Woodworks Diaphragme

Diaphragm Flexibility
FPINNOVATIONS
Acknowledgements
The publication was developed by FPInnovations and Canadian Wood Council based
on design and construction practice and relevant research. This publication would not
have been possible without financial support of Forestry Innovation Investment of
Province of British Columbia.
Authors:
Benny Neylon, P.Eng., C.Eng., M.Sc., BAI BA, Equilibrium Consulting Inc.
Jasmine Wang, Ph.D., P.Eng., Canadian Wood Council
Chun Ni, Ph.D., P.Eng., FPInnovations
Reviewers:
Dejan Erdevicki, Dipl.Ing., MIStructE, P.Eng., Struct.Eng., Associated Engineering
Disclaimer
The information contained in this publication represents the latest research and
technical information made available from many sources. It is the responsibility of all
persons undertaking the design and construction of the buildings to fully comply with
the requirements of the National Building Code of Canada and CSA Standards. The
authors, contributors, funders and publishers assume no liability for any direct or
indirect damage, injury, loss or expense that may be incurred or suffered as a result of
the use of or reliance on the contents of this publication. The views expressed herein
do not necessary represent those of individual contributors, FPInnovations or
Canadian Wood Council.
Copyright
No portion of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form, or by any
means mechanical, electronic, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior
written permission of FPInnovations and Canadian Wood Council.
2
INTRODUCTION
Diaphragms Diaphragms are essential to transfer lateral forces in the plane of the
diaphragms to supporting shear walls underneath. As the distribution
are essential to
of lateral force to shear walls is dependent on the relative
transfer lateral stiffness/flexibility of diaphragm to the shear walls, it is critical to know
forces in the the stiffness of both diaphragm and shear walls, so that appropriate
lateral force applied on shear walls can be assigned.
plane of the
diaphragms to In design, diaphragms can be treated as flexible, rigid or semi-rigid. For
a diaphragm that is designated as flexible, the in-plane forces can be
supporting shear assumed to be distributed to the shear walls according to the tributary
walls underneath. areas associated with each shear wall. For a diaphragm that is
designated as rigid, the loads are assumed to be distributed according
to the relative stiffness of the shear walls, with consideration of
additional shear force due to torsion for seismic design. In reality,
diaphragm is neither purely flexible nor completely rigid, and is more
realistically to be treated as semi-rigid. In this case, computer analysis
using either plate or diagonal strut elements can be used and the load-
deflection properties of the diaphragm will result in force distribution
somewhere between the flexible and rigid models. However,
alternatively envelope approach which takes the highest forces from
rigid and flexible assumptions can be used as a conservative
estimation in lieu of computer analysis.
According to ASCE 7 (2010), diaphragms constructed of wood
structural panels are permitted to be idealized as flexible if any of the
following conditions exist:
1. In structures where the vertical elements are steel braced frames,
steel and concrete composite braced frames or concrete, masonry,
steel, or steel and concrete composite shear walls.
2. In one- and two-family dwellings.
3. In structures of light-frame construction where topping of concrete
or similar materials is not placed over wood structural panel dia-
phragms except for non-structural topping no greater than 38 mm
(1-1/2 in.) thick.
3
Diaphragms not satisfying the above conditions are permitted to be idealized as flexible where the
computed maximum in-plane deflection of the diaphragm under lateral load is more than two times the
average story drift of adjoining vertical elements of the lateral force resisting system of the associated
story under equivalent tributary lateral load, as shown in Fig. 1.
Figure 1 Flexible diaphragm
In accordance with ASCE 41-06, diaphragms shall be classified as rigid where the maximum lateral
deformation of the diaphragm is less than half the average story drift of the vertical lateral-force-
resisting elements of the associated storey. Diaphragms that are neither flexible nor rigid shall be
classified as semi-rigid.
In design, engineer need to use sound engineering judgement regarding whether to use flexible or
rigid diaphragm analysis or envelope approach to determine distribution of lateral forces to shear walls.
Deflection of wood diaphragms and supporting lateral force-resisting systems

Formulae for determining the deflections of diaphragms and shear walls are provided in CSA O86
(2009). The deflection at mid-span of a simply supported blocked diaphragm can be determined as
follows:
∆d =
5vL2
+
vL
+ 0.000614 Len +
∑ (∆ c x)
96 EALD 4 Bv 2 LD
where
v = maximum shear due to specified loads in the direction under consideration, N/mm
E = elastic modulus of the chord member (member at diaphragm boundary), N/mm2
A = cross-sectional area of the chord member, mm2
LD = dimension of diaphragm parallel to direction of load, mm
L = dimension of diaphragm perpendicular to direction of load, mm
Bv = shear through-thickness-rigidity of the sheathing, N/mm (Tables 7.3A, 7.3 B and 7.3C of
CSA O86)
en = nail deformation, mm (Clause A.9.7 of CSA O86)
4
∑(∆cx) = sum of the individual chord-splice slip, ∆c, on both sides of the diaphragm, each multiplied
by its distance x to the nearest support
The derivation of the above equations is provided in ATC 7 (1981). The same method can be used to
estimate deflections of diaphragms spanning multiple supports.
The deflection of a single storey blocked wood shear wall can be determined as follows:
2
2vH s vH s H
∆ sw = + + 0.0025 H s en + s d a
3EALs Bv Ls
where
v = maximum shear due to specified loads at the top of the wall, N/mm
Hs = height of shearwall segment, mm
E = elastic modulus of boundary element (vertical member at shearwall segment boundary), N/mm2
A = cross-sectional area of the boundary member, mm2
Ls = length of shearwall segment, mm
Bv = shear-through-thickness rigidity of the sheathing, N/mm (Tables 7.3A, 7.3 B and 7.3C of CSA O86)
en = nail deformation, mm (Clause A.9.7 of CSA O86)
da = total vertical elongation of the wall anchorage system (including fastener slip, device elongation,
anchor or rod elongation, etc.) at the induced shear load
The deflection of non-wood lateral force-resisting systems can be determined using the respective
material codes.
Diaphragm supported on wood shear walls

For one- and two-family dwellings, diaphragms constructed of wood structural panels with non-
structural topping no greater than 38 mm (1-1/2 in.) thick can be idealized as flexible.
For multi-storey wood frame buildings, flexible diaphragm assumptions are traditionally used for
determining distribution of storey shears to shear walls. However, the application of the definition of
diaphragm flexibility in Fig. 1 often indicates that rigid diaphragm assumption should be used for
distribution of storey shears to shear walls. In reality, wood diaphragms likely fall somewhere between
the flexible and rigid behaviour, causing the force distribution to shear walls somewhere between rigid
and flexible diaphragm solutions. As a good practice guide, it is recommended that envelope approach
be used in design for multi-storey wood frame buildings (3-storey or higher).
For a diaphragm which is supported by shear walls on three sides, it can be designated as rigid if the
dimensions of the diaphragm meet the following restrictions:
• Depth of the diaphragm normal to the open wall does not exceed 7.5 m.
• Depth-to-width ratio is not greater than 1:1 for one-storey buildings and 1:1.5 for buildings over
one-storey in height. However, the depth-to-width ratio may be increased to 2:1 for plywood, wa-
ferboard or strandboard diaphragms where calculations show that deflections can be tolerated.
5
Diaphragm supported on other types of wood lateral force-resisting system
(LFRS)
For buildings where diaphragms constructed of wood structural panels are supported on wood-based
LFRS other than shearwalls sheathed with wood-based panels, the diaphragm flexibility should be
determined based on Figure 1. In cases where it is difficult to estimate relative stiffness of diaphragm
and the lateral force-resisting system, it is recommended that envelop approach be used in design.
Diaphragm supported on non-wood lateral force-resisting system

In general, diaphragms constructed of wood structural panels with non-structural topping no greater
than 38 mm (1-1/2 in.) thick are permitted to be designated as flexible in buildings where vertical
elements of the lateral force-resisting system are concrete, masonry, or composite shear walls. Where
wood diaphragms are used in combination with concrete or masonry LFRS, unblocked wood
diaphragms should not be used. Where the vertical lateral force-resisting system is steel braced frame,
the diaphragm flexibility should be determined based on Figure 1.
Torsional load
In addition to the lateral seismic forces experienced by the structure, lateral forces caused by torsional
effects due to eccentricity between the centres of mass and resistance and accidental eccentricities
need to be considered. For structures with rigid diaphragms, torsion moments shall be taken into
account by using a minimum eccentricity of 10% of the plan dimension of the building perpendicular to
the direction of seismic load being considered, in addition to the eccentricity between the centre of
mass and the centre of resistance. For structures with flexible diaphragms, accidental torsion should
be taken into account by moving the centre of mass by 5% of the plan building dimension
perpendicular to the seismic load and using the largest of the seismic loads for the design of each
vertical element.
References
1. ASCE, 2010. ASCE/SEI 7-10: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.
American Society of Civil Engineers, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, Virginia.
2. ASCE /SEI 41-06: Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. American Society of Civil
Engineers, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, Virginia.
3. ATC, 1981. ATC 7 - Guidelines for the design of horizontal wood diaphragms. Applied Technology
Council, Berkeley, Ca.
4. CSA, 2009. Engineering Design in Wood. CSA O86-01, Canadian Standards Association, 178
Rexdale Boulevard, Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada.
6
Diaphragm Flexibility
7
Design example:
Designing for openings
in wood diaphragm
FPINNOVATIONS
Acknowledgements
Authors:
Reviewers:
Disclaimer
Copyright
2
Acknowledgements
Authors:
Reviewers:
Disclaimer
Copyright
2
SPF CMU
joists
II I
Glulam
beams
IV III
Figure 2
In the analysis, the clockwise shear and moment are considered positive, tension is considered
negative and compression is considered positive.
This design example only addresses the force in the N-S direction. Designers can follow the same
procedure for the E-W direction. Forces derived from example #1 are used however the 5% offset for
accidental torsion is ignored, i.e. a total lateral load of 22.1 kN/m, which is assumed to be equally
applied on both edges of the diaphragm (11.05 kN/m). Note that for wind load cases, the load would
be distributed based on pressure/suction.
1. Determine forces at locations of interest without consideration of openings

Shear forces
V1 = 22.1 x 30 x 1/2 = 332 kN or 332 / 20 = 16.6 kN/m
V2 = 22.1 x (30/2 - 6) = 199 kN or 199/20 = 9.95 kN/m
V3 = 22.1 x (30/2 - 7.5) = 166 kN or 166/20 = 8.29 kN/m
V4 = 22.1 x (30/2 - 9) = 133 kN or 133/20 = 6.63 kN/m
V5 = 22.1 x (30/2 - 15) = 0 kN or 0 kN/m
Moment
M1 = 0 kN∙m
M2 = 22.1 x 1/2 x 6 (30 - 6) = 1591 kN∙m
M3 = 22.1 x 1/2 x 7.5 (30 - 7.5) = 1865 kN∙m
M4 = 22.1 x 1/2 x 9.0 (30 - 9.0) = 2088 kN∙m
4
M5 = 22.1 x 1/2 x 15 (30 - 15) = 2486 kN∙m
Chord forces
T1 = C1 = 0 kN
T2 = -M2 / 20 = -79.6 kN, C2 = M2 / 20 = 79.6 kN
T3 = -M3 / 20 = -93.2 kN, C3 = M3 / 20 = 93.2 kN
T4 = -M4 / 20 = -104 kN, C4 = M4 / 20 = 104 kN
T5 = -M5 / 20 = -124 kN, C5 = M5 / 20 = 124 kN
2. Determine forces around openings based on Vierendeel Truss assumption

