NCSEA - Seismic Design of Large Wood Panelized Roof Diaphragms in Heavy Wall Buildings (John Lawson) 6-15-17

Credit: APA
Seismic Design of Large Wood
Panelized Roof Diaphragms
In Heavy‐Wall Buildings
John Lawson PE, SE
Objectives
Upon completion, participants will be better able to:
1. Identify the characteristics of a panelized wood roof
diaphragm.
2. Apply requirements for wall anchorage forces including
proper detailing for distribution of these forces into the
diaphragm.
3. Utilize subdiaphragms as a tool to create an efficient load path
for wall anchorage forces.
4. Design wood diaphragms and their chords and collectors for
seismic forces.
2
Large Wood Roof Diaphragms
Subjects Covered:
• Panelized Roof Structure
• Wall Anchorage System
• Main Diaphragm Design Photo Source: ???????????
• Diaphragm Deformation
3
Source: APA – The Engineered Wood Association
Panelized Roof Structure
4
A Panelized Roof Structure
Subpurlin
Purlin
Girder
5
Wood structural panel oriented with strength axis parallel to 15/32” thick Structural I
supports; allows all edges to be fully blocked for maximum panels are typical for basic
diaphragm shears, and without added blocking pieces. roof loads (no snow).
Plywood/OSB 35psf Live, 45psf Total
allowable load capacity
per IBC T. 2304.7(5)
Hanger
Subpurlin
Bracing straps
Column Cap
Hanger
Hinge
All Wood System
Source: Simpson Strong-Tie
6

7
Hangers already attached to ends
8
Panelized Wood Truss System
9
10
Panelized Wood I-Joist System
11
Panelized Hybrid Roof System
12
Wood Nailers on
Steel Joist and
Joist Girders
Hybrid System
13
Photo courtesy of Panelized Structures, Inc.
14
Up to 40,000 square feet installed daily
15
Photo courtesy of Panelized Structures, Inc.
Development of
Wall-to-Roof Anchorage
Design Provisions
16
Wall Anchorage Design
• Cross‐grain Bending Issues
• Wall Anchorage Design Force
• Eccentricity Issues
• Pilaster Issues
• Continuity Ties
• Subdiaphragms
17
Cross-grain Bending
Issues
18
• Background
– 1971 San Fernando Earthquake
– 1992 Landers / Big Bear Earthquakes
– 1994 Northridge Earthquake
• Cross-grain bending of wood ledgers in

pre-1973 UBC buildings.
19
• 1971 San Fernando Earthquake
20
Photo Credit: Los Angeles City Dept of Building & Safety
• 1971 San Fernando Earthquake
21 Photo Source: Earthquake Engineering Research Lab, Cal Tech

• 1992 Landers Earthquake
Wall Anchorage
Improper
22
Photo Source: California Seismic Safety Commission
• 1994 Northridge Earthquake
23
Photo Source: Doc Nghiem
– Inadequate wall anchorage
24
25
26
27
Photo Source: EQE
Past Performance
• 2001 Nisqually Earthquake
28
Photo Credit: Cascade Crest Consulting Engineers
29
Photo Credit: Cascade Crest Consulting Engineers
30
Photo Source: EERI
Ledgers fail in
cross‐grain bending
Nails pulled through
plywood edge
31
Wall Anchorage Design Pre‐1973 UBC
32
• Since the 1970s

– No wood cross-grain bending or tension allowed
– Direct connection required
– No use of toenails or nails in withdrawal
– No use of wood diaphragm sheathing as the tension tie
33 - ASCE 7-10: SDC C-F

Wall Anchorage 1980s
Wall Anchorage (Wood Roof)
See manufacturer’s
recommendations for
embedment depth
Member width
per manufacturer’s
recommendations

34
Wall Anchorage (Wood Ledger)
35
Source: SEAOC Structural / Seismic Design Manual
Wall Anchorage (Wood nailer on steel ledger)
36
Wall Anchorage (Steel ledger)
Proprietary Pneumatically Driven Pins
37
Wall Anchorage (Steel joist to embed plate)
Note: Where anchorage
spacing is greater than 4‐feet,
wall shall be designed for
bending between.
‐ASCE 7‐10 Sec. 12.11.2.1
38
Wall Anchorage
Design Force
39
• ASCE 7-10 force levels Sec. 12.11.2.1
Fp  0.4 S DS k a I eW p Similar force levels since 1997 UBC
for SDC D+.
Not less than… New for SDC B and C in ASCE 7‐10.
Fp  0.2k a I eW p
where…
Lf ka need not be
k a  1.0 
100 greater than 2.0
– In response to past performance problems, these forces are at maximum

