Residential Building Construction
Residential Building Construction
Residential Building Construction
Acknowledgments
This document was prepared by the NAHB Research Center, Inc. The work was sponsored
by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and cofunded by the
National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). The principal authors of the guide
are Jay Crandell, P.E., and Andrea Vrankar, P.E., R.A., with contributions from
Donald F. Luebs. Graphics were produced by Barbara Vrankar Karim, Lisa Zimmerman,
and Mary Ellen Howard. Special appreciation is extended to William Freeborne and
Riley Chung of HUD for their review and guidance throughout the project.
Appreciation is also extended to the following individuals whose comments made this
work more complete: Patrick Bridges, Bridges and Associates; Dr. Eric F.P. Burnett,
Pennsylvania Housing Research Center; Kirk Grundahl, Wood Truss Council of America;
David Mason, Southern Forest Products Association; and Mark Nowak, NAHB Research
Center, Inc. A special thank you is extended to David Gromala, Brad Douglas, David
Rosowsky, Thomas Williamson, and Michael Baker for their instructive criticism and
technical suggestions that significantly improved the soundness of this work. The
significant editorial contributions of Carol Soble are certainly recognized for the
improved quality of this writing. Finally, for the hours of hard work and rework in
pulling this document together, the authors extend many thanks to Lynda Marchman.
ABOUT THE NAHB RESEARCH CENTER, INC.
The NAHB Research Center is a not-for-profit subsidiary of the National Association
of Home Builders (NAHB). The NAHB has 190,000 members, including 50,000 builders
who build more than 80 percent of new American homes. NAHB Research Center conducts
research, analysis, and demonstration programs in all areas relating to home
building and carries out extensive programs of information dissemination and
interchange among members of the industry and between the industry and the public.
NOTICE
The contents of this report are the views of the contractor and do not necessarily
reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development or the U.S. government.
While the information in this document is believed to be accurate, neither the
authors, nor reviewers, nor the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
nor the NAHB Research Center, Inc., nor any of their employees or representatives
makes any warranty, guarantee, or representation, expressed or implied, with
respect to the accuracy, effectiveness, or usefulness of any information, method,
or material in this document, nor assumes any liability for the use of any
information, methods, or materials disclosed herein, or for damages arising from
such use. This publication is intended for the use of professional personnel who
are competent to evaluate the significance and limitations of the reported
information and who will accept responsibility for the application of the material
it contains. All responsibility as to the appropriate use of information in this
document is the responsibility of the reader or user.
The U.S. government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or
manufacturers names that appear herein are used solely because they are considered
essential to the objective of this report.
ii Residential Structural Design Guide
Foreword
The increasing complexity of homes, the use of innovative materials and
technologies, and the increased population in high-hazard areas of the United
States have introduced many challenges to the building industry and design
profession as a whole. These challenges call for the development and continual
improvement of efficient engineering methods for housing applications as well as
for the education of designers in the uniqueness of housing as a structural design
problem.
This text is an initial effort to document and improve the unique structural
engineering knowledge related to housing design and performance. It compliments
current design practices and building code requirements with value-added technical
information and guidance. In doing so, it supplements fundamental engineering
principles with various technical resources and insights that focus on improving
the understanding of conventional and engineered housing construction. Thus, it
attempts to address deficiencies and inefficiencies in past housing construction
practices and structural engineering concepts through a comprehensive design
approach that draws on existing and innovative engineering technologies in a
practical manner. The guide may be viewed as a living document subject to further
improvement as the art and science of housing design evolves.
We hope that this guide will facilitate and advance efficient design of future
housing whether built in conformance with prescriptive (i.e., conventional)
practices or specially engineered in part or whole. The desired effect is to
continue to improve the value of American housing in terms of economy and
structural performance.
Susan M. Wachter Assistant Secretary for Policy
Development and Research
Preface
This guide consists of seven chapters. The layout and application of the various
chapters are illustrated in the figure on page vii. Chapter 1 describes the basic
substance of American housing, including conventional construction practices,
alternative materials, building codes and standards, the role of design
professionals, and actual experience with respect to performance problems and
successes, particularly as related to natural hazards such as hurricanes and
earthquakes. Chapter 2 introduces basic engineering concepts regarding safety, load
path, and the structural system response of residential buildings, subassemblies,
and components to various types of loads. Chapter 3 addresses design loads
applicable to residential construction. Chapters 4 and 5 provide step-by-step
design procedures for the various components and assemblies comprising the
structure of a homefrom the foundation to the roof. Chapter 6 is devoted to the
design of light-frame homes to resist lateral loads from wind and earthquakes.
Chapter 7 addresses the design of various types of connections in a wood-framed
home that are important to the overall function of the numerous component parts. As
appropriate, the guide offers additional resources and references on the topics
addressed.
Given that most homes in the United States are built with wood structural
materials, the guide focuses on appropriate methods of design associated with wood
for the above-grade portion of the structure. Concrete or masonry are generally
assumed to be used for the below-grade portion of the structure, although
preservative-treated wood may also be used. Other materials and systems using
various innovative approaches are considered in abbreviated form as appropriate. In
some cases, innovative materials or systems can be used to address specific issues
in the design and performance of homes. For example, steel framing is popular in
Hawaii partly because of woods special
problems with decay and termite damage. Likewise, partially reinforced masonry
construction is used extensively in Florida because of its demonstrated ability to
perform in high winds.
For typical wood-framed homes, the primary markets for engineering services lie in
special load conditions, such as girder design for a custom house; corrective
measures, such as repair of a damaged roof truss or floor joist; and high-hazard
conditions such as on the West Coast (earthquakes) and the Gulf and Atlantic coasts
(hurricanes). The design recommendations in the guide are based on the best
information available to the authors for the safe and efficient design of homes.
Much of the technical information and guidance is supplemental to building codes,
standards, and design specifications that define current engineering practice. In
fact, current building codes may not explicitly recognize some of the technical
information or design methods described or recommended in the guide. Therefore, a
competent professional designer should first compare and understand any differences
between the content of this guide and local building code requirements. Any actual
use of this guide by a competent professional may require appropriate
substantiation as an "alternative method of analysis." The guide and references
provided herein should help furnish the necessary documentation.
The use of alternative means and methods of design should not be taken lightly or
without first carefully considering the wide range of implications related to the
applicable building codes minimum requirements for structural design, the local
process of accepting alternative designs, the acceptability of the proposed
alternative design method or data, and exposure to liability when attempting
something new or innovative, even when carried out correctly. It is not the intent
of this guide to steer a designer unwittingly into non-compliance with current
regulatory requirements for the practice of design as governed by local building
codes. Instead, the intent is to provide technical insights into and approaches to
home design that have not been compiled elsewhere but deserve recognition and
consideration. The guide is also intended to be instructional in a manner relevant
to the current state of the art of home design.
Finally, it is hoped that this guide will foster a better understanding among
engineers, architects, building code officials, and home builders by clarifying the
perception of homes as structural systems. As such, the guide should help
structural designers perform their services more effectively and assist in
integrating their skills with others who contribute to the production of safe and
affordable homes in the United States.
vi Residential Structural Design Guide
C H APTER 1 B A S IC S O F R E S ID E N T IA L C O N S T R U C T IO N
y C H APTER 2 x S T R U C T U R A L D E S IG N C O N C E P T S
C H APTER 3 D E S IG N L O A D S F O R R E S ID E N T IA L B U IL D IN G S
C H APTER 6 L A T E R A L R E S IS T A N C E T O W IN D A N D E A R T H Q U A K E S
C H APTER 5 D E S IG N O F W O O D F R A M IN G
C H APTER 4 D E S IG N O F F O U N D A T IO N S
C H APTER 7 C O N N E C T IO N S
C H A P T E R L A Y O U T A N D A P P L IC A T IO N G U ID E
vii
Contents
Page
3.1
General ...........................................................................
............................................3-1 3.2 Load
Combinations ......................................................................
..............................3-2 3.3 Dead
Loads..............................................................................
...................................3-4 3.4 Live
Loads..............................................................................
....................................3-6 3.5 Soil Lateral
Loads .............................................................................
.........................3-8 3.6 Wind
Loads .............................................................................
.................................3-11 3.7 Snow
Loads .............................................................................
.................................3-20 3.8 Earthquake
Loads..............................................................................
.......................3-22 3.9 Other Load
Conditions ........................................................................
.....................3-30 3.10 Design
Examples...........................................................................
...........................3-31 3.11
References ........................................................................
........................................3-38
Chapter 4 - Design of Foundations
4.1
General ...........................................................................
............................................4-1
ix
4.2 Material
Properties ........................................................................
.............................4-4 4.3 Soil Bearing Capacity and Footing
Size ....................................................................4-8 4.4
Footings...........................................................................
.........................................4-10 4.5 Foundation
Walls .............................................................................
........................4-19 4.6 Slabs on
Grade .............................................................................
............................4-49 4.7 Pile
Foundations........................................................................
...............................4-50 4.8 Frost
Protection ........................................................................
................................4-53 4.9 Design
Examples...........................................................................
...........................4-58 4.10
References ........................................................................
........................................4-88
Chapter 5 - Design of Wood Framing
5.1
General ...........................................................................
............................................5-1 5.2 Material
Properties ........................................................................
.............................5-3 5.3 Structural
Evaluation.........................................................................
.......................5-15 5.4 Floor
Framing............................................................................
...............................5-24 5.5 Wall
Framing............................................................................
................................5-32 5.6
Roofs .............................................................................
...........................................5-39 5.7 Design
Examples...........................................................................
...........................5-48 5.8
References ........................................................................
........................................5-81
Chapter 6 - Lateral Resistance to Wind and Earthquakes
6.1
General ...........................................................................
............................................6-1 6.2 Overview of Whole-Building
Tests ...........................................................................6-
3 6.3 LFRS Design Steps and
Terminology........................................................................
6-5 6.4 The Current LFRS Design
Practice..........................................................................6
-11 6.5 Design
Guidelines ........................................................................
............................6-19 6.6 Design
Examples...........................................................................
...........................6-41 6.7
References ........................................................................
........................................6-74
Chapter 7 - Connections
7.1
General ...........................................................................
............................................7-1 7.2 Types of Mechanical
Fasteners .........................................................................
.........7-3 7.3 Wood Connection
Design ............................................................................
............7-11 7.4 Design of Concrete and Masonry
Connections........................................................7-23 7.5 Design
Examples...........................................................................
...........................7-28 7.6
References ........................................................................
........................................7-50
Appendix A - Shear and Moment Diagrams and Beam Equations
Appendix B - Unit Conversions
x Residential Structural Design Guide
List of Figures
Page
Figure 2.1: Figure 2.2: Figure 2.3: Figure 2.4: Figure 2.5:
Illustration of the Vertical Load Path for Gravity Loads Illustration of the
Vertical Load Path for Wind Uplift Illustration of the Lateral Load Path
Illustration of Building Deformation under Lateral Load Basic Concept of Safety in
LRFD and ASD Considering the Variability of Loads and Resistance
1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-8 1-9 1-10 1-11 1-12 1-19
2-7 2-8 2-12 2-13
2-21
Figure 4.1: Figure 4.2: Figure 4.3: Figure 4.4: Figure 4.5:
xi
Figure 4.6: Design Variables Defined for Lintel Bending and Shear Figure 4.7:
Variables Defined for Shear Calculations in Reinforced Concrete
Masonry Walls Figure 4.8: Concrete Masonry Wall Lintel Types Figure 4.9:
Preservative-Treated Wood Foundation Walls Figure 4.10: Insulating Concrete Form
Foundation Walls Figure 4.11: Basic Coastal Foundation Construction Figure 4.12:
Air-Freezing Index Map (100-Year Return Period) Figure 4.13: Frost-Protected
Shallow Foundation Applications
4-31
4-41 4-44 4-46 4-48 4-51 4-55 4-56
Figure 5.1: Figure 5.2: Figure 5.3: Figure 5.4: Figure 5.5: Figure 5.6: Figure 5.7:
Figure 5.8: Figure 5.9:
Figure 6.1:
Figure 6.2:
Figure 6.3: Figure 6.4:
Figure 6.5: Figure 6.6:
Chords in Shear Walls and Horizontal Diaphragms Using the Deep Beam Analogy Shear
Wall Collector and the Composite Failure Plane (Failure plane also applies to
diaphragm chords) Two Types of Hold-Down Restraint and Basic Analytic Concepts
Lateral Force Distribution by a Flexible Diaphragm (tributary area approach)
Illustration of a Basic Perforated Shear Wall Evaluation of Overturning Forces on a
Restrained Shear Wall Segment
6-7
6-8 6-10
6-12 6-17 6-33
Chapter 7 - Connections
Figure 7.1: Figure 7.2: Figure 7.3: Figure 7.4: Figure 7.5: Figure 7.6: Figure 7.7:
Elements of a Nail and Nail Types Bolt and Connection Types Specialty Connector
Hardware Types of Connections and Loading Conditions Concrete or Masonry Wall-to-
Footing Connections Key in Concrete Footings Dowel Placement in Concrete Footings
Figure A.1: Simple Beam (Foundation Wall) - Partial Triangular Load Figure A.2:
Simple Beam (Wall or Column) Eccentric Point Load Figure A.3: Simple Beam
Uniformly Distributed Load Figure A.4: Simple Beam Load Increasing Uniformly to
One End Figure A.5: Simple Beam Concentrated Load at Any Point Figure A.6: Simple
Beam Two Unequal Concentrated Loads
Unsymmetrically Placed Figure A.7: Cantilever Beam Uniformly Distributed Load
Figure A.8: Cantilever Beam Concentrated Load at Any Point Figure A.9: Beam Fixed
at One End, Supported at Other
Uniformly Distributed Load Figure A.10: Beam Fixed at One End, Supported at Other
Concentrated Load at Any Point Figure A.11: Beam Fixed at Both Ends Uniformly
Distributed Loads Figure A.12: Beam Fixed at Both Ends Concentrated Load at Any
Point Figure A.13: Beam Overhanging One Support Uniformly Distributed Load Figure
A.14: Beam Overhanging One Support Concentrated Load at
End of Overhang Figure A.15: Continuous Beam Two Equal Spans and Uniformly
Distributed Load Figure A.16: Continuous Beam Two Equal Spans with Uniform Load
on One Span Figure A.17: Continuous Beam Two Unequal Spans and Uniformly
Distributed Load
xiii
List of Tables
Page
y
x Chapter 2 - Structural Design Concepts
2-2
2-19 2-22
2-23
xv
Rebar Size, Diameter, and Cross-Sectional Areas Presumptive Soil Bearing Values by
Soil Description Presumptive Soil Bearing Values (psf) Based on Standard
Penetrometer Blow Count Simplified Moment Magnification Factors, ns Nominal Wall
Thickness for 8-Foot-High Masonry Foundation Walls Allowable Flexural Tension
Stresses Fa for Allowable Stress Design of Unreinforced Masonry Preservative-
Treated Wood Foundation Framing Minimum Frost Depths for Residential Footings
4-6 4-8
4-9 4-27 4-35
4-36 4-47 4-54
Design Properties and Associated Reduction Factors for ASD Adjustment Factor
Applicability to Design Values for Wood Recommended Load Duration Factors for ASD
Recommended Repetitive Member Factors for Dimension Lumber Used in Framing Systems
Recommended Allowable Deflection Limits System Deflection Adjustment Factors
Fastening Floor Sheathing to Structural Members Recommended System Adjustment
Factors for Header Design
Table 6.1: Table 6.2: Table 6.3: Table 6.4: Table 6.5: Table 6.6: Table 6.7: Table
6.8:
Unfactored (Ultimate) Shear Resistance (plf) for Wood Structural Panel Shear Walls
with Framing of Douglas-Fir, Larch, or Southern Pine Unfactored (Ultimate) Unit
Shear Resistance (plf) for Walls with Cold-Formed Steel Framing and Wood Structural
Panels Unfactored (Ultimate) Unit Shear Values (plf) for 1/2-Inch-Thick Gypsum Wall
Board Sheathing Unfactored (Ultimate) Shear Resistance (lbs) for 1x4 Wood Let-ins
and Metal T-Braces Minimum Recommended Safety and Resistance Factors for
Residential Shear Wall Design Specific Gravity Values (Average) for Common Species
of Framing Lumber Values of Cns for Various Nail Sizes and Types Horizontal
Diaphragm ASD Shear Values (plf) for unblocked Roof and Floor Construction Using
Douglas Fir or Southern Pine Framing
Chapter 7 - Connections
Table 7.1: Recommended Nailing Schedule for a Wood-Framed Home Table 7.2: Nail
Types, Sizes, and Dimensions Table 7.3: Common Framing Lumber Species and Specific
Gravity Values
xvii
CHAPTER 1
Basics of Residential Construction
1-1
Chapter 1 - Basics of Residential Construction
FIGURE 1.1a Post-and-Beam Construction (Historical)
1-2 Residential Structural Design Guide
1-3
1-5
1-7
Virtually all regions of the United States are covered by a legally enforceable
building code that governs the design and construction of buildings, including
residential dwellings. Although building codes are legally a state police power,
most states allow local political jurisdictions to adopt or modify building codes
to suit their "special needs" or, in a few cases, to write their own code. Almost
all jurisdictions adopt one of the major model codes by legislative action instead
of attempting to write their own code.
There are three major model building codes in the United States that are
comprehensive; that is, they cover all types of buildings and occupanciesfrom a
backyard storage shed to a high-rise office building or sports complex. The three
major comprehensive building codes follow:
National Building Code (NBC) Building Officials and Code Administrators
International, Inc. 4051 West Flossmoor Road Country Club Hills, IL 60478-5795 708-
799-2300 www.bocai.org
Standard Building Code (SBC) Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc.
9800 Montclair Road Birmingham, AL 35213-1206 205-591-1853 www.sbcci.org
1-11
1-12
To help resolve the problem of disunity among the three major building codes, the
model building code organizations have recently entered into a joint effort (under
the auspices of the International Code Council or ICC) to develop a single
comprehensive building code called the International Building Code (IBC). The IBC
is under development at the time of this writing. It draws heavily from the
previous codes but adds new requirements for seismic design, wind design, stair
geometry, energy conservation, and other vital subject areas. The new code is
scheduled to be available in 2000, although several years may pass before change is
realized on a national scale. In addition, another code-writing body, the National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA), is developing a competitive model building
code.
While the major model codes include some "deemed-to-comply" prescriptive
requirements for conventional house construction, they focus primarily on
performance (i.e., engineering) requirements for more complex buildings across the
whole range of occupancy and construction types. To provide a comprehensive,
easier-to-use code for residential construction, the three major code organizations
participated in developing the International One- and TwoFamily Dwelling Code (ICC,
1998), first published in 1971 as the One- and TwoFamily Dwelling Code (OTFDC) by
the Council of American Building Officials (CABO). Presented in logical
construction sequence, the OTFDC is devoted entirely to simple prescriptive
requirements for single-family detached and attached (townhouse) homes. Many state
and local jurisdictions have adopted the OTFDC as an alternative to a major
residential building code. Thus, designers and builders enjoy a choice as to which
set of requirements best suits their purpose.
The major code organizations are also developing a replacement for the OTFDC in
conjunction with the proposed IBC. Tentatively called the International Residential
Code for One- and Two-Family Dwellings (IRC), it draws on earlier editions of the
OTFDC and is slated for publication in 2000.
Model building codes do not provide detailed specifications for all building
materials and products but rather refer to established industry standards,
primarily those promulgated by the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM). Several ASTM standards are devoted to the measurement, classification, and
grading of wood properties for structural applications as well as virtually all
other building materials, including steel, concrete, and masonry. Design standards
and guidelines for wood, steel, concrete materials, and other materials or
applications are also maintained as reference standards in building codes.
Currently, over 600 materials and testing standards are referenced in the building
codes used in the United States.
For products and processes not explicitly recognized in the body of any of the
model codes or standards, the model building code organizations provide a special
code evaluation service with published reports. These evaluation reports are
usually provided for a fee at the request of manufacturers. While the National
Evaluation Service, Inc. (NES) provides a comprehensive evaluation relative to the
three model codes mentioned above, each model code organization also performs
evaluations independently for its specific code.
Seasoned designers spend countless hours in careful study and application of
building codes and selected standards that relate to their area of practice. More
important, these designers develop a sound understanding of the technical
1-13
1.6.1 General
There are well over 100 million housing units in the United States, and
approximately half are single-family dwellings. Each year, at least 1 million new
single-family homes and townhomes are constructed, along with thousands of
multifamily structures, most of which are low-rise apartments. Therefore, a small
percent of all new residences may be expected to experience performance problems,
most of which amount to minor defects that are easily detected and repaired. Other
performance problems are unforeseen or undetected and may not be realized for
several years, such as foundation problems related to subsurface soil conditions.
On a national scale, several homes are subjected to extreme climatic or geologic
events in any given year. Some will be damaged due to a rare event that exceeds the
performance expectations of the building code (i.e., a direct tornado strike or a
large-magnitude hurricane, thunderstorm, or earthquake). Some problems may be
associated with defective workmanship, premature product failure, design flaws, or
durability problems (i.e., rot, termites, or corrosion). Often, it is a combination
of factors that leads to the most dramatic forms of damage. Because the cause and
effect of these problems do not usually fit simple generalizations, it is important
to consider cause and effect objectively in terms of the overall housing inventory.
1-15
may be considered nonconsequential in nature, others may not be and some may go
undetected for the life of the structure. Ultimately, the significance of these
types of defects must be viewed from the perspective of known consequences relative
to housing performance and risk; refer to Sections 1.6.3 and 2.5.4.
TABLE 1.1
Source: Defect Prevention Research Project for Part 9 Houses (ONHWP/CMHC, 1994).
While the defects reported above are not necessarily related to building products,
builders are generally averse to products that are too new. Examples of recent
class-action lawsuits in the United States give builders some reason to think twice
about specifying new products such as
Exterior Insulated Finish Systems (EIFS); fire-retardant treated plywood roof
sheathing; certain composite sidings and exterior finishes; and polybutylene
water piping.
It should be noted that many of these problems have been resolved by subsequent
product improvements. Unfortunately, it is beyond the scope of this guide to give a
complete account of the full range of problems experienced in housing construction.
1.6.3 Housing Performance in Hurricanes and Earthquakes
In recent years, scientifically designed studies of housing performance in natural
disasters have permitted objective assessments of actual performance relative to
that intended by building codes (HUD, 1993; HUD, 1994; HUD, 1998; HUD, 1999;
NAHBRC, 1996). Conversely, anecdotal damage studies are often subject to notable
bias. Nonetheless, both objective and subjective damage studies provide useful
feedback to builders, designers, code officials, and others with an interest in
housing performance. This section summarizes the findings from recent scientific
studies of housing performance in hurricanes and earthquakes.
It is likely that the issue of housing performance in high-hazard areas will
continue to increase in importance as the disproportionate concentration of
development along the U.S. coastlines raises concerns about housing safety,
affordability, and durability. Therefore, it is essential that housing performance
is understood objectively as a prerequisite to guiding rational design and
1-17
construction decisions. Proper design that takes into account the wind and
earthquake loads in Chapter 3 and the structural analysis procedures in Chapters 4,
5, 6, and 7 should result in efficient designs that address the performance issues
discussed below. Regardless of the efforts made in design, however, the intended
performance can be realized only with an adequate emphasis on installed quality.
For this reason, some builders in high-hazard areas have retained the services of a
design professional for on-site compliance inspections as well as for their design
services. This practice offers additional quality assurance to the builder,
designer, and owner in high-hazard areas of the country.
Hurricane Andrew
Without doubt, housing performance in major hurricanes provides ample evidence of
problems that may be resolved through better design and construction practices. At
the same time, misinformation and reaction following major hurricanes often produce
a distorted picture of the extent, cause, and meaning of the damage relative to the
population of affected structures. This section discusses the actual performance of
the housing stock based on a damage survey and engineering analysis of a
representative sample of homes subjected to the most extreme winds of Hurricane
Andrew (HUD, 1998; HUD, 1993).
Hurricane Andrew struck a densely populated area of south Florida on August 24,
1992, with the peak recorded wind speed exceeding 175 mph (Reinhold, Vickery, and
Powell, 1993). At speeds of 160 to 165 mph over a relatively large populated area,
Hurricane Andrew was estimated to be about a 300-year return period event (Vickery
and Twisdale, 1995; Vickery et al., 1998) (see Figure 1.8). Given the distance
between the shoreline and the housing stock, most damage resulted from wind, rain,
and wind-borne debris, not from the storm surge. Table 1.2 summarizes the key
construction characteristics of the homes that experienced Hurricane Andrews
highest winds (as shown in Figure 1.8). Most homes were one-story structures with
nominally reinforced masonry walls, woodframed gable roofs, and composition shingle
roofing.
Table 1.3 summarizes the key damage statistics for the sampled homes. As expected,
the most frequent form of damage was related to windows and roofing, with 77
percent of the sampled homes suffering significant damage to roofing materials.
Breakage of windows and destruction of roofing materials led to widespread and
costly water damage to interiors and contents.
TABLE 1.2
Construction Characteristics
80% one
18% two
81% gable
13% hip
96% masonry
4% wood-framed
100% slab
94% stucco
18% tile
2% other 6% other
6% other 9% other
FIGURE 1.8
Source: Applied Research Associates, Raleigh, NC. Note: 1Wind speeds are normalized
to a standard 33-foot height over open terrain.
Roof sheathing was the most significant aspect of the structural damage, with 64
percent of the sampled homes losing one or more roof sheathing panels. As a result,
about 24 percent of sampled homes experienced a partial or complete collapse of the
roof framing system.
TABLE 1.3
Component
Roof sheathing Walls Foundation Roofing Interior finish (water damage)
1-19
Chapters 3 through 7 present design methods and guidance that address many of the
above concerns.
Hurricane Opal
Hurricane Opal struck the Florida panhandle near Pensacola on October 4, 1995, with
wind speeds between 100 and 115 mph at peak gust (normalized to an open exposure
and elevation of 33 feet) over the sample region of the housing stock (Powell and
Houston, 1995). Again, roofing (i.e., shingles) was the most common source of
damage, occurring in 4 percent of the sampled housing stock (NAHBRC, 1996). Roof
sheathing damage occurred in less than 2 percent of the affected housing stock.
The analysis of Hurricane Opal contrasts sharply with the Hurricane Andrew study.
Aside from Hurricane Opals much lower wind speeds, most homes were shielded by
trees, whereas homes in south Florida were subjected to typical suburban
residential exposure with relatively few trees (wind exposure B). Hurricane Andrew
denuded any trees in the path of strongest wind. Clearly, housing performance in
protected, noncoastal exposures is improved because of the generally less severe
wind exposure and the shielding provided when trees are present. However, trees
become less reliable sources of protection in more extreme hurricane-prone areas.
Northridge Earthquake
1-21
constructed between the 1920s and early 1990s. Styles ranged from complex custom
homes to simple affordable homes. All homes in the sample had wood exterior wall
framing, and most did not use structural sheathing for wall bracing. Instead, wood
let-in braces, Portland cement stucco, and interior wall finishes of plaster or
gypsum wall board provided lateral racking resistance. Most of the crawl space
foundations used full-height concrete or masonry stem walls, not wood cripple walls
that are known to be prone to damage when not properly braced.
TABLE 1.4
Component
Number of stories Wall sheathing Foundation type Exterior finish Interior finish
79% one
18% two
3% other
80% none
7% plywood
13% unknown
34% slab
8% other
6% other
Table 1.5 shows the performance of the sampled single-family detached homes.
Performance is represented by the percent of the total sample of homes that fell
within four damage rating categories for various components of the structure (HUD,
1994).
TABLE 1.5
No Damage
90.2% 98.1% 99.4% 50.7% 49.8%
Low Damage
8.0% 1.9% 0.6% 46.1% 46.0%
Moderate Damage
0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 4.2%
High Damage
0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0%
Serious structural damage to foundations, wall framing, and roof framing was
limited to a small proportion of the surveyed homes. In general, the homes suffered
minimal damage to the elements that are critical to occupant safety. Of the
structural elements, damage was most common in foundation systems. The small
percent of surveyed homes (about 2 percent) that experienced moderate to high
foundation damage were located in areas that endured localized ground effects
(i.e., fissuring or liquefaction) or problems associated with steep hillside sites.
Interior and exterior finishes suffered more widespread damage, with only about
half the residences escaping unscathed. However, most of the interior/exterior
finish damage in single-family detached homes was limited to the lowest rating
categories. Damage to stucco usually appeared as hairline cracks radiating from the
corners of openingsparticularly larger openings such as garage doorsor along the
tops of foundations. Interior finish damage paralleled the occurrence of exterior
finish (stucco) damage. Resilient finishessuch as wood panel or lap board siding
fared well and often showed no evidence of damage even when stucco on other areas
of the same unit was moderately damaged. However, these seemingly minor types of
damage were undoubtedly a major source of the economic impact in terms of insurance
claims and repair cost. In addition, it is often difficult to separate the damage
into categories of structural and nonstructural, particularly when some
systems, such as Portland cement stucco, are used as an exterior cladding as well
as structural bracing. It is also important to recognize that the Northridge
Earthquake is not considered a maximum earthquake event.
The key findings of an evaluation of the above performance data are summarized
below (HUD, 1999). Overall, the damage relative to key design features showed no
discernable pattern, implying great uncertainties in seismic design and building
performance that may not be effectively addressed by simply making buildings
stronger.
The amount of wall bracing using conventional stucco and let-in braces typically
ranged from 30 to 60 percent of the wall length (based on the streetfacing walls of
the sampled one-story homes). However, there was no observable or statistically
significant trend between amount of damage and amount of stucco wall bracing. Since
current seismic design theory implies that more bracing is better, the Northridge
findings are fundamentally challenging yet offer little in the way of a better
design theory. At best, the result may be explained by the fact that numerous
factors govern the performance of a particular building in a major seismic event.
For example, conventional seismic design, while intending to do so, may not
effectively consider the optimization of flexibility, ductility, dampening, and
strengthall of which are seemingly important.
The horizontal ground motions experienced over the sample region for the study
ranged from 0.26 to 2.7 g for the short-period (0.2 second) spectral response
acceleration and from 0.10 to 1.17 g for the long-period (1 second) spectral
response acceleration. The near-field ground motions represent a range between the
100- and 14,000-year return period, but a 200- to 500-year return period is more
representative of the general ground motion experienced. The short-period ground
motion (typically used in the design of light-frame structures) had no apparent
correlation with the amount of damage observed in the sampled homes, although a
slight trend with respect to the long-period ground motion was observed in the
data.
The Northridge damage survey and evaluation of statistical data suggest the
following conclusions and recommendations (HUD, 1994; HUD, 1999):
1-23
1.8 References
ACI, Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures, ACI Standard 530, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1999.
ACI, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, ACI
Standard 318, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1999.
AF&PA, National Design Specification for Wood Construction and Supplement, American
Forest & Paper Association, Washington, DC, 1997.
ASCE, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE Standard 7-98,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 1999.
BOCA, National Building Code (NBC), Building Officials and Code Administrators
International, Inc. (BOCA), Country Club Hills, IL, 1999.
HEW, Light Frame House Construction, Vocational Division Bulletin No. 145, U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) (GPO: Washington, DC), 1931
(reprinted 1956).
Hall, John F., "Northridge Earthquake January 17, 1994: Preliminary Reconnaissance
Report," Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, March 1994.
HUD, Alternative Framing Materials in Residential Construction: Three Case Studies,
prepared by the NAHB Research Center, Inc., for the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, Washington, DC, 1994.
HUD, Assessment of Damage to Residential Buildings Caused by the Northridge
Earthquake, prepared by the NAHB Research Center, Inc., for the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC, 1994.
HUD, Assessment of Damage to Single-Family Homes Caused by Hurricanes Andrew and
Iniki, prepared by the NAHB Research Center, Inc., for the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC, 1993.
HUD, Evaluation of Housing Performance and Seismic Design Implications in the
Northridge Earthquake, prepared by the NAHB Research Center, Inc., for the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC, 1999.
HUD, Insulating Concrete Forms: Installed Cost and Acoustic Performance, prepared
by the NAHB Research Center, Inc., for the Portland Cement Association, National
Association of Home Builders, and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Washington, DC, 1998.
1-25
1-27
y x CHAPTER 2
Structural Design Concepts
2.1 General
This chapter reviews some fundamental concepts of structural design and presents
them in a manner relevant to the design of light-frame residential structures. The
concepts form the basis for understanding the design procedures and overall design
approach addressed in the remaining chapters of the guide. With this conceptual
background, it is hoped that the designer will gain a greater appreciation for
creative and efficient design of homes, particularly the many assumptions that must
be made.
2-1
y
x Chapter 2 Structural Design Concepts
beholder, and what is an acceptable value to one person may not be acceptable
value to another (i.e., too costly versus not safe enough or not important versus
important). For this reason, political processes mediate minimum goals for building
design and structural performance, with minimum value decisions embodied in
building codes and engineering standards that are adopted as law.
In view of the above discussion, a structural designer may appear to have little
control over the fundamental goals of structural design, except to comply with or
exceed the minimum limits established by law. While this is generally true, a
designer can still do much to optimize a design through alternative means and
methods that call for more efficient analysis techniques, creative design
detailing, and the use of innovative construction materials and methods.
In summary, the goals of structural design are generally defined by law and reflect
the collective interpretation of general public welfare by those involved in the
development and local adoption of building codes. The designer's role is to meet
the goals of structural design as efficiently as possible and to satisfy a clients
objectives within the intent of the building code. Designers must bring to bear the
fullest extent of their abilities, including creativity, knowledge, experience,
judgment, ethics, and communicationaspects of design that are within the control
of the individual designer and integral to a comprehensive approach to design.
Structural design is much, much more than simply crunching numbers.
2.3 Load Conditions and Structural
System Response
The concepts presented in this section provide an overview of building loads and
their effect on the structural response of typical wood-framed homes. As shown in
Table 2.1, building loads can be divided into two types based on the orientation of
the structural actions or forces that they induce: vertical loads and horizontal
(i.e., lateral) loads.
TABLE 2.1
Vertical Loads
Dead (gravity) Live (gravity) Snow (gravity) Wind (uplift on roof)
Seismic and wind (overturning) Seismic (vertical ground motion)
y
x Chapter 2 Structural Design Concepts
2.3.1 Vertical Loads
Gravity loads act in the same direction as gravity (i.e., downward or vertically)
and include dead, live, and snow loads. They are generally static in nature and
usually considered a uniformly distributed or concentrated load. Thus, determining
a gravity load on a beam or column is a relatively simple exercise that uses the
concept of tributary areas to assign loads to structural elements. The tributary
area is the area of the building construction that is supported by a structural
element, including the dead load (i.e., weight of the construction) and any applied
loads (i.e., live load). For example, the tributary gravity load on a floor joist
would include the uniform floor load (dead and live) applied to the area of floor
supported by the individual joist. The structural designer then selects a standard
beam or column model to analyze bearing connection forces (i.e., reactions),
internal stresses (i.e., bending stresses, shear stresses, and axial stresses), and
stability of the structural member or system; refer to Appendix A for beam
equations. The selection of an appropriate analytic model is, however, no trivial
matter, especially if the structural system departs significantly from traditional
engineering assumptions that are based on rigid body and elastic behavior. Such
departures from traditional assumptions are particularly relevant to the structural
systems that comprise many parts of a house, but to varying degrees.
Wind uplift forces are generated by negative (suction) pressures acting in an
outward direction from the surface of the roof in response to the aerodynamics of
wind flowing over and around the building. As with gravity loads, the influence of
wind uplift pressures on a structure or assembly (i.e., roof) are analyzed by using
the concept of tributary areas and uniformly distributed loads. The major
difference is that wind pressures act perpendicular to the building surface (not in
the direction of gravity) and that pressures vary according to the size of the
tributary area and its location on the building, particularly proximity to changes
in geometry (e.g., eaves, corners, and ridges). Even though the wind loads are
dynamic and highly variable, the design approach is based on a maximum static load
(i.e., pressure) equivalent.
Vertical forces are also created by overturning reactions due to wind and seismic
lateral loads acting on the overall building and its lateral force resisting
systems. Earthquakes also produce vertical ground motions or accelerations which
increase the effect of gravity loads. However, vertical earthquake loads are
usually considered to be implicitly addressed in the gravity load analysis of a
light-frame building.
2-3
y
x Chapter 2 Structural Design Concepts
(i.e., lateral) load depends on the magnitude of the ground motion, the buildings
mass, and the dynamic structural response characteristics (i.e., dampening,
ductility, natural period of vibration, etc.). For houses and other similar low-
rise structures, a simplified seismic load analysis employs equivalent static
forces based on fundamental Newtonian mechanics (F=ma) with somewhat subjective
(i.e., experience-based) adjustments to account for inelastic, ductile response
characteristics of various building systems. Flood loads are generally minimized by
elevating the structure on a properly designed foundation or avoided by not
building in a flood plain. Lateral loads from moving flood waters and static
hydraulic pressure are substantial. Soil lateral loads apply specifically to
foundation wall design, mainly as an out-of-plane bending load on the wall.
Lateral loads also produce an overturning moment that must be offset by the dead
load and connections of the building. Therefore, overturning forces on connections
designed to restrain components from rotating or the building from overturning must
be considered. Since wind is capable of generating simultaneous roof uplift and
lateral loads, the uplift component of the wind load exacerbates the overturning
tension forces due to the lateral component of the wind load. Conversely, the dead
load may be sufficient to offset the overturning and uplift forces as is often the
case in lower design wind conditions and in many seismic design conditions.
2.3.3 Structural Systems
As far back as 1948, it was determined that conventions in general use for wood,
steel and concrete structures are not very helpful for designing houses because few
are applicable (NBS, 1948). More specifically, the NBS document encourages the use
of more advanced methods of structural analysis for homes. Unfortunately, the study
in question and all subsequent studies addressing the topic of system performance
in housing have not led to the development or application of any significant
improvement in the codified design practice as applied to housing systems. This
lack of application is partly due to the conservative nature of the engineering
process and partly due to the difficulty of translating the results of narrowly-
focused structural systems studies to general design applications. Since this
document is narrowly scoped to address residential construction, relevant system-
based studies and design information for housing are discussed, referenced, and
applied as appropriate.
If a structural member is part of a system, as is typically the case in lightframe
residential construction, its response is altered by the strength and stiffness
characteristics of the system as a whole. In general, system performance includes
two basic concepts known as load sharing and composite action. Load sharing is
found in repetitive member systems (i.e., wood framing) and reflects the ability of
the load on one member to be shared by another or, in the case of a uniform load,
the ability of some of the load on a weaker member to be carried by adjacent
members. Composite action is found in assemblies of components that, when connected
to one another, form a composite member with greater capacity and stiffness than
the sum of the component parts. However, the amount of composite action in a system
depends on the manner in which the various system elements are connected. The aim
is to achieve a higher effective section modulus than the
2-4 Residential Structural Design Guide
y
x Chapter 2 Structural Design Concepts
component members taken separately. For example, when floor sheathing is nailed and
glued to floor joists, the floor system realizes a greater degree of composite
action than a floor with sheathing that is merely nailed; the adhesive between
components helps prevent shear slippage, particularly if a rigid adhesive is used.
Slippage due to shear stresses transferred between the component parts necessitates
consideration of partial composite action, which depends on the stiffness of an
assemblys connections. Therefore, consideration of the floor as a system of fully
composite T-beams may lead to an unconservative solution whereas the typical
approach of only considering the floor joist member without composite system effect
will lead to a conservative design.
This guide addresses the strength-enhancing effect of load sharing and partial
composite action when information is available for practical design guidance.
Establishment of repetitive-member increase factors (also called system factors)
for general design use is a difficult task because the amount of system effect can
vary substantially depending on system assembly and materials. Therefore, system
factors for general design use are necessarily conservative to cover broad
conditions. Those that more accurately depict system effects also require a more
exact description of and compliance with specific assembly details and material
specifications.
It should be recognized, however, that system effects do not only affect the
strength and stiffness of light-frame assemblies (including walls, floors, and
roofs). They also alter the classical understanding of how loads are transferred
among the various assemblies of a complex structural system, including a complete
wood-framed home. For example, floor joists are sometimes doubled under nonload-
bearing partition walls "because of the added dead load and resulting stresses"
determined in accordance with accepted engineering practice. Such practice is based
on a conservative assumption regarding the load path and the structural response.
That is, the partition wall does create an additional load, but the partition wall
is relatively rigid and actually acts as a deep beam, particularly when the top and
bottom are attached to the ceiling and floor framing, respectively. As the floor is
loaded and deflects, the interior wall helps resist the load. Of course, the
magnitude of effect depends on the wall configuration (i.e., amount of openings)
and other factors.
The above example of composite action due to the interaction of separate structural
systems or subassemblies points to the improved structural response of the floor
system such that it is able to carry more dead and live load than if the partition
wall were absent. One whole-house assembly test has demonstrated this effect
(Hurst, 1965). Hence, a double joist should not be required under a typical
nonload-bearing partition; in fact, a single joist may not even be required
directly below the partition, assuming that the floor sheathing is adequately
specified to support the partition between the joists. While this condition cannot
yet be duplicated in a standard analytic form conducive to simple engineering
analysis, a designer should be aware of the concept when making design assumptions
regarding light-frame residential construction.
At this point, the reader should consider that the response of a structural system,
not just its individual elements, determines the manner in which a structure
distributes and resists horizontal and vertical loads. For wood-framed systems, the
departure from calculations based on classical engineering mechanics
2-5
y
x Chapter 2 Structural Design Concepts
(i.e., single members with standard tributary areas and assumed elastic behavior)
and simplistic assumptions regarding load path can be substantial.
2.4 Load Path
Loads produce stresses on various systems, members, and connections as load-induced
forces are transferred down through the structure to the ground. The path through
which loads are transferred is known as the load path. A continuous load path is
capable of resisting and transferring the loads that are realized throughout the
structure from the point of load origination down to the foundation.
As noted, the load path in a conventional home may be extremely complex because of
the structural configuration and system effects that can result in substantial load
sharing, partial composite action, and a redistribution of forces that depart from
traditional engineering concepts. In fact, such complexity is an advantage that
often goes overlooked in typical engineering analyses.
Further, because interior nonload-bearing partitions are usually ignored in a
structural analysis, the actual load distribution is likely to be markedly
different from that assumed in an elementary structural analysis. However, a strict
accounting of structural effects would require analytic methods that are not yet
available for general use. Even if it were possible to capture the full structural
effects, future alterations to the building interior could effectively change the
system upon which the design was based. Thus, there are practical and technical
limits to the consideration of system effects and their relationships to the load
path in homes.
2.4.1 The Vertical Load Path
Figures 2.1 and 2.2 illustrate vertically oriented loads created, respectively, by
gravity and wind uplift. It should be noted that the wind uplift load originates on
the roof from suction forces that act perpendicular to the exterior surface of the
roof as well as from internal pressure acting perpendicular to the interior surface
of the roof-ceiling assembly in an outward direction. In addition, overturning
forces resulting from lateral wind or seismic forces create vertical uplift loads
(not shown in Figure 2.2). In fact, a separate analysis of the lateral load path
usually addresses overturning forces, necessitating separate overturning
connections for buildings located in high-hazard wind or seismic areas (see Section
2.3). As addressed in Chapter 6, it may be feasible to combine these vertical
forces and design a simple load path to accommodate wind uplift and overturning
forces simultaneously.
