Pile Construction Fasteners – New and Expanded Applications

The majority of Simpson Strong-Tie fasteners are used to secure small, solid-sawn lumber and engineered wood members. However, there is a segment in the construction world where large piles are the norm. Pile framing is common in piers along the coast, elevated houses along the beach, and docks and boardwalks.

While the term “pile” is generic, the piles themselves are not generic. They come in both square and round shapes, as well as an array of sizes, and they vary greatly based on region. The most common pile sizes are 8 inches, 10 inches, and 12 inches, square and round, but they can be found in other sizes. The 8-inch and 10-inch round piles are usually supplied in their natural shape, while 12-inch round piles are often shaped to ensure a consistent diameter and straightness. All piles are preservative-treated.

Historically, the attachment of framing to piles has been done with bolts. This is a very labor-intensive method of construction, but for many years there was no viable fastener alternative. Two years ago, however, Simpson Strong-Tie introduced a new screw, the Strong-Drive® SDWH Timber-Hex HDG screw (SDWH27G), specifically designed for pile- framing construction needs. It can be installed without predrilling and is hot-dip galvanized (ASTM A153, Class C) for exterior applications.

Figure 1 – SDWH27G Lengths

Figure 1 – SDWH27G Lengths

Simpson Strong-Tie tested a number of different pile-framing connections that can be made with the SDWH27G screw. This blog post will highlight some of the tested connections. More information can be found in the following three documents on our website:

  • The flier for the SDWH Timber-Hex HDG screw: F-FSDWHHDG14 found here.
  • The engineering letter for Square Piles found here.
  • The engineering letter for Round Piles found here.

The flier provides product information, and the engineering letters include dimensional details for common pile-framing connections that were tested.

Piles are typically notched or coped to receive a horizontal framing member called a “stringer.” The coped shoulder provides bearing for the stringer and serves as a means of transferring gravity load to the pile. The SDWH27G can be used to fasten framing to coped and non-coped round and square piles.

The connections that we tested can be put into four general groups that include both round and square piles:

  • Two-side framing on coped and non-coped piles
  • One–side framing on coped and non-coped piles
  • Corner framing on coped piles
  • Bracing connections

Additionally, the testing program included four different framing materials in several thicknesses and depths:

  • Glulam
  • Parallam
  • Sawn lumber
  • LSL/LVL

The total testing program included more than 50 connection conditions that represented pile shape and size, framing material and thickness and framing orientation and details. We assigned allowable uplift and lateral properties to the tested connections using the analysis methods of ICC-ES AC13. Figures 2 and 3 show some of the tested assemblies.

Figure 2 – Uplift Test of a 10" Coped Round Pile with a 3-2x10 SYP Stringer

Figure 2 – Uplift Test of a 10″ Coped Round Pile with a 3-2×10 SYP Stringer

Figure 3 – Lateral Test of an 8" Coped Square Pile with a 3.125" Glulam Stringer

Figure 3 – Lateral Test of an 8″ Coped Square Pile with a 3.125″ Glulam Stringer

Figures 4 through 9 illustrate some of the connections and details that are presented in the flier and engineering letters.

Some elements of practice are important to the design of pile-framing connections. Some of the basic practices include:

  • For coped connections, the coped section shall not be more than 50% of the cross-section.
  • For coped connections, the coped shoulder should be as wide as the framing member(s).
  • Fastener spacing is critical to the capacity of the connection.
  • When installing fasteners from two directions, lay out the fasteners so that they do not intersect.
Figure 4 – Square and Round Two-Sided Stringers

Figure 4 – Square and Round Two-Sided Stringers

Figure 5 – Single-Side Stringer with Notched Pile

Figure 5 – Single-Side Stringer with Notched Pile

Figure 6 – Single-Side Stringer with Unnotched Pile

Figure 6 – Single-Side Stringer with Unnotched Pile

Figure 7 – Round Pile Corner Condition

Figure 7 – Round Pile Corner Condition

Figure 8 – Square Pile Corner Condition

Figure 8 – Square Pile Corner Condition

In many cases, pile-framing connections use angled braces for extra lateral support. The SDWH27G can be used in these cases too.

Figure 9 – Braced Condition

Figure 9 – Braced Condition

In the flier and engineering letters previously referenced, you will find allowable loads and specific fastener specifications for many combinations of stringer and pile types and sizes.

What have you seen in your area? Let us know – perhaps we can add your conditions to our list.

 

New LSSJ Hanger Strengthens Jack Rafter Connections

When our company is considering a new or improved product, we like to start out by talking to our customers first. That’s what we did recently with a connector improvement project for attaching jack rafter hangers in roof framing – and we got lots of feedback!

We heard from installers that they really wanted a hanger that could be easily adjusted in the field for different slopes and skews. We were asked whether we could design a hanger that could be installed after the rafters were already tacked into place to support construction sequencing and retrofit applications. Also, having a hanger that could be installed from one side was a popular time-saving request.

Our Engineering innovation team took all this feedback and closely evaluated our current selection of hangers. After much consideration, the team decided that rather than adapt one of our existing hangers, they would try to  come up with an all-new design that would satisfy our customers’ most pressing needs.

After months of designing and testing prototypes in the lab and in field trials, the answer was yes. The result is our new LSSJ field-adjustable jack hanger. It’s an innovative field-slopeable and field-skewable hanger that features a versatile hinged seat. This new design allows it to be adjusted to typical rafter slopes, with a max slope of 12:12 up or down.

What is a jack hanger and why does it provide a better connection than nails alone? 

There are two basic types of wood roof construction: framed roof construction (stick framing) as shown above, and truss assembly. The main difference is that stick assembly takes place onsite, while trusses are prefabricated and ready to place. In the United States, the number of truss-built roofs versus stick-frame roofs is about two to one. The LSSJ jack hanger is used for stick-frame construction and provides a connection between the jack rafter to either the hip rafter or the valley rafter as shown below.

The LSSU hanger connects the jack rafter to the hip rafter

The LSSJ hanger connects the jack rafter to the hip rafter

Connecting a 2X jack rafter to a hip is hardly new. The hardest thing is making a good compound miter cut – something an experienced framer can figure out (and most engineers marvel at). In many parts of the country, these are simply face-nailed into place.  Often there isn’t a lot of engineering that goes into that connection.  However, a closer look raises a couple of questions.

