

The gable end is also loaded as a free standing sign as shown in Figure 7.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 14 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Figure 6. Eave Wind Loads

Figure 7. Gable end of the gable roof wind loads

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 15 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Scrim Curtain:

A porosity of 78% solid is assumed per the density of the mesh measured on site

The additional drag from the curtain was analyzed by TT; however, wind tunnel test data
was utilized to determine total drag the scrim curtain contributed to the lateral loads on the
structure.
West to East Direction
Roof Pressure (psf)

Windward
Leeward

40mph
Case Case
A
B
4.32
0.47
1.49

4.40

68mph
Case
Case A
B
13.31
1.45
4.60

13.55

52mph
Case
Case
A
B
7.65
0.83

59mph
Case
Case
A
B
10.01
1.09

90mph
Case
Case
A
B
24.87
2.71

2.64

3.46

8.59

7.78

10.19

25.33

North South Direction


Roof Pressure (psf)

Roof (h<)
Roof (h>)

40mph
Case
Case
A
B
4.76
1.98
1.98
1.98

68mph
Case
Case
A
B
14.81
6.17
6.17
6.17

52mph
Case
Case
A
B
8.47
3.53
3.53
3.53

59mph
Case
Case
A
B
11.11
4.63
4.63
4.63

90mph
Case
Case
A
B
27.84
11.60
11.60
11.60

Table 11: Roof Tarp Pressure per ASCE 7-05 Section 6.5.13.2 and Figure 6.18B.
See the Wind Pressure section of this Appendix for detailed calculations.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 16 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Figure 8. Wind Loads West to East

Figure 9. Wind Loads West to East

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 17 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Figure 10. Wind Loads North to South

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 18 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Columns

Load
Pattern
WE(+)40
WE(+)68
WE(+)52
WE(+)59
WE(+)90
EW(+)40
EW(+)68
EW(+)52
EW(+)59
EW(+)90
NS(+)40
NS(+)68
NS(+)52
NS(+)59
NS(+)90
SN(+)40
SN(+)68
SN(+)52
SN(+)59
SN(+)90

10FT
4.56
14.05
8.07
10.57
26.27
-4.56
14.05
8.07
10.57
26.27
4.61
14.34
8.20
10.75
26.95
4.61
14.34
8.20
10.75
26.95

20FT
4.85
14.93
8.58
11.23
27.91
4.85
14.93
8.58
11.23
27.91
4.90
15.24
8.71
11.42
28.64
4.90
15.24
8.71
11.42
28.64

p (psf)
30FT
5.28
16.26
9.34
12.23
30.40
5.28
16.26
9.34
12.23
30.40
5.34
16.59
9.48
12.44
31.19
5.34
16.59
9.48
12.44
31.19

Eave
40FT
5.61
17.28
9.93
12.99
32.29
5.61
17.28
9.93
12.99
32.29
5.67
17.63
10.08
13.22
33.14
5.67
17.63
10.08
13.22
33.14

46FT
5.77
17.79
10.22
13.38
33.26
5.77
17.79
10.22
13.38
33.26
5.84
18.15
10.38
13.61
34.13
5.84
18.15
10.38
13.61
34.13

p (psf)
46FT
7.51
23.13
13.29
17.39
43.24
7.51
23.13
13.29
17.39
43.24
7.59
23.60
13.49
17.70
29.58
7.59
23.60
13.49
17.70
29.58

p (psf)
46FT
5.00
15.42
8.86
11.60
28.82
5.00
15.42
8.86
11.60
28.82
5.06
15.73
8.99
11.80
29.58
5.06
15.73
8.99
11.80
29.58

Gable
End
p (psf)
50.5FT
7.38
22.74
13.07
17.10
42.51
7.38
22.74
13.07
17.10
42.51
7.46
23.21
13.26
17.40
43.62
7.46
23.21
13.26
17.40
43.62

Table 12: Column Pressures per ASCE 705 Section 6.5.15 and Figure 6.22
(See the Wind Pressure section of this Appendix for detailed calculations)

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 19 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

3.0

RWDI TUNNEL TEST DATA


RWDI performed a wind tunnel test that provided base reactions for multiple wind directions
between west to east (260 degree) direction and north to south (360 degree). The scale physical
model of the ISF Structure was generated with the use of TTs SAP and Rhinoceros
computational models (Figure 11). TTs SAP analysis model was generated based on field
collected data. The SAP model was then imported into graphics based platform software
Rhinoceros to allow RWDI to utilize a 3D printer to generate the sections of the modeled ISF
Structure. Although the lattice frame work of the ISF Structure was modeled with very specific
details and the material is uniform, the overall rigidity of the structure was not modeled into the
ISF Structure scaled replica, and therefore dynamic behaviors were not tested. The overall wind
loads the model was tested with mean loads based on 3 second gust wind speeds at 330 as
reported in RWDIs meteorological report contained in this Appendix.
Significant objects in the surrounding near field environment were modeled to capture any
external wind effects attributed by the surrounding environment (See RWDIs report for results).
These objects included the trailers to the north of the ISF structure and other tents constructed
within foot print of the ISF Structure; please see the site description section for further details.
RWDIs configurations were generated to determine the effect of the scrim curtain on the ISF
Structure. Based on the wind tunnel test results it was determined that the scrim curtain and
LED screen contributed to a significant percentage of the ISF structures total drag forces as
indicated in the wind analysis section of this report.

Figure 11. Rendering of ISF Structure Model in Rhinoceros

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 20 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Forensic Wind Load Analysis MWFRS V=52 mph W E


Per ASCE 7 05 Open buildings (See 52 mph Case for Wind Pressure Figures)
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Direction =

Normal

Wind Speed, V =

52

mph (RWDI Meteorological Wind Report)

Bldg. Classification =

III

(Table 1(1 Occupancy Cat.)

Exposure Category =

(Sect. 6.5.6)

Ridge Height, hr =

55.00

ft. (hr >= he)

Eave Height, he =

46.00

ft. (he <= hr)

B=

58.00

ft.

L=

75.00

ft.

Roof Type =

Gable

(Gable or Monoslope)

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

1.00

Direct. Factor, Kd =

1.00

Enclosed? (Y/N)

Hurricane Region?

Damping Ratio, =

0.010

(Normal or Parallel to building ridge)

o
hr

h
he

(Sect. 6.5.7 & Figure 6(4) Forensic Case Factor Set 1.0
(Table 6(4) Forensic Case Factor Set 1.0

L = 58 ft.
B = 75 ft.

(Sect. 6.2 & Figure 6(5)


Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFRS system

Open Structure

Figure 6(18B
Roof Angle, =

13.32

deg.

Mean Roof Ht., h =

50.50

ft. (h = (hr+he)/2, for roof angle >10 deg.)

Windward Roof Cn =

1.10

Case A

Clear Wind Flow

Windward Roof Cn =

0.12

Case B

Clear Wind Flow

Leeward Roof Cn =

(0.38

Case A

Clear Wind Flow

Leeward Roof Cn =

(1.12

Case B

Clear Wind Flow

If z <= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/) , If z > 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/) (Table 6(3, Case 2a)
=

9.50

zg =

Kh =
I=

1.10

(Kh = Kz evaluated at z = h)

1.00

(Table 6(1)

900

(Table 6(2)

(Importance factor set 1.0 for forensic wind load case)

Velocity Pressure: qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15)


qh = 0.00256*Kh*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I (qz evaluated at z = h)
qh =
7.59
psf
Ratio h/L =

0.871

Gust Factor, G =

0.916

freq., f =
(Sect. 6.5.8)

0.667

hz.

(f < 1, Flexible structure)

Normal to Ridge Wind Load for MWFRS


Case

Kz

(ft.)

qz

Cn

p = Net Design Press. (psf)

(psf)

Roof (windward) Case A

1.10

7.65

Roof (windward) Case B

0.12

0.83

7.65
0.83

Roof (leeward) Case A

(0.38

(2.64

(2.64

Roof (leeward) Case B

(1.12

(7.78

(7.78

Note: 1. (+) and (() signs indicated wind pressures acting toward & away from respective surfaces.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 21 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Gust Effect Factor, G:


Building Flexible

Yes

f < 1 Hz.

Parameters from Table 6(2:


a^ =

0.105

b^ =
(bar) =

0.154

b(bar) =

0.65

c=
l=

0.20

(bar) =

0.200

z(min) =

15

1.00

500

ft.
ft.

Parameters for Flexible Building Gust:


z(bar) =

30.30

= 0.6*h , but not < z(min) , ft.

Iz(bar) =

0.203

Lz(bar) =

491.54

= c*(33/z(bar))^(1/6) , Eq. 6(5


= l*(z(bar)/33)^((bar)) , Eq. 6(7

gq =

3.4

(3.4, per Sect. 6.5.8.1)

gv =

3.4

(3.4, per Sect. 6.5.8.1)

gr =

4.092

= (2*(LN(3600*f)))^(1/2)+0.577/(2*LN(3600*f))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(9

Q=

0.889

= (1/(1+0.63*((B+h)/Lz(bar))^0.63))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(6

Gf for Flexible Building


=

0.010

Damping Ratio

T=

1.500

SAP Analysis

f=

0.667

= 1/T , Hz. (Natural Frequency)

V(fps) =

76.27

V(bar,zbar) =

48.93

= V(mph)*(88/60) , ft./sec.
= b(bar)*(z(bar)/33)^((bar))*V*(88/60) , ft./sec. , Eq. 6(14

N1 =

6.698

= f*Lz(bar)/(V(bar,zbar)) , Eq. 6(12

Rn =

0.042

= 7.47*N1/(1+10.3*N1)^(5/3) , Eq. 6(11

h =

3.165

Rh =

0.266

= 4.6*f*h/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/h)(1/(2*h^2)*(1(e^((2*h)) for h>0, or = 1 for h=0 ,Eq. 6(13a,b

b =

4.701

RB =
d =

0.190
12.171

RL =

0.079

= 15.4*f*L/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/d)(1/(2*d^2)*(1(e^((2*d)) for d>0, or = 1 for d=0 ,Eq. 6(13a,b

= 4.6*f*B/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/b)(1/(2*b^2)*(1(e^((2*b)) for b>0, or = 1 for b=0,Eq. 6(13a,b

R=

0.347

= ((1/)*Rn*Rh*RB*(0.53+0.47*RL))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(10

Gf =

0.916

= 0.925*(1+1.7*Iz(bar)*(gq^2*Q^2+gr^2*R^2)^(1/2))/(1+1.7*gv*Iz(bar)) ,Eq. 6(8

Use: G =

0.916

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 22 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 23 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V=52 mph Wind Load Analysis

MWFRS N S

Per ASCE 7 05 Open buildings (See 52 mph Case for Wind Pressure Figures)
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Direction =

Parallel

Wind Speed, V =

52

mph (RWDI Meteorological Wind Report)

Bldg. Classification =

III

(Table 1(1 Occupancy Cat.)

Exposure Category =

(Normal or Parallel to building ridge)

(Sect. 6.5.6)

Ridge Height, hr =

55.00

ft. (hr >= he)

Eave Height, he =

46.00

ft. (he <= hr)

B=

58.00

ft.

L=

75.00

ft.

Roof Type =

Gable

(Gable or Monoslope)

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

1.00

Direct. Factor, Kd =

1.00

Enclosed? (Y/N)

Hurricane Region?

Damping Ratio,

0.010

hr

h
he

(Sect. 6.5.7 & Figure 6(4) Forensic Case Factor Set 1.0
(Table 6(4) Forensic Case Factor Set 1.0

L = 75 ft.
B = 58 ft.

(Sect. 6.2 & Figure 6(5)


Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFRS system

Open Structure

Figure 6(18D
Roof Angle, =

13.32

deg.

Mean Roof Ht., h =

50.50

ft. (h = (hr+he)/2, for roof angle >10 deg.)

Roof Cn case A h>

(1.20

0.00

Case A

Obstructed Wind Flow

Roof Cn Case B <h =

0.50

0.00

Case B

Obstructed Wind Flow

Roof Cn Case B >h =

0.50

0.00

Case A

Obstructed Wind Flow

Roof Cn Case A h< =

(0.90

0.00

Case B

Obstructed Wind Flow

If z <= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/) , If z > 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/) (Table 6(3, Case 2a)
=

9.50

zg =

Kh =
I=

1.10

(Kh = Kz evaluated at z = h)

1.00

(Table 6(1)

900

(Table 6(2)

(Importance factor set 1.0 for forensic wind load case)

Velocity Pressure: qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15)


qh = 0.00256*Kh*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I (qz evaluated at z = h)
qh =
7.59
psf
Ratio h/L =

0.673

Gust Factor, G =

0.930

freq., f =

0.667

hz.

(f < 1, Flexible structure)

(Sect. 6.5.8)
Parallel to Ridge Wind Load for MWFRS

Case

Kz

(ft.)

qz

Cn

p = Net Design Press. (psf)

(psf)

Roof (<h) Case A

(1.20

(8.47

(8.47

Roof (h<) Case A

(0.90

(6.35

(6.35

Roof Case B <h

0.50

3.53

3.53

Roof (h>) Case B

0.50

3.53

3.53

Note: 1. (+) and (() indicates wind pressures acting toward & away from surfaces.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 24 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Gust Effect Factor, G:


Building Flexible

Yes

f < 1 Hz.

Parameters from Table 6(2:


a^ =

0.105

b^ =
(bar) =

0.154

b(bar) =

0.65

c=
l=

0.20

(bar) =

0.200

z(min) =

15

1.00

500

ft.
ft.

Parameters for Flexible Building Gust:


z(bar) =

30.30

= 0.6*h , but not < z(min) , ft.

Iz(bar) =

0.203

Lz(bar) =

491.54

= c*(33/z(bar))^(1/6) , Eq. 6(5


= l*(z(bar)/33)^((bar)) , Eq. 6(7

gq =

3.4

(3.4, per Sect. 6.5.8.1)

gv =

3.4

(3.4, per Sect. 6.5.8.1)

gr =

4.092

= (2*(LN(3600*f)))^(1/2)+0.577/(2*LN(3600*f))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(9

Q=

0.897

= (1/(1+0.63*((B+h)/Lz(bar))^0.63))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(6

Gf for Flexible Building


=

0.010

Damping Ratio

T=

1.500

SAP Analysis

f=

0.667

= 1/T , Hz. (Natural Frequency)

V(fps) =

76.27

V(bar,zbar) =

48.93

= V(mph)*(88/60) , ft./sec.
= b(bar)*(z(bar)/33)^((bar))*V*(88/60) , ft./sec. , Eq. 6(14

N1 =

6.698

= f*Lz(bar)/(V(bar,zbar)) , Eq. 6(12

Rn =

0.042

= 7.47*N1/(1+10.3*N1)^(5/3) , Eq. 6(11

h =

3.165

Rh =

0.266

= 4.6*f*h/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/h)(1/(2*h^2)*(1(e^((2*h)) for h>0, or = 1 for h=0 ,Eq. 6(13a,b

b =

3.635

RB =
d =

0.237
15.738

RL =

0.062

= 15.4*f*L/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/d)(1/(2*d^2)*(1(e^((2*d)) for d>0, or = 1 for d=0 ,Eq. 6(13a,b

= 4.6*f*B/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/b)(1/(2*b^2)*(1(e^((2*b)) for b>0, or = 1 for b=0,Eq. 6(13a,b

R=

0.385

= ((1/)*Rn*Rh*RB*(0.53+0.47*RL))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(10

Gf =

0.930

= 0.925*(1+1.7*Iz(bar)*(gq^2*Q^2+gr^2*R^2)^(1/2))/(1+1.7*gv*Iz(bar)) ,Eq. 6(8

Use: G =

0.930

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 25 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 26 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V= 52 mph WIND LOADING ANALYSIS Lattice and Misc. Components W E


Per ASCE 7 05 Open buildings (See 52 mph Case for Wind Pressure Figures)
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Speed, V =

52

mph

Class., Occ. Category =

III

(Table 1(1)

If z < 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/)

(Sect. 6.5.6)

If z >= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/)

Exposure Category =

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

9.50

(Table 6(2)

zg =
I=

900

(Table 6(2)

1.00

(Table 6(1)

(Sect. 6.5.7)

Height of Structure, h =

50.50

ft.

L=

75.00

ft.

B=
Damping Ratio, =

58.00

ft.

0.010

Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFRS system

Direct. Factor, Kd =

1.00

(Table 6(4)

Hurricane Region?

freq., f = set = 1.0 for forensic wind case


G=

Velocity Pressure (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15):


qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I

0.916
(Gust Factor, Sect. 6.5.8)
Note: Use force coefficients, Cf,
from Figures 6(20 and 6(22.

Net Design Wind Pressures (Sect. 6.5.15):


p = qz*G*Cf (psf), where 'qz' is evaluated at
height 'z' of the centroid of projected area.
Open Structure Net Design Wind Pressures, p
z
(ft.)

For z = h:

Cf, Col.

Cf, Eave

qz

qz*G

1.50

1.95

1.49

1.88

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

Kz

Cf, Curtain Cf, Gable EndCf, Rafter


1.50

0.85

5.88

5.38

8.07

10.50

8.02

10.12

8.07

10

0.85

5.88

5.38

8.07

10.50

8.02

10.12

8.07

20

0.90

6.24

5.72

8.58

11.15

8.52

10.75

8.58

25

0.95

6.54

5.99

8.99

11.69

8.93

11.27

8.99

30

0.98

6.80

6.23

9.34

12.15

9.28

11.71

9.34

35

1.01

7.02

6.43

9.65

12.55

9.59

12.10

9.65

40

1.04

7.22

6.62

9.93

12.90

9.86

12.44

9.93

46

1.07

7.44

6.81

10.22

13.29

10.15

12.81

10.22

50

1.09

7.57

6.94

10.40

13.52

10.33

13.04

10.40

50.5

1.10

7.59

6.95

10.43

13.55

10.36

13.07

10.43

For Rounded Members (Column and Rafters) from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 22:
D=

0.167

ft.

qz =

9.93

psf

Solid Area =

6.05

ft.^2

Gross Area =

12.50

Solidity Ratio, e =

0.484

ft.^2
= Solid Area/Gross Area

D*(qz)^(1/2) =

0.53
Cf for D*(qz)^(1/2) <= 2.5

Cf =

1.5

Cf =

N.A.

Cf for D*(qz)^(1/2) > 2.5

Use: Cf =

1.5

Cf from Figure 6(22

For Eave, Curtain and Gable End from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 20:
Area

s/h

B/s

Eave

1.08

46.00

0.02

58.00

53.54

Gable End

4.50

50.50

0.09

76.00

16.89

Curtain

30.00

30.00

1.00

24.00

0.80

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 27 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V= 52 mph WIND LOADING ANALYSIS Lattice and Misc. Components N S


Per ASCE 7 05 Open buildings (See 52 mph Case for Wind Pressure Figures)
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Speed, V =

52

mph

Class., Occ. Category =

III

(Table 1(1)

If z < 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/)

(Sect. 6.5.6)

If z >= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/)

Exposure Category =

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

9.50

(Table 6(2)

zg =
I=

900

(Table 6(2)

1.00

(Table 6(1)

(Sect. 6.5.7)

Height of Structure, h =

50.50

ft.

L=

58.00

ft.

B=
Damping Ratio, =

75.00

ft.

0.010

Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFR system

Direct. Factor, Kd =

1.00

(Table 6(4)

Hurricane Region?

freq., f = set = 1.0 for forensic wind case


G=

0.930
(Gust Factor, Sect. 6.5.8)
Note: Use force coefficients, Cf,

Velocity Pressure (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15):


qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I

from Figures 6(20 and 6(22.

Net Design Wind Pressures (Sect. 6.5.15):


p = qz*G*Cf (psf), where 'qz' is evaluated at
height 'z' of the centroid of projected area.
Open Structure Net Design Wind Pressures, p
z
(ft.)

For z = h:

Cf, Col.

Cf, Eave

qz

qz*G

1.50

1.95

1.49

1.88

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

Kz

Cf, Curtain Cf, Gable End


Cf, Rafter
1.50

0.85

5.88

5.46

8.20

10.65

8.14

10.27

8.20

10

0.85

5.88

5.46

8.20

10.65

8.14

10.27

8.20

20

0.90

6.24

5.81

8.71

11.32

8.65

10.91

8.71

25

0.95

6.54

6.08

9.13

11.86

9.07

11.44

9.13

30

0.98

6.80

6.32

9.48

12.33

9.42

11.89

9.48

35

1.01

7.02

6.53

9.80

12.74

9.73

12.28

9.80

40

1.04

7.22

6.72

10.08

13.10

10.01

12.63

10.08

46

1.07

7.44

6.92

10.38

13.49

10.31

13.01

10.38

50

1.09

7.57

7.04

10.56

13.73

10.49

13.24

10.56

50.5

1.10

7.59

7.05

10.58

13.76

10.51

13.26

10.58

For Rounded Members (Column and Rafters) from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 22:
D=

0.167

qz =

10.08

psf

Solid Area =

5.97

ft.^2
ft.^2
= Solid Area/Gross Area

Gross Area =

12.50

Solidity Ratio, e =

0.484

D*(qz)^(1/2) =

0.53

ft.

Cf for D*(qz)^(1/2) <= 2.5

Cf =

1.5

Cf =

N.A.

Cf for D*(qz)^(1/2) > 2.5

Use: Cf =

1.5

Cf from Figure 6(22

For Eave, Curtain and Gable End from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 20:
Area

s/h

B/s

Eave

1.08

46.00

0.02

58.00

53.54

Gable End

4.50

50.50

0.09

76.00

16.89

Curtain

30.00

30.00

1.00

24.00

0.80

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 28 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V=52 mph 45 Degree Eave (Case c)


Per ASCE 7 05 Code
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Speed, V =

52

mph

Class., Occ. Category =

III

(Table 1(1)

If z < 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/)

Exposure Category =

(Sect. 6.5.6)

If z >= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/)

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

(Sect. 6.5.7)

9.50

(Table 6(2)

zg =

900

(Table 6(2)

Height of Structure, h =

50.50

ft.

L=

75.00

ft.

B=

58.00

ft.

Damping Ratio,

1.00

(Table 6(1)

freq., f =

0.952

Hz. (f < 1) Flexible

0.010

Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFRS system

Direct. Factor, Kd =

1.00

(Table 6(4)

Hurricane Region?

G=

0.916 (Gust Factor, Sect. 6.5.8)


Note: Use force coefficients, Cf,

Velocity Pressure (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15):


qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I

from Figures 6(20 and 6(22.

Net Design Wind Pressures (Sect. 6.5.15):


p = qz*G*Cf (psf), where 'qz' is evaluated at
height 'z' of the centroid of projected area.
Open Structure Net Design Wind Pressures, p
z

Kz

(ft.)

For z = h:

Cf 0(2s

Cf s(2s

Cf 5s(10s

Cf 10s<

qz

qz*G

3.87

2.55

Cf 2s(3s Cf 3s(4s
1.95

1.85

Cf 4s(5s
1.85

1.10

0.55

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

0.85

5.88

5.38

20.83

13.73

10.50

9.96

9.96

5.92

2.96

10

0.85

5.88

5.38

20.83

13.73

10.50

9.96

9.96

5.92

2.96

18.6

0.89

6.15

5.63

21.80

14.36

10.98

10.42

10.42

6.20

3.10

25

0.95

6.54

5.99

23.20

15.28

11.69

11.09

11.09

6.59

3.30
3.43

30

0.98

6.80

6.23

24.10

15.88

12.15

11.52

11.52

6.85

36.5

1.02

7.09

6.49

25.12

16.55

12.66

12.01

12.01

7.14

3.57

40

1.04

7.22

6.62

25.61

16.87

12.90

12.24

12.24

7.28

3.64

46

1.07

7.44

6.81

26.37

17.38

13.29

12.61

12.61

7.50

3.75

50

1.09

7.57

6.94

26.84

17.69

13.52

12.83

12.83

7.63

3.81

50.5

1.10

7.59

6.95

26.90

17.72

13.55

12.86

12.86

7.65

3.82

For Eave, Curtain and Gable End from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 20:
Area

s/h

B/s

Eave

1.08

46.00

0.02

58.00

53.54

Gable End

4.50

50.50

0.09

76.00

16.89

Curtain

30.00

30.00

1.00

24.00

0.80

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 29 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V=52 mph 45 Degree Gable end assuming solid sign behavior


Per ASCE 7 05 Code
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Speed, V =

52

mph

Class., Occ. Category =

III

(Table 1(1)

If z < 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/)

Exposure Category =

(Sect. 6.5.6)

If z >= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/)

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

(Sect. 6.5.7)

9.50

(Table 6(2)

zg =

900

(Table 6(2)

Height of Structure, h =

50.50

ft.

L=

58.00

ft.

B=

75.00

ft.

Damping Ratio,

1.00

(Table 6(1)

freq., f =

0.952

Hz. (f < 1) Flexible

0.010

Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFRS system

Direct. Factor, Kd =

1.00

(Table 6(4)

Hurricane Region?

G=

0.930 (Gust Factor, Sect. 6.5.8)


Note: Use force coefficients, Cf,

Velocity Pressure (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15):


qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I

from Figures 6(20 and 6(22.

Net Design Wind Pressures (Sect. 6.5.15):


p = qz*G*Cf (psf), where 'qz' is evaluated at
height 'z' of the centroid of projected area.
Open Structure Net Design Wind Pressures, p
z

Kz

(ft.)

For z = h:

Cf 0(2s

Cf s(2s

Cf 5s(10s

Cf 10s<

qz

qz*G

3.63

2.59

Cf 2s(3s Cf 3s(4s
1.99

1.54

Cf 4s(5s
1.41

0.92

0.55

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

0.85

5.88

5.46

19.83

14.15

10.87

8.41

7.70

5.03

3.01

10

0.85

5.88

5.46

19.83

14.15

10.87

8.41

7.70

5.03

3.01

18.6

0.89

6.15

5.72

20.75

14.81

11.38

8.80

8.06

5.26

3.14

25

0.95

6.54

6.08

22.09

15.76

12.11

9.37

8.58

5.60

3.35

30

0.98

6.80

6.32

22.95

16.37

12.58

9.74

8.91

5.82

3.48

36.5

1.02

7.09

6.59

23.92

17.07

13.11

10.15

9.29

6.06

3.62

40

1.04

7.22

6.72

24.38

17.40

13.37

10.34

9.47

6.18

3.69

46

1.07

7.44

6.92

25.11

17.92

13.77

10.65

9.75

6.36

3.80

50

1.09

7.57

7.04

25.56

18.23

14.01

10.84

9.93

6.48

3.87

50.5

1.10

7.59

7.05

25.61

18.27

14.04

10.86

9.95

6.49

3.88

For Eave, Curtain and Gable End from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 20:
Area

s/h

B/s

Eave

1.08

46.00

0.02

58.00

53.54

Gable End

4.50

50.50

0.09

76.00

16.89

Curtain

30.00

30.00

1.00

24.00

0.80

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 30 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V= 40 mph Forensic Wind Loading Analysis MWFRS W E


Per ASCE 7 05 Open buildings (See 52 mph Case for Wind Pressure Figures)
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Direction =

Normal

Wind Speed, V =

40

mph (RWDI Meteorological Wind Report)

Bldg. Classification =

III

(Table 1(1 Occupancy Cat.)

Exposure Category =

(Sect. 6.5.6)

Ridge Height, hr =

55.00

ft. (hr >= he)

Eave Height, he =

46.00

ft. (he <= hr)

B=

58.00

ft.

L=

75.00

ft.

Roof Type =

Gable

(Gable or Monoslope)

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

1.00

Direct. Factor, Kd =

1.00

Enclosed? (Y/N)

Hurricane Region?

Damping Ratio, =

0.010

(Normal or Parallel to building ridge)

o
hr

h
he

(Sect. 6.5.7 & Figure 6(4) Forensic Case Factor Set 1.0
(Table 6(4) Forensic Case Factor Set 1.0

L = 58 ft.
B = 75 ft.

(Sect. 6.2 & Figure 6(5)


Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFRS system

Open Structure

Figure 6(18B
Roof Angle, =

13.32

deg.

Mean Roof Ht., h =

50.50

ft. (h = (hr+he)/2, for roof angle >10 deg.)

Windward Roof Cn =

1.10

Case A

Clear Wind Flow

Windward Roof Cn =

0.12

Case B

Clear Wind Flow

Leeward Roof Cn =

(0.38

Case A

Clear Wind Flow

Leeward Roof Cn =

(1.12

Case B

Clear Wind Flow

If z <= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/) , If z > 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/) (Table 6(3, Case 2a)
=

9.50

zg =

Kh =
I=

1.10

(Kh = Kz evaluated at z = h)

1.00

(Table 6(1)

900

(Table 6(2)

(Importance factor set 1.0 for forensic wind load case)

Velocity Pressure: qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15)


qh = 0.00256*Kh*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I (qz evaluated at z = h)
qh =
4.49
psf
Ratio h/L =

0.871

Gust Factor, G =

0.884

freq., f =
(Sect. 6.5.8)

0.833

hz.

(f < 1, Flexible structure)

Normal to Ridge Wind Load for MWFRS


Case

Kz

(ft.)

qz

Cn

p = Net Design Press. (psf)

(psf)

Roof (windward) Case A

1.10

4.37

Roof (windward) Case B

0.12

0.48

4.37
0.48

Roof (leeward) Case A

(0.38

(1.51

(1.51

Roof (leeward) Case B

(1.12

(4.45

(4.45

Note: 1. (+) and (() signs indicated wind pressures acting toward & away from respective surfaces.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 31 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Gust Effect Factor, G:


Building Flexible

Yes

f < 1 Hz.

Parameters from Table 6(2:


a^ =

0.105

b^ =
(bar) =

0.154

b(bar) =

0.65

c=
l=

0.20

(bar) =

0.200

z(min) =

15

1.00

500

ft.
ft.

Parameters for Flexible Building Gust:


z(bar) =

30.30

= 0.6*h , but not < z(min) , ft.

Iz(bar) =

0.203

Lz(bar) =

491.54

= c*(33/z(bar))^(1/6) , Eq. 6(5


= l*(z(bar)/33)^((bar)) , Eq. 6(7

gq =

3.4

(3.4, per Sect. 6.5.8.1)

gv =

3.4

(3.4, per Sect. 6.5.8.1)

gr =

4.146

= (2*(LN(3600*f)))^(1/2)+0.577/(2*LN(3600*f))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(9

Q=

0.889

= (1/(1+0.63*((B+h)/Lz(bar))^0.63))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(6

Gf for Flexible Building


=

0.010

Damping Ratio

T=

1.200

SAP Analysis

f=

0.833

= 1/T , Hz. (Natural Frequency)

V(fps) =

58.67

V(bar,zbar) =

37.64

= V(mph)*(88/60) , ft./sec.
= b(bar)*(z(bar)/33)^((bar))*V*(88/60) , ft./sec. , Eq. 6(14

N1 =

10.884

= f*Lz(bar)/(V(bar,zbar)) , Eq. 6(12

Rn =

0.031

= 7.47*N1/(1+10.3*N1)^(5/3) , Eq. 6(11

h =

5.144

Rh =

0.176

= 4.6*f*h/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/h)(1/(2*h^2)*(1(e^((2*h)) for h>0, or = 1 for h=0 ,Eq. 6(13a,b

b =

7.639

RB =
d =

0.122
19.777

RL =

0.049

= 15.4*f*L/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/d)(1/(2*d^2)*(1(e^((2*d)) for d>0, or = 1 for d=0 ,Eq. 6(13a,b

= 4.6*f*B/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/b)(1/(2*b^2)*(1(e^((2*b)) for b>0, or = 1 for b=0,Eq. 6(13a,b

R=

0.191

= ((1/)*Rn*Rh*RB*(0.53+0.47*RL))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(10

Gf =

0.884

= 0.925*(1+1.7*Iz(bar)*(gq^2*Q^2+gr^2*R^2)^(1/2))/(1+1.7*gv*Iz(bar)) ,Eq. 6(8

Use: G =

0.884

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 32 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V= 40 mph Forensic Wind Load Analysis

MWFRS N S

Per ASCE 7 05 Open buildings (See 52 mph Case for Wind Pressure Figures)
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Direction =

Parallel

Wind Speed, V =

40

mph (RWDI Meteorological Wind Report)

Bldg. Classification =

III

(Table 1(1 Occupancy Cat.)

Exposure Category =

(Normal or Parallel to building ridge)

(Sect. 6.5.6)

Ridge Height, hr =

55.00

ft. (hr >= he)

Eave Height, he =

46.00

ft. (he <= hr)

B=

58.00

ft.

L=

75.00

ft.

Roof Type =

Gable

(Gable or Monoslope)

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

1.00

Direct. Factor, Kd =

1.00

Enclosed? (Y/N)

Hurricane Region?

Damping Ratio,

0.010

hr

h
he

(Sect. 6.5.7 & Figure 6(4) Forensic Case Factor Set 1.0
(Table 6(4) Forensic Case Factor Set 1.0

L = 75 ft.
B = 58 ft.

(Sect. 6.2 & Figure 6(5)


Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFRS system

Open Structure

Figure 6(18D
Roof Angle, =

13.32

deg.

Mean Roof Ht., h =

50.50

ft. (h = (hr+he)/2, for roof angle >10 deg.)

Roof Cn case A h>

(1.20

0.00

Case A

Obstructed Wind Flow

Roof Cn Case B <h =

0.50

0.00

Case B

Obstructed Wind Flow

Roof Cn Case B >h =

0.50

0.00

Case A

Obstructed Wind Flow

Roof Cn Case A h< =

(0.90

0.00

Case B

Obstructed Wind Flow

If z <= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/) , If z > 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/) (Table 6(3, Case 2a)
=

9.50

zg =

Kh =
I=

1.10

(Kh = Kz evaluated at z = h)

1.00

(Table 6(1)

900

(Table 6(2)

(Importance factor set 1.0 for forensic wind load case)

Velocity Pressure: qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15)


qh = 0.00256*Kh*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I (qz evaluated at z = h)
qh =
4.49
psf
Ratio h/L =

0.673

Gust Factor, G =

0.892

freq., f =

0.833

hz.

(f < 1, Flexible structure)

(Sect. 6.5.8)
Parallel to Ridge Wind Load for MWFRS

Case

Kz

(ft.)

qz

Cn

p = Net Design Press. (psf)

(psf)

Roof (<h) Case A

(1.20

(4.81

(4.81

Roof (h<) Case A

(0.90

(3.60

(3.60

Roof Case B <h

0.50

2.00

2.00

Roof (h>) Case B

0.50

2.00

2.00

Note: 1. (+) and (() indicates wind pressures acting toward & away from surfaces.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 33 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Gust Effect Factor, G:


Building Flexible

Yes

f < 1 Hz.

Parameters from Table 6(2:


a^ =

0.105

b^ =
(bar) =

0.154

b(bar) =

0.65

c=
l=

0.20

(bar) =

0.200

z(min) =

15

1.00

500

ft.
ft.

Parameters for Flexible Building Gust:


z(bar) =

30.30

= 0.6*h , but not < z(min) , ft.

Iz(bar) =

0.203

Lz(bar) =

491.54

= c*(33/z(bar))^(1/6) , Eq. 6(5


= l*(z(bar)/33)^((bar)) , Eq. 6(7

gq =

3.4

(3.4, per Sect. 6.5.8.1)

gv =

3.4

(3.4, per Sect. 6.5.8.1)

gr =

4.146

= (2*(LN(3600*f)))^(1/2)+0.577/(2*LN(3600*f))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(9

Q=

0.897

= (1/(1+0.63*((B+h)/Lz(bar))^0.63))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(6

Gf for Flexible Building


=

0.010

Damping Ratio

T=

1.200

SAP Analysis

f=

0.833

= 1/T , Hz. (Natural Frequency)

V(fps) =

58.67

V(bar,zbar) =

37.64

= V(mph)*(88/60) , ft./sec.
= b(bar)*(z(bar)/33)^((bar))*V*(88/60) , ft./sec. , Eq. 6(14

N1 =

10.884

= f*Lz(bar)/(V(bar,zbar)) , Eq. 6(12

Rn =

0.031

= 7.47*N1/(1+10.3*N1)^(5/3) , Eq. 6(11

h =

5.144

Rh =

0.176

= 4.6*f*h/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/h)(1/(2*h^2)*(1(e^((2*h)) for h>0, or = 1 for h=0 ,Eq. 6(13a,b

b =

5.907

RB =
d =

0.155
25.574

RL =

0.038

= 15.4*f*L/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/d)(1/(2*d^2)*(1(e^((2*d)) for d>0, or = 1 for d=0 ,Eq. 6(13a,b

= 4.6*f*B/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/b)(1/(2*b^2)*(1(e^((2*b)) for b>0, or = 1 for b=0,Eq. 6(13a,b

R=

0.214

= ((1/)*Rn*Rh*RB*(0.53+0.47*RL))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(10

Gf =

0.892

= 0.925*(1+1.7*Iz(bar)*(gq^2*Q^2+gr^2*R^2)^(1/2))/(1+1.7*gv*Iz(bar)) ,Eq. 6(8

Use: G =

0.892

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 34 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V= 40 mph Forensic WIND LOADING ANALYSIS Lattice and Misc. Components W E


Per ASCE 7 05 Open buildings (See 52 mph Case for Wind Pressure Figures)
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Speed, V =

40

mph

Class., Occ. Category =

III

(Table 1(1)

If z < 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/)

Exposure Category =

(Sect. 6.5.6)

If z >= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/)

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

9.50

(Table 6(2)

zg =
I=

900

(Table 6(2)

1.00

(Table 6(1)

(Sect. 6.5.7)

Height of Structure, h =

50.50

ft.

L=

75.00

ft.

B=
Damping Ratio, =

58.00

ft.

0.010

Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFRS system

Direct. Factor, Kd =

1.00

(Table 6(4)

Hurricane Region?

freq., f = set = 1.0 for forensic wind case


G=

Velocity Pressure (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15):


qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I

0.884
(Gust Factor, Sect. 6.5.8)
Note: Use force coefficients, Cf,
from Figures 6(20 and 6(22.

Net Design Wind Pressures (Sect. 6.5.15):


p = qz*G*Cf (psf), where 'qz' is evaluated at
height 'z' of the centroid of projected area.
Open Structure Net Design Wind Pressures, p
z
(ft.)

For z = h:

Cf, Col.

Cf, Eave

qz

qz*G

1.50

1.95

1.49

1.88

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

Kz

Cf, Curtain Cf, Gable EndCf, Rafter


1.50

0.85

3.48

3.07

4.61

6.00

4.58

5.78

4.61

10

0.85

3.48

3.07

4.61

6.00

4.58

5.78

4.61

20

0.90

3.69

3.27

4.90

6.37

4.87

6.14

4.90

25

0.95

3.87

3.42

5.14

6.68

5.10

6.44

5.14

30

0.98

4.02

3.56

5.34

6.94

5.30

6.69

5.34

35

1.01

4.16

3.68

5.51

7.17

5.48

6.91

5.51

40

1.04

4.27

3.78

5.67

7.37

5.63

7.11

5.67

46

1.07

4.40

3.89

5.84

7.59

5.80

7.32

5.84

50

1.09

4.48

3.96

5.94

7.73

5.90

7.45

5.94

50.5

1.10

4.49

3.97

5.96

7.74

5.92

7.46

5.96

For Rounded Members (Column and Rafters) from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 22:
D=

0.167

qz =

5.67

psf

Solid Area =

5.97

ft.^2
ft.^2
= Solid Area/Gross Area

Gross Area =

12.50

Solidity Ratio, e =

0.478

D*(qz)^(1/2) =

0.40

ft.

Cf =

1.5

Cf for D*(qz)^(1/2) <= 2.5

Cf =

N.A.

Cf for D*(qz)^(1/2) > 2.5

Use: Cf =

1.5

Cf from Figure 6(22

For Eave, Curtain and Gable End from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 20:
Area

s/h

B/s

Eave

1.08

46.00

0.02

58.00

53.54

Gable End

4.50

50.50

0.09

76.00

16.89

Curtain

30.00

30.00

1.00

24.00

0.80

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 35 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V= 40 mph Forensic WIND LOADING ANALYSIS Lattice and Misc. Components N


S
Per ASCE 7 05 Open buildings (See 52 mph Case for Wind Pressure Figures)
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Speed, V =

40

mph

Class., Occ. Category =

III

(Table 1(1)

If z < 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/)

Exposure Category =

(Sect. 6.5.6)

If z >= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/)

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

9.50

(Table 6(2)

zg =
I=

900

(Table 6(2)

1.00

(Table 6(1)

(Sect. 6.5.7)

Height of Structure, h =

50.50

ft.

L=

58.00

ft.

B=
Damping Ratio, =

75.00

ft.

0.010

Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFR system

Direct. Factor, Kd =

1.00

(Table 6(4)

Hurricane Region?

freq., f = set = 1.0 for forensic wind case


G=

Velocity Pressure (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15):


qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I

0.892
(Gust Factor, Sect. 6.5.8)
Note: Use force coefficients, Cf,
from Figures 6(20 and 6(22.

Net Design Wind Pressures (Sect. 6.5.15):


p = qz*G*Cf (psf), where 'qz' is evaluated at
height 'z' of the centroid of projected area.
Open Structure Net Design Wind Pressures, p
z
(ft.)

For z = h:

Cf, Col.

Cf, Eave

qz

qz*G

1.50

1.95

1.49

1.88

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

Kz

Cf, Curtain Cf, Gable End


Cf, Rafter
1.50

0.85

3.48

3.10

4.65

6.05

4.62

5.83

4.65

10

0.85

3.48

3.10

4.65

6.05

4.62

5.83

4.65

20

0.90

3.69

3.30

4.94

6.43

4.91

6.20

4.94

25

0.95

3.87

3.45

5.18

6.74

5.15

6.49

5.18

30

0.98

4.02

3.59

5.38

7.00

5.35

6.75

5.38

35

1.01

4.16

3.71

5.56

7.23

5.52

6.97

5.56

40

1.04

4.27

3.81

5.72

7.44

5.68

7.17

5.72

46

1.07

4.40

3.93

5.89

7.66

5.85

7.38

5.89

50

1.09

4.48

4.00

5.99

7.79

5.95

7.51

5.99

50.5

1.10

4.49

4.01

6.01

7.81

5.97

7.53

6.01

For Rounded Members (Column and Rafters) from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 22:
D=

0.167

ft.

qz =

5.72

psf

Solid Area =

5.97

ft.^2

Gross Area =

12.50

Solidity Ratio, e =

0.478

ft.^2
= Solid Area/Gross Area

D*(qz)^(1/2) =

0.40

Cf =

1.5

Cf =

N.A.

Cf for D*(qz)^(1/2) <= 2.5


Cf for D*(qz)^(1/2) > 2.5

Use: Cf =

1.5

Cf from Figure 6(22

For Eave, Curtain and Gable End from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 20:
Area

s/h

B/s

Eave

1.08

46.00

0.02

58.00

53.54

Gable End

4.50

50.50

0.09

76.00

16.89

Curtain

30.00

30.00

1.00

24.00

0.80

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 36 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V= 40 mph Forensic 45 Degree Eave (Case c)


Per ASCE 7 05 Code
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Speed, V =

40

mph

Class., Occ. Category =

III

(Table 1(1)

If z < 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/)

Exposure Category =

(Sect. 6.5.6)

If z >= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/)

(Sect. 6.5.7)

9.50

Height of Structure, h =

50.50

ft.

zg =

900

(Table 6(2)

L=

75.00

ft.

1.00

(Table 6(1)

freq., f =

0.952

Hz. (f < 1) Flexible

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

B=

(Table 6(2)

58.00

ft.

0.010

Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFRS system

Direct. Factor, Kd =

1.00

(Table 6(4)

Hurricane Region?

Damping Ratio,

G=

0.884 (Gust Factor, Sect. 6.5.8)


Note: Use force coefficients, Cf,

Velocity Pressure (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15):


qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I

from Figures 6(20 and 6(22.

Net Design Wind Pressures (Sect. 6.5.15):


p = qz*G*Cf (psf), where 'qz' is evaluated at
height 'z' of the centroid of projected area.
Open Structure Net Design Wind Pressures, p
z

Kz

(ft.)

For z = h:

Cf 0(2s

Cf s(2s

Cf 5s(10s

Cf 10s<

qz

qz*G

3.87

2.55

Cf 2s(3s Cf 3s(4s
1.95

1.85

Cf 4s(5s
1.85

1.10

0.55

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)
1.69

0.85

3.48

3.07

11.90

7.84

6.00

5.69

5.69

3.38

10

0.85

3.48

3.07

11.90

7.84

6.00

5.69

5.69

3.38

1.69

18.6

0.89

3.64

3.22

12.45

8.20

6.27

5.95

5.95

3.54

1.77

25

0.95

3.87

3.42

13.25

8.73

6.68

6.33

6.33

3.77

1.88

30

0.98

4.02

3.56

13.77

9.07

6.94

6.58

6.58

3.91

1.96

36.5

1.02

4.19

3.71

14.35

9.46

7.23

6.86

6.86

4.08

2.04
2.08

40

1.04

4.27

3.78

14.63

9.64

7.37

6.99

6.99

4.16

46

1.07

4.40

3.89

15.07

9.93

7.59

7.20

7.20

4.28

2.14

50

1.09

4.48

3.96

15.33

10.10

7.73

7.33

7.33

4.36

2.18

50.5

1.10

4.49

3.97

15.37

10.12

7.74

7.35

7.35

4.37

2.18

For Eave, Curtain and Gable End from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 20:
Area

s/h

B/s

Eave

1.08

46.00

0.02

58.00

53.54

Gable End

4.50

50.50

0.09

76.00

16.89

Curtain

30.00

30.00

1.00

24.00

0.80

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 37 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V= 40 mph Forensic 45 Degree Gable end assuming solid sign behavior


Per ASCE 7 05 Code
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Speed, V =

40

mph

Class., Occ. Category =

III

(Table 1(1)

If z < 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/)

Exposure Category =

(Sect. 6.5.6)

If z >= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/)

(Sect. 6.5.7)

9.50

Height of Structure, h =

50.50

ft.

zg =

900

(Table 6(2)

L=

75.00

ft.

1.00

(Table 6(1)

freq., f =

0.952

Hz. (f < 1) Flexible

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

B=

(Table 6(2)

58.00

ft.

0.010

Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFRS system

Direct. Factor, Kd =

1.00

(Table 6(4)

Hurricane Region?

Damping Ratio,

G=

0.892 (Gust Factor, Sect. 6.5.8)


Note: Use force coefficients, Cf,

Velocity Pressure (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15):


qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I

from Figures 6(20 and 6(22.

Net Design Wind Pressures (Sect. 6.5.15):


p = qz*G*Cf (psf), where 'qz' is evaluated at
height 'z' of the centroid of projected area.
Open Structure Net Design Wind Pressures, p
z

Kz

(ft.)

