AWC DES430 LargeWoodRoofDiaphagms 150618

6/9/2015
Credit:APA
SeismicDesignofLargeWood
PanelizedRoofDiaphragms
InHeavyWallBuildings
Copyright Materials
This presentation has been produced by John Lawson for the exclusive use of the
American Wood Council, yet ownership remains with John Lawson. Some photos and
diagrams credited to others have different ownerships and may have copyrights in
place and have been provided here for educational purposes only. All presentation
material produced and owned by John Lawson is protected by US and International
Copyright laws. Reproduction, distribution, display and use of the presentation
without written permission of John Lawson is prohibited.
John Lawson 2015
6/9/2015
TheAmericanWoodCouncilisa
RegisteredProviderwithTheAmerican
InstituteofArchitectsContinuing
EducationSystems(AIA/CES),Provider
#50111237.
Credit(s)earnedoncompletionofthis
coursewillbereportedtoAIACESfor
AIAmembers.Certificatesof
CompletionforbothAIAmembersand
nonAIAmembersareavailableupon
request.
ThiscourseisregisteredwithAIACESfor
continuingprofessionaleducation.As
such,itdoesnotincludecontentthat
maybedeemedorconstruedtobean
approvalorendorsementbytheAIAof
anymaterialofconstructionorany
methodormannerof
handling,using,distributing,ordealing
inanymaterialorproduct.
Questionsrelatedtospecificmaterials,
methods,andserviceswillbeaddressed
attheconclusionofthispresentation.
CourseDescription
Thispresentationwillfocusontheengineereddesignoflarge
woodpanelizedroofdiaphragmsintiltupconcreteandmasonry
wallbuildings,withfocusondesignrequirementsforstrength,
stiffness,andproperdevelopmentandresistanceofwall
anchorageforces.Ahistoricalperspectiveofhowpastseismic
experiencewiththisbuildingtypehasinfluencedtoday'sbuilding
codeprovidesagoodperspectivefortheparticipanttoapplythe
currentprovisionsofASCE710,2012NDSand2008SDPWS.
Variousdesignillustrationsandexamplesofhighloadwood
structuralpaneldiaphragms,wallanchorage,subdiaphragms,
continuitycrossties,chordsandcollectorswillbeshown.
6/9/2015
Objectives
Uponcompletion,participantswillbebetterableto:
1. Identifythecharacteristicsofapanelizedwoodroof
diaphragm.
2. Applyrequirementsforwallanchorageforcesincluding
properdetailingfordistributionoftheseforcesintothe
diaphragm.
3. Utilizesubdiaphragms asatooltocreateanefficientloadpath
forwallanchorageforces.
4. Designwooddiaphragmsandtheirchordsandcollectorsfor
seismicforces.
Polling Question
1. Whatisyourprofession?
a) Architect
b) Engineer
c) CodeOfficial
d) BuildingDesigner
e) Other
6/9/2015
Large Wood Roof Diaphragms

Subjects Covered:
Panelized Roof Structure

Wall Anchorage System
Main Diaphragm Design
Diaphragm Deformation
Photo Source: ???????????
7
Source: APA The Engineered Wood Association
6/9/2015
APanelizedRoofStructure
Subpurlin
Purlin
Girder
9

Woodstructuralpanelorientedwithstrengthaxisparallelto
supports;allowsalledgestobefullyblockedformaximum
diaphragmshears,andwithoutaddedblockingpieces.
15/32thickStructuralI
panelsaretypicalforbasic
roofloads(nosnow).
Plywood/OSB
35psfLive,45psfTotal
allowableloadcapacity
perIBCT.2304.7(5)
Hanger
Subpurlin
Bracing straps
Column Cap
Hanger
Hinge
AllWoodSystem
10
Source: Simpson Strong-Tie
6/9/2015
11
Hangersalreadyattachedtoends
12
6/9/2015
13
2006 APA The Engineered Wood Association
14
2006 APA The Engineered Wood Association
6/9/2015
Panelized Wood Truss System
15
16
6/9/2015
Panelized Wood I-Joist System
17
Panelized Hybrid Roof System
18
6/9/2015
WoodNailers on
SteelJoistand
JoistGirders
HybridSystem
19
Panelized Roof System

Shop
o Hangers on sub-purlins
o Joist nailers (if hybrid)
Field-Ground
o Full length purlins, subpurlins, and sheathing
assembled on the ground
Erection
o Purlin and sub-purlins lifted
to roof as a panel
PhotocourtesyofWoodLamStructures,Inc.
20
10
6/9/2015
PhotocourtesyofPanelizedStructures,Inc.
21

