Large Wood Roof Diaphagms

5/8/2015
Credit: APA
Seismic Design of Large Wood
Panelized Roof Diaphragms
In Heavy‐Wall Buildings
Copyright Materials
This presentation has been produced by John Lawson for the exclusive use of the
American Wood Council, yet ownership remains with John Lawson. Some photos and
diagrams credited to others have different ownerships and may have copyrights in
place and have been provided here for educational purposes only. All presentation
material produced and owned by John Lawson is protected by US and International
Copyright laws. Reproduction, distribution, display and use of the presentation
without written permission of John Lawson is prohibited.
© John Lawson 2015
Disclaimer: This presentation was developed by a third party and is not funded by the
American Wood Council or the Softwood Lumber Board.
1
5/8/2015
• The American Wood Council is a • This course is registered with AIA CES for
Registered Provider with The American continuing professional education. As
Institute of Architects Continuing such, it does not include content that
Education Systems (AIA/CES), Provider may be deemed or construed to be an
#50111237. approval or endorsement by the AIA of
any material of construction or any
• Credit(s) earned on completion of this method or manner of
course will be reported to AIA CES for handling, using, distributing, or dealing
AIA members. Certificates of in any material or product.
Completion for both AIA members and • Questions related to specific materials,
non‐AIA members are available upon methods, and services will be addressed
request. at the conclusion of this presentation.
Course Description
This presentation will focus on the engineered design of large
wood panelized roof diaphragms in tilt‐up concrete and masonry
wall buildings, with focus on design requirements for strength,
stiffness, and proper development and resistance of wall
anchorage forces. A historical perspective of how past seismic
experience with this building type has influenced today's building
code provides a good perspective for the participant to apply the
current provisions of ASCE 7‐10, 2012 NDS and 2008 SDPWS.
Various design illustrations and examples of high load wood
structural panel diaphragms, wall anchorage, subdiaphragms,
continuity cross ties, chords and collectors will be shown.
2
5/8/2015
Polling Question
1. What is your profession?
a) Architect
b) Engineer
c) Code Official
d) Building Designer
e) Other
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.
3
5/8/2015
Large Wood Roof Diaphragms
Subjects Covered:
• Panelized Roof Structure
• Wall Anchorage System
• Main Diaphragm Design Photo Source: ???????????
• Diaphragm Deformation
7
Source: APA – The Engineered Wood Association
Panelized Roof Structure
4
5/8/2015
A Panelized Roof Structure
Subpurlin
Purlin
Girder

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
10
5
5/8/2015

11
Hangers already attached to ends
12
6
5/8/2015
13
©2006 APA – The Engineered Wood Association
14
©2006 APA – The Engineered Wood Association
7
5/8/2015
Panelized Wood Truss System
15
16
8
5/8/2015
Panelized Wood I-Joist System
17
Panelized Hybrid Roof System
18
9
5/8/2015
Wood Nailers on
Steel Joist and
Joist Girders
Hybrid System
19
Panelized Roof System
• Shop
o Hangers on sub-purlins
o Joist nailers (if hybrid)
• Field-Ground
o Full length purlins, sub-
purlins, and sheathing
assembled on the ground
• Erection
o Purlin and sub-purlins lifted
to roof as a “panel”
Photo courtesy of Wood‐Lam Structures, Inc.
20
10
5/8/2015
Photo courtesy of Panelized Structures, Inc.
21
22
11
5/8/2015
23
24
12
5/8/2015
Photo courtesy of Wood‐Lam Structures, Inc.
25
26
13
5/8/2015
Panelized Roof Framing System
27
Up to 40,000 square feet installed daily
28
14
5/8/2015
Development of
Wall-to-Roof Anchorage
Design Provisions
29
Wall Anchorage Design
• Cross‐grain Bending Issues
• Wall Anchorage Design Force
• Eccentricity Issues
• Pilaster Issues
• Continuity Ties
• Subdiaphragms
30
15
5/8/2015
Cross-grain Bending
Issues
31
• Background
– 1971 San Fernando Earthquake
– 1992 Landers / Big Bear Earthquakes
– 1994 Northridge Earthquake
• Cross-grain bending of wood ledgers in

pre-1973 UBC buildings.
32
16
5/8/2015

• 1971 San Fernando Earthquake
33
Photo Credit: Los Angeles City Dept of Building & Safety

• 1971 San Fernando Earthquake
34 Photo Source: Earthquake Engineering Research Lab, Cal Tech
17
5/8/2015

• 1992 Landers Earthquake
Wall Anchorage
Improper
35
Photo Source: California Seismic Safety Commission

