Assessment Retrofit Flexible Diaphragms

SESOC Journal
Volume 23 No. 1 April 2010 19

PAPER CLASS & TYPE: GENERAL NON-REFEREED
1
ME (Dist.), CPEng, MIPENZ,Technical Director, Holmes Consulting Group, Auckland
ABSTRACT
Unreinforced masonry buildings (URM) have historically performed poorly in large earthquakes.
Many URM building failures have been attributed to poor diaphragm performance and
inadequate wall diaphragm connectivity. This paper provides a brief introduction into
URM buildings and their seismic behaviour. It then outlines a design methodology for the
assessment and retrot of exible diaphragms in URM buildings with an accompanying design
example. Recommendations for future research are also provided.
Figure 1. Earthquake Damage to Buildings in
Central Napier after the 1931 Earthquake
(Courtesy of Hastings District Council)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Unreinforced masonry construction was commonly used
in New Zealand between 1880 and the early 1930s.
The poor performance of these buildings in the 1931
Hawkes Bay earthquake resulted in a rapid decline in
popularity and subsequent prohibition of their use in
1965 (Ingham 2008). It is estimated that approximately
3500 unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings still exist
in New Zealand today (Russell 2008) with a signicant
number of those structures still to be strengthened.
This paper provides a brief introduction into URM
buildings and details a design methodology used by the
author to assess and strengthen exible diaphragms in
existing URM buildings. The design methodology has
been largely adapted from the New Zealand Society for
Earthquake Engineering document Assessment and
Improvement of the Structural Performance of Buildings
in Earthquakes (NZSEE 2006), and ASCE/SEI 41-06
Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (ASCE
2006).
It has been observed that some people have found
these documents difcult to use and it is hoped that
this paper may assist other Structural Engineers when
they are assessing and retrotting exible diaphragms
in URM buildings. The author is interested in receiving
feedback that readers may have with what is proposed
here.
2.0 UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION
Unreinforced masonry buildings constructed in
New Zealand in the early 1900s typically consist of
unreinforced masonry perimeter and inter-tenancy walls
with timber framed oors and roofs. URM buildings
typically range in height from between 1 to 6 storeys
with 1 or 2 storey structures being the most common.
Unreinforced masonry was primarily used for the
construction of the perimeter and inter-tenancy walls
because of its non combustibility and, for the case of the
exterior walls, its durability when compared with timber.
A DESIGN METHODOLOGY FOR THE ASSESSMENT
AND RETROFIT OF FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGMS IN
UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDINGS
By: Stuart J Oliver
1
SESOC Journal
20 Journal of the Structural Engineering Society New Zealand Inc.
Figure 2 illustrates a cross-section of a typical 5 story
high URM building.
Flooring often consists of straight or diagonal timber
sheathing supported on timber joists that typically
span up to approximately 6 meters. Timber joists are
typically supported on either URM walls, or beams that
often consist of either heavy timber or structural steel
sections. Where supported on masonry walls the joist
and beam ends were often cut diagonally and supported
in pockets in the walls.
Roong typically consists of corrugated light gauge steel
sheathing supported on timber purlins. Timber trusses
spanning onto either URM walls or beams are typically
provided to support the roof framing. Where supported
on the URM walls the ends of the purlins and trusses
are typically seated into pockets in the walls.
3.0 LATERAL LOAD RESISTING SYSTEM
The lateral load resisting system for URM buildings
consists of both horizontal and vertical lateral load
resisting elements. Floor and roof diaphragms are
the primary horizontal lateral load resisting elements
in typical, unretrotted, URM buildings. Collectors, if
provided in retrotted structures, are also considered to
be horizontal lateral load resisting elements. Vertical
elements typically consist of the URM walls and their
foundations, and new shearwall or braced frames if the
latter are provided as part of a retrot design.
During a seismic event the tributary horizontal inertia
forces associated with the face loaded walls are
required to be transferred back into the main body
diaphragm via a system of wall anchors and diaphragm
ties. The diaphragm is then required to transfer the
Figure 2. Section Through a Typical 5 Story URM Building
SESOC Journal
inertia forces associated with the face loaded walls and
its own seismic mass to the resisting in plane end walls
again via a series of wall anchors.
Unreinforced masonry buildings have historically
performed poorly in large earthquakes. A recent report
by Bruneau (1994) indentied that many of the failures
due to earthquakes found in URM buildings during the
last 20 years were related to diaphragms and their
connections to the walls. These walls typically account
for approximately 70% 80% of the total seismic mass
of the structure. Failures of this nature that have been
commonly observed include:

Figure 3. Parapet Failure
(reproduced from FEMA, 1998)

Parapet failure. Referring to Figures 3 & 4 this
failure mechanism occurs when face loaded
parapets are not adequately braced back to the
supporting structure.
Wall diaphragm tension tie failure. This failure
mechanism occurs when insufcient connection
is provided between face loaded walls and the
supporting diaphragm (refer Figures 5 & 6).
Wall diaphragm shear failure. As is illustrated
in Figures 7 & 8 this failure mechanism occurs
when insufcient connection is provided between
diaphragm and the stiff in-plane acting end walls.
Figure 4. Parapet Failure Observed at
the 2007 Gisborne Earthquake

Figure 5. Wall diaphragm tension tie failure
(from FEMA 1998)
SESOC Journal
Figure 6. Wall Diaphragm Tension
Tie Failure Observed at the
2007 Gisborne Earthquake
Figure 7. Wall Diaphragm Shear
Failure (reproduced from FEMA, 1998)
Figure 8. Wall diaphragm
shear failure (reproduced
from FEMA, 1998)
SESOC Journal
When assessing and retrotting URM buildings it is
essential that each of the above failure mechanisms
are considered when assessing the performance of the
existing timber diaphragms.
4.0 FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGM ANALYSIS
4.1 Analysis Methodology
In the past some engineers have attempted to analyse
URM structures with timber diaphragms assuming rigid
diaphragm behaviour. While most in-plane loaded URM
walls are relatively rigid, timber framed oor diaphragms
are generally not. Referring to Figure 9 diaphragms
are dened as being exible when the maximum lateral
deection of the diaphragm along its length (
D
) is
greater than twice the average interstory drift (
W
) of
the vertical lateral load resisting elements of the story
immediately below the diaphragm (ASCE 2006).

Figure 9. Diaphragm and Wall Displacement
Terminology (reproduced from ASCE, 2006 )
An assumption of rigid diaphragm behaviour may
lead to unconservative assessments of diaphragm
accelerations and inaccurate estimates of load
distribution between lateral load resisting elements. For
URM buildings with single span exible diaphragms, six
stories or less in height the NZSEE guidelines (NZSEE,
2006) permit a simplied analysis to be undertaken.
This section of the NZSEE guidelines is based on FEMA
356 (FEMA, 2000) the precursor document to ASCE/SEI
41-06 (ASCE, 2006). The simplied analysis assumes
that each diaphragm spans as a simply supported
element between the masonry end walls and permits
the effects of horizontal torsion to be ignored.
Diaphragm deections are not to exceed 150 mm under
prescribed code seismic loads for this simplied method
of analysis to be applicable.
The simplied analysis assumes that the in-plane
loaded masonry end walls are relatively rigid elements
which, as a consequence of their high stiffness, do not
signicantly amplify earthquake ground motions. The
dominant mode of response is assumed to be the in-
plane fundamental mode of the diaphragms excited
by the inertia forces associated with the out-of-plane
loaded walls. It is also assumed that the response of
each story is uncoupled from adjacent stories.
For more complicated URM structures where the
simplied analysis method is not applicable a more
detailed modal response spectrum analysis could be
undertaken using general purpose structural analysis
software. The exible diaphragms could be modelled
using plane stress elements in this instance. In
some cases, as part of a preliminary design, multi-
span exible diaphragm structures might be analysed
using the simplied analysis method. In this case the
diaphragm could be treated as a series of independent
simply supported spans. The results of this preliminary
analysis would need to be conrmed by a more rigorous
method in later design phases.
The steps of the simplied analysis procedure
considered when performing a diaphragm assessment
are as follows:
Step 1: For each axis of the building and at each
level calculate the fundamental period of the
diaphragms.
Step 2: Calculate the seismic loads for diaphragms
using the periods determined in Step 1 and the
appropriate spectral accelerations calculated
using the New Zealand Loadings Standard,
AS/NZS 1170.5 (SNZ, 2004) as modied by
the NZSEE guidelines.
Step 3: Verify that the existing diaphragms have
adequate strength and stiffness to resist the
required seismic loads and strengthen the
diaphragms if necessary.
Step 4: Calculate the seismic loads generated at the
wall to diaphragm connections.
Step 5: Assess the capacity of the existing wall
diaphragm ties and provide supplementary
wall anchors and sub-diaphragm ties as
required.
Note that the above methodology only considers the
steps of a seismic assessment related to the performance
of diaphragms. A complete building assessment would
also typically include a review of the foundations
and any geological site hazards, vertical lateral load
resisting elements and non-structural components (i.e.
architectural, mechanical and electrical). Details of
such a review are outside the scope of this paper and
SESOC Journal
readers are referred to the NZSEE guidelines for further
information (NZSEE, 2006).
A detailed description of Steps 1-5 is included in the
following sections.
4.2 Diaphragm Period Determination
Using the NZSEE guidelines the fundamental period,
T
1
, of the exible diaphragms can be estimated using
Equation 1.0:

Where:
D

= maximum in-plane diaphragm deection
due to a lateral load of 1.0 g, in metres.
For the purposes of this equation the
diaphragm shall be considered to remain
elastic under the prescribed elastic load.
ASCE/SEI 41-06 (ASCE, 2006) provides default
expected shear stiffness values, G
d
, that can be used to
calculate deections in existing diaphragms. These are
summarised in Table 1 below. Of the diaphragm types
shown it has been the authors experience that single
straight sheathed diaphragms are the most common.
These diaphragms consist of timber sheathing (typically
150 x 25 boards) laid perpendicular and nailed to the
oor joists with two or more nails at each joist. Shear
D 1
3.07 T =

Eqn. 1
Table 1. Default Strength Values For Existing
Timber Diaphragms (ASCE, 2006)
Diaphragm Type Shear Stiffness,
G
d
(KN/m)
Yield Strength,
R
n
(N/m)
Single Straight Sheathing 350 1750
Double Straight Sheathing Chorded 2600 8750
Unchorded 1200 5850
Single Diagonal Sheathing Chorded 1400 8750
Unchorded 700 6130
Double Sheathing with Chorded 3200 13100
Straight Sheathing or
Flooring Above
Unchorded 1600 9130
Double Diagonal
Sheathing
Chorded 3100 13100
Unchorded 1600 9130

forces perpendicular to the sheathing are resisted by
a nail couple generated at each joist. Shear forces
parallel to the direction of the sheathing are transferred
through the nails in the supporting joists or framing
members below the sheathing joists.
Detailed descriptions of the other diaphragm types listed
in Table 1 are given in ASCE/SEI 41-06 (ASCE 2006).
Using the shear stiffness values, G
d
, provided in Table 1
the diaphragm stiffness, K
D
, can be calculated for each
diaphragm in each direction as:
Eqn. 2
Where: b = Diaphragm width.
G
d
= Diaphragm shear stiffness from Table 1.
L = Diaphragm span.
The maximum in-plane diaphragm deection for each of
the existing diaphragms,
D
, in each direction can then
be calculated using Equations 3:
Eqn. 3
Where: V
u
= Diaphragm lateral load.
K
D
= Diaphragm stiffness.
L
bG
K
d
D
4
=

D
u
D
K
V
= A

SESOC Journal
When determining the diaphragm lateral load only
the tributary seismic mass of the out-of-plane loaded
walls and the diaphragm itself should be included. The
seismic mass associated with the in-plane loaded, end
walls should not be included.
If it is found that the existing diaphragms require
strengthening, and that new plywood sheathing
and/or chord elements are required, the stiffness of
the strengthened diaphragm can be calculated in
accordance with the New Zealand Timber Structures
Standard, NZS 3603 (SNZ, 1993).
4.3 Diaphragm Seismic Load Calculations
For each of the diaphragms being assessed the
diaphragm seismic load, V
D
, can be calculated as:
V
D
= C
1
C
3
C
d
(T
1
)W
D
Eqn. 4
Where: C
1
= Modication factor to relate
expected inelastic displacements
to those calculated for linear elastic
response. Values recommended in
ASCE/SEI 41-06 (ASCE, 2006) are:
C1 = 1.5 for T
1
< 0.10 seconds
C1 = 1.0 for T
1
> T
s
Linear interpolation may be used to
calculate intermediate values of C1.
T
1
= Fundamental period of the
diaphragm in the direction being
considered.
T
s
= Characteristic period of the response
spectrum, dened as the period
associated with the transition from
the constant acceleration segment
to the constant velocity segment of
the response spectrum. In terms of
the AS/NZS 1170 response spectra:
T
s
= 0.40 s for Soil Types A, B & C
T
s
= 0.5 s for Soil Type D
T
s
= 1.0 s for Soil Type E
C
3
= Modication factor to account for
P- effects and is a function of the
stability coefcient,
i
, calculated in
accordance with Section 6.5.2 of
AS/NZS 1170.5 (SNZ, 2004).
C
3
= 1.0 when
i
< 0.1 in all stories,
otherwise,
C
3
= 1+5( 0.1)/T
1
where is the
maximum value of
i
for all stories.
C
d
(T
1
) = Horizontal design coefcient
calculated in accordance with
Section 5.2.1 of AS/NZS 1170.
W
D
= Effective seismic mass associated
with the fundamental mode of the
diaphragm i.e. tributary seismic
mass of the face loaded walls and
the diaphragm itself.
Equation 4 is a modied version of the NZSEE Equation
4E-8 recommended by the Author. The original
formulation has been simplied by removing modication
factors of C
2

and C
m
which are both equal to 1.0 for this
application.

A second departure from the original NZSEE formulation
was to incorporate ductility directly into the equation by
using the AS/NZS 1170 horizontal design coefcient,
Cd(T
1
), rather than the AS/NZS 1170 elastic site spectral
value, C (T
1
). It is believed this removes an extra step
in the analysis procedure and is more closely aligned to
conventional New Zealand design ofce practice.
Care is required when determining an appropriate
structural ductility factor, , for the assessment. When
detailing is such that the failure mechanism is expected
to be ductile (i.e. nail pull-out) relatively high levels of
ductility can be expected. The New Zealand Timber
Structures Standard (SNZ, 1993) recommends that a
structural ductility factor, , of up to 4.0 can be assumed
for these applications. When other less ductile failure
modes govern the structural ductility factor, , of 1.25
may be more appropriate.
ASCE/SEI 41-06 provides some guidance on the
expected structural ductility capacity of existing timber
diaphragms. In this standard component modication
factors (m-factors) to account for the level of expected
ductility at various structural performances limit states
are specied. Table 2 below details the ASCE/SEI
41-06 m-factor applicable to existing timber diaphragms
at the life safety limit state. These are analogous to the
structural ductility factor, , used in AS/NZS 1170.
SESOC Journal
Table 2. ASCE/SEI 41-06 m-Factors for the Life Safety
Limit State (ASCE, 2006)
Diaphragm Type Diaphragm
Length/Width
Ratio (L/b)
m-Factor
Single Straight Sheathing Chorded L/b 3.0 2.0
Unchorded L/b 3.0 1.5
Double Straight Sheathing Chorded L/b 3.0 2.0
Single Diagonal Sheathing Chorded L/b 3.0 2.0
Double Diagonal Chorded L/b 3.5 2.5
Sheathing Unchorded L/b 3.5 2.0
It is noted that the m-factors detailed in Table 2 are
relatively low when compared with the structural ductility
factor, , used for the design of new ductile timber
structures. It is understood that additional research is
currently being undertaken at the University of Auckland
to determine appropriate structural ductility factors that
could be used for the assessment of existing timber
diaphragms in New Zealand.
4.4 Diaphragm Capacity Assessment
When assessing the capacity of diaphragms both
deformation and strength need to be considered.
4.4.1 Deformation Assessment
Equation 3 can be used to determine the expected
diaphragm deections using the diaphragm seismic
loads calculated in the previous section. Details on how
to determine the diaphragm stiffness were provided
previously in Section 4.2. Diaphragm deections should
be scaled in accordance with AS/NZS 1170.5 Section
7.2.1 to account for inelastic deformation. P- effects
are already included in the modication factor C
3
and
as such AS/NZS 1170.5 Section 7.2.1.2 does not apply.
NZSEE guidelines limit the maximum diaphragm
deections to 150 mm for this assessment methodology
to be applicable. The Author also recommends a rule
of thumb approach where diaphragm deections are
limited to less than half the thickness of the supported
out-of-plane URM walls to ensure the diaphragm
deformations do not adversely affect the stability of
these elements. It is hoped that in time research will
provide greater guidance on appropriate diaphragm
deformation limits.
If the existing diaphragms are found to have inadequate
stiffness the diaphragms should be strengthened.
4.4.2 Strength Assessment
NZSEE guidelines recommend that the parabolic
load distribution illustrated in Figure 10 be used when
assessing the capacity of exible diaphragms. The
parabolic load distribution is intended to emulate
the expected distribution of horizontal inertia forces
developed in the diaphragm.
The parabolic load distribution illustrated in Figure 10
can be expressed as (ASCE, 2006):
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
2
d d
D
E
L
2x
1
L
1.5V
w