2-6 Residential Structural Design Guide
y
x Chapter 2 Structural Design Concepts
FIGURE 2.1 Illustration of the Vertical Load Path for Gravity Loads
2-7
y
x Chapter 2 Structural Design Concepts
FIGURE 2.2 Illustration of the Vertical Load Path for Wind Uplift
2-8 Residential Structural Design Guide
y
x Chapter 2 Structural Design Concepts
In a typical two-story home, the load path for gravity loads and wind uplift
involves the following structural elements:
From the above list, it is obvious that there are numerous members, assemblies, and
connections to consider in tracking the gravity and wind uplift load paths in a
typical wood-framed home. The load path itself is complex, even for elements such
as headers that are generally considered simple beams. Usually, the header is part
of a structural system (see Figure 2.1), not an individual element single-handedly
resisting the entire load originating from above. Thus, a framing system around a
wall opening, not just a header, comprises a load path.
Figure 2.1 also demonstrates the need for appropriately considering the combination
of loads as the load moves down the load path. Elements that experience loads
from multiple sources (e.g., the roof and one or more floors) can be significantly
overdesigned if design loads are not proportioned or reduced to account for the
improbability that all loads will occur at the same time. Of course, the dead load
is always present, but the live loads are transient; even when one floor load is at
its life-time maximum, it is likely that the others will be at only a fraction of
their design load. Current design load standards generally allow for multiple
transient load reductions. However, with multiple transient load reduction factors
intended for general use, they may not effectively address conditions relevant to a
specific type of construction (i.e., residential).
Consider the soil-bearing reaction at the bottom of the footing in Figure 2.1. As
implied by the illustration, the soil-bearing force is equivalent to the sum of all
tributary loadsdead and live. However, it is important to understand the combined
load in the context of design loads. Floor design live loads are based on a life-
time maximum estimate for a single floor in a single level of a building. But, in
the case of homes, the upper and lower stories or occupancy conditions typically
differ. When one load is at its maximum, the other is likely to be at a fraction of
its maximum. Yet, designers are not able to consider the live loads of the two
floors as separate transient loads because specific guidance is not currently
available. In concept, the combined live load should therefore be reduced by an
appropriate factor, or one of the loads should be set at a point-intime value that
is a fraction of its design live load. For residential construction, the floor
design live load is either 30 psf (for bedroom areas) or 40 psf (for other areas),
although some codes require a design floor live load of 40 psf for all areas.
2-9
y
x Chapter 2 Structural Design Concepts
In contrast, average sustained live loads during typical use conditions are about 6
psf (with one standard deviation of 3 psf), which is about 15 to 20 percent of the
design live load (Chalk and Corotis, 1980). If actual loading conditions are not
rationally considered in a design, the result may be excessive footing widths,
header sizes, and so forth.
When tracking the wind uplift load path (Figure 2.2), the designer must consider
the offsetting effect of the dead load as it increases down the load path. However,
it should be noted that building codes and design standards do not permit the
consideration of any part of the sustained live load in offsetting wind uplift,
even though it is highly probable that some minimum point-in-time value of floor
live load is present if the building is in use, i.e., furnished and/or occupied. In
addition, other nonengineered load paths, such as provided by interior walls and
partitions, are not typically considered. While these are prudent limits, they help
explain why certain structures may not calculate but otherwise perform
adequately.
Depending on the code, it is also common to consider only two-thirds of the dead
load when analyzing a structures net wind uplift forces. The two-thirds provision
is a way of preventing the potential error of requiring insufficient connections
where a zero uplift value is calculated in accordance with a nominal design wind
load (as opposed to the ultimate wind event that is implied by the use of a safety
margin for material strength in unison with a nominal design wind speed).
Furthermore, code developers have expressed a concern that engineers might
overestimate actual dead loads.
For complicated house configurations, a load of any type may vary considerably at
different points in the structure, necessitating a decision of whether to design
for the worst case or to accommodate the variations. Often the worst-case condition
is applied to the entire structure even when only a limited part of the structure
is affected. For example, a floor joist or header may be sized for the worst-case
span and used throughout the structure. The worst-case decision is justified only
when the benefit of a more intensive design effort is not offset by a significant
cost reduction. It is also important to be mindful of the greater construction
complexity that usually results from a more detailed analysis of various design
conditions. Simplification and cost reduction are both important design objectives,
but they may often be mutually exclusive. However, the consideration of system
effects in design, as discussed earlier, may result in both simplification and cost
efficiencies that improve the quality of the finished product.
One helpful attribute of traditional platform-framed home construction is that the
floor and roof gravity loads are typically transferred through bearing points, not
connections. Thus, connections may contribute little to the structural performance
of homes with respect to vertical loads associated with gravity (i.e., dead, live,
and snow loads). While outdoor deck collapses have occurred on occasion, the
failure in most instances is associated with an inadequate or deteriorated
connection to the house, not a bearing connection.
By contrast, metal plate-connected roof and floor trusses rely on connections to
resist gravity loads, but these engineered components are designed and produced in
accordance with a proven standard and are generally highly reliable (TPI, 1996).
Indeed, the metal plate-connected wood truss was first conceived in Florida in the
1950s to respond to the need for improved roof
2-10 Residential Structural Design Guide
y
x Chapter 2 Structural Design Concepts
structural performance, particularly with respect to connections in roof
construction (WTCA, 1998).
In high-wind climates where the design wind uplift load approaches the offsetting
dead load, the consideration of connection design in wood-framed assemblies becomes
critical for roofs, walls, and floors. In fact, the importance of connections in
conventionally built homes is evidenced by the common loss of weakly attached roof
sheathing or roofs in extreme wind events such as moderateto large-magnitude
hurricanes.
Newer prescriptive code provisions have addressed many of the historic structural
wind damage problems by specifying more stringent general requirements (SBCCI,
1999; AF&PA, 1996). In many cases, the newer high-wind prescriptive construction
requirements may be improved by more efficient sitespecific design solutions that
consider wind exposure, system effects, and other analytic improvements. The same
can be said for prescriptive seismic provisions found in the latest building codes
for conventional residential construction (ICC, 1999; ICBO, 1997).
2.4.2 Lateral Load Path
The overall system that provides lateral resistance and stability to a building is
known as the lateral force resisting system (LFRS). In light-frame construction,
the LFRS includes shear walls and horizontal diaphragms. Shear walls are walls that
are typically braced or clad with structural sheathing panels to resist racking
forces. Horizontal diaphragms are floor and roof assemblies that are also usually
clad with structural sheathing panels. Though more complicated and difficult to
visualize, the lateral forces imposed on a building from wind or seismic action
also follow a load path that distributes and transfers shear and overturning forces
from lateral loads. The lateral loads of primary interest are those resulting from
the horizontal component of wind pressures on the buildings exterior surface
area; and
the inertial response of a buildings mass and structural system to seismic
ground motions.
As seen in Figure 2.3, the lateral load path in wood-framed construction involves
entire structural assemblies (i.e., walls, floors, and roofs) and their
interconnections, not just individual elements or frames as would be the case with
typical steel or concrete buildings that use discrete braced framing systems. The
distribution of loads in Figure 2.3s three-dimensional load path depends on the
relative stiffness of the various components, connections, and assemblies that
comprise the LFRS. To complicate the problem further, stiffness is difficult to
determine due to the nonlinearity of the load-displacement characteristics of wood-
framed assemblies and their interconnections. Figure 2.4 illustrates a deformed
light-frame building under lateral load; the deformations are exaggerated for
conceptual purposes.
Residential Structural Design Guide
2-11
y
x Chapter 2 Structural Design Concepts
FIGURE 2.3 Illustration of the Lateral Load Path
2-12 Residential Structural Design Guide
y
x Chapter 2 Structural Design Concepts
FIGURE 2.4 Illustration of Building Deformation under Lateral Load
2-13
y
x Chapter 2 Structural Design Concepts
Lateral forces from wind and seismic loads also create overturning forces that
cause a tipping or roll-over effect. When these forces are resisted, a building
is prevented from overturning in the direction of the lateral load. On a smaller
scale than the whole building, overturning forces are realized at the shear walls
of the LFRS such that the shear walls must be restrained from rotating or rocking
on their base by proper connection. On an even smaller scale, the forces are
realized in the individual shear wall segments between openings in the walls. As
shown in Figure 2.3, the overturning forces are not necessarily distributed as
might be predicted. The magnitude and distribution of the overturning force can
depart significantly from a typical engineering analysis depending on the building
or wall configuration.
The overturning force diagrams in Figure 2.3 are based on conventionally built
homes constructed without hold-down devices positioned to restrain shear wall
segments independently. It should be noted that the effect of dead loads that may
offset the overturning force and of wind uplift loads that may increase the
overturning force is not necessarily depicted in Figure 2.3s conceptual plots of
overturning forces at the base of the walls. If rigid steel hold-down devices are
used in designing the LFRS, the wall begins to behave in a manner similar to a
rigid body at the level of individual shear wall segments, particularly when the
wall is broken into discrete segments as a result of the configuration of openings
in a wall line.
In summary, significant judgment and uncertainty attend the design process for
determining building loads and resistance, including definition of the load path
and the selection of suitable analytic methods. Designers are often compelled to
comply with somewhat arbitrary design provisions or engineering conventions, even
when such conventions are questionable or incomplete for particular applications
such as a wood-framed home. At the same time, individual designers are not always
equipped with sufficient technical information or experience to depart from
traditional design conventions. Therefore, this guide is intended to serve as a
resource for designers who are considering the use of improved analytic methods
when current analytic approaches may be lacking.
2.5 Structural Safety
Before addressing the nuts and bolts of structural design of singlefamily
dwellings, it is important to understand the fundamental concept of safety. While
safety is generally based on rational principles of risk and probability theory, it
is also subject to judgment, particularly the experience and understanding of those
who participate in the development of building codes and design standards. For this
reason, it is not uncommon to find differences in various code-approved sources for
design loads, load combinations, load factors, and other features that affect
structural safety and design economy. Despite these inconsistencies, the aim of any
design approach is to ensure that the probability of failure (i.e., load exceeding
resistance) is acceptably small or, conversely, that the level of safety is
sufficiently high.
A common misconception holds that design loads determine the amount of safety
achieved. It is for this reason that some people tend to focus on design loads to
solve real or perceived problems associated with structural performance
2-14 Residential Structural Design Guide
y
x Chapter 2 Structural Design Concepts
(i.e., safety or property damage). For example, a typical conclusion reached in the
aftermath of Hurricane Andrew was that the storms wind speed exceeded the design
wind speed map value; therefore, the wind map (i.e., design load) was insufficient.
In other cases, such as the Northridge Earthquake, reaction to various anecdotal
observations resulted in increased safety factors for certain materials (i.e., wood
design values were decreased by 25 percent by the City of Los Angeles, California).
In reality, several factors affect the level of safety just as several factors
determine the level of performance realized by buildings in a single extreme event
such as Hurricane Andrew or the Northridge Earthquake (see Chapter 1).
Structural safety is a multifaceted performance goal that integrates all objective
and subjective aspects of the design process, including the following major
variables:
determination of characteristic material or assembly strength values based on
tested material properties and their variabilities;
application of a nominal or design load based on a statistical representation of
load data and the datas uncertainty or variability;
consideration of various uncertainties associated with the design practice (e.g.,
competency of designers and accuracy of analytic approaches), the construction
practice (e.g., quality or workmanship), and durability; and
selection of a level of safety that considers the above factors and the
consequences of exceeding a specified design limit state (i.e., collapse,
deformation, or the onset of unacceptable damage).
When the above variables are known or logically conceived, there are many ways to
achieve a specified level of safety. However, as a practical necessity, the design
process has been standardized to provide a reasonably consistent basis for applying
the following key elements of the design process:
characterizing strength properties for various material types (e.g., steel, wood,
concrete, masonry, etc.);
defining nominal design loads and load combinations for crucial inputs into the
design process; and
conveying an acceptable level of safety (i.e., safety margin) that can be easily
and consistently applied by designers.
Institutionalized design procedures provide a basis for selecting from the vast
array of structural material options available in the construction market. However,
the generalizations necessary to address the multitude of design conditions rely on
a simplified and standardized format and thus often overlook special aspects of a
particular design application.
2-15
y
x Chapter 2 Structural Design Concepts
While the following sections discuss safety, they are intentionally basic and focus
on providing the reader with a conceptual understanding of safety and probability
as a fundamental aspect of engineering. Probability concepts are fundamental to
modern design formats, such as load and resistance factor design (LRFD), which is
also known as reliability-based design or simply strength design. The same concepts
are also crucial to understanding the implications of the simple safety factor in
traditional allowable stress design (ASD). As with many aspects of engineering, it
is important to realize that the treatment of safety is not an exact science but
rather depends on the application of sound judgment as much as on the application
of complex or sophisticated statistical theories to analyze the many variables in
the design process that affect reliability (Gromala et al., 1999). The following
references are recommended for further study:
Probability Concepts in Engineering Planning and Design, Volume I Basic
Principles (Ang and Tang, 1975)
CRC Structural Engineering Handbook, Chapter 29: Structural Reliability (Chen,
1997)
Probabilistic Structural Mechanics Handbook: Theory and Industrial Applications
(Sundararajan, 1995)
Uncertainty Analysis, Loads, and Safety in Structural Engineering (Hart, 1982)
Statistical Models in Engineering (Hahn and Shapiro, 1967)
2.5.1 Nominal Design Loads
Nominal design loads are generally specified on the basis of probability, with the
interchangeable terms return period and mean recurrence interval often used to
describe the probability of loads. Either term represents a condition that is
predicted to be met or exceeded once on average during the reference time period.
For design purposes, loads are generally evaluated in terms of annual extremes
(i.e., variability of the largest load experienced in any given one-year period) or
maximum life-time values.
The choice of the return period used to define a nominal design load is somewhat
arbitrary and must be applied appropriately in the design process. The historical
use of safety factors in allowable stress design (ASD) has generally been based on
a 50-year return period design load. With the advent of load and resistance factor
design (LRFD), the calculation of nominal loads has shifted away from ASD for some
load types. For example, earthquake design loads are now based on a 475-year return
period event. As a result, a load factor of less than one (i.e., 0.7) must now be
used to adjust the earthquake load basis roughly back to a 50-year return period
magnitude so that the appropriate level of safety is achieved relative to allowable
material strength values used in ASD. This condition is reflected in the design
load combinations in Chapter 3.
2-16 Residential Structural Design Guide
y
x Chapter 2 Structural Design Concepts
The method of determining a design load also differs according to the type of load
and the availability of data to evaluate the time-varying nature of loads. The
derivation of various nominal loads may be assembled from information and
references contained in the ASCE 7 standard (ASCE, 1999). A brief summary is
provided here. Design wind loads are based on a probabilistic analysis of wind
speed data collected from numerous weather stations across the United States.
Given, however, the absence of sufficiently long-term weather data to quantify
hurricane risk accurately, wind loads along the hurricane coastline are determined
by using a hurricane simulation model that is based on past hurricane tracking
records as well as on an examination of the physical characteristics of
hurricanes.1 Snow loads are based on snowfall or ground snow depth data and are
correlated to roof snow loads through somewhat limited studies. Snow drift loads
are conservatively based on drifting on failed roofs and therefore do not
necessarily represent the snow-drifting probability that occurs at random in the
building population. Earthquake loads are defined from historical ground motion
data and conceptualized risk models based on direct or indirect evidence of past
earthquake activity. Thus, considerable uncertainty exists in the estimation of
seismic hazards, particularly in areas that are believed to have low seismicity
(i.e., few events) but the potential for major seismic events. Floor live loads are
modeled by using live load surveys of point-in-time loading conditions and
hypotheses or judgment concerning extreme or maximum life-time loads. In some
cases, expert panels decide on appropriate loads or related load characteristics
when adequate data are not available.
In summary, the determination of load characteristics is based on historical data,
risk modeling, and expert opinion, which, in turn, guide the specification of
nominal design loads for general design purposes in both the ASD and LRFD formats.
As noted, nominal design loads were usually based on a 50year return period. Today,
however, the calculation of seismic loads and wind loads along the hurricane
coastline are based on a return period substantially greater than the 50-year
return period used in the past. Thus, traditional perceptions of safety may become
somewhat more obscure or even confused with the more recent changes to the design
process. It is also important to remember that the return period of the design load
is not the only factor determining safety; the selection of safety factors (ASD)
and load factors (LRFD) depends on the definition of a nominal design load (i.e.,
its return period) and the materials strength characterization to achieve a
specified level of safety.
2.5.2 Basic Safety Concepts in Allowable Stress Design
The concept of ASD is demonstrated in a generic design equation or performance
function (see Equation 2.5-1). In traditional allowable stress design, it is common
to divide the characteristic (i.e., fifth percentile) material strength value by a
safety factor of greater than 1 to determine an allowable design strength dependent
on a selected limit state (i.e., proportional limit or rupture) and material type,
among other factors that involve the judgment of specification-
1The apparent lack of agreement between a few long-term wind speed records beckons
a more thorough validation of hurricane risk models and predicted design wind
speeds along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts (Rosowsky and Cheng, 1999).
2-17
y
x Chapter 2 Structural Design Concepts
writing groups. The allowable design strength is then compared to the stresses
created by a nominal design load combination, usually based on a 50-year mean
recurrence interval event. A lower safety factor is generally applied to design
conditions that are less variable or that are associated with a noncritical
consequence, while the higher safety factor is typically applied to elements
associated with greater uncertainty, such as connections. In addition, a higher
safety factor is usually selected for materials, systems, or stress conditions that
result in an abrupt failure mode without warning. Recognizing the impracticality of
introducing a safety factor for each load type, the safety factor is also intended
to cover the variability in loads.
Equation 2.5-1
R L S.F.
where,
R = nominal resistance (or design stress), usually based on the fifth percentile
strength property of interest (also known as the characteristic strength value)
S.F. = the safety factor (R/S.F. is known as the allowable stress) L = the load
effect caused by the nominal design load combination (in units of
R)
The equation refers to characteristic material strength, which represents the
material stress value used for design purposes (also known as nominal or design
strength or stress). When characteristic material strength (normalized to standard
conditions) is divided by a safety factor, the result is an allowable material
strength or stress. Given that materials exhibit variability in their stress
capacity (some more variable than others), it is necessary to select a statistical
value from the available material test data. Generally, though not always, the test
methods, data, and evaluations of characteristic material strength values follow
standardized procedures that vary across material industries (i.e., concrete, wood,
steel, etc.) due in part to the uniqueness of each material. In most cases, the
characteristic strength value is based on a lower-bound test statistic such as the
fifth percentile, which is a value at which no more than 5 percent of the material
specimens from a sample exhibit a lesser value. Since sampling is involved, the
sampling methodology and sample size become critical to confidence in the
characteristic strength value for general design applications.
In some cases, procedures for establishing characteristic material strength values
are highly sophisticated and address many of the concerns mentioned above; in other
cases, the process is simple and involves reduced levels of exactness or confidence
(i.e., use of the lowest value in a small number of tests). Generally, the more
variable a material, the more sophisticated the determination of characteristic
material strength properties. A good example is the wood industry, whose many
species and grades of lumber further complicate the inherent nonhomogenity of the
product. Therefore, the wood industry uses fairly sophisticated procedures to
sample and determine strength properties for a multitude of material conditions and
properties (see Chapter 5).
Obviously, increasing the safety factor enhances the level of safety achieved in
ASD (see Table 2.2 for the effect of varying safety factors to resist
y
x Chapter 2 Structural Design Concepts
TABLE 2.2
A BC
E
Ultimate Event Return Period (years)
50 671 4,991 27,318
Note: 1The ultimate event is determined by multiplying the design (i.e., 50-year
return period) wind speed by the square root of the safety factor.
The derivation is based on multiplying both sides of Equation 2.5-1 by the safety
factor and realizing that the wind load is related to the wind speed squared. Thus,
the design or performance check is transformed to one with a safety factor of 1,
but the load (or event) is increased to a
higher return period to maintain an equivalent performance function.
The LRFD format has been conservatively calibrated to the level of safety
represented by past ASD design practice and thus retains a tangible connection with
historically accepted norms of structural safety (Galambos et al., 1982; Ellingwood
et al., 1982; and others).2 Thus, a similar level of safety is achieved with either
method. However, the LRFD approach uses two factorsone applied
2-19
y
x Chapter 2 Structural Design Concepts
to the load and one applied to the resistance or strength propertythat permits a
more consistent treatment of safety across a broader range of design conditions.
Equation 2.5-2 shows conceptually the LRFD design format (i.e., performance
function) and compares a factored characteristic resistance value with a factored
nominal load. Thus, for a given hazard condition and given material, and similar to
the outcome described in the previous section on ASD, increasing the load factor
and/or decreasing the resistance factor has the effect of increasing the level of
safety. Figure 2.5 depicts the variable nature of building loads and resistance and
the safety margin relative to design loads and nominal resistance.
Equation 2.5-2
R L
where,
FIGURE 2.5
y
x Chapter 2 Structural Design Concepts
Basic Concept of Safety in LRFD and ASD Considering the Variability of Loads and
Resistance
2-21
y
x Chapter 2 Structural Design Concepts
understand the risk associated with structural failures relative to other sources
of risk. It is also instructive to understand the economic significance of damage
to a structure as it, too, is a particular consequence of risk that may be
associated with design decisions, even though it is beyond the primary concern of
life-safety. Economic consequences are becoming increasingly debated and
influential in the development of codified guidelines for structural design. Thus,
some engineering requirements in codes may address two very different objectives
one being lifesafety and the other being property protection or damage reduction.
Finally, the manner in which these two different forms of risk are presented can
have a profound impact on the perspective of risk and the perceived need for action
or inaction.
Natural disasters and other events that affect buildings are given great attention
in the media. In part, this attention is due to the relative infrequency of
catastrophic (i.e., life-threatening) failures of buildings (such as homes) as
compared to other consumer risks. Table 2.3 lists various risks and the associated
estimates of mortality (i.e., life-safety). As illustrated in the data of Table
2.3, building related failures present relatively low risk in comparison to other
forms of consumer risks. In fact, the risk associated with auto accidents is about
two to three orders of magnitude greater than risks associated with building
structural failures and related extreme loads. Also, the data must be carefully
interpreted relative to a particular design objective and the ability to
effectively address the risk through design solutions. For example, most deaths in
hurricanes are related to flooding and indirect trauma following an event. These
deaths are not related to wind damage to the structure. In fact, the number of
deaths related to hurricane wind damage to houses is likely to be less than 10
persons in any given year and, of these, only a few may be eliminated by reasonable
alterations of building design or construction practices. On the other hand, deaths
due to flooding may be best resolved by improved land management practices and
evacuation. A similar breakdown can be applied to other structural life-safety
risks in Table 2.3.
TABLE 2.3
Commonplace Risks
Smoking Cancer Auto accidents Homocide Fires Building collapse3 Lightening
Tornadoes4 Hurricanes4 Earthquakes5
Notes 1Data based on Wilson and Crouch, Science, 236 (1987) as reported by
Ellingwood, Structural Safety, 13, Elsevier Science B.V. (1994) except as
noted. 2Mortality rate based on October 1999 estimated population of 273,800,000
(U.S. Census) 3Annual probability is associated with building damage or failure,
not the associated mortality. 4Data based on Golden and Snow, Reviews of
Geophysics, 29, 4, November, 1991 5Data published in Discover, May 1996, p82
(original source unknown).
y
x Chapter 2 Structural Design Concepts
Property damage and insurance claims are also subject to significant media
attention following building failures due to natural disasters and other extreme
events. The conglomeration of economic impacts can indeed be staggering in
appearance as shown in Table 2.4. However, the interpretation of the economic
consequence must consider the appropriate application and perspective. For example,
assuming that about 50 percent of insurance claims may be associated with housing
damage and given that there are roughly 110,000,000 existing housing units in the
United States, the total wind-related claims per housing unit in any given year may
be about $32 (i.e., $7 million x 50 percent/110 million housing units). For a per
unit national average, this loss is a small number. However, one must consider the
disproportionate risk assumed by homes along the immediate hurricane coastlines
which may experience more than an order of magnitude greater risk of damage (i.e.,
more than $320 per year of wind damage losses on average per housing unit). A
similar break-down of economic loss can be made for other risks such as flooding
and earthquakes.
TABLE 2.4
Notes: 1Data is based on Pielke and Landsea, Weather and Forecasting, September
1998 (data from 1925-1995, normalized to 1997 dollars). The
normalized average has been relatively stable for the 70-year period of record.
However, overall risk exposure has increased due to increasing
population in hurricane-prone coastal areas. 2Data is based on National Research
Council, Facing the Challenge, 1994. 3Data is based on a rough estimate from NCPI,
1993 for the period from 1986-1992.
While not a complete evaluation of life-safety data and economic loss data, the
information in this section should establish a realistic basis for discerning the
significance of safety and economic loss issues. Since engineers are often faced
with the daunting task of balancing building initial cost with long term economic
and life-safety consequences, a proper perspective on past experience is paramount
to sound decision-making. In some cases, certain design decisions may affect
insurance rates and other building ownership costs that should be considered by the
designer.
2.6 References
AF&PA, Wood Frame Construction Manual for One- and Two-Family Dwellings, 1995 High
Wind Edition, American Forest & Paper Association, Washington, DC, 1996.
Ang, Alfredo H.S. and Tang, Wilson H., Probability Concepts in Engineering Planning
and Design, Volume IBasic Principles, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1975.
2-23
y
x Chapter 2 Structural Design Concepts
ASCE, Minimum Building Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 795),
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 1996.
ASCE, Minimum Building Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 798),
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 1999.
Chalk, P. and Corotis, R., Probability Model for Design Live Loads, Journal of
the Structural Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, October
1980.
Chen, W.F., Structural Engineering Handbook, Chapter 29: Structural Reliability,
CRC Press, 1997.
Ellingwood, B. et al., Probability Based Load Criteria: Load Factors and Load
Combinations, Journal of the Structural Division, Vol. 108 No. ST5, American
Society of Civil Engineers, May 1982, 978-997.
Galambos, T.V. et al., Probability Based Load Criteria: Assessment of Current
Design Practice, Journal of the Structural Division, Vol. 108 No. ST5, American
Society of Civil Engineers, May 1982, 959-977.
Gromala, D.S., Douglas, B.K., Rosowsky, D.V., and Sharp, D.J., "Why Is Reliability
Analysis So Unreliable?," Proceedings of Pacific Timber Engineering Conference
(Forest Research Bulletin 212), Rotura, New Zealand, March 1418, 1999.
Hahn, G.J., and Shapiro, S.S., Statistical Models in Engineering, John Wiley &
Sons, New York, NY, 1967.
Hart, Gary C., Uncertainty Analysis, Loads, and Safety in Structural Engineering,
Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1982.
Hurst, Homer T., The Wood-Frame House as a Structural Unit, Technical Report No. 5,
National Forest Products Association, Washington, DC, 1965.
ICBO, Uniform Building Code (UBC), International Conference of Building Officials
(ICBO), Whittier, CA, 1997.
ICC, International Residential Code for One- and Two-Family Dwellings2000 Edition,
International Code Council, Falls Church, VA, 1999 (final draft).
NBS, Strength of Houses: Application of Engineering Principles to Structural
Design, Building Materials and Structures Report 109, U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Bureau of Standards (GPO: Washington, DC), April 1, 1948.
2-24 Residential Structural Design Guide
y
x Chapter 2 Structural Design Concepts
Rosowsky, D.V. and Cheng, N., "Reliability of Light-Frame Roofs in High-Wind
Regions. I: Wind Loads," Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 125 No. 7,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, July 1999, 725-730.
SBCCI, Standard for Hurricane Resistant Residential Construction (SSTD 1099),
Southern Building Code Congress International, Birmingham, AL, 1999.
Sundararajan, C., Probabilistic Structural Mechanics Handbook: Theory and
Industrial Applications, Chapman & Hall, New York, NY, 1995.
TPI, National Design Standard for Metal Plate Connected Wood Trusses, Truss Plate
Institute (TPI), Madison, WI, 1996.
WTCA, Metal Plate Connected Wood Truss Handbook, Second Edition, prepared by Edward
E. Callahan for the Wood Truss Council of America, Madison, WI, 1998.
2-25
y
x Chapter 2 Structural Design Concepts
2-26 Residential Structural Design Guide
CHAPTER 3
Design Loads for Residential Buildings
3.1 General
Loads are a primary consideration in any building design because they define the
nature and magnitude of hazards or external forces that a building must resist to
provide reasonable performance (i.e., safety and serviceability) throughout the
structures useful life. The anticipated loads are influenced by a buildings
intended use (occupancy and function), configuration (size and shape), and location
(climate and site conditions). Ultimately, the type and magnitude of design loads
affect critical decisions such as material selection, construction details, and
architectural configuration. Thus, to optimize the value (i.e., performance versus
economy) of the finished product, it is essential to apply design loads
realistically.
While the buildings considered in this guide are primarily single-family detached
and attached dwellings, the principles and concepts related to building loads also
apply to other similar types of construction, such as low-rise apartment buildings.
In general, the design loads recommended in this guide are based on applicable
provisions of the ASCE 7 standardMinimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures (ASCE, 1999). The ASCE 7 standard represents an acceptable practice for
building loads in the United States and is recognized in virtually all U.S.
building codes. For this reason, the reader is encouraged to become familiar with
the provisions, commentary, and technical references contained in the ASCE 7
standard.
In general, the structural design of housing has not been treated as a unique
engineering discipline or subjected to a special effort to develop better, more
efficient design practices. Therefore, this part of the guide focuses on those
aspects of ASCE 7 and other technical resources that are particularly relevant to
the determination of design loads for residential structures. The guide provides
supplemental design assistance to address aspects of residential construction where
current practice is either silent or in need of improvement. The guides
3-1
TABLE 3.1
Typical Load Combinations Used for the Design of Components and Systems1
Component or System
1.2D + 1.6H 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.6L2 + 0.5(Lr + S) 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.6(Lr or S) + 0.5L2
Headers, girders, joists, interior loadbearing walls and columns, footings (gravity
loads)
Exterior load-bearing walls and Same as immediately above plus Same as immediately
above plus
lateral load) 3
Roof rafters, trusses, and beams; roof D + (Lr or S) and wall sheathing (gravity
and wind 0.6D + Wu5
loads)
D+W
Notes: 1The load combinations and factors are intended to apply to nominal design
loads defined as follows: D = estimated mean dead weight of
the construction; H = design lateral pressure for soil condition/type; L = design
floor live load; Lr = maximum roof live load anticipated from
construction/maintenance; W = design wind load; S = design roof snow load; and E =
design earthquake load. The design or nominal
loads should be determined in accordance with this chapter. 2Attic loads may be
included in the floor live load, but a 10 psf attic load is typically used only to
size ceiling joists adequately for access
purposes. However, if the attic is intended for storage, the attic live load (or
some portion) should also be considered for the design of
other elements in the load path. 3The transverse wind load for stud design is based
on a localized component and cladding wind pressure; D + W provides an adequate and
simple design check representative of worst-case combined axial and transverse
loading. Axial forces from snow loads and roof live loads
should usually not be considered simultaneously with an extreme wind load because
they are mutually exclusive on residential sloped
roofs. Further, in most areas of the United States, design winds are produced by
either hurricanes or thunderstorms; therefore, these wind
events and snow are mutually exclusive because they occur at different times of the
year. 4For walls supporting heavy cladding loads (such as brick veneer), an
analysis of earthquake lateral loads and combined axial loads should
be considered. However, this load combination rarely governs the design of light-
frame construction. 5Wu is wind uplift load from negative (i.e., suction) pressures
on the roof. Wind uplift loads must be resisted by continuous load path connections
to the foundation or until offset by 0.6D. 6The 0.6 reduction factor on D is
intended to apply to the calculation of net overturning stresses and forces. For
wind, the analysis of
overturning should also consider roof uplift forces unless a separate load path is
designed to transfer those forces.
TABLE 3.2
Roof Construction
15 psf
27 psf
21 psf
- with metal roofing
14 psf
15 psf
18 psf
Floor Construction
Light-frame 2x12 wood floor with 3/4-inch wood structural panel sheathing and 1/2-
inch gypsum board
10 psf2
covering
12 psf
15 psf
- with slate
19 psf
Wall Construction
6 psf
7 psf
8 psf
15 psf
- with thin-coat-stucco on insulation board
9 psf
45 psf
6 psf
Masonry3
6-inch-thick wall
28 psf
60 psf
8-inch-thick wall
36 psf
80 psf
10-inch-thick wall
44 psf
100 psf
12-inch-thick wall
50 psf
125 psf
Concrete
75 psf 100 psf 123 psf 145 psf
6-inch x 12-inch concrete footing 6-inch x 16-inch concrete footing 8-inch x 24-
inch concrete footing
Notes: 1For unit conversions, see Appendix B. 2Value also used for roof rafter
construction (i.e., cathedral ceiling). 3For partially grouted masonry, interpolate
between hollow and solid grout in accordance with the fraction of masonry cores
that are
grouted.
TABLE 3.3
Concrete (normal weight with light reinforcement) Masonry, grout Masonry, brick
Masonry, concrete
Glass
Wood (approximately 10 percent moisture content)2 - spruce-pine-fir (G = 0.42) -
spruce-pine-fir, south (G = 0.36) - southern yellow pine (G = 0.55) - Douglas fir
larch (G = 0.5) - hem-fir (G = 0.43) - mixed oak (G = 0.68)
160 pcf
29 pcf 25 pcf 38 pcf 34 pcf 30 pcf 47 pcf
Water
62.4 pcf
36 pcf 36 pcf
Gypsum board
48 pcf
96 pcf 82 pcf
Notes: 1For unit conversions, see Appendix B. 2The equilibrium moisture content of
lumber is usually not more than 10 percent in protected building construction. The
specific gravity,
G, is the decimal fraction of dry wood density relative to that of water.
Therefore, at a 10 percent moisture content, the density of wood is 1.1(G)(62.4
lbs/ft3). The values given are representative of average densities and may easily
vary by as much as 15 percent depending on
lumber grade and other factors.
consistent with the application and should be located or directed to give the
maximum load effect possible in end-use conditions. For example, the stair
concentrated load of 300 pounds should be applied to the center of the stair tread
between supports. The concentrated wheel load of a vehicle on a garage slab or
floor should be applied to all areas or members subject to a wheel or jack load,
typically using a loaded area of about 20 square inches.
TABLE 3.4
Application
Roof2 Slope 4:12 Flat to 4:12 slope
Attic3 With limited storage With storage
Floors Bedroom areas3,4 Other areas Garages
Decks Balconies Stairs Guards and handrails Grab bars
Uniform Load
15 psf 20 psf
10 psf 20 psf
30 psf 40 psf 50 psf
40 psf 60 psf 40 psf 20 plf N/A
Concentrated Load
250 lbs 250 lbs
250 lbs 250 lbs
300 lbs 300 lbs 2,000 lbs (vans, light trucks) 1,500 lbs (passenger cars) 300 lbs
300 lbs 300 lbs 200 lbs 250 lbs
Notes: 1Live load values should be verified relative to the locally applicable
building code. 2Roof live loads are intended to provide a minimum load for roof
design in consideration of maintenance and construction activities. They
should not be considered in combination with other transient loads (i.e., floor
live load, wind load, etc.) when designing walls, floors, and
foundations. A 15 psf roof live load is recommended for residential roof slopes
greater than 4:12; refer to ASCE 7-98 for an alternate
approach. 3Loft sleeping and attic storage loads should be considered only in areas
with a clear height greater than about 3 feet. The concept of a
clear height limitation on live loads is logical, but it may not be universally
recognized. 4Some codes require 40 psf for all floor areas.
The floor live load on any given floor area may be reduced in accordance with
Equation 3.4-1 (Harris, Corotis, and Bova, 1980). The equation applies to floor and
support members, such as beams or columns, that experience floor loads from a total
tributary floor area greater than 200 square feet. This equation is different from
that in ASCE 7-98 since it is based on data that applies to residential floor loads
rather than commercial buildings.
Residential Structural Design Guide
3-7
[Equation 3.4-1]
0.25
10.6 At
0.75
where,
L = the adjusted floor live load for tributary areas greater than 200 square feet
At = the tributary from a single-story area assigned to a floor support member
(i.e., girder, column, or footing)
Lo = the unreduced live load associated with a floor area of 200 ft2 from Table 3.4
It should also be noted that the nominal design floor live load in Table 3.4
includes both a sustained and transient load component. The sustained component is
that load typically present at any given time and includes the load associated with
normal human occupancy and furnishings. For residential buildings, the mean
sustained live load is about 6 psf but typically varies from 4 to 8 psf (Chalk,
Philip, and Corotis, 1978). The mean transient live load for dwellings is also
about 6 psf but may be as high as 13 psf. Thus, a total design live load of 30 to
40 psf is fairly conservative.
[Equation 3.5-1]
q = Kaw
FIGURE 3.1
It follows that for the triangular pressure distribution shown in Figure 3.1, the
pressure at depth, h, in feet is
[Equation 3.5-2]
P = qh
The total active soil force (pounds per lineal foot of wall length) is
[Equation 3.5-3]
H = 1 (qh)(h) = 1 qh 2 22
where,
h = the depth of the unbalanced fill on a foundation wall H = the resultant force
(plf) applied at a height of h/3 from the base of the
unbalanced fill since the pressure distribution is assumed to be triangular
3-9
imminent failure of a foundation wall, the 30 psf design EFD would correspond to an
active soil lateral pressure determined by using an equivalent fluid density of
about 90 to 120 pcf or more. The design examples in Chapter 4 demonstrate the
calculation of soil loads.
TABLE 3.5
Values of Ka , Soil Unit Weight, and Equivalent Fluid Density by Soil Type1,2,3
Notes: 1Values are applicable to well-drained foundations with less than 10 feet of
backfill placed with light compaction or natural settlement as
is common in residential construction. The values do not apply to foundation walls
in flood-prone environments. In such cases, an
equivalent fluid density value of 80 to 90 pcf would be more appropriate (HUD,
1977). 2Values are based on the Standard Handbook for Civil Engineers, Third
Edition, 1983, and on research on soil pressures reported in Thin
Wall Foundation Testing, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alberta,
Canada, March 1992. It should be noted that the values
for soil equivalent fluid density differ from those recommended in ASCE 7-98 but
are nonetheless compatible with current residential
building codes, design practice, and the stated references. 3These values do not
consider the significantly higher loads that can result from expansive clays and
the lateral expansion of moist, frozen
soil. Such conditions should be avoided by eliminating expansive clays adjacent to
the foundation wall and providing for adequate surface
and foundation drainage. 4Organic silts and clays and expansive clays are
unsuitable for backfill material. 5Backfill in the form of clay soils
(nonexpansive) should be used with caution on foundation walls with unbalanced fill
heights greater
than 3 to 4 feet and on cantilevered foundation walls with unbalanced fill heights
greater than 2 to 3 feet.
Depending on the type and depth of backfill material and the manner of its
placement, it is common practice in residential construction to allow the backfill
soil to consolidate naturally by providing an additional 3 to 6 inches of fill
material. The additional backfill ensures that surface water drainage away from the
foundation remains adequate (i.e., the grade slopes away from the building). It
also helps avoid heavy compaction that could cause undesirable loads on the
foundation wall during and after construction. If soils are heavily compacted at
the ground surface or compacted in lifts to standard Proctor densities greater than
about 85 percent of optimum (ASTM, 1998), the standard 30 pcf EFD assumption may be
inadequate. However, in cases where exterior slabs, patios, stairs, or other items
are supported on the backfill, some amount of compaction is advisable unless the
structures are supported on a separate foundation bearing on undisturbed ground.
3-11
TABLE 3.6
70 75 80 90 100 110 120 130 85 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Once the nominal design wind speed in terms of peak gust is determined, the
designer can select the basic velocity pressure in accordance with Table 3.7. The
basic velocity pressure is a reference wind pressure to which pressure coefficients
are applied to determine surface pressures on a building. Velocity pressures in
Table 3.7 are based on typical conditions for residential construction, namely,
suburban terrain exposure and relatively flat or rolling terrain without
topographic wind speed-up effects.
Source: Reprinted with permission from the American Society of Civil Engineers,
1801 Alexander Bell Road, Reston, VA. Copyright ASCE.
Location
Vmph
(m/s)
Hawaii
105 (47)
Puerto Rico
145 (65)
Guam
170 (76)
Virgin Islands
145
(65)
American Samoa
125
(56)
Notes:
1. Values are nominal design 3-second gust wind speeds in miles per hour (m/s) at
33ft (10m) above ground
3. Islands and coastal areas outside the last contour shall use the last wind speed
contour of the coastal area.
3-13
4. Mountainous terrain, gorges, ocean promontories, and special wind regions shall
be examined for unusual
wind conditions
TABLE 3.7
Notes: 1Velocity pressure (psf) equals 0.00256 KD KZV2, where KZ is the velocity
pressure exposure coefficient associated with the vertical wind
speed profile in suburban terrain at the mean roof height of the building. KD is
the wind directionality factor with a default value of 0.85. 2These two Kz factors
are adjusted from that in ASCE 7 based on a recent study of the near-ground wind
profile (NAHBRC, 1999). To be
compliant with ASCE 7-98, a minimum Kz of 0.7 should be applied to determine
velocity pressure for one-and two-story buildings in
exposure B (suburban terrain) for the design of components and cladding only. For
exposure C, the values are consistent with ASCE 7-98
and require no adjustment except that all tabulated values must be multiplied by
1.4 as described in Step 2.
Open terrain. Open areas with widely scattered obstructions, including shoreline
exposures along coastal and noncoastal bodies of water.
Suburban terrain. Suburban areas or other terrain with closely spaced
obstructions that are the size of single-family dwellings or larger and extend in
the upwind direction a distance no less than ten times the height of the building.
3-15
TABLE 3.8
Application
Roof Vertical Projected Area (by slope) Flat 3:12 6:12 9:12
Wall Projected Area
TABLE 3-9
Application
Roof
Trusses, roof beams, ridge and hip/valley rafters Rafters and truss panel members
Roof sheathing Skylights and glazing Roof uplift3
- hip roof with slope between 3:12 and 6:12 - hip roof with slope greater than 6:12
- all other roof types and slopes Windward overhang4 Wall
All framing members Wall sheathing Windows, doors, and glazing Garage doors Air-
permeable claddings5
The wind loads determined in the previous section assume an enclosed building. If
glazing in windows and doors is not protected from wind-borne debris or otherwise
designed to resist potential impacts during a major hurricane, a building is more
susceptible to structural damage owing to higher internal building pressures that
may develop with a windward opening. The potential for water damage to building
contents also increases. Openings formed in the building envelope during a major
hurricane or tornado are often related to unprotected glazing, improperly fastened
sheathing, or weak garage doors and their attachment to the building. Section 3.9
briefly discusses tornado design conditions.