expected levels without explicit reliance on ductility.
• 3 to 4 times the ground accelerations
40
120’ 40’
Ka = 2.2, Use 2.0 Ka = 1.4
Fp = 0.8SDSIeWp Fp = 0.56SDSIeWp
Lines of shear resistance
41
Lines of shear resistance
Ka = 1.8
80’ Fp = 0.72SDSIeWp
42
Example Wall Force Calculation
Fp = 0.8SDSIeWp
43
Source of Illustration: WoodWorks
• Wall anchorage force Example:
Fp  0.8S DS I eW p
Fp
Given: SDC = D
SDS = 1.0g
Ie = 1.0
8’‐0” anchor spacing
8” thick
33’
concrete
30’
8"  332 
W p  150 pcf  8'    14,520 lbs
12  230  
Fp  0.81.0 g 1.0 14,520lbs   11,616 lbs
44
Eccentricity Issues
45
Wall Anchorage (Purlin to wood ledger)
Pre-engineered wall tie hardware

(both sides?)
46
- ASCE 7-10: SDC C-F
Ledger Purlin or
Subpurlin
Plan
View
e
47
Purlin or
Moment = Tie Force x eccentricity Subpurlin
Plan M
View
T e
Combined Axial Tension and Bending Moment
48
Concentric Loading Desired

49
Pilaster
Issues
50
Anchorage to Pilasters
51 51
Load focused at pilasters
52
53
Photo Courtesy of EERI
• 2014 Napa Earthquake
– Inadequate pilaster anchorage
54
Photos Courtesy of Maryann Phipps
• 2014 Napa EQ
– Pilaster anchorage
55
Photo Courtesy of Maryann Phipps
• 2014 Napa Earthquake Masonry Building Pilaster
Pilaster support
failure
56
Photo Source: Abe Lynn, Degenkolb
57
Photo Source: Josh Marrow
58 58
Photos Source: Abe Lynn, Degenkolb
• ASCE 7-10 - Wall Anchorage at Pilasters
59
• Pilaster’s tributary area for anchorage load
Repetitive
Roof Anchorage
Parapet
Roof
Reaction?
How much load travels
to pilaster?
Floor
Pilaster
60
Repetitive
Roof Anchorage
Parapet
Roof
Equal Equal
Equal
Equal
Floor
Pilaster
61
Equal Repetitive
Roof Anchorage
Parapet
Roof
Equal Equal
Equal
Equal
Floor
Pilaster
62
• Wall anchorage force focused on Pilaster
Fp  0.4k a S DS I eW p
Parapet
Roof Fp
Pilaster
Floor
63
Continuity Ties
64
Continuity Ties
65 - ASCE 7-10: SDC C-F Photo Credit: Doc Nghiem

Continuity Ties
• 1994 Northridge Earthquake The diaphragm sheathing
– Inadequate wall anchorage in tension is not an
effective continuity tie.
Cross‐grain tension
66
Continuity Ties
67
Steel Element
Issues
68
Wall Anchorage Steel Elements
Net section rupture.
Limited ability to yield
69
• Since the 1997 UBC

– Ductility cannot be counted on
– Steel elements are vulnerable
70
• Capacity of Wall Anchorage System

– The design forces 0.4SDSkaIeWp have been carefully
coordinated with the expected material overstrengths
of the anchorage materials.
• Steel Elements
– Steel elements need an additional 1.4 load factor (Sec.
12.11.2.2.2)
• Wood Elements
– No additional load
factors needed for wood
elements, including
bolts, screws and nails.
71
Continuity Ties
Typical Tie
Connection
Typical Continuity
Tie
72
Continuity Ties
73
Continuity Ties
74
Continuity Ties
75
76
Continuity Ties
• Force same as wall anchorage

Fp  0.4 S DS k a I eW p
• 1.4 steel element load factor on steel
straps and steel joists
• Extend tie from chord to chord
77
Continuity Ties
78
Continuity Ties
purlin
79
Continuity Ties
80
Subdiaphragm Design
81
Subdiaphragm Design
Subdiaphragm is a portion of a larger wood
diaphragm designed to anchor and transfer
local [wall] forces to primary diaphragm
struts and the main diaphragm
Their use is permitted under
ASCE 7‐10 Sec. 12.11.2.2.1
(SDC C‐F)
82
Subdiaphragm Design
83
Subdiaphragm Design
Subdiaphragm
Typ.
Continuity
Ties
84 Source of Illustration: WoodWorks
Subdiaphragm Design
• A part of the Wall Anchorage System

