Utilizing Linear Dynamic Analysis (LDA) for designing steel and concrete structures has been common practice over the last 25 years. Once preliminary member sizes have been determined for either steel or concrete, building a model for LDA is generally easy as the member sizes and appropriate stiffness can be easily input into any analysis program. However, performing an LDA for a conventional wood-frame structure has been, until recently, essentially non-existent in practice. The biggest challenge is that the stiffness properties required to perform an LDA for a wood-based system are not as easily determined as they are for concrete or steel structures. This is mostly due to the complexities associated with determining the initial parameters required to perform the analysis.
With the height limit for combustible construction limited to four stories under the National Building Code of Canada, it was uncommon for designers to perform detailed analysis to determine the stiffness of shear walls, distribution of forces, deflections, and inter-storey drifts. It was only in rare situations where one may have opted to check building deflections. With the recent change in allowable building heights for combustible buildings from four to six storeys under an amendment to the 2006 BC Building Code, it has become even more important that designers consider more sophisticated methods for the analysis and design of wood-based shear walls. As height limits increase, engineers should also be more concerned with the assumptions made in determining the relative stiffness of walls, distribution of forces, deflections, and inter-storey drifts to ensure that a building is properly detailed to meet the minimum Code objectives.
Although the use of LDA has not been common practice, the more rigorous analysis, as demonstrated in the APEGBC bulletin on 5- and 6-storey wood-frame residential building projects (APEGBC 2011), could be considered the next step which allows one to perform an LDA. This fact sheet provides a method to assist designers who may want to consider an LDA for analyzing wood-frame structures. It is important to note that while LDA may provide useful information as well as streamline the design of wood-frame structures, it most often will not be necessary. However, designers may consider using LDA for the following reasons:
Consider the effect of higher mode participation on force distributions and deflections.
Better determine building deflections and floor drifts.
Allow for three-dimensional modelling.
Reduce the minimum Code torsional effect required under the equivalent static design.
Better consider the effect of podium structures (vertical changes in RdRo).
Compare the stiffness of various shear wall systems where mixed systems are used.
The 2009 edition of CSA Standard O86, Engineering Design in Wood (CSA 2009), provides an equation for determining the deflection of shear walls. It is important to note that this equation only works for a single-storey shear wall with load applied at the top of the wall. While the equation captures the shear and flexural deformations of the shear wall, it does not account for moment at the top of the wall and the cumulative effect due to rotation at the bottom of the wall, which would be expected in a multi-storey structure.
In this fact sheet, a mechanics-based method for calculating deflection of a multi-storey wood-based shear wall is presented.
Most buildings are designed to accommodate a certain range of movement. In design, it is important for designers to identify locations where potential differential movement could affect structural integrity and serviceability, predict the amount of differential movement and develop proper detailing to accommodate it. To allow non-structural materials to be appropriately constructed, an estimate of anticipated differential movement should be provided in the design drawings.
Simply specifying wood materials with lower MC at time of delivery does not guarantee that the wood will not get wet on construction sites and will deliver lower shrinkage amounts as anticipated. It is therefore important to ensure that wood does not experience unexpected wetting during storage, transportation and construction. Good construction sequencing also plays an important role in reducing wetting, the consequent wood shrinkage and other moisture-related issues.
Existing documents such as the APEGBC Technical and Practice Bulletin on 5- and 6-Storey Wood Frame Residential Building Projects, the Best Practice Guide published by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), the Building Enclosure Design Guide –Wood Frame Multi-Unit Residential Buildings published by the BC Housing- Homeowner Protection Office (HPO) provide general design guidance on how to reduce and accommodate differential movement in platform frame construction.
Movement in structures due to environmental condition changes and loads must be considered in design. Temperature changes will cause movement in concrete, steel and masonry structures. For wood materials, movement is primarily related to shrinkage or swelling caused by moisture loss or gain when the moisture content is below 28% (wood fiber saturation point). Other movement in wood structures may also include: settlement (bedding-in movement) due to closing of gaps between members and deformation due to compression loads, including instantaneous elastic deformation and creep. Differential movement can occur where wood frame is connected to rigid components such as masonry cladding, concrete elevator shafts, mechanical services and plumbing, and where mixed wood products such as lumber, timbers, and engineered wood products are used.
