Tips For Using Diaphragms With Analysis Software

Tips for using diaphragms with analysis software
FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInRedditEmailPrintFriendly
October 2012 » Columns » TECHNOLOGY/SOFTWARE
Brian Quinn, PE, Lisa Willard, PE, and Allen Adams, PE
The use of diaphragms in analysis programs has evolved over the last 15 years and this series will
focus on some differences in the types of diaphragms that can be used and the corresponding
results from using each type. We will also cover various tips and critical factors to keep in mind when
using each type of diaphragm.
Prior to the mid- to late 1990s, most buildings were analyzed for lateral loads by simply modeling a
series of 2D frames and applying nodal loads. Capabilities did not exist to automatically generate
wind loads or seismic loads in programs. Therefore, the loads were typically calculated by hand (and
the codes were much simpler for doing this) and the engineer decided how to distribute the loads to
each frame. A 2D analysis program was then typically used to analyze each frame separately.
In the late 1990s, technology evolved so that lateral loads could be automatically generated for a
building within a software program and these loads could be distributed to the lateral frames in the
model. The RAM Structural System was one of the first tools to allow an entire building to be
modeled and then designate "gravity" members and "lateral" members in an automated way. Only
the members modeled as lateral would have wind and seismic loads distributed to them by the
program. In other software programs, in order to achieve similar results, engineers could "pin" all the
member ends that would not act as lateral members. When the software programs distributed the
wind and seismic loads to the frames, this distribution was done via a rigid diaphragm assumption.
Why is all this history important? Hopefully it will help to show how this process has evolved,
because when diaphragms started being used to automate the distribution of lateral forces, some
interesting results occurred that often created confusion. In addition, when running hand calculations
to verify results, it is helpful to understand how structural engineers analyzed frames before this
automated technology existed.
Types of diaphragms in today's technology

We will focus on four different diaphragm scenarios for purposes of this series, discussing how they
can be used, and critical items to keep in mind when using each type. The types of diaphragms
include:
1. No diaphragm or flexible diaphragm

