What You Need to Know About Differences in Wind-Speed Reporting for Hurricanes

This week’s post was written by Darren Conrad, PE. Engineering Manager, Truss at Simpson Strong-Tie.

With Hurricane Irma wrapping up, the cleanup after Hurricane Harvey’s devastation underway in Houston and more big storms already churning in the Atlantic, it seems like a good time to discuss hurricanes and high wind. There is a great deal of good information out there to help us better understand hurricanes and their impact on people, structures and other property. To improve awareness of wind speeds and their measurement, this article will discuss a commonly misunderstood aspect of hurricane wind-speed reporting.

When a storm is approaching, you will hear meteorologists report wind speeds. They often refer to storm categories. These categories attempt to generalize expected damage to structures based on the wind speed of the storm. The wind speed for a given storm is a measure of the severity of the storm and the danger it poses to life and property. But how do meteorologists determine the wind speed that they are reporting? It seems so concrete and certain, but anyone who has been outside during a storm or windy day knows that wind isn’t constant at any one location over a period of time. It varies continuously in magnitude and direction over time. So how can something so variable be the subject of knowledge that is precise enough to be useful? How do we understand wind-speed measurements and make sure that when comparing them we are doing so in such a way that they are comparable? That is a great question.

The good news is that even though wind is variable, we have a commonly accepted way to measure wind speed and know something about a wind field or event that is occurring at a time and place. This is done by averaging measured wind speeds over specified lengths of time, or picking the highest average wind speed that occurs for a specified averaging interval from a longer period of time. A great resource for understanding how wind speeds are measured and reported can be seen here. From this explanation, it can be seen that a reported wind speed is meaningless without a specified averaging time. The shortest averaging intervals will yield the highest reported wind speeds. The longer averaging times will capture more peaks and lulls and yield lower reported wind speeds. The most common averaging intervals used to report wind speeds are three seconds, one minute and two minutes. Some countries even use a ten-minute averaging interval for reporting wind speeds. So the question arises, which average is correct? And the answer is, none of them and all of them. They are just different ways of looking at measured wind data. That is not very comforting, but one thing we can know is that none of them can be truly interpreted or compared without understanding this idea of averaging time. To make it more confusing, meteorologists and building codes do not use the same averaging interval when reporting or specifying wind speeds. This can lead to misunderstandings.

In general, you will hear meteorologists report sustained wind speeds when covering an approaching hurricane. They might also mix in some peak gusts, but for the most part they focus on sustained wind speeds. Sustained wind speeds for tropical cyclones use a 60-second averaging time. Sustained wind speed is also used by the Saffir-Simpson scale to roughly quantify the likely damage that the wind from a storm might cause typical buildings and other structures. There are criticisms of the accuracy of the Saffir-Simpson scale method, but it is widely used by the public to generalize about the severity of tropical cyclones; therefore, it is likely that the public might and commonly does attempt to compare reported sustained wind speeds to building-code-specified three-second-gust wind speeds to determine if their house or structure will withstand the storm. There is danger in making that comparison.

We need to be careful when comparing the reported sustained wind speed for a storm with the three-second-gust design wind speeds referenced in building codes and design standards. They are not the same and need to be converted before they can be compared for equivalence. After seeing the following example, one could easily see the possibility of the public or a public official comparing the sustained wind speeds reported by the weatherman to the wind speeds used by building codes and design standards and drawing conclusions that may underestimate the force and effect of the storm.

Let’s take a hypothetical situation where a building jurisdiction has adopted a wind speed of 130 mph three-second-gust design wind speed for structures built in that jurisdiction. There are various methods to convert wind speeds between different averaging times, and many factors that may need to be considered when doing that. One method for converting is the Durst method referenced in ASCE 7. Another more recent method recommended by the World Meteorological Organization provides a pretty straightforward conversion between sustained wind speed and three-second-gust wind speeds for near-surface applications. So for the sake of simplicity, we will use it for this example. If we convert a reported sustained wind speed of 130 mph to a three-second-gust average wind speed using this method, it equates to a three-second-gust wind speed for Off-Sea of 160 mph (Off-Sea is appropriate for an approaching hurricane). The adopted130 mph three-second-gust wind speed converts to 105 mph sustained wind speed. This difference could lead individuals in the path of the storm to underestimate its severity if they are not aware of the difference between averaging intervals for wind speeds. They could see the sustained wind speed of 130 mph being reported by the weather service when the storm is over open water and assume that their structure, or structures in their jurisdiction, will stand up fairly well. This would be a serious underestimate, since those structures would need to be designed to resist a 160 mph three-second-gust wind speed using ASCE 7 in order for that to be true. To say that a different way, one might think that their structure was designed for a Category 4 storm (130 mph sustained), when in fact it was actually designed for a Category 2 storm (105 mph sustained) using the Saffir-Simpson scale. Hurricane Irma at its maximum sustained wind speed of 185 mph would equate to a 227 mph three-second-gust wind speed using this conversion method. From a roof anchorage, lateral design and load path design perspective, the difference between 130 mph and 160 mph can be substantial, especially when the building is located on flat open terrain where Exposure C or Exposure D are appropriate assumptions for the design.