Evidence from long-term wood frame construction practices shows that for typical light frame construction up to three storeys high, differential movement can be relatively easily accommodated such as through specifying “S-Dry” lumber. However, differential movement over the height of wood-frame buildings becomes a very important consideration for taller buildings due to its cumulative effect. The APEGBC Technical and Practice Bulletin provides general design guidance and recommends the use of engineered wood products and dimension lumber with 12% moisture content for floor joists to reduce and accommodate differential movement in 5 and 6-storey wood frame buildings. Examples of differential movement concerns and solutions in wood-frame buildings can also be found in the Best Practice Guide published by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Building Enclosure Design Guide –Wood Frame Multi-Unit Residential Buildings published by the Homeowner Protection Office of BC Housing.
This document illustrates the causes and other basic information related to vertical movement in wood platform frame buildings and recommendations on material handling and construction sequencing to protect wood from rain and reduce the vertical movement.
It is not possible or practical to precisely predict the vertical movement of wood structures due to the many factors involved in construction. It is, however, possible to obtain a good estimate of the vertical movement to avoid structural, serviceability, and building envelope problems over the life of the structure.
Typically “S-Dry” and “S-Grn” lumber will continue to lose moisture during storage, transportation and construction as the wood is kept away from liquid water sources and adapts to different atmospheric conditions. For the purpose of shrinkage prediction, it is usually customary to assume an initial moisture content (MC) of 28% for “S-Green” lumber and 19% for “S-Dry” lumber. “KD” lumber is assumed to have an initial MC of 15% in this series of fact sheets.
Different from solid sawn wood products, Engineered Wood Products (EWP) are usually manufactured with MC levels close to or even lower than the equilibrium moisture content (EMC) in service. Plywood, Oriented Strand Board (OSB), Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL), Laminated Strand Lumber (LSL), and Parallel Strand Lumber (PSL) are usually manufactured at MC levels ranging from 6% to 12%. Engineered wood I-joists are made using kiln dried lumber (usually with moisture content below 15%) or structural composite lumber (such as LVL) flanges and plywood or OSB webs, therefore they are usually drier and have lower shrinkage than typical “S-Dry” lumber floor joists. Glued-laminated timbers (Glulam) are manufactured at MC levels from 11% to 15%, so are the recently-developed Cross-laminated Timbers (CLT). For all these products, low shrinkage can be achieved and sometimes small amounts of swelling can be expected in service if their MC at manufacturing is lower than the service EMC. In order to fully benefit from using these dried products including “S-Dry” lumber and EWP products, care must be taken to prevent them from wetting such as by rain during shipment, storage and construction. EWPs may also have lower shrinkage coefficients than solid wood due to the adhesives used during manufacturing and the more mixed grain orientations in the products, including the use of cross-lamination of veneers (plywood) or lumber (CLT). The APEGBC Technical and Practice Bulletin emphasizes the use of EWP and dimension lumber with 12% moisture content for the critical horizontal members to reduce differential movement in 5 and 6-storey wood frame buildings.
Diaphragms are essential to transfer lateral forces in the plane of the diaphragms to supporting shear walls underneath. As the distribution of lateral force to shear walls is dependent on the relative stiffness/flexibility of diaphragm to the shear walls, it is critical to know the stiffness of both diaphragm and shear walls, so that appropriate lateral force applied on shear walls can be assigned.
In design, diaphragms can be treated as flexible, rigid or semi-rigid. For a diaphragm that is designated as flexible, the in-plane forces can be assumed to be distributed to the shear walls according to the tributary areas associated with each shear wall. For a diaphragm that is designated as rigid, the loads are assumed to be distributed according to the relative stiffness of the shear walls, with consideration of additional shear force due to torsion for seismic design. In reality, diaphragm is neither purely flexible nor completely rigid, and is more realistically to be treated as semi-rigid. In this case, computer analysis using either plate or diagonal strut elements can be used and the load-deflection properties of the diaphragm will result in force distribution somewhere between the flexible and rigid models. However, alternatively envelope approach which takes the highest forces from rigid and flexible assumptions can be used as a conservative estimation in lieu of computer analysis.