Simultaneous Loading on Hurricane Ties

“Structures are connections held together by members” (Hardy Cross)

I heard this quote recently during a presentation at the Midwest Wood Solutions Fair. I had to write it down for future reference because of course, all of us here at Simpson Strong-Tie are pretty passionate about connections. I figured it wouldn’t take too long before I’d find an opportunity to use it. So when I started to write this blog post about the proper selection of a truss-to-wall connection, I knew I had found my opportunity – how fitting this quote is!

There are plenty of photos of damage wrought by past hurricanes to prove that the connection between the roof and the structure is a critical detail. In a previous blog  post, I wrote about whose responsibility it is to specify a truss-to-wall connection (hint: it’s not the truss Designer’s).  This blog post is going to focus on the proper specification of a truss-to-wall connection, the methods for evaluating those connections under combined loading and a little background on those methods (i.e., the fun stuff for engineers).


Take a quick look at a truss design drawing, and you will see a reaction summary that specifies the downward reaction, uplift and a horizontal reaction (if applicable) at each bearing location. Some people are tempted to look only at the uplift reaction, go to a catalog or web app, and find the lowest-cost hurricane tie with a capacity that meets or barely exceeds the uplift reaction.


However, if uplift was the only loading that needed to be resisted by a hurricane tie, why would we publish all those F1 and F2 allowable loads in our catalog?


Of course, many of you know that those F1 and F2 allowable loads are used to resist the lateral loads acting on the end and side walls of the building, which are in addition to the uplift forces.  Therefore, it is not adequate to select a hurricane tie based on uplift reactions alone.

Excerpt from BCSI (2015 Version)

Excerpt from BCSI (2015 Version)

Where does one get the lateral loads parallel and perpendicular to the plate which must be resisted by the truss-to-wall connection? Definitely not from the truss design drawing! Unless otherwise noted, the horizontal reaction on a truss design should not be confused with a lateral reaction due to the wind acting on the walls – it is simply a horizontal reaction due to the wind load (or a drag load) being applied to the truss profile. It is also important to note that any truss-to-wall connection specified on a truss design drawing was most likely selected based on the uplift reaction alone. There may even be a note that says the connection is for “uplift only” and does not consider lateral loads. In this case, unless additional consideration is made for the lateral loads, the use of that connector alone would be inadequate.

Say, for example, that the uplift and lateral/shear load requirements for a truss-to-wall connection are as follows:

Uplift = 795 lb.

Shear (parallel-to-wall) = 185 lb.  (F1)

Lateral (perp-to-wall) = 135 lb.  (F2)
Based on those demand loads, will an H10A work?


An initial look at the H10A’s allowable loads suggests it might be adequate. However, when these loads are entered into the Connector-Selector, no H10A solution is found.

Combined Uplift, F1 and F2 Loads

Combined Uplift, F1 and F2 Loads

Why? Because Connector-Selector is evaluating the connector for simultaneous loading in more than one direction using a traditional linear interaction equation approach as specified in our catalog:


If the shear and lateral forces were to be resisted by another means, such that the H10A only had to resist the 795 lb. of uplift, then it would be an adequate connector for the job. For example, the F1 load might be resisted with blocking and RBC clips, and the F2 loads might be resisted with toe-nails that are used to attach the truss to the wall prior to the installation of the H10A connectors. However, if all three loads need to be resisted by the same connector, then the H10A is not adequate according to the linear interaction equation.

Uplift Only

Uplift Only

Some might question how valid this method of evaluation is – Is it necessary? Is it adequate? How do we know? And that is where the interesting information comes in. Several years ago, Simpson Strong-Tie partnered with Clemson University on an experimental study with the following primary objectives:

1. To verify the perceived notion that the capacity of the connector is reduced when loaded in more than one direction and that the linear interaction equation is conservative in acknowledging this combined load effect.

2. To propose an alternative, more efficient method if possible.

Three types of metal connectors were selected for this study – the H2.5A, H10, and the META20 strap – based on their different characteristics and ability to represent general classes of connectors. The connectors were subjected to uni-axial, bi-axial and tri-axial loads and the normalized capacities of the connectors were plotted along with different interaction/design surfaces.

These interaction plots were used to visualize and parameterize the combined load effect on the capacity of the connectors. The three different interaction plots that were examined were the traditional linear relationship, a quadratic interaction surface and a cuboid design space.

