10NCEE

Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering

Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
Anchorage, Alaska

EVALUATION OF COLLECTOR DESIGN

FOR CONCRETE DIAPHRAGMS
J. S. LeGrue1
ABSTRACT
This paper provides a comparison of collector design methods for concrete diaphragms. The
traditional method, most commonly associated with flexible plywood diaphragms, is generally
considered overly conservative for the design of concrete diaphragms. To limit the amount of
collector reinforcement required, practitioners use alternative methods that rely on the rigidity of
the diaphragm to distribute inertial forces. Two such alternatives, one assuming ideally rigid
diaphragm behavior and one assuming limited length collector elements, are considered. As is
common in practice, collector designs are performed for example structures with varying
diaphragm shear forces, diaphragm lengths, and configurations utilizing hand calculations. Finite
element analysis is used to evaluate the effectiveness of the design methods. While all three
methods result in acceptable performance, the flexible diaphragm method is conservative and the
limited collector length method produces the most efficient design. However, the effect of
building configuration on collector stresses is more significant than is assumed by the alternate
methods. Consequentially, additional consideration must be given where walls are located only
at one end of the line of resistance. However, in other conditions, the alternate methods provide
comparable performance to the flexible diaphragm method at lower cost.

Senior Project Engineer, Hohbach-Lewin, Inc., Structural Engineers, Eugene, OR 97401

LeGrue JS. Evaluation of Collector Design for Concrete Diaphragms. Proceedings of the 10th National Conference
in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.

EVALUATION OF COLLECTOR DESIGN FOR CONCRETE

DIAPHRAGMS
J. S. LeGrue1

ABSTRACT
This paper provides a comparison of collector design methods for concrete diaphragms. The
traditional method, most commonly associated with flexible plywood diaphragms, is generally
considered overly conservative for the design of concrete diaphragms. To limit the amount of
collector reinforcement required, practitioners use alternative methods that rely on the rigidity of
the diaphragm to distribute inertial forces. Two such alternatives, one assuming ideally rigid
diaphragm behavior and one assuming limited length collector elements, are considered. As is
common in practice, collector designs are performed for example structures with varying
diaphragm shear forces, diaphragm lengths, and configurations utilizing hand calculations. Finite
element analysis is used to evaluate the effectiveness of the design methods. While all three
methods result in acceptable performance, the flexible diaphragm method is conservative and the
limited collector length method produces the most efficient design. However, the effect of
building configuration on collector stresses is more significant than is assumed by the alternate
methods. Consequentially, additional consideration must be given where walls are located only at
one end of the line of resistance. However, in other conditions, the alternate methods provide
comparable performance to the flexible diaphragm method at lower cost.

Introduction
Diaphragm classification is one of the first steps in the lateral analysis of a structure. Engineers
traditionally classify a diaphragm as flexible or rigid based on its geometry, composition, and
stiffness relative to the stiffness of the vertical elements supporting it. Diaphragm classification
affects many aspects of the lateral analysis of the building including the distribution of lateral
forces to vertical elements, how torsion is accounted for in the analytical building model, and
determination of building deformations. However, one area of lateral design in which diaphragm
classification is not consistently addressed is collector design. This is ironic as collectors are part
of the diaphragm.
Traditional collector design is consistent with the assumption of a flexible diaphragm.
That is, it assumes that the diaphragm lacks stiffness and requires the addition of stiff collector
elements to deliver diaphragm forces to vertical elements of the Lateral Force Resisting System
(LFRS). This approach has its basis in the design of flexible plywood diaphragms and is
presented in various introductory engineering texts such as [1]. It has obvious benefits for the
diaphragm, which is designed for a low shear demand. However, the use of discrete collector
elements loaded axially constitutes a load path with a less redundancy and less ductility than a
1

Senior Project Engineer, Hohbach-Lewin, Inc., Structural Engineers, Eugene, OR 97401

LeGrue JS. Evaluation of Collector Design for Concrete Diaphragms. Proceedings of the 10th National Conference
in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.