There is a lot more background and detail to this very complicated discussion, but the general point is to know your averaging times when comparing reported wind speeds, so as not to underestimate a storm’s force. If a storm is headed your way, hopefully you have already selected the proper hurricane tie for your structure; you have a well-defined and properly designed continuous load path; and you are protecting your exterior openings from windborne debris. Remember, the objective is not to protect the window or door product itself. Unless you are in the insurance business, you are preventing the breach of the opening to keep wind from pressurizing the structure, increasing loads on the structure and potentially causing catastrophic failure.

Know how to secure your structure against high winds, and be safe.

Q&A About Advanced FRP Strengthening Design Principles

Our thoughts go out to everyone affected by Hurricane Harvey and this disaster in Texas. To help with relief efforts we are donating $50,000 to the American Red Cross Disaster Relief Fund. Employees at our Houston warehouse are safe and the employees from our McKinney branch will be doing as much as they can to help with relief efforts.

This week’s post was written by Griff Shapack, PE. FRP Design Engineer at Simpson Strong-Tie.

On July 25, 2017, Simpson Strong-Tie hosted the second interactive webinar in the Simpson Strong-Tie FRP Best Practices Series, “Advanced FRP Design Principles,” in which Kevin Davenport, P.E. – one of our Field Engineering Managers – and I discussed the best practices for fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) strengthening design. The webinar examines the latest industry standards, proper use of material properties, and key governing limits when designing with FRP and discusses the assistance and support Simpson Strong-Tie Engineering Services offers from initial project assessment to installation. Watch the on-demand webinar and earn PDH and CEU credits here.

During the live webinar, we had the pleasure of taking questions from attendees during the Q&A session. Here is a curated selection of Q&A from that session:

While I see how you improve the flexural capacity of a beam, how do you increase its shear capacity to match new moment strength?

ACI 440.2R recommends checking the element for shear if FRP is used to increase flexural strength. U-wraps can be used to provide shear strengthening of a beam.

Are there any “pre-check” serviceability checks (deflection, vibration, etc.) similar to the ACI 440 strength check that you recommend when considering the use of FRP?

ACI 440.2R contains a few serviceability checks on the concrete, rebar and FRP that can be performed once you have designed a preliminary strengthening solution.

Are these strengthening limits for gravity loads only? What about for a seismic load combination?

Yes, the strengthening limits are just for gravity loading. Seismic loading does not require an existing capacity check as it is highly unlikely for the FRP to be damaged during a lateral event.

Did Simpson Strong-Tie perform load tests on FRP repaired timber piles?

We are currently testing our FRP products as applied to timber piles at West Virginia University. We have also implemented a full-scale testing program on damaged timber piles at our own lab using our FX-70® fiberglass jacket system.

Will any of your seminars cover FRP and CMU? Seismic applications?

Yes, these are topics we are considering for future webinars.

The 0.6 limit for compressive stress can be very limiting. Can this value be evaluated on a case-by-case basis? The Euro code allows higher limits on compressive stress?

Our designers will report this value, along with the section addressing this check from ACI 440.2R, to the EOR and discuss whether the EOR would like to proceed with the FRP strengthening on his or her project.

Which engineer (EOR or Delegated Engineer) is responsible for specifying the scope of special inspections?

We provide a draft FRP specification to the EOR to use in their final determination of the special inspection requirements for a project. It’s in the owner’s best interest to hire a qualified special inspection agency on an FRP installation project.

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

Advanced FRP Design Principles

In this free webinar we will dive into some very important considerations including the latest industry standards, material properties and key governing limits when designing with FRP.

