Larry D.

Luttrell

Shear Diaphragm Strength

Author Dr. Larry D. Luttrell is a professor of civil engineering at West Virginia University and the senior professor in the structural engineering programs. One of his particular areas of interest is in the evaluation and use of light gage cold-formed metal structures and specifically diaphragm bracing systems. For the past 25 years he has been involved in diaphragm test programs for various institutes and sponsoring agencies. These efforts have led to many reports and publications including the Steel Deck Institute Diaphragm Design Manual (DDM) published in January 1981 and its 1987 Second Edition. His focus in the Steel Deck Institute DDM has been toward identifying the more important parameters, assessing their individual contributions and combining such influences to allow rather simple assessments of both strength and

stiffness for typical diaphragms. Luttrell, a practicing structural engineer, has been involved in many design projects and the assessment of structural failures. He serves on several ASCE, AISI, Steel Deck Institute and other committees, holds four outstanding teacher awards and is keenly interested in education as it focuses on engineering practice. Summary An overview of shear diaphragm strength is presented as it relates to building design. This paper focuses mainly on system shear strength and shear strengths for various connector types used in diaphragms. Weld-washer strengths are included, as well as an example building design problem.

32- 1
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

SHEAR DIAPHRAGM STRENGTH L.D. Luttrell Professor of Civil Engineering West Virginia University
Introduction.

This presentation deals with an overview of the problems associated with shear diaphragm design using commonly manufactured steel deck units. Such shear diaphragms are assembled from panel elements in such a manner that they both enclose a building space and brace it against shape changes during loading. The assemblies of panels must be sufficient to the primary purpose of sustaining gravity loading; diaphragm behavior from the assembly may be secondary and virtually free of cost. The design of a diaphragm addresses a simple question, "can the elements be assembled such that they possess sufficient in-plane strength to maintain shape under loads imposed?" A simple view of a diaphragm system is shown in Figure 1, taken from the Steel Deck Institute Diaphragm Design Manual, Second Edition (SDI DDM). Forces on the windward and leeward walls are transferred to the roof diaphragm as line loads q as shown for both walls. The roof diaphragm can be isolated as the "short and deep beam" illustrated. The design then simply involves the selecting of panel elements and proper methods of attaching such that the R-forces can be transferred off the system as to the end walls in this case. It is worth note that the average shears across the B-dimension decrease toward the middle of the span L and it may not be necessary to maintain the same shear strength over all of the building length L.

The purpose here is to review the more important parameters affecting shear strength of floor and roof deck diaphragms. Toward that end, certain formulas are taken from the DDM and these are identified here by the same equation numbers as in the DDM. Further, a final design example is presented along with a typical load table developed for the diaphragm type used.
Shear Strength.

The in-plane shear strength principally is related to the panel thickness, panel widths, the types of connections used, and the placement of those connections. In Figure 2, for example, a simple model shows a three-panel diaphragm with four cross supports or purlins. If each of these supports contained several connections through each panel, a resistance to shear displacements would be developed by couples within the panels and at each support as in Figure 3. Such panels also may be connected to each other by Q s fasteners at the panel sidelaps, away from the supports, further enhancing the shear strength.

The SDI diaphragm studies have involved a wide range of fastener types, the layout of fasteners, panel shapes and thicknesses, and reliability of the systems. Once a particular layout has been selected, the shear strength limitations may fall into three major categories: a) edge-most panels, b) interior panels, and c) panel ends.

2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

32-2

FIG 1 A

DIAPHRAGM COMPONENTS

FIG 1 B

ROOF DIAPHRAGM

2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

32-3

FIG 2 . A DIAPHRAGM AND TRUSS

F I G 2. B

SCHEMATIC LAYOUT FOR DIAPHRAGM

2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

32-4

FIG

3 A

OUTER EDGE PANEL

FIG

3 B

INTERIOR PANEL FORCE DISTRIBUTION

2003 by American Institute of 32-5 Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

a. Edge Panels
(2.2-2)
where number of Fig. 3a) edge connectors between cross supports in

end distribution width w. distance from panel end support, in.

factor

with

summation

across

a full

centerline to any fastener in a panel at the

panel width, in.

purlin dist. factor similar to panel length, ft.
number of purlins excluding those connection patterns may differ. at ends or end laps where

structural fastener strength, kips.

Note that the edge fasteners between purlins may require special details if the purlins set above the edge member.

b. Interior Panels

(Fig. 3b)
(2.2-4)

with
(2.2-4a) where

panel depth, in. base metal thickness, in. purlin spacing, ft.

panel length, ft.

c. End Members The fasteners at panel corners then limit to:

(2.2-5)
The strength of the diaphragm is limited to the smaller value from Eqns. 2.2-2, 2.2-4, or 2.2-5.

32-6 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

It is clear from the above formulas that a dominant term is the fastener strength. The SDI studies have led to formulas for determining such values and for proper load factors to be applied to the ultimate shear strengths Those studies have led to recommended factors of 2.75 when welds are used and to 2.35 for systems assembled entirely with mechanical connectors. These factors anticipate that no allowable stress increases are permitted for transient loads.
Connections.

The SDI studies have involved arc-puddle welds, welds with washers, various types of screws, pneumatically driven and powder actuated nail-like fasteners, and other miscellaneous connectors. The study of any such fastener involves its direct shear strength and its shear-slip or flexibility values. In the vast majority of cases, it is not the fastener itself but the sheet material around it, in bearing, that limits its strength. The following strength formulas have been developed.
Arc-puddle welds: (4.2.1-1)

where

average visible diameter, in. limited to a minimum of 0.5 ins. specified minimum steel strength, ksi base metal thickness, in.

For typical steel diaphragms using A446-A steels having ksi, and with d = 5/8 inches: (4.2.1-2)
Welding machine power settings required usually are well below those needed for welding in hot-rolled steels. The settings should be such that burn-off rates are between 0.15 and 0.25 inches of rod per second in typical E60XX or E70XX 5/32 inch rods. The time required per weld may vary between 3 to 6 seconds or more depending on the properties of parts being connected. Heavier substrata require more welding time but increased power settings may burn out the panel faster than electrode material can be deposited.

Welded sidelap or sheet-to-sheet connections are exceedingly difficult to make and are not recommended. However, when they can be made, their strength does not exceed about 75% of a similar weld at a structural support.

Sidelap welds:

(4.2.2-1)

A weld washer functions as a heat sink allowing hole formation in thinner panels, without excessive growth of the hole, as substrate temperature is increased. The washer subsequently is filled with the weld stem growing into the substrate and anchored on the washer's hole perimeter. Upon cooling, the washer is clamped down on the attached sheet. Weld washers are recommended for panels thinner than 0.0280 inches.

2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

32-7

Extensive studies involving washers of various thicknesses, with different hole sizes, and used on various types of sheet steel have been conducted at West Virginia University. An efficiency study involving washers of several different thicknesses, has indicated that 0.060" thick washers are best suited for typical operations. During welding process, the sheet temperature reaches elevated values over an area significantly larger than the weld stem. This leads to local relief of cold-work stresses locked in during panel forming operations. For values between 60 and 120 ksi, no significant influence of was found and the material near the weld behaved as if it were fully relieved. For such washers, the strength was found to be: Welds with washers: where hole diameter, in. electrode strength, ksi sheet thickness, in. Using a 16 gage washer with E60XX: E70XX: inches and for two electrode types, , kips , kips (4.3-2) (4.3-3) (4.3-1)

Nominal 5/8" diameter arc welds of good quality are more efficiently obtained in metals thicker than 0.0280" than are welds through washers. Thus washers are not recommended for panels having thicknesses of 0.0280" or greater. In no cases should washers be used at interior sidelaps. Screw connections, such as Buildex TEKS screws, may be either self-drilling types or the self-tapping types that require a drilled hole for installation. The most commonly used screws are No. 12 and No. 14 sizes though smaller No. 8's and 10's may sometimes be used for sidelap connections. The screw shear strength is dependent on both the screw diameter and the yield strength of the connected sheets. In connecting thin elements to heavier structural units such as bar joists or beam flanges, little difference exists in the shear strength for No. 12 and No. 14 screws. This is because the failure mode is one in which the sheet material tends to "roll up" on the bearing side of the screw and one or two tearing lines develop in the sheet. This result is obtained for both screw sizes and, for sheet-to-structural steel connections: No. 12 or No. 14: kips (4.5-1)

For stitch connections between sheets at the sidelaps, a different performance ensues. The screw, not being anchored into a thicker more rigid element, tips over more easily and, thus, is more flexible. Its strength may be limited by bearing-tearing in the sheets or, with sufficient tipping, a tearing-pull out combination. The SDI screw studies indicate that stitch screw shear strength is virtually independent of in all steel panels commonly used as deck diaphragms.

2003 by American Institute 32-8 Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. of Steel This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

Stitch Screws: where d = major diameter, in.

(.-) 452

For the stitch screws studied, the following data were obtained: Size

d (in.)
0.1635 0.1867 0.2111 0.2477

Q s (kips)

8 10 12 14

18.8t 21.5t 24.3t 28.5t

Sheet-to-structural connections can be made using nail-like pins, driven either with pneumetic devices or using powder actuated tools. Such fasteners are made from hardened steel and usually have heat treated knurled shafts to enhance anchorage. The shaft may have a slight taper and can be fitted with washers, concave to the driving direction, to absorb the final driving energy and thus clamp the sheet in position. The performance studies involved tests wherein the back-up plates were 3/16", 1/4", 5/16" cold rolled A36 straps or thicker wide flange beams. The backing element thickness has virtually no effect on shear strength since the thinner sheet material will control performance through its bearing on the pin diameter. Within sheet thicknesses between 0.024" and 0.1006", bearing controlled - shear failures did not develop across the fastener diameter. Ramset 26SD: Hilti ENP2 & ENP3: Hilti ENKK: (.-) 461 (.-) 463 (.-) 465

These formulas apply for sheet thicknesses between 0.024" and 0.060". When these fasteners are used through full-hard steels, such as ASTM A611E, somewhat higher shear values may result. Button punched sidelaps do stabilize panel edges but, otherwise, may contribute little to diaphragm strength. They can vary greatly in shape and effectiveness. Typical values from well controlled diaphragm tests at West Virginia University have led to strength and stiffness values of:
(4.7-1)

In a typical 0.0295" thickness, Eq. 4.7-1 yields a 0.209 kips strength which is about 30% of the strength with a No. 12 stitch screw. The flexibility or slip tendency is much greater than that for a No. 12 screw. The key in selecting any one of the above fastener types rests totally in its cost versus reliability. Quality installation is easier to evaluate with

32-9 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

(a) PANEL LAYOUT AND FASTENER ARRANGEMENT

(b) CONCRETE FILLED DIAPHRAGM SHOWING COVER DEPTH OVER CORRUGATION CRESTS. FIG 4

2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

32-10

mechanical connections than with welds though the latter almost always yield higher theoretical values. But can weld quality be maintained on the job?
Diaphragms are a part of the structural system and their fabrication mist be treated with the same view to quality as any other part of the structure. Concrete Filled Diaphragms.

This diaphragm type has either a structural concrete overlayment, as in floors, or one of the lightweight insulating fills. In either case, the overlayment provides an extra pathway through which shear forces may be transferred. Typically, the shear strength can be expressed in the form,

(5.1-1)
where See Eq. 2.2-4 definitions

concrete cover depth concrete compressive strength, psi

test constant.

Usually such diaphragms are quite strong and stiff relative to the bare deck diaphragm over which the fill is placed. Indeed, for ones with structural concrete, the shear strength is similar to that for similar flat slabs. The limiting condition usually is at the edge where the concrete must transfer its forces off to the perimeter. This may be accomplished either through shear studs or frequent spacing of perimeter connections spaced at e as in Figure 4a. For example, with an ultimate shear strength at = 2.0 klf and with structural fasteners with 2.0 kips each, e could be no greater than 12 inches.
Stiffness and Deflection

The diaphragm stiffness G is needed for determining the displacements under load. Mr. Heagler's paper, earlier in this session, has addressed that issue. Several example illustrations are in the DDM.

A Design Problem.
The SDI DDM includes some sixteen design examples for illustrating the more common problems encountered. Further, it contains a series of "design shear tables" for the commonly used connection types such as that illustrated on the final page here. Problem 7 from the DDM and its illustrations are reproduced below as well as one table from the section on design shears.

2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

32-11

FIG 7.1 GENERAL DIMENSIONS AND WIND PRESSURES ON WINDWARD WALL

2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

32-12

Example 7. Roof Design. Make a preliminary design for the roof deck needed for a 200'x 400'x 30' warehouse to be located in open terrain in a rural inland area. The construction involves tilt-up wall panels which rely on the roof diaphragm for stability. Follow ANSI A58.1-1982 for wind loads. Consider the structure both with and without an expansion joint at B/2 where B and L follow ANSI notation and are as shown in Fig. 7-1. The walls may have openings up to 10% of their surface area. a. The building is a warehouse, with: Importance Factor I = 1 (ANSI, Table 1 = T.1) Exposure C (open terrain) (ANSI, T.6)

c. d.

GUST FACTORS:

AT h = 30'

(ANSI T.8)

PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS

(ANSI Fig.2 & T.9)

h/L = 30/200 = 0.120 (parallel to wind) L/B = 200/400 = 0.500 (note ANSI symbols L&B)
Surface

Windward Leeward Sides

Roof ANSI T.4

Surface
Windward Leeward Sidewall

*Positive sign means net force toward interior.

The pressures indicated for the windward wall in Fig. 7.1 are 1.01 where the values are from the first table above and reflect coefficient changes with different elevations.

2003 by American Institute of32-13 Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

(a) UNIFORM EXTERIOR PRESSURE FIG 7.2

(b) UNIFORM INTERIOR PRESSURE

(a) FORCES DELIVERED TO THE ROOF WITH INTERNAL SUCTION (R - 398 B/2)

(b) FORCES DELIVERED TO THE ROOF WITH INTERNAL PRESSURE (R - 398 B/2)

FIG 7.3 ROOF DIAPHRAGM FORCES

2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

32-14

7e. ROOF BRACING FORCES (Assumes tilt-up wall which relies on roof diaphragm for stability.) WINDWARD WALL (Exterior Loads. See Fig. 7-1.)
I

UNIFORM EXTERIOR LOADS

(See Fig. 7-2.)

INTERNAL PRESSURES

(See Fig. 7-2.)

The net forces

per foot delivered to the roof are shown in Fig. 7-3. With Int. Pressure

With Int. Suction Windward: Leeward: Ends:

237 + 51 = 288 -161 + 51 = -110 -225 + 51 = -174

237 - 51 = 186 -116 - 51 = -212 -225 - 51 = -276

Note that the "down wind" loads: 398 = 288 + 110 = 186 + 212. The internal pressure effects lead to no net diaphragm shears; those pressure effects simply move through the diaphragm support structure to the opposite wall. Wall-to-roof connections must be designed accordingly. The total diaphragm shear force delivered to the end walls: R = (400')(0.5)(398 lbs/ft.) = 79,600 lbs. Along the 200 end wall, the average shear is: S = R/L = R/200 = 398 lbs/ft. maximum. Note that the maximum shears vary with the shear diagram as in Figure 7.4.

y American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. art thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

32-15

F I G 7.4

DEFLECTION SOLUTIONS

2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

32-16

7f. PRELIMINARY DESIGN

Zone 1.

S = 398 lbs/ft. Try a 0.0295" WR deck with a 36/7 pattern of 5/8" welds and No. 10 stitch screws. The span is 5'-0".

Prom SDI Appendix V, (see last page)

allowable S = 420 lbs/ft.

with 4 stitch screws per span:

O.K.
129

Using the Table formula with Kl = 0.226 and

Following Mr. Heagler's earlier example and using shear diagram areas,

Zone 2.

47760/200 = 239 lbs/ft. Try an 0.0295" WR with a 36/5 pattern. (SDI App. V 10.) Use 1 No. 10 stitch screw per span.

allowable S = 275 lbs/ft.

Zone 3.

Try a lighter 36/4 pattern without stitch screws.

S = 170 > 80 O.K.

Notes: 1. From a strength viewpoint, these diaphragms are adequate but note the strong influence of fastener patterns in Zone 2 on the stiffness. This has led to a fairly large deflection, which may be excessive, and a new design for this zone may be necessary.
2. Examine wind uplift at say 1.5 1.5(16.1) = 24 psf. with each weld has a tributary area of 2.5 required per weld is 24(2.5) = 60 lbs., a small value. In the 36/7 pattern The "hold down"

3. Examine wind load effects from other directions. Usually it will be most severe when loads are received from the long walls and delivered to the short walls.
4. Note the potential economic advantage of selecting a particular fastener pattern and then using different panel thicknesses for various roof zones.

32-17 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

(a) OPEN ENDED STRUCTURE WITH NINE ROOF ZONES.

(c) END WALL LOADS AND SHEAR VARIATIONS

(b) SHEAR DIAGRAM FOR LATERAL LOADS

FIG 7.5

2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

32-18

7g. EXPANSION JOINTS

Consider the building to have an expansion joint at B/2 such that either

end is substantially independent.

spandrel beams along the B

The "chord" forces, formerly developed in

must now be developed in the

dimension,

windward and leeward sidewalls; these walls now act as diaphragms.

Consider the loading case from Figure 7.3b applied to the "open-ended"

structure of Figure 7.5a. The problem is divided into two parts; first, the windward and leeward forces are considered; and secondly, the sidewall forces. The results will be superimposed.
Windward and Leeward Forces, Fig. 7.5b:

The total reaction: R = (212 + 186)(B/2) = 79,600 lbs. The average shear along L at the end walls is:
S = R/L = 398 lbs/ft. as before for the full structure. At some distance x, such as x = B/4, the total shear force is:

V = R - (212 + 186)(100) = 39,800 lbs. The average shear is V/L = 199 lbs/ft. the shear diagram. The side-wall reaction forces chord forces, are: The average unit shear changes with as shown in Fig. 7.5c, formerly

= 39,800 lbs. R W and R L vary from zero at the expansion joint to a maximum at the end
wall. If the wall stiffness is consistent along B, the variation is virtually

linear.

The maximum shear then is

At any point in a diaphragm, the average shears in the system, parallel to the deck span, exactly equal those perpendicular to the span. The perimeter beams have axial forces and are an integral part of the system eliminating

accordion-like collapse of the deck. Endwall Forces, Fig. 7.5c:

The total reaction 276(L) = 55,200 lbs. The maximum total shear

force on any one line parallel to B is:

32-19 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

27600 lbs. and the average maximum shear is

138 lbs/ft.

With changes in y across the shear diagram, as in Fig. 7.5-c, S also changes. At y = L/3, for example, S = 0.333 46 lbs/ft.
Addition of Shears

The small element shear forces, shown near the left corners of Pigs. 7-5b and 7-5c, have directions dependent on the shear diagram. As shown and following the values from the prior section, the upper left block would have a maximum possible value of 398 + 138 = 536 plf and the lower block could have 398 - 138 = 260 plf. However the wind direction may reverse leaving either block at the maximum 536 value. This approach is used in the following table.

The addition of shears from different load conditions is direct since the orthogonal values always are equal. Therefore, it is good practice to consider either different deck thicknesses or fastener patterns to meet the actual conditions; there is little reason for the roof diaphragm to be everywhere identical. Consider the present case with the roof subdivided into nine zones as in Figure 7.5a.
Maximum Shears (plf) 2 3 4 5
265 138 403 133 138 271 398 46 444 265 46 311 for Zone 7 6 133 46 179 398 138 536

Loading Condition
Figure 7.5b Figure 7.5c Totals

398 138 536

265 138 403

133 138 271

The six different diaphragm shear values could be met using six different diaphragm arrangements. This could be troublesome to manage during construction, but perhaps three would not. With joists at 5 ft. centers and using 36" wide deck panels, consider:

Zones 1,7

Diaphragm Selection

(1)

36/7 pattern, 20 gage deck with 5/8 welds and 5 No. 10 stitch screws per span. S = 555 plf. 36/7 Pattern, 20 gage deck with 5/8 welds and 3 No. 10 stitch screws per span. S = 460 plf.

2,4,8 3,5,6,9

36/7 Pattern, 22 gage deck with 5/8 welds and 2 No. 10 stitch screws per span. S = 340 plf.

(1) See following page with typical load tables.

2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

32-20

STANDARD

1.5"

DECK 2.75

FRAME FASTENING: 5 / 8 " WELDS on 36/7 Pattern. STITCH F A S T E N I N G : #10 SCREWS (BUILDEX) SAFETY FACTOR:
t = design thickness = . 0 2 9 5 " Stitch Connectors p e r span 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Dwr = 129
DESIGN SHEAR, plf Span, ft. 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 275 245 225 205 325 295 265 240 375 340 305 280 420 380 350 320 460 420 385 355 500 460 420 390 540 495 455 425

3.0
415 475

535 590 640 690 730

3.5 360 415 470 520

570 615 655

4.0 315 370 420 465 510 555 595

6.5 185 220 255 295 330 365 395

7.0

K1

170
205 240 270 305

335 370

0.486 0.377 0. 308 0.261 0.226 0.199 0.178

Dir = 226

Dnr = 356

K2 = 870

S u b s t i t u t e these values into the equation for G' as a p p r o p r i a t e .

t = design thickness = . 0 3 5 8 "

Stitch Connectors per span 0 1 2 3 4 5
DESIGN SHEAR, plf Span, ft. 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 270 245 225 210 320 290 270 250 370 340 310 290 420 385 355 330 465 430 400 370 510 470 440 410 550 510 475 445 590 550 510 480

4.0 375 445 505 560

6 7
Dwr = 97

615 670 715 765

4.5 335 395 455 505 555 605 655

5.0 300 355 410 460 510 555

305

7.5 195 230 270 340

8.0 180 215

250

K1 0.535
0.415 0.340

695

600 640

380 415 450

285 320 355 390

425

0.287 0.249 0.219 0.196 0.178

Dir = 169

Dnr = 266

K2 = 1056

Substitute these values into the equation for G' as a p p r o p r i a t e .

t = design thickness = . 0 4 7 4 "

Stitch Connectors per span 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 D wr = 63
DESIGN SHEAR, plf

5.0 390 465 535 600

665 725 785 840 890

5.5 355 420 485 550 610 665 720 775 825

6.0 320 385 445 505 565 615 670 720 770

6.5 295 355 410 465 525 575 625 670 715

Span, ft. 7.0 7.5 8.0 275 255 235 325 305 285 380 350 330 430 400 375 485 450 420 535 500 470 580 545 515 630 590 555 670 630 595
K2 = 1398

8.5 220 265 310 350 395 440 485 525 565

9.0 210 250 290 330 375 415 455 495 535

K1 0.615

0.478 0.391 0.330 0.286 0.253 0.226 0.204 0.187

D ir = 111

D nr = 175

Substitute these values into the equation for G' as appropriate.

See page V1 for n o t e s .

32-21
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.