• 1992 Landers Earthquake Wall Anchorage
Failure
 Steel deck diaphragms:
Steel decking
Masonry Block
36
18
5/8/2015

• 1994 Northridge Earthquake
37
Photo Source: Doc Nghiem

– Inadequate wall anchorage
38
19
5/8/2015

39

40
20
5/8/2015

41
Photo Source: EQE
Past Performance
• 2001 Nisqually Earthquake
42
Photo Credit: Cascade Crest Consulting Engineers
21
5/8/2015

43
Photo Credit: Cascade Crest Consulting Engineers

44
Photo Source: EERI
22
5/8/2015

Ledgers fail in
cross‐grain bending
Nails pulled through
plywood edge
45
Wall Anchorage Design Pre‐1973 UBC
46
23
5/8/2015
• 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
47 - 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

48
24
5/8/2015
Wall Anchorage (Wood Ledger)
49 Source: SEAOC Structural / Seismic Design Manual
Wall Anchorage (Wood nailer on steel ledger)
50 Source: Simpson Strong-Tie
25
5/8/2015
Wall Anchorage (Purlin to wood ledger)
Pre-engineered wall tie hardware
Polling Question
2. Which of the following can be used to provide
wall anchorage to a wood diaphragm:
a) Wood members in cross‐grain bending
b) Wood members in cross‐grain tension
c) Toenails
d) Subpurlins
e) Nails loaded in withdrawal
54
26
5/8/2015
Wall Anchorage
Design Force
55

• 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 have been

factored up to maximum expected force levels
• 3 to 4 times the ground accelerations
56
27
5/8/2015
120’ 40’
Ka = 2.2, Use 2.0 Ka = 1.4
Fp = 0.8SDSIeWp Fp = 0.56SDSIeWp
Lines of shear resistance
57

Lines of shear resistance
Ka = 1.8
80’ Fp = 0.72SDSIeWp
58
28
5/8/2015

Example Wall Force Calculation
Fp = 0.8SDSIeWp
59
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
60
29
5/8/2015
Eccentricity Issues
61
Wall Anchorage (Purlin to wood ledger)
Pre-engineered wall tie hardware

(both sides?)
30
5/8/2015
- ASCE 7-10: SDC C-F
Ledger Purlin or
Subpurlin
Plan
View
e
63
Purlin or
Moment = Tie Force x eccentricity Subpurlin
Plan M
View
e
T
Combined Axial Tension and Bending Moment
64
31
5/8/2015
Concentric Loading Desired

65
Pilaster
Issues
66
32
5/8/2015
Anchorage to Pilasters
67 67
Load focused at pilasters
68
33
5/8/2015
69
Photo Courtesy of EERI
• 2014 Napa Earthquake
– Inadequate pilaster anchorage
70
Photos Courtesy of Maryann Phipps
34
5/8/2015
• 2014 Napa EQ
– Pilaster anchorage
71
Photo Courtesy of Maryann Phipps
• 2014 Napa Earthquake Masonry Building Pilaster
72
Photo Source: Abe Lynn, Degenkolb
35
5/8/2015
73
Photo Source: Josh Marrow
74 74
Photos Source: Abe Lynn, Degenkolb
36
5/8/2015
• ASCE 7-10 - Wall Anchorage at Pilasters
75
• Pilaster’s tributary area for anchorage load
Equal Repetitive
Roof Anchorage
Parapet
Roof
Equal Equal
Equal
Equal
Floor
Pilaster
76
37
5/8/2015
• Wall anchorage force focused on Pilaster
Fp  0.4k a S DS I eW p
Parapet
Roof Fp
Pilaster
Floor
77
Polling Question
3. Wall anchorage at pilasters…
a) result from a uniform wall load
b) attract more anchorage load from the wall
c) cause eccentric loading
d) are not allowed per code
e) have no effect
78
38
5/8/2015
Continuity Ties
79
Continuity Ties
80 - ASCE 7-10: SDC C-F Photo Credit: Doc Nghiem
39
5/8/2015
Continuity Ties
• 1994 Northridge Earthquake The diaphragm sheathing
– Inadequate wall anchorage in tension is not an
effective continuity tie.
81
Continuity Ties
82
40
5/8/2015
Steel Element
Issues
83
Wall Anchorage Steel Elements

Net section rupture.
Limited ability to yield
84
41
5/8/2015
• Since the 1997 UBC

