Welcome to our Structural Engineering Blog! I’m Paul McEntee, Engineering R&D Manager at Simpson Strong-Tie. We’ll cover a variety of structural engineering topics here that I hope interest you and help with your projects and work. Social media is “uncharted territory” for a lot of us (me included!), but we here at Simpson Strong-Tie think this is a good way to connect and even start useful discussions among our peers in a way that’s easy to use and doesn’t take up too much of your time. Continue reading
How would a six-story light-frame wood building perform in a large earthquake? Back in 2009, Simpson Strong-Tie was a partner in the World’s Largest Earthquake Test, a collaboration of the NEESWood project, to answer that question. This was a full-scale test which subjected the building to 180% of the Northridge earthquake ground motions (approximately a M7.5). Within the building, Simpson Strong-Tie connectors and Strong-Frame SMF were used, with the Strong-Rod™ anchor tiedown system (ATS) serving as holdown for each shearwall.
The NEESWood building was designed under Performance-Based Design methodology, and the test was conducted as validation for the approach. Buildings of similar size to the NEESWood building are built to current codes using similar products. Mid-rise light-frame wood structures continue to be a popular form of construction in various densely populated cities across the country. As part of the lateral-force-resisting system, continuous rod systems are used as the holdown for the shearwall overturning restraints. Simpson Strong-Tie has been involved with continuous rod systems since the early 2000s when we launched the Strong-Rod anchor tiedown system.
Today, rod manufacturers design the continuous rod systems with design requirements (loading, geometry, etc.) Supporting documents (e.g., installation details, layouts, RFI/markups and calculations) are submitted for each unique project. Over the years, engineers have asked many questions related to the design of these systems. In this week’s blog, we will explore Frequently Asked Questions pertaining to Strong-Rod ATS systems used as shearwall overturning restraints (holdowns).
Is there a code report for the system?
The majority of these components are designed in accordance with the building code and reference standards (e.g., NDS, AISC). A project-specific calculation package is submitted for each job that addresses the evaluation of these elements. Therefore, these elements are not listed in evaluation reports.
Shrinkage compensation devices, on the other hand, are proprietary components which are not addressed by the building code or reference standards. Therefore, they are tested in accordance with ICC-ES acceptance criteria AC316 and are listed in ICC-ES ESR-2320.
What is the material specification of the rods used above concrete?
The specified rod materials are shown in Table 1.
Can threaded rods or couplers be welded to steel beams?
Simpson Strong-Tie generally does not recommend this practice. Of the materials listed in Table 1, ASTM A307 material is the only specification that contains supplementary requirements for welding. When standard strength rod is supplied to the job, it is not guaranteed that this will be the material provided.
ASTM A449 and A193-B7 high-strength rods develop strength and ductility characteristics through controlled quenching and tempering treatments. Quenching is the rapid cooling of metal (usually by water or oil) to increase toughness and strength. This process often increases brittleness. Tempering is a controlled reheating of the metal which increases ductility after the quenching process. Precise timing in the application of temperature during the tempering process is critical to achieving a material with well-balanced mechanical properties. It is unlikely that field welding will satisfy the requirements of quenching and tempering.
Coupler nuts are generally fabricated from material exhibiting characteristics similar to high-strength rods. Thus, it is not recommended to weld coupler nuts to steel beams due to the potential for embrittlement.
Simpson Strong-Tie specifies a weldable cage which is fabricated from ASTM A36 material for such applications.
How do you calculate the Maximum ASD Tension Capacity provided in the job summary?
Simpson Strong-Tie provides a comprehensive design package for continuous rod systems used as holdowns for multi-story stacked shearwalls. The individual run calculations, as shown in Figure 1, provide the Maximum Tension Capacity, which correlates to the maximum force the system can deliver. Plan check often requests justification on how these values are derived at each level. These values are calculated, and the process explained below may be used on any Simpson Strong-Tie ATS Job Summary as justification.
The maximum tension capacity published within the Job Summary and the Installation Details is derived using the following procedure:
- Step 1: Evaluate the top-most level. Compare the published capacities of the rod in tension, plate in bearing and the take-up device. The lowest of these three will govern and becomes the Maximum Tension Capacity for this level.
- Step 2: Evaluate the next level down. (a) Sum the Maximum Tension Capacity from Step 1 and the published capacity of the take-up device from this level. (b) Sum the Maximum Tension Capacity from Step 1 and the published capacity of the plate in bearing from this level. (c) Compare derived values from (a) and (b) to the published capacity of rod in tension. The lowest of these three values will govern and becomes the Maximum Tension Capacity of this level.
- Step 3: Repeat Step 2 as necessary until the bottom-most level is reached.
Applying this procedure to the sample run, SW9, will wield the following result:
- Step 1: Evaluate capacities published at Level 4
- Plate in bearing (PBRTUD5-6A) = 7.06 kips governs
- Take-up device (RTUD6) = 20.83 kips
- Rod in tension (ATS-R6) = 9.61 kips
- The lowest value in Step 1 is the plate in bearing, hence 7.06 kips is the maximum load that can be delivered at Level 4 and is the Maximum Tension Capacity.
- Step 2: Evaluate capacities at Level 3
- Maximum Tension Capacity from Level 4 = 7.06 kips (See Step 1)
- Maximum Tension Capacity from Level 4 + take-up device (ATS-ATUD9-2) = 7.06 + 12.79 = 19.85 kips
- Maximum Tension Capacity from Level 4 + plate in bearing (PL9-3×5.5) = 7.06 + 10.03 = 17.09 kips
- Rod in tension (ATS-R7) = 13.08 kips governs
- The lowest value in Step 2 is the rod in tension, hence 13.08 kips is the maximum load that can be delivered at Level 3 and is the Maximum Tension Capacity.
- Step 3: Evaluate capacities at Level 2
- Maximum Tension Capacity from Level 3 = 13.08 kips (See Step 2)
- Maximum Tension Capacity from Level 3 + take-up device (ATS-ATUD9-2) = 13.08 + 15.56 = 28.64 kips
- Maximum Tension Capacity from Level 3 + plate in bearing (PL9-3×5.5) = 13.08 + 10.03 = 23.11 kips
- Rod in tension (ATS-R7) = 13.08 kips governs
- The lowest value in Step 3 is the rod in tension, hence 13.08 kips is the maximum load that can be delivered at Level 2 and is the Maximum Tension Capacity.
- Step 4: Evaluate capacities at Level 1
- Maximum Tension Capacity from Level 2 = 13.08 kips (See Step 3)
- Maximum Tension Capacity from Level 2 + take-up device (ATS-ATUD14) = 13.08 + 24.39 = 37.47 kips
- Maximum Tension Capacity from Level 2 + plate in bearing (PL14-3×8.5) = 13.08 + 13.98 = 27.05 kips governs
- Rod in tension (ATS-R11) = 32.30 kips
- The lowest value in Step 4 is due to the plate in bearing, hence 27.05 kips is the maximum load that can be delivered at Level 1 and is the Maximum Tension Capacity.
In the System Deflection Summary page(s) of the Job Summary, is the Total System Deflection provided at Allowable or Strength levels?