For z = h:

Cf 0(2s

Cf s(2s

Cf 5s(10s

Cf 10s<

qz

qz*G

3.63

2.59

Cf 2s(3s Cf 3s(4s
1.99

1.54

Cf 4s(5s
1.41

0.92

0.55

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)
1.96

0.85

4.00

3.57

12.95

9.24

7.10

5.49

5.03

3.28

10

0.85

4.00

3.57

12.95

9.24

7.10

5.49

5.03

3.28

1.96

18.6

0.89

4.18

3.73

13.55

9.67

7.43

5.75

5.26

3.43

2.05

25

0.95

4.45

3.97

14.42

10.29

7.90

6.12

5.60

3.65

2.18

30

0.98

4.63

4.13

14.98

10.69

8.21

6.36

5.82

3.80

2.27

36.5

1.02

4.82

4.30

15.61

11.14

8.56

6.62

6.07

3.96

2.37
2.41

40

1.04

4.92

4.39

15.92

11.36

8.73

6.75

6.18

4.03

46

1.07

5.06

4.52

16.39

11.70

8.99

6.95

6.37

4.15

2.48

50

1.09

5.15

4.60

16.68

11.90

9.15

7.08

6.48

4.23

2.53

50.5

1.10

5.16

4.61

16.72

11.93

9.17

7.09

6.49

4.24

2.53

For Eave, Curtain and Gable End from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 20:
Area

s/h

B/s

Eave

1.08

46.00

0.02

58.00

53.54

Gable End

4.50

50.50

0.09

76.00

16.89

Curtain

30.00

30.00

1.00

24.00

0.80

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 38 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V= 90 mph Wind Loading Analysis MWFRS W E


Per ASCE 7 05 Open buildings (See 52 mph Case for Wind Pressure Figures)
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Direction =

Normal

Wind Speed, V =

90

mph (Wind Map, Figure 6(1)

Bldg. Classification =

III

(Table 1(1 Occupancy Cat.)

Exposure Category =

(Sect. 6.5.6)

Ridge Height, hr =

55.00

ft. (hr >= he)

Eave Height, he =

46.00

ft. (he <= hr)

Building Width =

58.00

ft.

Building Length =

75.00

ft.

Roof Type =

Gable

(Gable or Monoslope)

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

1.00

Direct. Factor, Kd =

0.85

Enclosed? (Y/N)

Hurricane Region?

Damping Ratio,

Open Structure

(Normal or Parallel to building ridge)

o
hr

h
he

(Sect. 6.5.7 & Figure 6(4)

L = 58 ft.
B = 75 ft.

(Table 6(4)
(Sect. 6.2 & Figure 6(5)

0.010

Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFRS system

Figure 6(18B
Roof Angle,

13.32

deg.
ft. (h = (hr+he)/2, for roof angle >10 deg.)

Mean Roof Ht., h =

50.50

Windward Roof Cn =

1.10

Case A

Clear Wind Flow

Windward Roof Cn =

0.12

Case B

Clear Wind Flow

Leeward Roof Cn =

(0.38

Case A

Clear Wind Flow

Leeward Roof Cn =

(1.12

Case B

Clear Wind Flow

If z <= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/)

, If z > 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/) (Table 6-3, Case 2a)

9.50

zg =

Kh =

1.10

(Kh = Kz evaluated at z = h)

1.15

(Table 6(1)

900

(Table 6(2)

(Importance factor)

Velocity Pressure: qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15)


qh =

22.22

Ratio h/L =

0.871

Gust Factor, G =

1.018

qh = 0.00256*Kh*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I

psf
freq., f =
(Sect. 6.5.8)

0.667

(qz evaluated at z = h)

hz.

(f < 1, Flexible structure)

Normal to Ridge Wind Load for MWFRS


Surface

Kz

(ft.)

qz

Cn

p = Net Design Press. (psf)

(psf)

Roof (windward) Case A

1.10

24.87

Roof (windward) Case B

0.12

2.71

24.87
2.71

Roof (leeward) Case A

(0.38

(8.59

(8.59

Roof (leeward) Case B

(1.12

(25.33

(25.33

Note: 1. (+) and (() indicates wind pressures acting toward & away from surfaces.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 39 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Gust Effect Factor, G:


Building Flexible

Yes

f < 1 Hz.

Parameters from Table 6(2:


a^ =

0.105

b^ =
(bar) =

0.154

b(bar) =

0.65

c=
l=

0.20

(bar) =

0.200

z(min) =

15

1.00

500

ft.
ft.

Parameters for Flexible Building Gust:


z(bar) =

30.30

= 0.6*h , but not < z(min) , ft.

Iz(bar) =

0.203

Lz(bar) =

491.54

= c*(33/z(bar))^(1/6) , Eq. 6(5


= l*(z(bar)/33)^((bar)) , Eq. 6(7

gq =

3.4

(3.4, per Sect. 6.5.8.1)

gv =

3.4

(3.4, per Sect. 6.5.8.1)

gr =

4.092

= (2*(LN(3600*f)))^(1/2)+0.577/(2*LN(3600*f))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(9

Q=

0.889

= (1/(1+0.63*((B+h)/Lz(bar))^0.63))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(6

Gf for Flexible Building


=

0.010

Damping Ratio

T=

1.500

SAP Analysis

f=

0.667

= 1/T , Hz. (Natural Frequency)

V(fps) =

132.00

V(bar,zbar) =

84.68

= V(mph)*(88/60) , ft./sec.
= b(bar)*(z(bar)/33)^((bar))*V*(88/60) , ft./sec. , Eq. 6(14

N1 =

3.870

= f*Lz(bar)/(V(bar,zbar)) , Eq. 6(12

Rn =

0.060

= 7.47*N1/(1+10.3*N1)^(5/3) , Eq. 6(11

h =

1.829

Rh =

0.401

= 4.6*f*h/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/h)(1/(2*h^2)*(1(e^((2*h)) for h>0, or = 1 for h=0 ,Eq. 6(13a,b

b =

2.716

RB =
d =

0.301
7.032

RL =

0.132

= 15.4*f*L/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/d)(1/(2*d^2)*(1(e^((2*d)) for d>0, or = 1 for d=0 ,Eq. 6(13a,b

= 4.6*f*B/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/b)(1/(2*b^2)*(1(e^((2*b)) for b>0, or = 1 for b=0,Eq. 6(13a,b

R=

0.653

= ((1/)*Rn*Rh*RB*(0.53+0.47*RL))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(10

Gf =

1.018

= 0.925*(1+1.7*Iz(bar)*(gq^2*Q^2+gr^2*R^2)^(1/2))/(1+1.7*gv*Iz(bar)) ,Eq. 6(8

Use: G =

1.018

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 40 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V=90 mph Wind Loading Analysis MWFRS N S


Per ASCE 7 05 Open buildings (See 52 mph Case for Wind Pressure Figures)
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Direction =

Parallel

Wind Speed, V =

90

mph (RWDI Meteorological Wind Report)

Bldg. Classification =

III

(Table 1(1 Occupancy Cat.)

Exposure Category =

(Normal or Parallel to building ridge)

(Sect. 6.5.6)

Ridge Height, hr =

55.00

ft. (hr >= he)

Eave Height, he =

46.00

ft. (he <= hr)

B=

58.00

ft.

L=

75.00

ft.

Roof Type =

Gable

(Gable or Monoslope)

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

1.00

Direct. Factor, Kd =

0.85

Enclosed? (Y/N)

Hurricane Region?

Damping Ratio,

0.010

hr

h
he

(Sect. 6.5.7 & Figure 6(4) Forensic Case Factor Set 1.0
(Table 6(4) Forensic Case Factor Set 1.0

L = 75 ft.
B = 58 ft.

(Sect. 6.2 & Figure 6(5)


Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFRS system

Open Structure

Figure 6(18D
Roof Angle, =

13.32

deg.

Mean Roof Ht., h =

50.50

ft. (h = (hr+he)/2, for roof angle >10 deg.)

Roof Cn case A h>

(1.20

0.00

Case A

Obstructed Wind Flow

Roof Cn Case B <h =

0.50

0.00

Case B

Obstructed Wind Flow

Roof Cn Case B >h =

0.50

0.00

Case A

Obstructed Wind Flow

Roof Cn Case A h< =

(0.90

0.00

Case B

Obstructed Wind Flow

If z <= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/) , If z > 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/) (Table 6(3, Case 2a)
=

9.50

zg =

Kh =
I=

1.10

(Kh = Kz evaluated at z = h)

1.15

(Table 6(1)

900

(Table 6(2)

(Importance factor set 1.0 for forensic wind load case)

Velocity Pressure: qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15)


qh = 0.00256*Kh*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I (qz evaluated at z = h)
qh =
22.22
psf
Ratio h/L =

0.673

Gust Factor, G =

1.044

freq., f =

0.667

hz.

(f < 1, Flexible structure)

(Sect. 6.5.8)
Parallel to Ridge Wind Load for MWFRS

Case

Kz

(ft.)

qz

Cn

p = Net Design Press. (psf)

(psf)

Roof (<h) Case A

(1.20

(27.84

(27.84

Roof (h<) Case A

(0.90

(20.88

(20.88

Roof Case B <h

0.50

11.60

11.60

Roof (h>) Case B

0.50

11.60

11.60

Note: 1. (+) and (() indicates wind pressures acting toward & away from surfaces.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 41 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Gust Effect Factor, G:


Building Flexible

Yes

f < 1 Hz.

Parameters from Table 6(2:


a^ =

0.105

b^ =
(bar) =

0.154

b(bar) =

0.65

c=
l=

0.20

(bar) =

0.200

z(min) =

15

1.00

500

ft.
ft.

Parameters for Flexible Building Gust:


z(bar) =

30.30

= 0.6*h , but not < z(min) , ft.

Iz(bar) =

0.203

Lz(bar) =

491.54

= c*(33/z(bar))^(1/6) , Eq. 6(5


= l*(z(bar)/33)^((bar)) , Eq. 6(7

gq =

3.4

(3.4, per Sect. 6.5.8.1)

gv =

3.4

(3.4, per Sect. 6.5.8.1)

gr =

4.092

= (2*(LN(3600*f)))^(1/2)+0.577/(2*LN(3600*f))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(9

Q=

0.897

= (1/(1+0.63*((B+h)/Lz(bar))^0.63))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(6


Damping Ratio

Gf for Flexible Building


=

0.010

Ct =

0.020

Period Coefficient

T=

1.500

SAP Analysis

f=

0.667

= 1/T , Hz. (Natural Frequency)

V(fps) =

132.00

V(bar,zbar) =

84.68

= V(mph)*(88/60) , ft./sec.
= b(bar)*(z(bar)/33)^((bar))*V*(88/60) , ft./sec. , Eq. 6(14

N1 =

3.870

= f*Lz(bar)/(V(bar,zbar)) , Eq. 6(12

Rn =

0.060

= 7.47*N1/(1+10.3*N1)^(5/3) , Eq. 6(11

h =

1.829

Rh =

0.401

= 4.6*f*h/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/h)(1/(2*h^2)*(1(e^((2*h)) for h>0, or = 1 for h=0 ,Eq. 6(13a,b

b =

2.100

RB =
d =

0.364
9.093

RL =

0.104

= 15.4*f*L/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/d)(1/(2*d^2)*(1(e^((2*d)) for d>0, or = 1 for d=0 ,Eq. 6(13a,b

= 4.6*f*B/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/b)(1/(2*b^2)*(1(e^((2*b)) for b>0, or = 1 for b=0,Eq. 6(13a,b

R=

0.710

= ((1/)*Rn*Rh*RB*(0.53+0.47*RL))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(10

Gf =

1.044

= 0.925*(1+1.7*Iz(bar)*(gq^2*Q^2+gr^2*R^2)^(1/2))/(1+1.7*gv*Iz(bar)) ,Eq. 6(8

Use: G =

1.044

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 42 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V= 90 mph WIND LOADING ANALYSIS Lattice and Misc. Components W E


Per ASCE 7 05 Open buildings (See 52 mph Case for Wind Pressure Figures)
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Speed, V =

90

mph

Class., Occ. Category =

III

(Table 1(1)

If z < 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/)

Exposure Category =

(Sect. 6.5.6)

If z >= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/)

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

9.50

zg =
I=

900

(Table 6(2)

1.15

(Table 6(1)

(Sect. 6.5.7)

(Table 6(2)

Height of Structure, h =

50.50

ft.

L=

75.00

ft.

B=
Damping Ratio, =

58.00

ft.

0.010

Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFRS system

Direct. Factor, Kd =

0.85

(Table 6(4)

Hurricane Region?

freq., f = set = 1.0 for forensic wind case


G=

Velocity Pressure (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15):


qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I

1.018
(Gust Factor, Sect. 6.5.8)
Note: Use force coefficients, Cf,
from Figures 6(20 and 6(22.

Net Design Wind Pressures (Sect. 6.5.15):


p = qz*G*Cf (psf), where 'qz' is evaluated at
height 'z' of the centroid of projected area.
Open Structure Net Design Wind Pressures, p
z
(ft.)

For z = h:

Cf, Col.

Cf, Eave

qz

qz*G

1.50

1.95

1.49

1.88

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

Kz

Cf, Curtain Cf, Gable End

Cf, Rafter
1.50

0.85

17.21

17.51

26.27

34.15

26.09

32.92

26.27

10

0.85

17.21

17.51

26.27

34.15

26.09

32.92

26.27

20

0.90

18.28

18.61

27.91

36.28

27.72

34.98

27.91

25

0.95

19.16

19.50

29.25

38.03

29.06

36.66

29.25

30

0.98

19.91

20.26

30.40

39.52

30.19

38.10

30.40

35

1.01

20.57

20.93

31.40

40.82

31.19

39.35

31.40

40

1.04

21.15

21.53

32.29

41.98

32.08

40.48

32.29

46

1.07

21.78

22.17

33.26

43.24

33.04

41.68

33.26

50

1.09

22.17

22.57

33.85

44.00

33.62

42.42

33.85

50.5

1.10

22.22

22.61

33.92

44.09

33.69

42.51

33.92

For Rounded Members (Column and Rafters) from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 22:
D=

0.167

ft.

qz =

32.29

psf

Solid Area =

6.05

ft.^2

Gross Area =

12.50

Solidity Ratio, e =

0.484

ft.^2
For a 10ft long section of Column
= Solid Area/Gross Area

D*(qz)^(1/2) =

0.95

Cf =

1.5

Cf for D*(qz)^(1/2) <= 2.5

Cf =

N.A.

Cf for D*(qz)^(1/2) > 2.5

Use: Cf =

1.5

Cf from Figure 6(22

For Eave, Curtain and Gable End from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 20:
Area

s/h

B/s

Eave

1.08

46.00

0.02

58.00

53.54

Gable End

4.50

50.50

0.09

76.00

16.89

Curtain

30.00

30.00

1.00

24.00

0.80

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 43 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V= 90 mph WIND LOADING ANALYSIS Lattice and Misc. Components N S


Per ASCE 7 05 Open buildings (See 52 mph Case for Wind Pressure Figures)
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Speed, V =

90

mph

Class., Occ. Category =

III

(Table 1(1)

If z < 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/)

Exposure Category =

(Sect. 6.5.6)

If z >= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/)

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

9.50

zg =
I=

900

(Table 6(2)

1.15

(Table 6(1)

(Sect. 6.5.7)

(Table 6(2)

Height of Structure, h =

50.50

ft.

L=

58.00

ft.

B=
Damping Ratio, =

75.00

ft.

0.010

Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFR system

Direct. Factor, Kd =

0.85

(Table 6(4)

Hurricane Region?

freq., f = set = 1.0 for forensic wind case


G=

1.044
(Gust Factor, Sect. 6.5.8)
Note: Use force coefficients, Cf,

Velocity Pressure (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15):


qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I

from Figures 6(20 and 6(22.

Net Design Wind Pressures (Sect. 6.5.15):


p = qz*G*Cf (psf), where 'qz' is evaluated at
height 'z' of the centroid of projected area.
Open Structure Net Design Wind Pressures, p
z
(ft.)

For z = h:

Cf, Col.

Cf, Eave

qz

qz*G

1.50

1.30

1.49

1.88

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

Kz

Cf, Curtain Cf, Gable End Cf, Rafter


1.50

0.85

17.21

17.97

26.95

23.36

26.77

33.78

26.95

10

0.85

17.21

17.97

26.95

23.36

26.77

33.78

26.95

20

0.90

18.28

19.09

28.64

24.82

28.45

35.89

28.64

25

0.95

19.16

20.01

30.01

26.01

29.81

37.62

30.01

30

0.98

19.91

20.79

31.19

27.03

30.98

39.09

31.19

35

1.01

20.57

21.48

32.22

27.92

32.00

40.38

32.22

40

1.04

21.15

22.09

33.14

28.72

32.92

41.53

33.14

46

1.07

21.78

22.75

34.13

29.58

33.90

42.77

34.13

50

1.09

22.17

23.15

34.73

30.10

34.50

43.53

34.73

50.5

1.10

22.22

23.20

34.80

30.16

34.57

43.62

34.80

For Rounded Members (Column and Rafters) from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 22:
D=

0.167

ft.

qz =

33.14

psf

Solid Area =

5.91

ft.^2

Gross Area =

12.50

Solidity Ratio, e =

0.484

ft.^2
For a 10ft long section of Column
= Solid Area/Gross Area

D*(qz)^(1/2) =

0.95

Cf =

1.5

Cf for D*(qz)^(1/2) <= 2.5

Cf =

N.A.

Cf for D*(qz)^(1/2) > 2.5

Use: Cf =

1.5

Cf from Figure 6(22

For Eave, Curtain and Gable End from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 20:
Area

s/h

B/s

Eave

1.08

46.00

0.02

58.00

53.54

Gable End

4.50

50.50

0.09

76.00

16.89

Curtain

30.00

30.00

1.00

24.00

0.80

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 44 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V=90 mph 45 Degree Eave (Case c)


Per ASCE 7 05 Code
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Speed, V =

90

mph

Class., Occ. Category =

III

(Table 1(1)

If z < 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/)

Exposure Category =

(Sect. 6.5.6)

If z >= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/)

(Sect. 6.5.7)

9.50

Height of Structure, h =

50.50

ft.

zg =

900

(Table 6(2)

L=

75.00

ft.

1.15

(Table 6(1)

freq., f =

0.952

Hz. (f < 1) Flexible

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

B=

(Table 6(2)

58.00

ft.

0.010

Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFRS system

Direct. Factor, Kd =

0.85

(Table 6(4)

Hurricane Region?

Damping Ratio,

G=

1.018 (Gust Factor, Sect. 6.5.8)


Note: Use force coefficients, Cf,

Velocity Pressure (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15):


qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I

from Figures 6(20 and 6(22.

Net Design Wind Pressures (Sect. 6.5.15):


p = qz*G*Cf (psf), where 'qz' is evaluated at
height 'z' of the centroid of projected area.
Open Structure Net Design Wind Pressures, p
z

Kz

(ft.)

For z = h:

Cf 0(2s

Cf s(2s

Cf 5s(10s

Cf 10s<

qz

qz*G

3.87

2.55

Cf 2s(3s Cf 3s(4s
1.95

1.85

Cf 4s(5s
1.85

1.10

0.55

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)
9.63

0.85

17.21

17.51

67.78

44.66

34.15

32.40

32.40

19.26

10

0.85

17.21

17.51

67.78

44.66

34.15

32.40

32.40

19.26

9.63

18.6

0.89

18.00

18.32

70.92

46.73

35.73

33.90

33.90

20.16

10.08

25

0.95

19.16

19.50

75.47

49.73

38.03

36.08

36.08

21.45

10.73

30

0.98

19.91

20.26

78.42

51.67

39.52

37.49

37.49

22.29

11.15

36.5

1.02

20.75

21.12

81.73

53.85

41.18

39.07

39.07

23.23

11.62

40

1.04

21.15

21.53

83.32

54.90

41.98

39.83

39.83

23.68

11.84

46

1.07

21.78

22.17

85.81

56.54

43.24

41.02

41.02

24.39

12.19

50

1.09

22.17

22.57

87.33

57.54

44.00

41.75

41.75

24.82

12.41

50.5

1.10

22.22

22.61

87.51

57.66

44.09

41.83

41.83

24.87

12.44

For Eave, Curtain and Gable End from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 20:
Area

s/h

B/s

Eave

1.08

46.00

0.02

58.00

53.54

Gable End

4.50

50.50

0.09

76.00

16.89

Curtain

30.00

30.00

1.00

24.00

0.80

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 45 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V=90 mph 45 Degree Gable end assuming solid sign behavior


Per ASCE 7 05 Code
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Speed, V =

90

mph

Class., Occ. Category =

III

(Table 1(1)

If z < 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/)

Exposure Category =

(Sect. 6.5.6)

If z >= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/)

(Sect. 6.5.7)

9.50

Height of Structure, h =

50.50

ft.

zg =

900

(Table 6(2)

L=

58.00

ft.

1.15

(Table 6(1)

freq., f =

0.952

Hz. (f < 1) Flexible

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

B=

(Table 6(2)

75.00

ft.

0.010

Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFRS system

Direct. Factor, Kd =

0.85

(Table 6(4)

Hurricane Region?

Damping Ratio,

G=

1.044 (Gust Factor, Sect. 6.5.8)


Note: Use force coefficients, Cf,

Velocity Pressure (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15):


qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I

from Figures 6(20 and 6(22.

Net Design Wind Pressures (Sect. 6.5.15):


p = qz*G*Cf (psf), where 'qz' is evaluated at
height 'z' of the centroid of projected area.
Open Structure Net Design Wind Pressures, p
z

Kz

(ft.)

For z = h:

Cf 0(2s

Cf s(2s

Cf 5s(10s

Cf 10s<

qz

qz*G

3.63

2.59

Cf 2s(3s Cf 3s(4s
1.99

1.54

Cf 4s(5s
1.41

0.92

0.55

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)
9.88

0.85

17.21

17.97

65.23

46.54

35.76

27.67

25.34

16.53

10

0.85

17.21

17.97

65.23

46.54

35.76

27.67

25.34

16.53

9.88

18.6

0.89

18.00

18.80

68.25

48.70

37.42

28.96

26.51

17.30

10.34

25

0.95

19.16

20.01

72.64

51.83

39.82

30.82

28.21

18.41

11.01

30

0.98

19.91

20.79

75.48

53.85

41.38

32.02

29.32

19.13

11.44

36.5

1.02

20.75

21.67

78.66

56.12

43.12

33.37

30.55

19.94

11.92
12.15

40

1.04

21.15

22.09

80.19

57.22

43.96

34.02

31.15

20.32

46

1.07

21.78

22.75

82.59

58.92

45.27

35.04

32.08

20.93

12.51

50

1.09

22.17

23.15

84.05

59.97

46.08

35.66

32.65

21.30

12.73

50.5

1.10

22.22

23.20

84.22

60.09

46.17

35.73

32.72

21.35

12.76

For Eave, Curtain and Gable End from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 20:
Area

s/h

B/s

Eave

1.08

46.00

0.02

58.00

53.54

Gable End

4.50

50.50

0.09

76.00

16.89

Curtain

30.00

30.00

1.00

24.00

0.80

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 46 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V= 68 mph Wind Loading Analysis MWFRS W E


Per ASCE 7 05 Open buildings (52 mph Case for Wind Pressure Figures)
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Direction =

Normal

Wind Speed, V =

68

mph (RWDI Meteorological Wind Report)

Bldg. Classification =

III

(Table 1(1 Occupancy Cat.)

Exposure Category =

(Sect. 6.5.6)

Ridge Height, hr =

55.00

ft. (hr >= he)

Eave Height, he =

46.00

ft. (he <= hr)

B=

58.00

ft.

L=

75.00

ft.

Roof Type =

Gable

(Gable or Monoslope)

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

1.00

Direct. Factor, Kd =

0.85

Enclosed? (Y/N)

Hurricane Region?

Damping Ratio, =

0.010

(Normal or Parallel to building ridge)

o
hr

h
he

(Sect. 6.5.7 & Figure 6(4) Forensic Case Factor Set 1.0
(Table 6(4) Forensic Case Factor Set 1.0

L = 58 ft.
B = 75 ft.

(Sect. 6.2 & Figure 6(5)


Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFRS system

Open Structure

Figure 6(18B
Roof Angle, =

13.32

deg.

Mean Roof Ht., h =

50.50

ft. (h = (hr+he)/2, for roof angle >10 deg.)

Windward Roof Cn =

1.10

Case A

Clear Wind Flow

Windward Roof Cn =

0.12

Case B

Clear Wind Flow

Leeward Roof Cn =

(0.38

Case A

Clear Wind Flow

Leeward Roof Cn =

(1.12

Case B

Clear Wind Flow

If z <= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/) , If z > 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/) (Table 6(3, Case 2a)
=

9.50

zg =

Kh =
I=

1.10

(Kh = Kz evaluated at z = h)

1.15

(Table 6(1)

900

(Table 6(2)

(Importance factor set 1.0 for forensic wind load case)

Velocity Pressure: qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15)


qh = 0.00256*Kh*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I (qz evaluated at z = h)
qh =
12.68
psf
Ratio h/L =

0.871

Gust Factor, G =

0.954

freq., f =
(Sect. 6.5.8)

0.667

hz.

(f < 1, Flexible structure)

Normal to Ridge Wind Load for MWFRS


Case

Kz

(ft.)

qz

Cn

p = Net Design Press. (psf)

(psf)

Roof (windward) Case A

1.10

13.31

Roof (windward) Case B

0.12

1.45

13.31
1.45

Roof (leeward) Case A

(0.38

(4.60

(4.60

Roof (leeward) Case B

(1.12

(13.55

(13.55

Note: 1. (+) and (() signs indicated wind pressures acting toward & away from respective surfaces.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 47 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Gust Effect Factor, G:


Building Flexible

Yes

f < 1 Hz.

Parameters from Table 6(2:


a^ =

0.105

b^ =
(bar) =

0.154

b(bar) =

0.65

c=
l=

0.20

(bar) =

0.200

z(min) =

15

1.00

500

ft.
ft.

Parameters for Flexible Building Gust:


z(bar) =

30.30

= 0.6*h , but not < z(min) , ft.

Iz(bar) =

0.203

Lz(bar) =

491.54

= c*(33/z(bar))^(1/6) , Eq. 6(5


= l*(z(bar)/33)^((bar)) , Eq. 6(7

gq =

3.4

(3.4, per Sect. 6.5.8.1)

gv =

3.4

(3.4, per Sect. 6.5.8.1)

gr =

4.092

= (2*(LN(3600*f)))^(1/2)+0.577/(2*LN(3600*f))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(9

Q=

0.889

= (1/(1+0.63*((B+h)/Lz(bar))^0.63))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(6

Gf for Flexible Building


=

0.010

Damping Ratio

T=

1.500

SAP Analysis

f=

0.667

= 1/T , Hz. (Natural Frequency)

V(fps) =

99.73

V(bar,zbar) =

63.98

= V(mph)*(88/60) , ft./sec.
= b(bar)*(z(bar)/33)^((bar))*V*(88/60) , ft./sec. , Eq. 6(14

N1 =

5.122

= f*Lz(bar)/(V(bar,zbar)) , Eq. 6(12

Rn =

0.050

= 7.47*N1/(1+10.3*N1)^(5/3) , Eq. 6(11

h =

2.421

Rh =

0.328

= 4.6*f*h/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/h)(1/(2*h^2)*(1(e^((2*h)) for h>0, or = 1 for h=0 ,Eq. 6(13a,b

b =

3.595

RB =
d =

0.240
9.307

RL =

0.102

= 15.4*f*L/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/d)(1/(2*d^2)*(1(e^((2*d)) for d>0, or = 1 for d=0 ,Eq. 6(13a,b

= 4.6*f*B/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/b)(1/(2*b^2)*(1(e^((2*b)) for b>0, or = 1 for b=0,Eq. 6(13a,b

R=

0.477

= ((1/)*Rn*Rh*RB*(0.53+0.47*RL))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(10

Gf =

0.954

= 0.925*(1+1.7*Iz(bar)*(gq^2*Q^2+gr^2*R^2)^(1/2))/(1+1.7*gv*Iz(bar)) ,Eq. 6(8

Use: G =

0.954

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 48 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V=68 mph Wind Load Analysis

MWFRS N S

Per ASCE 7 05 Open buildings (52 mph Case for Wind Pressure Figures)
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Direction =

Parallel

Wind Speed, V =

68

mph (RWDI Meteorological Wind Report)

Bldg. Classification =

III

(Table 1(1 Occupancy Cat.)

Exposure Category =

(Normal or Parallel to building ridge)

(Sect. 6.5.6)

Ridge Height, hr =

55.00

ft. (hr >= he)

Eave Height, he =

46.00

ft. (he <= hr)

B=

58.00

ft.

L=

75.00

ft.

Roof Type =

Gable

(Gable or Monoslope)

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

1.00

Direct. Factor, Kd =

0.85

Enclosed? (Y/N)

Hurricane Region?

Damping Ratio,

0.010

hr

h
he

(Sect. 6.5.7 & Figure 6(4) Forensic Case Factor Set 1.0
(Table 6(4) Forensic Case Factor Set 1.0

L = 75 ft.
B = 58 ft.

(Sect. 6.2 & Figure 6(5)


Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFRS system

Open Structure

Figure 6(18D
Roof Angle, =

13.32

deg.

Mean Roof Ht., h =

50.50

ft. (h = (hr+he)/2, for roof angle >10 deg.)

Roof Cn case A h>

(1.20

0.00

Case A

Obstructed Wind Flow

Roof Cn Case B <h =

0.50

0.00

Case B

Obstructed Wind Flow

Roof Cn Case B >h =

0.50

0.00

Case A

Obstructed Wind Flow

Roof Cn Case A h< =

(0.90

0.00

Case B

Obstructed Wind Flow

If z <= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/) , If z > 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/) (Table 6(3, Case 2a)
=

9.50

zg =

Kh =
I=

1.10

(Kh = Kz evaluated at z = h)

1.15

(Table 6(1)

900

(Table 6(2)

(Importance factor set 1.0 for forensic wind load case)

Velocity Pressure: qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15)


qh = 0.00256*Kh*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I (qz evaluated at z = h)
qh =
12.68
psf
Ratio h/L =

0.673

Gust Factor, G =

0.973

freq., f =

0.667

hz.

(f < 1, Flexible structure)

(Sect. 6.5.8)
Parallel to Ridge Wind Load for MWFRS

Case

Kz

(ft.)

qz

Cn

p = Net Design Press. (psf)

(psf)

Roof (<h) Case A

(1.20

(14.81

(14.81

Roof (h<) Case A

(0.90

(11.11

(11.11

Roof Case B <h

0.50

6.17

6.17

Roof (h>) Case B

0.50

6.17

6.17

Note: 1. (+) and (() indicates wind pressures acting toward & away from surfaces.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 49 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Gust Effect Factor, G:


Building Flexible

Yes

f < 1 Hz.

Parameters from Table 6(2:


a^ =

0.105

b^ =
(bar) =

0.154

b(bar) =

0.65

c=
l=

0.20

(bar) =

0.200

z(min) =

15

1.00

500

ft.
ft.

Parameters for Flexible Building Gust:


z(bar) =

30.30

= 0.6*h , but not < z(min) , ft.

Iz(bar) =

0.203

Lz(bar) =

491.54

= c*(33/z(bar))^(1/6) , Eq. 6(5


= l*(z(bar)/33)^((bar)) , Eq. 6(7

gq =

3.4

(3.4, per Sect. 6.5.8.1)

gv =

3.4

(3.4, per Sect. 6.5.8.1)

gr =

4.092

= (2*(LN(3600*f)))^(1/2)+0.577/(2*LN(3600*f))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(9

Q=

0.897

= (1/(1+0.63*((B+h)/Lz(bar))^0.63))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(6

Gf for Flexible Building


=

0.010

Damping Ratio

T=

1.500

SAP Analysis

f=

0.667

= 1/T , Hz. (Natural Frequency)

V(fps) =

99.73

V(bar,zbar) =

63.98

= V(mph)*(88/60) , ft./sec.
= b(bar)*(z(bar)/33)^((bar))*V*(88/60) , ft./sec. , Eq. 6(14

N1 =

5.122

= f*Lz(bar)/(V(bar,zbar)) , Eq. 6(12

Rn =

0.050

= 7.47*N1/(1+10.3*N1)^(5/3) , Eq. 6(11

h =

2.421

Rh =

0.328

= 4.6*f*h/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/h)(1/(2*h^2)*(1(e^((2*h)) for h>0, or = 1 for h=0 ,Eq. 6(13a,b

b =

2.780

RB =
d =

0.295
12.035

RL =

0.080

= 15.4*f*L/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/d)(1/(2*d^2)*(1(e^((2*d)) for d>0, or = 1 for d=0 ,Eq. 6(13a,b

= 4.6*f*B/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/b)(1/(2*b^2)*(1(e^((2*b)) for b>0, or = 1 for b=0,Eq. 6(13a,b

R=

0.524

= ((1/)*Rn*Rh*RB*(0.53+0.47*RL))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(10

Gf =

0.973

= 0.925*(1+1.7*Iz(bar)*(gq^2*Q^2+gr^2*R^2)^(1/2))/(1+1.7*gv*Iz(bar)) ,Eq. 6(8

Use: G =

0.973

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 50 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V= 68 mph WIND LOADING ANALYSIS Lattice and Misc. Components W E


Per ASCE 7 05 Open buildings (See 52 mph Case for Wind Pressure Figures)
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Speed, V =

68

mph

Class., Occ. Category =

III

(Table 1(1)

If z < 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/)

(Sect. 6.5.6)

If z >= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/)

Exposure Category =

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

9.50

(Table 6(2)

zg =
I=

900

(Table 6(2)

1.15

(Table 6(1)

(Sect. 6.5.7)

Height of Structure, h =

50.50

ft.

L=

75.00

ft.

B=
Damping Ratio, =

58.00

ft.

0.010

Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFRS system

Direct. Factor, Kd =

0.85

(Table 6(4)

Hurricane Region?

freq., f = set = 1.0 for forensic wind case


G=

Velocity Pressure (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15):


qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I

0.954
(Gust Factor, Sect. 6.5.8)
Note: Use force coefficients, Cf,
from Figures 6(20 and 6(22.

Net Design Wind Pressures (Sect. 6.5.15):


p = qz*G*Cf (psf), where 'qz' is evaluated at
height 'z' of the centroid of projected area.
Open Structure Net Design Wind Pressures, p
z
(ft.)

For z = h:

Cf, Col.

Cf, Eave

qz

qz*G

1.50

1.95

1.49

1.88

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

Kz

Cf, Curtain Cf, Gable EndCf, Rafter


1.50

0.85

9.82

9.37

14.05

18.27

13.96

17.61

14.05

10

0.85

9.82

9.37

14.05

18.27

13.96

17.61

14.05

20

0.90

10.44

9.95

14.93

19.41

14.83

18.71

14.93

25

0.95

10.94

10.43

15.65

20.34

15.54

19.61

15.65

30

0.98

11.37

10.84

16.26

21.14

16.15

20.38

16.26

35

1.01

11.74

11.20

16.80

21.84

16.68

21.05

16.80

40

1.04

12.08

11.52

17.28

22.46

17.16

21.65

17.28

46

1.07

12.44

11.86

17.79

23.13

17.67

22.30

17.79

50

1.09

12.66

12.07

18.11

23.54

17.99

22.69

18.11

50.5

1.10

12.68

12.10

18.14

23.59

18.02

22.74

18.14

For Rounded Members (Column and Rafters) from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 22:
D=

0.167

ft.

qz =

17.28

psf

Solid Area =

5.97

ft.^2

Gross Area =

12.50

Solidity Ratio, e =

0.478

ft.^2
= Solid Area/Gross Area

D*(qz)^(1/2) =

0.69
Cf for D*(qz)^(1/2) <= 2.5

Cf =

1.5

Cf =

N.A.

Cf for D*(qz)^(1/2) > 2.5

Use: Cf =

1.5

Cf from Figure 6(22

For Eave, Curtain and Gable End from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 20:
Area

s/h

B/s

Eave

1.08

46.00

0.02

58.00

53.54

Gable End

4.50

50.50

0.09

76.00

16.89

Curtain

30.00

30.00

1.00

24.00

0.80

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 51 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V= 68 mph WIND LOADING ANALYSIS Lattice and Misc. Components N S


Per ASCE 7 05 Open buildings (See 52 mph Case for Wind Pressure Figures)
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Speed, V =

68

mph

Class., Occ. Category =

III

(Table 1(1)

If z < 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/)

(Sect. 6.5.6)

If z >= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/)

Exposure Category =

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

9.50

(Table 6(2)

zg =
I=

900

(Table 6(2)

1.15

(Table 6(1)

(Sect. 6.5.7)

Height of Structure, h =

50.50

ft.

L=

58.00

ft.

B=
Damping Ratio, =

75.00

ft.

0.010

Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFR system

Direct. Factor, Kd =

0.85

(Table 6(4)

Hurricane Region?

freq., f = set = 1.0 for forensic wind case


G=

0.973
(Gust Factor, Sect. 6.5.8)
Note: Use force coefficients, Cf,

Velocity Pressure (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15):


qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I

from Figures 6(20 and 6(22.

Net Design Wind Pressures (Sect. 6.5.15):


p = qz*G*Cf (psf), where 'qz' is evaluated at
height 'z' of the centroid of projected area.
Open Structure Net Design Wind Pressures, p
z
(ft.)

For z = h:

Cf, Col.

Cf, Eave

qz

qz*G

1.50

1.95

1.49

1.88

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

Kz

Cf, Curtain Cf, Gable End


Cf, Rafter
1.50

0.85

9.82

9.56

14.34

18.64

14.24

17.97

14.34

10

0.85

9.82

9.56

14.34

18.64

14.24

17.97

14.34

20

0.90

10.44

10.16

15.24

19.81

15.13

19.09

15.24

25

0.95

10.94

10.65

15.97

20.76

15.86

20.01

15.97

30

0.98

11.37

11.06

16.59

21.57

16.48

20.80

16.59

35

1.01

11.74

11.43

17.14

22.28

17.03

21.48

17.14

40

1.04

12.08

11.75

17.63

22.92

17.51

22.09

17.63

46

1.07

12.44

12.10

18.15

23.60

18.03

22.75

18.15

50

1.09

12.66

12.32

18.48

24.02

18.35

23.16

18.48

50.5

1.10

12.68

12.34

18.52

24.07

18.39

23.21

18.52

For Rounded Members (Column and Rafters) from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 22:
D=

0.167

qz =

17.63

psf

Solid Area =

5.97

ft.^2
ft.^2
= Solid Area/Gross Area

Gross Area =

12.50

Solidity Ratio, e =

0.478

D*(qz)^(1/2) =

0.69

ft.

Cf for D*(qz)^(1/2) <= 2.5

Cf =

1.5

Cf =

N.A.

Cf for D*(qz)^(1/2) > 2.5

Use: Cf =

1.5

Cf from Figure 6(22

For Eave, Curtain and Gable End from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 20:
Area

s/h

B/s

Eave

1.08

46.00

0.02

58.00

53.54

Gable End

4.50

50.50

0.09

76.00

16.89

Curtain

30.00

30.00

1.00

24.00

0.80

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 52 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V=68 mph 45 Degree Eave (Case c)


Per ASCE 7 05 Open buildings
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Speed, V =

68

mph

Class., Occ. Category =

III

(Table 1(1)

If z < 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/)

Exposure Category =

(Sect. 6.5.6)

If z >= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/)

(Sect. 6.5.7)

9.50

Height of Structure, h =

50.50

ft.

zg =

900

(Table 6(2)

L=

75.00

ft.

1.15

(Table 6(1)

freq., f =

0.952

Hz. (f < 1) Flexible

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

B=

(Table 6(2)

58.00

ft.

0.010

Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFRS system

Direct. Factor, Kd =

0.85

(Table 6(4)

Hurricane Region?

Damping Ratio,

G=

0.954 (Gust Factor, Sect. 6.5.8)


Note: Use force coefficients, Cf,

Velocity Pressure (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15):


qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I

from Figures 6(20 and 6(22.

Net Design Wind Pressures (Sect. 6.5.15):


p = qz*G*Cf (psf), where 'qz' is evaluated at
height 'z' of the centroid of projected area.
Open Structure Net Design Wind Pressures, p
z

Kz

(ft.)

For z = h:

Cf 0(2s

Cf s(2s

Cf 5s(10s

Cf 10s<

qz

qz*G

3.87

2.55

Cf 2s(3s Cf 3s(4s
1.95

1.85

Cf 4s(5s
1.85

1.10

0.55

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)
5.15

0.85

9.82

9.37

36.26

23.89

18.27

17.33

17.33

10.31

10

0.85

9.82

9.37

36.26

23.89

18.27

17.33

17.33

10.31

5.15

18.6

0.89

10.28

9.80

37.93

25.00

19.11

18.13

18.13

10.78

5.39

25

0.95

10.94

10.43

40.37

26.60

20.34

19.30

19.30

11.48

5.74

30

0.98

11.37

10.84

41.95

27.64

21.14

20.05

20.05

11.92

5.96

36.5

1.02

11.84

11.30

43.72

28.81

22.03

20.90

20.90

12.43

6.21

40

1.04

12.08

11.52

44.57

29.37

22.46

21.31

21.31

12.67

6.33

46

1.07

12.44

11.86

45.90

30.25

23.13

21.94

21.94

13.05

6.52

50

1.09

12.66

12.07

46.71

30.78

23.54

22.33

22.33

13.28

6.64

50.5

1.10

12.68

12.10

46.81

30.85

23.59

22.38

22.38

13.31

6.65

For Eave, Curtain and Gable End from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 20:
Area

s/h

B/s

Eave

1.08

46.00

0.02

58.00

53.54

Gable End

4.50

50.50

0.09

76.00

16.89

Curtain

30.00

30.00

1.00

24.00

0.80

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 53 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V=68 mph 45 Degree Gable end assuming solid sign behavior


Per ASCE 7 05 Code
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Speed, V =

68

mph

Class., Occ. Category =

III

(Table 1(1)

If z < 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/)

Exposure Category =

(Sect. 6.5.6)

If z >= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/)

(Sect. 6.5.7)

9.50

Height of Structure, h =

50.50

ft.

zg =

900

(Table 6(2)

L=

75.00

ft.

1.15

(Table 6(1)

freq., f =

0.952

Hz. (f < 1) Flexible

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

B=

(Table 6(2)

58.00

ft.

0.010

Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFRS system

Direct. Factor, Kd =

0.85

(Table 6(4)

Hurricane Region?

Damping Ratio,

G=

0.973 (Gust Factor, Sect. 6.5.8)


Note: Use force coefficients, Cf,

Velocity Pressure (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15):


qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I

from Figures 6(20 and 6(22.

Net Design Wind Pressures (Sect. 6.5.15):


p = qz*G*Cf (psf), where 'qz' is evaluated at
height 'z' of the centroid of projected area.
Open Structure Net Design Wind Pressures, p
z

Kz

(ft.)

For z = h:

Cf 0(2s

Cf s(2s

Cf 5s(10s

Cf 10s<

qz

qz*G

3.63

2.59

Cf 2s(3s Cf 3s(4s
1.99

1.54

Cf 4s(5s
1.41

0.92

0.55

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)
5.26

0.85

9.82

9.56

34.70

24.76

19.02

14.72

13.48

8.80

10

0.85

9.82

9.56

34.70

24.76

19.02

14.72

13.48

8.80

5.26

18.6

0.89

10.28

10.00

36.31

25.91

19.91

15.40

14.10

9.20

5.50

25

0.95

10.94

10.65

38.64

27.57

21.18

16.39

15.01

9.79

5.85

30

0.98

11.37

11.06

40.15

28.65

22.01

17.04

15.60

10.18

6.08

36.5

1.02

11.84

11.53

41.85

29.86

22.94

17.75

16.25

10.61

6.34
6.46

40

1.04

12.08

11.75

42.66

30.44

23.39

18.10

16.57

10.81

46

1.07

12.44

12.10

43.94

31.35

24.09

18.64

17.07

11.14

6.66

50

1.09

12.66

12.32

44.71

31.90

24.51

18.97

17.37

11.33

6.77

50.5

1.10

12.68

12.34

44.81

31.97

24.56

19.01

17.40

11.36

6.79

For Eave, Curtain and Gable End from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 20:
Area

s/h

B/s

Eave

1.08

46.00

0.02

58.00

53.54

Gable End

4.50

50.50

0.09

76.00

16.89

Curtain

30.00

30.00

1.00

24.00

0.80

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 54 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V= 40 mph Wind Loading Analysis MWFRS W E


Per ASCE 7 05 Open buildings (See 52 mph Case for Wind Pressure Figures)
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Direction =

Normal

Wind Speed, V =

40

mph (RWDI Meteorological Wind Report)

Bldg. Classification =

III

(Table 1(1 Occupancy Cat.)

Exposure Category =

(Sect. 6.5.6)

Ridge Height, hr =

55.00

ft. (hr >= he)

Eave Height, he =

46.00

ft. (he <= hr)

B=

58.00

ft.

L=

75.00

ft.

Roof Type =

Gable

(Gable or Monoslope)

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

1.00

Direct. Factor, Kd =

0.85

Enclosed? (Y/N)

Hurricane Region?

Damping Ratio, =

0.010

(Normal or Parallel to building ridge)

o
hr

h
he

(Sect. 6.5.7 & Figure 6(4) Forensic Case Factor Set 1.0
(Table 6(4) Forensic Case Factor Set 1.0

L = 58 ft.
B = 75 ft.

(Sect. 6.2 & Figure 6(5)


Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFRS system

Open Structure

Figure 6(18B
Roof Angle, =

13.32

deg.

Mean Roof Ht., h =

50.50

ft. (h = (hr+he)/2, for roof angle >10 deg.)

Windward Roof Cn =

1.10

Case A

Clear Wind Flow

Windward Roof Cn =

0.12

Case B

Clear Wind Flow

Leeward Roof Cn =

(0.38

Case A

Clear Wind Flow

Leeward Roof Cn =

(1.12

Case B

Clear Wind Flow

If z <= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/) , If z > 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/) (Table 6(3, Case 2a)
=

9.50

zg =

Kh =
I=

1.10

(Kh = Kz evaluated at z = h)

1.15

(Table 6(1)

900

(Table 6(2)

(Importance factor set 1.0 for forensic wind load case)

Velocity Pressure: qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15)


qh = 0.00256*Kh*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I (qz evaluated at z = h)
qh =
4.39
psf
Ratio h/L =

0.871

Gust Factor, G =

0.895

freq., f =
(Sect. 6.5.8)

0.667

hz.

(f < 1, Flexible structure)

Normal to Ridge Wind Load for MWFRS


Case

Kz

(ft.)

qz

Cn

p = Net Design Press. (psf)

(psf)

Roof (windward) Case A

1.10

4.32

Roof (windward) Case B

0.12

0.47

4.32
0.47

Roof (leeward) Case A

(0.38

(1.49

(1.49

Roof (leeward) Case B

(1.12

(4.40

(4.40

Note: 1. (+) and (() signs indicated wind pressures acting toward & away from respective surfaces.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 55 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Gust Effect Factor, G:


Building Flexible

Yes

f < 1 Hz.

Parameters from Table 6(2:


a^ =

0.105

b^ =
(bar) =

0.154

b(bar) =

0.65

c=
l=

0.20

(bar) =

0.200

z(min) =

15

1.00

500

ft.
ft.

