Design Examples for Steel Deck Diaphragm Calculator Web App

This week’s blog post was written by Neelima Tapata, R&D Engineer for Fastening Systems. She works in the development, testing and code approval of fasteners. She joined Simpson Strong-Tie in 2011, bringing 10 years of design experience in multi- and single-family residential structures in cold-formed steel and wood, curtain wall framing design, steel structures and concrete design. Neelima earned her bachelor’s degree in Civil Engineering from J.N.T.U in India and M.S. in Civil Engineering with a focus on Structural Engineering from Lamar University. She is a registered Professional Engineer in the State of California.

Like most engineers, you are probably often working against tight deadlines,  on multiple projects and within short delivery times. If you have ever wished for a design tool that would make your work easier, we have an app for that. It’s a simple, quick and easy-to-use tool called the “Steel Deck Diaphragm Calculator” for designing steel deck diaphragms. This tool is so user friendly you can start using it in minutes without spending hours in training. This app can be found on our website, and you don’t need to install anything.

The Steel Deck Diaphragm Calculator has two parts to it: “Optimized Solutions” and “Diaphragm Capacity Tables.” Optimized Solutions is a Designer’s tool and it offers optimized design solutions based on cost and labor for a given shear and uplift. The app provides multiple solutions starting with the lowest cost option using different Simpson Strong-Tie® structural and side-lap fasteners. Calculations can be generated for any of the solutions and a submittal package can be created with the code reports, Factory Mutual Approval reports, fastener information, corrosion information, available fliers, and SDI DDM03 Appendix VII and Appendix IX that includes Simpson Strong-Tie fasteners. Currently, this tool can be used for designing with only Simpson Strong-Tie fasteners. We will be including weld options in this calculator very soon. Stay tuned!

The Diaphragm Capacity Tables calculator can be used to develop a table of diaphragm capacities based on the effects of combined shear and tension.

steeldeck1

When “Optimized Solutions” is selected, the following input is requested:

Step 1: Building Information   ̶   Enter general information about the project, like the project name, the length and width of the building to be designed along with spacing between the support members such as joist spacing, is entered.

Step 2: Steel Deck Information   ̶   Select the type of the steel deck along with the fill type. You can select the panel width from the options or select “Any panel width” option for the program to design the panel width. Choose the deck thickness or select the “Optimize” option for the program to design the optimum deck thickness. You also have an option of editing the steel deck properties to accommodate proprietary decks that are within the limitations of SDI DDM03 Section 1.2. Select the joist steel (support) thickness that the deck material will be attached to. For some fasteners, the shear strength of the fastener is dependent on this support thickness.

Step 3: Load Information   ̶  Enter the shear and uplift demand and select the load type as either “wind” or “seismic” and the design method as “ASD” or “LRFD.”

Step 4: Fastener Information   ̶  This is the last step of input before designing. In the fastener information section, you have the option to choose a structural and side-lap fastener or let the program design the most cost-effective structural and side-lap options. This can be done by checking the “Provide optimized solutions” option. The default options in the program are usually the best choice. However, you can change or modify as needed for your project. You can also set the side-lap fastener range or leave it to the default of 0 to 12 fasteners.

Now let’s work on an example:

Design a roof deck for a length of L = 500 ft. and a width b = 300 ft. The roof deck is a WR (wide rib) type panel, with a panel width of 36″.  The roof deck is supported by joists that are ¼” thick and spaced at 5 ft. on center. Design the diaphragm for wind loading using Allowable Stress Design method. The diaphragm should be designed for a diaphragm shear of 1200 plf. and a net uplift of 30 psf. The steel deck is ASTM A653 SS Grade 33 deck with Fu = 45 ksi.