Immediately following the individual run calculations in each job summary, Simpson Strong-Tie provides a summary of deflection of the rod system similar to what is shown in Figure 2. This breaks down the deformation of all components being considered. In the example below, the rod elongation and deflection of the take-up device are summed to provide the total deflection.
The calculated system deflection is presented at ASD level. See section below for how to use these system deflections for your drift calculation.
What system deflection limit do you typically design to, and what does that include?
Unless otherwise specified on the plans or required by the building jurisdiction, Simpson Strong-Tie will design the continuous rod system to satisfy the deformation limits set forth in ICC-ES Acceptance Criteria (AC316). In some instances, the Designer may need a more restrictive deformation due to project specific conditions (e.g., tight building separations) and will require rod manufacturers to design for a lower deformation. Some jurisdictions (e.g., City of San Diego, City of San Francisco) may also have specific design requirements that continuous rod systems must conform to. The minimum recommended per-floor deformation limit set forth in AC316 is:
(Rod Elongation) + (Shrinkage Compensation Device Deflection) ≤ 0.2” (ASD),
Or (PDL/AE) + [ΔR + ΔA(PD/PA)] ≤ 0.2” (ASD)
PD = ASD demand cumulative tension load (kips)
L = length of the rod between restraints – i.e., floor-to-floor (in.)
A = net tensile area of the rod (in.2)
E = Young’s Modulus of Elasticity (29,000 ksi)
ΔR = seating increment of the shrinkage compensation device (as published in ICC-ES evaluation report)
ΔA = deflection of the shrinkage compensation device at the allowable load (as published in ICC-ES evaluation report)
PA = Allowable capacity (kips)
Should deformation limits be specified in the construction documents?
Simpson Strong-Tie strongly recommends this information be included in the construction documents. Along with the cumulative tension and compression forces, the required deformation limits for the holdown are important to ensure that rod manufacturers are designing the holdown to satisfy the desired shearwall performance.
How do I use the system deformation limit?
The System Deflection is the total deformation of the holdown system from floor to floor (refer to the last two columns in Figure 2). This information represents the total ASD holdown deformation term, Δa, for each level and is to be used in the shearwall drift equation from the Special Design Provisions for Wind and Seismic (2015 SDPWS 4.3-1).
ASCE 12.8.6 requires that shearwall drift be calculated at strength level. Therefore, the information provided within the System Deflection Summary page needs to be converted from ASD to Strength Level. The conversion factors in Table 2 can be used to convert the ASD deformations to strength level. For discussions and methodology in converting bearing plate deformation to strength level, please refer to the WoodWorks Design Example of a Five-Story Wood Frame Structure over Podium Slab found here.
Can rod systems be used in Type III construction?
Yes! 2015 IBC §2303.2.5 requires that Fire Retardant-Treated Wood (FRTW) design values be adjusted based on the type of treatment used on the project. Adjustment factors vary for each FRTW manufacturer; refer to the ICC-ES evaluation report of the specified FRTW manufacturer for the unique adjustment values. Rod manufacturers need to know what treatment is being used so this information can be taken into consideration when designing compression posts and incremental bearing (bearing plates).
For more information and previous discussions on fire protection in mid-rise construction, see our previous posts: Fire Protection Considerations with Five-Story Wood-Frame Buildings Part 1 and Part 2, and Connectors and Fasteners in Fire-Retardant-Treated Wood.
What are Simpson Strong-Tie’s guidelines for fire caulking material?
While there are many options for fire-rated caulking, these products can be used in conjunction with the Simpson Strong-Tie ATS system. Below is a list of considerations when selecting and specifying a material for use where the rods penetrate the top and sole plates:
- The fire-rated caulking shall not be corrosive to metal when used in contact with ATS components.
- Direct contact with shrinkage compensating devices (e.g., TUD, ATUD, RTUD) shall be avoided. Shrinkage compensating devices have moving components and may not function properly with debris interference.
- Indirect contact with shrinkage compensating devices shall also be avoided. Shrinkage compensation accumulates up the building and therefore the largest shrinkage occurs at the top of the building. As such, when the building shrinks, remnants of the material may still be stuck to the threads of the rod and may be detrimental to the performance of some shrinkage compensating devices (e.g., an RTUD). It is recommended to detail the installation with shrinkage taken into consideration.
- The fire-rated caulking should be pliable to accommodate wood shrinkage and the building moving down during this process.
- The performance and the suitability of fire-rated caulking are outside the scope of Simpson Strong-Tie.
Why doesn’t your design include compression post design?
If the Engineer of Record has already specified compression posts to be used with a continuous rod system, Simpson Strong-Tie will not provide these on the holdown installation drawings. This is primarily done to prevent discrepancies between the specification in the contract documents and what is shown on the installation drawings.
What is the maximum spacing between compression posts?
For platform-framed structures, the maximum spacing between compression posts is 9″. The large majority of Simpson Strong-Tie bearing plates will fit within the 9″ spacing requirement, eliminating the need for notching compression posts. In some framing conditions, such as balloon framing or a top chord bearing truss, the maximum spacing will be reduced to 6″. This is due to the limited amount of space between the top of the compression posts transferring uplift (via bearing) into the point of restraint (e.g., bearing plate) at the level above. To ensure this load path is complete, the posts need to be spaced closer.
What is the nailing schedule for the bridge block to the king studs?
Simpson Strong-Tie doesn’t recommend nailing the bridge block to the cripple as the bridge block member will shrink. Locking the bridge block in place may result in a gap forming between the bottom of the bridge block member and the top of the cripple studs, which is not accounted for in the Total System Deflection.
Are there any published documents with design examples of continuous rod systems used in mid-rise construction?
There are two resources publicly available that provide discussion and examples. The first is a manual published by the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC). Titled 2015 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual Volume 2 – Examples for Light-Frame, Tilt-Up and Masonry Buildings, this document provides two examples – one for a four-story wood hotel building, and the other for a three-story cold-formed steel apartment building on concrete podium deck.
What questions do you have about the Strong-Rod ATS System? Leave them below.
This blog post continues our series on the final results of the 2016 ICC Group B Code Change Hearings. This post will focus on approved changes to the International Residential Code (IRC) that are of a structural nature. The changes outlined here will be contained in the 2018 IRC, which is expected to be published in the fall of this year.
In Chapter 3, the seismic design category / short-period design spectral response acceleration maps will be updated to match the new USGS/NEHRP Seismic Maps. These new maps are based on the worst case assumption for Site Class. Significantly, a new set of maps will be provided in Figure 301.2(3) “Alternate Seismic Design Categories”. These are permitted to be used when the “soil conditions are determined by the building official to be Site Class A, B or D.” See page 29 of the linked document for the new maps and a good explanation of the changes that will be occurring in various parts of the country. In addition, the ICC Building Code Action Committee authored a reorganization of the seismic provisions of Chapter 3 to try to reduce confusion.
Another change in Chapter 3 will clarify that guards are only required on those portions of walking surfaces that are located more than 30 inches above grade, not along the entire surface. To bring consistency with the IBC, another change will require that staples in treated wood be made of stainless steel.
