The sixth installment of the

“But It Worked in the Model!” series continues to address the balance between
technology and constructability, with a focus on load paths.

Technology Meets
Constructability:
Part II
BY DAVID RUBY, SE, PE

IN THE PREVIOUS ARTICLES in our “But It Worked in the Model!” series, we

focused on issues related to incomplete or inaccurate assumptions in the model that
did not translate well into the fabrication and erection of structural steel. The last
article—“Technology Meets Constructability,” in the May issue—raised the concern
related to the computer modeling of the concrete slab/metal deck diaphragm and how
the diaphragm as modeled will deliver the lateral forces to the lateral force-resisting
system (LFRS) without a direct path—i.e., without collectors or drag struts in the final
structures—and we’ll continue that discussion here.
A rigid diaphragm compensates for an incomplete lateral load path in the model by
acting as the lateral force distribution mechanism. This process, completely transpar-
ent to the designer, allows the analysis program to use the diaphragm for local and
global stability and for distribution of the lateral forces to the LFRS while providing David Ruby ([email protected])
primary member results, drift within allowable limits and a finalized stable structure. is the chairman and founding principal of
A rigid diaphragm distributes the lateral forces, not as envisioned by the structural Ruby+Associates Structural Engineers in
engineer, but based on the stiffness of the lateral load resisting elements even with- Bingham Farms, Mich.
out a complete load path—i.e., missing collector elements/drag struts. The structural
engineer, trusting the computer analysis completely, sees no need to refine the design
model as the graphic representation of the analysis indicates the structure’s primary
members to be blue or green. In this case, “out of sight, out of mind” unfortunately
applies and as a result, the computer has become the decision maker and has given the
designer a false sense of security.
As outlined in the previous article, the attributes of the concrete diaphragm—
whether rigid, semi-rigid or flexible—and its supporting elements must be addressed “But it Worked in the Model “ Series
during modeling. The modeler must develop a model with a well-defined load path Articles available at
that delivers the lateral forces from the diaphragm to the LFRS. In addition to lateral www.modernsteel.com/archives
force distribution, the responsibilities of the diaphragm include: 1. “But it Worked in the Model,”
1. Delivering gravity loads to the vertical gravity-resisting subsystems— April 2017
i.e., the columns 2. “Technology, Meet Constructability,”
2. Providing fixity and stability while maintaining geometry for the vertical load July 2017
carrying elements—i.e., lateral bracing of beams and columns 3. “Simplifying the Complex,”
3. Equalizing the lateral displacement of the vertical subsystems—i.e., distributing October 2017
lateral loads based on relative stiffness of the braced and/or moment frames 4. “Beyond Limits,” December 2017
4. Acting to resist localized compressive buckling of the vertical load-carrying 5. “Technology Meets Constructability,”
subsystem by tying them together May 2018
 Modern Steel Construction
 Example 1. Enlarged floor plan showing the braced frames.