2. "Rigid" diaphragm
3. "Semi-rigid" diaphragm using finite elements
4. "Pseudo-flexible" diaphragm using simplified methods
No diaphragm
This method doesn't require much discussion as it pretty much means what it says – there is no
diaphragm being used to distribute lateral forces. It is sometimes referred to as a flexible diaphragm
because it is so flexible that it is not capable of redistributing the loads between the frames in any
way other than by the tributary area of the diaphragm to the frame. It is so flexible that it allows the
frames to deflect independently of each other. Therefore, nodal loads need to be applied to the
structure at appropriate points and only the stiffnesses of the members (beams, columns, braces
and walls) comprise the finite element model. This method is the closest to the way that analysis
was done before 3D programs became available. In programs such as RAM Structural System,
Risa3D and ETABS that separate gravity and lateral members, the lateral members modeled would
be the ones that receive lateral forces and the gravity members would have no contribution to the
lateral stiffness.
Rigid diaphragm
This method of lateral force distribution requires considerably more discussion. When describing a
diaphragm as "rigid," it means it is infinitely rigid, and it does not deform. A rigid diaphragm can
rotate and it can translate, but it cannot deform. The lateral members in the structure are connected
to the rigid diaphragm at the nodes that intersect with the diaphragm. This means that the lateral
forces will be distributed (and redistributed at subsequent levels) based upon the relative stiffnesses
of all the members resisting lateral loads at each level. This provides a convenient analytical tool for
distributing the story forces to the various frames.
Because the diaphragm cannot deform in the analysis, the distance between any two points on the
diaphragm cannot change, and this brings us to a key point that surprised many engineers when
they first started using rigid diaphragms in software and saw that the beams in the lateral system
had no axial force.
(In our next article, we will discuss in more detail some of the results when modeling rigid
diaphragms, including the modeling of slab edges and openings, along with redistribution of lateral
forces at various levels of a structure. Throughout this series, we will go into further depth on the use
of different types of diaphragms in analysis software and the types of analysis results that might be
expected. Stay tuned...)
Lisa Willard, P.E., and Brian Quinn, P.E., are with SE Solutions, LLC. They formerly worked for a
combined 21 years at RAM International/Bentley Systems and can be reached
at Lisa.Willard@LearnWithSEU.com or 805-482-8436, andbrian.quinn@findyourengineer.com or
616-546-9420, respectively. Visit their technology website,www.LearnWithSEU.com
December 2012 » Columns » TECHNOLOGY/SOFTWARE
Second of two-part series.
By selecting some nodes carefully to disconnect from the rigid diaphragm it is possible to
get analytical results with axial loads in the beams, although the results may be overly
conservative.
In our previous column (October 2012) we began the discussion of the use of various diaphragms
in analysis software, including: 1) No diaphragm/flexible diaphragm; 2) Rigid diaphragm; 3) Semi-
rigid diaphragm; and, 4) Pseudo-flexible diaphragm with simplified methods. The discussion
continues with this article. At the end of our last article we noted this about rigid diaphragms...
"Because the diaphragm cannot deform in the analysis, the distance between any two points on the
diaphragm cannot change, and this brings us to a key point that surprised many engineers when
they first started using rigid diaphragms in software."
Consider a modeled beam that is attached to the rigid diaphragm at the node/column at each end.
Since the rigid diaphragm doesn't deform, the distance between the ends of the beam element
remains constant (i.e., there is no axial strain in the beam element). Since there is no axial strain in
the beam element, there is no stress in the beam element. Since there is no stress in the beam