A broad group of parties interested in deck safety, known as the Deck Code Coalition, submitted 17 different code changes with revisions to Section R507 on decks. Of those, 12 were approved, making significant changes to that section. The various approved changes included the following: a complete re-write of that section; new/clarified requirements for deck materials, including wood, fasteners and connectors; clarified requirements for vertical and lateral connections of the deck to the supporting structure; new requirements for sizes of deck footings and specification that deck footings must extend below the frost line, with certain exceptions; clarification for deck board material, including an allowance for alternative decking materials and fastening methods; adding new columns to the deck joist span table that show the maximum cantilever for joists; adding the allowance for 8×8 deck posts, to allow notching for the support of a three-ply beam; and clarification of the deck-post-to-footing connection.
In Chapter 6, a new table permitting 11ʹ- and 12ʹ- long studs was added. In the 2015 IRC, load-bearing studs were limited to 10 feet in length. A new high-capacity nail, the RSRS (Roof Sheathing Ring Shank) nail was added as an option for fastening roof sheathing. This nail will become more widely used once the higher roof component and cladding forces from ASCE 7-16 are adopted. The rim board header detail that was added for the 2015 IRC was corrected to show that hangers are required in all cases when the joists occur over the wall opening.
There were several changes made to the Wall Bracing Section, R602.10. The use of the 2.0 increase factor was clarified for use when the horizontal joints in braced wall panel sheathing are not blocked. Narrow methods were added to the column headings for the wind and seismic bracing amount tables, to make them consistent, and the methods for adding different bracing were clarified. When using bracing method PFH, the builder can omit the nailing of the sheathing to the framing behind the strap-type holdown. Finally, offering some relief for high-seismic areas where brick veneer is used, an allowance was added to permit a limited amount of brick veneer to be present on the second floor without triggering the use of the BV-WSP bracing method.
In Chapter 8, the requirements for a “stick-framed” roof system were completely re-written to make such systems easier to use.
A couple of significant changes were made to the prescriptive requirements for cold-formed steel framing. The requirements for the anchorage of cold-formed steel walls were revised, and the wind requirements for cold-formed steel framing were changed to match the new AISI S230 prescriptive standard.
Finally, it may be helpful to mention some of the proposed changes that were not adopted. While the new ASCE 7-16 was adopted as the IRC reference standard for loads as part of the Administrative changes, several changes to the IRC to make it consistent with ASCE 7-16 were not approved. A change to update the IRC wind speed maps, roof component and cladding pressures, component and cladding roof zones, and revise the remainder of wind-based requirements to match ASCE 7-16 was not approved. Similarly, a proposal to increase the live load on decks, from 1.0 to 1.5 times the occupancy served, was denied.
Once the IRC is published, it will be time to start a new code change cycle once again, with Group A code changes due January 8, 2018. The schedule for the next cycle is already posted here.
What changes would you like to see for the 2021 codes?
In a Structural Engineering Blog post I wrote last October, “Soft-Story Retrofits Using the New Simpson Strong-Tie Retrofit Design Guide,” one item I barely touched on at the time was the benefit of using Simpson Strong-Tie® Strong Frame special moment frames to retrofit vulnerable soft-story wood-framed buildings commonly found on the West Coast. In this post, I will be diving into more detail on a few features that make the Strong Frame special moment frame truly special.
In the recent release of the ANSI/AISC 358-16 (AISC 358-16), the Simpson Strong-Tie Strong Frame moment connection has been included as a prequalified special moment frame (SMF) connection. Prequalified moment connections are structural-steel moment connection configurations and details that have been reviewed by the AISC Connection Prequalification Review Panel (CPRP) and incorporated into the AISC 358 standard. What’s unique about this newly prequalified connection is that it’s the first moment connection to be prequalified in AISC as a partially restrained (PR-Type) moment connection.
With this recent inclusion into AISC 358-16, we’ve also developed our newly released Strong Frame Design Guide to help designers understand the differences in design and detailing between the Strong Frame connection and traditional SMF connections. The following are just a few of the key differences discussed in this guide.
SMF Yielding Elements
Traditional prequalified moment frames most often require a welded connection with either a weakened beam or a stiffened connection. SMF connections are designed so that the beam will yield as necessary under large displacements that may occur during a seismic event. The yielding of the beam section provides energy dissipation and is designed to ensure that the fully restrained beam-to-column connection isn’t compromised. The current design philosophy is the product of extensive testing of SMF connections based on studying the effects of the 1994 Northridge and 1989 Loma Prieta earthquakes in California. Figures 1, 2 and 3 below depict test specimens that demonstrate yielding at the designated areas of the beam.
The Strong Frame SMF has taken a different approach to the traditional connections by utilizing a Yield-Link® structural fuse designed to provide the energy dissipation for the beam-to-column moment connection. This is a modified T-Stub that has a reduced section in the stem. The yielding during a seismic event has been moved from the beams to the Yield-Link structural fuse. The fuse can be replaced after a major event, very much like an electrical fuse when overloaded. A traditional moment frame may require a much more invasive structural repair.
Beam Lateral Bracing
The traditional types of prequalified connections, as along with other proprietary connections included in AISC 358, all require the beam to yield so as to dissipate energy as discussed above. These types of connections require that the beam be braced to resist the lateral torsional buckling per code. However, it is difficult to meet the bracing requirements in the case of a steel SMF in a wood structure.
With the Strong Frame SMF connection, the energy dissipation is moved from the beams to the Yield-Link structural fuses, with the connection following a capacity-based design approach. This allows the connection to remain elastic under factored load combinations. With the yielding confined to the structural fuses, inelastic deformation is not expected from the members and lateral beam buckling braces are not required. The beam can be designed to span the entire length without beam bracing. See also this blog post.
Column-Beam Relationship Requirements
Traditional SMF follow a strong column – weak beam requirement to ensure plastic hinging occurs in the beams and not the columns. If the energy dissipation takes place within such hinging in the beams, the column members will remain elastic so as to provide stability and strength for the above stories. If plastic hinges occur in the columns, there is a potential for the formation of a weak-story mechanism.
The Strong Frame special moment frame is unlike the traditional SMF, where the plastic hinges are formed by the buckling of the beam flange and web. In the Strong Frame SMF, the stretching and shortening of the links at the top and bottom of the Strong Frame beams are the yielding mechanisms. So instead of a strong column – weak beam check, the Strong Frame design procedure checks for a strong column – weak link condition where the ratio of the column moments to the moment created by the Yield-Link® couple is required to be greater than or equal to 1.0.
Traditional moment frame connections typically require welding in the field. Where bolted SMF connections are used, pretensioned bolts are necessary. Both welding and pretensioned bolts require third-party special inspection.
The Strong Frame SMF has been designed and tested as a 100% field-bolted connection. Unlike other bolted options, the Strong Frame’s field-bolted connections only need to be made snug tight. No onsite bolt pretensioning or special inspections are required with this system. This allows the beams and columns to be maneuvered into place, erected and installed in a fraction of the time needed for the welding, lateral-beam-bracing installation and additional inspections or repairs that traditional moment frames typically require.
