Part 1 (AM Session) 4 Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect - - PDF document

▶
part 1 am session
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Part 1 (AM Session) 4 Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect - - PDF document

Oct 30, 2022 326 likes •1.07k views

11/6/2016 Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering K ANSAS ANSAS S TA TATE U N I V E R S I T Y Design of Timber Structures with Sawn and Engineered Wood Members Workshop By Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE,

slide-1
SLIDE 1

11/6/2016 1

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 1

Design of Timber Structures with Sawn and Engineered Wood Members

Workshop By

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect

KANSAS

ANSAS STA TATE

U N I V E R S I T Y

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 2

Outline AM

Wood Frame Codes, Guidelines and Specifications

  • Short history on the development of conventional wood

framing

  • Benefits and drawbacks of conventional wood framing
  • American Wood Council’s National Design Specification

(NDS) for Wood Construction

  • ASD – Allowable Stress Design
  • LRFD – Load and Resistance Factor Design
  • Wood framing provisions of the International Building Code

(IBC) and state and local building codes

  • ASCE 7-10 load specifications
  • Project conception and material choices

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 3

Outline PM

Wood Frame Design and Construction Techniques

  • Design tools and techniques
  • Anchoring to concrete or masonry
  • Beams, posts and trusses
  • Connections
  • Roof framing choices
  • Fire resistance and safety considerations
  • Cross-laminated timber (CLT)
slide-2
SLIDE 2

11/6/2016 2

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 4

Part 1 (AM Session)

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 5

First the Basics, Parts of a Tree (Breyer et al.)

  • Heartwood – Older Inactive portion / provide strengths
  • Sapwood – Newer (contains both Active & Inactive), Stores

Food and Transports Water to Tree Cells

  • The Closer the Annual Rings the Stronger the Wood
  • Nature’s “Composite”

Earlywood Latewood Bark Heartwood Sapwood Annual Ring

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 6

Types of Wood

Softwoods

  • Narrow, needle like leaves
  • Evergreen (stay green all year)
  • Conifers (pine trees)
  • Examples: Hem-Fir, Douglas Fir-Larch, Southern Pine
  • Typically used in construction

Hardwoods

  • Broadleaf
  • Deciduous (lose leaves in fall/winter)
  • Examples: Walnut, Ash, Maple, Balsawood (though soft)
  • Typically used for cabinets, flooring and paneling
slide-3
SLIDE 3

11/6/2016 3

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 7

Sawn Member Sizes:

Nominal Size "Full Sawn" 2"x4"

2" 4" 31 2" 11 2"

Dressed Size 1-1/2"x3-1/2" Surfaced 4 Sides "S4S" Nominal vs. "S4S" 2x4 Sawn Lumber

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 8

Sawn Member Properties (examples):

Nominal Size b x d Standard Dressed Size (S4S) b x d

  • in. x in.

Area of Section A in.2 Section Modulus Sxx in.3 Moment

  • f Inertia

Ixx in.4 Nominal Size b x d Standard Dressed Size (S4S) b x d

  • in. x in.

Area of Section A in.2 Section Modulus Sxx in.3 Moment

  • f Inertia

Ixx in.4 2 x 4 1.5 x 3.5 5.25 3.06 5.359 6 x 6 5.5 x 5.5 30.25 27.73 76.26 2 x 6 1.5 x 5.5 8.25 7.56 20.80 6 x 8 5.5 x 7.5 41.25 51.56 193.4 2 x 8 1.5 x 7.25 10.88 13.14 47.63 6 x 10 5.5 x 9.5 52.25 82.73 393.0 2 x 10 1.5 x 9.25 13.88 21.39 98.93 6 x 12 5.5 x 11.5 63.25 121.2 697.1 2 x 12 1.5 x 11.25 16.88 31.64 178.0 6 x 14 5.5 x 13.5 74.25 167.1 1128 2 x 14 1.5 x 13.25 19.88 43.89 290.8 6 x 16 5.5 x 15.5 85.25 220.2 1707 4 x 4 3.5 x 3.5 12.25 7.15 12.51 6 x 18 5.5 x 17.5 96.25 280.7 2456 4 x 6 3.5 x 5.5 19.25 17.65 48.53 8 x 8 7.5 x 7.5 56.25 70.31 263.7 4 x 8 3.5 x 7.25 25.38 30.66 111.1 8 x 10 7.5 x 9.5 71.25 112.8 535.9 4 x 10 3.5 x 9.25 32.38 49.91 230.8 8 x 12 7.5 x 11.5 86.25 165.3 950.5 4 x 12 3.5 x 11.25 39.38 73.83 415.3 8 x 14 7.5 x 13.5 101.25 227.8 1538 4 x 14 3.5 x 13.25 46.38 102.41 678.5 8 x 16 7.5 x 15.5 116.25 300.3 2327 4 x 16 3.5 x 15.25 53.38 135.66 1034 8 x 18 7.5 x 17.5 131.25 382.8 3350

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 9

Board Foot and Board Feet (bf):

Units of Measurement – Board Feet

  • Board Foot = nominal 1” x 12” (12in2 per foot)

Example for a 2x6 one foot long: Example for a 4x10 three feet long:

2

2"(6") 2 6 1 12 x bf in  

 

2

4"(10") 4 10 3 10 12 x ft bf in  

slide-4
SLIDE 4

11/6/2016 4

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 10

Moisture Content

Percentage of water to oven dry weight:

Seasoning

Sawn Dry Lumber: Sawn Green Lumber: Glue-laminated (normal): Glue-laminated (wet):

    100

moist weight

  • ven dry weight

MC x percent

  • ven dry weight

  19% MC  19% MC  16% MC  16% MC 

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 11

Specific Gravity and Unit Weight

Specific Gravity g Often Given in Literature Member Weight (example Douglas Fir – Larch) Member Weight (2x6 Douglas Fir – Larch)

 

62.4 Unit Weight pcf  

2

0.5(62.4 ) 31.2 (31.2 ) 144 Douglas Fir Larch pcf pcf CrossSectionalArea Member Weight pcf plf in           

2 2

8.25 2 6 (31.2 ) 1.79 144 in x plf pcf plf in        

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 12

Wood Grades

Quality determined by a Grading Agency

  • Visual Grading (most common)
  • Closeness of grains
  • Number of defects in a wood member
  • Machine-Stress Grading
  • In addition to visual grading
  • Subjects members to stiffness/deflection checks
  • Often used in:

Engineered Members Prefabricated trusses Glue-laminated (glulam or GLB) beams Cross-laminated (CLT) members

slide-5
SLIDE 5

11/6/2016 5

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 13

Visual Grading

Closeness of Grains in 3 inch dimension

  • Free of Heart Center (FOHC)
  • Boxed Heart (Pith Present)

Types of Defects

  • Knots
  • Checks – perpendicular to grains (partial penetration)
  • Shakes – parallel to grains in ends of members
  • Splits – measured parallel to sides of members
  • Warp (Cup, Crook or Twist)

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 14

Types of Grades (not all species have all grades)

Dense Select Structural Select Structural

  • No. 1 & Better
  • No. 1
  • No. 2
  • No. 3

Stud Construction Standard Utility Also, Redwood has “Open Grain” as separate types

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 15

Grading Agencies

Western Woods Product Association (WWPA) West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau (WCLIB) Southern Pine Inspection Bureau (SPIB) Northeastern Lumber Manufacturers Assocation (NELMA) Northern Softwood Lumber Bureau (NSLB) National Lumber Grades Authority (NLGA) Redwood Inspection Service (RIS)

slide-6
SLIDE 6

11/6/2016 6

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 16

Putting in All Together

Grade Stamps Include:

Mill Designation Grading Agency Species Identification Wood Grade Seasoning

12 STAND &BTR

S-DRY

D FIR

R

Mill Designation Wood Grade Species ID Grading Agency Seasoning Designation (WWPA)

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 17

Outline AM

Wood Frame Codes, Guidelines and Specifications

  • Short history on the development of conventional wood

framing

  • Benefits and drawbacks of conventional wood framing
  • American Wood Council’s National Design Specification

(NDS) for Wood Construction

  • ASD – Allowable Stress Design
  • LRFD – Load and Resistance Factor Design
  • Wood framing provisions of the International Building Code

(IBC) and state and local building codes

  • ASCE 7-10 load specifications
  • Project conception and material choices

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 18

Brief history:

Timber framing (a.k.a. post & beam)

  • Heavy timber
  • No nails used
  • Joined timber
  • Mortise and Tenon
  • Scarf Joint
  • Pegs used in later years
  • Highly skilled labor (artisans often “signed” joints)
slide-7
SLIDE 7

11/6/2016 7

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 19

Early Example: Roman Framing

  • Straight Sheathing
  • Flat Rafters
  • Square or Round Purlins

Purpose?

  • Sheathing Holds Tile
  • Flat Rafters are Stable
  • Purlins are Stable

(Evelyn Simak) Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 20

Timber Framing (Post & Beam):

(Lueger)

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 21

Mortise and Tenon Joint with Wooden Pegs:

Joint in old French roof

(DC)

slide-8
SLIDE 8

11/6/2016 8

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 22

Balloon Framing- Older

Terms:

  • Rafter
  • Floor Joist (Beam)
  • Let In Brace
  • Let In Ribbon

(Ribband)

  • Full Height Studs
  • Stud Brace
  • Sill (Bed Plate)
  • Double Top Plate

(Built Up Plate)

  • Blocking (or Filler)

(Audel)

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 23

Balloon Framing- Newer

Terms:

  • Rafter
  • Floor Joist
  • Let In Brace
  • Let In Ribbon
  • Full Height Studs
  • Sill Plate
  • Double Top Plate

(at top only)

  • Fire-stopping

Blocking

(courtesy American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA, USA)

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 24

Platform Framing

Terms:

  • Rafter
  • Joists
  • Let In Braces
  • One-story Height

Studs

  • Sole Plate at Floor
  • Sill Plate at Foundation
  • Double Top Plate
  • Fire-stopping or

Blocking (Stabilizes Ends of Joists)

(courtesy American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA, USA)

slide-9
SLIDE 9

11/6/2016 9

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 25

Platform / Conventional Framing (example):

(Jaksmata)

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 26

Typical Detail of Framed Truss (rafters & ceiling joists)

Terms:

  • Collar beam

(a.k.a. collar tie)

  • Ridge board
  • Ceiling joist

courtesy American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA, USA

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 27

Typical Detail at Gable with Flat Ceiling

Terms:

  • Gable Overhang
  • Ridge board
  • Rafter
  • Ladder

(may be flat 2x’s) Note the ceiling location at continuous plate

courtesy American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA, USA

slide-10
SLIDE 10

11/6/2016 10

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 28

Typical Detail at Valley

Terms:

  • Valley rafter
  • Ridge board
  • Jack rafter (short)

courtesy American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA, USA

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 29

Typical Detail at Hip Roof

Terms:

  • Hip rafter
  • Ridge board
  • Jack rafter

courtesy American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA, USA

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 30

Typical Detail at Eave

Terms:

  • Birds mouth

(notch in bottom of rafter)

  • Joist
  • Rafter
  • Double plate
  • Sheathing (plywood)

courtesy American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA, USA

Birds mouth

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11/6/2016 11

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 31

Outline AM

Wood Frame Codes, Guidelines and Specifications

  • Short history on the development of conventional wood

framing

  • Benefits and drawbacks of conventional wood framing
  • American Wood Council’s National Design Specification

