Enter your keywords
Search
My Account
Login
▼▼
Home
About SEAOC▼▼
Membership▼▼
Committees▼▼
Resources▼▼
Careers▼▼
News & Events▼▼
Publications▼▼
SEAOC Foundation
Contact us
Diaphragm Flexibility Requirements for Wood-frame Diaphragms in
the 2015 International Building Code
Submitted by seaoc on Tue, 2016-12-20 10:46
By Gary L Mochizuki, PE, SE, LEED AP1, Philip Line, PE2, Tom VanDorpe, SE3
Determining diaphragm exibility for wood-frame diaphragms is confusing because the 2015 International
Building Code (IBC 2015) contains three different sections relating to the design of diaphragms. Two of
these sections reference the detailed provisions given in ASCE 7-10 and SDPWS 2015, which con ict with
IBC 2015 Section 1604.4.
Section 1604.4 states the following: “…A diaphragm is rigid for the purpose of distribution of story shear
and torsional moment when the lateral deformation of the diaphragm is less than or equal to two times the
average story drift…”
Section 1613.1 speci es that all structures subjected to earthquake loads shall be designed in accordance
with the reference standard ASCE 7-10 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.
Section 2306.2 speci es that the 2015 edition of Special Design Provisions for Wind and Seismic (SDPWS
2015) shall be used for design of wood diaphragms.
The Seismology Light Frame Sub-committee of the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC)
has reviewed the inconsistencies between IBC 2015 and reference standards and is of the opinion that
diaphragm exibility provisions in ASCE 7-10 and SDPWS 2015 should be used for the design of wood
diaphragms in lieu of using IBC 2015 Section 1604.4. The differences between IBC 2015 and reference
standards and the rationale for recommended use of ASCE 7-10 and SDPWS 2015 provisions are discussed
below.
IBC Reference to ASCE 7-10 – Diaphragm Flexibility
Per IBC Section 1613.1 Earthquake Loads, structures shall be designed and constructed in accordance with
ASCE 7-10. ASCE 7-10 provisions for diaphragm exibility in Section 12.3.1 require the use of a semi-rigid
modeling assumption in which relative stiffness of the diaphragm and vertical force resisting elements are
explicitly considered in the design, unless the diaphragm can be idealized as either exible or rigid:
“12.3.1 Diaphragm Flexibility…..Unless a diaphragm can be idealized as either exible or rigid in
accordance with Sections 12.3.1.1, 12.3.1.2, or 12.3.1.3, the structural analysis shall explicitly include
consideration of the stiffness of the diaphragm (i.e., semirigid modeling assumption).”
The use of semi-rigid modeling for purposes of distributing horizontal forces is always permissible under
ASCE 7. This method is widely considered rational for use in distributing horizontal diaphragm shear loads
to vertical resisting elements. However, idealizations of diaphragm exibility are often used to simplify
analyses and are considered appropriate provided certain conditions are met.
Wood-frame diaphragms are permitted to be idealized as exible per Section 12.3.1.1:
“12.3.1.1 Flexible Diaphragm Condition. Diaphragms constructed of untopped steel decking or
wood structural panels are permitted to be idealized as exible if any of the following conditions
exist:
a. In structures where the vertical elements are steel braced frames; steel and concrete
composite braced frames; or concrete, masonry, steel, or steel and concrete composite shear
walls.
b. In one- and two-family dwellings.
c. In structures of light-frame construction where all of the following conditions are met:
1. Topping of concrete or similar materials is not placed over wood structural panel
diaphragms except for nonstructural topping no greater than 1 1/2 in. (38 mm) thick.
2. Each line of vertical elements of the seismic force resisting system complies with the
allowable story drift of Table 12.12-1."