One last item I’d like to discuss is the design service that Simpson Strong-Tie provides for the Strong Frame special moment frame. Whether you design moment frames only once in a while or on a regular basis, the Strong Frame design team will provide you with No-Equal design support at no additional cost. Designers receive a complete package that includes drawings and calculations, which are submittal-ready. This ensures that you’ll have a frame connection design meeting the latest codes and design requirements. Contact firstname.lastname@example.org for more information or to request design support.
To learn more about the special benefits and uses of Strong Frame moment frames, check out the following links:
One of the ways I get through winter every year is by looking forward to the weekend in March when we set our clocks ahead and “spring forward” into Daylight Savings time. Some people don’t like this change because of the lost hour of sleep, but to me it means the weather shouldn’t be cold for much longer.
The coming of spring means getting to walk to the car in daylight at the end of the workday. It also means getting the garden started for the year and spending more time outside in general.
Of course, I’m not alone in being happy to see winter go.
In the residential world, the phenomenon of “deck season” coincides with this time of year. Homeowners with decks are getting ready for summer by giving their decks a cleaning and looking them over for any needed maintenance. Now’s the time that new or replacement decks are being planned and built to be enjoyed for the rest of the year.
It’s no coincidence, then, that our deck-code guide has been updated again in time for warmer weather. The Deck Connection and Fastening Guide goes detail by detail (ledger connection, joist-to-beam connection, beam-to-post connection, etc.) through a typical deck and identifies the relevant building-code requirements (2012 and 2015 IRC/IBC) and connection options.
Our deck-code guide can be a helpful reference to an engineer who is just getting acquainted with decks, and can also bring you up to speed on revisions to the IRC that can necessitate engineering changes to even a relatively simple residential deck. Multilevel decks, guardrail details, ledger details and foundation challenges are all examples of things a deck builder could call you for assistance with.
For more information on resources available to engineers on deck design, feel free to consult my previous blog article, Wood-framed Deck Design Resources for Engineers.
The Deck Connection and Fastening Guide
This guide provides instructions on how to recognize defects and deficiencies in existing decks, and guidance for building a strong, safe, long-lasting new or renovated deck structures.
For more deck-related blog posts, check out the links below:
Last year, I gave a presentation at the annual National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA) Summit in Orlando, Florida, titled “Becoming a Trusted Advisor: Communication and Selling Skills for Structural Engineers.” As this was a summit for the leaders of the structural engineers associations from across the country, I wasn’t sure how many people would find it valuable to spend their time learning about a very nontechnical topic. To my surprise and delight, the seminar ended up being standing-room only, and I was able to field some great questions from the audience about how they could improve their selling and communication skills. In the many conversations I had with the conference attendees after my presentation, the common theme was that engineers felt they needed more soft-skills training in order to better serve their clients. The problem, however, was finding the time to do so when faced with the daily grind of design work.
When I started my first job as a design engineer at a structural engineering consulting firm straight out of school, I was very focused on improving and expanding my technical expertise. Whenever possible, I would attend building-code seminars, design reviews and new product solution presentations, all in an effort to learn more about structural engineering. What I found as I progressed through my career, however, was that no matter how much I learned or how hardworking I was, it didn’t really matter if I couldn’t successfully convey my knowledge or ideas to the person who really mattered most: the client.
How can an engineer be most effective in explaining a proposed action or solution to a client? You have to be able to effectively sell your idea by understanding the needs of your client as well as any reasons for hesitation. The importance of effective communication and persuasion is probably intuitive to anyone who’s been on the sales side of the business, but not something that occurs naturally to data-driven folks like engineers. As a result of recent legislation in California, however, structural engineers are starting to be inundated with questions from a group of folks who have suddenly found themselves responsible for seismically upgrading their properties: apartment building owners in San Francisco and Los Angeles.
Imagine for a moment that you are a building owner who has received a soft-story retrofit notice under the City of Los Angeles’ Ordinance 183893; you have zero knowledge of structural engineering or what this term “soft-story” even means. Who will be your trusted advisor to help you sort it out? The City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS) has put together a helpful mandatory ordinance website that explains the programs and also offers an FAQ for building owners that lets them know the first step in the process: hire an engineer or architect licensed in the state of California to evaluate the building.
I’ve had the opportunity to be the first point of contact for a building owner after they received a mandatory notice, because it turns out some relatives own an apartment building with soft-story tuck-under parking. Panicked by the notice, they called me looking to understand why they were being forced to retrofit a building that “never had any problems in the past.” They were worried they would lose rent money due to tenants needing to relocate, worried about how to meet the requirements of the ordinance and, most importantly, worried about how much it was going to cost them. What they really wanted was a simple, straightforward answer to their questions, and I did my best to explain the necessity behind retrofitting these vulnerable buildings and give an estimated time frame and cost that I had learned from attending the first Los Angeles Retrofit Resource Fair in April 2016. With close to 18,000 buildings in the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles alone that have been classified as “soft-story,” this equates to quite a number of building owners who will have similar questions and be searching for answers.
To help provide an additional resource, Simpson Strong-Tie will be hosting a webinar for building owners in the Los Angeles area who have received a mandatory soft-story retrofit notice. Jeff Ellis and I will be covering “5 Steps to a Successful Retrofit” and helping to set a clear project path for building owners. The five steps that Simpson Strong-Tie will be recommending are:
- Understanding the Seismic Retrofit Mandate
- Partnering with Design Professionals
- Submitting Building Plans with the Right Retrofit Product Solutions
- Communicating with Your Building Tenants
- Completing Your Soft-Story Retrofit
We encourage you to invite any clients or potential clients to attend this informative webinar, which will lay the foundation for great communication between the two of you. As part of the webinar, we will be asking the building owners for their comments, questions and feedback so we can better understand what information they need to make informed decisions, and we will be sure to share these with the structural engineering community in a future post. By working together to support better communication and understanding among all stakeholders in retrofit projects, we will be well on our way to creating stronger and more resilient communities!
For additional information or articles of interest, there are several resources available:
- Register for the “5 Steps to a Successful Retrofit” webinar on April 26
- Register to attend the 2nd Los Angeles Seismic Retrofit Resource Fair on April 17 (and stop by the Simpson Strong-Tie booth!)
- Find a structural engineer through the Structural Engineers Association of Southern California (SEAOSC)
- Resilience by Design: City of Los Angeles Lays Out A Seismic Safety Plan
- City of San Francisco Implements Soft-Story Retrofit Ordinance
- Soft-Story Retrofits Using the New Simpson Strong-Tie Retrofit Design Guide
- Visit the Simpson Strong-TieSoft-Story Retrofit Center
- The Los Angeles Times Soft-Story Map
In early December, ICC posted the preliminary results of the Group B Online Governmental Consensus Vote, which included structural changes to the IBC, IEBC and IRC. ICC reports that there were more than 162,000 votes cast by eligible Voting Members during the three-week online voting period.
One subject of interest to building Designers, builders and some building-material suppliers was the disposition of a group of code changes that adopted ASCE 7-16 as the reference standard on loads for the IBC and IRC, and changed other parts of the IBC and IRC to reflect that.