(NDS) for Wood Construction

  • ASD – Allowable Stress Design
  • LRFD – Load and Resistance Factor Design
  • Wood framing provisions of the International Building Code

(IBC) and state and local building codes

  • ASCE 7-10 load specifications
  • Project conception and material choices

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 32

Benefits and drawbacks: conventional framing

“Conventional Framing” is defined here as IBC section 2308 “CONVENTIONAL LIGHT-FRAME CONSTRUCTION”

Advantages:

  • Simple to use, IBC code based requirements
  • Use of Tables for studs, rafters, floor joist, headers,

girders & ceiling joists

  • Only portions of construction not within IBC 2308

needs to be designed by an engineer (IBC 2308.1.1)

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 33

Benefits and drawbacks: conventional framing

“Conventional Framing” is defined here as IBC section 2308 “CONVENTIONAL LIGHT-FRAME CONSTRUCTION”

Disadvantages:

  • Slower construction – often stick-by-stick
  • Limits design flexibility – 3 stories, 10 foot maximum

bearing wall heights, prescribed maximum loading

  • Not modular
slide-12
SLIDE 12

11/6/2016 12

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 34

Outline AM

Wood Frame Codes, Guidelines and Specifications

  • Short history on the development of conventional wood

framing

  • Benefits and drawbacks of conventional wood framing
  • American Wood Council’s National Design Specification

(NDS) for Wood Construction

  • ASD – Allowable Stress Design
  • LRFD – Load and Resistance Factor Design
  • Wood framing provisions of the International Building Code

(IBC) and state and local building codes

  • ASCE 7-10 load specifications
  • Project conception and material choices

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 35

NDS for Wood Construction – ASD (The IBC references the NDS for wood design)

ASD – Allowable Stress Design

  • Oldest form of design, still used today
  • Uses a reduced or “allowable” strength
  • Gravity loads are typically used without factors
  • Wind and seismic “strength” loads must be reduced

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 36

NDS for Wood Construction – LRFD

LRFD – Load and Resistance Factor Design

  • Newer “Strength” version based on the ASD method
  • Strength of materials multiplied by KF , φ and λ factors
  • For Bending: KF = 2.54, φ = 0.85
  • For Tension: KF = 2.70, φ = 0.80
  • For Shear: KF = 2.88, φ = 0.75
  • For Axial: KF = 2.70, φ = 0.90
  • Gravity loads are increased or reduced based on code
  • Wind and seismic loads are at “strength” levels

This presentation uses the ASD method

slide-13
SLIDE 13

11/6/2016 13

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 37

NDS – Design Values

Sawn size categories:

Dimension lumber

2”to 4” thick, 2” and wider Timbers 5” and thicker: Beams and Stringers Posts and Timbers

2" d b   2" d b   d b

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 38

Sawn Member Properties (Table 1B):

Nominal Size b x d Standard Dressed Size (S4S) b x d

  • in. x in.

Area of Section A in.2 Section Modulus Sxx in.3 Moment

  • f Inertia

Ixx in.4 Nominal Size b x d Standard Dressed Size (S4S) b x d

  • in. x in.

Area of Section A in.2 Section Modulus Sxx in.3 Moment

  • f Inertia

Ixx in.4 2 x 4 1.5 x 3.5 5.25 3.06 5.359 6 x 6 5.5 x 5.5 30.25 27.73 76.26 2 x 6 1.5 x 5.5 8.25 7.56 20.80 6 x 8 5.5 x 7.5 41.25 51.56 193.4 2 x 8 1.5 x 7.25 10.88 13.14 47.63 6 x 10 5.5 x 9.5 52.25 82.73 393.0 2 x 10 1.5 x 9.25 13.88 21.39 98.93 6 x 12 5.5 x 11.5 63.25 121.2 697.1 2 x 12 1.5 x 11.25 16.88 31.64 178.0 6 x 14 5.5 x 13.5 74.25 167.1 1128 2 x 14 1.5 x 13.25 19.88 43.89 290.8 6 x 16 5.5 x 15.5 85.25 220.2 1707 4 x 4 3.5 x 3.5 12.25 7.15 12.51 6 x 18 5.5 x 17.5 96.25 280.7 2456 4 x 6 3.5 x 5.5 19.25 17.65 48.53 8 x 8 7.5 x 7.5 56.25 70.31 263.7 4 x 8 3.5 x 7.25 25.38 30.66 111.1 8 x 10 7.5 x 9.5 71.25 112.8 535.9 4 x 10 3.5 x 9.25 32.38 49.91 230.8 8 x 12 7.5 x 11.5 86.25 165.3 950.5 4 x 12 3.5 x 11.25 39.38 73.83 415.3 8 x 14 7.5 x 13.5 101.25 227.8 1538 4 x 14 3.5 x 13.25 46.38 102.41 678.5 8 x 16 7.5 x 15.5 116.25 300.3 2327 4 x 16 3.5 x 15.25 53.38 135.66 1034 8 x 18 7.5 x 17.5 131.25 382.8 3350

Dimensional Lumber Timbers

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 39

NDS

Actual stresses (note lowercase lettering):

Bending: Horizontal shear: Uniformly loaded deflection: Dead + Live load deflection check: Live load deflection check: 0.5 may be used for k (IBC, Table 1604.3 – footnote d)

b

Mc M f I S  

1.5

v

V f A 

4

5 384 wL EI  

240

D L

L k    360

L

L  

slide-14
SLIDE 14

11/6/2016 14

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 40

NDS

Allowable stresses noted in NDS (uppercase lettering):

Bending, Fb Tension parallel to grain, Ft Shear (a.k.a. horizontal shear), Fv Compression perpendicular to grain, Fc Compression parallel to grain, Fc Modulus of elasticity, E Modulus of elasticity, Emin (for stability)

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 41

NDS – Design Values

Sawn Members:

Table 4A – Visually graded dimension lumber – all species except Southern Pine Table 4B – Visually graded Southern Pine dimension lumber Table 4C – Mechanically graded (MSR or MEL) dimension lumber Table 4D – Visually graded Timbers, Beams & Stringers (B&S) or Post & Timbers (P&T) Table 4E – Visually graded decking

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 42

NDS – Design Values (example)

Dimension lumber material properties, Table 4A

Douglas Fir‐Larch Dimension Lumber Bending Fb Tension parallel to grain Ft Shear parallel to grain Fv Compression perpendicular to grain Fc l Compression parallel to grain Fc Modulus of Elasticity E Emin Select Structural 1500 1000 180 625 1700 1900000 690000

  • No. 1 & Better

1200 800 180 625 1550 1800000 660000

  • No. 1

1000 675 180 625 1500 1700000 620000

  • No. 2

900 575 180 625 1350 1600000 580000

  • No. 3

525 325 180 625 775 1400000 510000 Stud 700 450 180 625 850 1400000 510000 Construction 1000 650 180 625 1650 1500000 550000 Standard 575 375 180 625 1400 1400000 510000 Utility 250 175 180 625 900 1300000 470000

slide-15
SLIDE 15

11/6/2016 15

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 43

NDS for Wood Construction

ASD Duration Factor – Based on duration of load

CD = 0.9 for dead load only CD = 1.0 with occupancy loads CD = 1.15 with snow loads CD = 1.25 with construction loads CD = 1.6 with wind or seismic CD = 2.0 with impact For multiple load-types, use highest value factor

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 44

NDS

Additional Adjustment Factors:

CM = Correction factor for excessive moisture Ct = Correction factor for excessive high temperature CL = Beam stability factor CF = Size factor Cfu = Flat use factor Ci = Incising factor Cr = Amplification factor for repetitive use CP = Column stability factor CT = Buckling stiffness factor (for trusses) Cb = Bearing area factor

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 45

NDS

Example Moisture Factor, CM for dimension lumber, Table 4A:

Wet Service Factors, CM Fb Ft Fv Fc┴ Fc E and Emin 0.85* 1 0.97 0.67 0.8** 0.9 * when (Fb)(CF) ≤ 1150 psi, CM = 1.0 ** when (Fc)(CF) ≤ 750 psi, CM = 1.0

slide-16
SLIDE 16

11/6/2016 16

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 46

NDS

Example Temperature Factor, Ct for all lumber, Table 2.3.3:

Temperature Factor Ct Reference Design Values In-Service Moisture Conditions Ct T ≤ 100⁰F 100⁰F < T ≤ 125⁰F 125⁰F < T ≤ 150⁰F Ft, E, Emin Wet or Dry 1.0 0.9 0.9 Fb, Fv, Fc, and Fc┴ Dry 1.0 0.8 0.7 Wet 1.0 0.7 0.5 Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 47

NDS

Example Beam Stability Factor, CL for all lumber Table 3.3.3:

lu equals the unsupported length, in inches “Single-Span Beam” Type of Load When lu/d < 7 When lu/d  7 Uniform distributed le = 2.06 lu le = 1.63 lu + 3d measure of Euler-based critical buckling tendency buckling stress

e 2

l d b

B

R 

min 2 B

1.20E ' R

bE

F 

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 48

NDS

Example Stability Factor, CL for all lumber, (continued):

     

* b b D M t F r

F F C C C C C 

2 * * * bE b bE b bE b

1 F / F 1 F / F F / F

  • 1.9

1.9 0.95

L

C         

slide-17
SLIDE 17

11/6/2016 17

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 49

NDS

Dimension Lumber Size Factor, CF

Grades Width (depth, d) Fb Ft Fc Thickness (breadth, b) 2"& 3" 4" Select Structural, No.1&Btr, No.1, No.2, No.3 2", 3“ & 4" 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.15 5" 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.1 6" 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.1 8" 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.05 10" 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.0 12" 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 14“ & wider 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 50

NDS

Dimension Lumber Repetitive Use Factor, Cr Cr = 1.15 where all the following apply:

  • Dimension lumber, 2” to 4” thick
  • 3 or more members (such as joists, studs, planks)
  • Spaced at 24” on center or less

Otherwise Cr = 1.0 Incising Factor, Ci = 1.0 for normal lumber (not pressure treated) Flat Use Factor, Cfu = 1.0 for lumber loaded on edge as a beam

(not flat as used in decking) Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 51

NDS

Example Column Stability Factor, CP for all lumber Use maximum Euler critical column slenderness ratio buckling stress 1.0 &

e e e

l K l l K for column pinned at top bottom   

' min 2

0.822

cE e

E F l d        max

ex x e ey y

l d l d l d                        

slide-18
SLIDE 18

11/6/2016 18

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 52

NDS

Example Column Stability Factor, CP for all lumber

    

* c c D M t F

F F C C C C 

2 * * * cE c cE c cE c

1 F / F 1 F / F F / F

  • 2c

2 c=0.8 for sawn members c=0.9 for glulammembers

P

C c c         

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 53

NDS

Allowable SAWN stresses (note UPPERCASE lettering):

F’b = Fb (CD)(CM )(Ct)(CL)(CF)(Cfu)(Ci)(Cr) F’t = Ft (CD)(CM)(Ct)(CF)(Ci) F’v = Fv (CD)(CM)(Ct)(Ci) F’c = Fc (CM)(Ct)(Ci)(Cb) F’c = Fc (CD)(CM)(Ct)(CF)(Ci)(CP) Modulus of elasticity, E’ = (CM)(Ct)(Ci ) Modulus of elasticity, E’min = Emin (CM)(Ct)(Ci )(CT)

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 54

NDS – Design Values

Glulam Members:

Table 1C – Section properties for Western Species Table 1D – Section properties for Southern Pine Table 5A – Softwood species bending lay-ups Table 5B – Softwood species axial lay-ups For Glulams, Cv is used in lieu of CF (as with sawn members)

1 1 1 x x x

21 12 5.125 L d b

v

C                   

slide-19
SLIDE 19

11/6/2016 19

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 55

NDS

Allowable Glulam stresses (note UPPERCASE lettering):

F’b = Fb (CD)(CM )(Ct)(CL)(CV)(Cfu)(Cc)(CI) F’t = Ft (CD)(CM)(Ct) F’v = Fv (CD)(CM)(Ct)(Cvr) F’c = Fc (CM)(Ct)(Ci)(Cb) F’c = Fc (CD)(CM)(Ct)(CP) Modulus of elasticity, E’ = (CM)(Ct)(Ci ) Modulus of elasticity, E’min = Emin (CM)(Ct)(Ci )(CT)

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 56

NDS – Design Values (example, 5A)

Glulam Members Properties (Douglas Fir and Hem Fir Shown)

Combination Symbol Species Outer/Core Bending Shear Parallel to Grain Modulus of Elasticity Bottom of Beam Stressed in Tension Top of Beam Stressed in Tension For Deflection Calculations For Stability Calculations Fbx (psi) Fbx (psi) Fvx (psi) Ex (106 psi) Ex min (106 psi) 24F‐1.7E 2400 1450 210 1.7 0.90 24F‐V5 DF/HF 2400 1600 215 1.7 0.90 24F‐V10 DF/HF 2400 2400 215 1.8 0.95 24F‐1.8E 2400 1450 265 1.8 0.95 24F‐V4 DF/DF 2400 1850 265 1.8 0.95 24F‐V8 DF/DF 2400 2400 265 1.8 0.95 Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 57

NDS – Design Values (example, 5B)

Glulam Members Properties (Douglas Fir Shown)

Combo Symbol Species Grade All Loading Axially Loaded Modulus of Elasticity

Compression Perpendicular

to Grain Fc (psi) Tension Parallel to Grain Compression parallel to grain For Deflection For Stability 4 or more laminations 2 or 3 laminations Ex (106 psi) Ex min (106 psi) Ft (psi) Fc (psi) Fc (psi) Visually Graded Western Species 1 DF L3 1.5 0.79 560 950 1550 1250 2 DF L2 1.6 0.85 560 1250 1950 1600 3 DF L2D 1.9 1.00 650 1450 2300 1900 4 DF L1CL 1.9 1.00 590 1400 2100 1950 5 DF L1 2 1.06 650 1650 2400 2100

slide-20
SLIDE 20

11/6/2016 20

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 58

Outline AM

Wood Frame Codes, Guidelines and Specifications

  • Short history on the development of conventional wood

framing

  • Benefits and drawbacks of conventional wood framing
  • American Wood Council’s National Design Specification

(NDS) for Wood Construction

  • ASD – Allowable Stress Design
  • LRFD – Load and Resistance Factor Design
  • Wood framing provisions of the International Building Code

(IBC) and state and local building codes

  • ASCE 7-10 load specifications
  • Project conception and material choices

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 59

Wood framing provisions of the 2015 IBC

Wood Frame Provisions, Chapter 23

  • Minimum Number of Fasteners Table 2304.10.1

Conventional Light-Frame Construction

  • Floor Joist Span Table 2308.4.2.1
  • Wall Stud Size, Spacing & Height Table 2308.5.1
  • Header & Girder Span Table 2308.9.5
  • Ceiling Joist Span Table 2308.7.1
  • Rafter Span Table 2308.7.2
  • Rafter Tie Connections Table 2308.7.3.1

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 60

Example of Minimum Nailing per 2015 IBC:

2015 IBC, Table 2304.10.1 Fastening Schedule Connection Fastening Location Joist to sill or girder 3‐8d common toenail Bridging to joist 2‐8d common toenail each end 1" x 6" subfloor or less to each joist 2‐8d common face nail Wider than 1" x 8" subfloor to each joist 3‐8d common face nail 2" subfloor to joist or girder 2‐16d common blind and face nail Sole plate to joist or blocking 16d @ 16"o.c. typical face nail Top plate to stud 2‐16d common end nail Stud to sole plate 4‐8d common toenail 2‐16d common end nail

slide-21
SLIDE 21

11/6/2016 21

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 61

Nail installation types:

Toenail – Installed on an angle as shown End nail – Installed as shown through side member into the end grain of joined member Face nail – Installed as shown into side member

30° End nail Toenail Face nails

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 62

Example of Floor Joist Spans per 2015 IBC:

Douglas Fir Larch is shown as one example species 2015 IBC, Table 2308.4.2.1(1), Floor Joist Spans ‐ Residential Sleeping Rooms, L = 30 psf, L/D = 360 Joist Spacing (inches) Species and Grade Dead Load = 10 psf Dead Load = 20 psf 2x6 2x8 2x10 2x12 2x6 2x8 2x10 2x12 Maximum floor joist spans (ft.‐in.) (ft.‐in.) (ft.‐in.) (ft.‐in.) (ft.‐in.) (ft.‐in.) (ft.‐in.) (ft.‐in.) 12 Douglas Fir‐Larch SS 12‐6 16‐6 21‐0 25‐7 12‐6 16‐6 21‐0 25‐7 Douglas Fir‐Larch #1 12‐0 15‐10 20‐3 24‐8 12‐0 15‐7 19‐0 22‐0 Douglas Fir‐Larch #2 11‐10 15‐7 19‐10 23‐0 11‐6 14‐7 17‐9 20‐7 Douglas Fir‐Larch #3 9‐8 12‐4 15‐0 17‐5 8‐8 11‐0 13‐5 15‐7 16 Douglas Fir‐Larch SS 11‐4 15‐10 19‐1 23‐3 11‐4 15‐0 19‐1 23‐0 Douglas Fir‐Larch #1 10‐11 14‐5 18‐5 21‐4 10‐8 13‐6 16‐5 19‐1 Douglas Fir‐Larch #2 10‐9 14‐1 17‐2 19‐11 9‐11 12‐7 15‐5 17‐10 Douglas Fir‐Larch #3 8‐5 10‐8 13‐0 15‐1 7‐6 9‐6 11‐8 13‐6 Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 63

Example of Wall Stud Size & Spacing per 2015 IBC:

Table 2308.5.1 Size, Height and Spacing of Wood Studs Stud Size (inches) Bearing Walls Nonbearing Walls Laterally unsupported stud height (feet) Supported roof and ceiling only Supporting

  • ne floor,

roof and ceiling Supporting two floors, roof and ceiling Laterally unsupported stud height (feet) Spacing (inches) Stud Spacing (inches) 2x3* ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10 16 2x4 10 24 16 ‐ 14 24 3x4 10 24 24 16 14 24 2x5 10 24 24 ‐ 16 24 2x6 10 24 24 16 20 24 * Shall not be used for exterior walls

slide-22
SLIDE 22

11/6/2016 22

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 64

Example of Header & Girder Spans per 2015 IBC:

Table 2308.4.1.1(1) ‐ Header & Girder Spans For Exterior Bearing Walls Headers Supporting Size Ground Snow Load, 30 psf Building Width (feet) 20 28 36 Span (ft.‐in.) NJ Studs Span (ft.‐in.) NJ Studs Span (ft.‐in.) NJ Studs Roof & Ceiling 2‐2x4 3‐6 1 3‐2 1 2‐10 1 2‐2x6 5‐5 1 4‐8 1 4‐2 1 2‐2x8 6‐10 1 5‐11 2 5‐4 2 Roof, Ceiling & 1 Center‐Bearing Floor 2‐2x4 3‐1 1 2‐9 1 2‐5 1 2‐2x6 4‐6 1 4‐0 1 3‐7 2 2‐2x8 5‐9 2 5‐0 2 4‐6 2 Roof, Ceiling & 1 Clear Span Floor 2‐2x4 2‐8 1 2‐4 1 2‐1 1 2‐2x6 3‐11 1 3‐5 2 3‐0 2 2‐2x8 5‐0 2 4‐4 2 3‐10 2 Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 65

Example of Header Configurations:

courtesy American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA, USA (modified)

DOUBLE PLATE KING STUD PLATE “TRIMMER” or “Jack” Stud DOUBLE HEADER KING STUD DOUBLE HEADER PLATE DOUBLE PLATE FRAMING HANGER Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 66

Example of Header Configurations:

courtesy Western Wood Products Association, Portland, OR

slide-23
SLIDE 23

11/6/2016 23

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 67

Example of Ceiling Joist Spans per 2015 IBC:

Douglas Fir Larch is shown as one example species 2015 IBC, Table 2308.8.7(1&2) Ceiling Joist Spans – Attics w/o Storage & Limited Storage L = 20 psf, L/D = 240 Joist Spacing (inches) Species and Grade Dead Load = 5 psf (L = 10psf) Dead Load = 10 psf (L = 20psf) 2x4 2x6 2x8 2x10 2x4 2x6 2x8 2x10 Maximum ceiling joist spans (ft.‐in.) (ft.‐in.) (ft.‐in.) (ft.‐in.) (ft.‐in.) (ft.‐in.) (ft.‐in.) (ft.‐in.) 12 Douglas Fir‐Larch SS 13‐2 20‐8 26‐0 26‐0 10‐5 16‐4 21‐7 26‐0 Douglas Fir‐Larch #1 12‐8 19‐11 26‐0 26‐0 10‐0 15‐9 20‐1 24‐6 Douglas Fir‐Larch #2 12‐5 19‐6 25‐8 26‐0 9‐10 14‐10 18‐9 22‐11 Douglas Fir‐Larch #3 10‐10 15‐10 20‐1 24‐6 7‐8 11‐2 14‐2 17‐4 16 Douglas Fir‐Larch SS 11‐11 18‐9 24‐8 26‐0 9‐6 14‐11 19‐7 25‐0 Douglas Fir‐Larch #1 11‐6 18‐1 23‐10 26‐0 9‐1 13‐9 17‐5 21‐3 Douglas Fir‐Larch #2 11‐3 17‐8 23‐0 26‐0 8‐9 12‐10 16‐3 19‐10 Douglas Fir‐Larch #3 9‐5 13‐9 17‐5 21‐3 6‐8 9‐8 12‐4 15‐0 Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 68

Example of Rafter Spans per 2015 IBC:

Douglas Fir Larch is shown as one example species 2015 IBC, Table 2308.7.2(1), Rafter Spans (Ceiling not attached) – L = 20 psf, L/D = 180 Joist Spacing (inches) Species and Grade Dead Load = 10 psf Dead Load = 20 psf 2x4 2x6 2x8 2x10 2x4 2x6 2x8 2x10 Maximum rafter spans (ft.‐in.) (ft.‐in.) (ft.‐in.) (ft.‐in.) (ft.‐in.) (ft.‐in.) (ft.‐in.) (ft.‐in.) 12 Douglas Fir‐Larch SS 11‐6 18‐0 23‐9 26‐0 11‐6 18‐0 23‐5 26‐0 Douglas Fir‐Larch #1 11‐1 17‐4 22‐5 26‐0 10‐6 15‐4 19‐5 23‐9 Douglas Fir‐Larch #2 10‐10 16‐7 21‐0 25‐8 9‐10 14‐4 18‐2 22‐3 Douglas Fir‐Larch #3 8‐7 12‐6 15‐10 19‐5 7‐5 10‐10 13‐9 16‐9 16 Douglas Fir‐Larch SS 10‐5 16‐4 21‐7 26‐0 10‐5 16‐0 20‐3 24‐9 Douglas Fir‐Larch #1 10‐0 15‐4 19‐5 23‐9 9‐1 13‐3 16‐10 20‐7 Douglas Fir‐Larch #2 9‐10 14‐4 18‐2 22‐3 8‐6 12‐5 15‐9 19‐3 Douglas Fir‐Larch #3 7‐5 10‐10 13‐9 16‐9 6‐5 9‐5 11‐11 14‐6 Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 69