Random Nail Placement

Where exactly are those nails going? When there’s no seat support for the rafter, the allowable shear is reduced per the NDS depending on where the lowest nail on the rafter is. This is based on the split that develops at the lowest fastener. The LSSJ provides a partial seat which not only meets the bearing requirement of section R802.6 of the IRC but also delays the type of splitting found in a nailed-only connection.

Consistent Nail Placement

The LSSJ conforms to the bottom of the jack rafter slope and ensures consistent nail placement on both the rafter and the hip.  Consistent nail placement promotes consistent performance based on testing (or as consistent as wood gets)!  The highest nail on the hip is located near the neutral axis if the hip is one size deeper than the rafter.  This assures that not all the load is focused at the bottom of the hip.

A Closer Look at the LSSJ Jack Hanger

Some of our customers may be familiar with our current product, the LSSU, which is used for the same connection. Here’s a closer look at the improvements that the LSSJ offers.

LSSU and LSSJ

LSSU and LSSJ

lssu-lssj-installation

LSSU and LSSJ Installation

lssu-lssj-Skewing

LSSU and LSSJ Skewing

You can see the differences and improvements just by looking at these hangers, installations and load tables. Here’s a different way of showing the advances and benefits of the LSSJ:

LSSJ Improvements

LSSJ Improvements

One of the greatest improvements is the fact that there are fewer nails to install in the LSSJ, and the loads are very similar if not better.

In addition to the LSSJ, Simpson Strong-Tie offers a full line of connectors for wood-framed sloped roofs, including:

 

We look forward to hearing from you about our newest innovation. For more information about the LSSJ hanger, please see strongtie.com.

Designing Overhangs on Gable Ends

It seems that each major hurricane tends to teach those of us in the construction industry some lesson. With Hurricane Andrew, the lessons were the importance of protection from windborne debris, and the importance of proper construction of gable ends.

There are two main areas where gable ends can fail. One is a failure of the hinge at the connection between the top plate of the wall and the gable end framing, if the gable end is not balloon-framed with continuous studs. This is now addressed in the International Residential Code. Since 2009, Section R602.3 has required that “Studs shall be continuous from support at the sole plate to a support at the top plate to resist loads perpendicular to the wall. The support shall be a foundation or floor, ceiling or roof diaphragm or shall be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice.”

For existing construction, the International Existing Building Code specifies a method for retrofitting gable ends in Appendix C.  For new construction, Simpson Strong-Tie shows a couple of solutions for bracing top plates of gable ends in our High Wind–Resistant Construction Application Guide on Page 48.

Figure 1, Gable Wall Bracing Methods

Figure 1, Gable Wall Bracing Methods

The other common wind-related failure at gable ends is uplift of the roof decking at the overhang. This can be from two causes: inadequate nailing of the sheathing to supporting framing, or inadequate connections of the framing at the rake edge that supports the roof. As far as this author can tell, this area of light construction is not covered in the International Residential Code for wood framing, but it is covered for cold-formed steel framing, where Section R804.3.2.1.2 contains requirements for “Rake overhangs.” The two methods shown are the cantilever outlooker (Option 1) and the ladder outlooker (Option 2).

Figure 2, IRC Gable Overhand Details

Figure 2, IRC Gable Overhand Details

Figure 3, Gable End Wind Damage

Figure 3, Gable End Wind Damage

In the photo above, it appears that the cantilevered outlooker method was used, and that there was a failure of the outlooker connections at the gable end and the first full truss. If you look closely, the end nails from the full-height truss that were in the end of the outlookers can be seen in a couple of places.

If a truss roof is used with this method, the gable truss is manufactured 3½” shorter than the others. Then a 2×4 outlooker is placed over the dropped gable, and butted into the side of the adjacent full-height truss. Then the barge or fly rafter is attached to the end of the cantilevered outlooker. At the overhang, wind can cause uplift on both the bottom and top surface. The uplift at the end of the outlooker imparts an uplift force at the gable truss, which must be resisted by a tension connection such as a hurricane tie, and a downward force at the connection to the full-height truss.

Figure 4, Cantilevered Outlooker Method

Figure 4, Cantilevered Outlooker Method

The other method commonly used to support the sheathing and the barge rafter is the ladder method. With this technique, lookout blocks are used to connect the barge or fly rafter back to the gable framing. One way this can be constructed is as a full ladder, with parallel fly rafter and ledger with block framing in between. Either this assembly can be constructed on the ground and then raised and fastened in place, or it can be built in place at the overhang. Or there are also examples where a ledger is not used, and the block framing is just connected directly to the top chord of the gable truss or gable rafter. This method is less wind-resistant, and in literature is limited to a 12″ overhang.

Figure 5, Ladder Outlooker Block Method

Figure 5, Ladder Outlooker Block Method

If the gable overhang is to resist wind loads properly, it must either be designed, or constructed in accordance with some pre-engineered prescriptive detail. Figure 4 shown above was originally published in a Simpson Strong-Tie Technical Bulletin, the High Wind Framing Connection Guide. But this Guide is no longer published. As shown earlier in Figure 2, there are some prescriptive details in the IRC for cold-formed steel construction. These are limited to an overhang length of 12″ and apply for up to 139 miles-per-hour ultimate wind speed. For wood-framed construction, comparable details are contained in the American Wood Council Wood Frame Construction Manual. For the cantilevered outlooker method, connection design loads are published for various wind speeds. Cantilevered outlookers are permitted to extend out up to 24 inches, while the ladder outlookers are only permitted to extend out 12 inches. See below for excerpted figures and tables from the Wood Frame Construction Manual, courtesy of the American Wood Council.

Figure 6, WFCM Gable Overhang Design (courtesy, American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA)

Figure 6, WFCM Gable Overhang Design (courtesy, American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA)

In addition to the framing design, the connection of the roof decking at this location is critical. If you’re building to traditional construction methods, with 6″ nail spacing at panel edges and 12″ nail spacing at interior supports, the close nail spacing ends up at the nonstructural outer member, while the nailing at the actual roof edge over the gable is only 12″ on center. As shown in the details above, newer documents do indicate the importance of spacing the nails over the gable end at the closest spacing, both because these are subject to the highest withdrawal loads and because this is the edge of the diaphragm for transfer of lateral loads.