element, there is no axial force in the beam element. So, because of the implementation of the rigid
diaphragm in the analysis, the analysis indicates that for beams that are attached to the diaphragm,
there isn't any axial force. This is analytically correct, but there is some error introduced, and the
degree of error in this analytical result is a function of the true rigidity of the diaphragm; the softer the
diaphragm is relative to the axial stiffness of the beam, the greater the error. If the diaphragm is very
stiff, such as is often the case with a concrete slab, the error is negligible. This concept is important
to understand because automated designs of these members won't include an axial load
component.
Some programs "disconnect" certain nodes from the diaphragm automatically (such as the vertex of
a chevron brace) and the user may have the option of disconnecting specific nodes. By selecting
some nodes carefully to disconnect from the rigid diaphragm it is possible to get analytical results
with axial loads in the beams, although the results may be overly conservative. Furthermore, if the
nodes to be disconnected are selected improperly, the loads may not transfer properly from the
diaphragm to the frames or the model may become unstable and won't analyze at all.
When is it appropriate to assume that the diaphragms behave rigidly? The building code gives
prescriptive requirements for determining the suitability and acceptability of using the rigid
diaphragm assumption. (Additional discussion and articles on this topic are available online.)
Graphic slab opening 1.
Another important aspect of using rigid diaphragms relates to the "modeling of slabs/decks and
openings" because incorrect results can result from improper modeling. Let's take an example of a
stairway or elevator opening that occurs along an exterior wall of a building. For speed of modeling,
it might seem simplest to use a command to layout a slab edge around the "whole perimeter" and
generate an opening quickly by clicking inside the group of beams framing the opening. However,
this likely will leave a thin "sliver" of slab along the exterior edge of the building (See Graphic slab
opening 1). The danger in this is that this thin section of slab is still part of the infinitely rigid
diaphragm and loads will get transferred through this narrow section of the diaphragm. Additionally,
if there are nodes in the lateral system (such as a beam column joint) within this thin section of slab,
these nodes would still be connected to the diaphragm (unless the user manually disconnects them),
potentially producing incorrect results.
Graphic slab opening 2.
When is it appropriate to assume that the diaphragms behave rigidly? The building code
gives prescriptive requirements for determining the suitability and acceptability of using the
rigid diaphragm assumption.
A more accurate approach to the modeling of the slab at this exterior condition would be to model
the slab edge as "jogging inside" the building to follow the outline of the opening (See Graphic slab
opening 2). Therefore, modeling a separate "slab opening" would not be needed and a more
accurate analytical model is created. We encourage engineers to give careful thought to how they
model slab edges and openings. It may be helpful to ask your software vendor if they have additional
information on best practices for modeling edges and openings.
The next key issue for discussion relates to the "distribution of lateral force vertically from level to
level when using a rigid diaphragm." Starting from the top of the building and moving down, the total
lateral force is increasing. However, this total lateral force is redistributed at each level based on the
relative stiffnesses of the lateral resisting elements connected to the diaphragm at each level. This is
very important for understanding how lateral forces are distributed and warrants discussing in more
detail. This concept is probably best illustrated through an example we will provide in our next article.
We will also dovetail in the slab edge/opening discussion from above in the example. Stay tuned...

