How Are DECK-DRIVE™ DWP Screws Load-Rated?

Experiential learning — has it happened to you? Certainly it has, because experiential learning is learning derived from experience. It happens in everyday life, in engineering and in product development, too. For example, experience has taught us that after a product is launched, our customers will find applications for the product that were never expected or listed in the product brief. Also, experience has shown us that larger fasteners tend to be placed in applications that have greater structural and safety demands.

When the larger Deck-Drive™ DWP screws were manufactured, we decided that they should be marketed as “load-rated” screws because they were big enough to support physically large parts and would be expected to provide structural load resistance.

So what is a “load-rated” screw? To Simpson Strong-Tie, a load-rated screw is a threaded fastener that has controlled dimensions and physical properties, as well as validated connection properties.  Load-rated fasteners are also subject to the same quality inspection that would occur if they were undergoing an evaluation report.

The products in the focus of this blog are Deck-Drive DWP Wood stainless-steel tapping screws. They are made from stainless steel (Types 305 and 316) and are particularly interesting because they have a box thread design feature. What is a box thread and what are its benefits? A box thread is a thread that is square rather than round. It is formed by rolling (not a trivial tooling challenge) like a standard thread. The box thread is preferred for some applications in part because of the low torque required to install the screw; that is, the installation demand is low relative to standard threads of the same pitch (number of threads per inch). You can easily see the box thread by looking from the point of the screw toward the head. The square corners of the box thread rotate at a defined angle, giving the threaded length a twisted appearance. The box thread is also used on the Timber-Hex SS screws. See Figure 1 for an illustration.

Figure 1. Phone photo showing box thread on a DWP screw (No.12, 4 inches long). These screws have a flat head, and this size has a T-27, six-lobe drive recess.

When we load rate a fastener, ICC-ES AC233 (Acceptance Criteria for Alternate Dowel-type Threaded Fasteners, 2015) is the guiding document. Essentially, we do everything that would be done if the product was going into an evaluation report. The testing uses representative products and is witnessed by a third party, and every test report is reviewed and stamped by a professional engineer. The DWP screws that are fully load rated are No. 12 and No. 14 that are three to six inches long. This means that we have evaluated by test the shear and tensile strengths, bending yield strength, head pull-through resistance, withdrawal resistance and certain logical lateral shear configurations of these models. The connection properties are developed in at least three species combinations of wood representing a range of specific gravities. Each cell in the connection load matrix is a reference allowable value based on a mean of at least 15 tests that is subject to a precision of five percent at a 75-percent confidence level. Table 1 is snipped from the prepublication spreadsheets.

While we were working on the No. 12 and No. 14 screws, we also realized that No. 10 DWP screws often require withdrawal loads because they are used in decks and docks to fasten the decking to the structural frame. You can see in Table 1 that the withdrawal loads were included for No. 10 DWP screws and the related properties, because uplift resistance is often engineered for those applications.

What is the test method for each property in the load table? See Table 2 for the test method used for each property and the related data for that property. The reference allowable shear loads shown in Table 1 represent more than 1,200 individual tests, and each test includes wood specific gravity, moisture content and continuous load-displacement data from start of test to past ultimate load.

Table 1. Reference allowable properties for the DWP load-rated screws.

Table 2. Test methods used to evaluate the properties of load-rated screws per ICC-ES AC233.

Load rating screws is a big job, and it creates an elevated continuous quality-monitoring obligation. However, our experience has taught us that the engineering community needs information and reference properties that can be relied on when specifying, and thus working with load-rated screws makes it possible to put your stamp on a design with confidence.

We look forward to hearing from you about load-rated fasteners, because we learn from you every time you contact us.

Design More with Our New Steel Deck Diaphragm Calculator App!

People are always innovating new things! There are always new tools, software, apps or, more recently, digital assistants to help us organize our life! Here’s something I want to share with you. Recently my family bought Google Home, and both my boys (ages 8 and 5) are constantly exploring it and testing its capabilities: “Hey, Google, play this music” or “Hey, Google, what time is it?” or “Hey, Google, repeat ‘Nathan is bad.’” While Google Home helps them with the former requests, it simply says, “I am still learning,” in response to commands like “repeat ‘Nathan is bad.’”  It’s funny to see them experiment and come up with creative ideas to use the tool. Many of us appreciate tools that help us be more organized or increase our efficiency or that are simply fun to use. Our new revised diaphragm calculator for designing metal decks is our attempt to help the engineering community get more done in less time.

So What Are the Updates and Revisions?

We have updated our design software to design per Canadian Standards like CSA136 and to design per Limit States Design. The app is so easy to use that you can design a steel deck diaphragm in minutes! The software designs steel decks for both shear and uplift forces acting on the deck and provides tables with diaphragm shear capacities for a given deck span using Simpson Strong-Tie deck fasteners that conform to Canadian codes and standards. These fasteners have an evaluation report, IAPMO UES ER-326, are recognized in SDI (Steel Deck Institute) DDM03 Appendix VII and IX and the CSSBI (Canadian Sheet Steel Building Institute) Design Manual and have FM approvals.

Overview of the App

When you open our diaphragm design software, Steel Deck Diaphragm Calculator, there is an option to “Select your Country.”  You can choose to design for US standards, in which case you select the USA option, or you can select Canada Imperial or Canada Metric, which are new additions. The app has three sections: (1) Optimized Solutions, (2) Diaphragm Capacity Tables and (3) Other Diaphragm Tables. All three options are available for the USA option. The Optimized Solutions help you to design a deck for any given shear and uplift. You can refer to our previous blog, Design Examples for Steel Deck Diaphragm Calculator Web App, for some examples on how to design steel decks using the Optimized Solutions selection. Diaphragm Capacity Tables are available to the USA and both Canada selections. Other Diaphragm Tables is available only to the USA selection.

Metal Deck Diaphragm Design Using Limit States Design (LSD)

When you select Canada for the country, you will have the option to select Diaphragm Capacity Tables as shown in the screen shot below. You can generate diaphragm shear tables by entering:

  1. Steel Deck Information: In this section, you select the type of the deck, the design method, the load type you would like the tables to be generated in and the deck thickness. You can enter uplift if you would like to design the deck for combined shear and tension, or leave the net uplift as zero if you are generating shear-only tables.
  2. Quik Drive Fastener Information: In this section, you input information about the structural and side-lap fasteners.

Click the Calculate button to generate the tables.

A PDF copy of the tables can be generated in either English or French.

This easy-to-use design software can be used by the designers, specifiers or erectors to generate the tables required. More information about our X series of screws (including XL and XM), tools and the required industry approvals for designing the profiled deck diaphragms can be found on our website at strongtie.com.

Please try out the app and let us know your comments and feedback so we can continue to improve our software to better serve your needs!

 

4 Common FRP Myths and Misconceptions: The Stuff Not Everyone Talks About

This week’s post is written by Kevin Davenport, who is the Southeast US Field Engineering Manager for Simpson Strong-Tie. Kevin is also responsible for providing technical support on Simpson Strong-Tie products for Infrastructure, Commercial and Industrial market segments within his own Southeastern territory. He is a registered professional engineer in Georgia and received his B.S. (’97) and M.S. (’98) from Clemson University. Kevin is a member of ICRI, ACI and various local chapters of SEA. 

The primary benefit of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) systems as compared with traditional retrofit methods is that significant flexural, axial or shear strength gains can be realized using an easy-to-apply composite that does not add significant weight or section to the structure. Many times it is the most economical choice given the reduced preparation and labor costs and may be installed without taking the structure out of service. However, it is important to make sure the composite is properly designed following industry standards in order to ensure that it is the right product for the application.

To provide you with a better understanding of the topic, it’s important to dispel some common myths and misconceptions that you might hear about FRP:

1. “FRP can solve all my retrofit and strengthening problems”
Composite strengthening systems are another tool for your toolbox, providing a possible solution to certain specific retrofit problems. However, they can’t do everything, and there are times when they may not be able to meet the project requirements. Simpson Strong-Tie’s design team will work with you to prepare a feasibility study to ensure suitable solutions for your application. One very important check when strengthening a structure is to verify that the existing, unstrengthened capacity is capable of resisting a certain percent of the newly applied loads. The following equations are strengthening limit checks that should be considered. These checks will sometimes determine how much additional strength the FRP composites are capable of providing to the existing structure.

  • ACI 440.2R-08

(φRn)existing ≥ (1.1SDL + 0.75SLL)new            (9-1)

  • ACI 562-13

Uex ≥ 1.2D + 0.5L + Ak + 0.2S                     (5.5.1)

2. “FRP is 10 times stronger than steel”
Although the ultimate tensile strength of some FRP dry fibers can exceed the yield strength of mild reinforcing bars (60 ksi) by up to 10 times, there are two main reasons an engineer should not assume that using FRP will provide 10 times the capacity of steel. First, the cured composite properties, not the dry fiber properties, are more relevant when designing with FRP composites. The ultimate tensile strength of cured composites will be more on the magnitude of two to three times stronger than 60 ksi (not 10 times stronger). Second, the ultimate tensile strengths of FRP systems occur at ultimate strain. When full design calculations are performed, the FRP design strain and resulting FRP strength will often be much lower after accounting for all possible failure modes and all recommended reductions based on durability testing and/or environmental reduction factors. Code limits often govern design over published ultimate strength properties.

