This shelter at Ogden, Utah looks like something that could be built utilizing roof trusses from a commercial building, like an abandoned K-Mart or supermarket that was to be razed. Though certainly not something of architectural beauty, it does keep most of the weather off the artifacts and could be enclosed if desired. Any comments?

http://rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=19092

Yes, a comment--

Usually, unless the railroad or museum is located in a rural, unincorporated area, various local-state-national building codes apply to structures. Re-use of such things as removed trusses and roof joists will require calculating the building loads and stresses. The documentation for the stuff taken out of the old supermarket isn't around anymore, so that engineering can get expensive, if they are even willing to risk the liability of doing it.

It's a great idea, and sure seems to make lots of sense in many ways, but the harsh reality is that in the long run, it's usually easier and cheaper to design and build new stuff. There's a paper trail for those agencies and entities that need it, the contractors are more used to building with new stuff, and in most (I'd venture to say at least 75%) places, it's the only legal way to get a building put up.

I have been involved with salvaging good used building trusses for reuse as rolling stock "pole barns", only to find that what I mentioned above was the harsh reality. The truss lumber became passenger platforms, gondola car flooring, and other misc. 2x6 lumber.

One exception might be preengineered structures, such as Butler Buildings. I just finished writing a proposal which included removing and reerecting a metal preengineered building.

dave

Dave,

I'll be curious to see if the local building officials will accept the pre-existing certification of the trusses, and if the manufacturer will allow his certification to extend to reuse of the same. Please report back.

Dennis

Maybe in Mexico or North Korea.

First a comment about the shelter in the photo Bob posted. This is a "space frame" type roof, not the same as what's on top of the average K-Mart. The key is there are no large beams between the columns; instead there are light members that run both across and along the length of the roof, in a grid. This roof is very efficient of material, but long on engineering.

The similar looking things in a K-Mart are generically called "bar joist". They run in one direction only spanning between an outer wall and an intermediate deep truss, then to the next truss, and so on to the other wall. Each bar joist consists of four angle irons; two top chords that extend to the seats, and two lower chords that are shorter. In between runs a continuous length of rod stock that is bent to form the truss and is welded to all four angles anywhere they touch. Each comes with a stamped steel certificate tag crimped around one of the members somewhere. These buildings are typically erected by field welding, fast and sloppy. The outer ends may be supported by the masonry, but all the other ends rest on top of, and are welded to, the intermediate trusses. The bar joist are then covered with light gage square section corrugated decking ("Q deck", as I recall) which is welded in place from the top down. The deck is then covered with lightweight concrete or some other sort of roofing system.

The problem is that this construction is not made to be disassembled. Nobody takes one of these down by climbing around cutting all the welds; they just start at one corner of the exterior and rip them apart with a backhoe. Hopefully on the way to the ground enough welds tear apart that the steel can be separated into pieces that fit in the scrap merchant's truck. Nothing makes it to the ground in good enough condition to be reused. Even if the joist look intact, the engineer is going to know that some have been stressed beyond their design limits by unintended loadings as parts of the roof collapsed and hung on them. The engineer is going to suspect crimped flanges, kinks, and fractured welds, and is simply not going to want to have anything to do with certifying them.

And in this day and age, if somebody doesn't certify it, you essentially can't use it in a structure

Pre-engineered steel buildings (such as Butler buildings) are relatively easy to do new calculations for because of the simplicity and familiarity of the structural members. Trusses are more complicated. Also, since pre-engineered buildings are designed to minimize construction labor on site, they are more easily assembled and disassembled. All of the welded connections are done in the factory, leaving connections in the field to be made with bolts. The building components are designed to easily fit on standard flatbed trucks.

The primary reason why building components are not reused is that labor is considerably more expensive than building materials in American construction. This results in a great deal of waste, and although labor may not be "expensive" in a volunteer organization, it is still very valuable.

All the same, I have a somewhat hare-brained idea for a train shed that could probably be up to four tracks wide. One could use hi-cube marine containers stacked 2-high to create the side walls, and then use a new or used pre-engineered roof structure to span across the top. The containers could be used for storage, workspace, or display; and the building could be as long as you needed (in increments of 20 feet).

This and any other building will require professional design work and building department approval, but it should be possible.

Dennis, those are my points exactly. Bar joist and masonary block construction is cheap, quick and easy to put up, and to tear down.

Randolph, that exact concept was looked by us 11 years ago, as a way to get a quick shop up and useable. Once we found out how it would be received by the local authorities, our tune quickly changed.

I think there are lot of ways to use commonly available items such as those 20 and 40 foot containers to make some pretty good structures, using "back-of-the-envelope" engineering. The only problem is, what you'd save on the building, would be spent on legal fees, and you'd most likely still have to remove the "Non-conforming structure".

Along the line of "alternate concepts", one that still impresses me is the setup used by the Southeastern Railway Museum at their old site in Duluth, GA. It was built using seven old 40-foot Southern Railway steel boxcars. Three cars were set end-to-end, in two paralell rows, and one car was set across the two rows at one end, forming a "U" shape. One track entered from the open end, and a lightweight roof arched truss spanned across between the two rows of boxcars. The cars were each set up as workshops, with benches, lighting, etc. The car floors were at the level of the "shop floor"; I don't recall if they were on or off their trucks. At the time I saw it (1985) S&A 750 was in there for some work.

Hmmm, I just missed Dennis' reply in which he made some good points about why carefully taking apart a conventionally constructed building would be a real pain.

As to the Howard P.'s experience, I can not speak to what happened without knowing more details. In my experience, building department officials will usually go along with most anything as long as it complies with codes and you get the appropriate licensed professionals to do the drawings and calculations. Building officials cringe at DIY enthusiasm that is not backed up with drawings and calculations that demonstrate to their satisfaction that the proposed project will be safe.

Container-based buildings are already out there, including several housing projects in London. It has to be remembered that if containers were to be used in the construction of a building, that the containers would not be containers anymore, but would then be a part of a building, and all of the requirements of the building code would apply.

Dennis - as Randolph explained, it is a bolt-together kit, easy to take down and reassemble. Whether or not the project will eventually happen is anybody's guess, so I wouldn't wait for a report. If it happens I will gladly share it here.

dave

A couple years ago we had to pull a 16-645E3C engine out of an F40PH locomotive at a shortline railroad's shop. The engine was gone for rebuilding for a couple weeks, and the locomotive with the hatches removed would have consumed most of the space in their shop. For exactly this kind of situation, they had a frame supported tent with a stretched nylon cover, just big enough for a four axle locomotive. This worked fine for weather protection, kept the leaves out of the opened up unit, and there was enough ventilation that nothing rusted while the hatches were off. The cover was translucent white, you could see and walk around inside the tent without additional lighting even on a cloudy day. For their particular needs, in a pretty secure and remote location, it worked fine. It would of course provide no protection from determined vandals and trespassers.

MX (obviously not my real name)

Oh, I understand, and agree that this sort of building should be the easiest to disassemble and reuse, since they are essentially an erector set. Everything bolts together, and the skin is attached with screws. Since I'm not a structural engineer, however, I am curious how an engineering firm deals with the lack of continuity of documentation from the original designer of the components. In the years that I was active in construction, I have seen bundles of brand new bar joists go to scrap, and brand new foundations from a financially failed project dug out of the ground, simply because there was no longer any documentation on the work.

But the beginning of this thread, and of the last one on this topic, also, alluded to using reclaimed parts of shopping centers, which are almost universally flat roof masonry buildings with bar joists. The purpose of my comments was simply to explain that this type of building simply doesn't yield any usable material when it is torn down.