Example of Rafter Tie Connections per 2015 IBC:

Table 2308.7.3.1, Rafter Tie Connections Rafter Slope Tie Spacing (inches) No Snow Load Ground Snow Load, 30psf Rafter Span (feet) 12 20 28 36 12 20 28 36 Required number of 16d common nails per connection 3:12 12 4 6 8 10 4 6 8 11 16 5 7 10 13 5 8 11 14 24 7 11 15 19 7 11 16 21 32 10 14 19 25 10 16 22 28 48 14 21 29 37 14 32 36 42 4:12 12 3 4 5 6 3 5 6 8 16 3 5 7 8 4 6 8 11 24 4 7 10 12 5 9 12 16 32 6 9 13 16 8 12 16 22 48 8 14 19 24 10 18 24 32

slide-24
SLIDE 24

11/6/2016 24

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 70

Outline AM

Wood Frame Codes, Guidelines and Specifications

  • Short history on the development of conventional wood

framing

  • Benefits and drawbacks of conventional wood framing
  • American Wood Council’s National Design Specification

(NDS) for Wood Construction

  • ASD – Allowable Stress Design
  • LRFD – Load and Resistance Factor Design
  • Wood framing provisions of the International Building Code

(IBC) and state and local building codes

  • ASCE 7-10 load specifications
  • Project conception and material choices

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 71

ASCE 7-10 load specifications

Load Combinations (Chapter 2) Vertical Loads:

  • Dead Loads (Chapter 3)
  • Live Loads (Chapter 4)
  • Roof / Construction Loading = 20 psf
  • Roof Live Load Reductions Based on Tributary Area, AT
  • Floor Loading
  • Live Load Reductions Based on Tributary Area, AT
  • Snow Loads (Chapter 7)
  • Snow Loading, based on location (Figure 7‐1)

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 72

ASCE Load Combinations – ASD

1. D 2. D + L 3. D + (Lr or S or R) 4. D + 0.75L + 0.75(Lr or S or R) 5. D + (0.6W or 0.7E)

  • 6a. D + 0.75L + 0.75(0.6W) + 0.75(Lr or S or R)
  • 6b. D + 0.75L + 0.75(0.7E) + 0.75(S)

7. 0.6D + 0.6W 8. 0.6D + 0.7E

slide-25
SLIDE 25

11/6/2016 25

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 73

ASCE Load Combinations – LRFD

  • 1. 1.4D

λ = 0.6 2. 1.2D + 1.6L + 0.5(Lr or S or R) λ = 0.7 when L is storage λ = 0.8 when L is occupancy λ = 1.25 when L is impact 3. 1.2D + 1.6(Lr or S or R) λ = 0.8 4. 1.2D + 1.0W + L + 0.5(Lr or S or R) λ = 1.0 5. 1.2D + 1.0E + L + 0.2(S) λ = 1.0 6. 0.9D + 1.0W λ = 1.0 7. 0.9D + 1.0E λ = 1.0

This presentation is based on the ASD method

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 74

ASCE 7-10 load specifications

Lateral Loads:

  • Hydrostatic Loads (Chapter 3)
  • Flood Loads (Chapter 5)
  • Wind Loads (Chapters 26 through 31)
  • Seismic Loads (Chapters 11 through 23)

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 75

Outline AM

Wood Frame Codes, Guidelines and Specifications

  • Short history on the development of conventional wood

framing

  • Benefits and drawbacks of conventional wood framing
  • American Wood Council’s National Design Specification

(NDS) for Wood Construction

  • ASD – Allowable Stress Design
  • LRFD – Load and Resistance Factor Design
  • Wood framing provisions of the International Building Code

(IBC) and state and local building codes

  • ASCE 7-10 load specifications
  • Project conception and material choices
slide-26
SLIDE 26

11/6/2016 26

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 76

Project conception and material choices

Project conception

  • What will the building be used for?
  • Is impact from forklifts or other vehicles an issue?
  • Is energy efficiency a goal?

Material Choices

  • Is the labor force experienced in the material?
  • What are typical advantages/disadvantages in the material?
  • How do the materials fit the concept of the project?

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 77

Project conception and material choices

Walls

Metal Stud Wall Framing Advantages

  • Straight Framed Walls
  • Easy to Construct
  • Termite/Fungus Impervious
  • Easy to Insulate

Disadvantages

  • Conducts Thermal Loads
  • Corrosion
  • Not Resistant to Vehicle/Blast

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 78

Project conception and material choices

Walls

Wood Stud Wall Framing Advantages

  • Reduced Thermal Loads & Sustainable
  • Easy to Construct
  • No Corrosion
  • Easy to Insulate

Disadvantages

  • Framed Walls may not be Straight (warping, etc.)
  • Termite/Fungus
  • Not Resistant to Vehicle/Blast
slide-27
SLIDE 27

11/6/2016 27

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 79

Project conception and material choices

Walls

Cross-Laminated Timber Solid Walls (more later…) Advantages

  • Reduced Thermal Loads & Sustainable
  • Easy to Construct
  • No Corrosion
  • Easy to Insulate

Disadvantages

  • Termite/Fungus
  • Limited or Not Tested Against Vehicle/Blast
  • Requires Cranes to Construct

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 80

Project conception and material choices

Walls

Concrete Advantages

  • Provides Thermal Mass
  • Resistant to Vehicle/Blast and Safe Room
  • No Termite/Fungus Problems
  • No Corrosion

Disadvantages

  • Seismic Issues
  • May Need Large Staging Area
  • More Difficult to Construct (forming or cranes)

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 81

Project conception and material choices

Walls

Masonry Advantages

  • Provides Thermal Mass
  • Resistant to Vehicle/Blast and Safe Room
  • No Termite/Fungus Problems
  • No Corrosion

Disadvantages

  • Seismic Issues
  • May Need Large Staging Area
  • More Difficult to Construct (scaffolding)
slide-28
SLIDE 28

11/6/2016 28

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 82

Project conception and material choices

Roofs

Metal Roof Framing (bar joists, wide flange beams, steel deck) Advantages

  • Easy to Construct
  • Easy to Insulate (rigid insulation above deck)
  • Long Spans Possible
  • Light-Weight

Disadvantages

  • Requires Welding or Bolting
  • Conducts Thermal Loads
  • Corrosion

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 83

Project conception and material choices

Roofs

Wood Roof Framing (glulams, trusses, I-joists, plywood deck, CLT) Advantages

  • Reduced Thermal Loads & Sustainable
  • Easy to Construct (may be panelized)
  • Light-Weight
  • Easy to Insulate (above or below deck)

Disadvantages

  • Sawn Members may not be Straight (warping, etc.)
  • Long Spans may be Expensive

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 84

Project conception and material choices

Roofs

Concrete Advantages

  • Provides Thermal Mass
  • Prestressed Members Allow for Long Spans
  • No Corrosion
  • Safe Room

Disadvantages

  • Seismic Issues
  • May Need Large Staging Area
  • More Difficult to Construct (forming or cranes)
slide-29
SLIDE 29

11/6/2016 29

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 85

Project conception and material choices

Roofs

Steel and Wood Hybrid System Advantages

  • Easy to Construct (usually panelized)
  • Easy to Insulate (rigid insulation above or below deck)
  • Light-Weight

Disadvantages

  • May Need Large Staging Area
  • Corrosion

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 86

Questions? Part 1

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 87

Part 2 (PM Session)

slide-30
SLIDE 30

11/6/2016 30

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 88

Outline PM

Wood Frame Design and Construction Techniques

  • Design tools and techniques
  • Anchoring to concrete or masonry
  • Beams, posts and trusses
  • Connections
  • Roof framing choices
  • Fire resistance and safety considerations
  • Cross-laminated timber (CLT)

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 89

Design Tools and Techniques

Design Tools (American Wood Council)

  • Span Calculator (http://www.awc.org/calculators/)
  • Connection Calculator (http://www.awc.org/calculators/)
  • Heights & Areas Calculator (http://www.awc.org/calculators/)

Wood Beam and Column Programs (Enercalc) Wood Shear Wall and Ledger Programs (Enercalc) Engineering Software for Wood Design (WoodWorks) Excel – Wood Framing Programs (self written)

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 90

Design Tools and Techniques

Download Free Publications:

“Details for Conventional Wood Frame Construction” http://www.awc.org/pdf/WCD1-300.pdf The Library - Free Publication Downloads (American Wood Council) http://www.awc.org/publications/download.php APA Resource Library – American Plywood Association http://www.apawood.org/resource-library International Code Council – Free Resources http://www.iccsafe.org/content/pages/freeresources.aspx? usertoken={token}&Site=icc American Institute of Timber Construction (AITC) – Free Downloads http://www.aitc-glulam.org/shopcart/index.asp

slide-31
SLIDE 31

11/6/2016 31

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 91

Techniques

  • Wood Design may be Challenging
  • Examples Allow for Design w/o Programs
  • 15 Examples Provided, for Analysis of:
  • Rafters
  • Glulam Roof Beams
  • Posts / Wall Studs
  • Compression and Tension Members
  • Horizontal Plywood Diaphragms
  • Connections
  • Plus, 2 Diaphragm Examples (span rating, deflection)
  • Plus, 2 Cross-laminated Timber Examples (New)

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 92

Example #1 (sawn lumber rafters):

Given: Normal temperature and moisture

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 93

Example #1 (sawn lumber rafters):

Solution: Tabulated stresses (NDS Table 4A): Bending stress Fbx = 1000 psi Shear stress FV = 180 psi Bearing stress Fc = 625 psi Young’s Modulus E = 1,700,000 psi Properties of 2x10 (NDS Table 1B): A = 13.88 in.2 S = 21.39 in.3 I = 98.93 in.4

slide-32
SLIDE 32

11/6/2016 32

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 94

Example #1 (sawn lumber rafters):

Adjustment Factors: CD = 0.90 DL only, Table 2.3.2 CD = 1.25 DL + RLL will govern, Table 2.3.2 Cr = 1.15 Section 4.3.9 CF = 1.1 Size factor from NDS Supplement, Table 4A

     

2

40 2 80 80 15.5 2,403 28,830 8 80 15.5 620 2

TL TL TL

w psf ft plf plf M ft lb in lb plf V lb         

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 95

Example #1 (sawn lumber rafters):

Bending:

Bending is about the strong or x axis F'bx = Fbx(CD)(CM)(Ct)(CF)(Cr) F'bx = 1,000(1.25)(1.0)(1.0)(1.1)(1.15) = 1581 psi

(sheathing prevents lateral buckling)

S = bd2/6 = 1.5 (9.25)2/6 = 21.39 in.3 fbx = M / S = 28,830 / 21.39 = 1348 psi fbx = 1348 psi < F'bx = 1581 psi OK bending

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 96

Example #1 (sawn lumber rafters):

Shear:

F'v = Fv(CD)(CM)(Ct) = 180(1.25)(1.0)(1.0) = 225 psi fV= 1.5 (620) / 13.88 = 67.0 psi < 225 psi OK shear

Deflection:

E = E(CM)(Ct) = 1,700,000(1.0)(1.0) = 1,700,000 psi Allowable TL = L/240 = 0.78 in. > 0.47 in. OK TL deflection

  

 

     

4 3 3 4

5 40 15.5 1728 / 0.309" 384 1,700,000 98.93 0.5 0.309 0.309 0.473"

D L D L

plf ft in ft psi in k           

slide-33
SLIDE 33

11/6/2016 33

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 97

Example #1 (sawn lumber rafters):

Deflection (continued):

Allowable L = L/360 = 0.52 in. > 0.31 in. OK RLL deflection

Bearing:

F'c = 625(1.0)(1.0)(1.0) = 625 psi f 'c = 620 / [1.5 (3.5)] = 118 psi f 'c = 118 psi < F'c = 625 psi OK bearing

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 98

Example #2 (glulam beam):

Given: The beam shown above is used in a commercial building without a plastered ceiling (deflection limit required is L/240 for total load, L/360 for snow load only). Find size of 24F-V5 DF/HF Use the critical load condition given as: wTL = wD + wS = 200 + 700 = 900 plf.