3-17
Recent years have focused much attention on wind-borne debris but with
comparatively little scientific direction and poorly defined goals with respect to
safety (i.e., acceptable risk), property protection, missile types, and reasonable
impact criteria. Conventional practice in residential construction has called for
simple plywood window coverings with attachments to resist the design wind loads.
In some cases, homeowners elect to use impact-resistant glazing or shutters.
Regardless of the chosen method and its cost, the responsibility for protection
against wind-borne debris has traditionally rested with the homeowner. However,
wind-borne debris protection has recently been mandated in some local building
codes.
Just what defines impact resistance and the level of impact risk during a hurricane
has been the subject of much debate. Surveys of damage following major hurricanes
have identified several factors that affect the level of debris impact risk,
including
wind climate (design wind speed); exposure (e.g., suburban, wooded, height of
surrounding buildings); development density (i.e., distance between buildings);
construction characteristics (e.g., type of roofing, degree of wind
resistance); and debris sources (e.g., roofing, fencing, gravel, etc.).
Current standards for selecting impact criteria for wind-borne debris protection do
not explicitly consider all of the above factors. Further, the primary debris
source in typical residential developments is asphalt roof shingles, which are not
represented in existing impact test methods. These factors can have a dramatic
effect on the level of wind-borne debris risk; moreover, existing impact test
criteria appear to take a worst-case approach. Table 3.10 presents an example of
missile types used for current impact tests. Additional factors to consider include
emergency egress or access in the event of fire when impact-resistant glazing or
fixed shutter systems are specified, potential injury or misapplication during
installation of temporary methods of window protection, and durability of
protective devices and connection details (including installation quality) such
that they themselves do not become a debris hazard over time.
Description
2-gram steel balls 4.5-lb 2x4 9.0-lb 2x4
Velocity
130 fps 40 fps 50 fps
Energy
10 ft-lb 100 ft-lb 350 ft-lb
Notes: 1Consult ASTM E 1886 (ASTM, 1997) or SSTD 12-97 (SBCCI, 1997) for guidance
on testing apparatus and
methodology. 2These missile types are not necessarily representative of the
predominant types or sources of debris at any particular
site. Steel balls are intended to represent small gravels that would be commonly
used for roof ballast. The 2x4 missiles
are intended to represent a direct, end-on blow from construction debris without
consideration of the probability of
such an impact over the life of a particular structure.
In view of the above discussion, ASCE 7-98 identifies wind-borne debris regions
as areas within hurricane-prone regions that are located (1) within one mile of the
coastal mean high water line where the basic wind speed is equal to or greater than
110 mph or in Hawaii or (2) where the basic wind speed is equal to or greater than
120 mph. As described in Section 3.6.2, ASCE 7-98 requires higher internal
pressures to be considered for buildings in wind-borne debris regions unless glazed
openings are protected by impact-resistant glazing or protective devices proven as
such by an approved test method. Approved test methods include ASTM E1886 and SSTD
12-97 (ASTM, 1997; SBCCI, 1997).
The wind load method described in Section 3.6.2 may be considered acceptable
without wind-borne debris protection, provided that the building envelope (i.e.,
windows, doors, sheathing, and especially garage doors) is carefully designed for
the required pressures. Most homes that experience windborne debris damage do not
appear to exhibit more catastrophic failures, such as a roof blow-off, unless the
roof was severely underdesigned in the first place (i.e., inadequate tie-down) or
subject to poor workmanship (i.e., missing fasteners at critical locations). Those
cases are often the ones cited as evidence of internal pressure in anecdotal field
studies. However, garage doors that fail due to wind pressure more frequently
precipitate additional damage related to internal pressure. Therefore, in
hurricane-prone regions, garage door reinforcement or pressure-rated garage doors
should be specified and their attachment to structural framing carefully
considered.
3.6.3.2 Building Durability
Roof overhangs increase uplift loads on roof tie-downs and the framing members that
support the overhangs. They do, however, provide a reliable means of protection
against moisture and the potential decay of wood building materials. The designer
should therefore consider the trade-off between wind load and durability,
particularly in the moist, humid climate zones associated with hurricanes.
For buildings that are exposed to salt spray or mist from nearby bodies of salt
water, the designer should also consider a higher-than-standard level of corrosion
resistance for exposed fasteners and hardware. Truss plates near roof vents have
also shown accelerated rates of corrosion in severe coastal exposures. The building
owner, in turn, should consider a building maintenance plan that includes regular
inspections, maintenance, and repair.
3.6.3.3 Tips to Improve Performance
The following design and construction tips are simple options for reducing a
building's vulnerability to hurricane damage:
One-story buildings are much less vulnerable to wind damage than two- or three-
story buildings.
On average, hip roofs have demonstrated better performance than gable-end roofs.
Source: Reprinted with permission from the American Society of Civil Engineers,
1801 Alexander Bell Road, Reston, VA. Copyright ASCE.
3-21
FIGURE 3.4
Source: Reprinted with permission from the American Society of Civil Engineers,
1801 Alexander Bell Road, Reston, VA. Copyright ASCE.
3-23
The total lateral force at the base of a building is called seismic base shear. The
lateral force experienced at a particular story level is called the story shear.
The story shear is greatest in the ground story and least in the top story. Seismic
base shear and story shear (V) are determined in accordance with the following
equation:
[Equation 3.8-1]
V = 1.2 SDS W , R
where,
[Equation 3.8-2]
Site Soil Amplification Factor Relative to Acceleration (short period, firm soil)
0.25g 1.6
0.5g 1.4
0.75g 1.2
The seismic response modifier R has a long history in seismic design, but with
little in the way of scientific underpinnings. In fact, it can be traced back to
expert opinion in the development of seismic design codes during the 1950s (ATC,
1995). In recognition that buildings can effectively dissipate energy from seismic
ground motions through ductile damage, the R factor was conceived to adjust the
shear forces from that which would be experienced if a building could exhibit
perfectly elastic behavior without some form of ductile energy dissipation. The
concept has served a major role in standardizing the seismic design of buildings
even though it has evolved in the absence of a repeatable and generalized
evaluation methodology with a known relationship to actual building performance.
Those structural building systems that are able to withstand greater ductile damage
and deformation without substantial loss of strength are assigned a higher value
for R. The R factor also incorporates differences in dampening that are believed to
occur for various structural systems. Table 3.12 provides some values for R that
are relevant to residential construction.
3-25
Structural System
Light-frame shear walls with wood structural panels used as bearing walls Light-
frame shear walls with wall board/lath and plaster Reinforced concrete shear walls3
Reinforced masonry shear walls3 Plain concrete shear walls Plain masonry shear
walls
Notes: 1The R-factors may vary for a given structural system type depending on wall
configuration, material selection, and connection detailing,
but these considerations are necessarily matters of designer judgment. 2The R for
light-frame shear walls (steel-framed and wood-framed) with shear panels has been
recently revised to 6 but is not yet
published (ICC, 1999). Current practice typically uses an R of 5.5 to 6.5 depending
on the edition of the local building code. 3The wall is reinforced in accordance
with concrete design requirements in ACI-318 or ACI-530. Nominally reinforced
concrete or
masonry that has conventional amounts of vertical reinforcement such as one #5
rebar at openings and at 4 feet on center may use the
value for reinforced walls provided the construction is no more than two stories
above grade.
Design Example 3.3 in Section 3.10 demonstrates the calculation of design seismic
shear load based on the simplified procedures. The reader is referred to Chapter 6
for additional information on seismic loads and analysis.
Perhaps the single most important principle in seismic design is to ensure that the
structural components and systems are adequately tied together to perform as a
structural unit. Underlying this principle are a host of analytic challenges and
uncertainties in actually defining what adequately tied together means in a
repeatable, accurate, and theoretically sound manner.
Recent seismic building code developments have introduced several new factors and
provisions that attempt to address various problems or uncertainties in the design
process. Unfortunately, these factors appear to introduce as many
3-27
3-29
EXAMPLE 3.1
Given
Find Solution 1.
= 1/2 (28 ft)(15 psf) + 2(8 ft)(8 psf) + 2(7 ft)(10 psf)
= 478 plf
Live load
(two floors)
low clearance
Wall axial gravity load = 478 plf + 224 plf + 0.3 (420 plf) = 828 plf
Load condition (a) controls the gravity load analysis for the bearing wall. The
same load applies to the design of headers as well as to the wall studs. Of course,
combined lateral (bending) and axial loads on the wall studs also need to be
checked (i.e., D+W); refer to Table 3.1 and Example 3.2. For nonload-bearing
exterior walls (i.e., gable-end curtain walls), contributions from floor and roof
live loads may be negligible (or significantly reduced), and the D+W load
combination likely governs the design.
3-31
2. Gravity load on a column supporting a center floor girder carrying loads from
two floors (first and second stories)
(a) Dead load = Second floor + first floor + bearing wall supporting second floor
= (14 ft)(16 ft)(10 psf) + (14 ft)(16 ft)(10 psf) + (8 ft)(16 ft)(7 psf) = 5,376
lbs
0.25
10.6
0.75
0.75
OK
448
(c) Live load = (14 ft)(16 ft)[30 psf + 22.5 psf] = 11,760 lbs
The controlling load combination is D+L since there are no attic or roof loads
supported by the column. The total axial gravity design load on the column is
17,136 lbs (5,376 lbs + 11,760 lbs).
Note. If LRFD material design specifications are used, the various loads would be
factored in accordance with Table 3.1. All other considerations and calculations
remain unchanged.
EXAMPLE 3.2
Given
Find
Solution 1.
Site wind speed100 mph, gust Site wind exposuresuburban Two-story home,
7:12 roof pitch, 28 x 44 plan (rectangular), gable roof, 12-
inch overhang
1. Lateral (shear) load on lower-story end wall 2. Net roof uplift at connections
to the side wall 3. Roof sheathing pull-off (suction) pressure 4. Wind load on a
roof truss 5. Wind load on a rafter 6. Lateral (out-of-plane) wind load on a wall
stud
Step 1: Velocity pressure = 14.6 psf (Table 3.7) Step 2: Adjusted velocity pressure
= 0.9* x 14.6 psf = 13.1 psf
*adjustment for wind directionality (V<110 mph) Step 3: Lateral roof coefficient =
0.6 (Table 3.8)
Lateral wall coefficient = 1.2 (Table 3.8) Step 4: Skip Step 5: Determine design
wind pressures
Wall projected area pressure = (13.1 psf)(1.2) = 15.7 psf Roof projected area
pressure = (13.1 psf)(0.6) = 7.9 psf
Now determine vertical projected areas (VPA) for lower-story end-wall tributary
loading (assuming no contribution from interior walls in resisting lateral loads)
Shear
The first-story end wall must be designed to transfer a shear load of 5,169 lbs. If
side-wall loads were determined instead, the vertical projected area would include
only the gable-end wall area and the triangular wall area formed by the roof. Use
of a hip roof would reduce the shear load for the side and end walls.
3-33
Step 1: Velocity pressure = 14.6 psf (as before) Step 2: Adjusted velocity pressure
= 13.1 psf (as before) Step 3: Skip Step 4: Roof uplift pressure coefficient = -1.0
(Table 3.9)
Roof overhang pressure coefficient = 0.8 (Table 3.9) Step 5: Determine design wind
pressure
Roof horizontal projected area (HPA) pressure = -1.0 (13.1 psf) = -13.1 psf
Roof overhang pressure = 0.8 (13.1 psf) = 10.5 psf (upward)
Roof dead load reaction = 1/2 (roof span)(uniform dead load) = 1/2 (30 ft)(15 psf*)
*Table 3.2 = 225 plf (downward)
Net design uplift load = 0.6D + Wu (Table 3.1) = 0.6 (225 plf) + (-207 plf) = -54
plf (net uplift)
Step 1: Velocity pressure Step 2: Adjusted velocity pressure Step 3: Skip Step 4:
Roof sheathing pressure coefficient (suction) Step 5: Roof sheathing pressure
(suction)
The fastener load depends on the spacing of roof framing and spacing of the
fastener. Fasteners in the interior of the roof sheathing panel usually have the
largest tributary area and therefore are critical. Assuming 24-inch-on-center roof
framing, the fastener withdrawal load for a 12-inch-on-center fastener spacing is
as follows:
This load exceeds the allowable capacity of minimum conventional roof sheathing
connections (i.e., 6d nail). Therefore, a larger nail (i.e., 8d) would be required
for the given wind condition. At appreciably higher wind conditions, a closer
fastener spacing or highercapacity fastener (i.e., deformed shank nail) may be
required; refer to Chapter 7.
Step 1: Velocity pressure Step 2: Adjusted velocity pressure Step 3: Skip Step 4:
Roof truss pressure coefficient Step 5: Determine design wind pressures
(a) Uplift = -0.9 (13.1 psf) = -11.8 psf (b) Inward = 0.4 (13.1 psf) = 5.2 psf
Since the inward wind pressure is less than the minimum roof live load (i.e., 15
psf, Table 3.4), the following load combinations would govern the roof truss design
while the D+W load combination could be dismissed (refer to Table 3.1):
D + (Lr or S) 0.6D + Wu* *The net uplift load for truss design is relatively small
in this case (approximately
3.5 psf) and may be dismissed by an experienced designer.
5. Load on a rafter
Step 1: Velocity pressure Step 2: Adjusted velocity pressure Step 3: Skip Step 4:
Rafter pressure coefficient Step 5: Determine design wind pressures
(a) Uplift = (-1.2)(13.1 psf) = -15.7 psf (b) Inward = (0.7)(13.1 psf) = 9.2 psf
Rafters in cathedral ceilings are sloped, simply supported beams, whereas rafters
that are framed with cross-ties (i.e., ceiling joists ) constitute a component
(i.e., top chord) of a sitebuilt truss system. Assuming the former in this case,
the rafter should be designed as a sloped beam by using the span measured along the
slope. By inspection, the minimum roof live load (D+Lr) governs the design of the
rafter in comparison to the wind load combinations (see Table 3.1). The load
combination 0.6 D+Wu can be dismissed in this case for rafter sizing but must be
considered when investigating wind uplift for the rafter-to-wall and rafter-to-
ridge beam connections.
3-35
Step 3: Skip
(a) Outward = (-1.2)(13.1 psf) = -15.7 psf (b) Inward = (1.1)(13.1 psf) = 14.4 psf
Obviously, the outward pressure of 15.7 psf governs the out-of-plane bending load
design of the wall stud. Since the load is a lateral pressure (not uplift), the
applicable load combination is D+W (refer to Table 3.1), resulting in a combined
axial and bending load. The axial load would include the tributary building dead
load from supported assemblies (i.e., walls, floors, and roof). The bending load
would the be determined by using the wind pressure of 15.7 psf applied to the stud
as a uniform line load on a simply supported beam calculated as follows:
Of course, the following gravity load combinations would also need to be considered
in the stud design (refer to Table 3.1):
It should be noted that the stud is actually part of a wall system (i.e., sheathing
and interior finish) and can add substantially to the calculated bending capacity;
refer to Chapter 5.
EXAMPLE 3.3
Site ground motion, Ss = 1g Site soil condition = firm (default) Roof snow
load < 30 psf Two-story home, 28 x 44plan, typical construction
Design seismic shear on first-story end wall assuming no interior shear walls or
contribution from partition walls
Roof dead load = (28 ft)(44 ft)(15 psf) = 18,480 lb Second-story exterior wall dead
load = (144 lf)(8 ft)(8 psf) = 9,216 lb Second-story partition wall dead load = (28
ft)(44 ft)(6 psf) = 7,392 lb Second-story floor dead load = (28 ft)(44 ft)(10 psf)
= 12,320 lb First-story exterior walls (1/2 height) = (144 lf)(4 ft)(8 psf) = 4,608
lb Assume first-story interior partition walls are capable of at least supporting
the seismic shear produced by their own weight
V = 1.2 SDS W R
1.2 (0.74g) = (52,016 lb) (R = 5.5 from Table 3.12)
5.5 = 8,399 lb
Assume that the building mass is evenly distributed and that stiffness is also
reasonably balanced between the two end walls; refer to Chapter 6 for additional
guidance.
With the above assumption, the load is simply distributed to the end walls
according to tributary weight (or plan area) of the building. Therefore,
Note that the design shear load from wind (100 mph gust, exposure B) in Example 3.2
is somewhat greater (5,912 lbs).
3-37
Harris, Michael E., Corotis, Ross B., and Bova, Carl J., Area-Dependent Processes
for Structural Live Loads, Journal of the Structural Division, Vol. 107 No. ST5,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, May 1980.
Ho, Tat Chiu Eric, Variability of Low Building Wind Loads, Ph.D. thesis submitted
to the Department of Civil Engineering, University of Western Ontario, London,
Ontario, Canada, July 1992.
HUD, Assessment of Damage to Residential Buildings Caused by the Northridge
Earthquake, prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development by
the NAHB Research Center, Inc, Upper Marlboro, MD, 1994.
HUD, Housing Performance Evaluation and Seismic Design Implications in the
Northridge Earthquake, prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development by the NAHB Research Center, Inc, Upper Marlboro, MD, 1999.
HUD, Manual for the Construction of Residential Basements in Non-Coastal Flood
Environments, prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development by
the NAHB Research Foundation, Rockville, MD, 1977.
ICBO, Uniform Building Code, Vol. 2, International Conference of Building
Officials, Whittier, CA, 1997.
ICC, International Building Code (Final Draft), International Code Council, Inc.,
Falls Church, VA, 1999.
ICC, International One- and Two-Family Dwelling Code, International Code Council,
Inc., Falls Church, VA, 1998.
Linell, K.A. and Lobacz, E.F., Design and Construction of Foundations in Areas of
Deep Seasonal Frost and Permafrost, Special Report 80-34, Cold Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, New Hampshire, August 1980.
NAHBRC, Near Ground Wind and Its Characterization for Engineering Applications,
prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the National
Association of Home Builders by the NAHB Research Center, Inc., Upper Marlboro, MD,
1999.
NEHRP, Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other
Structures, Part 1: Provisions (FEMA 302), prepared for the Federal Emergency
Management Agency by the Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, DC, 1997a.
3-39
4.1 General
A foundation transfers the load of a structure to the earth and resists loads
imposed by the earth. A foundation in residential construction may consist of a
footing, wall, slab, pier, pile, or a combination of these elements. This chapter
addresses the following foundation types:
4-1
4-3
4-5
TABLE 4.1
Size
4-7
Grout
Grout is a slurry consisting of cementitious material, aggregate, and water. When
needed, grout is commonly placed in the hollow cores of concrete masonry units to
provide a wall with added strength. In reinforced load-bearing masonry wall
construction, grout is usually placed only in those hollow cores containing steel
reinforcement. The grout bonds the masonry units and steel so that they act as a
composite unit to resist imposed loads. Grout may also be used in unreinforced
concrete masonry walls for added strength.
4.3 Soil Bearing Capacity and Footing Size
Soil bearing investigations are rarely required for residential construction except
in the case of known risks as evidenced by a history of local problems (e.g.,
organic deposits, landfills, expansive soils, etc.). Soil bearing tests on
stronger-than-average soils can, however, justify smaller footings or eliminate
footings entirely if the foundation wall provides sufficient bearing surface. For a
conservative relationship between soil type and load-bearing value, refer to Table
4.2. A similar table is typically published in the building codes.
TABLE 4.2
with the blow count from the SPT test method. Many engineers can provide reasonable
estimates of soil bearing by using smaller penetrometers at less cost, although
such devices and methods may require an independent calibration to determine
presumptive soil bearing values and may not be able to detect deep subsurface
problems. Calibrations may be provided by the manufacturer or, alternatively,
developed by the engineer.
The designer should exercise judgment when selecting the final design value and be
prepared to make adjustments (increases or decreases) in interpreting and applying
the results to a specific design. The values in Tables 4.2 and 4.3 are generally
associated with a safety factor of 3 (Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1996)
and are considered appropriate for noncontinuous or independent spread footings
supporting columns or piers (i.e., point loads). Use of a minimum safety factor of
2 (corresponding to a higher presumptive soil bearing value) is recommended for
smaller structures with continuous spread footings such as houses. To achieve a
safety factor of 2, the designer may multiply the values in Tables 4.2 and 4.3 by
1.5.
Table 4.3
Presumptive Soil Bearing Values (psf) Based on Standard Penetrometer Blow Count
In Situ Consistency, N1
Loose2
Firm
Compact
foot)
foot)
foot)
Gravel
4,000 (10)
8,000 (25)
11,000 (50)
Noncohesive Soils
Sand
2,500 (6)
5,000 (20)
6,000 (35)
Fine sand
1,000 (5)
3,000 (12)
5,000 (30)
500 (5)
Soft3 (3 to 5 blows per
foot)
2,000 (3)
2,000 (15)
Medium ( about 10 blows
per foot)
5,000 (10)
4,000 (35)
Stiff (> 20 blows per
foot)
8,000 (20)
Cohesive Soils
1,000 (4)
3,000 (8)
6,000 (20)
Clay
500 (5)
2,000 (10)
4,000 (25)
Source: Naval Facilities Command, 1986. Notes: 1N denotes the standard penetrometer
blow count in blows per foot in accordance with ASTM D1586; shown in parentheses.
2Compaction should be considered in these conditions, particularly when the blow
count is five blows per foot or less. 3Pile and grade beam foundations should be
considered in these conditions, particularly when the blow count is five blows per
foot or less.
The required width or area of a spread footing is determined by dividing the
building load on the footing by the soil bearing capacity from Table 4.2 or Table
4.3 as shown below. Building design loads, including dead and live loads, should be
determined in accordance with Chapter 3 by using allowable stress design (ASD) load
combinations.
4-9
Area independent
spread
footing
psf
Width continuous
footing
4.4 Footings
The objectives of footing design are
to provide a level surface for construction of the foundation wall; to provide
adequate transfer and distribution of building loads to
the underlying soil; to provide adequate strength, in addition to the foundation
wall, to
prevent differential settlement of the building in weak or uncertain soil
conditions; to place the building foundation at a sufficient depth to avoid frost
heave or thaw weakening in frost-susceptible soils and to avoid organic surface
soil layers; and to provide adequate anchorage or mass (when needed in addition
to the foundation wall) to resist potential uplift and overturning forces resulting
from high winds or severe seismic events.
This section presents design methods for concrete and gravel footings. The designer
is reminded that the required footing width is first established in accordance with
Section 4.3. Further, if soil conditions are stable or the foundation wall can
adequately resist potential differential settlement, the footing may be completely
eliminated.
By far, the most common footing in residential construction is a continuous
concrete spread footing. However concrete and gravel footings are both recognized
in prescriptive footing size tables in residential building codes for most typical
conditions (ICC, 1998). In contrast, special conditions give rise to some
engineering concerns that need to be addressed to ensure the adequacy of any
foundation design. Special conditions include
steeply sloped sites requiring a stepped footing; high-wind conditions;
inland or coastal flooding conditions; high-hazard seismic conditions; and poor
soil conditions.
4.4.1 Simple Gravel and Concrete Footing Design
Building codes for residential construction contain tables that prescribe minimum
footing widths for plain concrete footings (ICC, 1998). Alternatively, footing
widths may be determined in accordance with Section 4.3 based on a
4-10 Residential Structural Design Guide
sites particular loading condition and presumptive soil bearing capacity. The
following are general rules of thumb for determining the thickness of plain
concrete footings for residential structures once the required bearing width is
calculated:
The minimum footing thickness should not be less than the distance the footing
extends outward from the edge of the foundation wall or 6 inches, whichever is
greater.
The footing width should project a minimum of 2 inches from both faces of the
wall (to allow for a minimum construction tolerance) but not greater than the
footing thickness.
These rules of thumb generally result in a footing design that differs somewhat
from the plain concrete design provisions of Chapter 22 of ACI-318. It should also
be understood that footing widths generally follow the width increments of standard
excavation equipment (i.e., a backhoe bucket size of 12, 16, or 24 inches). Even
though some designers and builders may specify one or two longitudinal No. 4 bars
for wall footings, steel reinforcement is not required for residential-scale
structures in typical soil conditions. For situations where the rules of thumb or
prescriptive code tables do not apply or where a more economical solution is
possible, a more detailed footing analysis may be considered (see Section 4.4.2).
Refer to Example 4.1 for a plain concrete footing design in accordance with the
simple method described herein.
Much like a concrete footing, a gravel footing may be used to distribute foundation
loads to a sufficient soil bearing surface area. It also provides a continuous path
for water or moisture and thus must be drained in accordance with the foundation
drainage provisions of the national building codes. Gravel footings are constructed
of crushed stone or gravel that is consolidated by tamping or vibrating. Pea
gravel, which is naturally consolidated, does not require compaction and can be
screeded to a smooth, level surface much like concrete. Although typically
associated with pressure-treated wood foundations (refer to Section 4.5.3), a
gravel footing can support cast-in-place or precast concrete foundation walls.
The size of a gravel footing is usually based on a 30- to 45-degree angle of repose
for distributing loads; therefore, as with plain concrete footings, the required
depth and width of the gravel footing depends on the width of the foundation wall,
the foundation load, and soil bearing values. Following a rule of thumb similar to
that for a concrete footing, the gravel footing thickness should be no less than
1.5 times its extension beyond the edge of the foundation wall or, in the case of a
pressure-treated wood foundation, the mud sill. Just as with a concrete footing,
the thickness of a gravel footing may be considered in meeting the required frost
depth. In soils that are not naturally well-drained, provision should be made to
adequately drain a gravel footing.
4.4.2 Concrete Footing Design
For the vast majority of residential footing designs, it quickly becomes evident
that conventional residential footing requirements found in residential building
codes are adequate, if not conservative (ICC,1998). However, to improve
4-11
FIGURE 4.2
Critical Failure Planes in Continuous or Square Concrete Spread Footings
4-13
4.4.2.1
Flexure (Bending)
The maximum moment in a footing deformed by the upward-acting soil pressures would
logically occur in the middle of the footing; however, the rigidity of the wall or
column above resists some of the upward-acting forces and affects the location of
maximum moment. As a result, the critical flexure plane for footings supporting a
rigid wall or column is assumed to be located at the face of the wall or column.
Flexure in a concrete footing is checked by computing the moment created by the
soil bearing forces acting over the cantilevered area of the footing that extends
from the critical flexure plane to the edge of the footing (hatched area in Figure
4.2). The approach for masonry walls in ACI-318 differs slightly in that the
failure plane is assumed to be located one-fourth of the way under a masonry wall
or column, creating a slightly longer cantilever. For the purpose of this guide,
the difference is considered unnecessary.
Bearing Strength
It is difficult to contemplate conditions where concrete bearing or compressive
strength is a concern in typical residential construction; therefore, a design
check can usually be dismissed as OK by inspection. In rare and peculiar
instances where bearing compressive forces on the concrete are extreme and approach
or exceed the specified concrete compressive strength, ACI31810.17 and ACI-
31812.3 should be consulted for appropriate design guidance.
Plain Concrete Footing Design
In this section, the design of plain concrete footings is presented by using the
concepts related to shear and bending covered in the previous section. Refer to
Example 4.1 in Section 4.9 for a plain concrete footing design example.
Shear
In the equations given below for one- and two-way shear, the dimensions are in
accordance with Figure 4.2; units of inches should be used. ACI-318 requires an
additional 2 inches of footing thickness to compensate for uneven trench conditions
and does not allow a total footing thickness less than 8 inches for plain concrete.
These limits may be relaxed for residential footing design, provided that the
capacity is shown to be sufficient in accordance with the ACI318 design equations.
Footings in residential construction are often 6 inches thick. The equations below
are specifically tailored for footings supporting walls or square columns since
such footings are common in residential construction. The equations may be
generalized for use with other conditions (i.e., rectangular footings and
rectangular columns, round footings, etc.) by following the same principles. In
addition, the terms 4/3 f c and 4 f c are in units of pounds per square inch and
represent lower-bound estimates of the ultimate shear stress capacity of
unreinforced concrete.
[ACI-31822.5,22.7]
qs
Pu bl
Vc
4 3
fc lt
= 0.65
basic design check for shear factored shear load (lb) uniform soil bearing pressure
(psi) due to factored foundation load Pu (lb)
factored shear capacity (lb)
resistance factor
Vc Vu
( )Vu = (qs ) bl (T + t)2
qs
Pu bl
Vc = 4 f c b o t
bo = 4(T + t)
= 0.65
resistance factor
Flexure
For a plain concrete footing, flexure (bending) is checked by using the equations
below for footings that support walls or square columns (see Figure 4.2). The
dimensions in the equations are in accordance with Figure 4.2 and use
units of inches. The term 5 f c is in units of pounds per square inch (psi) and
represents a lower-bound estimate of the ultimate tensile (rupture) stress of
unreinforced concrete in bending.
[ACI-31822.5,22.7]
Mn Mu
Mu
1 8
qsl(b
)2
qs
Pu bl
M n = 5 fc S
S = 1 lt2 6
= 0.65
basic design check for bending factored moment (in-lb) due to soil pressure qs
(psi) acting on cantilevered portion of footing uniform soil bearing pressure (psi)
due to factored load Pu (lb)
factored moment capacity (in-lb) for plain concrete
section modulus (in3) for footing
resistance factor for plain concrete in bending
4-15
4.4.2.2
[ACI-31811.12,15.5]
Flexure
Vc Vu
Vu = (qs )(0.5(b T) d)l
qs
Pu bl
Vc = 2 f c ld d = t c 0.5d b
= 0.85
Vc Vu
( )Vu
Pu bl
bl (T + d)2
Vc = 4 f c b o d
basic design check for shear shear load (lb) due to factored load Pu (lb) factored
shear capacity (lb)
bo = 4(T + d)
= 0.85
4-17
[ACI-31815.4]
Mn Mu
Mu
1 8
sl(b
T)2
M n
= A sf y (d
a) 2
a = Asfy 0.85 f cl
= 0.9
M n
= bdf y d
0.5 d f y 0.85f c
0.85f c fy
2R n 0.85f c
Rn
Mu ld 2
As = ld
(l is substituted for the ACI-318 symbol b for the concrete beam width and is
consistent with the footing dimensioning in Figure 4.2)
defines reinforcement ratio (l is substituted for the ACI-318 symbol b for the
concrete beam width and is consistent with the footing dimensioning in Figure 4.2)
Minimum Reinforcement
[ACI-3187.12, 10.5]
Designers often specify one or two longitudinal No. 4 bars for wall footings as
nominal reinforcement in the case of questionable soils or when required to
maintain continuity of stepped footings on sloped sites or under conditions
resulting in a changed footing depth. However, for most residential foundations,
the primary resistance against differential settlement is provided by the deep beam
action of the foundation wall; footing reinforcement may provide
4-18 Residential Structural Design Guide
limited benefit. In such cases, the footing simply acts as a platform for the wall
construction and distributes loads to a larger soil bearing area.
Lap Splices
Where reinforcement cannot be installed in one length to meet reinforcement
requirements, as in continuous wall footings, reinforcement bars must be lapped to
develop the bars full tensile capacity across the splice. In accordance with ACI-
318, a minimum lap length of 40 times the diameter of the reinforcement bar is
required for splices in the reinforcement. In addition, the separation between
spliced or lapped bars is not to exceed eight times the diameter of the
reinforcement bar or 6 inches, whichever is less.
4.5 Foundation Walls
The objectives of foundation wall design are
to transfer the load of the building to the footing or directly to the earth;
to provide adequate strength, in combination with the footing when required, to
prevent differential settlement;
to provide adequate resistance to shear and bending stresses resulting from
lateral soil pressure;
to provide anchorage for the above-grade structure to resist wind or seismic
forces;
to provide a moisture-resistant barrier to below-ground habitable space in
accordance with the building code; and
to isolate nonmoisture-resistant building materials from the ground.
In some cases, masonry or concrete foundation walls incorporate a nominal amount of
steel reinforcement to control cracking. Engineering specifications generally
require reinforcement of concrete or masonry foundation walls because of somewhat
arbitrary limits on minimum steel-to-concrete ratios, even for plain concrete
walls. However, residential foundation walls are generally constructed of
unreinforced or nominally reinforced concrete or masonry or of preservative-treated
wood. The nominal reinforcement approach has provided many serviceable structures.
This section discusses the issue of reinforcement and presents rational design
approach for residential concrete and masonry foundation walls.
In most cases, a design for concrete or concrete masonry walls can be selected from
the prescriptive tables in the applicable residential building code or the
International One- and Two-Family Dwelling Code (ICC, 1998). Sometimes, a specific
design applied with reasonable engineering judgment results in a more efficient and
economical solution than that prescribed by the codes. The designer may elect to
design the wall as either a reinforced or plain concrete wall. The following
sections detail design methods for both wall types.
4-19
permits nominal 6-inch-thick foundation walls when the height of unbalanced fill is
less than a prescribed maximum. The 7.5-inch-minimum thickness requirement is
obviously impractical for a short concrete stem wall as in a crawl space
foundation.
Adequate strength needs to be provided and should be demonstrated by analysis in
accordance with the ACI-318 design equations and the recommendations of this
section. Depending on soil loads, analysis should confirm conventional residential
foundation wall practice in typical conditions. Refer to Example 4.3 of Section 4.9
for an illustration of a plain concrete foundation wall design.
The following checks are used to determine if a plain concrete wall has adequate
strength.
Shear Capacity
Shear stress is a result of the lateral loads on a structure associated with wind,
earthquake, or backfill forces. Lateral loads are, however, either normal to the
wall surface (i.e., perpendicular or out of plane) or parallel to the wall surface
(i.e., in plane). The designer must consider both perpendicular and parallel shear
in the wall.
Perpendicular shear is rarely a controlling factor in the design of residential
concrete foundation walls. Parallel shear is also usually not a controlling factor
in residential foundation walls.
If greater shear capacity is required in a plain concrete wall, it may be obtained
by increasing the wall thickness or increasing the concrete compressive strength.
Alternatively, a wall can be reinforced in accordance with Section 4.5.1.2.
The following equations apply to both perpendicular and parallel shear in
conjunction with Figure 4.3 for plain concrete walls. For parallel shear, the
equations do not address overturning and bending action that occurs in a direction
parallel to the wall, particularly for short segments of walls under significant
parallel shear load. For concrete foundation walls, this is generally not a
concern. For above-grade wood-frame walls, this is addressed in Chapter 6 in
detail.
[ACI-31822.5.4]
Vu Vn
Vn
4 3
f c bh
= 0.65
4-21
FIGURE 4.3
The ACI-318 equations listed below account for the combined effects of axial load
and bending moment on a plain concrete wall. The intent is to ensure that the
concrete face in compression and the concrete face in tension resulting from
factored nominal axial and bending loads do not exceed the factored nominal
capacity for concrete. A method of plotting the interaction equation below is shown
in Example 4.4 of Section 4.9; refer to Section 4.5.1.3 for information on
interaction diagrams.
[ACI-31822.5.3, 22.6.3]
Mu S
Pu Ag
Mu > Mu,min
M u,min = 0.1hPu
M n = 0.85f c S
Pn
= 0.6f c
lc 32h
= 0.65
Even though a plain concrete wall often calculates as adequate, the designer may
elect to add a nominal amount of reinforcement for crack control or other reasons.
Walls determined inadequate to withstand combined axial load and bending moment may
gain greater capacity through increased wall thickness or increased concrete
compressive strength. Alternatively, the wall may be reinforced in accordance with
Section 4.5.1.2. Walls determined to have adequate strength to withstand shear and
combined axial load and bending moment may also be checked for deflection, but this
is usually not a limiting factor for typical residential foundation walls.
ACI-318 allows two approaches to the design of reinforced concrete with some limits
on wall thickness and the minimum amount of steel reinforcement; however, ACI-318
also permits these requirements to be waived in the event that structural analysis
demonstrates adequate strength and stability in accordance with ACI-31814.2.7.
Refer to Examples 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7 in Section 4.9 for the design of a reinforced
concrete foundation wall.
Reinforced concrete walls should be designed in accordance with ACI31814.4 by
using the strength design method. The following checks for shear and combined
flexure and axial load determine if a wall is adequate to resist the applied loads.
Shear Capacity
Shear stress is a result of the lateral loads on a structure associated with wind,
earthquake, or lateral soil forces. The loads are, however, either normal to the
wall surface (i.e., perpendicular or out of plane) or parallel to the wall surface
(i.e., in plane). The designer must check both perpendicular and parallel shear in
the wall to determine if the wall can resist the lateral loads present.
Perpendicular shear is rarely a controlling factor in the design of typical
residential foundation concrete walls. The level of parallel shear is also usually
not a controlling factor in residential foundation walls.
If greater shear capacity is required, it may be obtained by increasing the wall
thickness, increasing the concrete compressive strength, adding horizontal
4-23
[ACI-31811.5,11.7, 11.10]
Vu Vn
Vn = Vc + Vs
Vc = 2 f c b w d
Vs
Avfyd s
f c b w d
= 0.85
when
Vu > Vc
FIGURE 4.4
4-25
residential foundation typically provide lateral support to resist any racking and
deflections associated with a sway frame. More important, foundation walls
generally have few openings and thus do not constitute a framelike system. For more
information on sway frames and their design procedure, refer to ACI31810.13.
The moment magnifier method uses the relationship of the axial load and lateral
load in addition to wall thickness and unbraced height to determine a multiplier of
1 or greater, which accounts for slenderness in the wall. The multiplier is termed
the moment magnifier. It magnifies the calculated moment in the wall resulting from
the lateral soil load and any eccentricity in axial load. Together, the axial load
and magnified moment are used to determine whether the foundation wall section is
adequate to resist the applied loads. The following steps are required to determine
the amount of reinforcement required in a typical residential concrete foundation
wall to resist combined flexure and axial loads:
calculate axial and lateral loads; verify that the nonsway condition applies;
calculate slenderness; calculate the moment magnifier; and plot the axial load
and magnified moment on an interaction diagram.
Slenderness
Conservatively, assuming that the wall is pinned at the top and bottom, slenderness
in the wall can be calculated by using the equation below. The effective length
factor k is conservatively assumed to equal 1 in this condition. It should be noted
that a value of k much less than 1 (i.e., 0.7) may actually better represent the
end conditions (i.e., nonpinned) of residential foundation walls.
[ACI-31810.10]
klu < 34 r r= I =
A
slenderness ratio
bd 3 12 =
d2
bd 12
radius of gyration
[ACI-31810.12.3]
= Cm 1 1 Pu 0.75Pc
Pc
2 EI
(klu )2
C m = 0.6
or
e = M2 Pu
0.9
0.5
2 d
12
1.0
= As Ag
Pu,dead Pu
E c = 57,000 fc or w1c.5 33 fc
Given that the total factored axial load in residential construction typically
falls below 3,000 pounds per linear foot of wall and that concrete compressive
strength is typically 3,000 psi, Table 4.4 provides prescriptive moment magnifiers.
Interpolation is permitted between wall heights and between factored axial loads.
Depending on the reinforcement ratio and the eccentricity present, some economy is
lost in using the Table 4.4 values instead of the above calculation method.
TABLE 4.4
Thickness (inches)
(feet)
5.5
8 10
8 7.5
10
9.5
8 10
2,000
1.07 1.12 1.03 1.04 1.00 1.00
4,000
1.15 1.26 1.06 1.09 1.03 1.04
4-27
FIGURE 4.5
4-31
Flexural Capacity
The following equations are used to determine the flexural capacity of a reinforced
concrete lintel in conjunction with Figure 4.6. An increase in the lintel depth or
area of reinforcement is suggested if greater bending capacity is required. As a
practical matter, though, lintel thickness is limited to the thickness of the wall
in which a lintel is placed. In addition, lintel depth is often limited by the
floor-to-floor height and the vertical placement of the opening in the wall.
Therefore, in many cases, increasing the amount or size of reinforcement is the
most practical and economical solution.
[ACI-31810]
Mu Mn
Mu
= wl 2 12
Mu
= wl 2 8
Mn
Asf
a 2
a = Asfy 0.85f cb
= 0.9
Shear Capacity
Concrete lintels are designed for shear resulting from wall, roof, and floor loads
in accordance with the equations below and Figure 4.6.
[ACI-31811]
Vu Vn Vn = Vc + Vs
Vc = 2 f c b w d
Vs
Avfyd s
A v,min
50bws fy
when
Vu
>
Vc 2
{ }s minimum of
d 2
or
24
in
{ }s minimum of
d 4
or
12
in
when Vs > 4
f c b w d
= 0.85
discretion. In some applications, a lintel deflection limit of L/180 with live and
dead loads is adequate. A primary consideration is whether lintel is able to move
independently of door and window frames. Calculation of lintel deflection should
use unfactored loads and the effective section properties EcIe of the assumed
concrete section; refer to ACI-3189.5.2.3 to calculate the effective moment of
inertia Ie of the section.
4.5.2 Masonry Foundation Walls
Masonry foundation wall construction is common in residential construction. It is
used in a variety of foundation types, including basements, crawl spaces, and slabs
on grade. For prescriptive design of masonry foundation walls in typical
residential applications, a designer or builder may use the International One- and
Two-Family Dwelling Code (ICC, 1998) or the local residential building code.
ACI-530 provides for the design of masonry foundation walls by using allowable
stress design (ASD). Therefore, design loads may be determined according to load
combinations presented in Chapter 3 as follows:
D+H D + H + L + 0.3 (Lr or S) D + H + (Lr or S) + 0.3 L
In light-frame homes, the first load combination typically governs masonry walls
for the same reasons stated in Section 4.5.1 for concrete foundation walls. To
simplify the calculations, the designer may conservatively assume that the wall
story acts as a simple span with pinned ends, although such an assumption may tend
to overpredict the stresses in the wall. For a discussion on calculating the loads
on a structure, refer to Chapter 3. Appendix A contains basic load diagrams and
equations to assist the designer in calculating typical loading conditions and
element-based structural actions encountered in residential design. Further, walls
that are determined to have adequate strength to withstand shear and combined axial
load and bending moment generally satisfy unspecified deflection requirements.
Therefore, foundation wall deflection is not discussed in this section. However, if
desired, deflection may be considered as discussed in Section 4.5.1.5 for concrete
foundation walls.
To follow the design procedure, the designer needs to know the strength properties
of various types and grades of masonry, mortar, and grout currently available on
the market; Section 4.2.2 discusses the material properties. With the loads and
material properties known, the designer can then perform design checks for various
stresses by following ACI-530. Residential construction rarely involves detailed
masonry specifications but rather makes use of standard materials and methods
familiar to local suppliers and trades.
An engineers inspection of a home is hardly ever required under typical
residential construction conditions. Designers should be aware, however, that in
jurisdictions covered by the Uniform Building Code (ICBO, 1997), lack of inspection
on the jobsite requires reductions in the allowable stresses to account for
potentially greater variability in material properties and workmanship. Indeed,
4-33
connection calls for a wood sill plate, anchor bolts, and nailing of the floor
framing to the sill plate (see Chapter 7).
When the limits of the empirical design method are exceeded, the allowable stress
design procedure for unreinforced masonry, as detailed below, provides a more
flexible approach by which walls are designed as compression and bending members in
accordance with ACI-5302.2.