February 2013 » Features » SOFTWARE
Third of a multi-part series.
The previous two articles in this series began the discussion of the use of various diaphragms in
analysis software, including: 1) No diaphragm/flexible diaphragm; 2) Rigid diaphragm; 3) Semi-rigid
diaphragm; and, 4) Pseudo-flexible diaphragm with simplified methods. The discussion on rigid
diaphragms continues with this article, which will focus on the distribution of lateral force vertically
from level to level as you move down the building.
As you work your way down a structure modeled with rigid diaphragms, loads are redistributed at
each level based upon the relative stiffnesses of the members (or "frame/lateral" members)
connected to the diaphragm at each level. This can lead to some interesting results when changes in
stiffness occur at various levels. The idea is probably best presented using an example. In the
building shown (Figures 1 and 2) as an example, the lateral system consists of two moment frames
at the top level, and then at the lowest level an additional bay of bracing has been introduced.
Figure 1: Plan view, second floor.
Figure 2: 3D view – Two exterior moment frames with interior

braced frame at second level. Harbor.
The braced frame at the lowest level introduces additional stiffness at that level and the braced
frame has more stiffness compared to the moment frames. Because of this, the lateral force at the
lowest level of the building, which was coming down from the levels above through the moment
frames, is redistributed through the diaphragm and most of this force will be transferred into the
braced frame. A convenient way to assess and understand how the load is going into each frame
can be shown by looking at the shears in each of the frame lines. Many programs provide a report
that allows for this to be seen easily. In some cases, the results will show the change in frame story
shears that are negative at a level, such as in the example, because load from above is being
redistributed via the rigid diaphragm to other frames with higher stiffness somewhere else in the
structure. (Figure 3)
Figure 3: Change in frame shears.

(Note the reversal at second floor for two exterior moment frames.)
The last article addressed the need for being careful about how slab edges and openings are
modeled because this impacts which nodes are connected to the diaphragm or not. If we take the
above example, but introduce a slab opening at the moment frame on the left, you will notice a
different result in how the lateral load is distributed at the second level (Figures 4 and 5). Because
the slab edge jogs inside the building, the exterior moment frame is not connected to the diaphragm
at the second level. Hence, the shear from the roof continues down the frame and is not
redistributed at the second floor diaphragm. Also of note is that the additional shear distributed at the
second level does not affect the exterior moment frame because no nodes are connected to the
diaphragm. The results would be different if even one of the nodes in that frame was connected to
the diaphragm.
Figure 4: Plan view, second floor. When the slab edge is modeled as
shown, the moment frame will not be connected to the diaphragm.
Figure 5: Change in frame shears with slab edge jogging inside

building and exterior moment frame disconnected from the
diaphragm. (Note there is no change in shear at the second level.)
For the programs that separate "gravity" members from "lateral" members (including the RAM
Structural System used for this example), the "gravity" beams do NOT act as "drag" struts/beams to
collect lateral forces at the second floor and drag them into the moment frame that is not connected
to the diaphragm. However, additional members could be modeled as "lateral" members, with their
ends pinned to allow for them to act as drag struts, providing a link between the rigid diaphragm and
the disconnected moment frame. So, not only is it very important to understand the importance of
how diaphragms behave, but also to understand how the modeling of lateral versus gravity members
impacts the analysis.
A convenient way to assess and understand how the load is going into each frame can be
shown by looking at the shears in each of the frame lines. Many programs provide a report
that allows for this to be seen easily.
Figure 6: When a slab edge and slab opening are modeled as shown
above, the moment frame remains connected to the diaphragm.
Now, let's take the same example and change how we model the opening by leaving the slab edge
at the perimeter and then creating a slab opening inside such that a "thin sliver" of slab along the
frame line remains (Figure 6). The result of modeling the system this way is the same as if the slab
opening wasn't there. The "thin sliver" of slab is still part of the rigid diaphragm and therefore the
lateral force in this frame from the upper level is redistributed to the braced frame at the lowest level.
On one hand, that might not seem valid because there really is no slab present. On the other hand, if
the frame is connected to other beams and columns that are connected to the diaphragm, those
members could act as drags as the diaphragm deflects, even though they were not modeled as
"lateral" members.
Having a thorough understanding of how the impact of various modeling methods and techniques
impacts the results when using software is extremely important. There are multiple helpful reports
available in each software program that allow engineers to understand how lateral forces are
distributed if rigid diaphragms are used. These include frame story shears (some programs allow
you to number your frames to make it easier to view reports) and diaphragm loads at each level. You
should always review the animated deflected shapes to look for unusual behavior.
Having a thorough understanding of how the impact of various modeling methods and
techniques impacts the results when using software is extremely important.
The next article will discuss the use of semi-rigid diaphragms using the same example to further
highlight different results that can occur.