Woodpanelized
assembly
22
11
6/9/2015
23
24
12
6/9/2015
PhotocourtesyofWoodLamStructures,Inc.
25
WoodStructuralPanel
With2xand3xwood
subpurlins
26
13
6/9/2015
Panelized Roof Framing System
27
Up to 40,000 square feet installed daily
28
14
6/9/2015
Development of
Wall-to-Roof Anchorage
Design Provisions
29
Wall Anchorage Design
CrossgrainBendingIssues
WallAnchorageDesignForce
EccentricityIssues
PilasterIssues
ContinuityTies
Subdiaphragms
30
15
6/9/2015
Cross-grain Bending
Issues
31

Background
1971 San Fernando Earthquake
1992 Landers / Big Bear Earthquakes
1994 Northridge Earthquake
Cross-grain bending of wood ledgers in
pre-1973 UBC buildings.
32
16
6/9/2015
1971SanFernandoEarthquake
33
Photo Credit: Los Angeles City Dept of Building & Safety
1971SanFernandoEarthquake
34
Photo Source: Earthquake Engineering Research Lab, Cal Tech
17
6/9/2015
1992LandersEarthquake
WallAnchorage
Improper
35
Photo Source: California Seismic Safety Commission
WallAnchorage
Failure
Steeldeckdiaphragms:
Steeldecking
MasonryBlock
36
18
6/9/2015
1994NorthridgeEarthquake
37
Photo Source: Doc Nghiem
Inadequate wall anchorage
38
19
6/9/2015
39
40
20
6/9/2015
41
Photo Source: EQE
Past Performance
2001NisquallyEarthquake
42
Photo Credit: Cascade Crest Consulting Engineers
21
6/9/2015
43
Photo Credit: Cascade Crest Consulting Engineers
44
PhotoSource:EERI
22
6/9/2015
Ledgersfailin
crossgrainbending
Nailspulledthrough
plywoodedge
45
Pre1973UBC
46
23
6/9/2015

Since the 1970s
No wood cross-grain bending or tension allowed

Direct connection required
No use of toenails or nails in withdrawal
No use of wood diaphragm sheathing as the tension tie
- ASCE 7-10: SDC C-F
47
Wall Anchorage 1980s

WallAnchorage(WoodRoof)
See manufacturers
recommendations for
embedment depth
Member width
per manufacturers
recommendations
48
24
6/9/2015

WallAnchorage(WoodLedger)
49
Source: SEAOC Structural / Seismic Design Manual

WallAnchorage(Woodnailer onsteelledger)
50
25
6/9/2015

WallAnchorage(Steelledger)
Proprietary Pneumatically Driven Pins
51

WallAnchorage(Purlintowoodledger)
Pre-engineered wall tie hardware
52
26
6/9/2015

WallAnchorage(Steeljoisttoembedplate)
53
Polling Question
2. Whichofthefollowingcanbeusedtoprovide
wallanchoragetoawooddiaphragm:
a) Woodmembersincrossgrainbending
b) Woodmembersincrossgraintension
c) Toenails
d) Subpurlins
e) Nailsloadedinwithdrawal
54
27
6/9/2015
Wall Anchorage
Design Force
55

ASCE 7-10 force levels
Fp 0.4 S DS k a I eW p
Notlessthan
Sec. 12.11.2.1
Similarforcelevelssince1997UBC
forSDCD+.
NewforSDCBandCinASCE710.
Fp 0.2k a I eW p
where
k a 1.0
Lf
100
ka neednotbe
greaterthan2.0
In response to past performance problems, these forces have been

factored up to maximum expected force levels
3 to 4 times the ground accelerations
56
28
6/9/2015

120
Ka =2.2,Use2.0
Fp =0.8SDSIeWp
40
Ka =1.4
Fp =0.56SDSIeWp
Linesofshearresistance
57

Linesofshearresistance
Ka =1.8
80
Fp =0.72SDSIeWp
58
29
6/9/2015

ExampleWallForceCalculation
Fp =0.8SDSIeWp
59
SourceofIllustration:WoodWorks

Wall anchorage force Example:
Fp
33
30
8thick
concrete
Fp 0.8S DS I eW p
Given: SDC=D
SDS =1.0g
Ie =1.0
80anchorspacing
332
8"
14,520 lbs
W p 150 pcf 8'
12
230
Fp 0.81.0 g 1.0 14,520lbs 11,616 lbs
60
30
6/9/2015
Eccentricity Issues
61