Meet the First Simpson Strong-Tie Engineering Excellence Fellow with Build Change

Introducing James P. Mwangi, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. – our first annual Simpson Strong-Tie Engineering Excellence Fellow with Build Change. James Mwangi will write a quarterly blog about his experience throughout the Fellowship.

I’m delighted to have been asked to contribute this post and feel honored to be the first-ever Simpson Strong-Tie Engineering Excellence Fellow with Build Change. It’s my hope that this post will inform you about my professional background, why I applied to the Fellowship and how I think the Fellowship can benefit people and the structures they live, work and go to school in.

I grew up in Kenya and went through my basic education and my undergraduate coursework in civil engineering there. I worked for the government of Kenya as a junior roads engineer before proceeding to Nigeria for my masters in structural engineering. I returned to Kenya and worked for the government as a junior structural engineer. I joined the faculty of civil engineering shortly after that as a lecturer.

Central Kenya – including Nairobi, where I lived – is subject to moderate seismic activity, and I felt several earth tremors growing up. This puzzled me from a very young age, and I always wanted to learn how buildings behaved during these events. Since I didn’t acquire this understanding during my undergraduate or my master’s studies, I headed to California in 1988 for doctoral work in structural engineering at UC Davis. I didn’t have to wait long for first-hand experience of the effects of major seismic activity, because the Loma Prieta earthquake happened hardly a year after my arrival. This earthquake helped shape my career by giving me the opportunity to visit the destruction sites in the San Francisco Bay Area. Through my professors at Davis, I led a very successful Caltrans-funded project on full-scale testing of repair methods (steel jacketing and epoxy injection) of pile extensions that we harvested from a bridge that collapsed along Highway 1 in Watsonville. From completing my doctoral studies at UC Davis, I joined Buehler and Buehler Structural Engineers (B&B) in Sacramento. The 1994 Northridge earthquake happened while my steel moment frame school building in Milpitas was undergoing review by DSA. When we realized that no DSA engineer would sign off on this system from the field observation of the behavior of steel moment frames, I had to redesign the building over a weekend with a steel-braced frame system to meet the client’s schedule. At B&B, I was able to design building structures of wood, steel, masonry and concrete ranging in use from public schools, hospitals, and other essential service facilities to commercial buildings.

Since 2003, I have been a university professor, having joined the Architectural Engineering department (ARCE) at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, where I teach both undergraduate and graduate design courses in timber, masonry, steel and concrete. As a certified disaster safety worker in the governor’s office of emergency services, I have participated in the Structural Assessment Program in Paso Robles following the 2003 San Simeon earthquake; in Port-au-Prince following the Haiti earthquake of 2010; in Napa following the Napa earthquake of 2014; and in Kathmandu following the Nepal earthquake of 2015. I have contributed my experience from these deployments to the profession by serving in the technical activities committee of The Masonry Society (TMS) and also representing the seven western states in the TMS Board of Directors.

After my two-week building assessment in Haiti in 2010, I returned to Haiti for a year with the Mennonite Central Committee (MCC), participating in capacity building and safe building-back-better workshops targeting homeowners, contractors, engineers, architects and government officials. It was during this time that I first met Build Change as we shared information on our projects in Haiti. Since then, I’ve led a group of ARCE students to Haiti and Nepal every summer, and we have made it part of our itinerary to visit Build Change projects in each of the countries.

As a structural engineer, I have used Simpson Strong-Tie (SST) products throughout my career here in the US. I’ve not only used the SST products to teach my timber and masonry design courses at Cal Poly but have also supervised ARCE senior projects where we have used SST products. One of these projects led to a naming of one of our design laboratory rooms as The Simpson Strong-Tie Laboratory. It was only natural, then, that when I saw the advertisement for the Simpson Strong-Tie Engineering Excellence Fellowship, I couldn’t believe that two organizations with whom I have worked so closely as an individual and as a teacher were teaming up to create such a great opportunity. My familiarity with the two organizations, along with the fact that I already had a sabbatical leave approved from Cal Poly for the year of the Fellowship, made it a must for me to apply for the Fellowship. Natural disasters only cause human devastation where naturally occurring events (earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.) are not mitigated. The missions of the two organizations – BUILD Disaster-Resistant Buildings and CHANGE Construction Practice Permanently, alongside Simpson Strong-Tie’s No-Equal commitment to creating structural products that help people build safer, stronger homes and buildings –added to my desire to apply for the Fellowship.

