|
|
|
|
|
Design Search Failure for Openings at End of Line ( Bug CSW7-17)
The design search would fail to find passing shearwalls when an opening existed exactly at the beginning or end of a shearline.
Wall Groups Designed for Opposing Directions (Bug CSW7-41)
The program was not always ensuring that the wall materials designed for opposing force directions were the ones needed for the strongest of the two cases, instead it could design separate materials for opposing directions. It now reports just one material wall group for the wind case, and one for the seismic case.
Similar Materials on Shearline (Bug CSW7-42)
The program was not ensuring that the materials designed for the critical wall were transferred to all other walls on the line when the All shearwalls on shearline have same materials design option was selected. The program would then report different wall groups and materials for the same shearline.
Blocked Gypsum Sheathing Capacity (Bug 1589)
Shear capacity of blocked gypsum incorrectly follows the rules for unblocked gypsum (CSA 086-01, Table 9.5.1B, Note 1) in that it is being reduced when frame stud spacing is greater than 400mm. This results in a conservative shear capacity.
Non-shearwalls Contribute to Shearline Capacity (Bug 1587 )
In the Shear Results table of the Design Results, the total shear capacity of the shear line and the design ratio were was including the capacities of wall segments that exceed FHS aspect ratio check in the total shear capacity of the shear line. However, the program was not using these incorrect values for shearwall design, instead using the correct individual segment values.
C&C Loads for Sheathing Design (Bug CSW7-43)
The C&C loads used for sheathing design were the lower interior zone loads rather than the higher end zone loads. This resulted in non-conservative design, and has been corrected.
Nail Withdrawal Failure for Non-loaded Surfaces (Bug 1586)
As a result of bug 1587, above, for known sheathing capacity and no C&C loading, Shearwalls sometimes report failure in Elevation View because of zero nail withdrawal capacity
Nail Withdrawal Capacity (Bug CSW7-44)
The nail withdrawal capacity was not incorporating the 0.6 safety factor ρ according to 10.9.5.2 of CSA O86. This resulted in non-conservative design, and has been corrected.
Nail Sizes Greater than 3” (Bug CSW7-48)
Due to instabilities created by the application of 9.4.5.5a), the restriction in nail size to less than 3.25” for Jhd < 1, nail sizes greater than 3” have been removed. Nail sizes that large tend to split plywood anyway
As a result, some designs that required nail sizes larger than 3” to pass the nail withdrawal check in areas of high C&C wind loading will now fail. If this happens, an increase in interior spacing is needed.
Jhd Factor for Non-aligned Shearwall Segments (Capacity (Bug CSW7-45)
When the end of a shearwall segment with hold-downs occurs where there is no segment end on the floor above, the program was applying CSA O86 9.4.5.3 for a Jhd factor < 1, which is the literal interpretation of that clause.
However, we believe that the intent of the clause is to apply this clause when an anchorage exists above a hold-down to account for the fact that the upper storey anchorage force will be transferred through the lower storey sheathing, reducing the shear capacity of the lower storey. Therefore, CSA O86 9.4.5.3 is no longer applied when there is no anchorage above the hold-down location.
Jhd Factor Warning for One-storey Structures (Bug 1635)
For a single-storey building, in the Results View, under "SEISMIC DESIGN" for both Flexible and Rigid Diaphragm, the following message would appear:
** Warning - design capacity is exceeded because Vrs is zero due to negative Jhd factor
even though, for a single-storey building, Jhd should never be less than 1
Seismic Compression Force Location (Offset)*
For seismic design, the location of compression hold down is offset from end of wall by twice the user input hold-down offset rather than just that offset. As a consequence, the compression and tension hold-downs at an opening end are offset from each other, and the program assigned some of the dead load to one of the hold-downs and some to the other, rather than the full dead load to both.