TABLE 4.5
Nominal Wall
Thickness 6 inches 8 inches 10 inches 12 inches
355
557
678
778
Source: Modified from the ACI-530 9.6 by using the International One-and Two-
Family Dwelling Code (ICC, 1998). Notes: 1Based on a backfill with an assumed
equivalent fluid density of 30 pcf. 2Backfill height is measured from the top of
the basement slab to the finished exterior grade; wall height is measured from the
top of the
basement slab to the top of the wall.
Walls may be designed in accordance with ACI-5302.2 by using the allowable stress
design method. The fundamental assumptions, derivation of formulas, and design
procedures are similar to those developed for strength-based design for concrete
except that the material properties of masonry are substituted for those of
concrete. Allowable masonry stresses used in allowable stress design are expressed
in terms of a fraction of the specified compressive strength of the masonry at the
age of 28 days, fm. A typical fraction of the specified compressive strength is
0.25 or 0.33, which equates to a conservative safety factor between 3 and 4
relative to the minimum specified masonry compressive strength. Design values for
flexural tension stress are given in Table 4.6. The following design checks are
used to determine if an unreinforced masonry wall is structurally adequate (refer
to Example 4.9 for the design of an unreinforced concrete masonry wall).
4-35
TABLE 4.6
Mortar Type M or S
40 24
25 15 68 41
80 48
50 30 80 48
Shear Capacity
Shear stress is a result of the lateral loads on the structure associated with
wind, earthquakes, or backfill forces. Lateral loads are both normal to the wall
surface (i.e., perpendicular or out of plane) and parallel to the wall surface
(i.e., parallel or in plane). Both perpendicular and parallel shear should be
checked; however, neither perpendicular nor parallel shear is usually a controlling
factor in residential foundation walls.
If greater perpendicular shear capacity is required, it may be obtained by
increasing the wall thickness, increasing the masonry unit compressive strength, or
adding vertical reinforcement in grouted cells. If greater parallel shear capacity
is required, it may be obtained by increasing the wall thickness, reducing the size
or number of wall openings, or adding horizontal joint reinforcement. Horizontal
truss-type joint reinforcement can substantially increase parallel shear capacity,
provided that it is installed properly in the horizontal mortar bed joints. If not
installed properly, it can create a place of weakness in the wall, particularly in
out-of-plane bending of an unreinforced masonry wall.
The equations below are used to check perpendicular and parallel shear in masonry
walls. The variable Nv is the axial design load acting on the wall at the point of
maximum shear. The equations are based on An, which is the net crosssectional area
of the masonry. For parallel shear, the equations do not address overturning and
bending action that occurs in a direction parallel to the wall, particularly for
short segments of walls under significant parallel shear load. For concrete
foundation walls, this is generally not a concern. For above-grade woodframe walls,
this is addressed in Chapter 6 in detail.
[ACI-5302.2.5]
f v Fv
fv
=
3V 2A n
Fv
minimum
of
for 0.45
axial
Nv An
and for
The following equations from ACI-5302.3 are used to design masonry walls and
columns for compressive loads only. They are based on the net crosssectional area
of the masonry, including grouted and mortared areas.
[ACI-5302.3]
Columns
P Pa
Pa
(0.25f m A n
0.65A
st
Fs
)1
h 140r
where
h r
99
Pa
= (0.25f m A n
0.65A
st
Fs
70r h
where
h r
> 99
Pa,maximum = Fa A n
Walls
r= I An
f a Fa
Fa
(0.25f
)1
h 140r
where
h r
99
fa
P A
Fa
(0.25f
70r h
where
h r
> 99
r= I t A n 12
Pe
TT 2 E m I h2
(1 0.577 e )3 r
4-37
The following equations from ACI-530 determine the relationship of the combined
effects of axial load and bending moment on a masonry wall.
[ACI-5302.3]
fa + fb 1 Fa Fb
fa
P An
P 0.25Pe
Fa
(0.25f
)1
h 140r
for h r
99
Fa
(0.25f
m
)
70r h
for h r
> 99
r= I An
fb
M S
Fb = 0.33f m
Pe
2EmI h2
1 0.577
e 3 r
E m = 900f m
ft < Ft
ft
P An
M S
Tension Capacity
ACI-530 provides allowable values for flexural tension transverse to the plane of a
masonry wall. Standard principles of engineering mechanics determine the tension
stress due to the bending moment caused by lateral (i.e., soil) loads and offset by
axial loads (i.e., dead loads).
[ACI-5302.3]
ft < Ft
Ft = ACI-530 Table 2.2.3.2
ft
P An
+M S
Even though an unreinforced masonry wall may calculate as adequate, the designer
may consider adding a nominal amount of reinforcement to control cracking (refer to
Section 4.5.2.3 for a discussion on nominal reinforcement).
Walls determined inadequate to withstand combined axial load and bending moment may
gain greater capacity through increased wall thickness, increased masonry
compressive strength, or the addition of steel reinforcement.
4-39
[ACI-5307.5]
f v Fv
fv
V bd
Fv
1 4 3
M Vd
f m
80 45 M psi Vd
forshear wallswhere M Vd
<1
Fv = 1.0
f m
If the shear stress exceeds the above allowables for masonry only, the designer
must design shear reinforcing with the shear stress equation changes in accordance
with ACI-5302.3.5. In residential construction, it is generally more economical to
increase the wall thickness or to grout additional cores instead of using shear
reinforcement. If shear reinforcement is desired, refer to ACI-530. ACI-530 limits
vertical reinforcement to a maximum spacing s of 48 inches; however, a maximum of
96 inches on-center is suggested as adequate. Masonry homes built with
reinforcement at 96 inches on-center have performed well in hurricane-prone areas
such as southern Florida.
Flexural or axial stresses must be accounted for to ensure that a wall is
structurally sound. Axial loads increase compressive stresses and reduce tension
stresses and may be great enough to keep the masonry in an uncracked state under a
simultaneous bending load.
Axial Compression Capacity
The following equations from ACI-5302.3 are used to determine if a masonry wall
can withstand conditions when compressive loads act only on walls and columns
(i.e., interior load-bearing wall or floor beam support pier). As with concrete,
compressive capacity is usually not an issue in supporting a typical light-frame
home. An exception may occur with the bearing points of longspanning beams. In such
a case, the designer should check bearing capacity by using ACI-5302.1.7.
FIGURE 4.7
4-41
[ACI-5302.3]
Columns P Pa
Pa
(0.25f m A n
0.65A
st
Fs
)1
h 140r
where h r 99
Pa
= (0.25f m A n
0.65A
st
Fs
70r h
where
h r
> 99
Pa,maximum = Fa A n
r= I Ae
Walls
f a Fa
Fa
(0.25f
)1
h 140r
where
h r
99
Fa
(0.25f
70r h
where
h r
> 99
r= I Ae
Calculation using the above equations is based on Ae, which is the effective cross-
sectional area of the masonry, including grouted and mortared areas substituted for
An.
[ACI-5307.3]
Fb = 0.33f m
fb
M S
fa Fa
Fb
Columns
P + fb 1 Pa Fb
Pa
(0.25f m A n
0.65A
st
Fs
)1
h 140r
where h r 99
Pa
= (0.25f m A n
0.65A
st
Fs
70r h
where
h r
> 99
Walls
fa + fb 1 Fa Fb
fa
P Ae
0.33f m
Fa
(0.25f
)1
h 140r
for h r
99
Fa
(0.25f
m
)
70r h
for h r
> 99
Walls determined inadequate to withstand combined axial load and bending moment may
gain greater capacity through increased wall thickness, increased masonry
compressive strength, or added steel reinforcement.
[ACI-5302.3.5]
A s,required
M Fs d
A v,min = 0.0013bt
A h,min = 0.0007bt
4-43
Chapter 4 - Design of Foundations
suitable for openings of moderate width typically found in residential foundation
walls. The angle should have a horizontal leg of the same width as the thickness of
the concrete masonry that it supports. Openings may require vertical reinforcing
bars with a hooked end that is placed on each side of the opening to restrain the
lintel against uplift forces in high-hazard wind or earthquake regions. Building
codes typically require steel lintels exposed to the exterior to be a minimum 1/4-
inch thick. Figure 4.8 illustrates some lintels commonly used in residential
masonry construction.
FIGURE 4.8 Concrete Masonry Wall Lintel Types
4-44 Residential Structural Design Guide
4-45
TABLE 4.7
Note: 1Connection of studs to plates and plates to floor framing is critical to the
performance of PWFs. The building code and the Permanent Wood
Foundation Design and Construction Guide (SPC, 1998) should be carefully consulted
with respect to connections.
Granular (i.e., gravel or crushed rock) footings are sized in accordance with
Section 4.4.1. Permanent wood foundations may also be placed on poured concrete
footings.
Footing plate size is determined by the vertical load from the structure on the
foundation wall and the size of the permanent wood foundation studs.
The size and spacing of the wall framing is selected from tables for buildings up
to 36 feet wide that support one or two stories above grade.
APA-rated plywood is selected from tables based on unbalanced backfill height and
stud spacing. The plywood must be preservatively treated and rated for below-ground
application.
Drainage systems are selected in accordance with foundation type (e.g., basement
or crawl space) and soil type. Foundation wall moisture-proofing is also required
(i.e., polyethylene sheeting).
For more information on preservative-treated wood foundations and their specific
design and construction, consult the Permanent Wood Foundations Design and
Construction Guide (SPC, 1998).
4.5.4 Insulating Concrete Form Foundation Walls
Insulating concrete forms (ICFs) have been used in the United States since the
1970s. They provide durable and thermally efficient foundation and abovegrade walls
at reasonable cost. Insulating concrete forms are constructed of rigid foam
plastic, composites of cement and plastic foam insulation or wood chips, or other
suitable insulating materials that have the ability to act as forms for cast-
inplace concrete walls. The forms are easily placed by hand and remain in place
after the concrete is cured to provide added insulation.
ICF systems are typically categorized with respect to the form of the ICF unit.
There are three types of ICF forms: hollow blocks, planks, and panels. The shape of
the concrete wall is best visualized with the form stripped away,
4-47
For more design information, refer to the Structural Design of Insulating Concrete
Form Walls in Residential Construction (Lemay and Vrankar, 1998). For a
prescriptive construction approach, consult the Prescriptive Method for Insulating
Concrete Forms in Residential Construction (HUD, 1998). These documents can be
obtained from the contacts listed in Chapter 1. Manufacturer data should also be
consulted.
4.6 Slabs on Grade
The primary objectives of slab-on-grade design are
to provide a floor surface with adequate capacity to support all applied loads;
to provide thickened footings for attachment of the above grade structure and for
transfer of the load to the earth where required; and to provide a moisture barrier
between the earth and the interior of the building.
Many concrete slabs for homes, driveways, garages, and sidewalks are built
according to standard thickness recommendations and do not require a specific
design unless poor soil conditions, such as expansive clay soils, exist on the
site.
For typical loading and soil conditions, floor slabs, driveways, garage floors, and
residential sidewalks are built at a nominal 4 inches thick per ACI3022.1. Where
interior columns and load-bearing walls bear on the slab, the slab is typically
thickened and may be nominally reinforced (refer to Section 4.4 for footing design
procedures). Monolithic slabs may also have thickened edges that provide a footing
for structural loads from exterior load-bearing walls. The thickened edges may or
may not be reinforced in standard residential practice.
Slab-on-grade foundations are often placed on 2 to 3 inches of washed gravel or
sand and a 6 mil (0.006 inch) polyethylene vapor barrier. This recommended practice
prevents moisture in the soil from wicking through the slab. The sand or gravel
layer acts primarily as a capillary break to soil moisture transport through the
soil. If tied into the foundation drain system, the gravel layer can also help
provide drainage.
A slab on grade greater than 10 feet in any dimension will likely experience
cracking due to temperature and shrinkage effects that create internal tensile
stresses in the concrete. To prevent the cracks from becoming noticeable, the
designer usually specifies some reinforcement, such as welded wire fabric (WWF) or
a fiber-reinforced concrete mix. The location of cracking may be controlled by
placing construction joints in the slab at regular intervals or at strategic
locations hidden under partitions or under certain floor finishes (i.e., carpet).
In poor soils where reinforcement is required to increase the slabs flexural
capacity, the designer should follow conventional reinforced concrete design
methods. The Portland Cement Association (PCA), Wire Reinforcement
4-49
4-51
often evacuated during a major hurricane, but flood damage can be substantial if
the building is not properly elevated and detailed. In these conditions, the
designer must consider several factors, including flood loads, wind loads, scour,
breakaway wall and slab construction, corrosion, and other factors. The
publications of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, DC,
offer design guidance. FEMA is also in the process of updating the Coastal
Construction Manual.
The habitable portion of buildings in coastal A zones (nonvelocity flow) and
inland floodplains must be elevated above the BFE, particularly if flood insurance
is to be obtained. However, piles are not necessarily the most economical solution.
Common solutions include fills to build up the site or the use of crawl space
foundations.
For driven timber piles, the capacity of a pile can be roughly estimated from the
known hammer weight, drop height, and blow count (blows per foot of penetration)
associated with the drop-hammer pile-driving process. Several piledriving formulas
are available; while each formula follows a different format, all share the basic
relationship among pile capacity, blow count, penetration, hammer drop height, and
hammer weight. The following equation is the widely recognized method first
reported in Engineering News Record (ENR) and is adequate for typical residential
and light-frame commercial applications:
Pa
Wr h sF
In the above equation, Pa is the net allowable vertical load capacity, Wr is the
hammer ram weight, h is the distance the hammer free falls, s is the pile
penetration (set) per blow at the end of driving, and F is the safety factory. The
units for s and h must be the same. The value of s may be taken as the inverse of
the blow count for the last foot of driving. Using the above equation, a test
pile may be evaluated to determine the required pile length to obtain adequate
bearing.
Alternatively, the designer can specify a required minimum penetration and required
number of blows per foot to obtain sufficient bearing capacity by friction. The
pile size may be specified as a minimum tip diameter, a minimum butt diameter, or
both. The minimum pile butt diameter should not be less than 8 inches; 10- to 12-
inch diameters are common. The larger pile diameters may be necessary for unbraced
conditions with long unsupported heights.
In hard material or densely compacted sand or hard clay, a typical pile meets
refusal when the blows per foot become excessive. In such a case, it may be
necessary to jet or predrill the pile to a specific depth to meet the minimum
embedment and then finish with several hammer blows to ensure that the required
capacity is met and the pile properly seated in firm soil.
Jetting is the process of using a water pump, hose, and long pipe to jet the tip
of the pile into hard-driving ground such as firm sand. Jetting may also be used to
adjust the pile vertically to maintain a reasonable tolerance with the building
layout dimension.
It is also important to connect or anchor the building properly to pile foundations
when severe uplift or lateral load conditions are expected. For standard pile and
concrete grade beam construction, the pile is usually extended into the concrete
cap a few inches or more. The connection requirements of the
National Design Specification for Wood Construction (NDS, 1997) should be carefully
followed for these heavy duty connections. Such connections are not specifically
addressed in Chapter 7, although much of the information is applicable.
4.8 Frost Protection
The objective of frost protection in foundation design is to prevent damage to the
structure from frost action (i.e., heaving and thaw weakening) in frostsusceptible
soils.
4.8.1 Conventional Methods
In northern U.S. climates, builders and designers mitigate the effects of frost
heave by constructing homes with perimeter footings that extend below a locally
prescribed frost depth. Other construction methods include
piles or caissons extending below the seasonal frost line; mat or reinforced
structural slab foundations that resist differential
heave; nonfrost-susceptible fills and drainage; and adjustable foundation
supports.
The local building department typically sets required frost depths. Often, the
depths are highly conservative in accordance with frost depths experienced in
applications not relevant to residential foundations. The local design frost depth
can vary significantly from that required by actual climate, soil, and application
conditions. One exception occurs in Alaska, where it is common to specify different
frost depths for warm, cold, and interior foundations. For homes in the
Anchorage, Alaska, area, the perimeter foundation is generally classified as warm,
with a required depth of 4 or 5 feet. Interior footings may be required to be 8
inches deep. On the other hand, cold foundations, including outside columns, may
be required to be as much as 10 feet deep. In the contiguous 48 states, depths for
footings range from a minimum 12 inches in the South to as much as 6 feet in some
northern localities.
Based on the air-freezing index, Table 4.8 presents minimum safe frost depths for
residential foundations. Figure 4.12 depicts the air-freezing index, a climate
index closely associated with ground freezing depth. The most frostsusceptible
soils are silty soils or mixtures that contain a large fraction of siltsized
particles. Generally, soils or fill materials with less than 6 percent fines (as
measured by a #200 sieve) are considered nonfrost-susceptible. Proper surface water
and foundation drainage are also important factors where frost heave is a concern.
The designer should recognize that many soils may not be frostsusceptible in their
natural state (i.e., sand, gravel, or other well-drained soils that are typically
low in moisture content). However, for those that are frostsusceptible, the
consequences can be significant and costly if not properly considered in the
foundation design.
4-53
TABLE 4.8
Minimum Frost Depths for Residential Footings1,2
Air-Freezing Index (F-Days) 250 or less 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Notes: 1Interpolation is permissible. 2The values do not apply to mountainous
terrain or to Alaska.
4-55
4-57
EXAMPLE 4.1
Live load 0.75 [(12 ft)(40 psf) +(12 ft)(30 psf)] = 630 plf Dead load (12 ft)(10
psf)(2 floors) = 240 plf Wall dead load (8 ft)(0.66 ft)(150 pcf) = 800 plf Footing
dead load allowance = 200 plf
Find The minimum size of the concrete footing required to support the loads
Solution
Footing width =
Design load
= (630 plf + 240 plf + 800 plf + 200 plf )(1ft) =1.25ft
1,500 psf
qs
Pu A footing
= (1.2)(240 plf
(b) Determine thickness of footing based on moment at the face of the wall
Mu
qsl 8
(b T)2
2
bt
M n = 5 f c S = 5 2,000 psi 6
Mn Mu
2,000 psi
(12
in 6
)
t2
t = 2.1 in
Vc
4 3
f c lt
Vc Vu
0.65 4 2,000 psi (12 in)(t) = (1,877 psf )(1ft)(0.5(1.33 ft 0.66 ft) t)
3
t = 0.27 ft = 3.2 in Therefore, shear in the footing governs the footing thickness
4-59
EXAMPLE 4.2
Given
Find Solution 1.
2.
3.
Area reqd =
Service load
1,500 psf
b = 5 ft 2 = 2.2 ft = 26 in
4-61
Given Square footing, 28 in x 28 in fc= 2,500 psi concrete; 60,000 psi steel
qs
Pu A footing
(d) Check one-way (beam) shear in footing for trial footing thickness
Vc = 2 f c bd
Vu
Pu b
(0.5 (b T) d)=
11,304 lbs 28 in
(0.5
(28
in
3.5
in
2.75in
)
=
3,835
lbs
Vc >> Vu OK
Vc = 4 f c b o d
= (0.85) (4) 2,500 psi (4(3.5in + 2.75in))(2.75in) = 11,688lbs
( )Vu
Pu b2
b2
(T
d) 2
( )=
= 10,741 lbs
Vc > Vu OK
(f) Determine reinforcement required for footing based on critical moment at edge
of column
M u = q s b(0.5)(0.5(l T))2
(2,261
psf
28 in 12 in /
ft
(0.5)
0.5
28 in 12 in ft
3.5 in 12 in ft
2,749
ft
lbs
Rn
Mu bd 2
=173 psi
0.85f c fy
2R n 0.85f c
(2)(146 psi)
0.85 (2,500 psi)
0.022
(gross) =
d t
2.75 in 6 in
(0.022)
0.010
A s = bd = 0.010 (28 in) (2.75 in) = 0.77 in 2 Use four No. 4 bars where As =
4(0.2 in2) = 0.8 in2 0.77 in2
OK
Conclusion
Use minimum 28-in x 28-in x 6-in footing with four No. 4 bars or three No. 5 bars
each way in footing.
fc = 2,500 psi minimum (concrete) fy = 60,000 psi minimum (steel reinforcing bar)
4-63
EXAMPLE 4.3
Given
Find Solution 1.
Design loads
Snow load (S) Live load (L) Dead load (D) Moment at top Concrete weight Backfill
material fc = 3,000 psi
Wall thickness
= 8 in
Wall height
= 8 ft
Verify that an 8-inch-thick plain concrete wall is adequate for the following load
combinations from Chapter 3 (Table 3.1)
1.2D + 1.6H 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.6L + 0.5 (Lr + S) 1.2D + 1.6H = 1.6 (Lr + S) +
0.5L
Only the first load combination will be evaluated since it can be shown to govern
the wall design.
Determine loads Equivalent fluid density of backfill soil Silty clay: w = 100 pcf,
Ka = 0.45 (see Section 3.5) q = Kaw = (0.45)(100 pcf) = 45 pcf Total lateral earth
load
X1
1l= 3
1 3
(7
ft) = 2.33
ft
Vbottom
V1
1 2
qh 2 1
h 3L
1 2
(45 pcf
)(7
ft)2 1
7 ft 3 (8 ft)
781 plf
x = h h 2 2V1 q
= 7 ft (7 ft)2 2(781plf )
45 pcf = 3.2 ft from base of wall or 4.8 ft from top of wall
1 qhx2 + 2
1 qx3 6
= (781 plf) (3.2 ft) - 1 (45 pcf)(7 ft)(3.2 ft)2 + 1 (45 pcf)(3.2 ft)3 26
= 1,132 ft-lb/ lf
Vn
4 3
f c bh
OK
Shear is definitely not a factor in this case. Future designs of a similar nature
may be based on this experience as OK by inspection.
Mu = 1.6 Mmax = 1.6 (1,132 ft-lb/lf) = 1,811 ft-lb/lf Pu = 1.2 D Dstructure = 450
plf (given)
Dconcrete@x
(150
plf
8 in 12 in /
ft
(8
ft
3.23
ft )
480 plf
D = 450 plf + 480 plf = 930 plf Pu = 1.2 (930 plf) = 1,116 plf
4-65
Mn = S= Mn =
0.85 fcS
1 bd 2 = 1 (12 in)(8 in)2 = 128 in 3 / lf
6 6 0.85 (3,000 psi)(128 in3/lf) = 326,400 in-lb/lf = 27,200 ft-lb/lf
Mmin
=
0.1hPu
0.1
8 in 12 in /
lf
(1,112
plf)
74
ft-lb/lf
Mu > Mmin OK
Pn
0.6f
L 32h
(8
ft
12
in
0.6(3,000psi)1
ft
32 (8 in)
Compression
Pu + M u 1 Pn M n
1,116 plf
+ 1,811ft lb / lf
0.11 1 OK
Tension
Mu S
Pu Ag
5
f c
1,811
ft lb / 128 in
lf
3
(12
/ lf
in
ft
(0.65) (5)
3,000 psi
158 178 OK
No reinforcement required
max
qL3 EcIg
hL 128
L2 960
h2 48
+
h3
144L
(3,122,019
psi)
12
in (8 12
in)
(7 ft)(8 ft)
128
(8 ft) 2 960
(7 ft) 2 48
1,728 in ft 3
= 0.009 in/lf
all =
max<< all OK
Conclusion
An 8-inch-thick plain concrete wall is adequate under the given conditions.
The above analysis was performed for a given wall thickness. The same equations can
be used to solve for the minimum wall thickness h that satisfies the requirements
for shear, combined bending and axial stress, and deflection. With this approach to
the problem, the minimum thickness would be 7.6 inches (controlled by tensile
stress under combined bending and axial load).
In the strength-based design approach, the safety margin is related to the use of
load and resistance factors. In this problem, the load factor was 1.6 (for a soil
load, H) and the resistance factor 0.65 (for tensile bending stress). In terms of a
traditional safety factor, an equivalent safety margin is found by 1.6/0.65 = 2.5.
It is a fairly conservative safety margin for residential structures and would
allow for an equivalent soil fluid density of as much as 113 pcf (45 pcf x 2.5) at
the point the concrete tensile capacity based on the minimum concrete compressive
strength (as estimated by 5 f c ) is realized. This capacity would exceed loads
that might be expected should the soil become saturated as would occur under severe
flooding on a site that is not well drained.
The use of reinforcement varies widely as an optional enhancement in residential
construction to control cracking and provide some nominal strength benefits. If
reinforcement is used as a matter of good practice, one No. 4 bar may be placed as
much as 8 feet on-center. One horizontal bar may also be placed horizontally at the
top of the wall and at mid-height.
4-67
EXAMPLE 4.4
Given
Solution 1.
3,000 psi
Pn =
0.6 f c
L 32h
0.6
(3,000psi)
(8
ft) (12 32 (8
in / in)
lf
(8
in)
(12
in
148,500
plf
Mn = =
0.85 fcS
(0.85)(3,000psi) (12 in)(8 in)2
6
Pu +
Mu
Pu
(96,525plf )
Mu 17,680ft lb / lf
Mu
Pu 96,525plf
17,680
ft
lb
lf
M u = 17,680 ft lb / lf 0.18316 Pu
Pu
Mu 17,680 ft
lb
lf
96,525 plf
(0, 96.5klf)
Mu Pu 5 S Ag
f c
Mu 128 in 3
Pu 96 in 2
178 psi
Pu
96
in
Mu 128in
178 psi
Pu
Mn 5 f c S S + Mn
A g Pn
(0.65) (27,200 ft lb / lf ) (12 in / ft) 5 (0.65) 3,000 psi (128 in 3 )
= 53,627 plf
= 53.63 klf 96 in 2
96,525 plf
Mu
M n
(1,000 lb / kip
Pn
)Pu
(0.65)(12 in
/ ft) (27,200 ft lb / lf ) 1
Interaction Diagram
4-69
EXAMPLE 4.5
Moment Magnifier
Given
Find Solution 1. 2.
3.
Service loads
= 1,000 plf
= 750 plf
Mu Concrete weight
Backfill material
fc = 3,000 psi One No. 6 bar at 12 inches on-center (As=0.44 in2) Nonsway frame
Wall thickness
= 8 in
Wall height
= 10 ft
The moment magnifier for load combination U = 1.2D + 1.6L (Chapter 3, Table 3.1)
Pu = 1.2 D + 1.6L 1.2 (750 plf) + 1.6 (1,000 plf) = 2,500 plf
Pu
2,000 lbs
4,000 lbs
1.04 1.09
1.00 1.04
For an 8-in-thick wall, 10-ft-high with approximately 3,000 plf factored axial load
acting on the wall, the magnifier through interpolation is
ns 1.04
The objective has been met; however, the detailed calculations to determine the
moment magnifier are shown below for comparison purposes.
Ec = d =
=
= = =
Pu,dead =
(1.2)(750 plf )
= 0.36
As Ag
0.44 in
(8 in)(12
2
in)
0.0046
in2 OK]
1 (governs)
M2,min Mu e=
EI =
EI =
EImax
EImin
0.4E c Ig
EcIg
(0.5
e) h
0.1E c I g
(3,122,019
psi)
(12
in )(8
12
in
)3
0.5
10.7 in 8 in
1.3x109
lb
in
2
/
lf
0.4(3,122,019
psi)
(12
in )(8
12
in )3
= 6.4x108lb in2 / lf
0.1(3,122,019
psi)
(12
in )(8
12
in
)3
Cm = Pc = ns =
=
ns =
(kl u ) 2
(1(10 ft)(12 in / ft)) 2
Cm 1.0 1 Pu 0.75Pc
1 = 1.03 1
1.03
Conclusion
The moment magnifier by the approximation method is 1.04. It is slightly
conservative but saves time in calculation. Through calculation, a slight
efficiency is achieved and the calculated moment magnifier is 1.03.
4-71
EXAMPLE 4.6
Given
Find Solution 1.
Service loads
= 1000 plf
= 750 plf
Moment at top
=0
Concrete weight
= 150 pcf
Backfill material
= 60 pcf (equivalent fluid density)
Wall thickness
= 8 in
Wall height
= 10 ft
If one No. 5 bar at 24 inches on-center vertically is adequate for the load
combination, U = 1.2D + 1.6H + 1.6L (Chapter 3, Table 3.1) when rebar is placed 3
inches from the outer face of wall (d=5 in)
Determine loads
1 l
1 (8
ft)
2.67
ft
33
Mtop Vbottom
=0
= H(L x) = (1,920 plf )(10 ft 2.67 ft) = 1,408 plf
L 10 ft
Xmax
Xmax Mmax
= ql q2l2 2qVbottom q
(60 pcf ) (8 ft) (60 pcf )2 (8 ft)2 2(60 pcf )(1,408 plf )
= 60 pcf
qlxmax2 2
qx
3 max
+ Vbottom (xmax )
Vn = =
=
(Vc + Vs) (2) f c bwd (0.85) (2) 3,000 psi (12 in) (5 in) = 5,587 plf
(c) Check Vn Vu
5,587 plf >> 2,253 plf OK
Shear is definitely not a factor in this case. Future designs of a similar nature
may be based on this experience as OK by inspection
3. Determine slenderness
All four foundation walls are concrete with few openings; therefore, the system is
a nonsway frame. This is a standard assumption for residential concrete foundation
walls.
Slenderness
r=
Ig = Ag
12
(8 in)(12 in)
= 2.31
klu < 34 r (1) (8 in) (12 in) = 41.6 34 Use moment magnifier method
2.31
Pu = 1.2D + 1.6L = 1.2 (750 plf) + 1.6 (1,000 plf) = 2,500 plf
Using the approximated moment magnifiers in Table 4.4, the moment magnifier from
the table for a 7.5-inch-thick wall, 10-feet-high is between 1.04 and 1.09. For a
9.5inch-thick wall, the values are between 1 and 1.04.
4-73
Mn
Asfy
(d-
a 2
Pn = 0 Mu = 2,434 ft-lb/lf from step (1) Mu = 1.04 (2,434 ft-lb/lf) = 2,531 ft-
lb/lf By inspection of the interaction diagram in Example 4.6, one No. 5 at 24
inches on
center is OK since MuPu is contained within the interaction curve. See Example 4.6
to construct an interaction diagram.
6. Check deflection
max
q(x L + l)5
+
ql3 x 3
ql5 x
ql3Lx
120
36L 120L 36
EcIg
( )=
1728 in3
(60
pcf
)(6.13
ft
10
ft
120
+ 8 ft)5
36(10ft )
ft 3
(60
pcf )(8ft)5(6.13 120(10 ft)
ft )
(60
pcf
)(8
ft
)3 (10
36
ft
)(6.13 ft )
(3,122,019
psi
(12
in )(8
12
in
)3
= 0.025 in/lf
all =
max <<
all OK
Conclusion An 8-inch-thick reinforced concrete wall with one vertical No. 5 bar at
24 inches oncenter is adequate for the given loading conditions.
This analysis was performed for a given wall thickness and reinforcement spacing.
The same equations can be used to solve for the minimum reinforcement that
satisfies the requirements for shear, combined bending and axial stress, and
deflection. This approach would be suitable for a computer spreadsheet design aid.
A packaged computer software program can also be purchased to perform this
function; however, certain limitations may prohibit the designer from using design
recommendations given in this guide.
The use of horizontal reinforcement varies widely as an optional enhancement. If
horizontal reinforcement is used as a matter of preferred practice to control
potential cracking, one No. 4 bar placed at the top of the wall and at mid-height
is typically sufficient.
EXAMPLE 4.7
Given Solution 1.
2. 3.
4.
c = d = 5 in
a = c = 0.85 (5 in) = 4.25 in Cc = 0.85 abfc = 0.85 (4.25 in) (12 in)(3,000 psi)
= 130,050 plf Mn = Cc (d-0.5a) = 0.7 (130,050 plf)(5 0.5(4.25 in) = 261,725 in-
lb/lf = 21.8 ft-kip/lf Pn = Cc = 0.7 (130,050 plf) = 91,035 plf (21.8, 91)
c = 0.003
fy Es
= 2.07x10-3 = 0.002
c c + 0.5y
0.003
(5 in )
= 3.72 in
c = 0.003
fy Es
= 2.07x10-3
c c + y
0.003
0.003 + 2.07
x 103
(5 in) =2.96
in
(16.7, 47)
4-75
Pn = 0
(3.4, 0)
Conclusion
The point in question lies within the interaction diagram and the references axes;
therefore, one No. 5 bar at 24 inches on-center vertically is adequate for the
given loading conditions and wall geometry.
EXAMPLE 4.8
Concrete Lintel
Given
Find Solution 1.
Span
= 6.5 ft
Lintel width = 8 in
Lintel depth =
12 in
Mn Mu
Mu
wl 2 =
1.2 (250 plf ) + 1.6 (735 plf ) (6.5 ft)2 = 5,197 ft-lb
12 12
Mn = Asfy (d-0.5a)
d a set Mu Mu
= = = =
62,364 in-lb =
0 As,required
= =
Asf y
0.85f cb
Mn to solve for As
Asfy
1 2
Asf 0.85 f
y
c
b
(0.9)
As
(60,000
psi)
10.125
in
0.5
As 60,000 psi
0.85(3,000 psi)(12
in
= As =
0.2 in 2
= 0.0025
0.85f c1 fy
87,000 f y + 87,000
0.021
4-77
Vn Vu
Vu
= wl 2
l Span-to-depth ratio, =
Regular beam
h 12in
Vu
Vc 2
7,542 lb 2
Since
Vc > Vu >
Vc 2
only the
be
provided.
Av,min =
50 b w s fy
(50)
(8 in)
(10.125 2
in )
60,000 psi
=0.034 in2
Vc 2
> Vu
x = 0.70ft
Supply No. 3 shear reinforcement spaced 5 in on-center for a distance 0.7 ft from
the supports.
3. Check deflection
( )h x
x 2
= nAs (d x)
0.5(8 in)(x) 2
(0.2
in
)(10.125
in
0= x = 1.95 in
4x 2 +1.86x 18.8
ICR
1 hx3 3
nAs (d x)2
Ig
= 1 bh 3 = 12
1 (8 in)(12 in)3 12
= 1,152 in 4
M cr
= frIg Yt
Calculate deflection
5 wl 4 =
384 E c I e
= 0.008 in
( )( )i(DL+20%LL)
5(250 plf + (0.20)735 plf + (150 pcf )(0.66 ft)(1ft))(6.5 ft)4 384(3,122,019
psi)1,152 in 4 ft 3 / 1,728 in 3
= 0.006 in
4-79
EXAMPLE 4.9
Given
Find Solution 1.
Live load
= 1,300 plf
Dead load
= 900 plf
Moment at top = 0
Verify if a 10-in-thick unreinforced masonry wall is adequate for the ACI-530 load
combination
U = D+H
Determine loads
R=
1 2
qsl2
1 2
(30
pcf)(4
ft)2
240
plf
1 3
1 3
(4
ft)
1.33
ft
Mtop Vbottom
=0
2 6L
6 (8 ft)
xm
= ql q2l2 2qVbottom q
xm =
(30 pcf )
Mmax =
qlxm 2
qx
3 m
+ Vbottom
(xm )
= 30 pcf (4 ft)(2.37 ft) 2 + (30 pcf ) (2.37 ft)3 + 200 plf (2.37 ft) 26
= 204 ft-lb/lf
1.5
f m
= 1.5
Fv
= 120 psi
37
psi
0.45
N A
v n
Fv = 53.3 psi
fv
3 2
V An
1.5
(2
face
200 plf
shells)(1.375
in
)(12
in
)
9.1 psi
The shear is assumed to be resisted by 2 face shells since the wall is unreinforced
and uncracked.
fv< Fv OK
An = I=
= =
1 bh3 + Ad2
12
1.375
in
12
567 in4
r=
I An
=
567 in 4 = 4.14 in
33 in 2
S= h= r
567 in 4 =
c 1 (9.625 in)
= 118 in3
Fa
(0.25 fm)
140r
= (0.25)(1,900 psi)
= 462 psi
4-81
Em = ek =
Pe =
= = P
900fm = 900 (1,900 psi) = 1.71 x 106 psi S = 118 in 3 = 3.57 in (kern
eccentricity) A n 33 in 2
2Em h2
0.577
e r
0.577
3.57 4.14
in in
131,703 plf
0.25Pe OK
Euler buckling loads are calculated by using actual eccentricities from gravity
loads without including effects of lateral loads.
4. Check combined axial compression and flexural capacity
kern eccentricity
ek =
S An
! GOVERNS
e < ek Pe =
2Em h2
0.577
e r
0.577
3.57 4.14
3
Pe = 131,703 plf P < 0.25 (131,703 plf) = 32,926 plf OK
P 900 plf
fa =
== An 33 in 2
27 psi
fb =
(900
plf
)(3.57
in )
2.37 ft 8 ft
(204
ft
lb
lf )(12
in
ft )
S 118 in 3
= 29 psi Fa = 462 psi for h/r 99 Fb = 0.33 f'm = 0.33 (1,900 psi) = 627 psi
OK
5. Check tension capacity from Table 2.2.3.2 for normal to bed joints, hollow,
ungrouted (Type M or S mortar)
Ft 25 psi
ft
An S
33 in 2
118 in 3
ft < Ft OK
6. Minimum reinforcement
Conclusion
Note that the calculations have already been completed and that the maximum
backfill height calculated for an 8-inch-thick unreinforced masonry wall using
hollow concrete masonry is about 5 feet with a safety factor of 4.
4-83
EXAMPLE 4.10
Given
Find Solution 1.
Live load
= 1,300 plf
Dead load
= 900 plf
Moment at top = 0
Type M or S mortar
U=D+H
Determine loads
R=
1 2
ql2
1 2
(45
pcf)(7
ft)2
1,103 lb
X=
1 3
1 3
(7
ft)
=
2.33
ft
Mtop Vbottom
=0 = ql 2 ql3
2 6L = 781 plf
45 pcf (7 ft) 2 =
2 6 (8 ft)
xm
= ql q2l2 2qVbottom q
Mmax
qlx m 2 2
qx
3 m
+ Vbottom (x m )
= 1,132 ft-lb/lf
M=
Vd
1,132 ft lb / lf (12 in / ft)
(781plf )(9.625 in) = 1.8 > 1
Fv = 1 f m
50 psi
( )fv =
V= V bd A e
= 13 psi
fv < Fv OK
Foundation walls are constrained against lateral loads by the passive pressure of
the soil and soil-wall friction. Parallel shear on the foundation wall can be
neglected by design inspection.
1.375
in
12
= 1,138 in4
r= h= r
I 1,138 in 4 = = 3.03 in
Ae 124 in 8 ft (12 in / ft)
= 32 < 99 3.03 in
Fa
=(0.25
fm)
h 140r
0.25
(2,000
psi)
(8 ft)(12 in 140(3.03
/ ft
in )
)
= 474 psi
P = 900 lb
P < Pmax OK
4-85
M P
kern eccentricity
S = ek = Ae
1,138 in 4 0.5(9.625 in)
= =1.9 in 124 in 2
fa
P Ae
M fb = S =
0.25 fm
h 140r)
ft(12
in)
= 474 psi
fa + fb 1 Fa Fb
= 0.12 1 OK
!Governs
As,reqd
M =
Fs d (1,132 ft lb / lf ) (12 in / ft) = (24,000 psi) (0.5) (9.625 in) = 0.12
in2/lf
Asmin = 0.0013 bt
No. 5 at 24 inches on-center (As = 0.3 in2(12 in/24 in) = 0.155 in2)
OK
4-87
Beall, Christine, Masonry Design and Detailing for Architects, Engineers, and
Contractors, Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1997.
Brandow, Gregg E., Hart, Gary C., and Virdee, Ajit, Design of Reinforced Masonry
Structures, Concrete Masonry Association of California and Nevada, citrus Heights,
CA, 1995.
Coduto, Donald P., Foundation Design Principles and Practice, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1994.
FEMA, Coastal Construction Manual, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington,
DC, 1986.
HUD, Prescriptive Method for Insulating Concrete Forms in Residential Construction,
prepared by the NAHB Research Center, Inc., for the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development and Portland Cement Association, 1998.
HUD, Testing & Design of Lintels Using Insulating Concrete Forms, prepared for the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Portland Cement
Association by the NAHB Research Center, Inc., Upper Marlboro, MD, 2000.
ICBO, Uniform Building Code (UBC), International Conference of Building Officials
(ICBO), Whittier, CA, 1997.
ICC, International One- and Two- Family Dwelling Code, 1998, International Code
Council, Inc., Falls Church, VA, 1998.
Lemay, L. and Vrankar, A., Structural Design of Insulating Concrete Form Walls in
Residential Construction, prepared by the NAHB Research Center, Inc., for the
Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 1998.
Masonry Standards Joint Committee, Building Code Requirements, Specifications, and
Commentary for Masonry Structures, ACI Standard 530-95, American Concrete
Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers, and the Masonry Society, 1999.
McFadden, Terry T. and Bennett, F. Lawrence, Construction in Cold Regions, A Guide
for Planners, Engineers, Contractors, and Managers, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York, NY,1991.
NAHB Research Center, Inc., Design Guide for Frost-Protected Shallow Foundations,
second edition, NAHB Research Center, Inc., Upper Marlboro, MD, 1996.
Naval Facilities Command, Foundations and Earth Structures Design Manual 7.02, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1986.
4-89
CHAPTER 5
Design of Wood Framing
5.1 General
This chapter addresses elements of above-grade structural systems in residential
construction. As discussed in Chapter 1, the residential construction material most
commonly used above grade in the United States is light-frame wood; therefore, this
chapter focuses on structural design that specifies standard dimension lumber and
structural wood panels (i.e., plywood and oriented strand board sheathing). Design
of the lateral force resisting system (i.e., shearwalls and diaphragms) must be
approached from a system design perspective and is addressed in Chapter 6.
Connections are addressed in Chapter 7, and their importance relative to the
overall performance of wood-framed construction cannot be overemphasized. The basic
components and assemblies of a conventional wood frame home are shown in Figure
5.1; the reader is referred to Chapter 1 for more detailed references to house
framing and related construction details.
Many elements of a home work together as a system to resist lateral and axial
forces imposed on the above-grade structure and transfer them to the foundation.
The above-grade structure also helps resist lateral soil loads on foundation walls
through connection of floor systems to foundations. Therefore, the issue of system
performance is most pronounced in the above-grade assemblies of light-frame homes.
Within the context of simple engineering approaches that are familiar to designers,
system-based design principles are addressed in this Chapter.
The design of the above-grade structure involves the following structural systems
and assemblies:
floors; walls; and roofs.
5-1
FIGURE 5.1
Each system can be complex to design as a whole; therefore, simple analysis usually
focuses on the individual elements that constitute the system. In some cases,
system effects may be considered in simplified form and applied to the design of
certain elements that constitute specifically defined systems. Structural elements
that make up a residential structural system include:
bending members; columns; combined bending and axial loaded members;
sheathing (i.e., diaphragm); and connections.
5-2 Residential Structural Design Guide
The principal method of design for wood-framed construction has historically been
allowable stress design (ASD). This chapter uses the most current version of the
ASD method (AF&PA, 1997), although the load resistance factored design method
(LRFD) is now available as an alternative (AF&PA, 1996a). The ASD method is
detailed in the National Design Specification for Wood Construction (NDS) and its
supplement (NDS-S). The designer is encouraged to obtain the NDS commentary to
develop a better understanding of the rationale and substantiation for the NDS
(AF&PA, 1999).
