×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

ASCE 7-05 Redundancy Factor Flexible Diaphragm

ASCE 7-05 Redundancy Factor Flexible Diaphragm

ASCE 7-05 Redundancy Factor Flexible Diaphragm

(OP)
I have a basic question that I don't think is explained well in the code that I wanted to see how you all handle it. In my opinion it appears that the redundancy factor check in ASCE 7 is most applicable to rigid diaphragm type buildings and that some intrepation is needed to apply it to a flexible diaphragm.

I don't have the code in front of me but I believe for a shearwall type building not meeting the prescriptive requirements (certain number of bays of walls at each exterior wall) that the code requires that you remove walls with a high aspect ratio one at a time to see if you either reduce the story shear strength by a certain percentage (I think 33%) or if you create an extreme torsional irregularity. As torsional irregularities don't apply to flexible diaphragms I have seen some engineers neglect this portion of the check which I don't think is the way to approach it.

The way I see it there are a variety of possible ways to implement it and wanted to see what others do.

1) apply redundancy factor on a line by line basis (I don't think that this is the intent of the code)

2) treat the diaphragm as rigid for the purposes of checking redundancy (this doesn't seem appropriate)

3) ignore the torsional irregularity check and instead check to make sure that the diaphragm is stable (ie walls on all 4 sides - it's a flexible diaphragm so 3 sided doesn't work) and that you don't exceed allowable cantilever lengths at the exterior walls (15% of the diaphragm length or whatever it is). This seems to make sense to me. In a complicated roof layout it's possible you may have several roof diaphragms. This redundancy check would then be done independently at each roof diaphragm. I suppose conservatively you could use 1.3 if any of the roof diaphragms fail or possiblly consider a different redundancy factor for each roof plane (I don't think this is the intent with the way the code is written but seems to make sense)

What do you all do? My office typically nearly always consider redundancy of 1.3 based on an approach similar to 3) described above. Essentially, nearly any residential flexible diaphragm building we work on has multiple roof planes and generally at least one of them will have an unstable diaphragm if one of the walls is removed so we conservatively use redundancy if 1.3

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources