SESOC Journal

I
DIAPHRAGMS FOR TIMBER FRAMED
BUILDINGS
AUTHOR: ROGER SHELTON1

ABSTRACT

This paper describes a stndy carried out at BRANZ on timber diaphragms within the context of NZS 3604
"Timberframed buildings".

The provisions of NZS 3604 relating to floor and ceiling diaphragms are described, and found to be some-
what confusing and inconsistent. An experimental investigation was undertaken to establish the strength
andstiffness of the connection between wall and ceiling of the "weakest" of the detailing optionsprovided
for in NZS 3604. Examples of both traditional stickframed and battened ceilings were tested under cyclic
loading both parallel andperpendicular to the joint. It was found that irrespective of the type of ceiling
construction, the strength of the joint (both parallel andperpendicular) could be represented by a value of
1.6 W/m. Most applied cornice details (taped and stopped, and plasterboard coving - but not nailed
timber scotias) enhanced this value.

Using this value of 1.6 kN/m, and the limiting dimensions permitted by NZS 3604, it is shown that the top
plate provisions are a little deficient in providing the continuity required of boundary members expected to
resist diaphragm chord forces.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

IIn the broadest sense, a diaphragm is a structural member used
to collect and distribute loads in its own plane.
Floors and ceilings of buildings are frequently utilised as a
diaphragm to collect lateral loads on the building (resulting
from wind or earthquake actions), and distribute them to bracing
elements in the storey or sub-floor space below. In NZS 3604
-
"Timber Framed Buildings" (SNZ. 1999) there is no
~
For diaphragms made up of discrete sheets such as plywood or
paaicleboard, the girder analogy is the most appropriate means
of analysis to determine force and stress distributions. This
model requires continuous boundary members to resist "chord"
(or "flange") forces in direct tension and compression, while
the "web" of the girder is the diaphragm sheathing which resists
the shear forces. Boundary members may be floor or ceiling

requirement for the bracing elements at one level to be aligned

vertically with bracing elements at the next lower level. Thus
a diaphragm may also be required to transfer concentrated
lateral loads from bracing elements at one level to the level
below.
The floor or ceiling is also required to provide lateral support
to the tops of the walls in the storey below. Thus floors or
ceiling diaphragms are used to "tie the building together", and
readers will be aware of their role in this regard for retrofitting
or strengthening of earthquake risk buildings.
2.0 ANALYSIS
Architectural demands mean that floor plans of today's houses
and apartments are likely to encompass a wide variety of shapes.
However the "bracing line" concept of NZS 3604, with
regularly spaced resisting elements allows modelling a
diaphragm as a simple deep beam, as shown in Figure 1.
PAPER CLASS & TYPE: GENERAL REFEREED
' Senior Structural Engineer; BRANZ
16
joists, top plates of walls below, bottom plates of walls above,
or a combination of all three. Clearly, these members must be
continuous, or the joints in them must be capable of transferring
these forces. This requires particular attention in a "non-
structural"environmentsuch as NZS 3604. Similarly, the fixing
pattern of individual sheets must be capable of transfening the
shear forces.
Chord forces may be readily estimated by calculating the
bending moment in the diaphragm and dividing by the distance
between the centrelines of the chord members. Tests on wood
sheathed diaphragms (ATC, 1981) have shown that measured
chord stresses are less than those calculated assuming all
bending is resisted by the chords as described above. Thus the
girder analoev
" ",is conservative.
In the case of plasterboard ceilings made "monolithic" by tape
reinforced stoppedjoints between sheets, a beam malogy may
apply. However, the strength of the joints between the sheets
must be capable of resisting stresses "t," and "cm" of
Figure 1. This issue is discussed later.
Journal of the Structural Engmeenng Soc~etyNew Zealand Inc
 SESOC Journal

Overall forces on a simple diaphragm

force

~oundary2
member
Beam Girder
Section A-A analogy analogy

Figure 1. Simple diaphragm analysis

w represents a more or less uniformly distributed load arising

from face loading on the exterior walls (wind or earthquake),
plus the inertial forces (earthquake) on the floor or ceiling
itself.
P represents the concentrated horizontal shear load from a
bracing element above the diaphragm
v is the resistance of bracing elements below the diaphragm.

3.0 PROVISIONS IN NZS 3604
The governing principle in NZS 3604 for dealing with lateral
loads on buildiigs is to provide a number of load-resisting
elements of moderate capacity, evenly distributed in each
direction throughout the plan area at each storey. This is
achieved by requiring the designer to match the demand in
each direction by distributing vertical bracing elements along
notional "bracing lines" at regular spacing. Details are then
provided to ensure that the horizontal elements (floors and
ceilings) are sufficiently robust to span the distance between
the bracing lines.
Dimensional limits in NZS 3604 for the various types of
diaphragms are summarised in Table 1

Volume 17 No. 1 April 2004 17

SESOC Journal

Table 1. Dimensional limits of ceiling diaphragms in NZS 3604

* Floors and ceilings designatedas "diaphragms" are limited to an aspect ratio (long dimenrion/short
dimension)of 2.0 (or 2.5 for afloor diaphragm in a single storey building). There are no such limits
for "norma1"floors or ceilings although the spacing restrictions on bracing lines (and practical
room sizes) effectively limits the aspect ratio to between 1 and2.

# Low density ceilings are defined as those having a mass of less than 600 kg/m3. Thus plasterboard
ceilings are ordinary ceilings.

Although any horizontal element (floor or ceiling) will be called
upon to act as a diaphragm under lateral load action on the
building, as described in the section above, use of the defined
word "diaphragm" in NZS 3604 is restricted only to the
situation where the bracinglmes in the storey below are spaced
at more than 6 metres. This may be required, for instance, to
accommodate a large room, or to reduce the number of
foundation bracing elements in conjunction with a continuous
perimeter foundation.
Tne differences in details between "diaphragm" floors and
ceilings, and "non-diaphragm" floors and ceilings are
summarised in Table 2.

Table 2. Provisions in NZS 3604 for floor and ceiling diaphragms

erimeter sheet nailing will perform with this), or:

Continuous 40 mm blocking for diaphragms,
40 mm blocking at 1.8 m for non-diaphragms (continuous over 1.8 m, if

18 Journal of the Structural Engineering Society New Zealand Inc.

 SESOC Journal
Lateral support of all top plates is required to be provided either
by a diaphragm,or framing members spaced at 2.5 mmaximum
along the plate. No ceiling l i n g is prescribed for the latter
option, which thus couldincludeanunlined garage for example,
with the trusses forming the framing members. Also the
effectiveness of the connection at the opposite end of such
members, as detailed in NZS 3604 Figure 8.17, is perhaps
questionable.
Low density ceilimgs as defmed, are effectively wood-fibre
softboard. As these types of ceilings are frequently constructed
in the form of tiles or panels, their ability to resist shear forces
is almost nil, so their ability under diaphragm action is limited
to the spanning capacity of the adjacent top plates. Thus the
span for a single top plate is limited to 5 m, (or 6 m for a double
top plate).
These two provisions for the lateral support of a top plate are
not really consistent, and this aspect is discussed later.
4.0 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
AAn experimental study was undertaken to establish the
strength and stiffness of the connections at the junctions
between the ceilmg and wall.
DrmnElsCut-
joists at heet jointr
spaced to suit
UI
Dwanged ceiling
Figure 2. Construction of dwanged and battened ceilings
Figure 2 depicts the details at the eave of a roof. For a battened
ceiling the construction detail at a gable end and internal wall
is similar to that at the eave, so a single test was able to cover
all situations.
At the hip ends of a dwanged ceiling, the direction of the ceiling
joists is reversed, so the construction can be considered to be
Volume 17 No. 1 April 2004
There are two basic types of domestic ceiling construction used
in New Zealand:
e Traditional dwanged ceiling, as illustratedin Figure 2. This
is typically used with on-site built "stick framed"
construction, and is perhaps more common today in
alterations or additions to existing buildings. Ceiling joists
are used to span between walls and are spaced to suit the
spanning capability of the ceiling lining (for example
450 mm for 10 mm plasterboard). Dwangs (or nogs) are
installed, cut between the joists, to provide f ~ n for g the
longitudinal sheet joints. The lining is direct fixed (nailed,
screwed or glued) to the joists and dwangs. This type of
construction was the norm when NZS 3604 was originally
published in 1978.
Battened ceiling, as illustrated in Figure 2. This is more
common in new construction, where it is used with pre-
fabricated timber trusses. Battens may be timber or metal
and are used in conjunction with a double top plate to provide
adequate f ~ n of g the ceiling lining at the wall junction.
Battens are attached to the truss bottom chords at spacings
to suit the ceiling l i n g , and are themselves sized to suit the
truss spacings. Lining sheets are fixed to the battens and
upper of the top plates at the junctions with the walls.
a5nlmms ceiri m em.
gwged to suit Ceiliq r i
Battened ceiling
similar to the eave, so the same test detail was used for the
study. However, where the joists run parallel to gable end walls
and internal walls, the construction is similar to that shown in
Figure 3. While internal walls are not expected to apply a
sigdicant loading to a diaphragm, the gable wall loading is
significant, so this example was included in the test program.
19
SESOC Journal

Gable end

Figure 3. Detail at gable or internal wall

Test specimens were constructed which were representativeof
each of these types of ceiling constrnction. A complete listing
is set out in Table 3. The initial tests were conducted with (a)
no finishes at the waU/ceiling joint, and with (b) a timber scotia,
(c) a plasterboard scotia, and (d) a tape reinforced, stopped
joint. The enhancement in strength with any additional detail
is clear from the results shown in the table. However as the
purpose of the investigation was to obtain realistic minimum
values, subsequent tests used no cornice detail.
Each example ceiling was tested for loading parallel and per-
pendicular to the wall junction. The set-up used for each load-
ing direction is shown diagrammatically in Figure 4. A2.4 m
length of wall/ceilmg joint was incorporated in each specimen
so as to encompass a representative number of joistldwang
connections. Joist and dwang spacings and all fixings were
chosen from the options of NZS 3604 to model the weakest
combmation of k i n g s allowable.
Load was applied in sets of reversed cycles of increasing
amplitude, as prescribed by BRANZ Evaluation Method
EM1 BRANZ, 1999).
Results of the tests are summarised in Table 3.

Ceiling under test

( 2 4 long)
~ Applied load

Applied load
Vertical
Reaction
wall b

Cross section of ceiling being Plan of ceiling being tested

tested in direction perpendicular to wall in direction parallel to walls

Figure 4. Test-set up

20 Journal of the Srmctural Engineering Society New Zealand Inc.

 SESOC Journal

Table 3. Test results

Timber scotia 4.17 3.13

Dwanged Gable (internal) Perpendicular None 2.35 1.69 1.69
Battened Eavelhiplgable Parallel None 2.57 1.81 1.68
Battened Eavelhiplgable Perpendicular None 2.67 1.83 1.69

* Equipment malfunction

In the parallel direction, the pushlpull loads resisted by the
connection were approximately symmetrical, and the average
of the two directions is quoted in the table. In the perpendicular
direction the resistance of the joint was higher where the wall
was loaded inwards, towards the ceiling, because the
plasterboard came into contact with the top plate and caused
an increase in the measured load. Thus for the perpendicular
i
direction, only the lowest result (wall loaded outwards) is
quoted.
heights (up to 4.8 m) that are permitted in NZS 3604. That no
problems have occurred to date to the writer's knowledge, is
likely to be due to a) historically most houses have been built
in more sheltered locations, so relatively few houses exist in
the higher wind zones, b) most stud heights are no more than
2.4 m, and c) that the rafterlplate connection in higher wind
areas requires a greater capacity against uplift, which would
make the joint more robust against lateral loading than the joint
as tested.

Loads were also estimated using calculations to NZS 3603 For a given distributed input load (w), the critical parameters
"Timber Smctures Standard"(SNZ, 1993),combined with the for a floor or ceiling diaphragm may be calculated as follows:
results of previous tests carried out at BRANZ, and these are (using the symbols of Figure 1):
included in the last column of Table 3, using acapacity reduction
factor, $ = 0.8. There is a satisfactory correlation between the
two. Chord force (kN) (calculated using the girder
analogy)
From this limited indicative study, and having regard to the
variety of details covered by these provisions of NZS 3604:1999,
c= ws2 1
a strength value of 1.6 W m could be chosen to represent the - X-
likely strength of a non-enhanced ceiling detail for loading 8 d- b
directions either perpendicular or parallel to the wall joint.

5.0 DISCUSSION Shear force (kN/m)

The strength of 1.6 W m for the walllceiling joint loaded in a

perpendicular direction may be compared with the input
reaction from face loaded walls. The values used to derive the
stud selection tables of NZS 3604 (Shelton, 2003) result in a Tensionlcompression stress in plasterboard (MPa)
maximum reaction of 1.98 kNlm at the top of a 2.4 m high (using beam theory)
wall in aVery High wind zone. While it is acknowledged that
there are alternative load paths (eg through roof framing) it
could be considered that the strength of this joint as consbucted
may be a little deficient, especially considering the greater stud

Volume 17 No. I April 2004

SESOC Journal

Tension/compression force per unit length in taped Applied load, w: 1.6 W m as determined by
joint ( W m ) (using beam theory) experiment,

Sheet thickness, t: 9 mm as for standard

plasterboard,

Depth, d: 6 m maximum spacing of

bracing lines.
These parameters are plotted against diaphragm aspect ratio "Non-diaphragm" ceilings are approximately covered by the
(lengthldepth) in Figure 5, using the following inputs, typical aspect ratio range 0.5 to 1.0, and "diaphragm" ceilings by the
for a plasterboard ceilmg: range 0.5 to 2.0.