The Journal of Light Construction has a discussion of the unbraced gable end overhang on one of their Forums.

The Florida Division of Emergency Management provides some information on wind resistance of gable overhangs and some possible means of retrofitting them here.

Have you seen or designed with different methods for framing gable overhangs?

Screw Substitution Calculator Web App

At Simpson Strong-Tie, we do our best to offer tools that make your job easier. One such tool is the Screw Substitution Calculator. It’s a quick and easy-to-use web app created to help you calculate and design using Simpson Strong-Tie fasteners. The app can be used in two ways: (1) to design for a given load and (2) to provide a substitution for NDS fasteners. The app covers design for withdrawal loading, lateral loading and multi-ply connections. For each of these applications you can either design for a load or input the specified NDS fasteners and design an alternate Simpson Strong-Tie screw substitution. The app can generate detailed calculations in a PDF format for any of the selections made, and these calculations can be used for submittals.

Note that although the tool currently does not address corrosion issues, corrosion resistance should be an important consideration before selecting screws for your application.

Below is a screenshot of the Screw Substitution Calculator. As explained above, the app can design for

  1. Withdrawal Loading
  2. Lateral Loading
  3. Multi-Ply Connections

screw-substitution-calculator-main

The input sections for Withdrawal Loading and Lateral Loading (parallel or perpendicular to grain) are similar. A screenshot of Lateral Load Parallel to Grain is shown below.

screw-substitution-calculator-overview

Step 1: General Information In this section, you are requested to select either Fastener Substitution or a Load Entry. If you choose fastener substitution, the app will request in step 4, Fastener Information, that you enter the original fastener design. The fastener substitution calculator will provide Simpson Strong-Tie fastener alternatives for the NDS fasteners. The NDS fasteners covered in this app are bolts, lag screws, wood screws and nails.

If you choose Load Entry, you will notice that the Fastener Information step will disappear and no longer be available for input. Next, select a category from the Design Method section. Available options are Allowable Stress Design (ASD), Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) and Not Specified, if you are not sure of the design method. If the Not Specified option is selected, the design assumes the Load and Resistance Factor Design method, and it further prompts you to answer a few more questions related to Wood Moisture Content, Connection Temperature and End Grain Insertion.

screw-substitution-calculator-general

Step 2: Side Member – In this section, all the information regarding the side member is entered. You can either select a species from the drop-down list or enter the specific gravity of the member manually in the text box. The information button lists all the available specific gravities for wood species combinations from NDS. Then enter the (actual, not nominal) thickness of the side member.

Step 3: Main Member – Similar to step 2, enter all information regarding the main member.

Step 4: Fastener Information – If the Fastener Substitution option is selected in step 1, step 4 will require you to enter information about the NDS fasteners used in the initial design. Enter the fastener type (bolt, lag screw, screw or nail), along with its diameter and length. From the fastener option list you can either select one fastener substitute at a time for each NDS fastener or enter the number of rows and the spacing of NDS-designed fasteners to determine Simpson Strong-Tie fastener options and their spacing requirements.

Step 5: Factors – Enter all factors required for designing the connection. Information pertaining to each factor is provided by clicking the information (i) button. You can use this as a guide for entering the factors.

Once all the input is entered, click on the FASTENER SUBSTITUTION OPTIONS button.

screw-substitution-calculator-options

Clicking FASTENER SUBSTITUTION OPTIONS reveals the available solutions. As a default, the All Types box is checked under Fastener Type, as shown above. You can refine the solutions by unchecking this box and selecting any of the specific fasteners listed – SDWH TIMBER-HEX Screw solutions, for example. On the right, the available solutions are displayed for selection. When a selection is made, the app displays all the input and output for that solution as shown in the screenshot below. You can also create a PDF copy for any of the solutions by clicking on CREATE PDF button.

screw-substitution-calculator-create-pdf

screw-substitution-calculator-create-pdf-2

screw-substitution-calculator-solution

For Multi-Ply Connections, the input for side members and main members is combined into Member Information as shown in the screenshot below. Once the input is entered, click the FASTENER SUBSTITUTION OPTIONS button to display results. Similar to withdrawal loading or lateral loading, you can create a PDF copy of the calculations.

screw-substitution-calculator-steps

Let’s design a 3-ply connection with (3) 2 x 12 DF members for a load of 1,000 plf.

screw-substitution-calculator-steps-2

By clicking FASTENER SUBSTITUTION OPTIONS, you can see all the available Simpson Strong-Tie fastener solutions. You can then select any of the options to generate detailed output. A screenshot of the output, solution and information regarding the selected fastener is displayed below. You can create a PDF copy of the solution by clicking the CREATE PDF button.

screw-substitution-calculator-selection

screw-substitution-calculator-output

screw-substitution-calculator-output-2

Now that you know how easy it is to design using our Screw Substitution Calculator, you can start using this tool for your future projects. We welcome your feedback on the features you find useful as well as on how we could make this program better suit your needs. Let us know in the comments below.

 

 

How to Select a Connector Series – Hurricane Tie

When it comes to wood-frame construction, hurricane ties are among the most commonly specified connectors. They play a critical role in a structure’s continuous load path and may be used in a variety of applications, like attaching roof framing members to the supporting wall top plate(s), or tying wall top or bottom plates to the studs. They are most commonly used to resist uplift forces, but depending on regional design and construction practices, hurricane ties may also resist lateral loads that act in- or out-of-plane in relation to the wall.

Simpson Strong-Tie manufactures approximately 20 different models of hurricane ties, not counting twist straps, other clips, or the new fully-threaded SDWC screws often used in the same applications. This assortment of models raises the question, “How do you select the right one?”

In this post, we’ll outline some of the key elements to consider when selecting a hurricane tie for your project.

Demand Load

Let’s start with the obvious one. If your building’s roof trusses have an uplift of 600 lb. at each end, don’t select a hurricane tie with a published capacity of less than 600 lb. It’s also important to consider combined loading if you plan to use the tie to resist both uplift and lateral loads. When the connector is resisting lateral loads, its capacity to resist uplift is reduced. I won’t go into too much detail on this topic since it was covered in a recent blog post, but in lieu of the traditional unity equation shown in Figure 1, certain Simpson Strong-Tie connectors (hurricane ties included) are permitted to use the alternative approach outlined in Figure 2.

