Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Seismic Upgrade ..... Appeal to those who created the code

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

As a further note, to Ali's excellent explanation below-

The Building Seismic Safety Council's Technical Subcommittee 2 is in the
process of reviewing an introduction into the 2000 NEHRP Provisions of a
Simplified Design Procedure.  This will be somewhat similar to that
contained in the 1997 UBC.  Major points are:

1- Base shear is determined by a somewhat simpler, but a little bit more
conservative formula.

2- Vertical shear distribution is rectangular rather than inverse

3- Deflections need not be checked

4- (most of interest) Structural use panel diaphragms may be considered as
flexible, for purposes of analysis.

These provisions will be applicable to nearly all residential construction.
While they will not "officially" take effect for a few years, it may help
the "Standard of Care" issue to be able to point out that it was
specfically included in the resource document recommended for future
editions of the IBC. Also - the note Ali suggested on the design example,
should help as well.

Sadre(--nospam--at) on 05/11/99 10:59:16 PM

Please respond to seaint(--nospam--at)
 To:      seaint(--nospam--at)                                   
 cc:      (bcc: Ron O. Hamburger/EQE)                         
 Subject: Re: Seismic Upgrade ..... Appeal to those who       
          created the code                                    


The topic of flexible versus rigid wood diaphragm analysis in light frame
construction, which has initiated quite an interesting discussion, may
some history.

As early as 1985, when the State Seismology Committee was in the process of
updating the Blue Book Provisions for the 1998 UBC, there were two views
within SEAOC.

One view, spearheaded by the Northern Section and led by Ed Zacher,
that wood diaphragms depending on their finishes and application may have
be treated as rigid. [For example, consider 1/2" glued wood flooring over
5/8" plywood sheathing, or tile with 1/2" mortar over 3/4" T&G, particulary
when the floor is being glued and nailed/or screwed to the joists with
frequent interior partitions below].

The other view, from the South, led by Allen Porsch, argued that the very
fact that you have frequent interior partitions which are unaccounted for
design (e.g., closet, bathroom, bedroom wall, etc.) will dampen the
of the structure and provide added toughness. This should more than
compensate for any amplified shear demand due to rigid diaphragm analysis.

While, the majority of the Committee did not necessarily disagree with the
crux of Ed's argument, most of us felt that the introduction of this
Provision into the 1988 UBC and the Blue Book would not change the state of
practice with respect to this type of costruction.  During the last dozen
years or so this issue has come up from time to time in litigation cases.

Now that the Seismic Design Manual (Volume II) is being preparared, for the
first time, we have to state the strict interpretation of the code on this
issue.  So the examples, when published in summer, will present both rigid
and flexible diaphragm analysis as required by the UBC.

However,  we have discussed providing a statement in the Design Manual to
indicate that the current state of practice is not to analyze untopped wood
diaphragms in light frame construction for Rigid Diaphragm Provisions,
the engineer of record choses to do so. This issue will also be referenced
the Blue Book and discussed in the 2000 Blue Book Commentary on Flexible
Diaphragm and Wood Provisions.

This will be a simple statement of fact and calrification that the 1997 UBC
has not changed the state of practice in this respect, nor did it intend

The above clarification should support our members againt any possible
of future litigation and minimize efforts to perform cumbersom rigid
diaphragm analysis for conservatism that is more than compensated for by
other factors built into the 97 UBC. Among these factors (for this type of
construction) are: near source Provisions, aspect ratio limitation of 2:1
shear walls using structural wood panels or particle boards, new sill plate
anchorage requirements as well as calculation of redundancy or rho factor.

I hope this short write-up sheds some light on the issue.

At this point, I want to take a moment and particulary thank you, Shafat,
Mark and many other dedicated members of our EC Committee who have devoted
much of your time and have put forth such an incredible effort to keep this
list server as a great resource for all of our members and other interested
colleagues across the globe during the last 5-years. Keep up the good work.

Either myself or Saif Hussain the current Chair of the Seismology Committee
will keep our members abreast of any further developments via the server.

Ali Sadre, SE

SEAOC Seismology Committee, Past Chair