::WOOD ::

Page 1 of 13

Links to CUREe Wood frame testing Videos

WOOD PANEL REPORT INTRODUCTION: At the 1999 Structural Engineers of California (SEAOC) convention, a panel discussion was held to discuss the code issue relating to the wood diaphragm lateral analysis section of the current building code. The panel was moderated by Shafat A. Qazi and the five experts invited to answer questions were:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Douglas S. Thompson Dennis Wish John M. Coil Chris Christakos Ted Zsutty

While there was no clear solution to the issue, it appeared that most of the design engineers feel that the distributing shear forces from a wood diaphragm to wood shear walls based on their stiffness is an overkill and does not necessarily reflect the true nature of shear distribution. The argument on the other side also have several valid points. (Please read the statements from each panel member). Among the audience, we had Mr. Andrew Adelman from City of Los Angeles Building department. Mr. Adelman said that the City is currently accepting both options as valid options. Until a final resolution is reached, the enforcing agencies such as building departments will probably follow similar path. Click on each panel members name to read their opinion. Thank You, Shafat Qazi, P.E. Director SEAOSC Admin, SEAINT

PANEL DISCUSSION RIGID V FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGMS Douglas S. Thompson It is my opinion that we need to consider relative stiffnesses of shear walls in light framed construction. The flexible diaphragm assumption that a wood framed diaphragm has zero stiffness can at times produce a building system that can lead to failures in shear walls. Depending on building dimensions and configurations, their can be times when flexible diaphragm assumptions are all that need to be considered. I also feel that there can be building configurations where the envelope approach of using both flexible diaphragm assumptions and rigid diaphragm assumptions may be necessary. On the other hand large buildings with concrete or masonry walls having plywood diaphragms easily fall into the flexible diaphragm

file://C:\Denali Project\NOEL BACKUP\NEW STRUCTURAL NOTES\diaphragm...\woodbott.ht

12/8/2004

::WOOD ::

Page 2 of 13

category. I have mixed feelings about developing specific code language versus allowing engineering judgment on design issues. Past experience in litigation cases show us that whenever engineering judgment is allowed you can always find a expert witness that will state that he or she would have done differently. Also when engineering judgment is allowed then an owner or architect can always find an engineer that will take the project for less design fee. We need to create a level playing field so that if we all do the same engineering design for similar fees. This can only be accomplished with the help of building departments and plan checkers all requiring the same level of design and detailing. There needs to be more design publications in wood design. The SEAOC publication of the Seismic Design Manual with example problems is a good start in this much needed material. SEAOC needs work with the International Code Council on prohibiting Conventional Construction in areas of high seismicity. The code has a double standard and this will only widen in the IBC 2000 and IRC 2000 codes. At this point in time we know a lot more about the performance of wood shear wall systems than we did 10 years ago but we still have along way to go in both testing and future code language. I am in disagreement with those that feel that it is premature to make these extensive design changes just because we do not have all the data from ongoing research projects in yet. I am also in disagreement with those that feel that just because there isnt a formula in the code for deflection of an unblocked diaphragm, that a distribution of shears based upon rigidities in not necessary. The consideration of relative stiffnesses of shear walls in structural design can more accurately model the structures performance, however it is also highly important to have a well detailed set of plans and to see that the structure was built properly. 1.Determination of whether or not the horizontal diaphragm is rigid or flexible as prescribed by the UBC 97: a. Is this required or should engineering judgment be permitted to determine if the lateral forces are distributed by rigid diaphragm assumption (RDA) or by flexible diaphragm assumptions (FDA).

Since the code language of having 2 times the diaphragms displacement relative to the shear wall displacement is somewhat judgmental. We need to have the process for engineering judgment. It is not possible to have ALL design/construction situations in the code. Most engineers like having engineering judgment, however, due to the litigious society that we live in, this can only create differences of opinions amount experts.

file://C:\Denali Project\NOEL BACKUP\NEW STRUCTURAL NOTES\diaphragm...\woodbott.ht

12/8/2004

::WOOD ::

Page 3 of 13

b. Should both RDA and FDA be required on structures with a complex distribution of vertical lateral force resisting elements (i.e. wood shear walls)?