For this reason, it is not good practice to size the required area of FRP using:

AFRP = (Arebar x fy rebar) / ffu FRP

 

Material Properties of Cured Composite 3. “FRP can triple the flexural capacity of the member or replace all the corroded steel”

It may be possible to achieve higher increases depending on member properties, but the following are some good rules of thumb when estimating the amount of strengthening that can be provided by FRP: flexural = 40%, shear = 20%, axial = 20%. Design is usually governed by the existing strength check, the FRP debonding strain (can’t develop infinite tension capacity through the bond line), or a ductility check (flexural φ factor based on strain in rebar at section failure).

4. “Stamped calculations and drawings were submitted, so it must have been designed properly”
Often, the FRP design engineer may make various assumptions in the design calculations, and the EOR (reviewer) should ensure that the FRP is designed “correctly” and verify that any assumptions made by the FRP engineer are accurate. Note that Simpson Strong-Tie calculations have an “Assumptions” section to make it is very easy for the EOR to identify where we took educated guesses.

Blueprints

 


Simpson Strong-Tie Can Help

We recognize that specifying Simpson Strong-Tie® Composite Strengthening Systems™ is unlike choosing any other product we offer. Leverage our expertise to help with your FRP strengthening designs. Our experienced technical representatives and licensed professional engineers provide complimentary design services and support – serving as your partner throughout the entire project cycle. Since no two buildings are alike, each project is optimally designed to the Designer’s individual specifications. Our pledge is to address your specific condition with a complete strengthening plan tailored to your needs, while minimizing downtime or loss of use, at the lowest possible installed cost.

Concrete Structures

Your Partner During the Project Design Phase 

During the Designer’s initial evaluation or preparation of the construction documents, Simpson Strong-Tie can be contacted to help create the most cost-effective customized solution. Simpson Strong-Tie Engineering Services will work closely with the Design Engineer to provide all the necessary information required to design the system. The solution we deliver will include detailed design calculations for each strengthening requirement and design drawings with all the necessary details to install the CSS.

Why Use Simpson Strong-Tie Design Services?

  • To assess feasibility studies that will help ensure suitable solutions to your application
  • To receive customized FRP strengthening solutions
  • To work with our trained contractor partners to provide rough-order-of-magnitude (ROM) budget estimates
  • To collaborate during the project design phase
  • To receive a full set of drawings and calculations to add to your submittal
  • To maintain the flexibility to provide the most cost-effective solution for your project
  • To gain trusted technical expertise in critical FRP design considerations

 

The Design Fundamentals of FRP Strengthening
If you would like to view the recorded webinar, you can find it at our website at https://www.strongtie.com/css.

The Design Fundamentals of FRP Strengthening

WATCH THE RECORDED WEBINAR NOW!

Learn the best practices for FRP strengthening design during this innovative webinar presented by Simpson Strong-Tie.


If you’d like more information about FRP design, you can learn the best practices for fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) strengthening design from a recorded webinar offered by Simpson Strong-Tie professional engineers. We look at FRP components, applications and installation. We also take you behind the scenes to share the evaluation process informing a flexural beam-strengthening design example and talk about the assistance and support Simpson Strong-Tie Engineering Services offers from initial project assessment through installation.

For complete information regarding specific products suitable to your unique situation or condition, please visit strongtie.com/css or call your local Simpson Strong-Tie RPS specialist at (800) 999-5099.

Why You Should Specify Stainless-Steel Screw Anchors When Designing for Corrosive Environments

Figure 1. Spalled concrete below a concrete bridge.

I was driving under a concrete bridge one nice clear day in Chicago, and I happened to look up to see rusted rebar exposed below a concrete bridge. My beautiful wife, who is not a structural engineer, turned to me and asked, “What happened to that bridge?” I explained that there are many reasons why spalling occurs below a bridge. One common reason is the expansion of steel when it rusts or corrodes.