The most controversial part of adopting the new ASCE 7-16 standard was its increase in roof component and cladding loads. The higher pressure coefficients in some cases raised the concern that the cost of roofing, roofing materials and roof repairs would be increased. Other items that raised some opposition were the new chapter on tsunami loads and the increase in deck and balcony live loads from 40 psf to 60 psf.
Despite these concerns, ICC members voted to approve the code change that adopted ASCE 7-16 as the reference for loads in the 2018 IBC, IRC and IEBC.
Along with that specific change, several other related changes were approved to correlate the IBC with adoption of ASCE 7-16. These included changes to Section 1604, General Design Requirements; adding in a new Section 1615 on Tsunami Design Requirements; modifications to Section 1613 so that seismic design requirements match ASCE 7-16; and deletion of Section 1609.6, Alternate All-Heights Method for wind design. On this last item, the argument was that since ASCE 7 now includes a simplified wind load design method, a competing method is not needed in the IBC.
Interestingly, a change to remove Strength Design and Allowable Stress Design load combinations from the IBC, which was approved by the IBC Structural Committee, was overturned and denied by the ICC Member voters. So those will remain in the IBC.
For the IRC, even though ASCE 7-16 will be shown as the referenced load standard, most changes to the actual code language relating to the new standard were denied. Items that were specifically denied included adoption of ASCE 7-16 wind speed maps, adoption of ASCE 7-16 roof pressure loading, and adoption of the new higher deck and balcony live loads. So the result is that the IBC and IRC will again be inconsistent with each other regarding wind design. On the other hand, the new USGS/NEHRP Seismic Design Maps were approved.
Future Code Corner articles will address other changes approved for the 2018 IBC and IRC.
Written by Minara El-Rahman in collaboration with the Simpson Strong-Tie Training Department.
Do you ever get so busy that you can’t keep up with the training opportunities that are available? We have previously shared online resources and webinars that are available to structural engineers, but did you know that you can take advantage of Simpson Strong-Tie regional training centers that offer complimentary workshops and classes about proper specification, product installation and inspection of connectors and structural systems? Here are some tips on staying current with your training.
Simpson Strong-Tie training courses and webinars are focused on improving building standards and the overall safety of structures. With eight training centers across North America, Simpson Strong-Tie provides hundreds of complimentary classes to engineers, architects, builders and code officials each year. In fact, we have trained more than 24,000 participants online and in-person in 2016 alone.
“The workshops are very interactive,” explained Charlie Roesset, Director of Training for Simpson Strong-Tie. “Depending on the course, students may have the opportunity to view product samples or take part in product testing and installations.”
Tip #1 Make Training Offerings Work for You
If you specialize in a specific discipline, look for courses that are targeted to your area of interest or expertise. Simpson Strong-Tie courses include a broad range of topics from anchor system installation and engineered wood frame construction to seismic and high-wind design. We also incorporate the latest building-code updates and industry trends into our training curriculum. No matter where you are in your professional career, we offer a course that’s right for you. There are introductory courses as well as more advanced workshops for repeat and seasoned attendees.
Training participants receive a certificate of attendance with professional development hours (PDHs) at the end of each workshop, and may earn continuing education units (CEUs) and/or learning units (LUs) by completing additional requirements. Simpson Strong-Tie is a registered education provider with a number of industry organizations and associations including CSI, BIA, ACIA, AIBD, ICC, AIA* and IACET**.
Tip #2 Find Trainings That Are Current
Do your research to find workshops and online courses that are regularly updated to reflect changes within the industry. For example, we have regular trainings that focus on the new seismic retrofit ordinances in various municipalities on the West Coast (such as Los Angeles’ Soft-Story Retrofit Ordinance) and others on high-wind design and construction in the Southeast. Our trainings are tailored to your design needs based on your practice’s location.
Full-day workshops typically run from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Classes are often tailored toward specific audiences types to ensure that the training is appropriate and effective. Many courses are team-taught by registered engineers to provide in-depth technical expertise in the subject matter. While much of the instruction is technical in nature, many real-life examples and hands-on demonstrations are provided to help all attendees fully understand the material presented.
Tip #3 Hear What Other Structural Engineers Have to Say
It is always a good sign when others in your field have good things to say about the courses they have taken. Below are some comments past participants have said about our training offerings:
Fred B., S.E., an engineer from Las Vegas, NV, has been a regular attendee of Simpson Strong-Tie workshops. He says the training keeps him informed of topics relevant to his industry and is a great way to keep up with his professional development hours. “Some of the courses offered by other groups are just not that interesting and they can be quite expensive. Simpson programs are interesting, hands-on and free. It’s the whole package.”
Bob N., an engineer from Richmond, VA, wrote, “Keep up the good work; I have found your seminars to be well done, pertinent, and useful. We also specify a lot of your products because of the training and the fact that you have an excellent product line.”
Kathy P., an engineer from Somerville, TX, shares: “You guys are so great! You teach well and keep it interesting. . . . . You support the industry to the benefit of everyone, not just your bottom line, and you make educational credits cost effective. Thank you, thank you, thank you!”
Sign up for a workshop and find out more about Simpson Strong-Tie training programs, including our latest online courses, by visiting www.strongtie.com/workshops.
* Simpson Strong-Tie is registered with the American Institute of Architects, Continuing Education System (AIA CES) as a provider of AIA Learning Units (AIA LUs).
** Simpson Strong-Tie is accredited by the International Association for Continuing Education and Training (IACET) and is authorized to issue the IACET CEU.
As published in STRUCTURE magazine, September 2016. Written by Randy Daudet, P.E., S.E., Product Manager at Simpson Strong-Tie. Re-posted with permission.
One of the world’s greatest unsolved mysteries of our time lies in a courtyard outside of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) headquarters in Langley, Virginia. It’s a sculpture called Kryptos, and although it’s been partially solved, it contains an inscription that has puzzled the most renowned cryptanalysts since being erected in 1990. Meanwhile, in another part of the DC Beltway about 15 miles to the southeast, another great mystery is being deciphered at the American and Iron Institute (AISI) headquarters. The mystery, structural behavior of cold-formed steel (CFS) clip angles, has puzzled engineers since the great George Winter helped AISI publish its first Specification in 1946. In particular, engineers have struggled with how thin-plate buckling behavior influences CFS clip angle strength under shear and compression loads. Additionally, there has been considerable debate within the AISI Specification Committee concerning anchor pull-over strength of CFS clip angles subject to tension.
The primary problem has been the lack of test data to explain clip angle structural behavior. Even with modern Finite Element Analysis (FEA) tools, without test data to help establish initial deformations and boundary conditions, FEA models have proven inaccurate. Fortunately, joint funding provided by AISI, the Steel Framing Industry Association (SFIA), and the Steel Stud Manufactures Association (SSMA) has provided the much-needed testing that has culminated in AISI Research Report RP15-2, Load Bearing Clip Angle Design, that summarizes phase one of a multi-year research study. The report summarizes the structural behavior and preliminary design provisions for CFS load bearing clip angles and is based on testing that was carried out in 2014 and 2015 under the direction of Cheng Yu, Ph.D. at the University of North Texas. Yu’s team performed 33 tests for shear, 36 tests for compression, and 38 tests for pull-over due to tension. Clip angles ranged in thickness from 33 mils (20 ga.) to 97 mils (12 ga.), with leg dimensions that are common to the CFS framing industry. All of the test set-ups were designed so that clip angle failure would preclude fastener failure.
For shear, it was found that clips with smaller aspect ratios (L/B < 0.8) failed due to local buckling, while clips with larger aspect ratios failed due to lateral-torsional buckling. Shear test results were compared to the AISC Design Manual for coped beam flanges, but no correlation was found. Instead, a solution based on the Direct Strength Method (DSM) was employed that utilized FEA to develop a buckling coefficient for the standard critical elastic plate-buckling equation. Simplified methods were also developed to limit shear deformations to 1/8 inch. For compression, it was found that flexural buckling was the primary failure mode. Test results were compared to the gusset plate design provisions of AISI S214, North American Standard for Cold-Formed Steel Framing – Truss Design, and the axial compression member design provisions and web crippling design provisions of AISI S100, North American Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members, but no good agreement was found. Therefore, an alternate solution was developed that utilized column theory in conjunction with a Whitmore Section approach that yielded good agreement with test results. It was further found that using a buckling coefficient of 0.9 in the critical elastic buckling stress equation will produce conservative results. Finally, for pull-over due to tension, it was found that clip angle specimens exhibited significant deformation before pulling over the fastener heads (essentially the clip turns into a strap before pull-over occurs). However, regardless of this behavior, tested pull-over strength results were essentially half of AISI S100 pull-over equation E4.4.2-1.
Thanks to AISI Research Report RP15-2, there is a clearer understanding of the CFS clip angle structural behavior mysteries that have puzzled engineers for many years. However, just as the CIA’s Kryptos remains only partially solved, some aspects of clip angle behavior remain a mystery. For instance, how are the test results influenced by the fastener pattern? All of the test data to date has used a single line of symmetrically placed screws. This is something that does not occur for many practical CFS framing situations and will need additional research. Another glaring research hole is the load versus deflection behavior of clip angles under tension. As briefly mentioned above, the existing pull-over testing has demonstrated that excessive deflections can be expected before pull-over actually occurs. Obviously, most practical situations will dictate a deflection limit of something like 1/8 inch or 1/4 inch, but today we don’t have the test data to develop a solution. Fortunately, AISI in conjunction with its CFS industry partners continues to fund research on CFS clip angle behavior that will answer these questions, and possibly many more.
Back in January, employees at Simpson were given the opportunity to learn more about the 401K retirement and investment plan. The big takeaways from my training session were a) save as much as you can as early as you can in life and b) use asset allocation to diversify your portfolio and avoid too much risk. Now, I’m not a big risk taker in general, so I dutifully picked a good blend of stocks and bonds with a range of low to high risk. It seems like a pretty sound strategy and it made me think of all the other ways I tend to minimize risk in my life. When I head to a restaurant, for example, I almost instinctively look for the county health grade sign in the window. When my husband and I went to go buy a new family car a couple years ago, I remember searching the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) website for crash test ratings. Even when I’m doing something as mundane as having a snack, I will invariably flip over the Twinkie package to see just how many grams of fat are lurking inside (almost 5 per serving!). For all the rankings and information available to the general public for restaurants, cars and snacks, there isn’t much, if any, information to help us know if we’re minimizing our risk for one of the most common activities we do almost every day: walking into a building.
Now before you accuse me of being overly dramatic about such a trivial activity, here’s some food for thought: research has shown that Americans spend approximately 90% of their day inside a building. That’s over 21 hours a day! Have you ever once thought to yourself, “I wonder if this building is safe? Would this building be able to withstand an earthquake or high wind event?” Or how about even taking a step back and asking, “Are there any buildings that are already known to be potentially vulnerable or unsafe, and has my city done anything to identify them?” Unfortunately, that kind of information about a city’s building stock is not usually readily available, but some in the community, including structural engineers, are working to change that.
The charge is being led in California, a.k.a. Earthquake Country, where structural engineers are teaming up with cities to help identify buildings with known seismic vulnerabilities and provide input on seismic retrofit ordinances. Structural engineers have learned quite a bit about how buildings behave through observing building performance after major earthquakes, and building codes have been revised to address issues accordingly. However, according to the US Green Building Council, “…the annual replacement rate of buildings (the percent of the total building stock newly constructed or majorly renovated each year) has historically been about 2%, and during the economic recession and subsequent years, it’s been much lower.” This means that there are a lot of older buildings out there that have not been built to current building codes and were not designed with modern engineering knowledge.
Several cities in California have enacted mandatory seismic retrofit ordinances that require the strengthening of some types of known vulnerable buildings, but no state or nation-wide program currently exists. The Structural Engineers Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) recently decided to launch a study of which jurisdictions in the southern California region have started to take the steps necessary to enact critical building ordinances. According to SEAOSC President Jeff Ellis, S.E., “In order to develop an effective strategy to improve the safety and resilience of our communities, it is critical to benchmark building performance policies currently in place. For southern California, this benchmarking includes recognizing which building types are most vulnerable to collapse in earthquakes, and understanding whether or not there are programs in place to decrease risk and improve recovery time.” These results were presented in SEAOSC’s Safer Cities Survey, in partnership with the Dr. Lucy Jones Center for Science and Society and sponsored by Simpson Strong-Tie.
This groundbreaking report is the first comprehensive look at what critical policies have been implemented in the region of the United States with the highest risk of earthquake damage. According to the Los Angeles Times, the survey “found that most local governments in the region have done nothing to mandate retrofits of important building types known to be at risk, such as concrete and wooden apartment buildings.”
The Safer Cities Survey highlights how the high population density of the SoCal region coupled with the numerous earthquake faults and aging buildings is an issue that needs to be addressed by all jurisdictions as soon as possible. An excerpt from the survey covers in detail why this issue is so important:
No building code is retroactive; a building is as strong as the building code that was in place when the building was built. When an earthquake in one location exposes a weakness in a type of building, the code is changed to prevent further construction of buildings with that weakness, but it does not make those buildings in other locations disappear. For example, in Los Angeles, the strongest earthquake shaking has only been experienced in the northern parts of the San Fernando Valley in 1971 and 1994 (Jones, 2015). In San Bernardino, a city near the intersection of the two most active faults in southern California where some of the strongest shaking is expected, the last time strong shaking was experienced was in 1899. Most buildings in southern California have only experienced relatively low levels of shaking and many hidden (and not so hidden) vulnerabilities await discovery in the next earthquake.
The prevalence of the older, seismically vulnerable buildings varies across southern California. Some new communities, incorporated in the last twenty years, may have no vulnerable buildings at all. Much of Los Angeles County and the central areas of the other counties may have very old buildings in their original downtown that could be very dangerous in an earthquake, surrounded by other seismically vulnerable buildings constructed in the building booms of the 1950s and 1960s. Building codes do have provisions to require upgrading of the building structure when a building undergoes a significant alteration or when the use of it changes significantly (e.g., a warehouse gets converted to office or living space). Seismic upgrades can require changes to the fundamental structure of the building. Significantly for a city, many buildings never undergo a change that would trigger an upgrade. Consequently, known vulnerable buildings exist in many cities, waiting to kill or injure citizens, pose risks to neighboring buildings, and increase recovery time when a nearby earthquake strikes.
The survey also serves as a valuable reference in being able to identify and understand what the known vulnerable buildings types are:
- Unreinforced masonry buildings: brick or masonry block buildings with no internal steel reinforcement — susceptible to collapse
- Wood-frame buildings with raised foundations: single-family homes not properly anchored to the foundation and/or built with a crawl space under the first floor — possible collapse of crawl space cripple walls or sliding off foundation
- Tilt-up concrete buildings: concrete walls connected to a wood roof — possible roof-to-wall connection failures leading to roof collapse
- Non-ductile reinforced concrete buildings: concrete buildings with insufficient steel reinforcement — susceptible to cracking and damage
- Soft first-story buildings: buildings with large openings in the first floor walls, typically for a garage — susceptible to collapse of the first story
- Pre-1994 steel moment frame buildings: steel frame buildings built before the 1994 Northridge earthquake with connections — susceptible to cracking leading to potential collapse
Along with the comprehensive list of potentially dangerous buildings, the survey also offers key recommendations on how cities can directly address these hazards and reduce potential risks due to earthquakes. As a good starting point, the survey recommends having “…an active or planned program to assess the building inventory to gauge the number and locations of potentially vulnerable buildings…is one of the first steps in developing appropriate and prioritized risk mitigation and resilience strategies.”
Economic costs can be substantial for businesses whose buildings have been affected by an earthquake. After a major seismic event, a structure needs to be cleared by the building department as safe before it can be reoccupied, and it will generally receive a green (safe), yellow (moderately damaged) or red (dangerous) tag. A typical yellow-tagged building could take up to two months to be inspected, repaired and then cleared, meaning an enormous absence of income for businesses. The survey offers a strategy for getting businesses up and running quickly after an earthquake, in order to minimize such losses. The Safer Cities Survey recommends that cities adopt a “Back-to-Business” or “Building Re-Occupancy” program, which would “create partnerships between private parties and the City to allow rapid review of buildings in concert with City safety assessments…Back-to-Business programs…[allow] private parties to activate pre-qualified assessment teams, who became familiar with specific buildings to shorten evaluation time [and] support city inspections.”
Basically, a program like this would allow a property owner to work with a structural engineer before an earthquake occurs. This way, the engineer is familiar with the building’s layout and potential risks, and can plan for addressing any potential damage. Having a program like this in place can dramatically shorten the recovery time for a business, from two months down to perhaps two weeks. Several cities have already adopted these types of programs, including San Francisco and Glendale, and it showed up as a component of Los Angeles’ Resilience by Design report.
Ultimately, the survey found that only a handful of cities have adopted any retrofit ordinance, but many cities indicated they were interested in learning more about how they could get started on the process. As a result, SEAOSC has launched a Safer Cities Advisory Program, which offers expert technical advice for any city looking to enact building retrofit ordinances and programs. This collaboration will hopefully help increase the momentum of strengthening southern California so that it can rebound more quickly from the next “Big One.”
We all want to minimize the risk in our lives, so let’s support our local structural engineering associations and building departments in exploring and enacting seismic building ordinances that benefit the entire community.
For additional information or articles of interest, please visit:
- Resilience by Design: City of Los Angeles Lays Out a Seismic Safety Plan
- City of San Francisco Implements Soft-Story Retrofit Ordinance
- Seismic Retrofit of Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Buildings
- What Factors Contribute To A “Resilient” Community?
- Soft-Story Retrofits Using the New Simpson Strong-Tie Retrofit Design Guide
- Visit the Simpson Strong-Tie Soft Story Retrofit Center
This blog post was written by Travis Anderson.
In time for spring and summer 2017 construction projects, Simpson Strong-Tie has launched the newest version of the Strong-Wall Shearwall Selector for use with engineered design. The latest release is an easy-to-use Web-based application (that’s right, no software to download) that has been updated to comply with the 2015 IBC and now provides solutions for all three Strong-Wall Shearwall types: the Steel Strong-Wall® shearwall (SSW), the Strong-Wall wood shearwall (WSW) and the wood Strong-wall shearwall (SW). If you are familiar with the Strong-Wall Shearwall Selector, you can begin using the web application immediately. For those of you who would like to know more about the web app, please read on.
The Strong-Wall Shearwall Selector was created to help the Designer select the appropriate shearwall solution for a given application in accordance with the latest building code requirements. By performing a technical analysis, the web app provides actual drift and uplift values for a wind or seismic design shear load.
The Strong-Wall analysis also considers simultaneous, vertically applied load. In cases of multiple walls in a line, the program performs a rigidity analysis and determines the actual distributed shear to each wall. When walls are stacked in a two-story configuration, the program evaluates cumulative overturning effects to ensure that the wall, anchor bolt and anchorage to the foundation are not overstressed.
The web app provides two modes for generating an engineered solution: Optimized In-Plane Shear or Manual In-Plane Shear. The Optimized mode lists several possible solutions for the selected criteria in the order of cost. The Manual mode evaluates any number or combination of walls for adequacy based on the selected criteria. The Designer has the option to generate an Anchorage Solution based on foundation type. Once a solution has been selected, the web app will generate a pdf output. Files can be saved and reused for future designs.
Input Variables Within the Two Solution Modes:
Job Name: Enables the Designer to provide a specific job name for a project.
Wall Name: Enables the Designer to provide a name for each wall line in a project.
Wall Type (Manual Only): Solutions are provided for the selected Strong-Wall panel type: SSW, WSW, SW
Application: Defines the proposed application (use) of the wall. The choices are for walls in a garage front, a standard wall on concrete, on a first-story wood-floor system, in a second-floor non-stacked application, in a two-story stacked application, or in a balloon-framed application. For the Steel Strong-Wall® (SSW) and Strong-Wall wood shearwall (WSW), garage front may be chosen with or without the portal kit. Higher shear capacities are available when the portal kit is used.
Cold-Formed Steel Construction (CFS): This option appears for “Garage Front,” “Standard Wall on Concrete,” “First-Story, Raised-Floor System” and “Two-Story Stacked” applications. If the check box is enabled, the program will provide the proper Steel Strong-Wall model for use in CFS construction.
1st Story Wall on Wood Floor (SW – Wood Strong-Wall Shearwall only): This check box only appears if a Two-Story Stacked application has been selected. If enabled, the program will then assume the lower story wall, in a stacked application, is installed on a wood floor.
The design criteria may now be selected. Drop-down menus provide options for Applicable Building Code, load type, concrete strength, wall height, wall geometry and floor depth (if applicable). Entry fields may be used to indicate shear- and axial-loading information. The following applies once the appropriate design criteria have been input: If Optimized In-Plane Shear has been selected, the possible solutions are displayed in the Strong-Wall Panel Solutions list. If Manual In-Plane Shear has been selected, a list of available walls will be displayed in the Strong-Wall Panel Solutions list, any of which may then be selected and added to the desired Solution.
Code: Wall solutions are provided in accordance with the requirements of the 2015 and 2012 International Building Code (IBC). Code reports may be found here.