This should be left to the engineer. The problem with leaving any structural engineering issue up to engineering judgment is that it leaves the litigation door more open for someone else down the line to say that some other type of design should have been made.

c. Are additional or fewer code provisions/guidelines required to determine if RDA v. FDA or both are required.

Just given the fact that the definition of a flexible diaphragm has been in the code since 1988 and has been not practiced says there needs to be more code language stating its applicability or non-applicability to Type V construction. Since the IBC 2000 is segregating out One and Two Family Dwelling units to the IRC 2000, we also have the opportunity to create different code language for One and Two Family Dwellings as opposed to Multi-Family and Commercial structures that would be covered in the IBC 2000.

d. What about distribution to wood shear walls in the same line?

I think we need to break away from the flexible v rigid diaphragm definitions and just focus on relative stiffnesses of the lateral resisting elements, in other words, yes we need to consider stiffness in the same line.

2.What type of structures cause the greatest concern from the structural community for analysis by RDA v. FDA. a. Wood homes

Wood homes are concern

b. Wood offices buildings. c. Wood apartments/condominiums.

Wood apartments and condominiums are a big concern

d. Concrete/CMU wall building with wood diaphragms.

Not a concern

e. Multi-story v. single story 3.Primary reasons for concern from the structural community for analysis by RDA v. FDA. a. Performance of the structure

I think that the performance of wood framed structures in the Northridge earthquake for all intents and purposes met the life safety requirements of the code, but I have to be in agreement with owners and insurance

file://C:\Denali Project\NOEL BACKUP\NEW STRUCTURAL NOTES\diaphragm...\woodbott.ht

12/8/2004

::WOOD ::

Page 4 of 13

companies that their was for too much damage (structural and non-structural) for a moderate 6.7 earthquake. b. Cost of the analysis/budget and schedule

This is a big concern.

c. Consensus analysis procedure(s).

There definitely in NOT a consensus regarding the use of the envelope technique. Since the code does not require the envelope technique and the upcoming Seismic Design Manual uses the envelope method, there is a concern that this will set a standard-of-care.

4.Where are the bodies? a. Examples of past performance of structures that were designed using FDA and should have been designed using RDA and vice versa.

One example is from a paper presented by Stan Mendes at the 1995 SEAOC Convention. An apartment complex sustained major damage as a result of the Similar earthquake in 1971. In that presentation, was the conclusion that relative stiffnesses of the shear walls was the primary cause of the shear wall failures. After the Similar earthquake the apartments were retrofitted with a consideration given to relative stiffnesses. The same apartment complex then went through the Northridge earthquake and only sustained minor damage. Both earthquakes where Magnitude 6.7. Ben Shmid was a speaker of a wood design seminar for SEAOSC in June 1994. He presented the damage and retrofit of a 125 unit apartment complex that sustained major damage in the Northridge earthquake. It was the conclusion of the presenter that relative stiffnesses of the shear walls was the primary cause of the shear wall failures. I am not aware of a case where RDA was used and judged that FDA should have been used.

b. Is there any advantage (cost of construction savings) using RDA v FDA.

With little or no tensional eccentricity, and if the envelope method is NOT used then the difference between the cost of construction of the two methods will be insignificant. However, if there is a relatively large tensional eccentricity and/or if the envelope method is used then this could add cost to the structure.

c. Are structures designed using FDA less safe than structures designed using RDAs or do both assumptions need to be applied to some structures to obtain an appropriate code design. d. How does the conventional framing provisions comply or not comply with results from RDA or FDA.

The conventional framing provisions arent even close to compliance with RDA or FDA. This transition to considering shear wall stiffness now creates even more of a gap or double standard in residential construction.

file://C:\Denali Project\NOEL BACKUP\NEW STRUCTURAL NOTES\diaphragm...\woodbott.ht

12/8/2004

::WOOD ::

Page 5 of 13

e. How does the new IBC code for residential construction comply or not comply with RDA or FDA
5. Additional complications due to accidental eccentricity, torsional irregularities, semi-rigid v. semi-flexible diaphragms. Metal deck diaphragms without concrete fill.

Is it necessary/practical to determine the deflection of a wood horizontal diaphragm? Can the deflections of wood shear walls be determined with sufficient accuracy to assess the horizontal displacements of the building for determination of potential damage?