Wood-frame diaphragms are permitted to be idealized as exible per Section 12.3.1.3:
“12.3.1.3 Calculated Flexible Diaphragm Condition. Diaphragms …are permitted to be idealized as
exible where the computed maximum in-plane de ection of the diaphragm under lateral load is
more than two times the average story drift of adjoining vertical elements of the seismic force-
resisting system of the associated story under equivalent tributary lateral load …”
ASCE 7-10 does not contain provisions for a wood-frame diaphragm to be idealized as rigid. Within ASCE 7-
10, only concrete slab or concrete- lled metal deck diaphragms that meet speci c requirements of Section
12.3.1.2 are permitted to be idealized as rigid.
Within ASCE 7, the diaphragm exibility classi cation (i.e. semi-rigid, idealized as exible, or idealized as
rigid) not only describes a permissible method for distribution of horizontal forces, but also affects
consideration of special criteria and associated limitations for torsional irregularities, inherent torsion,
accidental torsion, and ampli cation of accidental torsion.
IBC reference to SDPWS 2015 – Diaphragm Flexibility
Per IBC Section 2306.2, wood-frame diaphragms shall be designed and constructed in accordance with
AWC SDPWS. In accordance with SDPWS, distribution of shear to vertical seismic force resisting elements
based on an analysis where the wood-frame diaphragm is modeled as “semi-rigid”, “idealized as rigid” or
“idealized exible” is permissible. The SDPWS condition where a diaphragm is idealized as rigid is the
opposite of the exible diaphragm condition described in ASCE 7, Section 12.3.1.3:
“4.2.5… It shall be permitted to idealize a diaphragm as rigid when the computed maximum in-plane
de ection of the diaphragm itself under lateral load is less than or equal to two times the average
de ection of adjoining vertical elements of the lateral force-resisting system of the associated story
under equivalent tributary lateral load. …”
The terms “average de ection of adjoining vertical elements” is the vertical seismic force resisting element
(e.g. shear wall) de ection within a story such that the calculation-based exibility would be either idealized
as exible (per ASCE 7 calculation method) or idealized as rigid (per SDPWS calculation method). This
calculation-based criteria for wood diaphragm exibility originally appeared in 2000 NEHRP Provisions for
New Buildings and Other Structures to address special criteria for open front structures with cantilevered
diaphragms that were rigid and met other limits for permissible aspect ratio, materials and construction.
Within SDPWS, diaphragm exibility classi cation is used to describe methods for distribution of horizontal
forces, and is used as a limitation on permissible analysis methods for certain structural con gurations. For
example, for loading parallel to open side of open front structures with cantilevered diaphragms, it is
required that wood diaphragms are modeled as semi-rigid or idealized as rigid and incorporate limits on
maximum story drift at structure edges. An envelope analysis is permitted as an alternative to semi-rigid
modeling whereby distribution of horizontal diaphragm shear to each vertical seismic force resisting
element is the larger of the shear forces resulting from two separate analyses where the diaphragm is
idealized as exible and the diaphragm is idealized as rigid.
IBC Section 1604.4 – Diaphragm Flexibility
Per Section 1604.4 of the 2015 IBC, a diaphragm is rigid if it has a lateral deformation less than or equal to
2 times the average story drift:
“1604.4…..A diaphragm is rigid for the purpose of distribution of story shear and torsional moment
when the lateral deformation of the diaphragm is less than or equal to two times the average story
drift. Where required by…..”
Unlike ASCE 7-10 or SDPWS 2015 provisions which do not restrict use of semi-rigid modeling, the general
statement “is rigid” in 1604.4 could be interpreted to require use of a rigid diaphragm assumption for
distribution of story shears under certain conditions without the option of semi-rigid modeling or the
exible assumption prescribed in ASCE 7. Additionally, provisions for determination of a rigid diaphragm
condition itself does not incorporate “of adjoining vertical elements” after “average story drift” which may be
interpreted as including effects of diaphragm de ection in the average story drift calculation. This wording
in 1604.4 departs from the more restrictive provision in SDPWS for idealizing a rigid diaphragm because it
allows a reduced diaphragm stiffness relative to SDPWS. Also, wording in 1604.4 allows the use of a rigid
diaphragm even if the building has horizontal irregularities, which is in con ict with the more restrictive
provision of ASCE 7 limiting use to buildings without horizontal irregularities. Table 1 shows the various
code provisions and their associated modeling assumptions.