This week’s blog will briefly explain the corrosion process and why concrete spalls when the embedded metals corrode. Corrosion may be defined as the degradation of a material as a reaction to its environment.1. As described in our previous SE Blog post, “Corrosion: The Issues, Code Requirements, Research and Solutions” dated January 3, 2013, corrosion of metallic surfaces is an electrochemical process. Because of moisture evaporation, concrete is a porous material. Water and oxygen molecules enter the pores of the concrete, and an electrochemical process occurs with the carbon-steel bar. The iron in the steel is oxidized, which then produces rust. A buildup of rust products at the surface of the carbon-steel bar exerts an expansive force on the concrete. Based on the amount of oxidation, the rust products of steel can occupy more than six times the volume of the original steel.2 Over time, further rust occurs and surface cracks will form. Eventually spalling will occur, exposing the rusted carbon steel bar. (See figure 1.)

Figure 2. Stages of corrosion.

Just as with reinforcing bars below a concrete bridge, cracking and spalling can occur when a carbon-steel anchor is used adjacent to a concrete edge. Simpson Strong-Tie® has many anchorage products that can be used in these conditions to prevent cracking. One specific product is the new stainless-steel Titen HD® screw anchor. This new innovative screw anchor is made up of Type 316 stainless steel. As seen in Figure 3, Type 316 stainless steel has a high level of resistance. This makes the stainless-steel Titen HD an excellent choice when it comes to an anchorage solution in corrosive environments. These environments include wastewater treatment plants, exterior handrails, exterior ledger attachments, stadium seating, central utility plants, and kitchens just to name a few.

Figure 3. Simpson Strong-Tie level of corrosion by material/coating.

Unlike expansion anchors, screw anchors require the leading threads to cut into predrilled holes. This can be easily achieved with hardened carbon-steel cutting threads. Stainless steel is not hard enough to cut into concrete. The new innovative stainless-steel Titen HD solves the problem by brazing heat-treated carbon-steel cutting threads to the surface of the stainless-steel tips of the screw anchor. (See figure 4.) These carbon-steel threads are hard enough to cut grooves into the surface of a predrilled hole, allowing the anchor to be installed with ease. The volume of the carbon-steel cutting threads is less than 1% of the stainless steel, reducing the buildup of rust that eventually spalls the concrete edge. Other stainless-steel screw anchor manufacturers in the market have a bi-metal product that attaches a full carbon-steel tip. This bi-metal screw anchors contain up to 18% carbon steel. Such a large amount of carbon steel can expand up to six times its volume when it corrodes and can spall the concrete when used adjacent to an edge.

Figure 4. Carbon-steel cutting threads.

Figure 5. Graphic representation of spalling in concrete adjacent to an edge.

When designing an anchorage solution for your next job in a corrosive environment, the stainless-steel Titen HD will provide the best resistance for corrosion, and also give the ability to drive these anchors into the concrete with ease. More information about the product can be obtained by visiting strongtie.com/thdss.

  1. Corrosion Technology Laboratory (https://corrosion.ksc.nasa.gov/corr_fundamentals.htm).
  2. Galvanized Rebar (http://www.concreteconstruction.net/how-to/repair/galvanized-rebar_o).

Stainless-Steel Titen HD®

The Next Era of Stainless-Steel Screw Anchor For Concrete and Masonry.


Code Update: Revisions Finalized for the 2018 IRC

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?

Building Code Update: 2018 IBC to Reference ASCE 7-16

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.

 

Decrypting Cold-Formed Steel Connection Design

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.

cfs-clip-attachment

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.

SEAOSC Safer Cities Survey Results: How Are We Building Strength and Transparency in Our Communities?

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.

Risk level knob positioned on medium position, white background and orange light. 3D illustration concept for business security management.

 

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.

Los Angeles skyline on a partly cloudy day with a row of palm trees in the foreground.

 

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.

safer-cities-ca

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.

1994-northridge

The survey also serves as a valuable reference in being able to identify and understand what the known vulnerable buildings types are:

  1. Unreinforced masonry buildings: brick or masonry block buildings with no internal steel reinforcement — susceptible to collapse
  2. 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
  3. Tilt-up concrete buildings: concrete walls connected to a wood roof — possible roof-to-wall connection failures leading to roof collapse
  4. Non-ductile reinforced concrete buildings: concrete buildings with insufficient steel reinforcement — susceptible to cracking and damage
  5. Soft first-story buildings: buildings with large openings in the first floor walls, typically for a garage — susceptible to collapse of the first story
  6. Pre-1994 steel moment frame buildings: steel frame buildings built before the 1994 Northridge earthquake with connections — susceptible to cracking leading to potential collapse

1933-earthquake-shot

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.

oes-inspectors-program

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:

Use Strong-Wall® Shearwall Selector to Design Shearwalls

This blog post was written by Travis Anderson.

Strong-Wall Shearwall Selector-Homepage

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.