In Vierendeel Truss, it is assumed that the points of contraflexure occur at mid-length of the opening.
Therefore, the force in the chords at mid-length of the opening (gridline 3) is zero. The shear and chord
forces in the diaphragm segments on each side of the opening are shown in the free-body diagrams as
in Figure 3.
To make portions of the diaphragms above and below the openings (segments I, II, III and IV) statically
determinate, a further assumption is made that the diaphragm segment stiffnesses are proportional to
their depth in the direction of load. Therefore, the shear is distributed to the segments based on their
relative depth.
Segment I:
F3,a = C3 = 93.2 kN
F3,b = 0 kN
V4,a-b = V4 x La-b / (La-b + Lc-d) → V4,a-b = 133 kN x 6 / (6 +4) = 79.6 kN, or 79.6/6 = 13.3 kN/m
V3,a-b = V4,a-b + w x L3-4 → V3,a-b = 79.6 kN + 11.05 kN/m x 1.5 m = 96.1 kN, or 96.1/6 = 16.0 kN/m
∑M3,b = 0: 93.2 x 6 + 11.05 x 1.52 / 2 + 79.6 x 1.5 - F4,a x 6 = 0 → F4,a = 115 kN
∑Fchord = 0: 115 - 93.2 + F4,b = 0 → F4,b = -22.0 kN
Segment II:
F3,a = C3 = 93.2 kN
F3,b = 0 kN
V3,a-b = 96.1 kN, from Segment I
V2,a-b = V3,a-b + w x L2-3 → V2,a-b = 96.1 kN + 11.05 kN/m x 1.5 m = 113 kN, or 113/6 = 18.8 kN/m
∑M3,b = 0: 113 x 1.5 - 11.05 x 1.52 / 2 - 93.2 x 6 + F2,a x 6 = 0 → F2,a = 67.1 kN
∑Fchord = 0: 67.1 - 93.2 + F2,b = 0 → F2,b = 26.1 kN
Segment III:
F3,d = T3 = -93.2 kN
F3,c = 0 kN
V4,c-d = V4 - V4,a-b →V4,c-d = 133 kN - 79.6 kN = 53.0 kN, or 53.0/4 = 13.3 kN/m
5
V3,c-d = V4,c-d + w x L3-4 → V3,c-d = 53.0 kN + 11.05 kN/m x 1.5 m = 69.6 kN, or 69.6/4 = 17.4 kN/m
∑M3,c = 0: 93.2 x 4 + 11.05 x 1.52 / 2 + 53.0 x 1.5 + F4,d x 4 = 0 → F4,d = - 116 kN
∑Fchord = 0: - 116 + 93.2 + F4,c = 0 → F4,c = 23.0 kN
Segment IV:
F3,d = T3 = -93.2 kN
F3,c = 0 kN
V3,c-d = 69.6 kN, from Segment III
V2,c-d = 69.6 kN + 11.05 kN/m x 1.5 m = 86.2 kN, or 86.2/4 = 21.5 kN/m
∑M3,c = 0: 86.2 x 1.5 - 11.05 x 1.52 / 2 - 93.2 x 4 - F2,d x 4 = 0 → F2,d = -64.0 kN
∑Fchord = 0: -64.0 + 93.2 + F2,c = 0 → F2,c = -29.2 kN
11.05 kN/m 11.05 kN/m
67.1 kN 93.2 kN 115.0 kN

a
79.6 kN = 13.3 kN/m

96.1 kN = 16.0 kN/m
113 kN = 18.8 kN/m
II I
b 26.1 kN 0 kN 22.0 kN
2 3 3 4
29.2 kN 0 kN 23.0 kN
c
53.0 kN = 13.3 kN/m
69.6 kN = 17.4 kN/m
86.2 kN = 21.5 kN/m
IV III
d 64.0 kN 93.2 kN 116.0 kN
11.05 kN/m 11.05 kN/m
Figure 3
6
3. Determine net changes to the chord forces due to the openings in the dia-
phragm (difference between steps 1. and 2. at each location)
Calculate the net changes to chord forces due to openings in the diaphragm.
On Gridline 2:
C2 → F2,a: 79.6 kN → 67.1 kN= -12.4 kN
0 → F2,b: 0 → 26.1 kN = 26.1 kN
0 → F2,c: 0 → -29.2 kN = -29.2 kN
T2 → F2,d : -79.6 kN → -64.0 kN = 15.5 kN
On Gridline 4:
C4 → F4,a: 104 kN → 115 kN= 10.8 kN
0 → F4,b: 0 kN → -22.0 kN = -22.0 kN
0 → F4,c: 0 kN → 23.0 kN = 23.0 kN
T4 → F4,d: -104 kN → -116 kN = -11.8
Tension straps at the corners of the opening should be provided to prevent it from pulling apart.
4. Distribute net shear into available diaphragm sheathing

The net changes in the chord forces due to the opening must be distributed into the diaphragm
sheathing beyond the opening. The minimum distance beyond the opening should be greater than the
diaphragm depth divided by the maximum aspect ratio of the diaphragm. In this example the distance
beyond the opening on each side is 6 m, and thus 20/4 = 5 <6 m.
On Gridline 2:
The diaphragm dimension to the wall is 6 m.
@ 1, a-b & @ 2, a-b -12.4 / 6 = -2.07 kN/m
@ 1, b-c & @ 2, b-c -12.4 + 26.1 / 6 = 2.28 kN/m
@ 1, c-d & @ 2, c-d -12.4 + 26.1 -29.2 / 6 = -2.59 kN/m
On Gridline 4:
The dimension to Gridline 5 is 6.0 m. Assume the shear can be distributed across this width.
@ 4, a-b & @ 5, a-b -10.8 / 6 = -1.80 kN/m
@ 4, b-c & @ 5, b-c -(10.8-22.0) / 6 = 1.86 kN/m
@ 4, c-d & @ 5, c-d -(10.8-22.0+23.0) / 6 = -1.97 kN/m
The net shear distributed into the diaphragm due to the net changes in the chord forces on Gridlines 2
and 4 is depicted in Figures 4a and 4b respectively The mechanism is explained in Figure 4c and 4d.
7
a 1 2 12.4 kN
-12.4 kN / 6 m
= -2.07 kN/m
_
26.1 kN
b
(-12.4 + 26.1) kN / 6 m
= 2.28 kN/m
29.2 kN
c
_
d 15.5 kN
(-12.4 + 26.1 – 29.2) kN / 6 m =
-15.5 kN / 6 m = -2.59 kN/m
Figure 4a (above) and Figure 4b (below)
a 10.8 kN 4 5
-10.8 kN / 6 m
= -1.80 kN/m
_
22.0 kN
b
(-10.8 + 22.0) kN / 6 m
= 1.86 kN/m
23.0 kN
c
_
d 11.8 kN
(-10.8 + 22.0 – 23.0) kN / 6 m =
-11.8 kN / 6 m = -1.97 kN/m
8
1 2 −12.4
v= = −2.07 kN/m
6
a -12.4 kN
7.87
−12.4
v= = −2.07 kN/m
6
14.5
b 12.4 kN
R= -12.4 kN R=12.4 kN
Figure 4c
1 2
12.4 kN 13.7
v= = 2.28kN/m
from above 6
b 26.1-12.4=13.7 kN
12.2
22.8
v= = 2.28kN/m
10
18.8
c -13.7 kN
R=22.8 kN R= -22.8 kN
Figure 4d
Figure 4c shows the free-body diagram of the diaphragm portion between gridlines a-b and 1-2. The
net change in chord force due to opening generated a force of 12.4 kN in tension.
� M2−b = 0
−12.4 × 6
R 2b = = −12.4 kN
6
9
Change in diaphragm shear is:
−12.4
∆v = = −2.07 kN/m
6
Figure 4d shows the free-body diagram of the diaphragm portion between gridlines b-c and 1-2. The
net change in chord force due to opening generated a force of 26.1 kN in compression.
� M2−c = 0
(26.1 − 12.4) × 10
R 2b = = 22.8 kN
6
Change in diaphragm shear is:
(26.1 − 12.4) 22.8
∆v = = = 2.28 kN/m
6 10
5. Determine the resultant shear in the diaphragm

The changes in shears due to openings, from Step 4, are combined with shear for diaphragm without
openings (from Step 1.) to determine the resultant shear in the diaphragm.
Without Openings With Openings
@1, a-b 16.6 kN/m + -2.07 kN/m = 14.5 kN/m
@1, b-c 16.6 kN/m + 2.28 kN/m = 18.8 kN/m
@1, c-d 16.6 kN/m + -2.59 kN/m = 14.0 kN/m
@2, a-b 9.95 kN/m + -2.07 kN/m = 7.87 kN/m

@2, b-c 9.95 kN/m + 2.28 kN/m = 12.2 kN/m
@2, c-d 9.95 kN/m + -2.59 kN/m = 7.36 kN/m
@4, a-b 6.63 kN/m + -1.80 kN/m = 4.83 kN/m

@4, b-c 6.63 kN/m + 1.86 kN/m = 8.49 kN/m
@4, c-d 6.63 kN/m + -1.97 kN/m = 4.66 kN/m
@5, a-b 0 kN/m + -1.80 kN/m = -1.80 kN/m

@5, b-c 0 kN/m + 1.86 kN/m = 1.86 kN/m
@5, c-d 0 kN/m + -1.97 kN/m = -1.97 kN/m
6. Determine the forces in the framing members bordering the opening

Combine the unit shears along each side of the member to determine the force to be 'collected' in the
framing members along the opening edges parallel to the lateral load. The axial forces in the framing
members bordering the opening are shown in Figure 5. The joists should be spliced across glulam
beams using strap ties to provide continuous framing members between Gridlines 1 and 2, and 4 and
5 to distribute the net shear forces into the diaphragm sheathing.
10
Gridline 2:
@2, a-b 18.8 kN/m - 7.87 kN/m = 10.9 kN/m x 6.0 m = 65.5 kN
@2, c-d -21.5 kN/m + 7.36 kN/m = -14.1 kN/m x 4.0 m = -56.8 kN
Gridline 4:
@4, a-b -13.3 kN/m + 4.83 kN/m = -8.47 kN/m x 6.0 m = -50.6 kN
@4, c-d 13.3 kN/m - 4.66 kN/m = 8.64 kN/m x 4.0 m = 34.4 kN
a 2
7.87
18.8
b
(18.8 – 7.87) kN/m x 6 m =
65.5 kN
12.2
(-21.5 + 7.36) kN/m x 4 m =

-56.8 kN
or
65.5 – 12.2 x 10 =
-56.5 kN
c
7.36
21.5
Figure 5a
11
a 4
4.83
13.3
b
(-13.3 +4.83) kN/m x 6 m =
-50.6 kN
8.49
(13.3 – 4.66) kN/m x 4 m =
34.4 kN
or
-50.6 + 8.49 x 10 =
34.3 kN
c 13.3
4.66
Figure 5b (above) and Figure 5c (below)
a 1 2 3
7.87
16.0
14.5
18.8
b (18.8 + 12.2 - 14.5 - 7.87) (1/2) x 6 m =

25.9 kN
12.2
or
(18.8 + 16.0) (1/2) x 1.5 m =
26.1 kN
(14.0 + 7.36 - 12.2 – 18.8) (1/2) x 6 m =