This information is entered in the web app, as seen below.

steeldeck2

After inputting all the information, click on the Calculate button. You will see the five best solutions sorted by lowest cost and least amount of labor. Then click on the Submittal Generator button. Upon pressing this button, a new column called “Solution” is added with an option button for each solution. You can select any of the solutions. Below the Submittal Generator button, you can select various Code Reports and Approvals and Notes and Information selections that you want included in the submittal. After selecting these items, click on the Generate Submittal button. Now a pdf package will be generated with all of your selections.

steeldeck3

Below is the screen shot of the first page containing Table of Contents from the PDF copy generated. The PDF copy contains the solutions generated by the program, then the detailed calculations for the solution that is selected. In this case, as you can see in the screen shot above, detailed calculations for solution #1 are included with XLQ114T1224 structural screws; XU34S1016 side-lap screws; 36/9 structural pattern and with (10) side-lap fasteners; diaphragm shear strength of 1205 plf. and diaphragm shear stiffness of 91.786 kip/in. The detailed calculations are followed by IAPMO UES ER-326 code report and FM Approval report #3050714.

steeldeck4

Below is another example of a roof deck to be designed for multiple zones.

Design a roof diaphragm that will be zoned into three different areas. Zoning is a good way to optimize the economy of the roof diaphragm. Below are the required diaphragm shears and uplift in the three zones.

Zone 1: Diaphragm shear = 1200 plf.; Net uplift = 30 psf.; Length and width of zone 1 = 300 ft. x 200 ft.
              Joist spacing = 5 ft.

Zone 2: Diaphragm shear = 1400 plf.; Net uplift = 0 psf.; Length and width of zone 2 = 500 ft. x 200 ft.
              Joist spacing = 5.5 ft.

Zone 3: Diaphragm shear = 1000 plf.; Net uplift = 25 psf.; Length and width of zone 3 = 300 ft. x 200 ft.
              Joist spacing = 4.75 ft.

Refer to the example above for all other information not given.

To design for multiple zones first select the Multi-Zone Input button, which is below the Fastener Information section as shown below:

steeldeck5

When you click on the Multi-Zone Input button, you can see a toggle button appearing above a few selections as shown below. The default for the toggle button is globalbutton, which means that this selection is same for all the zones. You can click on the toggle button to change to zonebutton. Then the selection below changes to a label and reads Zone Variable. After all the selections that need to be zone variables are selected, click the Add Zone button. Keep adding zones as needed. A maximum of five zones can be added. After creating the zones, add the information for each zone and click the Calculate button.

steeldeck6

When the Calculate button is clicked, the results for each zone are listed. The five best solutions are listed for each of the zones as shown below.

steeldeck7

Similar to previous example, select the Generate Submittal button to select the solutions to be included in the submittal generator. Select one solution for each zone and then check the items like the code reports or notes to be included in the submittal. Click Generate Submittal to create the submittal package.

See the screen shot below for the steps.

steeldeck8

Now that you know how easy it is to design using our web app, use this app for your future projects. We welcome your feedback on features you find useful as well as your input on how we could make this program more useful to suit your needs. Let us know in the comments below.

 

Anchor Testing for Light-Frame Construction

I started off doing a four-part series on how connectors, fasteners, concrete anchors and cold-formed steel products are tested and load rated. I realized that holdown testing and evaluation is quite a bit different than wood connector testing, so there was an additional post on holdowns. We have done several posts on concrete anchor testing (here and here), but I realize I never did a proper post about how we test and load rate concrete products per ICC-ES AC398 and AC399.

AC398 – Cast-in-place Cold-formed Steel Connectors in Concrete for Light-frame Construction and AC399 – Cast-in-place Proprietary Bolts in concrete for Light-frame Construction are two acceptance criteria related to cast-in-place concrete products.

Cold-formed steel connectors embedded in concrete are not considered in ACI 318 Appendix D, so it was necessary to create criteria for evaluating those types of connectors. Some examples of products covered by AC398 are the MASA mudsill anchor, CBSQ post base, and the STHD holdown.

MASA mudsill anchor

MASA mudsill anchor

CBSQ post base

CBSQ post base

STHD holdown

STHD holdown

ACI 318 Appendix D addresses the design of cast-in-place anchors. However, the design methodology is limited to several standard bolt types.