6. Should SEAOC publish a stand alone document on the design of wood structures (i.e. homes apartment buildings, condominiums, offices, churches a. Design methodology b. Example problems

The engineering community desperately needs design examples. I think that if some engineers had access to design examples it might have kept them out of past legal problems. The Seismic Design Example is an excellent start. On problem with SEAOC publishing stand alone documents has engineers concerned that it might be setting the bar too high and set an new standardof-care both past and future.

c. Compliance with UBC 97, IBC, Blue Book and/or new proposed guidelines. 7. Work product from panel discussion. a. List of items discussed. b. Pro/con positions. c. Consensus items (if any) d. Action items/future work

PANEL DISCUSSION RIGID V FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGMS DENNIS WISH Before beginning, I would like to take a moment to thank Steve Perloff and Tom Harris for inviting me on the panel. I have the highest respect for those who serve on our professional committees. Our differences of opinion are purely professional and do not negate my deep respect for each of the members of the Seismology Committee. No code is justified without a thorough knowledge of the performance of the components used in varying types of structural systems. The 97 UBC lateral design methods repudiate what has been considered a standard of professional practice in the design of wood structures and replaces it with an ambiguously written code that attempts to exceed life safety standards with predicted levels of performance. At best, the implementation of a methodology that expects a greater degree of perfection from the construction industry, already riddled with accusations of

file://C:\Denali Project\NOEL BACKUP\NEW STRUCTURAL NOTES\diaphragm...\woodbott.ht

12/8/2004

::WOOD ::

Page 6 of 13

defects, omissions, and lack of compliance with design detailing is, at best, unrealistic. The lack of performance criteria promotes experimentation at the expense of the general public and liability at the expense of the engineer of record. At worst, it encourages certain developers of low and middle-income homes to consider design changes eliminating enough irregularity so as to comply with the Conventional Construction prescriptive methodologies. Rather than achieving better performance and greater resistance to damage, the code unintentionally promotes a level of construction quality that has been considered by the engineering community as substandard. The potential for damage increases and the financial burden lies on those who can least afford it. My opinions are public record. I thought I might devote this short time quoting a few facts and opinions of other respected members of our professional community. A question of justification: Quoting from a letter issued by the board of directions of SEAOSC and published in the April issue of SEAOSC Newsletter:

Structural engineers who observed damage of buildings that did not perform well during the 1994 Northridge earthquake concluded that the majority of those buildings were not constructed as intended. It is the opinion of the California Seismic Safety Commission and a consensus among all structural engineers that there would have been significantly less damage from the earthquake if buildings had been constructed in accordance with code requirements and the approved plans. The first issue of the CUREe-Caltech Newsletter (Volume 1 No. 1) validated SEAOSCs claim when they published: Prior to the Northridge Earthquake in 1993, USC professor G.G. Schierle directed a survey of 143 wood frame buildings under construction in California. Of the 332 specific seismic construction features inspected, one third were missing or improperly installed over 40% of the time. Depending on the specific construction feature, the error rate ranged from 5% to over 60%. On September 30, 1999 the following post was received in the SEA International List service. Please note that reference is made to quality of design. I do believe that the author is suggesting inadequate code provisions but poor implementation of the design. In 1994, the California Seismic Safety Commission concluded that "Poor quality in design, plan review, inspection, and construction were encountered over and over in in the buildings damaged by the earthquake. California's current system of building design and construction encourages individual gambles that add up to significant risks..." In 1989: "Structures which sustained damage in the Loma Prieta earthquake were more or less likely to do so based upon one or more of a number of relatively random factors: quality of design, quality and extent of engineering, quality of materials, quality of construction techniques, quality of inspection, quality of maintenance, soils, geology, and the unique characteristics of this particular event and the degree to which they combined with any or all of the previous factors.

file://C:\Denali Project\NOEL BACKUP\NEW STRUCTURAL NOTES\diaphragm...\woodbott.ht

12/8/2004

::WOOD ::

Page 7 of 13

Similarly after the 1933 Long Beach earthquake, the Coroner's Jury concluded: "The great amount of damage that resulted from this shock was due to faulty construction of the buildings damaged. Buildings of good construction escaped damage or came through with only minor damage even though situated directly adjacent to buildings that were demolished... They suffered serious damage not only only because of inadequate provision for lateral stresses but in an important degree because of utter lack of efficiency in workmanship." The author is Fred Turner, Staff Structural Engineer for the California Seismic Safety Commission.