continuous diaphragm loaded in shear. Consequentially, building codes such as ASCE 7-10
require that most collector elements be designed to resist amplified seismic forces [2].
Alternatives to the traditional methodology are utilized in practice to eliminate unnecessary
collectors and reduce collector demands where collectors are required. Two such alternatives are
considered in this evaluation.
The rigid diaphragm method relies on the stiffness of the diaphragm to redistribute
diaphragm forces to the locations of vertical elements. This method does not utilize collector
elements. Instead, the diaphragm is designed to have sufficient capacity to deliver the design
force to the vertical elements within the length of the vertical elements.
The limited collector length method is a hybrid approach that utilizes a collector of
limited length determined so that diaphragm strengthening is unnecessary, however, collector
forces do not reach the magnitude of a full-length collector.
A series of example structures with varying diaphragm forces, collector lengths, and
geometries is considered. Collector designs are performed using hand calculations for each of the
three methods. These calculations provide a comparison of the material requirements and
implied construction costs of the methods; however, they do not provide a basis for comparing
the expected performance of the designs in a seismic event. To this end, finite element analyses
are performed and steel and concrete stresses are evaluated.
Example Structures
The example structures are single-story concrete shear wall buildings with concrete roofs as
shown on Fig. 1.

Figure 1. Example structures (plan view).

Diaphragm length, wall location, and diaphragm design force,
indicated on Table 1. Other design parameters are shown on Table 2.

, have been varied as

Label
1A
1B
2A
2B
3A
3B
4A
4B

Table 1.

Example structure configuration.

Ldiaph
(ft)
150
150
150
150
75
75
75
75

Wdiaph
(ft)
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300

Table 2.

Wall
Location
Center
End
Center
End
Center
End
Center
End

Lwall
(ft)
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25

Fpx
(k)
750
750
1200
1200
750
750
1200
1200

Diaphragm design parameters.

Diaphragm thickness,
Diaphragm reinforcement ratio,
Specified concrete strength,
Concrete shear strength, 2
Concrete tension strength, 7.5
Concrete compressive strength, 0.85
Reinforcing steel strength,

10 in
0.00194 (#5 @ 16 in o.c.)
4000 psi
126 psi
474 psi
3400 psi
60000 psi

Although shear wall design is not part of this evaluation, it has been assumed that the
structures are classified as special reinforced concrete shear wall buildings. Per ASCE 7-10
Table 12.2-1, the building response modification factor is R=5 and the overstrength factor
is = 3.0.
The walls on each side of the structure are of equal strength and stiffness. The diaphragm
design force is uniformly distributed. Accidental eccentricity has been neglected. Therefore, the
diaphragm force at each wall, , is
=

(1)
Diaphragm Shear Strength

The diaphragm and collector designs used as the basis of this evaluation have been performed in
, is given by ACI 318-11 Sec.
accordance with ACI 318-11 [3]. Diaphragm shear strength,
21.11.9 as
=

(2

).

(2)

The resistance factor, , has been taken as 0.60 per ACI 318-11 Sec. 9.3.4 for sheargoverned members designed to resist seismic forces.
, the gross area of concrete parallel to
, is equal to the diaphragm length times its thickness. For normal-weight concrete, = 1.0.
The reinforcement ratio, , is shown on Table 2.
The diaphragm unit shear strength,

, expressed on a per lineal foot basis is

= (0.60)(12 in)(10 in) 2 4000 + (0.00194)(60000 psi) = 17.5 k/ft.

(3)

Collector Design
The following sections demonstrate collector design for the example structures in accordance
with the three methods outlined above. Results have been summarized in Table 3 at the end of
this section. Note that some methods do not result in collector designs for some of the example
structures. Fig. 5 at the end of this section shows the reinforcement layout for all of the collector
designs.
Flexible Diaphragm
The traditional approach to collector design, this method assumes that shear is uniformly
distributed over the length of the diaphragm. Collector elements are provided at the portions of
the diaphragm that do not abut the vertical LFRS members. Collector diagrams for the example
structures are shown on Fig 2.

Figure 2. Flexible diaphragm collector diagrams.

The maximum collector force,
=

, is computed as follows.
(4)

where
and
are the lengths of the collector and diaphragm, respectively. Eq. 5
contains the diaphragm unit shear expressed as

(5)

The required collector reinforcement,

, is determined as follows.

(6)

where

= 0.90 per ACI 318-11 Sec. 9.3.2.1.

The collectors have been detailed as slab collectors following an example presented by
the Structural Engineers Association of California [4]. This method results in the same amount of
collector reinforcement as a collector beam, but distributes the reinforcement over a larger area,
potentially reducing rebar congestion and eliminating confinement reinforcement. A portion of
the collector reinforcement, denoted
for concentrated, has been placed directly in line with
for distributed, has been
the shear wall and the remainder of the reinforcement, denoted
placed in the slab abutting the wall. A free-body diagram of the collector is shown on Fig. 3. The
widths associated with the tension and compression forces are arbitrary; however, the designer is
cautioned to be mindful of ACI 318-11 Sec. 21.11.7.5 when determining the compression width.

Figure 3. Slab collector free-body diagram.

The eccentric layout of the reinforcement with respect to the wall results in a moment,
which is resisted by the couple
.
=

,
(7)

where
and
are the collector compression and tension forces that are distributed
in the slab and
and
are their respective eccentricities with respect to the wall
centerline. Assuming that the compression force is uniformly distributed across the slab width
used to resist compression,
= . Tension is assumed to be proportional to the area of the
collector reinforcement resulting in
=

(8)

Additional reinforcement at the ends of the wall, denoted

=

, provides

(9)

Rigid Diaphragm
In contrast to the traditional method, this method relies on the strength and stiffness of the
diaphragm to redistribute internal forces to the portion of the diaphragm abutting vertical
members of the LRFS. Additional collector elements are not required if the diaphragm has
adequate shear strength over the length of diaphragm abutting the vertical elements. Hence,
diaphragm shear design is based on the length of the wall or frame instead of on the overall
diaphragm length.
One consequence of this method is that the result is independent of wall location and
need to
diaphragm length. Thus, for the example structures, only the two differing values of
be considered.
= 750 kips, the diaphragm unit shear is

For
=(

kips
)(

ft)

= 15 k/ft <

= 17.5 k/ft.

(10)

Therefore, the typical diaphragm reinforcement is adequate and no additional

reinforcement is provided.
However, for
= 1200 kips,
= 24 k/ft >
, and additional diaphragm
reinforcement is required. The amount of additional reinforcement to provide can be determined
using Eq. 2. An additional #5 at 16 inches on center (i.e., #5 at 8 inches on center net) yields
= 25.8 k/ft, which is adequate.
Limited Collector Length
This is a hybrid approach based on the work of Johnson and Welton [5]. It utilizes diaphragm
rigidity to distribute forces internally similar to the rigid diaphragm method, but provides a
collector element instead of additional diaphragm reinforcement. This method is especially
applicable in situations where diaphragm strengthening is not practical, for example, due to rebar
congestion or the diaphragm strength limits of ACI 318-11 Sec. 21.11.9.2.
The collector element is provided over the minimum length,
=

, required to achieve
(11)

That is,
=

and

(12)

(13)

The collector diagram is shown on Fig. 4. If

the design is equivalent to Method 2.

<

, no collector is required and

Figure 4. Limited length collector diagrams.

Collector Design Summary
Reinforcement requirements are shown for each of the example structures on Table 3. The
weight of additional reinforcement (Wgt) is provided as a comparison of the methods because it
accounts for the length of the reinforcement and is directly related to construction cost. Fig. 5
shows the reinforcement layout for each configuration.
Table 3. Collector design forces and reinforcement.
Flexible Diaphragm
Tu
As
Ase Wgt.
Label (k) (in2) (in2) (lbs)
1A
391
7.5 0.59 1941
1B
781 15.0 2.10 3929
2A
625 11.7 1.72 3055
2B
1250 23.6 4.23 6297
3A
313
6.0 0.19 769
3B
625 11.9 0.85 1549
4A
500
9.5 0.80 1237
4B
1000 18.8 1.82 2484

Rigid Diaphragm
Tu
As Wgt.
(k) (in2) (lbs)
N/A
0
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
5.8 2490
N/A
5.8 2490
N/A
0
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
5.8 1245
N/A
5.8 1245

Limited Collector Length

Lmin
Tu
As Wgt.
(ft)
(k) (in2) (lbs)
21.4 N/A
0
0
21.4 N/A
0
0
34.3 203
4.0 586
34.3 406
7.6 1014
21.4 N/A
0
0
21.4 N/A
0
0
34.3 203
4.0 586
34.3 406
7.6 1014

Figure 5. Reinforcement layout for example structures.

Finite Element Analysis
Analytical models of select example structures were created and analyzed using the ETABs
finite element program. The models consisted of concrete slabs (modeled with shell elements)
and reinforcement (modeled with line elements). Diaphragm design forces,
, were amplified
by the building response modification factor, = 5, for special reinforced concrete shear walls.
The design force was applied as a uniformly distributed surface load on the slab.