Parameters for Flexible Building Gust:


z(bar) =

30.30

= 0.6*h , but not < z(min) , ft.

Iz(bar) =

0.203

Lz(bar) =

491.54

= c*(33/z(bar))^(1/6) , Eq. 6(5


= l*(z(bar)/33)^((bar)) , Eq. 6(7

gq =

3.4

(3.4, per Sect. 6.5.8.1)

gv =

3.4

(3.4, per Sect. 6.5.8.1)

gr =

4.092

= (2*(LN(3600*f)))^(1/2)+0.577/(2*LN(3600*f))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(9

Q=

0.889

= (1/(1+0.63*((B+h)/Lz(bar))^0.63))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(6

Gf for Flexible Building


=

0.010

Damping Ratio

T=

1.500

SAP Analysis

f=

0.667

= 1/T , Hz. (Natural Frequency)

V(fps) =

58.67

V(bar,zbar) =

37.64

= V(mph)*(88/60) , ft./sec.
= b(bar)*(z(bar)/33)^((bar))*V*(88/60) , ft./sec. , Eq. 6(14

N1 =

8.707

= f*Lz(bar)/(V(bar,zbar)) , Eq. 6(12

Rn =

0.036

= 7.47*N1/(1+10.3*N1)^(5/3) , Eq. 6(11

h =

4.115

Rh =

0.213

= 4.6*f*h/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/h)(1/(2*h^2)*(1(e^((2*h)) for h>0, or = 1 for h=0 ,Eq. 6(13a,b

b =

6.111

RB =
d =

0.150
15.822

RL =

0.061

= 15.4*f*L/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/d)(1/(2*d^2)*(1(e^((2*d)) for d>0, or = 1 for d=0 ,Eq. 6(13a,b

= 4.6*f*B/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/b)(1/(2*b^2)*(1(e^((2*b)) for b>0, or = 1 for b=0,Eq. 6(13a,b

R=

0.252

= ((1/)*Rn*Rh*RB*(0.53+0.47*RL))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(10

Gf =

0.895

= 0.925*(1+1.7*Iz(bar)*(gq^2*Q^2+gr^2*R^2)^(1/2))/(1+1.7*gv*Iz(bar)) ,Eq. 6(8

Use: G =

0.895

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 56 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V=40 mph Wind Load Analysis

MWFRS N S

Per ASCE 7 05 Open buildings (See 52 mph Case for Wind Pressure Figures)
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Direction =

Parallel

Wind Speed, V =

40

mph (RWDI Meteorological Wind Report)

Bldg. Classification =

III

(Table 1(1 Occupancy Cat.)

Exposure Category =

(Normal or Parallel to building ridge)

(Sect. 6.5.6)

Ridge Height, hr =

55.00

ft. (hr >= he)

Eave Height, he =

46.00

ft. (he <= hr)

B=

58.00

ft.

L=

75.00

ft.

Roof Type =

Gable

(Gable or Monoslope)

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

1.00

Direct. Factor, Kd =

0.85

Enclosed? (Y/N)

Hurricane Region?

Damping Ratio,

0.010

hr

h
he

(Sect. 6.5.7 & Figure 6(4) Forensic Case Factor Set 1.0
(Table 6(4) Forensic Case Factor Set 1.0

L = 75 ft.
B = 58 ft.

(Sect. 6.2 & Figure 6(5)


Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFRS system

Open Structure

Figure 6(18D
Roof Angle, =

13.32

deg.

Mean Roof Ht., h =

50.50

ft. (h = (hr+he)/2, for roof angle >10 deg.)

Roof Cn case A h>

(1.20

0.00

Case A

Obstructed Wind Flow

Roof Cn Case B <h =

0.50

0.00

Case B

Obstructed Wind Flow

Roof Cn Case B >h =

0.50

0.00

Case A

Obstructed Wind Flow

Roof Cn Case A h< =

(0.90

0.00

Case B

Obstructed Wind Flow

If z <= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/) , If z > 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/) (Table 6(3, Case 2a)
=

9.50

zg =

Kh =
I=

1.10

(Kh = Kz evaluated at z = h)

1.15

(Table 6(1)

900

(Table 6(2)

(Importance factor set 1.0 for forensic wind load case)

Velocity Pressure: qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15)


qh = 0.00256*Kh*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I (qz evaluated at z = h)
qh =
4.39
psf
Ratio h/L =

0.673

Gust Factor, G =

0.904

freq., f =

0.667

hz.

(f < 1, Flexible structure)

(Sect. 6.5.8)
Parallel to Ridge Wind Load for MWFRS

Case

Kz

(ft.)

qz

Cn

p = Net Design Press. (psf)

(psf)

Roof (<h) Case A

(1.20

(4.76

(4.76

Roof (h<) Case A

(0.90

(3.57

(3.57

Roof Case B <h

0.50

1.98

1.98

Roof (h>) Case B

0.50

1.98

1.98

Note: 1. (+) and (() indicates wind pressures acting toward & away from surfaces.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 57 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Gust Effect Factor, G:


Building Flexible

Yes

f < 1 Hz.

Parameters from Table 6(2:


a^ =

0.105

b^ =
(bar) =

0.154

b(bar) =

0.65

c=
l=

0.20

(bar) =

0.200

z(min) =

15

1.00

500

ft.
ft.

Parameters for Flexible Building Gust:


z(bar) =

30.30

= 0.6*h , but not < z(min) , ft.

Iz(bar) =

0.203

Lz(bar) =

491.54

= c*(33/z(bar))^(1/6) , Eq. 6(5


= l*(z(bar)/33)^((bar)) , Eq. 6(7

gq =

3.4

(3.4, per Sect. 6.5.8.1)

gv =

3.4

(3.4, per Sect. 6.5.8.1)

gr =

4.092

= (2*(LN(3600*f)))^(1/2)+0.577/(2*LN(3600*f))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(9

Q=

0.897

= (1/(1+0.63*((B+h)/Lz(bar))^0.63))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(6

Gf for Flexible Building


=

0.010

Damping Ratio

T=

1.500

SAP Analysis

f=

0.667

= 1/T , Hz. (Natural Frequency)

V(fps) =

58.67

V(bar,zbar) =

37.64

= V(mph)*(88/60) , ft./sec.
= b(bar)*(z(bar)/33)^((bar))*V*(88/60) , ft./sec. , Eq. 6(14

N1 =

8.707

= f*Lz(bar)/(V(bar,zbar)) , Eq. 6(12

Rn =

0.036

= 7.47*N1/(1+10.3*N1)^(5/3) , Eq. 6(11

h =

4.115

Rh =

0.213

= 4.6*f*h/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/h)(1/(2*h^2)*(1(e^((2*h)) for h>0, or = 1 for h=0 ,Eq. 6(13a,b

b =

4.726

RB =
d =

0.189
20.459

RL =

0.048

= 15.4*f*L/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/d)(1/(2*d^2)*(1(e^((2*d)) for d>0, or = 1 for d=0 ,Eq. 6(13a,b

= 4.6*f*B/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/b)(1/(2*b^2)*(1(e^((2*b)) for b>0, or = 1 for b=0,Eq. 6(13a,b

R=

0.282

= ((1/)*Rn*Rh*RB*(0.53+0.47*RL))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(10

Gf =

0.904

= 0.925*(1+1.7*Iz(bar)*(gq^2*Q^2+gr^2*R^2)^(1/2))/(1+1.7*gv*Iz(bar)) ,Eq. 6(8

Use: G =

0.904

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 58 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V= 40 mph WIND LOADING ANALYSIS Lattice and Misc. Components W E


Per ASCE 7 05 Open buildings (See 52 mph Case for Wind Pressure Figures)
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Speed, V =

40

mph

Class., Occ. Category =

III

(Table 1(1)

If z < 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/)

(Sect. 6.5.6)

If z >= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/)

Exposure Category =

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

9.50

(Table 6(2)

zg =
I=

900

(Table 6(2)

1.15

(Table 6(1)

(Sect. 6.5.7)

Height of Structure, h =

50.50

ft.

L=

75.00

ft.

B=
Damping Ratio, =

58.00

ft.

0.010

Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFRS system

Direct. Factor, Kd =

0.85

(Table 6(4)

Hurricane Region?

freq., f = set = 1.0 for forensic wind case


G=

Velocity Pressure (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15):


qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I

0.895
(Gust Factor, Sect. 6.5.8)
Note: Use force coefficients, Cf,
from Figures 6(20 and 6(22.

Net Design Wind Pressures (Sect. 6.5.15):


p = qz*G*Cf (psf), where 'qz' is evaluated at
height 'z' of the centroid of projected area.
Open Structure Net Design Wind Pressures, p
z
(ft.)

For z = h:

Cf, Col.

Cf, Eave

qz

qz*G

1.50

1.95

1.49

1.88

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

Kz

Cf, Curtain Cf, Gable EndCf, Rafter


1.50

0.85

3.40

3.04

4.56

5.93

4.53

5.72

4.56

10

0.85

3.40

3.04

4.56

5.93

4.53

5.72

4.56

20

0.90

3.61

3.23

4.85

6.30

4.81

6.07

4.85

25

0.95

3.78

3.39

5.08

6.60

5.04

6.37

5.08

30

0.98

3.93

3.52

5.28

6.86

5.24

6.61

5.28

35

1.01

4.06

3.63

5.45

7.09

5.41

6.83

5.45

40

1.04

4.18

3.74

5.61

7.29

5.57

7.03

5.61

46

1.07

4.30

3.85

5.77

7.51

5.74

7.24

5.77

50

1.09

4.38

3.92

5.88

7.64

5.84

7.37

5.88

50.5

1.10

4.39

3.93

5.89

7.66

5.85

7.38

5.89

For Rounded Members (Column and Rafters) from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 22:
D=

0.167

ft.

qz =

5.61

psf

Solid Area =

5.97

ft.^2

Gross Area =

12.50

Solidity Ratio, e =

0.478

ft.^2
= Solid Area/Gross Area

D*(qz)^(1/2) =

0.39
Cf for D*(qz)^(1/2) <= 2.5

Cf =

1.5

Cf =

N.A.

Cf for D*(qz)^(1/2) > 2.5

Use: Cf =

1.5

Cf from Figure 6(22

For Eave, Curtain and Gable End from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 20:
Area

s/h

B/s

Eave

1.08

46.00

0.02

58.00

53.54

Gable End

4.50

50.50

0.09

76.00

16.89

Curtain

30.00

30.00

1.00

24.00

0.80

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 59 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V= 40 mph WIND LOADING ANALYSIS Lattice and Misc. Components N S


Per ASCE 7 05 Open buildings (See 52 mph Case for Wind Pressure Figures)
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Speed, V =

40

mph

Class., Occ. Category =

III

(Table 1(1)

If z < 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/)

(Sect. 6.5.6)

If z >= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/)

Exposure Category =

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

9.50

(Table 6(2)

zg =
I=

900

(Table 6(2)

1.15

(Table 6(1)

(Sect. 6.5.7)

Height of Structure, h =

50.50

ft.

L=

58.00

ft.

B=
Damping Ratio, =

75.00

ft.

0.010

Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFR system

Direct. Factor, Kd =

0.85

(Table 6(4)

Hurricane Region?

freq., f = set = 1.0 for forensic wind case


G=

0.904
(Gust Factor, Sect. 6.5.8)
Note: Use force coefficients, Cf,

Velocity Pressure (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15):


qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I

from Figures 6(20 and 6(22.

Net Design Wind Pressures (Sect. 6.5.15):


p = qz*G*Cf (psf), where 'qz' is evaluated at
height 'z' of the centroid of projected area.
Open Structure Net Design Wind Pressures, p
z
(ft.)

For z = h:

Cf, Col.

Cf, Eave

qz

qz*G

1.50

1.95

1.49

1.88

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

Kz

Cf, Curtain Cf, Gable End


Cf, Rafter
1.50

0.85

3.40

3.07

4.61

5.99

4.58

5.78

4.61

10

0.85

3.40

3.07

4.61

5.99

4.58

5.78

4.61

20

0.90

3.61

3.27

4.90

6.37

4.87

6.14

4.90

25

0.95

3.78

3.42

5.13

6.67

5.10

6.44

5.13

30

0.98

3.93

3.56

5.34

6.94

5.30

6.69

5.34

35

1.01

4.06

3.67

5.51

7.16

5.47

6.91

5.51

40

1.04

4.18

3.78

5.67

7.37

5.63

7.10

5.67

46

1.07

4.30

3.89

5.84

7.59

5.80

7.32

5.84

50

1.09

4.38

3.96

5.94

7.72

5.90

7.45

5.94

50.5

1.10

4.39

3.97

5.95

7.74

5.91

7.46

5.95

For Rounded Members (Column and Rafters) from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 22:
D=

0.167

ft.

qz =

5.67

psf

Solid Area =

5.97

ft.^2

Gross Area =

12.50

Solidity Ratio, e =

0.478

ft.^2
= Solid Area/Gross Area

D*(qz)^(1/2) =

0.39
Cf for D*(qz)^(1/2) <= 2.5

Cf =

1.5

Cf =

N.A.

Cf for D*(qz)^(1/2) > 2.5

Use: Cf =

1.5

Cf from Figure 6(22

For Eave, Curtain and Gable End from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 20:
Area

s/h

B/s

Eave

1.08

46.00

0.02

58.00

53.54

Gable End

4.50

50.50

0.09

76.00

16.89

Curtain

30.00

30.00

1.00

24.00

0.80

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 60 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V=40 mph 45 Degree Eave (Case c)


Per ASCE 7 05 Code
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Speed, V =

40

mph

Class., Occ. Category =

III

(Table 1(1)

If z < 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/)

Exposure Category =

(Sect. 6.5.6)

If z >= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/)

(Sect. 6.5.7)

9.50

Height of Structure, h =

50.50

ft.

zg =

900

(Table 6(2)

L=

75.00

ft.

1.15

(Table 6(1)

freq., f =

0.952

Hz. (f < 1) Flexible

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

B=

(Table 6(2)

58.00

ft.

0.010

Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFRS system

Direct. Factor, Kd =

0.85

(Table 6(4)

Hurricane Region?

Damping Ratio,

G=

0.895 (Gust Factor, Sect. 6.5.8)


Note: Use force coefficients, Cf,

Velocity Pressure (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15):


qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I

from Figures 6(20 and 6(22.

Net Design Wind Pressures (Sect. 6.5.15):


p = qz*G*Cf (psf), where 'qz' is evaluated at
height 'z' of the centroid of projected area.
Open Structure Net Design Wind Pressures, p
z

Kz

(ft.)

For z = h:

Cf 0(2s

Cf s(2s

Cf 5s(10s

Cf 10s<

qz

qz*G

3.87

2.55

Cf 2s(3s Cf 3s(4s
1.95

1.85

Cf 4s(5s
1.85

1.10

0.55

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)
1.67

0.85

3.40

3.04

11.77

7.75

5.93

5.62

5.62

3.34

10

0.85

3.40

3.04

11.77

7.75

5.93

5.62

5.62

3.34

1.67

18.6

0.89

3.56

3.18

12.31

8.11

6.20

5.89

5.89

3.50

1.75

25

0.95

3.78

3.39

13.10

8.63

6.60

6.26

6.26

3.72

1.86

30

0.98

3.93

3.52

13.62

8.97

6.86

6.51

6.51

3.87

1.93

36.5

1.02

4.10

3.67

14.19

9.35

7.15

6.78

6.78

4.03

2.02
2.06

40

1.04

4.18

3.74

14.47

9.53

7.29

6.91

6.91

4.11

46

1.07

4.30

3.85

14.90

9.82

7.51

7.12

7.12

4.23

2.12

50

1.09

4.38

3.92

15.16

9.99

7.64

7.25

7.25

4.31

2.15

50.5

1.10

4.39

3.93

15.19

10.01

7.66

7.26

7.26

4.32

2.16

For Eave, Curtain and Gable End from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 20:
Area

s/h

B/s

Eave

1.08

46.00

0.02

58.00

53.54

Gable End

4.50

50.50

0.09

76.00

16.89

Curtain

30.00

30.00

1.00

24.00

0.80

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 61 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V=40 mph 45 Degree Gable end assuming solid sign behavior


Per ASCE 7 05 Code
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Speed, V =

40

mph

Class., Occ. Category =

III

(Table 1(1)

If z < 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/)

Exposure Category =

(Sect. 6.5.6)

If z >= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/)

(Sect. 6.5.7)

9.50

Height of Structure, h =

50.50

ft.

zg =

900

(Table 6(2)

L=

75.00

ft.

1.15

(Table 6(1)

freq., f =

0.952

Hz. (f < 1) Flexible

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

B=

(Table 6(2)

58.00

ft.

0.010

Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFRS system

Direct. Factor, Kd =

0.85

(Table 6(4)

Hurricane Region?

Damping Ratio,

G=

0.904 (Gust Factor, Sect. 6.5.8)


Note: Use force coefficients, Cf,

Velocity Pressure (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15):


qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I

from Figures 6(20 and 6(22.

Net Design Wind Pressures (Sect. 6.5.15):


p = qz*G*Cf (psf), where 'qz' is evaluated at
height 'z' of the centroid of projected area.
Open Structure Net Design Wind Pressures, p
z

Kz

(ft.)

For z = h:

Cf 0(2s

Cf s(2s

Cf 5s(10s

Cf 10s<

qz

qz*G

3.63

2.59

Cf 2s(3s Cf 3s(4s
1.99

1.54

Cf 4s(5s
1.41

0.92

0.55

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)
1.69

0.85

3.40

3.07

11.16

7.96

6.12

4.73

4.33

2.83

10

0.85

3.40

3.07

11.16

7.96

6.12

4.73

4.33

2.83

1.69

18.6

0.89

3.56

3.22

11.68

8.33

6.40

4.95

4.53

2.96

1.77

25

0.95

3.78

3.42

12.43

8.87

6.81

5.27

4.83

3.15

1.88

30

0.98

3.93

3.56

12.91

9.21

7.08

5.48

5.02

3.27

1.96

36.5

1.02

4.10

3.71

13.46

9.60

7.38

5.71

5.23

3.41

2.04
2.08

40

1.04

4.18

3.78

13.72

9.79

7.52

5.82

5.33

3.48

46

1.07

4.30

3.89

14.13

10.08

7.74

5.99

5.49

3.58

2.14

50

1.09

4.38

3.96

14.38

10.26

7.88

6.10

5.58

3.64

2.18

50.5

1.10

4.39

3.97

14.41

10.28

7.90

6.11

5.60

3.65

2.18

For Eave, Curtain and Gable End from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 20:
Area

s/h

B/s

Eave

1.08

46.00

0.02

58.00

53.54

Gable End

4.50

50.50

0.09

76.00

16.89

Curtain

30.00

30.00

1.00

24.00

0.80

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 62 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V= 59 mph Wind Loading Analysis MWFRS W E


Per ASCE 7 05 Open buildings (See 52 mph Case for Wind Pressure Figures)
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Direction =

Normal

Wind Speed, V =

59

mph (RWDI Meteorological Wind Report)

Bldg. Classification =

III

(Table 1(1 Occupancy Cat.)

Exposure Category =

(Sect. 6.5.6)

Ridge Height, hr =

55.00

ft. (hr >= he)

Eave Height, he =

46.00

ft. (he <= hr)

B=

58.00

ft.

L=

75.00

ft.

Roof Type =

Gable

(Gable or Monoslope)

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

1.00

Direct. Factor, Kd =

1.00

Enclosed? (Y/N)

Hurricane Region?

Damping Ratio, =

0.010

(Normal or Parallel to building ridge)

o
hr

h
he

(Sect. 6.5.7 & Figure 6(4) Forensic Case Factor Set 1.0
(Table 6(4) Forensic Case Factor Set 1.0

L = 58 ft.
B = 75 ft.

(Sect. 6.2 & Figure 6(5)


Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFRS system

Open Structure

Figure 6(18B
Roof Angle, =

13.32

deg.

Mean Roof Ht., h =

50.50

ft. (h = (hr+he)/2, for roof angle >10 deg.)

Windward Roof Cn =

1.10

Case A

Clear Wind Flow

Windward Roof Cn =

0.12

Case B

Clear Wind Flow

Leeward Roof Cn =

(0.38

Case A

Clear Wind Flow

Leeward Roof Cn =

(1.12

Case B

Clear Wind Flow

If z <= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/) , If z > 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/) (Table 6(3, Case 2a)
=

9.50

zg =

Kh =
I=

1.10

(Kh = Kz evaluated at z = h)

1.00

(Table 6(1)

900

(Table 6(2)

(Importance factor set 1.0 for forensic wind load case)

Velocity Pressure: qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15)


qh = 0.00256*Kh*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I (qz evaluated at z = h)
qh =
9.77
psf
Ratio h/L =

0.871

Gust Factor, G =

0.931

freq., f =
(Sect. 6.5.8)

0.667

hz.

(f < 1, Flexible structure)

Normal to Ridge Wind Load for MWFRS


Case

Kz

(ft.)

qz

Cn

p = Net Design Press. (psf)

(psf)

Roof (windward) Case A

1.10

10.01

Roof (windward) Case B

0.12

1.09

10.01
1.09

Roof (leeward) Case A

(0.38

(3.46

(3.46

Roof (leeward) Case B

(1.12

(10.19

(10.19

Note: 1. (+) and (() signs indicated wind pressures acting toward & away from respective surfaces.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 63 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Gust Effect Factor, G:


Building Flexible

Yes

f < 1 Hz.

Parameters from Table 6(2:


a^ =

0.105

b^ =
(bar) =

0.154

b(bar) =

0.65

c=
l=

0.20

(bar) =

0.200

z(min) =

15

1.00

500

ft.
ft.

Parameters for Flexible Building Gust:


z(bar) =

30.30

= 0.6*h , but not < z(min) , ft.

Iz(bar) =

0.203

Lz(bar) =

491.54

= c*(33/z(bar))^(1/6) , Eq. 6(5


= l*(z(bar)/33)^((bar)) , Eq. 6(7

gq =

3.4

(3.4, per Sect. 6.5.8.1)

gv =

3.4

(3.4, per Sect. 6.5.8.1)

gr =

4.092

= (2*(LN(3600*f)))^(1/2)+0.577/(2*LN(3600*f))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(9

Q=

0.889

= (1/(1+0.63*((B+h)/Lz(bar))^0.63))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(6

Gf for Flexible Building


=

0.010

Damping Ratio

T=

1.500

SAP Analysis

f=

0.667

= 1/T , Hz. (Natural Frequency)

V(fps) =

86.53

V(bar,zbar) =

55.51

= V(mph)*(88/60) , ft./sec.
= b(bar)*(z(bar)/33)^((bar))*V*(88/60) , ft./sec. , Eq. 6(14

N1 =

5.903

= f*Lz(bar)/(V(bar,zbar)) , Eq. 6(12

Rn =

0.046

= 7.47*N1/(1+10.3*N1)^(5/3) , Eq. 6(11

h =

2.790

Rh =

0.294

= 4.6*f*h/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/h)(1/(2*h^2)*(1(e^((2*h)) for h>0, or = 1 for h=0 ,Eq. 6(13a,b

b =

4.143

RB =
d =

0.212
10.727

RL =

0.089

= 15.4*f*L/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/d)(1/(2*d^2)*(1(e^((2*d)) for d>0, or = 1 for d=0 ,Eq. 6(13a,b

= 4.6*f*B/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/b)(1/(2*b^2)*(1(e^((2*b)) for b>0, or = 1 for b=0,Eq. 6(13a,b

R=

0.404

= ((1/)*Rn*Rh*RB*(0.53+0.47*RL))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(10

Gf =

0.931

= 0.925*(1+1.7*Iz(bar)*(gq^2*Q^2+gr^2*R^2)^(1/2))/(1+1.7*gv*Iz(bar)) ,Eq. 6(8

Use: G =

0.931

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 64 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V=59 mph Wind Load Analysis

MWFRS N S

Per ASCE 7 05 Open buildings (See 52 mph Case for Wind Pressure Figures)
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Direction =

Parallel

Wind Speed, V =

59

mph (RWDI Meteorological Wind Report)

Bldg. Classification =

III

(Table 1(1 Occupancy Cat.)

Exposure Category =

(Normal or Parallel to building ridge)

(Sect. 6.5.6)

Ridge Height, hr =

55.00

ft. (hr >= he)

Eave Height, he =

46.00

ft. (he <= hr)

B=

58.00

ft.

L=

75.00

ft.

Roof Type =

Gable

(Gable or Monoslope)

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

1.00

Direct. Factor, Kd =

1.00

Enclosed? (Y/N)

Hurricane Region?

Damping Ratio,

0.010

hr

h
he

(Sect. 6.5.7 & Figure 6(4) Forensic Case Factor Set 1.0
(Table 6(4) Forensic Case Factor Set 1.0

L = 75 ft.
B = 58 ft.

(Sect. 6.2 & Figure 6(5)


Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFRS system

Open Structure

Figure 6(18D
Roof Angle, =

13.32

deg.

Mean Roof Ht., h =

50.50

ft. (h = (hr+he)/2, for roof angle >10 deg.)

Roof Cn case A h>

(1.20

0.00

Case A

Obstructed Wind Flow

Roof Cn Case B <h =

0.50

0.00

Case B

Obstructed Wind Flow

Roof Cn Case B >h =

0.50

0.00

Case A

Obstructed Wind Flow

Roof Cn Case A h< =

(0.90

0.00

Case B

Obstructed Wind Flow

If z <= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/) , If z > 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/) (Table 6(3, Case 2a)
=

9.50

zg =

Kh =
I=

1.10

(Kh = Kz evaluated at z = h)

1.00

(Table 6(1)

900

(Table 6(2)

(Importance factor set 1.0 for forensic wind load case)

Velocity Pressure: qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15)


qh = 0.00256*Kh*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I (qz evaluated at z = h)
qh =
9.77
psf
Ratio h/L =

0.673

Gust Factor, G =

0.948

freq., f =

0.667

hz.

(f < 1, Flexible structure)

(Sect. 6.5.8)
Parallel to Ridge Wind Load for MWFRS

Case

Kz

(ft.)

qz

Cn

p = Net Design Press. (psf)

(psf)

Roof (<h) Case A

(1.20

(11.11

(11.11

Roof (h<) Case A

(0.90

(8.33

(8.33

Roof Case B <h

0.50

4.63

4.63

Roof (h>) Case B

0.50

4.63

4.63

Note: 1. (+) and (() indicates wind pressures acting toward & away from surfaces.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 65 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Gust Effect Factor, G:


Building Flexible

Yes

f < 1 Hz.

Parameters from Table 6(2:


a^ =

0.105

b^ =
(bar) =

0.154

b(bar) =

0.65

c=
l=

0.20

(bar) =

0.200

z(min) =

15

1.00

500

ft.
ft.

Parameters for Flexible Building Gust:


z(bar) =

30.30

= 0.6*h , but not < z(min) , ft.

Iz(bar) =

0.203

Lz(bar) =

491.54

= c*(33/z(bar))^(1/6) , Eq. 6(5


= l*(z(bar)/33)^((bar)) , Eq. 6(7

gq =

3.4

(3.4, per Sect. 6.5.8.1)

gv =

3.4

(3.4, per Sect. 6.5.8.1)

gr =

4.092

= (2*(LN(3600*f)))^(1/2)+0.577/(2*LN(3600*f))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(9

Q=

0.897

= (1/(1+0.63*((B+h)/Lz(bar))^0.63))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(6

Gf for Flexible Building


=

0.010

Damping Ratio

T=

1.500

SAP Analysis

f=

0.667

= 1/T , Hz. (Natural Frequency)

V(fps) =

86.53

V(bar,zbar) =

55.51

= V(mph)*(88/60) , ft./sec.
= b(bar)*(z(bar)/33)^((bar))*V*(88/60) , ft./sec. , Eq. 6(14

N1 =

5.903

= f*Lz(bar)/(V(bar,zbar)) , Eq. 6(12

Rn =

0.046

= 7.47*N1/(1+10.3*N1)^(5/3) , Eq. 6(11

h =

2.790

Rh =

0.294

= 4.6*f*h/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/h)(1/(2*h^2)*(1(e^((2*h)) for h>0, or = 1 for h=0 ,Eq. 6(13a,b

b =

3.204

RB =
d =

0.263
13.871

RL =

0.069

= 15.4*f*L/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/d)(1/(2*d^2)*(1(e^((2*d)) for d>0, or = 1 for d=0 ,Eq. 6(13a,b

= 4.6*f*B/(V(bar,zbar))
= (1/b)(1/(2*b^2)*(1(e^((2*b)) for b>0, or = 1 for b=0,Eq. 6(13a,b

R=

0.446

= ((1/)*Rn*Rh*RB*(0.53+0.47*RL))^(1/2) , Eq. 6(10

Gf =

0.948

= 0.925*(1+1.7*Iz(bar)*(gq^2*Q^2+gr^2*R^2)^(1/2))/(1+1.7*gv*Iz(bar)) ,Eq. 6(8

Use: G =

0.948

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 66 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V= 59 mph WIND LOADING ANALYSIS Lattice and Misc. Components W E


Per ASCE 7 05 Open buildings (See 52 mph Case for Wind Pressure Figures)
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Speed, V =

59

Class., Occ. Category =

III

(Table 1(1)

If z < 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/)

Exposure Category =

(Sect. 6.5.6)

If z >= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/)

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

mph

9.50

(Table 6(2)

zg =
I=

900

(Table 6(2)

1.00

(Table 6(1)

(Sect. 6.5.7)

Height of Structure, h =

50.50

ft.

L=

75.00

ft.

B=
Damping Ratio, =

58.00

ft.

0.010

Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFRS system

Direct. Factor, Kd =

1.00

(Table 6(4)

Hurricane Region?

freq., f = set = 1.0 for forensic wind case


G=

Velocity Pressure (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15):


qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I

0.931
(Gust Factor, Sect. 6.5.8)
Note: Use force coefficients, Cf,
from Figures 6(20 and 6(22.

Net Design Wind Pressures (Sect. 6.5.15):


p = qz*G*Cf (psf), where 'qz' is evaluated at
height 'z' of the centroid of projected area.
Open Structure Net Design Wind Pressures, p
z
(ft.)

For z = h:

Cf, Col.

Cf, Eave

qz

qz*G

1.50

1.95

1.49

1.88

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

Kz

Cf, Curtain Cf, Gable EndCf, Rafter


1.50

0.85

7.56

7.05

10.57

13.74

10.50

13.25

10.57

10

0.85

7.56

7.05

10.57

13.74

10.50

13.25

10.57

20

0.90

8.04

7.49

11.23

14.60

11.15

14.07

11.23

25

0.95

8.42

7.85

11.77

15.30

11.69

14.75

11.77

30

0.98

8.75

8.15

12.23

15.90

12.15

15.33

12.23

35

1.01

9.04

8.42

12.63

16.42

12.55

15.83

12.63

40

1.04

9.30

8.66

12.99

16.89

12.91

16.28

12.99

46

1.07

9.58

8.92

13.38

17.39

13.29

16.77

13.38

50

1.09

9.75

9.08

13.62

17.70

13.53

17.07

13.62

50.5

1.10

9.77

9.10

13.65

17.74

13.55

17.10

13.65

For Rounded Members (Column and Rafters) from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 22:
D=

0.167

ft.

qz =

12.99

psf

Solid Area =

5.97

ft.^2

Gross Area =

12.50

Solidity Ratio, e =

0.478

ft.^2
= Solid Area/Gross Area

D*(qz)^(1/2) =

0.60
Cf for D*(qz)^(1/2) <= 2.5

Cf =

1.5

Cf =

N.A.

Cf for D*(qz)^(1/2) > 2.5

Use: Cf =

1.5

Cf from Figure 6(22

For Eave, Curtain and Gable End from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 20:
Area

s/h

B/s

Eave

1.08

46.00

0.02

58.00

53.54

Gable End

4.50

50.50

0.09

76.00

16.89

Curtain

30.00

30.00

1.00

24.00

0.80

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 67 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V= 59 mph WIND LOADING ANALYSIS Lattice and Misc. Components N S


Per ASCE 7 05 Open buildings (See 52 mph Case for Wind Pressure Figures)
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Speed, V =

59

Class., Occ. Category =

III

(Table 1(1)

If z < 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/)

Exposure Category =

(Sect. 6.5.6)

If z >= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/)

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

mph

9.50

(Table 6(2)

zg =
I=

900

(Table 6(2)

1.00

(Table 6(1)

(Sect. 6.5.7)

Height of Structure, h =

50.50

ft.

L=

58.00

ft.

B=
Damping Ratio, =

75.00

ft.

0.010

Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFR system

Direct. Factor, Kd =

1.00

(Table 6(4)

Hurricane Region?

freq., f = set = 1.0 for forensic wind case


G=

0.948
(Gust Factor, Sect. 6.5.8)
Note: Use force coefficients, Cf,

Velocity Pressure (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15):


qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I

from Figures 6(20 and 6(22.

Net Design Wind Pressures (Sect. 6.5.15):


p = qz*G*Cf (psf), where 'qz' is evaluated at
height 'z' of the centroid of projected area.
Open Structure Net Design Wind Pressures, p
z
(ft.)

For z = h:

Cf, Col.

Cf, Eave

qz

qz*G

1.50

1.95

1.49

1.88

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

Kz

Cf, Curtain Cf, Gable End


Cf, Rafter
1.50

0.85

7.56

7.17

10.75

13.98

10.68

13.48

10.75

10

0.85

7.56

7.17

10.75

13.98

10.68

13.48

10.75

20

0.90

8.04

7.62

11.42

14.85

11.35

14.32

11.42

25

0.95

8.42

7.98

11.97

15.57

11.89

15.01

11.97

30

0.98

8.75

8.30

12.44

16.18

12.36

15.60

12.44

35

1.01

9.04

8.57

12.85

16.71

12.77

16.11

12.85

40

1.04

9.30

8.81

13.22

17.19

13.13

16.57

13.22

46

1.07

9.58

9.08

13.61

17.70

13.52

17.06

13.61

50

1.09

9.75

9.24

13.86

18.01

13.76

17.37

13.86

50.5

1.10

9.77

9.26

13.88

18.05

13.79

17.40

13.88

For Rounded Members (Column and Rafters) from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 22:
D=

0.167

qz =

13.22

psf

Solid Area =

5.97

ft.^2
ft.^2
= Solid Area/Gross Area

Gross Area =

12.50

Solidity Ratio, e =

0.478

D*(qz)^(1/2) =

0.60

ft.

Cf for D*(qz)^(1/2) <= 2.5

Cf =

1.5

Cf =

N.A.

Cf for D*(qz)^(1/2) > 2.5

Use: Cf =

1.5

Cf from Figure 6(22

For Eave, Curtain and Gable End from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 20:
Area

s/h

B/s

Eave

1.08

46.00

0.02

58.00

53.54

Gable End

4.50

50.50

0.09

76.00

16.89

Curtain

30.00

30.00

1.00

24.00

0.80

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 68 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V=59 mph 45 Degree Eave (Case c)


Per ASCE 7 05 Code
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Speed, V =

59

Class., Occ. Category =

III

mph
(Table 1(1)

If z < 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/)

Exposure Category =

(Sect. 6.5.6)

If z >= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/)

(Sect. 6.5.7)

9.50

Height of Structure, h =

50.50

ft.

zg =

900

(Table 6(2)

L=

75.00

ft.

1.00

(Table 6(1)

freq., f =

0.952

Hz. (f < 1) Flexible

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

B=

(Table 6(2)

58.00

ft.

0.010

Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFRS system

Direct. Factor, Kd =

1.00

(Table 6(4)

Hurricane Region?

Damping Ratio,

G=

0.931 (Gust Factor, Sect. 6.5.8)


Note: Use force coefficients, Cf,

Velocity Pressure (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15):


qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I

from Figures 6(20 and 6(22.

Net Design Wind Pressures (Sect. 6.5.15):


p = qz*G*Cf (psf), where 'qz' is evaluated at
height 'z' of the centroid of projected area.
Open Structure Net Design Wind Pressures, p
z

Kz

(ft.)

For z = h:

Cf 0(2s

Cf s(2s

Cf 5s(10s

Cf 10s<

qz

qz*G

3.87

2.55

Cf 2s(3s Cf 3s(4s
1.95

1.85

Cf 4s(5s
1.85

1.10

0.55

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)
3.88

0.85

7.56

7.05

27.27

17.97

13.74

13.03

13.03

7.75

10

0.85

7.56

7.05

27.27

17.97

13.74

13.03

13.03

7.75

3.88

18.6

0.89

7.92

7.37

28.53

18.80

14.38

13.64

13.64

8.11

4.05

25

0.95

8.42

7.85

30.36

20.01

15.30

14.51

14.51

8.63

4.32

30

0.98

8.75

8.15

31.55

20.79

15.90

15.08

15.08

8.97

4.48

36.5

1.02

9.12

8.50

32.88

21.67

16.57

15.72

15.72

9.35

4.67

40

1.04

9.30

8.66

33.52

22.09

16.89

16.02

16.02

9.53

4.76

46

1.07

9.58

8.92

34.52

22.75

17.39

16.50

16.50

9.81

4.91

50

1.09

9.75

9.08

35.13

23.15

17.70

16.79

16.79

9.99

4.99

50.5

1.10

9.77

9.10

35.21

23.20

17.74

16.83

16.83

10.01

5.00

For Eave, Curtain and Gable End from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 20:
Area

s/h

B/s

Eave

1.08

46.00

0.02

58.00

53.54

Gable End

4.50

50.50

0.09

76.00

16.89

Curtain

30.00

30.00

1.00

24.00

0.80

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 69 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

V=59 mph 45 Degree Gable end assuming solid sign behavior


Per ASCE 7 05 Code
Method 2: Analytical Procedure for Buildings of Any Height (Section 6.5)
Wind Speed, V =

59

Class., Occ. Category =

III

mph
(Table 1(1)

If z < 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(15/zg)^(2/)

Exposure Category =

(Sect. 6.5.6)

If z >= 15 then: Kz = 2.01*(z/zg)^(2/)

(Sect. 6.5.7)

9.50

Height of Structure, h =

50.50

ft.

zg =

900

(Table 6(2)

L=

75.00

ft.

1.00

(Table 6(1)

freq., f =

0.952

Hz. (f < 1) Flexible

Topo. Factor, Kzt =

B=

(Table 6(2)

58.00

ft.

0.010

Assumed per C6.8.5 for structures with steel MWFRS system

Direct. Factor, Kd =

1.00

(Table 6(4)

Hurricane Region?

Damping Ratio,

G=

0.948 (Gust Factor, Sect. 6.5.8)


Note: Use force coefficients, Cf,

Velocity Pressure (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6(15):


qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I

from Figures 6(20 and 6(22.

Net Design Wind Pressures (Sect. 6.5.15):


p = qz*G*Cf (psf), where 'qz' is evaluated at
height 'z' of the centroid of projected area.
Open Structure Net Design Wind Pressures, p
z

Kz

(ft.)

For z = h:

Cf 0(2s

Cf s(2s

Cf 5s(10s

Cf 10s<

qz

qz*G

3.63

2.59

Cf 2s(3s Cf 3s(4s
1.99

1.54

Cf 4s(5s
1.41

0.92

0.55

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)

(psf)
4.53

0.85

8.70

8.24

29.93

21.35

16.41

12.70

11.62

7.58

10

0.85

8.70

8.24

29.93

21.35

16.41

12.70

11.62

7.58

4.53

18.6

0.89

9.10

8.63

31.31

22.34

17.17

13.28

12.16

7.94

4.74

25

0.95

9.69

9.18

33.32

23.78

18.27

14.14

12.94

8.45

5.05

30

0.98

10.07

9.54

34.63

24.71

18.98

14.69

13.45

8.78

5.25

36.5

1.02

10.49

9.94

36.09

25.75

19.78

15.31

14.02

9.15

5.47

40

1.04

10.69

10.14

36.79

26.25

20.17

15.61

14.29

9.32

5.57

46

1.07

11.01

10.44

37.89

27.03

20.77

16.07

14.72

9.60

5.74

50

1.09

11.21

10.62

38.56

27.51

21.14

16.36

14.98

9.77

5.84

50.5

1.10

11.23

10.64

38.64

27.57

21.18

16.39

15.01

9.79

5.85

For Eave, Curtain and Gable End from ASCE 7 05 Figure 6 20:
Area

s/h

B/s

Eave

1.08

46.00

0.02

58.00

53.54

Gable End

4.50

50.50

0.09

76.00

16.89

Curtain

30.00

30.00

1.00

24.00

0.80

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 70 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.6
Page 71 of 71

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

1
Flexible
Same equations
p = qh*G*Cn

Table 6-1
Section 6.2
Section 6.5.8
Section 6.5.13.3

Importance Factor I***

Flexibility of Structure
Gust Factor G
Net Design Pressure for
MWFRS of Open Buildings
with Monoslope, Pitched or
Troughed Roofs p

Section 29.5
Figure 29.4-1
Figure 29.5-1
Figure 29.5-2
Figure 29.5-3

F = qz*G*Cf*Af
Cf Columns = 1.5
Cf Rafter = 1.5
Cf Eave = 1.95
Cf Gable End = 1.88
Cf Curtain = 1.49

Section 6.5.15
Figure 6-20
Figure 6-21
Figure 6-22
Figure 6-23

Design Wind Loads on Other


Structures F

Force Coefficients Cf

Cf Columns = 1.5
Cf Rafter = 1.5
Cf Eave = 1.95
Cf Gable End = 1.88
Cf Curtain = 1.49

F = qz*G*Cf*Af

qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2

Section 27.3.2
Eq. 27.3-1
Section 28.3.2
Eq. 28.3-1
Section 29.3.2
Eq. 29.3-1
Section 30.3.2
Eq. 30.3-1

Section 6.5.10
Eq. 6-15

p = qh*G*Cn

Flexible
Same equations

N/A

Same values

Kh = 1.1
Kz = same values

0.01
Cn Windward = 1.1 (Case A)
Cn Windward = 0.1 (Case B)
Cn Leeward = -0.38 (Case A)
Cn Leeward = -1.12 (Case B)

Not in Hurricane Prone Region

Not Enclosed

III

Section 27.4.3

Section 26.2
Section 26.9.5

N/A

Table 26.9-1

Table 27.3-1
Table 28.3-1
Table 29.3-1
Table 30.3-1

Figure 27.4-5

C26.9

Section 6.2

Section 26.2

Table 26.6-1

Section 26.8.1
Section 26.8.2
Figure 26.8-1

Section 26.7.2
Section 26.7.3

Table 1.5-1

52 mph

Figure 26.5-1A
Figure 26.5-1B
Figure 26.5-1C

Velocity Pressure qz

qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V^2*I

Same values

Table 6-2

0.01
Cn Windward = 1.1 (Case A)
Cn Windward = 0.1 (Case B)
Cn Leeward = -0.38 (Case A)
Cn Leeward = -1.12 (Case B)

C6.5.8

Damping Ratio

Terrain Exposure Constants

Not in Hurricane Prone Region

Section 6.2

Hurricane Prone Region

Kh = 1.1
Kz = same values

Not Enclosed

Section 6.2

Enclosing Classification

Table 6-3

Table 6-4

Directionality Factor Kd **

Velocity Pressure Exposure


Coefficients Kh and Kz

Section 6.5.7.1
Section 6.5.7.2
Figure 6-4

Topographic Factor Kzt

Figure 6-18B

Exposure Category

Net Pressure Coefficient Cn

III

Table 1-1
Section 6.5.6.2
Section 6.5.6.3

52 mph

Figure 6-1

Wind Speed V *

Value

ASCE 7-10
Reference

Code Version

Building Classification

Value

ASCE 7-05
Reference

Parameter

*** Set equal to 1 .0 for forensic


analyses

** Set equal to 1.0 for forensic


analyses

* Set equal to 52 mph for forensic


analyses

loads exceed the specified allowable stresses for the materials of


construction.
1.7 LOAD TESTS
A load test of any construction shall be conducted when required
by the authority having jurisdiction whenever there is reason to
question its safety for the intended occupancy or use.
1.8 CONSENSUS STANDARDS AND OTHER
REFERENCED DOCUMENTS
This section lists the consensus standards and other documents
which are adopted by reference within this chapter:

OSHA
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
200 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20210
29 CFR 1910.1200 Appendix A with Amendments
as of February 1,2000.
Section 1.2
OSHA Standards for General Industry, 29 CFR
(Code of Federal Regulations) Part 1910.1200
Appendix
A, United States Department of Labor,
..
Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
Washington DC, 2005.

TABLE 1-1 OCCUPANCY CATEGORY OF BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES FOR FLOOD, WIND, SNOW, EARTHQUAKE,
AND ICE LOADS

Nature of Occupancy

Buildings and other structures that represent a low hazard to human life in the event of failure, including, but not limited to:

I
I

Occupancy
Cateaorv

I1

I
I

Agricultural facilities
Certain temporary facilities
Minor storage facilities

All buildings and other structures exceot those listed in Occuoancv Categories I. 111. and IV

Buildings and other structures that represent a substantial hazard to human life in the event of failure, including, but not limited to:
Buildings and other structures where more than 300 people congregate in one area
Buildings and other structures with davcare facilities with a capacity greater than 150
~ u i l d i n g sand other structures with elementary school or secondary sihool facilities with a capacity greater than 250
Buildings and other structures with a capacity greater than 500 for colleges or adult education facilities
Health care facilities with a capacity of 50 or more resident patients, but not having surgery or emergency treatment facilities
Jails and detention facilities
Buildings and other structures, not included in Occupancy Category IV, with potential to cause a substantial economic impact and/or mass
disruption of day-to-day civilian life in the event of failure, including, but not limited to:
Power generating stationsu
Water treatment facilities
Sewage treatment facilities
Telecommunication centers
Buildings and other structures not included in Occupancy Category IV (including, but not limited to, facilities that manufacture, process,
handle, store, use, or dispose of such substances as hazardous fuels, hazardous chemicals, hazardous waste, or explosives) containing
sufficient quantities of toxic or explosive substances to be dangerous to the public if released.
Buildings and other structures containing toxic or explosive substances shall be eligible for classification as Occupancy Category I1
structures if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the authority having jurisdiction by a hazard assessment as described in
Section 1.5.2 that a release of the toxic or explosive substances does not pose a threat to the public.
Buildings and other structures designated as essential facilities, including, but not limited to:
Hospitals and other health care facilities having surgery or emergency treatment facilities
Fire, rescue, ambulance, and police stations and emergency vehicle garages
Designated earthquake, hurricane, or other emergency shelters
Designated emergency preparedness, communication, and operation centers and other facilities required for emergency response
Power generating stations and other public utility facilities required in an emergency
Ancillary structures (including, but not limited to, communication towers, fuel storage tanks, cooling towers, electrical substation
structures, fire water storage tanks or other structures housing or supporting water, or other fire-suppression material or equipment)
required for operation of Occupancy Category IV structures during an emergency
Aviation control towers, air traffic control centers, and emergency aircraft hangars
Water storage facilities and pump structures required to maintain water pressure for fire suppression
Buildings and other structures having critical national defense functions
Buildings and other structures (including, but not limited to, facilities that manufacture, process, handle, store, use, or dispose of such
substances as hazardous fuels, hazardous chemicals, or hazardous waste) containing highly toxic substances where the quantity of the
material exceeds a threshold quantity established by the authority having jurisdiction.
Buildings and other structures containing highly toxic substances shall be eligible for classification as Occupancy Category I1 structures if
it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the authority having jurisdiction by a hazard assessment as described in Section 1.5.2 that a
release of the highly toxic substances does not pose a threat to the public. This reduced classification shall not be permitted if the buildings
or other structures also function as essential facilities.
uCogeneration power plants that do not supply power on the national grid shall be designated Occupancy Category 11.

Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures

Other Structures - Method 2


Figure 6-22
Force Coefficients, Cf

All Heights

Open Signs &


Lattice Frameworks

Rounded Members
E

F"t-Sided
Members

r."---

U%/q,5 2.5
(D

&L 5 5.3)

D&
(D

> 2.5

&L > 5.3)

< 0.1

2.0

I .2

0.8

0.1 to 0.29

1.8

1.3

0.9

0.3 to 0.7

1.4

1.5

1.1

Notcs:
1 . Signs with openings comprising 30% or more of the gross area are
classified as open signs.

2. The calculation of the design wind forces shall be based on the area of
all exposed members and elements projected on a plane normal to the
wind direction. Forces shall be assumed to act parallel to the wind
direction.
3. The area Afconsistent with these force coefficients is Ihe solid area
projected normal to the wind direction.

4. Notation:
E : ratio of solid area to gross area;

D: diameter of a typical round member, in feet (meters);


q,: velocity pressure evaluated at height z above ground in pounds per
square foot (N/m2).

Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures

Importance Factor, 1 (Wind Loads)

Table 6-1

Category

Non-Hurricane Prone Regions


and Hurricane Prone Regions
with V = 85-100 mph
and Alaska

Hurricane Prone Regions


with V > 100 mph

0.87

0.77

11

1.oo

1.oo

111

1.15

1.15

1V

1.15

1.15

Note:
1. The building and structure classification categories are listed in Table 1-1.

Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures

Velocity Pressure Exposure Coefficients, Kh and K,


Table 6-3

Notes:
1. Case 1: a. All components and cladding.
b. Main wind force resisting system in low-rise buildings designed using Figure 6- 10.

Case 2: a. All main wind force resisting systems in buildings except those in low-rise buildings
designed using Figure 6-10.
b. All main wind force resisting systems in other structures.
2.

The velocity pressure exposure coefficient K, may be determined from the following formula:
For 15 ft. 5 z 5 z,
K,

2.0 1 ( Z / Z , ) ~ / ~

F o r z < 15 ft.
K,

= 2.01

(1.51~~)~~"

Note: z shall not be talcen less than 30 feet for Case 1 in exposure B.
3.

a and z, are tabulated in Table 6-2.

4.

Linear interpolation for intermediate values of height z is acceptable.

5.

Exposure categories are defined in 6.5.6.

Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures

79

Wind Directionality Factor, Kd


Table 6-4

Structure Type

Directionality Factor Kd*

Buildings
Main Wind Force Resisting System
Components and Cladding

0.85
0.85

Arched Roofs

0.85

Chimneys, Tanks, and Similar Structures


Square
Hexagonal
Round

0.90
0.95
0.95

Solid Signs

0.85

Open Signs and Lattice Framework

0.85

Trussed Towers
Triangular, square, rectangular
All other cross sections

0.85
0.95

"Directionality Factor Kd has been calibrated with combinations of loads


specified in Section 2. This factor shall only be applied when used in
conjunction with load combinations specified in 2.3 and 2.4.

ASCE 7-05

Main Wind Force Resisting System


Figure 6 - 1 8 ~

Net Pressure Coefficient, CN

Open Buildings

0.25 5 h/L 5 1.0

Pitched Free Roofs


8 I45", y = oO,180"

Notes:
1.
CNWand CNLdenote net pressures (contributions from top and bottom surfaces) for windward and leeward half of
roof surfaces, respectively.
2.
Clear wind flow denotes relatively unobstructed wind flow with blocltage less than or equal to 50%. Obstructed
wind flow denotes objects below roof inhibiting wind flow (>50% blocltage).
3.
For values of 9 between 7.5' and 45", linear interpolation is permitted. For values of 9 less than 7.5", use
monoslope roof load coefficients.
4.
Plus and minus signs signify pressures acting towards and away from the top roof surface, respectively.
5.
All load cases shown for each roof angle shall be investigated.
6.
Notation:
L
: horizontal dimension of roof, measured in the along wind direction, ft. (m)
h
: mean roof height, ft. (nl)
: direction of wind, degrees
y
9
: angle of plane of roof from horizontal, degrees

Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures

67

All Heights

Other Structures -Method 2


Figure 6-20

Solid Freestanding Walls


& Solid Signs

Force Coefficients, Cf

CASE B

CASE A: resultant force acts normal to the face of the sign through the geometric center.
CASE B: resultant force acts normal to the face of the sign at a distance from the geometric center
toward the windward edge equal to 0.2 times the average width of the sign.
For Bis 2 2, CASE C must also be considered:
CASE C: resultant forces act normal to the face of the sign through the geometric centers of each region.
The same cases as above except that the vertical locations of the resultant forces occur at a distance above
the geometric center equal to 0.05 times the average height of the sign.

B: horizontal dimension of sign, in feet (meters);


h: height of the sign, in feet (meters);

Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures

73

6.5.12.4.2 Buildings with h > 60 ft (18.3 m). Design wind


pressures on components and cladding for all buildings with h >
60 ft (18.3 m) shall be determined from the following equation:
where
q = q, for windward walls calculated at height z above the
ground
q = qj, for leeward walls, side walls, and roofs, evaluated
at height h
q, = qj, for windward walls, side walls, leeward walls, and
roofs of enclosed buildings and for negative internal
pressure evaluation in partially enclosed buildings
q, = q, for positive internal pressure evaluation in partially
enclosed buildings where height z is defined as the level
of the highest opening in the building that could affect
the positive internal pressure. For buildings sited in
wind-borne debris regions, glazing that is not impact
resistant or protected with an impact-resistant covering, shall be treated as an opening in accordance with
Section 6.5.9.3. For positive internal pressure evaluation, q, may conservatively be evaluated at height h
(q, = YI,)
(GCp) = external pressure coefficient from Fig. 6-17
(GC,,,) = internal pressure coefficient given in Fig. 6-5.
q and q; shall be evaluated using exposure defined in Section
6.5.6.3.

6.5.12.4.3 Alternative Design Wind Pressures for Components and Cladding in Buildings with 60 ft (18.3 m) < h <
90 ft (27.4 m). Alternative to the requirements of Section
6.5.12.4.2, the design of components and cladding for buildings
with a mean roof height greater than 60 ft (18.3 m) and less than
90 ft (27.4 m) values from Figs. 6- 11 through 6- 17 shall be used
only if the height to width ratio is one or less (except as permitted
by Note 6 of Fig. 6-17) and Eq. 6-22 is used.
6.5.12.4.4 Parapets. The design wind pressure on the components and cladding elements of parapets shall be designed by the
following equation:
where
qp = velocity pressure evaluated at the top of the parapet
GCp = external pressure coefficient from Figs. 6-1 1 through
6-17
GCp; = internal pressure coefficient from Fig. 6-5, based on the
porosity of the parapet envelope
Two load cases shall be considered. Load Case A shall consist
of applying the applicable positive wall pressure from Fig. 6-1 1A
or Fig. 6-17 to the front surface of the parapet while applying the
applicable negative edge or corner zone roof pressure from Figs.
6- 11 through 6- 17 to the back surface. Load Case B shall consist
of applying the applicable positive wall pressure from Fig. 6-1 1A
or Fig. 6-17 to the back of the parapet surface, and applying the
applicable negative wall pressure from Fig. 6-1 l A or Fig. 6-17
to the front surface. Edge and corner zones shall be arranged
as shown in Figs. 6-1 1 through 6-17. GCp shall be determined
for appropriate roof angle and effective wind area from Figs. 6-1 1
through 6- 17. If internal pressure is present, both load cases should
be evaluated under positive and negative internal pressure.

6.5.13 Design Wind Loads on Open Buildings with


Monoslope, Pitched, or Troughed Roofs.
6.5.13.1 General.
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures

6.5.13.1.1 Sign Convention. Plus and minus signs signify


pressure acting toward and away from the top surface of the roof,
respectively.
6.5.13.1.2 Critical Load Condition. Net pressure coefficients C N include contributions from top and bottom surfaces.
All load cases shown for each roof angle shall be investigated.
6.5.13.2 Main Wind-Force Resisting Systems. The net design
pressure for the MWFRSs of monoslope, pitched, or troughed
roofs shall be determined by the following equation:

where
qj, = velocity pressure evaluated at mean roof height h using the
exposure as defined in Section 6.5.6.3 that results in the
highest wind loads for any wind direction at the site
G = gust effect factor from Section 6.5.8
C N = n e t pressure coefficient determined from Figs. 6-18A
through 6-18D
For free roofs with an angle of plane of roof from horizontal
0 less than or equal to 5' and containing fascia panels, the fascia
panel shall be considered an inverted parapet. The contribution
of loads on the fascia to the MWFRS loads shall be determined
using Section 6.5.12.2.4 with qp equal to qj,.

6.5.13.3 Component and Cladding Elements. The net design


wind pressure for component and cladding elements of monoslope, pitched, and troughed roofs shall be determined by the
following equation:

where
qj, = velocity pressure evaluated at mean roof height h using the
exposure as defined in Section 6.5.6.3 that results in the
highest wind loads for any wind direction at the site
G = gust-effect factor from Section 6.5.8
C N = n e t pressure coefficient determined from Figs. 6-19A
through 6-19C

6.5.14 Design Wind Loads on Solid Freestanding Walls and


Solid Signs. The design wind force for solid freestanding walls
and solid signs shall be determined by the following formula:

where
qj, = the velocity pressure evaluated at height h (defined in
Fig. 6-20) using exposure defined in Section 6.5.6.4.1
G = gust-effect factor from Section 6.5.8
C = net force coefficient from Fig. 6-20
A, = the gross area of the solid freestanding wall or solid sign,
in ft2 (m2)

6.5.15 Design Wind Loads on Other Structures. The design


wind force for other structures shall be determined by the following equation:

where
q, = velocity pressure evaluated at height z of the centroid of
area A using exposure defined in Section 6.5.6.3
G = gust-effect factor from Section 6.5.8
C j = force coefficients from Figs. 6-21 through 6-23
A = projected areanormal to the wind except where C is specified for the actual surface area, ft2 (m2)

pressure determination." The positive internal pressure is dictated


by the positive exterior pressure on the windward face at the point
where there is an opening. The positive exterior pressure at the
opening is governed by the value of q at the level of the opening,
not qj,. Therefore the old provision that used qj, as the velocity
pressure is not in accord with the physics of the situation. For low
buildings this does not make much difference, but for the example
of a 300 ft tall building in Exposure B with a highest opening at
60 ft, the difference between q300and q60 represents a 59 percent
increase in internal pressure. This is unrealistic and represents
an unnecessary degree of conservatism. Accordingly, q; = qr for
positive internal pressure evaluation in partially enclosed buildings where height z is defined as the level of the highest opening
in the building that could affect the positive internal pressure. For
buildings sited in wind-borne debris regions, glazing that is not
impact resistant or protected with an impact-resistant covering,
q, should be treated as an opening. For positive internal pressure evaluation, q, may conservatively be evaluated at height h
(q, = Y I ~ .

C6.5.12.3 Design Wind Load Cases. Recent wind tunnel research [Refs. C6-7 1, C6-72, C6- 125, C6- 1261 has shown that torsional load requirements of Fig. 6-9 in ASCE 7-98 often grossly
underestimate the true torsion on a building under wind, including those that are symmetric in geometric form and stiffness. This
torsion is caused by nonuniform pressure on the different faces
of the building from wind flow around the building, interference
effects of nearby buildings and terrain, and by dynamic effects
on more flexible buildings. The revision to Load Cases 2 and 4
in Fig. 6-9 increases the torsional loading to 15 percent eccentricity under 75 percent of the maximum wind shear for Load
Case 2 (from the ASCE 7-98 value of 3.625 percent eccentricity
at 87.5 percent of maximum shear). Although this is more in line
with wind tunnel experience on square and rectangular buildings
with aspect ratios up to about 2.5, it may not cover all cases, even
for symmetric and common building shapes where larger torsions
have been observed. For example, wind tunnel studies often show
an eccentricity of 5 percent or more under full (not reduced) base
shear. The designer may wish to apply this level of eccentricity at
full wind loading for certain more critical buildings even though
it is not required by the standard. The present more moderate torsional load requirements can in part be justified by the fact that
the design wind forces tend to be upper-bound for most common
building shapes.
In buildings with some structural systems, more severe loading can occur when the resultant wind load acts diagonally to the
building. To account for this effect and the fact that many buildings exhibit maximum response in the across-wind direction (the
standard currently has no analytical procedure for this case), a
structure should be capable of resisting 75 percent of the design
wind load applied simultaneously along each principal axis as
required by Case 3 in Fig. 6-9.
For flexible buildings, dynamic effects can increase torsional
loading. Additional torsional loading can occur because of eccentricity between the elastic shear center and the center of mass at
each level of the structure. The new Eq. 6-21 accounts for this
effect.
It is important to note that significant torsion can occur on lowrise buildings also [Ref. C6-721 and, therefore, the wind loading
requirements of Section 6.5.12.3 are now applicable to buildings
of all heights.
As discussed in Section 6.6, the wind tunnel Method 3 should
always be considered for buildings withunusual shapes, rectangular buildings with larger aspect ratios, and dynamically sensitive

buildings. The effects of torsion can more accurately be determined for these cases and for the more normal building shapes
using the wind tunnel procedure.

C6.5.13 Design Wind Loads on Open Buildings with Monoslope, Pitched, or Troughed Roofs. New Figs. 6-18 and 6-19
are presented for wind loads on MWFRSs and components and
cladding of open buildings with roofs as shown, respectively. This
work is based on the Australian Standard AS 1170.2-2000, Part 2:
Wind Actions, with modifications to the MWFRS pressure coefficients based on recent studies [C6-127 and C6- 1281.
The roof wind loading on open building roofs is highly dependent upon whether goods or materials are stored under the
roof and restrict the wind flow. Restricting the flow can introduce substantial upward-acting pressures on the bottom surface
of the roof, thus increasing the resultant uplift load on the roof.
Figs. 6- 18 and 6-19 offer the designer two options. Option 1 (clear
wind flow) implies little (less than 50 percent) or no portion of
the cross-section below the roof is blocked. Option 2 (obstructed
wind flow) implies that a significant portion (more than 75 percent is typically referenced in the literature) of the cross-section
is blocked by goods or materials below the roof. Clearly, values
would change from one set of coefficients to the other following
some sort of smooth, but as yet unknown relationship. In developing the provisions included in this standard, the 50 percent
blockage value was selected for Option 1, with the expectation
that it represents a somewhat conservative transition. If the designer is not clear about usage of the space below the roof or if
the usage could change to restrict free air flow, then design loads
for both options should be used.
In determining loads on component and cladding elements for
open building roofs using Fig. 6-19, it is important for the designer to note that the net pressure coefficient C N is based on
contributions from the top and bottom surfaces of the roof. This
implies that the element receives load from both surfaces. Such
would not be the case if the surface below the roof was separated
structurally from the top roof surface. In this case, the pressure
coefficient should be seuarated for the effect of tou and bottom
pressures, or conservatively, each surface could be designed using
the C N value from Fig. 6-19.

C6.6 METHOD 3-WIND-TUNNEL

PROCEDURE

Wind tunnel testing is specified when a structure contains any of


the characteristics defined in Section 6.5.2 or when the designer
wishes to more accurately determine the wind loads. For some
building shapes wind tunnel testing can reduce the conservatism
due to enveloping of wind loads inherent in Methods 1 and 2. Also,
wind tunnel testing accounts for shielding or channeling and can
more accurately determine wind loads for a complex building
shape than Methods 1 and 2. It is the intent of the standard that
any building or other structure be allowed to use the wind tunnel
testing method to determine wind loads. Requirements for proper
testing are given in Section 6.6.2.
Wind tunnel tests are recommended when the building or other
structure under consideration satisfies one or more of the following conditions:
1. Has a shape which differs significantly from a uniform rectangular prism or "box-like" shape.
2. Is flexible with natural frequencies normally below 1 Hz.
3. Is subject to buffeting by the wake of upwind buildings or
other structures.
ASCE 7-05

[This page left blank intentionally]

Appendix D.7
Distributed Component Weights

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.7

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.7

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Project No : C11137.00
Date : 12/1/2011

Component Weights
Indiana State Fair Commission Collapse Incident

Component Type

Hoists 2

Speaker Hoists

Purlin

Columns

Truss

Component Tag

Net Weight (lbs) 1

H.T.B2.3.S.1.ECS
H.P.CD.2.3.N.1.LTB.2
H.P.EF.2.3.ES1.LTP.14
H.T.4.3.EF.W.1.LTT6
H.T.4.BC.E1.LTT.2
H.T.D2.3.N.1.LTB.3
H.LTP.3.1.LTV.1.2
H.T.B2.3.N.1.ECS
H.P.BC.2.3.E.S.1.LTW.1
H.T.B.2.3.S.2.ECS
H.P.EF.1.2.S.1.LTR.8
H.P.BC.1.2.N.1.LTO.1.S
H.T.B.1.2.S.2.ECS
H.P.BC.1.2.S.1.LTR.0
H.T.D.1.2.N.1.LTO.3.S
H.P.BC.1.2.N.2.LTO.1.N
H.P.EF.1.2.N.1.LTO.7S
H.T.D.1.2.N.2.LTO3.N
H.P.EF.1.2.N.2.LTO.7.N
H.A1
H.B1
H.B2
H.B3
H.B4
H.F1
H.F2
H.F3
H.F4
H.G1
H.T.1DE.E.1.LTR.5
H.T.1.BC.W.1.LTR.1
H.T.1.EF.E.1.LTR.7
H.T.1.CD.W.2.LTR.3
H.T.1FG.W.2.SPK.FG1.W
H.T.1FG.W.1.SPK.FG1.W
H.T.1FG.E.1.SPK.FG1.E
H.T.1FG.W3.SPK.FG1.E
H.T.1.AB.W.1.SPK.AB1.W
H.T.1.AB.E.2.SPK.AB1.E
H.T.1AB.E.1.SPK.AB1.E
H.T.1.AB.E.2.SPK.AB1.W (S1.S2)
P.EF.3.4.W.N, P.EF.3.4.W.S
P.EF.3.4.E.S, P.EF.3.4.N
C.A1.1 C.A1.5
C.A1.6
C.B1.1 C.B1.6
C.B1.7
C.B2.6
C.B2.1 C.B2.5
C.B3.1 C.B3.5
C.B3.6
C.B4.1 C.B4.6
C.B4.7

98
257
163
103
104
269
98
99
163
100
164
97
98
164
96
96
97
97
98
213
214
213
210
212
213
213
215
218
213
170
191
164
164
241
237
177
178
173
243
239
172
160
163
424
158
362
163
159
347
353
155
378
159

T.D1.2S + T.D.1.2.N +
D2 (Top and Bottom plate) + T2.DE.W + T2.DE.E

496

T.1DE.E (square ends)


T.C1.2S (round ends)
T1.FG.E

102
92
115

TF.3.4.N, TF.3.4.S, F4

401

T1.CD.E,T1.CD.W, Node C1
( Top plate, Bottom plate, South face)
T.F.3.4.N, T.F.3.4.S, NS F4, Node F4
(Top plate, Bottom plate, North face, East face)
Node F3 (Top Plate, Bottom Plate, East Face),
T.F2.3.N , T.F.2.3.S, NS F3, Misc Lights
T1.FG.W.X8 , Node F1
(Top Plate, Bottom Plate, South face)
T1.FG.W.X1 X7
LTT.5 LTT.7
LTT.1 LTT.4
T1.EF.E

296
405
387
140
132
127
165
187

Project No : C11137.00
Date : 12/1/2011

Component Weights
Indiana State Fair Commission Collapse Incident

Component Type

Component Tag

Net Weight (lbs) 1

Strut
Black Columns
Ridge Truss

S.FG.1 ,S.FG2,S.FG3,S.FG4, Node G1


CE.3.5.1 CE.3.5.4
RG.3.4.N
RF.BC.4,GW.C.1.4 , GW.C.2.4, RF.N4.W,
RF.CD.4.W, RF.CD.4.E, GW.D1.4,GW.D2.4,
GW.D3.4, RF.EF.4, RF.N4.E,
RF.DE.4.E,RF.DE.4.W,GW.E2.4, GW.E1.4,
RG.N4
LED Curtain 1,2 of 6
LED Curtain 3,4 of 6
LED Curtain 5 of 6
LED Curtain 6 of 6
Pallet w/ Scenery Debris
Pallet w/ light bulb & spotlight housing debris
Pallet w/ light bulb debris
Surround Gear( For Video Screen)
Pallet w/ Speaker Cables, SPK.AB1.W, Misc chain
West Roof Tarp
SE on Megaphone Pole.1
SE on Megaphone Pole.2
Tarp Rods (19 in the bundle)
NS.F4.JB.NE1.S
NS.G1.JB.E1.W
NS.B4.JB.NW1.S
NS.B2.JB.W3.E
NS.A1.JB.W1.E.X2
NS.F4.JB.E4.E
NS.F4.JB.E2.E
NS.F1.JB.E3.E
NS.B4.JB.W2.W
NS.B4.JB.W4.E
NS.B4.JB.W2.E
NS.F3.JB.E2.W
NS.B1.JB.W3.W.X1
NS.F2.JB.E3.W
SPK.AB1.E.17
SPK.AB1.E.18
SPK.AB1.E.19
SPK.AB1.E.20
SPK.FG1.W.16
SPK.FG1.W.17
SPK.FG1.W.18
SPK.FG1.W.19
SPK.FG1.W.20
SPK.AB1.E (Spreader Bar)
SPK.AB1.W.07
SPK.AB1.E.12
SPK.AB1.E.17
SPK.AB1.W.06
SPK.AB1.E.20
SPK.FG1.W.21
L.Acoustics.ARC.720
L.Acoustics.ARC.712
SPK.AB1.W.08
SPK.FG1.E + 2 Speaker Support Chains
SKP.FG1.W

350
361
117

Gable Roof Section

LED Soft Screen Fabric

Misc Items + Debris 3

Roof Tarp /
Roof Tarp Components

Tie Down Strap


(Nylon Strap)

Speakers + Speaker
Components

859

417
431
212
217
73
57
58
50
205
278
198
252
216
7
6
6
5
2
5
7
5
6
6
6
5
5
5
258
245
251
248
255
263
253
252
262
161
249
226
258
261
248
247
126
126
230
77
162

Notes:
1. Component weights obtained at warehouse using Dillon EDXtreme (5000 lb capacity) with an accuracy of +/ 5 lbs
2. Hoist weights include motor body, hoist chain, and chain bag. Amount of chain per bag may vary and was not verified.
3. Weights for item(s) on pallets are reported as net weight

Project No : C11137.00
Date : 12/1/2011

Component Weights
Indiana State Fair Commission Collapse Incident

Component Type

Component Tag

Length (ft)

Net Weight (lbs) 1

Electrical / Sound Cables 2

1.SPK.AB1.E
2.SPK.AB1.E
3.SPK.AB1.W
4.SPK.AB1.W
7 LTO.S
8.LTO.N
9.LTR
9.LTR.1
9.LTR.2
10.LTW.1
10.LTW.2
11.LTB
12.LTP (1)
12.LTP (2)
12.LTP (3)
13 B4 (Cut 1)
13 B4
13 B4
14 (West LED Curtain)
15.LTV.1
16 LED Curtain
17 LTV 2
18 LTV 3
19 LED Curtain
20 LTV 4
21.LT5
22 LED Curtain
23 LED Curtain
24 LED Curtain
25 LED Curtain
26 LTV6
Cable attached to video wall control box
Cable Splitter

102
100
86
97
64
97
109
94
119
113
58
80
174
124
150
182
135
146
30
50
30
75
75
108
100
100
30
30
30
30
125
100

118
28
44
38
45
76
502
146
276
272
254
405
396
272
239
178
90
25
81
32
79
49
49
120
65
65
79
81
81
79
74
18
3

Notes:
1. Component weights obtained at warehouse using Dillon EDXtreme (5000 lb capacity) with an accuracy of +/ 5 lbs
2. Cable refers to a bundle of multiple individual cables of various diameters and lengths

Rigging Hardware Weight (lbs)


184
90
90
184
184
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
124
124
124
124
200
232
58
58
58
90
64
76
90
90
76
76
86

Component Tag
LTR.1 LTR.7
LTR.8
LTR.0
LTO.1.S LTO.7.S
LTO.1.N LTO.7.N
LTV.1.1
LTV.1.2
LTV.2.2
LTV.3.1
LTV.4.1
LTV.5.1
LTV.6.1
LTP.11 LTP.14
LTP.8 LTP.10
LTP.5 LTP.7
LTP.1 LTP.4
LTW.1 LTW.5
LTB.1 LTB.6
CIRC LTB.3 and LTB.4
CIRC LTB.3 and LTB.4
CIRC LTB.3 and LTB.4
CIRC LTB.3 and LTB.4
CH1 (West Chandelier, LTW.2)
CH2 (East Chandelier, LTW.4)
Prop 1 ( Gear West.LTB 2)
Prop 2 ( Gear East, LTB 5)
Spotlight
C.F2
LED Screen

4070
484
670
582
930
398
634
658
614
626
778
908
1848
1068
1050
1816
4674
4716
288
560
304
126
746
746
268
280
246
432
2942

Total Pick Weight (lbs)

Notes:
1. Component weights obtained at ISF site utilizing Dillon EDXtreme (10000 lb capacity) with an accuracy of +/ 10 lbs

Spotlight
Column
LED Display

Props

Chandeliers

LED Surround

White Truss
Blue Truss

Purple Truss

Vertical Truss

Orange Truss

Red Truss

Component Type

Indiana State Fair Commission Collapse Incident

Component Weights

3886
394
580
398
746
308
544
568
524
536
688
818
1724
944
926
1692
4474
4484
230
502
246
36
682
670
178
190
170
356
2856

Net Component Weight (lbs) 1

Project No : C11137.00
Date : 12/1/2011

Appendix D.8
Wire Rope Stiffness Calculations

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.8

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.8

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

LATERAL STIFFNESS OF ISF STRUCTURE


The lateral load resisting system consisted of fourteen (14) guy wires that were connected to ten (10)
reinforced concrete jersey barriers.

Figure 1: The lateral system of the ISF Structure consists of guy wires tied back to concrete jersey barriers
as shown here.

The global behavior of the ISF structure can be idealized as two degrees of freedom system where a
number of springs are connected in parallel to the stage, considered as a mass. The stiffness of each
guy wire has been calculated using the displacement method and then has been linearly combined with
the stiffness of the other guy wires that are engaged in the same direction. For this calculation it is
assumed the guy wires have been initially tightening enough to remove any significant sag allowing the
wires to act as axially loaded tension members.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.8
Page 1 of 6

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Figure 2: two degrees of freedom system

Each cables stiffness has been calculated in the global coordinate system and the total stiffness in the
two directions WE (X) and NS (Y) is summarized in the following table:
WE (X)
Kx = 3416
Mass =
180
Frequency = 0.70
Calculated T = 1.44

NS (Y)
Ky = 3005
Mass =
180
Frequency =
0.65
Calculated T=
1.53

lb/in
lb sec^2/in
Hz
sec

lb/in
lb sec^2/in
Hz
sec

Figure 3 a) In red are the guy wires that contribute to the WE stiffness, b) In red are the guy wires that
contribute to the NS stiffness.

The aluminum components that make up the columns and gable roof trusses have a minor contribution
to the overall stiffness of the structure compared to the guy cables. The attached calculations assume
the columns are moment connected to the roof trusses, the base of the columns are pins, and the
stiffness of the roof level truss are much larger than the stiffness of the column trusses. The total
stiffness of the aluminum frame is 312 lbs/in in each direction, or an order of magnitude less than what
is provided by the guy wires.
Accounting for the stiffness of the frame and guy wires the expected displacement under 59 mph wind
from the north and west are shown in Table 1 below along with a comparison of the value determined by
SAP. The hand calculations predict larger displacements then the SAP model, which can be partially

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.8
Page 2 of 6

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

attributed to the assumption of pinned column base. The SAP model includes the partial fixity due to the
channel xs at the base of the columns.

Case

Max Lateral
Load

Total
stiffness

Displacement of
Roof level

Displacement
from SAP

lbs

lbs/in

in

in

%
difference

North wind

38580

3317

11.6

10.7

8%

North wind

38580

3317

11.6

11.9

-2%

West wind

18696

3728

5.0

4.7

6%

West wind

18692

3728

5.0

4.4

13%

Table 1: Comparison of displacements calculated by hand and via the SAP 2000 FE model.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.8
Page 3 of 6

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Calculation of Frame Stiffness:

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.8
Page 4 of 6

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Calculation of Cable Stiffness:

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.8
Page 5 of 6

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.8
Page 6 of 6

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Appendix D.9
Simplified Analysis Calculations

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.9

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.9

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

SIMPLE MODEL CALCULATIONS:


Refer to section 6.5 of the report for assumptions and discussion of results.
DEAD LOAD CALCULATIONS:
The self weight is the weight of a structural component and forms a major component of the dead load.
This figure shown below indicates the self weight of the various components.

Figure 1. Structure - Self weight

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.9
Page 1 of 12

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Figure 2. Configuration of Structure

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.9
Page 2 of 12

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Figure 3. Optimized Guy Wire and Ballast Layout

Figure 4. Application of self weight loads


Self Weight Loads:
1 - 194 x 3/2 + 474 /4
2 - 194 x 4/2 +32
3 - 194 x 4/2 + 32 +97
4 - 474/2 + 97
5 - 474/2 + 32 + 97

= 0.41k
= 0.42k
= 0.52k
= 0.33k
= 0.37k

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.9
Page 3 of 12

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

TRUSS END SUPPORT REACTIONS DUE TO SELF WEIGHT:


End Truss:
(194 x4 + 194 x 5/2 + 48 x 3 + 474x 2 + 97 + 48+ 97 x 5/2) / 2 = 1370 lbs
Interior Truss:
(194 x4 + 194 x5 + 32 x 3 + 474x 2 + 97 + 32+ 97 x 5) / 2 = 1700 lbs
Superimposed Dead Loads:
The rigging plot (See Appendix B.3 ) provided to TT by the ISF provides information about the estimated
weight and location of some of the suspended equipment.
Known loads hanging from the North half of the structure:
L1 to L16 = 1450 + 1275 x 2 + 1250 x 2 + 1350 + 1600 + 1650 + 2650 + 1650 +1600 + 1200 + 1750 x 2
+ 1200 + 475 = 23,375 lbs
D1 to D3 = 885 + 885 + 675 = 2445 lbs
Total = 25820 / (76.5 x 58/2) = 11.6 psf
Known hanging loads on the South half of the structure:
L17 to L24 = 550 + 425 + 850 + 900 +1500 x 2 +900 + 850 = 7475 lbs
Total = 7475 / (76.5 x 58/2) = 3.4 psf
Loads hanging along length of west eave line:
SR1, SR2, SR5, SR6 = 885 + 885 + 1000 + 1000 = 3,770 lbs
CP1 to CP3 = 500 + 525 + 650 = 1675 lbs
Total = 5445 / 58 = 94 plf
Loads hanging along length of east eave line:
SL1, SL2, SL5, SL6 = 885 + 885 + 1000 + 1000 = 3,770 lbs
Total = 3770/ 58 = 65 plf

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.9
Page 4 of 12

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

WIND LOAD CRITERIA AND CALCULATIONS


Wind Load Criteria
Mean roof height
Length of building perpendicular to ridge
Width of building parallel to ridge
Basic Wind Speed
Importance Factor
Exposure Category
Topographic Factor
Gust Effect Factor
Enclosure Classification
Internal Pressure Coefficient
Velocity Pressure Coefficient
Directionality Factor

h = 44 feet
L = 76.5 feet
B = 58 feet
V = 90 mph
I = 1.15
C
Kzt = 1.0
G = 0.85
Open
0
Kh = 1.06
Kd = 0.85

DETERMINATION OF LOADS:
Baseline Velocity Pressure (qh):
2

qh = 0.00256 x Kh x Kzt x Kd x V x I
2

qh = 0.00256 x 1.06 x 1.0 x 0.85 x 90 x 1.15 = 21.50 psf


Velocity Pressure including Basic Wind Speed Reduction per ASCE 37-02:
2

qh = 0.00256 x 1.06 x 1.0 x 0.85 x 67.5 x 1.15 = 12.0 psf

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.9
Page 5 of 12

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

WIND PERPENDICULAR TO RIDGE:


The net pressure coefficients (CN) and wind pressures for wind load applied perpendicular to the ridge
line per ASCE 7-05 Figure 6-18B are calculated below for the roof with angle of pitch = 15 degrees.

Load
Case

Clear Wind Flow

A
B

Obstructed Wind
Flow

CNW

CNL

CNW

CNL

1.1

-0.4

-1.2

-1

0.1
-1.1
-0.6
-1.6
Table 1: Net Pressure Co-efficients

Baseline wind pressures p = qh x G x CN (All pressures in psf) are calculated below:

Load
Case

Clear Wind Flow

A
B

Obstructed Wind
Flow

CNW

CNL

CNW

CNL

20.1

-7.3

-21.9

-18.3

1.8
-20.1
-11
-29.2
Table 2: Baseline Wind Pressures

ASCE 37-02 wind pressures p = qh x G x CN (All pressures in psf) are calculated below:
Load
Case
A
B

Clear Wind Flow


CNW

CNL

11.3

-4.1

Obstructed Wind
Flow
CNW
CNL
-12.3

-10.3

1.0
-11.3
-6.2
-16.4
Table 3: ASCE 37-02 Wind Pressures

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.9
Page 6 of 12

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

WIND PARALLEL TO THE RIDGE:


The net pressure coefficients (CN) and wind pressures for wind load applied parallel to the ridge line per
ASCE 7-05 Figure 6-18D are calculated below:

Clear Wind
Flow
CN
-0.8

Obstructed Wind
Flow
CN
-1.2

0.8

0.5

h,2h

-0.6

-0.9

Distance from
Windward
Edge
h

h,2h

Load
Case

B
0.5
Table 4: Net Pressure Co-efficients

0.5

Baseline wind pressures p = qh x G x CN (All pressures in psf ) are calculated below:


Clear Wind
Flow

Obstructed Wind
Flow

CN

CN

-14.6

-21.9

14.6

9.1

h,2h

-11

-16.4

Distance from
Windward
Edge

Load
Case

h,2h

B
9.1
Table 5: Baseline Wind Pressures

9.1

ASCE 37-02 wind pressures p = qh x G x CN (All pressures in psf) are calculated below:
Clear Wind
Flow

Obstructed Wind
Flow

CN

CN

-8.2

-12.3

8.2

5.1

h,2h

-6.2

-9.2

Distance from
Windward
Edge

Load
Case

h,2h

B
5.1
5.1
Table 6: ASCE 37-02 Wind Pressures

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.9
Page 7 of 12

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

WIND LOAD APPLIED TO COLUMNS:


Perpendicular to Wind Area Column Face

Af = 2 x 2 x 30 + 4 x 1 x (15-1)/ sin 45
2
=182 in
At = 15 x 30
2
= 450 in
= 182/450 = 0.40

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

45 deg to Wind Area Column Face

Af = 3 x 2 x 30 + 8 x 1 x [ ((21.1
2
(30/2) ]
2
= 314.5 in
At = 21.2 x 30
2
= 636 in
= 314.5/636 = 0.49

Appendix D.9
Page 8 of 12

3 x 2) /2) +

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

COLUMN LOADS PERPENDICULAR TO COLUMN FACE:


F= qz G Cf Af where is evaluated at centroid of Af
Kz = 23 = 0.924, K zt = 1.0, Kd = 0.85, V = 90 or 67.5 mph, I = 1.15
2

qz = 0.00256 x Kz x Kzt x Kd x V x I
2

qz baseline = 0.00256 x0.924 x 1.0 x 0.85 x 90 x 1.15 = 18.72 psf


2
qz ASCE37 = 0.00256 x0.924 x 1.0 x 0.85 x 67.5 x 1.15 = 10.53 psf

Af =

182
144
2
30 x 40 = 20.2 ft
12

G = 0.85
Cf = 1.5 per ASCE 7 Figure 6-22
F baseline = 18.72 x 0.85 x 20.2 x 1.5 = 480 lbs
F ASCE 37 = 10.53 x 20.2 x 0.85 x 1.5 = 270lbs

Figure 5. Column Dimensions

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.9
Page 9 of 12

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Applying the same methodology to spandrels 30 wide x 26 deep and truss bottom chord 30 wide x 26
deep

Figure 6. Spandrel Configuration


Kz = 39= 1.03, K zt = 1.0, Kd = 0.85, V = 90 or 67.5 mph, I = 1.15
As =

26
12

x 17.25 x

G = 0.85
Cf = 1.5

182
144
30
12

= 18.9 ft

qz = 0.00256 x Kz x Kzt x Kd x V x I
2

qz baseline = 0.00256 x 1.03 x 1.0 x 0.85 x 90 x 1.15 = 20.87 psf


2
qz ASCE37 = 0.00256 x 1.03x 1.0 x 0.85 x 67.5 x 1.15 = 11.74 psf
F baseline = 20.87 x 0.85 x 1.5 x 18.9 = 500 lbs
F ASCE 37 = 11.74 x 0.85 x 1.5 x 18.9 = 280 lbs
Truss bottom chord is 76.5 long
As =

26
12

x 76.5 x

182
144
30
12

= 84.5 ft

F baseline = 20.87 x 0.85 x 1.5 x 84.5 = 2250 lbs applied at centroid


F ASCE37 = 11.74 x 0.85 x 1.5 x 84.5 = 1265 lbs applied at centroid

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.9
Page 10 of 12

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

WIND LOADS AT GABLE END UTILIZE SOLID SIGN METHODOLOGY IN FIG 6-20 ASCE 7:

Figure 7. Structure Configuration


s/h = 0.09
B/s = 19.1
Kh = 1.06, K zt = 1.0, Kd = 0.85, I = 1.15
Cf = 1.90
2
As = 0.5 x 8 x 76.5 = 306 ft
2=

qz baseline = 0.00256 x 1.06 x 1 x 0.85 x 1.15 x 90 21.48 psf


2=
qz ASCE37 = 0.00256 x 1.06 x 1 x 0.85 x 1.15 x 67.5 12.08 psf
F baseline = 21.48 x 1.9 x 0.85 x 306 = 10,615 lbs
F ASCE 37 = 12.08 x 1.9 x 0.85 x 306 = 5970 lbs

Minimum wind loads per ASCE 7 section 6.1.4.1:


2
The design wind force for open buildings and other structures shall be not less than 10lb/ft multiplied by
the area Af where Af = area of open buildings and other structures either normal to the wind direction or
projected on a plane normal to the wind direction, in ft2

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.9
Page 11 of 12

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Figure 8. Wind Loading perpendicular to ridge

Figure 9. Wind Loading parallel to ridge

Wind Load perpendicular to Ridge


2
Af column = 20.2 ft
2
Af spandrel = 18.9 ft
2
Af roof = 8 x 18.5 = 148 ft

Wind Load parallel to Ridge


2
Af column = 20.2 ft
2
Af spandrel = 84.5 / 2 = 42.25 ft
2
Af gable end = 306/2 = 153 ft

Af Total = 187.1 ft
Af total = 216 ft
Ftotal = 187.1 x 10 = 1870 lbs
Ftotal = 216 x 10 = 2160 lbs
Table 7: Wind Load (Parallel and Perpendicular to the Ridge)

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.9
Page 12 of 12

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Appendix D.10
TT Review of James Thomas
Engineering Calculations

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.10

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.10

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Item numbers are hyperlinked


to respective sections in JTE
calculations

TT REVIEW OF JAMES THOMAS ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS:


TT reviewed a calculation package prepared by Jesse Mise, P.E. titled Indiana State Fair by Mid
America Sound dated 7/22/2010, 7/23/2010, and 7/24/2010. An annotated copy of these calculations
follows this section.
These calculations are a structural analysis of the ISF Structure that were reportedly prepared for James
Thomas Engineering for the 2010 concert productions at the Indiana State Fair. These calculations
included gravity load and wind load checks for three scheduled shows. Statements made by Mr. Mise to
IOSHA investigators indicate that calculations were not prepared for the 2011 concert
Thornton Tomasettis review focuses primarily on the determination of wind loads and ballast
requirements in terms of code requirements and best practices. The wind analysis calculations and guy
wire load requirements are located on pages 7 through 9, 15, and 16 of the calculation package. TTs
review has identified many inconsistencies, questionable engineering assumptions and unreasonable
operational assumptions.
TT has annotated specific items within this Appendix copy of the Mise calculations that correspond to the
discussion below:
Item 1:
This calculation package was prepared for the 2010 ISF Structure installation and a separate package
for the installation 2011 was not prepared. Of note are several discrepancies and differences between
the two installations. These include: three supplemental columns provided in 2011 compared to five
required in 2010; diameter guy wires specified in the 2010 calculations and the 3/8 diameter wire
ropes provided in 2011; variations in the guy line arrangement specified in 2010 and the arrangement
provided in 2011; additional snap bracing called for in 2010 not installed in 2011; and no mention of the
LED scrim in 2010 that was installed in 2011.
Item 2:
ASCE 37-05 is repeatedly referenced throughout the calculation package however it was not published
or revised in 2005.
Item 3:
The 50% porosity approximation for the column truss towers, although not calculated, is similar to
porosity calculated by TT.
Item 4:
The referenced equation in ASCE 7 section 6.5.13.3 is used for the determination of wind loads applied
to component and cladding elements attached to a structure, not for the calculation of wind loads to be
applied to a structure. Generally these loads are higher than those applied over an entire structure as
they are intended to capture local effects on smaller areas; this methodology could result in overly
conservative results.
Item 5:
The gust effect factor is determined assuming the structure is rigid. As shown in previous analyses,
these structures can behave as flexible structures due to the guy lines, slender elements and large
suspended weight associated them.
INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.10
Page 1 of 3

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Item numbers are hyperlinked


to respective sections in JTE
calculations

Item 6:
A force coefficient (Cf) of 1.3 was calculated based on Figure 6-21 in ASCE 7. This figure is intended to
calculate force coefficients for chimneys, tanks, rooftop equipment and similar structures based on their
aspect ratios (height to diameter/width relationship). These elements are generally solid shapes
mounted on a building or free standing on the ground. It is unclear why this method would be applied to
a clearly open structure. Additionally, the calculation of the aspect ratio (h/D) equal to 2 is incorrect.
Using h equal to 45 and D being the least horizontal dimension of 60 (per measurements in Mises
diagrams), the aspect ratio should be 0.75. Although the calculation is incorrect, the force coefficient
would likely remain 1.3 if this methodology were appropriate for an application such as the ISF Structure.
Item 7:
A net pressure coefficient (CN) of 0.80 appears to have been calculated based on Figure 6-19B in ASCE
7. This figure is intended for determination components and cladding loads for pitched free roofs. It
appears that obstructed flow was assumed based on the value selected from the table. What is even
more unclear is why the corresponding negative net pressure coefficient was not also used, which is
equal to -2.4 and acts upward, or away from the top of the roof surface. Had clear flow been evaluated
the values of CN would have been 1.7 and -1.7 based on the methodology employed.
Item 8:
An importance factor of 1.0 was utilized and would likely be a common assumption among engineers.
Based on TTs evaluation of the building code discussed in Section 5 of this report, a value of 1.15 is
more representative of the intent of the code.
Item 9:
The vertical pressure of 7 psf calculated is based on the net pressure coefficient discussed in Item 7 and
should act toward the top surface of the roof. Assuming the procedure to this point had been correct, a
pressure acting away from the top surface of the roof should also have been calculated based on a net
pressure coefficient of -2.4. Utilizing the same methodology, a pressure of 22 psf would act away from
the roof surface.
Item 10:
Here the base is assumed to be capable of resisting the wind load tributary to the bottom of the column
which is 153 lbs. As long as there is not a net uplift, the magnitude of this load small enough that can
likely be resisted by frictional forces.
Item 11:
The uplift force of 2,811 lbs is calculated here based on the 7 psf pressure discussed in Item 9, which as
previously discussed actually would act downward based on the methodology used. Had the negative
pressure associated with this methodology been used this value would be approximately 8,740 lbs.
Item 12:
Here the total uplift of 4,752 lbs is calculated by adding the effects of overturning due to the horizontal
loading. Carrying through with the prior methodology, this value would be 10,680 lbs.
Item 13:
The net uplift is calculated here by subtracting the self weight of the structure and superimposed dead
loads yielding 3,379 lbs. Again carrying through with the prior methodology this value would be 9,310
lbs. This would be the upward net upward load that would need to be resisted by the guy line system.
INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.10
Page 2 of 3

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Item numbers are hyperlinked


to respective sections in JTE
calculations

Item 14:
The maximum cable load appears to be calculated based on the cable being arranged such that it is
oriented at 45 degrees to the main structural grid lines, and also at 45 degrees with respect to the
ground. It also appears to assume that the restraint requirements in both horizontal directions are equal
to the uplift restraint requirement. The horizontal load restraint in the north-south direction was
calculated equal to 2505 lbs as part of determining the overturning moment. A calculation for in the eastwest direction was not performed. Assuming the methodology used in the calculation is correct, and
using the uplift value from Item 13, the maximum cable load would be 16,123 lbs. This value exceeds
the allowable load for both 3/8 and diameter wire ropes and exceeds the flexural capacity of the tube
members to which the fin plates are attached to.
Item 15:
The guy wire system layout assumes that the stage superstructure can deliver all of the necessary
lateral loads to four points on the structure and there is no mention of, or recommendations regarding
ballast requirements. The layout is also significantly different from the actual 2011 installation.
Item 16:
The note suggesting the superstructure grid be lowered for winds above 50 mph is unrealistic. The
superstructure grid could not be lowered in a timely fashion considering first the suspended production
rigging and other equipment including the LED scrim and LED video wall would need to be lowered and
removed. In addition, the supplemental columns clamped to the bottom of the structure would need to be
disconnected and removed. Next all of the safety straps which support the weight of the roof would need
to be removed in order for the chain hoists to engage the superstructure and lower it. Likewise, removal
of the tarp would be similarly unrealistic to achieve in a timely fashion due to the mechanical connection
of it to the trusses.
Summary:
Thornton Tomasetti has identified three significant shortcomings in the review of the calculation package
prepared for the 2010 installation:

The most significant deficiency is the decision to blindly apply the requirements of the 2010
installation, which were inadequate, to the 2011 installation and the further failure to implement
even the totality of the requirements specified in 2010.

The lack of understanding of the wind load provisions of ASCE 7, the haphazard and incorrect
application of provisions not specific to the structure, and the failure to provide a complete load
path including ballast requirements.