– Ductility cannot be counted on
– Steel elements are vulnerable
85
• 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.
86
42
5/8/2015
Continuity Ties
Typical Tie Connection
Typical Continuity Tie
87
Continuity Ties
43
5/8/2015
Continuity Ties
90
91
44
5/8/2015
Continuity Ties
94 Source of Illustration: WoodWorks
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 joists
and steel strap connections
• Extend tie from chord to chord
95
45
5/8/2015
Continuity Ties
96
Continuity Ties
purlin
97 Source: SEAOC Structural / Seismic Design Manual
46
5/8/2015
Subdiaphragm Design
99
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)
100
47
5/8/2015
Subdiaphragm Design
101
Subdiaphragm Design
Subdiaphragm Typ.
Continuity Ties
48
5/8/2015
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
103
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
49
5/8/2015
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
106
50
5/8/2015
F p (min)  0.133 S DSW
Continuity Tie
Connections
108
51
5/8/2015
Hinge Connector
Note bolt
locations in
vertical slots
Seismic Continuity Tie
Hinge Connector with tie capacity
Evolution of Wall Anchorage Design
San Fernando Loma Prieta Landers Northridge

Concentrically loaded &
Special pilasters rules
Wall ties &
1.1 cross ties req’d.
Steel elements
1 No wood crossgrain
bending
0.9
Seismic Coefficient (Strength)
0.8
Wood, Conc., Masonry
0.7
Subdiaphragms
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Zone 4
SDS=1.0
SD1=0.6 UBC/IBC Edition
111 Wall Anchorage Forces (Strength‐Level)
© John Lawson SE
52
5/8/2015
Polling Question
4. Which one of the following is not a special
consideration for wall anchorage?
a) 1.4x more design force at wood elements
b) Moments at eccentric connections
c) Ties continuous across building
d) Higher loads at pilasters
e) Subdiaphragms permitted
112
113 113
53
5/8/2015
Main Diaphragm Design
114
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.
115
54
5/8/2015
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.
116 with staggered layout
• Shear Nailing
• Chords and Collectors
• Irregularity Considerations
• Diaphragm Deflections
• Deformation Compatibility
• Questions
117
55
5/8/2015
Shear Nailing
118

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  0.4S 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.
119
56
5/8/2015
Diaphragm Shear Nailing

A wNS = 0.167wp J
400’
1
wEW = 0.222wp
200
’
120
121
121
57
5/8/2015
• Diaphragm Construction (Panelized)

– 15/32” Structural I
– Fully Blocked
– Case 2 & 4 layouts
122
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
123 2x framing 2x framing 2x framing 3x framing
Source: SDPWS courtesy of AWC
58
5/8/2015
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
124
Source: SDPWS courtesy of AWC

972
787
602
1157 PLF
417
278
ASD
1 2 3 4 5 6
1157 PLF
ASD
6 5 4 3 2 1
278
417
602
787
972
125
59
5/8/2015
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
126 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
127 3 10d at 2½,4,12 6 2 lines of 10d at 2½,3,12 w/ 4x framing
60
5/8/2015
Chord Design
128

w
CHORD COMPRESSION
CHORD TENSION
w = distributed diaphragm load

L = diaphragm span length
B = diaphragm breadth (width) 8
129
61
5/8/2015
Collector Design
130
Collector Design
48’‐0” 56’‐0”
131
62
5/8/2015
Collector Design North/South Loads
Line of lateral resistance
Collector
Diaphragm’s unit shear diagram (plf)
v2
v1
132
Collector Design North/South Loads
v1
v2
Collector
L
v2
FCollector= (v1+v2)L
133
63
5/8/2015
Collector Design East/West Loads
Line of lateral resistance Collector
v1 v2
Diaphragm’s unit shear diagram (plf)
134
Collector Design East/West Loads
v1
v2
Collector
L
v2
FCollector= (v1+v2)L
135
64
5/8/2015
Irregularity Considerations
136
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.
137 with staggered layout
65
5/8/2015

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”
138

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
139
66
5/8/2015
140

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

141
67
5/8/2015
Anchor Bolting of ledger:
Design for 25% more shear
142

Diaphragm nailing not
subject to 25% increase
Collector
143
68
5/8/2015

Diaphragm nailing not
subject to 25% increase
Bolting of nailer:
Design for 25% more shear
Collector
144
Emh = ΩoQE
Collector forces likely
comply with exception
per ASCE Sec. 12.10.2.1
145
69
5/8/2015
Diaphragm Deflection
146
• Calculation Methods
– 2008 SDPWS
• Deflection limits
147
70
5/8/2015
5vL3 0.25vL  X C
   (2008 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)
148
Beam Analogy: 5wL4

384 EI
L
W(unfactored)
We want accurate estimate of 
so we use Eaverage and unfactored W
149
71
5/8/2015
Beam Analogy: 5wL4

Bending: 384 EI
L
v v b
W(unfactored)
We want accurate estimate of 
so we use Eaverage and unfactored W
150
Derivation: Uniformly loaded beam

