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!

*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.

Jobs

What is the source of the 0.4SDS max. diaphragm shear found in ASCE7?

What is the source of the 0.4SDS max. diaphragm shear found in ASCE7?

What is the source of the 0.4SDS max. diaphragm shear found in ASCE7?

(OP)
In ASCE 7 there is a seismic design section for diaphragms. (12.10.1.1 in ASCE 7-05)

There it specifies a formula to determine the lateral seismic force to be used in diaphragm designs.
It also includes an upper limit on the shear (0.4SDS x I x wpx) and a lower limit (0.2SDS x I x wpx)

Does anyone know where the 0.4SDS value comes from or how it was developed - or what the philosophy is behind it?

The lateral force resisting system is designed based upon other derivations earlier in Chapter 12 and these don't apply to diaphragms.

However, it seems weird that you would design your vertical brace system and collectors, but then have cases where the diaphragm itself is designed for a lower (0.4SDS) load.

Thanks

RE: What is the source of the 0.4SDS max. diaphragm shear found in ASCE7?

I don't know the exact answer but here are my observations:

I have never had a diaphragm design force lower than a vertical distribution force for SFRS design. Cs is Sds/(R/I), or some other variation, which should always be smaller than the 0.2 Sds or 0.4Sds.

The diaphragm is not supposed to behave plastically - if it were to create a plastic hinge a rigid diaphragm would lose the ability to act rotationally. That is why the diaphragm is designed for a high load. I think it also has to do with the notion that a diaphragm will see a higher load the ELF provides, due to the whipping action of the structure, but I am not 100% on that idea.

RE: What is the source of the 0.4SDS max. diaphragm shear found in ASCE7?

(OP)
If you look at FEMA 450 and other documents like it the design examples they give show that the 0.4 limit does control quite often. Especially near the roof in multi-story buildings.

RE: What is the source of the 0.4SDS max. diaphragm shear found in ASCE7?

Yes, I have observed that, but the actual diaphragm force, Fpx, is still generally higher than the ELF procedure produces, Fx. At the worse I think they have been equal. See attached for a comparision.

I can dig through my dynamics stuff to see if I can find a more solid explination / reference.

RE: What is the source of the 0.4SDS max. diaphragm shear found in ASCE7?

Hi JAE. I tried to look into this but found no definitive answer. 0.4 SDS is the assumed PGA, but I doubt it is related. I think that is likely a coincidence as the peak horizontal floor accelerations would be significantly higher. More likely, I think that some moderate amount of ductility was assumed and the horizontal accelerations were reduced accordingly. Assuming that the peak floor accelerations are about 3-4 times the PGA that would imply an R of approximately the same. Just my best guess, not really helpful unfortunately. Although, this has been in the code for awhile under different forms (1.0 Ca in 97 UBC)

RE: What is the source of the 0.4SDS max. diaphragm shear found in ASCE7?

(OP)
jdgengineer - your comments are right where we ended up - I know that a maximum cutoff diaphragm force was in the UBC many years ago (under a different numerical format) but in there none-the-less.

I saw that the typical spectral response curve always starts with 0.4SDS for T = 0 but this doesn't make sense for a diaphragm as they would have their own "period" higher than zero of course.

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


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close