WallAnchorage(Purlintowoodledger)
Pre-engineered wall tie hardware

(both sides?)
62
31
6/9/2015
Ledger
Purlinor
Subpurlin
Plan
View
63
Moment=TieForcexeccentricity
M
Plan
View
Purlinor
Subpurlin
CombinedAxialTensionandBendingMoment
64
32
6/9/2015
ConcentricLoadingDesired
65
Pilaster
Issues
66
33
6/9/2015
Anchorage to Pilasters
67
67
Loadfocusedatpilasters
68
34
6/9/2015
69
Photo Courtesy of EERI
2014 Napa Earthquake
Inadequate pilaster anchorage
70
Photos Courtesy of Maryann Phipps
35
6/9/2015
2014 Napa EQ
Pilaster anchorage
71
Photo Courtesy of Maryann Phipps
Masonry Building Pilaster
Pilastersupport
failure
72
Photo Source: Abe Lynn, Degenkolb
36
6/9/2015
73
Photo Source: Josh Marrow
74
74
Photos Source: Abe Lynn, Degenkolb
37
6/9/2015
ASCE 7-10
- Wall Anchorage at Pilasters
75
Pilasters tributary area for anchorage load
Repetitive
RoofAnchorage
Parapet
Roof
Reaction?
Howmuchloadtravels
topilaster?
Floor
Pilaster
76
38
6/9/2015
Yield Line Theory
(BorrowedfromTwowaySlabs)
77
Repetitive
RoofAnchorage
Equal
Parapet
Roof
Equal
Equal
Equal
Equal
Floor
Pilaster
78
39
6/9/2015
Repetitive
RoofAnchorage
Equal
Parapet
Roof
Equal
Equal
Equal
Equal
Floor
Pilaster
79
Wall anchorage force focused on Pilaster
Parapet
Roof
Fp
Fp 0.4k a S DS I eW p
Pilaster
Floor
80
40
6/9/2015
Polling Question
3. Wallanchorageatpilasters
a) resultsfromauniformwallload
b) attractsmoreloadfromthewall
c) causeseccentricloading
d) Isnotallowedpercode
e) hasnoeffect
81
Continuity Ties
82
41
6/9/2015
Continuity Ties
83
PhotoCredit: DocNghiem
Continuity Ties
1994 Northridge Earthquake
Inadequate wall anchorage
Thediaphragmsheathing
intensionisnotan
effectivecontinuitytie.
Crossgraintension
84
42
6/9/2015
Continuity Ties
85
Steel Element
Issues
86
43
6/9/2015
Wall Anchorage Steel Elements
Netsectionrupture.
Limitedabilitytoyield
PhotoSource:DocNghiem
87

Since the 1997 UBC
Ductility cannot be counted on
Steel elements are vulnerable
88
44
6/9/2015

Capacity of Wall Anchorage System
The design forces 0.4SDSkaIeWp have been
carefully coordinated with the expected material
overstrengths of the anchorage materials.
Steel Elements
Steel elements need an additional 1.4 load factor
(Sec. 12.11.2.2.2)
Wood Elements
No additional load
factors needed for wood
elements, including
bolts, screws and nails.
89
Continuity Ties
Typical Tie Connection
Typical Continuity Tie
90
45
6/9/2015
Continuity Ties
91
Continuity Ties
92
46
6/9/2015
Continuity Ties
93
94
47
6/9/2015
Continuity Ties
95
PhotoCredit: JohnLawsonSE
Continuity Ties
96
PhotoCredit: JohnLawsonSE
48
6/9/2015
Continuity Ties
97
Continuity Ties
Force same as wall anchorage
1.4 steel element load factor on steel

straps and steel joists
Extend tie from chord to chord
98
49
6/9/2015
Continuity Ties
99
Continuity Ties
purlin
100
50
6/9/2015
Continuity Ties
101
Subdiaphragm Design
102
51
6/9/2015
Subdiaphragm Design
Subdiaphragm isaportionofalargerwood
diaphragmdesignedtoanchorandtransfer
local[wall]forcestoprimarydiaphragm
strutsandthemaindiaphragm
Theiruseispermittedunder
ASCE710Sec.12.11.2.2.1
(SDCCF)
103
Subdiaphragm Design
104
52
6/9/2015
Subdiaphragm Design
Subdiaphragm Typ.
Continuity Ties
105
Subdiaphragm Design
A part of the Wall Anchorage System
Thus same force:
Aspect Ratio Limits:

L/W = 2.5 maximum
106
53
6/9/2015
Subdiaphragm Design
The maximum length-to-width ratio of the
structural subdiaphragm shall be 2 to 1.
(ASCE 7-10 12.11.2.2.1)
Fp
Subdiaphragm chords
ContinuityTie
107
Continuity Tie Connections
Continuity Tie
Connections
108
54
6/9/2015

Continuity Ties are a part of the Wall
Anchorage System
Thus same force:
Check minimum interconnection force:
Fp (min) 0.133S DSW
109
F p (min) 0.133 S DSW
Continuity Tie
Connections
110
55
6/9/2015
111
HingeConnector
Notebolt
locationsin
verticalslots
SeismicContinuityTie
HingeConnectorwithtiecapacity
112
56
6/9/2015
113
Evolution of Wall Anchorage Design

SanFernando LomaPrieta Landers Northridge
1.1
SeismicCoefficient(Strength)
1
0.9
Wallties&
crosstiesreqd.
Nowoodcrossgrain
bending
0.8
0.7
Subdiaphragms
Concentricallyloaded&
Specialpilastersrules
Steelelements
Wood,Conc.,Masonry
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Zone4
SDS=1.0
SD1=0.6
114
UBC/IBCEdition
WallAnchorageForces(StrengthLevel)
JohnLawsonSE
57
6/9/2015
Polling Question
4. Whichoneofthefollowingisnot aspecial
considerationforwallanchorage?
a) 1.4xmoredesignforceatwoodelements
b) Momentsateccentricconnections
c) Tiescontinuousacrossbuilding
d) Higherloadsatpilasters
e) Subdiaphragms permitted
115
Questions?
116
58
6/9/2015
117

North
North/South
Seismic Loading
East/West
Seismic Loading
WoodStructuralPanelDiaphragm
200ft
9TiltupConcreteWalls
33topofwall
30topofroof
400ft
25
TYP.
118
59
6/9/2015
480
480
480
480
480
480
560
500
500
500
500
560
2x4DF#2subpurlins
at24o.c.
119
15/32StructuralI OSB
withstaggeredlayout
9ConcreteWallPanels,typ.
Purlinsat8fto.c.
Shear Nailing
Chords and Collectors
Irregularity Considerations
Diaphragm Deflections
Deformation Compatibility
Questions
120
60
6/9/2015
Shear Nailing
121

DiaphragmForcesperASCE710Section12.10
n
F px
F
ix
n
w
ix
North/South
Seismic Loading
w px
FROOF
Fpx
Fp max 0.4S DS I e w px
Fp min 0.2S DS I e w px
200ft
33topofwall
30topofroof
400ft
25
9TiltupConcreteWalls
TYP.
122
61
6/9/2015
Diaphragm Shear Nailing

A
400
200
1
wEW = 0.25wp
wNS = 0.25wp
R 4,
S DS 1.0
123

(Unfactored)
124
124
62
6/9/2015

Diaphragm Construction (Panelized)
15/32 Structural I
Fully Blocked
Case 2 & 4 layouts
125

ASDvaluesareNominal
dividedby2
15/32Struct I
w/10dnails
(0.148dia)
126
Source: SDPWS courtesy of AWC
6/6o.c.
320plf
4/6o.c.
425plf
(ASD)
(ASD)
2
1
2xframing 2xframing
2/4o.c.
640plf(ASD)
3
2xframing
2/3o.c.
820plf
(ASD)
4
3xframing
63
6/9/2015
ASDvaluesareNominal
dividedby2
15/32Struct I
w/10dnails(0.148)
with4xframing
2linesof
2/4o.c.
1005plf(ASD)
2linesof
2/3o.c.
1290plf (ASD)
5
4xframing
6
4xframing
127
Source: SDPWS courtesy of AWC
1157PLF
ASD
972
417
602
787
278
417
278
602
972
ASD
1157PLF
1
6
128
787
(Unfactored)
64
6/9/2015
129
North/South Loads
10dat6,6,12
10dat2,3,12w/3xframing
10dat4,6,12
2linesof10dat2,4,12w/4xframing
10dat2,4,12
East/West Loads Added
J
32
32
32
32
24
96
24
32
32
32
32
20
1
160
20
130
10dat6,6,12
10dat2,3,12w/3xframing
10dat4,6,12
10dat2,4,12
65
6/9/2015
Chord Design
131