This chapter looks at the NDS equations in general and includes design examples
that detail the appropriate use of the equations for specific structural elements
or systems in light, wood-framed construction. The discussion focuses primarily on
framing with traditional dimension lumber but gives some consideration to common
engineered wood products. Other wood framing methods, such as post-and-beam
construction, are not explicitly addressed in this chapter, although much of the
information is relevant. However, system considerations and system factors
presented in this chapter are only relevant to light, wood-framed construction
using dimension lumber.
Regardless of the type of structural element to analyze, the designer must first
determine nominal design loads. The loads acting on a framing member or system are
usually calculated in accordance with the applicable provisions of the locally
approved building code and engineering standards. The nominal design loads and load
combinations used in this chapter follow the recommendations in Chapter 3 for
residential design.
While prescriptive design tables (i.e., span tables) and similar design aids
commonly used in residential applications are not included herein, the designer may
save considerable effort by consulting such resources. Most local, state, or
national model building codes such as the One- and Two-Family Dwelling Code (ICC,
1998) contain prescriptive design and construction provisions for conventional
residential construction. Similar prescriptive design aids and efficient framing
practices can be found in Cost-Effective Home Building: A Design and Construction
Handbook (NAHBRC, 1994). For high wind conditions, prescriptive guidelines for
design and construction may be found in the Wood Frame Construction Manual for One-
and Two-Family Dwellings (AFPA, 1996b). The designer is also encouraged to obtain
design data on a variety of proprietary engineered wood products that are suitable
for many special design needs in residential construction. However, these materials
generally should not be viewed as simple one-to-one substitutes for conventional
wood framing and any special design and construction requirements should be
carefully considered in accordance with the manufacturers recommendation or
applicable code evaluation reports.
5.2 Material Properties
It is essential that a residential designer specifying wood materials appreciate
the natural characteristics of wood and their effect on the engineering properties
of lumber. A brief discussion of the properties of lumber and structural wood
panels follows.
5-3
inches by 9.25 inches, and a 1x4 is 3/4-inch by 3.5 inches. This guide uses nominal
member size, but it is important to note that the designer must apply the actual
dimensions of the lumber when analyzing structural performance or detailing
construction dimensions.
Based on the expected application, the tabulated values in the NDS are classified
by the species of wood as well as by the nominal size of a member. Typical NDS
classifications follow:
Boards are less than 2 inches thick.
Dimension lumber is a minimum of 2 inches wide and 2 to 4 inches thick.
Beams and stringers are a minimum of 5 inches thick, with the width at least 2
inches greater than the thickness dimension.
Posts and timbers are a minimum of 5 inches thick, and the width does not exceed
the thickness by more than 2 inches.
Decking is 2 to 4 inches thick and loaded in the weak axis of bending for a roof,
floor, or wall surface.
Most wood used in light-frame residential construction takes the form of dimension
lumber.
Lumber Grades
Lumber is graded in accordance with standardized grading rules that consider the
effect of natural growth characteristics and defects, such as knots and angle of
grain, on the members structural properties. Growth characteristics reduce the
overall strength of the member relative to a perfect, clear-grained member
without any natural defects. Most lumber is visually graded, although it can also
be machine stress-rated or machine evaluated.
Visually graded lumber is graded by an individual who examines the wood member at
the mill in accordance with an approved agencys grading rules. The grader
separates wood members into the appropriate grade classes. Typical visual grading
classes in order of decreasing strength properties are Select Structural, No. 1,
No. 2, Stud, etc. Refer to the NDS Supplement (NDS-S) for more information on
grades of different species of lumber. The designer should consult a lumber
supplier or contractor regarding locally available lumber species and grades.
Machine stress rated (MSR) and machine evaluated lumber (MEL) is subjected to
nondestructive testing of each piece. The wood member is then marked with the
appropriate grade stamp, which includes the allowable bending stress (Fb) and the
modulus of elasticity (E). This grading method yields lumber with more consistent
structural properties than visual grading only.
While grading rules vary among grading agencies, the U.S. Department of Commerce
has set forth minimums for voluntary adoption by the recognized
5-5
5-7
5-9
TABLE 5.1
Stress Property
Extreme fiber stress in bending, Fb Tension parallel to grain, Ft Shear parallel to
grain, Fv Compression parallel to grain, Fc Compression perpendicular to grain, Fc
Modulus of elasticity, E
Reduction Factor
1 2.1 1 2.1 1 4.1 1 1.9 1 1.5 1 1.0
Limit State
Fifth percentile
Ultimate capacity
Fifth percentile
Ultimate capacity
Fifth percentile
Ultimate capacity
Fifth percentile
Ultimate capacity
Mean
0.04 deflection1
Mean
Proportional limit2
ASTM Designation
D1990 D1990 D245 D1990 D245 D1990
TABLE 5.2
Design Properties1
Fb Ft Fv
Fc
Fc E
5.2.4.1
5-11
are based on the total accumulated time effects of a given type of load during the
useful life of a structure. CD increases with decreasing load duration.
Where more than one load type is specified in a design analysis, the load duration
factor associated with the shortest duration load is applied to the entire
combination of loads. For example, for the load combination, Dead Load + Snow Load
+ Wind Load, the load duration factor, CD, is equal to 1.6.
TABLE 5.3
Load Type
Permanent (dead load) Normal Occupancy (live load)1 Snow2 Temporary construction
Wind and seismic3 Impact
Load Duration
Lifetime Ten years Ten years to seven days One month to seven days Seven days Ten
minutes to one minute One second
Recommended CD Value
0.9 1.0 1.0 to 1.25 1.15 to 1.25 1.25 1.6 to 1.8 2.0
Source: Based on NDS2.3.2 and NDSAppendix B (AF&PA, 1997). Notes: 1The NDS uses a
live load duration of ten years (CD = 1.0). The factor of 1.25 is consistent with
the time effect factor for live load used
in the new wood LRFD provisions (AF&AP, 1996a). 2The NDS uses a snow load duration
of one month (CD = 1.15). The factor of 1.25 is consistent with the time effect
factor for snow load
used in the new wood LRFD provisions (AF&PA, 1996a). 3The NDS uses a wind and
seismic load duration of ten minutes (CD = 1.6). The factor may be as high as 1.8
for earthquake loads which
generally have a duration of less than 1 minute with a much shorter duration for
ground motions in the design level range.
5.2.4.2
TABLE 5.4
Application
Recommended Cr Value
1.1 to 1.2
Three adjacent members sharing load3 Four or more adjacent members sharing load3
center with suitable surfacing to distribute loads to adjacent 1.15 members (i.e.,
decking, panels, boards, etc.)4
Wall framing (studs) of three or more members spaced not more 1.52x4 or smaller
1.22x10
References
AF&PA,1996b HUD, 1999 ASAE, 1997 ASAE, 1997
NDS
AF&PA, 1996b SBCCI, 1999 Polensek, 1975
Notes: 1NDS recommends a Cr value of 1.15 only as shown in the table. The other
values in the table were obtained from various codes, standards, and research
reports as indicated. 2Dimension lumber bending members are to be parallel in
orientation to each other, continuous (i.e., not spliced), and of the same species,
grade, and size. The applicable sizes of dimension lumber range from 2x4 to 2x12.
3Cr values are given as a range and are applicable to built-up columns and beams
formed of continuous members with the strong-axis of all members oriented
identically. In general, a larger value of Cr should be used for dimension lumber
materials that have a greater variability in strength (i.e., the more variability
in strength of individual members the greater the benefit realized in forming a
built-up member relative
to the individual member strength). For example, a two-ply built-up member of No. 2
grade (visually graded) dimension lumber may
qualify for use of a Cr value of 1.2 whereas a two-ply member of No. 1 dense or
mechanically graded lumber may qualify for a Cr value of 1.1. The individual
members should be adequately attached to one another or the load introduced to the
built-up member such that the
individual members act as a unit (i.e., all members deflect equally) in resisting
the bending load. For built-up bending members with non-
continuous plys (i.e., splices), refer to ASAE EP 559 (ASAE, 1997). For built-up
columns subject to weak axis bending load or buckling,
refer to ASAE EP 559 and NDS15.3. 4Refer to NDS4.3.4 and the NDS Commentary for
additional guidance on the use of the 1.15 repetitive member factor. 5The Cr values
are based on wood structural panel attachment to wall framing using 8d common nails
spaced at 12 inches on center. For fasteners of a smaller diameter, multiply the Cr
values by the ratio of the nail diameter to that of an 8d common nail (0.131 inch
diameter). The reduction factor applied to Cr need not be less than 0.75 and the
resulting value of Cr should not be adjusted to less than 1.15. Doubling the
nailing (i.e., decreasing the fastener spacing by one-half) can increase the Cr
value by 16 percent (Polensek, 1975).
With the exception of the 1.15 repetitive member factor, the NDS does not currently
recognize the values in Table 5.4. Therefore, the values in Table 5.4 are provided
for use by the designer as an alternative method based on various sources of
technical information including certain standards, code recognized guidelines, and
research studies. For more information on system effects, consult the following
sample of references:
"Structural Performance of Light-Frame Truss-Roof Assemblies" (Wolfe, 1996).
Performance of Light-Frame Redundant Assemblies (Wolfe, 1990).
Reliability of Wood Systems Subjected to Stochastic Live Loads (Rosowsky and
Ellingwood, 1992).
System Effects in Wood Assemblies (Douglas and Line, 1996).
Design Requirements and Bending Properties for Mechanically Laminated Columns (EP
559) (ASAE, 1997).
5-13
Chapter 5 - Design of Wood Framing
Rational Design Procedure for Wood Stud Walls Under Bending and Compression Loads
(Polensek, 1975).
Stress and Deflection Reduction in 2x4 Studs Spaced 24 Inches On Center Due to the
Addition of Interior and Exterior Surfacings (NAHBRF, 1974).
Wall & Floor Systems: Design and Performance of Light-Frame Structures (FPRS,
1983).
5.2.4.3
5.2.4.4
5.2.4.5
5.2.4.6
As with any structural design, the designer should perform several checks with
respect to various design factors. This section provides an overview of
5-15
checks specified in the NDS and specifies several design concerns that are not
addressed by the NDS. In general, the two categories of structural design concerns
are:
Structural Serviceability
Deflection due to bending Floor vibration Shrinkage
The remainder of this chapter applies these design checks to examples of different
structural systems and elements in a home. In addition, given that the intent of
this guide is to provide supplemental instruction for the use of the NDS in the
efficient design of wood-framed homes, the reader is referred to the NDS for symbol
definitions, as well as other guidance.
The following equations from the NDS determine if a member has sufficient bending
strength. Notches in bending members should be avoided, but small notches are
permissible; refer to NDS3.2.3. Similarly, the diameter of holes in bending
members should not exceed one-third the members depth and should be located along
the center line of the member. Greater flexural capacity may be obtained by
increasing member depth, decreasing the clear span or spacing of the member, or
selecting a grade and species of lumber with a higher allowable bending stress.
Engineered wood products or alternative materials may also be considered.
[NDS3.3]
f b Fb Fb = Fb x
basic design check for bending stress (applicable adjustment factors per Section
5.2.4)
fb
Mc I
M S
extreme fiber bending stress due to bending moment from transverse load
S = I = bd 2 c6
I = bd3 12
c= 12d
Horizontal Shear
[NDS3.4]
f v Fv Fv = Fv x
fv
VQ Ib
fv
3V 2A
basic design check for horizontal shear (applicable adjustment factors per Section
5.2.4) horizontal shear stress (general equation)
for maximum horizontal shear stress at the neutral axis of solid rectangular
members
For bending members bearing on wood or metal, a minimum bearing of 1.5 inches is
typically recommended. For bending members bearing on masonry, a minimum bearing of
3 inches is typically advised. The resulting bearing areas may not, however, be
adequate in the case of heavily loaded members. On the other hand, they may be too
conservative in the case of lightly loaded members. The minimum bearing lengths are
considered to represent good practice.
The following equations from the NDS are based on net bearing area. Note that the
provisions of the NDS acknowledge that the inner bearing edge experiences added
pressure as the member bends. As a practical matter, the added
pressure does not pose a problem because the compressive capacity, Fc, of wood
increases as the material is compressed. Further, the design value is based
5-17
Chapter 5 - Design of Wood Framing
on a deformation limit, not on failure by crushing. Thus, the NDS recommends the
added pressure at bearing edges not be considered. The designer is also alerted to
the use of the bearing area factor, Cb, which accounts for the ability of wood to
distribute large stresses originating from a small bearing area not located near
the end of a member. Examples include interior bearing supports and compressive
loads on washers in bolted connections.
f c Fc Fc = Fc x
f c
P Ab
The above equations pertain to bearing that is perpendicular to grain; for bearing
at an angle to grain, refer to NDS3.10. The later condition would apply to sloped
bending members (i.e., rafters) notched at an angle for bearing. For light-frame
construction, bearing stress is rarely a limiting factor.
Depending on the application and the combination of loads considered, some members
such as wall studs and roof truss members, experience bending stress in addition to
axial loading. The designer should evaluate combined bending and axial stresses as
appropriate. If additional capacity is required, the selection of a higher grade of
lumber is not always an efficient solution for overstressed compression members
under combined axial and bending loads because the design may be limited by
stability rather than by a stress failure mode. Efficiency issues will become
evident when the designer calculates the components of the combined stress
interaction equations that are given below and found in the NDS.
ft Ft
fb Fb*
fb ft 1 Fb**
fc Fc
2
f b1 Fb1 1 f c
FcE1
Fb2 1 f c
f b2 FcE2
f b1
FbE
For framing members that support axial loads only (i.e., columns), the designer
must consider whether the framing member can withstand the axial compressive forces
on it without buckling or compressive failure. If additional
[NDS3.7] [NDS3.8]
P fc = A
compressive stress parallel to grain due to axial load, P, acting on the members
cross-sectional area, A.
Cp
1 + FcE 2c
Fc*
( )1
FcE
Fc *
FcE
Fc *
2c
FcE
K cE E l e d 2
Tension
Relatively few members in light-frame construction resist tension forces only. One
notable exception occurs in roof framing where cross-ties or bottom chords in
trusses primarily resist tension forces. Other examples include chord and collector
members in shear walls and horizontal diaphragms as discussed in Chapter 6. Another
possibility is a member subject to excessive uplift loads such as those produced by
extreme wind. In any event, connection design is usually the limiting factor in
designing the transfer of tension forces in light-frame construction (refer to
Chapter 7). Tension stresses in wood members are checked by using the equations
below in accordance with NDS3.8.
ft
=
P A
stress in tension parallel to gain due to axial tension load, P, acting on the
members cross-sectional area, A
5-19
The NDS does not provide explicit methods for evaluating cross-grain tension forces
and generally recommends the avoidance of cross-grain tension in lumber even though
the material is capable of resisting limited cross-grain stresses. Design values
for cross-grain tension may be approximated by using one-third of the unadjusted
horizontal shear stress value, Fv. One application of cross-grain tension in design
is in the transfer of moderate uplift loads from wind through the band or rim joist
of a floor to the construction below. If additional cross-grain tension strength is
required, the designer should increase member size or consider alternative
construction details that reduce cross-grain tension forces. When excessive tension
stress perpendicular to grain cannot be avoided, the use of mechanical
reinforcement or design detailing to reduce the cross-grain tension forces is
considered good practice (particularly in high-hazard seismic regions) to ensure
that brittle failures do not occur.
The NDS does not specifically limit deflection but rather defers to designer
judgment or building code specifications. Nonetheless, with many interior and
exterior finishes susceptible to damage by large deflections, reasonable deflection
limits based on design loads are recommended herein for the design of specific
elements.
The calculation of member deflection is based on the section properties of the beam
from NDS-S and the members modulus of elasticity with applicable adjustments.
Generally, a deflection check using the equations below is based on the estimated
maximum deflection under a specified loading condition. Given that wood exhibits
time- and load-magnitude-dependent permanent deflection (creep), the total long-
term deflection can be estimated in terms of two components of the load related to
short- and long-term deflection using recommendations provided in NDS3.5.
[NDS3.5]
estimate allow
estimate
f load
and EI
span
If a deflection check proves unacceptable, the designer may increase member depth,
decrease the clear span or spacing of the member, or select a grade and species of
wood with a higher modulus of elasticity (the least effective option). Typical
denominator values used in the deflection equation range from 120 to 600 depending
on application and designer judgment. Table 5.5 provides recommended deflection
limits. Certainly, if a modest adjustment to a deflection limit results in a more
efficient design, the designer should exercise discretion with respect to a
possible negative consequence such as vibration or long-term creep. For lateral
bending loads on walls, a serviceability load for a deflection check may be
considered as a fraction of the nominal design wind load for
TABLE 5.5
Element or Condition
Rafters without attached ceiling finish Rafters with attached ceiling finishes and
trusses Ceiling joists with attached finishes Roof girders and beams Walls Headers
Floors3 Floor girders and beams4
Load Condition
Lr or S Lr or S
Lattic Lr or S W or E (Lr or S) or L
L L
Given that system effects influence the stiffness of assemblies in a manner similar
to that of bending capacity (see Section 5.2.4.2), the system deflection factors of
Table 5.6 are recommended. The estimated deflection based on an analysis of an
element (e.g., stud or joist) is multiplied by the deflection factors to account
for system effect. Typical deflection checks on floors under uniform loading can be
easily overestimated by 20 percent or more. In areas where partitions add to the
rigidity of the supporting floor, deflection can be overestimated by more than 50
percent (Hurst, 1965). When concentrated loads are considered on typical light-
frame floors with wood structural panel subflooring, deflections can be
overestimated by a factor of 2.5 to 3 due to the neglect of the load distribution
to adjacent framing members and partial composite action (Tucker and Fridley,
1999). Similar results have been found for sheathed wall assemblies (NAHBRF, 1974).
When adhesives attach wood structural panels to wood framing, even greater
reductions in deflection are realized due to increased composite action (Gillespie
et al., 1978; Pellicane and
Anthony, 1996). However, if a simple deflection limit such as l/360 is construed to
control floor vibration in addition to the serviceability of finishes, the use of
system deflection factors of Table 5.6 is not recommended for floor system design.
In this case, a more accurate estimate of actual deflection may result in a floor
with increased tendency to vibrate or bounce.
5-21
TABLE 5.6
Framing System
0.35Concentrated load
1 /2-inch-thick gypsum board on the other; both facings 0.82x6 applied with
standard fastening3
Notes: 1System deflection factors are not recommended when evaluating floor member
deflection limits of Table 5.5 with the implied purpose of
controlling floor vibration. 2Two sheathing layers may be used to make up a minimum
thickness of 3/4-inch. 3The factors may be adjusted according to fastener diameter
in accordance with footnote 5 of Table 5.4. If fastening is doubled (i.e., spacing
halved), the factors may be divided by 1.4 (Polensek, 1975).
Floor Vibration
For floor joist spans less than 15 feet, a deflection limit of l/360 considering
design live loads only may be used, where l is the clear span of the joist in
inches.
For floor joist clear spans greater than 15 feet, the maximum deflection should
be limited to 0.5 inches.
For wood I-joists, the manufacturers tables that limit deflection to l/480
should be used for spans greater than 15 feet, where l is the clear span of the
member in inches.
When calculating deflection based on the above rules of thumb, the designer
should use a 40 psf live load for all rooms whether or not they are considered
sleeping rooms.
As an additional recommendation, glue and mechanically fasten the floor sheathing
to the floor joists to enhance the floor systems strength and stiffness.
Floor deflections are typically limited to l/360 in the span tables published in
current building codes using a standard deflection check without consideration of
system effects. For clear spans greater than 15 feet, this deflection limit has
caused nuisance vibrations that are unacceptable to some building occupants or
owners. Floor vibration is also aggravated when the floor is supported on a bending
member (e.g., girder) rather than on a rigid bearing wall. It may be
desirable to design such girders with a smaller deflection limit to control floor
vibration, particularly when girder and floor spans have more than a 20-foot total
combined span (i.e., span of girder plus span of supported floor joist).
For metal-plate-connected wood trusses, strong-backs are effective in reducing
floor vibration when they are installed through the trusses near the center of the
span. A strong-back is a continuous bracing member, typically a 2x6, fastened
edgewise to the base of the vertical web of each truss with 2-16d nails. For longer
spans, strong-backs may be spaced at approximately 8-foot intervals across the
span. Details for strong-backs may be found in the Metal Plate Connected Wood Truss
Handbook (WTCA, 1997). Alternatively, a more stringent deflection criteria may be
used for the floor truss design.
Shrinkage
The amount of wood shrinkage in a structure depends on the moisture content (MC) of
the lumber at the time of installation relative to the equilibrium moisture content
(EMC) that the wood will ultimately attain in use. It is also dependent on the
detailing of the structure such as the amount of lumber supporting loads in a
perpendicular-to-grain orientation (i.e., sill, sole, top plates, and joists). MC
at installation is a function of the specified drying method, jobsite storage
practices, and climate conditions during construction. Relatively dry lumber (15
percent or less) minimizes shrinkage problems affecting finish materials and
prevents loosening or stressing of connections. A less favorable but acceptable
alternative is to detail the structure such that shrinkage is uniform, dispersed,
or otherwise designed to minimize problems. This alternative is the defacto
choice in simple residential buildings.
Shrink and swell across the width or thickness of lumber can be estimated by the
equation below from ASTM D1990 for typical softwood structural lumber (ASTM,
1998a). Shrinkage in the longitudinal direction of the member is practically
negligible.
1 a 0.2M 2
d2
100 0.2M1
100
5-23
The design approach discussed herein addresses solid sawn lumber floor systems in
accordance with the procedures specified in the National Design Specification for
Wood Construction (NDS), with appropriate modifications as noted. For more
information regarding wood I-joists, trusses, and other materials, consult the
manufacturers specifications and applicable code evaluation reports.
Section 5.3 discusses the general design equations and design checks for the NDS.
The present section provides detailed design examples that apply the equations in
Section 5.3, while tailoring them to the design of the elements in a floor system.
The next sections make reference to the span of a member. The NDS defines span as
the clear span of the member plus one-half the required bearing at each end of the
member. This guide simply defines span as the clear span between bearing points.
When designing any structural element, the designer must first determine the loads
acting on the element. Load combinations used in the analysis of floor
5-25
Notes: 1Trusses are also available with trimmable ends. 2Cold-formed steel is also
used to make floor trusses.
For typical floor systems supporting a concentrated load at or near center span,
load distribution to adjacent joists can substantially reduce the bending stresses
or moment experienced by the loaded joist. A currently available design methodology
may be beneficial for certain applications such as wood-framed garage floors that
support heavy concentrated wheel loads (Tucker and Fridley, 1999). Under such
conditions, the maximum bending moment experienced by any single joist is reduced
by more than 60 percent. A similar reduction in the shear loading (and end
reaction) of the loaded joist also results, with exception for moving
concentrated loads that may be located near the end of the joist, thus creating a
large transverse shear load with a small bending moment. The abovementioned design
methodology for a single, concentrated load applied near midspan of a repetitive
member floor system is essentially equivalent to using a Cr factor of 1.5 or more
(see Section 5.2.4.2). The system deflection adjustment factors in Table 5.6 are
applicable as indicated for concentrated loads.
Bridging or cross-braces were formerly thought to provide both necessary lateral-
torsional bracing of dimension lumber floor joists and stiffer floor systems.
5-27
5-29
TABLE 5.7
Thickness
6d nail
19/32- to 1-inch
8d nail
1-1/8- to 1-1/4-inch
10d nail or 8d deformed shank nail
7/8- to -inch
8d nail
1-1/8- to 1-1/4-inch
Notes: 1Codes generally require common or box nails; if pneumatic nails are used,
as is common, refer to NER-272 (NES, 1997) or the nail
manufacturers data. Screws are also commonly substituted for nails. For more
detail on fasteners and connections, refer to Chapter 7.
While not as common today, boards may also be used as a subfloor (i.e., board
sheathing). Floor sheathing boards are typically 1x6 or 1x8 material laid flatwise
and diagonally (or perpendicular) on the floor joists. They may be designed using
the NDS or local accepted practice.
5-31
5-33
and fourth load combinations are essentially combined bending and axial loads that
may govern stud design as opposed to axial load only in the first two load
combinations. Chapter 6 addresses the design of walls for in-plane shear or racking
forces resulting from lateral building loads caused by wind or earthquakes.
In many cases, certain design load combinations or load components can be dismissed
or eliminated through practical consideration and inspection. They are a matter of
designer judgment, experience, and knowledge of the critical design conditions.
5.5.2 Load-Bearing Walls
Exterior load-bearing walls support both axial and lateral loads. For interior
load-bearing walls, only gravity loads are considered. A serviceability check using
a lateral load of 5 psf is sometimes applied independently to interior walls but
should not normally control the design of load-bearing framing. This section
focuses on the axial and lateral load-bearing capacity of exterior and interior
walls.
Exterior walls are not necessarily load-bearing walls. Load-bearing walls support
gravity loads from either the roof, ceiling, or floor joists or the beams above. A
gable-end wall is typically considered to be a nonload-bearing wall in that roof
and floor framing generally runs parallel to the gable end; however, it must
support lateral wind and seismic loads and even small dead and live loads. Exterior
load-bearing walls must be designed for axial loads as well as for lateral loads
from wind or seismic forces. They must also act as shear walls to resist racking
loads from lateral wind or seismic forces on the overall building (refer to Chapter
6). Example 5.6 demonstrates the design of an exterior bearing wall.
When calculating the column stability factor for a stud wall, note that column
capacity is determined by using the slenderness ratio about the strong axis of the
stud (le/d)x in accordance with NDS3.7.1. The reason for using the strong axis
slenderness ratio is that lateral support is provided to the stud by the wall
sheathing and finish materials in the studs weak-axis bending or buckling
direction. When determining the column stability factor, Cp, for a wall system
rather than for a single column in accordance with NDS3.7.1, the designer must
exercise judgment with respect to the calculation of the effective length, le, and
the depth or thickness of the wall system, d. A buckling coefficient, Ke, of about
0.8 is reasonable (see Appendix G of NDS) and is supported in the research
literature on this topic for sheathed wall assemblies and studs with square-cut
ends (i.e., not a pinned joint).
In cases where continuous support is not present (e.g., during construction), the
designer may want to consider stability for both axes. Unsupported studs generally
fail due to weak-axis buckling under a significantly lower load than would
otherwise be possible with continuous lateral support in the weak-axis buckling
direction.
Interior walls may be either load-bearing or nonload-bearing. Nonloadbearing
interior walls are often called partitions (see Section 5.5.3). In either case,
interior walls should be solidly fastened to the floor and ceiling framing and to
the exterior wall framing where they abutt. It may be necessary to install extra
studs,
5-35
should apply (refer to Table 5.4), along with a live load deflection limit of l/240
(refer to Table 5.6). Large openings or especially heavy loads may require stronger
members such as engineered wood beams, hot-rolled steel, or flitch plate beams.
Refer to Cost-Effective Home Building: A Design and Construction Handbook for
economical framing solutions to reduce header loads and sizes (NAHB, 1994).
Headers are generally designed to support all loads from above; however, typical
residential construction calls for a double top plate above the header. When an
upper story is supported, a floor band joist and sole plate of the wall above are
also spanning the wall opening below. These elements are all part of the resisting
system. Recent header testing determined whether an adjustment factor (i.e., system
factor or repetitive member factor) is justified in designing a header (HUD, 1999).
The results showed that a repetitive member factor is valid for headers constructed
of only two members as shown in Table 5.4 and that additional system effects
produce large increases in capacity when the header is overlaid by a double top
plate, band joist and sole plate as shown in Example 5.7. Consequently, an overall
system factor of 1.8 was found to be a simple, conservative design solution. That
system factor is applicable to the adjusted bending stress value, Fb, of the
header member only. While this example covers only a very specific condition, it
exemplifies the magnitude of potential system effect in similar conditions. In this
case, the system effect is associated with load sharing and partial composite
action. The above adjustment factor is not currently recognized in the NDS.
Refer to Table 5.8 for recommended allowable bending stress adjustment factors for
use in the specific header design conditions related to the discussion above. For
other conditions, refer to Table 5.4. Example 5.7 demonstrates the design approach
for a typical header condition.
TABLE 5.8
Notes:
1For other applications and lumber sizes or grades, refer to the Cr factors in
Table 5.4 of Section 5.2.4.2. 2Apply Cr in lieu of Section 5.1.3 (Table 5.4) to
determine adjusted allowable bending stress, Fb. 3Use Cr = 1.35 when the header is
overlaid by a minimum 2x4 double top plate without splices. 4Refer to Example 5.7
for an illustration of the header system.
Headers are not required in nonload-bearing walls. Openings can be framed with
single studs and a horizontal header block of the same size. It is common practice
to use a double 2x4 or triple 2x4 header for larger openings in nonload-bearing
walls. In the interest of added rigidity and fastening surface, however, some
builders use additional jamb studs for openings in nonloadbearing walls, but such
studs are not required.
5-37
5.6 Roofs
The objectives of roof framing design are
to support building dead and snow loads and to resist wind and seismic forces;
to resist roof construction and maintenance loads; to provide a thermal and
weather barrier; to provide support for interior ceiling finishes; and to
provide attic space and access for electrical and mechanical
equipment or storage.
5.6.1 General
A roof in residential construction is typically a sloped structural system that
supports gravity and lateral loads and transfers the loads to the walls below.
Generally, the four options for wood roof construction are
roof trusses; rafters and cross-ties; rafters with ridge beams (i.e.
cathedral ceiling); and timber framing.
5-39
Roof trusses are preengineered components. They are fabricated from 2inch-thick
dimension lumber connected with metal truss plates. They are generally more
efficient than stick framing and are usually designed to span from exterior wall to
exterior wall with no intermediate support. In more complex portions of roof
systems, it is still common to use rafter framing techniques.
Roof sheathing is a thin structural element, usually plywood or oriented strand
board, that supports roof loads and distributes lateral and axial loads to the roof
framing system. Roof sheathing also provides lateral support to the roof framing
members and serves as a membrane or diaphragm to resist and distribute lateral
building loads from wind or earthquakes (refer to Chapter 6).
Roof systems are designed to withstand dead, live, snow, and wind uplift loads; in
addition, they are designed to withstand lateral loads, such as wind and earthquake
loads, transverse to the roof system. The design procedure discussed herein
addresses dimension lumber roof systems designed according to the NDS. Where
appropriate, the procedure incorporates modifications of the NDS. Section 5.3
summarizes the general design equations and design checks based on the NDS. Refer
to Chapter 6 for the design of roofs with respect to lateral loads on the overall
structure; refer to Chapter 7 for guidance on the design of connections.
When designing roof elements or components, the designer needs to consider the
following load combinations from Chapter 3 (Table 3.1):
D + (Lr or S) 0.6 D + Wu D+W
The following sections refer to the span of the member. The NDS defines span as the
clear span of the member plus one-half the required bearing at each end of the
member. For simplicity, the clear span between bearing points is used herein.
Finally, roofs exhibit system behavior that is in many respects similar to floor
framing (see Section 5.4); however, sloped roofs also exhibit unique system
behavior. For example, the sheathing membrane or diaphragm on a sloped roof acts as
a folded plate that helps resist gravity loads. The effect of the folded plate
becomes more pronounced as roof pitch becomes steeper. Such a system effect is
usually not considered in design but explains why light wood-framed roof systems
may resist loads several times greater than their design capacity. Recent research
on trussed roof assemblies with wood structural panel sheathing points to a system
capacity increase factor of 1.1 to 1.5 relative to the design of an individual
truss (Wolfe and LaBissoniere, 1991; Wolfe, 1996; Mtenga, 1998). Thus, a
conservative system factor of 1.15 is recommended in this document for chord
bending stresses and a factor of 1.1 for chord tension and compression stresses.
5.6.2 Conventional Roof Framing
This section addresses the design of conventional roof rafters, ceiling joists
(cross-ties), ridge beams, and hip and valley rafters. The design procedure for a
rafter and ceiling joist system is similar to that of a truss, except that the
5-41
Roof truss manufacturers normally provide the required engineering design based on
the loading conditions specified by the building designer. The building designer is
responsible for providing the following items to the truss manufacturer for design:
The building designer should also provide for permanent bracing of the truss system
at locations designated by the truss designer. In general, such bracing
5-43
ideas, refer to Cost Effective Home Building: A Design and Construction Handbook
(NAHBRC, 1994).
5.6.4 Roof Sheathing
Roof sheathing thickness is typically governed by the spacing of roof framing
members and live or snow loads. Sheathing is normally in accordance with
prescriptive sheathing span rating tables published in a building code or made
available by manufacturers. If the limit of the prescriptive tables is exceeded,
the designer may need to perform calculations; however, such calculations are
rarely necessary in residential construction. The process of selecting rated roof
sheathing is similar to that for floor sheathing in Example 5.5.
The fasteners used to attach sheathing to roof rafters are primarily nails. The
most popular nail types are sinker, box, and common, of which all have different
characteristics that affect structural properties (refer to Chapter 7). Proprietary
power-driven fasteners (i.e., pneumatic nails and staples) are also used
extensively. The building codes and APA tables recommend a fastener schedule for
connecting sheathing to roof rafters. Generally, nails are placed at a minimum 6
inches on center at edges and 12 inches on center at intermediate supports. A 6inch
fastener spacing should also be used at the gable-end framing to help brace the
gable-end. Nail size is typically 8d, particularly since thinner power driven nails
are most commonly used. Roof sheathing is commonly 7/16- to 5/8-inchthick on
residential roofs. Note that in some cases shear loads in the roof diaphragm
resulting from lateral loads (i.e., wind and earthquake) may require a more
stringent fastening schedule; refer to Chapter 6 for a discussion of fastening
schedules for lateral load design. More importantly, large suction pressures on
roof sheathing in high wind areas (see Chapter 3) will require a larger fastener
and/or closer spacing. In hurricane-prone regions, it is common to require an 8d
deformed shank nail with a 6 inch on center spacing at all framing connections. At
the gable end truss or rafter, a 4 inch spacing is common.
5.6.5 Roof Overhangs
Overhangs are projections of the roof system beyond the exterior wall line at
either the eave or the rake (the sloped gable end). Overhangs protect walls from
rain and shade windows from direct sun. When a roof is framed with wood trusses, an
eave overhang is typically constructed by extending the top chord beyond the
exterior wall. When a roof is framed with rafters, the eave overhang is constructed
by using rafters that extend beyond the exterior wall. The rafters are cut with a
bird-mouth to conform to the bearing support. Gable end overhangs are usually
framed by using a ladder panel that cantilevers over the gable end for either
stick-framed or truss roofs. Refer to Figure 5.9 for illustrations of various
overhang constructions.
A study completed in 1978 by the Southern Forest Experiment Station for the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development found that the protection afforded by
overhangs extends the life of the wall below, particularly if the wall is
constructed of wood materials (HUD, 1978). Entitled the Prevention and Control of
Decay in Homes, the report correlates the climate index of a
5-47
Table 5.6 may assist in dealing with the need to meet a reasonable serviceability
limit for deflection (see Section 5.3.2).
Finally, as an alternative that avoids the gable-end wall bracing problem, a hip
roof may be used. The hip shape is inherently more resistant to wind damage in
hurricane-prone wind environments (see Chapter 1) and braces the end walls against
lateral wind loads by direct attachment to rafters.
Design Examples
In this section, a number of design examples illustrate the design of various
elements discussed in this chapter. The examples are intended to also provide
practical advice. Therefore, the examples are embellished with numerous notes and
recommendations to improve the practicality and function of various possible design
solutions. They are also intended to promote the designers creativity in arriving
at the best possible solution for a particular application
EXAMPLE 5.1
Given
Find Solution 1.
2.
3. 4.
Live load (L) Dead load (D) Trial joist spacing Trial joist size Trial joist
species and grade
= = = = =
30 psf (bedroom area) 10 psf 16 on center 2x8 Hem-Fir, No. 1 (S-dry, 19% MC)
Fb = Fv =
Fc = E=
Ixx = Sxx = b= d=
Lumber property adjustments and adjusted design values (Section 5.2.4 and NDS2.3)
CD = Cr = CF = CH =
CL =
Cb = Fb = Fv =
Fc = E =
1.0 (NDS2.3.10)
FvCHCD
= 75 (2)(1.0)
= 150 psi
FcCb E
= 405 psi
Mmax
fb
5-49
Vmax = 2 =
= 26.7 l 2
fv
=
3V 2A
3 2
(1.5
in)
3.7
stress)
Bearing length = (3.5-in top plate width) - (1.5-in rim joist width) = 2 in
fc
1 wl 2
fc < Fc 8.9l 405 psi l = 45.5 ft = 45 ft-6 in (maximum clear span due to
bearing stress)
max
5wl4
= 1.26 x 10-5l4
all
deflection criteria)
The serviceability deflection check was based on the design floor live load for
bedroom areas of 30 psf. The vibration control recommended in Section 5.3.2
recommends using a 40 psf design floor live load with the l/360 deflection limit.
Given that the span will not be greater than 15 feet, it is not necessary to use
the absolute deflection limit of 0.5 inch.
max
5 wl 4 384 EI
5 (53.3 plf )* (l4 ) (1,728 in3 / ft3) 384 (1.5 x106 psi) (47.63 in4 )
1.7
10-5 l 4
l3 = 1,941
Conclusion
The serviceability limit states used for deflection and floor vibration limit the
maximum span. The deflection limited span is 13 ft-10 in and the vibration limited
span is 12 ft-6 in. Span selection based on deflection or vibration is an issue of
designer judgment. The maximum span limited by the structural safety checks was 14
ft-11 in due to bending. Therefore, the serviceability limit will provide a notable
safety margin above that required. Thus, No. 2 grade lumber should be considered
for economy in that it will have only a small effect on the serviceability limits.
Conversely, if floor stiffness is not an expected issue with the owner or occupant,
the span may be increased beyond the serviceability limits if needed to make it
work. Many serviceable homes have been built with 2x8 floor joists spanning as
much as 15 feet; however, if occupants have a low tolerance for floor vibration, a
lesser span should be considered.
For instructional reasons, shrinkage across the depth of the floor joist or floor
system may be estimated as follows based on the equations in Section 5.3.2:
d1 = 7.25 in d2 = ?
d2 = d1
1 a 0.2M 2
100
0.2M1 100
= 7.25 in
100
(19)
= 7.1 in
5-51
EXAMPLE 5.2
Given Find Solution 1. 2.
3.
4.
5.
Calculate the applied load W = (joist spacing)(D+L) = (2 ft)(40 psf +10 psf) = 100
plf Determine bending stress
Mmax = Fb =
wl2 =
8 M= S
Vmax = fv =
3V =
3 (709 lb)
= 77 psi
fc =
R Ab
236 psi
Wall and roof loads, if any, are carried through rim/band joist Determine minimum
modulus of elasticity due to selected deflection criteria
max
==
= 733,540/E
384EI
384E (98.93 in 4 )
all
l 360
max
all
The span required is not greater than 15 feet and the l/360 deflection check uses a
40 psf floor live load. Therefore, the deflection check is assumed to provide
adequate vibration control.
Bending
fb Fb
Fb = FbCrCFCD
Fbmin =
fb CrCFCD
= 1,113 psi
Horizontal shear
fv Fv
Fv = FvCHCD
Fvmin =
fv CHCD
77 psi = = 39 psi
(2) (1.0)
Bearing
fc Fc
Fc = FcCb
Fcmin =
f c (1.0)
8. Select optimum lumber grade considering local availability and price by using
NDS-S Table 4A or 4B data
Minimum No. 2 grade lumber is recommended for floor joists because of factors
related to lumber quality such as potential warping and straightness that may
affect constructability and create call-backs.
Considering 2x10 Douglas Fir-Larch, the grade below (No. 1 and Btr) was selected to
meet the required properties.
OK
OK
5-53
Chapter 5 - Design of Wood Framing Conclusion Many other species and grades should
be considered depending on local availability and cost. Also, the No. 1 and higher
grades are generally considered as premium lumber. A more economical design may
be possible by using a closer joist spacing to allow for a lower grade (i.e, 19.2
inches on center or 16 inches on center). Also, a lower grade 2x12 should be
considered or, perhaps, engineered wood I-joists.
5-54 Residential Structural Design Guide
EXAMPLE 5.3
Given
Joist size
= 2x10
Species
Roof snow load (S) = 11 psf (15 psf ground snow load and 7:12 roof
pitch)
Wall height = 8 ft
Find
5-55
Solution
1. Determine tabulated design values for species and grade from the NDS-S
Fb = Fv =
Fc = E=
1000 psi
95 psi
625 psi 1.7x106 psi
Cr = CH = Cb* =
*Joist bearing not at end of member (see NDS2.3.10) **The bottom (compression
edge) of the cantilever is assuemd to be laterally braced with wood structural
panel sheathing or equivalent. If not, the value of CL is dependent on the
slenderness ratio (see NDS3.3.3).
Case I: D+S - Cantilever Deflection Check P = wall and roof load (lb) at end of
cantilever = f (D+S) w = uniform load (plf) on joist = f (D only)
Case III: D+S+0.3L or D+L+0.3S - Bending and Horizontal Shear at Exterior Bearing
Support
a. P = f (D+S) w = f (D + 0.3L)
b. P = f (D+0.3S) w = f (D+L)
The following values of P and W are determined by using the nominal design loads,
roof span, wall height, and joist spacing given above
Case I
Case II
Case IIIa
Case IIIb
390 lb 66.5 lb
4. Determine a trial cantilever span based on a deflection limit of l/120 and load
Case I.
Use a 2 ft-10 in cantilever span (calculations not shown - see beam equations in
Appendix A).
5. Determine the maximum bending moment and shear for the three load cases
governing the structural safety design checks by using the trail cantilever span:
The following is determined by using free-body diagrams and shear and moment
diagrams (or beam equations, see Appendix A)
Case II
Case IIIa
Case IIIb
R1 R2 Vmax* Mmax
*NDS3.4.3 allows loads within a distance of the member depth, d, from the bearing
support to be ignored in the calculation of shear V when checking horizontal shear
stress. However, this portion of the load must be included in an analysis of the
bending moment. It would reduce the value of Vmax as calculated above by using beam
equations by approximately 100 pounds in Case II and Case IIIb and about 44 pounds
in Case IIIa by eliminating the uniform load, w, within a distance, d, from the
exterior bearing support.
6. Determine design bending moment capacity of the given joist and verify adequacy
Fb fb
= M all S
Mall = FbS
= 2,819 ft-lb
= 1,638 ft-lb
OK
7. Determine design shear capacity of the given joist and verify adequacy:
Fv
3Vall 2A
and
Fv Fv
Vall =
2AFv 3
2 (1.5 in)(9.25 in) (238 psi) =
3
= 2,202 lbs
5-57
fc
= R max Ab
1,088 lb =
(1.5 in)(3.5 in)
= 207 psi
Conclusion
EXAMPLE 5.4
Given
Find Solution 1. 2. 3.
4.