WTL = 900 plf 48' X-section

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 99

Example #2 (glulam beam):

Solution: Tabulated stresses (NDS Table 5A): Bending stress Fbx = 2400 psi Shear stress FV = 215 psi Bearing stress Fc = 650 psi Young’s Modulus E = 1,700,000 psi

   

2

0.9 48 259 3100 8 0.9 48 21.6 2

TL TL

klf M ft k in k plf V k       

slide-34
SLIDE 34

11/6/2016 34

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 100

Example #2 (glulam beam):

Adjustment Factors: CD = 1.15 DL + SL CM = 1.0 Ct = 1.0 CL = 1.0 fully laterally supported Bending: Since CL = 1.0, we need only consider volume effect. Assume Cv = 0.8:

    

' 3 ' '

2400 1.15 1.0 1.0 0.8 2208 3110000 1408 2208

bx Req d bx

F psi M S in F     

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 101

Example #2 (glulam beam):

Try 6.75" x 36" Glulam

(24) 1-1/2” laminates, glulam section property tables (NDS Table 1C)

Section Properties: A = 243 in.2 S = 1458 in.3 > 1408 in.3 I = 26240 in.4 Check the volume factor: x = 10 for western species x = 20 for Southern Pine

1 1 1 x x x 1 1 1 10 10 10

21 12 5.125 L d b 21 12 5.125 0.802 48 36 6.75

v v

C C                                       

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 102

Example #2 (glulam beam):

Check Stresses:

3

M 3,110,000 in-# = 2133 S 1,458 in

bx

f psi            

' '

2400 1.15 1.0 1.0 0.802 2214 2133

bx b D M t V bx

F F C C C C F psi psi psi OK bending    

1.5V 1.5(22,000) = 135.8 A 243

v

f psi          

' '

215 1.15 1.0 1.0 247 135.8

v v D M t v

F F C C C F psi psi psi OK shear    

slide-35
SLIDE 35

11/6/2016 35

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 103

Example #2 (glulam beam):

Check Deflection:

kD+S = 0.5 (0.53) + 1.87 = 2.14” < L / 240 = 2.40” OK S = 1.87 > L / 360 = 1.60” NG (need to redesign) Try 6.75" x 39" Glulam (this will work, see handout)

4 4 3 3 D 4

5w L 5(200#/ft)(48ft) (1,728in /ft ) = 0.53" 384E I 384(1,700,000psi)26,240in

D

   

4 4 3 3 S 4

5w L 5(700#/ft)(48ft) (1,728in /ft ) = 1.87" 384E I 384(1,700,000psi)26,240in

S

   

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 104

Example #3 (glulam beam, intermediate supports):

This example uses 6.75" x 36" Glulam to compare CL & Cv Use smaller of CL or Cv, but not both: Ey min’ = Ey min (CM)(Ct) = 790,000 (1.0)(1.0) = 790,000 psi For lateral stability:

          

' * e 2 2

2.06 2.06 96" 198" l d 198(36) = 12.51 b 6.75

bx b D M t L bx b D M t e u B

F F C C C C F F C C C l l R       

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 105

Example #3 (glulam beam, intermediate supports):

       

' min 2 2 * * *

1.20 1.20 790000 6058 12.51 2400 1.15 1.0 1.0 2760 1 6058 1 2.195 2.195 1.681 2760 1.9 1.9

y bE B bx bE bE bx bx

E F psi R F psi F F F and F           

 

2 * * * bE b bE b bE b 2

1 F / F 1 F / F F / F

  • 1.9

1.9 0.95 1.681 1.681 2.195/ 0.95 0.962 0.802 0.962

L L V L

C C C C                  Volume effect controls

slide-36
SLIDE 36

11/6/2016 36

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 106

Example #4 (sawn lumber wood post):

Given: Conditions are such that l x = l y = 10.0 ft. Load is 15 kips and is combined dead and roof live loads. MC  19 % & normal temperature

Analyze a 4x6 column in No. 1 Douglas Fir-Larch

Solution: MC  19 %, CM = 1.0, and normal temperature, Ct = 1.0. 4x6 Properties: Fc = 1500 psi (NDS Supplement, Table 4A) CF = 1.1 size factor for compression, dimension category Emin = 620,000 psi A = 19.25 in.2 Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 107

Example #4 (sawn lumber wood post):

From column formula: Emin’= Emin(CM)(Ct) = 620,000(1.0)1.0 = 620,000 psi F*

c = Fc (CD)(CM) (Ct)(CF) = 1500(1.25)1.0(1.0)1.1 = 2063 psi e e max y

l K l 1(10ft)12in.ft 34.3 d d 3.5in               

 

min cE 2 2 e

0.822 620000 0.822E ' F 433 (l /d) (34.3) psi    210 . 2063 433 F F

* c cE

 

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 108

Example #4 (sawn lumber wood post):

Fc = 1500(1.25)1.0(1.0)1.1(0.200) = 413 psi Pallowable = FcA = 0.413(19.25) = 7.9 kips < 15.0 kips NG

* cE c

1 F /F 1 0.210 0.756 2c 2(0.8)    

 

2 * * * cE c cE c cE c P 2 P

1 F / F 1 F / F F / F C 2c 2c c 0.210 C 0.756 0.756 0.200 0.8               

slide-37
SLIDE 37

11/6/2016 37

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 109

Example #4 (sawn lumber wood post):

Analyze 6x6 column (same situation as above): From (NDS Supplement Table 4D), post and timber size: Fc = 1000 psi CF = 1.0 size factor for compression, for all but dimension Emin = 580,000 psi A = 30.25 in.2 From column formula: Emin’= Emin (CM)(Ct) = 580,000(1.0)1.0= 580,000 psi

l d 1(10)12 5.5in

e max

        218 .

 

min cE 2 2 e

0.822E ' 0.822(580,000) F 1003 (l /d) 21.8 psi   

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 110

Example #4 (sawn lumber wood post):

Fc = 1000(1.25)1.0(1.0)1.1(0.611) = 840 psi Pallowable = FcA = 0.840(30.25) = 25.4 kips > 15.0 kips Good Note: Had the 4x6 been braced at mid-height in the weak direction it would also be acceptable

* cE c

1 F /F 1 0.803 1.127 2c 2(0.8)    

 

2 P

0.803 C 1.127 1.127 0.611 0.8    

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 111

Example #5 (stud wall, vertical only):

14' 2x6 Studs @ 16" o.c. No.1 DF-Larch

LOADS wDL = 800 plf wFLL = 800 plf wRLL = 400 plf thus P DL = 800 x 1.33 = 1064 # P FLL = 800 x 1.33 = 1064 # P RLL = 400 x 1.33 = 532 # P

slide-38
SLIDE 38

11/6/2016 38

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 112

Example #5 (stud wall, vertical only):

Analyze the adequacy of the stud wall for the indicated loads. Solution: From NDS Supplement Table 1B: A = 8.25 in.2 Sx= 7.56 in.3 From NDS Supplement Table 4A: Fc = 1500 psi Emin = 620,000 psi Fc = 625 psi

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 113

Example #5 (stud wall, vertical only):

Combine dead load + floor live load + roof live load:

P = 1064 + 1064 + 532 = 2660 lb fc = P/A = 2660/8.25 = 322 psi (le/d)y = 0 (le/d)x = 14 x 12 / 5.5 = 30.6 Emin= Emin(CM)(Ct)(CT) = 620,000(1.0)1.0(1.0) = 620,000 psi F*

c = Fc (CD)(CM) (Ct)(CF) = 1500(1.25)1.0(1.0)1.1 = 2063 psi

 

min cE 2 2 e

0.822E ' 0.822(620,000) F 544 (l /d) 30.6 psi    264 . 2063 544 F F

* c cE

 

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 114

Example #5 (stud wall, vertical only):

Fc = 1500(1.25)1.0(1.0)1.1(0.248) = 512 psi > 322 psi Good

Check Bearing F'c = 625(CM)(Ct)(Cb) where: Cb = and lb is the length of bearing measure parallel to grain

F'c = 625(1.0)1.0 [(1.5 + 0.375) / 1.5] = 781 psi > 322 psi OK

2x6 studs of No.1 DF-L OK

* cE c

1 F /F 1 0.264 0.790 2c 2(0.8)      

2 P

0.264 C 0.790 0.790 0.248 0.8    

slide-39
SLIDE 39

11/6/2016 39

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 115

Example #6 (glulam post):

Given: Conditions are such that l x = l y = 20.0 ft. (pinned top and bottom) Load is 25 kips and is combined dead and roof live loads. MC  16 % & normal temperature

Analyze 6.75x7.5 column in No. 1 Douglas Fir-Larch combination 1

Solution: MC  16 %, CM = 1.0, and normal temperature, Ct = 1.0. 6.75x7.5 Properties: Fc = 1550 psi (NDS Supplement, Table 5B) Emin = 790,000 psi A = 50.625 in.2 Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 116

Example #6 (glulam post):

From column formula: Emin’= Emin(CM)(Ct) = 620,000(1.0)1.0 = 620,000 psi F*

c = Fc (CD)(CM) (Ct) = 1550(1.25)1.0(1.0) = 1938 psi e e max y

l K l 1(20ft)12in.ft 35.56 d d 6.75in               

 

2 min cE 2 2 e

0.822 790000 0.822E ' F 514 , 0.822 (l /d) (35.56) 12 psi     

cE * c

F 514 0.265 F 1938  

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 117

Example #6 (glulam post):

Fc = 1550(1.25)1.0(1.0)0.256 = 496 psi Pallowable = FcA = 0.496(50.625) = 25.12 kips > 25.0 kips OK

* cE c

1 F /F 1 0.256 0.703 c = 0.9 (glulams) 2c 2(0.9)    

 

2 * * * cE c cE c cE c P 2 P

1 F / F 1 F / F F / F C 2c 2c c 0.265 C 0.703 0.703 0.256 0.9               

slide-40
SLIDE 40

11/6/2016 40

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 118

Example #7 (compression & bending in truss top chord):

Given:

4960#

7'-6" 3'-9"

w = 176# / ft.

roof construction

4960#

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 119

Example #7 (compression in truss top chord):