Convert:
5wL 4
5( w / 12)( L  12) 4 45wL4
bending
Δ    L in feet
w in lbs/ft
384 EI 384 EI 2 EI
wL 2vb v is the maximum unit

Reaction   vb w diaphragm shear in lbs/ft
2 L and b is the diaphragm
width in feet.
Substituting:
45  2vb  L3 45vbL3
 bending  
2 EI EI
151
72
5/8/2015
45vbL3
 bending  b
EI
Replace I in terms of A & b: Achord
I   I x   Ad 2 where d = “b/2”, and Ix is negligible
2
b 
I   Ad 2  2 A  12   72 Ab 2
2 
45vbL3 5vL3 Matches code equations
 bending  
E  72 Ab 2 8 EAb
152
5vL3 0.25vL  X C
  
8 EAb 1000Ga 2b

(unfactored E or W)
153
73
5/8/2015
Shear/Nail Slip: Deformed shape consists

of parallelograms
154
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.
155
74
5/8/2015
5vL3 0.25vL  X C
  
8 EAb 1000Ga 2b

(unfactored E or W)
156
Chord Slip:  X C C
2b
Sum all tension and compression

chord slips together
Sometimes. Connections only slip in tension…
157
75
5/8/2015
Chord Slip:  X C Each chord connection

slips by C
2b
158
For seismic only, the actual deflection

is inelastic. δmax needs to be increased.
δmax
elastic
δM =(Cd δe)/Ie ASCE 7-10 Sec. 12.12.3
Maximum inelastic
seismic response
159
76
5/8/2015
• 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.”
2008 SDPWS Sec. 4.2.1
160
Deformation Compatibility
An Example:
Reentrant Corners
161
77
5/8/2015
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
162 with a collector without a collector
Wall Anchorage
• 1992 Landers Earthquake Failure
Steel decking
Masonry Block
163
78
5/8/2015
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”
164
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.
165
79
5/8/2015
Another Example:
Hinging of wall base out‐of‐plane
166
• Pilaster restraint against rotation
167
Deformation is exaggerated for illustration purposes
80
5/8/2015
– Pilaster restraint against rotation
168
Photo Courtesy of David McCormick
– Pilaster restraint against rotation
169
Photo Courtesy of David McCormick
81
5/8/2015
• ASCE 7-10 - Permissible Diaphragm Deflection
170
Polling Question
5. Diaphragm deflection should be considered to:
a) Determine if the system will continue to
support its loads
b) Avoid impact with adjacent structures
c) Maintain structural integrity
d) Avoid crossing property lines
e) All of the above
171
82
5/8/2015
Closing Comments
172
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.
173
83
5/8/2015
Closing Comments
• 2015 Special Design Provisions
For Wind and Seismic (SDPWS)
Available as a free download from AWC
174
Questions?
• This concludes The American Institute of Architects Continuing Education
Systems Course
• For additional information on educational programs available from the
American Wood Council.
info@awc.org
www.awc.org
175
84

Large Wood Roof Diaphagms

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

Large Wood Roof Diaphagms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5/8/2015

© John Lawson 2015

Large Wood Roof Diaphragms

Panelized Roof Structure

Panelized Roof Structure

Panelized Roof Structure

Source: Simpson Strong-Tie

Panelized Roof Structure

Panelized Roof Structure

Panelized Wood Truss System

Panelized Wood Truss System

Panelized Wood I-Joist System

Panelized Hybrid Roof System

Panelized Hybrid Roof System

Panelized Roof System

Panelized Hybrid Roof System

Panelized Hybrid Roof System

Panelized Hybrid Roof System

Panelized Hybrid Roof System

Panelized Hybrid Roof System

Panelized Hybrid Roof System

Panelized Roof Framing System

Up to 40,000 square feet installed daily

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design

• Cross-grain bending of wood ledgers in

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design

34 Photo Source: Earthquake Engineering Research Lab, Cal Tech

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design Pre‐1973 UBC

Wall Anchorage Design

• Since the 1970s

47 - ASCE 7-10: SDC C-F

Wall Anchorage 1980s

Source: Simpson Strong-Tie

Wall Anchorage Design

49 Source: SEAOC Structural / Seismic Design Manual

Wall Anchorage Design

50 Source: Simpson Strong-Tie

Wall Anchorage Design

Pre-engineered wall tie hardware

52 Source: Simpson Strong-Tie

Wall Anchorage Design

– In response to past performance problems, these forces have been

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design

Pre-engineered wall tie hardware

62 Source: Simpson Strong-Tie

Wall Anchorage Design

- ASCE 7-10: SDC C-F

Wall Anchorage Design