Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]
Fw:
[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]- To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: Fw:
- From: "Rand Holtham, Sigma Engineers" <rand(--nospam--at)sigmaengineers.com>
- Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 12:00:51 -0600
- Disposition-notification-to: rand(--nospam--at)sigmaengineers.com
|
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 5:11 PM The classic roof diaphragm model comes from a box
structure with a flat roof. This is simple to grasp because it simple to see a
vertical shear wall turned horizontal. Its also easy to understand how the chord
members work in relation to the web (plywood diaphragm). It seems to me that
engineers somewhat blindly said hey it'll still work if we bow the center of the
diaphragm upward to form a ridge. In my mind this can be pictured as the web of
an I beam buckled laterally. Obviously this weakens the I beam, but if we have a
horizontal tie from flange to flange (like a roof rafter in the Roof Diaphragm
situation) that prevented the web from moving perpendicular from the plane of
action the web would continue to perform it function. Now to further complicate
the model of the flat roof diaphragm there is a slit in the diaphragm at the
ridge. The shear stresses must transfer out of the diaphragm into the framing
(at the point where the theoretical shear is at it highest (near the shear
wall)) and then back into the diaphragm on the other side of the ridge. If you
split an I-beam down the middle along its length and then nominally tacked it
back together it would work for very small loads but under high loads the
tack welds would break loose and you would be left with two tee sections not one
I section. It's my belief that all the misc. framing used in roof construction
that allow the single diaphragm concept to live on. And if you could test load a
whole roof structure it would probable behave nicely, but in a cathedral type
ceiling you lose all that misc framing and you (I think) have to separate the
roof into two diaphragms and resolve the loading accordingly. When the wind hits
the gable end wall you really have a problem because now the split at ridge is
parallel with the load that's like an Ibeam with the web completely removed. But
if the chords are somehow made continuous across the ridge you may be alright
because the shear theoretically is zero here and the tension/comp in the chords
is highest. As far as the hip situation I don't think it can behave as a
diaphragm since you have discontinuities at all the critical locations. Here I
believe you have to rely on the ceiling for your diaphragm.
Rand Holtham, P.E.
Rand,
Thanks for your comments. I think that they would be helpful to the
seaint list, if you would forward them there also.
I've never seen a hip-roof diaphragm that displayed seismic damage --
perhaps wood-framed residential structures are light-weight enough that
diaphragm deficiencies are accommodated "somehow". However, in my work on
old structures that place significant demand on diaphragms [walls of stone,
adobe and other types of unreinforced masonry] I install a
horizontal diaphragm whenever possible [however, sometimes historic
authenticity will not allow adding a diaphragm under an exposed vaulted roof
structure, for example].
I have seen evidence of a roof diaphragm edge being lifted at the eaves off
the top of a brick wall that the steeply sloped diaphragm tended to
brace -- a condition that I interpreted as indicating that the diaphragm was
deforming in its plane -- a deformation that had a vertical component.
Nels
|
- Prev by Subject: [no subject]
- Next by Subject: [no subject]
- Previous by thread: Re: seaint Digest for 2 Feb 2003
- Next by thread: Concrete set acceleration leading to cracking
- About this archive
- Messages sorted by: [Subject][Thread][Author][Date]