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

wall anchorage to metal deck flexible diaphragm

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Searched the archives on this topic and found some discussion and was wondering if anyone had more opinions or reference they could site one way or the other.

When anchoring CMU and Concrete walls to an unfilled metal deck flexible diaphragm there is some debate as to the effectiveness of the deck and its connections to behave as intended. 

Here are the issues/conditions

1) When the deck flutes are parallel to the wall being anchored, it is very weak and would crumple and expand like an accordion. Some mentioned they design the anchors at the joists or purlins every  4-8ft on center - avoiding the use of the deck as a subdiaphragm. However, if an angle was welded to the underside of the deck to stiffen it, I think you could rely on the deck to behave as a subdiaphragm similar to wood as long as the angle drags into the building far enough so it develops the diaphragm shear demand from the wall anchorage. The drag should terminate with a perpendicular steel member to take the chord out of the sub diaphragm.

2) When the deck flutes are perpendicular to the wall being anchored, it is much more stiff and is good in resisting wall separation (tension at the weld). When the wall moves into the diaphragm (compression) the buckling stiffness of the deck should be investigated and struts should be provided if necessary.

3) The wall anchorage provisions still apply for metal deck diaphragm even though the provisions were primarily developed due to cross-grain bending/tension failures of wood ledgers. My understanding is that equally valid is the idea that local failures should be avoided to ensure the global system and its assumptions function properly (i.e. roof support for out of plane wall design is treated as a roller support in a beam analogy")

4) The puddle welds are adequate to transfer both tension and compression loads at the ledger.

If anyone can point me to a solid reference or share their thoughts on these matters, I'd appreciate it. We are involved in a large prison project with many buildings and would like to be as efficient as possible in regard to this issue. Most of my wall anchorage experience has been with wood diaphragms, so I am tending to think that little is different here in terms of the need for subdiaphragms and load path continuity. Project is in Zone 4 97 UBC - 1 story CMU and Tilt Up.

thanks in advance,
-Gerard
SF, CA



Gerard Madden, P.E.
Civil Engineer

Middlebrook + Louie, Structural Engineers
71 Stevenson Street, Suite 2100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: 415.546.4900
Fax: 415.974.3680
Email: gmadden(--nospam--at)mplusl.com
Web: www.mplusl.com


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********