Loads
= 40 psf
= 12 ft
Species
= 12
W = (Trib. floor joist span)(D + L) = (12 ft)(40 psf + 10 psf) = 600 plf
FV = FlCDCH
= 90 psi (1.25)(2.0)
= 225 psi
Fc = FcCb E = E
Mmax
==
= 14,700 ft-lb
88
fb
SS
fb Fb
5 2x10s S = 5(21.39) = 107 < 118 (marginal, but 5 too thick) 4 2x12s S = 4 (31.64)
= 127 > 118 (OK)
5-59
Vmax
= wl 2
3V
fv
= 2A
= 3 4200 2 A
6,300 lb A
2 2x12s 2 2x10s
R2 = R=
Ab
Fc
565 psi
1.24 in (OK)
= 4,200 lb 700
= lb
max =
5wl4 384EI
==
384 EI
EI
all
l 360
= 0.47 in
max
all
3 2x12s
8. Check girder for floor system vibration control (see Section 5.3.2)
Try
l 480
max
all
max 4.15 x 108
EI EI
I
l 480
all
= 0.35 in
= 1.2 x 109 1.2 x 109
= 1.7 x 106
= 706 in4
= 0.35 in
5-61
EXAMPLE 5.5
Given
The required sheathing span rating and thickness with the face grain perpendicular
to the joist span.
Solution
Determine sheathing grade and span rating and thickness by using the APAs Design
and Construction Guide for Residential and Commercial (APA, 1998). From Table 7 in
the APA guide, use 7/16-inch-thick (24/16 rating) sheathing or 15/32-inch- to 1/2-
inch-thick (32/16 rating) sheathing. The first number in the rating applies to the
maximum spacing of framing members for roof applications; the second to floor
applications. It is fairly common to up size the sheathing to the next thickness,
e.g., 3/4-inch, to provide a stiffer floor surface. Such a decision often depends
on the type of floor finish to be used or the desired feel of the floor. Similar
ratings are also available from other structural panel trademarking organizations
and also comply with the PS-2 standard. It is important to ensure that the
sheathing is installed with the long dimension (i.e., face grain) perpendicular to
the floor framing; otherwise, the rating does not apply. For wall applications,
panel orientation is not an issue.
Conclusion
Sheathing design involves matching the proper sheathing rating with the floor
framing spacing and live load condition. The process is generally a cook book
method that follows tables in manufacturers literature or the applicable building
code. Board sheathing and decking are other possible subfloor options that may be
designed by using the NDS. Prescriptive tables for these options are also generally
available in wood industry publications or in the applicable residential building
code.
EXAMPLE 5.6
Given
Find
= 2x4 at 24 in on center
Wall height
= 8 ft
= 7/16-in-thick OSB
Interior surface
Wind load (100 mph, gust) = 16 psf (see Chapter 3, Example 3.2)
Vertical load capacity of stud wall system for bending (wind) and axial compression
(dead load) and for axial compression only (i.e., dead, live, and snow loads);
refer to Chapter 3, Table 3.1, for applicable load combinations.
Solution 1. 2.
3.
Determine tabulated design values for the stud by using the NDS-S (Table A4)
CD = =
Cr = CL = CF =
=
=
1.6 (wind load combination) 1.25 (gravity/snow load combination) 1.5 (sheathed wall
assembly, Table 5.4) 1.0 (continuous lateral bracing) 1.05 for Fc 1.1 for Ft 1.1
for Fb
5-63
FcE =
K cE E le d 2
8 ft (12 in / ft)
3.5 in
= 479 psi
Cp
1+ FcE Fc * 2c
factor)
1 +
FcE
Fc *
2c
FcE Fc * c
(column
1+
479 1,218
2 (0.8)
479 1,218
2 (0.8)
0.35
stability
Calculations are same as above except use CD = 1.25 Fc* = 952 psi Cp = 0.44 Fc' =
FcCDCFCP = 725 psi (1.25)(1.05)(0.44) = 419 psi
6. Calculate combined bending and axial compression capacity for wind and gravity
load (dead only) by using the combined stress interaction (CSI) equation
(NDS3.9.2):
fb = =
M= S
1 8
wl
[ ]1
8
(24
in)(16
psf )
(8
ft)(12
in ft)
(1
ft / 12
in)
3.06 in 3
= 1,004 psi
fc Fc
Fb
fb 1 f c
FcE1
only)
fc 426
1,782
1,004 1 f c
479
fc, max P
w
= 163 psi/stud
(856
lb/stud)
stud 2 ft
428 plf
Therefore, the maximum axial (dead) load capacity is 428 plf with the wind load
case (i.e., D+W).
This analysis applies to the D + L+ 0.3(S or Lr) and D + (S or Lr) + 0.3L load
combinations (see Table 3.1, Chapter 3).
Using Fc determined in Step 5 (axial load only case), determine the stud capacity
acting as a column with continuous lateral support in the weak-axis buckling
direction.
Not a capacity limit state. (Fc is based on deformation limit state, not actual
bearing capacity.) OK by inspection.
Residential Structural Design Guide
5-65
EXAMPLE 5.7
Given
Find
Header System
Solution
1. Determine tabulated design values by using the NDS-S (Table 4A)
Fb = 775 psi Fv = 70 psi Fc = 335 psi E = 1.1x106 psi
2. Determine lumber property adjustments (Section 5.2.4)
Cr = 1.3 (2x10 double header per Table 5.8) = 1.2 (2x8 double header per Table 5.4)
CD = 1.25 (snow load) CF = 1.1 (2x10)
= 1.2 (2x8) CH = 2.0 Cb = 1.0 CL = 1.0 laterally supported
Residential Structural Design Guide
5-67
Fb = =
Fv =
Fc = E =
FbCDCrCFCL = (775 psi)(1.25)(1.3)(1.1)(1.0) = 1,385 psi [2x10] (775 psi)(1.25)(1.2)
(1.1)(1.0) = 1,279 psi [2x8] FvCDCH = (70 psi)(1.25)(2) = 175 psi F cCb = (335psi)
(1) = 335 psi E = 1.1x106 psi
Mmax
==
= 3,169 ft-lb
88
fb
= M max S
Fb
(OK)
Try 2 2x8s
1,343 psi
S S for 2 2x8
4. Determine member size due to bending for combined floor and supported wall loads
by using the 1.8 system factor from Table 5.8, but not explicitly calculating the
load sharing with the band joist above.
Mmax = 8 =
= 5,070 ft-lb 8
fb
M S
Fb
(OK)
Vmax = 2 =
= 1,950 lb 2
3V 3 (1,950 lb)
fv
==
= 106 psi
fv Fv
R1 = R2 = Vmax = 1,950 lb
fc
= R=
1,950 lb
= 650
fc Fc
650 = 335 lb
lb = 1.9 in
7. Check deflection
max
all max Conclusion
5wl4
==
= 0.11 in
384 EI
= L/240
= 0.325 in
240
< all
5-69
EXAMPLE 5.8
Given
Find Solution 1.
2.
3.
Column Design
Basement column supporting a floor girder Spruce-Pine-Fir, No. 2 Grade Axial design
load is 4,800 lbs (D + L) Column height is 7.3 ft (unsupported)
Adequacy of a 4x4 solid column
Trial 4x4
Fc* = FcCDCF E = E
FcE
K cE E l e d 2
= = 670 psi
7.3
ft
(12
in
ft) 3.5
in 2
Cp
1 + FcE Fc *
FcE
Fc
FcE Fc *
2c
2c
1 + 6701,323 2 (0.8)
670 1,323
2 (0.8)
= 0.44
Pall = F'cA
OK
5-71
EXAMPLE 5.9
Given
Find Solution 1.
2.
Two-story home
Dead load
= 10 psf
= 10 psf
Minimum rafter size using No. 2 Douglas-Fir-Larch (refer to Figure 5.7 for load
diagram).
Evaluate load combinations applicable to rafter design (see Chapter 3, Table 3.1):
The load combinations to consider and initial assessment based on the magnitude of
the given design loads follows
0.6D + Wu
May control rafter design in outward-bending direction since the compression side
now has no lateral bracing unless specified; also important to rafter connections
at the bearing wall and ridge beam.
D+W
CD = =
Cr = CH = CF = CL =
=
1.6 (wind load combinations) 1.25 (snow load combination) 1.15 (2x8, 24 inches on
center) 2.0 1.2 (2x8) 1.0 (inward bending, D + S, laterally braced on compression
edge) 0.32 (outward bending, 0.6 D + W, laterally unbraced on
compression edge)*
le = = =
RB =
= KbE =
FbE =
Fb* = =
CL =
CL =
led = b2
31 < 50 (OK)
K bE E = R B2
1+ (FbE / Fb *) 2 1.9
FbE / Fb * 0.95
0.36 (2x8)
4. Determine rafter transverse bending load, shear, and moment for the wind uplift
load case (using Method A of Figure 5.8).
The wind load acts transverse (i.e., perpendicular) to the rafter; however, the
snow load acts in the direction of gravity and must be resolved to its transverse
component. Generally, the axial component of the gravity load along the rafter
(which varies unknowingly depending on end connectivity) is ignored and has
negligible impact considering the roof system effects that are also ignored. Also,
given the limited overhang length, this too will have a negligible impact on the
design of the rafter itself. Thus, the rafter can be reasonably analyzed as a
sloped, simply supported bending member. In analyzing wind uplift connection forces
at the outside bearing of the rafter, the designer should consider the additional
uplift created by the small overhang, though for the stated condition it would
amount only to about 20 pounds additional uplift load.
The net uniform uplift load perpendicular to the rafter is determined as follows:
wD, transverse
ww, transverse wtotal, transverse Shear, Vmax Moment, Mmax
Residential Structural Design Guide
5-73
5. Determine bending load, shear, and moment for the gravity load case (D + S)
using Method B of Figure 5.8 (horizontal span):
wD wS wtotal
wtotal
= = = =
Shear, Vmax =
Moment, Mmax =
43 plf
(43 plf)(cos 33.7) = 36 plf
= 216 lb
6. Check bending stress for both loading cases and bending conditions
fb =
M S
Inward Bending (D + S)
fb =
M S
Vmax = fv =
216 lb 3V = 2A
= 30 psi
fv << Fv
(OK)
8. Check bearing
OK by inspection.
Conclusion
all
l 180
max =
5wl 4 =
(1,728 in3/ft3)
= 0.4 in
5-75
EXAMPLE 5.10
Given
Find Solution 1.
One-story building
= 13 ft
Roof slope
= 6:12
Loading (Chapter 3)
Dead
= 15 psf
Snow
= 20 psf
Live = 10 psf
Optimum size and grade of lumber to use for a solid (single-member) ridge beam.
Evaluate load combinations applicable to the ridge beam design (see Chapter 3,
Table 3.1)
D + (Lr or S)
0.6 D + Wu
May control ridge beam design in outward-bending direction because the bottom
(compression side) is laterally unsupported (i.e., exposed ridge beam for cathedral
ceiling); also important to ridge beam connection to supporting columns. However, a
ridge beam supporting rafters that are tied-down to resist wind uplift cannot
experience significant uplift without significant upward movement of the rafters at
the wall connection, and deformation of the entire sloped roof diaphragm (depending
on roof slope).
D+W
Not controlling because snow load is greater in the inward direction; also,
positive pressure is possible only on the sloped windward roof surface while the
leeward roof surface is always under negative (suction) pressure for wind
perpendicular to the ridge; the case of wind parallel to the ridge results in
uplift across both sides of the roof, which is addressed in the 0.6 D + Wu load
combination and the roof uplift coefficients in Chapter 3 and based on this worst
case wind direction.
2. Determine the ridge beam bending load, shear, and moment for the wind uplift
load case
In accordance with a procedure similar to Step 4 of Example 5.9, the following
ridge beam loads are determined:
= 12 ft/cos 26.6
= 13.4 ft
wdead
= 201 plf
wtotal
Shear, Vmax
= 1/2 wl = 319 lb
Moment, Mmax
Note: If the rafters are adequately tied-down to resist uplift from wind, the ridge
beam cannot deform upward without deforming the entire sloped roof diaphragm and
the rafter-to-wall connections. Therefore, the above loads should be considered
with reasonable judgment. It is more important, however, to ensure that the
structure is appropriately tied together to act as a unit.
3. Determine the ridge beam loading, shear, and moment for the D + S gravity load
case
D+S
= 15 psf + 20 psf
= 35 psf
Shear, Vmax = 1/2 (469 plf)(13 ft) = 3,049 lb Moment, Mmax = 1/8 (469 plf)(13 ft)2
= 9,908 ft-lb
4. Determine the optimum ridge beam size and grade based on the above bending loads
and lateral support conditions.
Note. The remainder of the problem is essentially identical to Example 5.9 with
respect to determining the strength of the wood member. However, a trial member
size and grade are needed to determine the lumber stresses as well as the lumber
property adjustment values. Thus, the process of optimizing a lumber species, size,
and grade selection from the multitude of choices is iterative and time consuming
by hand calculation. Several computerized wood design products on the market can
perform the task. However, the computerized design procedures may not allow for
flexibility in design approach or assumptions if the designer is attempting to use
recommendations similar to those given in this guide. For this reason, many
designers prefer to create their own analysis spreadsheets as a customized personal
design aid. The remainder of this problem is left to the reader for
experimentation.
5-77
EXAMPLE 5.11
Given
One-story building
Dead
= 10 psf
Snow
= 10 psf
= 10 psf (uplift)
Live (roof)
= 15 psf
1. Hip rafter design approach for rafter-ceiling joist roof framing. 2. Hip rafter
design approach for cathedral ceiling framing (no cross-ties; ridge
beam and hip rafter supported by end-bearing supports).
Solution
1. Evaluate load combinations applicable to the hip rafter design (see Chapter 3,
Table 3.1)
By inspection, the D + Lr load combination governs the design. While the wind
uplift is sufficient to create a small upward bending load above the counteracting
dead load of 0.6 D, it does not exceed the gravity loading condition in effect.
Since the compression edge of the hip rafter is laterally braced in both directions
of strong-axis bending (i.e., jack rafters frame into the side and sheathing
provides additional support to the top), the 0.6 D + Wu condition can be dismissed
by inspection. Likewise, the D + W inward-bending load is considerably smaller than
the gravity load condition. However, wind uplift should be considered in the design
of the hip rafter connections; refer to Chapter 7.
2. Design the hip rafter for a rafter-ceiling joist roof construction (conventional
practice).
Use a double 2x10 No. 2 Hem-fir hip rafter (i.e., hip rafter is one-size larger
than rafters - rule of thumb). The double 2x10 may be lap-spliced and braced at or
near mid-span; otherwise, a single 2x10 could be used to span continuously. The lap
splice should be about 4 feet in length and both members face-nailed together with
2-10d common nails at 16 inches on center. Design is by inspection and common
practice.
Note: The standard practice above applies only when the jack rafters are tied to
the ceiling joists to resist outward thrust at the wall resulting from truss action
of the framing system. The roof sheathing is integral to the structural capacity of
the system; therefore, heavy loads on the roof before roof sheathing installation
should be avoided, as is common. For lower roof slopes, a structural analysis (see
next step) may be warranted because the folded-plate action of the roof sheathing
is somewhat diminished at lower slopes. Also, it is important to consider
connection of the hip rafter at the ridge. Usually, a standard connection using
toe-nails is used, but in high wind or snow load conditions a connector or
strapping should be considered.
3. Design the hip rafter by assuming a cathedral ceiling with bearing at the
exterior wall corner and at a column at the ridge beam intersection
a. Assume the rafter is simply supported and ignore the negligible effect of loads
on the small overhang with respect to rafter design.
b. Simplify the diamond-shaped tributary load area (see figure above) by assuming a
roughly "equivalent" uniform rectangular load area as follows:
Tributary width 4 ft wD+S = (10 psf + 15 psf)(4 ft) = 100 plf
c. Determine the horizontal span of the hip rafter based on roof geometry:
d. Based on horizontal span (Method B, Figure 5.8), determine shear and bending
moment:
Shear, Vmax
= 1/2 wl = 1/2 (100 plf)(17.8 ft) = 890 lb
Moment, Mmax = 1/8 wl2 = 1/8 (100 plf)(17.8 ft)2 = 3,960 ft-lb
fb
Fb Fb fb 47,520 in lb
S REQ D SREQD S2x12
SS
= FbCDCrCFCL (Fb from NDS-S, Table 4A) = 850 psi (1.25)(1.0)(1.0)(1.0) = 1,063 psi
Fb
= 1,063 psi
5-79
Try 2-2x10s,
Fb 47,520 in lb
S REQ D
SREQD S2x10
fv =
3V =
3 (890 lb)
= 48.1 psi
fv << Fv
OK by inspection
h. Consider deflection:
Conclusion
Use 2-2x10 (No. 2 Hem-Fir) for the hip rafters for the cathedral ceiling condition
(not considering sloped roof sheathing system effects). However, a cathedral
ceiling with a hip roof is not a common occurrence. For traditional rafter-ceiling
joist roof construction, a hip rafter one or two sizes larger than the rafters can
be used, particularly if it is braced at or near mid-span. With a ceiling joist or
crossties, the ridge member and hip rafter member need only serve as plates or
boards that provide a connection interface, not a beam, for the rafters.
5.8 References
AF&PA, Commentary on the National Design Specification for Wood Construction,
American Forest and Paper Association, Washington, DC, 1999.
AF&PA, Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Manual for Engineered Wood
Construction, American Forest and Paper Association, Washington, DC, 1996a.
AF&PA, National Design Specification for Wood Construction and Supplement, American
Forest and Paper Association, Washington, DC, 1997.
AF&PA, Wood Frame Construction ManualSBC High Wind Edition, American Forest and
Paper Association, Washington, DC, 1996b.
AISC, Manual of Steel Construction Allowable Stress Design, Ninth Edition, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, 1989.
AISI, Residential Steel Beam and Column Load/Span Tables, Publication RG936,
American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, DC, June 1993.
APA, Design and Construction Guide: Residential and Commercial, APAThe Engineered
Wood Association, Tacoma, WA, 1998a.
APA, Load-Span Tables for APA Structural-Use Panels, APAThe Engineered Wood
Association, Tacoma, WA, January 1999.
APA, Plywood Floors for Residential Garages, Report 139, APAThe Engineered Wood
Association, Tacoma, WA, 1980.
APA, Product Design Specification (PDS), American Plywood Association APA
Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, WA, 1998b.
ASAE, Design Requirements and Bending Properties for Mechanically Laminated Columns
(EP 559), American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI, 1997.
ASTM, Standard Practice for Evaluating Allowable Properties for Grades of
Structural Lumber (D2915-94), American Society of Testing and Materials, West
Conshohocken, PA, 1997.
ASTM, Standard Practice for Establishing Allowable Properties for VisuallyGraded
Dimension Lumber from In-Grade Tests of Full-Size Specimens (D1990-97), American
Society of Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 1998a.
5-81
5-83
CHAPTER 6
Lateral Resistance to Wind and Earthquake
6.1 General
The objectives in designing a buildings lateral resistance to wind and earthquake
forces are
to provide a system of shear walls, diaphragms, and interconnections to transfer
lateral loads and overturning forces to the foundation;
to prevent building collapse in extreme wind and seismic events; and
to provide adequate stiffness to the structure for service loads experienced in
moderate wind and seismic events.
In light-frame construction, the lateral force-resisting system (LFRS) comprises
shear walls, diaphragms, and their interconnections to form a wholebuilding system
that may behave differently than the sum of its individual parts. In fact, shear
walls and diaphragms are themselves subassemblies of many parts and connections.
Thus, designing an efficient LFRS system is perhaps the greatest challenge in the
structural design of light-frame buildings. In part, the challenge results from the
lack of any single design methodology or theory that provides reasonable
predictions of complex, large-scale system behavior in conventionally built or
engineered light-frame buildings.
Designer judgment is a crucial factor that comes into play when the designer
selects how the building is to be analyzed and to what extent the analysis should
be assumed to be a correct representation of the true design problem. Designer
judgment is essential in the early stages of design because the analytic methods
and assumptions used to evaluate the lateral resistance of light-frame buildings
are not in themselves correct representations of the problem. They are
6-1
A growing number of full-scale tests of houses have been conducted to gain insight
into actual system strength and structural behavior. Several researchers have
recently summarized the body of research; the highlights follow (Thurston, 1994;
NIST, 1998).
One whole-house test program investigated the lateral stiffness and natural
frequency of a production-built home (Yokel, Hsi, and Somes, 1973). The study
applied a design load simulating a uniform wind pressure of 25 psf to a
conventionally built home: a two-story, split-foyer dwelling with a fairly typical
floor plan. The maximum deflection of the building was only 0.04 inches and the
residual deflection about 0.003 inches. The natural frequency and dampening of the
building were 9 hz (0.11 s natural period) and 6 percent, respectively. The testing
was nondestructive such that the investigation yielded no information on
postyielding behavior; however, the performance was good for the nominal lateral
design loads under consideration.
Another whole-house test applied transverse loads without uplift to a wood-framed
house. Failure did not occur until the lateral load reached the equivalent of a
220 mph wind event without inclusion of uplift loads (Tuomi and McCutcheon, 1974).
The house was fully sheathed with 3/8-inch plywood panels, and the number of
openings was somewhat fewer than would be expected for a typical home (at least on
the street-facing side). The failure took the form of slippage at the floor
connection to the foundation sill plate (i.e., there was only one 16d toenail at
the end of each joist, and the band joist was not connected to the sill). The
connection was somewhat less than what is now required in the United States for
conventional residential construction (ICC, 1998). The racking stiffness of the
walls nearly doubled from that experienced before the addition of the roof framing.
In addition, the simple 2x4 wood trusses were able to carry a gravity load of 135
psfmore than three times the design load of 40 psf. However, it is important to
note that combined uplift and lateral load, as would be expected in high-wind
conditions, was not tested. Further, the test house was relatively small and boxy
in comparison to modern homes.
6-3
The lateral force resisting system (LFRS) of a home is the whole house including
practically all structural and non-structural components. To enable a rational and
tenable design analysis, however, the complex structural system of a light-frame
house is usually subjected to many simplifying assumptions; refer to Chapter 2. The
steps required for thoroughly designing a buildings LFRS are outlined below in
typical order of consideration:
It should be noted that, depending on the method of distributing shear loads (refer
to Section 6.4.1), Step 3 may be considered a preliminary design step. If, in fact,
loads are distributed according to stiffness in Step 3, then the LFRS must already
be defined; therefore, the above sequence can become iterative between Steps 3 and
4. A designer need not feel compelled to go to such a level of complexity (i.e.,
using a stiffness-based force distribution) in designing a simple home, but the
decision becomes less intuitive with increasing plan complexity.
The above list of design steps introduced several terms that are defined below.
6-5
FIGURE 6.1
Chords in Shear Walls and Horizontal Diaphragms Using the "Deep Beam" Analogy
6-7
FIGURE 6.2
Shear Wall Collector and the Composite Failure Plane (Failure plane also applies to
diaphragm chords)
6-9
FIGURE 6.3
6-11
FIGURE 6.4
In seismic design, tributary areas are associated with uniform area weights (i.e.,
dead loads) assigned to the building systems (i.e., roof, walls, and floors) that
generate the inertial seismic load when the building is subject to lateral ground
motion (refer to Chapter 3 on earthquake loads). In wind design, the tributary
areas are associated with the lateral component of the wind load acting on the
exterior surfaces of the building (refer to Chapter 3 on wind loads).
6-12 Residential Structural Design Guide
6-13
6-15
The PSW design method requires the least amount of special construction detailing
and analysis among the current shear wall design methods. It has been validated in
several recent studies in the United States but dates back more than 20 years to
research first conducted in Japan (Dolan and Heine, 1997a and b; Dolan and Johnson,
1996a and 1996b; NAHBRC, 1997; NAHBRC, 1998; NAHBRC, 1999; Sugiyama and Matsumoto,
1994; Ni et al., 1998). While it produces the simplest form of an engineered shear
wall solution, other methods such as the segmented shear wall design methodall
other factors equalcan yield a stronger wall. Conversely, a PSW design with
increased sheathing fastening can outperform an SSW with more hold-downs but weaker
sheathing fastening. The point is, that for many applications, the PSW method often
provides an adequate and more efficient design. Therefore, the PSW method should be
considered an option to the SSW method as appropriate.
Several options in the form of structural optimizations (i.e., getting the most
from the least) can enhance the PSW method. One option uses multiple metal straps
or ties to restrain each stud, thereby providing a highly redundant and simple
method of overturning restraint. Unfortunately, this promising
6-17
addition, other parts of the diaphragm boundary (i.e., walls) that also resist the
bending tension and compressive forces are not considered. Certainly, a vast
majority of residential roof diaphragms that are not considered engineered by
current diaphragm design standards have exhibited ample capacity in major design
events. Thus, the beam analogy used to develop an analytic model for the design of
wood-framed horizontal diaphragms has room for improvement that has yet to be
explored from an analytic standpoint.
As with shear walls, openings in the diaphragm affect the diaphragms capacity.
However, no empirical design approach accounts for the effect of openings in a
horizontal diaphragm as for shear walls (i.e., the PSW method). Therefore, if
openings are present, the effective depth of the diaphragm in resisting shear
forces must either discount the depth of the opening or be designed for shear
transfer around the opening. If it is necessary to transfer shear forces around a
large opening in a diaphragm, it is common to perform a mechanicsbased analysis of
the shear transfer around the opening. The analysis is similar to the previously
described method that uses free-body diagrams for the design of shear walls. The
reader is referred to other sources for further study of diaphragm design (Ambrose
and Vergun, 1987; APA, 1997; Diekmann, 1986).
6.5 Design Guidelines
This section outlines methods for designing shear walls (Section 6.5.2) and
diaphragms (Section 6.5.3). The two methods of shear wall design are the segmented
shear wall (SSW) method and the perforated shear wall (PSW) method. The selection
of a method depends on shear loading demand, wall configuration, and the desired
simplicity of the final construction. Regardless of design method and resulting
LFRS, the first consideration is the amount of lateral load to be resisted by the
arrangement of shear walls and diaphragms in a given building. The design loads and
basic load combinations in Chapter 3, Table 3.1, are as follows:
Earthquake load and wind load are considered separately, with shear walls designed
in accordance with more stringent loading conditions.
Lateral building loads should be distributed to the shear walls on a given story by
using one of the following methods as deemed appropriate by the designer:
6-19
Design Example 6.5 of Section 6.6 elaborates on and demonstrates the use of the
methods of load distribution described above. The reader is encouraged to study and
critique them. The example contains many concepts and insights that cannot be
otherwise conveyed without the benefit of a real problem.
6.5.2 Shear Wall Design
6.5.2.1
Table 6.1 provides unit shear values for walls sheathed with wood structural
panels. It should be noted again that these values are estimates of the ultimate
unit shear capacity values as determined from several sources (Tissell, 1993; FEMA,
1997; NAHBRC, 1998; NAHBRC, 1999; others). The design unit shear values in todays
building codes have inconsistent safety margins that typically range from 2.5 to 4
after all applicable adjustments (Tissell, 1993; Soltis, Wolfe, and Tuomi, 1983).
Therefore, the actual capacity of a shear wall is not explicitly known to the
designer using the codes allowable unit shear values. Nonetheless, one alleged
benefit of using the code-approved design unit shear values is that the values are
believed to address drift implicitly by way of a generally conservative safety
margin. Even so, shear wall drift is usually not analyzed in residential
construction for reasons stated previously.
The values in Table 6.1 and todays building codes are based primarily on monotonic
tests (i.e., tests that use single-direction loading). Recently, the effect of
cyclic loading on wood-framed shear wall capacity has generated considerable
controversy. However, cyclic testing is apparently not necessary when determining
design values for seismic loading of wood-framed shear walls with structural wood
panel sheathing. Depending on the cyclic test protocol, the resulting unit shear
values can be above or below those obtained from traditional monotonic shear wall
test methods (ASTM, 1998a; ASTM, 1998b). In fact, realistic cyclic testing
protocols and their associated interpretations were found to be largely in
agreement with the results obtained from monotonic testing (Karacabeyli and
Ceccotti, 1998). The differences are generally in the range of 10
percent (plus or minus) and thus seem moot given that the seismic response modifier
(see Chapter 3) is based on expert opinion (ATC, 1995) and that the actual
performance of light-frame homes does not appear to correlate with important
parameters in existing seismic design methods (HUD, 1999), among other factors that
currently contribute to design uncertainty.
TABLE 6.1
Panel Grade Structural I
Notes: 1Values are average ultimate unit shear capacity for walls sheathed with
Structural I wood structural panels and should be multiplied by a
safety factor (ASD) or resistance factor (LRFD) in accordance with Sections 6.5.2.2
and 6.5.2.3. Additional adjustments to the table
values should be made in accordance with those sections. For other rated panels
(not Structural I), the table values should be multiplied
by 0.85. 2All panel edges should be backed with 2-inch nominal or wider framing.
Panels may be installed either horizontally or vertically. Space
nails at 6 inches on center along intermediate framing members for 3/8-inch panels
installed with the strong axis parallel to studs spaced
24 inches on-center and 12 inches on-center for other conditions and panel
thicknesses. 3Framing at adjoining panel edges should be 3-inch nominal or wider
and nails should be staggered where nails are spaced 2 inches on-
center. A double thickness of nominal 2-inch framing is a suitable substitute. 4The
values for 3/8- and 7/16-inch panels applied directly to framing may be increased
to the values shown for 15/32-inch panels,
provided that studs are spaced a maximum of 16 inches on-center or the panel is
applied with its strong axis across the studs. 5Framing at adjoining panel edges
should be 3-inch nominal or wider and nails should be staggered where 10d nails
penetrating framing
by more than 1-5/8 inches are spaced 3 inches or less on-center. A double thickness
of 2-inch nominal framing is a suitable substitute.
The unit shear values in Table 6.1 are based on nailed sheathing connections. The
use of elastomeric glue to attach wood structural panel sheathing to wood framing
members increases the shear capacity of a shear wall by as much as 50 percent or
more (White and Dolan, 1993). Similarly, studies using elastomeric construction
adhesive manufactured by 3M Corporation have investigated seismic performance
(i.e., cyclic loading) and confirm a stiffness increase of about 65 percent and a
shear capacity increase of about 45 to 70 percent over sheathing fastened with
nails only (Filiatrault and Foschi, 1991). Rigid adhesives may create even greater
strength and stiffness increases. The use of adhesives is beneficial in resisting
shear loads from wind. Glued shear wall panels are not recommended for use in high-
hazard seismic areas because of the brittle failure mode experienced in the wood
framing material (i.e., splitting), though at a significantly increased shear load.
Gluing shear wall panels is also not recommended by panel manufacturers because of
concern with panel buckling that may occur as a result of the interaction of rigid
restraints with moisture/temperature expansion and contraction of the panels.
TABLE 6.2
64 3
Notes: 1Values are average ultimate unit shear capacity and should be multiplied by
a safety factor (ASD) or resistance factor (LRFD) in
accordance with Sections 6.5.2.2 and 6.5.2.3. 2Values apply to 18 gauge (43 mil)
and 20 gage (33 mil) steel C-shaped studs with a 1-5/8-inch flange width and 3-1/2-
to 5-1/2-inch depth.
Studs spaced a maximum of 24 inches on center. 3The #8 screws should have a head
diameter of no less than 0.29 inches and the screw threads should penetrate the
framing so that the
threads are fully engaged in the steel. 4The spacing of screws in framing members
located in the interior of the panels should be no more than 12 inches on-center.
Portland Cement Stucco (PCS)
Ultimate unit shear values for conventional PCS wall construction range from 490 to
1,580 plf based on the ASTM E 72 test protocol and 12 tests conducted by various
testing laboratories (Testing Engineers, Inc., 1971; Testing Engineers, Inc., 1970;
ICBO, 1969). In general, nailing the metal lath or wire mesh resulted in ultimate
unit shear values less than 750 plf, whereas stapling resulted in ultimate unit
shear values greater than 750 plf. An ultimate design value of 500 plf is
recommended unless specific details of PCS construction are known. A safety factor
of 2 provides a conservative allowable design value of about 250 plf. It must be
realized that the actual capacity can be as much as five times 250 plf depending on
the method of construction, particularly the means of fastening the stucco lath
material. Current code-approved allowable design values are typically about 180 plf
(SBCCI, 1999; ICBO, 1997). One code requires the values to be further reduced by 50
percent in higher-hazard seismic design areas (ICBO, 1997), although the reduction
factor may not necessarily improve performance with respect to the cracking of the
stucco finish in seismic events
6-23
Ultimate capacities in testing 1/2-inch-thick gypsum wall board range from 140 to
300 plf depending on the fastening schedule (Wolfe, 1983; PattonMallory, Gutkowski,
Soltis, 1984; NAHBRF, date unknown). Allowable or design unit shear values for
gypsum wall board sheathing range from 75 to 150 plf in current building codes
depending on the construction and fastener spacing. At least one building code
requires the values to be reduced by 50 percent in highhazard seismic design areas
(ICBO, 1997). Gypsum wall board is certainly not recommended as the primary seismic
bracing for walls, although it does contribute to the structural resistance of
buildings in all seismic and wind conditions. It should also be recognized that
fastening of interior gypsum board varies in practice and is generally not an
inspected system. Table 6.3 provides estimated ultimate unit shear values for
gypsum wall board sheathing.
TABLE 6.3
GWB Thickness
1/2 inch
Unfactored (Ultimate) Unit Shear Values (plf) for 1/2-InchThick Gypsum Wall Board
Sheathing1,2
Blocking Condition3
Blocked
Unblocked
Notes: 1The values represent average ultimate unit shear capacity and should be
multiplied by a safety factor (ASD) or resistance factor (LRFD) in
accordance with Sections 6.5.2.2 and 6.5.2.3. 2Fasteners should be minimum 1 1/2-
inch drywall nails (i.e., 4d cooler) or 1-1/4-inch drywall screws (i.e., #6 size
with bugle head) or
equivalent with spacing of fasteners and framing members as shown. 3Blocked
refers to panels with all edges fastened to framing members; unblocked refers to
the condition where the panels are placed
horizontally with horizontal joints between panels not fastened to blocking or
vertically with the top and bottom edges fastened only at stud
locations.
Table 6.4 provides values for typical ultimate shear capacities of 1x4 wood let-in
braces and metal T-braces. Though not found in current building codes, the values
are based on available test data (Wolfe, 1983; NAHBRF, date unknown). Wood let-in
braces and metal T-braces are common in conventional residential construction and
add to the shear capacity of walls. They are always used in combination with other
wall finish materials that also contribute to a walls shear capacity. The braces
are typically attached to the top and bottom plates of walls and at each
intermediate stud intersection with two 8d common nails. They are not recommended
for the primary lateral resistance of structures in high-hazard seismic or wind
design areas. In particular, values of the seismic response modifier R for walls
braced in this manner have not been clearly defined for the sake of standardized
seismic design guidance.
TABLE 6.4
Unfactored (Ultimate) Shear Resistance (lbs) for 1x4 Wood Let-ins and Metal T-
Braces1,2
Type of Diagonal Brace 1x4 wood let-in brace (8-foot wall height)4
Metal T-brace5
Ultimate Horizontal Shear Capacity (per brace)3 600 lbs (tension and compression)
1,400 lbs (tension only)
Notes: 1Values are average ultimate unit shear capacity and should be multiplied by
a safety factor (ASD) or resistance factor (LRFD) in
accordance with Sections 6.5.2.2 and 6.5.2.3. 2Values are based on minimum Spruce-
Pine-Fir lumber (specific gravity, G = 0.42). 3Capacities are based on tests of
wall segments that are restrained against overturning. 4Installed with two 8d
common nails at each stud and plate intersection. Angle of brace should be between
45 and 60 degrees to horizontal. 5Installed per manufacturer recommendations and
the applicable code evaluation report. Design values may vary depending on
manufacturer recommendations, installation requirements, and product attributes.
Just about any wall facing, finish, or siding material contributes to a walls
shear resistance qualities. While the total contribution of nonstructural materials
to a typical residential buildings lateral resistance is often substantial (i.e.,
nearly 50 percent if interior partition walls are included), current design codes
in the United States prohibit considerations of the role of facing, finish, or
siding. Some suggestions call for a simple and conservative 10 percent increase
(known as the whole-building interaction factor) to the calculated shear
resistance of the shear walls or a similar adjustment to account for the added
resistance and wholebuilding effects not typically considered in design (Griffiths
and Wickens, 1996).
Some other types of wall sheathing materials that provide shear resistance include
particle board and fiber board. Ultimate unit shear values for fiber board range
from 120 plf (6d nail at 6 inches on panel edges with 3/8-inch panel thickness) to
520 plf (10d nail at 2 inches on panel edges with 5/8-inch panel thickness). The
designer should consult the relevant building code or manufacturer data for
additional information on fiber board and other materials shear resistance
qualities. In one study that conducted tests on various wall assemblies for HUD,
fiber board was not recommended for primary shear resistance in high-hazard seismic
or wind design areas for the stated reasons of potential durability and cyclic
loading concerns (NAHBRF, date unknown).
6-25
When wall bracing materials (i.e., sheathing) of the same type are used on opposite
faces of a wall, the shear values may be considered additive. In highhazard seismic
design conditions, dissimilar materials are generally assumed to be nonadditive. In
wind-loading conditions, dissimilar materials may be considered additive for wood
structural panels (exterior) with gypsum wall board (interior). Even though let-in
brace or metal T-brace (exterior) with gypsum wall board (interior) and fiber board
(exterior) with gypsum wall board (interior) are also additive, they are not
explicitly recognized as such in current building codes.
When the shear capacity for walls with different facings is determined in
accordance with Sections 6.5.2.2 and 6.5.2.3, the designer must take care to apply
the appropriate adjustment factors to determine the wall constructions total
design racking strength. Most of the adjustment factors in the following sections
apply only to wood structural panel sheathing. Therefore, the adjustments in the
next section should be made as appropriate before determining combined shear
resistance.
The unfactored and unadjusted ultimate unit shear resistance values of wall
assemblies should first be determined in accordance with the guidance provided in
the previous section for rated facings or structural sheathing materials used on
each side of the wall. This section provides methods for determining and adjusting
the design unit shear resistance and the shear capacity of a shear wall by using
either the perforated shear wall (PSW) approach or segmented shear wall (SSW)
approach discussed in Section 6.4.2. The design approaches and other important
considerations are illustrated in the design examples of Section 6.6.
The following equations provide the design shear capacity of a perforated shear
wall:
F s
(Fs
)C sp Cns
x[ 1 SF
or ]
(units plf)
(units lb)
where,
Fpsw = the design shear capacity (lb) of the perforated shear wall Fs = the
unfactored (ultimate) and unadjusted unit shear capacity (plf)
for each facing of the wall construction; the Csp and Cns adjustment factors apply
only to the wood structural panel
sheathing Fs values in accordance with Section 6.5.2.1 Fs = the factored and
adjusted design unit shear capacity (plf) for the
wall construction
6-27
the wall by using an independent load path. Wind uplift may be resisted with the
strapping option above, provided that the straps are sized to transfer the
additional load.
The following equations are used to determine the adjusted and factored shear
capacity of a shear wall segment:
Fs
1 FsCspCnsCar[SF
or
Fssw = Fs x[Ls ]
where,
Fssw = the design shear capacity (lb) of a single shear wall segment Fs = the
unfactored (ultimate) and unadjusted unit shear resistance (plf)
for the wall construction in accordance with Section 6.5.2.1 for each facing of the
wall construction; the Csp and Cns adjustment factors apply only to wood structural
panel sheathing Fs values Fs = the factored (design) and adjusted unit shear
resistance (plf) for the total wall construction C = the adjustment factors in
accordance with Section 6.5.2.3 Ls = the length of a shear wall segment (total
width of the sheathing panel(s) in the segment) 1/SF = the safety factor adjustment
for use with ASD = the resistance factor adjustment for use with LRFD
The segmented shear wall design method (Equations 6.5-2a and b) imposes the
following limits:
For walls with multiple shear wall segments, the design shear resistance for the
individual segments may be added to determine the total design shear resistance for
the segmented shear wall line. Alternatively, the combined shear
6-28 Residential Structural Design Guide
TABLE 6.5
Minimum Recommended Safety and Resistance Factors for Residential Shear Wall Design
Type of Construction
habitation
The ultimate unit shear values for wood structural panels in Table 6.1 apply to
lumber species with a specific gravity (density), G, greater than or equal to 0.5.
Table 6.6 presents specific gravity values for common species of lumber used for
wall framing. For G < 0.5, the following value of Csp should be used to adjust
values in Table 6.1 only (APA, 1998):
Eq. 6.5-3
TABLE 6.6
6-29
TABLE 6.7
Common2
1.0 1.0 1.0
Nail Type
Pneumatic
Box3
0.8
0.5
0.75 1.0
N/A4
Notes: 1The values of Cns are based on ratios of the single shear nail values in
NER-272 (NES, Inc., 1997) and the NDS (AF&PA, 1997) and are
applicable only to wood structural panel sheathing on wood-framed walls in
accordance with Table 6.1. 2Common nail diameters are as follows: 6d (0.113 inch),
8d (0.131 inch), and 10d (0.148 inch). 3Box nail diameters are as follows: 6d
(0.099 inch), 8d (0.113 inch), and 10d (0.128 inch). 4Diameter not applicable to
nominal nail size. Nail size, diameter, and length should be verified with the
manufacturer.
Cop = r/(3-2r)
Eq. 6.5-4
where,
r = 1/(1 + /) = sheathing area ratio (dimensionless) = Ao / (H x L) = ratio of
area of all openings Ao to total wall area,
H x L (dimensionless)
= Li / L = ratio of length of wall with full-height sheathing Li to the total
wall length L of the perforated shear wall (dimensionless)
C dl
= 1+ 0.15
wD 300
1.15
where,
Eq 6.5-5
wD = the net uniform dead load supported at the top of the perforated shear wall
(plf) with consideration of wind uplift and factoring in accordance with load
combinations of Chapter 3.
Eq 6.5-6
The first method applies to restrained shear wall segments in both the perforated
and segmented shear wall methods. The first segment on each end of a perforated
shear wall is restrained in one direction of loading. Therefore, the overturning
forces on that segment are analyzed in the same manner as for a segmented shear
wall. The second method listed above is a valid and conceptually realistic method
of analyzing the restraint of typical residential wall constructions, but it has
not yet fully matured. Further, the methods load path (i.e., distribution of
uplift forces to various connections with inelastic properties) is perhaps beyond
the practical limits of a designers intuition. Rather than presume a methodology
based on limited testing (see Section 6.3), this guide does not suggest guidelines
for the second approach. However, the second method is worth consideration by a
designer when attempting to understand the performance of conventional,
6-31
Chapter 6 Lateral Resistance to Wind and Earthquakes
MC = 0
Fs
(d)(h) T
(x)
1 2
d)
(w
)(d)(
1 2
d)
=0
( )T
d x
Fs
1 2
DW
1 2
(w D )(d)
+t
Eq. 6.5-7a
MT = 0
( )C
d x
Fs
h+
1 2
DW
1 2
(w D )(d)
+c
Eq. 6.5-7b
where,
T= d= x=
Fs =
h= Dw =
wD =
t= c=
the tension force on the hold-down device (lb) the width of the restrained shear
wall segment (ft); for segments greater than 4 ft in width, use d = 4 ft. the
distance between the hold-down device and the compression edge of the restrained
shear wall segment (ft); for segments greater than 4 ft in width, use x = 4 ft plus
or minus the bracket offset dimension, if any the design unit shear capacity (plf)
determined in accordance with Equation 6.5-2a of Section 6.5.2.2 (for both the PSW
and SSW methods) the height of the wall (ft) the dead load of the shear wall
segment (lb); dead load must be factored and wind uplift considered in accordance
with the load combinations of Chapter 3. the uniform dead load supported by the
shear wall segment (plf); dead load must be factored and wind uplift considered in
accordance with the load combinations of Chapter 3. the tension load transferred
through a hold-down device, if any, restraining a wall above (lb); if there is no
tension load, t = 0 the compression load transferred from wall segments above, if
any (lb); this load may be distributed by horizontal structural elements above the
wall (i.e., not a concentrated load); if there is not compression load, c = 0.