Eqn. 5
Where: w
E
= Diaphragm inertia load (kN/m).
V
D
= Total diaphragm inertia load (kN).
L
d
= Diaphragm span (m).
x = Distance from centre line of the
diaphragm (m).
SESOC Journal
Figure 10. Recommended Load Distribution
for Flexible Diaphragm Analysis
(reproduced from ASCE 2006)

Similarly the diaphragm shear force and bending
moment distributions can be expressed as:
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
2
d
2
d
D
E
L
x
2
3
L
x V
V

32
5
d D
3
d
4
D
d
2
D
E
L V
2L
x V
4L
x 3V
M =

Eqn. 6
Eqn. 7
Maximum design actions can then be calculated as:
Eqn. 8

Eqn. 9
Default strength values detailed in Table 1 from ASCE/
SEI 41-06 (ASCE, 2006) can be used to assess the shear
capacity of existing diaphragms. Similar values can be
calculated from rst principals using the methodology
detailed in Appendix 11B of the NZSEE guidelines or
found from similar references (ICC, 2007). It has been
noted that these values are signicantly less than those
recommended in Table 11.1 of the NZSEE guidelines.
However it is unknown why such a large discrepancy
exists.
NZS 3603 (SNZ, 1993), the New Zealand Timber
Structures Standard can be used to design diaphragms
strengthened with new plywood sheathing when this is
required. Good references for the design of new plywood
diaphragms include Timber Design Guide (Buchanan,
2007) and Horizontal Timber Diaphragms for Wind and
Earthquake Resistance (Smith et. al., 1986).
Plywood overlays with stapled sheet metal blocking can
also be used to strengthen existing diaphragms when
it is desired to keep the existing timber sheathing for
heritage or other reasons. As illustrated in Figure 11
in this instance light gauge sheet metal strapping is
2
V
V
D
max E,
=

32
L 5V
M
d D
max E,
=

Figure 11. Stapled Sheet Metal Blocking Used as Part of the
Auckland Art Gallery Diaphragm Strengthening Works
SESOC Journal
provided at plywood sheet edges and staples are used
to fasten the plywood to the blocking. This mitigates
the need for timber blocking at the plywood sheet edges
which can be problematic when the existing timber
sheathing is to remain.
Diaphragm strengthening using this technique is
common in North America and has recently been used
at the Auckland Art Gallery and Christchurch Arts Centre
Old Arts School as part of seismic refurbishment works.
Formal diaphragm chord elements are often absent
in existing diaphragms. Table 1 provides strength
and stiffness values for both chorded and unchorded
diaphragms. Values given for unchorded diaphragms
have been downgraded acknowledging the reduced
structural performance expected of these elements.
Diaphragm chord elements can be retrotted into
existing diaphragms relatively easily. Multiple bays of
existing timber joists can be utilised by making them
continuous using nail plates and/or bolts. When new
chord elements are required perpendicular to existing
joists new light gauge metal straps nailed to timber
blocking can be used.
Diaphragm chord elements are typically detailed as
elastically responding elements by following capacity
design procedures or using nominally ductile (i.e. =
1.25) design loads.
4.5 Calculation of Wall Diaphragm Connection
Loads
Both in-plane and out-of-plane connection loads need
to be considered when assessing existing, or retrotting
new wall-diaphragm ties. Wall-diaphragm ties sustain
predominantly in-plane loading at the diaphragm
connections to the lateral load resisting end walls.
Out-of-plane (i.e. tension and compression) loading of
the ties occurs where they are restraining face loaded
walls.
Concurrency of in-plane and out-of-plane seismic
loading is typically not considered when assessing
existing or designing new wall-diaphragm ties.
4.5.1 Out-Of-Plane Seismic Response
Out-of-plane seismic response of masonry walls in
exible diaphragm structures is complex and still not
fully understood. Out-of-plane wall-diaphragm tie forces
could be determined by one of the following methods:
i. The connections could be designed using a
capacity design approach such that they have
adequate capacity to resist the maximum
reactions that could be generated by the out-of-
plane response of the wall. Research undertaken
by Blaikie (Blaikie, 2001) has shown that peak
out-of-plane wall inertia force generated in a wall,
F
ph,Wall,
can be calculated as:
Eqn. 10
Where:
1
= Dynamic magnication factor
to account for wall-diaphragm
resonance.
t = Wall thickness (m).
H = Height of wall between oors (m).
W
P
= Tributary weight of the wall (kN/m).
P
u

= Overburden load due to the weight
of the building above (kN/m).
The dynamic magnication factor,
1
is a function
of the stiffness of the diaphragm. For single
story buildings with diaphragm periods of greater
than 1.0 seconds
1
1.3. For similar buildings
with diaphragm periods of less than 0.5 seconds

1
3.0.
Studies of three storey buildings have shown
that for buildings with a diaphragm period of
0.5 seconds
1
2.0. For similar buildings with
diaphragm periods of 1.0 seconds,
1
was also
found to be a function of the stiffness of the
lateral load resisting end walls. For stiff end
walls (i.e. period of 0.5 seconds)
1
1.6. When
more exible end walls are present (i.e. period of
1.0 seconds)
1
1.2.
ii. The methodology recommended in NZSEE
guidelines (NZSEE, 2006) uses the Parts
Provisions detailed in Section 8 of AS/NZS 1170.
It is worth noting that the NZSEE guidelines
recommend assuming a part ductility factor,
p
,
of 1.0 when calculating connection loads. This
appears to contradict AS/NZS 1170 which states
that when considering non-ductile connections a
part ductility factor,
p
, of 1.25 should be used.
iii. Using the out-of-plane wall anchorage provisions
detailed in ASCE/SEI 41-06 (ASCE, 2006) i.e.:
Eqn. 11
( )
u p 1
P W
H
t 2
+ | =
Wall ph,
F

( )
p S Tie
W T P
d
C _ =

SESOC Journal
Where: P
Tie
= Wall diaphragm connection
load (kN/m)
= Out-of-plane wall response
coefcient taken to be 1.2 for
exible diaphragm structures at
the life safety limit state.
C
d
(T
s
) = Horizontal design coefcient
calculated in accordance with
Section 5.2.1 of AS/NZS 1170 for
a short period structure.
W
P
= The tributary weight of the wall
(kN/m).
iv. Use capacity design to detail the wall-diaphragm
connections such that they have adequate
capacity to resist the peak inertia forces that can
be resisted by the diaphragm i.e.:
Eqn. 12
Where: P
Tie,os
= Overstrength wall diaphragm
connection load (kN/m)

