Remember to Enter To Win by Tuesday, 4/30

Remember to enter to win the Structural Engineering Blog one-year anniversary contest by Tuesday, April 30! April 2013 marks the one-year anniversary of the Simpson Strong-Tie® Structural Engineering Blog. To celebrate, we are holding a contest for our blog readers.

Everyone who posts a comment or subscribes to receive email notifications to the blog (new subscribers only) from now until April 30, 2013 will be entered to win one of five Prize Packs. The Prize Pack consists of:

The contest is open to U.S. and Canadian residents (except Quebec) only. One entry per person. Five entries will be randomly selected to receive a Prize Pack. You can read the Official Rules here.

Good luck!

Why Won't The Wood Fit?

Your wood fastening products seem to be built for yesteryear wood sizes. 2x’s are no longer larger than 1½”. Why can’t you manufacture these products with a little closer tolerance?
I received this question from a customer a few days ago via Ask Simpson, a web page where you can submit technical questions to our Engineering Department and we respond by e-mail. We have received similar variations of this question countless times over the years, so I thought it could use some discussion.
The National Design Specification for Wood Construction (NDS) Supplement Table 1A “Nominal and Minimum Dressed Sizes of Sawn Lumber” gives the minimum dry and green dimensions for sawn lumber. This specifies a nominal 2x, for example, as being 1½” dry and 1 9/16” green. NDS Supplement Section 3.1.1 defines dry lumber being seasoned to a moisture content of 19% or less, whereas green lumber is higher than 19%.

NDS Table 1A
NDS Table 1A

NDS 3.1.1
NDS 3.1.1

So what size do you make the connector?
Continue Reading

Why Won’t The Wood Fit? Understanding Lumber Size

Lumber size is often given in “nominal” measurements. This can often lead to confusion when someone is shopping for wood and wood connectors. Paul McEntee, Simpson Strong-Tie Manager of Engineering R&D, addressed lumber sizes and how our company takes them into consideration during product development and testing.

Continue Reading

The Omega Factor

Section 12.4.3.3 of ASCE 7-05 (or -10) deals with overstrength (Ωo) 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.

Image credit: ASCE 7-05.
Image credit: ASCE 7-05.

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?

Continue Reading

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.

Continue Reading

Structural Engineering Blog: One-Year Anniversary

Photo credit: Thinkstock.
Photo credit: Thinkstock.

This month marks the one-year anniversary of the Simpson Strong-Tie® Structural Engineering Blog! To celebrate, we are holding a contest for our blog readers and sharing a few interesting statistics about the blog, along with our Top 5 Blog Posts from April 2012 to today.

Everyone who posts a comment or subscribes to receive email notifications to the blog (new subscribers only) from now until April 30, 2013 will be entered to win one of five Prize Packs. The Prize Pack consists of:

The contest is open to U.S. and Canadian residents (except Quebec) only. One entry per person. Five entries will be randomly selected to receive a Prize Pack. You can read the Official Rules here.

Continue Reading

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.

Continue Reading

2012 Autodesk University

Autodesk University is an annual conference focused on keeping the design community up to date on the latest innovations, trends and technologies in design, drafting and visualization. Last year, Autodesk University was held in Las Vegas the week after Thanksgiving. Sadly, events always seem to conspire to prevent me from going to Vegas, but Simpson Strong-Tie was well represented by Frank Ding, our Engineering Analysis & Technical Computing Manager.

It was an exciting time attending my first Autodesk University in 2012. I have been to so many technical conferences during my professional career, but this one was quite different in scale, and the sheer size of it just blew me away. There were more than 8,000 attendees from 102 countries, more than 750 classes offered, and 163 exhibitors. I was impressed by the organization of such a large event, along with the online and mobile apps provided to help attendees manage their conference schedules.Continue Reading

Open Front Structure Wind Pressure Design

We received a request from Martin H., one of our blog readers, to discuss the method for determining roof wind pressures on an open front agricultural building. The inquiry was regarding clarification on analyzing the roof pressure when a combined external and interior pressure exists and whether these are additive.

Wind Pressure Figure

As can be seen in the above illustrations, the net design pressure on the roof is the sum of the uplift on the exterior surface and the uplift on the interior surface from any internal pressure. ASCE 7 provides a method for determining this pressure. Specifically, ASCE 7-10 will be used for the remainder of this post. Assuming the three remaining sides of the open front structure are walls without openings, the building will be classified as partially enclosed by the definitions of Section 26.2.

ASCE 7-10 provides for two methods for determining the Main Wind Force Resisting System (MWFRS) wind loads for partially enclosed buildings, the Directional Procedure in Chapter 27, and the Envelope Procedure in Chapter 28.

When using the Directional Procedure, the net wind load is calculated using the following equation:

P = qGCp – qi(GCpi)

When using the Envelope Procedure, the net wind load is calculated using the following equation:

 P = qh[(GCpf) – (GCpi)]  

In each of these equations, the first portion determines the pressure on the exterior surface, and the second portion determines the pressure on the interior surface. So the variable for calculating the internal pressure is the internal pressure coefficient GCpi.

The internal pressure coefficient is provided in Table 26.11-1 based on three different categories of building enclosure.

Enclosure Classification

(GCpi)

Open Buildings

0.00

Partially Enclosed Buildings

+0.55

-0.55

Enclosed Buildings

+0.18

-0.18

Table 26.11-1

In the case of an open front structure, it is assumed that the partially enclosed internal pressure coefficient must be used. This coefficient is 3x greater than when the building envelope is classified as enclosed. Use of this higher coefficient in the design will account for the interior pressure on the underside of the roof combined with the exterior pressure.

MWFRS versus C&C

Another somewhat related question: to what level loads should the roof anchorage forces be calculated, MWFRS or C&C (Component and Cladding)? I have often been asked this question, and wrote a Technical Note published by CFSEI (Cold-Formed Steel Engineers Institute) in July 2009.

What are your thoughts?

– Sam