– Thus same force: Fp  0.4 S DS k a I eW p
• Aspect Ratio Limits:

– L/W = 2.5 maximum
85
Subdiaphragm Design
 The maximum length-to-width ratio of the

structural subdiaphragm shall be 2½ to 1.
(ASCE 7-10 §12.11.2.2.1)
1
Fp Subdiaphragm chords
2½
Continuity Tie
Continuity Tie Connections
Continuity Tie
Connections
• Continuity Ties are a part of the Wall

Anchorage System
– Thus same force: Fp  0.4 S DS k a I eW p
• Check minimum interconnection force:

Fp (min)  0.133S DSW
‐ ASCE 7‐10 Sec. 12.1.3
88
F p (min)  0.133 S DSW
Continuity Tie
Connections
90
Hinge Connector
Note bolt
locations in
vertical slots
Seismic Continuity Tie
Hinge Connector with tie capacity
91
92
Evolution of Wall Anchorage Design
93
Main Diaphragm Design
94
North
North/South
Seismic Loading
East/West
Seismic Loading
Wood Structural Panel Diaphragm
200‐ft
9¼” Tilt‐up Concrete Walls
33’ top of wall
30’ top of roof
400‐ft 25’
TYP.
95
56’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 56’‐0”

50’‐0”
50’‐0”
50’‐0”
50’‐0”
2x4 DF #2 subpurlins 9 ¼” Concrete Wall Panels, typ.
at 24” o.c.
15/32” Structural I OSB Purlins at 8‐ft o.c.
96 with staggered layout
• Shear Nailing
• Chords and Collectors
• Irregularity Considerations
• Diaphragm Deflections
• Deformation Compatibility
97
Shear Nailing
98
Diaphragm Forces per ASCE 7‐10 Section 12.10
n
F i North/South
F px  i x
w px Seismic Loading FROOF
n
w
i x
i
Fpx
Fp max  0.4 S DS I e w px
Fp min  0.2S DS I e w px
200‐ft
33’ top of wall
30’ top of roof
400‐ft 25’
9¼” Tilt‐up Concrete Walls TYP.
99
Diaphragm Shear Nailing
A wNS = 0.25wp J
400’
1
wEW = 0.25wp
200
’
R  4, S DS  1.0
100
(Unfactored)
101
101
• Diaphragm Construction (Panelized)

– 15/32” Structural I
– Fully Blocked
– Case 2 & 4 layouts
102
ASD values are “Nominal”
divided by 2
15/32” Struct I 6”/6” o.c. 4”/6” o.c. 2½”/4” o.c. 2”/3” o.c.

w/ 10d nails 320plf 425plf 640plf (ASD) 820plf
(ASD) (ASD)
(0.148” dia) (ASD)
1 2 3 4
103 2x framing 2x framing 2x framing 3x framing
Source: SDPWS courtesy of AWC
Diaphragm Shear Nailing (high load)
ASD values are “Nominal”
divided by 2
2 lines of 2 lines of
15/32” Struct I 2½”/4” o.c. 2½”/3” o.c.
w/ 10d nails (0.148”) 1005plf (ASD) 1290plf (ASD)
with 4x framing
5 6
4x framing 4x framing
104
Source: SDPWS courtesy of AWC
105
ASD
1157 PLF
6
972
5
787
4
602
3
417
2
278
1
1
278 2
417
3
(Unfactored)
602
4
787
5
972
6
1157 PLF
ASD
Diaphragm Shear Nailing North/South Loads
1 10d at 6,6,12 4 10d at 2,3,12 w/ 3x framing
2 10d at 4,6,12 5 2 lines of 10d at 2½,4,12 w/ 4x framing
106 3 10d at 2½,4,12 6 2 lines of 10d at 2½,3,12 w/ 4x framing

Diaphragm Shear Nailing East/West Loads Added
A J
32’ 32’ 32’ 32’ 24’ 96’ 24’ 32’ 32’ 32’ 32’
1
20’
6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6
160’
20’
5
1 10d at 6,6,12 4 10d at 2,3,12 w/ 3x framing
2 10d at 4,6,12 5 2 lines of 10d at 2½,4,12 w/ 4x framing
107 3 10d at 2½,4,12 6 2 lines of 10d at 2½,3,12 w/ 4x framing