2
= Dynamic magnication factor
to account for wall-diaphragm
resonance and inelastic modes
of diaphragm response.
V
D,os
= Diaphragm overstrength shear
capacity (kN).
W
D
= Effective seismic mass associated
with the fundamental mode of the
diaphragm (kN) (refer Section
4.3).
W
P
= The tributary weight of the wall
(kN/m).
Research of rigid diaphragm structures with
concrete walls suggests that a dynamic
magnication factor,
2
of 2.5 would be appropriate
for such structures (Paulay & Priestley, 1992).
Unfortunately the Author is unaware of any similar
research that has been undertaken to conrm
appropriate values of
2
for exible diaphragm
structures.
Table 3 below compares the out-of-plane wall forces
calculated using the four design methods detailed above.
The design loads were calculated assuming the building
was founded on a Class C subsoil in Wellington. It was
assumed that the building diaphragm periods were
0.5 seconds, of 4.0 and a diaphragm overstrength,
V
D,os
/W
D
of 0.23g. Supported out-of-plane loaded walls
were assumed to have H = 3.70 m, t = 350 mm, P
u
/W
p

= 2.0 and
1
= 2.0.
Table 3. Comparison of Out-of-plane Wall
Design Load Calculated Methods
p
D
os D,
os Tie,
W
W
V
P
2
| =

Analysis Methodology Out-Of-Plane Wall
Design Load
Blaikie 2.27 W
p
AS/NZS 1170 1.81 W
p
ASCE/SEI 41 -06 0.61 W
p
Diaphragm Overstrength
Method
0.58 W
p
A parts structural ductility factor,
p
,
of 1.25 was used
and
2

was assumed to be 2.5 for the purpose of this
example. For AS/NZS 1170 and ASCE/SEI 41-06
methods the calculated loads were reduced to 67% of
that which would be used to design a new building as is
often done when evaluating existing structures.
Referring to Table 3 it can be seen that the out-of-
plane wall loads calculated using the AS/NZS 1170
parts provisions are approximately three times that
recommended in ASCE/SEI 41-06. This is a signicant
difference. It is also evident from Table 3 that the use
of the Blaikie method can result in large out-of-plane
design loads when compared with the other three
methods, particularly in the lower levels of buildings
where overburden stresses (P
u
/W
p
) are higher.
Table 3 also illustrates that, when assuming a
dynamic magnication factor,
2
of 2.5, the diaphragm
overstrength method results in out of plane design loads
that are similar to those determined using ASCE/SEI
41-06. Some Structural Engineers are concerned
that using the AS/NZS 1170 parts provisions may be
potentially overly conservative. This is of particular
importance for existing buildings located in regions
of high seismicity as adopting the AS/NZS 1170 parts
provisions can result in unwieldy and costly retrot
solutions (refer also Section A11.2 of the design example
included in Appendix A).
The validly of the dynamic magnication factor,
2
used
in the previous design example needs to be conrmed
by future research before the diaphragm overstrength
method can be adopted. Until this research is completed
it is recommended that the AS/NZS 1170 parts provisions
are used to determine out-of-plane wall forces.
SESOC Journal
4.5.2 In-Plane Seismic Response
Capacity design can be used to determine the maximum
in-plane connection load i.e.:
V
D,os
=
os
R
n
Eqn. 13
Where: V
D,os
= Diaphragm overstrength shear
capacity (kN/m).