December 2013 » Features » SOFTWARE
Part Four: Semi-rigid diaphragms.
Allen Adams, PE, SE, Brian Quinn, PE, and Lisa Willard, PE
In three previous articles the authors began the discussion of the use of various diaphragms in
diaphragm; and 4) Pseudo-flexible diaphragm with simplified methods. This article will focus on
semi-rigid diaphragms, including a discussion of when the use of rigid diaphragms would not apply
and, therefore, a semi-rigid diaphragm approach would be more appropriate. Semi-rigid diaphragms
represent the most "complicated" analysis method for diaphragms because of the use of plate/shell
elements in the analysis.
The rigid diaphragm is a convenient analytical technique for distributing the lateral forces to the
frames and walls; forces are distributed to those elements as a function of their relative stiffnesses
and position. Analysis using the rigid diaphragm assumption is generally adequate when the
diaphragm in-plane stiffness is high relative to that of the frames. There are some circumstances,
however, where the rigid diaphragm assumption may not be appropriate: floors with numerous
openings, roof diaphragms of metal decking without concrete fill or of plywood sheathing, etc. Long,
narrow diaphragms may be considered rigid in one direction but not in the other. For structures with
multiple wings, such as L- or C-shaped buildings where the ends of the wings can drift independently
of each other, the rigid diaphragm analysis may not be appropriate since it would lock the ends of
the wings together, constraining them to move in unison. In these cases it may be necessary or
required to analyze the structure modeled with semi-rigid diaphragms. It is often appropriate to
analyze some stories using the rigid diaphragm assumption and other stories using the semi-rigid
assumption.
Building codes often have prescriptive requirements that indicate when it is necessary to analyze a
structure using the semi-rigid diaphragm assumption. See for example Section 12.3.1 of ASCE 7-10,
which states: "Unless a diaphragm can be idealized as either flexible or rigid in accordance with
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., semi-rigid modeling assumption)." The document indicates in part
that a diaphragm can be considered "flexible" if it is constructed of untopped steel decking or wood
structural panels and the structural system is steel, concrete or masonry frames or walls, or when
the maximum in-plane deflection of the diaphragm under lateral load is more than two times the
average drift of the adjacent lateral frames. In contrast, it specifies that a diaphragm can be
considered "rigid" if it is a concrete slab or concrete-filled metal deck, with some limitations.
Otherwise, the diaphragm must be modeled and analyzed as semi-rigid.
It is interesting to note that while IBC 2012 categorizes flexible diaphragms the same way that ASCE
7-10 does (in Section 202 of IBC 2012 the definition of "Diaphragm, Flexible" states that a
diaphragm is flexible where so indicated in Section 12.3.1 of ASCE 7-10), it categorizes rigid
diaphragms very differently than ASCE 7-10. In Section 202 of IBC 2012 the definition given for
"Diaphragm, Rigid" states: "A diaphragm is rigid... when the lateral deformation of the diaphragm is
less than or equal to two times the average story drift."
Figure 1
Diaphragm model.
Hence, per the IBC, all diaphragms can be considered as either flexible or rigid, with the definition of
flexible (through ASCE 7-10, Section 12.3.1.3) being any diaphragm for which the in-plane deflection
is greater than two, and the definition of rigid being any diaphragm for which the in-plane deflection
is less than or equal to two. Simply put, the IBC requires that you categorize the diaphragm by
comparing diaphragm deflection to frame deflections: if that ratio is more than two the diaphragm
can be analyzed as flexible; if that ratio is less than or equal to two the diaphragm can be analyzed
as rigid. Hence, no diaphragms are required by the IBC to be analyzed as semi-rigid, although it may
be good engineering judgment to do so for the reasons already mentioned. It may also be more
practical to analyze the diaphragms as semi-rigid and avoid the need to perform the deflection
calculations necessary to classify the diaphragms otherwise. It is permissible in any case to model
and analyze the diaphragm as semi-rigid.
When modeling with a semi-rigid diaphragm, it is necessary to indicate the appropriate in-plane
properties, including thickness, modulus of elasticity and Poisson's ratio. Determination of these
properties is fairly simple for diaphragms consisting of concrete slabs or concrete fill on metal deck
by using the concrete properties and slab thickness, to which some engineers also apply a crack
factor. Determination of these properties for diaphragms of other materials, such as roof diaphragms
of metal decking without concrete fill or of plywood sheathing is not so straightforward, and can be
rather laborious. The diaphragm must also be meshed into finite elements. Note that a rather coarse
mesh is generally adequate since the purpose of the analysis is to get the structural behavior or the
diaphragm forces along a plane, rather than the highest localized diaphragm stresses. The structure
shown in Figure 1 was analyzed in Bentley Systems' RAM Frame, the lateral analysis module of the
RAM Structural System. This example structure was selected because of the asymmetry of the
frames and the narrow diaphragms through the center of the floor plan.
The structure was analyzed several times, using a range of mesh sizes. Figures 2 and 3 show the
diaphragm meshes at the roof for the 1-foot mesh and the 30-ft. mesh, respectively. Note that
meshes of these dimensions are two extremes and are not generally recommended.
Maximum Mesh Size
Level 30' 16' 8' 4' 2' 1'
33.55 [- 32.63 [- 32.80 32.77 32.73 [- 32.74