Given: 2x10 Hem fir #1 or Better Top Chord Concentrated load at the ridge is dead plus snow loads (D + S) Connections are single row of ¾-in. bolts. MC < 19% & normal temperature Compression in the top chord is 4960# (consider compression only) Uniform load on the top chord is 176# / ft. Assume that Cr = 1.0 (members are not repetitive). Is 2x10 top chord is adequate? (consider compression w/ D + S loading) Length = 8.385 feet. Assume that CL = 1.0

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 120

Example #7 (compression in truss top chord):

Solution: Dimensional properties: Material properties: Adjusted properties:

2 3

13.88 , 21.39 A in S in   psi E C psi F C psi F

F c F b

550000 . 1 1350 1 . 1 1100

min 

    psi E psi psi F psi psi F

c b

550000 1553 . 1 ) 15 . 1 ( 1350 1392 1 . 1 ) 15 . 1 ( 1100

' min * '

    

slide-41
SLIDE 41

11/6/2016 41

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 121

Example #7 (compression in truss top chord):

Axial stress:

psi in f c 357 88 . 13 # 4960

2 

          

2 2 ' min 2 2 *

7.5 3.75 8.385 . 8.385 12"/ 10.88 9.25 0.822 550000 0.822 3821 10.88 3821 2.46 1553

e e cE e cE c

l ft ft ft l d in psi E F psi l d F psi F psi                

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 122

Example #7 (compression in truss top chord):

Stability calcs:

 

2 * * * 2 ' *

0.8 1 1 2 2 1 2.46 1 2.46 2.46 0.897 1.6 1.6 0.8 1553 0.897 1393

cE cE cE c c c P P c c P

c sawn F F F F F F C c c c C F F C psi                                 

'

357 0.256 1.0 1393

c c

f psi OK compression only F psi   

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 123

Example #7 (compression & bending in truss top chord):

Add bending using horizontal projection method: Horizontal projected length = 7.5 feet Combined loading:

   

psi in ft ft f ft ft ft l w M

b roof

694 39 . 21 / " 12 # 1238 # 1238 8 . 5 . 7 . / # 176 8

3 2 2

       OK psi psi psi psi psi psi F f F f F f

cE c b b c c

. 1 616 . 3821 357 1 1392 694 1393 357 1

2 ' 2 '

                                      

slide-42
SLIDE 42

11/6/2016 42

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 124

Example #8 (compression & bending in stud wall):

w = 1500# / ft. P = 1500# / ft. (16" o.c.) / (12" / ft.) P = 2000# / stud 14'-0"

wind stud stud stud

unit load = 11.25psf

stud

w

wind

w = 11.25psf (16" o.c.) / (12"/ ft.) = 15 plf

Determine the adequacy of the stud wall for the indicated loads

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 125

Example #8 (compression & bending in stud wall):

Dimensional properties: Material properties: Adjusted properties:

3 2

56 . 7 25 . 8 in S in A   psi E C psi F C psi F

F c F b

620000 1 . 1 1500 3 . 1 1000

min 

   

 

psi E psi psi F psi psi F

c b

620000 2640 1 . 1 ) 60 . 1 ( 1500 2392 15 . 1 3 . 1 ) 60 . 1 ( 1000

' min * '

    

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 126

Example #8 (compression & bending in stud wall):

Axial stress: Adjusted properties: psi in f c 242 25 . 8 # 2000

2 

 

54 . 30 5 . 5 / " 12 14   in ft ft d le

   

' min 2 2 *

0.822 620000 0.822 546 30.54 546 0.207, 0.8 2640

cE e cE c

psi E F psi l d F psi c sawn F psi            

2

1 0.207 1 0.207 0.207 0.197 1.6 1.6 0.8

P

C            

slide-43
SLIDE 43

11/6/2016 43

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 127

Example #8 (compression & bending in stud wall):

Bending stress: Combined stresses:

 

' *

2640 0.197 521

c c P

F F C psi        psi in ft ft f ft ft ft l w M

b wind

583 56 . 7 / " 12 # 368 # 368 8 . 14 . / # 15 8

3 2 2

       244 . 2392 583

'

  psi psi F f

b b

OK psi psi psi psi psi psi F f F f F f

cE c b b c c

. 1 654 . 546 242 1 2392 583 521 242 1

2 ' 2 '

                                      

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 128

Example #9 (tension in truss bottom chord):

Given:

2x6 No. 2 DF-L (Douglas Fir - Larch) bottom chord Concentrated load at ridge is dead load & roof const. loads (D + Lr). Connections are single row of ¾-in. bolts, normal moist. & temp.

6000# 5000 5000 4000 4000 3000# 3000#

9ft 12ft 12ft

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 129

Example #9 (tension in truss bottom chord):

Forces in all the members are shown

Load in center web member = 0 # , load in bottom chord Cr = 1.0 (members are not repetitive)

Find if the 2x6 bottom chord is adequate (consider D + Lr loading only)

Allowable stresses for bottom chord: Ft = 575 psi CD = 1.25 CF = 1.3 Dimensional properties: A= 8.25in2 12' 3000# 4000# 9' T        

slide-44
SLIDE 44

11/6/2016 44

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 130

Example #9 (tension in truss bottom chord):

Stress in gross bottom chord (Ag) and net bottom chord (An) :

 

2 2 2

4000# 484 8.25 0.0625 8.25 1.5(0.75 0.0625) 7.03 4000# 569 7.03

t g n g Bolt t n

T f psi A in A A b d in T f psi A in             

'

569 0.61 1.0 934

t t

f psi OK F psi   

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 131

Example #10 (tension and bending in truss bottom chord):

Given:

2x6 No. 2 DF-L (Douglas Fir - Larch) bottom chord Concentrated load at ridge is dead load & roof const. loads (D + Lr). Connections are single row of ¾-in. bolts, normal moist. & temp.

6000 lb 3360 lb 3360 lb 9' 12' 12' wD =30 #/ft.

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 132

Example #10 (tension and bending in truss bottom chord):

Forces in all the members are shown

Load in center web member = 0 # , load in bottom chord Cr = 1.0 (members are not repetitive)

Find if the 2x6 bottom chord is adequate (consider D + Lr loading only)

Allowable stresses for bottom chord: Ft = 575 psi Fb = 900 psi CD = 1.25 CF = 1.3 F*

b = FbCDCF = 900(1.25)1.3 = 1463 psi

12' 3180# 4240# 9' T        

slide-45
SLIDE 45

11/6/2016 45

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 133

Example #10 (tension and bending in truss bottom chord):

Dimensional properties: A= 8.25in2 S= 7.56in3 CL = 1.0 assume top of chord braced in compression

2 2

4240# 514 8.25 4240# 603 7.03

t g t n

T f psi A in T f psi A in      

psi psi C C F F

F D t t

934 ) 3 . 1 )( 25 . 1 ( 575

'

   psi E 580000

min 

psi psi C C E E

t M

580000 ) . 1 )( . 1 ( 580000

min ' min

  

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 134

Example #10 (tension and bending in truss bottom chord):

Check combined stresses:

'

569 0.61 1.0 934

t t

f psi OK at bolt holes F psi   

2

6480# 857 7.56

b

M in f psi S in      

' ' *

514 857 1.14 1.0 934 1463 1.0 857 514 0.23 1.0 1463 1.0

t b t b L b t b L

f f psi psi NG F F psi psi C f f OK F C           

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 135

Example #11 (horizontal diaphragm for seismic or wind):

Given:

4 @ 30' = 120' 22' 15' 33' wL= 500 lb/ft wT = 400 lb/ft 2x4 subpurlins purlins header girder 23.33' 23.33' 23.33'

slide-46
SLIDE 46

11/6/2016 46

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 136

Example #11 (horizontal diaphragm for seismic or wind):

The single-story wood-frame warehouse shown Assume roof sheathing of 3/8 in. STR I is adequate for vertical loads

Lateral ASD forces to the roof diaphragm are: wT = 400 lb/ft seismic, 390 lb/ft wind wL = 500 lb/ft seismic, 390 lb/ft wind L/b = 120/70 = 1.71 < 3 (OK for unblocked per NDS Table 4.2.4) V = R = wL/2 = 400(120)/2 = 24 k seismic, 23.4 k wind vroof = V/b = 24,000/70 = 343 lb/ft seismic, 334 lb/ft wind

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 137

Example #11 (horizontal diaphragm for seismic or wind):

400 lb/ft 343 lb/ft 343 lb/ft 240 lb/ft 240 lb/ft x = 240(60/343) = 42' v 18' min 84' max 18' min blocked unblocked blocked 120' Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 138

Example #11 (horizontal diaphragm for seismic or wind):

For ASD, allowable values shown above must be divided by 2 vallow = 720 / 2 = 360 #/ft > vroof = 343 #/ft therefore 8d @ 4”, 6”, 12”

NDS - Wind and Seismic: Table 4.2A Sheathing Grade Common Nail Size Minimum Fastener Penetration Minimum Nominal Panel Thickness in. Minimum Nominal Width of Nailed Face Seismic Nailing at boundaries, continuous edges parallel to load 6 4 2-1/2 2 Nailing at other panel edges 6 6 4 3 v (plf) v (plf) v (plf) v (plf) Structural I 6d 1-1/4 5/16 2 370 500 750 840 3 420 560 840 950 8d 1-3/8 3/8 2 540 720 1060 1200 3 600 800 1200 1350 10d 1-1/2 15/32 2 640 850 1280 1460 3 720 960 1440 1640

slide-47
SLIDE 47

11/6/2016 47

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 139

Example #12 (members with notches):

Given:

Unit load = 10psf dead load + 40psf live load Uniform load on the joists:

wD+L

2.25" 15'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 11.25"

2x12 F.J. @ 24" o.c. 2.25" notch at support 1.5"x 4" long notch

11 2" 61 2"

1.5"x 6.5" long notch

31 2" 31 2"

 

10 40 2 100#/ w psf psf ft ft   

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 140

Example #12 (members with notches):

Total shear at ends: Shear stress (if uncut): Shear stress (@ end notches):

    2

1.5 1.5

v Bottom Notch v Top Notch n n n n

V d V f f bd d d d b d e d                         100#/ 15 750# 2 2 ft ft wl V   

   

11.25" 2.25" 9" 11.25" 1.5" 9.75" 6.5" 3.5" 3"

n n Left Right

d d e         

   

1.5 750# 1.5 66.7 1.5" 11.25"

v

V f psi bd    Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 141

Example #12 (members with notches):

Almost 2x stress of member without notch

Note bending stress at notch is 18% higher than at center

 

   

 

   

2

1.5 750# 11.25" 130 1.5" 9" 9" 1.5 750# 69.5 11.25" 9.75" 1.5" 11.25" 6.5" 3.5" 9.75"

v Bottom Notch v Top Notch

f psi f psi                         

 

2

100#/ 15 2813# 8 ft ft M ft     

3

12" 2813# . 1 . 1067 31.64

b

ft ft f psi in   

 

2

100#/ 5 750#(5 ) 2500# 2 ft ft M ft ft      

2 2 3

1.5 11.25" 1.5" 23.76 6 6

n Notch

bd S in    

 

 

3

12" 2500# . 1 . 1262 23.76

b notch

ft ft f psi in   

slide-48
SLIDE 48

11/6/2016 48

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 142

Example #13 (bolted double shear connection):

Given: Diagonal 2x6 with D + Lfloor, PD = 1200 #

Analyze if the connection is adequate Z' = Z (CD)(CM )(Ct)(Cg)(CD)(Ceg)(Cdi)(Ctn)

Bolt At Diagonal 2x6 Diagonal

  • btwn. (2) 2x6

Bottom Chord Truss Joint 2 1 P

D .