Chord Design
108
w
CHORD COMPRESSION
CHORD TENSION
w = distributed diaphragm load

L = diaphragm span length
B = diaphragm breadth (width) 8
109
Collector Design
110
Collector Design
48’‐0” 56’‐0”
111
Collector Design North/South Loads
Line of lateral resistance
Collector
Diaphragm’s unit shear diagram (plf)
v2
v1
112
Collector Design North/South Loads
v1
v2
Collector
L
v2
FCollector= (v1+v2)L
SDC C, D, E, F: Load Combinations with Overstrength Ωo Required
‐ASCE 7‐10 Sec. 12.10.2.1
113
Collector Design East/West Loads
Line of lateral resistance Collector
v1 v2
Diaphragm’s unit shear diagram (plf)
114
Collector Design East/West Loads
v1
v2
Collector
L
v2
FCollector= (v1+v2)L
SDC C, D, E, F: Load Combinations with Overstrength Ωo Required
‐ASCE 7‐10 Sec. 12.10.2.1
115
Irregularity Considerations
116
Reentrant Corner Irregularity
48’‐0” 56’‐0”
50’‐0”
56’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 56’‐0”

50’‐0”
50’‐0”
50’‐0”
50’‐0”
2x4 DF #2 subpurlins 9 ¼” Concrete Wall Panels, typ.
at 24” o.c.
15/32” Structural I OSB Purlins at 8‐ft o.c.
117 with staggered layout
48’‐0” 56’‐0”
50’‐0”
56’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0”

50’‐0”
50’‐0”
Seismic Design Categories D, E, F
50’‐0”
50’‐0”
118
48’‐0” 56’‐0”
50’‐0”
50’ >0.15L
56’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0”
50’‐0”
L=296’ > 0.15L
L=250’
50’‐0”
L=400’
50’‐0”
50’‐0”
‫ ؞‬Plan Irregularity Exists
119
Collectors controlled
by Emh instead.
Emh = ΩoQE
120
48’‐0” 56’‐0”
50’‐0”
56’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 56’‐0”

48’‐0” Collector
50’‐0”
Collector
50’‐0”
50’‐0”
50’‐0”
North/South Loading and East/West Loading

121
Diaphragm nailing not
subject to 25% increase
Anchor Bolting of ledger:
Design for 25% more shear
122
Collector
123
Bolting of nailer:
Design for 25% more shear
Collector
124
Diaphragm Deflection
125
• Calculation Methods
– 2015 SDPWS
• Deflection limits
126
5vL3 0.25vL  X C
   (2015 SDPWS Eq. 4.2-1)
8 EAb 1000Ga 2b
Bending Shear/Nail Slip Chord Slip
L = Length (ft) E = Elastic Modulus (psi)

b = Width (ft) Ga = Apparent Shear Stiffness (k/in)
A = Area of Chord (in2) c = Chord Slip (in)
v = Max Shear (lbs/ft) X = Distance to Nearest Support (ft)
(unfactored E or W)
127
Beam Analogy: 5wL4
Based on  
Bending: 384 EI
L
v v b
W(unfactored)
We want accurate estimate of 
so we use Eaverage and unfactored W
128
5vL3 0.25vL  X C
  
8 EAb 1000Ga 2b

(unfactored E or W)
129
Shear/Nail Slip: Deformed shape consists

of parallelograms
130
Shear/Nail Slip: 0.25vL

1000Ga
•Ga = Apparent shear stiffness (kips/inch)
•Combines: *Shear deformation of sheathing and
*Deformation from nail slip
•Ga from SDPWS Tables 4.2A, 4.2B, 4.2C

•Ga empirically derived from tests.
131
5vL3 0.25vL  X C
  
8 EAb 1000Ga 2b

(unfactored E or W)
132
Chord Slip:  X C C
2b
Sum all tension and compression

chord slips together
Sometimes. Connections only slip in tension…
133
Chord Slip:  X C Each chord connection

slips by C
2b
134
For seismic only, the actual deflection is inelastic.