os
= Diaphragm overstrength factor.
R
n
= Diaphragm shear capacity (kN/m).
For those situations when diaphragm overstrengths
cannot be reliably estimated (i.e. plywood diaphragms
when the sheathing has been glued or when signicant
non-structural oor nishes are known to exist)
Equation 4 can be used to determine the connection
loads. When using Equation 4 it is recommended that a
nominally ductile (i.e. of 1.25) structural response be
assumed.
4.6 Design and Assessment of Wall Diaphragm
Connections
4.6.1 Out-Of-Plane Seismic Response
Figures 12 & 13 illustrate typical wall diaphragm ties
for the situation when the oor joists are parallel and
perpendicular to the support masonry wall respectively.
In terms of out-of-plane loading the function of the
diaphragm tie elements are to transfer the horizontal
inertia forces associated with face loaded walls into the
main body of the diaphragm.
Figure 12. Typical Wall Diaphragm Connection
with Joists Parallel to the Wall
Figure 13. Typical Wall Diaphragm Connection
with Joists Perpendicular to the Wall
SESOC Journal
Poor performance of URM and precast concrete tilt-
up buildings with plywood roof diaphragms in previous
earthquakes (i.e. 1971 San Fernando and 1994
Northridge earthquakes) has resulted in the following
design recommendations (ICBO, 2000):
i. Cross grain bending of boundary joists should be
avoided. As is illustrated in Figure 14 cross grain
bending can occur when out-of-plane loaded walls
pull away from the oor diaphragm, when out-of-
plane wall anchor brackets are not provided. In
this case, tension forces that are transferred by
the anchor bolt and resisted by the diaphragm
place the boundary joist in cross grain bending.
Timber typically has low cross grain bending
capacity and in many instances has been found
to be inadequate to resist the necessary seismic
loads in past earthquakes.
ii. Nailing provided at the edges of plywood sheets
should not be considered to be effective in
transferring tensile diaphragm forces between
plywood sheets. This is not recommended as
these nails are in many instances already highly
stressed resisting in-plane diaphragm shear
forces and may have little reserve capacity to
resist tensile diaphragm loading also. In addition
these nails would typically be provided with small
edge distances leaving them prone to pull-through
should they be subject to tensile diaphragm
loading perpendicular to the plywood sheet edge.
iii. Diaphragms shall be provided with continuous
ties or struts between diaphragm chords to
distribute wall out-of-plane anchorage forces into
the diaphragms. This is to ensure that the large
out-of-plane forces generated at diaphragm edges
have a reliable load path back into, and engage,
the main body of the diaphragm. This is analogous
to hanger reinforcing provided in reinforced
concrete beam design. Added chord elements
are permitted to be used to form subdiaphragms
to transmit the anchorage forces to continuous
diaphragm cross-ties. North American Building
Codes (i.e. ACSE 7-05, 2005) limit the maximum
length-to-width ratio of subdiaphragms to 2.5 to 1.
While current URM retrot practice in New Zealand
typically avoids cross grain bending, there appears
to be less of an awareness regarding the use of nails
to transfer tensile diaphragm forces or the need for
continuous diaphragm cross ties and struts. This is
despite the requirement in AS/NZS 1170.0 (SNZ, 2004)
that oor and roof diaphragms shall be designed to
have ties or struts (where used) able to distribute the
required wall anchorage forces. Subdiaphragms are a
very effective way of providing the necessary continuous
diaphragm cross ties and struts.
The subdiaphragm methodology is a design method
whereby the main diaphragm is broken up into a
number of smaller (sub) diaphragms at the diaphragm
perimeter. The smaller subdiaphragms are designed to
resist the amplied out-of-plane wall anchorage forces
previously described in Section 4.5.1 and span between
diaphragm cross-ties which are typically provided at
approximately 45 m centres.
This aspect of timber diaphragm design is often not well
understood in New Zealand and is equally applicable
to the design of new structures with timber diaphragms
and heavy faade elements i.e. concrete masonry
walls, precast concrete and GRC faade panels etc. It
is important that Structural Engineers are familiar with
the subdiaphragm concept and know when it should
be applied. Subdiaphragms will be considered in more
detail in Section 4.6.2 below.
Figure 14. Out-Of-Plane Loading Cross
Grain Bending Failure Mechanism
SESOC Journal
Referring to Figures 12 and 13, the tributary out-of-plane
inertia force generated within the walls are transferred
by the tension anchors into the steel brackets; and
then from the steel brackets into the timber joists/
blocking. When joists are orientated perpendicular
to the wall (Figure 13), the joists are able to act as
subdiaphragm ties transferring the out-of-plane forces
into the subdiaphragm. As is illustrated in Figure 12,
when joists are orientated parallel to the wall, timber
blocking and sheet metal straps can be used to transfer
the out-of-plane forces into the subdiaphragm.
Eccentric loading of the timber joists/blocking by the
steel bracket should be addressed when checking the
adequacy of the existing oor framing. Additional timber
blocking can be used to resist the expected minor axis
bending.
The NZSEE guidelines provide default connector
strengths that can be used to determine the size and
spacing of tension bolts (NZSEE, 2006). In most
instances insitu testing can be used to justify higher
design values, although consideration of wall cracking
due to out of plane response wall might be considered.
4.6.2 Subdiaphragm Design
Figure 15 illustrates the subdiaphragm concept. Consider
the building subject to an east-west earthquake. In this
instance it is recommended that continuous diaphragm
cross ties are provided between grid lines A and D.
One design solution would be to provide closely spaced
(i.e. 500 mm crs), light-gauge sheet metal straps with
timber blocking to act as the diaphragm cross ties/struts
across the width of the diaphragm. However such a
design solution would likely be costly and intrusive to
implement as part of a retrot.
An alternative design solution using the subdiaphragm
concept would be to utilise the existing beams to act as
the diaphragm cross tie/strut forces and then provide
smaller subdiaphragms that span horizontally between
the diaphragm cross ties/struts.
Consider the length of wall between grid lines D5 and
D6. As shown in Figure 15, a smaller subdiaphragm
could be designed to span between grid lines 5 and 6.
In this instance, when the timber joists are orientated
parallel to the wall, the existing joists are often found
to be adequate to act as the subdiaphragm chords.
The depth of the subdiaphragm is typically increased
until the chord forces are sufciently reduced that the
existing joists are adequate. Alternatively the existing
joists can be doubled up to increase their capacity. The
sheet metal straps described in the previous section
are used as subdiaphragm cross ties to transfer the
amplied out-of-plane wall anchorage forces (refer
Figure 12) to the rear of the subdiaphragm.
Once the subdiaphragm design is complete, checks
should be made to ensure that the existing beams that
are utilised to act as diaphragm cross diaphragm ties/
struts have adequate axial load capacity, and that their
end connections are sufcient to transfer the necessary
diaphragm cross tie forces.
Referring to Figure 15 a similar strategy can be used for
the north-south earthquake. In this direction the existing
timber joists can be used as subdiaphragm cross-ties
(refer Figure 13). Note that in this direction no beams
are available to act as diaphragm cross ties/struts. As
an alternative, existing oor joists can be doubled up
and made continuous to act as subdiaphragm cross
ties/struts. Existing beams can often be utilised to act
as the subdiaphragm chords.
When designing subdiaphragm elements and cross
diaphragm ties the out-of-plane wall loads calculated
in Section 4.5.1 should be used. Current design ofce
practice is that these amplied out-of-plane wall forces
are not considered to act concurrently with those
calculated in Section 4.3 for main diaphragm design.
4.6.3 In-Plane Seismic Response
In terms of in-plane loading response the wall
diaphragm ties transfer the tributary horizontal inertia
forces associated with face loaded walls, and the
diaphragms own seismic mass, into the lateral load
resisting in-plane end walls.
Referring to Figures 12 and 13 the inertia forces are
transferred out of the diaphragm via the boundary
joist into the resisting in-plane end walls using grouted
wall anchors. The NZSEE guidelines provide default
connector strengths that can be used to determine the
size and spacing of tension bolts (NZSEE, 2006). In
most instances insitu testing can be also used to justify
higher design values, although consideration of wall
cracking due to out of plane response wall might be
considered.
4.7 Diaphragm Penetrations
Penetrations in diaphragms due to stair openings,
elevators shafts and service risers require special
consideration to ensure that diaphragm performance
is not compromised. Diaphragm penetrations cause
stress concentrations which can lead to poor diaphragm
behaviour if the openings are not addressed in the
diaphragm design.
The shear transfer method (Smith et. al. 1986) is a
simple design method which can be used by Structural
Engineers to determine increased nailing and chord
requirements adjacent to diaphragm openings.
SESOC Journal
Figure 15. Subdiaphragm Example
SESOC Journal
When diaphragm penetrations occur immediately
adjacent to URM walls structural steel beams can be
used to provide the necessary out-of-plane restraint to
the walls (refer Figure 16). The beams should be tied
back into the diaphragm using subdiaphragm cross ties.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
URM buildings have historically performed poorly in
large earthquakes. It has been found that many failures
of URM buildings are related to poor performance of the
diaphragms and the wall to diaphragm connections.
Analysis of URM structures with timber oors assuming
rigid diaphragm behaviour may lead to unconservative
assessments of diaphragm accelerations and
inaccurate estimates of load distribution between lateral
load resisting elements.
Many URM structures can be assessed and strengthened
when necessary using a simplied analysis method
contained within the NZSEE guide lines and ASCE/SEI
41-06 as illustrated in this paper.
Figure 16. Typical Out-Of-Plane Wall Support
Detail at Diaphragm Openings
Care is required when detailing the wall to diaphragm
connections to ensure that:
Cross grain bending of boundary joists is avoided.
Eccentric loading of oor framing elements by
out-of-plane wall brackets is considered in the
diaphragm design.
Plywood sheet edge nailing is not required to
transfer tensile diaphragm forces.
Diaphragm cross-ties are provided to transfer the
large out-of-plane forces generated at diaphragm
edges back into the main body of the diaphragm.
Stress concentrations due to diaphragm openings
are addressed and the need for supplementary
wall support considered when diaphragm openings
occur immediately adjacent to URM walls.
Further research into the seismic response of URM
buildings with exible diaphragms is required to conrm
the following:
SESOC Journal
The structural ductility capacity of existing timber
diaphragms.
Acceptable diaphragm deformation limits and the
interaction between the in-plane deformation of
diaphragms and the out-of-plane response of the
supported face loaded walls.
Design loads for the out-of-plane response of
URM walls can be reduced from those currently
specied in the NZSEE recommendations?
Specically can a capacity design approach be
adopted whereby out-of-plane wall forces are
limited by yielding of the supporting diaphragm i.e.
conrmation of which of the four methods detailed
in Section 4.5.1 is most appropriate for use in New
Zealand?
Many of the principles of subdiaphragm design detailed in
this paper for existing URM buildings are also applicable
to new structures with exible timber diaphragms and
heavy faade elements. It is important that Structural
Engineers are familiar with the subdiaphragm concept
and know when it should be applied.
6.0 REFERENCES
1. ASCE, ASCE/SEI 41-06 Seismic Rehabilitation
of Existing Buildings, ASCE, Restonm Virgina,
2006.
2. Blaikie, E.L., Methodology For The Assessment
of Face Loaded Unreinforced Masonry Walls
Under Seismic Loading, EQC Funded Research
by Opus International Consultants, Project 99/422,
Wellington, New Zealand, 2001.
3. Bruneau, M.,State-Of-The Art Report On Seismic
Performance of Unreinforced Masonary Buildings,
Journal of Structural Engineering, 120(1),1994.
4. Buchanan, A., Timber Design Guide, University
of Canterbury, New Zealand, 2007.
5. ICBO, Guidelines For Seismic Evaluation and
Rehabilitation of Tilt-Up Buildings and Other Rigid
Wall/Flexible Diaphragm Structures International
Conference of Building Ofcials, 2000.
6. ICC, 2006 International Existing Building Code,
International Code Council, County Club Hills, IL,
2007.
7. Ingham, J.M., The Inuence of Earthquakes on
New Zealand Masonry Construction Practice,
14IBMAC Conference, Bondi, Australia, 2008.
8. FEMA, FEMA 306 Evaluation of Earthquake
Damaged Concrete & Masonry Buildings, Applied
Technology Council, Washington D.C., 1998.
9. FEMA, FEMA 356 Prestandard And
Commentary For The Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings , ASCE, Washington D.C., 2000.
10. NZSEE, Assessment and Improvement of
the Structural Performance of Buildings in
Earthquakes, NZSEE, Wellington, New Zealand,
2006.
11. Paulay, T. & Priestley, M.J.N., Seismic Design
of Reinforced Concrete and Maonry Structures,
John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York, 1992.
12. Russell, A.P. and Ingham, J.M., Trends in the
Architectural Characterisation of Unreinforced
Masonry in New Zealand, 14IBMAC Conference,
Bondi, Australia, 2008.
13. Smith, P.C., Dowrick, D.J. & Dean, J.A., Horizontal
Timber Diaphragms For Wind And Earthquake
Resistance, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society
For Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 19, No. 2, 1986.
14. SNZ, NZS 3603:1993 Timber Structures
Standard, Standards New Zealand, Wellington,
New Zealand, 1993.
15. SNZ, ASNZS 1170.5:2004 Structural Design
Actions Part 5 : Earthquake Actions New
Zealand, Standards New Zealand, Wellington,
New Zealand, 2004.
16. ASCE, ASCE 7-05 Minimum Deesign Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures, American Society
of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, USA, 2006.