Force Distribution Via Load Path details. This is when the designer confirms that a load path does
In a structural steel building, lateral forces are not directly distrib- exist within the structural concept.
uted by the concrete-filled metal deck slab (diaphragm) to the LFRS A concrete-filled metal deck diaphragm uses continuous col-
but rather are distributed via the collector beams and drag struts that lectors or struts as collection elements for the distribution of
support the diaphragm. However, due to the nature of analysis soft- the lateral forces originating in other portions of the structure
ware, these forces remain in the diaphragm and are not shown or re- to the LFRS.
ported as floor beam axial forces in the typical computer output. ASCE 7-10: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
The distribution of the lateral forces requires the existence of a Structures clearly defines diaphragm design provisions for mod-
load path from the diaphragm to the LFRS. To determine the mag- erate- to high-seismic areas (SDC B-F) and the importance of
nitude of these forces, the structural engineer may choose to revise identifying structural irregularities that may trigger an increase in
the model’s diaphragm constraints or take a hands-on approach. This the design forces. Diaphragm requirements for a structure whose
approach includes reviewing the results, verifying the continuity of LFRS is governed by wind are noted in ASCE 7-10 Chapter 26.
the load path, establishing the magnitude of the collector forces, pre- A simple diaphragm is defined as “a building in which both wind-
paring joint balance calculations, defining the metal deck diaphragm ward and leeward wind loads are transmitted by roof and verti-
attachment requirements and including the beam axial forces and cally spanning wall assemblies, through continuous floor and roof
connection capacity requirements in the design documents. diaphragms, to the main wind force-resisting system (MWFRS).”
ASCE 7-10 defines a diaphragm as “a roof, floor or other
Up-Front Planning membrane or bracing system acting to transfer lateral forces to
A designer’s rush to develop the analysis model may be short- the vertical MWFRS. For analysis under wind loads, diaphragms
changing the development of the structural concept by minimizing constructed of un-topped steel decks, concrete-filled steel deck
or skipping the schematic and preliminary stages in initial project and concrete slab, each having a span-to-depth ratio of two or less,
planning. At the schematic stage, the designer conceptualizes the shall be permitted to be idealized as rigid.”
fundamental design options, including the interaction (load path) SDI DDM003 states: “Some authorities define diaphragms as
of the subsystems. In the preliminary stage, the designer proves in the list that shows direct comparisons.”
the feasibility of the interacting subsystems and establishes basic Diaphragm Stiffness SDI G’ (kip/in.)
dimensions. Details of this interaction become part of the final Flexible 14.3 to 6.67
Semi-flexible 100 to 14.3
design/analysis stage where the focus is to refine the preliminary Semi-rigid 1,000 to 100
stage decisions by specifying all elements and related connection Rigid over 1,000
SEPTEMBER 2018
 The stiffness of a concrete-filled metal deck diaphragm is a func- direction. The only mechanism delivering the lateral forces to the
tion of the metal deck gage, span and number of side-lap fasteners. braced bays is the beams on Column Line 1. There is no framing
For a typical concrete-filled floor slab with a 2-in. 20-gage metal on Column Line 1.8 to distribute the lateral forces from the dia-
deck spanning 6 ft, 3 in. with side-lap fasteners at 15 in., the dia- phragm to braced frames. “No load path” is the concern.
phragm stiffness G’ = 2,558 kips/in. (according to the Vulcraft 2008 The lack of framing on Column Line 1.8 leads one to question
Steel Roof and Floor Deck Catalog) > 1,000 kips/in.; therefore, a typical the adequacy of the original design concept as there are no specific
concrete-filled metal deck floor slab may be considered rigid. details, notes or specifications that address the strength, stiffness
and connection of the diaphragm to the LFRS. Typical metal deck
A Diaphragm Working Overtime attachments are shown without any details relating to the distribu-
A revisit of Example 1 from the previous article in this series tion of the diaphragm’s lateral forces directly to the braced frames
finds that the collectors necessary to transfer the lateral forces to on Column Line 1.8.
the LFRS on Column Line 1.8 do not exist (see Example 1, previ- It is no doubt that this concept “worked in the model” and the
ous page). The LFRS consists of vertically braced bays of varying rigid diaphragm may distribute some portion of the lateral loading
levels of stiffness (shown in blue). The braced bays are located at to the stand alone braced bays. But will that distribution echo the
the elevator and stair shafts, with the majority off the building grid. original analysis and subsequent final design?
With the exception of the columns on Column Line 1 and two
north-south braced bays, the braced bay columns do not have any No Load Path!
collectors or other members attached. A revisit of Example 2 from the most recent article, although
It is common to assume that the floor slab will provide a rea- similar, has a very different issue.
sonably stiff diaphragm in the analysis of multistory buildings, As previously stated, the concrete-filled metal deck slab provides
providing stability, picking up the gravity loads and distributing a rigid diaphragm in the analysis of multistory buildings. Tradition-
the lateral loads to the braced bays. However, in this structure the ally, the concrete diaphragm provides stability, picks up the gravity
diaphragm will be working overtime. The floor plan is void of any loads and distributes the lateral forces to the LFRS. However, in this
east-west collectors and has limited collectors in the north-south structure the diaphragm will again be working overtime.