I am opposed to these code changes, not because the Seismology committee has created a more complicated design. On the contrary, the method is logical albeit, in my opinion, unnecessary for adequate performance of wood structures. I am opposed because we are over designing to compensate for historically poor construction quality. Instead, we should be investing our energy into uniting the construction and design industry to alleviate these problems and get past the childish bantering of architect Vs engineer Vs builders. The day that our industry takes responsibility and weighs the needs of our clients over the seemingly insurmountable task of ego battling, we will not need to raise the cost of construction by over designing simply to provide safe housing and mitigate unnecessary damages. There is abuse in this system and we are skirting the issues if we believe that we can ignore each parties responsibility to the whole package simply because they have lobby power to avoid what is the responsible and morally correct action. We allow anyone who has the strength of lift a hammer and low bid a a service to call themselves framers. Yet we rarely meet them in the field and even less often find them a year or so down the road if something goes wrong. They need need not be certified, licensed or registered. They need not understand or have read read the code that defines conventional construction to be allowed to work. They need not understand the provisions provided by prescriptive measures to be given responsibility to build a home without an engineer or architect. The GC takes some responsibility and the framer moves on -- job to job. This is wrong -- pure and simply wrong. Dennis Wish Having been a member of the Seismology committee for a number of years (not when the rigid diaphragm change was made) I can tell you that they almost never have the design of small frame buildings in mind when they write code. Thus I don't don't believe that anyone on the committee thought about houses and the potential effects of this provision on houses, or they would have written an exception to cover cover that. Ron Hamburger, SE. The following are exerts from a letter to Ron Hamburger from Santa Barbara engineer Lynn Howard: The main and most important reason why plywood diaphragms should, in most cases, be designed as flexible diaphragms is the proven track record these kinds of designs have in providing life safety protection during recent large earthquakes. There is no such track record for plywood did parhagms designed as rigid. Since we know for a fact that plywood diaphragms are not rigid, we as an engineering community would be sticking our necks out at this point asking for a significant change in the way we design diaphragms, when past performance for the old design

file://C:\Denali Project\NOEL BACKUP\NEW STRUCTURAL NOTES\diaphragm...\woodbott.ht

12/8/2004

::WOOD ::

Page 8 of 13

ways have proved satisfactory. Right now, if you want to satisfy everyone, you must actually do an analysis for both conditions and design for the worst case. This is just not acceptable. What I would suggest is a fairly simple solution. For light wood framed structures, allow the design of plywood diaphragms as flexible. Then have some sort of a procedure to identify walls that are much stiffer than the average wall, and require that the stiff walls be designed to take a minimum percentage of the total diaphragm shear. I might add that prior to the Northridge earthquake the standard of care in design was to assume adequacy of a plywood panel by nature of its compliance to the aspect ratio specified in the code. However, if calculations were done for each Shear wall based upon the 1991 UBC Standards provisions, highly loaded narrow panels would have seriously exceeded allowable story drift. Had we, as a professional community, taken more care in the design of shear walls for deflection, the current code issues might be a moot point replaced with a more comprehensive Shear wall analysis. On August first of this year, Seismology chair - Saif Hussain - received a response to the draft of the wood section of the forthcoming blue book. He drew attention to the lack of direction in the code as discussed in paragraph 6 of the proposed wood section of the forthcoming Blue Book: I also need a better explanation of the intent of the word envelope especially as it pertains to a combination of rigid, semi rigid, flexible diaphragm behavior. A simple directive as to whether a horizontal diaphragm is flexible, semi rigid or rigid has to be established. To contemplate three types of systems for the same diaphragm seems a grossly unrealistic burden to place on an Engineer of Record. More pointedly, Arnold stated in a letter to me on September 24th:Too many structural engineer colleagues are eager to testify, contradict and question known and proven engineering concepts for a fee. These structural engineers should not be handed a legal building code regulation with multiple interpretations. Time does not permit me to read from the many eloquent threads that were received on our list service. However, the most impressive examples of confusion over the provisions in the code comes from the Pre-Printing Draft Section C805.3 Lateral Force Distribution of the forthcoming Blue Book. The Blue Book is intended to be a commentary to explain the intent of the published code provisions. Reviewing this section, an engineer would be hard pressed to find any information that would help illuminate the ambiguity in the code methodology. Lateral force resisting systems using wood diaphragms in combination with wood shear walls seldom meet the UBC definition of a flexible diaphragm, suggesting that for many wood shear wall structures the UBC would require that a rigid diaphragm analysis be performed. The adoption of the 1988 UBC, did not seem to prompt any significant change in design practice related to the assumption of diaphragm flexibility for wood framed structures. Most designers continued the past practice and most building officials continued to accept this practice. This is one area where divergence developed between common design practice and strict interpretation of the code. With the adoption of the 1997 UBC this divergence has now raised enormous consternation among designers of residential structures, which constitute