SESOC Journal
APPENDIX A
FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGM DESIGN EXAMPLE
A.1 Introduction
This design example will detail the assessment and retrofit of the first floor of the five
storey high building previously illustrated in Figures 2 & 15. The building is rectangular
in plan and is approximately 30.4 m long, 18.6 m wide and 22.1 m high.
Unreinforced masonry has been used to construct the perimeter walls. The floors consist
of 20 mm thick straight timber sheathing supported on 300 x 60 mm joists spanning in the
north-south direction. Structural steel beams spanning between cast-iron columns support
the timber joists.
The building is located in Wellington and is founded on Class D subsoil. The intention is
that the building will be seismically strengthened to 67% of that which would be required
for a new building at the site.
It is assumed for this example that the material strengths for the existing timber elements
are equal to or greater than that for Radiata Pine No. 1 Framing Grade. The influence of
the floor penetrations on diaphragm behavior has been ignored and the C
3
P-A
modification factor was assumed to be 1.0 for this design example.
A.2 Building Information
Seismic weights for the first floor were calculated as follows:
Diaphragm self weight =1098 kN i.e. the self weight of the flooring, joists,
beams, columns, superimposed dead loads
and reduced live load.
Grid Line 1 Wall = 675kN
Grid Line 7 Wall = 673 kN
Grid Line A Wall =1431 kN
Grid Line D Wall =1256 kN
The thickness of the walls between Ground Floor and Level 1, and Level 1 and Level 2 is
530 mm. The height of the first floor is 7.4 m above the building base.
A.3 Diaphragm Period Calculation
North South Direction
D 1
3.07 T =
Eqn. 1
Need to determine A
D
i.e.
D
u
D
K
V
= A
Eqn. 3

SESOC Journal
Where:
( ) kN 2446 g 1 673 675 1098 V = + + =
u
i.e. self weight of the diaphragm and the
east west walls.
L
bG
K
d
D
4
=
Eqn. 2
m / kN 2406
350 9 . 29 4
=

=
17.4
K
D
i.e. G
d
=350 kN/m (refer Table 1)
Hence:
m 02 . 1 = = A
2406
2446
D
Therefore:
s 77 . 1 02 . = = 1 3.07 T
1
East West Direction
Similarly it can be shown that:
( ) kN 3785 g 1 1256 1431 1098 V = + + =
u
m / kN 838
350 9 . 17 4
=

=
29.9
K
D
m 51 . 4 = = A
838
3785
D
s 72 . 3 T
1
=

A.4 Diaphragm Seismic Load Calculation
V
D
=C
1
C
3
C
d
(T
1
)W
D
Eqn. 4
Where:
( )
( )
=
k
S T
C
P 1
d
C
T
1 AS/NZS 1170.5 Eqn 5.2(1)
And:
( ) ( ) g 51 . 0 06 . 1 0 . 1 4 . 0 21 . 1 ) D , T ( ZRN C T
h 1
= = = T C
7 . 0 =
p
S
i.e. assuming =2.0 capacity
0 . 4 =
k
SESOC Journal
Hence:
( ) 18 . 0
7 . 0 51 . 0
T
1
=
=
2.0
C
d
Hence 67% design seismic loading for the north south direction is:
D D
W 12 . 0 W 18 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 1 67 . 0 V = =
d
Hence:
kN 295 2446 12 . 0 V = =
d
East West Direction
( ) g 28 . 0 53 . 1 0 . 1 4 . 0 46 . 0 T
1
= = C
7 . 0 =
p
S
0 . 2 =
k
( ) 10 . 0
7 . 0 28 . 0
T
1
=
=
2.0
C
d
kN 253 3785 10 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 1 67 . 0 V = =
d
A.5 Diaphragm Deformation Assessment
Need to ensure that diaphragm deflections do not exceed 150 mm or half the thickness of
the walls (i.e. 530/2 =265 mm).
m 245 . 0
2406
295
0 . 2 = = = A
D
D
D
K
V
East West Direction
m 604 . 0
838
253
0 . 2 = = = A
D
D
D
K
V
In this instance the diaphragms did not have adequate stiffness and strengthening of the
diaphragm is required.
Consider replacing the straight sheathing with a new F8 Grade 19 mm plywood diaphragm
with 75x3.3 mm edge nailing at 75 mm crs. It is acknowledged that this is a significant
amount of nailing however, as will be seen below in Section A12.2, the shear capacity of
the diaphragm is governed by the subdiaphragm design.
SESOC Journal
A.6 Revised Diaphragm Period Calculation
D 1
3.07 T =
Eqn. 1
Need to calculate the secant yield stiffness, K
D
, of the plywood diaphragm.
D
Y
D
V
K
A
=
Where: V
y
=Diaphragm yield strength (kN)
A
D
=Diaphragm yield displacement (m)
Determine the shear capacity, Q
n,
of the proposed diaphragm nailing. From NZS 3603
(SNZ, 1993):
k c m d
Q k k nk Q =
n
NZS 3603 Eqn. 4.2
Where: n =Number of nails =13.3 nails / m
k
d
=Duration of loading factor =1.0
k
m
=Multiple nail factor =1.3
k
c
=Plywood sheathing with flat head nails factor =1.4
Q
k
=Characteristic nail strength from NZS 3603 Table 4.3 =695 N
Hence:
m / N 16870 695 4 . 1 3 . 1 0 . 1 3 . 13 Q = =
n

And;
kN 1009 16870 9 . 29 2 b Q 2 V
n
= = =
y

From NZS 3603 (SNZ, 1993) the diaphragm yield displacement can be calculated:
3 2 1
A + A + A = A
D
NZS 3603 Eqn. 5.2.2
Where: A
1
=Flexural deflection of diaphragm (m).
A
2
=Shear deformation of diaphragm (m).
A
3
=Deflection of diaphragm due to nail slip (m).
In this example the flexural diaphragm deflection (A
1
) will be ignored as it is typically
small compared with shear and nail slip deformations. This could be confirmed later
during the design once the diaphragm design is complete.
Gbt 8
WL
= A
2
NZS 3603 Eqn. 5.2.5
Where: W =1009 kN
L =17.4 m
G =455 MPa
b =29.9 m
T =19.2 mm

SESOC Journal
Hence:
mm 4 . 8
2 . 19 10 9 . 29 455 8
10 4 . 17 10 1009
3
3 3
=

= A
2
And;
( )
2
me a 1
n
+
= A
3
NZS 3603 Eqn. 5.2.6
Where: a =2.0
m =8
e
n
=1.4 mm
Hence:
( )
mm 8 . 16
2
4 . 1 8 2 1
=
+
= A
3