Build Change projects involve helping local governments provide safe school buildings and other structures so their communities can better withstand damaging natural events, whether hurricanes, tornadoes or earthquakes. Where possible, we’ll use Simpson Strong-Tie products for the repair or retrofit of roofs, walls and anchorage. Build Change currently has projects in Indonesia, the Philippines, Nepal, Haiti and Colombia, all of which are located in areas susceptible to high winds and earthquakes. Indonesia is the fourth most populous country in the world. It’s my hope that I’ll be able to participate in projects in each of these countries, and I certainly believe that Build Change and Simpson Strong-Tie together can help millions of people live in better structures, built from better local, sustainable materials, which will be safe from strong winds and earthquakes.

If you’d like more information about the fellowship or my involvement over the next year, I can be reached at james@buildchange.org.

Top 10 Changes to Structural Requirements in the 2018 IBC

This blog post will continue our series on the final results of the 2016 ICC Group B Code Change Hearings, and will focus on 10 major approved changes, of a structural nature, to the International Building Code (IBC).

  1. Adoption of ASCE 7-16
    • The IBC wind speed maps and seismic design maps have been updated.
    • A new section has been added to Chapter 16 to address tsunami loads.
    • Table 1607.1 has been revised to change the deck and balcony Live Loads to 1.5 times that of the occupancy served.
  2. New and Updated Reference Standards
    • 2015 IBC Standard ACI 530/ASCE 5/TMS 402-13 will be TMS402-16.
    • ACI 530.1/ASCE 6/TMS 602-13 will be TMS 602-16.
    • AISC 341-10 and 360-10 have both been updated to 2016 editions.
    • AISI S100-12 was updated to the 2016 edition.
    • AISI S220-11 and S230-07 were updated to the 2015 edition.
    • AISI S200, S210, S211, S212 and S214 have been combined into a new single standard, AISI S240-15.
    • AISI S213 was split into the new S240 and AISI S400-15.
    • ASCE 41-13 was updated to the 2017 edition.
    • The ICC 300 and ICC 400 were both updated from 2012 editions to 2017 editions.
    • ANSI/NC1.0-10 and ANSI/RD1.0-10 were all updated to 2017 editions.
  3. Section 1607.14.2 Added for Structural Stability of Fire Walls
    • This new section takes the 5 psf from NFPA 221, so designers will have consistent guidance on how to design fire walls for stability without having to buy another standard.
  4. Modifications of the IBC Special Inspections Approved
    • Section 1704.2.5 on special inspection of fabricated items has been clarified and streamlined.
    • The Exception to 1705.1.1 on special inspection of wood shear walls, shear panels and diaphragms was clarified to say that special inspections are not required when the specified spacing of fasteners at panel edges is more than 4 inches on center.
    • The special inspection requirements for structural steel seismic force-resisting systems and structural steel elements in seismic force-resisting systems were clarified by adding exceptions so that systems or elements not designed in accordance with AISC 341 would not have to be inspected using the requirements of that standard.
  5. Changes Pertaining to Storm Shelters
    • A new Section 1604.11 states that “Loads and load combinations on storm shelters shall be determined in accordance with ICC 500.”
    • An exception was added stating that when a storm shelter is added to a building, “the risk category for the normal occupancy of the building shall apply unless the storm shelter is a designated emergency shelter in accordance with Table 1604.5.”
    • Further clarification in Table 1604.5 states that the type of shelters designated as risk category IV are “Designated emergency shelters including earthquake or community storm shelters for use during and immediately after an event.”
  6. Changes to the IBC Conventional Construction Requirements in Chapter 23
    • The section on anchorage of foundation plates and sills to concrete or masonry foundations reorganized the requirements by Seismic Design Category (SDC) and added a new section on anchoring in SDC E. It also states that the anchor bolt must be in the middle third of the width of the plate and adds language to the sections on higher SDCs saying that if alternate anchor straps are used, they need to be spaced to provide equivalent anchorage to the specified 1/2″- or 5/8″-diameter bolts.
    • The second change permits single-member 2-by headers, to allow more space for insulation in a wall. 
  7. Modification to the Requirements for Nails and Staples in the IBC
    • ASTM F1667 Supplement One was adopted that specifies the method for testing nails for bending-yield strength and identifies a required minimum average bending moment for staples used for framing and sheathing connections.
    • Stainless-steel nails are required to meet ASTM F1667 and use Type 302, 304, 305 or 316 stainless steel, as necessary to achieve the corrosion resistance assumed in the code.
    • Staples used with preservative-treated wood or fire-retardant-treated wood are required to be stainless steel.
    • The new RSRS-01 nail was incorporated into TABLE 2304.10.1, the Fastening Schedule. The RSRS nail is a new roof sheathing ring shank nail designed to achieve higher withdrawal resistances, in order to meet the new higher component and cladding uplift forces of ASCE 7-16.
  8. Truss-Related Code Change
    • The information required on the truss design drawings was changed from “Metal connector plate type” to “Joint connection type” in recognition that not all trusses use metal connector plates.
  9. Code Change to Section 2304.12.2.2
    • A code change clarifies in which cases posts or columns will not be required to consist of naturally durable or preservative-treated wood. This change makes the requirements closer to the earlier ones, while maintaining consistency with the subsequent section on supporting members.
    • If a post or column is not naturally durable or preservative-treated, it will have to be supported by concrete piers or metal pedestals projecting at least 1″ above the slab or deck, such as Simpson Strong-Tie post bases that have a one-inch standoff.
  10. Code Change to IBC Appendix M
    • A code change from FEMA makes IBC Appendix M specific to refuge structures for vertical evacuation from tsunami, and the tsunami hazard mapping and structural design guidelines of ASCE 7-16 would be used rather than those in FEMA P-646.