-28.9 kN
or
18.8
(21.5 + 17.4) (1/2) x 1.5 m =

-29.2 kN
c
7.36
17.4
14.0
21.5
12
a 3 4 5
1.80
13.3
16.0
4.83
b (4.83 - 1.80 - 8.49 - 1.86) (1/2) x 6 m =
1.86
-22.0 kN
or
(16.0 + 13.3) (1/2) x 1.5 m =
-22.0 kN
(8.49 + 1.86 - 4.66 + 1.97) (1/2) x 6 m =

23.0 kN
8.49
or
(17.4 + 13.3) (1/2) x 1.5 m =
c 23.0 kN
1.97
13.3
4.66
17.4
Figure 5d
Note that if the analysis starts with Gridline 2, instead of Gridline 4 as shown in this example, different
results will be expected. There is 7% decrease in maximum shear in the diaphragm, and no obvious
difference in the maximum chord forces at Gridline 2 and 4. However, the maximum axial forces are
higher in the framing members bordering the opening if the analysis starts with Gridline 2 – in this
example, a difference of 13% occurs in the force in members parallel to load. It is recommended that
the more conservative values be used.
13
Design members to carry forces and shears in diaphragm.
In this example, the forces due to the opening have been derived. Members should now be designed
to carry these forces. The maximum unit shear in the diaphragm is 21.5 kN/m; the maximum chord
force is 22.1 x 302/(8 x 20) = 124 kN, located at mid-span; and the maximum axial force is 65.5 kN and
29.2 kN in the framing members bordering the opening parallel and perpendicular to load respectively.
Reviewing the diaphragm shear forces, the maximum unit shear is 21.5 kN/m. Different from Example
#1, DF-L framing members are chosen. Use 18.5 mm plywood with 3” (3.66 mm diameter) nails
spaced @ 64 mm o.c. at the blocked diaphragm boundaries and at continuous panel edges and 100
mm o.c. at other panel edges, and the minimum width of framing member is 89 mm. Two lines of
fasteners are required. The factored shear resistance is:
vr = 23.5 kN/m > 21.5 kN/m
Although the opening causes an increase in the tension and compression forces in the chords at the
boundary of the diaphragm at Gridline 4, the maximum force is still located at mid-span (equal to 22.1
x 302/(8 x 20) = 124 kN). By inspection, the CMU wall bond beam capacity is adequate.
It is logical to place primary roof members on either side of the opening, to carry joists, frame the opening
edges and carry drag forces. In this example, the primary roof members are GL 175x1102, sized for
gravity loads. By inspection, these will have adequate capacity to carry the tension/compression force
that develops along Gridline 2 and 4 (maximum 65.5 kN, from Step 6 above).
There is also an increase in force in the framing members bordering the opening in the direction
perpendicular to load, D.Fir-L No.1 89x235 joists frame the opening, and have sufficient tensile
resistance to resist the tendency at the corners of the opening to pull apart under lateral load. From
the analysis above, the maximum tensile force, at F2,c, is 29.2 kN, so a Simpson CMST14 steel strap is
ok (capacity = 37.5 kN). The strap is 75 mm wide, using 10d nails, therefore a minimum edge distance
of 19 mm is required – an 89x235 joist is ok, providing an edge distance of 25 mm for this strap. The
connection detailing is shown in Figure 6. The D.Fir-L joists framing the opening should be continuous
between Gridline 1 and 2, and Gridline 4 and 5, and therefore the tension straps are also required to
transfer these forces over the glulam beams. When the framing members are in compression, the
joists bear against the glulam beam and the connections do not need to be designed to transfer this
compression.
As shown in example #1, a check should be completed to ensure that the anchorage forces due to wall
components can be carried i.e. subdiaphragms and/or cross-ties.
14
DF-L #1
Figure 6
How to determine if analysis of diaphragm with opening is necessary

The appendix to this factsheet studies the effects of opening size and opening location on chord
forces, diaphragm shear and forces in members around the opening for diaphragms with different
aspect ratios. The main points from this analysis are summarised below:
1. Maximum diaphragm shear increases with the introduction of openings. This increase can be
reduced significantly by increasing the distance between the opening and diaphragm edge.
2. Tension forces develop at the corners of openings, and ties/straps are necessary to distribute
this force into the diaphragm where members are discontinuous.
3. It is strongly recommended that analysis for a diaphragm with an opening should be carried out
except where all four of the following items are satisfied:
a. Opening depth no greater than 15% of diaphragm depth;

b. Opening length no greater than 15% of diaphragm length;
c. Distance from diaphragm edge to the nearest opening edge is a minimum of 3 times
the larger opening dimension; and
d. The diaphragm portion between opening and diaphragm edge satisfies the maximum
aspect ratio requirement.
15
If these criteria are fulfilled, no analysis is required; however, the maximum diaphragm design shear
should be increased by 10% compared with the nominal maximum shear, as defined in the following:
vnorm = max(v1 , v2 , v4 )
wL
v1 =
2LD
V2
v2 =
(LD − DOPN )
V4
v4 =
(LD − DOPN )
Where 𝑉2 and 𝑉4 are the shear at Gridline 2 and 4 in the diaphragm without consideration of opening, 𝐿
and 𝐿𝐷 are the dimension of the diaphragm perpendicular and parallel to load respectively, and 𝐷𝑂𝑃𝑁 is
the dimension of the opening parallel to load.
Reference:
ATC-7. Guidelines for the design of horizontal wood diaphragms. (1981) Applied Technology Council.
Redwood City, OR, U.S.A.
ICC Guide to the design of diaphragms, chords and collectors – based on the 2006 IBC and ASCE/SEI
7-05. (2009) International Code Council.
Diekmann, E. F. (1999) Diaphragms and Shearwalls, Wood Engineering and Construction Handbook,
3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, CH.8.
Tissell, J. R. and Elliott, J. R. (2004) Plywood Diaphragms – Research Report-138. APA, Tacoma, WA,
U.S.A.
Neylon, B., Wang, J. and Ni, C. (2013) Design Example: Wood diaphragm on reinforced CMU
shearwalls. FPInnovations and CWC joint publication.
16
APPENDIX
The influence of the size of opening and the location of opening on forces in the framing members and
shear in diaphragm were investigated. The analytical method in Example #2 was used. The same
diaphragm in Example #2 was used here except that the size and the location of the opening were
changed. In describing the size of the opening, depth refers to the dimension parallel to the load while
length refers to the dimension perpendicular to the load. In Case I, the effect of the size of opening was
investigated while the location of the opening remained the same. The maximum shear in the
diaphragm, the forces in chord members, and the forces in the framing members bordering the
opening were studied when the depth and length of the opening were changed. They were further
investigated for diaphragms with different aspect ratios, wherein the aspect ratio is calculated as the
ratio of diaphragm depth to diaphragm length. In Case II, the influence of the location of opening was
investigated while the size of the opening remained the same. The effect on the forces of interest was
also studied for diaphragms with different aspect ratios. In both cases single opening was assumed
and accidental torsional effect was ignored.
Case I: The effect of the size of opening

In Case I, the location of the opening was set the same as in the example, i.e. the West edge of the
opening (Gridline 2) is 6 m inward from the boundary of the diaphragm (Gridline 1), the South edge of
the opening (Axis C) is 4 m upward from Axis D, and the length of the opening remains the same
(3 m), while the depth of the opening is expressed as a ratio of the depth of the diaphragm. The forces
in the framing members bordering the opening and in the chords as well as shear in the diaphragm are
summarized in Table A-1.
Table A-1
Depth ratio of opening
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60
F2
Chord forces 0.65 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.61 0.58 0.54 0.48
(ratio to (@ A & D)
maximum at F4
mid-span) 0.86 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.91 0.94 0.98
(@ A & D)
F2 - perp 19.79 20.37 21.02 21.75 23.53 25.90 29.21 34.19

Forces in the
framing F4 - perp 13.58 14.16 14.81 15.54 17.31 19.68 23.00 27.97
members
bordering the F2 - para 25.36 27.30 29.47 31.91 37.83 52.07 65.47 73.34
opening (kN)
F4 - para 5.51 12.06 18.39 24.45 35.52 44.61 50.55 50.97
Max. shear in diaphragm (ratio 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.17 1.30 1.50
to w/o opening)
17
Forces in the chord members
The ratios of chord forces at Gridline 2 and 4 locations at the boundary of diaphragm with opening (F2,a
or F2,d, F4,a or F4,d) to the maximum chord force at mid-span of diaphragm without opening are shown in
Figure A-1. It can be seen that the chord force at Gridline 4 increases with increasing depth of the
opening. Take a further look at how this force (F4-boundary) changes when the length of the opening
is increased from 3 m to 6 m, as shown in Figure A-2a. It is observed that when the length of the
opening is 3 m, which is 10% of the length of the diaphragm, the maximum chord force at mid-span
governs when the depth ratio is less than 60%. However, when the length of opening is 6 m, 20% of
the diaphragm length, the chord force at Gridline 4 exceeds the maximum chord force in the
diaphragm without opening regardless of the diaphragm depth. The chord force is more sensitive to
the dimension of the opening perpendicular to the load. This was confirmed for diaphragms with
different aspect ratios, as shown in Figure A-2b, where the depth of the opening kept constant (10 m)
and the length of the opening was expressed as a ratio to diaphragm length, with the vertical axis
showing the ratio of the greater of the chord forces at Gridline 2 and 4 to the maximum force at mid-
span. With the geometry of the diaphragm in Example #2, i.e. the aspect ratio 20/30=0.67, when the
depth and length of the opening are both less than 15% of the corresponding dimension of the
diaphragm, the maximum chord force at mid-span still governs. And therefore if the preliminary design
is based on diaphragm without opening, the chord members do not need to be re-designed.
Diaphragms with different aspect ratios were investigated. As shown in Figure A-3, where the length of
the opening is set as 15% of the length of the diaphragm, the chord force at Gridline 4 is less than the
maximum chord force at mid-span for diaphragms with different aspect ratios when the depth ratio is
no greater than 15%.
Figure A-1
18
Figure A-2a
Figure A-2b
19
Figure A-3
Forces in the framing members bordering the opening
The forces in all framing members bordering the opening increase with increasing depth of the
opening. However, the depth of the opening has more significant influence on the force in the framing
members parallel to load than on the perpendicular members, as shown in Figure A-4. Furthermore,
these forces are shown in Figures A-5a to A-5d respectively when the length of the opening is
increased from 3 m to 6 m, where the vertical axis is expressed as the ratio of the force in framing
members to the maximum chord force at mid-span of the diaphragm without opening. It can be seen
that the forces typically increase with increasing length of the opening. The exception is the framing
member parallel to load at Gridline 4 (F4,a-b, or F4,c-d): as the opening starting location (Gridline 2) is
held constant with reference to the diaphragm edge, the opening edge on Gridline 4 moves into a
lower shear zone as the opening length increases. The results show that tension connections are
required at the corners of the opening to prevent it from pulling apart.
Figure A-4
20
Figure A-5a
Figure A-5b
21
Figure A-2a
Figure A-2b
19
Figure A-3
Forces in the framing members bordering the opening
The forces in all framing members bordering the opening increase with increasing depth of the
opening. However, the depth of the opening has more significant influence on the force in the framing
members parallel to load than on the perpendicular members, as shown in Figure A-4. Furthermore,
these forces are shown in Figures A-5a to A-5d respectively when the length of the opening is
increased from 3 m to 6 m, where the vertical axis is expressed as the ratio of the force in framing
members to the maximum chord force at mid-span of the diaphragm without opening. It can be seen
that the forces typically increase with increasing length of the opening. The exception is the framing
member parallel to load at Gridline 4 (F4,a-b, or F4,c-d): as the opening starting location (Gridline 2) is
held constant with reference to the diaphragm edge, the opening edge on Gridline 4 moves into a
lower shear zone as the opening length increases. The results show that tension connections are
required at the corners of the opening to prevent it from pulling apart.
Figure A-4
20
Figure A-5a
Figure A-5b
21
diaphragm without opening. When the location and length of the opening are set, the maximum shear
in the diaphragm beyond the opening does not change with the depth of the opening. It can be
explained that the net shear in the diaphragm due to opening is caused by the net changes to chord
forces, and the net shear in the portion of the diaphragm defined by Gridline 1, 2, C and B is:
M3 M2
OPN
�F2,a OPN
− F2,a � + �F2,b OPN
− F2,b � F3,a − F2,a − F2,b LD − LD − 0 M3 − M2
= = =
x2 x2 x2 LD x2
Where M2 and M3 are the original moments at Gridline 2 and 3, and x2 is the distance between Gridline
1 and 2, and LD is the depth of the diaphragm. Therefore when the location and length of the opening
are set, i.e. the location of Gridline 2 and 3 is set, the net shear does not change with the depth of the
opening.
However, the maximum shear in the segments above or below the opening is affected by the depth of
the opening greatly. When the maximum shear is governed by the shear in the diaphragm portion
alongside the opening, it does not change with the depth of the opening; while when the maximum
shear is governed by the shear in the segments above or below the opening, it increases with
increasing depth of the opening, as shown in Figure A-7.
The maximum shear in the diaphragm also increases with increasing length of the opening, as shown
in Figure A-7. In this Figure the vertical axis is expressed as the ratio of the maximum shear in the
diaphragm with opening to that in the diaphragm without opening.
Figure A-8 illustrates how the maximum shear in the diaphragm changes with respect to the opening
depth for diaphragms with different aspect ratios, assuming the length of the opening is 15% of the
length of the diaphragm.
Figure A-7
25
Figure A-8
Case II: The effect of the location of opening

