Building Codes Archives - Page 11 of 13 -

What If You Wrote A Code and Nobody Used It?

Simpson Strong-Tie spends quite a bit of time monitoring the development and adoption of building codes. This effort helps us to have products available to help our customers meet the latest code requirements.

The model codes most commonly used in this country, the International family of codes, are developed by the International Code Council (ICC). ICC lists the following benefits of a uniform, modern set of codes: “Code officials, architects, engineers, designers, and contractors can work with a consistent set of requirements throughout the United States. Manufacturers can put their efforts into research and development rather than designing to different sets of standards and can focus on being more competitive in worldwide markets. Uniform education and certification programs can be used internationally.” ICC offers a statement on why the newest codes should be adopted here.

Nevertheless, for varied reasons, many states do not require adoption of uniform codes statewide. A group composed of national business and consumer organizations, corporations, and emergency management officials is trying to change that. The group is called the BuildStrong Coalition, and they believe that the statewide adoption of building codes will “protect homes and buildings from the devastation of natural disasters.”

The group offers several studies to back this idea. One of the most compelling was a study performed by the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety after Hurricane Charley in 2004. The study examined specific houses in the path of the hurricane and compared the damage to the year that the home was built. It showed that in homes built since the adoption of the statewide Florida Building Code, the severity of property losses was reduced by 42 percent, and the frequency of losses was reduced by 60 percent.

The coalition believes that “strong building codes provide our best first line of defense against natural disasters.” It appears that, for whatever reason, the number of disasters has been increasing of late. For example, in the 60’s, there were an average of 19 Major and Emergency Federal Disaster Declarations per year. In the 70’s, the average was 41 per year. In the 80’s, the average was 25 per year. In the 90’s, the average was 52 per year, and since 2000, the average has been 76 Disaster Declarations per year.

The coalition has been working with members of Congress on proposed legislation, the Safe Building Code Incentive Act, which would give states an incentive to adopt and enforce statewide building codes. Rather than mandate state action, the Act would reward states that adopt and enforce nationally recognized model building codes for residential and commercial structures with eligibility for an additional 4% of disaster relief aid after their next disaster strikes.

The Act was recently reintroduced by Senator Menendez and Representative Diaz-Balart. You can read a press release on the reintroduction here.

– Paul

What are your thoughts? Visit the blog and leave a comment!

New Simpson Strong-Tie Anchor Designer software

Remember back to the days when you used allowable stress design for designing anchorage to concrete? Once you had your design loads, selecting an anchor was quick and easy. The 1997 UBC covered the anchorage to concrete in less than two pages, so the calculation was painless. Post-installed anchors were even easier, since allowable loads were tabulated and you just needed to apply a couple of edge distance and spacing reductions.

Since the introduction of strength design provisions and the adoption of ACI 318 Appendix D, first in the 2000 IBC, designing code-compliant anchorage to concrete has become much more complex. At least once (and probably not more) armed with a pencil, calculator, and an eraser, most of us have set out to design a ‘simple’ anchorage to concrete connection using the Appendix D provisions. Several pages of calculations later (and hopefully with a solution to the problem), most of us, I imagine, came to realize that designing anchorages to concrete by hand required much more time and effort than we anticipated or could allocate time for. As a result, many of us probably created an Excel template to speed up the design process using built-in functions and some Visual Basic programming.

I'm never going for looks on my spreadsheets. — I’m never going for looks on my spreadsheets.

The question is: are you still using the template?

For me, the answer is an emphatic “NO”, mainly because the spreadsheet I created has limited capability given the complexity in adapting the design methodology to complex anchor layouts, changes to the design provisions with each new code edition, and the need to add/modify data each time a new post-installed anchor product is introduced.

What Did Sandy Teach Us?

In the weeks following Hurricane Sandy, I had an opportunity to visit some of the hardest hit communities in the region. At the time, many of New Jersey’s barrier islands were still completely closed off to civilian traffic and all accessible bridges were blocked by military guards. Our local territory manager has great relationships with building departments, so we were able to walk portions of Long Beach Island, NJ with an inspector. The storm surge washed out several sections of the protective sand dunes on the south end of the island in the neighborhood of Holgate and this is where we spent much of the day.

Scoured foundation temporarily shored. Holgate, NJ.

For a structural engineer, there was a lot to observe and many things I could write about here (maybe a future post), but what strikes me the most when looking back is the long- term impact this event will have on the region. The cost of Sandy goes beyond the loss of life and property (72 lives, $50 billion and growing). It would be difficult to estimate a dollar amount that accounts for the displacement of people and disruption to their lives, the hit to local economies that depend heavily on tourism, and the effect on the national economy and taxpayers; but I imagine it would be a staggering sum. So what, if anything, can structural engineers do about it?Continue Reading

Are the Load Combinations Balanced?