Load Type: This criterion defines whether the input shear load is due to wind or seismic forces. The Designer must input the controlling load. The appropriate seismic “R” values are provided for the selected code.
Concrete Strength: Concrete strength may be selected based on specific project conditions. Default concrete strengths of 2500 psi, 3000 psi, 3500 psi, 4000 psi and 4500 psi are provided in the drop-down menu. Note that for shearwall selection purposes, concrete strengths are only applicable to Steel Strong-Wall® (SSW) and Strong-Wall wood shearwall (WSW). In some cases, lower anchorage forces may be obtained with a higher concrete strength. The concrete strength is also used for determining the anchorage tension capacity.
Wall Height: Select the nominal wall height. Actual wall heights are shown under the “H” column of the Solution(s).
Shear Load: Input the total Allowable Stress Design (ASD) design (demand) shear load along the wall line. Include all appropriate load factors on the shear load prior to input for the load combination under consideration. For Two-Story Stacked applications, input the story shear at each level and the program will evaluate the first-story walls for the total shear.
Floor-Joist Depth: This option appears only with first-story raised-floor systems and two-story
stacked applications. Floor-joist depth affects the capacity of Steel Strong-Wall panels installed on wood floors. Floor-joist depth is also considered in the cumulative overturning evaluation of two-story stacked wood or steel walls.
Header Thickness: This option appears only when “Garage Front” applications and wall heights of 7′ or 8′ with a header on top are selected. This option is used to select the proper Wood Strong-Wall panel model (thickness) based on the nominal header thickness of 4″ or 6″.
Header Type: This option only appears when “Header Thickness” of 4″ is selected. It then provides an option to select a solid or double-ply header. Values for the wood Strong-Wall panels will slightly decrease if the double-ply header option is selected. Steel Strong-Wall panels with multi-ply headers are limited to wind designs and SDC A-C. .
Maximum Number of Wall Segments per Wall Line (Optimized mode only): Here the maximum number of available wall segments along a particular wall line is specified. The program enables the Designer to select a maximum of four wall segments per wall line (3 segments maximum for garage fronts.) For more wall segments per wall line, use the Manual mode.
Fill Each Segment (Optimized mode only): If this checkbox is disabled, then the minimum number of Strong-Wall shearwalls that can serve as solutions is provided up to the “Max # of Wall Segments” previously specified. If this checkbox is enabled, then the “Max # of Wall Segments” will always be used and filled with Strong-Wall shearwalls.
Segment Number, Maximum Width, Axial (lb.) (Optimized mode only): For each wall segment along a wall line, the maximum desired width of that segment and the axial load on that particular segment may be specified. The axial load is the total vertical upward or downward load assumed to act on the entire panel width. Include all appropriate load factors on the axial load prior to input for the load combination under consideration. A positive axial load reduces the actual uplift of the panel, while a negative axial load increases the actual uplift of the panel. The combined effect of the vertical axial load and overturning force is considered in the Steel Strong-Wall® (SSW) and Strong-Wall wood shearwall (WSW) solutions. The combined effect of the vertical axial load and overturning on the wood Strong-Wall (SW) shall be evaluated by the Designer so as not to exceed the “C4” and “T1” allowable vertical loads. Download an excerpt from our catalog for more information.
Axial Load 1st Story (Manual mode only): See discussion above on axial load. The axial load selected is initially applied on all Available Wall solutions. As walls are selected using the “Add” button, the axial load remains constant. If it is desired that each wall have a different axial load, then input the corresponding axial load value for the first wall and click on “Add Solution” to send it to the Selected Solution. Then enter the new axial load value for the next wall and continue this process until all the product selections are complete.
Maximum Wall Segment Width: This optional input limits the Available Strong-Wall Panels to the maximum width specified.
Available Wall(s) (Manual mode only): Based on the input Design Criteria, all Available Strong-Wall Panels and their allowable loads are listed as an option for selection. The Available Strong-Wall list is independent of the input shear load and instead represents a list whereby any quantity or combination of walls can be selected to resist the shear load.
Solution(s) and Output :
Possible Solution(s) (Optimized mode only): Up to four possible solutions may be displayed and are designated as Sol # (solution number) in the order of relative cost (lowest to highest material cost).
Selected Solution (Manual mode only):
Add Another Solution: Click on the “Add” button to select wall from Available Wall(s) list, which enters it into the Selected Solution list. You may also double-click on an Available Wall to add it to the Selected Solution.
Clear: Click on the “Clear Selected Solutions” button to entirely remove all previously selected walls in the Selected Solution.
Generate PDF: This button creates a .pdf summary of the wall solution. Under Optimized mode, the output solution is created for the Sol# (solution number) that is highlighted. Under Manual mode, the Output is created for all walls shown in the selected solution list.
Design Anchorage: This option appears at the bottom of the page. If desired, enable the check box next to “Design Anchorage” and select Foundation Type. Anchorage design solutions will then be included in the PDF output.
Notes for Designer: Special notes related to the input variables are displayed in this window during the input process. When the Manual In-Plane Shear tab is selected, the Notes for Designer will indicate whether the Selected Solution is adequate to resist the applied design loads.
Anchorage Solutions and Output:
The Designer will have the option to generate an Anchorage Solution appended to the Strong-Wall shearwall solution. If desired, Select Foundation Type, then enable the check box next to Design Anchorage, and the .pdf file will be generated with the anchorage solution on subsequent pages. The designer can choose anchorage solutions based on foundation type for all shearwalls. The two foundation types are slab-on-grade and stemwall and are selected from a drop-down menu. Within each foundation type, the Designer can choose a specific footing type as follows:
Slab-on-Grade Footing Types: Garage curb, slab edge, brick ledge and interior.
Stemwall Footing Types: Garage front and perimeter.
Anchorage solutions are provided based on the shearwall solution(s) selected and the following design criteria: application, load type, actual uplift and concrete strength.
Anchor Bolt: Two anchor bolt solutions are available for the wood Strong-Wall®. They are the PAB7 and the SSTB, both of which are ASTM F1554 Gr. 36 material. The Steel Strong-Wall® uses a single anchor type, SSWAB, which may be either ASTM F1554 Gr. 36 or ASTM A449 (high-strength) material depending on the actual uplift. The Strong-Wall wood shearwall uses a single anchor type, WSW-AB, which may be either ASTM F1554 Gr. 36 or ASTM A449 (high-strength) material depending on the actual anchor tension.
Concrete Service Condition: This criterion refers to whether the concrete is determined to be cracked or uncracked based on analysis at service loads. See ACI 318 for the different reduction factors associated with cracked and uncracked concrete.
The anchorage design .pdf output summarizes all applicable design details including the footing type, minimum footing dimensions, anchor bolt and shear anchorage. The Designer is responsible for foundation design (size and reinforcement) to resist overturning, soil pressure, etc.
Product Information: Select for more product and application information.
Upload a Saved File: Designer can upload any previously used solution.
Report Applications Issues or Provide Feedback: If you are experiencing issues with the application or simply would like to provide feedback, please use this link. Simpson Strong-Tie values your feedback.
Get started on your next design project with the Strong-Wall® Shearwall Selector web application!