Once the 2018 IBC is published in the fall, interested parties will have only a few months to develop code changes that will result in the 2021 I-Codes. Similar to this last cycle, code changes will be divided into two groups, Group A and Group B, and Group A code changes are due January 8, 2018. The schedule for the next cycle is already posted here.

What changes would you like to see for the 2021 codes?

The New Way to Connect with Strong Frame®

The April SE blog article, What Makes Strong Frame® Special Moment Frames So Special, explained the features and benefits of the Yield-Link® structural fuse design for the Strong Frame® special moment frame (SMF) connection. In this blog, I will be introducing the Yield-Link end-plate link (EPL) to the Strong Frame connection family.

What is the EPL?
The EPL connection (Figure 1) is the latest addition to the Strong Frame Strong Moment Frame (SMF) solution. The new EPL connection can accommodate a W8X beam which is approximately a 33% reduction in beam depth from a W12X beam. The frame is field bolted without the need for field welding which means a faster installation. The snug-tight bolt installation requirement means no special tools are required. The EPL SMF connection has the same benefit of not requiring any additional beam bracing as the T-Stub connection. The frame can be repaired after a large earthquake by replacing the Yield-Link connection. Since the shear tab bolts will be factory installed, installation time for the frame is reduced by 25% making the EPL connection one of the most straightforward connections to assemble.

Figure 1: New Yield-Link EPL connection

Why Did We Develop the EPL?
The development of the EPL came from strong interest and numerous requests to offer a solution with more head room for clearance of retrofit projects or enhancement for new construction using a shallower beam profile. The original T-stub link design has the shear tab welded to the column flange. The geometry of the shear tab meant that a W12X beam is required to accommodate the Yield-Link Flange. In Figure 2, you can see that a shallower beam profile will bring the Yield-Link flange closer to each other and limit the attachment of the shear tab. A new connection was needed.

Figure 2: Yield-Link flange interference with shear tab

Figure 3: 3 Bolt configuration with notched flange plate. (The 3rd bolt is on opposite side of beam.) The asymmetric layout produced uneven force distribution in the bolts.

How Did We Develop the EPL?
Multiple configurations were studied, including a notched flange plate with 3 bolts (Figure 3) to avoid interference with the shear tab connection to the column. In the end, a compact end plate link combining the shear tab and Yield-Link stem in a single connection was the final design. However, many questions loomed over the prototype. How will the single end plate design perform in a full scale test? Will the new configuration change the limit state? These questions needed to be studied prior to launching an expensive full-scale test program with multiple samples and configurations. Numerous Finite Element Analysis (FEA) models were studied and refined prior to full scale testing of a prototype. Modeling included ensuring the stem performs as a fuse (Figure 4) as discussed in the April blog and the integrity of the shear tab is maintained in the compact design. Figure 5 shows a graph comparing the analytical model to the actual full scale test. The full scale test with a complete beam and column assembly was performed to the requirements under AISC 341 Section K. The full scale test passed the requirements for the SMF classification as can be seen in Figure 6 for the specimen with 6-inch columns and 9-inch beam.