w
CHORD COMPRESSION
CHORD TENSION
w = distributed diaphragm load

L = diaphragm span length
B = diaphragm breadth (width)
132
66
6/9/2015
Collector Design
133
Collector Design
480
560
134
67
6/9/2015
North/South Loads
Collector Design
Lineoflateralresistance
Diaphragmsunitsheardiagram(plf)
Collector
v2
v1
135
North/South Loads
Collector Design
v1
v2
Collector
FCollector=(v1+v2)L
v2
136
68
6/9/2015
Collector Design
East/West Loads
Collector
v2
v1
Diaphragmsunitsheardiagram(plf)
137
Collector Design
East/West Loads
Collector
v1
v2
v2
FCollector=(v1+v2)L
138
69
6/9/2015
Irregularity Considerations
139
560
480
480
480
480
480
480
560
480
560
500
500
500
500
500
Reentrant Corner Irregularity
2x4DF#2subpurlins
at24o.c.
140
15/32StructuralI OSB
withstaggeredlayout
9ConcreteWallPanels,typ.
Purlinsat8fto.c.
70
6/9/2015
560
480
480
480
480
480
560
480
560
480
500
500
500
500
500
SeismicDesignCategoriesD,E,F
141
500
500

50>0.15L
560
480
480
480
480
480
L=296>0.15L
L=400
500
500
500
L=250
PlanIrregularityExists
142
71
6/9/2015
143
560
480
480
480
480
480
560
560
480 Collector
500
500
500
Collector
500
500
480
North/SouthLoading
and
East/WestLoading
144
72
6/9/2015

Diaphragmnailingnot
subjectto25%increase
AnchorBoltingofledger:
Designfor25%moreshear
145

Diaphragmnailingnot
Collector
146
73
6/9/2015

Diaphragmnailingnot
Boltingofnailer:
Designfor25%moreshear
Collector
147
Emh =oQE
Collectorforceslikely
complywithexception
perASCESec.12.10.2.1
148
74
6/9/2015
Diaphragm Deflection
149
Calculation Methods
2008 SDPWS
Deflection limits
150
75
6/9/2015
Bending
5vL3
0.25vL X C
8 EAb 1000Ga
2b
Shear/Nail Slip
L = Length (ft)
b = Width (ft)
A = Area of Chord (in2)
v = Max Shear (lbs/ft)
(unfactored E or W)
(2008 SDPWS Eq. 4.2-1)
Chord Slip
E = Elastic Modulus (psi)

Ga = Apparent Shear Stiffness (k/in)
c = Chord Slip (in)
X = Distance to Nearest Support (ft)
151
5wL4
384 EI
Beam Analogy:
Bending:
L
W(unfactored)
We want accurate estimate of

so we use Eaverage and unfactored W
152
76
6/9/2015
Derivation:
bending
Uniformly loaded beam

5wL
5( w / 12)( L 12) 4 45wL4
384 EI
384 EI
2 EI
4
Reaction
wL
vb
2
Convert:
L in feet
w in lbs/ft
2vb
L
is the maximum unit

diaphragm shear in lbs/ft
and b is the diaphragm
width in feet.
Now substituting:
bending
45 2vb L3 45vbL3
2 EI
EI
153
L
v
45vbL3
EI
Replace I in terms of A & b:
bending
Achord
I I x Ad 2 where d = b/2, and Ix is negligible

2
I Ad 2 A 12 72 Ab 2
2
bending
45vbL3
5vL3 Matches code equations
E 72 Ab 2 8 EAb
154
77
6/9/2015
Bending
5vL3
0.25vL X C
8 EAb 1000Ga
2b
Shear/Nail Slip
L = Length (ft)
b = Width (ft)
(unfactored E or W)
Chord Slip

c = Chord Slip (in)
155
Shear/Nail Slip:
Deformed shape consists

of parallelograms
156
78
6/9/2015
Shear/Nail Slip: 0.25vL
1000Ga
Ga = Apparent shear stiffness (kips/inch)
Combines: *Shear deformation of sheathing and