In this case, the size of the opening kept constant, i.e. the length is 3 m and the depth is 10 m. The
location of the opening in the N-S direction remained the same, i.e. the location of Axis B and C. The
location of the West edge of the opening, i.e. Gridline 2, was changed from 1 m to 12 m. Please note
that this is just for the purpose of analysis, and when it is too close to the boundary of the diaphragm,
this portion of diaphragm does not satisfy the aspect ratio requirement anymore. The forces in the
framing members bordering the opening and in the chords as well as shear in the diaphragm are
summarized in Table A-2.
Table A-2
Location (m)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Chord F2
forces 0.06 0.10 0.22 0.34 0.44 0.54 0.63 0.71 0.78 0.84 0.90 0.94
(@ A & D)
(ratio to
maximum F4
at mid- 0.62 0.70 0.78 0.84 0.89 0.94 0.97 1.00 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02
(@ A & D)
span)
Forces in F2-perp 45.8 42.5 39.2 35.8 32.5 29.2 25.9 22.6 19.3 16.0 12.6 9.32
the fram-
F4-perp
ing mem- 39.6 36.3 32.9 29.6 26.3 23.0 19.7 16.4 13.1 9.74 6.42 3.11
bers bor-
dering the F2-para
211 137 108 89.9 76.6 65.5 55.6 46.6 38.1 32.3 27.0 21.8
opening
(kN) F4-para
92.0 83.7 75.4 67.1 58.8 50.6 42.3 34.0 25.7 17.4 9.12 1.24
Max. shear in diaphragm

2.33 1.83 1.70 1.57 1.43 1.30 1.17 1.08 1.06 1.04 1.03 1.02
(ratio to w/o opening)
26
Shear in the diaphragm
In Table A-2, the maximum shear is expressed as the ratio to the maximum shear in diaphragm
without opening. The maximum shear due to the opening is greater than that in the diaphragm without
opening in all cases no matter where the opening is located. However, it can be seen that the
maximum shear in the diaphragm decreases significantly when the opening is moved away from the
boundary of the diaphragm. When the length of the opening is 3 m, the increase in maximum shear is
reduced to within 5% when the opening is 10 m away from the boundary of the diaphragm. Figure A-9
further shows how the maximum shear changes if we allow the length of the opening to change.
Increasing the distance between the edges of the opening and diaphragm can reduce the increase in
maximum shear in the diaphragm due to opening effectively.
Figure A-9 (note: the depth of the opening in this figure is 10 m)
Define the nominal maximum shear as follows:

𝑣𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚 = max(𝑣1 , 𝑣2 , 𝑣4 )
𝑤𝐿
𝑣1 =
2𝐿𝐷
𝑉2
𝑣2 =
(𝐿𝐷 − 𝐷𝑂𝑃𝑁 )
𝑉4
𝑣4 =
(𝐿𝐷 − 𝐷𝑂𝑃𝑁 )
27
The axial forces in the framing members were further investigated for diaphragms with different aspect
ratios. It can be seen from Figures A-6a to 6d that for the opening of the same size, the axial forces in
the framing members bordering the opening increase with increasing aspect ratio of the diaphragm.
When the dimension of the opening is no greater than 15% of the corresponding dimension of the
diaphragm, the axial force in the framing members is no greater than 60% of the maximum chord force
at mid-span with the current location of the opening.
Figure A-6a
Figure A-6b
23
Force in the framing members bordering the opening
The forces in the framing members all increase when the opening moves towards the edge of the
diaphragm, especially in the framing members parallel to load, as shown in Figure A-11. When the
opening is close to the edge of the diaphragm, even if it is of small size, the force in the framing
member parallel to load could be significant. It is concluded that locating the opening away from the
boundary of diaphragm can reduce the forces in the framing members bordering the opening
effectively.
Figure A-11
29
Assume the dimension of the opening is 15% of the corresponding dimension of the diaphragm, the
relationship between the axial forces in the framing members and the location of opening for
diaphragms with different aspect ratios are illustrated in Figures A-12a to 12d. It can be seen that when
the distance of opening edge from diaphragm edge is equal to or greater than 3 times the larger
dimension of the opening, the maximum force in the framing members is less than 50% of the
maximum chord force at mid-span of the diaphragm without opening.
Figure A-12a
Figure A-12b
30
Figure A-12c
Figure A-12d
31
Forces in the chord members
The ratios of chord forces at Gridline 2 and 4 locations at the boundary of diaphragm with opening (F2,a
or F2,d, F4,a or F4,d) to the maximum chord force at mid-span of diaphragm without opening vs. the
location of the opening are shown in Figure A-13. It can be seen that both forces increase when the
opening is moved away from the edge of the diaphragm. This makes sense, as Gridlines 2 and 4 move
towards the high moment zone. When the length of the opening is 3 m, the maximum chord force at
mid-span still governs in most of the cases. However, if the length of the opening is increased to 6 m,
as shown in Figure A-14, the chord force at Gridline 4 at the boundary of diaphragm exceeds the
maximum chord force at mid-span no matter where the opening is located except at 12 m. It also
confirms the conclusion made in Case I that the chord force is more sensitive to the dimension of the
opening perpendicular to load.
Figure A-13
Figure A-14
32
maximum chord force at Gridline 2 and 4 (maximum of F2,a , F2,d, F4,a and F4,d) vs. the location of
opening for diaphragms with different aspect ratios are illustrated in Figure A-15. It can be seen that for
diaphragms with different aspect ratios, when the distance of opening edge from diaphragm edge is 3
times the bigger dimension of the opening the maximum chord forces at Gridline 2 and 4 are close to
the maximum chord force at mid-span of the diaphragm without opening.
Figure A-15
33
Conclusion and Discussion
The effects of a single opening size and location on diaphragm shear, chord forces and framing member
forces were investigated for a typical wood diaphragm. In conclusion, the maximum shear in the
diaphragm with opening is greater than that in the diaphragm without opening. Increasing the distance
between the edges of opening and diaphragm can reduce this increase in maximum shear significantly.
When the dimension of the opening is no greater than 15% of the corresponding dimension of the
diaphragm in both directions, and the distance of opening edge from diaphragm edge is no less than 3
times the larger dimension of the opening and that the portion of diaphragm alongside the opening
satisfies the maximum aspect ratio requirement, the increase in maximum shear is less than 10%.
Meanwhile the maximum chord force at the Gridlines that define the opening increases with increasing
size of the opening but is more sensitive to the dimension of the opening perpendicular to load. When
the dimension of the opening is no greater than 15% of the corresponding dimension of the diaphragm
in both directions the maximum chord forces at Gridline 2 & 4 are less than or close to the maximum
chord force at mid-span of the diaphragm without opening. Note that these forces increase with
increasing distance between the edges of the opening and diaphragm.
The maximum forces in the parallel and perpendicular to load framing members bordering the opening
increase with increasing depth and length of the opening. The forces in the framing members parallel
to load are more sensitive to the dimension of the opening parallel to load. It was also observed that
when the opening is moved away from the edge of the diaphragm, the forces in the framing members
bordering the opening decrease significantly. When the dimension of the opening is no greater than
15% of the corresponding dimension of the diaphragm in both directions, the maximum force in the
framing members is less than 50% of the maximum chord force at mid-span of the diaphragm without
opening, when the distance of opening edge from diaphragm edge is no less than 3 times the larger
dimension of the opening. Tension connections are required at the corners of the opening to prevent it
from pulling apart.
Bulletpoints of significant findings:
1. Maximum diaphragm shear increases with the introduction of openings. This increase could be
reduced significantly when increasing the distance between the edges of the opening and dia-
phragm.
2. Tension forces develop at the corners of openings, and ties/straps are necessary to distribute this
force into the diaphragm.
3. It is strongly recommended that analysis for a diaphragm with an opening should be carried out
except where all four of the following items are satisfied:
a. Depth no greater than 15% of diaphragm depth;
b. Length no greater than 15% of diaphragm length;
c. Distance from diaphragm edge to the nearest opening edge is a minimum of 3
times the larger opening dimension;
d. The diaphragm portion between opening and diaphragm edge satisfies the maxi-
mum aspect ratio requirement.
34
wL
v1 =
2LD
V2
v2 =
(LD − DOPN )
V4
v4 =
(LD − DOPN )
35
relationship between the axial forces in the framing members and the location of opening for
diaphragms with different aspect ratios are illustrated in Figures A-12a to 12d. It can be seen that when
the distance of opening edge from diaphragm edge is equal to or greater than 3 times the larger
dimension of the opening, the maximum force in the framing members is less than 50% of the
maximum chord force at mid-span of the diaphragm without opening.
Figure A-12a
Figure A-12b
30
Design example:
Wood diaphragm using
envelope method
FPINNOVATIONS
wL
v1 =
2LD
V2
v2 =
(LD − DOPN )
V4
v4 =
(LD − DOPN )
35
Design example:
Designing for openings
in wood diaphragm
36
Lateral Forces in N-S Direction
Wind Load:
I w = 1.0 (ULS ) [NBCC, Appendix C, Table C-2]
q = 0.48 kPa [NBCC, Appendix C, Table C-2]
C p = 0.75 [NBCC Commentary]
C g = 2.0 [NBCC Commentary]