Figure 4: Equivalent Plastic Strain Plot of Yielding-Link Stem

Figure 5: Full Scale Test vs. Analytical model

Figure 6: Moment at Face of Column vs. Story Drift

Where Can I Get More Information?
The EPL is now recognized in the ICC-ES ESR-2802 code report as an SMF. EPL solutions are also offered in the Strong Frame Moment Frame Selector Software. Want to see how the new connection and member sizes can expand your design options? Visit www.strongtie.com to download the new Strong Frame Design Guide or contact your Simpson representative for more information.

Keep Your Roof On

He huffed, and he puffed, and he blew the roof sheathing off! That’s not the way kids’ tale goes, but the dangers high winds pose to roof sheathing are very real. Once the roof sheathing is gone, the structure is open and its contents are exposed to the elements and much more vulnerable to wind or water damage. It is a storyline that we meet all too often in the news.

About two years ago, the ASTM subcommittee on Driven and Other Fasteners (F16.05), addressed fastening for roof sheathing in high-wind areas by adding a special nail to ASTM F1667-17 – Standard Specification for Driven Fasteners: Nails, Spikes and Staples. The Roof Sheathing Ring-Shank Nail was added to the standard as Table 46. Figure 1 illustrates the nail and lists its geometrical specifications. This is a family of five ring-shank nails that can be made from carbon steel or stainless steel (300 series). Specific features of these nails are the ring pitch (number of rings per inch), the ring diameter over the shank, the length of deformed shank and the head diameter. Also, note B specifies that the nails shall comply with the supplementary requirement of Table S1.1, which tabulates bending yield strength. In this diameter class, the minimum bending yield strength allowed is 100 ksi.

Figure 1. Roof Sheathing Ring-Shank Nails (ASTM. 2017. Standard Specification for Driven Fasteners: Nails, Spikes and Staples, F1667-17. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.)

The IBHS (Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety) discusses roof deck fastening in its Builders Guide that describes the “FORTIFIED for Safer Living” structures. The IBHS FORTIFIED program offers solutions that reduce building vulnerability to severe thunderstorms, hurricanes and tornadoes. Keeping the roof sheathing on the structure is critical to maintaining a safe enclosure and minimizing damage, and roof sheathing ring-shank nails can be part of the solution. As Figure 2 from IBHS (2008) shows, every wood-frame structure has wind vulnerability.

Figure 2. Hurricane, high wind and tornado regions of the US (IBHS. 2008. Builders Guide, Fortified for Safer Living. Tampa, FL. 81 pp.)

More importantly for the wood-frame engineering community, the Roof Sheathing Ring-Shank Nails are being included in the next revision of the AWC National Design Specification for Wood Construction (NDS-2018), which is a reference document to both the International Building Code and the International Residential Code. You will be able to use the same NDS-2018, chapter 12 withdrawal equation to calculate the withdrawal resistance for Roof Sheathing Ring-Shank Nails and Post Frame Ring-Shank nails. The calculated withdrawal will be based on the length of deformed shank embedded in the framing member. Also, Designers need to consider the risk of nail head pull-through when fastening roof sheathing with ring-shank nails. If the pull-through for roof sheathing ring-shank nails is not published, you will be able to use the new pull-through equation in the NDS-2018 to estimate that resistance.
Simpson Strong-Tie has some stainless-steel products that meet the requirements for Roof Sheathing Ring-Shank Nails. These will be especially important to those in coastal high-wind areas. Table 1 shows some of the Simpson Strong-Tie nails that can be used as roof sheathing ring-shank nails. These nails meet the geometry and bending yield strength requirements given in ASTM F1667. See the Fastening Systems catalog C-F-2017 for nails in Type 316 stainless steel that also comply with the standard.

Table 1. Simpson Strong-Tie collated nails made from Type 304 stainless steel that comply with F1667-17 specifications for Roof Sheathing Ring-Shank Nails.