*Deformation from nail slip
Ga from SDPWS Tables 4.2A, 4.2B, 4.2C

Ga empirically derived from tests.
157
5vL3
0.25vL X C
8 EAb 1000Ga
2b
Bending
Shear/Nail Slip
L = Length (ft)
b = Width (ft)
(unfactored E or W)
Chord Slip

c = Chord Slip (in)
158
79
6/9/2015
Chord Slip:
2b
Sum all tension and compression

chord slips together
Sometimes. Connections only slip in tension
159
Chord Slip:
2b
Each chord connection

slips by C
160
80
6/9/2015
For seismic only, the actual deflection is inelastic.
e = , and needs to be increased.
elastic
M = (Cd e)/Ie
ASCE 7-10 Sec. 12.12.3
Maximum inelastic
seismic response
161
Purpose of Limits
Avoid Impact with Adjacent Structures
Setback from Property Lines
Maintain Structural Integrity
Permissible deflection shall be that deflection that will
permit the diaphragm and any attached elements to
maintain their structural integrity and continue to
support their prescribed loads as determined by the
applicable building code or standard.
2008 SDPWS Sec. 4.2.1
162
81
6/9/2015
AnExample:
ReentrantCorners
163
480
480
480
480
560
480
Withoutacollector,
roofstructurewill
tearfromwallhere
Collector
560
500
500
500
500
500
480
164
Deflectedshape
withacollector
Deflectedshape
withoutacollector
82
6/9/2015
WallAnchorage
Failure
Steeldecking
MasonryBlock
165
480
480
480
480
480
560
480
Forshortreentrant
corners,astrutisstill
neededtoforcethe
shortwalltorockthis
distance.
Strut
560
500
500
500
500
500
166
83
6/9/2015
Strut
Controlledrocking
requirescomplete
freedomofwalltorotate.
Strutshouldbeconservatively
designedfortheforce
requiredtorockthewall
includinganyadditional
restraintforces.
167
AnotherExample:
Hingingofwallbaseoutofplane
168
84
6/9/2015
Pilaster restraint against rotation
169
Deformation is exaggerated for illustration purposes
170
Photo Courtesy of David McCormick
85
6/9/2015
171
Photo Courtesy of David McCormick
ASCE 7-10
- Permissible Diaphragm Deflection
172
86
6/9/2015
Polling Question
5. Diaphragmdeflectionshouldbeconsideredto:
a) Determineifthesystemwillcontinueto
supportitsloads
b) Avoidimpactwithadjacentstructures
c) Maintainstructuralintegrity
d) Avoidcrossingpropertylines
e) Alloftheabove
173
Closing Comments
174
87
6/9/2015
Closing Comments
Building Code Provisions:
A reaction to past events.
Current Wall Anchorage Design:

Hopefully solves code inadequacies.
But, not tested by a design earthquake yet.
Plenty of Old Inventory

Failures will continue until older buildings are
retrofitted or demolished.
175
Closing Comments
2015 Special Design Provisions
For Wind and Seismic (SDPWS)
Available as a free download from AWC
176
88
6/9/2015
Questions?
ThisconcludesTheAmericanInstituteofArchitectsContinuingEducation
SystemsCourse.
Foradditionalinformationoneducationalprogramsavailablefromthe
AmericanWoodCouncil.
info@awc.org
www.awc.org
177
89

AWC DES430 LargeWoodRoofDiaphagms 150618

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

AWC DES430 LargeWoodRoofDiaphagms 150618

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

6/9/2015

John Lawson 2015

Large Wood Roof Diaphragms

Panelized Roof Structure

Photo Source: ???????????

Panelized Roof Structure

Panelized Roof Structure

Source: Simpson Strong-Tie

Panelized Roof Structure

Source: Simpson Strong-Tie

Panelized Roof Structure

Panelized Roof Structure

Panelized Wood Truss System

Panelized Wood Truss System

Panelized Wood I-Joist System

Panelized Hybrid Roof System

Panelized Hybrid Roof System

Panelized Roof System

Panelized Hybrid Roof System

Panelized Hybrid Roof System

Panelized Hybrid Roof System

Panelized Hybrid Roof System

Panelized Hybrid Roof System

Panelized Hybrid Roof System

Panelized Roof Framing System

Up to 40,000 square feet installed daily

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design

Photo Source: Earthquake Engineering Research Lab, Cal Tech

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design

No wood cross-grain bending or tension allowed

- ASCE 7-10: SDC C-F

Wall Anchorage 1980s

Source: Simpson Strong-Tie

Wall Anchorage Design

Source: SEAOC Structural / Seismic Design Manual

Wall Anchorage Design

Source: Simpson Strong-Tie

Wall Anchorage Design

Source: Simpson Strong-Tie

Wall Anchorage Design

Pre-engineered wall tie hardware

Source: Simpson Strong-Tie

Wall Anchorage Design

Source: SEAOC Structural / Seismic Design Manual

Wall Anchorage Design

In response to past performance problems, these forces have been

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design

Wall Anchorage Design