Figure 1. Traditional Linear Interaction Equation

Figure 1. Traditional Linear Interaction Equation

Figure 2. Alternative Approach for Simultaneous Loading

Figure 2. Alternative Approach for Simultaneous Loading

What if the tabulated loads in the catalog for a single connector just aren’t enough? Use multiple connectors! An important note on using multiple connectors, though: Using four hurricane ties doesn’t always mean you’ll get 4x the load. Check out the recently updated F-C-HWRCAG16 High Wind-Resistant Construction Application Guide for allowable loads using multiple connectors and for guidance on the proper placement of connectors so as to avoid potential overlap or fastener interference.

Figure 3. Allowable Load Comparison for Single and Multiple H2.5A Connectors

Figure 3. Allowable Load Comparison for Single and Multiple H2.5A Connectors

Figure 4. Proper Placement of (4) H2.5A’s to Avoid Fastener Interference

Figure 4. Proper Placement of (4) H2.5A’s to Avoid Fastener Interference

 

Dimensional Requirements

While the majority of the hurricane ties that Simpson Strong-Tie offers are one-sided (such as the H2.5A), some are designed so the truss or rafter fits inside a “U” shape design to allow for fastening from both sides (such as the H1). If using the latter, make sure the width of the truss or rafter is suitable for the width of the opening in the hurricane tie – don’t select an H1 for a 2-ply roof truss.

Figure 5. H2.5A and H1 Hurricane Ties

Figure 5. H2.5A and H1 Hurricane Ties

Additionally, the height of the hurricane tie and the wood members being attached should be compatible. For example, an H2.5A would not be compatible with a roof truss configured with only a nominal 2×4 bottom chord over the plate since the two upper nail holes in the H2.5A will miss the 2×4 bottom chord (see Figure 4). This is actually such a common mis-installation that we specifically tested this scenario and have developed an engineering letter on it (note the greatly reduced capacity). In this case the ideal choice would be the H2.5T, which has been specifically designed for a 2×4 truss bottom chord.

Figure 6. H2.5A Installed on 2x4 Truss Bottom Chord

Figure 6. H2.5A Installed on 2×4 Truss Bottom Chord

Figure 7. H2.5T Installed on 2x4 Truss Bottom Chord

Figure 7. H2.5T Installed on 2×4 Truss Bottom Chord

Fasteners

It’s also essential to pay close attention to the diameter and length of the fasteners specified in the Simpson Strong-Tie literature. While many hurricane ties have been evaluated with 8d x 1½” nails for compatibility with nominal 2x roof framing, some require the use of a longer, 8d common (2½” long) nail and others require a larger-diameter 10d nail.

When specifying products for a continuous load path, it’s a good idea to select connectors that all use the same size nail to avoid improper installations on the job. It’s much easier if the installer doesn’t need to worry about which size nail he currently has loaded in his pneumatic nailer.

Wall Framing

Do your roof and wall framing members line up? If so, creating a continuous load path can be made simpler by using a single hurricane tie to fasten the roof framing to studs. The H2A, H7Z, and H10S are some of the connectors designed to do just that. If your framing doesn’t align, though, you can use two connectors to complete the load path. For simplification and to reduce potential mix-ups in the field, consider selecting the same hurricane tie for your roof framing-to-top-plate and top plate-to-stud connections, like the H2.5A.

Figure 8. Roof-Framing-to-Stud Connection with Single Hurricane Tie

Figure 8. Roof-Framing-to-Stud Connection with Single Hurricane Tie

Besides the added benefit of fewer connectors to install, using a single hurricane tie from your roof framing to your wall studs can eliminate top-plate roll, a topic discussed at length in one of our technical bulletins.

Other Factors

Some additional factors that may influence your selection of a hurricane tie are:

  • Environmental factors and corrosion should be considered when selecting any product. Nearly every hurricane tie is available in ZMAX®, our heavier zinc galvanized coating, and several are available in Type 316 stainless steel. A full list of products available in ZMAX or stainless steel may be found on our website. On a related note, be sure to use a fastener with a finish similar to that of the hurricane tie in order to avoid galvanic corrosion caused by contact between dissimilar metals.
  • When retrofitting an existing structure, local jurisdiction requirements will also influence your decision on which hurricane tie to use. As an example, the state of Florida has very specific requirements for roof retrofitting, which we outline in a technical bulletin, and they specifically mention the roof-to-wall connection. Be sure to check with your local city, county or state for specific requirements before you decide to retrofit.
  • Availability of wind insurance discounts in your area could also affect your decision on which type of hurricane tie to use on your home. Your insurance company may provide a greater discount on your annual premium for ties that wrap over the top of your roof framing and are installed with a certain minimum quantity of nails. Check with your insurance provider for additional information and requirements.

Although this is a lot to take in, hopefully it makes choosing the right hurricane tie easier for you on your next project. Are there any other items you consider in your design that weren’t mentioned above? Let us know in the comments below.

Construction Referees: Evaluation Processes for Alternative Building Products

construction-refereeThere are products used in every building not referenced by the codes or standards.
These products can impact safety, public health and general welfare through their effect on structural strength, stability, fire resistance and other building performance attributes. I-code Section 104.11 (Alternative materials, design, and methods of construction and equipment) provides guidance on how these products are approved for use in the built environment and identifies the Building Official as the decision-maker. This is similar to a referee determining a player’s compliance with the rules.

Building Officials see submittals for a wide variety of alternative building products ranging from the simple to the very complex. The amount of data included in these submittals and their relevance and completeness varies significantly from insufficient and minimal to complete and very thorough. In the absence of publicly developed and majority-approved provisions, the Building Official is tasked to ensure the data provided is appropriate and adequately proves the alternative product meets code intent to protect public safety, no matter the product type or complexity. This is compared to the robust code and standards process in which committees with balanced representation publicly develop and deliberate on provisions in order to protect public safety. The question arises whether the 104.11 requirement implies that a similar robust process be used in the development of test and evaluation requirements for alternative products as is used for the development of code and standard provisions where there is public debate, resolution of negative opinions and a majority approval of the requirements. Requiring a similar code development process for alternative products would seems to make sense. Otherwise, a less rigorous process might be employed by those seeking to avoid a more robust code and standard process so as to achieve quicker and less stringent approval for their alternative products.

public-safetySome may argue that having to use a “code-like” evaluation process for alternative products would add too much of a burden in time and cost, and that it’s not necessary since individual registered design professionals and building officials have enough time, resources and expertise to determine acceptability. But this begs the question of why a similar public majority-approval process should not be required for new products as it is required for code-referenced products. Another question that comes up is ongoing acceptance of an alternative product, as their manufacture may have changed since their approval. Additionally, different jurisdictions have different expertise and resources and this can lead to different standards for approval for alternative products, leading to inconsistency.