The 4-foot-width limit for d and x is imposed on the analysis of overturning forces
as presented above because longer shear wall lengths mean that the contribution of
the additional dead load cannot be rigidly transferred
6-32 Residential Structural Design Guide
through deep bending action of the wall to have a full effect on the uplift forces
occurring at the end of the segment, particularly when it is rigidly restrained
from uplifting. This effect also depends on the stiffness of the construction above
the wall that delivers and distributes the load at the top of the wall. The
assumptions necessary to include the restraining effects of dead load is no trivial
matter and, for that reason, it is common practice to not include any beneficial
effect of dead load in the overturning force analysis of individual shear wall
segments.
FIGURE 6.6
For a more simplified analysis of overturning forces, the effect of dead load may
be neglected and the chord forces determined as follows using the symbols defined
as before:
d x
Fs
Eq. 6.5-7c
Any tension or compression force transferred from shear wall overturning forces
originating above the wall under consideration must be added to the result of
Equation 6.5-7c as appropriate. It is also assumed that any net wind uplift force
is resisted by a separate load path (i.e., wind uplift straps are used in addition
to overturning or hold-down devices).
6-33
6-35
The load-drift equations in this section may be solved to yield shear wall
resistance for a given amount of shear wall drift. In this manner, a series of
shear wall segments or even perforated shear walls embedded within a given wall
line may be combined to determine an overall load-drift relationship for the entire
wall line. The load-drift relationships are based on the nonlinear behavior of
woodframed shear walls and provide a reasonably accurate means of determining the
behavior of walls of various configurations. The relationship may also be used for
determining the relative stiffness of shear wall lines in conjunction with the
relative stiffness method of distributing lateral building loads and for
considering torsional behavior of a building with a nonsymmetrical shear wall
layout in stiffness and in geometry. The approach is fairly straightforward and is
left to the reader for experimentation.
The load-drift equation below is based on several perforated shear wall tests
already discussed in this chapter. It provides a nonlinear load-drift relationship
up to the ultimate capacity of the perforated shear wall as determined in Section
6.5.2.2. When considering shear wall load-drift behavior in an actual building, the
reader is reminded of the aforementioned accuracy issues; however, accuracy
relative to the test data is reasonable (i.e., plus or minus 1/2-inch at capacity).
= 1.8
0.5 G
1 r
Vd FPSW,ULT
2.8
h 8
(inches)
where,
Eq. 6.5-8
= the shear wall drift (in) at shear load demand, Vd (lb) G = the specific
gravity of framing lumber (see Table 6.6)
r = the sheathing area ratio (see Section 6.5.2.3, Cop) Vd = the shear load demand
(lb) on the perforated shear wall; the
value of Vd is set at any unit shear demand less than or equal to Fpsw,ult while
the value of Vd should be set to the design shear load when checking drift at
design load conditions
Fpsw,ult = the unfactored (ultimate) shear capacity (lb) for the perforated shear
wall (i.e., Fpsw x SF or Fpsw/ for ASD and LRFD, respectively)
h = the height of wall (ft)
Several codes and industry design guidelines specify a deflection equation for
shear walls that includes a multipart estimate of various factors contribution to
shear wall deflection (ICBO, 1997; ICC, 1999, APA, 1997). The approach relies on a
mix of mechanics-based principles and empirical modifications. The principles and
modifications are not repeated here because the APA method of
6-36 Residential Structural Design Guide
2.2
0.5 G
Vd FSSW,ULT
2.8
h 8
(in)
where,
Eq. 6.5-9
= the shear wall drift (in) at load Vd (lb) G = the specific gravity of framing
lumber a = the shear wall segment aspect ratio (height/width) for aspect
ratios from 4 to 1; a value of 1 shall be used for shear wall segments with width
(length) greater than height Vd = the shear load demand (lb) on the wall; the value
of Vd is set at any unit shear demand less than or equal to Fssw,ult while the
value of Vd should be set to the design load when checking drift at design load
conditions Fssw,ult = the unfactored (ultimate) shear capacity (lb) of the shear
wall segment (i.e., Fssw x SF or Fssw/ for ASD and LRFD, respectively) h = the
height of wall (ft)
The above equation is based on several tests of shear wall segments with aspect
ratios ranging from 4:1 to 1:5.
In situations with little space to include sufficient shear walls to meet required
loading conditions, the designer must turn to alternatives. An example is a garage
opening supporting a two-story home on a narrow lot such that other wall openings
for windows and an entrance door leaves little room for shear walls. One option is
to consider torsion and the distribution of lateral loads in accordance with the
relative stiffness method. Another possibility is the use of a portal frame.
Portal frames may be simple, specialized framing details that can be assembled on
site. They use fastening details, metal connector hardware, and sheathing to form a
wooden moment frame and, in many cases, perform adequately. Various configurations
of portal frames have undergone testing and provide data and details on which the
designer can base a design (NAHBRC, 1998; APA, 1994). The ultimate shear capacity
of portal frames ranges from 2,400 to more than 6,000 pounds depending on the
complexity and strength of the construction details. A simple detail involves
extending a garage header so that it
6-37
is end-nailed to a full-height corner stud, strapping the header to the jamb studs
at the portal opening, attaching sheathing with a standard nailing schedule, and
anchoring the portal frame with typical perforated shear wall requirements. The
system has an ultimate shear capacity of about 3,400 pounds that, with a safety
factor of 2 to 2.5, provides a simple solution for many portal frame applications
for residential construction in high-hazard seismic or wind regions. Several
manufacturers offer preengineered portal frame and shear wall elements that can be
ordered to custom requirements or standard conditions.
6.5.3 Diaphragm Design
TABLE 6.8
Nominal Panel Thickness (inches) 5/16 3/8 15/32 7/16 15/32 19/32
Notes: 1Minimum framing member thickness is 1-1/2 inches. 2Nails spaced at 6 inches
on-center at supported panel edges and at the perimeter of the diaphragm. Nails
spaced at 12 inches on-center on
other framing members spaced a maximum of 24 inches on-center. 3Unblocked means
that sheathing joints perpendicular to framing members are not fastened to
blocking. 4Apply Csp and Cns adjustment factors to table values as appropriate (see
Section 6.5.2.3 for adjustment factor values).
Vmax=
1 2
wl
Eq. 6.5-10a
vmax
Vmax d
Eq. 6.5-10b
where,
Vmax= the maximum shear load on the diaphragm (plf) w = the tributary uniform load
(plf) applied to the diaphragm resulting
from seismic or wind loading l = the length of the diaphragm perpendicular to the
direction of the load
(ft) vmax = the unit shear across the diaphragm in the direction of the load (plf)
d = the depth or width of the diaphragm in the direction of the load (ft)
The following equations are used to determine the theoretical chord tension and
compression forces on a simply supported diaphragm as described above:
M max
1 8
wl 2
Eq. 6.5-11a
Tmax
C max
=
M max d
Eq. 6.5-11b
where,
Mmax = the bending moment on the diaphragm (ft-lb) w = the tributary uniform load
(plf) applied to the diaphragm resulting
from seismic or wind loading l = the length of the diaphragm perpendicular to the
direction of the load
(ft) Tmax = the maximum chord tension force (lb) Cmax = the maximum chord
compression force (lb) d = the depth or width of the diaphragm in the direction of
the load (ft)
If the diaphragm is not simply supported at its ends, the designer uses appropriate
beam equations (see Appendix A) in a manner similar to that above to determine the
shear and moment on the diaphragm. The calculations to determine the unit shear in
the diaphragm and the tension and compression in the chords are
6-39
EXAMPLE 6.1
Given
The segmented shear wall line, as shown in the figure below, has the following
dimensions:
h = 8 ft
L1 = 3 ft L2 = 2 ft L3 = 8 ft
= 3,000 lb
6-41
Find
Solution 1.
1. Design capacity of the segmented shear wall line for wind and seismic shear
resistance.
2. Base shear connection requirements. 3. Chord tension and compression forces. 4.
Load-drift behavior of the segmented shear wall line and estimated drift at
design load conditions.
Determine the factored and adjusted (design) shear capacities for the wall segments
and the total wall line (Section 6.5.2).
Fs,ext Fs,int
= 905 plf = 80 plf
The design shear capacity of the wall construction is determined as follows for
each segment (Sections 6.5.2.1 and 6.5.2.2):
Fs = Fs,ext + Fs,int Fs = Fs,ext Csp Cns Car [1/SF] + Fs,int Car [1/SF]
Segment 1
Fs,1,wind Fssw,1,wind
Fs,1,seismic Fssw,1,seismic
Segment 2
Fs,2,wind Fssw,2,wind
Fs,2,seismic Fssw,2,seismic
Segment 3
Fs,3,wind Fssw,3,wind
Fs,3,seismic Fssw,3,seismic
Fssw,total,wind Fssw,total,seismic
The wall bottom plate to the left of the door opening is considered to be
continuous and therefore acts as a distributor of the shear load resisted by
Segments 1 and 2. The uniform shear connection load on the bottom plate to the left
of the opening is determined as follows:
= 3 ft + 3 ft + 2 ft = 8 ft
For the wall bottom plate to the right of the door opening, the base shear
connection is equivalent to Fs,3,wind = 352 plf or Fs,3,seismic = 250 plf for
wind and seismic design respectively.
6-43
Notes: 1. While the above example shows that variable bottom plate connections may
be
specified based on differing shear transfer requirements for portions of the wall,
it is acceptable practice to use a constant (i.e., worst-case) base shear
connection to simplify construction. However, this can result in excessive
fastening requirements for certain loading conditions and shear wall
configurations. 2. For the assumed wind loading of 3,000 lb, the wall has excess
design capacity (i.e., 4,237 lb). The design wind load may be distributed to the
shear wall segments in proportion to their design capacity (as shown in the next
step for hold-down design) to reduce the shear connection loads accordingly. For
seismic design, this should not be done and the base shear connection design should
be based on the design capacity of the shear walls to ensure that a balanced
design is achieved (i.e., the base connection capacity meets or exceeds that of
the shear wall). This approach is necessary in seismic design because the actual
shear force realized in the connections may be substantially higher than
anticipated by the design seismic load calculated using an R factor in accordance
with Equation 3.8-1 of Chapter 3. Refer also to the discussion on R factors and
overstrength in Section 3.8.4 of Chapter 3. It should be realized that the GWB
interior finish design shear capacity was not included in determining the design
shear wall capacity for seismic loading. While this is representative of current
building code practice, it can create a situation where the actual shear wall
capacity and connection forces experienced are higher than those used for design
purposes. This condition (i.e., underestimating of the design shear wall capacity)
should also be considered in providing sufficiently strong overturning connections
(i.e., hold-downs) as covered in the next step.
3. Determine the chord tension and compression (i.e., overturning) forces in the
shear wall segments (Section 6.5.2.4)
T = C = (d/x)(Fs)(h) Segment 1
*If an anchor strap is used, the offset dimension may be reduced from that
determined above assuming a side-mounted hold-down bracket. Also, depending on the
number of studs at the end of the wall segment and the type of bracket used, the
offset dimension will vary and must be verified by the designer.
Fs,1,wind Fs,1,seismic
(wind) (seismic)
Segment 2
h = 8 ft
d = 2 ft
x = 2 ft 0.5 ft = 1.5 ft
Fs,2,wind Fs,2,seismic
Segment 3
h = 8 ft
d = 8 ft
x = 8 ft 0.5 ft = 7.5 ft
Fs,2,wind Fs,2,seismic
(wind) (seismic)
Notes: 1. In each of the above cases, the seismic tension and compression forces on
the shear
wall chords are less than that determined for the wind loading condition. This
occurrence is the result of using a larger safety factor to determine the shear
wall design capacity and the practice of not including the interior sheathing (GWB)
design shear capacity for seismic design. Thus, the chord forces based on the
seismic shear wall design capacity may be under-designed unless a sufficient safety
factor is used in the manufacturers rated hold-down capacity to compensate. In
other words, the ultimate capacity of the hold-down connector should be greater
than the overturning force that could be created based on the ultimate shear
capacity of the wall, including the contribution of the interior GWB finish. This
condition should be verified by the designer since the current code practice may
not provide explicit guidance on the issue of balanced design on the basis of
system capacity (i.e., connector capacity relative to shear wall capacity). This
issue is primarily a concern with seismic design because of the higher safety
factor used to determine design shear wall capacity and the code practice not to
include the contributing shear capacity of the interior finish. 2. The compression
chord force should be recognized as not being a point load at the top of the
stud(s) comprising the compression chord. Rather, the compression chord force is
accumulated through the sheathing and begins at the top of the wall with a value of
zero and increases to C (as determined above) at the base of the compression chord.
Therefore, this condition will affect how the compression chord is modeled from the
standpoint of determining its capacity as a column using the column equations in
the NDS. 3. The design of base shear connections and overturning forces assume that
the wind uplift forces at the base of the wall are offset by 0.6 times the dead
load (ASD) at that point in the load path or that an additional load path for
uplift is provided by metal strapping or other means. 4. As mentioned in Step 2 for
the design of base shear connections, the wind load on the designated shear wall
segments may be distributed according to the design capacity of each segment in
proportion to that of the total shear wall line. This method is particularly useful
when the design shear capacity of the wall line is substantially higher than the
shear demand required by the wind load as is applicable to this hypothetical
example. Alternatively, a shear wall segment may be eliminated from the analysis by
not specifying restraining devices for the segment (i.e., hold-down brackets). If
the former approach is taken, the wind load is distributed as follows:
6-45
Chapter 6 Lateral Resistance to Wind and Earthquakes
0.22(3,000 lb)/(3 ft) = 220 plf 0.12(3,000 lb)/(2 ft) = 180 plf 0.66(3,000 lb)/(8
ft) = 248 plf
Now, the overturning forces (chord forces) determined above and the base shear
connection requirements determined in Step 2 may be recalculated by substituting
the above values, which are based on the design wind loading. This approach only
applies to the wind loading condition when the design wind loading on the wall line
is less than the design capacity of the wall line. As mentioned, it may be more
efficient to eliminate a designed shear wall segment to bring the total design
shear capacity more in line with the design wind shear load on the wall.
Alternatively, a lower capacity shear wall construction may be specified to better
match the loading condition (i.e., use a thinner wood structural sheathing panel,
etc.). This decision will depend on the conditions experienced in other walls of
the building such that a single wall construction type may be used throughout for
all exterior walls (i.e., simplified construction).
Only the load-drift behavior for wind design is shown below. For seismic design, a
simple substitution of the design shear capacities of the wall segments and the
safety factor for seismic design (as determined previously) may be used to
determine a loaddrift relationship for use in seismic design.
The basic equation for load-drift estimation of a shear wall segment is as follows:
2.2
0.5 4 G
Vd FSSW,ULT
2.8
h 8
(Equation 6.5-9)
h = 8 ft G = 0.42 (Spruce-Pine-Fir)
Therefore, the total ultimate capacity of the wall for wind loading is
Realizing that each segment must deflect equally (or nearly so) as the wall line
deflects, the above deflections may be set equivalent to the total wall line drift
as follows:
wall = 1 = 2 = 3
The sum of the above equations must equal the wind shear load (demand) on the wall
at any given drift of the wall as follows:
Solving for wall , the following final equation is obtained for the purpose of
estimating drift and any given wind shear load from zero to Fssw,ult,wall,wind :
wall = 9.32x10-11(Vd,wall,wind)2.8
For the design wind load on the wall of 3,000 lb as assumed in this example, the
wall drift is determined as follows:
Conclusion
In this example, the determination of the design shear capacity of a segmented
shear wall was presented for seismic design and wind design applications. Issues
related to connection design for base shear transfer and overturning forces (chord
tension and compression) were also discussed and calculations were made to estimate
these forces using a conventional design approach. In particular, issues related to
capacity-based design and balanced design of connections were discussed. Finally,
a method to determine the load-drift behavior of a segmented shear wall line was
presented. The final design may vary based on designer decisions and judgments (as
well as local code requirements) related to the considerations and calculations as
given in this example.
6-47
EXAMPLE 6.2
Given
The perforated shear wall, as shown in the figure below, is essentially the same
wall used in Example 6.1. The following dimensions are used:
h = 8 ft
L1 = 3 ft L2 = 2 ft L3 = 8 ft L = 19 ft
A1 = 3.2 ft x 5.2 ft = 16.6 sf A2 = 3.2 ft x 6.8 ft = 21.8 sf
Wind shear load on wall line = 3,000 lb Seismic shear load on wall line = 1,000 lb
Find
Solution 1.
1. Design capacity of the perforated shear wall line for wind and seismic shear
resistance.
2. Base shear connection requirements. 3. Chord tension and compression forces. 4.
Load-drift behavior of the perforated shear wall line and estimated drift at
design load conditions.
Determine the factored and adjusted (design) shear capacity for the perforated
shear wall line.
(Eq. 6.5-1a)
(Section 6.5.2.3) (Table 6.7) (Table 6.5)
Fs = Fs,ext + Fs,int
Fs,ext = 905 plf Fs,int = 80 plf
For wind design
(Section 6.5.2.1)
(Table 6.1) (Table 6.3)
= 985 plf
= 905 plf
The design capacity of the perforated shear wall is now determined as follows:
(Eq. 6.5-1b)
6-49
As an alternative, the portion of the wall to the left of the door opening can be
treated as a separate perforated shear wall for the left-to-right loading
condition. In doing so, the design shear capacity of the left portion of the wall
may be determined to be 1,224 lb and the base shear connection required is (1,224
lb)/8ft = 153 plf, much less than the 340 lb required in the wind load condition.
The right side of the wall is solid sheathed and, for the right-to-left loading
condition, the base shear is equivalent to the design shear capacity of the wall or
340 plf. These calculations can also be performed using the seismic design values
for the perforated shear wall. This approach is based on the behavior of a
perforated shear wall where the leading edge and the immediately adjacent shear
wall segments are fully restrained as in the segmented shear wall approach for one
direction of loading. Thus, these segments will realize their full unit shear
capacity for one direction of loading. Any interior segments will contribute, but
at a reduced amount do to the reduced restraint condition. This behavior is
represented in the adjustment provided by the Cop factor which is the basis of the
perforated shear wall method. Unfortunately, the exact distribution of the uplift
forces and shear forces within the wall are not known. It is for this reason that
they are assigned conservative values for design purposes. Also, to accommodate
potential uplift forces on the bottom plate in the regions of interior perforated
shear wall segments, the base shear connections are required to resist an uplift
load equivalent to the design unit shear capacity of the wall construction. In the
case of this example, the base shear connection would need to resist a shear load
of 340 plf (for the wind design condition) and an uplift force of 340 plf (even if
under a zero wind uplift load).
Testing has shown that for walls constructed similar to the one illustrated in this
example, a bottom plate connection of 2 16d pneumatic nails (0.131 inch diameter by
3 inches long) at 16 inches on center or 5/8-inch-diameter anchor bolts at 6 feet
on center provides suitable shear and uplift resistance at least equivalent to
the capacity of the shear wall construction under conditions of no dead load or
wind uplift (NAHBRC, 1999). For other conditions, this connection must be designed
following the procedures given in Chapter 7 using the conservative assumptions as
stated above.
As an alternative base connection that eliminates the need for hold-down brackets
at the ends of the perforated shear wall, straps can be fastened to the individual
studs to resist the required uplift force of 340 plf as applicable to this example.
If the studs are spaced 16 inches on center, the design capacity of the strap must
be (340 plf)(1.33 ft/stud) = 452 lb per stud. If an uplift load due to wind uplift
on the roof must also be transferred through these straps, the strap design
capacity must be increased accordingly. In this example, the net wind uplift at the
top of the wall was assumed to be 265 plf. At the base of the wall, the uplift is
265 plf 0.6(8 ft)(8 psf) = 227 plf. Thus, the total design uplift restraint must
provide 340 plf + 227 plf = 567 plf. On a per stud basis (16 inch on center
framing), the design load is 1.33 ft/stud x 567 plf = 754 lb/stud. This value must
be increased for studs adjacent to wall openings where the wind uplift force in
increased. This can be achieved by using multiple straps or by specifying a larger
strap in these locations. Of course, the above combination of uplift loads assumes
that the design wind uplift load on the roof occurs simultaneously with the design
shear load on the wall. However, this condition is not usually representative of
actual conditions depending on wind orientation, building configuration, and the
shear wall location relative to the uplift load paths.
3. Determine the chord tension and compression forces
The chord tension and compression forces are determined following the same method
as used in Example 6.1 for the segmented shear wall design method, but only for the
first wall segment in the perforated shear wall line (i.e. the restrained segment).
Therefore, the tension forces at the end of the wall are identical to those
calculated in Example 6.1 as shown below:
6-51
T = 2,947 lb T = 2,093 lb
T = 3,004 lb T = 2,133 lb
Note: One tension bracket (hold-down) is required at each the end of the perforated
shear wall line and not on the interior segments. Also, refer to the notes in
Example 6.1 regarding balanced design of overturning connections and base shear
connections, particularly when designing for seismic loads.
The basic equation for load-drift estimation of a perforated shear wall line is as
follows (Section 6.5.2.6):
1.8
0.5 G
1 r
Vd FPSW,ULT
2.8
h 8
(Eq. 6.5-8)
Fpsw,ult,wind Fpsw,ult,seismic
For the design wind load of 3,000 lb and the design seismic load of 1,000 lb
(assumed for the purpose of this example), the drift is estimated as follows:
6-53
EXAMPLE 6.3
Given
Find Solution 1.
6-55
EXAMPLE 6.4
Given
The example floor diaphragm and its loading and support conditions are shown in the
figure below. The relevant dimensions and loads are as follows:
d = 24 ft l = 48 ft w = 200 plf
*Related to the diaphragms tributary load area; see Chapter 3 and discussions in
Chapter 6.
The shear walls are equally spaced and it is assumed that the diaphragm is flexible
(i.e. experiences beam action) and that the shear wall supports are rigid. This
assumption is not correct because the diaphragm may act as a deep beam and
distribute loads to the shear wall by arching action rather than bending action.
Also, the shear walls cannot be considered to be perfectly rigid or to exhibit
equivalent stiffness except when designed exactly the same with the same
interconnection stiffness and base support stiffness. Regardless, the assumptions
made in this example are representative of typical practice.
Find
Solution 1.
1. The maximum design unit shear force in the diaphragm (assuming simple beam
action) and the required diaphragm construction.
2. The maximum design moment in the diaphragm (assuming simple beam action) and the
associated chord forces.
The maximum shear force in the diaphragm occurs at the center shear wall support.
Using the beam equations in Appendix A for a 2-span beam, the maximum shear force
is determined as follows:
Vmax
5 8
w l 2
=
5 (200 8
plf ) 48 ft 2
3,000
lb
v max
Vmax d
3,000 lb 24 ft
= 125
plf
From Table 6.8, the lightest unblocked diaphragm provides adequate resistance.
Unblocked means that the panel edges perpendicular to the framing (i.e., joists or
rafters) are not attached to blocking. The perimeter, however, is attached to a
continuous member to resist chord forces. For typical residential floor
construction a 3/4-inch-thick subfloor may be used which would provide at least 240
plf of design shear capacity. In typical roof construction, a minimum 7/16inch-
thick sheathing is used which would provide about 230 plf of design shear capacity.
However, residential roof construction does not usually provide the edge conditions
(i.e., continuous band joist of 2x lumber) associated with the diaphragm values in
Table 6.8. Regardless, roof diaphragm performance has rarely (if ever) been a
problem in light-frame residential construction and these values are often used to
approximate roof diaphragm design values.
Note: The shear forces at other regions of the diaphragm and at the locations of
the end shear wall supports can be determined in a similar manner using the beam
equations in Appendix A. These shear forces are equivalent to the connection forces
that must transfer shear between the diaphragm and the shear walls at the ends of
the diaphragm. However, for the center shear wall, the reaction (connection) force
is twice the unit shear force in the diaphragm at that location (see beam equations
in Appendix A). Therefore, the connection between the center shear wall and the
diaphragm in this example must resist a design shear load of 2 x 125 plf = 250 plf.
However, this load is very dependent on the assumption of a flexible diaphragm
and rigid shear walls.
6-57
M max
1 w l 2 8 2
1 (200plf ) 48ft 2 8 2
= 14,400ft lb
The maximum chord tension and compression forces are at the same location and are
determined as follows based on the principle of a force couple that is equivalent
to the moment:
Therefore, the chord members (i.e., band joist and associated wall or foundation
framing that is attached to the chord) and splices must be able to resist 600 lb of
tension or compression force. Generally, these forces are adequately resisted by
the framing systems bounding the diaphragm. However, the adequacy of the chords
should be verified by the designer based on experience and analysis as above.
Conclusion
In this example, the basic procedure and principles for horizontal diaphragm design
were presented. Assumptions required to conduct a diaphragm analysis based on
conventional beam theory were also discussed.
EXAMPLE 6.5
Given
6-59
The following design N-S lateral loads are determined for the story under
consideration using the methods described in Chapter 3 for wind and seismic loads.
A fairly high wind load and seismic load condition is assumed for the purpose of
the example.
7,493 lb total story shear (tributary weight is 37,464 lb) 1,490 lb total story
shear (tributary weight is 7,452 lb) 8,983 lb
Initially, there are four N-S lines designated in the first story for shear wall
construction. The wall lines are A, B, D, and E. If needed, an interior wall line
may also be designated and designed as a shear wall (see wall line C in the figure
above).
The available length of full-height wall segments in each N-S shear wall line is
estimated as follows from the floor plan:
Wall Line A: 2 ft + 2 ft
= 4 ft
Wall Line D: 14 ft
= 14 ft
Wall Line E: 2 ft + 3 ft + 2 ft
= 7 ft
Total:
= 45 ft
(garage return walls) (garage/house shared wall) (den exterior wall) (living room
exterior wall)
*The narrow 1.33 ft segment is not included in the analysis due to the segments
aspect ratio of 8 ft/1.33 ft = 6, which is greater than the maximum allowable of 4.
Some current building codes may restrict the segment aspect ratio to a maximum of 2
or 3.5 depending on the code and the edition in local use. In such a case, many of
the useable shear wall segments would be eliminated (i.e., all of the 2 ft
segments). Thus, the garage opening wall would require larger segments, a portal
frame (see Section 6.5.2.7), or transfer of the garage shear load to the house by
torsion (i.e., treat the garage as a cantilever projecting from the house under a
uniform lateral load).
Find
Solution 1.
1. Using the total shear method of horizontal shear load distribution, determine
the total length of shear wall required and the required shear wall construction in
the N-S direction.
2. Using the tributary area method of horizontal shear load distribution,
determine the shear resistance and wall construction required in each N-S shear
wall line.
3. Using the relative stiffness method of horizontal shear load distribution,
determine the shear loads on the N-S shear wall lines.
Using the total shear approach, determine the unit shear capacity required based on
the given amount of available shear wall segments in each N-S wall line and the
total N-S shear load.
In this part of the example, it is assumed that the wall lines will be designed as
segmented shear wall lines. From the given information, the total length of N-S
shear wall available is 45 ft. It is typical practice in this method to not include
segments with aspect ratios greater than 2 since stiffness effects on the narrow
segments are not explicitly considered. This would eliminate the 2 ft segments and
the total available length of shear wall would be 45 ft 8 ft = 37 ft in the N-S
direction.
The required design unit shear capacity of the shear wall construction and ultimate
capacity is determined as follows for the N-S lateral design loads:
Wind N-S
Fs,wind = (21,339 lb)/37 ft = 576 plf Fs, wind = (Fs,wind)(SF) = (576 plf)(2.0) =
1,152 plf
Thus, the unfactored (ultimate) and unadjusted unit shear capacity for the shear
walls must meet or exceed 1,152 plf. Assuming that standard 1/2-thick GWB finish is
used on the interior wall surfaces (80 plf minimum from Table 6.3), the required
ultimate capacity of the exterior sheathing is determined as follows:
From Table 6.1, any of the wall constructions that use a 4 inch nail spacing at the
panel perimeter exceed this requirement. By specifying and 3/8-thick Structural I
wood structural panel with 8d common nails spaced at 4 inches on center on the
panel edges (12 inches on center in the panel field), the design of the wall
construction is complete and hold-down connections and base shear connections must
be designed. If a different nail is used or a framing lumber species with G < 0.5,
then the values in Table 6.1 must be multiplied by the Cns and Csp factors. For
example, assume the following framing lumber and nails are used in the shear wall
construction:
Csp = 0.92
nail type:
6-61
6-63
Wind design shear load = 1/2 house shear load = 0.5(17,411 lb) = 8,706 lb Seismic
design shear load = 0.5(7,493 lb) = 3,747 lb
Based on the design shear loads above, each of the wall lines may be designed in a
fashion similar to that used in Step 1 (total shear method) by selecting the
appropriate wall construction to meet the loading demand. For example, the design
of wall line B would proceed as shown below (using the perforated shear wall method
in this case) for the required wind shear load.
The following equations are used to determine the required ultimate shear capacity,
Fs, of the wall construction (interior and exterior sheathing type and fastening):
To satisfy the design wind shear load requirement for Wall Line B,
Fpsw 10,670 lb
Assume that the wall construction is the same as used in Example 6.2. The following
parameters are determined for Wall Line B:
(zero dead load due to wind uplift) (wind design safety factor)
Cop = 0.71
Fs,int = 80 plf
*The perforated shear wall line begins at the interior edge of the 3 x 5 window
opening because the wall segment adjacent to the corner exceeds the maximum aspect
ratio requirement of 4. Therefore, the perforated shear wall is embedded in the
wall line.
Substituting the values above into the equation for Fpsw , the following value is
obtained for Fs,ext:
By inspection in Table 6.1, the above value is achieved for a shear wall
constructed with 15/32-inch-thick Structural 1 wood structural panel sheathing with
nails spaced at 3 inches on the panel edges. The value is 1,722 plf which is close
enough for practical purposes (particularly given that contribution of interior
walls is neglected in the above analysis). Also, a thinner sheathing may be used in
accordance with Footnote 5 of Table 6.1. As another alternative, wall line B could
be designed as a segmented shear wall. There are two large shear wall segments that
may be used. In total they are 20 ft long. Thus, the required ultimate shear
capacity for wall line B using the segmented shear wall method is determined as
follows:
(based on Eq. 6.5-2a) (Eq. 6.5-2b) (wind load requirement on wall line B)
Csp = 0.92 (same as before) Cns = 0.75 (same as before) Car = 1.0 (both segments
have aspect ratios less than 2)* SF = 2.0 (for wind design) L = 20 ft (total length
of the two shear wall segments)* Fs,int = 80 plf (minimum ultimate unit shear
capacity)
*If the wall segments each had different values for Car because of varying
adjustments for aspect ratio, then the segments must be treated independently in
the equation above and the total length could not be summed as above to determine a
total L.
Now, solving the above equations for Fs,ext the following is obtained:
10,670 lb = [(Fs,ext)(0.92)(0.75) + 80 plf](1.0)[1/2.0](20 ft)
Fs,ext = 1,430 plf
By inspection of Table 6.1 using the above value of Fs,ext , a 4 inch nail spacing
may be used to meet the required shear loading in lieu of the 3 inch nail spacing
used if the wall were designed as a perforated shear wall. However, two additional
hold down brackets would be required in Wall Line B to restrain the two wall
segments as required by the segmented shear wall design method.
Wall Line A poses a special design problem since there are only two narrow shear
wall segments to resist the wind design lateral load (1,964 lb). Considering the
approach above for the segmented shear wall design of Wall Line B and realizing
that Car = 0.71 (aspect ratio of 4), the following value for Fs,ext is obtained for
Wall Line A:
Fssw = (Fs,ext Csp Cns + Fs,int) Car [1/SF] x L
1,964 lb = [(Fs,ext)(0.92)(0.75) + 0*](0.71)[1/2.0](4 ft)
*The garage exterior walls are assumed not to have interior finish. The shared wall
between the garage and the house, however, is required to have a fire rated wall
which is usually satisfied by the use of 5/8-thick gypsum wall board. This fire
resistant finish is placed over the wood structural sheathing in this case and the
impact on wall thickness (i.e. door jamb width) should be considered by the
architect and builder.
6-65
Chapter 6 Lateral Resistance to Wind and Earthquakes
By inspecting Table 6.1, this would require 15/32-inch-thick wood structural panel
with nails spaced at 2 inches on center and would require 3x framing lumber (refer
to footnote 3 of Table 6.1). However, the value of Cns (=0.75) from Table 6.7 was
based on a 0.113-inch diameter nail for which the table does not give a conversion
relative to the 10d common nail required in Table 6.1. Therefore, a larger nail
should be used at the garage opening. Specifying an 8d common nail or similar
pneumatic nail with a diameter of 0.131 inches (see Table 6.7), a Cns value of 1.0
is used and Fs,ext may be recalculated as above to obtain the following:
Fssw = (Fs,ext Csp Cns + Fs,int) Car [1/SF] x L
1,964 lb = [(Fs,ext)(0.92)(1.0) + 0](0.71)[1/2.0](4 ft)
Fs,ext = 1,503 plf
Inspecting Table 6.1 again, it is now found that 15/32-inch-thick wood structural
panel sheathing with 8d common nails spaced at 4 inches on center provides an
ultimate rated unit shear capacity of 1,539 plf > 1,503 plf. This design does not
require the use of 3x framing lumber which allows the same lumber to be used for
all wall construction. The only added detail is the difference in nail type and
spacing for the garage return walls. From the standpoint of simplicity, the easiest
solution would be to increase the width of the garage shear wall segments; however,
design simplicity is not always the governing factor. Also, a portal frame system
may be designed based on the information and references provided in Section
6.5.2.7.
Finally, the garage should be adequately tied to the building to ensure that the
garage section and the house section act as a structural unit. This may be achieved
by fastening the end rafter or truss top chord in the roof to the house framing
using fasteners with sufficient withdrawal capacity (i.e. ring shank nails or lag
screws). The same should be done for the end studs that are adjacent to the house
framing. Ideally, the garage roof diaphragm may be tied into the house second floor
diaphragm by use of metal straps and blocking extending into the floor diaphragm
and garage roof diaphragm a sufficient distance in each direction (i.e., 4 feet).
With sufficient connection to the house end wall and floor diaphragm, the garage
opening issue may be avoided completely. The connection load to the house discussed
above can then be determined by treating the garage roof diaphragm as a
cantilevered horizontal beam on the side of the home with a fixed end moment at the
connection to the house. The fixed end moment (assuming the garage opening provides
no lateral shear resistance) is determined based on the beam equation for a
cantilever beam (see Appendix A). For the wind load on the garage, the fixed end
moment due to lateral load is (3,928 lb)(11 ft) = 43,208 ft-lb. This moment may be
resisted by a strap at either side of the garage roof with about a 2,500 lb design
tension capacity (i.e. 43,208 ft-lb/18 ft = 2,400 lb). Preferably, the strap would
be anchored to the garage roof diaphragm and house floor diaphragm as described
above. Alternatively, this moment could be resisted by numerous lag screws or
similar fasteners attaching the garage framing to the house framing. By this
method, the garage end walls would require no special shear wall design. Of course,
connections required to resist wind uplift and transverse shear loads on the garage
door and return walls would still be required.
6-66 Residential Structural Design Guide
6-67
The first step is to determine the center of gravity of the building at the first
story level. The total seismic story shear load will act through this point. For
wind design, the process is similar, but the horizontal wind forces on various
portions of the building (based on vertical projected areas and wind pressures) are
used to determine the force center for the lateral wind loads (i.e., the resultant
of the garage and house lateral wind loads).
Establishing the origin of an x-y coordinate system at the bottom corner of Wall
Line B of the example first floor plan, the location of the center of gravity is
determined by taking weighted moments about each coordinate axis using the center
of gravity location for the garage and house portions. Again, the bump-out area
in living room is considered to have negligible impact on the estimate of the
center of gravity since most of the building mass is originating from the second
story and roof which does not have the bump-out in the plan.
The center of gravity of the garage has the (x,y) coordinates of (-11 ft, 16 ft).
The center of gravity of the house has the coordinates (21 ft, 14 ft).
Xcg,building
Ycg,building
Thus, the center of gravity for the first story is located at the (x,y) coordinates
of (15.7 ft, 14.3 ft). The approximate location on the floor plan is about 4 inches
north of the center bearing wall line and directly in front of the stair well
leading down (i.e., about 5 feet to the left of the center of the house).
6-69
The torsional moment is created by the offset of the center of gravity (seismic
force center) from the center of stiffness or resistance (also called the center of
rigidity). For the N-S load direction, the torsional moment is equal to the total
seismic shear load on the story multiplied by the x-coordinate offset of the center
of gravity and the center of stiffness (i.e., 8,983 lb x 7 ft = 62,881 ft-lb). The
sharing of this torsional moment on all of the shear wall lines is based on the
torsional moment of resistance of each wall line. The torsional moment of
resistance is determined by the design shear capacity of each wall line (used as
the measure of relative stiffness) multiplied by the square of its distance from
the center of stiffness. The amount of the torsional shear load (torsional moment)
distributed to each wall line is then determined by the each walls torsional
moment of resistance in proportion to the total torsional moment of resistance of
all shear wall lines combined. The torsional moment of resistance of each shear
wall line and the total for all shear wall lines (torsional moment of inertia) is
determined as shown below.
Wall Line
PSW1
7,812 lb
19.3 ft
PSW2
3,046 lb
25.3 ft
PSW3
14,463 lb
12.1 ft
PSW4
9,453 lb
10.1 ft
PSW5
182 lb
44.7 ft
PSW6
9,453 lb
9.9 ft
PSW7
9,687 lb
22.7 ft
PSW8
11,015 lb
15.9 ft
Fpsw(d)2
2.91 x 106 lb-ft2 1.95 x 106 lb-ft2 2.12 x 106 lb-ft2 9.64 x 105 lb-ft2 3.64 x 105
lb-ft2 9.26 x 105 lb-ft2 4.99 x 106 lb-ft2 2.78 x 106 lb-ft2 1.70 x 107 lb-ft2
Now, the torsional shear load on each wall is determined using the following basic
equation for torsion:
VWALL
M T d(FWALL ) J
where,
VWALL MT d
FWALL J
*The torsional moment is determined by multiplying the design shear load on the
story by the offset of the center of stiffness relative to the center of gravity
perpendicular to the load direction under consideration. For wind design, the
center of the vertical projected area of the building is used in lieu of the center
gravity.
6-71
Now, the torsional loads may be determined as shown below for the N-S and E-W wall
lines. For PSW1 and PSW2 the torsion load is in the reverse direction of the direct
shear load on these walls. This behavior is the result of the center of shear
resistance being offset from the force center which causes rotation about the
center of stiffness. (Center of shear resistance and center of stiffness may be
used interchangeably since the shear resistance is assumed to represent stiffness.)
If the estimated offset of the center of gravity and the center of stiffness is
reasonably correct, then the torsional response will tend to reduce the shear load
on PSW1 and PSW2. However, codes generally do not allow the direct shear load on a
wall line to be reduced due to torsion only increases should be considered.
The following values for use in the torsion equation apply to this example:
MT = (8,983 lb)(7 ft) = 62,881 ft-lb J = 1.70 x 107 lb-ft2
The torsional loads on PSW5 and PSW7 are determined as follows:
Vpsw5 = (62,881 ft-lb)(44.7 ft)(182 lb) / (1.70 x 107 lb-ft2) = 30 lb
Vpsw7 = (62,881 ft-lb)(22.7 ft)(9,687 lb) / (1.70 x 107 lb-ft2) = 813 lb
These torsional shear loads are added to the direct shear loads for the N-S walls
and the total design shear load on each wall line may be compared to its design
shear capacity as shown below.
Shear Load
Design Capacity
(lb) Used
PSW1
7,812
3,387
na*
3,387
43% (ok)
PSW2
3,046
1,321
na*
1,321
43% (ok)
PSW5
PSW7
9,687
4,195
813
5,008
52% (ok)
*The torsional shear load is actually in the reverse direction of the direct shear
load for
While all of the N-S shear wall lines have sufficient design capacity, it is
noticeable that the wall lines on the left side (West) of the building are working
harder and the walls on the right side (East) of the building are substantially
over-designed. The wall construction could be changed to allow a greater sheathing
nail spacing on walls PSW1 and PSW2. Also, the assumption of a rigid diaphragm over
the entire expanse of the story is very questionable, even if the garage is
rigidly tied to the house with adequate connections. It is likely that the loads
on Walls PSW5 and PSW7 will be higher than predicted using the relative stiffness
method. Thus, the tributary area method (see Step 2) may provide a more reliable
design and should be considered along with the above analysis. Certainly, reducing
the shear wall construction based on the above analysis is not recommended prior to
viewing the design from the perspective of the tributary area approach.
Similarly, the garage opening wall (PSW5) should not be assumed to be adequate
simply based on the above analysis in view of the inherent assumptions of the
relative stiffness method in the horizontal distribution of shear forces. For more
compact buildings with continuous horizontal diaphragms extending over the entire
area of each story, the method is less presumptive in nature. But, this qualitative
observation is true of all of the force distribution methods demonstrated in this
design example.
6-73
6-75
Reardon, G. and Henderson, D., Simulated Wind Loading of a Two-Storey Test House,
Proceedings of the International Wood Engineering Conference, Vol. 4, Omnipress,
Madison, WI, 1996.
Soltis, L.A., Wolfe, R.W., and Tuomi, R.L., Design Approaches for Light-Frame
Racking Walls, Design and Performance of Light-Frame Structures, Proceedings 7317,
Forest Products Research Society, Madison, WI, 1983.
Sugiyama, H. and Matsumoto, T., Empirical Equations for the Estimation of Racking
Strength of a Plywood-Sheathed Shear Wall with Openings, Summaries of Technical
Papers of Annual Meeting, Architectural Institute of Japan, September 1994.
Testing Engineers, Inc., Strength Tests of Plastered Building Panels for Keystone
Steel & Wire Division, Testing Engineers, Inc., Oakland, CA, May 29, 1970.
Testing Engineers, Inc., Strength Tests of Plastered Building Panels Using ASTM E
72-61, Testing Engineers, Inc., San Jose, CA, April 30, 1971.