Example 2. Floor plan.

 Modern Steel Construction

 Note that the Column Line 6 moment There is a similar imbalance for the
Example 3: Moment and braced
frames on Column Line 6. and braced frames are sharing lateral load Column Line 3 moment frames when com-
resistance responsibility, while the moment pared to Column Line 5 braced frames,
frames on Column Line 3 and the braced based on a review of the axial forces in the
Example 4. Column Line 5 bracing. frames on Column Line 5 are independent Column Line 5 braced frame. Although a
of each other as shown in the floor plan. mechanism existed within the model, there
However, upon review of the design docu- is no mechanism in the final structure with
ments, it appears that the engineer accept- the capacity to deliver or to redistribute
ed the computer’s lateral load distribution forces in the magnitude shown in Example
since the bracing forces on Column Line 3 4 between the moment frame on Column
are very similar in magnitude to the brac- Line 3 and the braced bay on Column Line
ing forces on Column Line 5. 5. How will these forces be distributed?
The east-west LFRS consists of mo- In developing the LFRS for any struc-
ment and braced frames on Column Line ture, the structural engineer must satisfy
6, braced frames on Column Line 5 and the structural requirements of the archi-
moment frames on Column Line 3. There tectural concept. The efficiency of the
are collectors delivering lateral forces to LFRS may have to be compromised to suit
Column Lines 3 and 6, but no collectors architectural constraints. However, the
delivering the lateral forces to the braced cost of that compromise and the poten-
frame on Column Line 5. Again, “No load tial impact on the structure’s performance
path” exists. must be communicated to the architect
and the owner.
Of Greater Concern The mating of a braced frame with a
A review of the relative stiffness of moment frame is a very inefficient lateral
braced frames vs. moment frames on load resisting concept. First, braced frame
Column Line 6 indicates that the braced structures are less expensive than moment
frames are significantly stiffer than the mo- frame structures. Secondly, shared lateral
ment frames in the lower levels. A review loads based on equalized frames prevent
of the lateral forces imposed on the brac- loads moving from one frame to another.
ing elements reveals a dramatic increase in The stiffness of the moment frame and the
loads at the second and third floors. Fur- braced frames must be balanced. This be-
ther evaluation confirms that the stiffer comes an economic issue, since the braced
braced frames are unloading the moment frames become stiffer by adding area, while
frames at levels two and three. the moment frames require an increase in
Within Column Line 6, these forces the moment of inertia to increase stiffness.
must be transferred from the moment In this case, the analysis was performed
frames to the braced frames by the exist- by the computer model and the model does
ing floor beams. Is there capacity in the not understand economics. The proper
beam connections? equalization of stiffness never took place.

