Floor diaphragms form a critical component of seismic resistant buildings, but unfortunately, in the main their analysis and design in New Zealand leaves much to be desired. No worse example exists than the CTV Building in Christchurch. Despite the critical importance of diaphragms, there is a paucity of code provisions and design guidance relating to them.
Using generic examples, the author describes a number of common diaphragm design deficiencies. These include diaphragms where valid load paths do not exist; diaphragms where the floors are not properly connected to the lateral load resisting elements, diaphragms that lack adequate flexural capacity and where re-entrant corners are not properly accounted for, and transfer diaphragms into which the reactions from the walls above cannot be properly introduced or transmitted.
Three main types of seismic diaphragm action are discussed – ‘inertial,’ ‘transfer’ and ‘compatibility.’ These are, respectively, the direct inertial load on a floor that must be carried back to the lateral load resisting elements, the transfer forces that occur when major changes in floor area and lateral load resisting structure occur between storeys, and the compatibility forces that must exist to force compatible displacements between incompatible elements, such as shear walls or braced frames and moment frames, or as a result of redistribution.
The author presents a simple Truss Method that allows complex diaphragms to be analysed for multiple load cases, providing accurate force distributions without the multiple models that conventional strut and tie methods would require. Being a type of strut and tie method, the Truss Method is compliant with requirements in NZS3101:2006 [1] to use strut and tie models for the analysis and design of certain aspects of diaphragm behaviour.
Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Masonry Buildings and Definition of Seismic Damage States
