×
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

Rigid Diaphragm Analsyis

Rigid Diaphragm Analsyis

Rigid Diaphragm Analsyis

(OP)
Hello! I'm brushing up on my hand analysis of a rigid diaphragm and have a couple quick questions. I found a really useful paper that goes step-by-step through the analysis of a rigid diaphragm and how to calculate the inherent torsion however I'm not sure a couple equations given in the paper are correct. If you skip to section 11.1 they give equations for how to determine the wall shears for a seismic load in the x-direction. Equation 20 makes sense to me and the numbers work out however I think the signs are backwards for equation 21 (the shear forces in the walls parallel to the y-direction). If you look at my quick sketch I put together of the building in the paper, it appears that wall 1 should have a shear in the negative y direction and wall 3 should be in the positive y-direction. However if you look at table 6 (page 7) in the paper, they show that wall 1 is in the positive y-direction and wall 3 i is in the negative y-direction. If you look at section 11.2 (seismic in the y-direction) there is a similar mistake for the walls parallel to the x-direction. It seems like there should be a negative sign for equation 21 (and 24 for y-direction loading). Am I missing something here?

Also, in section 11 they state that it is standard practice to add the absolute value of the accidental torsion to the torsional shears. Is that really standard practice? That doesn't make sense to me. I think you should take the maximum value of the +/- accidental torsion to obtain the maximum value.

Thanks for the help!

http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=a...

http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=5...

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