The operational recommendations for handling a high-wind event which could not be
implemented in a time frame consistent with typical weather warning systems.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.10
Page 3 of 3

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Annotated James Thomas


Engineering Calculations

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix D.10

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Back to TT Review
1

5
6
7

Back to TT Review

10

10

11

12
13

14

Back to TT Review

15

16

[This page left blank intentionally]

Appendix E.1
Jersey Barrier Friction Testing Protocol

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix E.1

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix E.1

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Testing Protocol
PROJECT NO

C11137.00

PROJECT
NAME

JERSEY BARRIER TEST PROTOCOL


Indianapolis State Fair Collapse
FROM
Incident

Scott Nacheman

PROJECT
LOCATION

Indianapolis, IN

Vice President

DATE

TITLE

November 4, 2011

Purpose:
Concrete barriers, commonly referred to as Jersey barriers, or K-rails were used as
ballast that served as the ground anchor points for the rigging structure system at the
above referenced property. Therefore, in order to evaluate the lateral stability of roof
structure system, the static friction resistance of the ground anchor points needs to be
determined through testing. The determination of the ultimate static friction resistance
will be based upon the procedures outlined below. The testing procedure will be
performed in situ and result in disturbed ground conditions surrounding the location of
the barriers and may further deteriorate the current condition of the Jersey barriers.
Notification/Evaluation:
All involved parties/stakeholders shall be notified of the testing time and location.
Notifications shall be issued by the regular distribution process posted at:
www.IN.gov/sfc/
Said notifications and evaluation of tests shall be in conformance with ASTM E860 - 07
Standard Practice for Examining And Preparing Items That Are Or May Become
Involved In Criminal or Civil Litigation.
It is anticipated that labor and equipment from F. A. Wilhelm Construction will be
utilized to execute the testing procedure.
Testing Specimen Quantity and Location:
The testing procedure will be performed on the following categories of Jersey barriers:
Displaced: Displaced Jersey barriers serving as ground anchor points that were moved
by the collapsing structure. These Jersey barriers will be moved back to their
approximate pre-collapse location to be tested. Namely JBW2, JBW3, JBNW1, JBNE1.
Non displaced: Jersey barriers serving as ground anchor points that were not
displaced by the collapsing structure and are still in their original pre-collapse location.

330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 1500 | Chicago IL 60611-7622 | T 312.596.2000 | F 312.596.2001 | www.ThorntonTomasetti.com

Testing Protocol
TT Project: C11137.00
Jersey Barrier Test Protocol - Indiana State Fair Collapse Incident
November 4, 2011, Page 2 of 5

The testing procedure will displace these barriers from their undisturbed positions.
Namely JBW1, JBE1, JBE2, JBE3, JBE4.
Ancillary: Jersey barriers not used as ground anchor points. These barriers will be
tested at various locations around the site to serve as a control group.
The location of each barrier shall be documented and photographed before, during and
after each test. The pre-collapse locations of displaced Jersey barriers will be
coordinated by Thornton Tomasetti. Documentation shall include notation that
identifies the location and ID number of each barrier.
Site Access Contact:
Authorized Individuals whom wish to observe the testing process shall request access
through siteaccess@sfc.in.gov
Testing Methodology:
This testing procedure was developed by Thornton Tomasetti based on ASTM G 11504 Standard Guide for Measuring and Reporting Friction Coefficients and is designed to
determine the ultimate static friction capacity of the Jersey barriers with the rigging
components in their respective pre-collapse configuration and geometry. ASTM G 11504 provides guidance for the selection of a method for measuring the frictional
properties of materials, requirements for minimum data, and a suggested format for
presenting the data.
Test Equipment
o Dillon Dynamometer(s)
10,000lb service capacity, stated accuracy 0.1% of service capacity.
5,000lb service capacity, stated accuracy 0.1% of service capacity.
o Lull Forklifts
o Chain hoist winches
o 1/2 inch diameter wire rope and hardware (shackles, U-bolts, etc.)
o Nylon tie-down strap.
Jersey barrier pull tests will be conducted using a nylon tie-down strap
with length similar to that of the original guy system setup to ensure
similar elastic properties in the test apparatus. The name and material
properties of all testing and rigging components will be documented.

Test Procedure
The following procedure for determining the ultimate static friction resistance shall be
performed:
1. Equipment will be setup following Diagram 1, Jersey Barrier Test Configuration
(see attached). A combination of the following cable angle/configurations shall be
implemented:

Testing Protocol
TT Project: C11137.00
Jersey Barrier Test Protocol - Indiana State Fair Collapse Incident
November 4, 2011, Page 3 of 5

2.
3.
4.
5.

6.

7.
8.
9.

10.

a. A horizontal force will be applied to the barrier in line with its longitudinal
axis at an angle horizontal to the ground plane.
b. In addition, a force applied at a vertical angle will be evaluated. The vertical
angle (V) of the cable will approximately represent the pre-collapse
configuration.
c. Equipment setup will be duplicated for test cases where the Jersey barrier
was attached by two separate cables to the rigging structure.
Document and photograph Jersey barrier and local ground conditions.
Document temperature and weather conditions
Recording of force/time data will begin.
a. Sampling rate of data will be established in the preliminary test.
Using a mechanical advantage device (chain-hoist winch) apply an increasing force
to the cable until the Jersey barrier is displaced. The applied force (as a measure of
increased load in the dynamometer) will be recorded. The movement of the Jersey
barrier will also be measured and recorded (L3).
a. Preliminary tests will establish which method of applying force is most
suitable.
Recording of force/time data will end.
b. Record data output.
c. Document peak force during test.
Document and photograph any displacement of the Jersey barrier.
Document any noticeable damage and/or wear to the Jersey barriers and ground
conditions.
Attach a 2-point bridle arrangement to opposite ends of the Jersey barrier and lift
the barrier using the forklift. Document the weight of each Jersey barrier using the
Dillon Dynamometer
Document the condition and surface area of the contact surface between Jersey
barrier and ground while barrier is suspended during weight determination noted
above (#9).

The testing procedure will be repeated for each of the displaced and non-displaced
barriers a minimum of five times in accordance with the guidance of ASTM G 115-04. In
the event a barrier experiences deterioration such that its friction capacity is no longer
representative of the pre-collapse condition, an ancillary barrier will be substituted and
testing will continue using the ancillary barrier.
In order to refine the execution of the testing procedure before disturbing the displaced
and non-displaced barriers, preliminary tests will be conducted using ancillary Jersey
barriers.
Amendments to Protocol:
It should be noted that the above-listed Protocol may require modification based on
actual field conditions encountered at the Indiana State Fair site. Any modifications
shall be disseminated to Interested Parties when the results from the tests are made
available.
END OF PROTOCOL

NYLON
TIE-DOWN
STRAP

ELEVATION

L3

PLAN

L3

CHAIN
HOIST

SLING

CHAIN
HOIST

L1

11/4/2011

Diagram1
C11137.00

Jersey Barrier Test Configuration

SLING
DILLON
DYNAMOMETER

LULL FORKLIFT
HOOK ATTACHMENT

1/2" DIA.
CABLE

1/2" DIA.
CABLE

NYLON
TIE-DOWN
STRAP

L1 = VERTICAL DISTANCE OF CABLE


L2 = HORIZONTAL DISTANCE OF CABLE
L3 = JERSEY BARRIER DISPLACEMENT
V = VERTICAL ANGLE OF CABLE

JERSEY
BARRIER
(POST-TEST)

JERSEY
BARRIER
(PRE-TEST)

JERSEY
BARRIER
(POST-TEST)

JERSEY
BARRIER
(PRE-TEST)

DILLON
DYNAMOMETER

LULL FORKLIFT
HOOK ATTACHMENT

L2

LULL FORKLIFT

LULL FORKLIFT

Appendix E.2
Jersey Barrier Friction Testing Results

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix E.2

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix E.2

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

IndianaStateFairCommissionCollapseIncident

TTProjectNo:C11137.00
Date:12/1/2011

JerseyBarrierStatic
FrictionResistanceSummary1

JERSEYBARRIERIDNUMBER:

JB.W1

SUSPENDEDWEIGHT
TOTALWT[LBS]:
RIGGINGWT[LBS]:
NETJBWT[LBS]

4220
30
4190
INCLINEANGLE:31 O

LONGITUDINALINCLINEDSTATICFRICTIONRESISTANCE
LENGTHOFNYLONSTRAP[FT] 3:
TEST#
1
2
2
LOAD[LBS]
2572
2611

10.1
3

2574

2523

2584

LONGITUDINALHORIZONTALSTATICFRICTIONRESISTANCE
TEST#
1
2
3
2
LOAD[LBS]
3113
3029
3279

JERSEYBARRIERIDNUMBER:
LENGTHOFNYLONSTRAP[FT] :
SUSPENDEDWEIGHT
TOTALWT[LBS]:
RIGGINGWT[LBS]:
NETJBWT[LBS]

2676

3408

9.6
4384
30
4354

2297

2463

LONGITUDINALHORIZONTALSTATICFRICTIONRESISTANCE
TEST#
1
2
3
LOAD[LBS]

3339

JB.W2
3

LONGITUDINALINCLINEDSTATICFRICTION
TEST#
1
2
LOAD[LBS]
2188

INCLINEANGLE:0 O
4
5

2833

2806

TRANSVERSEHORIZONTALSTATICFRICTIONRESISTANCE
TEST#
1
2
3
2
LOAD[LBS]
1047
1109
1174
TRANSVERSEINCLINESTATICFRICTIONRESISTANCE
TEST#
1
2
2
LOAD[LBS]
1298
1291

3
1290

INCLINEANGLE:61 O
4
5
2530

2575

INCLINEANGLE:0 O
4
5
2940

3026

INCLINEANGLE:0 O
4
5
1196

1286

INCLINEANGLE:60 O
4
5
1271

1274

IndianaStateFairCommissionCollapseIncident

JERSEYBARRIERIDNUMBER:

JB.W3

SUSPENDEDWEIGHT
TOTALWT[LBS]:
RIGGINGWT[LBS]:
NETJBWT[LBS]

4408
30
4378

JERSEYBARRIERIDNUMBER:

JB.W4
3

LENGTHOFNYLONSTRAP[FT] :
SUSPENDEDWEIGHT
TOTALWT[LBS]:
RIGGINGWT[LBS]:
NETJBWT[LBS]

5.5

4375
30
4345

LONGITUDINALINCLINEDSTATICFRICTIONRESISTANCE
INCLINEANGLE[DEGREES]:
36
TEST#
1
2
3
2
LOAD[LBS]
2473
2556
2576
LONGITUDINALHORIZONTALSTATICFRICTIONRESISTANCE
TEST#
1
2
3
2
LOAD[LBS]
2797
3098
3021

JERSEYBARRIERIDNUMBER:

INCLINEANGLE:36 O
4

2414

2411

INCLINEANGLE:0 O
4
5
3071

2946

JB.NW1
3

LENGTHOFNYLONSTRAP[FT] :
SUSPENDEDWEIGHT
TOTALWT[LBS]:
RIGGINGWT[LBS]:
NETJBWT[LBS]

13.4

4139
30
4109

LONGITUDINALINCLINEDSTATICFRICTIONRESISTANCE
TEST#
1
2
3
2
LOAD[LBS]
2140
2289
2329
LONGITUDINALHORIZONTALSTATICFRICTIONRESISTANCE
TEST#
1
2
3
LOAD[LBS]2

TTProjectNo:C11137.00
Date:12/1/2011

JerseyBarrierStatic
FrictionResistanceSummary1

2783

3037

3140

INCLINEANGLE:36 O
4
5
2331

2324

INCLINEANGLE:0 O
4
5
3029

3015

IndianaStateFairCommissionCollapseIncident

JERSEYBARRIERIDNUMBER:

JB.NE1
3

LENGTHOFNYLONSTRAP[FT] :

13

SUSPENDEDWEIGHT
TOTALWT[LBS]:
RIGGINGWT[LBS]:
NETJBWT[LBS]

4279
30
4249

LONGITUDINALINCLINEDSTATICFRICTIONRESISTANCE
TEST#
1
2
3
2
LOAD[LBS]
2312
2586
2580
LONGITUDINALHORIZONTALSTATICFRICTIONRESISTANCE
TEST#
1
2
3
2
LOAD[LBS]
2911
3153
3098

JERSEYBARRIERIDNUMBER:

JB.E4

SUSPENDEDWEIGHT
TOTALWT[LBS]:
RIGGINGWT[LBS]:
NETJBWT[LBS]

JERSEYBARRIERIDNUMBER:

4310
30
4280

JB.E3

SUSPENDEDWEIGHT
TOTALWT[LBS]:
RIGGINGWT[LBS]:
NETJBWT[LBS]

JERSEYBARRIERIDNUMBER:
SUSPENDEDWEIGHT
TOTALWT[LBS]:
RIGGINGWT[LBS]:
NETJBWT[LBS]

TTProjectNo:C11137.00
Date:12/1/2011

JerseyBarrierStatic
FrictionResistanceSummary1

4309
30
4279

JB.E2
4132
30
4102

INCLINEANGLE:33 O
4
5
2487

2452

INCLINEANGLE:0 O
4
5
3127

3081

IndianaStateFairCommissionCollapseIncident

JERSEYBARRIERIDNUMBER:
SUSPENDEDWEIGHT
TOTALWT[LBS]:
RIGGINGWT[LBS]:
NETJBWT[LBS]

JerseyBarrierStatic
FrictionResistanceSummary1

TTProjectNo:C11137.00
Date:12/1/2011

JB.E2
4398
30
4368

NOTES:
1.Valuesgeneratedusing5,000lbcapacityDillonDynamometer.Statedaccuracy+/0.1%ofcapacity
2."LOAD"representstheobservedpeakforcethatdisplacedtheJerseybarrier
3.Approximatelengths+/2"

Appendix E.3
Metallurgical Testing Protocol

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix E.3

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix E.3

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Testing Protocol
PROJECT NO

C11137.00

DATE

11 January 2012

PROJECT
NAME

Indiana State Fair Collapse Incident


Metallurgy Evaluation

FROM

Scott Nacheman

PROJECT
LOCATION

Indianapolis, IN

TITLE

Vice President

Purpose:
In order to properly evaluate the conditions and material properties of select structural
components of the above'referenced location, materials testing needs to be performed.
To facilitate laboratory testing, material specimens (coupons) need to be
procured/extracted from the structure at the Indiana State Fair (ISF) that is presently
located in the warehouse. Properties of baseline (control) specimens and distressed
materials shall be evaluated.
The intent of the testing is to establish baseline material properties for use in the
analysis of the structure.
The tests and requirements in this protocol define the requirements for destructive and
non'destructive materials testing of aluminum truss components and their welded
connections. It is understood that other testing protocols (i.e. jersey barrier friction
capacity) exist and have been implemented under a separate protocol.
Notification/Evaluation:
All involved parties/stakeholders shall be notified of the testing time and location.
Notifications shall be issued by the regular distribution process posted at:
www.IN.gov/sfc/
Said notifications and evaluation of tests shall be in conformance with ASTM E860 ' 07
Standard Practice for Examining And Preparing Items That Are Or May Become
Involved In Criminal or Civil Litigation.
Material Specimen Procurement Quantity:
Identification of locations for specimen/coupon extraction will be the responsibility of
Thornton Tomasetti. Specimen location may be modified in the field as conditions
warrant at the sole discretion of Thornton Tomasetti. Location of each specimen shall
be documented and photographed before and after extraction. Documentation shall
include notation on a scaled drawing that identifies the location and ID number (see
below) of each specimen. Note, the size of the sample set is such to establish baseline
and comparison of material properties, not to establish a statistically representative
example of properties.

330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 1500 | Chicago IL 60611-7622 | T 312.596.2000 | F 312.596.2001 | www.ThorntonTomasetti.com

Testing Protocol
TT Project: C11137.00
Indiana State Fair Collapse Incident Metallurgy Evaluation
11 January 2012, Page 2 of 6

Naming Convention (ID Number) for Material Specimens:


All specimens (and/or their containers) shall be marked in conformance with ASTM E
1188, Standard Practice for Collection and Preservation of Information and Physical
Items by a Technical Investigator and ASTM E 1459, Standard Guide for Physical
Evidence Labeling and Related Documentation.
At a minimum, all material specimens (and/or their containers) shall be labeled in
permanent ink using the established tagging nomenclature.
Material/Specimen Storage:
Materials samples will be securely packaged for shipping to the testing facility. The
packaging will preserve the integrity of the material specimen during the shipping
process. The testing facility responsible for the analysis of the specimens shall be
responsible for the storage of the specimens in a controlled environment until such time
they are returned to Thornton Tomasetti or disposition is authorized (see below).
Chain of Custody:
All specimens (and/or their containers) shall have a Chain of Custody label affixed. The
previous issued Chain of Custody Protocol shall be adhered to.
Disposition of Specimens:
No specimens shall be disposed until such time as express written authorization is
provided by Thornton Tomasetti and State of Indiana authorities. Notice of this action
will be disseminated to Interested Parties who have previously submitted their contact
information and qualifications to siteaccess@sfc.in.gov.
Site Access Contact:
Authorized Individuals whom wish to observe the material extraction shall request
access by sending a request to: siteaccess@sfc.in.gov following the established
protocol.
Authorized Testing Agency
Lucius Pitkin, Inc.
304 Hudson Street
New York, NY 10013
Tel: (212) 233'2737

Testing Protocol
TT Project: C11137.00
Indiana State Fair Collapse Incident Metallurgy Evaluation
11 January 2012, Page 3 of 6

Specimen Procurement Method:


In general, material specimens of a size and configuration as required by the Standard
to be implemented will be cut or removed from the parent material with electric,
pneumatic, and/or hand tools. Based on the nature of obtaining the required material
samples, components and/or systems of the aluminum structural and/or lighting
trusses, columns, gables, ridges, etc. may be irreversibly altered from their current
(post'collapse) condition.
Testing Methodology:
The following standards may be utilized in the evaluation of the subject components:
Aluminum & Filler Metal:
The intent of the evaluations is to establish the alloy, temper, and material
properties for the aluminum utilized in the fabrication of the Structure at the ISF
associated with the collapse incident. The type and properties of the filler (weld)
metal/electrode utilized will be evaluated in addition to the condition and quality
of the welded connections through the use of micro'structural evaluation of
quality and micro'hardness measurements of the materials.
Aluminum components to be evaluated include, but may not be limited to:
any/all of the silver and/or black colored columns (towers); any/all of the column
sleeve blocks; any/all of the structural trusses, purlin trusses, gable trusses,
ridge trusses, etc.; any/all of the lighting/scenery/prop trusses and/or
components.
The standards governing the extraction, analysis, comparison and evaluation of
the aluminum material specimens may include, but are not limited to the
following versions of the most current active standards:
1. ASTM B210 Standard Specification for Aluminum and Aluminum Alloy
Drawn Seamless Tubes.
This specification covers aluminum and aluminum'alloy drawn
seamless tubes in straight lengths and coils for general purpose and
pressure applications. Tensile properties of the tubes such as
tensile strength, yield strength, and elongation shall be determined.
2. ASTM B221 Standard Specification for Aluminum and Aluminum Alloy
Extruded, Bars, Rods, Wire, Profiles, and Tubes
This specification covers extruded bars, rods, wires, profiles, and
tubes made from aluminum and aluminum alloys. The chemical
composition of each material is determined in accordance with the
specified suitable chemical and spectrochemical test methods.
Samples for chemical analysis should be taken from the finished or
semi'finished products by drilling, sawing, milling, turning, or
clipping.

Testing Protocol
TT Project: C11137.00
Indiana State Fair Collapse Incident Metallurgy Evaluation
11 January 2012, Page 4 of 6

3. ASTM B241 Standard Specification for Aluminum and Aluminum Alloy


Seamless Pipe and Seamless Extruded Tube.
This specification covers aluminum and aluminum'alloy seamless
pipe and seamless extruded tube. The determination of chemical
composition shall be made in accordance with suitable chemical
(test methods E 34) or spectrochemical (test methods E 227, E 607,
and E 1251) methods. The tension tests shall be made in
accordance with test methods B 557. The stress'corrosion cracking
test shall be performed on extruded tube. The stress'corrosion test
shall be made in accordance with test method G 47.
4. ASTM B308 Standard Specification for Aluminum Alloy 6061-T6 Standard
Structural Profiles
This specification covers the standard structural profiles for 6061'T6
aluminum'alloy. The profiles are limited to I'beams, H'beams,
channels, angles, tees, and zees, which shall be produced by hot
extruding only. The determination of chemical composition shall be
made in accordance with suitable chemical or spectrochemical
methods. Tensile properties shall be tested with test methods for
tension testing wrought and cast aluminum' and magnesium'alloy
products.
5. ASTM B313 Standard Specification for Aluminum and Aluminum Alloy
Round Welded Tubes
This specification covers aluminum and aluminum'alloy tubes made
from formed sheet and seam welded by continuous methods.
Chemical conformance shall be determined by analyzing samples
taken from the finished or semi'finished product, following
conditions set in the specification. The temper of the tubes shall be
that of the sheet from which the tubes are formed, and the sheet
shall conform to the specified tensile property requirements. The
tube shall be subjected to tension, capability, and pressure tests.

6. ASTM B429 Standard Specification for Aluminum Alloy Extruded Structural


Pipe and Tube
This specification covers UNS A96061 or A96063 aluminum alloy
extruded pipes and tubes intended for use in structural applications.
Samples for chemical analysis should be taken from the materials
by drilling, sawing, turning, or clipping and subjected to suitable
chemical or spectrochemical methods of analysis.
7. ASTM B547 Standard Specification for Aluminum Alloy Formed and ArcWelded Tube
This specification covers aluminum and aluminum'alloy formed and
arc'welded round tube, made from formed sheet or plate, butt
welded by gas'tungsten or gas'metal arc'welding methods with or
without the use of filler metal. Tensile strength, yield strength, and
elongation of the specimens shall be determined by a tension test.

Testing Protocol
TT Project: C11137.00
Indiana State Fair Collapse Incident Metallurgy Evaluation
11 January 2012, Page 5 of 6

Specimens may be subjected to a pressure test and a radiographic


examination.
8. ASTM B557 Standard Methods of Tension Testing Wrought and Cast
Aluminum and Magnesium Alloy Products
Tension tests provide information on the strength and ductility of
materials under uniaxial tensile stresses. This information may be
useful in comparisons of materials, alloy development, quality
control, and design under certain circumstances. These test
methods are considered satisfactory for acceptance testing of
commercial shipments and have been used extensively in the trade
for this purpose
9. ASTM E55 Standard Test Method for Sampling Wrought Nonferrous Metals
and Alloys for Chemical Composition
This practice covers the sampling, for the determination of chemical
composition of nonferrous metals and alloys that have been
reduced to their final form by mechanical working; that is, by such
means as rolling, drawing, and extruding. The portion selection,
sample preparation, sampling details, sample size and storage, and
resampling are also detailed.
10. ANSI/AWS D1.2/D1.2M Structural Welding Code Aluminum
The welding requirements for any type structure made from
aluminum structural alloys, except for aluminum pressure vessels
and fluid'carrying pipe lines.

Testing Protocol
TT Project: C11137.00
Indiana State Fair Collapse Incident Metallurgy Evaluation
11 January 2012, Page 6 of 6

Material Specimen Types:


The following types of components and connections shall be extracted for testing and
evaluation. Both full connections and representative coupons shall be extracted.

Column Splice
Tube and splice locations from the main support
column members.

Column Node Fin Plate


Lateral guying cable connection plate on
column node members.

Amendments to Protocol:
Comments or questions regarding the content or amendments to this Protocol shall be
submitted to siteaccess@sfc.in.gov for consideration.
Parties shall not submit questions or comments directly to Thornton Tomasetti, Lucius
Pitkin or Indiana State Fair Commission personnel.
END OF PROTOCOL

Appendix E.4
Metallurgical Testing
Extracted Sample Locations

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix E.4

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix E.4

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Node - Fin
- F4.East
- F4.North
- F3.East

Column Splice - Half


- CA1
- CB1

01/19/2012

C11137.00

Location of Extracted Samples

Material Testing

Column Splice - Full


- CB4
- CF3

Whole Node Gate


- B3.West
- B2.West
- B4.West
- B4.North

[This page left blank intentionally]

Appendix E.5
Metallurgical Testing Summary

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix E.5

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix E.5

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

METALLURGICAL TESTING SUMMARY


th

The samples for metallurgical testing of the ISF Structure components were extracted on January 19 ,
2011. This work was performed at the warehouse where the components from the ISF Structure are
presently stored. Components that were selected for testing consisted of two primary groups:
1. Typical column / column splice consisting of:
2 Tube
1 Tube
1 x 2 rectangular tube
Channel
2. Nodes Gates with the fin plate (to which the guy lines were attached) consisting of:
Fin plate
2 Tube
1 Tube
The samples were selected so as to obtain an accurate representation of the metallurgical properties of
the components being evaluated.
The process consisted of:
1. The samples locations were marked out and then were extracted using powered band and
circular saw and/or angle grinder with a metal cutting blade.
2. The extracted samples were then tagged and annotated utilizing the established tagging
nomenclature.
3. The extracted samples were then transported to Lucius Pitkin, Inc. for metallurgical and physical
evaluation.

Picture 1. Node Gate Fin Plate Sample

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix E.5
Page 1 of 4

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Picture 2. Column Splice

The samples group consisted of failed components and representative/control samples. The control
samples allowed us to identify possible deficiencies in the failed components.
COMPOSITIONAL ANALYSIS:
The compositional profile of the base metal and the weld filler metal used in the column splices and fin
plate/ node gate was identified by LPI. For the base metal, Alloy 6061most closely matched the profile of
the column splice (12 samples were tested) and Alloy 6351 (8 samples were tested) most closely
matched the profile of the node gate/fin plate.
For the weld filler metal, Alloy 4043 most closely matched the profile of the column splice (3 samples
were tested) and Alloy 5356 most closely matched the profile of the node gate/fin plate filler material (4
samples were tested).
The material compositions of the various components of the ISF structure are tabulated below:
Material Composition
Base Metal
Weld Filler Metal
Column Splices
6061 - T6
4043
Fin Plate/ Node Gate
6351
5356
Table 1. Material Composition
Alloy compositional analysis was conducted for the various components of the column splices and the
node gates (shown below in Picture 4 and Picture 5)

Picture 4. Column Splice Components

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix E.5
Page 2 of 4

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Picture 5. Node gate components

COLUMN SPLICE CAPACITY:


The capacity of the column splices was evaluated by means of monotonically loading a channel at its two
bolt hole locations so that the total load that was being applied is approximately distributed equally. The
reactions due to the applied loading were maintained by anchoring four 2 tubes. The maximum load that
each column splice sustained before failure is tabulated in Table 1.
Failure Mode:
Upon testing the column splice to failure, the region of the weld between the channel and the 1 x 2
rectangular tube failed as shown in Figure.
Sample ID
Peak Load (kips)
MTG.CF3-3
26.7
MTG.CF3-4
23.2
MTG.CB4-4
24.9
Table 2. Capacity of Column Splices
FIN PLATE MECHANICAL TESTING:
The capacity of the fin plates was evaluated by means of monotonically loading it while maintaining
reaction forces at the two 2 in. tubes.
Failure Mode:
Failure of the fin plate samples occurred at the weld between the plate and 2 tube. The peak load before
failure is tabulated below.
Sample ID
Peak Load (kips)
F3 East
14.8
F4 North
11.6
F4 North
8.8
Table 3. Capacity of Fin Plates

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix E.5
Page 3 of 4

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

TENSILE TESTING:
Tensile testing was performed on the specimens extracted from fin plate B4. North and column splice
(1x2 tube) MTG.CB4.5 and were tested in accordance with ASTM E8 and B557, as applicable. The
results of the tensile testing are tabulated below:
Yield
Tensile Strength
Elongation
Strength (ksi)
(ksi)
(%)
Alloy 6351-T6
37 min
42 min
10 min
B4.North 1
46
51
15
B4.North 2
45
51
14
Alloy 6061-T6
35 min
42 min
10 min
MTG.CB4.5 - 1
43.8
48.1
14
MTG.CB4.5 - 2
43.9
47.7
N/A
Table 4. Capacity of Fin Plates
(Note: Specimen MTG.CB4.5-2 fractured outside gage length)
Specimen ID

EVALUATION OF COLUMN SPLICE CHANNEL-TO-1X2 TUBE WELDS:


Welds were evaluated on an intact column splice specimen identified as MTG.CB4.5. Failure during the
column splice mechanical tests occurred by cracking along the channel-to-1x2 tube welds. The weld
evaluation revealed shrinkage cracks at both the locations. Also, it was noted that the size of the channelto-1x2 tube welds significantly violated good welding practice based on thickness of the joint materials.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix E.5
Page 4 of 4

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Appendix E.6
Lucius Pitkin Inc. (LPI)
Metallurgical Testing Results

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix E.6

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix E.6

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Lucius Pitkin, Inc.

Consulting Engineers

Fitness-For-Service
Failure & Materials Evaluation
Nondestructive Engineering

March 9, 2012
Project No. F11406
Thornton Tomasetti
330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60611
Attention: Mr. Scott G. Nacheman, MSc.Eng., AIA
Subject: INDIANA STATE FAIR RIGGING/ROOF COLLAPSE
TRANSMISSION OF DATA
We transmit herewith the observed results regarding the evaluation of
column splice and node gate/fin plate samples submitted to LPI by Thornton
Tomasetti (TT).
LPI performed the following work:

Chemical composition
Tensile testing
Mechanical testing
Evaluation of welds

Chemical composition
A test list submitted by TT on January 25, 2012 specifies a total of 27
locations for compositional analysis from the submitted samples. Identification of
sample locations is provided in Table 1.

No.

TABLE 1
LOCATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF COMPOSITION SAMPLES
TT ID
Type
Condition Location
Sample ID

MTG.CA1

Column Splice

Failed

2 in. Tube

CA1-2

MTG.CA1

Column Splice

Failed

1 in. Tube

CA1-10

MTG.CA1

Column Splice

Failed

1 x 2 in. Tube

CA1-1x2

MTG.CA1

Column Splice

Failed

Channel

CA1-C

MTG.CA1

Column Splice

Failed

Filler

CA1-F

304 Hudson Street, New York, NY 10013-1015


New York, NY

Tel: 212-233-2737
Amesbury, MA

Fax: 212-406-1417
Richland, WA

Ensuring the integrity of todays structures for tomorrows world TM

www.lpiny.com

Thornton Tomasetti
Attention: Scott G. Nacheman

March 9, 2012
F11406

No.

TT ID

Type

Condition

Location

Sample ID

MTG.CB1

Column Splice

Failed

2 in. Tube

CB1-2

MTG.CB1

Column Splice

Failed

1 in. Tube

CB1-1

MTG.CB1

Column Splice

Failed

1 x 2 in. Tube

CB1-1x2

MTG.CB1

Column Splice

Failed

Channel

CB1-C

10

MTG.CB1

Column Splice

Failed

Filler

CB1-F

11

MTG.CB4

Column Splice

Intact

2 in. Tube

CB4-2

12

MTG.CB4

Column Splice

Intact

1 in. Tube

CB4-1

13

MTG.CB4

Column Splice

Intact

1 x 2 in. Tube

CB4-1x2

14

MTG.CB4

Column Splice

Intact

Channel

CB4-C

15

MTG.CB4

Column Splice

Intact

Filler

CB4-F

16

MTG.B4W

Node Gate/Fin Plate

Failed

2 in. Tube

B4W-2

17

MTG.B4W

Node Gate/Fin Plate

Failed

Plate

B4W-P

18

MTG.B4W

Node Gate/Fin Plate

Failed

Filler

B4W-F

19

MTG.B4N

Node Gate/Fin Plate

Failed

2 in. Tube

B4N-2

20

MTG.B4N

Node Gate/Fin Plate

Failed

Plate

B4N-P

21

MTG.B4N

Node Gate/Fin Plate

Failed

Filler

B4N-F

22

MTG.B3W

Node Gate/Fin Plate

Intact

2 in. Tube

B3W-2

23

MTG.B3W

Node Gate/Fin Plate

Intact

Plate

B3W-P

24

MTG.B3W

Node Gate/Fin Plate

Intact

Filler

B3W-F

25

MTG.B2W

Node Gate/Fin Plate

Failed

2 in. Tube

B2W-2

26

MTG.B2W

Node Gate/Fin Plate

Failed

Plate

B2W-P

27

MTG.B2W

Node Gate/Fin Plate

Failed

Filler

B2W-F

Composition of the submitted materials was determined using standard


chemical analysis techniques. Results of analyses for the structural elements
comprising the column splice are given in Table 2. The column splice materials
met the compositional requirements for aluminum Alloy 6061 per ASTM B221.

Thornton Tomasetti
Attention: Scott G. Nacheman

March 9, 2012
F11406

TABLE 2
COMPOSITION OF COLUMN SPLICE MATERIALS (Wt, %)
Sample ID
Si
Fe
Cu
Mn
Mg
Cr
Zn
Ti

Al

Alloy 6061
ASTM B221

0.400.80

0.7
max

0.150.40

0.15
max

0.80.12

0.040.35

0.25
max

0.15
max

Rem

CA1-C

0.66

0.3

0.27

0.03

0.8

0.05

0.05

0.02

Rem

CB4-C

0.69

0.3

0.28

0.04

0.9

0.06

0.05

0.02

Rem

CB1-C

0.66

0.3

0.27

0.03

0.8

0.05

0.05

0.02

Rem

CB1-1x2

0.51

0.2

0.26

0.04

0.8

0.04

<0.01

0.02

Rem

CB4-1x2

0.52

0.2

0.26

0.04

0.8

0.04

<0.01

0.02

Rem

CA1-1x2

0.50

0.2

0.24

0.03

0.8

0.05

<0.01

0.01

Rem

CB1-2

0.51

0.1

0.23

0.04

0.8

0.06

<0.01

0.01

Rem

CB4-2

0.50

0.1

0.23

0.04

0.8

0.06

<0.01

0.01

Rem

CA1-2

0.49

0.2

0.23

0.03

0.8

0.06

<0.01

0.01

Rem

CB4-1

0.61

0.2

0.21

0.03

0.9

0.09

<0.01

0.02

Rem

CB1-1

0.48

0.2

0.23

0.04

0.8

0.06

<0.01

0.01

Rem

CA1-1

0.49

0.2

0.24

0.03

0.8

0.05

<0.01

0.02

Rem

Results of analyses for the structural elements comprising the node gate/
fin plate are given in Table 3. The node gate and fin plate materials met the
compositional requirements for aluminum Alloy 6351 per ASTM B221, except for
samples B4N-2 and B3W-2 that had slightly lower than specified manganese
content.
TABLE 3
COMPOSITION OF NODE GATE AND FIN PLATE MATERIALS (Wt, %)
Sample ID
Si
Fe
Cu
Mn
Mg
Cr
Zn
Ti

Al

Alloy 6351
ASTM B221

0.71.3

0.5
max

0.1
max

0.40.8

0.40.8

NA

0.20

0.20

Rem

B2W-2

1.0

0.25

0.01

0.40

0.6

0.01

0.01

0.01

Rem

B4N-2

1.0

0.25

0.01

0.39

0.6

0.01

0.01

0.01

Rem

B3W-2

1.0

0.25

0.02

0.39

0.6

0.01

0.01

0.01

Rem

B4W-2

1.0

0.24

0.01

0.40

0.6

0.01

0.01

0.01

Rem

Thornton Tomasetti
Attention: Scott G. Nacheman

March 9, 2012
F11406

Sample ID

Si

Fe

Cu

Mn

Mg

Cr

Zn

Ti

Al

B4W-P

1.0

0.39

0.05

0.60

0.8

0.02

0.06

0.02

Rem

B4N-P

0.9

0.38

0.05

0.59

0.8

0.02

0.06

0.02

Rem

B2W-P

1.1

0.33

0.07

0.50

0.7

0.02

0.05

0.03

Rem

B3W-P

1.1

0.35

0.08

0.51

0.8

0.02

0.05

0.03

Rem

Results of analyses for the weld filler metals are given in Table 4. In an
email dated February 22, 2012, TT provided a list of potential weld filler metals.
Of these, aluminum filler Alloy 4043 and Alloy 5356 most closely matched the
measured compositional profile of the column splice (Samples CA1-F, CB4-F,
CB1-F) and fin plate/node gate (Samples B2W-F, B3W-F, B4W-F, B4N-F) filler
metal materials, respectively.

Sample ID

TABLE 4
COMPOSITION OF FILLER MATERIAL (Wt, %)
Si
Fe
Cu
Mn
Mg
Cr
Zn

Ti

Al

Filler Alloy
4043

4.56.0

0.8
max

0.3
max

0.05
max

0.05
max

--

0.10
max

0.20
max

Rem

CA1-F

3.14

0.18

0.10

0.019

0.32

0.027

<0.01

0.007

Rem

CB4-F

2.00

0.20

0.12

0.020

0.42

--

0.02

--

Rem

CB1-F

2.64

0.19

0.12

0.021

0.44

0.042

<0.01

0.009

Rem

Filler Alloy
5356

0.25
max

0.4
max

0.1
max

0.050.20

4.55.5

0.050.20

0.10
max

0.060.20

Rem

B2W-F

0.18

0.19

0.16

0.20

3.8

0.12

0.1

0.07

Rem

B3W-F

0.19

0.16

<0.01

0.21

4.1

0.10

<0.01

0.07

Rem

B4W-F

0.14

0.18

0.01

0.20

4.0

0.11

<0.01

0.08

Rem

B4N-F

0.20

0.16

0.01

0.27

3.9

0.10

<0.01

0.07

Rem

Tensile testing
Tensile testing was performed on the fin plate and column splice
materials. Standard round and flat tensile test specimens were machined from
fin plate B4.NORTH and column splice (1x2 tube) MTG.CB4.5, respectively, and
tested in accordance with ASTM E8 and B557, as applicable. Results of tensile
testing are given in Table 5.

Thornton Tomasetti
Attention: Scott G. Nacheman

Specimen ID
Alloy 6351-T6
B4.NORTH-1
B4.NORTH-2
Alloy 6061-T6
MTG.CB4.5-1
MTG.CB4.5-2

March 9, 2012
F11406

TABLE 5
TENSILE TESTING
Yield
Tensile
Strength
Strength
(ksi)
(ksi)
42.0 min
37 min
51
46
51
45
42.0 min
35 min
48.1
43.8
47.7
43.9

Elongation
(%)
10 min
15
14
10 min
14
N/A

Note: Specimen MTG.CB4.5-2 fractured outside the gage length.

Based on chemical composition analyses, the fin plate and column splice
materials met the compositional requirements for aluminum Alloy 6351 and Alloy
6061, respectively, per ASTM B221. The measured tensile properties of the fin
plate and column splice materials also met the mechanical property requirements
for aluminum Alloy 6351-T6 and Alloy 6061-T6, respectively, per ASTM B221.
Mechanical testing
Mechanical tests were performed on submitted intact column splice and
node gate/fin plate samples identified by TT in mechanical testing diagrams
submitted January 27, 2012.
Mechanical testing of three submitted intact column splice samples was
performed by monotonically loading a channel by its two bolt hole locations so
that the total load is distributed approximately equally, as shown in Figs. 1 and 2.
Reaction forces were maintained by anchoring the four two-inch tubes. The
maximum load each column splice sustained before failure is given in Table 6.
Failure of the column splice samples occurred in the region of the weld between
the channel and 1x2 in. tube, as shown in Figs. 3 through 5.
TABLE 6
MECHANICAL TESTING OF COLUMN SPLICES
Sample ID
Peak Load (kips)
MTG.CF3-3
26.7
MTG.CF3-4
23.2
MTG.CB4-4
24.9

Thornton Tomasetti
Attention: Scott G. Nacheman

March 9, 2012
F11406

Mechanical testing of three submitted intact fin plate samples was


performed by monotonically loading the fin plate while maintaining reaction
forces at the two 2 in. tubes, as shown in Fig. 6. The maximum load each fin
plate sustained before failure is given in Table 7. Failure of the fin plate samples
occurred at the weld between the plate and the 2 in. tube, as shown in Figs. 7
through 9.
TABLE 7
MECHANICAL TESTING OF FIN PLATES
Sample ID
Peak Load (kips)
F3 EAST
14.8
F4 EAST
11.6
F4 NORTH
8.8
Evaluation of welds
Welds were evaluated on an intact column splice specimen, identified by
TT as MTG.CB4.5. Failure during column splice mechanical tests occurred by
cracking along channel-to-1x2 tube welds. Cross-sectional samples were
prepared from the intact column splice specimen MTG.CB4.5 at the throat of the
short and long welds, as shown in Fig. 10. Samples were polished and suitably
etched to reveal the weld and heat-affected zone regions, as shown in Fig. 11
and 12. Both cross-section locations exhibited shrinkage cracks.
Additionally, the size of the channel-to-1x2 tube welds significantly
violated good welding practice based on the thickness of the joint materials.
Respectfully submitted,
LPI (Lucius Pitkin, Inc.)

JPM:RSV/P:Projects/2011/F11406 Thornton Tomasetti Indiana State Fair Rigging/Roof Collapse


This report is rendered upon the condition that it is not to be reproduced wholly or in part for advertising or other purposes
over our signature or in connection with our name without special permission in writing. Be advised that all materials
submitted for evaluation will be retained for six months. After such time, all material will be discarded unless otherwise
notified in writing to retain beyond six months.
FORM 107-2/76

Thornton Tomasetti
Attention: Scott G. Nacheman

March 9, 2012
F11406

Fig. 1 Front view of column splice mechanical test setup

Thornton Tomasetti
Attention: Scott G. Nacheman

March 9, 2012
F11406

Fig. 2 Top view of column splice mechanical test setup

Thornton Tomasetti
Attention: Scott G. Nacheman

March 9, 2012
F11406

Fig. 3 Failure of column splice CF3-3

Thornton Tomasetti
Attention: Scott G. Nacheman

March 9, 2012
F11406

Fig. 4 Failure of column splice CF3-4

10

Thornton Tomasetti
Attention: Scott G. Nacheman

March 9, 2012
F11406

Fig. 5 Failure of column splice CB4-4

11

Thornton Tomasetti
Attention: Scott G. Nacheman

March 9, 2012
F11406

Fig. 6 Fin plate mechanical test setup

12

Thornton Tomasetti
Attention: Scott G. Nacheman

March 9, 2012
F11406

Fig. 7 Failure of fin plate F3 EAST

13

Thornton Tomasetti
Attention: Scott G. Nacheman

March 9, 2012
F11406

Fig. 8 Failure of fin plate F4 EAST

14

Thornton Tomasetti
Attention: Scott G. Nacheman

March 9, 2012
F11406

Fig. 9 Failure of fin plate F4 NORTH

15

Thornton Tomasetti
Attention: Scott G. Nacheman

March 9, 2012
F11406

Fig. 10 Location of cross-sections for weld throat evaluation

16

Thornton Tomasetti
Attention: Scott G. Nacheman

March 9, 2012
F11406

Fig. 11 Cross-sectional profile of channel-to-1x2 tube at throat of short weld as


shown in Fig. 5. Bottom image is magnified image of top. Arrows point to
cracks.

17

Thornton Tomasetti
Attention: Scott G. Nacheman

March 9, 2012
F11406

Fig. 12 Cross-sectional profile of channel-to-1x2 tube at throat of long weld as


shown in Fig. 5. Bottom image is magnified image of top. Arrows point to
cracks.

18

Appendix F.1
Select Recent Entertainment
Rigging Collapses

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix F.1

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix F.1

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

SELECTED RECENT ENTERTAINMENT RIGGING COLLAPSES


2011 CANADA: OTTAWA BLUES FEST
th

The incident occurred on July 17 , 2011 at Ottawa, Ontario. Heavy wind gusts of up to 57.5 mph were
reported. 3 people were hurt with minor injuries. The structure was constructed by Groupe Berger. The
Ontario Ministry of Labor investigated the failure. The structure was attached to a trailer truck weighing
approximately 180,000 pounds. The wind blew the roof of the trailer off but also pushed the base about
five feet on the ground, which destabilized the structure and caused the collapse. The failure was also
attributed to the inability to release the windscreens (which were secured using zip ties) quickly enough,
as the wind speeds built up very fast. The stage was supposed to sustain speeds of 75 mph, but a nearby
weather station recorded speeds of nearly 98 mph.
Photos:

http://electro3voice.com/sitefiles/pr_images/Blues_Fest_Ottawa_02_.jpg

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix F.1
Page 1 of 6

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/topstories/2011/07/17/li36203collapse33cp997811.jpg

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/18/103people3injured3in3bluesfest3stage3collapse

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix F.1
Page 2 of 6

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

2011 USA: OKLAHOMA STAGE/SCREEN COLLAPSE


th
The incident occurred on 7 August, 2011 in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Heavy winds of 70 to 80 mph caused the
roof tarp to be blown off and the video screen to collapse onto the stage. The stage was evacuated as the
storm developed. No injuries or casualties were reported.
Photographs:

http://www.newson6.com/story/15224602/watch3brady3block3party3concert3goer3captures3stage3collapse

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6013/6015869417_18de428cb4_z.jpg

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix F.1
Page 3 of 6

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

2011 BELGIUM: PUKKELPOP FESTIVAL STAGE COLLAPSE


th
The incident occurred on August 18 , 2011 in the village of Kiewit near Hasselt, Belgium. Severe storms
uprooted trees and caused failure of multiple structures. 4 fatalities and 70 injuries were reported.
Pictures:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/08/18/article3202760730D7B981F000005783608_634x413.jpg

L: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/08/18/article3202760730D7BDC36000005783735_634x420.jpg
R: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/08/18/article3202760730D7B97E9000005783218_634x355.jpg

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix F.1
Page 4 of 6

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

http://beatcrave.com/2011308318/stage3collapses3during3smith3westerns3set3at3pukkelpop3fest3killing3three/

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix F.1
Page 5 of 6

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

2009 CANADA: BIG VALLEY JAMBOREE FESTIVAL


st
The incident occurred on August 1 , 2009 in Camrose, Alberta. The stage roof structure collapsed in an
easterly direction and it fell to the point where it crushed and damaged the stage itself along with other
equipment that was being stored behind the stage. 1 person died and 75 others were injured. Wind
speed estimates provided by Environment Canada suggested that the speeds were in excess of 100kph
and based on analysis, the structure was likely to fail between 65 and 85 kph.
Photographs:

http://www.inews880.com/Channels/Reg/LocalNews/Story.aspx?id=1121236

http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2009/08/02/Canadian_Stage_Collap_Lea_s640x412.jpg?ea66fbce325d4e
15b545912c341f51dada3e59ff

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix F.1
Page 6 of 6

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Appendix F.2
Comparison of Previous Configurations
2003 - 2011

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix F.2

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix F.2

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

COMPARISON OF PREVIOUS STRUCTURE CONFIGURATIONS


The following configuration descriptions are based on the information provided by the Indiana State Fair
to Thornton Tomasetti. They do not represent all possible configurations that may have been in use for
the period starting from 2003 to 2011.
ISF STRUCTURE CONFIGURATION YEAR 2011
The 2011 ISF Structure consists of 10 exterior columns and 3 interior columns. The three interior columns
(depicted in black below) are located on gridline 3.5 at gridlines C, D and E. 12 Guy lines attached to 10
jersey barriers (ballast) for lateral support.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix F.2
Page 1 of 13

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Structure Configuration 2011 (Sugarland), ISF Photograph taken on 8/13/2011

Structure Configuration 2011 (Mercy Me), ISF Photograph 8/10/2011


INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION
Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix F.2
Page 2 of 13

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

STRUCTURE CONFIGURATION YEAR 2010


This structure had 10 exterior columns as were present in the ISF structure configuration. However, there
th
were varying numbers of interior columns utilized. For the Rick Springfield concert on 12 August, 2010,
the structures configuration was the same as that in 2011 except that 2 additional interior columns were
used (along gridline 3, right next to the exterior columns) as shown in configuration 1 (total of 5 interior
th
columns). However, for the Sugarland concert on 20 August, 2010, only 3 interior columns were utilized.
The two on gridline 3 remained; however, two of the three on gridline 3.5 (at gridlines C and E) were
removed as shown in configuration 2. The structure was tied down using guy wires.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix F.2
Page 3 of 13

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix F.2
Page 4 of 13

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Configuration 1 2010, with 5 interior columns (Rick Springfield), ISF Photograph 8/12/2010

Configuration 2 2010, with 3 interior columns (Sugarland), Photograph 8/20/2010


http://www.flickr.com/photos/mwabdel/5044993353/in/set 572157625082206926

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix F.2
Page 5 of 13

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

STRUCTURE CONFIGURATION 1 YEAR 2006


This configuration had 10 exterior columns as were present in the 2010 and 2011 structure
configurations; however, at approximately 55 tall, the structure was of greater height (5 10 column
sections and 2 256 column sections). Six interior columns were utilized, two columns along gridline 2,
and two columns along gridline 3). Additionally, there were two more interior columns (on gridline 3.5 and
between gridlines C, D and E). Another noticeable difference is that the exterior columns seemed to be
braced laterally using wire rope cross bracing and horizontal trusses.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix F.2
Page 6 of 13

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Structure Configuration 2006, ISF Photograph 8/10/2006

Expanded View Example of Cross Bracing


and Horizontal Trusses

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix F.2
Page 7 of 13

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

STRUCTURE CONFIGURATION 1 YEAR 2005


This configuration had 10 exterior columns as were present in the 2011 structure configuration; however,
at approximately 32.5 tall, the structure was of lesser height (3 5 10 column sections and 1 5 256 column
section) as compared to the 2011 structure. Two interior columns were utilized and they were placed
along gridline 4 and offset from gridlines C and E.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix F.2
Page 8 of 13

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

Structure Configuration 2005, ISF Photograph 8/2005

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix F.2
Page 9 of 13

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

PHOTOGRAPHS FROM PREVIOUS EVENTS:


The following photographs were provided to Thornton Tomasetti by the Indiana State Fair. These
photographs show the various structure configurations that were in use between the years 2003 and
2009. However, the exact dates of the provided photos could not be confirmed.