And;
mm 25 8 . 16 4 . 8 0 = + + = A
D

Therefore:
m / kN 40360
025 . 0
= =
1009
K
D
Hence the elastic deflection of the plywood sheathed diaphragm and a 1g lateral load can
be calculated as:
m 061 . 0
40360
2446
= = A
D
Eqn. 3
Therefore:
s 43 . 0 = = 0.061 3.07 T
1
East West Direction
kN 604 16870 9 . 17 2 V = =
y

mm 9 . 14
2 . 19 10 4 . 17 455 8
10 9 . 29 10 604
3
3 3
=

= A
2
( )
mm 3 . 26
2
4 . 1 25 5 . 0 1
=
+
= A
3

mm 41 3 . 26 9 . 14 0 = + + = A
D

m / kN 14730
041 . 0
= =
604
K
D

SESOC Journal
m 257 . 0
14730
3785
= = A
D
Eqn. 3
s 89 . 0 = = 0.257 3.07 T
1

A.7 Revised Diaphragm Seismic Load Calculation
Using the revised diaphragm period calculated above:
( ) ( ) g 20 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 4 . 0 0 . 3 ) D , T ( ZRN C T
h 1
= = = T C
( ) g 30 . 0
7 . 0 20 . 1
T
1
=
=
2.84
C
d
Note the above assumes the nailed plywood diaphragm will be designed to have a ductility
displacement capacity, , of 4.0. Hence the revised 67% design seismic loading for the
north south direction is:
kN 535 2466 30 . 0 0 . 1 9 . 1 67 . 0 V = =
d
East West Direction
( ) g 84 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 1 4 . 0 11 . 2 T
1
= = C
( ) 15 . 0
7 . 0 84 . 0
T
1
=
=
4.0
C
d
kN 379 3785 15 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 1 67 . 0 V = =
d
A.8 Revised Diaphragm Shear Strength Assessment
m / N 8950
9 . 29 2
535
=
= =
2b
V
V
D
max E,
Eqn. 8
m / kN 13500 16870 8 . 0 R
n
= = | Refer Section A.6
Hence the proposed diaphragm nailing has adequate shear capacity. Determine the actual
ductility required,
Act
. Because T
1
is less than 0.7 s consideration of AS/NZS 1170 the
proportionality is not linear and consideration of k
is required.
.
( )
85 . 1
9 . 29 50 . 13 2
2446 7 . 0 2 . 1 0 . 1 09 . 1 67 . 0
b R 2
W S T C C C 67 . 0
k
n
p 1 3 1
Act ,
=

=
|
=
Hence
Act
can be calculated as 2.4.
SESOC Journal
East West Direction
m / N 10890
4 . 17 2
379
=
= =
2b
V
V
D
max E,

m / N 13500 R
n
= | (refer above).
Again proposed diaphragm nailing is adequate. Because T
1
is greater than 0.7s
Act
can
simply be calculated as:
2 . 3
4 . 17 5 . 13 2
379 4
b R 2
V
n
, E
act
=

=
|
=
A.9 Revised Diaphragm Deformation Assessment
mm 32
40360
535
4 . 2
Act
= = = A
D
D
D
K
V
East West Direction
mm 82
14730
379
2 . 3
Act
= = = A
D
D
D
K
V
The diaphragm deflections in both directions are less than the maximum permitted of
150 mm. Hence the proposed diaphragm has adequate stiffness.
A.10 Diaphragm Chord Design
Diaphragm chords will be designed to remain elastic using capacity design.
Overstrength shear capacity of the diaphragm nailing, Q
os
, can be calculated as:
n os os , D
Q V | =
Eqn. 13
Where: |
os
=Nail overstrength factor taken as 1.6
Q
n
=Characteristic shear capacity diaphragm nailing
=16.87 kN/m (refer Section A.6)
Hence:
m / kN 0 . 27 87 . 16 6 . 1 V
os , D
= =

SESOC Journal
Hence the diaphragm overstrength factor in the north-south direction, |
os,NS
, can be
calculated as:
02 . 3
535
9 . 29 0 . 27 2
V
b V 2
D
os , D
NS ,
=

= = |
os
Hence the maximum bending moment, M
os,max
, generated in the diaphragm at overstrength
can be calculated as:
kNm 4390
32
4 . 17 535 02 . 3 5
L
=

=
|
=
32
V 5
M
D os,NS
max os,
Eqn. 9
The maximum overstrength diaphragm chord forces can then be calculated as:
kN 147
9 . 29
4390
M
max , os
= = =
b
P
chordx os,
This design load should be used to design the diaphragm chord.
East West Direction
48 . 2
379
4 . 17 0 . 27 2
NS ,
=

= |
os
kNm 4390
32
9 . 29 379 48 . 2 5
=

=
max os,
M
kN 252
4 . 17
4390
= =
chordx os,
P

A.11 Calculation of Wall Diaphragm Connection Loads
A.11.1 In-Plane Seismic Response
The diaphragm overstrength capacity, V
D,os
, was calculated previously in Section A.11 as
16.87 kN/m.
A.11.2 Out-Of-Plane Seismic Response
The same design will be used for grid line 1 and grid line 7 walls. From Section A.2 the
tributary self weight of the critical grid line 1 wall was 675 kN i.e. 37.7 kN/m.

SESOC Journal
Using the AS/NZS 1170 part provisions, assuming a part structural ductility factor,
p
, of
1.25, h
i
of 7.4 m, and a part risk factor, R
p
, of 1.0 the out-of-plane wall loads, F
ph
, can be
calculated as 0.67 x 1.70 =1.13 g.
Hence the out-of-plane wall load for the north-south seismic response, F
ph,NS Wall
can be
calculated as:
m / kN 7 . 42 7 . 37 13 . 1 W F
wall , i ph
= = =
ph,NS
F
East West Direction
m / kN 9 . 47
9 . 29
1431
wall , i
= = W
m / kN 1 . 54 9 . 47 13 . 1 W F
wall , i ph
= = =
EW ph,
F
Out of interest compare the AS/NZS 1170 parts loads with the overstrength diaphragm
acceleration in each direction i.e.
g 66 . 0
2449
535 02 . 3
W
V
V
D
NS , D
NS ,
=
=
|
=
os
os
g 25 . 0
3785
379 48 . 2
W
V
V
D
NS , D
EW ,
=
=
|
=
os
os
Hence the AS/NZS 1170 out-of-plane parts load are 1.7 and 4.5 times greater than the
overstrength diaphragm acceleration and in the north south and east west directions
respectively. Note that as will be seen in Section A12.2 the diaphragm nailing was
governed by the AS/NZS 1170 parts loads. If the diaphragm was designed without
consideration of the AS/NZS 1170 parts loads it can be shown that the overstrength
diaphragm accelerations would be approximately 1/3 of that detailed above. This equates
to the AS/NZS 1170 out-of-plane parts load that would be 5 and 12 times greater than the
overstrength diaphragm accelerations and in the north south and east west directions
respectively. It seems improbable that this could occur. This demonstrates that further
research into this area is warranted.
A.12 Design of Wall Diaphragm Connections
For this example it will be assumed that no existing wall-diaphragm anchors exist and that
new anchors will be provided as part of the proposed retrofit.