file://C:\Denali Project\NOEL BACKUP\NEW STRUCTURAL NOTES\diaphragm...\woodbott.ht

12/8/2004

::WOOD ::

Page 9 of 13

a large part if not a majority of wood frame structures in areas of high seismicity. Earthquake damage observed to date suggests that the Life-Safe Performance Level, as defined in Vision 2000 Part 1, has generally been achieved in structures having a fairly regular configuration and redundancy, with wood structural panel diaphragms that have been designed using flexible diaphragm assumptions. Comments received during drafting of this commentary indicate that significant further efforts are necessary on the topic of lateral force distribution in structures with wood diaphragms. The CUREe-Caltech Wood frame Project, currently underway, will be involved in testing, development of analysis tools, and development of recommended code provisions that will address this topic as well as others. In addition, a simplified analysis method is being developed for inclusion in the 2000 Edition of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for new Buildings. The drafters of this simplified method are developing simplified criteria for determining when flexible diaphragm analysis may be used. The SEAOC Seismology and Code Committees plan on following and contributing to many of these ongoing efforts and will consider whether additional efforts are necessary to pursue current concerns. In order to perform a rigid diaphragm analysis it is necessary that the relative stiffness of shear wall piers and shear wall lines be established. There is currently, however, little consensus on the rules for establishing wood framed shear wall stiffness. The behavior of wood structural panel lateral force resisting systems under under actual earthquake loading has only had limited investigation to date and is not not well understood. The behavior of wood structural lateral force resisting systems is not linear-elastic and is not very well understood beyond the range of design forces. The behavior under actual earthquake loading may invalidate many of the analytical assumptions that are normally made. The contributions of partition walls and wall, floor, and roof finishes and toppings in in wood structures are thought to have significant influence on behavior of the lateral force resisting system, but there is no method available to designers to quantify this influence. Equations are not available for calculation of shear wall deflections for bracing materials other than wood structural panels. Equations are not available for calculating diaphragm deflections using unblocked wood structural panel diaphragms. Conclusion Surprisingly, the provisions in the code are not new to many types of structures which, historically, have benefited from this type of methodology. Wood diaphragms supporting concrete and masonry walls are good examples that have led to predictable performance standards. Residential structures, on the other hand, offer a much greater degree of difficulty that requires, even by tributary distribution methods, creative solutions based on the engineers understanding of load paths and professional intuition developed by experience. Yet, until the last few years, policy makers have given wood structures very little consideration. There is, in my opinion, very little justification that warrants SEAOCs support of a code methodology that is so restrictive and yet from which we have so little

file://C:\Denali Project\NOEL BACKUP\NEW STRUCTURAL NOTES\diaphragm...\woodbott.ht

12/8/2004

::WOOD ::