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix F.2
Page 10 of 13

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix F.2
Page 11 of 13

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix F.2
Page 12 of 13

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix F.2
Page 13 of 13

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

Appendix F.3
James Thomas Engineering Catalog 2006

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix F.3

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

[This page left blank intentionally]

INDIANA STATE FAIR COMMISSION


Report on August 13, 2011 Collapse Incident

Appendix F.3

April 3, 2012
TT Project No. C11137.00

JAMES

ENGINEERING

PRODUCT
RANGE 2006

Web Site: http://www.jthomaseng.com


JAMES THOMAS ENGINEERING, INC.
10240 Caneel Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37931
TEL. (865) 692-3060 FAX. (865) 692-9020
email: salesus@jthomaseng.com

JAMES THOMAS ENGINEERING LTD.


Navigation Complex, Navigation Road,
Diglis Trading Estate, Worcester WR5 3DE
United Kingdom
TEL. +44 (0) 1905 363600 FAX. +44 (0) 1905 363601
email: info@jamesthomas.co.uk

Member

CONDITIONS OF SALE
1. INTERPRETATION
In these Conditions:
"BUYER" means the person who accepts a quotation of the seller for the sale of the Goods or whose order for the Goods is accepted by the Seller
"GOODS" means the goods (including any installment of the goods or any parts for them) which the Seller is to supply in accordance with these
Conditions
"SELLER" means JAMES THOMAS ENGINEERING LIMITED, Navigation Complex, Navigation Road, Diglis Trading Estate, Worcester WR5 3DE
and/or JAMES THOMAS ENGINEERING, INCORPORATED, 10240 Caneel Drive, Knoxville Tennessee 37931
2. BASIS OF THE SALE
2.1. The Seller shall sell and the Buyer shall purchase the Goods in accordance with any written quotation of the Seller which is accepted by the Buyer, or
any written order of the Buyer which is accepted by the Seller, subject in either case to these Conditions, which shall govern the Contract to the exclusion of
any other terms and conditions subject to which any quotation is accepted or purported to be accepted, or any such is made or purported to be made, by the
buyer
2.2. No variation to these Conditions shall be binding unless agreed in Writing between the authorized representatives of the Buyer and the Seller
2.3. The Seller's employees or agents are not authorized to make any representations concerning the Goods unless confirmed by the Seller in Writing. In
entering into the Contract the Buyer acknowledges that it does not rely on, and waves any claim for breach of, any such representations that are not so
confirmed.
3. ORDERS AND SPECIFICATIONS
3.1. No order submitted by the Buyer shall be deemed to be accepted by the Seller unless and until confirmed in Writing by the Seller's authorized
representative
3.2. The Buyer shall be responsible to the Seller for ensuring the accuracy of the terms of any order (including any applicable specification) submitted by
the Buyer, and for giving the Seller any necessary information relating to the Goods within a sufficient time to enable the Seller to perform the Contract in
accordance with its terms
3.3. The quantity, quality and description of and any specification for the Goods shall be those set out in the Seller's quotation (if accepted by the Buyer)
or the Buyer's order (if accepted by the Seller)
3.4. If the Goods are to be manufactured or any process is to be applied to the Goods by the Seller in accordance with a specification submitted by the
Buyer, the Buyer shall indemnify the Seller against all loss, damages, costs and expenses awarded against or incurred by the Seller in connection with or
paid or agreed to be paid by the Seller in settlement of any claim for infringement of any patent, copyright, design, trade mark or other industrial or intellectual
property rights or any other person which results from the Seller's use of the Buyer's specification
3.5. The Seller reserves the right to make any changes in the specification of the Goods which are required to conform with any applicable safety or other
statutory requirements or, where the Goods are to be supplied to the Seller's specifications, which do not materially affect their quality of performance
3.6. No order which has been accepted by the Seller may be canceled by the Buyer except with the agreement in Writing of the Seller and on terms that
the Buyer shall indemnify the Seller in full against all loss (including loss of profit), costs (including the cost of all labor, design and materials used), damages,
charges and expenses incurred by the Seller as a result of cancellation
3.7. If the Goods are manufactured in accordance with the specification of the Buyer, the Seller shall be entitled to retain a copy of the specification
(including any relevant designs or drawings) on its file
3.8. Where the Goods are manufactured in accordance with the Seller's specification, the copyright in all designs and drawings and all other intellectual
property rights relating thereto belong to and remain the property of the Seller and the Buyer shall not unless the Seller otherwise agrees in writing acquire
any rights therein. The Buyer shall return any copies of drawings or designs provided by the Seller to the Seller on request
4. PRICE OF THE GOODS
4.1. The price of the Goods shall be the Seller's quoted price or, where no price has been quoted (or a quoted price is no longer valid), the price listed in
the Seller's published price list current at the date of dispatch of the goods. All prices quoted are valid for 30 days only or until earlier acceptance by the
Buyer, after which time they may be altered by the Seller without giving notice to the Buyer
4.2. The Seller reserves the right, by giving notice to the Buyer at any time before delivery, to increase the price of the Goods to reflect any increase in the
cost to the Seller which is due to any factor beyond the control of the Seller (such as, without limitation, any foreign exchange fluctuation, currency regulation,
alteration of duties, significant increase in the costs of labor, materials or other costs of manufacture), any change in delivery dates, quantities or specification
for the Goods which is requested by the Buyer, or any delay caused by any instructions of the Buyer or failure of the Buyer to give the Seller adequate
information or instructions
4.3. Except as otherwise stated under the terms of any quotation or in any price list of the Seller, and unless otherwise agreed in Writing between the
Buyer and the Seller, all prices are given by the Seller F.O.B. Seller's warehouse, Knoxville, Tennessee, and where the Seller agrees to deliver the Goods
otherwise than at the Seller's premises, the Buyer shall be liable to pay the Seller's charges for transport, packaging and insurance
4.4. The price is exclusive of any applicable value added tax including sales and use tax, which the Buyer shall be additionally liable to pay to the Seller
5. TERMS OF PAYMENT
5.1. Subject to any special terms agreed in Writing between the Buyer and the Seller, the Seller shall be entitled to invoice the Buyer for the price of the
Goods on or at any time after delivery of the Goods, unless the Goods are to be collected by the Buyer or the Buyer wrongfully fails to take delivery of the
Goods, in which event the Seller shall be entitled to invoice the Buyer for the price at any time after the Seller has notified the Buyer that the Goods are ready
for collection or (as the case may be) the Seller has tendered delivery of the Goods
5.2. The Buyer shall pay the price of the Goods within 28 days of the date of the Seller's invoice, notwithstanding that delivery may not have taken place
and the title to the Goods has not passed to the Buyer. The time of payment of the price shall be of the essence of the Contract
5.3. If the Buyer fails to make any payment on the date due without prejudice to any other right or remedy available to the Seller, the Seller shall be
entitled to:
5.3.1. cancel the contract or suspend any further deliveries to the Buyer;
5.3.2. appropriate any payment made by the Buyer to such of the Goods
(Or goods supplied under any other contract between the Buyer and the Seller) as the Seller may think fit ( notwithstanding any purported appropriation
by the Buyer);
5.3.3. charge the Buyer interest (both before and after any judgment) on the amount unpaid, at the rate of 3 per cent per annum above the Prime rate of
interest as reported in the Wall Street Journal, until payment in full is made ( a part of a month being treated as a full month for the purpose of calculating
interest).
5.3.4. cancel or withdraw any discounts given or offered to the Buyer
6. DELIVERY
6.1. Delivery of the Goods shall be made by the Buyer collecting the Goods at the Sellers premises at any time after the Seller has notified the Buyer that
the Goods are ready for collection or, if some other place for delivery is agreed by the Seller, by the Seller delivering the Goods to that place at the Buyer's
cost and risk
6.2. Any dates quoted for the delivery of the Goods are approximate only and the Seller shall not be liable for any delay in delivery of the Goods
howsoever caused. Times for delivery shall not be of the essence unless previously agreed by the Seller in writing. The Goods may be delivered by the
Seller in advance of the quoted delivery date upon giving reasonable notice to the Buyer
6.3. Where the Goods are to be delivered in installments, each delivery shall constitute a separate contract and failure by the Seller to deliver any one or
more installments in accordance with these conditions or any claim by the Buyer in respect of any one or more installments shall not entitle the Buyer to treat,
the Contract as a whole as repudiated

CONDITIONS OF SALE
6.4. If the Seller fails to deliver the Goods for any reason other than any cause beyond the Sellers reasonable control or the Buyer's fault, and the Seller is
accordingly liable to the Buyer, the Seller's liability shall be limited to the excess (if any) of the cost to the Buyer ( in the cheapest available market) of similar
goods to replace those not delivered over the price of the Goods. In no event shall Seller be liable to Buyer for special or consequential damages including,
without limitation, lost profits.
6.5. If the Buyer fails to take delivery of the Goods or fails to give the Seller adequate delivery instructions at the time stated for delivery (otherwise than
by reason of any cause beyond the Buyer's reasonable control or by reason of the Seller's fault) then, without prejudice to any other right or remedy available
to the Seller, the Seller may:
6.5.1. store the Goods until actual delivery and charge the Buyer for the reasonable costs (including insurance) of storage; or
6.5.2. sell the Goods at the best price readily obtainable and (after deducting all reasonable storage and selling expenses) account to the Buyer for the
excess over the price under the Contract or charge the Buyer for any shortfall below the price under the Contract; or
6.5.3 terminate the contract; or
6.5.4 seek any and all damages or remedies available under the Uniform Commercial Code.
7. RISK AND PROPERTY
7.1. Risk of damage to or loss of the Goods shall pass to the Buyer:
7.1.1. in the case of Goods to be delivered at the Seller's premises, at the time when the Seller notifies the Buyer that the Goods are available for
collection; or
7.1.2. in the case of Goods to be delivered otherwise than at the Seller's premises, at the time at which the Goods leave the Seller's premises
7.2. Notwithstanding delivery and the passing of risk in the Goods, or any other provision of these Conditions, the title to the Goods shall not pass to the
Buyer until the Seller has received in cash or cleared funds payment in full of the price of the Goods and all other goods agreed to be sold by the Seller to the
Buyer for which payment is then due
7.3. Until such time as the title to the Goods passes to the Buyer, the Buyer shall hold the Goods as the Seller's fiduciary agent and bailee, and shall keep
the Goods separate from those of the Buyer and third parties and properly stored, protected and insured and indemnified as the Seller's property. Until that
time the Buyer shall be entitled to resell or use the Goods in the ordinary course of its business, but shall account to the Seller for the proceeds of sale or
otherwise of the Goods, whether tangible or intangible, including insurance proceeds, and shall keep all such proceeds separate from any moneys or
property of the Buyer and third parties and, in the case of tangible proceeds, properly stored, protected and insured
7.4. Until such time as the title to the Goods passes to the Buyer (and provided the Goods are still in existence and have not been resold), the Seller shall
be entitled at any time to require the Buyer to deliver up the Goods to the Seller and, if the Buyer fails to do so forthwith, to enter upon any premises of the
Buyer or any third party where the Goods are stored and repossess the Goods
7.5. The Buyer shall not be entitled to pledge or in any way charge by way of security for any indebtedness any of the Goods which remain the property of
the Seller, but if the Buyer does so all moneys owing by the Buyer to the Seller shall (without prejudice to any other right or remedy of the Seller) forthwith
become due and payable
8. WARRANTIES AND LIABILITY
8.1. Subject as expressly provided in these Conditions. All warranties conditions or other terms implied by statute or common law are excluded to the
fullest extent permitted by law
8.2. 2 weeks from the date of delivery. If delivery is not refused, and the Buyer does not notify the Seller accordingly, the Buyer shall not be entitled to
reject the Goods and the Seller shall have no liability for such defect or failure, and the Buyer shall be bound to pay the price as if the Goods had been
delivered in accordance with the Contract.
8.3. Where any valid claim in respect of any of the Goods which is based on any defect in the quality or condition of the Goods or their failure to meet
specification is notified to the Seller in accordance with these Conditions, the Seller shall be entitled to replace or repair the Goods (or the part in question)
free of charge or, at the Seller's sole discretion, refund to the Buyer the price of the Goods (or a proportionate part of the price), but the Seller shall have no
further liability to the Buyer.
8.4. The Seller shall not be liable to the Buyer by reason of any representation, or any implied warranty, condition or other term, or any duty or common
law, or under the express terms of the Contract, for any consequential loss or damage (whether for loss of profit or otherwise), costs, expenses or other
claims for consequential compensation whatsoever (and whether caused by the negligence of the Seller, its employees or agents or otherwise) which arise
out of or in connection with the supply of the Goods or their use or resale by the Buyer, except as expressly provided in these Conditions.
8.5. The Seller shall not be liable to the Buyer or be deemed to be in breach of the Contract by reason of any delay in performing, or any failure to
perform, any of the Seller's obligations in relation to the Goods, if the delay or failure was due to any cause beyond the Seller's reasonable control. Without
prejudice to the generality of the foregoing caused beyond the Seller's reasonable control shall include Act of God, explosion, flood, tempest, fire or accident,
war or threat of war, sabotage, insurrection, civil disturbance or requisition acts, restrictions, regulations, by-laws, prohibitions or measures of any kind on the
part of any governmental, parliamentary or local authority, import or export regulations or embargoes, strikes, lockouts or other industrial actions or trade
disputes (whether involving employees of the Seller or of a third party), difficulties in obtaining raw materials, labor, fuel, parts or machinery, power failure or
breakdown in machinery
9 INSOLVENCY OF BUYER
9.1. This clause applies if:
9.1.1. the Buyer makes any voluntary arrangement with its creditors or becomes subject to an administration order or (being an individual or firm)
becomes bankrupt or (being a company) goes into liquidation (otherwise than for the purposes of amalgamation or reconstruction); or
9.1.2. an encumbrancer takes possession, or a receiver is appointed, of any of the property or assets of the Buyer; or
9.1.3. the Buyer ceases, or threatens to cease, to carry on business or
9.1.4. the Seller reasonably apprehends that any of the events mentioned above is about to occur in relation to the Buyer and notifies the Buyer
accordingly
9.2. If this clause applies then, without prejudice to any other right or remedy available to the Seller, the Seller shall be entitled to cancel the Contract or
suspend any further deliveries under the Contract without any liability to the Buyer, and if the Goods have been delivered but not paid for the price shall
become immediately due and payable notwithstanding any previous agreement to the contrary
10.GENERAL
10.1. Any notice required or permitted to be given by either party to the other under these Conditions shall be in Writing addressed to that party at its
registered office or principal place of business or such other address as may at the relevant time have been notified pursuant to this provision to the party
giving the notice
10.2. No waiver by the Seller of any breach of the Contract by the Buyer shall be considered as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any
other provision
10.3. If any provision of these Conditions is held by any competent authority to be invalid or unenforceable in whole or in part the validity of the other
provisions of these Conditions and the remainder of the provision in question shall not be affected thereby
10.4. The Contract shall be governed by the Laws of The State of Tennessee

ii

JAMES

TABLE OF CONTENTS
i
ii

Conditions of Sale
Table of Contents

ENGINEERING

A - PAR LANTERNS
1.
Par 64 Lanterns Descriptions
2.
Par 64 Model Diagrams
4.
Par 64 Accessories
5.
Par 64 Parts/Spares Diagram
7.
Outdoor Par 64 Lantern Cover Page
7a.
Outdoor Par 56 Lantern
8.
Outdoor Par Lantern Parts/Spares Diagram
9.
Outdoor Par Lantern Parts/Spares Description
11.
Par 56 Lanterns Cover Page & Model Diagrams
12.
Par 56 Lantern Accessories/Par 56 Diagram
14.
Par 46 Lantern Model Diagrams
15.
Par 46 Lantern Accessories
16.
Par 36 Lanterns Model Diagrams
18.
Par 36 Lantern Accessories
19.
Pinspots Model Diagrams
20.
Par 20, 30, & 38 Model Diagrams
22.
Par 16 Lantern Model Diagrams
23.
Par 16 Lanterns & Accessories
1.
2.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

B - LIGHTING ACCESSORIES
Pre-Rigged Lamp Bars
Standard Lamp Bars
Meatracks
Veam VSC Connectors
CEEP Connectors
CEEP Mulicables & Breakouts
VSC Multicables & Breakouts

C - TRUSS PRODUCTS
2.
GP 12 x 12 Truss
3.
GP 18 x 12 Truss
4.
GP 15 x 15 Truss
6.
GP Triangular
7.
GP 20.5 x 20.5 Truss
8.
20.5 x 20.5 Diagrams
9.
HD 20 x 30 Truss
10.
HD 20 x 30 Diagrams
11.
Follow Spot Chairs
12.
Pre-Rig Truss overview
13.
Pre-Rig Truss, Load Data & Accessories
14.
GP 20.5 Pre-rig truss
15.
Moving light truss
1a
1b
1c
1d
3a
3b

D - SUPERTRUSS
Superlite 12" and 15.75"
Superlite loading
Superlite Corner & Bases
Superlite Corner & Bases
Squarelite 12" and 15.75"
Squarelite loading

D - SUPERTRUSS
3c
Squarelite corners and plates
4.
Supertruss 12 x 12
5.
Supertruss 18 x 12
6.
Supertruss 20.5 x 20.5
7.
Supertruss 20.5 x 20.5 Corner
8.
Supertruss 20.5 x 20.5 Sleeve Block Diagrams
9.
Pre-Rig Supertruss
10.
Pre-Rig Supertruss Load Specifications
10a
Moving Light Supertruss
11.
Single Bar Pre-Rig Supertruss
13.
Supertruss 20.5 x 30
14.
Supertruss 20.5 x 30 Diagrams
15.
30 Folding Supertruss
16.
30 Folding Supertruss Diagrams
17.
20.5 Folding Supertruss Diagrams
18.
Supermegatruss
1.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

E - TOWERS
Baby Towers
12 Tower System
12 Tower System Parts
15 Tower System
15 Tower System Parts
Tower Outriggers

1.
2.
3.
4.

F - SPOT BANKS
Par 36 Spot Banks
Par 36 Spot Bank Diagrams
Par 64 Spot Banks
Cyc Lites

1.
1a
2.
3.
4.

G - RIGGING & FIXING ACCESSORIES


Fixing Accessories
Fixing Accessories
CM Lodestar
Hook Clamps
Lifting points

H- CUSTOM PROJECTS
Circles, ellipses, shaped structures,
Roof structures,
I - Instructions
Truss User
Truss inspection
12 &15 Tower instructions

09/02

PAR 64
LANTERNS

JAMES

ENGINEERING

Thomas pioneered the lightweight aluminum Par lantern. Today this lantern is widely regarded as the
industry standard Par fixture. This lantern can be supplied with a UL listing if specified upon ordering.
It is manufactured from thick gauge aluminum for maximum durability and with high quality components,
these all contribute to the longevity of the product.
Bodies can be supplied with long or short version. A fIoorlite version is also available.
Color:- Black and Silver are standard, but other colors are available to order, specify BS or RAL color
number.
Color Frames:- Square, Octagonal, or Circular are available.
Gel Feet:- We can supply the lantern with a spring loaded 4th foot for extra security.
T.V specifications satisfy the requirements for the majority of venues as it has the following safety
features as standard:- Safety wire from body to cap, body to color frame, and yoke to lighting bar. This
unit also has lamp adjuster to enable external adjustment of lamp.
Color changer lantern has an arm to form a positive triangular lock off for fitting of color changers. The
lantern also has a spring loaded 4th gel foot.
Lamp holders with short 6" tails or wiring sets (with 3'-3" of 3 core silicon cable) can be supplied.
Other variations can be made to suit your requirements.

DIMENSIONS (ins)
DESCRIPTION

LENGTH

WIDTH

(NOT INCLUDING YOKE)

HEIGHT

TOP OF YOKE
TO PIVOT POINT

PAR 64 STANDARD

16.45

10.47

9.76

8.85

PAR 64 SHORT NOSE

11.22

10.47

9.76

8.85

PAR 64 FLOORLITE

11.22

10.47

9.76

9.05

PAR 64 T.V. SPECIFICATION

17.48

10.47

10.15

8.85

PAR 64 COLOR CHANGER

19.72

11.14

10.15

8.85

A1

PAR 64
LANTERNS

JAMES

ENGINEERING

PAR 64 STANDARD
BLACK

SILVER

COLOR

WT
lbs

A6400

A6401

A6402

4.05

PAR 64 WITH 4TH GEL FOOT


BLACK

SILVER

COLOR

WT
lbs

A6403

A6404

A6405

4.22

PAR 64 SHORT NOSE


BLACK

SILVER

COLOR

WT
lbs

A6406

A6407

A6408

3.6

PAR 64 SHORT NOSE WITH 4TH GEL FOOT


BLACK

SILVER

COLOR

WT
lbs

A6409

A6410

A6411

3.75

PAR 64 FLOORLITE
BLACK

SILVER

COLOR

WT
lbs

A6412

A6413

A6414

4.25

PAR 64 FLOORLITE WITH 4TH GEL FOOT


BLACK

SILVER

COLOR

WT
lbs

A6415

A6416

A6417

4.41
A2

PAR 64
LANTERNS

JAMES

ENGINEERING

T.V. specification lantern


includes wiring set.
PAR 64 T.V. SPECIFICATION
BLACK

SILVER

COLOR

WT
lbs

A6418

A6419

A6420

6.06

Color changer is not


supplied.
PAR 64 COLOR CHANGER
BLACK

SILVER

COLOR

WT
lbs

A6421

A6422

A6423

5.28

ACCESSORIES FOR PAR 64 LANTERNS


PRODUCT
CODE

DESCRIPTION

SIZE
INCHES (MM)

WT
lbs

D6450

SQUARE COLOR FRAME BLACK

D6451

SQUARE COLOR FRAME SILVER

10" X 10"
(254 X 254)

0.37

D6452

SQUARE COLOR FRAME COLOR

D6453

CIRCULAR COLOR FRAME BLACK

D6454

CIRCULAR COLOR FRAME SILVER

10"
(254)O.D.

0.26

D6455

CIRCULAR COLOR FRAME COLOR

D6456

OCTAGONAL COLOR FRAME BLACK

D6457

OCTAGONAL COLOR FRAME SILVER

10" X 10"
(254 X 254)

0.23

D6458

OCTAGONAL COLOR FRAME COLOR

D6460

BARN DOOR 4 WAY BLACK

1.87

D6461

BARN DOOR 4 WAY SILVER

1.87

A3

JAMES

PAR 64
LANTERNS

ENGINEERING

PRODUCT
CODE
D6403

DESCRIPTION

WT
lbs

SPILL RING & COLOR FRAME

3.34

10" x 10" x 5.9" ( 254 x 254 x150 MM) LONG WITH GUNSIGHT

G0000

CERAMIC WITH SHORT TAILS

0.2

G0001

WIRING SET WITH 36" SILICON CABLE

0.45

D0210
D0211

D6475

BLACK

LAMP ADJUSTER

0.32

SILVER

ALLOWS SAFE FOCUSING OF LAMP FROM


LANTERN EXTERIOR

0.32

CAP BLANKING PLATE


TO CLOSE OFF HOLE IN LANTERN CAP

0.21

RAYLITES:-

A Range of lightweight bright anodized aluminum reflectors


designed to fit in place of par lamps to save weight. Lamp types available
are, A1244 240V 500W, DYR 240V 650W, DYS 120V 600W.
G1000

RAYLITE WITH MOGUL PRONGS - NARROW

0.38

G1001

RAYLITE WITH MOGUL PRONGS - MEDIUM

0.38

G1002

RAYLITE WITH MOGUL PRONGS - WIDE

0.38

G1006

RAYLITE WITH SHORT TAILS - NARROW

0.31

G1007

RAYLITE WITH SHORT TAILS - MEDIUM

0.31

G1008

RAYLITE WITH SHORT TAILS - WIDE

0.31

A4

JAMES

G0060
G0019

G6420

ENGINEERING

G0035
G6400

G0065

G0040

D6467

LANTERN
PRODUCT SPARES

G0030

G6410

D6470 / 71

G0050

D6430 / 31

C0091

G0090

G0080

A5

JAMES

Par 64 Outdoor
Lantern

ENGINEERING

James Thomas Engineering has developed an Outdoor par lantern to that can be provided with either a UL Damp
Location listing File E158369, or a UL wet location listing. Also available with a European IP65 rating for use with
Par 64 sealed beam lamp. The unit features corrosion resistant fittings and a cast aluminum construction, finished
in black or Silver exterior polyester powder coating. The unit has a unique focusing device, to allow external
focusing of lamps. Positive lock off system and security gel feet, means that color changers can be used with the
standard unit without modification. A terminal box at the rear of the lantern housing allows you to wire with any heat
resistant cable. If required you can fit a 6.6" dichroic glass behind the front glass for added security with the D5672
glass holder. Par 56 lamps can be fitted with the addition of the D5670 Reducing ring. All models conform to EN 60
598-2-17 and are "CE" marked.
Product code

Description

A6424

Par 64 Outdoor lantern with gel feet & color frame BLACK

A6425

Par 64 Outdoor lantern with gel feet & color frame SILVER

A6428

Par 64 Outdoor lantern with gel feet & color frame COLOR

A6426

Par 64 Outdoor lantern without gel feet BLACK

A6427

Par 64 Outdoor lantern without gel feet SILVER

A6429

Par 64 Outdoor lantern without gel feet COLOR

A6424S
A6425S
A6428S
A6426S

Par 64 Short nose Outdoor lantern without gel feet BLACK

A6427S

Par 64 Short nose Outdoor lantern without gel feet SILVER

A6429S

Par 64 Short nose Outdoor lantern without gel feet COLOR

D5672

Dichroic glass holder for 6.6" diameter glass


DIMENSIONS (inches)

TYPE

LENGTH

WIDTH

HEIGHT
TOP OF THE YOKE
(Not including yoke) TO PIVOT POINT

WEIGHT

Standard

16.42

11.1

10.24

9.06

15.7 (inc. lamp)

Short Nose

12.17

11.1

10.24

9.06

14.1 (inc. lamp)

A7

JAMES

Par 56 Outdoor
Lantern

ENGINEERING

The Par 56 Outdoor lantern is


designed for use outdoors in damp
locations and has an IP44 rating.
This unit has a unique focusing
device allowing external focusing of
lamps.
Positive lock off system
which locks the lantern in its focused
position. Par 56 Outdoor lanterns are
supplied with wire mesh, cable grip
gland and lamp retaining ring.
Standard finishes are semi matt black
or silver - black interior, other finishes
can be priced on application, RAL
color number is required for
identification.
Two versions are
available one without gel feet and the
other with gel feet and a circular color
frame. If required a dichroic glass
holder can be fitted behind the front
glass when a D5672 Dichroic glass
holder is specified.
All models
conform to the low voltage directive
and are "CE" marked.

Par 56 Outdoor
Colour
Black
Silver
Color

Product code
A5666
A5667
A5668

Par 56 Outdoor with


colour frame
Colour
Product code
Black
A5669
Silver
A5670
Color
A5671

Dimensions (inches)
Type

Length Width

Height
(not including yoke)

Top of the Yoke Weight


to pivot point

Par 56 Outdoor

12.72

10.71

13.82

9.17

4.63 lb

Par 56 Outdoor
with color frame

13.35

10.71

14.37

9.17

5.22 lb

A7A

JAMES

ENGINEERING

OUTDOOR
PAR LANTERN
PRODUCT SPARES
A8

JAMES

OUTDOOR LANTERN
PRODUCT SPARES
ENGINEERING

Item no

Part no

T0055
Yoke assembly made up of following :D6471O
Yoke
P5189
M8 x 30 SS Coach bolt
P6284
5 - M8 SS washer
P6598
Hand wheel
P5193
2 - M8 x 20 set
P5187
2 - M8 Nyloc nut
P6658
2 - Yoke fixing band with 4 hank bushes
P6657
Yoke stop 4.10
P5577
4 - M3 x 12 pan head screw

1a
1b
1c
1d
1e
1f
1g
1h
1j

Description

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

P6620
P6613
P6601A
G0000
P8527
P5582
P8535
D6473
P5521
P8031
P8525
P5580
P8501
P8502
P8539
P5527
P6295
P8536
P5772
P6599
P6602
P8537
P8534

Captive screw insert


Captive screw
Cap casting
Ceramic
2 - Fibreglass wire sleeving
10 - M4 x 10 Pozi pan screw
Flat gasket
Cable inlet plate
M3 x 16 pan head screw
15A 2 way ceramic block
Cable clamp
2 - M3 x 6 tap tight screw
M16 Cable gland
M16 Lock nut
16mm "O" ring
M5 x 12 Pan head screw
M5 shakeproof washer
Can to cap joint seal
6mm x 40 Roll pin
Focus Knob
Can Casting
Safety glass gasket
Safety Glass

25
25a
25b
25c
25d
25e

T0056
P5574
P6002
C0094
P6303
P6659

Mesh frame assembly made up of following :4th Foot hinge pin


4th foot spring
4th foot catch
3mm retaining washer
Mesh frame

26
27

P6659A
G6453

Mesh frame without feet


Circular colour frame Black

A9

JAMES

PAR 56
LANTERNS

ENGINEERING

Par 56 lanterns are supplied with integral wire mesh, cable grip gland, lamp retaining ring, and color
frame retainers (gel clips). This lantern can be supplied with a UL listing if specified upon ordering.
Standard finishes are semi-matt black or silver (with black interior.) Other finishes will be priced on
application. A RAL or BS color number is required for identification of custom finish.
Par lanterns can be fitted with several types of lamps at competitive prices. Special lanterns (priced
on application) can be supplied to suit customer requirements.
DIMENSIONS (ins)
DESCRIPTION

LENGTH

WIDTH

(NOT INCLUDING YOKE)

HEIGHT

TOP OF YOKE
TO PIVOT POINT

PAR 56 STANDARD

14.17

9.8

8.78

7.32

PAR 56 SHORT NOSE

10.43

9.8

8.78

7.32

PAR 56 FLOORLITE

10.43

9.8

8.78

8.34

PAR 64 / 56

13.66

10.47

9.37

8.7

PAR 56 STANDARD
BLACK

SILVER

COLOR

WT
lbs

A5600

A5601

A5602

3.35

PAR 56 SHORT NOSE


BLACK

SILVER

COLOR

WT
lbs

A5603

A5604

A5605

3.05

PAR 56 FLOORLITE
BLACK

SILVER

COLOR

WT
lbs

A5606

A5607

A5608

3.66

A11

JAMES

PAR 56
LANTERNS

ENGINEERING

ACCESSORIES FOR PAR 56 LANTERNS


PRODUCT
CODE

DESCRIPTION

D5650

SQUARE COLOR FRAME BLACK

D5651

SQUARE COLOR FRAME SILVER

D5652

SQUARE COLOR FRAME COLOR

D5656

OCTAGONAL COLOR FRAME BLACK

D5657

OCTAGONAL COLOR FRAME SILVER

D5658

OCTAGONAL COLOR FRAME COLOR

B5603

SPILL RING & COLOR FRAME

SIZE
INCHES (MM)

WT
lbs

9" X 9"
(229 x 229)

0.24

9" x 9"
(229 x 229)

9" x 9" x 3.9"


(229 x 229 x 100)

0.22

0.53

D5660

BARN DOOR 4 WAY BLACK

1.85

D5661

BARN DOOR 4 WAY SILVER

1.85

A12

JAMES

ENGINEERING

G0000

G0001

PAR 56
LANTERNS
CERAMIC WITH SHORT TAILS

WIRING SET WITH 36" SILICON CABLE

0.2

0.46

RAYLITES:A Range of lightweight bright anodized aluminum reflectors


designed to fit in place of par lamps to save weight. Lamp types available
are, A1244 240V 500W, DYR 240V 650W, and DYS 120V 600W.

G1003

RAYLITE WITH MOGUL PRONGS - NARROW

0.3

G1004

RAYLITE WITH MOGUL PRONGS - MEDIUM

0.3

G1005

RAYLITE WITH MOGUL PRONGS - WIDE

0.3

G1009

RAYLITE WITH SHORT TAILS - NARROW

0.26

G1010

RAYLITE WITH SHORT TAILS - MEDIUM

0.26

G1011

RAYLITE WITH SHORT TAILS - WIDE

0.26

A13

PAR 46
LANTERNS

JAMES

ENGINEERING

Par 46 lanterns are supplied with integral wire mesh, cable grip gland, lamp retaining ring, and color
frame retainers (gel clips). This lantern can be supplied with a UL listing if specified upon ordering.
Standard finishes are semi matt black or silver - black interior, other finishes will be priced on application.
RAL or BS color number is required for identification.
Par lanterns can be fitted with several types of lamps. Special lanterns (priced on application) can
be supplied to suit customer requirements.
DIMENSIONS (ins)
DESCRIPTION

LENGTH

WIDTH

(NOT INCLUDING YOKE)

HEIGHT

TOP OF YOKE
TO PIVOT POINT

PAR 46 STANDARD

11.73

8.03

7.36

6.69

PAR 46 SHORT NOSE

9.05

8.03

7.36

6.69

PAR 46 FLOORLITE

9.05

8.03

7.36

6.69

PAR 46 STANDARD
BLACK

SILVER

COLOR

WT
lbs

A4600

A4601

A4602

2.75

PAR 46 SHORT NOSE


BLACK

SILVER

COLOR

WT
lbs

A4603

A4604

A4605

2.58

PAR 46 FLOORLITE
BLACK

SILVER

COLOR

WT
lbs

A4606

A4607

A4608

3.04

A14

JAMES

PAR 46
LANTERNS

ENGINEERING

ACCESSORIES FOR PAR 46 LANTERNS


PRODUCT
CODE

DESCRIPTION

D4650

SQUARE COLOR FRAME BLACK

D4651

SQUARE COLOR FRAME SILVER

D4652

SQUARE COLOR FRAME COLOR

D4656

OCTAGONAL COLOR FRAME BLACK

D4657

OCTAGONAL COLOR FRAME SILVER

D4658

OCTAGONAL COLOR FRAME COLOR

D4603

SPILL RING & COLOR FRAME

SIZE
INCHES(MM)

WT
lbs

7.48" x 7.48"
(190 x190)

0.17

7.48" x 7.48"
(190 x190)

7.48" X 7.48" x 3.9"


(190 x190 x 100)

D4660

BARN DOOR 4 WAY BLACK

1.23

D4661

BARN DOOR 4 WAY SILVER

1.23

0.13

0.42

RAYLITES:A Range of lightweight bright anodized aluminum reflectors


designed to fit in place of par lamps to save weight. Lamp types available
are, A1244 240V 500W, DYR 240V 650W, and DYS 120V 600W.
G1012

RAYLITE WITH SHORT TAILS - NARROW

0.17

G1013

RAYLITE WITH SHORT TAILS - MEDIUM

0.17

A15

JAMES

PAR 36
LANTERNS

ENGINEERING

Par 36 lanterns are supplied with integral wire mesh, cable grip gland, lamp retaining ring, and color
frame retainers (gel clips). A lantern with a remote transformer can be supplied with a UL listing.
Standard finishes are semi matt black or silver (with black interior.) Other finishes will be priced on
application. A RAL or BS color number is required for identification of custom finish.
Par lanterns can be fitted with several types of lamps. Special lanterns can also be supplied to suit
customer requirements. Price on application.
DIMENSIONS (ins)
DESCRIPTION

LENGTH

WIDTH

(NOT INCLUDING YOKE)

HEIGHT

TOP OF YOKE
TO PIVOT POINT

PAR 36 STANDARD

13.34

6.81

6.18

PAR 36 SHORT NOSE

8.81

6.81

6.18

PAR 36 FLOORLITE

8.81

6.81

6.18

6.51

PAR 36 STANDARD
WITH TRANSFORMER

13.9

6.81

6.18

PAR36 SHORT NOSE


WITH TRANSFORMER

9.37

6.81

6.18

PAR 36 STANDARD
BLACK

SILVER

COLOR

WT
lbs

A3600

A3601

A3602

2.2

PAR 36 SHORT NOSE


BLACK

SILVER

COLOR

WT
lbs

A3603

A3604

A3605

1.95

PAR 36 FLOORLITE
BLACK

SILVER

COLOR

WT
lbs

A3606

A3607

A3608

2.15
A16

JAMES

ENGINEERING

PAR 36
LANTERNS
PAR 36 ASHTRAY

BLACK

SILVER

COLOR

WT
lbs

A3617

A3618

A3619

0.48

PAR 36 STANDARD FITTED WITH TRANSFORMER


TRANSFORMER
SIZE

BLACK

SILVER

COLOR

WT
lbs

12V 75W

A3643

A3644

A3645

4.91

6V 30W

A3649

A3650

A3651

3.72

TRANSFORMER
SIZE

PAR 36 SHORT NOSE FITTED WITH TRANSFORMER


BLACK

SILVER

COLOR

WT
lbs

12V 75W

A3655

A3656

A3657

4.67

6V 30W

A3661

A3662

A3663

3.48

A17

JAMES

PAR 36
LANTERNS

ENGINEERING

ACCESSORIES FOR PAR 36 LANTERNS


PRODUCT
CODE

DESCRIPTION

D3650

SQUARE COLOR FRAME BLACK

D3651

SQUARE COLOR FRAME SILVER

D3652

SQUARE COLOR FRAME COLOR

D3656

OCTAGONAL COLOR FRAME BLACK

D3657

OCTAGONAL COLOR FRAME SILVER

D3658

OCTAGONAL COLOR FRAME COLOR

D3603

SPILL RING & COLOR FRAME

SIZE
INCHES (MM)

WT
lbs

6.26" x 6.26"
(159 x 159)

0.175

6.26" x 6.26"
(159 x 159)

0.132

6.26" x 6.26" x 3.9"


(159 x 159 x 100)

D3660

BARN DOOR 4 WAY BLACK

0.9

D3661

BARN DOOR 4 WAY SILVER

0.9

0.35

A18

JAMES

PINSPOTS
ENGINEERING

Thomas manufactures robust quality pinspots with integral transformers to the following
standard configurations.
DIMENSIONS (ins)
LENGTH

WIDTH

(NOT INCLUDING YOKE)

HEIGHT

TOP OF YOKE
TO PIVOT POINT

PAR 36

4.7

3.85

PAR 46

6.8

7.4

3.85

TRANSFORMER
SIZE

PAR 36 PINSPOT FITTED WITH TRANSFORMER


BLACK

SILVER

COLOR

WT
lbs

6V 30W

A3670

A3671

A3672

12V 75W

A3673

A3674

A3675

3.1

TRANSFORMER
SIZE

PAR 46 PINSPOT FITTED WITH TRANSFORMER


BLACK

SILVER

COLOR

WT
lbs

6V 30W

A4640

A4641

A4642

3.15

12V 75W

A4643

A4644

A4645

3.2

A19

JAMES

PAR 20, 30 & 38


LANTERNS

ENGINEERING

Par 20, 30 and Par 38 are manufactured using the E27 or Medium base lampholder for mains voltage
lamps up to 150 watts. The Par 20 and 30 lanterns are fitted with integrated barn doors.(a color frame is
available as an addition option) The Par 38 is fitted with a color frame as standard. The Par 20, 30 and
Par 38 are all available in a UL listed configuration with an edison connector (parallel U ground) in either a
coil cord or a straight cord. UL listed file: E161581
PAR 20 LANTERN
BLACK

SILVER

COLOR

Weight in
pounds (kgs)

PAR 20 with
integral barn door

A2000

A2001

A2002

1.23 (0.56)

PAR 20 with color


frame

A2003

A2004

A2005

1.08 (0.49)

UL listed with coil cord add " -L-CC " (ex. A2000-L-CC)

add 0.62 (0.28)

UL listed with straight cord add " -L-ST " (ex. A2000-L-ST)

add 0.62 (0.28)

PAR 30 LANTERN c/w BARN DOORS


BLACK

SILVER

COLOR

Weight in pounds
(kgs)

PAR 30 with
integral barn door

A3000

A3001

A3002

1.47 (0.67)

PAR 30 with color


frame

A3003

A3004

A3005

1.32 (0.6)

UL listed with coil cord add " -L-CC " (ex. A3000-L-CC)

add 0.62 (0.28)

UL listed with straight cord add " -L-ST " (ex.A3000-L-ST)

add 0.62 (0.28)

PAR 38 LANTERN c/w COLOUR FRAME

PAR 38

BLACK

SILVER

COLOR

Weight in
pounds (kgs)

A3800

A3801

A3802

1.58 (0.72)

UL listed with coil cord add " -L-CC " (ex. A3800-L-CC)

2.2 (1.0)

UL listed with straight cord add " -L-ST " (ex. A3800-L-ST)

2.2 (1.0)

DIMENSIONS inches (mm)


DESCRIPTION

LENGTH OF BODY

WIDTH

(NOT INCLUDING YOKE)

HEIGHT

TOP OF YOKE TO
PIVOT POINT

COLOR FRAME
SIZE

PAR 20

4.72 (120)

4.76 (121)

5.86 (149)

3.54 (90)

3.54 X 3.54 (90 X 90)

PAR 30

4.72 (120)

5.43 (138)

5.86 (149)

3.54 (90)

5 X 5 (127 X 127)

PAR 38

6.5 (165)

6.1 (155)

7.64 (194)

3.54 (90)

6 X 6 (152 X 152)

A20

JAMES

PAR 16
LANTERNS

ENGINEERING

The par 16 lantern is a scaled down version of the par 64 lantern, suitable for use with MR 16
12 volt lamps. The lantern is supplied with a wiring set and color frame. The new par 16 lantern
has chassis mounted lampholder and yoke stop. The Par 16 with transformer features
transformer mounted in housing, fitted to yoke of lantern. This lantern is available with a UL
listing.
DIMENSIONS (ins)
DESCRIPTION

LENGTH

WIDTH

(NOT INCLUDING YOKE)

HEIGHT

TOP OF YOKE
TO PIVOT POINT

PAR 16 U.S. STANDARD

5.55

4.17

3.15

3.93

PAR 16 SHORT NOSE

3.74

3.62

3.15

2.95

PAR 16 NEW SPECIFICATION


BLACK

SILVER

COLOR

WT
lbs

A1603

A1604

A1605

0.5

PAR 16 SHORT NOSE


BLACK

SILVER

COLOR

WT
lbs

A1612

A1613

A1614

0.35

TRANSFORMER
SIZE

PAR 16 Remote transformer


BLACK

SILVER

COLOR

WT
lbs

12V 75W

A1609

A1610

A1611

A22

JAMES

PAR 16
LANTERNS

ENGINEERING

ACCESSORIES FOR PAR 16 LANTERNS


PRODUCT
CODE

DESCRIPTION

D1650

SQUARE COLOR FRAME BLACK

D1651

SQUARE COLOR FRAME SILVER

D1652

SQUARE COLOR FRAME COLOR

D1653

ROUND COLOR FRAME BLACK

D1654

ROUND COLOR FRAME SILVER

D1655

ROUND COLOR FRAME COLOR

SIZE
inches (mm)

WT
lbs

3" x 3" (76 x 76)

0.04

3" (76) O.D.

0.02

D1656

OCTAGONAL COLOR FRAME BLACK

D1657

OCTAGONAL COLOR FRAME SILVER 3" x 3" (76 x 76)

D1658

OCTAGONAL COLOR FRAME COLOR

0.02

D1660

4 WAY BARN DOOR BLACK

0.35

D1661

4 WAY BARN DOOR SILVER

0.35

D1662

4 WAY BARN DOOR DISPOSABLE BLACK

0.17

D1663

4 WAY BARN DOOR DISPOSABLE SILVER

0.17

G0003

WIRING SET WITH 24" 2 CORE SILICONE CABLE

0.06

A23

JAMES

PRE-RIGGED
LIGHTING BARS

ENGINEERING

WIRED BARS

UNWIRED BARS
with inserts, 16mm
glands and box lids
where necessary.
B5530 - black

B5531 - silver

Bar length 7 ft 6 ins

Bar length 7 ft 6 ins

6 circuits wired from 19 pin male


CEEP chassis connector to
6 x 24" tails with ceramics and
ground rings.
B5532 - black
B5533 - silver

B5531 - silver

6 circuits wired from 19 pin male


CEEP chassis connector to
6 x 20 amp 2 P&G connectors
on 6" tails.
B5534 - black
B5535 - silver

B5510 - black

Aerobar series wired from input


to 4 x 24" tails.