Is there a solution which balances providing innovative and cost-effective alternative building product solutions to the industry in a timely manner with providing a thorough product assessment using a process similar to the codes and standards to better ensure consistency and public safety? Accredited building product certification companies, or evaluation service companies, that use a publicly developed and majority-approved acceptance or evaluation criteria and publish an evaluation report with the product’s description, design and installation requirements and limitations provide such a solution. These evaluation service companies are a third-party resource for building officials to assist in their determination of whether an alternative product meets code intent and should be approved for use in their jurisdiction.

The number of evaluation service companies has been increasing. The ICC Evaluation Service and the IAPMO Uniform Evaluation Service, two of the better-known such companies, are both ANSI accredited to ISO/IEC 17065 (Conformity Assessment – Requirements for bodies certifying products, processes, and services) to provide building-code product certifications (ICC-ES, IAPMO UES). However, accreditation by itself mainly verifies a certain process is implemented to ensure consistency and confidentiality. Both companies also have a public acceptance or evaluation criteria process. This process includes an evaluation committee made up of building enforcement officials. These officials evaluate the proposed criteria, listen to expert and industry input and only approve the criteria by a majority vote if products evaluated to those criteria will meet code intent. This is similar to how the codes and standards are developed — a transparent public process and a majority approval of requirements and not just an opinion of one or a couple of individuals.

The alternative building product review process for ICC-ES and IAPMO UES is similar and has the following important components.

  • CRITERIA: The accredited product evaluation service develops an acceptance or evaluation criteria, with the manufacturer’s and public’s input, that is publicly debated, revised and ultimately approved by a majority vote of a committee of building enforcement officials.
  • TESTING: The manufacturer contracts out to an accredited independent third-party test laboratory to either perform or witness the product testing in accordance with the criteria.
  • REVIEW: Registered design professionals with the accredited product evaluation service evaluate the testing and analyses performed and sealed by registered design professionals with the manufacturers or their representatives. The product evaluation service then publishes the evaluation report to their website, and the report typically contains the product description, design and installation requirements andsupervising-supervisorlimitations.
  • CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE: The manufacturer’s quality system is inspected at least annually by the product evaluation service or an accredited third-party
    inspection agency to ensure that the product currently being manufactured is the same as that which was evaluated.

 

ICC-ES-ESR-2320-UES-AT-XP

While the term “product evaluation” is sometimes used, it is often “product certification” or “product conformity assessment.” ISO/IEC Guide 2:2004 defines “conformity assessment” as “Any activity concerned with determining directly or indirectly that relevant requirements are fulfilled. Some “product certification” companies also provide “product listing” services for when testing and evaluation requirements for the product are already in code-referenced consensus standards, making the development of acceptance criteria unnecessary, thus simplifying the process.

A couple of previous blog posts on evaluation or code reports that you may find informative discuss steps to obtain an evaluation or code report and provide a checklist to determine adequacy of a report.

A mechanism is available to the building industry to provide innovative and cost-effective alternative building products in a timely manner that implements a public and majority product acceptance criteria process, similar to the codes and standards development process. This solution involves the Building Official referencing building product evaluation service reports, based on acceptance criteria, offering a robust evaluation better ensuring that an alternative product meets code intent, thus protecting the public. In fact, several jurisdictions do require evaluation service reports for alternative products.

Should there be an easier path to approval for alternative products than for code-referenced products? What is a reasonable path to product approval? What basis do you use in reviewing evaluation or code reports to determine whether an alternative product is “in or out of -bounds”? We’d love to hear your thoughts.

Treated Lumber and Trusses (and the One Condition Under Which MPC Wood Trusses Shouldn’t Be Used)

What do a chicken house, a water treatment plant and a raised wood floor system all have in common?  Very likely, they all involve preservative-treated lumber.  They’re also all examples of common environments in which preservative-treated, metal-plate- connected (MPC) wood trusses may be specified.

Although trusses are successfully used in a variety of environments that require treated lumber, the first mention of “treated lumber” usually sends up a red flag in a truss design office. While the corrosion protection of truss plates is no different from the corrosion protection of any other steel fastener or hanger that comes in contact with treated lumber, there are a few more considerations that come into play whenever treated lumber is going to be used in a truss application.

Raised Wood Truss Floor System

Raised Wood Truss Floor System

When fire-retardant-treated lumber or preservative-treated lumber is specified, the first (and easiest) step is to determine whether standard G60 truss plates are acceptable for use with the treated lumber, or whether the chemical treatment requires additional protection of the plates. Recent blog posts have discussed how fasteners are evaluated for corrosion resistance and how the Corrosion Resistance Classifications in our catalog help facilitate selection of hardware and fasteners for different types of treated wood and environmental conditions.  Similar guidelines are also available for determining the proper metal connector plate for different wood treatments. For example, when using the sodium borate–based preservatives and fire retardants, standard G60 galvanized metal connector plates are acceptable. However, ammoniacal/alkaline/amine copper quaternary preservative types require more protection, such as G185, ASTM A153 galvanized- or stainless-steel truss plates. The complete guidelines – Quick Guide for Alternative Preservative Treatments with Metal Connector Plates – are available from the SBCA website.

Truss Plate Corrosion from Treated Lumber

Truss Plate Corrosion from Treated Lumber

When trusses are used in particularly corrosive environments such as coastal environments or salt storage buildings, the ANSI/TPI 1 standard lists coatings that will provide increased corrosion protection for the plates (see insert, below).

raisedtruss3

The paint coating systems listed in (a) and (b) have been specified in the TPI standard since 1985. These paint coatings, which are applied to the truss plates after the trusses are manufactured, provide alternatives to the double-dipped galvanized or stainless-steel plates used in coastal high hazard areas. In fact, the ANSI/TPI 1 Commentary states that one study – SSPC Report 87-08, Evaluation of Coatings for Metal Connector Plates – concluded that the paint coating systems over standard galvanized plates would be expected to outperform the double-galvanized metal connector plates in field use.