Table 1
Various Code Provisions regarding Diaphragm Modeling Assumptions
Condition 2015 IBC ASCE 7-10 SDPWS 2015
Semi-Rigid - Default Assumption Must consider stiffness of
[12.3.1] Diaphragm and LFRS.
Envelope Method Permitted
[4.2.5]
Permitted if :
Concrete slab/pan
Occurs when: & Permitted if:
Rigid MDD ≤ 2(ADS) SPAN/DEPTH ≤ 3 MDD ≤ 2(ADVE)
[1604.4] & [4.2.5]
No Irregularities
[12.3.1.2]
Permitted when:
1) 1 or 2 Family Dwelling
or
2) 1.5" Non-structural topping
Not Permitted on Open
Flexible - if drift checked on each line of
Front [4.2.5.2]
LFRS,
or
3) MDD > 2(ADVE)
[12.3.1.1]
LFRS – Lateral Force Resisting System
MDD –Maximum in-plane diaphragm de ection
ADS – Average Drift of Story
ADVE – Average de ection of adjoining vertical elements of LFRS
Summary
Different provisions for diaphragm exibility and wood diaphragms in operative building codes/standards
are a potential source of confusion to designers and plan reviewers. Based on the arguments presented, the
SEAOC Seismology Light Frame Sub-committee recommends the following:
Diaphragm exibility requirements shown in ASCE 7 and SDPWS should be used for wood diaphragms.
General provisions of IBC 1604.4 for “rigid” diaphragm and associated distribution of horizontal shear
forces should not modify or supersede speci c coordinated provisions in the reference standards. This
indicates a need for change within the IBC. Because speci c provisions of ASCE 7 and SDPWS provide
options to the design professional without restriction on use of semi-rigid modeling, Section 1604.4 of the
IBC should be revised to remove or revise the con icting language to conform to ASCE 7 and SDPWS.
1Gary Mochizuki is Chair of the Seismology Light Frame Sub-committee of the Structural Engineers
Association of California (SEAOC) and Senior Research and Development Engineer for Simpson Strong-Tie
2Philip Line is Senior Director, Structural Engineering for the American Wood Council
3Tom VanDorpe is a member of the Seismology Light Frame Sub-committee of the Structural Engineers
Association of California (SEAOC) and President for VCA Structural, Inc.
Display Location:
SEAOC in the News
Latest News & Announcements
Upcoming Events
Wednesday, September 13, 2017
SEAOC 2017 Convention
View full calendar
Latest News & Announcements
Jun, 08, 2017 Applications now being accepted for the 2017 SEAOC Young Member Convention Stipend by
CVSIC
May, 30, 2017 New SEAOC Seismology Subcommittee on Resilient Structural Design
Apr, 27, 2017 A Message from SEAOC President Chris Kamp
Apr, 27, 2017 Duty-to-Defend reform rides in with transportation bills
Mar, 15, 2017 Message from the SEAOC President - Chris Kamp
About SEAOC
Mission
Origin and History
Organization and Operations
Board of Directors
College of Fellows
Member Organizations
Membership
Become a Member
Become a SEAOC Correspondent
Committees
Overview
Resources
What is a Structural Engineer
Becoming a Structural Engineer
How to Select a Structural Engineer
Why I Need a Structural Engineer
Earthquake Safety Information
Engineering Student Resources
Professional Resources
Careers
Job Listings
Post a Job
Resumes
News & Events
News
Event Calendar
SEAOC Convention
Webinars
Awards & Grants
Past EISE Award Recipients
Event Calendar
SEAOC Convention
Webinars
921 11th St., Suite 1100, Sacramento, CA 95814 | 916.447.1198 | Fax 916.444.1501 | [email protected]
© 2013 Structural Engineers Association of California
My Account
Login