Page 10 of 13

understanding. Attempting to make a structure conform to the science without first identifying all of the variables is dangerous at best. Unfortunately, the practicing engineer is the only one to bear the liability should his judgment and interpretation of an ambiguously worded code be tested in court. It is unreasonable to expect engineers to abide by the tremendous amount of work required to execute this methodology when construction conformance can not be insured. It is further unreasonable to expect compliance with a complicated iterative process that is easily affected by simple changes in the construction of the building. Rarely are residences constructed without some change to the structural system by the homeowner or the contractor. This can easily negate the assumed distribution of loads and create greater risk of liability. The Seismology committee needs to provide clear and concise instructions that are applicable to all models regardless of complexity. With the exception of the examples from the Wood Design Seminar held in February of 1998, there are no adequate examples available for engineers to use in order to understand the intention of the code. The design examples that are available consider the most simplistic approach while those of us who design custom residential homes find the examples inadequate for our unique problems. There are also few reasonable design tools to help simplify the design process. Finite element modeling of wood framed structures is simply no an option for most engineers. Seismology needs to be cognizant of the effects of design and construction cost on middle and lower income homes. We need to support disclosure laws that will protect the homeowner. Until Conventional Framing standards can be brought up to a minimum engineered solution, there is a serious risk that rather than improving the quality of homes, we may be advocating lesser quality based upon affordability of the homeowner and expected profits of the developer. Equally fearful is the developer who utilizes prescriptive methods and advertises his product as equivalent to the more restrictive engineered solution. When considering the implications and justifications for the efforts understanding and implementing this code, we should first ask the most important question phrased on the SEA International List service by retired building official Franklin Lew, Where are the bodies?

PANEL DISCUSSION RIGID V FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGMS John M. Coil A great deal of interest has been expressed recently relative to the seismic design and analysis methods for wood frame structures. In the 1988 Uniform Building Code a definition was added which specified the criterion for the differentiation between a rigid and flexible diaphragm. This code provision went largely unnoticed and the standard of practice for the design of virtually all wood frame buildings remained unchanged until engineers engaged in litigation cases began using the rigid diaphragm analysis to evaluate existing buildings. The established design practice was based on assuming the roof and floor diaphragms to be flexible. The design load to the various bracing elements or lines of elements was assumed to be proportional to the tributary area of the floor or roof to the element being designed and the load to each individual wall element along a bracing line was directly proportional to its length. Where many walls were present such as for apartments or condominium, some engineers used a modification of these methods by simply taking the total story shear and dividing by the total length of walls in the direction under consideration to determine a load per foot of wall. The resulting shear

file://C:\Denali Project\NOEL BACKUP\NEW STRUCTURAL NOTES\diaphragm...\woodbott.ht

12/8/2004

::WOOD ::

Page 11 of 13

demand was then often adjusted depending on the engineers judgment to provide greater or lesser capacity to the individual shear wall elements. On first glance this practice would appear to be unacceptable, however, depending on the judgment of the engineer the final result did not necessarily result in a poor design or a violation of the code. Provisions for continuous drag/strut members, well defined and developed diaphragm cords for each diaphragm element are often ignored in most residential designs. This is not generally considered a design defects even by the most conservative critics however, theoretically these elements are required. Per the code definition, the floor and roof diaphragms will normally be found to fall in the rigid category for most structures, with the exception of large diaphragms on commercial and industrial buildings. Residential buildings with small diaphragms and generally diaphragm ratios of less that 2 will almost always result in a rigid diaphragm. Now comes the problem or the dilemma that the designer faces. If the diaphragm is rigid, the loads to the bracing elements, generally shear walls, will be in proportion to the stiffness of the walls and the torsion effects on the structure due to offsets in the center of mass and center of rigidity need to be considered. Calculation of deflection of shear walls and wood bracing elements has not been a normal part of design for wood frame buildings. In the past, provided the walls met the height to width requirements of the code, it was assumed that the drift or lateral deflection of the structure would be acceptable. There was no drift or lateral deflection calculations as part of the normal analysis. As a result of this past practice, not much was learned or studied as it relates to wall distortion. Testing by ATC of narrow wall panels revealed that almost the total deflection of the wall was due to movement of the hold-down device and that the deflection of these narrow panels was several times the assumed magnitude. Recent extensive testing of panels with various types and combinations of materials reveals that there is a great deal of information that is lacking in the design community as to how these various framing elements perform. The fact is that most shear walls, which are perhaps designed based on plywood or OSB sheathing, also contain gypsum wall board and/or stucco and in many cases diagonal braces. Modeling these walls for stiffness neglecting these finish materials yields dramatically different results from those which are actual experienced. The rocking motion of the panel for short walls is also critical in evaluating stiffness. Where multi-story walls stack, how do the deformations and rotations of the lower walls effect the upper walls. Is it different for parallel to floor framing vs perpendicular? The designer faces many unresolved issues in attempting to model the structure. Computer spread sheet type programs can be written to solve the multi-wall distribution problem, however the program is no better than the assumptions that are made as to the total stiffness of the individual wall. There are many significant problems to be solved and questions to be answered in this area before a standard of practice can be established. In the mean time, the designer is left to his or her own opinions as to just how to distribute the loads and detail the structure. What may be reasonable and proper for the design of an individual single family house is more than likely not reasonable for a multi-story apartment or condominium project.