B5530 - black

B5512 - black
B5513 - silver

B5511 - silver
Bar length 5 ft

1 5/6

B5500 - black

B5501 - silver
Bar length 5 ft

Nut, Bolt, and Spacer sets :-

8 Lamp
G5121

6 Lamp
G5091

6 circuits from 19 pin male


CEEP chassis to 4 x 24" tails,
circuits 5 & 6 wired to two 2P&G
20 amp connectors on tails at
the opposite end of bar.
B5502 - black
B5503 - silver
4 Lamp
G5061

Wired and fitted


with lanterns,
lanterns priced
without lamps
B5536 - black

B5537 - silver

B5538 - black

B5539 - silver

B5514 - black
B5515 - silver
B5504 - black

B5505 - silver

3 Lamp
G5045

12 gauge wire, VSC,and other variations of lighting bars are available upon request.

B1

JAMES

ENGINEERING

STANDARD
LIGHTING BARS

All lighting bars are manufactured from 2" x .125" tube with a custom cast aluminium terminal
box where required. The following is our range of standard bars, other variations of lighting bars
are available upon request.
Please note: 12 guage wire, VSC
connectors and other variations of
lighting bars are available upon request

UNWIRED BARS
with 16mm glands
and box lids if
necessary

B5030 for black

B5036-CP for black

B5031 for silver

B5033-CP for silver

B5037-CP for silver

B5030 for black

6 circuits wired from 19 pin


male Ceep chassis
connector to 6 x 20 amp
Pin connectors on 6" tails.
(Other connectors are
available.)
B5034-CP for black

B5038-CP for black

B5031 for silver

B5035-CP for silver

B5039-CP for silver

Bar length 7 ft 6 ins

Wired and fitted with


lanterns, lanterns
priced without lamps

6 circuits wired from 19 pin


male Ceep chassis
connector to 6 x 24" tails,
with butts and earth
spades.
B5032-CP for black

Bar length 7 ft 6 ins

WIRED BARS

Aerobar series wired from


input to 4 x 24" tails and
output.

Bar length 5 ft

Bar length 5 ft

Nut and Bolt sets :-

8 Lamp
G5120

B5010 for black

B5012 for black

B5014 for black

B5011 for silver

B5013 for silver

B5015 for silver

B5000 for black

4 circuits wired from 19 pin


male Ceep chassis
connector to 4 x 24" tails
with butts and earth
spades.
B5002-CP for black

B5004-CP for black

B5001 for silver

B5003-CP for silver

B5005-CP for silver

6 Lamp
G5090

4 Lamp
G5060

B2

JAMES

MEATRACKS
ENGINEERING

The Meat Rack is designed to carry lighting bars and is manufactured from 1 1/2" Aluminum box. The
Meat Rack is built for robustness with castor wheels around the base for ease of mobility. The frame is
aluminum and has a wooden floor and roof (the meat rack is unpainted). Standard items are listed
below. Other sizes to suit specific requirements can also be manufactured.
PRODUCT
CODE
C0401-AL

DESCRIPTION

WT
lbs

Length Width Height


inches inches inches
91
30
65

4 Bar adjustable meat rack for 90" bars

C0461-AL

4 Bar adjustable meat rack for 60" bars

61

30

65

C0801-AL

8 Bar adjustable meat rack for 90" bars

91

45

65

C0861-AL

8 Bar adjustable meat rack for 60" bars

61

45

65

C1201-AL

12 Bar adjustable meat rack for 90" bars

91

45

92

Notes
All weights are
approximate.
All measurements are
rounded up.

8 Bar adjustable meat rack for


60" lighting bars, views below
show meat rack with lighting
bars in storage position.

Side view

End view

B5

JAMES

ENGINEERING

VEAM VSC
CONNECTORS

Thomas presents the high quality Veam VSC connectors.


The VSC is a threaded coupling multi-pin cylindrical connector for lighting applications.
The VSC offers machined aluminium shells with a heavy ribbed coupling ring to provide easy
manual coupling and uncoupling. Resilient insulators are crack and chip resistant. Both solder
and crimp removable contacts are available as well as a complete range of assembly tools and
accessories.
Furthermore, all of VSC's component parts are REPLACEABLE. VSC's one piece, light weight
glass-filled valox backshells provide a waterproof seal at the cable entry point. The backshells'
extended length allow adequate working room for crimp contact assembly.
The inline plug threads are teflon coated to make coupling and uncoupling smoother. Finally,
the black hard-anodized finish provides a scratch and wear resistant surface to maintain VSC's
cosmetic modern appearance.
Available from stock in the following configurations.
Product
Code

DESCRIPTION
SOLDER CONTACTS

G0550

VSC26-32S-19P Panel Mount Male

G0551

VSC020-32S-19S Panel Mount Female

G0552

VSC06SL-32S-19P(29) Male Inline

G0553

VSC01SL-32S-19S(29) Female Inline


CRIMP CONTACTS

G0560

VSC26-32S-19P-F80 Panel Mount Male

G0561

VSC020-32S-19S-F80 Panel Mount Female

G0562

VSC06SL-32S-19P-F80(29) Male Inline

G0563

VSC01SL-32S-19S-F80(29) Female Inline

VSC020-32S-19S Panel Mount Female

VSC26-32S-19P Panel Mount Male

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION
VOLTAGE RATING

700 VDC, 500 VAC

CURRANT RATING

41A max. 23A rated

WORKING TEMPERATURE

-550C to +1250C

SHELL MATERIAL

Aluminium alloy, machined

CONTACT MATERIAL

Copper alloy

CONTACT PLATING

Gold

VSC01SL-32S-19S(29) Female Inline

VSC06SL-32S-19P(29) Male Inline

Veam VSC connectors are UL approved and available with Double Bar Clamp,
Basket Weave, Strain relief, or Kinky Klamp.

B6

JAMES

CEEP
CONNECTORS

ENGINEERING

Product
Code

DESCRIPTION
19 PIN CONNECTORS

G0570

Male Chassis

G0571

Female Chassis

G0572

Male Inline, Short Body, PG29

G0572B Male Inline, Long Body, PG29


G0572C Male Inline, Short Body, PG36
G0572D Male Inline, Long Body, PG36
G0573

Female Inline, Short Body, PG29

CEEP Series 92 multipin connectors are a reliable and


proven electrical connector with a functional design that
is both simple and easy to use. The Series 92
connector line is both UL recognized and CE marked.
They are widely used and in the entertainment
industry and compatible with other 19, 37, and 7 pin
circular connectors. The extremely robust one piece
aluminum backshell is fitted with a patented Polyamide
strain relief and available in a variety of sizes. Contacts
are machined in copper alloy with gold on nickel
underplate and sockets are fitted with a spring for
optimal pin retention. The thermoset insert is designed
to withstand a forceful impact on the connectors.

G0573B Female Inline, Long Body, PG29

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION

G0573C Female Inline, Short Body PG36


G0573D Female Inline, Long Body, PG36
G0574

Assembly Tool for Male

G0574A Assembly Tool for Female


7 PIN CONNECTORS
G0575

Male Inline Solder, PG29

G0575A Male Inline Solder, PG16


G0576

Female Inline Solder, PG29

G0577

Female Chassis

G0578

Male Chassis

G0579

Assembly Tool for Male

Series 92 RANGE
WORKING CURRENT

(19 Pin) 25A

WORKING VOLTAGE

(19 Pin) 400VAC

WORKING TEMPERATURE

-400C to +1200C

SHELL MATERIAL

Aluminium alloy

CONTACT MATERIAL

Machined copper alloy

CONTACT PLATING

Gold on nickel underplate

[ 0.005

CONTACT RESISTANCE

CABLE CLAMP SIZE

G0579A Assembly Tool for Female

CLAMP

CABLE DIAMETER - inches (mm)

PG 16

0.39 to 0.55 ( 10 to 14)

PG29a

0.51 to 0.79 (13 to 20)

PG 29b

0.71 to 0.98 (18 to 25)

PG36

0.87 to 1.26 (22 to 32)


3.66" (92.8mm)

G0571 Female Chassis

G0570 Male Chassis

5.05" (128.3mm)

4.78" (121.3mm)

G0572B Male Inline

G0573B Female Inline

3.38" (85.9mm)

G0572 Male Inline G0573 Female Inline


5.46" (138.7mm)

G0572D Male Inline

5.19" (131.7mm)

G0573D Female Inline

B7

JAMES

ENGINEERING

CEEP Cables
and Breakouts

CEEP cable assemblies are available with either Compact or Extended


backshells and a wide range of cables. Standard cables include 16g/18c,
14g/19c, 14g/14c, 12g/19c and 12g/14c with 105oC, PVC jacket for
flexibility and durability. Other cables are available for special applications.
Breakouts are available in a variety of cable sizes with tail lengths and
.

Multicable with Compact Backshell

Multicable with Extended Backshell

Breakout with Extended Backshell


and Extra Wide Cable Clamp

B8

JAMES

MULTI-CABLE
ENGINEERING

MULTI-CABLE assemblies can be made using VEAM VSC, or CIR multi-pin


connectors and multi-conductor cable. The wide range of cables allows the
customer to specify the correct size cable required for their project. Sizes
available include 16g/18c, 14g/18c, 14g/14c, 12g/19c and 12g/14c. Other cables
are available for special applications.

VEAM VSC

Veam VSC connectors are UL approved and available with Double Bar Clamp or Basket
Weave strain relief.

As shown below wiring for breakouts with twistloc, edison, or 2p&g. The
cable used is either 14/3 SJ 12/3 SJ or with the kinky klamps 12/3 SO or
12/3 SJ.

B9

JAMES

GP 12 x 12
ENGINEERING

12" x 12" General Purpose truss is manufactured from 2" dia x 0.125" wall and 1" dia x 0.125"
wall 6082T6 or 6061T6 Aluminium tubing. Bolts are supplied for assembly of truss elements. This
truss is ideal for conference, exhibition, and small venue work. By incorporating suitable sleeve
blocks and towers, this truss can be used with our Ground Support System.
PRODUCT
CODE

DESCRIPTION

WT
lbs

B0700

10' Section

55

B0701

8' Section

46

B0702

5' Section

35

B0703

2' 6" Section

24

B4700

3m Section

55

B4701

2.5m Section

46.5

B4702

2m Section

40.5

B4703

1.5m Section

35

B4704

1m Section

19.5

B4705

2 Way Corner Block

15

B4705A

3 Way Corner Block

17.5

B4706

4 Way Corner Block

19.5

B4707

6 Way Corner Block

26.5

B4708

Flat Plate Hinge Section

14

Allowable Load Data

Maximum Allowable Uniform Loads Maximum Allowable Center Point Loads

Span
feet (meters)

Loads
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection Loads


inches (mm)
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection
inches (mm)

10 (3.048)

6140 (2785)

0.276 (7)

4497 (2040)

0.315 (8)

20 (6.096)

3100 (1406)

1.10 (28)

1550 (703)

1.10 (28)

30 (9.144)

1726 (783)

2.21 (56)

864 (392)

2.21 (56)

40 (12.192)

855 (388)

2.96 (75)

428 (194)

2.96 (75)

LOADING FIGURES show maximum loads between supports in addition to the self weight of the truss. Information extracted from
the structural report by Broadhurst, Goodwin, and Dunn
suit maximum shear capacity. All loads include 20% overload factor for dynamic effects.

End View

Side View

4 Way

Plan View

6 Way

3 Way

2 Way

Lifting Point
Flat Pivot Section

C2

JAMES

GP 18 x 12
ENGINEERING

18" x 12" manufactured the same way as 12" x 12", but has an added advantage, due to its width of 18"
of being able to accommodate 2 lighting bars back to back. Also the truss is slightly stronger over longer
spans. It is made from 6061T6 or 6082T6 alloy 2" x 0.125" tubes for the main chords and 1" x 0.125"
tubes for the diagonals.The truss can be used with Ground Support System with suitable sleeve blocks
and towers.
PRODUCT
CODE

DESCRIPTION

WT
lbs

B0600

10' Section

61.5

B0601

8' Section

52.5

B0602

5' Section

37.5

B0603

2' 6" Section

24

B4600

3m Section

61.5

B4601

2.5m Section

53

B4602

2m Section

42

B4603

1.5m Section

37.5

B4604

1m Section

28.5

B4605

0.5m Section

19.5

B4608

4 Way Corner Block

22

B46

5 Way Corner Block

B4

6 Way Corner Block

Allowable Load Data

Maximum Allowable Uniform Loads Maximum Allowable Center Point Loads

Span
feet (meters)

Loads
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection Loads


inches (mm)
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection
inches (mm)

10 (3.048)

6140 (2785)

0.276 (7)

4497 (2040)

0.20 (8)

20 (6.096)

3100 (1406)

1.10 (28)

1550 (703)

1.10 (28)

30 (9.144)

1726 (783)

2.20 (56)

864 (392)

2.20 (56)

40 (12.192)

855 (388)

2.95 (75)

427 (194)

2.95 (75)

50 (15.24)

425 (193)

3.70 (94)

214 (97)

3.70 (94)

LOADING FIGURES show maximum loads between supports in addition to the self weight of the truss. Information extracted from
the structural report by Broadhurst, Goodwin, and Dunn
suit maximum shear capacity. All loads include 20% overload factor for dynamic effects.

End View

SIde View
3 Way

4 Way

Plan View

2 Way

C3

JAMES

GP 15 x 15
ENGINEERING

15" x 15" General Purpose truss is manufactured from 2" dia x 0.125" wall and 1" dia x 0.125" wall 6082T6 or
6061T6 Aluminium tubing. Bolts are supplied assembly of truss elements. This truss is ideal for conference,
exhibition, and small venue work. By incorporating suitable sleeve blocks and towers, this truss can be used with our
Ground Support Systems.

PRODUCT
CODE

DESCRIPTION

WT
lbs

B1510

10' Section

61.5

B1508

8' Section

53

B1505

5' Section

39.5

B1525

2' 6" Section

27.5

B1502

2 Way Corner Block

18.5

B1503

3 Way Corner Block

21

B1504

4 Way Corner Block

24

B1506

6 Way Corner Block

28.5

B1507

Flat Plate Hinge Section

20

Allowable Load
Data

Maximum Allowable Uniform Loads

Maximum Allowable Center Point Loads

Span
feet (meters)
10 (3.048)
15 (4.572)
20 (6.096)
25 (7.62)
30 (9.144)
40 (12.192)
50 (15.24)

Loads
pounds (kgs)
9200 (4173)
6100 (2766)
4500 (2041)
3500 (1587)
2900 (1315)
2000 (907)

Loads
pounds (kgs)
4600 (2086)
3050 (1383)
2250 (1020)
1750 (793)
1450 (657)
1000 (453)

1300 (589)*

Maximum deflection
inches (mm)
0.17 (4)
0.38 (9)
0.67 (17)
1.04 (26)
1.50 (38)
2.67 (67)
3.75 (95)

650 (294)*

Maximum deflection
inches (mm)
0.17 (4)
0.38 (9)
0.67 (17)
1.04 (26)
1.50 (38)
2.67 (67)
3.75 (95)

55 (16.76)

1000 (453)*

4.13 (104)

500 (226)*

4.13 (104)

LOADING FIGURES show maximum loads between supports in addition to self weight of truss. Information extracted from
structural report by Jessie Mise. *Denotes load limited to a maximum deflection of (span /160). All loads include a 20%
overload factor for dynamic effects.

End View

Side View

4 Way

3 Way

Plan View

6 Way

Fiat Pivot Section

2 Way

C4

JAMES

GP TRIANGULAR
ENGINEERING

23 1/4" x 60 degree equilateral triangular truss is designed and manufactured for high strength, in relation to
storage space required. The main chords are 2" x 0.125" tube and the diagonals are 1" x 0.125" tube in either
6082T6 or 6061T6. The truss can be used with a Ground Support System with appropriate Sleeve Blocks and
Towers. Each section is complete with bolts.
PRODUCT
CODE

DESCRIPTION

WT
lbs

B0500

10' section

66

B0501

8' section

53

B0502

5' section

35

B4500

3m section

66

B4501

2.5m section

53

B4502

2m section

44

B4503

1.5m section

35

B4504

1m section

26.5

B4505

2 way corner block

35

B4506

3 way corner block

39.5

B4507

4 way corner block

44

B4508

Flat pivot section

39.5

Allowable Load
Span
feet (meters)
10 (3.048)

Maximum Allowable Uniform Loads


Loads
Maximum deflection
pounds (kgs)
inches (mm)
0.1 (2)
5600 (2540)+

15 (4.572)

5600 (2540)+
4700 (2131)
3700 (1678)
3000 (1360)
2100 (952)

20 (6.096)
25 (7.62)
30 (9.144)
40 (12.192)
50 (15.24)
60 (18.288)

0.34 (8)

1300 (589)*

0.70 (17)
1.09 (27)
1.57 (39)
2.8 (71)
3.75 (95)

700 (317)*

4.50 (114)

Maximum Allowable Center Point Loads


Loads
Maximum deflection
pounds (kgs)
inches (mm)
2800 (1270)+
0.1 (2)
2800 (1270)+
2350 (1065)
1850 (839)
1500 (680)
1050 (476)

0.34 (8)

650 (294)*

0.70 (17)
1.09 (27)
1.57 (39)
2.8 (71)
3.75 (95)

350 (158)*

4.50 (114)

LOADING FIGURES show maximum loads between supports in addition to self weight of truss. Information extracted from
structural report by Jessie Mise. + Denotes load limited to suit maximum shear capacity. *Denotes load limited to a maximum
deflection of (span /160). All loads include a 20% overload factor for dynamic effects.

Plan View

End View

Side View

4 Way

Flat Pivot Section


0-180 Degree

3 Way

2 Way

C6

JAMES

GP 20.5 x 20.5
ENGINEERING

20.5" x 20.5" General Purpose truss manufactured from 6061T6 or 6082T6 Aluminium using 2" x 0.125"
wall and 1" x 0.125" wall tubes. It is supplied as standard with bolts for connection.
GP 20.5" x 20.5" is suitable for the majority of lighting applications, flying P.A. and any general purpose
use. It can be used with Ground Support System by incorporating suitable sleeve blocks and towers. This
truss can also be supplied with castor wheels.
PRODUCT
CODE

DESCRIPTION

WT
lbs

B0400

10' LONG SECTION

88

B0401

8' LONG SECTION

75

B0402

5' LONG SECTION

60

B4400

4 METRE LONG SECTION

114

B4401

3 METRE LONG SECTION

88

B4402

2.5 METRE LONG SECTION

77

B4403

2 METRE LONG SECTION

68

B4404

1.5 METRE LONG SECTION

60

B4405

1 METRE LONG SECTION

44

B4407

4 WAY CORNER BLOCK

37

B44

5 WAY CORNER BLOCK

40

B4408

6 WAY CORNER BLOCK

42

B4409

UNIVERSAL PIVOT SECTION


0 - 270 DEGREE

43

B4410

UNIVERSAL PIVOT SECTION


0 - 90 DEGREE

42

B4411

FLAT PIVOT SECTION 0 - 180 DEGREE

37

B4412

GP TO TRIANGULAR ADAPTER

B4413

GP TO 12" ADAPTER

PRODUCT
CODE

TRUSS WITH CASTORS

WT
lbs

B0420

10' LONG SECTION

105
92

B0421

8' LONG SECTION

B0422

5' LONG SECTION

77

B4420

4 METRE LONG SECTION

132

B4421

3 METRE LONG SECTION

106

B4422

2.5 METRE LONG SECTION

95

B4423

2 METRE LONG SECTION

86

B4424

1.5 METRE LONG SECTION

77

B4425

1 METRE LONG SECTION

62

Allowable Load Data

Maximum Allowable Uniform Loads Maximum Allowable Center Point Loads

Span
feet (meters)

Loads
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection Loads


inches (mm)
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection
inches (mm)

10 (3.048)

5741 (2604)

1.06 (27)

2870 (1302)

1.06 (27)

20 (6.096)

5741 (2604)

1.06 (27)

2870 (1302)

1.06 (27)

30 (9.144)

3715 (1685)

1.57 (40)

1858 (843)

1.57 (40)

40 (12.192)

2643 (1199)

2.44 (62)

1322 (600)

2.44 (62)

50 (15.24)

1911 (867)

3.70 (94)

957 (434)

3.70 (94)

LOADING FIGURES show maximum loads between supports in addition to the self weight of the truss. Information extracted from
the structural report by Broadhurst, Goodwin, and Dunn
suit maximum shear capacity. All loads include 20% overload factor for dynamic effects.
C7

JAMES

GP 20.5 x 20.5
ENGINEERING

10 ft Truss

2 Way Corner Block

Universal Pivot Section


90-0-90 Degrees

4 Way Corner Block

Universal Pivot Section


0-270 Degrees

6 Way Corner Block

Flat Pivot Section


0-180 Degrees

C8

JAMES

HD 20.5 x 30
ENGINEERING

20.5" x 30" truss is for those ever increasing load requirement situations. The truss is connected
together with bolts as standard and can be used with a Ground Support System by using suitable Sleeve
Blocks and Towers. This truss can also be specified with castor wheels. The main chords of the truss are
made from 2" x 0.157"and the diagonals are 1" x 0.125". Aluminum Alloys are either 6061T6 or 6082T6.
PRODUCT
CODE

DESCRIPTION

WT
lbs

B0900

10' section

79.5

B0901

8' section

72.5

B0902

5' section

66

B4900

4m section

105.5

B4901

3m section

79.5

B4902

2.5m section

73.5

B4903

2m section

66

B4904

1.5m section

60

B4905

1m section

53

B4906

2 way corner block

35

B4907

3 way corner block

37.5

B4908

4 way corner block

40

PRODUCT
CODE

TRUSS WITH CASTORS

WT
lbs

B0920

10' section

97

B0921

8' section

90

B0922

5' section

83.5

B4920

4m section

123.5

B4921

3m section

97

B4922

2.5m section

91

B4923

2m section

83.5

B4924

1.5m section

77

B4925

1m section

70.5

Allowable Load Data

Maximum Allowable Uniform Loads Maximum Allowable Center Point Loads

Span
feet (meters)

Loads
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection Loads


inches (mm)
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection
inches (mm)

10 (3.048)

5646 (2561)*

0.236 (6)

5646 (2561)*

0.315 (8)

20 (6.096)

5646 (2561)*

0.236 (6)

5646 (2561)*

0.315 (8)

30 (9.144)

5562(2523)*

0.709 (18)

4202 (1906)

0.709 (18)

40 (12.192)

4127 (1872)

1.65 (42)

2063 (936)

1.65 (42)

50 (15.24)

3150 (1429)

2.05 (52)

1574 (714)

2.05 (52)

60 (18.29)

2460 (1116)

2.80 (71)

1230 (558)

2.80 (71)

70 (21.34)

1953 (886)

3.66 (93)

976 (443)

3.66 (93)

LOADING FIGURES show maximum loads between supports in addition to self weight of truss. Information extracted from
structural report by Broadhurst, Goodwin & Dunn for truss manufactured after November 1993. * Denotes load limited to suit
maximum shear capacity. All loads include 20% overload factor for dynamic effects.

C9

JAMES

HD 20 x 30
ENGINEERING

Plan View

End View

Side View

Plan View

End View

Side View
C10

JAMES

ENGINEERING

FOLLOW SPOT
CHAIRS

Thomas has simplified its range of lightweight follow spot chairs, that feature comfortable rally
type seats and safety belts.
The chairs come in 2 standard formats as detailed below. All chairs are supplied with one
vertical and one 45 degree angle adjustable spigot mounting adapters, which allow the use of
most types of follow spots available today.
The follow spot chairs fit to the truss by means of 4 swivel couplers which are supplied as
optional extras. Some models also feature a tray behind the seat for mounting of a ballast.
PRODUCT
CODE

DESCRIPTION

WEIGHT LENGTH WIDTH HEIGHT


lbs
ins
ins
ins

B1102

Top mounted follow spot chair with ballast tray

53

57

27.45

48

B1103

Universal follow spot chair with ballast tray

72.5

57

30

63.2

B1104

Swivel top mounted follow spot chair

41.5

50.5

18.5

34.85

G0300

Swivel coupler (4 required per chair)

2.2

T0304A

Lycian spigot adaptor

Top mounted follow spot


chair with ballast tray

Universal follow spot


chair with ballast tray

Adjustable spigot
mounting adapters
manufactured from
38 mm x 6 mm wall
Mild steel.

C11

JAMES

PRE-RIG TRUSS
ENGINEERING

Pre-Rig truss is 30" x 26" in size. It is manufactured from aluminium tube 6082-T6 with 2" x .125"
wall thickness for main tubes and 1" x .125" wall tube for the diagonals. Each truss piece has 4 castor
wheels for easy maneuverability and bolts for the connection of truss pieces.
Each truss is designed to carry 2 lighting bars complete with lanterns. The lighting bars are stored
internally in the truss and can be lowered to the working position when in use. This design reduces the
amount of space required for lighting and rigging in the truck. Each truss is also designed to carry a
varying amount of lanterns, the 10' section carries 2 bars of 8 lanterns, 7' 7"section carries 2 bars of 6
lanterns, 5' section carries 2 bars of 4 lanterns, and the 3' 9-1/2" section carries 2 bars of 3 lanterns. This
feature enables great flexibility in the truss design.
The Pre-Rig truss accepts a modified lighting bar which have 2 sleeved holes in them. The lighting
bars are located inside the truss by guide rods. In the storage position the bars are securely held in the
truss by shank hooks. The whole system can be used with our Ground Support System by using suitable
sleeve blocks and towers.
PRODUCT
CODE

DESCRIPTION

WT
lbs

B0300
B0301
B0302
B0303
B0304
B4300
B4301
B4302

10' section (empty)


7' 7" section (empty)
5' section (empty)
3' 9 1/2" section (empty)
6"-12" make up piece (empty)
2 way corner block
4 way corner block
Universal pivot section
0-270 degree
Universal pivot section
0-90 degree
Horizontal load-bearing pivot
section
Vertical load-bearing pivot
section
P.R.T. to G.P. adapter

111.3
91
77.15
57.35
52.9
61.75
59.5

B4303
B4304
B4305
B4306

59.5
123.5
123.5
28.65

Par 64 lanterns in storage position

Par 64 lanterns lowered to operating position

To lower lanterns from storage to


operating position, simply pull tab on
shank hook with one hand whilst
holding the lighting bar with the other
hand. Then lower the lanterns into
operating position.

C12

JAMES

PRE-RIG TRUSS
ENGINEERING

Allowable Load Data


empty Pre-rigged

Maximum Allowable Uniform Loads Maximum Allowable Center Point Loads

Span 7'-7" sections


feet ( meters)

Loads
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection Loads


inches (mm)
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection
inches (mm)

2) 15.17 (4.62)

6980 (3166)*

0.63 (16)

4691 (2128)

0.945 (24)

3) 22.75 (6.93)

6138 (2784)

1.26 (32)

3069 (1392)

1.26 (32)

4) 30.33 (9.25)

4458 (2022)

1.69 (43)

2229 (1011)

1.69 (43)

5) 37.92 (11.56)

3395 (1540)

2.09 (53)

1698 (770)

2.09 (53)

6) 45.5 (13.87)

2676 (1214)

2.72 (69)

1338 (607)

2.72 (69)

7) 53.08 (16.18)

2134 (968)

3.66 (93)

1067 (484)

3.66 (93)

8) 60.67 (18.5)

1671 (758)

4.72 (120)

836 (379)

4.72 (120)

Maximum Allowable Uniform Loads


Allowable Load Data
fully loaded Pre-rigged

Maximum Allowable Center Point Loads

Span 7'-7" sections


feet (meters)

Loads
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection
inches (mm)

Loads
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection
inches (mm)

2) 15.17 (4.62)

6737 (3056)*

0.63 (16)

4572 (2074)

0.945 (24)

3) 22.75 (6.93)

5774 (2619)

1.26 (32)

2888 (1310)

1.26 (32)

4) 30.33 (9.25)

3977 (1804)

1.69 (43)

1989 (902)

1.69 (43)

5) 37.92 (11.56)

2791 (1266)

2.09 (53)

1396 (633)

2.09 (53)

6) 45.5 (13.87)

1951 (885)

2.72 (69)

977 (443)

2.72 (69)

7) 53.08 (16.18)

1289 (585)

3.66 (93)

646 (293)

3.66 (93)

8) 60.67 (18.5)

703 (319)

4.72 (120)

353 (160)

4.72 (120)

LOADING FIGURES show maximum loads between supports in addition to self weight of truss. Information extracted from
structural report by The Broadhurst Partnership. * Denotes load limited to suit maximum shear capacity. All loads include a
20% overload factor for dynamic effects.

7 ft 7ins Pre-Rig Truss

3 ft 9 1/2ins Pre-Rig Truss

Universal Pivot Section Universal Pivot Section


4 Way Corner Block
0-270 degree
0-90 degree

C13

JAMES

SINGLE BAR PRE-RIG


ENGINEERING

A revolutionary truss designed to offer all the advantages of the regular Pre-rigged in a Single bar
Pre-Rig layout. The size is 20.5" wide x 20.5" deep x 96" long as standard.
The truss features a guide rod . This truss allows the use of pre-rig lighting bars with short nose
Par lanterns. Ideal for users where a small truck pack is required.

PRODUCT
CODE

DESCRIPTION

WT
kgs

B0420S4

10' section

65

B0421S4

8' section

45

See GP 20.5" x 20.5" cut sheet for


other accessories

To lower lanterns from storage to operating position, simply pull tab on shank
hook with one hand whilst holding the lighting bar with the other hand. Then
lower the lanterns into operating position.

Par 64 lanterns in storage position

Par 64 lanterns lowered to operating position

C14

JAMES

MOVING LIGHT
TRUSS

ENGINEERING

Moving Light truss has been designed around the Pre-rigged truss size. 91 x 30" x 26" in size (other
sizes are available. It is manufactured from aluminium tube 6082-T6 with 2" x .125" wall thickness for
main tubes and 1" x .125" wall tube for the diagonals. Each truss piece has 8 castor wheels for easy
maneuverability and bolts for the connection of truss pieces.
Each 91 truss is designed to carry 3 moving light fixtures. The moving lights are stored internally in
the truss and can be lowered to the working position when in use. This design reduces the amount of
space required for lighting and rigging in the truck. .
Two handles allow the lowering of each moving light. The following units have been tried in our
moving light trusses. Highend Studio Color and Studio Spot.
Coemar CF7 wash fixture
Martins line of Mac fixtures; 250, 300, 500, 600, and 2000

Other fixtures may fit within the design of this truss by using a custom fitted plate.

The whole system can be used with our Ground Support System by using suitable sleeve blocks and
towers.
Please note no fixtures are included with truss.
PRODUCT CODE

DESCRIPTION

WT
lbs

MLT-120-R3
MLT-91-R3
MLT-42-R3
B4300
B4301
B4302

10' section (empty)


7' 7" section (empty)
42 section (empty)
2 way corner block
4 way corner block
Universal pivot section
0-270 degree
Universal pivot section
0-90 degree
Horizontal load-bearing pivot section
Vertical load-bearing pivot section
P.R.T. to G.P. Adapter
**all weights subject to correction

193**
145**
97**
52.9
61.75
59.5

B4303
B4304
B4305
B4306

59.5
123.5
123.5
28.65

Allowable Load Data


empty MLT

Maximum Allowable Uniform Loads Maximum Allowable Center Point Loads

Span 7'-7" sections


feet ( meters)

Loads
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection Loads


inches (mm)
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection
inches (mm)

2) 15.17 (4.62)

6926 (3141)*

0.63 (16)

3463 (1570)

0.945 (24)

3) 22.75 (6.93)

6084 (2759)

1.26 (32)

3042 (1379)

1.26 (32)

4) 30.33 (9.25)

4404 (1997)

1.69 (43)

2202 (998)

1.69 (43)

5) 37.92 (11.56)

3341 (1515)

2.09 (53)

1670 (757)

2.09 (53)

6) 45.5 (13.87)

2622 (1189)

2.72 (69)

1311 (594)

2.72 (69)

7) 53.08 (16.18)

2080 (943)

3.66 (93)

1040 (471)

3.66 (93)

8) 60.67 (18.5)

1617 (733)

4.72 (120)

808 (366)

4.72 (120)

LOADING FIGURES show maximum loads between supports in addition to self weight of truss. Information extracted from
structural report by The Broadhurst Partnership. * Denotes load limited to suit maximum shear capacity. All loads include a
20% overload factor for dynamic effects.

C15

JAMES

ENGINEERING

SUPERLITE
TRUSS

This lightweight truss is ideal for Exhibition, Conference and Small venue work. Using the Supertruss
principle has enabled the manufacture of a competitively strong but lightweight truss with all the innovative
space and time saving characteristics first demonstrated in Supertruss. Superlite is a 12" or 15.75" x 60
degree equilateral triangular truss manufactured from 6082T6 or 6061T6 alloy tube with 1.97" x 0.079" wall
main tubes, 0.75" x 0.079" wall diagonals.

Superlite truss
Type
12 foot Section
10 foot Section
8 foot Section
6 foot Section
5 foot Section
2.5 foot Section
3 meter Section
1 meter Section
2 Way Connection
2 Way joint Support Plate & Vertical Connecting Spigots
3 Way Connection complete
4 Way Connection complete
Base plate including 3 - Vertical spigots
Horizontal to Vertical Adapter
Horizontal to Vertical Joint Spigot
Vertical Connecting Spigot
Baby Tower sleeve plates per pair

12" (30.5cm )
Superlite
Code
Lb
B1660
33.9
B1661
27
B1662
22
B1663
16.5
B1664
13.72
B1665
7
B1630
24.3
B1610
11
B1602
8.3
B1609
5.6
B1603
8.8
B1604
7.7
B1601
5.8
B1606
1
B1607
4.4
B1608
0.77
B1611
10.8

15.75" (40cm)
Superlite
Code
Lb
B2160
40
B2161
33
B2162
26.4
B2163
20
B2164
16.5
B2165
8.3
B2130
29.3
B2110
13
B2102
10.5
B2109
8
B2103
19
B2104
16.3
B2101
8.7
B1606
1
B1607
4.4
B1608
0.77
B2111
13.5

12" Superlite
truss
Plan View

End View

Side View

15.75"
Superlite truss
Plan View

End View

Side View

D1A

JAMES

SUPERLITE
TRUSS

ENGINEERING

LOADING FIGURES show maximum loads


between supports in addition to self weight of
truss. Information extracted from structural report
by The Broadhurst Partnership for truss
manufactured after June 1994

Allowable Load Data


for the Superlite 12"

Maximum Allowable Uniform Loads Maximum Allowable Center Point Loads

Span
feet (meters)

Loads
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection Loads


inches (mm)
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection
inches (mm)

10 (3.048)

2028 (920)

0.43 (11)

1014 (460)

0.43 (11)

20 (6.096)

1585 (719)

1.18 (30)

793 (360)

1.18 (30)

30 (9.144)

644 (292)

2.5 (63)

322 (146)

2.5 (63)

40 (12.192)

406 (184)

3.0 (76)

202 (92)

3.0 (76)

LOADING FIGURES show maximum loads between supports in addition to self weight of truss. Information extracted from
structural report by The Broadhurst Partnership. * Denotes load limited to suit maximum shear capacity. All loads include a
20% overload factor for dynamic effects.

Allowable Load Data


for the Superlite 15.75"

Maximum Allowable Uniform Loads Maximum Allowable Center Point Loads

Span
feet (meters)

Loads
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection Loads


inches (mm)
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection
inches (mm)

10 (3.048)

2028 (920)

0.24 (6)

1014 (460)

0.24 (6)

20 (6.096)

2011 (912)

0.79 (20)

1005 (456)

0.79 (20)

30 (9.144)

1287 (584)

2.36 (60)

643 (292)

2.36 (60)

40 (12.192)

888 (403)

3.0 (76)

445 (202)

3.0 (76)

50 (15.24)

414 (188)

4.0 (102)

207 (94)

4.0 (102)

60 (18.29)

278 (126)

4.57 (116)

139 (63)

4.57 (116)

LOADING FIGURES show maximum loads between supports in addition to self weight of truss. Information extracted from
structural report by The Broadhurst Partnership. * Denotes load limited to suit maximum shear capacity. All loads include a
20% overload factor for dynamic effects.

D1B

JAMES

SUPERLITE
TRUSS

ENGINEERING

B1602 - 2 Way Connection


The 2 way joint is simply made by
connecting the inside truss spigots and
inserting 2 double ended spigots to join
the top and outer truss tubes together.
All joints are pinned using 12mm Pins
and "R" clips.

B1603 - 3 Way Connection


The 3 way joint is made by fitting a
30.5 cm plate below the bottom tubes of
the truss locating through the spigot
holes. Join the lower ends of the trusses
together over the plate, adding the lower
double ended spigot to the open bottom
and join together with M12 bolt sets.
Then connect the ends of the top tubes
together using the "T" spigot, pinning
with 12mm pins and "R" clips.

B1604 - 4 Way Connection


The 4 way joint is made by fitting a
30.5 cm plate below the bottom tubes
of the truss locating through the spigot
holes. Join the lower ends of the trusses
together over the plate and fit M12 bolt
sets. The top tubes are joined with a
cross spigot and pinned together with
12mm pins and "R" clips.

B1601 - Base Plate


The base plate is supplied with 3
vertical connecting spigots. This plate
can also be used on 3 and 4 way
joints as a support and vertical truss
plate.
B1608 - Vertical
connecting spigot

D1C

JAMES

ENGINEERING

SUPERLITE
TRUSS

B1309 - 2 Way joint with


vertical connecting spigots

3 Way joint with vertical


truss connected

4 Way joint with vertical


truss connected

Vertical truss attached to horizontal


truss

Add 3 - B1608 vertical connecting spigots


to 4 way connection.

2 Way joint with Apex of truss facing


outwards
Using 3 - B1606 Horizontal to Vertical Adapters & 1 Horizontal to Vertical Joint Spigot.

Add 3 - B1608 vertical connecting


spigots to 3 way connection.

Using 4 half-couplers connected to the support plate.


Note: This method of attaching the vertical truss is
0.55" higher than on the above connection methods.

2 Way joint with Apex of truss facing


inwards
Using 3 - B1606 Horizontal to Vertical Adapters & 2 Horizontal to Vertical Joint Spigots.

D1D

JAMES

Squarelite truss
ENGINEERING

This light weight truss is ideal for Exhibition, Conference and Small venue work. Using the Supertruss
design principles has enabled the manufacture of a competitively strong but lightweight truss with all the
innovative space and time saving characteristics first demonstrated in Supertruss. Squarelite is available
as a 12" or 15.75" square truss manufactured from 6061T6 or 6082T6 alloy aluminum tube with 1.96"x
0.078 wall main tubes, 0.75"x 0.078" wall diagonals on all faces and featuring double ended connecting
forks for ease of assembly and added strength. All trusses are supplied with pin & "R" clips or bolt sets as
necessary.
12 inch
Squarelite
Code
Lb
B3960
41.8
B3961
34.87
B3962
27.9
B3963
20.92
B3964
17.44
B3965
8.7
B3930
32.4
B3910
14.8
B3902
13.2
B3903
10.1
B3908
6.9
B3901
6.4
B1606
1
B1608
0.8
B3909
11.7

Squarelite truss
Type
12 foot Section
10 foot Section
8 foot Section
6 foot Section
5 foot Section
2.5 foot Section
3 metre Section
1 metre Section
2 way / 900 gate
3 way / 1200 gate
Square support plate per pair
Base Plate Vertical Connecting Spigots
Horizontal to Vertical Connecting Spigot
Vertical Connecting Spigot
Baby Tower Sleeve Plates per pair

15.75 inch
Squarelite
Code
Lb
B3460
52.7
B3461
43.9
B3462
35
B3463
26.3
B3464
22
B3465
11
B4330
39
B4310
17.2
B3499
15.4
B3498
11.7
B3408
12.7
B3497
9.5
B1606
1
B1608
0.77
B3496
16

12" Squarelite
truss
Plan

End View

Side View

15.75"
Squarelite truss
Plan

End View

Side View

D3A

JAMES

Squarelite truss
ENGINEERING

LOADING FIGURES show maximum loads between


supports in addition to self weight of truss.
Information extracted from structural report by The
Broadhurst Partnership for truss manufactured after
June 1994.

Allowable Load Data


for the Squarelite 12"

Maximum Allowable Uniform Loads Maximum Allowable Center Point Loads

Span
feet (meters)

Loads
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection Loads


inches (mm)
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection
inches (mm)

10 (3.048)

2354 (1068)

0.28 (7)

1177 (534)

0.28 (7)

20 (6.096)

2332 (1058)

0.96 (23)

1166 (529)

0.96 (23)

30 (9.144)

1296 (588)

2.5 (63)

648 (294)

2.5 (63)

40 (12.192)

842 (382)

3.0 (76)

421 (191)

3.0 (76)

LOADING FIGURES show maximum loads between supports in addition to self weight of truss. Information extracted from
structural report by The Broadhurst Partnership. * Denotes load limited to suit maximum shear capacity. All loads include a
20% overload factor for dynamic effects.

Maximum Allowable Uniform Loads Maximum Allowable Center Point Loads


Allowable Load Data
for the squarelite 15.75"
Span
feet (meters)

Loads
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection Loads


inches (mm)
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection
inches (mm)

10 (3.048)

2348 (1065)

0.16 (4)

1175 (533)

0.16 (4)

20 (6.096)

2324 (1054)

0.47 (12)

1161 (527)

0.47 (12)

30 (9.144)

2273 (1031)

2.13 (54)

1137 (516)

2.13 (54)

40 (12.192)

1759 (798)

2.95 (75)

879 (399)

2.95 (75)

50 (15.24)

873 (396)

3.94 (100)

436 (198)

3.94 (100)

60 (18.29)

632 (283)

4.45 (113)

313 (142)

4.45 (113)

LOADING FIGURES show maximum loads between supports in addition to self weight of truss. Information extracted from
structural report by The Broadhurst Partnership. * Denotes load limited to suit maximum shear capacity. All loads include a
20% overload factor for dynamic effects.

D3B

JAMES

Squarelite truss
ENGINEERING

2 Way Connection
The 2 way joint is simply made by
connecting the inside truss spigots and
inserting a 2 way gate to join the outer
truss tubes together. All joints are
pinned using 12mm Pins and "R" clips.

3 Way Connection
The 3 way joint is made by joining the 3
trusses together fitting a square support
plate above and below the tubes of the
truss locating through the spigot holes.
Add the 3 way gate to the open face
and join together with M12 bolt sets.

4 Way Connection
The 4 way joint is made by joining the 4
trusses together fitting a square support
plate above and below the tubes of the
truss locating through the spigot holes
and joining together with M12 bolt sets.

Base Plate
The base plate is supplied with 4
vertical connecting spigots. This plate
can also be used on 3 and 4 way
joints as a support and vertical truss
plate.
B1608 - Vertical
connecting spigot

D3C

SUPERTRUSS
12 x 12

JAMES

ENGINEERING

The revolutionary truss designed to offer all the advantages of the 20.5" Supertruss in a
12" x 12" layout. The 12" x 12" Supertruss provides a substantial increase in load bearing capacity
over the existing GP 12" x 12" truss. The main chords of the truss are made from 2" x 0.157"
6061-T6, and the diagonals are 1" x 0.125".
PRODUCT
CODE

DESCRIPTION

WT
lbs

B1260A

12' Section

87

B1261

10' Section

72

B1262

8' Section

67

B1263

6' Section

51

B1264

5' Section

42

B1265

2' 6" Section

27

B1200A

60 Degree corner gate

14

B1201

90 Degree corner gate

B1203

135 Degree corner gate

B1204A

3 Way gate/ 120 gate

B1204B

3 Way gate with lifting point

B1208

Square support plate

B1211

12" Super-truss to
GP 12" x 12" adaptor gate

G6671A

12" Supertruss pin


extraction tool

Allowable Load Data

Maximum Allowable Uniform Loads Maximum Allowable Center Point Loads

Span
feet (meters)

Loads
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection Loads


inches (mm)
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection
inches (mm)

10 (3.048)

8496 (3854)*

0.20 (5)

7348 (3333)

0.20 (5)

20 (6.096)

7255 (3291)

1.50 (38)

3628 (1646)

1.50 (38)

30 (9.144)

3324(1508)

2.20 (56)

1662 (754)

2.20 (56)

40 (12.192)

1695 (769)

2.95 (75)

848 (385)

2.95 (75)

50 (15.24)

888 (403)

3.70 (94)

445 (202)

3.70 (94)

LOADING FIGURES show maximum loads between supports in addition to self weight of truss. Information extracted from
structural report by Broadhurst, Goodwin & Dunn for Super-truss manufactured after November 1993. * Denotes load limited to suit
maximum shear capacity. All loads include 20% overload factor for dynamic effects.

Plan View

3 Way corner gate


Corner plate

End View

Side View

90 Degree corner gate

D4

JAMES

SUPERTRUSS
18 x 12

ENGINEERING

A revolutionary truss designed to offer all the advantages of the Thomas Supertruss design in a 18 x 12
layout. This truss has the advantage of being able to accomodate 2 lighting bars back to back.
18 x 12 Supertruss provides a substantial increase in loadbearing capacity over the GP 18 x 12 truss.
It is made from 6061-T6 alloy 2" x 0.157" tubes in the main chords and 1" x 0.125" tubes in the diagonals
PRODUCT
CODE

DESCRIPTION

WT
lbs

B2360

12' Section

96

B2361

10' Section

76

B2362

8' Section

64

B2363

6' Section

48

B2364

5' Section

45

B2365

2' 6" Section

20

B2300A

60 Degree corner gate

22

B2301

90 Degree corner gate

10

B1203

135 Degree corner gate

B2304A

3 Way gate / 120 gate

B2304B

3 Way gate with lifting point

12

B2308

Square support plate

10

B2311

18" x 12" Super-truss to


GP 18" x 12" adaptor gate

G6671A

12" Supertruss pin extraction tool

Allowable Load Data

Maximum Allowable Uniform Loads Maximum Allowable Center Point Loads

Span
feet (meters)

Loads
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection Loads


inches (mm)
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection
inches (mm)

10 (3.048)

8496 (3854)*

0.20 (5)

7348 (3333)

0.20 (5)

20 (6.096)

7255 (3291)

1.50 (38)

3628 (1646)

1.50 (38)

30 (9.144)

3324(1508)

2.20 (56)

1662 (754)

2.20 (56)

40 (12.192)

1695 (769)

2.95 (75)

848 (385)

2.95 (75)

50 (15.24)

888 (403)

3.70 (94)

445 (202)

3.70 (94)

LOADING FIGURES show maximum loads between supports in addition to self weight of truss. Information extracted from
structural report by Broadhurst, Goodwin & Dunn for Super-truss manufactured after November 1993. * Denotes load limited to
suit maximum shear capacity. All loads include 20% overload factor for dynamic effects.