Roof
0.6%] 0.3%] [+0.2%] [+0.1%] 0.0%] [0.0%]
63.19 [- 63.97 [- 64.33 [- 64.70 [- 64.85 [- 64.96

4th
2.7%] 1.5%] 1.0%] 0.4%] 0.2%] [0.0%]
85.74 [- 87.02 [- 87.64 [- 88.09 [- 88.27 [- 88.40

3rd
3.0%] 1.6%] 0.9%] 0.4%] 0.1%] [0.0%]
103.43 [- 104.33 [- 104.38 [- 104.68 [- 104.77 [- 104.87

2nd
1.4%] 0.5%] 0.5%] 0.2%] 0.1%] [0.0%]
Table 1
Frame story shear for Frame 1.
Table 1 shows the story shears (kips) at each story of Frame 1 (the frame on the right side of the
structure as viewed in Figure 1, on the left side as viewed in Figures 2 and 3) for several mesh sizes
ranging from a maximum of 1 ft. to a maximum of 30 ft.
Figure 2
1-foot mesh at roof.
Figure 3
30-ft. mesh at roof.
Using the 1-ft. mesh as a baseline, the values shown in brackets are the percent difference between
frame story shears for the 1-ft. maximum mesh size and the listed maximum mesh size. For this
model, it is shown that the size of the mesh used in the analysis has very little impact on the
distribution of the lateral forces; the analysis is not sensitive to the mesh size. It is instructive to point
out large differences in analysis times: 8 seconds for the 30-ft. mesh, 17 seconds for the 8-ft. mesh,
and over 25 minutes for the 1-ft. mesh. From this exercise, it is seen that a small refined mesh isn't
necessary, and that a reasonably large mesh is acceptable with the benefit of substantially faster
analysis times. For comparison, note that the same analysis using the rigid diaphragm assumption
took less than 2 seconds.
In building structures with well-distributed frames with adequate stiffness and stability, the analysis is
not particularly sensitive to the diaphragm properties used in the analysis. Using the model with an
8-ft. mesh as the baseline, four analyses were performed using varying diaphragm stiffness
properties. The resulting frame story shears are shown in Table 2.
Diaphragm Stiffness
Level 0.5 x E' E' 2.0 * E' Rigid
Roof 32.55 [-0.2%] 32.63 [0.0%] 32.80 [0.5%] 32.77 [0.4%]
4th 63.19 [-1.2%] 63.97 [0.0%] 64.33 [0.6%] 64.70 [1.1%]
3rd 85.74 [-1.5%] 87.02 [0.0%] 87.64 [0.7%] 88.09 [1.2%]
2nd 103.43 [-0.9%] 104.33 [0.0%] 104.38 [0.0%] 104.68 [0.3%]
Table 2
Frame story shear for Frame 1.
In this table, E' is the effective modulus of elasticity representing the stiffness of the baseline model.
The model was modified and analyzed using a stiffness of one-half of that of the baseline model for
the diaphragms at each level, and then modified and analyzed again using a stiffness of twice that of
the baseline model for the diaphragms at each level. Note that despite the large variation in the
stiffness values, the resulting frame story shears vary very little from those of the model using the
actual stiffness. This indicates that the results are not sensitive to the values used to define the
diaphragm stiffness, and even a large error will have little impact on the resulting designs.
For comparison, the model was analyzed again with the diaphragms defined as rigid. Even for this
model with narrow diaphragms, the differences in the frame story shears between the semi-rigid
diaphragm and the rigid diaphragm are not more than 1.2 percent.
It is important to stress that the conclusions drawn here regarding mesh size and diaphragm
properties are valid for the example model used, but may not be valid for any particular model. It is
recommended that the engineer initially experiment and evaluate using different meshes and
properties in order to be satisfied of the suitability of the values used. Generally, it is recommended
to use a larger mesh size in order to reduce analysis time as long as it doesn't compromise the
design of the structure.
In some cases, an analysis using a semi-rigid diaphragm is necessary because of code

requirements or slab configurations and properties. Computing tools are now capable of handling
these larger and more complex models, and with the proper settings and values these analyses can
provide robust structural designs. It is important to remember, however, that this level of
sophistication and complication is not always necessary, and adequate designs can often be
obtained more quickly, with simpler output, and with less effort using the assumptions of flexible
diaphragms or of rigid diaphragms, when those assumptions are acceptable.
Allen Adams, P.E., S.E., is chief structural engineer at Bentley Systems, Inc. He can be reached
atAllen.Adams@Bentley.com. Brian Quinn, P.E., is president and founder of SE Solutions, LLC,
and Lisa Willard, P.E.,is vice president at SE Solutions, LLC. They can be reached
at Brian.Quinn@LearnWithSEU.com andLisa.Willard@LearnWithSEU.com, respectively. Visit their
SE University website, www.LearnWithSEU.com

February 2014 » Features » SOFTWARE
Fifth of multi-part series.
Allen Adams, PE, SE, Brian Quinn, PE, and Lisa Willard, PE
In four previous articles the authors began the discussion of the use of various diaphragms in
diaphragm; and 4) Pseudo-flexible diaphragm with simplified methods. This last article will
summarize the series and also briefly describe the "pseudo-flexible" diaphragm.
Diaphragms and loads

Three kinds of diaphragms – Rigid, Semi-rigid, and Flexible – are
defined in ASCE 7 and have been discussed in the previous
articles in this series. In addition to determining the analytical
methodology required for including the diaphragm properties and
effects in the analysis of the structure, the type of diaphragm also
dictates the way that the lateral loads are applied to the analytical
model.
Section 12.3.1.1 and Section 12.3.1.3 define the conditions under