file://C:\Denali Project\NOEL BACKUP\NEW STRUCTURAL NOTES\diaphragm...\woodbott.ht

12/8/2004

::WOOD ::

Page 12 of 13

PANEL DISCUSSION RIGID V FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGMS Chris S. Christakos Wood, as all other materials, should be subjected to reasonably the same code regulations when it comes to the distribution of the horizontal shears to the vertical resisting structural elements. Section 2314(e)Distribution of Horizontal Shear in the 1964 UBC is practically the same as section 1630.6 of the 1997 UBC. It was the 1988 UBC which gave a direction of how to determined if the diaphragm it flexible or rigid. Engineers, however, have consistently designed buildings with wood diaphragms as been flexible. Many newer and older light wood framed buildings have collapsed or damaged during earthquakes, but the majority has performed well. Investigators have identified causes for the failure of these buildings, such as poor design, bad construction, low quality and testing of materials, inadequate inspections and combination of all those factors. It is hard to conclude however, that designing the type V wood framed buildings utilizing flexible diaphragm procedures alone, was the sole contributor to the failure or success of buildings in resisting earthquake forces. Many publications, commentaries and discussions have already shined the spotlight on this issue recently. The thoughts of this engineer about this subject are as follows: A. All designers must recognize the fact that wood diaphragms in structures having wood shear walls, moment frames and inverted pendulum (flag poles) could produce increase shears resulting from horizontal torsion. To account for that increase, some overlap design should be used in proportioning the horizontal shears. Rather than spending enormous time in calculating rigidities of wood shear walls and diaphragms that are not exact due to many variables involved, it is better to predict the behavior of the entire structure and focus the attention to proper detailing, strengthening and connecting the elements and components of the structure together with some increased factor such as Wo, or any other appropriate factor to be determined. B. By definition a diaphragm is a horizontal or nearly horizontal system acting to transmit lateral forces to the vertical resisting elements. Practically most single story and the top story of light wood framed buildings have sloped roofs and thus their diaphragms are not horizontal or nearly horizontal. Exception should be introduced in the code to permit the design of these structures as having flexible diaphragms. The engineer should investigate how the out of plane forces acting on the walls and roofs are resisted. C. Strengthening the requirements for the quality control of materials and inspections should be a part of the overall improvement of the wood sections.

PANEL DISCUSSION RIGID V FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGMS Theodore Zsutty If "engineering judgment " cannot be defensible in court, then we do need specific code guidelines for the configurations that would permit the use of the tributary area method of load distribution for wood frame buildings. The 1997 UBC and 1999 Blue Book have provisions that could help to correct for possible low load assignments to rigid elements due to the use of the tributary area approach. These are: (H/D<2) for panels, conservative shear values for stucco and gypsum board, the low R value for frame lines with cantilever columns, the weak story irregularity penalty, and number of wall elements needed to qualify for redundancy factor equal

file://C:\Denali Project\NOEL BACKUP\NEW STRUCTURAL NOTES\diaphragm...\woodbott.ht

12/8/2004

::WOOD ::

Page 13 of 13

to one. A special task committee of selected experienced designers in wood frame construction should be appointed and expense-funded by SEAOC to define these configuration guidelines. The Blue Book Commentary Section C805.3 provides discussion and references on the rigid versus flexible diaphragm problem.

HOME | SEAOSC | ENG. ONLINE | JOB FORUM | MEDIA | OFFICE | REFERRAL | LIST ARCHIVES | LIST SERVER SALARY-SURVEY | PUBLICATION | ICBO STORE | PAPERS | RESERVATION | LIBRARY | ADVERTISE CHAT NOW | DOCUMENT | PRODUCTS | COMMITTEE | WOOD | CONTACT

file://C:\Denali Project\NOEL BACKUP\NEW STRUCTURAL NOTES\diaphragm...\woodbott.ht

12/8/2004