O

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 143

Example #13 (bolted double shear connection):

NDS: Table 11-F Thickness Bolt Diameter G = 0.50 Douglas Fir-Larch Main Member Side Member Z║ lbs. Zs┴ lbs. Zm┴ lbs. 1-1/2 1-1/2 1/2 1050 730 470 5/8 1310 1040 530 3/4 1580 1170 590 7/8 1840 1260 630 1 2100 1350 680

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 144

Example #13 (bolted double shear connection):

From Table 11F: Z(parallel) = 1580#, CD = CM = Ct = CD = 1.0, therefore Z’ = 1580# > 1200# OK Diagonal Check bottom chord (double shear):

        1 2 2

2 tan 63.43 sin cos 1

e parallel e perpendicular e e parallel e perpendicular

F F F F F

  

 

        

 

       

2 2

1580# 1170# 1234# 1200# 1580# sin 63.43 1170# cos 63.43

e

F OK

 

  

 

slide-49
SLIDE 49

11/6/2016 49

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 145

Example #14 (bolted single shear connection):

Given:

Double 2x6 DF-L No. 2 top plate (wind chord force) T = 6400#, therefore splice must resist T/2 = 3200# (3) 3/4” diameter bolts each side of splice Analyze if connection is adequate

Bolt Group

  • n each side
  • f splice

Splice 2 - 2x6 Top Plate T T "Plan View" Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 146

Example #14 (bolted single shear connection):

NDS: Table 11-A Thickness Bolt Diameter G = 0.50 Douglas Fir-Larch Main Member Side Member Z║ lbs. Zs┴ lbs. Zm┴ lbs. 1-1/2 1-1/2 1/2 480 300 300 5/8 600 360 360 3/4 720 420 420 7/8 850 470 470 1 970 530 530

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 147

Example #14 (bolted single shear connection):

Z = 720# from Table 11A CD = 1.6 (wind chord force), CM = Ct = CD = 1.0 Group action factor, Cg - Table 10.3.6A: For D = 1", s = 4", E = 1,400,000 psi As/Am As Number of fasteners in a row 2 3 4 5 6 0.5 5 0.98 0.92 0.84 0.75 0.68 12 0.99 0.96 0.92 0.87 0.81 20 0.99 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.87 1 5 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.85 0.78 12 1.00 0.99 0.96 0.93 0.88 20 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.95 0.92

slide-50
SLIDE 50

11/6/2016 50

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 148

Example #14 (bolted single shear connection):

Interpolating: Z' = Z (CD)(CM )(Ct)(Cg)(CD) = 720# (1.6) (0.979) = 1128# / bolt (3) 3/4” ϕ bolts, Tallow = (3 bolts) 1128#/ bolt = 3383# > 3200# OK bolts Check top plate:

 

2 2 6

8.25 8.25 5 0.99 0.97 0.97 0.979 12 5

x g

A in C       

   

2 2

8.25 1.5" 0.75" 0.0625" 7.03 ' 575 (1.6)1.3 1196

n t t D F

A in in F F C C psi psi       

2

1196 (7.03 ) 8408# 6400# 2 6 T psi in OK x plate   

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 149

Example #15 (nailed single shear connection):

Given: Chord Force = 1094# 16d Common Nails in Douglas Fir-Larch (G = 0.50) (2) member connections, refer to Table 11N (page 105, NDS) CD = 1.6 (wind chord force) Z = 141# (see Table 11N) Use (5) 16d common nails at top plate splice

Header Splice Splice T T

 

' 141#(1.6) 225#/ 1094# 4.9 5 ' 225#/

D

Z Z C nail T N Z nail       

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 150

Example #15 (nailed single shear connection):

Single shear nail connection - Table 11N: Side Member Thickness ts in. Nail Diameter D in. Common Wire Nail Box Nail Sinker Nail G = 0.50 Douglas Fir-Larch lbs. 1-1/2 0.113 8d 8d 72 0.120 10d 81 0.128 10d 93 0.131 8d 97 0.135 16d 12d 103 0.148 10d 20d 16d 118 0.162 16d 40d 141

slide-51
SLIDE 51

11/6/2016 51

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 151

Examples #16 and #17 (advanced diaphragm examples):

  • Example #16 – additional roof diaphragm analysis

including span ratings and general commentary on diaphragms

  • Example #17 – second floor diaphragm analysis

including span ratings and diaphragm deflections

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 152

Outline PM

Wood Frame Design and Construction Techniques

  • Design tools and techniques
  • Anchoring to concrete or masonry
  • Beams, posts and trusses
  • Connections
  • Roof framing choices
  • Fire resistance and safety considerations
  • Cross-laminated timber (CLT)

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 153

Anchoring to concrete

Foundation

  • Anchor Bolts to Pier
  • Connect Through

Wood Sill

  • Designed for Wind
  • r Seismic

(courtesy American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA, USA)

slide-52
SLIDE 52

11/6/2016 52

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 154

Anchoring to concrete

Clearances

  • 12” Under Beams
  • 18” Under Joists

(courtesy American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA, USA)

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 155

Anchoring to concrete

Post Connection

  • 1” Above Slab
  • Pedestal
  • Barrier

(courtesy American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA, USA)

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 156

Anchoring to concrete

Post Connection (Simpson Strong-Tie)

(courtesy Simpson Strong-Tie)

slide-53
SLIDE 53

11/6/2016 53

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 157

Anchoring to concrete

Typical Raised Wood Floor on Concrete Wall

  • Sill Bolted Down
  • Sill Pressure Treated
  • Connection Between

Sill and Framing Above

(courtesy American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA, USA)

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 158

Anchoring to concrete

Raised Wood Floor Girder

  • n Concrete Wall
  • Girder Support Pocket
  • Proprietary Connection

Often Used for Seismic Loading

(courtesy American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA, USA) (courtesy Simpson Strong-Tie)

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 159

Anchoring to concrete

Sill Plate to Concrete

  • Maximum End Distance = 12”

(courtesy American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA, USA)

slide-54
SLIDE 54

11/6/2016 54

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 160

Anchoring to concrete

Balloon Framed Wall Condition at Concrete Stem Wall

(courtesy American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA, USA)

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 161

Outline PM

Wood Frame Design and Construction Techniques

  • Design tools and techniques
  • Anchoring to concrete or masonry
  • Beams, posts and trusses
  • Connections
  • Roof framing choices
  • Fire resistance and safety considerations
  • Cross-laminated timber (CLT)

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 162

Beams, posts and trusses

Beams/joists

  • Sawn wood members (large members subject to twist)
  • Glulams
  • Parallams
  • Microllams (LVL)

Posts

  • Sawn wood members (large members subject to twist)
  • Glulam Posts
  • Pipe or tube steel
slide-55
SLIDE 55

11/6/2016 55

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 163

Beams, posts and trusses

Posts Connections

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 164

Beams, posts and trusses

Trusses

  • I – joists (Trus Joist, Struct Joist, etc.)
  • Open-web wood trusses (attached with gang-nail plates)
  • Hybrid: bar joist with wood nailer

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 165

Outline PM

Wood Frame Design and Construction Techniques

  • Project conception and material choices
  • Design tools and techniques
  • Anchoring to concrete or masonry
  • Beams, posts and trusses
  • Connections
  • Roof framing choices
  • Fire resistance and safety considerations
slide-56
SLIDE 56

11/6/2016 56

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 166

Nails

Types

  • Box Nails
  • Sinker Nails
  • Common Nails

Typical Sizes

  • 60d to 4d
  • 1-1/2” to 6” long

(courtesy American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA, USA)

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 167

I – Joist Connection

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 168

Commercial Roof Connections

slide-57
SLIDE 57

11/6/2016 57

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 169

Residential Roof Connections

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 170

Shear Wall Connections

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 171

Shear Wall Connections

slide-58
SLIDE 58

11/6/2016 58

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 172

Outline PM

Wood Frame Design and Construction Techniques

  • Design tools and techniques
  • Anchoring to concrete or masonry
  • Beams, posts and trusses
  • Connections
  • Roof framing choices
  • Fire resistance and safety considerations
  • Cross-laminated timber (CLT)

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 173

Roof framing choices

  • Hybrid - Steel w/

Wood Deck

  • Open Web

Wood Trusses

  • Glulams
  • I – Joists
  • Sawn Lumber

(courtesy Simpson Strong-Tie)

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 174

Roof framing choices

  • Open Web Wood

Truss Connection

  • Hip-Ridge-Hip

(courtesy Simpson Strong-Tie)

slide-59
SLIDE 59

11/6/2016 59

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 175

Roof framing choices

  • Framing Configuration

(courtesy Simpson Strong-Tie)

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 176

Roof framing choices

  • Framing Configuration

Cost (as of 9-29-10) equals $750/MBF (1000 Board Feet) 5-1/8 x 24 GLB = 0.75 (16 BF/ft.) (40 ft.) = $480.00 5-1/8 x 28-1/2 GLB = 0.75 (19 BF/ft.) (60 ft.) = $855.00 5-1/8 x 31-1/2 GLB = 0.75 (21 BF/ft.) (50 ft.) = $787.50 (each) Difference in cost: Cantilever + Supported Beam Cost: $480.00 + $855.00 = $1335.00 Two Simply Supported Beams Cost: $787.50 + $787.50 = $1575.00 Tributary Area:

  • 24ft. x 100ft. = 2400 sq.ft.

Cost per square foot savings: ($1575 - $1335) / 2400 = $0.10 sq. ft.

(courtesy Simpson Strong-Tie)

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 177

Outline PM

Wood Frame Design and Construction Techniques

  • Design tools and techniques
  • Anchoring to concrete or masonry
  • Beams, posts and trusses
  • Connections
  • Roof framing choices
  • Fire resistance and safety considerations
  • Cross-laminated timber (CLT)
slide-60
SLIDE 60

11/6/2016 60

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 178

Fire resistance and safety considerations

Examples of fire resistive wood construction (includes CLT)

  • Heavy timber – Type IV construction (examples)
  • Minimum 1-1/8” plywood T&G at roof
  • Minimum 3”decking with 1” T&G flooring at floors
  • Minimum size 3” x 6” nominal for roofs w/ sprinklers
  • Minimum size 4” x 6” nominal for roofs w/o sprinklers
  • Minimum size 6” x 10” nominal for floors (trusses 8” x 8”)
  • Fire-retardant-treated wood framing (may be used in

non-combustible construction in both non-bearing walls and in roof construction)

  • Used in Type I and II construction

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 179

Fire Resisting Details

Pipe Penetration

courtesy American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA, USA

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 180

Fire Resisting Details

Firestopping at Ceiling

courtesy American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA, USA

slide-61
SLIDE 61

11/6/2016 61

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 181

Fire Resisting Details

Firestopping of Masonry Walls at Floor

courtesy American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA, USA

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 182

Fire Resisting Details

Firestopping of Masonry Walls at Ceiling

courtesy American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA, USA

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 183

Fire Resisting Details

Draftstopping of Floors to Limit Fire Spread

courtesy American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA, USA

slide-62
SLIDE 62

11/6/2016 62

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 184

Outline PM

Wood Frame Design and Construction Techniques

  • Design tools and techniques
  • Anchoring to concrete or masonry
  • Beams, posts and trusses
  • Connections
  • Roof framing choices
  • Fire resistance and safety considerations
  • Cross-laminated timber (CLT)

