Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]
Re: Rigid plywood diaphragms
[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]- To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: Re: Rigid plywood diaphragms
- From: Mlcse(--nospam--at)aol.com
- Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 02:08:07 EST
In a message dated 11/20/98 3:03:10 AM EST, itsekson(--nospam--at)jps.net writes: << Thanks to everybody who answered to my post especially to Charles Greenlaw. I appreciate opinions of all that responded to my post on the applicability of the rigid plywood diaphragm design. But what I am trying to figure out is how can I do the rigid analysis if I decide to, without any increase in my fees or with the minimum effect on my fees. DO YOU THINK THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ESTIMATE THE RELATIVE THE RIGIDITY OF THE PLYWOOD SHEARWALL (OR CLOSE APPROXIMATION OF IT) BY USING THE PRODUCT OF WALL'S RATED CAPACITY TIMES THE LENGTH? If this is all I am required to do in order to avoid any future litigation, I am willing to spend a couple of hours doing the comparative analysis of flexible and rigid diaphragm distribution. If this requires an estimate of rigidity for all the sheetrocked partitions and other structural and non structural elements, then forget it. As Lynn Howard said, the plywood diaphragms and properly detailed plywood shear wall performed well in the past earthquakes. So why fix what is not broken. Regards, Sasha Itsekson >> I am not sure it is completely appropriate, but it might get you rather close depending on how you handle the holdown assembly. The code provides allowable shear design values for wood sheathed walls with nails at a certain spacing (6", 4", 3", etc.) For a given wall length, using a certain nail spacing, and assuming a certain load in the wall in terms of pounds per square foot (so you can calculate nail slip), you can then calculate the shear wall deflection. If you know the deflection, you can calculate the rigidity. If you omit the holdown portion of the shear wall deflection you might be able to directly use the walls rated capacity (pounds/ft) times the wall length to represent the wall stiffness. The problem as I see it is that for the short shear walls, less than 1:1 aspect ratio, the holdown assembly (deflection of holdown body, oversized holes in post, crushing of sill, shrinkage of lumber) is a major contributing factor to the total shear wall deflection. For multiple shear walls in the same line, you will not obtain the same equal distribution of shear to all walls (say all walls have 300 pounds per foot) until all the slack in the holdown assembly, as described above, has been removed by the wall uplifting and reaching the capacity of the holdown. The even distribution also assumes all walls along the same line have the same nail spacing. By the time you reach the holdown capacity, you probably have exceeded the allowable code drift limits and now possible damage control issues. I think you would have to do the tributary analysis first, including holdowns and calculating shear wall deflections. Since you now have the shear wall deflections, you can assign stiffness to each wall and then do a rigid analysis. This is a lot of work to obtain an envelope of design forces. I don't think you can do the rigid analysis first because of the holdown assembly deflection problem. If you can eliminate the holdown assembly deflection issues, then you could probably do the rigid analysis first. Would you rerun your analysis if the forces in the shear wall exceed it's rated capactiy that you assumed. Using the shear wall unit capacity method for stiffness will probably be closer to a complete rigid analysis when all the shear wall aspect ratios exceed 1:2. As the aspect ratios get larger (1:1, 1.5:1, 2:1, etc) the holdown becomes a very siginificant factor and the rigid analysis will become most likely more inaccurate. The other problem I see is that I would not include the nonshear wall elements in the analysis such as the gypboard walls at this time. I don't know if this would keep you out of litigation, but I think it would address the fact that you at least considered the possibly of a rigid diaphragm, especially if it governs the design of some of the walls when compared to a tributary analysis. Michael Cochran
- Follow-Ups:
- RE: Rigid plywood diaphragms
- From: Sasha Itsekson
- RE: Rigid plywood diaphragms
- Prev by Subject: Re: Rigid plywood diaphragms
- Next by Subject: RE: Rigid plywood diaphragms
- Previous by thread: Re: Rigid plywood diaphragms
- Next by thread: RE: Rigid plywood diaphragms
- About this archive
- Messages sorted by: [Subject][Thread][Author][Date]