ACI 318 Appendix D Cast-in anchors

ACI 318 Appendix D Cast-in anchors

There are a number of anchor bolt products that have proprietary features that fall outside the scope of ACI 318, so AC399 fills in that gap by establishing test procedures to evaluate cast-in-place specialty anchors. Simpson Strong-Tie SB and SSTB anchor bolts are two families of anchors we have tested in accordance with AC399.

SB Anchor Bolt

SB Anchor Bolt

SSTB Anchor Bolt

SSTB Anchor Bolt

SB and SSTB anchors have a sweep geometry which increases the concrete cover at the anchored end of the bolt, allowing them to achieve higher loads with a 1¾” edge distance. The SSTB is anchored with a double bend, whereas the SB utilizes a plate washer and double nut.

AC398 (concrete connectors) and AC399 (proprietary bolts) are similar in their test and evaluation methodology. AC398 addressing both tension and shear loads, whereas AC399 is limited to tension loads. Testing requires a minimum of 5 test specimens. These are the allowable load equations for AC398 and AC399:

AC398 - Allowable Load Equation

AC398 – Allowable Load Equation

AC399 - Allowable Load Equation

AC399 – Allowable Load Equation

For comparison, here is the standard AC13 allowable load equation for joist hangers:

Allowable Load = Lowest Ultimate / 3

Without getting into Greek letter overload, what are these terms doing?

Nu (or Vu) is the average maximum tested load. Calculating averages is something I actually remember from statistics class. Everything else I have to look up when we do these calculations.

(1 – K x COV) uses K as a statistical one-sided tolerance factor used to establish the 5 percent fractile value with 90% confidence. This term is to ensure that 95% of the actual tested strengths will exceed the 5% fractile value with 90% confidence. COV is the coefficient of variation, which is a measure of how variable your test results are. For the same average ultimate load, a higher COV will result in a lower allowable load.

The K value is 3.4 for the minimum required 5 tests, and it reduces as you run more tests. As K decreases, the allowable load increases. In practice, we usually run 7 to 10 tests for each installation we are evaluating.

Table A2.1 – K values for evaluating the characteristic capacity at 90% confidence

Table A2.1 – K values for evaluating the characteristic capacity at 90% confidence

Rd is seismic reduction factor, 1.0 for seismic design category A or B, and 0.75 for all others. This is similar to what you would do in an Appendix D anchor calculation, where anchor capacities in higher seismic regions are reduced by 0.75.

Rs and Rc are reduction factors to account for the tested steel or concrete strength being higher than specified. There are some differences in how the two acceptance criteria apply these factors, which aren’t critical to this discussion. Φ is a strength reduction factor, which varies by failure mode and construction details. Brittle steel failure, ductile steel failure, concrete failure and the presence of supplemental reinforcement.

The α factor is used to convert LRFD values to ASD values. So α = 1.0 for LRFD and α = 1.4 for seismic and 1.6 for wind. Both criteria also allow you to calculate alpha based on a weighted average of your controlling load combinations. This has never made a lot of sense to me in practice. If you are going to work through the LRFD equations to get a different alpha value, you might as well do LRFD design.

MASA - Test Setup MASA - Test Failure

Rse is a reduction factor for cyclic loading, which is applied to proprietary anchor bolts covered under AC399, such as the SSTB or SB anchors. A comparison of static load and cyclic load is required for qualification in Seismic Design Category C through F. Unlike the cracked reduction factor, manufacturers cannot take a default reduction if they want recognition for high seismic.

Due to the differences in AC398 and AC399 products, the load tables are a little different. AC398 products end up with 4 different loads – wind cracked, wind uncracked, seismic cracked and seismic uncracked.

CBSQ Load Table

CBSQ Load Table

AC399 products are a little simpler, having just wind and seismic values to deal with.

SSTB Load Table

SSTB Load Table

What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below.

Snow Loads vs. Top Chord Live Loads – A Historical Look at Snow Loading for Trusses

In my former life working as a consulting engineer, I reviewed many truss submittal packages. I remember during my reviews wondering how it was possible to get so much information on to an 8½ inch by 11 inch piece of paper. I also remember how a lot of what was being reported was difficult to understand without some help interpreting the information. 