Coal Tar Epoxy-Coated Metal Connector Plate

Coal Tar Epoxy-Coated Metal Connector Plate

Once the necessary corrosion protection of the plates has been addressed, the next consideration is the effect of certain lumber treatments on the truss plates’ lateral resistance, or tooth-holding capacity. Fire-retardant treatments generally require strength reductions to be applied to both the lumber and metal connector plate design values. The proprietary treatment manufacturer specifies these design reductions. As soon as the specific treatment is known, the appropriate design reductions can be easily applied by the truss design software and noted on the truss design drawing accordingly.

Besides lumber treatment, there may be other reasons for plate design reductions whenever extra galvanization or special coatings are required. While extra galvanization itself does not necessarily require a reduction in plate values, if the treated lumber’s moisture content (MC) exceeds 19% at the time of truss fabrication, then a 20% reduction to the tooth-holding values is required. The same 20% reduction applies if the environment for the intended end use of the trusses is expected to result in wood moisture content exceeding 19%.

Special Considerations and Red Flags

One corrosive environment that requires special consideration is an enclosed swimming pool. ANSI/TPI 1 requires that trusses be separated from the pool environment by a vapor barrier and be separately ventilated from the pool environment. The exception to this requirement is if the truss plates are made with a stainless steel that is not susceptible to stress corrosion cracking (SCC), i.e., not Types 304 and 316.  Since truss plates made with SCC-resistant stainless steel are not readily available (if at all), a vapor barrier is basically required anytime trusses are used over enclosed swimming pools.

Another important consideration in roof truss applications involving treated lumber is the effect of elevated temperatures. For example, when FRT lumber is going to be used in an environment where high moisture content will exist, an FRT formulated for exterior use may be specified. However, if the exterior FRT has not been tested with elevated temperatures as specified in TPI 1 Section 6.4.9.1, it should not be used in a roof application.

raisedtruss5

But the biggest concern when treated lumber is specified for use in metal-plate-connected wood trusses has nothing to do with corrosion at all.  When a truss Designer gets a job that calls for a preservative treatment for exterior use or an exterior FRT, the very first question will be why is an exterior treatment required/what is the application? Although trusses can be adequately designed for many types of environments, there is one environment that does not mix well with metal-plate- connected wood trusses – exposed exterior applications. The TPI/WTCA Guidelines for Use of Alternative Preservative Treatments with Metal Connector Plates concludes with the following statement:

raisedtruss6

When trusses are exposed to repeated wetting and drying, the corresponding swelling/shrinkage of the wood causes what is commonly referred to as truss plate “back out”.  Since the ability of a truss plate to provide lateral resistance depends on the teeth having adequate embedment into the wood members, any plate “back out” or withdrawal from the lumber due to weathering has an adverse effect on the load capacity of the truss plate.

raisedtruss7

Example of a truss plate that has “backed out”

For this reason, MPC wood trusses must be protected from the elements, from the time they are built and stored through the extent of their life in service. High moisture content that is consistently high can be accounted for; but if the trusses will be exposed to moisture cycling, then it is time to consider something other than a metal-plate-connected wood truss.

What are your experiences with treated lumber and/or corrosive environments and wood trusses? Let us know in the comments section below.

Simpson Strong-Tie® Research and Testing Lab Grand Opening, WSU Pullman

On Thursday, May 5, 2016, Washington State University at Pullman, state dignitaries, construction leaders, WSU construction alumni, PACCAR management, Simpson Strong-Tie management and the press celebrated the grand opening and dedication of the PACCAR Environmental Technology Building (PETB) and the Simpson Strong-Tie Research and Testing Laboratory.

pullman1

The Simpson Strong-Tie team comprised senior leadership, engineering and marketing representatives, led by our CEO, Karen Colonias. In her speech at the opening ceremony, Karen Colonias highlighted the leadership of Simpson Strong-Tie in the engineering and construction materials industry in the U.S. and the world. She emphasized the longstanding partnership between WSU and Simpson Strong-Tie, which spans over twenty years of collaboration in various testing and code development programs, and communicated our excitement at the opportunity to collaborate more closely with WSU’s highly respected engineering department on testing and engineering programs.

Karen Colonias speaking at the Grand Opening

Karen Colonias speaking at the Grand Opening

The Paccar Environmental Technology Building (PETB) is 96,000 square feet and houses the Composite Materials and Engineering Center (CMEC) – a highly integrated hub of interdisciplinary research and education in the areas of renewable materials, sustainable design, water quality, and atmospheric research. The shared space in this new building will foster the synergy needed to find new solutions to complex industry problems, such as creating human environments that are at once safe, economical and resilient.

pullman3

The Simpson Strong-Tie® Research and Testing Lab at Washington State University (WSU) is a versatile laboratory designed specifically for the structural testing and prototyping of tall timber buildings, post frame buildings, concrete durability, building repair and retrofit and deck safety, as well as seismic and wind mitigation.

The lab includes a high-capacity reaction 28′ x 46′ concrete floor area with tie-downs, 75-kip capacity at two foot centers through the floor area; a high-capacity wall 28′ long by 2’thick by 18′ tall strong wall that is capable of withstanding a 200-kip reaction in any direction; a central 90-gallon-per-minute hydraulic pump, overhead crate and concrete mixing station. The laboratory is a dynamic space to test new material and design concepts developed in the PETB. This is one of the most visible spaces in the PETB and includes capabilities for mock-ups of new building systems, structural testing and advanced digital manufacturing. Adjoining the lab is an outdoor 32′ by 52′ reaction slab that allows for project display (e.g., Solar Decathlon competition), for developing taller and or larger structures than would be possible on the interior strong floor and for natural weather exposure testing.

pullman4

The lab is part of the Composite Materials and Engineering Center (CMEC), which has been a leader in the development of wood composite materials for more than 65 years. It is an International Code Council–accredited testing facility. The laboratory highlights engineered wood composites and is constructed of cross-laminated timber, glulam, Parallam and, of course, Simpson Strong-Tie® No- Equal connectors.

pullman5

Simpson Strong-Tie and WSU, as Karen Colonias mentioned in her speech, have a longstanding and productive partnership going back over 20 years. The two institutions have worked together in a number of areas, including new product testing, deck safety and seismic risk mitigation.

