530

STEEL SHEAR DIAPHRAGMS AND SHELL ROOF STRUCTURES

signicantly improve the diaphragm performance. The most noticeable inuence is the increase in shear stiffness. The shear strength can also be increased, but to a lesser extent. 9.2.2.2 Stiffness of Shear Diaphragms In the use of shear diaphragms, deection depending upon the stiffness of the shear diaphragms is often a major design criterion. Methods for predicting the deection of cold-formed steel panels used as diaphragms have been developed on the basis of the specic panels tested. In general the total deection of the diaphragm system without concrete ll is found to be a combination of the following factors:9.2,9.39 1. 2. 3. 4. Deection due to exural stress Deection due to shear stress Deection due to seam slip Deection due to local distortion of panels and relative movement between perimeter beams and panels at end connections

The deection due to exural stress can be determined by the conventional formula using the moment of inertia due to perimeter beams and neglecting the inuence of the diaphragm acting as a web of a plate girder. For simplicity the combined deections due to shear stress, seam slip, and local distortion can be determined from the results of diaphragm tests. If shear transfer devices are provided, the deection due to relative movement between marginal beams and shear web will be negligible. The above discussion is based on the test results of shear diaphragms without concrete ll. The use of concrete ll will increase the stiffness of shear diaphragms considerably, as discussed in the preceding section. When the advantage of concrete ll is utilized in design, the designer should consult individual companies or local building codes for design recommendations. 9.2.3 Tests of Steel Shear Diaphragms

In general, shear diaphragms are tested for each prole or pattern on a reasonable maximum span which is normally used to support vertical loads. The test frame and connections should be selected properly to simulate actual building construction if possible. Usually the mechanical properties of the steel used for the fabrication of the test panels should be similar to the specied values. If a substantially different steel is used, the test ultimate shear strength may be corrected on the basis of Ref. 9.42. During the past, cantilever, two-bay, and three-bay steel test frames have been generally used. Another possible test method is to apply compression forces at corners along a diagonal. Nilson has shown that the single-panel cantilever test will yield the same shear strength per foot as the three-bay frame and that the deection of an equivalent three-bay frame can be com-

9.2

STEEL SHEAR DIAPHRAGMS

531

puted accurately on the basis of the single-panel test. It is obvious that the use of a cantilever test is economical, particularly for long-span panels. References 9.429.44 contain the test procedure and the method of evaluation of the test results. The test frame used for the cantilever test is shown in Fig. 9.2a, and Fig. 9.2b shows the cantilever beam diaphragm test. The three-bay simple beam test frame is shown in Fig. 9.3a, and Fig. 9.3b shows the test setup for a simple beam diaphragm test. The test results can be evaluated on the basis of the average values obtained from the testing of two identical specimens, if the deviation from the average value does not exceed 10%. Otherwise the testing of a third identical specimen is required by Refs. 9.429.44. The average of the two lower values obtained from the tests is regarded as the result of this series of tests. According to Ref. 9.43, if the frame has a stiffness equal to or less than 2% of that of the total diaphragm assembly, no adjustment of test results for frame resistance need be made. Otherwise, the test results should be adjusted to compensate for frame resistance. The ultimate shear strength Su in pounds per foot can be determined from Su (Pult)avg b (9.1)

where (Pult)avg average value of maximum jack loads from either cantilever or simple beam tests, lb b depth of beam indicated in Figs. 9.2a and 9.3a, ft The computed ultimate shear strength divided by the proper load factor gives the allowable design shear Sdes in pounds per linear foot. (See Fig. 9.4 for the tested ultimate shear strength of standard corrugated steel diaphragms.) According to Ref. 9.42, the shear stiffness G is to be determined on the basis of an applied load of 0.4(Pult)avg for use in deection determination.* For the evaluation of shear stiffness, the measured deections at the free end of the cantilever beam or at one-third the span length of the simple beam for each loading increment can be corrected by the following equations if the support movements are to be taken into account: 1. For cantilever tests,
D3

D1

a (D D4) b 2

(9.2)

* Reference 9.44 suggests that the shear stiffness G is to be determined on the basis of a reference level of 0.33(Pult)avg. If the selected load level is beyond the proportional limit, use a reduced value less than the proportional limit.