In April’s post about the Omega Factor, one commenter asked of the 1.2 increase allowed by ASCE 12.4.3.3, “Why do they allow a stress increase for allowable combinations? Seems unconservative for steel now that they have essentially balanced the ASD capacity with LRFD.”

To be honest, I have never spent much time analyzing which design methodology was more or less conservative. If I was designing with wood I would use ASD, and if it was with concrete I would use LRFD. Steel was strictly ASD early on in my design career, but LRFD usage grew. The question about balance made me curious. Are the load combinations balanced?

Of course, just comparing the load combinations would be meaningless. We know the LRFD combinations result in higher design forces. But those higher forces are compared to higher design strengths. So we need to normalize things.

The Omega Factor

Section 12.4.3.3 of ASCE 7-05 (or -10) deals with overstrength (Ω_o) load combinations and allows a 1.2 increase in allowable stress when using these combinations. We received a question from a customer last week asking if the 20% increase applies to Simpson Strong-Tie connectors. The simple answer is yes. When demand loads are based on amplified seismic forces, connector allowable loads may be increased by 1.2 per Section 12.4.3.3.

Since the increase may be combined with the duration of load increases permitted in the NDS, you would apply the 1.2 increase to connector allowable loads at a load duration of 1.6, which makes the overstrength factor a little less terrible.

The question got me thinking a little more about overstrength load combinations, so I wanted to discuss what they are used for. It also made me think about a sales meeting several years ago where one of our engineers was addressing a question about an application that required a design using amplified seismic forces. A salesperson asked why the forces needed to be amplified and he said, “Well, there’s this Omega subzero factor…” Never speak in Greek letters to salespeople. They call him Omega Subzero to this day.

So why does the code have amplified forces?

Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Buildings: Seismic Retrofit

Unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings in moderate- to high-seismic areas can be a disaster in waiting. These types of structures have very little of the ductility required of structures to prevent loss of life or business disruption in a seismic event. (Consult our Structural Engineering Blog post “Building Drift – Do You Check It?” for a discussion on ductility.) Many of these buildings are in densely populated areas, have historical meaning, provide important living or business spaces, and can be costly to retrofit. In this blog, Simpson Strong-Tie engineers discuss tools available for engineers to assess these buildings and design the retrofits needed to mitigate a potential loss of life and increase seismic resiliency.

Overview of Code-Plus Programs

We all know that the purpose of a building code is to provide minimum requirements for the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of buildings built under that code. But what if the owner wants a building that will perform better than the absolute minimum allowed by the code?Continue Reading

Is Designing with Wood Easy?

In college, I spent some of my free time either attending seminars or reading about high profile structural engineering projects. These projects tend to be noteworthy due to their massive scale or their use of innovative construction technologies (often both). Taipei 101 is 508 meters tall, and used to be the tallest building in the world. The Burj Khalifa has surpassed it as not only the tallest building in the world, but as the tallest manmade structure at 828 meters.

I never thought I would design the world’s tallest buildings, but I did think it would be cool to work on some mid-rises. I never did. My design firm didn’t do that type of work – which looking back, was a good thing for me. We worked on a lot of everything, including commercial, industrial, multi-family and mixed-used projects. The variety of projects meant designing with all the major building materials, including concrete, steel, masonry, and wood. Reviewing my project portfolio and thinking about what was really satisfying to work on, the projects that stand out most were wood-framed.

Code Reports: Uniform Application of Code Intent in a Diverse Environment

Woodworks invited me to do a presentation on Testing and Evaluation of Products for Wood-framed Construction, and I found you can’t really talk about testing without talking about the test standards and criteria used in product evaluations. Usually the goal in testing to these standards is to show compliance with the intent of the building code and have the product listed in a code report.

Why not just follow the code?

Innovative architectural and structural building products not addressed by the building code are in every building. Revisions to the building code are considered on a three-year cycle and some standards are on a five-year cycle. Sometimes it may take several cycles to address a new building product.

Soft-Story Retrofits

In February 2007 I had the opportunity to volunteer for a Soft-Story Sidewalk Survey for the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection. The purpose of the survey was to inventory buildings in San Francisco that appeared superficially to have soft or weak first stories. The volunteers were given a list of addresses to review and we recorded if the building was more than three stories tall, had five or more dwellings, and estimated what percentage of the ground level had openings in the walls. No structural analysis going on, just counting stories, mailboxes, doors and windows.

San Francisco soft-story structure. Photo credit: USGS. — San Francisco soft-story structure failure. Photo credit: USGS.

A collapsed house in San Francisco from the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Photo credit: Adam Teitelbaum, AFP, Getty Images. — A collapsed soft-story in San Francisco from the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Photo credit: Adam Teitelbaum, AFP, Getty Images.