This year, Simpson Strong-Tie made a significant commitment and established the Simpson Strong-Tie Excellence Fund at the Voiland College of Engineering and Architecture at Washington State University (WSU). The fund provides an annual gift of $100,000 per year over the next eight years to support the new Simpson Strong-Tie® Research and Testing Lab in the PACCAR Environmental Technology Building (PETB). In addition to the lab, the Excellence Fund will support fellowships for professors and graduate students to present research findings, brainstorm about future research and conduct continuing education training.

The faculty of the Composite Materials and Engineering Center is committed to addressing the challenge of restoring and improving the U.S. civil infrastructure and offering an integrated approach linking material discovery, manufacturing innovation, product development, and customized design methodologies that will lead to high-performing, cost-effective solutions for the built environment. The core faculty possess diverse expertise that spans materials science (polymers, wood, cement, steel), durability and corrosion protection, manufacturing and sustainable design. The faculty also has a long history of involvement in developing building codes, standards and product acceptance criteria.

This year, the WSU Voiland College of Engineering and Architecture has more than 1,050 students enrolled in civil engineering, architecture and construction management programs. The alumni from these programs are founders of and senior executives in America’s top construction and design firms. The Wall Street Journal ranked WSU among the 25 universities whose graduates are top-rated by industry recruiters, and the Civil Engineering program is the 13th largest in the nation.

On October 29, 2016, and in line with this partnership, Simpson Strong-Tie is conducting its first annual engineering symposium at Washington State University Pullman. In this symposium, Simpson Strong-Tie engineers will share with the engineering and construction management students the various career opportunities that are available in the industry upon their graduation and introduce them to the exciting history of research and innovation at Simpson Strong-Tie. The Symposium will also include testing in the new lab of our No-Equal structural connectors and solutions.

At Simpson Strong-Tie, we are excited to be strengthening the partnership and increasing the collaboration with WSU faculty and students. We are looking forward to an extended and outstanding relationship that drives research and innovations and introduces new methods to design and construct safer, more resilient, sustainable and economical structures.

Onward and Upward!

Louay Shamroukh, P.E., S.E.

Engineering Manager, Northwestern U.S.

Multi-Ply Beam Load Transfer

Larger beams are often built up out of smaller 2x or 1¾” members. This can be done for several different reasons: for the convenience of handling smaller members on the jobsite, or because solid 4x, 6x or glulam material is not readily available, or for reasons of cost. Engineered wood such as laminated veneer lumber (LVL) is often used for its high load capacity and multiple 1¾” plies are built up to get the required capacity for the application.

8-Ply LVL Beam in HHGU14 Test

8-Ply LVL Beam in HHGU14 Test

When a built-up beam is loaded concentrically as in the test setup shown, fastening the members is not critical since that giant steel plate will load each ply of the beam. In the field, built-up beams or girders commonly support joists or beams framing into their side. The built-up members must be connected to transfer load from the loaded ply into the other plies.

SDW - Uniform Allowable Loads

Allowable Uniform Loads and Spacing Requirements

SDW - Assembly Types and Spacing Requirements

Page 303 of our Fastening Systems catalog, C-F-14 provides allowable uniform load tables for side-loaded multi-ply assemblies using LVL, PSL or LSL material. The calculation for the allowable load applied to the outside ply of a multi-ply beam is:

Screen Shot 2016-04-28 at 2.07.29 PM

While uniform loads are very common, Designers often request additional information to design multi-ply beam connections to transfer concentrated loads. Simpson Strong-Tie has created a new engineering letter, L-F-SDWMLTPLY16, which complements the information in the Fastening Systems catalog by providing allowable loads in a single fastener format. Designers can use the information to calculate the number of fasteners required for a given point load.

Simpson Strong-Tie® Strong-Drive® SDW EWP-Ply Screw – Allowable Loads for Side-Loaded Multi-Ply Assemblies per Screw

Simpson Strong-Tie® Strong-Drive® SDW EWP-Ply Screw – Allowable Loads for Side-Loaded Multi-Ply Assemblies per Screw

In order to ensure load transfer, the SDW screws need to be located relatively close to the connection. At first glance, it may appear challenging to fit enough fasteners while meeting the non-staggered row-spacing requirements. However, we have found that most loads can be managed by taking advantage of the ⅝” stagger allowance.

SDW – Maximum Fastener Spacing from Point Load

SDW – Maximum Fastener Spacing from Point Load

If you are curious what happened in that HHGU14 test, the screws pulled out of the header with a load slightly exceeding 101,000 pounds. Failure photo 2 shows a close-up of the pullout failure. The tested load was very close to the maximum calculated capacity for the SDS screws in the connector, so it was a great test result. What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below.

HHGU14 Test Failure 1 HHGU14 Test Failure 2

Coating Evaluation for Fasteners – Code-Approved and Alternative Coatings

Who likes red rust? No one I know! How do we avoid corroding of fasteners? Corrosion can be controlled or eliminated by providing a corrosion-resistant base metal or a protective finish or coating that is capable of withstanding the exposure environment. When fasteners get corroded, they not only look bad from outside but can also lose their load capacity. To ensure continued fastener performance, we have to control for corrosion. This blog focuses on evaluating the corrosion resistance of the fasteners.

What does the building code specify?

For use in preservative-treated wood, the IBC-2015 specifies fasteners that are hot-dipped galvanized, stainless steel, silicon bronze or copper. Section 2304.10.5.1 of IBC-2015 (Figure 1) covers fastener and connector requirements for preservative-treated wood (chemically treated wood). While chemically treated wood is part of the corrosion hazard, it is not the whole corrosion hazard. Weather exposure, airborne chemicals and other environmental conditions contribute to the corrosion hazard for metal hardware. In addition, the main issue with the code-referenced requirements for fasteners and connectors used with preservative-treated wood is that not all preservative treatments deliver the same corrosion hazard and not all fasteners can be hot-dip galvanized.

Figure 1: Section 2304.10.5.1 IBC-2015.

