Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: horiz. diaph.[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
- Subject: Re: horiz. diaph.
- From: John Rose <jrose36(--nospam--at)earthlink.net>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 18:51:17 -0700
Mark, 5-ply plywood construction has higher uniform load capacity (vertical roof LL and DL) than 4-ply in PANELIZED roof deck construction, with face grain of plywood parallel to subpurlins. It is also somewhat more dimensionally stable since there is more even distribution of stiffness in the two directions (the linear expansion is the same for both types, however). For 15/32 in. panels, 4-ply plywood is minimum number of plies for Structural I grade. When the plywood face grain is PERPENDICULAR to supports (conventional construction, altho 8 ft x 8 ft panelized roof sections also can be built this way, with blocking at interior joint for blocked diaphragms - a more costly option, however), the stiffness and uniform load capacity of 3-4-5 ply plywood are all equivalent. Also, the diaphragm and shear wall values for 4-5 ply (and 3-ply) plywood are equivalent, regardless of the application. City of LA currently has a restriction on shear wall values for 3-ply plywood, limited to 200 lb/ft. APA's opinion is that this restriction is overly conservative and not supported by cyclic (reversed) load testing or monotonic testing. John Rose/APA, Tacoma, WA Mark D. Baker wrote: > What is the advantage of 1/2"- 5 ply horizontal diaphragm vs. 1/2"- 4 > ply, both str. 1? Am I correct in saying the allowable diaphragm shear > for a given nailing/blocking is the same but the allowable vertical load > carrying capacity (d+l) is different? > > Regards, > Mark D. Baker >
- horiz. diaph.
- From: Mark D. Baker
- horiz. diaph.
- Prev by Subject: RE: horiz. diaph.
- Next by Subject: How to find actual e-mail address?
- Previous by thread: RE: horiz. diaph.
- Next by thread: Future of the Field Act Hearing