Iterative analysis was performed to account for cracking. Slab elements with tension
stress greater than the concrete tension strength were removed from the model and the analysis
was re-run until no such elements remained. Maximum stress ratios (i.e., the ratio of stress to
yield stress) for the reinforcement in tension, concrete in shear, and concrete in compression are
given on Table 4. Fig. 6 shows a comparison of the cracked regions (denoted by removed slab
elements) for example structures 2A and 2B.
Table 4. Maximum stress ratios for distributed reinforcement, (Fsd), concentrated reinforcement
(Fsc), concrete compression (Cc), and concrete shear (Vc).
Flexible Diaphragm
Label
1A
1B
2A
2B
3A
3B
4A
4B

Fsd
0.6
1.2
0.7
1.5
0.6
1.1
0.8
1.3

Fsc
0.9
1.9
1.2
2.2
0.9
1.8
1.2
2.1

Cc
0.2
N/A
0.4
N/A
0.2
N/A
0.3
N/A

Vc
1.9
2.7
2.1
4.0
3.1
2.8
5.0
4.2

Rigid Diaphragm
Fsd
1.9
5.4
2.0
5.5
1.7
5.0
1.7
5.0

Fsc
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Cc
0.2
N/A
0.3
N/A
0.2
N/A
0.3
N/A

Limited Collector Length

Vc
1.7
3.4
2.5
5.1
3.4
3.5
5.4
5.3

Fsd
Fsc
Cc
Vc
Same as rigid diaphragm
Same as rigid diaphragm
2.2
0.9
0.4
2.4
5.0
2.9
N/A
3.8
Same as rigid diaphragm
Same as rigid diaphragm
1.1
1.6
0.3
4.9
5.1
2.3
N/A
4.4

Figure 6. Finite element models for structures 2A and 2B. Un-shaded elements have been
removed from the model due to tension stress greater than capacity.

Findings and Conclusions

Overall, the three design methods resulted in stress ratios for concrete and steel that were
generally less than or equal to the building response modification factor of = 5 indicating
performance consistent with the intent of ASCE 7-10. Additionally, steel stress ratio was not
significantly affected by diaphragm shear for any of the methods so the hand calculations appear
to be sufficient, even for loads that produce non-linear responses such as extensive cracking.
The steel stress ratio ranged from 0.6-1.9 for the flexible diaphragm method to 1.7-5.5 for
the rigid and limited collector length methods, validating the hypothesis that that the flexible
diaphragm method is overly conservative. Wall configuration also produced significant variation
in steel stress for each of the design methods. Steel stress for end wall structures were 1.5-2.0
times as high as centered wall structures for the flexible diaphragm method and 2.7-3.0 times as
high for the other methods. Variation in shear force and diaphragm length produced relatively
minor (less than 30%) variations in steel stress ratio. In contrast, the concrete stress ratio was less
sensitive to design method (25% maximum variation) and more sensitive to shear force (50%
maximum variation). Concrete stress was more sensitive to wall configuration for the longer
diaphragm structures 1 and 2 than for structures 3 and 4.
In comparing the alternate methods, the limited collector length designs resulted in
smaller steel and concrete stresses than the rigid diaphragm designs and did so with less
additional reinforcement.
Finally, wall location affected steel stress more than the other configuration parameters.
This is notable because wall location is not considered in the rigid diaphragm and limited
collector length methods. The end wall configuration used in the examples is an extreme case
that eliminates force transfer via compression in the diaphragm. It should not be assumed that
that the difference between the design methods would be as large if diaphragm compression was
not completely eliminated. However, it is also not conservative to assume, as the alternate
methods do, that wall location can be ignored completely.
Based on these results, the limited collector length method produces the most efficient
collector design. However, the designer is cautioned to consider the effect of wall placement on
collector forces, even though that is not explicitly considered in the design method.
References
1.

Breyer D, et al. Design of Wood Structures-ASD/LRFD. McGraw-Hill: New York, 2006.

2.

American Society of Civil Engineers. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 710. ASCE: Reston, Virginia, 2010.

3.

American Concrete Institute ACI 318 Committee. ACI 318-11: Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete and Commentary. ACI: Farmington Hills, Michigan, 2011.

4.

SEAOC Seismology Committee. Concrete slab collectors. The SEAOC Blue Book: Seismic Design
Recommendations. Structural Engineers Association of California: Sacramento, 2008.

5.

Johnson MW, Welton JC. Analysis of collector/drag elements in rigid diaphragms. Structural Engineers
Association of Southern California: Fullerton CA, 2003.