532

STEEL SHEAR DIAPHRAGMS AND SHELL ROOF STRUCTURES

Figure 9.2 (a) Plan of cantilever test frame.9.6 (b) Cantilever beam diaphragm test.9.1

9.2

STEEL SHEAR DIAPHRAGMS

533

Figure 9.3 (a) Plan of simple beam test frame.9.6 (b) Simple beam diaphragm test.9.1

534

STEEL SHEAR DIAPHRAGMS AND SHELL ROOF STRUCTURES

1 1 Figure 9.4 Tested ultimate shear strength of standard 2 2 2 -in. corrugated galvanized steel diaphragms.9.42

2. For simple beam tests,

D2 D3 D1 D4 2

(9.3)

where D1, D2, D3, and D4 are the measured deections at locations indicated in Figs. 9.2a and 9.3a, and a / b is the ratio of the diaphragm dimensions. The load-deection curve can then be plotted on the basis of the corrected test results. The shear deection for the load of 0.4(Pult)avg can be computed from
s b

(9.4)

where s shear deection for load of 0.4Pult average value of deections obtained from load-deection curves for load of 0.4Pult b computed bending deection In the computation of b the following equations may be used for cantilever beams. The bending deection at the free end is
b

Pa3(12)2 3EI

(9.5)

For simple beam tests, the bending deection at one third the span length is

9.2

STEEL SHEAR DIAPHRAGMS

535

5Pa3(12)2 6EI

(9.6)

In Eqs. (9.5) and (9.6), P 0.4(Pult)avg, lb E modulus of elasticity of steel, 29.5 106 psi (203 GPa) I moment of inertia considering only perimeter members of test frame, Ab2(12)2 /2, in.4 A sectional area of perimeter members CD and GE in Figs. 9.2a and 9.3a, in.2 a, b dimensions of test frame shown in Figs. 9.2a and 9.3a, ft Finally, the shear stiffness G of the diaphragm can be computed as G P/b
s /a

0.4(Pult)avg a b s

(9.7)

The shear stiffness varies with the panel conguration and the length of the diaphragm. For standard corrugated sheets, the shear stiffness for any length may be computed by Eq. (9.8) as developed by Luttrell9.5 if the constant K2 can be established from the available test data on the same prole: G where G E t p g L

Et [2(1 )g]/ p K2 /(Lt)2

(9.8)

shear stiffness, lb/in. modulus of elasticity of steel, 29.5 106 psi (203 GPa) uncoated thickness of corrugated panel, in. Poissons ratio, 0.3 corrugation pitch, in. (Fig. 9.5) girth of one complete corrugation, in. (Fig. 9.5) length of panels from center to center of end fasteners, measured parallel to corrugations, in. K2 constant depending on diaphragm cross section and end fastener spacing, in.4 Knowing G from the tested sheets, the constant K2 can be computed as

Figure 9.5 Cross section of corrugated sheets.9.42

536

STEEL SHEAR DIAPHRAGMS AND SHELL ROOF STRUCTURES

K2

Et 2(1 )g (Lt)2 G p

(9.9)

Figure 9.6 shows graphically the tested shear stiffness for 0.0198-in. (0.5mm) thick standard corrugated diaphragms. 9.2.4 Analytical Methods for Determining Shear Strength and Stiffness of Shear Diaphragms In Art. 9.2.3 the test method to be used for establishing the shear strength and stiffness of shear diaphragms was discussed. During the past two decades, several analytical methods have been developed for computing the shear strength and the stiffness of diaphragms. The following ve methods are commonly used: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Steel Deck Institute (SDI) method9.45,9.106 Tri-Service method9.46 European recommendations9.47 Nonlinear nite-element analysis9.9 Simplied diaphragm analysis9.36

For details, the reader is referred to the referenced documents and publications.

1 1 Figure 9.6 Tested shear stiffness for 2 2 2 -in. standard corrugated steel diaphragms. 9.42 Thickness of panels 0.0198 in.