SESOC Journal
A.12.1 In-Plane Seismic Response
From Section A12.1 above V
D, os
=16.87 kN/m. From Table 10.B2 of the NZSEE
guidelines the default shear capacity, Q
n
, of an M16 anchor bolt grouted at least 200 mm
into a masonry wall can be taken as 9.0 kN.
Hence the max anchor spacing can be calculated as:
m 53 . 0
87 . 16
0 . 9 0 . 1
V
Q
s
os , D
, n
max
=
=
|
=
Note that a strength reduction factor, |, of 1.0 was used in the above equation in
accordance with typical capacity design procedures. The existing joists are at 450 mm
hence the new wall anchors could be provided at each joist location i.e. 450 mm centres.
East West Direction
The same in-plane diaphragm load occurs in the east west direction because the nail
spacing is the same. Hence new wall anchors at 500 mm centres will be adequate in this
direction also.
A.12.2 Out-Of-Plane Seismic Response
Determine Wall Anchor Spacing:
From Section A11.1 above F
ph, NS
=42.7 kN/m. From Table 10.B2 of the NZSEE
guidelines the default tension capacity, P
n
, of an M16 anchor bolt grouted 50 mm less than
the thickness of the wall can be taken as 11.0 kN.
Hence the max anchor spacing can be calculated as:
m 18 . 0
7 . 42
0 . 11 7 . 0
F
P
s
NSWall , ph
n
max
=
=
|
=
This is not a practicable anchor spacing. Consider the required anchor tension capacity if
an anchor is provided at each joist location.
kN 4 . 27
7 . 0
7 . 42 45 . 0
F s
P
NSWall , ph Act
n
=
=
|
>
Given that the anchor is to be embedded in a 470 mm thick masonry this required capacity
may be achievable although it will need to be confirmed by insitu anchor testing.
Referring to Figure 15 consider the design of the subdiaphragm. In this example it will
provide 1 bay deep subdiaphragms i.e. between gridlines 1 and 2 to support the grid line 1
SESOC Journal
wall, and between 6 and 7 to support the grid line 7 wall. Diaphragm cross-ties will be
provided on grid lines A, B, C and D.
Check Subdiaphragm Shear:
m / kN 6 . 13
5 2
9 . 5 6 . 22
b 2
L F
V
sd
sd NS , ph
max , E
=
= =
Note that in the above equation the AS/NZS 1170 parts loads used was that calculated
assuming a part structural ductility factor,
p
, of 3.0 ( i.e. 0.67 x 0.90 g) because in this
instance the required diaphragm nailing has been determined. From Section A.8
|R
n
=13.5 kN/m hence the subdiaphragm has adequate shear strength.
Check Subdiaphragm Chords:
kN 9 . 37
9 . 4 8
9 . 5 7 . 42
b 8
L F
P
2
sd
2
NS , ph
max , E
sd
=
= =
The capacity of the existing beams along grid lines 2 and 6 will need to be checked to
ensure that they have adequate capacity to resist this axial load. Also the necessary
detailing will have to be provided to ensure the beams are adequately connected to the
subdiaphragm i.e. provide new ribbon plates if necessary.
Referring to section A.10 the loads used to design the primary diaphragm chords on grid
lines 1 and 7 were greater than the subdiaphragm loads calculated above and as such will
be adequate to act as subdiaphragm chords.
Check Subdiaphragm Cross-Ties:
In this instance the existing 300x 60 joists will act as the subdiaphragm cross ties. Using
NZS 3603 it can be shown that the existing timber joists have adequate capacity to resist
the additional out-of-plane wall axial loads. A steel bracket bolted to the existing joist can
be detailed to transfer the load from the wall anchor into the existing joist.
Adequate nailing is required to transfer the subdiaphragm cross-tie loads into the new
plywood diaphragm. The design load can be calculated as:
m / kN 92 . 3
9 . 4
7 . 42 45 . 0
b
F s
V
sd
NS , ph Act
E
=
= =
Hence 75 x 3.33 nails at 200 centres would be adequate i.e. |Q
n
=827 N/nail).
Design Diaphragm Cross-Ties:
The diaphragm cross-tie force can be calculated as:
( )
1 i , sd i , sd NS , ph max , E
b b F 5 . 0 P
+
+ =

SESOC Journal
Where b
ds,i
and b
ds,i+1
are the adjacent subdiaphragm spans. Hence on grid line B the
diaphragm cross-tie force is:
( ) kN 248 ) 9 . 5 72 . 5 ( 7 . 42 5 . 0 b b F 5 . 0 P
= + = + =
+
It can be shown that this load can be resisted by doubling up an existing joist line adjacent
grid lineB. Nail plates could be detailed to provide a continuous load path between grid
lines 1 & 7. Similarly the grid line A diaphragm cross-tie force can be calculated as:
( ) kN 122 ) 0 72 . 5 ( 7 . 42 5 . 0 b b F 5 . 0 P
= + = + =
+
Note that this load is less than the diaphragm chord force of 252 kN calculated previously
in Section A.10 for the east-west diaphragm response. Hence the capacity of the
diaphragm chord is adequate. The design grid line C & D cross ties will be similar to that
already described above.
East West Direction
Determine Wall Anchor Spacing:
From Section A11.1 above F
ph, EW
=54.1 kN/m. Referring to Figure 12 in this direction
the spacing of the wall anchors is governed by the capacity of the light gauge metal strap
subdiaphragm cross-ties. Consider a proprietary metal strap with an axial load capacity,
|R
n
, of 14.8 kN. Hence the max anchor spacing can be calculated as:
m 274 . 0
1 . 54
8 . 14
F
R
s
NSWall , ph
n
max
= =
|
=
Hence provide wall anchors and subdiaphragm cross-ties at 275 mm centres. It is
acknowledged that this is a very close spacing. The anchor spacing could be increased by
using stronger, custom light gauge metal straps or alternatively using lower out-of-plane
design loads. The latter may be possible in the future pending improved design
methodologies.
Note that insitu anchor testing will still be required to confirm the required anchor
capacity.
Consider the design of the subdiaphragm. In this example it will provide 1 bay deep
subdiaphragm i.e. between gridlines A and B to support the grid line A wall, and between
C and D to support the grid line D wall. Diaphragm cross-ties will be provided on grid
lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.
Check Subdiaphragm Shear:
m / kN 3 . 12
7 . 5 2
9 . 4 6 . 28
b 2
L F
V
sd
sd NS , ph
max , E
=
= =
From Section A.8 |R
n
=13.5 kN/m hence the subdiaphragm has adequate shear strength.
SESOC Journal
Check Subdiaphragm Chords:
kN 0 . 28
7 . 5 8
9 . 4 1 . 54
b 8
L F
P
2
sd
2
NS , ph
max , E
sd
=
= =
It can be shown that the existing joists have adequate capacity to resist this load.
Detail Subdiaphragm Cross-Ties:
Referring to Figure A.1 below care is required to ensure that the 95 mm vertical
eccentricity between the anchor bracket and the light gauge metal strap subdiaphragm
cross-ties is addressed in the design. Two rows of joists have been blocked-out in order to
keep the stabilising vertical shears, V
1
, to a manageable level.
Figure A.1 Subdiaphragm Tie Force Distribution
Knowing that the existing 300 x 60 joists are at 450 mm centres the stabilising vertical
shear force, V
1
, to be transferred through the new timber blocking can be calculated as:
kN 56 . 1
450 2
95 8 . 14
s 2
e F
V
joist
ph
1
=

=
Skew nails could be used to secure the timber blocking to the existing joists. Referring to
Figure A.1 the capacity of the right most joist to resist this additional seismic load (i.e.
1.56/0.275 =5.68 kN/m) would need to be verified.
First consider force F
1
, the load to be transferred
( ) ( )
kN 41 . 4
300 19
95 8 . 14
d t
e F
F
joist ply
ph
1
=
+

=

SESOC Journal
Too much food?
For those of you who watch what you eat, here's the nal word on nutrition and health. It's a relief
to know the truth after all those conicting nutritional studies.
1. The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than us.

2. The Mexicans eat a lot of fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than us.
3. The Chinese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than us.
4. The Italians drink a lot of red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than us.
5. The Germans drink a lot of beer and eat lots of sausages and fats and suffer fewer heart
attacks than us.
CONCLUSION:
Eat and drink what you like.
Speaking English is apparently what kills you.
Hence a standard proprietary 6 kN light metal gauge metal brace strap would be
adequate. Force F
2
can then be calculated as:
kN 4 . 10 41 . 4 8 . 14 F F F
1 ph 2
= = =
The proposed proprietary light gauge metal strap is pre-punched with 2 rows of 3.15
diameter holes at 32 mm crs. It can be shown that 2 rows of 3.15 x 75 nails at 32 mm crs
are adequate. Wood screws can be used over the balance of the sub diaphragm tie length
to transfer the out-of-plane wall loads into the subdiaphragm. The capacity of the wood
screws, |R
n,
would need to be greater than:
m / kN 60 . 2
7 . 5
8 . 14
b
F
R
sd
ph
n
= = > |
Design Diaphragm Cross-Ties:
Typical the diaphragm cross-tie force is:
( ) kN 265 ) 9 . 4 9 . 4 ( 1 . 54 5 . 0 b b F 5 . 0 P
= + = + =
+
It can be shown that this load can be resisted by the existing steel beams. The capacity of
steel beam end connections should checked to ensure that a continuous cross-tie has been
provided across the width of the diaphragm. Similarly the grid line 1 and 7 diaphragm
cross-tie force can be calculated as:
( ) kN 132 ) 0 92 . 4 ( 1 . 54 5 . 0 b b F 5 . 0 P
= + = + =
+
This load is less than the diaphragm chord force of 151 kN calculated previously in
Section A.10 for the north-south diaphragm response. Hence the diaphragm chord
designed previously will also be adequate to act as the grid line 1 & 7 diaphragm cross-tie.

Assessment Retrofit Flexible Diaphragms

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessment Retrofit Flexible Diaphragms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SESOC Journal

Volume 23 No. 1 April 2010 19

You might also like