Ce = (5.0 / 10) 0.2
= 0.87 (0.9 minimum is used) [NBCC 4.1.7.1 .5a]
p = I w qCeC g C p = 1.0 × 0.48 × 0.9 × 0.75 × 2.0 = 0.65 kPa [NBCC 4.1.7.1]
N w, N −S = 1.4 × (0.65 × 5 × 30.5) = 140 kN
Seismic Load:
S a (0.2) = 0.94 [NBCC, Appendix C, Table C-2]
I E = 1.0 (ULS ) for Normal building, Site Class ‘C’
Roof
WR = 0.25 Snow load + 1.0 Dead load
= 0.25 × 1.64 × 12.2 × 30.5 + 1.0 × 1.0 × 12.2 × 30.5 = 524 kN
Walls
WW , N −S = weight of half height of perpendicular walls + weight of full height of parallel walls
= 1 / 2 × 5.0 × 30.5 × 0.5 × 2 + 5 ×12.2 × 0.5 × 2 = 76 + 61 = 137 kN
Total Seismic weight

WN −S = WR + WW , N −S = 524 + 137 = 661 kN
Ta = 0.05 × hn
3/ 4
for shear wall and other structures [NBCC 4.1.8.11.3c]
= 0.05 × (5.0)3 / 4 = 0.17 s
S (T ) = Fa S a (0.2) for T ≤ 0.2s [NBCC 4.1.8.4.7]

= 1.0 × 0.94 = 0.94
According to Clause 4.1.8.9.3, for combinations of different types of SFRS acting in the same direction
in the same storey, RdRo shall be taken as the lowest value of RdRo corresponding to these systems.
Rd Ro = min( Rd Ro ( wood shear wall ) , Rd Ro ( steel moment frame )
)
= min(3.0 ×1.7, 1.5 ×1.3) = 1.5 ×1.3
4
2 / 3 × S (0.2) × I E × W
VE , N −S = [NBCC 4.1.8.11.2c ]
Rd R o
2 / 3 × 0.94 × 1.0 × 661
= = 212 kN
1.5 × 1.3
Therefore, the governing lateral force in North-South direction is the seismic load.
Lateral Forces in E-W Direction

Wind Load:
N w,E −W = 1.4 × (0.65 × 5 ×12.2) = 55 kN
Seismic Load:
Walls
WW ,E −W = weight of half height of perpendicular walls + weight of full height of parallel walls
= 1 / 2 × 5.0 × 12.2 × 0.5 × 2 + 5 × 30.5 × 0.5 × 2 = 31 + 152 = 183 kN
Total seismic weight

WE −W = WR + WW ,E −W = 524 + 183 = 707 kN
Rd Ro = 3.0 × 1.7 for wood shear walls
2 / 3 × S (0.2) × I E × W
VE ,E −W = [NBCC 4.1.8.11.2c ]
Rd R o
2 / 3 × 0.94 ×1.0 × 707
= = 87 kN
3.0 ×1.7
Therefore, the governing lateral force in East-West direction is the seismic load.
5
Shear wall design with envelope method
Diaphragms are typically designed assuming that the diaphragm is flexible, spanning between shear
walls like a simply supported beam. However, the assumption of flexible diaphragm is not always valid
and could lead to unconservative design if used in the wrong circumstances. In reality, wood
diaphragms fall somewhere between the flexible and rigid behaviour. In this case, envelope approach
which takes the highest forces from rigid and flexible assumptions can be used as a conservative
estimation. This approach is recommended in situations where it is difficult to estimate relative stiffness
of the lateral force-resisting system and diaphragms.
Design of shear walls with flexible diaphragm assumption
N-S direction
It is assumed that the lateral force from the weight of the top half of the walls perpendicular to the
lateral load direction is resisted by the diaphragm and is redistributed to shearwalls based on
diaphragm flexibility. The lateral force from the full weight of the wall parallel to the lateral load direction
is resisted by the wall itself.
Assuming seismic force from the roof and perpendicular walls is equally distributed along the building
length
212 × (661 − 61) / 661
vN −S = = 6.31 kN / m
30.5
For flexible diaphragms, an accidental eccentricity of 5% of diaphragm dimension perpendicular to
applied force should be taken into account and the largest seismic force should be used in the design
of each vertical element (Commentary J in NBCC-2010 Structural Commentaries).
A B C
9.15 m 21.35 m
1
6.1 m
6.1 m
6.31 kN/m
1.89 kN/m
6
Shear wall at Gridline A
 30.5 / 2 − 9.15 / 2  9.15 1 9.15 61 / 2
V A = 1.89 × 1 + × × + 6.31 × + 212 × = 46.0 kN
 30.5 / 2  2 2 2 661
v A = 46.0 / 12.2 = 3.77 kN / m
The shear wall consisting of SPF framing member and 12.5 mm plywood with 8d nails (d = 3.25 mm)
spaced at 150 mm o.c. around panel edges is selected. The specified shear strength, vd, is 7.1 kN/m
and the factored lateral load resistance is:
vr , A = φvd K D K SF J ub J sp J hd = 0.7 × 7.1 × 1.15 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 0.8 × 1.0 = 4.57 kN / m > 3.77 kN / m
Shear wall at Gridline B
VB = 1.89 ×
(30.5 / 2 − 9.15 / 2)2 × 1 − 1.89 × (30.5 / 2 − 21.5 / 2)2 × 1 + 6.31 ×  9.15 + 21.35  + 212 × 61 / 2
 
30.5 / 2 2 30.5 / 2 2  2 2  661
= 111.8 kN
vB = 111.8 / 12.2 = 9.16 kN / m
vr ,B = φvd K D K SF J ub J sp J hd = 0.7 × 17.4 × 1.15 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 0.8 × 1.0 = 11.2 kN / m > 9.16 kN / m
Shear wall at Gridline C

 30.5 / 2 − 21.35 / 2  21.35 1 21.35
VC = 1.89 × 1 + × × + 6.31 × = 80.5 kN
 30.5 / 2  2 2 2
vC = 80.5 / 12.2 = 6.60 kN / m
A steel moment frame with W360x196 columns and W530x219 beam was selected based on
preliminary sizing of the steel members and investigation of the displacement versus force in a
proprietary 2D analysis software program.
7
E-W direction
As there are only two walls in the East-West direction, each wall take 50% of the lateral load plus an
additional 5% eccentric load.
Shear wall at Gridline 1 and 2

87 × (707 − 152) / 707
V1 = V2 = × (0.55 / 0.5) + 87 × ((152 / 2) / 707) = 46.9 kN
2
v1 = v2 = 46.9 / 30.5 = 1.54 kN / m
vr ,1 = vr , 2 = φvd K D K SF J ub J sp J hd = 0.7 × 7.1×1.15 ×1.0 ×1.0 × 0.8 ×1.0 = 4.57 kN / m > 1.54 kN / m
Design of shear walls with rigid diaphragm assumption

For a diaphragm that is designated as rigid, the lateral force is distributed to the supporting shear walls
according to their relative stiffness, with consideration of additional shear force due to torsion for
seismic design. In addition to the torsion due to natural eccentricity, NBCC requires that a minimum
eccentricity of 10% of the plan dimension of the building perpendicular to the direction of seismic load
should also be considered.
In order to determine the shear walls stiffness, the shear walls obtained from the flexible diaphragm
design are used as the initial input.
The shear wall stiffness can be determined as follows:
F vL
k= =
∆ 2vH 2
vH H
+ + 0.0025 Hen + d a
3EAL Bv L
where
v = maximum shear due to specified loads at the top of the wall, N/mm
H = height of shearwall segment, mm
E = elastic modulus of boundary element, N/mm2
A = cross-sectional area of the boundary member, mm2
L = length of shearwall segment, mm
Bv = shear through-thickness-rigidity of the sheathing, N/mm [Table 7.3A - 7.3C, CSA O86]
en = nail deformation, mm [Clause A.9.7, CSA O86]
da = total vertical elongation of the wall anchorage system (including fastener slip, device
elongation, anchor or rod elongation, etc.) at the induced shear load
8
The stiffness’s of the shear walls are listed in the table below:
Shear v A L Bv Force/nail en da Δ k
2
Wall [N/mm] [mm ] [mm] [N/mm] [N] [mm] [mm] [mm] [kN/m]
A 3.77 10640 12200 5700 566 0.40 1.89 9.06 5074
B 9.16 10640 12200 5700 458 0.28 4.59 13.44 8312
C 6.60 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 18.99 4240
1 1.54 10640 30500 5700 231 0.12 0.77 2.92 16079
2 1.54 10640 30500 5700 231 0.12 0.77 2.92 16079
Note:
1) End studs of shearwalls in Gridline A and B are made of two 2x6’s (76 x 140 mm).
2
2) E = 9500 N/mm
3) en: Force per nail = v x nail spacing → en for 8d common nail (d = 3.25 mm) from Table A. 9.7 of CSA-O86
4) da is calculated based on the percentage utilization of capacity of HHDQ11 hold-down (by Simpson) at each
end of shear wall. For HHDQ11 hold-down, deflection = 5.54 mm at capacity of 55.25 kN.
a) For shear wall at gridline A, da = (3.77 x 5) / 55.25 x 5.54 = 1.89 mm
b) For shear wall at gridline B, da = (9.16 x 5) / 55.25 x 5.54 = 4.59 mm
c) For shear wall at gridline 1 and 2, da = (1.54 x 5) /55.25 x 5.54 = 0.77 mm
5) The force-displacement relationship, or stiffness, for the steel moment frame was obtained from a 2D analy-
sis using a proprietary software program.
For rigid diaphragm, the lateral force distributed to supporting shear wall i can be determined as
follows:
F × ki T × ki × d i
Vi = +
∑k J
where
k = wall stiffness, N/mm
d = distance from the wall to the centre of rigidity (CoR), mm.
T = torsional moment
F = total lateral load on the supporting shear walls
J = ∑ kd x + ∑ kd y
2 2
9
N-S direction
The center of mass (CoM) is located at half of the building length in the N-S and E-W direction. The
centre of rigidity in the E-W direction (CoRE-W) is coincident with the CoM. The centre of rigidity in the
N-S direction (CoRN-S) is determined as follows:
CoRN −S =
∑ k ⋅ d = 5074 × 0 + 8312 × 9.15 + 4240 × 30.5 = 11.65 m from Gridline A
∑k 5074 + 8312 + 4240
The torsion is determined as follows:

TN −S = 212 × (600 / 661) × (30.5 / 2 − 11.65) ± 212 × (600 / 661) × 0.1 × 30.5 = 694 ± 588 kN ⋅ m
For shear walls in Gridlines A and B, the maximum lateral force on each shear wall is determined with
TN −S = 694 − 588 = 106 kN ⋅ m .
For shear walls in Gridlines C, 1 and 2, the maximum lateral force on each wall is determined with
TN −S = 694 + 588 = 1282 kN ⋅ m .
The force on supporting shear walls due to lateral load and eccentricity is shown below.
The lateral force on each wall is determined as follow:

2 2
Shear Kx,i Ky,i dx,i dy,i kdx,i Kdy,i Vi vi
Wall [kN/m] [kN/m] [m] [m] [kN⋅m] [kN⋅m] [kN] [kN/m]
A 5074 - 11.65 - 688886 - 63.5 5.20
B 8312 - 2.50 - 52018 - 100.1 8.20
C 4240 - 18.85 - 1506301 - 76.1 6.24
1 - 16079 - 6.1 - 598298 36.5 1.20
2 - 16079 - 6.1 - 598298 36.5 1.20
As the factored shear resistance of shear wall in Gridline A is smaller than the shear force, nail spacing
is revised to 100 mm o.c. along the panel edges to accommodate the increase in force. The specified
shear strength, vd, is 10.3 kN/m and the factored lateral load resistance is:
vr = φvd K D K SF J ub J sp J hd = 0.7 × 10.3 × 1.15 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 0.8 × 1.0 = 6.63 kN / m > 5.20 kN / m
10
With the new shear wall configuration in Gridline A, the above process is repeated until the force
distribution to each shear wall is converged. The table below shows the force distribution to all the
shear walls during each iteration.
Shear Iteration 1 Iteration 2 Iteration 3 Iteration 4 Iteration 5
Wall Ki Vi Ki Vi Ki Vi Ki Vi Ki Vi
[kN/m] [kN] [kN/m] [kN] [kN/m] [kN] [kN/m] [kN] [kN/m] [kN]
A 5074 63.5 6387 69.4 6202 68.3 6231 68.5 6226 68.5
B 8312 100.1 8431 94.1 8491 95.2 8481 95.1 8482 95.1
C 4240 76.1 4240 76.2 4240 76.0 4240 76.0 4240 76.0
1 16079 36.5 16079 39.1 16079 38.8 16079 38.9 16079 38.9
2 16079 36.5 16079 39.1 16079 38.8 16079 38.9 16079 38.9
E-W direction
The center of mass (CoM) is located at half of the building length in the E-W direction. The centre of
rigidity (CoR) in the E-W direction is coincident with the CoM. Therefore torsion is due to the accidental
torsion only.
The seismic force to be distributed to the shear walls in the E-W direction is calculated as follows:
(707 − 152)
FE −W = 87 × = 68 kN
707
TE −W = ±87 × (555 / 707) × 0.1 × 12.2 = ±83 kN ⋅ m
Using the shear walls stiffness obtained from the rigid diaphragm design in N-S direction as the initial
input, the table below shows the convergence of shear force, v, for each shear wall.
Shear Iteration 1 Iteration 2 Iteration 3
Wall Ki Vi Ki Vi Ki Vi
[kN/m] [kN] [kN/m] [kN] [kN/m] [kN]
A 6226 1.6 7144 1.7 7144 1.7
B 8482 0.3 8744 0.2 8744 0.2
C 4240 1.9 4240 1.9 4240 1.9
1 16079 45.7 16079 45.6 16079 45.6
2 16079 45.7 16079 45.6 16079 45.6
11
The table below summarises the calculated lateral force on each shear wall based on flexible and rigid
diaphragm assumptions, with the highest force taken for envelope approach. This table also shows the
difference in design force depending on which method is chosen.
Shear Flexible diaphragm Rigid diaphragm Envelope approach
Wall Vi vi Vi vi Vi vi
[kN] [kN/m] [kN] [kN/m] [kN] [kN/m]
A 46.0 3.77 68.5 5.61 68.5 5.61
B 111.8 9.16 95.1 7.80 111.8 9.16
C 80.5 6.60 76.0 6.23 80.5 6.60
1 46.9 1.54 45.6 1.50 46.9 1.54
2 46.9 1.54 45.6 1.50 46.9 1.54
Diaphragm design
N-S direction
Assuming that diaphragms are designed to yield before the supporting SFRS, the diaphragm shall be
designed for seismic loads determined using the RdRo factors for the vertical SFRS according to
Clause 9.8.5.2.1 of CSA O86. Such seismic design loads, however, shall not be less than loads
determined using RdRo = 2.0. As the seismic load in N-S direction is determined using RdRo = 1.95, it
meets this requirement.
The maximum shear force on the diaphragm can be determined from the reaction force at the
supporting shear walls based on force equilibrium. Based on the maximum force on each shear wall
using envelope approach, the maximum shear forces on diaphragm at Gridline A, B and C are
obtained as follows:
VD , A = 68.5 − 212 × (61 / 2) / 661 = 58.7 kN → vD , A = 58.7 / 12.2 = 4.81 kN / m
 30.5 / 2 − 9.15  9.15
V D−, B = 6.31× 9.15 + 1.89 × 1 + × − (46.0 − 212 × (61 / 2) / 661) = 33.6 kN →
 30.5 / 2  2
vD− ,B = 33.6 / 12.2 = 2.75 kN / m
V D+, B = (111.8 − 212 × (61 / 2) / 661) − V D−, B = 68.4 kN → vD+ ,B = 68.4 / 12.2 = 5.61 kN / m
VD ,C = 80.5 kN → vD ,C = 80.5 / 12.2 = 6.60 kN / m
Select 38 mm x 235 mm SPF joists and 12.5 mm plywood with 3.66 mm nails at 100 mm o.c. along
diaphragm boundaries (panel layout case 3), the factored shear strength is
vr = φvd K D K SF J sp = 0.7 × 10.5 × 1.15 × 1.0 × 0.8 = 6.76 kN / m > 6.60 kN / m
12
E-W direction
The seismic force on supporting shear wall at Gridline 1 and 2 is
V1 = V2 = 46.9 − 87 × (152 / 2) / 707 = 37.5 kN → v1 = v2 = 37.5 / 30.5 = 1.23 kN / m
In the E-W direction wood diaphragm is supported on wood shearwalls, and therefore in accordance
with Clause 9.8.4.2 of CSA O86, the seismic design force for the diaphragm is taken as:
VD = C D × F
where
CD = the lesser of 1.2 and C, (C is the over-capacity coefficient for the shearwall, C = vr / v f )
= min(1.2, 4.57 / 1.23) = 1.2
F = factored seismic force calculated using RdRo for wood shearwalls
Therefore
VD = 1.2 × 37.5 = 45.1 kN → vD = 45.1 / 30.5 = 1.48 kN / m
With 38 mm x 235 mm SPF joists and 12.5 mm plywood with 3.66 mm nails at 100 mm o.c. along
diaphragm boundaries (panel layout case 1), the factored shear strength is
vr = φvd K D K SF J sp = 0.7 × 10.5 × 1.15 × 1.0 × 0.8 = 6.76 kN / m > 1.48 kN / m
13
Design example:
Wood diaphragm using
envelope method
14
Lateral Forces in N-S Direction
Wind Load:
I w = 1.0 (ULS ) [NBCC, Appendix C, Table C-2]
q = 0.48 kPa [NBCC, Appendix C, Table C-2]
C p = 0.75 [NBCC Commentary]
C g = 2.0 [NBCC Commentary]

Ce = (5.0 / 10) 0.2
= 0.87 (0.9 minimum is used) [NBCC 4.1.7.1 .5a]
p = I w qCeC g C p = 1.0 × 0.48 × 0.9 × 0.75 × 2.0 = 0.65 kPa [NBCC 4.1.7.1]
N w, N −S = 1.4 × (0.65 × 5 × 30.5) = 140 kN
Seismic Load:
S a (0.2) = 0.94 [NBCC, Appendix C, Table C-2]
I E = 1.0 (ULS ) for Normal building, Site Class ‘C’
Roof
WR = 0.25 Snow load + 1.0 Dead load
= 0.25 × 1.64 × 12.2 × 30.5 + 1.0 × 1.0 × 12.2 × 30.5 = 524 kN
Walls
WW , N −S = weight of half height of perpendicular walls + weight of full height of parallel walls
= 1 / 2 × 5.0 × 30.5 × 0.5 × 2 + 5 ×12.2 × 0.5 × 2 = 76 + 61 = 137 kN
Total Seismic weight

WN −S = WR + WW , N −S = 524 + 137 = 661 kN
Ta = 0.05 × hn
3/ 4
for shear wall and other structures [NBCC 4.1.8.11.3c]
= 0.05 × (5.0)3 / 4 = 0.17 s
S (T ) = Fa S a (0.2) for T ≤ 0.2s [NBCC 4.1.8.4.7]

= 1.0 × 0.94 = 0.94
According to Clause 4.1.8.9.3, for combinations of different types of SFRS acting in the same direction
in the same storey, RdRo shall be taken as the lowest value of RdRo corresponding to these systems.
Rd Ro = min( Rd Ro ( wood shear wall ) , Rd Ro ( steel moment frame )
)
= min(3.0 ×1.7, 1.5 ×1.3) = 1.5 ×1.3
4
N-S direction
The center of mass (CoM) is located at half of the building length in the N-S and E-W direction. The
centre of rigidity in the E-W direction (CoRE-W) is coincident with the CoM. The centre of rigidity in the
N-S direction (CoRN-S) is determined as follows:
CoRN −S =
∑ k ⋅ d = 5074 × 0 + 8312 × 9.15 + 4240 × 30.5 = 11.65 m from Gridline A
∑k 5074 + 8312 + 4240

TN −S = 212 × (600 / 661) × (30.5 / 2 − 11.65) ± 212 × (600 / 661) × 0.1 × 30.5 = 694 ± 588 kN ⋅ m
For shear walls in Gridlines A and B, the maximum lateral force on each shear wall is determined with
TN −S = 694 − 588 = 106 kN ⋅ m .
For shear walls in Gridlines C, 1 and 2, the maximum lateral force on each wall is determined with
TN −S = 694 + 588 = 1282 kN ⋅ m .
The force on supporting shear walls due to lateral load and eccentricity is shown below.
The lateral force on each wall is determined as follow:

2 2
Shear Kx,i Ky,i dx,i dy,i kdx,i Kdy,i Vi vi
Wall [kN/m] [kN/m] [m] [m] [kN⋅m] [kN⋅m] [kN] [kN/m]
A 5074 - 11.65 - 688886 - 63.5 5.20
B 8312 - 2.50 - 52018 - 100.1 8.20
C 4240 - 18.85 - 1506301 - 76.1 6.24
1 - 16079 - 6.1 - 598298 36.5 1.20
2 - 16079 - 6.1 - 598298 36.5 1.20
As the factored shear resistance of shear wall in Gridline A is smaller than the shear force, nail spacing
is revised to 100 mm o.c. along the panel edges to accommodate the increase in force. The specified
shear strength, vd, is 10.3 kN/m and the factored lateral load resistance is:
vr = φvd K D K SF J ub J sp J hd = 0.7 × 10.3 × 1.15 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 0.8 × 1.0 = 6.63 kN / m > 5.20 kN / m
10
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This building is a school gymnasium located in Surrey, British Columbia. The plan dimensions are
20m x 30m, with a total building height of 7m. The walls are 190 mm reinforced CMU, and the roof
diaphragm consists of plywood sheathing and SPF framing members. The roof plan is shown in
Figure 1.
The site is Seismic Class 'C'. Wind, snow and seismic data specific to the project location are taken
from the latest version of the National Building Code (2010).
Roof dead load is assumed to be 0.9 kPa and the wall weight is 2.89 kPa. The weight of non-structural
items including mechanical equipment has not been included in this example for simplicity.
SPF CMU
joists
Glulam
beams N
30 m
Figure 1 Roof Plan

Snow Load:
[NBCC 4.1.6.2.1) ] S = Is [ Ss(CbCwCsCa) + Sr]
SS = 2.4 kPa, Sr = 0.3 kPa
IS = 0.9 (SLS), IS = 1.15 (ULS)
S = 1.15 x (2.4 x 0.8 x 1.0 x 1.0 x 1.0 + 0.3)

= 2.55 kPa (for strength calculation)
S = 0.9 x (2.4 x 0.8 x 1.0 x 1.0 x 1.0 + 0.3)

= 2.00 kPa (for serviceability calculation)
Seismic data and site condition:

Sa(0.2) = 1.0, Sa(0.5) = 0.69, Sa(1.0) = 0.33, Sa(2.0) = 0.17
IE = 1.3 (ULS) for school
For Site Class C: Fa = 1.0, Fv = 1.0
Wind Load:
q1/50 = 0.44 kPa
3
Design example:
Wood diaphragm on
reinforced CMU shearwalls
FPINNOVATIONS
Diaphragm design to CSA-O86-09
The diaphragm may be designed either to yield or not to yield. The forces for both cases will be
determined, with the lower value chosen to allow the more economical choice to be made.
N-S direction
Diaphragm designed not to yield – CSA O86 Clause 9.8.5.2.2, see also Table 8.8 of Wood
Design Manual
The seismic force on the diaphragm is calculated using the following formula:
FD, roof = Froof/wroof x wD,roof ,
Where,
Froof = seismic force at roof level
= VN-S for single-storey building
Wroof = the weight tributary to roof level
WD,roof = the weight tributary to the diaphragm at roof level
= roof dead load + the weight of half height of perpendicular walls + 25% of snow load
= 924 + 0.5 x 7 x 2.89 x 2 x 30 = 1531 kN
Therefore,
FD, roof = 745 kN/ 1935 kN x 1531 kN = 589 kN = Fi
This equation is valid for a single-storey case. For a multi-storey building, the base shear needs to be
vertically distributed to different levels in accordance with NBCC, and then these forces are used to
evaluate the seismic design force on the diaphragms at different levels. Special attention should be
paid where the diaphragm is required to transfer design seismic force from the vertical resisting
elements above the diaphragm to other vertical resisting elements below the diaphragm due to offsets
in the placement of the elements or to changes in relative lateral stiffness in the vertical elements. For
a multi-storey building with diaphragms designed not to yield, the minimum requirement specified in
NBCC 4.1.8.15 1) shall also be checked, i.e., the diaphragms shall be designed for a minimum force
corresponding to the design-based shear divided by N for the diaphragm at level x, where N is the total
number of storeys above exterior grade.
[CSA O86 9.8.5.2.2] Design diaphragm for force VDi: VDi = ϒi x Fi
The resistance of 200 CMU wall reinforced with 15M @ 800 o.c. vertical is:
Vr = 48 kN/m (Sliding shear governs)
And,
ϒi = Overstrength coefficient at roof level for the vertical SFRS
= wall resistance / load on wall
= 48 x 20 / (745/2 + 5% x 745) = 2.34 (Considering 5% offset to take into account the
accidental torsion for flexible diaphragm)
5
Therefore,
VDi = 2.34 x 589 kN = 1378 kN
But VDi need not exceed Fi calculated using RdRo =1.3, i.e.
Fi (Rd Ro )
VDi, max = 1.3
= (1.5 x 1.5 / 1.3) x 589 = 1019 kN
Therefore, use VD = 1019 kN
This value can be compared to a diaphragm designed to yield, with the lower value chosen.
Diaphragm designed to yield – CSA O86 Clause 9.8.5.2.1, see also Table 8.8 of
Wood Design Manual
VDi = Fi , and shall not be less than the force determined using RdRo = 2.0.
Considering Rd Ro = 2.25 is used in Fi calculation (actual SFRS value for reinforced CMU shear walls),
the minimum force to be used in design shall be based on Rd Ro = 2.0.
Fi (Rd Ro )
VD = 2.0
= 589 x 2.25/2.0 = 663 kN
Note: For flexible diaphragms, a parabolic seismic force distribution along the length of the diaphragm
may be assumed in accordance with ASCE 41-06, which results in the same maximum shear at the
edge of the diaphragm as yielded by uniform seismic force distribution; however the shear does not
vary linearly.
As the force for the diaphragm designed to yield is lower, design for this value.
Calculate the maximum shear in the diaphragm as follows, taking into account 5% offset for accidental
torsion.
6
𝐿𝐷
𝑤1 = 𝑉𝐷 ⁄𝐿
𝑤2 = (𝑉𝐷 ∙ 5%𝐿)⁄(𝐿2 ⁄6) = 0.3𝑉𝐷 ⁄𝐿
𝑉𝐷 ⁄(2𝐿𝐷 )
+
(0.3𝑉𝐷 ⁄𝐿) × 𝐿⁄(12𝐿𝐷 ) = 0.025 𝑉𝐷 ⁄𝐿𝐷
(0.3𝑉𝐷 ⁄𝐿) × 𝐿⁄(6𝐿𝐷 ) = 0.05 𝑉𝐷 ⁄𝐿𝐷
Therefore, the maximum unit shear in the diaphragm is calculated as follows:

663
vf,max = (0.5 + 0.05) VD⁄LD = 0.55 × = 18.2 kN/m
20
7
E-W direction
As diaphragm is designed to yield before the supporting SFRS, based on the N-S direction
calculations,
VDi = Fi , and shall not be less than the force determined using RdRo = 2.0.
FD, roof = Froof/wroof x wD, roof = 745 kN/ 1935 kN x 1329 kN = 512 kN = Fi
where wD, roof is based on the roof dead load and 25% of snow load and the weight of half height of the
perpendicular walls.
Considering Rd Ro = 2.25 is used in Fi calculation, the minimum force to be used in design shall be
based on Rd Ro = 2.0. Therefore the seismic design force on the diaphragm:
Fi (Rd Ro )
VD = 2.0
= 512 x 2.25/2.0 = 576 kN

576
vf,max = (0.5 + 0.05) VD⁄LD = 0.55 × = 10.6 kN/m
30
Design for the critical case in both directions and the load in N-S direction governs.
Use 18.5 mm Douglas fir plywood with 3” (3.66 mm diameter) nails spaced @ 64 mm o.c. at the
blocked diaphragm boundaries and at continuous panel edges and 100 mm o.c. at other panel edges,
89 mm thick framing members minimum. Two lines of fasteners are required. The factored shear
resistance (chosen from Wood Design Manual Diaphragm Selection Table) is:
vr = 18.8 kN/m > 18.2 kN/m
8
The design of the diaphragm is summarised in Figure 2.
PAI 23 @ 2000 O.C.
Figure 2 Plan showing diaphragm shear and design
9
𝐿𝐷
𝑤1 = 𝑉𝐷 ⁄𝐿
𝑤2 = (𝑉𝐷 ∙ 5%𝐿)⁄(𝐿2 ⁄6) = 0.3𝑉𝐷 ⁄𝐿
𝑉𝐷 ⁄(2𝐿𝐷 )
+
(0.3𝑉𝐷 ⁄𝐿) × 𝐿⁄(12𝐿𝐷 ) = 0.025 𝑉𝐷 ⁄𝐿𝐷
(0.3𝑉𝐷 ⁄𝐿) × 𝐿⁄(6𝐿𝐷 ) = 0.05 𝑉𝐷 ⁄𝐿𝐷

663
vf,max = (0.5 + 0.05) VD⁄LD = 0.55 × = 18.2 kN/m
20
7
Connection to Shear Wall
N-S direction
In accordance with Clause 9.8.6 of CSA O86, the load-transfer elements shall also be designed for
seismic loads that are at least 20% greater than the seismic design load on the diaphragm, and
therefore
vf x 1.2 = 18.2 x 1.2 = 21.8 kN/m
Try 13 mm Ø A307 steel grade anchor bolts @ 300 mm o.c. Minimum edge distance is 19 mm, and
the minimum embedment length in CMU wall is 100 mm. The ledger is S-P-F 89 x 114. The factored
resistance of the connection is:
Vr = 7.75/ 0.3 = 25.8 kN/m > 21.8 kN/m
E-W direction
[CSA O86 9.8.6] vf x 1.2 = 10.6 x 1.2 = 12.7 kN/m
Try 13 mm Ø A307 steel grade anchor bolts @ 600 mm o.c. Minimum edge distance is 19 mm, and
the minimum embedment length in CMU wall is 100 mm. The ledger is S-P-F 89 x 114. The factored
resistance of the connection is:
Vr = 7.75 / 0.6 = 12.9 kN/m > 12.7 kN/m
Subdiaphragm & components

A common failure observed in past earthquake events is the separation of walls from the roof
diaphragm, particularly for high mass walls such as concrete or masonry. To address this problem, the
US codes have required continuous cross ties from one wall to the other parallel wall. The
subdiaphragm is used to reduce the number of fasteners needed to achieve a continuous cross tie
connection between parallel walls by concentrating the uniform anchorage force into main beams
(APA Report: Diaphragms and Shear Walls 2001). Although not required in the Canadian Building
Code and Standards, for heavy walls in particular, it is recommended to complete a sub-diaphragm
check to ensure the local wall anchorage forces can be safely transferred through the connections and
members to the main diaphragm.
Wall anchorage forces

In accordance with Clause 4.1.8.18 of NBCC 2010, the attached components need to be designed and
detailed so that they retain their integrity and do not become detached from the structure when
subjected to forces due to earthquake ground motion, and the component design force, Vp, is
calculated in the following:
Vp = 0.3 Fa Sa(0.2) IE Sp Wp
Sp = Cp Ar Ax / Rp
where:
Cp = 1.0, Ar = 1.0, Rp = 2.5
11
Ax = 1 + 2 hx/hn = 1 + 2x7/7 = 3.0
Sp = 1.0 x 1.0 x 3.0/2.5 = 1.2
Vp = 0.3 x 1.0 x 1.0 x 1.3 x 1.2 x WP = 0.468WP
In accordance with Clause 9.8.6 of CSA O86, connections that are transferring shear forces between
the segments of the vertical SFRS and the diaphragm shall be designed for seismic loads that are at
least 20% greater than the shear force that is being transferred, and therefore:
vP = 1.2 x 2.89 x 7/2 x 0.468 = 5.7 kN/m
In ASCE 7 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures), Clause 12.11.2.2.1 requires
that in high seismic zones diaphragms shall be provided with continuous ties or struts between
diaphragm chords to distribute wall anchorage forces into the diaphragms. Diaphragm connections
shall be positive, mechanical, or welded. Added chords are permitted to be used to form sub-
diaphragms to transmit the anchorage forces to the main continuous cross-ties. The maximum length-
to-width ratio of the structural sub-diaphragm shall be 2.5 to 1. Connections and anchorages capable
of resisting the prescribed forces shall be provided between the diaphragm and the attached
components. Connections shall extend into the diaphragm a sufficient distance to develop the force
transferred into the diaphragm. In particular in wood diaphragms the continuous ties shall be in
addition to the diaphragm sheathing.
12
In the North-South direction, the wall anchorage forces can be transferred into the diaphragm through
the glulam beams that span the full depth of the diaphragm (20m) and are closely spaced. Every
glulam beam must carry a tension force of 5.7 x 3 = 17.1 kN/tie. A proprietary purlin anchor PAI 23
(Tr = 17.22 kN) is used to tie the wall to the sheathing, as shown in Figure 3. Note that because the
anchor spacing exceeds 4-ft (1,219 mm) the CMU wall should be designed for bending in accordance
with Clause 12.11.2.1 of ASCE 7, but it is not addressed in this example.
Figure 3 North wall anchorage details
13
In the E-W direction, continuous cross-ties across the building width (30 m) between diaphragm chords
are not present. Two solutions are considered:
1. Connect all or some of the joists across the glulam beams from East to West for the full width
of the building.
2. Design a sub-diaphragm to transfer the force to a number of main cross-ties.
By inspection, solution 1 will require 11 connections per joist, and will be labour intensive. Designing a
subdiaphragm will likely present a more cost-effective solution.
Each subdiaphragm must meet all of the diaphragm requirements. Based on the maximum length-to-
width ratio of 2.5:1 for subdiaphragm, a sub-diaphragm for the entire depth of the building could be
selected, with a chord at 8 m minimum from the CMU wall; however, as there is no existing chord at
8 m, two subdiaphragms of 6 m x 10 m will be used, and the length-to-width ratio is 1.7. This uses the
existing glulam beam at 6 m as one of the chords of the subdiaphragm, with the bond beam in the
CMU wall as the other.
A continuous cross-tie at mid-depth from East to West will be required based on this solution, as
outlined below.
14
Wall anchorage check
Assuming the reinforced CMU wall will span between points of support at 2 m o.c., and since the
anchor spacing exceeds 4 ft (1,219 mm) the CMU wall needs to be designed to resist bending
between anchors. Every fifth SPF No.1 grade 89 x 114 joist must carry a tension force of 5.7 kN x 2 m
= 11.4 kN/tie. One PAI 23 purlin anchor (Tr = 17.22 kN) per tension joist is adequate to transfer this
load into the joist. By inspection, the joist itself has adequate capacity in tension; however, the effect of
combined tension and bending (due to gravity loads) should be verified. The ASCE requirement to
provide continuous crossties between diaphragm chords applies to subdiaphragms as well. As the
subdiaphragm extends across two bays, the tension force must be transferred across the glulam beam
to the second joist – a MST 37 tie (Tr = 17.62 kN) is adequate. See Figure 4. The required anchorage
force of 11.4 kN must be transferred into roof sheathing over the depth of the subdiaphragm. This
requires shear transfer capacity of 11.4/6 =1.9 kN/m along the length of subdiaphragm. The maximum
nail spacing based on the main diaphragm design is 100 mm o.c. and there are two lines of fasteners,
therefore the shear transfer of 95 N/nail is required. This requirement is satisfied by inspection.
SPF 89 X 114 LEDGER