which a diaphragm can be considered as "flexible," the case where
the diaphragm provides no stiffness. In the case of flexible
diaphragms the loads are generally assumed to be distributed to
the various frames based on tributary mass (seismic) or tributary exposure (wind). The diaphragm is
not included in the analysis and hence does not provide a mechanism for distributing the loads to the
frames; it is generally necessary to manually calculate, model and apply nodal loads directly to each
frame or frame element, rather than to diaphragm elements.
Section 12.3.1.2 defines the conditions under which a diaphragm can be considered as "rigid," the
case where the diaphragm provides infinite stiffness; in the case of rigid diaphragms the loads can
simply be applied as a single story force on the diaphragm at the center of mass plus or minus the
required eccentricities (usually 5 percent) for seismic forces, or at the center of exposure for wind
forces. The diaphragm provides the mechanism for distributing the loads to the frames, as a function
of frame stiffness and location. The assumption of infinite rigidity is a valid and useful assumption
when the diaphragm is much stiffer than the frames, as defined in Section 12.3.1.2, and the degree
of error resulting from assuming that the finitely stiff diaphragm is infinitely stiff for analysis purposes
is generally negligible.
Diaphragms that don't conform to either of these definitions are referred to as "semi-rigid." Section
12.3.1 requires that unless the diaphragm can be idealized as either flexible or rigid in accordance
with the above-referenced sections, the structural analysis must explicitly include consideration of
the stiffness of the diaphragm. That is, the diaphragm and its stiffness properties must explicitly be
included in the structural analysis model. Again, the diaphragm provides the mechanism for
distributing load to the frames, as a function of the relative stiffnesses of the diaphragm and frames
and the locations of the frames. The loads must be applied at their true location, at the diaphragm
mesh nodes for seismic forces (although with some modification to account for the Code-required 5
percent accidental torsion) and around the perimeter (exposed) nodes for wind forces.
An example of the load on a rigid diaphragm is shown in Figure 1.
Fig. 1
In this example the story force is applied to the diaphragm with an offset from the center of mass –
indicated by the red marker – of 5 percent of the diaphragm dimension, to account for the accidental
torsion required by ASCE 7. Because the diaphragm is analytically infinitely rigid the force can be
applied as a concentrated load on the diaphragm, and the diaphragm will distribute that force to the
various frames – shown here as red members – based on their relative rigidities. The rigid
diaphragm is free to translate and rotate, but cannot deform.
"Because the diaphragm is analytically infinitely rigid the force can be applied as a
concentrated load on the diaphragm, and the diaphragm will distribute that force to the
various frames based on their relative rigidities."
Loads on rigid diaphragms are simple to calculate and simple to apply in analysis software, which is
one more benefit of utilizing the rigid diaphragm assumption.
Fig. 2
An example of the loads on a semi-rigid diaphragm is shown in Figure 2 (seismic) and Figure 3
(wind).
Fig. 3
Figure 2 shows the seismic story force applied as a set of nodal forces applied to the mesh nodes.
The magnitudes are proportional to the tributary mass at each node. The forces are then distributed
to the various frames as a function of the diaphragm stiffness, the frame stiffness, and the proximity
of the applied forces to the frames. It would be inappropriate to apply the story force as a
concentrated force on the semi-rigid diaphragm, as is permissible for a rigid diaphragm, because as
the diaphragm elements nearest to the point of load application deformed under that load they would
dump the majority of the load onto the closest frame. The distributed loads more accurately
represent the manner in which the seismic inertial forces will be applied to the diaphragm.
Note that the Accidental Torsion requirements of ASCE 7 are still applicable, which requires that the
magnitudes of the loads on either side of the center of mass be modified – increased slightly on one
side and decreased slightly on the other – to produce the correct torsional loading effects.
It is essential that the analysis software automate the task of calculating the magnitudes and
locations of these applied forces. Otherwise it is very tedious and time-consuming to correctly do
manually.
Figure 3 shows the wind story force applied as a set of windward and leeward nodal forces, applied
to the perimeter mesh nodes. The magnitudes are proportional to the tributary exposure at each
node. The forces are then distributed to the various frames as a function of the diaphragm stiffness,
the frame stiffness, and the proximity of the applied forces to the frames. As explained for seismic
loads, it would be inappropriate to apply the story force as a single concentrated force on the semi-
rigid diaphragm.
An example of the nodal loads on the frames in a flexible diaphragm model is shown in Figure 4.
Fig. 4
In a model with flexible (or no) diaphragms the frames act independently; no load transfer occurs
between frames through a diaphragm. Although shown as part of a single three-dimensional model,