As many of you may know, Simpson Strong-Tie has ventured into the truss industry and we are now offering truss connector plates and software to component manufacturers around the country. So given my past experiences, I figure some of you might appreciate some insight into the engineering that goes on behind those truss submittal packages. So I have asked one of our great truss engineers, Kelly Sias, to put together some blog posts on the topic that we can share our knowledge with you. Kelly has worked in the truss industry for years and spent time as the Technical Director at the Truss Plate Institute. I am sure her blog posts are going to help all of us have a better appreciation for trusses.

Have you ever been involved in a discussion with someone on a project that ended with “but that’s the way we’ve always done it!”? I heard those words spoken by a contractor in my first engineering job when I tried explaining why his single stud would not work at a particular location. When he said something about his grandfather having always done it that way, I knew I could explain the calculations all day and it wouldn’t do much good.

Fast forward several years to the present. The topic and audience are different, but the issue is still the same – it’s difficult to change the way something has always been done. Take snow loading on trusses as an example.  Historically, snow load has been lumped in as part of the top chord live loading on a truss.  A long-standing practice in many areas has been to take the ground snow load and simply enter it into the Top Chord Live Load (TCLL) box in the truss design software. Even the truss design standard, ANSI/TPI 1, and the IRC/IBC codes have included snow load as part of the top chord live load in the list of required design loads to be included on the truss design drawing:

List of required design loads to be included on the truss design drawing

List of required design loads to be included on the truss design drawing

The only problem is that snow load is not a live load, and no additional snow load considerations, such as unbalanced snow loads, are taken into account when it is applied as a live load in the design program.

This may in fact be acceptable at times, particularly when the full ground snow is used as the top chord live load. After all, this is in-line with the prescriptive approach taken in the IRC, as specified in section R301.6 Roof Load:

Roof Load

Roof Load

where Table R301.2.(1) is based on the local ground snow load. In many jurisdictions, the use of the full ground snow load for the balanced snow case is considered adequate to address any other snow-related effects including unbalanced snow loads.

The alternative approach is to treat snow loads as snow loads and live loads as live loads, and actually design the truss for the input snow loads and corresponding snow load design criteria. This puts all of the relevant snow loading parameters right onto the truss design drawing. However, because of the historical precedence to treat snow loads as live loads, this method has actually caused confusion in some Building Departments. Some departments see both a snow load and a live load and get confused by the live load. Some want to see snow load, but only the ground snow load. Others say they want to see a TCLL on the drawing and that’s it. Interestingly, the IBC-09 actually modified its provision regarding truss design drawings to remove snow load from the top chord live load provision and list it separately as part of the environmental loads:

Design Loads

Design Loads

Being from snow country (and actually being a fan of the white stuff every year), I might be a bit biased, but I think the IBC change is a change for the better.  Maybe it will help remind people that snow loads are not live loads. I’m not saying that ground snow shouldn’t ever be used as the roof design load; I’m just saying it should still be called (and reported as) a snow load. I think that’s an important first step to making sure everyone in the job is on the same page regarding what snow load considerations have (and have not) been included in the design.

What are your thoughts about snow loads being treated as live loads in the design of roof trusses? Let us know in the comments below.

So, What’s Behind A Screw’s Allowable Load?

This is Part 2 of a four-part series I’ll be doing on how connectors, fasteners, anchors and cold-formed steel systems are load rated. Read Part 1 and Part 1A.

These loads just can’t be right! Occasionally, I get this statement from engineers. This happens when they have been specifying commodity fasteners based on NDS load values and they get their first look at our higher screw values. Then the call comes in. They want to talk to someone to confirm what they are seeing is correct. I assure them the loads are right and give them this brief overview of how we got here:

Our first structural screw, the Simpson Strong-Tie(R) Strong-Drive(R) SDS, was originally load rated by plugging the bending yield strength and diameter into the NDS yield limit equations and using the load value from the governing failure mode. As later editions of the NDS modified the calculations and we did more testing, we found that the tested ultimate load of the SDS screw could be as much as ten times greater than the allowable load generated from the NDS equations.

Continue reading