C/W 13Ø ANCHOR BOLTS @
300 O.C.
Figure 4 Subdiaphragm and connections
Subdiaphragm shear check

Each subdiaphragm must be checked for subdiaphragm shear – (5.7 x 10 )/ (2 x 6) = 4.75 kN/m. Note
that the nail spacing at subdiaphragm boundaries is 64 mm or 100 mm o.c. based on the main
diaphragm design. By inspection, the factored shear resistance of subdiaphragm is sufficient.
Therefore, the main diaphragm sheathing will perform adequately as subdiaphragm sheathing and no
further checks of the subdiaphragm sheathing are required.
15
Subdiaphragm chord check
Subdiaphragm chord force is given by (5.7 x 102 )/ (8 x 6) = 11.9 kN. By inspection, the glulam
beam and bond beam have adequate capacity for this tension/compression force; however, these
glulam members should be checked for combined bending and axial load (from roof gravity and
subdiaphragm chord loads, respectively). Similarly, as these members extend across the full
subdiaphragm width (10 m), there are no splices. Were this not the case, a splice would be required.
Crosstie check
The crosstie at its connection to the CMU wall carries the same load as for other ties, i.e. 11.4 kN/tie,
but increases over the depth of the subdiaphragm to a tension force of (5.7 x 10 / 2) x 2 = 57 kN. This
force must be transferred across the building width, requiring 9 across-beam connections and 2 wall-
to-tie connections. As mentioned above, the end connection for the crosstie is as for other ties and a
PAI 23 purlin anchor will be sufficient.
For the internal connections, to transfer the tension load between joists across the glulam beam,
2 HSA50 strap connections (capacity = 2 x 28.5 = 57 kN) per connection, with 1 strap each side of the
tension tie member, will be sufficient – see Figure 5. The SPF 89 x 114 joist similarly has adequate
tension capacity for this force; however, the force should be checked in combination with vertical
loading, per NBCC 2010.
Figure 5 Crosstie connection detail
16
Reference:
ASCE 7-10. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. American Society of Civil
Engineers. Reston, Virginia, U.S.A.
Breyer, D.E.; Fridley, K.J.; Pollock, D.G.; and Cobeen, K.E. (2006) Design of wood structures – ASD,
Sixth Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, U.S.A.
Lateral load connections for low-slope roof diaphragms. APA Data File. APA, Tacoma, WA, U.S.A.
Diaphragms and Shearwalls. APA Report - L350. APA, Tacoma, WA, U.S.A.
17
APPENDIX
Deflection calculation
In accordance with CSA O86 Clause 9.7.2 the lateral deflection at mid-span of a simply supported
blocked wood diaphragm may be taken as follows:
5vL3 vL ∑(∆c x)
∆d = + + 0.000614Len +
96EALD 4Bv 2LD
This equation was developed based on top plate being tension and compression chords, and is valid
only for blocked diaphragms without openings, assuming the lateral load is uniformly distributed. The
first term of the equation has been modified in this instance, as the chords of the diaphragm are not
'equal' - that is, the compression chord is concrete masonry unit, while the tension chord is steel
reinforcement. Without accidental torsion taken into account, the following relationship holds:
w1 = 2vLD ⁄L
The first term becomes:
5w1 L4 5vL3 LD
∆1 = =
384EI 192(EI)eff
Where (EI)eff is the effective stiffness of this cross section.
N-S Direction
Assume one block height (200 mm) of bond beam contributes:
fm' = 10 Mpa, from Table 4 of S304.1; Em = 850 x 10 = 8 500 MPa; Es = 200 000 MPa
Ablock = 200 x 190 = 38 000 mm2; Asteel = 800 mm2
Bond beam
y1
Centroid hd
y2
Bond beam
Es 200,000
n= = = 23.53
Em 8,500
hd = LD − 190 = 20,000 − 190 = 19,810 mm
18
nAsteel ∙ hd 23.53 × 800 × 19,810
y1 = = = 6,562 mm
nAsteel + Ablock 23.53 × 800 + 38,000
y2 = hd − y1 = 19,810 − 6,562 = 13,248 mm
(EI)eff = Em Ablock ∙ y12 + Es Asteel ∙ y22 = 4.20 × 1016 N ∙ mm2
VD 663
v= = 0.5 × = 16.6 kN/m
2LD 20
5 × 16.6 × 300003 × 20000 16.6 × 30000

∆d,N−S = + + 0.000614 × 30000 × 1.13 + 0
192 × 4.20 × 1016 4 × 9800
= 39 mm
Where en = 1.13 mm for 3” common nail, based on load per nail = 16.6 kN/m x 0.064 m = 1062 N
[CSA O86 Table A.9.7]
E-W Direction
Similarly,
hd = 30,000 − 190 = 29,810 mm
y1 = 9,875 mm
y2 = 19,935 mm
(EI)eff = 9.51 × 1016 N ∙ mm2
VD 576
v= = 0.5 × = 9.6 kN/m
2LD 30
5 × 9.6 × 200003 × 30000 9.6 × 20000

∆d,E−W = + + 0.000614 × 20000 × 0.344 + 0
192 × 9.51 × 1016 4 × 9800
= 9.8 mm
Where en = 0.344 mm for 3” common nail, based on load per nail = 9.6 kN/m x 0.064 m = 614 N
[CSA O86 Table A. 9.7]
The deflection of the diaphragm shall not exceed the permissible deflection of the perpendicular CMU
walls in N-S and E-W direction respectively.
19
Design example: Wood
diaphragm on reinforced
CMU shearwalls
20

Woodworks Diaphragme

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Woodworks Diaphragme

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Diaphragm Flexibility

Figure 1 Flexible diaphragm

Deflection of wood diaphragms and supporting lateral force-resisting systems

Diaphragm supported on wood shear walls

Diaphragm supported on non-wood lateral force-resisting system

1. Determine forces at locations of interest without consideration of openings

2. Determine forces around openings based on Vierendeel Truss assumption

∑M3,b = 0: 93.2 x 6 + 11.05 x 1.52 / 2 + 79.6 x 1.5 - F4,a x 6 = 0 → F4,a = 115 kN

∑Fchord = 0: 115 - 93.2 + F4,b = 0 → F4,b = -22.0 kN

∑M3,b = 0: 113 x 1.5 - 11.05 x 1.52 / 2 - 93.2 x 6 + F2,a x 6 = 0 → F2,a = 67.1 kN

∑Fchord = 0: 67.1 - 93.2 + F2,b = 0 → F2,b = 26.1 kN

∑Fchord = 0: - 116 + 93.2 + F4,c = 0 → F4,c = 23.0 kN

∑M3,c = 0: 86.2 x 1.5 - 11.05 x 1.52 / 2 - 93.2 x 4 - F2,d x 4 = 0 → F2,d = -64.0 kN

∑Fchord = 0: -64.0 + 93.2 + F2,c = 0 → F2,c = -29.2 kN

11.05 kN/m 11.05 kN/m

67.1 kN 93.2 kN 115.0 kN

79.6 kN = 13.3 kN/m

d 64.0 kN 93.2 kN 116.0 kN

11.05 kN/m 11.05 kN/m

4. Distribute net shear into available diaphragm sheathing

Figure 4a (above) and Figure 4b (below)

5. Determine the resultant shear in the diaphragm

@2, a-b 9.95 kN/m + -2.07 kN/m = 7.87 kN/m

@4, a-b 6.63 kN/m + -1.80 kN/m = 4.83 kN/m

@5, a-b 0 kN/m + -1.80 kN/m = -1.80 kN/m

6. Determine the forces in the framing members bordering the opening

(-21.5 + 7.36) kN/m x 4 m =

Figure 5b (above) and Figure 5c (below)

b (18.8 + 12.2 - 14.5 - 7.87) (1/2) x 6 m =

(14.0 + 7.36 - 12.2 – 18.8) (1/2) x 6 m =

(21.5 + 17.4) (1/2) x 1.5 m =

(8.49 + 1.86 - 4.66 + 1.97) (1/2) x 6 m =

How to determine if analysis of diaphragm with opening is necessary

a. Opening depth no greater than 15% of diaphragm depth;

Case I: The effect of the size of opening

F2 - perp 19.79 20.37 21.02 21.75 23.53 25.90 29.21 34.19

Case II: The effect of the location of opening

Max. shear in diaphragm

Figure A-9 (note: the depth of the opening in this figure is 10 m)

Define the nominal maximum shear as follows:

q = 0.48 kPa [NBCC, Appendix C, Table C-2]

C p = 0.75 [NBCC Commentary]

C g = 2.0 [NBCC Commentary]

I E = 1.0 (ULS ) for Normal building, Site Class ‘C’

Total Seismic weight

S (T ) = Fa S a (0.2) for T ≤ 0.2s [NBCC 4.1.8.4.7]

Lateral Forces in E-W Direction

= 1 / 2 × 5.0 × 12.2 × 0.5 × 2 + 5 × 30.5 × 0.5 × 2 = 31 + 152 = 183 kN

Total seismic weight

Rd Ro = 3.0 × 1.7 for wood shear walls

Design of shear walls with flexible diaphragm assumption

Shear wall at Gridline B

vB = 111.8 / 12.2 = 9.16 kN / m

Shear wall at Gridline C

Shear wall at Gridline 1 and 2

Design of shear walls with rigid diaphragm assumption

The torsion is determined as follows:

The lateral force on each wall is determined as follow:

q = 0.48 kPa [NBCC, Appendix C, Table C-2]

C p = 0.75 [NBCC Commentary]

C g = 2.0 [NBCC Commentary]

I E = 1.0 (ULS ) for Normal building, Site Class ‘C’

Total Seismic weight