each of these frames is completely independent. The loads must be calculated and applied as nodal
loads. Their magnitude is usually a function of the tributary area/mass for seismic loads and a
function of tributary exposure for wind loads, taking into consideration the load path through the
decking and through drag lines. The manual calculation of these nodal forces and their application in
analysis software can be very tedious.
One of the difficulties in modeling wind and seismic loads is that as the design process progresses,
changes that affect the story masses or the frame stiffness can have an impact on the magnitude of
the lateral loads. This requires that the loads be recalculated and reapplied. This is problematic if
these loads are not automatically determined and applied by the analysis software.
In the previous articles in this series a fourth type of diaphragm – pseudo-flexible – has been
mentioned. This is a concept that has been implemented in RAM Frame of the RAM Structural
System. In reality the pseudo-flexible diaphragm is merely a flexible diaphragm; analytically it is the
same. What is unique, however, is the way loads are calculated. Whereas the actual magnitude of
nodal loads typically needs to be calculated manually (and recalculated if the story force changes),
with the pseudo-flexible implementation the engineer merely needs to specify the percent of the total
story force that is to be applied to each frame. Then, when the program calculates the total story
force (or recalculates it due to model changes), it automatically takes the assigned percentage for a
given frame and applies that as nodal loads on that frame. It automates the calculation, creation and
application of the nodal forces. The result is a model that looks like that shown in Figure 4 for flexible
diaphragms. It provides a convenient technique for calculating and applying nodal loads to the
frames because if the story forces change due to model changes the nodal loads are automatically
updated. The sum of all of the percentage values assigned to the frames at a level should be at least
100 percent, but it is permissible to assign greater percentages than that to account for uncertainties
in tributary areas or the load path.
Section 12.2.5.1 of ASCE 7-10 requires that for dual systems (framing systems that include moment
frames and braced frames or shear walls), the moment frames must be designed to carry at least 25
percent of the total lateral seismic force. Because the moment frames are so flexible compared to
the much stiffer braced frames and shear walls, the moment frames often do not carry 25 percent of
the total force in a typical analysis. Thus, it is necessary to apply additional loads to those frames (or
model them separately) so that they are designed for 25 percent of the total lateral force. This is a
situation where the pseudo-flexible diaphragm implementation can be very useful, regardless of the
actual type of diaphragm. First, analyze the structure as would normally be done. Then, determine
the story force going into each frame at each level and determine what percent of the total story
force that is. Specify that the diaphragms are to be considered pseudo-flexible, and specify the
percent of story force that is to be assigned to each frame; in the case of the moment frames
increase those percentage values so that the total in all of the moment frames is at least 25 percent
of the total. The result is that the braced frames and shear walls will be designed for the forces that
they attract because of their stiffness, and the moment frames will be designed for 25 percent of the
total as required in ASCE 7.
"Just as it is important to understand how to represent the diaphragm in the analysis model,
it is also important to understand how the loads need to be applied to the diaphragm so that
the structural behavior is correctly captured by the analysis."
Historically it was difficult, if not impossible, to fully represent a diaphragm in the lateral analysis
because of the lack of computational capacity and speed of computers. Today, the building code
mandates how a diaphragm can or must be considered. Just as it is important to understand how to
represent the diaphragm in the analysis model, it is also important to understand how the loads need
to be applied to the diaphragm so that the structural behavior is correctly captured by the analysis.
This knowledge is important to avoid over-simplifying or over-complicating the design effort. Even
more importantly, this knowledge is important to get appropriate and correct design results.
Allen Adams, P.E., S.E., is chief structural engineer at Bentley Systems, Inc. He can be reached
atAllen.Adams@Bentley.com. Brian Quinn, P.E.,is president and founder of SE Solutions, LLC,
and Lisa Willard, P.E.,is vice president at SE Solutions, LLC. They can be reached
at Brian.Quinn@LearnWithSEU.com andLisa.Willard@LearnWithSEU.com, respectively. Visit their
SE University website, www.LearnWithSEU.com

Tips For Using Diaphragms With Analysis Software

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Tips For Using Diaphragms With Analysis Software

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Tips for using diaphragms with analysis software

Types of diaphragms in today's technology

1. No diaphragm or flexible diaphragm

Brian Quinn, PE, Lisa Willard, PE, and Allen Adams, PE