The ASCE Timber-Strong Design Build (TSDBSM) Competition team, “Shiver Yer Timbers,” at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden, CO, finished an incredible year. Over the course of the 2024-2025 academic year, we dedicated countless hours to designing, fabricating and learning about timber design. Our team was composed of eight students: Lucas Baum, Maddie Gotlieb, Gavin Nelson, Jordi Ramos Nunez, Alex Reil, Madelyn Riley, Zaid Safian and Tyler Worley. Advisors included: Dr. Hongyan Liu, Garrett Erickson, David Sparks and Dr. Shilling Pei.
Tag: ASCE
A No-Equal Experience: The Simpson Strong-Tie® Student Scholarship Trip
Hear from Koby Stewart, a civil engineering senior at the University of Michigan, as he shares his experience as a Simpson Strong-Tie Student Scholarship recipient. Koby dives into his background in construction and his introduction to Simpson Strong-Tie’s “No Equal” philosophy of excellence. Koby discusses how the experience broadened his professional network and influenced his career plans, including participation in ASCE competitions and pursuing a master’s degree in structural engineering.
Structuring Success: How Cal Poly’s Team Designed Victory in the 2024 Timber-Strong Design Build™ Competition
Nick Mackechnie, a senior at Cal Poly majoring in civil engineering and minoring in mathematics, recounts his project management role on his Timber-Strong Design Build team, which won at the 2024 Pacific Southwest Symposium. This event challenges engineering students to design and construct a two-story wood-framed building, providing practical experience in structural engineering and project management. Nick discusses navigating the complexities of design, team dynamics, and unique collaboration while sharing valuable lessons and insights.
University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa Students Take On The Timber-Strong Design Build Competition Team
Allena is a senior at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa College of Engineering students working on the TImber-Strong Build who participated in this year’s Timber-Strong Design Build Competition. Besides getting hands-on experience from the competition’s project build, she cultivated better communication, project management, and leadership skills, too.
Timber-Strong Design Build Competition — Utah Winners
In this blog post Jacob Cipollini, a civil engineering student from the University of Utah, shares his experience participating in this year’s Timber-Strong Design Build Competition.
I’m Jacob Cipollini, a junior civil engineering student at the University of Utah. Our American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) student chapter recently won the Timber-Strong Design BuildSM Competition at the ASCE Intermountain Southwest Student Symposium. This event was sponsored in part by Simpson Strong-Tie. Continue Reading
What You Need to Know About Differences in Wind-Speed Reporting for Hurricanes
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.
Continue Reading
Building Code Update: 2018 IBC to Reference ASCE 7-16
In early December, ICC posted the preliminary results of the Group B Online Governmental Consensus Vote, which included structural changes to the IBC, IEBC and IRC. ICC reports that there were more than 162,000 votes cast by eligible Voting Members during the three-week online voting period.
One subject of interest to building Designers, builders and some building-material suppliers was the disposition of a group of code changes that adopted ASCE 7-16 as the reference standard on loads for the IBC and IRC, and changed other parts of the IBC and IRC to reflect that.
The most controversial part of adopting the new ASCE 7-16 standard was its increase in roof component and cladding loads. The higher pressure coefficients in some cases raised the concern that the cost of roofing, roofing materials and roof repairs would be increased. Other items that raised some opposition were the new chapter on tsunami loads and the increase in deck and balcony live loads from 40 psf to 60 psf.
Despite these concerns, ICC members voted to approve the code change that adopted ASCE 7-16 as the reference for loads in the 2018 IBC, IRC and IEBC.
Along with that specific change, several other related changes were approved to correlate the IBC with adoption of ASCE 7-16. These included changes to Section 1604, General Design Requirements; adding in a new Section 1615 on Tsunami Design Requirements; modifications to Section 1613 so that seismic design requirements match ASCE 7-16; and deletion of Section 1609.6, Alternate All-Heights Method for wind design. On this last item, the argument was that since ASCE 7 now includes a simplified wind load design method, a competing method is not needed in the IBC.
Interestingly, a change to remove Strength Design and Allowable Stress Design load combinations from the IBC, which was approved by the IBC Structural Committee, was overturned and denied by the ICC Member voters. So those will remain in the IBC.
For the IRC, even though ASCE 7-16 will be shown as the referenced load standard, most changes to the actual code language relating to the new standard were denied. Items that were specifically denied included adoption of ASCE 7-16 wind speed maps, adoption of ASCE 7-16 roof pressure loading, and adoption of the new higher deck and balcony live loads. So the result is that the IBC and IRC will again be inconsistent with each other regarding wind design. On the other hand, the new USGS/NEHRP Seismic Design Maps were approved.
Future Code Corner articles will address other changes approved for the 2018 IBC and IRC.
Getting Involved and Staying Connected in the Industry
I’m excited to share some tips on getting more involved with the structural engineering community. There are many organizations and industry associations related to structural engineering that it can feel daunting to try to meet all of the key players and make a name for yourself.
I have a really unique and fun job at Simpson Strong-Tie as a field engineer for our light-frame construction products, which include connectors, fasteners, and lateral systems. As a field engineer, I spend most of my time out on the road visiting engineers, architects, building officials, contractors, and others who need technical assistance using our product lines. While this means I spend a good chunk of time in SoCal traffic, I do get to talk to lots of different people working on projects ranging from small home remodels that might be using our new Strong-Frame® special moment frame to huge multi-family housing projects with several thousand units.
I also make sure to attend as many industry association functions as I can, because these are the best places to network and meet other professionals. There are many great organizations, including the Structural Engineers Association, which has chapters all over the United States. The California chapters have very strong participation. I also suggest getting involved in other industry organizations that include people outside of the profession, such as building officials, inspectors, contractors, builders, and architects. These people play an integral part in the construction industry and it’s important to understand their role and importance in supporting structural engineering.
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.
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