Strong-Wall Shearwall Selector-Input Variables

Design Criteria:

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.

Strong-Wall Shearwall Selector-Design Criteria

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.

Strong-Wall Shearwall Selector-SolutionsStrong-Wall Shearwall Selector-Solution Output

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.

Strong-Wall Shearwall Selector-Anchorage Strong-Wall Shearwall Selector-Anchorage Output

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.

Strong-Wall Shearwall Selector-Info Save Issue

Get started on your next design project with the Strong-Wall® Shearwall Selector web application!

How do you Design Sole-Plate-To-Rim-Board Attachments?

For many years, builders have struggled with the awkward sole-plate-to-rim-board attachment. They often install a few nails and call it good, resulting in a connection with significantly less capacity than needed. This connection is critical to ensure that seismic and wind loads are adequately transferred to the lateral-force-resisting system. With screws becoming much more common in construction, we saw an opportunity to address this problem.

We offer a variety of structural wood screws that have shank diameters ranging from 0.135″ to 0.244″. They form our Strong-Drive® line of structural fasteners. The Simpson Strong-Tie® Strong-Drive SDWC Truss, SDWH Timber-Hex, SDWS Timber, SDWV Sole-to-Rim and SDS Heavy-Duty Connector structural wood screws as shown in Figure 1 can be used to attach sole plates to a rim board as shown in Figure 2. These screws provide structural integrity in the wall-to-floor connection.

The sole-to-rim connection is considered a dry service location. When the sole plate and the rim are both clean wood (not treated), then any of the screws can be used as long as they meet the design loads. However, if one or both members of the connection are treated with fire retardants or preservatives, then you must use the SDWS Timber screw, SDWH Timber-Hex screw or SDS Heavy-Duty Connector screw. The SDWS, SDWH and SDS screws all have corrosion-resistance ratings in their evaluation reports.

Figure 1. Simpson Strong-Tie Strong-Drive screws for fastening the sole-to-rim connection: (a) SDWS Timber screw, (b) SDWV Sole-to-Rim screw, (c) SDWH Timber-Hex screw, (d) SDS Heavy-Duty Connector screw, (e) SDWC Truss screw.

Figure 1. Simpson Strong-Tie Strong-Drive screws for fastening the sole-to-rim connection: (a) SDWS Timber screw, (b) SDWV Sole-to-Rim screw, (c) SDWH Timber-Hex screw, (d) SDS Heavy-Duty Connector screw, (e) SDWC Truss screw.

Figure 2. The load rating for the sole-to-rim connection is for transfer of loads parallel to the sole plate to the rim. This is a dry service condition.

Figure 2. The load rating for the sole-to-rim connection is for transfer of loads parallel to the sole plate to the rim. This is a dry service condition.

The Strong-Drive SDWV structural wood screw has the smallest diameter among these screws. The SDWV is 4″ long and has a 0.135″- diameter shank, and a large 0.400″-diameter ribbed-head with a deep six-lobe recess to provide clean countersinking. It is designed to be fast driving with very low torque. The Strong-Drive SDWS offers one of the larger diameters. It has a 0.220″-diameter shank and is offered in lengths of 4″, 5″ and 6″. It has a large 0.750″-diameter washer head which provides maximum bearing area. Longer screws allow designers to meet the minimum penetration requirement into a rim board, when the sole plate is a 3x or a double 2x member.

We have tested various combinations of sole plates, floor sheathing, and rim boards. Typical test assemblies were built and tested with two (2) Strong-Drive® screws spaced at either 3″ or 6″. Results were analyzed per ICC-ES AC233, “Acceptance Criteria for Alternate Dowel-type Threaded Fasteners.” The allowable loads listed in Table 1 are based on the average ultimate test load of at least 10 tests, divided by a safety factor of 5.0, and are rated per single fastener. The results of these tests can be found in the engineering letter L-F-SOLRMSCRW16.

The evaluated sole plates include southern pine (SP), Douglas fir-larch (DF), hem-fir (HF), and spruce-pine-fir (SPF) in single 2x, 3x or double 2x configurations. Floor sheathing thicknesses are allowed up to 1 1/8″ thick. Rim boards can be LVL or LSL structural composite lumber or DF, SP, HF or SPF sawn lumber. The load rating also assumes that the floor sheathing is fastened separately and per code.

sdwc-load-tables

See strongtie.com for evaluation report information if it is needed.

As a Designer, you can specify any of these Strong-Drive screws that fit your design requirements. Please visit our website and download L-F-SOLRMSCRW16 for more details.

Good luck!