SEPTEMBER 2018
The model provided a blue and green result, which subsequently ii. The concrete-filled metal deck in a structural steel
appeared on the design documents. But what was lacking? building must satisfy all applicable strength and
• Stiffness equalization of moment frames and braced frames serviceability requirements while providing stability
• Review of the braced frame lateral force for imbalance and lateral stability bracing of the structural
• Review of the load path for lateral force distribution steel elements.
• Verification of the collector beams’ existence and capacity to d. In concrete structures, the slab, acting as a diaphragm,
distribute the lateral load between the braced frames and mo- transfers the lateral shear forces directly to shear walls
ment frames (LFRS). In systems that contain beams or ribs, the elements
• Verification of the collector beam connection capacity below the concrete slab stiffen the diaphragm even further.
• Awareness that no load path existed between Column Line 6 e. In steel structures, the concrete-filled metal deck transfers
moment frames and Column Line 5 braced frames the lateral forces to the LFRS by way of collector beams
A potential load path issue exists. or drag struts (load path).
In both examples, let us remember: “It worked in the model!” f. Approval of shop drawings, often performed by junior
The examples used in this and preceding articles were taken staff, should include the review of essential elements of
from as-built structures and/or structural drawings of structures the structure’s LFRS. This is best performed with direct
issued for pricing purposes. Our review of the structure was based oversight by senior staff.
on the sizes and loading shown on the design documents. It is pos- g. Final design details must reflect the model’s
sible that many of these concerns were corrected during the build- boundary conditions.
ing process, but the original design documents did not properly h. Designs require review by an experienced
represent the complete scope of work to be priced and executed by structural engineer.
the fabricator and/or the erector. i. Computer programs provide information and are
not decision makers.
What Lessons Have We Learned? j. The computer is only a tool, nothing more.
1. Structural software has become the primary source for structural 2. Remember, claiming “But it worked in the model!” means very
design and analysis for structural engineers. However, without little and certainly does not guarantee success.
an understanding of the fundamental concepts of structure,
the results may be your worst nightmare. Structural engineers Designing structures is an art that incorporates earned as well
require an understanding of structures and their behavior to as learned knowledge: knowledge gained from experience, knowl-
prevent devastating errors that are often overlooked during the edge gained from mentors and knowledge gained from successes.
analysis and design process. But perhaps most of all, it incorporates the knowledge gained from
a. A well-defined load path is essential. our failures. Henry Petroski, in his book To Engineer is Human,
b. Structural steel and concrete are different materials and states, “Thus the colossal disasters that do occur are ultimately
their structural analysis should reflect this. failures of design, but the lessons learned from those disasters can
c. The concrete slab and the concrete-filled metal deck serve do more to advance engineering knowledge than all the successful
different functions in their respective models. machines and structures in the world.”
i. According to ACI 318, Section 12.3, concrete diaphragms Failures provide perspective for moving forward and they pro-
must have sufficient thickness so that all applicable mote the quest for answers and alternate solutions. Collaboration
strength and serviceability requirements are satisfied. between designers and contractors can satisfy that quest through

Example 5. Moment frames on Column Line 3.

 Modern Steel Construction

sharing earned, as well as learned, knowl- Additional Suggested Reading
edge and jointly developing designs based 1. “On the Right Path,” Modern Steel Construction, November 2014
on collective knowledge and experience. (all Modern Steel articles can be found in the Archives section at
Remember, as noted in Structural Concepts www.modernsteel.com)
and Systems for Architects and Engineers: “It is 2. “Developing Diaphragm Analysis,” Modern Steel Construction, May 2018
only with a thorough understanding of the 3. Structural Concepts and Systems for Architects and Engineers by T. Y. Lin
strength and behavior of structures as total and S.D. Stotesbury
systems and the requirements for their sub- 4. “Design of Reinforced Concrete Diaphragms for Wind,” STRUCTURE,
systems and component interaction that one April 2018
can design a safe and economical structure 5. To Engineer is Human: The Role of Failure in Successful Design,
to fit the various functional requirements by H. Petroski
and environmental conditions found in 6. ACI 318-14 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
modern architecture.” and Commentary
And it is only through a thorough un- 7. AISC Design Guide 23: Constructability of Structural Steel Buildings (all AISC
derstanding of the scope of work to be per- Design Guides can be found at www.aisc.org/dg)
formed that one can expect the contractor 8. AISC Design Guide 5: Design of Low- and Medium-Rise Steel Buildings
to provide a quality project on time and 9. AISC Design Guide3: Serviceability Design Considerations for Steel Buildings
within budget.  ■ 10. ASCE 7-10: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures
11. FEMA-310: Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Buildings
For past articles in the “But It Worked in the 12. SDI DDM03 Diaphragm Design Manual, Third Edition
Model!” series, see the April, July, October and
December 2017 and May 2018 issues, all at
www.modernsteel.com.

SEPTEMBER 2018