Tri-axial Test Frame

Tri-axial Test Frame

Interaction plot for tri-axial loads on a cuboid design space

Interaction plot for tri-axial loads on a cuboid design space

The results?  Not only was the use of the linear interaction equation justified by this study, but a new, more efficient cuboid design surface was also identified. It provides twice the usable design space of the surface currently used for tri-axial loading and still provides for a safe design (and for the bi-axial case, it is even more conservative than the linear equation). This alternative method is given in our catalog as follows:


Now we can go back to the H10A and re-evaluate it using this alternative method:


As it turns out, the H10A does have adequate capacity to resist the simultaneous uplift, shear and lateral loads in this example. This just goes to show that the alternative method is definitely worth utilizing, whenever possible, especially when a connector fails the linear equation.

For more information about the study, see Evaluation of Three Typical Roof Framing-to-Top Plate/Concrete Simpson Strong-Tie Metal Connectors under Combined Loading.

What is your preferred method for resisting the combined shear, lateral and uplift forces acting on the truss-to-wall connections? Let us know in the comments below!

2015 IRC Adds New Options for Deck Construction

Early this summer a package arrived at my office that I knew right away was either a copy of a new building code or design standard. Some codes or standards are more exciting than others to open up and see what’s new and different. As it turns out, this package was the just-published 2015 International Residential Code (IRC). With my interest in wood decks, I have to admit that this was new information that I was happy to see.

Why? Similar to my blog post in May mentioning the limited design resources currently available to engineers, the IRC itself is also a work in progress when it comes to the prescriptive details included for decks. Performance requirements for the framing and guards has always been included in Chapter 3, but it wasn’t until the 2009 and 2012 editions that prescriptive information for attaching a deck ledger to a wood band joist with lag screws or bolts, and a detail for transferring lateral loads to a support structure, were included. Key improvements for the 2015 IRC include provisions for composite materials, clarification of the prescriptive ledger information, and prescriptive information for decking, joist and beam allowable spans, post heights and foundations.

Lateral load connections at the support structure were a significant topic during the development of the 2015 IRC. The permitted method already in the code involves constructing the Figure 507.2.3(1) detail with 1,500 pound hold-downs, in two or more locations per deck. The detail transfers the lateral load by bypassing the joist hanger and ledger connections, and ultimately transfers it into the floor diaphragm of the support structure. The concentrated nailing on the floor joist and the need to have access from below to the install the hold-down can cause undesirable complications for builders with existing conditions. A number of common conditions also differ significantly from the detail, such as the floor joists running parallel to the deck ledger and alternate floor joist types, including i-joists or trusses. In response to frequently-asked-questions from the industry, our technical bulletin T-DECKLATLOAD provides commentary to consider for these situations. The technical bulletin also offers an alternate floor joist-to-sheathing connection that may save the builder from removing a finished floor in an existing condition or from adding additional sheathing nailing from above.

2015 International Residential Code

Figure: 2015 International Residential Code; International Code Council

In order to provide greater flexibility, a second option is now included in the 2015 IRC: constructing Figure R507.2.3(2) with 750 pound hold-downs in four locations per deck. This detail also transfers the lateral load in bypassing the joist hanger and ledger connections, but transfers the load to the wall plates, studs, or wall header by means of a screw anchoring the hold-down. In some cases, builders will hope this detail can save removing interior portions of an existing structure, but close attention will be required in terms of the deck joist elevation with respect to components of the wall and ensuring that hold-down anchor has proper penetration into the wall framing.

Figure: 2015 International Residential Code; International Code Council

Figure: 2015 International Residential Code; International Code Council

There are still a number of scenarios where a residential deck builder may need or want to consider hiring a structural engineer. Prescriptive details for guards and stairs are still not included in the code, as well as lateral considerations such as the deck diaphragm or the stability of a freestanding deck. Alternate loading conditions, such as the future presence of a hot tub, are also outside the scope of the current code. The allowance for alternative means and methods permitted by Chapter 3 of the 2015 IRC, is also something to keep in mind when the prescriptive options do not fit well with the project conditions. For example, the IRC ledger fastening table applies for connections to a band joist only and not to wall studs or other members of the adjacent support structure.

Have you been involved with any residential deck projects?  Let us know in the comments section below.

Top 3 Roof Deck Design Considerations for High Wind Events

Was it JFK who said, “The time to repair the roof is when the sun is shining?” He was likely using the roof as an analogy for the economy, but I take things literally and wanted to talk about roofs.  The time to think about the design of your roof and its function in a high wind event like a hurricane or tornado is right now.

Wood screw vs. common nail

During a high wind event, a roof deck is expected to perform many functions. It should prevent water intrusion from rain, withstand impacts and protect those inside from hail. It also needs to act as a diaphragm – transferring lateral loads to shear walls and resisting the vacuum effects of wind uplift forces. Continue reading