Figure 1: Section 2304.10.5.1 IBC-2015.

What if we want to use an alternative base material or coating for fasteners?

How do we evaluate the corrosion resistance of the alternative material or coating? The codes do not provide test methods to evaluate alternate materials and coatings. However, the International Code Council–Evaluation Service (ICC-ES) developed acceptance criteria to evaluate alternative coatings that are not code recognized for use in different environments. The purpose of acceptance criteria ICC-ES AC257, Acceptance Criteria for Corrosion-Resistant Fasteners and Evaluation of Corrosion Effects of Wood Treatment Chemicals, is twofold: (1) to establish requirements for evaluating the corrosion resistance of fasteners that are exposed to wood-treatment chemicals, weather and salt corrosion in coastal areas; and (2) to evaluate the corrosion effects of wood-treatment chemicals. In this blog post, we will concentrate on the evaluation of corrosion resistance of fasteners. The criteria provide a protocol to evaluate the corrosion resistance of fasteners where hot-dip galvanized fasteners serve as a performance benchmark. The fasteners evaluated by these criteria are nails or screws that are exposed directly to wood-treatment chemicals and that may be exposed to one or more corrosion accelerators like high humidity, elevated temperatures, high moisture or salt exposure.

The fasteners may be evaluated for any of the four exposure conditions:

  1. Exposure Condition 1 with high humidity. This test can be used to evaluate fasteners that could be exposed to high humidity. Typical applications that fall under this category are treated wood in dry-use applications.
  2. Exposure Condition 2 with untreated wood and salt water. This test can be used to evaluate fasteners that are above ground but exposed to coastal salt exposure.
  3. Exposure Condition 3 with chemically treated wood and moisture. This test covers all the general construction applications.
  4. Exposure Condition 4 with chemically treated wood and salt water. Typical applications include coastal construction applications.

Depending on the exposure condition being used for fastener evaluation, the fasteners are installed in wood that could be either chemically treated or untreated. Then the wood and the fasteners are placed in the chamber and artificially exposed to the evaluation environment. Two types of test procedures are to be completed for exposure condition 2 through 4. The purpose of these tests is not to predict the corrosion resistance of the coatings being evaluated, but to compare them to fasteners with the benchmark coating (ASTM A153, Class D) in side-by-side exposure to the accelerated corrosion environment.

ASTM B117 Continuous Salt-Spray Test

ASTM B117 is a continuous salt-spray test. For Exposure Condition 3, distilled water is used instead of salt water. The fasteners are continuously exposed to either moisture or salt spray in this test, and the test is run for about 1,440 hours after which the fasteners are evaluated for corrosion. This is an accelerated corrosion test that exposes the fasteners to a corrosive attack so the corrosion resistance of the coatings can be compared to a benchmark coating (hot-dip galvanized).

ASTM G85, Annex A5

The second test is ASTM G85, Annex A5 which is a cyclic test with alternate wet and dry cycles. The cycles are 1-hour dry-off and 1-hour fog alternatively. This is a cyclic accelerated corrosion test and relates more closely to real long-term exposure. This test is more representative of the actual environment than the continuous salt-spray test.  As in the ASTM B117 test, the fasteners along with the wood are exposed to 1,440 hours, after which the corrosion on the fasteners is evaluated and compared to fasteners with the benchmark coating.

Test Method and Evaluation

The test process involves installing 10 benchmark fasteners along with 10 fasteners for each alternative coating being evaluated. The fasteners are arranged in the wood with a spacing of 12 times the fastener diameter between the fasteners. A kerf cut is provided in the wood between the fasteners to isolate the fasteners as shown in Figure 2 and to ensure elevated moisture content in the wood surrounding the fastener shank. The moisture and retention levels of the wood are measured, and the fasteners are then installed in the chamber as shown in Figure 3 and exposed to the designated condition. The test is run for the period specified, after which the fasteners are removed, cleaned and compared to the benchmark for corrosion evaluation. Figure 4 shows the wood and fastener heads after 1,440 hours (60 days). The heads and shanks of the fasteners are visually graded for corrosion in accordance with ASTM D610. If the alternate coating performs equivalent to or better than the benchmark coating — that is, if the corrosion is no greater than in the benchmark — then the coating has passed the test and can be used as an alternative to the code-approved coating. Figure 5 shows the benchmark and alternative fasteners that are removed from the chamber after 1,440 hours.

As you can see, the alternative coatings have to go through extended and rigorous testing and evaluation as part of the approval process before being specified for any of the fasteners. Some alternative coatings provide even better corrosion resistance than the code recognized options. Sometimes, also, the thickness of these alternative coatings may be smaller than the thick coating required for hot-dip galvanized parts. Some of our coatings, such as the Double-Barrier coating, the Quik Guard® coating and the ASTM B695 Class 55 Mechanically Galvanized have gone through this rigorous testing and have been approved for use in preservative-treated wood in the AC257 Exposure Conditions 1 and 3. In addition, these coatings have been qualified for use with chemical retentions that are typical of AWPA Use Category 4A – General Ground Contact. No salt is found in AC257 Exposure Conditions 1 and 3. Please refer to our Fastener Systems Catalog, C-F-14, pages 13–15 for corrosion recommendations and pages 16–17 for additional information on coatings.

What do you look for specifically in a fastener? Do you have a preference for a certain coating type or color? Let us know in the comments below!

Figure 2: Fasteners with different coatings along with the benchmark, installed in wood and separated by kerf cuts.

Figure 2: Fasteners with different coatings along with the benchmark, installed in wood and separated by kerf cuts.

Figure 3: Fasteners and wood pieces installed in the chamber.

Figure 3: Fasteners and wood pieces installed in the chamber.

Figure 4: Snap shot of fasteners in ASTM B117 chamber after 1,440 hours.

Figure 4: Snap shot of fasteners in ASTM B117 chamber after 1,440 hours.

Figure 5: Fasteners after 1,440 hours of exposure, removed from the wood, cleaned and compared to benchmark. Coating 1 – Benchmark (Hot- dip Galvanized) and Coating 2 (Alternative coating).

Figure 5: Fasteners after 1,440 hours of exposure, removed from the wood, cleaned and compared to benchmark. Coating 1 – Benchmark (Hot- dip Galvanized) and Coating 2 (Alternative coating).