δe = ∆, and needs to be increased.
δe
elastic
δM = (Cd δe)/Ie ASCE 7-10 Sec. 12.12.3

Maximum inelastic
seismic response
Deflection Amplification Factor
135
• Purpose of Limits
– Avoid Impact with Adjacent Structures
– Setback from Property Lines
– Maintain Structural Integrity
“Permissible deflection shall be that deflection that will

permit the diaphragm and any attached elements to
maintain their structural integrity and continue to
support their prescribed loads as determined by the
applicable building code or standard.”
2015 SDPWS Sec. 4.2.1
136
Deformation Compatibility
An Example:
Reentrant Corners
137
48’‐0” 56’‐0”
50’‐0”
56’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0”

50’‐0”
Without a collector,
roof structure will
50’‐0”
tear from wall here
Collector
50’‐0”
50’‐0”
Deflected shape Deflected shape
138 with a collector without a collector
Wall Anchorage
• 1992 Landers Earthquake Failure
Steel decking
Masonry Block
139
Photo Source: California Seismic Safety Commission
50’‐0”
48’‐0” 56’‐0”
56’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0”
50’‐0”
For short reentrant
corners, a strut is still
50’‐0”
needed to force the
short wall to rock this
distance.
50’‐0”
Strut
50’‐0”
140
Controlled rocking
requires complete
Strut freedom of wall to rotate.
Strut should be conservatively
designed for the force
required to rock the wall
including any additional
restraint forces.
141
Another Example:
Hinging of wall base out‐of‐plane
142
• Pilaster restraint against rotation
143
Deformation is exaggerated for illustration purposes
– Pilaster restraint against rotation
144
Photo Courtesy of David McCormick
– Pilaster restraint against rotation
145
Photo Courtesy of David McCormick
• ASCE 7-10 - Permissible Diaphragm Deflection
146
Closing Comments
147
Closing Comments
• Building Code Provisions:
– A reaction to past events.
• Current Wall Anchorage Design:
– Hopefully solves code inadequacies.
– But, not tested by a design earthquake yet.
• Plenty of Old Inventory
– Failures will continue until older buildings are
retrofitted or demolished.
148
Thank you!
149
Questions?
150

NCSEA - Seismic Design of Large Wood Panelized Roof Diaphragms in Heavy Wall Buildings (John Lawson) 6-15-17

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NCSEA - Seismic Design of Large Wood Panelized Roof Diaphragms in Heavy Wall Buildings (John Lawson) 6-15-17

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Credit: APA

Source: Simpson Strong-Tie

• Cross-grain bending of wood ledgers in

21 Photo Source: Earthquake Engineering Research Lab, Cal Tech

• Since the 1970s

33 - ASCE 7-10: SDC C-F

Source: Simpson Strong-Tie

Proprietary Pneumatically Driven Pins

– In response to past performance problems, these forces are at maximum

Pre-engineered wall tie hardware

- ASCE 7-10: SDC C-F

- ASCE 7-10: SDC C-F

- ASCE 7-10: SDC C-F

Source: Simpson Strong-Tie

- ASCE 7-10: SDC C-F

65 - ASCE 7-10: SDC C-F Photo Credit: Doc Nghiem

• Since the 1997 UBC

- ASCE 7-10: SDC C-F

• Capacity of Wall Anchorage System

• Force same as wall anchorage

• A part of the Wall Anchorage System

• Aspect Ratio Limits:

 The maximum length-to-width ratio of the

• Continuity Ties are a part of the Wall

• Check minimum interconnection force:

F p (min)  0.133 S DSW

56’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 56’‐0”

• Diaphragm Construction (Panelized)

15/32” Struct I 6”/6” o.c. 4”/6” o.c. 2½”/4” o.c. 2”/3” o.c.

106 3 10d at 2½,4,12 6 2 lines of 10d at 2½,3,12 w/ 4x framing

107 3 10d at 2½,4,12 6 2 lines of 10d at 2½,3,12 w/ 4x framing

w = distributed diaphragm load

56’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 56’‐0”

56’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0”

56’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 56’‐0”

North/South Loading and East/West Loading

L = Length (ft) E = Elastic Modulus (psi)

L = Length (ft) E = Elastic Modulus (psi)

Shear/Nail Slip: Deformed shape consists

Shear/Nail Slip: 0.25vL

•Ga from SDPWS Tables 4.2A, 4.2B, 4.2C

L = Length (ft) E = Elastic Modulus (psi)

Sum all tension and compression

Chord Slip:  X C Each chord connection

For seismic only, the actual deflection is inelastic.

δM = (Cd δe)/Ie ASCE 7-10 Sec. 12.12.3

“Permissible deflection shall be that deflection that will

56’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0” 48’‐0”

• Pilaster restraint against rotation

You might also like