Improve your disaster resilience and withstand extreme winds by fastening the sheathing with roof sheathing ring-shank nails. You can find Roof Sheathing Ring-Shank nails in ASTM F1667, Table 46, and you will see them in the AWC NDS-2018, which will be available at the end of the year. Let us know your preferred fastening practices for roof sheathing.

What’s New in the ACI 440.2R-17?

The wait is over. The ACI 440.2R-17 Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures is now available. The following post will highlight some of the major changes represented by this version of the document.

It’s been a long road and countless committee hours to get from the last version of ACI 440.2R-08 to this document. While there are multiple smaller changes throughout the document, the most notable update is the addition of Chapter 13 – Seismic Strengthening.


The new seismic chapter addresses the following FRP strengthening scenarios:

  • Section 13.3 – Confinement with FRP
    • This section includes all of the following: general considerations; plastic hinge region confinement; lap splice clamping; preventative buckling of flexural steel bars.
  • Section 13.4 – Flexural Strengthening
    • The flexural capacity of reinforced concrete beams and columns in expected plastic hinge regions can be enhanced using FRP only in cases where strengthening will transfer inelastic deformations from the strengthened region to other locations in the member or the structure that are able to handle the ensuing ductility demands.
  • Section 13.5 – Shear Strengthening
    • To enhance the seismic behavior of concrete members, FRP can be used to prevent brittle failures and promote the development of plastic hinges.
  • Section 13.6 – Beam-Column Joints
    • This section covers a great deal of recent research on the design and reinforcement of beam-column joints.
  • Section 13.7 – Strengthening Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
    • This section provides many recommendations for FRP strengthening of R/C shear walls.

Simpson Strong-Tie Can Help

We recognize that specifying Simpson Strong-Tie® Composite Strengthening Systems™ (CSS) is unlike choosing any other product we offer. Leverage our expertise to help with your FRP strengthening designs. Our experienced technical representatives and licensed professional engineers provide complimentary design services and support – serving as your partner throughout the entire project cycle.

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

Upcoming Free Webinar: Advanced FRP Design Principles

Join us live on July 25 for the second interactive webinar in the Simpson Strong-Tie FRP Best Practices Series: Advanced FRP Design Principles. In this webinar we will highlight some very important considerations during the FRP design processes. This will include topics such as the latest industry standards, proper use of material properties, and key governing limits when designing with FRP. Attendees will also have an opportunity to pose questions to our engineering team during the event. Continuing educations units will be offered for attending this webinar. 

Advanced FRP Design Principles

In this free webinar we will dive into some very important considerations including the latest industry standards, material properties and key governing limits when designing with FRP.

Revisiting Stainless-Steel Nail Calculations . . . .

This week’s post was written by Bob Leichti, Manager of Engineering for Fastening Systems.

Those of you who have been following the Simpson Strong-Tie SE Blog for a while may recall our 2013 blog post on the withdrawal resistance of stainless-steel nails. There have been several developments relating to that subject since that blog was posted, and we want to help you catch up.

First, the National Design Specification for Wood Construction (NDS) was revised in 2015. In the 2015-NDS revision, a new chapter 10, Cross-Laminated Timber, was created,, moving Dowel-Type Fasteners from Chapter 11 to Chapter 12. Every place in the original blog post where there is a snip of the NDS, you will find the same information in NDS-2015 Chapter 12. Did you know that you can download a free, view-only copy of the NDS from the American Wood Council at awc.org?

Second, after we published our blog post about stainless-steel nail withdrawal, a journal paper was published about withdrawal resistance of stainless-steel nails. This paper has all the nitty-gritty related to withdrawal resistance and bending yield strength for smooth-shank stainless-steel nails: Ramer, D.R. and Zelinka, S.L. (2015). “Withdrawal Strength and Bending Yield Strength of Stainless Steel Nails,” Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 141, no. 5, 7 pp. (DOI: 10:1061/ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001088).

Third, the NDS has been through another revision cycle and will soon have a 2018 copyright date. The chapter on dowel-type fasteners has some significant revisions that we will discuss in a blog post when the NDS-2018 is published later this year. SPOILER ALERT: NDS-2018 has a new withdrawal function for smooth-shank stainless steel nails.

Stay tuned!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Design More with Our New Steel Deck Diaphragm Calculator App!

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

So What Are the Updates and Revisions?

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

Overview of the App

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

Metal Deck Diaphragm Design Using Limit States Design (LSD)

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

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

Click the Calculate button to generate the tables.

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

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

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