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 185

Cross-laminated Timber (CLT)

2015 NDS, Chapter 10 (alternating layers of glued plank lumber)

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 186

NDS, New Chapter 10

Allowable CLT stresses (note UPPERCASE lettering): Fb (Seff )’ = F’b (Seff ) (CD)(CM )(Ct)(CL) Ft (Aparallel)’ = Ft (Aparallel)(CD)(CM)(Ct) Fv (tv )’ = Fv (tv )(CD)(CM)(Ct) Fs (Ib/Q)eff’ = Fs (Ib/Q)eff (CM)(Ct) F’c(Aparallel)’ = Fc(Aparallel)(CD)(CM)(Ct)(CP) F’c (A) = Fc (A)(CM)(Ct)(Cb) (EI)app’ = (EI)app (CM)(Ct) (EI)app-min’ = (EI)app-min (CM)(Ct)

slide-63
SLIDE 63

11/6/2016 63

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 187

Cross-laminated Timber

  • Can be used in Type III, IV, and V Construction
  • IBC 2015, Type IV –

6” CLT walls* 4” CLT floors 3” CLT roofs * 2-hour fire-rated exterior walls, non fire-retardant treated CLT allowed in exterior walls of Type IV construction provided CLT is covered by:

  • 15/32” fire-retardant-treated wood sheathing
  • 1/2” gypsum board
  • non-combustible material

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 188

Cross-laminated Timber

Flexural capacity check (ASD): Most cases CM, Ct and CL = 1.0

       

b b eff b b eff eff b b eff D M t L b eff

M F S ' M applied bending moment F S ' adjusted bendingcapacity S effectivesection modulus F referencebendingdesign valueof outer lamination F S ' C C C C F S       Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 189

ANSI/APA PRG 320-2012 (ASD table)

CLT Grade CLT, t (in.) parallel (in.) transv. (in.) parallel (in.) transv. (in.) parallel (in.) Fb,0 (psi) FbSeff,0 (lbf‐ft) E,0 (106 psi) EIeff,0 (106 lbf‐in.2) V1 4 1/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 900 2090 1.6 108 6 7/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 900 4800 1.6 415 V2 4 1/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 875 2030 1.4 95 6 7/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 875 4675 1.4 363 V3 4 1/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 975 2270 1.6 108 6 7/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 975 5200 1.6 415

slide-64
SLIDE 64

11/6/2016 64

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 190

Cross-laminated Timber

Effective Section Modulus, Seff: Table value is calculated FbSeff,0 multiplied by 0.85 for conservatism Example for 4.125” panel, CLT grade V1, major axis:

 

 

 

  eff eff 1 eff 1 6 b eff,0 Tablevalue 6

2EI S E h EI Effective bending stiffness E Modulus of elasticity of outermost layer h Entire thickness of panel 2 108x10 psi F S 0.85 900psi 25036"# 2086'# 2090'# 1.6x10 psi 4.125"         Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 191

Cross-laminated Timber

Shear capacity check (ASD):

       

 

planar s eff planar s s eff s M t s M t eff eff s

V F Ib/ Q ' V appliedshear F Ib/Q ' adjustedshear strength F Ib/Q ' C C F Ib/Q C C isfromrollingshearallowablefrommanufactur V erdata V      Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 192

Cross-laminated Timber

What is rolling shear?

  • Rolling shear creates diagonal tension in transverse layers
  • Results in higher shear deformation in transverse layers
  • Accounted for in modified (strength and deformation equations)
slide-65
SLIDE 65

11/6/2016 65

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 193

Cross-laminated Timber

North American Manufacturers (contacts for more information) Nordic Structures in Quebec, Canada http://nordic.ca/ Structurlam in British Columbia, Canada http://structurlam.com/ DR Johnson Lumber in Riddle, Oregon http://www.drjlumber.com/ Smartlam in Whitefish, Montana http://smartlam.com/

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 194

Cross-laminated Timber

Connections: Single surface spline

(with self-tapping screws) (RED)

Double surface spline

(RED)

Single internal spline

(RED)

Half-lapped connection

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 195

Cross-laminated Timber

Connections:

courtesy of Structurlam

slide-66
SLIDE 66

11/6/2016 66

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 196

Cross-laminated Timber

Connections:

courtesy of Structurlam

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 197

Cross-laminated Timber

Connections:

courtesy of Structurlam

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 198

Cross-laminated Timber

Connections (flat roof to beam):

courtesy of Structurlam

slide-67
SLIDE 67

11/6/2016 67

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 199

Cross-laminated Timber

Connections (floor to beam):

courtesy of Structurlam

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 200

Cross-laminated Timber

Connections (wall to foundation):

courtesy of Structurlam

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 201

Cross-laminated Timber

Connections (flat roof to wall):

courtesy of Structurlam

slide-68
SLIDE 68

11/6/2016 68

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 202

Cross-laminated Timber

Connections (beam to wall):

courtesy of Structurlam

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 203

Cross-laminated Timber

Connections (hold down):

courtesy of Structurlam

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 204

Cross-laminated Timber

Connections:

courtesy of Structurlam

slide-69
SLIDE 69

11/6/2016 69

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 205

Cross-laminated Timber

Connections:

courtesy of Structurlam

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 206

Cross-laminated Timber

Connections: Steel ledger Wood ledger Platform framing.

(screws floor to wall)

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 207

Example #18 (cross-laminated timber floor)

   

D 2 2 b

Given : CLTGrade V3 Mechanicalloads 75psf, total uniformload 115#/ft C 1.00(occupancyloads) 115#/ft 15.5ft wL M 3454# ft 8 8 115#/ ft 15.5ft wL V 891# 2 2           

slide-70
SLIDE 70

11/6/2016 70

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 208

Example #18 (cross-laminated timber floor)

         

b eff ,0 b eff D M t L b eff ,0 b eff ,0 b eff D M t L b eff ,0 s,0

F S ' F S C C C C F S 5200# ft PRG320 2012 3454# ft Alternate: Structurlam V2M1.1 F S ' F S C C C C F S 4725# ft, V #/ft 1980# 981#              OK OK

CLT Grade CLT, t (in.) parallel (in.) transv. (in.) parallel (in.) transv. (in.) parallel (in.) transv. (in.) parallel (in.) FbSeff,0 (lbf‐ft/ft) EIeff,0 (106 lbf‐in.2/ft) V1 4 1/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 2090 108 6 7/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 4800 415 9 5/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 8500 1027 V2 4 1/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 2030 95 6 7/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 4675 363 9 5/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 8275 898 V3 4 1/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 2270 108 6 7/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 5200 415 9 5/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 1 3/8 9200 1027

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 209

Cross-laminated Timber

Lateral Capacity (in the works…) CLT only option: R = 2 – CLT shear walls used with metal clips at top & bottom Uses “rocking” panel concept Ductility/damage occurs at clip locations Hybrid CLT/concrete: S.O.M.* proposed CLT/concrete with steel dowel connections Steel dowels epoxied into CLT Extra dowels or steel columns at wall ends *See Skidmore, Owings & Merrill: Timber Tower Research Project

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 210

Cross-laminated Timber (CLT)

Lateral Capacity (in the works…) Concrete/steel frames: Uses conventional steel or concrete moment

  • r braced frames resist lateral loads

Higher R values – but with non-timber CLT / steel link beam: Uses multi-story CLT shear walls connected via steel link beams Ductility/damage occurs at link beams CLT research: Develop ductile CLT replaceable joinery CLT stays elastic, joinery provides ductility

slide-71
SLIDE 71

11/6/2016 71

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 211

Cross-laminated Timber

CLT only option: Brackets at Base of Walls (FPInnovations (FPI) Study)

Simpson Strong-Tie ABR105, 16d-SDE nails (also available: SFS1 or SFS2 screws) Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 212

Cross-laminated Timber

CLT only option: with Brackets at Base of Walls per FPI (kips per wall)

Fastener Type: 16d-SDE Wall Length (ft.) Single-panel Wall Multi-panel Wall

  • No. of Brackets

Bracket Installation 3 4 5 6 2x4 3x4 4x4 5x4 2 S 2.6 3.5 4.4 5.3 4.5 5.8 7.1 8.4 DE 3.9 5.2 6.5 7.8 7.1 9.7 12.4 15.0 DA 3.9 5.2 6.5 7.8 7.1 9.7 12.4 15.0 3 S 3.1 4.1 5.1 6.2 5.5 7.3 9.1 10.9 DE 5.7 7.6 9.5 11.5 9.9 13.1 16.2 19.4 DA 4.8 6.4 8.0 9.6 9.1 12.8 16.4 20.1 4 S 3.6 4.8 6.0 7.2 6.5 8.9 11.2 13.6 DE 6.2 8.3 10.3 12.5 11.0 14.7 18.3 22.0 DA 5.8 7.7 9.6 11.6 11.2 15.9 20.7 25.4

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 213

Cross-laminated Timber

Lateral Resistance: CLT Shear Wall / Frame Hybrids Plus: Ongoing Research Using Other Ductile-type Connections…

slide-72
SLIDE 72

11/6/2016 72

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 214

Cross-laminated Timber

Lateral Resistance: Ductile Moment or Braced Frames Proven Ductility Using Steel or Concrete Plus: CLT Shear Walls with Steel or Concrete Frames

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 215

Summary:

Codes Required: 2015 IBC – International Building Code ASCE 7-10 – Building Loads 2015 NDS – National Design Specifications for Wood Construction (now includes Cross-laminated Timber) ANSI/APA PRG 320-2012 (ASD tables for Cross-laminated Timber) CLT Handbook

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 216

References:

Evelyn Simak, (1904), “St Mary's church - the nave roof”, via Wikimedia Commons (free use images) Lueger, O., (1904), “Lexikon der gesamten Technik”, via Wikimedia Commons (free use images) DC, (2011), “Francais: Deux Chevilles en bois dans une charpente ancienne”, via Wikimedia Commons (free use images) Audel, T., (1923), “Audel’s Carpenter’s and Builders Guide”, 72 Fifth AVE., New York, NY via Wikimedia Commons (free use images) Jaksmata (2008), “House in Katy Texas” via Wikimedia Commons (free use images) Breyer et al. (2007) “Design of Wood Structures – ASD/LRFD”, McGraw-Hill, 6th Edition

slide-73
SLIDE 73

11/6/2016 73

Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 217

References:

AWC (2001) “Details for Conventional Wood Frame Construction”, American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA WWPA (2004) “Common Framing Problems and how to avoid them”, Western Wood Products Association, Portland, OR AWC (2015) “2015 National Design Specification”, American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA ICC (2011) “2015 International Building Code (IBC)”, International Code Council, Country Club Hills, IL Simpson Strong-Tie (2013) “Wood Construction Connectors”, Simpson Strong-Tie, Pleasanton, CA Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 218

References:

Standard for Performance-Rated Cross-Laminated Timber AISI/APA PRG 320 (2012) CLT Handbook – www.rethinkwood.com/masstimber Structurlam Crosslam CLT Design Guide - http://structurlam.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/10/Canadian-Design-Guide-Oct-2016_LR.pdf Structural CLT Floor and Roof Construction Woodwork Webinar (Woodworks) www.woodworks.org/education-event/webinar-2016-aug-breneman/ Don Phillippi, Ph.D., SE, Architect Department of Architectural Engineering 219

Questions? Part 2