Aspect ratio (LID)

-. . ~-

--c Chord force, C,(W

L-.- Sh-

. .
v (kwm)
-~
tfl bd stress, f, (MPa)
...
~~-..
.

Figure 5. Critical diaphragm parameters

At the maximum aspect ratio permitted by NZS 3604, the shear bracing units is equivalent to 5 icN). Thus unless an alternative
on the end walls, v, is 1.6 W m . This is consistent with the load path is available, these provisions may not be enough to
experimental findings for loading parallel to hjoint. However, transfer the required force.
this calculation assumes a uniform transfer of shear, v, over the
full depth of the diaphragm. This is unlikely, because 1.6 kNl
m is equivalent to only 32 Bracing Units per metre (BUIm),
and it is more realistic that the designer would choose a much
shorter, higher capacity bracing wall (Figure 6).

Such an arrangement would increase the load intensity on the

wall/ceiling joint over the length of the bracing wall unless a
collector element such as the top plate can be utilised, and this
requires continuity of the plate over the full depth of the
diaphragm. The provisions in NZS 3604 for joints in top plates
are contained in clause 8.7.3.3. A 3 kN connection is required
where the wall contains a bracing element of up to 100 BU's,
and 6 kN where the element is greater than 100 BU's (100
Figure 6. Short bracing wall

22 Journal of the Structural Engineering Society New Zealand Inc.

 SESOC Journal

For amonolithicplasterboard ceiling diaphragmwith no continuity
in the boundary (chord) members, beam theory could be used to
estimate the tension/compression stresses in the lining sheets. It
can be seen fromFigure 5, that atthe highest aspectratiopermitted
by NZS 3604, the maximum tension stress across the sheetjoints
under the given input load is 4.8 W m . This value is higher than
the tested strength of the paper taped joint (WinstoneWdlboards,
2003), so failures in the sheet joints would be expected. Tnus
beamtheoryisnot appropriatetopredict thebehaviourof a standard
diaphragm at the limits permitted by NZS 3604.
The alternative &ex analogy gives a maximum chord force of
4.8 kN at the maximum aspect ratio limit of 2.0. This analogy
requirescontinuity overthe length of the top plate for the diaphragm
to performadequately,and again the provisions of NZS 3604 clause
8.7.3.3 are relevant. In the worst case a 3 kN connection would
be permissible, so a connection providing a-um capacity of
5 kN would seem to be more appropriate.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
and 10 kN where used with bracing elements with arating
of greater than 100 Bracing Units.
3. Provisions for lateral support of top plates in NZS 3604
are confusing, and need rationalising to make the intent
more clear.
7.0 REFERENCES
1. Applied Technology Council, 1981. Guidelines for the
design of horizontal wood diaphragms. ATC-7. Applied
Technology Council, Berkley, California.
2. BRANZ, 1999. Structural joints - strength and stiffness
evaluation. BRANZ Evaluation Method 1. Building
Research Association of New Zealand, Judgeford.
3. Shelton, RH, 2003. Engineering basis of NZS 3604, Study
Report, Building Research Association of New Zealand,
Judgeford. (in preparation)

1. The strength of the walllceiling joint as detailed in 4. Standards New Zealand (SNZ), 1993. Timber structures
NZS 3604:1999, under perpendicular loading, has been standard, NZS 3603. Wellington.
identified as a potential weak point in the higher wind
zones. 5. Standards New Zealand (SNZ), 1999. Timber framed
buildings, NZS 3604. Wellington.
2. Top plate joints, where used in conjunction with diaphragm
floors or ceilings, should be a minimum of 5 icNgenerally, 6. Winstone Wallboards (WWB), 2003. Personal
communication.

EASY TO SPECIRmm EASY TO IDENTIFY

k a Pacn'lc iitm counrry hew Zeaiand IS
vulnerable to earthquakes. Thai3 why
Se~smlc300E and Selsmlc 500E IS the only

Uniquely branded for ease of Identification and traceability,

Seismic 300E and Seismic 500E are the only reinforcing bars made
in New Zealand for New Zealand conditions.
4
I %,,$ W C L E - CARE FORTHE ENYlRONMFNl

SUPPORTINGNEWZEALAND

Volume 17 No. 1 April 2004 23