Plan View

3 Way corner gate


Square support plate

End View

Side View

90 Degree corner gate

D5

JAMES

SUPER-TRUSS
20.5 x 20.5

ENGINEERING

Thomas has rethought truss design to encompass the changing demands of the touring industry. The supertruss
design features new double end connectors, which are orientated, so that the truss elements are unisex ( they can be
used either way ). Made from 6061T6 or 6082T6 alloy, the truss has 2" x 0.157" main chord tubes and 1" x 0.125"
diagonal tubes.
Supertruss saves truck space because of its very high strength in relation to its size and also the space saving
design of the corners.
The corners are simplicity themselves. As for the 2 way corner, only a connecting gate is required to brace
between the outer fork connectors. The 3 way corner only requires a connecting gate and 2 square connecting
plates. The 4 way corner requires just 2 square connecting plates. In order to use the supertruss with towers, 2
sleeve connecting plates with roller wheels are required with 1 or 2 ladders depending on how many truss
connections their are. 60 degree corners require 2 extended double fork connectors and a connecting gate. Other
angles can be easily made to order. Variable and vertical connecting forks are available for 0 - 90 degree operation.
PRODUCT
CODE

DESCRIPTION

WT
lbs

B1360

12' Section

90.5

B1361

10' Section

77

B1362

8' Section

70.5

B1363

6' Section

58.5

B1364

5' Section

49.5

B1365

2' 6" Section

38.5

B1300

60 Degree corner gate

33

B1301

90 Degree corner gate

11

B1302

120 Degree corner gate

10

B1303

135 Degree corner gate

8.5

B1304

3 Way gate

9.5

B1305

3 Way gate with lifting point

B1306

Vertical connecting fork

1.3

B1307

Horizontal connecting fork

2.2

B1308

Square support plate

11

B1309A

12" Tower sleeve plate

26.5

B1309B

15" Tower sleeve plate

26.5

B1311

Super-truss to GP20.5x20.5 adapter


gate

B1312

Lifting point for super-truss

LOADING FIGURES show maximum loads between supports in


addition to self weight of truss. Information extracted from structural
report by The Broadhurst Partnership. * Denotes load limited to suit
maximum shear capacity. All loads include a 20% overload factor
for dynamic effects.

Allowable Load Data

Maximum Allowable Uniform Loads Maximum Allowable Center Point Loads

Span
feet (meters)

Loads
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection Loads


inches (mm)
pounds (kgs)

10 (3.048)

7405 (3359)*

0.433 (7)

7405 (3359)*

0.670 (17)

20 (6.096)

7405 (3359)*

0.433 (7)

7405 (3359)*

0.670 (17)

30 (9.144)

7326 (3323)*

1.77 (45)

5870 (2663)

1.77 (45)

40 (12.192)

6435 (2919)

3.0 (75)

3219 (1460)

3.0 (75)

50 (15.24)

3918 (1777)

3.7 (94)

1960 (889)

3.7 (94)

60 (18.288)

2476 (1123)

4.4(112)

1239 (562)

4.4(112)

70 (21.336)

1611 (731)

5.2 (131)

807 (366)

5.2 (131)

80 (24.384)

996 (452)

5.9 (150)

498 (226)

5.9 (150)

Maximum deflection
inches (mm)

D6

JAMES

ENGINEERING

SUPER-TRUSS
20.5 x 20.5

Exploded view of a 4 way


connection with 2 square
support plates.

Exploded views of 2 and


3 way connections for
tower systems.

3 way tower
2 way tower

Top view of 60 degree corner

All 2 way corners require only one corner


gate, but any angles smaller than 90 degree
also require double end fork connectors.

Top view of 90 degree corner

D7

JAMES

ENGINEERING

SUPER-TRUSS
20.5 x 20.5

10 Foot Section
Vertical connecting fork

(Connecting forks are


shown larger for clarity)
Horizontal connecting
forks 2 per unit

5 Foot Section

60 Degree Gate

Square Support Plate

90 Degree Gate

3 Way Gate

Tower Sleeve Plate

D8

JAMES

PRE-RIG
SUPERTRUSS

ENGINEERING

This revolutionary truss is designed to offer all the advantages of Supertruss in a 26" x 30" Pre-rigged
layout. The design features casters for mobility, removable guide rod support gates for ease of installing and
removing pre-rigged or standard lighting bars.
Pre-rigged supertruss provides substantial increase in load bearing capacity over the flat plate pre-rigged
truss. It is made from either a 6061T6 or a 6082T6 aluminum alloy. The main chords are 2" x 0.157". and the
diagonals are 1" x 0.125' tube.
PRODUCT
CODE

DESCRIPTION

WT
lbs

B1430

10' 6" section

118

B1424

8' section

97

B1416

5' 6" section

86

B1412

4' section

46

B1400

60 Degree corner gate

36

B1401

90 Degree corner gate

16

B1402

120 Degree corner gate

12.1

B1403

135 Degree corner gate

11

B1306

Vertical connecting fork

1.3

B1307

Horizontal connecting forks 2/unit

2.2

B1404

3 Way gate

14

B1405

3 Way gate with lifting point

B1408

Square support plate

16

B1409A

12" Tower sleeve plate

51

B1409B

15" Tower sleeve plate

49

B1411

Super-truss to P.R.T. adapter plate

B1413

Lifting point for P.R. super-truss

Par 64 lanterns in storage position


To lower lanterns from storage to
operating position, simply pull tab on
shank hook with one hand while
holding the lighting bar with the other
hand. Then lower the lanterns into
operating position.

Par 64 lanterns lowered to operating position

D9

JAMES

PRE-RIG
SUPERTRUSS

ENGINEERING

Allowable Load Data


empty Pre-rigged
Supertruss

Maximum Allowable Uniform Loads Maximum Allowable Center Point Loads

Span 8' sections


feet ( meters)

Loads
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection Loads


inches (mm)
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection
inches (mm)

2)

16 (4.88)

7339 (3329)*

0.12(3)

7339 (3329)*

0.945 (5)

3)

24 (7.3)

7251 (3289)*

0.43(11)

7251 (3289)*

1.26 (18)

4)

32 (9.75)

7162 (3249)*

1.0 (25)

7162 (3249)*

1.69 (40)

5)

40 (12.2)

7074 (3209)*

1.9 (49)

5454 (2474)

1.9 (49)

6)

48 (14.6)

6556 (3110)

3.55 (90)

3428 (1555)

3.55 (90)

7)

56 (17.1)

5112 (2319)

4.14 (105)

2557 (1160)

4.14 (105)

8)

64 (19.5)

3668 (1664)

4.72 (120)

1834 (832)

4.72 (120)

9)

72 (22)

2668 (1210)

5.32 (135)

1334 (605)

5.32 (135)

10) 80 (24.4)

1884 (855)

5.9 (150)

941 (427)

5.9 (150)

11) 88 (26.8)

1314 (596)

6.5 (165)

657 (298)

6.5 (165)

LOADING FIGURES show maximum loads between supports in addition to self weight of truss. Information extracted from
structural report by The Broadhurst Partnership. * Denotes load limited to suit maximum shear capacity. All loads include a
20% overload factor for dynamic effects.

(Connecting forks
are shown larger
for clarity)

8' section

Vertical connecting fork


5' 6" section
Horizontal connecting fork
2 per unit

60 Degree corner gate

90 Degree corner gate

Square support plate

3 Way gate

15" Tower sleeve plate

D10

JAMES

MOVING
LIGHT
SUPERTRUSS

ENGINEERING

Moving Light supertruss has been designed around the Pre-rigged supertruss size. 96 x 30" x 26" in
size (other sizes are available). Moving light supertruss provides a substantial increase in load bearing
capacity over the flat plate pre-rigged truss. It is manufactured from aluminium tube 6061-T6 or 6082-T6
with 2" x .157" wall thickness for main tubes and 1" x .125" wall tube for the diagonals. Each truss piece
has 8 castor wheels for easy maneuverability and pins and R-clips for the connection of truss pieces.
Each 96 truss is designed to carry 3 moving light fixtures. The moving lights are stored internally in
the truss and can be lowered to the working position when in use. This design reduces the amount of
space required for lighting and rigging in the truck. .
Two handles allow the lowering of each moving light. The following units have been tried in our
moving light trusses:
Highend Studio Color and Studio Spot.
Coemar CF7 wash fixture
Martins line of Mac fixtures; 250, 300, 500, 600, and 2000

Other fixtures may fit within the design of this truss by using a custom fitted plate.

The whole system can be used with our Ground Support System by using suitable sleeve blocks and
towers.
Please note: no fixtures are included with truss.

PRODUCT
CODE

DESCRIPTION

WT
lbs

8' section (empty)

145**

B1400

60 Degree corner gate

36

B1401

90 Degree corner gate

16

B1402

120 Degree corner gate

12.1

B1403

135 Degree corner gate

11

B1306

Vertical connecting fork

1.3

B1307

Horizontal connecting forks 2/unit

2.2

B1404

3 Way gate

14

B1405

3 Way gate with lifting point

B1408

Square support plate

16

B1409A

12" Tower sleeve plate

51

B1409B

15" Tower sleeve plate

49

B1411

Super-truss to P.R.T. adapter plate

B1413

Lifting point for P.R.T.super-truss

MLT-ST-96-R1

** weights subject to change

D10a

JAMES

SINGLE BAR PRE-RIG


SUPERTRUSS
ENGINEERING

A revolutionary truss designed to offer all the advantages of the Thomas Supertruss but in Single
bar Pre-Rig layout. The size is 15" x 26" deep. (38cm x 66cm)
The truss features a hinging guide rod support gate for ease of allowing the lighting bar to be
rigged and derigged through the top of the truss. This truss allows the use of standard lighting bar
or pre-rig lighting bar. Ideal for users where a small truck pack is required.
PRODUCT
CODE

DESCRIPTION

WT
kgs

B2732

10' 6" section

50.5

B2724

8' section

40

B2717

5' 6" section

36

B2712

4' section

17.9

B2700

60 Degree corner gate

B2701

90 Degree corner gate

B2702

120 Degree corner gate

B2704

135 Degree corner gate

B2703

3 Way gate

5.5

B2703A

3 Way gate with lifting point

10.5

B2708

Square support plate

B2709A

12" Tower sleeve plate

B2709B

15" Tower sleeve plate

8.5

B1307

Horizontal connecting forks 2/unit

B2709

Double add on caster bars

Par 64 lanterns in storage position

To lower lanterns from


storage to operating position,
simply pull tab on shank hook
with one hand whilst holding
the lighting bar with the other
hand.
Then
lower
the
lanterns
into
operating
position.

Par 64 lanterns lowered to operating position

D11

JAMES

SINGLE BAR PRE-RIG


SUPERTRUSS
ENGINEERING

Allowable Load Data


empty single Pre-rigged
supertruss

Maximum Allowable
Uniform Loads

Maximum Allowable
Center Point Loads

Span 8' sections


feet ( meters)

Loads
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection Loads


inches (mm)
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection
inches (mm)

2) 16 (4.8)

7355 (3336)*

0.12 (3)

7355 (3336)*

0.(5)

4) 32 (9.75)

7209 (3270)*

0.98 (25)

4215 (1912)

0.98 (25)

5) 40 (12.2)

5683 (2578)

1.6 (40)

2842 (1289)

1.6 (40)

6) 48 (14.63)

4303 (1952)

2.2 (55)

2152 (976)

2.2 (55)

8) 64 (19.5)

2568(1165)

3.5 (88)

1285 (583)

3.5 (88)

10) 80 (24.3)

1534(696)

5.0 (126)

767 (348)

5.0 (126)

11) 88 (26.4)

1142 (518)

5.79 (147)

571 (259)

5.79 (147)

LOADING FIGURES show maximum loads between supports in addition to self weight of truss. Information extracted from
structural report by The Broadhurst Partnership. * Denotes load limited to suit maximum shear capacity. All loads include a
20% overload factor for dynamic effects.

(Connecting forks
are shown larger
for clarity)

8 ft section

Vertical connecting fork

Horizontal connecting fork


2 per unit
5 ft 6" section

Square support plate


60 Degree corner gate

3 Way gate
90 Degree corner gate

D12

JAMES

SUPERTRUSS
20.5 x 30

ENGINEERING

A revolutionary truss designed to offer all the advantages of the Thomas Supertruss design in a 20.5" x
30" layout. This truss is designed for the very long spans and heavy loading requirements asked of the
entertainment industry. The maximum allowable span is 100 feet between supports. At that span, the
truss will support over 1000 lbs. uniformly distributed load. This truss is made using 6061T6 or 6082T6
alloy 2" x 0.1875" wall tube for the main chords and 1.5" x 0.125" wall tube for the diagonals. The 20.5" x
30" Super-truss provides a substantial increase in load bearing capacity over GP Heavy Duty truss.
PRODUCT
CODE

DESCRIPTION

WT
lbs

B2960

12' Section

97

B2961

10' Section

86

B2962

8' Section

72

B2963

6' Section

57

B2964

5' Section

52

B2965

4' Section

49

B2966

2' 6" Section

44

B2900A

60 Degree corner gate

37

B2901

90 Degree corner gate

15.5

B2902

120 Degree corner gate

14.25

B1903

135 Degree corner gate

13.25

B2394

3 Way gate

13.25

B2905

3 Way gate with lifting point

23

B1308

Square support plate

11

B1309A

12" Tower Sleeve Plate

19.75

B1309B

15" Tower Sleeve Plate

18.75

B2911

20.5 x 30 super-truss to HD
adapter gate

15.5

Allowable Load Data

Maximum Allowable Uniform Loads Maximum Allowable Center Point Loads

Span
feet (meters)

Loads
pounds (kgs)

10 (3.048)

11704 (5309)* 0.276 (7)

10158 (4608)*

0.394 (10)

20 (6.096)

11704 (5309)* 0.276 (7)

10158 (4608)*

0.394 (10)

30 (9.144)

11618 (5270)* 0.945 (24)

6728 (3052)

0.945 (24)

40 (12.192)

9180 (4164)

1.18 (46)

4590 (2082)

1.18 (46)

50 (15.24)

5472 (2482)

2.20 (56)

2736 (1241)

2.20 (56)

60 (18.288)

4122 (1870)

3.03 (77)

2061 (935)

3.03 (77)

70 (21.336)

3177 (1441)

3.90 (99)

1589 (721)

3.90 (99)

80 (24.384)

2460 (1116)

4.88 (124)

1230 (558)

4.88 (124)

90 (27.432)

1900 (862)

5.94 (151)

950 (431)

5.94 (151)

100 (30.48)

1437 (652)

7.087 (180)

718 (326)

7.087 (180)

Maximum deflection Loads


inches (mm)
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection
inches (mm)

LOADING FIGURES show maximum loads between supports in addition to self weight of truss. Information extracted
from structural report by The Broadhurst Partnership. * Denotes load limited to suit maximum shear capacity. All
loads include a 20% overload factor for dynamic effects.
D13

JAMES

ENGINEERING

SUPERTRUSS
20.5 x 30

10 ft section

5 ft section

60 Degree Gate

Square Support Plate

90 Degree Gate

Tower Sleeve Plate

3 Way Gate

D14

JAMES

30" FOLDING
SUPERTRUSS

ENGINEERING

This range of truss has been developed for those applications which require a compact truck pack with
high load bearing capability. All sections fold completely flat and therefore take up the smallest amount of
space possible. Indeed 50' of folding truss requires the same space as 1 x 8' section of Pre-rig Supertruss.
Quick assembly of trusses together by the tried and trusted Supertruss fork connector.
Each truss
is separated at the bottom boom by folding locking elbows and hinged at the top with our custom made
extrusion. It is made from 6061-T6 alloy 2" x 0.157" tubes in the main chords and 1" x 0.125" tubes in the
diagonals
Product
Code

DESCRIPTION

WT
lbs

B2660

12' Folding Supertruss

107

B2661

10' Folding Supertruss

96

B2662

8' Folding Supertruss

82

B2663

6' Folding Supertruss

67

B2664

4' Folding Supertruss

62

B2602

2 Way Folding Supertruss joint

30

B2603

3 Way Folding Supertruss joint c/w


square support plate

50

B2604

4 Way Folding Supertruss joint c/w


square support plate

60

B2605

2 Way Folding Supertruss square


support plate

44

B2606A

12" Tower Sleeve plate

54

B2606B

15" Tower Sleeve plate

50

B2607

Add on caster bars

12

B2609

Folding Supertruss flying point

25

Allowable Load Data

Maximum Allowable Uniform Loads Maximum Allowable Center Point Loads

Span
feet (meters)

Loads
pounds (kgs)

10 (3.048)

11704 (5309)* 0..276 (7)

10158 (4608)

0.394 (10)

20 (6.096)

11704 (5309)* 0.276 (7)

10158 (4608)

0.394 (10)

30 (9.144)

11618 (5270)* 0.946 (24)

6728 (3052)

0.946 (24)

40 (12.192)

9179 (4164)

1.812 (46)

4589 (2082)

1.812 (46)

50 (15.24)

5471 (2482)

2.206 (56)

2735 (1241)

2.206 (56)

60 (18.288)

3994 (1812)

3.861(98)

2290 (1039)

3.861(98)

70 (21.336)

3134 (1422)

5.122 (130)

1567 (711)

5.122 (130)

80 (24.384)

2169 (984)

5.90 (150)

1084 (492)

5.910 (150)

90 (27.432)

1466 (665)

6.659 (169)

734 (333)

6.659 (169)

100 (30.48)

932 (423)

7.447 (189)

467 (212)

7.447 (189)

Maximum deflection Loads


inches (mm)
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection
inches (mm)

LOADING FIGURES show maximum loads between supports in addition to self weight of truss. Information extracted from
structural report by The Broadhurst Partnership. * Denotes load limited to suit maximum shear capacity. All loads include a
20% overload factor for dynamic effects.

D15

JAMES

30" FOLDING
SUPERTRUSS

ENGINEERING

B2602
2 Way Corner
Plan View

Side View

End View

Square Support Plate

B2603
3 Way Corner

B2609
Lifting Point

Isometric drawing showing the 3 way


corner assembly with square support
plate.

Isometric drawing showing the 2 Way


corner assembly.

D16

JAMES

20.5" FOLDING
SUPERTRUSS

ENGINEERING

This Supertruss has been developed for those applications which require a good loadbearing capability and
a compact truck pack . The truss ladders are separated at the bottom by folding locking elbows and are
hinged at the top with our custom made extrusion. All sections fold flat to a width of 5.25" to take up the
smallest amount of space possible. Indeed 40 feet of folding truss requires about the same space as 1 - 10
foot section of 20.5 inch Supertruss.
PRODUCT
DESCRIPTION
CODE
B3660A
12 foot of 20.5" Folding Supertruss
B3661
10 foot of 20.5" Folding Supertruss
B3662
8 foot of 20.5"Folding Supertruss
B3663
6 foot of 20.5" Folding Supertruss
B3664
5 foot of 20.5" Folding Supertruss
B3666
4 foot of 20.5" Folding Supertruss
B3605
2 Way Folding Supertruss square
support plate

WT
lbs
99
88
74
59
54
52
-

B3603

3 Way Folding Supertruss joint c/w


square support plate

B3604

4 Way Folding Supertruss joint c/w


square support plate

B3607
B2609
B3611

Add on caster bars


Folding Supertruss lifting point
0 - 180 0 Pivot section

Allowable Load Data

Maximum Allowable Uniform Loads Maximum Allowable Center Point Loads

Span
feet (meters)

Loads
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection Loads


inches (mm)
pounds (kgs)

Maximum deflection
inches (mm)

10 (3.048)

6680 (3030)*

0.44 (11)

5732 (2614)

0.59 (15)

20 (6.096)

6680 (3030)*

0.44 (11)

5732 (2614)

0.59 (15)

30 (9.144)

6609 (2998)*

1.50 (38)

3783 (1716)

1.50 (38)

40 (12.192)

4616 (2094)

2.56 (65)

2308 (1047)

2.56 (65)

50 (15.24)

3256 (1477)

3.70 (94)

1629 (739)

3.70 (94)

60 (18.288)

2050 (930)

4.41(112)

1025 (465)

4.41(112)

70 (21.336)

1300 (590)

5.15 (131)

650 (295)

5.15 (131)

80 (24.384)

798 (362)

5.90 (150)

399 (181)

5.90 (150)

LOADING FIGURES show maximum loads between supports in addition to self weight of truss. Information extracted from structural
report by The Broadhurst Partnership. * Denotes load limited to suit maximum shear capacity. All loads include 20% overload factor for
dynamic effects.

D17

JAMES

Supermegatruss
ENGINEERING

Supermegatruss has been developed for those applications which require monumental loadbearing capability.
The truss is manufactured from 6082T6 or 6061T6 tube using 3"diameter main tubes, 1.96" cross boom
tubes and 1.5" diagonals. The end connection is a scaled up version of the Supertruss fork ensuring the easy
and strong connection qualities required. Manoeuvrability is ensured by the standard fitting of castors. This
truss has a maximum clear span capability of 127' (39m) without lateral restraint. If there is lateral restraint
available mid span, then the maximum span can be up to 157' (48m). This truss is an excellent basis for a
"Mothergrid" or a large Roof System.
PRODUCT
CODE
B28020

DESCRIPTION
20 foot Supermegatruss

B28015

15 foot Supermegatruss

B28012

12 foot Supermegatruss

B28010

10 foot Supermegatruss

B28008

8 foot Supermegatruss

B28005

5 foot Supermegatruss

B2802
B2803
B2803A
B2808
B2809
B2812

2 Way Gate
3 Way Gate
3 Way Gate with lifting point
Square support plate
15" Tower Sleeve Plate
Lifting point for Supermegatruss

WT
lbs

34
29
44
10
50
20

Maximum Allowable Load Data


Span
Self Weight Uniformly Distributed Center Point Load
feet (meters) pounds (kgs) Load pounds (kgs) pounds (kgs)
20 (6.096)

326 (148)

10,670 (4840)*

10,670 (4840)*

40 (12.192)

711 (322)

10,670 (4840)*

10,670 (4840)

60 (18.288)

1,066 (483)

10,317 (4680)*

7,460 (3384)

80 (24.384)

1,422 (645)

9,442 (4283)

4,722 (2142)

100 (30.48)

1,777 (806)

3,913 (1775)

1,957 (888)

1,084 (492)

542 (246)

120 (36.576) 2,133 (967)


128 (39)

2,310 (1048) 240 (109)

LOADING FIGURES show maximum loads


between supports in addition to self weight
of truss. Information extracted from
structural report by The Broadhurst
Partnership. * Denotes load limited to suit
maximum shear capacity.

121 (55)

D18

JAMES

BABY TOWER 2
ENGINEERING

The Thomas Baby Tower 2 system is a small ground support tower designed to lift loads of up to 2000 lbs. to a
maximum height of 26 feet in a 4 tower configuration, 18 feet in a goal post (2 tower) configuration with the outrigger
section fitted or 14 feet as a single tower with the outrigger arms and section fitted.
The Baby Tower is made up of modular lengths of 4" x .25" wall thickness square tube to provide an adjustable
height to suit your requirements. These simply fit together by sliding the section into the top of the section below it.
The truss rig is adapted to the tower system by means of suitable sleeve blocks for the type of truss being used. The
sleeve blocks are fitted with 4 wheels which allow the truss rig to rise up and down the tower smoothly. The whole
system is very light weight and simple to use and will pack away into a very small space.

PRODUCT
CODE
B32002
B32004
B32014
B32008
B32030
B32012
B32009
B32005
B32026
B32003
G0704US
B32011

DESCRIPTION
Base
Hinge Section
Roller Beam (used with Chain hoists only)
Top Pulley Section (used with Wire rope hoists only)
Sleeve block for Supertruss 12 x 12
Sleeve block for GP 18 x 12 and 12 x 12 truss
12 section of baby tower
10 section of baby tower
2 6 section of baby tower
Hand winch mounting Bracket
Hand winch with wire rope
outrigger arm

The Baby Tower can be used to lift loads by one of the 3 types as following :1) Manual wire rope winch mounted to Base section.
2) Manual Chain hoist mounted to the truss rig.
3) Electric Chain hoist mounted to the truss rig.
Each set of system components is by the following method :1) Which type of lifting method is required ?
2) Do you require a hinge section ?
3) Are you using it as a 3 or more tower system ?
4) Are you using a goal post system ?
5) Are you using just a single tower ?
Recommendations for choosing system components
We recommend the use of a hinge section when a tower is 13 feet high or taller or when there is more than 1 tower.
If using 4 towers in a box configuration, the outrigger section will not be necessary. All systems with 1 or 2 towers
must be used with 4 Outriggers and the Hinge Section fitted to each tower.
If using a chain hoist system you must order the Roller Beam. Manual chain hoists must be custom ordered with the
manual hoist mounting kit for the truss type being used. Electric chain hoists can be used with truss lifting points or
span sets.
If using a wire rope system then you must order the Top Pulley Section. The hand winch with wire rope must be fitted
to the Hand Winch Mounting Bracket which is fitted to the Base section.

E1

JAMES

12" TOWER
SYSTEM
ENGINEERING

The 12" square ground support tower. A system manufactured with the purpose
of providing a lifting medium for a variety of Thomas trusses ranging from 12" x 12"
through to heavy duty truss.
The towers will provide the necessary equipment to support a truss rig in venues
where the flying points are either not strong enough, or in the right place. Each
tower is capable of lifting 2 ton to a maximum height of 33 feet. The 2 ton weight
must include the self weight of the truss rig and the motors. The truss rig is raised
and lowered by means of electric chain hoists. The motor is rigged in the truss and
works in double fall due to the chain being passed over the roller beam at the top of
the tower. The motor is then connected onto the other side of the sleeve block.
Below, we list a brief description of the parts which make up a 12" ground support
tower.
The base of the tower has 4 screw jack assemblies with 6" diameter foot pads
which are adjustable to enable leveling of the tower. The base also incorporates 4
ball castors which allows the whole rig to be accurately positioned before the tower
is raised. Once the tower system is ready to be raised, all the screw jacks must be
adjusted evenly and must take the load off the ball castors.
The hinge section is designed to allow the towers to be assembled horizontally at
truss top level before being swung and locked in the vertical operating position.
The tower sections are manufactured from aluminum 6082-T6 2" x .157" thick
wall tube with 1" x .125" wall diagonals. The tower sections are connected together
by Camloc quick release bolts. The tower sections are in modular form to allow 30"
adjustments in height up to a maximum of 33 feet. Once the tower height has been
determined, then the roller beam is fitted at the top of the tower.
The roller beam accepts the chain from the chain hoist which is run over the top
of the roller beam and back down to the other side of the sleeve block.
The sleeve block is the interface between the truss rig and the towers. It is
designed to create a semi-rigid joint between the truss grid and the towers by using
16 heavy duty 4" wheels to guide the rig up each tower.
The standard 12" tower kit is made up of the following truss elements:
PRODUCT
CODE

DESCRIPTION

WT
lbs

B4100

Base

52.5

B4101

37.5" Hinge section

46

B3501

78.7" Hinge section

67

B0104

2'6" section

24

B0103

5' section

39.5

B0100

10' section

72.5

B4102

Roller beam

39.5

Sleeve block

A tower erecting system can


also be supplied with 12"
tower system at extra cost.
# Select correct one for
type of truss being used

E5

JAMES

12" TOWER
SYSTEM

ENGINEERING

In addition to the standard truss elements, a sleeve block is supplied, based on the type of
truss being used. The following are available :PRODUCT
CODE

DESCRIPTION

WT
lbs

B4108

Heavy duty sleeve block

79

B4104

GP 20.5 x 20.5 sleeve block

75

B4105

GP triangular sleeve block

72.5

B4106
B4103

GP 12 x 12 & 18 x 12 sleeve block 70.5


Pre-rig truss sleeve block

97

Other sizes of tower truss are available should they be required :B0101

8' tower section

59.5

B0102

6' tower section

46

B0105

1' 3" tower section

15

Outrigger and Stabilizer sets are required when using less than 3 towers. These are designed
to provide stability and rigidity to single or two tower systems :B4003

Outrigger arm

19.5

Outrigger arm suitable for all


tower systems

The ground support tower system can be used outside but must be suitably anchored from the
top of each tower sleeve block to the ground via a guy wire to a suitable ground anchor. We
recommend that the bases are sat on top of a 3' square piece of 3/4" plywood. Should a cover be
required then please refer to James Thomas Engineering approved design to suit your
requirements.
The ground support tower system can also be specified with lock offs which provide safety
against chain failure. We offer 2 types of lock offs. The first type of lock off is for truss systems
which will always be rigged at the top of the towers. The second type is designed to fit in the
tower at the desired height, whether the truss is at the top of the tower or not.
B4110

Tower top truss lock

B4120

Adjustable lock off system

E6

JAMES

15" TOWER
SYSTEM

ENGINEERING

The 15" square ground support tower is a system manufactured for the purpose of
providing a lifting medium for a variety of Thomas trusses from, 20.5" x 20.5", Heavy
duty, Supertruss, and Pre-rig truss through to Roof systems.
The towers will provide the necessary equipment to support a truss rig in venues
where the flying points are either not strong enough, or not in the right place. Each
tower is capable of lifting 4 tons to a maximum height of 40 feet. However, if you use
a CM 1 ton hoist you will only be able to lift 2 tons (ie. block and fall). The 4 ton weight
must include the self weight of the truss rig and the motors. The truss rig is raised
and lowered by means of electric chain hoists. The motor is rigged in the truss and
work in double fall due to the chain being passed over the roller beam at the top of the
tower. The motor is then connected onto the other side of the sleeve block. Below,
we list a brief description of the parts which make up a 15" ground support tower.
The base of the tower has 4 screw jack assemblies with 6" diameter foot pads
which are adjustable to enable levelling of the tower. The base also incorporates 4
ball castors which allows the whole rig to be accurately positioned before the tower is
raised. Once the tower system is ready to be raised, all the screw jacks must be
adjusted evenly and must take the load off the ball castors.
The hinge section is designed to allow the towers to be assembled horizontally at
truss top level before being swung and locked in the vertical operating position.
The tower sections
wall tube with 1" x .125" wall diagonals. The tower sections are bolted together to
allow 30" adjustments in height up to a maximum of 40 feet. Once the tower height
has been determined, then the roller beam is fitted at the top of the tower.
The roller beam accepts the chain from the chain hoist which is run over the top
of the roller beam and back down to the other side of the sleeve block.
The sleeve block is the interface between the truss rig and the towers. It is
designed to create a semi
16 heavy duty 4" wheels to guide the rig up each tower.
Standard 15" Tower Parts are:
PRODUCT
CODE

DESCRIPTION

WT
lbs

B4200

Base

53

B4201

37.5" Hinge section

50

B3801

78.7" Hinge section w/ forks 70.5

B4202

Roller Beam

50

B4203

Rocker Beam

49

B0200

10' section

97

B0201

8' section

90

B0202

5' section

49

B0203

2'6" section

32

Sleeve block

# Select the correct sleeve block


for the type of truss being used.
The following are standard:
PRODUCT
CODE

DESCRIPTION

WT
lbs

B4205

Pre-rig truss sleeve block

97

B4206

Heavy duty sleeve block

79

B4207

20.5" x 20.5" Sleeve Block

75

For supertruss refer to each trusses


specification sheet

E7

JAMES

15" TOWER
SYSTEM

ENGINEERING

The Tower Lifting System is a device fitted to the sleeve block with 2 diagonal braces which
clamp on to the horizontal truss to enable the tower to be raised or lowered safely using the
chain motor. The chain hoist is rigged in the lifting point and the hoist chain is passed over the
lifting system pulley and then around the Roller Beam and fixed to the top of the hinge section.
The tower is raised by using the chain hoist to pull up on the tower. Caution should be used to
not pull the tower over, when the tower is near vertical.

PRODUCT
CODE

DESCRIPTION

WT
lbs

B4250

Tower Lifting System

38

B4003

Small Outrigger arm

19.5

B4003B

Large Outrigger

Outrigger arms are required when using less


than 3 towers. These are designed to provide
stability and rigidity to single or 2 tower systems.

74"

75"

The ground support tower system can be used outside but must be suitably anchored from the
top of each tower sleeve block to the ground via a guy wire to a suitable ground anchor. We
recommend that the bases are sat on top of a 3' square piece of 3/4" plywood. Should a cover be
required please refer to James Thomas Engineering for an approved design to suit your
requirements.
The ground support tower system can also be specified with lock offs which provide safety
against chain failure. We offer 2 types of lock offs. The first lock off is for truss systems which will
always be rigged at the top of the towers. The second type of lock off is designed to fit in the
tower at the desired height, whether the truss is at the top of the tower or not.
E8

JAMES

TOWER
OUTRIGGERS

ENGINEERING

The ground support tower system is manufactured with the purpose of


providing a lifting medium for a variety of Thomas trusses ranging from 12" x 12"
through to heavy duty truss.
Towers provide the necessary support for a truss rig in venues where the flying
points are either not strong enough, or in the right place. Towers are capable of
lifting 2 ton to a maximum height of 40 feet.
Outrigger and Stabilizer sets are required when using less than 3 towers. These
are designed to provide stability and rigidity to single or two tower systems.

Small Outrigger arm suitable


for all tower systems
P/N B4003
19.5 lbs.

Large Outrigger suitable for


all tower systems
P/N B4003B
74"

75"

A tower lifting system can also


be supplied with 12" or 15"
tower system.

E9

JAMES

ENGINEERING

PAR 36
SPOT BANKS

Spot banks are available in various configurations for par 36 lamps. The Spot Banks are designed,
with ease of use in mind. They feature robust lightweight aluminium construction, semi-gloss black
electrostatic paint finish, and heavy duty yoke with positive lock off. The lock off is accomplished by
using a tee bar to enable unit to be set at any desired angle. In addition to these features, each lamp
bank will pan independently to alter the lighting angle. Lamp changing itself is simple due to quick
release knobs on lamp the retaining ring. The retaining rings are chrome plated and are fitted with a
safety mesh. This unit is available with an ETL listing when specified.
The spot banks can be supplied with stand off colour frame, with 2 or 4 way barn doors. Adapters are
made for all the major brands of colour changers.
The units can be supplied wired or unwired. Custom sizes can be built to order.
T.V. spec includes the following, T.V. spud, bolt set, 4 way barn doors and internal partition.
PRODUCT
CODE

DESCRIPTION

WT
lbs

D3612

12 - Lite unit unwired

30.85

D3690

9 - Lite unit unwired

24.25

D3680

8 - Lite unit unwired

20.95

D3681

8 - Lite unit wired to 2 tails

22

D3682

8 - Lite 2 way barn door & color frame assy.

7.5

D3684

8 - Lite 4 way barn door & color frame assy.

8.6

D3685

8 - Lite stand off color frame assy.

2.2

D3686

8 - Lite unit unwired T.V. spec.

30.85

D3687

8 - Lite unit wired to 4 switches T.V. spec.

31.95

D3668

6 - Lite unit unwired

17.65

D3669

6 - Lite unit wired to 2 tails

18.75

D3662

6 - Lite 2 way barn door & color frame assy.

6.15

D3664

6 - Lite 4 way barn door & color frame assy.

D3665

6 - Lite stand off color frame assy.

1.75

D3666

6 - Lite unit unwired T.V. spec

26.45

D3667

6 - Lite unit wired to 3 switches T.V. spec

27.55

D3640

4 - Lite unit unwired

14.35

D3641

4 - Lite unit wired to 2 tails

15.45

D3642

4 - Lite 2 way barn door & color frame assy

4.85

D3644

4 - Lite 4 way barn door & color frame assy

5.73

D3645

4 - Lite stand off color frame assy

1.3

D3646

4 - Lite unit unwired T.V. spec

23.15

D3647

4 - Lite unit wired to 2 switches T.V. spec

24.25

D3700

Color changer adapter plate

D3600

Chrome bulb retaining ring

0.22

LAMPS TO SUIT PAR 36 SPOT BANKS


-

DWE 120V 650W - MFL

Par 36 8 - lite unit

4596 28V 250W - ACL

F1

JAMES

PAR 36
SPOT BANKS

ENGINEERING

DIMENSIONS (ins)
WIDTH HEIGHT DEPTH TOP OF YOKE
TO PIVOT
12 - Lite unit

25.35

28.45

4.09

17.5

9 - Lite unit

25.35

22.28

4.09

14.4

8 - Lite unit

18.58

28.45

4.09

17.5

6 - Lite unit

18.58

22.28

4.09

14.4

4 - Lite unit

18.58

16.1

4.09

11.33

Par 36 12 - lite unit

Par 36 8 - lite unit

Par 36 9 - lite unit

Par 36 6 - lite unit

Par 36 4 - lite unit

F2

JAMES

PAR 64
SPOT BANKS

ENGINEERING

Spot banks are available in various configurations for par 64 lamps. The Spot Banks are
designed, with ease of use in mind. The Spot Banks feature robust lightweight aluminium
construction, semi-gloss black electrostatic paint finish, and heavy duty yoke with positive lock
off. The lock off is accomplished by using a tee bar to enable unit to be set at any desired angle.
In addition to these features, each lamp bank will pan independently to alter the lighting angle.
Lamp changing itself is simple due to quick release knobs on lamp retaining ring. The Retaining
Rings are chrome plated and are fitted with a safety mesh.
The spot banks can be supplied with optional 2 or 4 way barn doors. Incorporating color frame
can be supplied at extra cost.
The units can be supplied wired or unwired. Custom sizes can be built to order.
PRODUCT
CODE

DESCRIPTION

WT
lbs

D6490

9 - Lite unit unwired

71.65

D6463

6 - Lite unit unwired

52.9

D6466

6 - Lite unit wired to 3 tails

55.15

D6462

6 - Lite 2 way barn door & color frame assy.

7.5

D6464

6 - Lite 4 way barn door & color frame assy

8.6

D6440

4 - Lite unit unwired

40.8

D6441

4 - Lite unit wired to 2 tails

D6442

4 - Lite 2 way barn door & color frame assy

6.85

D6444

4 - Lite 4 way barn door & color frame assy

7.95

D6400

Chrome bulb retaining ring

0.55

43

DIMENSIONS (ins)
WIDTH
9 - Lite unit

40.7

HEIGHT DEPTH
39.48

7.95

TOP OF YOKE
TO PIVOT
23.15

6 - Lite unit

40.7

27.32

7.95

17

4 - Lite unit

28.8

27.32

7.95

17

Par 64 9 - lite unit

Par 64 6 - lite unit

Par 64 4 - lite unit

Par 64 4 - lite unit

F3

JAMES

CYC-LITE UNITS
ENGINEERING

The asymmetric cyc-lites offer high quality units for competitive layout. They all feature high
quality electrostatic paint finish, robust yoke complete with tee bar for positive lock off.
Cyc-lites can be used flown or floor mounted with body of the unit having a 30 degree angle
floor mount built in. Optionally, floor mounting plates are offered for adjustable angles. The units
also feature adjustable lamp holders behind chrome plated safety mesh. Color gel frames are
easily removable. The cyc-lites all feature ventilation slots in order to prolong bulb and color gel
life.
PRODUCT
CODE

DESCRIPTION

WT
lbs

1KW RANGE CYC-LITE UNITS


D1001

1 - Cell 1KW cyc unit wired with trailing lead

10

D1002

2 - Cell 1KW cyc unit wired with 2 trailing leads

20

D1022

2 x 2 Cell 1KW cyc unit wired with 4 trailing leads

46

D1003

3 - Cell 1KW cyc unit wired with 3 trailing leads

26

D1004

4 - Cell 1KW cyc unit wired with 4 trailing leads

35

D1005

4 - Cell 1KW cyc unit wired with male to female


CEEP and 2 x 15 amp chassis outlets

35

D1006

6 - Cell 1KW cyc unit wired with male to female

48

C1010

Floor mounting brackets ( per pair )

D1010

Color frame for 1KW cyc unit

D1020

Safety wire mesh for 1KW cyc unit

D1000

Barn door for 1 - cell 1KW cyc units

D1030

Hinge unit

500W RANGE CYC-LITES

LAMPS TO SUIT 1KW RANGE

D0501

1 - Cell 500W cyc unit wired with trailing lead

D0502

2 - Cell 500W cyc unit wired with 2 trailing leads

10

D0522

2 x 2 Cell 500W cyc unit wired with 4 trailing


leads

23

P2/12 220V 1250W 3200


Degree K

D0503

3 - Cell 500W cyc unit wired with 3 trailing leads

16

US spec lamps

D0504

4 - Cell 500W cyc unit wired with 4 trailing leads

22

FFT Q1000

D0505

4 - Cell 500W cyc unit wired with Ceep in/out

22

D0506

6 - Cell 500W cyc unit wired with 6 trailing leads

31

K1 220V 500W

C0510

Floor mounting brackets ( per pair )

K1 110V 500W

D0510

Color frame for 500W cyc unit

D0520

Safety wire mesh for 500W cyc unit

FDN Q500

D0500

Barn door for 1 - cell 500W cyc units

1.5

FCL Q500

0.5

K4 220V 1000W Lamp or K4 110V


1000W

LAMPS TO SUIT 500W RANGE

US spec lamps

F4

JAMES

CYC-LITE UNITS
ENGINEERING

DIMENSIONS (ins)
WIDTH

HEIGHT

DEPTH TOP OF YOKE


TO PIVOT

1 - Cell 1KW

13.58

11.8

9.84

8.85

2 - Cell 1KW

27

11.8

9.84

10.23

2 x 2 - Cell 1KW

31.7

26

9.84

18.11

3 - Cell 1KW

38.46

11.8

9.84

10.23

4 - Cell 1KW

50

27.55

9.84

10.23

6 - Cell 1KW

73

11.8

9.84

10.23

1 - Cell 500W

10.78

9.37

8.5

6.88

2 - Cell 500W

21.25

9.37

8.5

8.15

2 x 2 - Cell 500W

25.19

19.88

8.5

15.75

3 - Cell 500W

29.84

9.37

8.5

8.15

4 - Cell 500W

38.5

9.37

8.5

8.15

6 - Cell 500W

55.5

9.37

8.5

8.15

1-Cell unit

2-Cell unit

1-Cell unit

2 x 2 Cell unit

3-Cell unit

4-Cell unit

6-Cell unit

Hinging units to allow


curving of 1KW 1-cell
cyc-lites
F5

JAMES

FIXING
ACCESSORIES

ENGINEERING

G0300 - Swivel coupler.


G0301 - 900 fixed coupler.
G0302 - Half coupler magic bolt style.
G0302A - Half coupler with tapered hole
G0400 - Mild steel T.V. spud with M10 bolt.
G0401 - Half coupler with mild steel T.V. spud bolted.
G0405 - Half coupler with aluminum T.V. spud welded.
G0406 - Half coupler with T.V. socket.
G0404 - Half coupler with magic bolt set.
G0410 - Magic screw spacer assembly.
G0411 - M12 x 30 magic bolt with locknut.
G0412 - M12 x 50 magic bolt with locknut.
G0413 - M12 x 80 magic bolt with locknut.
G0303 - Shank hook to fit 2" tube.
B5301 - Snap brace. Specify center dimensions.
G0903 - Roll pin 2" x 1/4" dia for Shank hook.
Spanset-3 EN60 - span set 3 pull to pull 2 ton certified.
Spanset-6 EN60 - span set 6 pull to pull 2 ton certified.
Spanset SF3 - Steelflex 3 pull to pull 2 ton certified.
Spanset SF6 - Steelflex 6 pull to pull 2 ton certified.
Shackle 5/8G - galvinized shackle 5/8" x 2 ton.
B0605 - Tank trap to accept 2" tube.
G0804 - Camloc 34R01-2-1BA receptacle.
G0802 - Camloc 34R01-2-1AA stud.
G0803 - Camloc 34R01-3-1AA stud.
G0806 - Camloc 34R02-1-1AA stud.
G0809C - 5/8 chassis mounted nut w/2 bolt, fastners
G0809A+ - 5/8 chassis mounted nut with fastners
G0811B - 5/8 bolt set; 2 long bolt, nut, 2 clipped washers
G0812 - supertruss pin and R-clip
G0812A - 4 stainless supertruss pin and R-clip
G0814 - Supertruss bolt set
G5576 - Superlite pin and R-clip
G0813 - Superlite M 12 bolt set
G0900 - Swivel Castor 4
G0902 - Castor Nuts, bolts, washers (per 4)
G0710 - spare guide rod and R-clip

G0405

G0300

G0301

G0406

G0302

G0401

G1

JAMES

FIXING
ACCESSORIES

ENGINEERING

G0400

G0810
G0411/12/13

G0410

G0303

B5301

Spanset-X EN 60 or EN30

Shackle 5/8G

G0802/03
G0804

G0811B

B0605

G1A

JAMES

CM LODESTAR
ENGINEERING

ELECTRIC CHAIN HOISTS

The CM Lodestar is a dependable, highly engineered electric chain hoist ideally suited for use in
the entertainment industry. They incorporate the following features and advantages.
They can be used inverted, or upright without modification, the body is powder coated black.
Chains are CM star grade Hoistaloy.
continuous lift. Standard voltages are 460V 3 phase, 230V 3 phase, or 115v single phase, 60HZ
for use throughout North America. They come with load lifting points, and a robust chain collection
bag. Power & Control connectors are available per client spec. All units are fitted with an overload
clutch, electrical upper and lower limit switches, and 110v contactor control equipment.
We offer the following models.
PRODUCT
CODE

MODEL

LIFTING
SPEED

HOIST CAPACITY
(tons)

CHAIN
FALLS

CHAIN
LENGTH

G0640

16 ft / min

0.5

60 Feet

G0650

16 ft / min

60 Feet

G0651

16 ft / min

83 Feet

G0660

RR

16 ft / min

83 Feet

G0640 - Can be specified for use with 0.5 ton ground support system.
G0650 - Normally used with 1 ton ground support system.
G0651 - Normally used with 2 ton ground support system.

G2

JAMES

HOOK CLAMPS
ENGINEERING

A range of hanging fittings are available fitting lanterns or associated equipment on to trusses
or ladders. The Mini hook clamp is designed to fit par 16 lantern onto 5/16" diameter tubes. The
Tiny truss hook clamp is designed to fit light luminaries on-to tiny truss. Single hook clamps fit
luminaries on-to truss or ladders. The Double hook clamp allows fitting of tube on-to truss or
ladders, size denotes drop distance. The Twisted hook clamp is to hang tube at 90 degrees to
truss or ladder. Variable hook clamps allow luminaries to be fitted to a variety of tubes from 1" to
3" diameter. The Cable hanger is designed to clamp to tube of truss or ladder to carry cables
neatly along truss/ladder run.
Wing bolts are supplied standard with hook clamps, and are available as spares should they be
required. Listed below is part of the range available. If you have special requirements, please
contact us.
Mini
PRODUCT
DESCRIPTION
WT
CODE
lbs
hook clamp
D0103

Mini hook clamp

0.06

D0000

Tiny truss hook clamp

0.15

D0001

Single hook clamp for 1 1/2" tube

0.79

D0002

Single hook clamp for 2" tube

0.88

D0003

Single hook clamp including bolt set

0.97

D0011

10"