Thurston, S.J., Report on Racking Resistance of Long Sheathed Timber Framed Walls
with Openings, Study Report SR54, Building Research Association of New Zealand
(BRANZ), Judgeford, Wellington, New Zealand, 1994.
Tissell, J.R., Structural Panel Shear Walls, Research Report 154, American Plywood
Association, Tacoma, WA, May 1993.
Tuomi, R.L. and McCutcheon, W.J., Testing of a Full-Scale House Under Simulated
Snow Loads and Wind Loads, FPL 234, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Products laboratory, Madison, WI, 1974.
White, M.W. and Dolan, J.D., Effect of Adhesives on Shear Wall Performance,
Systems Approach to Wood Structures, Forest Products Society, Madison, WI, 1993.
Whittemore, H.L., Cotter, J.B., Stang, A.H., and Phelen, V.B., Strength of Houses
Application of Engineering Principles to Structural Design of
CHAPTER 7 Connections
7.1 General
The objectives of connection design are
to transfer loads resisted by structural members and systems to other parts of
the structure to form a continuous load path;
to secure nonstructural components and equipment to the building; and to fasten
members in place during construction to resist temporary
loads during installation (i.e., finishes, sheathing, etc.).
Adequate connection of the framing members and structural systems covered in
Chapters 4, 5, and 6 is a critical design and construction consideration.
Regardless of the type of structure or type of material, structures are only as
strong as their connections, and structural systems can behave as a unit only with
proper interconnection of the components and assemblies; therefore, this chapter is
dedicated to connections. A connection transfers loads from one framing member to
another (i.e., a stud to a top or bottom plate) or from one assembly to another
(i.e., a roof to a wall, a wall to a floor, and a floor to a foundation).
Connections generally consist of two or more framing members and a mechanical
connection device such as a fastener or specialty connection hardware. Adhesives
are also used to supplement mechanical attachment of wall finishes or floor
sheathing to wood.
This chapter focuses on conventional wood connections that typically use nails,
bolts, and some specialty hardware. The procedures for designing connections are
based on the National Design Specification for Wood Construction (NDS) (AF&PA,
1997). The chapter also addresses relevant concrete and masonry connections in
accordance with the applicable provisions of Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete (ACI-318) and Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures
(ACI-530)(ACI, 1999a; ACI 1999b). When referring to the NDS, ACI-318, or ACI-530,
the chapter identifies particular sections as NDS12.1, ACI-31822.5, or ACI-
5305.12.
7-1
Chapter 7 - Connections
For most connections in typical residential construction, the connection design may
be based on prescriptive tables found in the applicable residential building code
(ICC, 1998). Table 7.1 depicts a commonly recommended nailing schedule for wood-
framed homes.
TABLE 7.1
Recommended Nailing Schedule for a Wood-Framed Home1
Application
Nailing Method
Header to joist
End-nail
Board sheathing
Face-nail
End-nail Toenail
Face-nail
Doubled studs
Face-nail, stagger
Face-nail
Face-nail
Toenail
Face-nail
Toenail
Face-nail
Endnail Toenail
Collar beam to rafter, 2-inch member Collar beam to rafter, 1-inch member
Face-nail Face-nail
Face-nail
Face-nail
Face-nail
Face-nail
Face-nail
Number of Nails
3 2 3
2 or 3 2 4
Notes
16 inches on center To each joist At each stud
16 inches on center 16 inches on center
10d 4 10d
10d 3 8d 4 16d 3 8d 4 16d 4 10d 3 16d 4 8d 2 12d 3 8d
2 8d
Source: Based on current industry practice and other sources (ICC,1998, NAHB, 1994;
NAHB, 1982). Note: 1In practice, types of nails include common, sinker, box, or
pneumatic; refer to Section 7.2 for descriptions of these fasteners. Some recent
codes have specified that common nails are to be used in all cases. However,
certain connections may not necessarily require su ch a nail or may actually be
weakened by use of a nail that has too large a diameter (i.e., causing splitting of
wood members). Other codes allow box nails to be used in most or all cases. NER-272
guidelines for pneumatic fasteners should be consulted (NES, Inc., 1997). However,
the NER272 guidelines are based on simple, conservative conversions of various code
nail schedules, such as above, using the assumption that the required performance
is defined by a common nail in all applications. In short, there is a general state
of confusion regarding appropriate nailing requirements for the multitude of
connections and related purposes in conventional residential construction.
Chapter 7 - Connections
The NDS recognizes in NDS7.1.1.4 that extensive experience constitutes a
reasonable basis for design; therefore, the designer may use Table 7.1 for many, if
not all, connections. However, the designer should consider carefully the footnote
to Table 7.1 and verify that the connection complies with local requirements,
practice, and design conditions for residential construction. A connection design
based on the NDS or other sources may be necessary for special conditions such as
high-hazard seismic or wind areas and when unique structural details or materials
are used.
In addition to the conventional fasteners mentioned above, many specialty
connectors and fasteners are available on todays market. The reader is encouraged
to gather, study, and scrutinize manufacturer literature regarding specialty
fasteners, connectors, and tools that meet a wide range of connection needs.
7.2 Types of Mechanical Fasteners
Mechanical fasteners that are generally used for wood-framed house design and
construction include the following:
nails and spikes; bolts; lag bolts (lag screws); and specialty connection
hardware.
This section presents some basic descriptions and technical information on the
above fasteners. Sections 7.3 and 7.4 provide design values and related guidance.
Design examples are provided in Section 7.5 for various typical conditions in
residential wood framing and foundation construction.
7.2.1 Nails
Several characteristics distinguish one nail from another. Figure 7.1 depicts key
nail features for a few types of nails that are essential to wood-framed design and
construction. This section discusses some of a nails characteristics relative to
structural design; the reader is referred to Standard Terminology of Nails for Use
with Wood and Wood-Base Materials (ASTM F547) and Standard Specification for Driven
Fasteners: Nails, Spikes, and Staples (ASTM F 1667) for additional information
(ASTM, 1990; ASTM, 1995).
7-3
Chapter 7 - Connections
FIGURE 7.1 Elements of a Nail and Nail Types
The most common nail types used in residential wood construction follow: Common
nails are bright, plain-shank nails with a flat head and
diamond point. The diameter of a common nail is larger than that of sinkers and box
nails of the same length. Common nails are used primarily for rough framing.
7-4 Residential Structural Design Guide
Chapter 7 - Connections
Sinker nails are bright or coated slender nails with a sinker head and diamond
point. The diameter of the head is smaller than that of a common nail with the same
designation. Sinker nails are used primarily for rough framing and applications
where lumber splitting may be a concern.
Box nails are bright, coated, or galvanized nails with a flat head and diamond
point. They are made of lighter-gauge wire than common nails and sinkers and are
commonly used for toenailing and many other light framing connections where
splitting of lumber is a concern.
Cooler nails are generally similar to the nails above, but with slightly thinner
shanks. They are commonly supplied with ring shanks (i.e., annular threads) as a
drywall nail.
Power-driven nails (and staples) are produced by a variety of manufacturers for
several types of power-driven fasteners. Pneumaticdriven nails and staples are the
most popular power-driven fasteners in residential construction. Nails are
available in a variety of diameters, lengths, and head styles. The shanks are
generally cement-coated and are available with deformed shanks for added capacity.
Staples are also available in a variety of wire diameters, crown widths, and leg
lengths. Refer to NER-272 for additional information and design data (NES, Inc.,
1997).
Nail lengths and weights are denoted by the penny weight, which is indicated by d.
Given the standardization of common nails, sinkers, and cooler nails, the penny
weight also denotes a nails head and shank diameter. For other nail types, sizes
are based on the nails length and diameter. Table 7.2 arrays dimensions for the
nails discussed above. The nail length and diameter are key factors in determining
the strength of nailed connections in wood framing. The steel yield strength of the
nail may also be important for certain shear connections, yet such information is
rarely available for a standard lot of nails.
7-5
Chapter 7 - Connections
TABLE 7.2
Nominal Size (penny weight, d) 6d 8d 10d 12d 16d 20d 6d 8d 10d 12d 16d 6d 8d 10d
12d 16d 6d 8d 10d 12d 16d 20d 4d 5d 6d
Length (inches) 2 2 1/2 3 3 1/4 3 1/2 4 2 2 12 3 3 1/4 3 1/2 1 7/8 2 3/8 2 7/8 3
1/8 3 1/4 1 7/8 to 2 2 3/8 to 2 1/2 3 3 1/4 3 1/2 4 1 3/8 1 5/8 1 7/8
Notes 1Based on ASTM F 1667 (ASTM, 1995). 2Based on a survey of pneumatic fastener
manufacturer data and NER-272 (NES, Inc., 1997).
Diameter (inches) 0.113 0.131 0.148 0.148 0.162 0.192 0.099 0.113 0.128 0.128 0.135
0.092 0.113 0.120 0.135 0.148 0.092 to 0.113 0.092 to 0.131 0.120 to 0.148 0.120 to
0.131 0.131 to 0.162 0.131 0.067 0.080 0.092
There are many types of nail heads, although three types are most commonly used in
residential wood framing.
The flat nail head is the most common head. It is flat and circular, and its top
and bearing surfaces are parallel but with slightly rounded edges.
The sinker nail head is slightly smaller in diameter than the flat nail head. It
also has a flat top surface; however, the bearing surface of the nail head is
angled, allowing the head to be slightly countersunk.
Pneumatic nail heads are available in the above types; however, other head types
such as a half-round or D-shaped heads are also common.
The shank, as illustrated in Figure 7.1, is the main body of a nail. It extends
from the head of the nail to the point. It may be plain or deformed. A plain shank
is considered a smooth shank, but it may have grip marks from the manufacturing
process. A deformed shank is most often either threaded or fluted to provide
additional withdrawal or pullout resistance. Threads are annular
7-6 Residential Structural Design Guide
Chapter 7 - Connections
(i.e., ring shank), helical, or longitudinal deformations rolled onto the shank,
creating ridges and depressions. Flutes are helical or vertical deformations rolled
onto the shank. Threaded nails are most often used to connect wood to wood while
fluted nails are used to connect wood to concrete (i.e., sill plate to concrete
slab or furring strip to concrete or masonry). Shank diameter and surface condition
both affect a nails capacity.
The nail tip, as illustrated in Figure 7.1, is the end of the shankusually
taperedthat is formed during manufacturing to expedite nail driving into a given
material. Among the many types of nail points, the diamond point is most commonly
used in residential wood construction. The diamond point is a symmetrical point
with four approximately equal beveled sides that form a pyramid shape. A cut point
used for concrete cut nails describes a blunt point. The point type can affect nail
drivability, lumber splitting, and strength characteristics.
The material used to manufacture nails may be steel, stainless steel, heattreated
steel, aluminum, or copper, although the most commonly used materials are steel,
stainless steel, and heat-treated steel. Steel nails are typically formed from
basic steel wire. Stainless steel nails are often recommended in exposed
construction near the coast or for certain applications such as cedar siding to
prevent staining. Stainless steel nails are also recommended for permanent wood
foundations. Heat-treated steel includes annealed, case-hardened, or hardened nails
that can be driven into particularly hard materials such as extremely dense wood or
concrete.
Various nail coatings provide corrosion resistance, increased pullout resistance,
or ease of driving. Some of the more common coatings in residential wood
construction are described below.
Bright. Uncoated and clean nail surface. Cement-coated. Coated with a heat-
sensitive cement that prevents
corrosion during storage and improves withdrawal strength depending on the moisture
and density of the lumber and other factors. Galvanized. Coated with zinc by
barrel-tumbling, dipping, electroplating, flaking, or hot-dipping to provide a
corrosionresistant coating during storage and after installation for either
performance or appearance. The coating thickness increases the diameter of the nail
and improves withdrawal and shear strength.
7.2.2 Bolts
Bolts are often used for heavy connections and to secure wood to other materials
such as steel or concrete. In many construction applications, however, special
power-driven fasteners are used in place of bolts. Refer to Figure 7.2 for an
illustration of some typical bolt types and connections for residential use.
7-7
Chapter 7 - Connections
FIGURE 7.2 Bolt and Connection Types
In residential wood construction, bolted connections are typically limited to wood-
to-concrete connections unless a home is constructed in a high-hazard wind or
seismic area and hold-down brackets are required to transfer shear wall overturning
forces (see Chapter 6). Foundation bolts, typically embedded in concrete or grouted
masonry, are commonly referred to as anchor bolts, J-bolts,
7-8 Residential Structural Design Guide
Chapter 7 - Connections
Sill anchors are used in lieu of foundation anchor bolts. Many configurations are
available in addition to the one shown in Figure 7.3.
Joist hangers are used to attach single or multiple joists to the side of girders
or header joists.
Rafter clips and roof tie-downs are straps or brackets that connect roof framing
members to wall framing to resist roof uplift loads associated with high-wind
conditions.
Hold-down brackets are brackets that are bolted, nailed, or screwed to wall studs
or posts and anchored to the construction below (i.e., concrete, masonry, or wood)
to hold down the end of a member or assembly (i.e., shear wall).
Strap ties are prepunched straps or coils of strapping that are used for a
variety of connections to transfer tension loads.
Splice plates or shear plates are flat plates with prepunched holes for fasteners
to transfer shear or tension forces across a joint.
Chapter 7 - Connections
FIGURE 7.3
Epoxy-set anchors are anchor bolts that are drilled and installed with epoxy
adhesives into concrete after the concrete has cured and sometimes after the
framing is complete so that the required anchor location is obvious.
Specialty Connector Hardware
Chapter 7 - Connections
7.2.4
Lag Screws
Lag screws are available in the same diameter range as bolts; the principal
difference between the two types of connectors is that a lag screw has screw
threads that taper to a point. The threaded portion of the lag screw anchors itself
in the main member that receives the tip. Lag screws (often called lag bolts)
function as bolts in joints where the main member is too thick to be economically
penetrated by regular bolts. They are also used when one face of the member is not
accessible for a through-bolt. Holes for lag screws must be carefully drilled to
one diameter and depth for the shank of the lag screw and to a smaller diameter for
the threaded portion. Lag screws in residential applications are generally small in
diameter and may be used to attach garage door tracks to wood framing, steel angles
to wood framing supporting brick veneer over wall openings, various brackets or
steel members to wood, and wood ledgers to wall framing.
7.3.1 General
This section covers the NDS design procedures for nails, bolts, and lag screws. The
procedures are intended for allowable stress design (ASD) such that loads should be
determined accordingly (see Chapter 3). Other types of fastenings are addressed by
the NDS but are rarely used in residential wood construction. The applicable
sections of the NDS related to connection design as covered in this chapter include
NDS7Mechanical Connections (General Requirements); NDS8Bolts; NDS9Lag
Screws; and NDS12Nails and Spikes.
While wood connections are generally responsible for the complex, nonlinear
behavior of wood structural systems, the design procedures outlined in the NDS are
straightforward. The NDS connection values are generally conservative from a
structural safety standpoint. Further, the NDSs basic or tabulated design values
are associated with tests of single fasteners in standardized conditions. As a
result, the NDS provides several adjustments to account for various factors that
alter the performance of a connection; in particular, the performance of wood
connections is highly dependent on the species (i.e., density or specific gravity)
of wood. Table 7.3 provides the specific gravity values of various wood species
typically used in house construction.
7-11
Chapter 7 - Connections
TABLE 7.3
Common Framing Lumber Species and Specific Gravity Values
Lumber Species Southern Pine (SP) Douglas Fir-Larch (DF-L) Hem-Fir (HF) Spruce-
Pine-Fir (SPF) Spruce-Pine-Fir (South)
Chapter 7 - Connections
FIGURE 7.4 Types of Connections and Loading Conditions
The NDS provides tabulated connection design values that use the following symbols
for the three basic types of loading:
In addition to the already tabulated design values for the above structural
resistance properties of connections, the NDS provides calculation methods to
address conditions that may not be covered by the tables and that give more
7-13
Chapter 7 - Connections
flexibility to the design of connections. The methods are appropriate for use in
hand calculations or with computer spreadsheets.
For withdrawal, the design equations are relatively simple empirical relationships
(based on test data) that explain the effect of fastener size (diameter),
penetration into the wood, and density of the wood. For shear, the equations are
somewhat more complex because of the multiple failure modes that may result from
fastener characteristics, wood density, and size of the wood members. Six shear-
yielding modes (and a design equation for each) address various yielding conditions
in either the wood members or the fasteners that join the members. The critical
yield mode is used to determine the design shear value for the connection. Refer to
NDSAppendix I for a description of the yield modes.
The yield equations in the NDS are based on general dowel equations that use
principles of engineering mechanics to predict the shear capacity of a doweled
joint. The general dowel equations can be used with joints that have a gap between
the members and they can also be used to predict ultimate capacity of a joint made
of wood, wood and metal, or wood and concrete. However, the equations do not
account for friction between members or the anchoring/cinching effect of the
fastener head as the joint deforms and the fastener rotates or develops tensile
forces. These effects are important to the ultimate capacity of wood connections in
shear and, therefore, the general dowel equations may be considered to be
conservative; refer to Section 7.3.6. For additional guidance and background on the
use of the general dowel equations, refer to the NDS Commentary and other useful
design resources available through the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA,
1999; Showalter, Line, and Douglas, 1999).
Design values for wood connections are subject to adjustments in a manner similar
to that required for wood members themselves (see Section 5.2.4 of Chapter 5). The
calculated or tabulated design values for W and Z are multiplied by the applicable
adjustment factors to determine adjusted allowable design values, Z and W, as
shown below for the various connection methods (i.e., nails, bolts, and lag
screws).
[NDS12.2&7.3]
W = WCDC M C t C tn for nails and spikes W = WCDC M C t Ceg for lag screws
Chapter 7 - Connections
The adjustment factors and their applicability to wood connection design are
briefly described as follows:
CDLoad Duration Factor (NDS2.3.2 and Chapter 5, Table 5.3) applies to W and Z
values for all fasteners based on design load duration but shall not exceed 1.6
(i.e., wind and earthquake load duration factor).
CMWet Service Factor (NDS7.3.3)applies to W and Z values for all connections
based on moisture conditions at the time of fabrication and during service; not
applicable to residential framing.
CtTemperature Factor (NDS7.3.4)applies to the W and Z values for all
connections exposed to sustained temperatures of greater than 100oF; not typically
used in residential framing.
CgGroup Action Factor (NDS7.3.6)applies to Z values of two or more bolts or
lag screws loaded in single or multiple shear and aligned in the direction of the
load (i.e., rows).
CGeometry Factor (NDS8.5.2, 9.4.)applies to the Z values for bolts and lag
screws when the end distance or spacing of the bolts is less than assumed in the
unadjusted design values.
CdPenetration Depth Factor (NDS9.3.3, 12.3.4)applies to the Z values of lag
screws and nails when the penetration into the main member is less than 8D for lag
screws or 12D for nails (where D = shank diameter); sometimes applicable to
residential nailed connections.
CegEnd Grain Factor (NDS9.2.2, 9.3.4, 12.3.5)applies to W and Z values for lag
screws and to Z values for nails to account for reduced capacity when the fastener
is inserted into the end grain (Ceg=0.67).
CdiDiaphragm Factor (NDS12.3.6)applies to the Z values of nails only to
account for system effects from multiple nails used in sheathed diaphragm
construction (Cdi = 1.1).
CtnToenail Factor (NDS12.3.7)applies to the W and Z values of toenailed
connections (Ctn = 0.67 for withdrawal and = 0.83 for shear). It does not apply to
slant nailing in withdrawal or shear; refer to Section 7.3.6.
The total allowable design value for a connection (as adjusted by the appropriate
factors above) must meet or exceed the design load determined for the connection
(refer to Chapter 3 for design loads). The values for W and Z are based on single
fastener connections. In instances of connections involving multiple fasteners, the
values for the individual or single fastener can be summed to determine the total
connection design value only when Cg is applied (to bolts and lag screws only) and
fasteners are the same type and similar size. However, this approach may overlook
certain system effects that can improve the actual
7-15
Chapter 7 - Connections
The procedures in NDS12 provide for the design of nailed connections to resist
shear and withdrawal loads in wood-to-wood and metal-to-wood connections. As
mentioned, many specialty nail-type fasteners are available for wood-to-concrete
and even wood-to-steel connections. The designer should consult manufacturer data
for connection designs that use proprietary fastening systems.
The withdrawal strength of a smooth nail (driven into the side grain of lumber) is
determined in accordance with either the empirical design equation below or
NDSTable 12.2A.
[NDS12.2.1]
where,
5
W = 1380(G) 2 DL p unadjusted withdrawal design value (lb) for a smooth shank nail
G = specific gravity of the lumber member receiving the nail tip D = the diameter
of the nail shank (in) Lp = the depth of penetration (in) of the nail into the
member receiving the nail tip
The design strength of nails is greater when a nail is driven into the side rather
than the end grain of a member. Withdrawal information is available for nails
driven into the side grain; however, the withdrawal capacity of a nail driven into
the end grain is assumed to be zero because of its unreliability. Furthermore, the
NDS does not provide a method for determining withdrawal values for deformed shank
nails. These nails significantly enhance withdrawal capacity and are frequently
used to attach roof sheathing in high-wind areas. They are also used to attach
floor sheathing and some siding materials to prevent nail back-out. The use of
deformed shank nails is usually based on experience or preference.
The design shear value, Z, for a nail is typically determined by using the
following tables from NDS12:
Chapter 7 - Connections
The yield equations in NDS12.3 may be used for conditions not represented in the
design value tables for Z. Regardless of the method used to determine the Z value
for a single nail, the value must be adjusted as described in Section 7.3.2. As
noted in the NDS, the single nail value is used to determine the design value.
It is also worth mentioning that the NDS provides an equation for determining
allowable design value for shear when a nailed connection is loaded in combined
withdrawal and shear (see NDS12.3.8, Equation 12.3-6). The equation appears to be
most applicable to a gable-end truss connection to the roof sheathing under
conditions of roof sheathing uplift and wall lateral load owing to wind. The
designer might contemplate other applications but should take care in considering
the combination of loads that would be necessary to create simultaneous uplift and
shear worthy of a special calculation.
Bolts may be designed in accordance with NDS8 to resist shear loads in wood-to-
wood, wood-to-metal, and wood-to-concrete connections. As mentioned, many specialty
bolt-type fasteners can be used to connect wood to other materials, particularly
concrete and masonry. One common example is an epoxyset anchor. Manufacturer data
should be consulted for connection designs that use proprietary fastening systems.
The design shear value Z for a bolted connection is typically determined by using
the following tables from NDS8:
7-17
Chapter 7 - Connections
bearing area value Cb to adjust the allowable compressive stress perpendicular to
grain Fc (see NDS2.3.10). It should also be remembered that the allowable
compressive stress of lumber is based on a deformation limit state, not capacity;
refer to Section 5.2.3 of Chapter 5. In addition, the designer should verify the
tension capacity of the bolt and its connection to other materials (i.e., concrete
or masonry as covered in Section 7.4). The bending capacity of the washer should
also be considered. For example, a wide but thin washer will not evenly distribute
the bearing force to the surrounding wood.
The arrangement of bolts and drilling of holes are extremely important to the
performance of a bolted connection. The designer should carefully follow the
minimum edge, end, and spacing requirements of NDS8.5. When necessary, the
designer should adjust the design value for the bolts in a connection by using the
geometry factor C and the group action factor Cg discussed in Section 7.3.2.
Any possible torsional load on a bolted connection (or any connection for that
manner) should also be considered in accordance with the NDS. In such conditions,
the pattern of the fasteners in the connection can become critical to performance
in resisting both a direct shear load and the loads created by a torsional moment
on the connection. Fortunately, this condition is not often applicable to typical
light-frame construction. However, cantilevered members that rely on connections to
anchor the cantilevered member to other members will experience this effect, and
the fasteners closest to the cantilever span will experience greater shear load.
One example of this condition sometimes occurs with balcony construction in
residential buildings; failure to consider the effect discussed above has been
associated with some notable balcony collapses.
For wood members bolted to concrete, the design lateral values are provided in
NDSTable8.2E. The yield equations (or general dowel equations) may also be used to
conservatively determine the joint capacity. A recent study has made
recommendations regarding reasonable assumptions that must be made in applying the
yield equations to bolted wood-to-concrete connections (Stieda, et al., 1999).
Using symbols defined in the NDS, the study recommends an Re value of 5 and an Rt
value of 3. These assumptions are reported as being conservative because fastener
head effects and joint friction are ignored in the general dowel equations.
7.3.5 Lag Screws
Lag screws (or lag bolts) may be designed to resist shear and withdrawal loads in
wood-to-wood and metal-to-wood connections in accordance with NDS9. As mentioned,
many specialty screw-type fasteners can be installed in wood. Some tap their own
holes and do not require predrilling. Manufacturer data should be consulted for
connection designs that use proprietary fastening systems.
The withdrawal strength of a lag screw (inserted into the side grain of lumber) is
determined in accordance with either the empirical design equation below or
NDSTable 9.2A. It should be noted that the equation below is based on single lag
screw connection tests and is associated with a reduction factor of 0.2 applied to
average ultimate withdrawal capacity to adjust for load duration and safety. Also,
the penetration length of the lag screw Lp into the main member does
7-18 Residential Structural Design Guide
Chapter 7 - Connections
not include the tapered portion at the point. NDSAppendix L contains dimensions
for lag screws.
[NDS9.2.1]
where,
33
W = 1800(G) 2 D 4 L p unadjusted withdrawal design value (lb) for a lag screw
G = specific gravity of the lumber receiving the lag screw tip D = the diameter of
the lag screw shank (in) Lp = the depth of penetration (in) of the lag screw into
the member receiving the
tip, less the tapered length of the tip
The allowable withdrawal design strength of a lag screw is greater when the screw
is installed in the side rather than the end grain of a member. However, unlike the
treatment of nails, the withdrawal strength of lag screws installed in the end
grain may be calculated by using the Ceg adjustment factor with the equation above.
The design shear value Z for a lag screw is typically determined by using the
following tables from NDS9:
Table 9.3A. Lag screw, single-shear (two-member) connections with the same
species of lumber for both members.
Table 9.3B. Lag screw and metal plate-to-wood connections.
The yield equations in NDS9.3 may be used for conditions not represented in the
design value tables for Z. Regardless of the method used to determine the Z value
for a single lag screw, the value must be adjusted as described in Section 7.3.2.
It is also worth mentioning that the NDS provides an equation for determining the
allowable shear design value when a lag screw connection is loaded in combined
withdrawal and shear (see NDS9.3.5, Equation 9.3-6). The equation does not,
however, appear to apply to typical uses of lag screws in residential construction.
As with any building code or design specification, the NDS provisions may or may
not address various conditions encountered in the field. Earlier chapters made
several recommendations regarding alternative or improved design approaches.
Similarly, some considerations regarding wood connection design are in order.
First, as a general design consideration, crowded connections should be avoided.
If too many fasteners are used (particularly nails), they may cause splitting
during installation. When connections become crowded, an alternative fastener or
connection detail should be considered. Basically, the connection detail should be
practical and efficient.
Second, while the NDS addresses system effects within a particular joint (i.e.,
element) that uses multiple bolts or lag screws (i.e. the group action factor Cg),
it does not include provisions regarding the system effects of multiple joints
Chapter 7 - Connections
in an assembly or system of components. Therefore, some consideration of system
effects is given below based on several relevant studies related to key connections
in a home that allow the dwelling to perform effectively as a structural unit.
Sheathing Withdrawal Connections
Several recent studies have focused on roof sheathing attachment and nail
withdrawal, primarily as a result of Hurricane Andrew (HUD, 1999a; McClain, 1997;
Cunningham, 1993; Mizzell and Schiff, 1994; and Murphy, Pye, and Rosowsky, 1995);
refer to Chapter 1. The studies identify problems related to predicting the pull-
off capacity of sheathing based on single nail withdrawal values and determining
the tributary withdrawal load (i.e., wind suction pressure) on a particular
sheathing fastener. One clear finding, however, is that the nails on the interior
of the roof sheathing panels are the critical fasteners (i.e., initiate panel
withdrawal failure) because of the generally larger tributary area served by these
fasteners. The studies also identified benefits to the use of screws and deformed
shank nails. However, use of a standard geometric tributary area of the sheathing
fastener and the wind loads in Chapter 3, along with the NDS withdrawal values
(Section 7.3.3), will generally result in a reasonable design using nails. The wind
load duration factor should also be applied to adjust the withdrawal values since a
commensurate reduction is implicit in the design withdrawal values relative to the
short-term, tested, ultimate withdrawal capacities (see Section 7.3).
It is interesting, however, that one study found that the lower-bound (i.e., 5th
percentile) sheathing pull-off resistance was considerably higher than that
predicted by use of single-nail test values (Murphy, Pye, and Rosowsky, 1995). The
difference was as large as a factor of 1.39 greater than the single nail values.
While this would suggest a withdrawal system factor of at least 1.3 for sheathing
nails, it should be subject to additional considerations. For example, sheathing
nails are placed by people using tools in somewhat adverse conditions (i.e., on a
roof), not in a laboratory. Therefore, this system effect may be best considered as
a reasonable construction tolerance on actual nail spacing variation relative to
that intended by design. Thus, an 8- to 9-inch nail spacing on roof sheathing nails
in the panels field could be tolerated when a 6-inch spacing is targeted by
design.
Roof-to-Wall Connections
A couple of studies (Reed, et al., 1996; Conner, et al., 1987) have investigated
the capacity of roof-to-wall (i.e., sloped rafter to top plate) connections using
conventional toenailing and other enhancements (i.e., strapping, brackets, gluing,
etc.). Again, the primary concern is related to high wind conditions, such as
experienced during Hurricane Andrew and other extreme wind events; refer to Chapter
1.
First, as a matter of clarification, the toenail reduction factor Ctn does not
apply to slant-nailing such as those used for rafter-to-wall connections and
floorto-wall connections in conventional residential construction (Hoyle and
Woeste, 1989). Toenailing occurs when a nail is driven at an angle in a direction
parallel-
7-20 Residential Structural Design Guide
Chapter 7 - Connections
to-grain at the end of a member (i.e., a wall stud toenail connection to the top or
bottom plate that may be used instead of end nailing). Slant nailing occurs when a
nail is driven at an angle, but in a direction perpendicular-to-grain through the
side of the member and into the face grain of the other (i.e., from a roof rafter
or floor band joist to a wall top plate). Though a generally reliable connection in
most homes and similar structures built in the United States, even a well-designed
slant-nail connection used to attach roofs to walls will become impractical in
hurricane-prone regions or similar high-wind areas. In these conditions, a metal
strap or bracket is preferrable.
Based on the studies of roof-to-wall connections, five key findings are summarized
as follows (Reed et al., 1996; Conner et al., 1987):
1. In general, it was found that slant-nails (not to be confused with toenails) in
combination with metal straps or brackets do not provide directly additive uplift
resistance.
2. A basic metal twist strap placed on the interior side of the walls (i.e., gypsum
board side) resulted in top plate tear-out and premature failure. However, a strap
placed on the outside of the wall (i.e., structural sheathing side) was able to
develop its full capacity without additional enhancement of the conventional stud-
to-top plate connection (see Table 7.1).
3. The withdrawal capacity for single joints with slant nails was reasonably
predicted by NDS with a safety factor of about 2 to 3.5. However, with multiple
joints tested simultaneously, a system factor on withdrawal capacity of greater
than 1.3 was found for the slantnailed rafter-to-wall connection. A similar system
effect was not found on strap connections, although the strap capacity was
substantially higher. The ultimate capacity of the simple strap connection (using
five 8d nails on either side of the strapfive in the spruce rafter and five in the
southern yellow pine top plate) was found to be about 1,900 pounds per connection.
The capacity of three 8d common slant nails used in the same joint configuration
was found to be 420 pounds on average, and with higher variation. When the three 8d
common toenail connection was tested in an assembly of eight such joints, the
average ultimate withdrawal capacity per joint was found to be 670 pounds with a
somewhat lower variation. Similar system increases were not found for the strap
connection. The 670 pounds capacity was similar to that realized for a rafter-to-
wall joint using three 16d box nails in Douglas fir framing.
4. It was found that the strap manufacturers published value had an excessive
safety margin of greater than 5 relative to average ultimate capacity. Adjusted to
an appropriate safety factor in the range of 2 to 3 (as calculated by applying NDS
nail shear equations by using a metal side plate), the strap (a simple 18g twist
strap) would cover a multitude of high wind conditions with a simple, economical
connection detail.
5. The use of deformed shank (i.e., annular ring) nails was found to increase
dramatically the uplift capacity of the roof-to-wall connections using the slant
nailing method.
7-21
Chapter 7 - Connections
Heel Joint in Rafter-to-Ceiling Joist Connections
The heel joint connection at the intersection of rafters and ceiling joists have
long been considered one of the weaker connections in conventional wood roof
framing. In fact, this highly stressed joint is one of the accolades of using a
wood truss rather than conventional rafter framing (particularly in high-wind or
snow-load conditions). However, the performance of conventional rafter-ceiling
joist heel joint connections should be understood by the designer since they are
frequently encountered in residential construction.
First, conventional rafter and ceiling joist (cross-tie) framing is simply a site-
built truss. Therefore, the joint loads can be analyzed by using methods that are
applicable to trusses (i.e., pinned joint analysis). However, the performance of
the system should be considered. As mentioned earlier for roof trusses (Section
5.6.1 in Chapter 5), a system factor of 1.1 is applicable to tension members and
connections. Therefore, the calculated shear capacity of the nails in the heel
joint (and in ceiling joist splices) may be multiplied by a system factor of 1.1,
which is considered conservative. Second, it must be remembered that the nail shear
values are based on a deformation limit and generally have a conservative safety
factor of three to five relative to the ultimate capacity. Finally, the nail values
should be adjusted for duration of load (i.e., snow load duration factor of 1.15 to
1.25); refer to Section 5.2.4 of Chapter 5. With these considerations and with the
use of rafter support braces at or near mid-span (as is common), reasonable heel
joint designs should be possible for most typical design conditions in residential
construction.
Wall-to-Floor Connections
When wood sole plates are connected to wood floors, many nails are often used,
particularly along the total length of the sole plate or wall bottom plate. When
connected to a concrete slab or foundation wall, there are usually several bolts
along the length of the bottom plate. This points toward the question of possible
system effects in estimating the shear capacity (and uplift capacity) of these
connections for design purposes.
In recent shear wall tests, walls connected with pneumatic nails (0.131inch
diameter by 3 inches long) spaced in pairs at 16 inches on center along the bottom
plate were found to resist over 600 pounds in shear per nail (HUD, 1999b). The
bottom plate was Spruce-Pine-Fir lumber and the base beam was Southern Yellow Pine.
This value is about 4.5 times the adjusted allowable design shear capacity
predicted by use of the NDS equations. Similarly, connections using 5/8-inch-
diameter anchor bolts at 6 feet on center (all other conditions equal) were tested
in full shear wall assemblies; the ultimate shear capacity per bolt was found to be
4,400 pounds. This value is about 3.5 times the adjusted allowable design shear
capacity per the NDS equations. These safety margins appear excessive and should be
considered by the designer when evaluating similar connections from a practical
system standpoint.
7-22 Residential Structural Design Guide
Chapter 7 - Connections
7.4 Design of Concrete and Masonry Connections
7.4.1 General
In typical residential construction, the interconnection of concrete and masonry
elements or systems is generally related to the foundation and usually handled in
accordance with standard or accepted practice. The bolted wood member connections
to concrete as in Section 7.3.4 are suitable for bolted wood connections to
properly grouted masonry (see Chapter 4). Moreover, numerous specialty fasteners or
connectors (including power driven and cast-in-place) can be used to fasten wood
materials to masonry or concrete. The designer should consult the manufacturers
literature for available connectors, fasteners, and design values.
This section discusses some typical concrete and masonry connection designs in
accordance with the ACI 318 concrete design specification and ACI 530 masonry
design specification (ACI, 1999a; ACI, 1999b).
7.4.2 Concrete or Masonry Foundation Wall to Footing
Footing connections, if any, are intended to transfer shear loads from the wall to
the footing below. The shear loads are generally produced by lateral soil pressure
acting on the foundation (see Chapter 3).
Footing-to-wall connections for residential construction are constructed in any one
of the following three ways (refer to Figure 7.5 for illustrations of the
connections):
no vertical reinforcement or key; key only; or dowel only.
Generally, no special connection is needed in nonhurricane-prone or low- to
moderate-hazard seismic areas. Instead, friction is sufficient for low, unbalanced
backfill heights while the basement slab can resist slippage for higher backfill
heights on basement walls. The basement slab abuts the basement wall near its base
and thus provides lateral support. If gravel footings are used, the unbalanced
backfill height needs to be sufficiently low (i.e., less than 3 feet), or means
must be provided to prevent the foundation wall from slipping sideways from lateral
soil loads. Again, a basement slab can provide the needed support. Alternatively, a
footing key or doweled connection can be used.
Chapter 7 - Connections
FIGURE 7.5
[ACI-31822.5]
Vu Vn
Vn
4 3
f c bh
Chapter 7 - Connections
Shear forces at the base of exterior foundation walls may require a dowel to
transfer the forces from the wall to the footing. The equations below described by
ACI-318 as the Shear-Friction Method are used to develop shear resistance with
vertical reinforcement (dowels) across the wall-footing interface.
[ACI-31811.7]
Concrete Walls
Vu Vn
Vn
A vf f y
0.2f cA c 800A c
A vf
Vu f y
= 0.85
If dowels are used to transfer shear forces from the base of the wall to the
footing, use the equations below to determine the minimum development length
required (refer to Figure 7.7 for typical dowel placement). If development length
exceeds the footing thickness, the dowel must be in the form of a hook, which is
rarely required in residential construction.
7-25
Chapter 7 - Connections
[ACI-31812.2, 12.5]
Standard Hooks
lhb
1200db fc
= fy 60,000
= A s,required A s,provided
Deformed Bars
l db
3f 40
y
f
+K db
TR
c + K TR 2.5 db
ld
l db
A s,required A s,provided
12
[ACI-5301.12.3,2.1.8]
Deformed Bars
ld = maximum {12d b }
ld = maximum {12d b }
Chapter 7 - Connections
7.4.3 Anchorage and Bearing on Foundation Walls
The equations below determine whether the concrete or masonry shear area of each
bolt is sufficient to resist pull-out from the wall as a result of uplift forces
and shear friction in the concrete.
[ACI-31811.3, ACI-5302.1.2]
Concrete Foundation Wall Vu Vc Vc = 4A v f c
Av
minimumof l b 2 h 2
Bearing Strength
ba Ba
Ba
minimum of
0.5A p f m 0.2A b f y
Ap
minimum
of
l b 2
be
Determining the adequacy of the bearing strength of a foundation wall follows ACI-
31810.17 for concrete or ACI-5302.1.7 for masonry. The bearing strength of the
foundation wall is typically adequate for the loads encountered in residential
construction.
fa Fa
fa
P A1
Fa 0.25f m
When the foundation walls supporting surface is wider on all sides than the loaded
area, the designer is permitted to determine the design bearing strength on the
loaded area by using the equations below.
Bc = 0.85f cA1
A 2 where A1
A2 2 A1
fa = A1
P A2 A1
where
A2 2 A1
7-27
Chapter 7 - Connections
EXAMPLE 7.1
Given
Find Solution 1.
2.
Design wind speed is 130 mph gust with an open (coastal) exposure Two-story
home with a gable roof Roof framing lumber is Southern Yellow Pine (G=0.55)
Roof framing is spaced at 24 inches on center Roof sheathing is 7/16-inch-thick
structural wood panel
1. Wind load (suction) on roof sheathing. 2. Nail type/size and maximum spacing.
Determine the wind load on roof sheathing (Chapter 3, Section 3.6.2)
(Table 3.7)
Step 3: Skip
= -2.2
(Table 3.9)
Select a trial nail type and size, determine withdrawal capacity, and calculated
required spacing
Use an 8d pneumatic nail (0.113 inch diameter) with a length of 2 3/8 inches. The
unadjusted design withdrawal capacity is determined using the equation in Section
7.3.3.
W = 1380(G)2.5DLp
Determine the adjusted design withdrawal capacity using the applicable adjustment
factors discussed in Section 7.3.2.
Determine the required nail spacing in the roof sheathing panel interior.
Chapter 7 - Connections
Notes: 1. If Spruce-Pine-Fir (G=0.42) roof framing lumber is substituted, W would
be
54 lb and the required nail spacing would reduce to 4 inches on center in the roof
sheathing panel interior. Thus, it is extremely important to carefully consider and
verify the species of framing lumber when determining fastening requirements for
roof sheathing. 2. The above analysis is based on a smooth shank nail. A ring shank
nail may be used to provide greater withdrawal capacity that is also less
susceptible to lumber moisture conditions at installation and related long-term
effects on withdrawal capacity. 3. With the smaller tributary area, the roof
sheathing edges that are supported on framing members may be fastened at the
standard 6 inch on center fastener spacing. For simplicity, it may be easier to
specify a 6 inch on center spacing for all roof sheathing fasteners, but give an
allowance of 2 to 3 inches for a reasonable construction tolerance; refer to
Section 7.3.6. 4. As an added measure given the extreme wind environment, the
sheathing nail spacing along the gable end truss/framing should be specified at a
closer spacing, say 4 inches on center. These fasteners are critical to the
performance of light-frame gable roofs in extreme wind events; refer to the
discussion on hurricanes in Chapter 1. NDS12.3.8 provides an equation to determine
nail lateral strength when subjected to a combined lateral and withdrawal load.
This equation may be used to verify the 4 inch nail spacing recommendation at the
gable end.
Conclusion
This example problem demonstrates a simple application of the nail withdrawal
equation in the NDS. The withdrawal forces on connections in residential
construction are usually of greatest concern in the roof sheathing attachment. In
hurricane prone regions, it is common practice to use a 6-inch nail spacing on the
interior of roof sheathing panels. In lower wind regions of the United States, a
standard nail spacing applies (i.e., 6 inches on panel edges and 12 inches in the
panel field); refer to Table 7.1.
7-29
Chapter 7 - Connections
EXAMPLE 7.2
Given
Find Solution 1.
Roof-to-Wall Connections
Design wind speed is 120 mph gust with an open coastal exposure One-story home
with a hip roof (28 ft clear span trusses with 2 ft overhangs) Roof slope is 6:12
Trusses are spaced at 24 in on center
1. Uplift and transverse shear load at the roof-to-wall connection 2. Connection
detail to resist the design loads
Roof dead load = 15 psf Dead load on wall = (15 psf)[0.5(28 ft) + 2 ft] = 240 plf
(Table 3.2)
(Table 3.7)
Step 3: Skip
= -0.8
Overhang pressure
(Table 3.1)
= 0.6 (240 plf) + {(-21 psf)[0.5(28 ft) + 2 ft] (21 psf)(2 ft)}
Determine the transverse shear (lateral) load on the roof-to-wall connection. The
transverse load is associated with the role of the roof diaphragm in supporting and
transferring lateral loads from direct wind pressure on the walls.
Wall GCp
= -1.2,+1.1*
Wind pressure
*The 1.1 coefficient is used since the maximum uplift on the roof and roof overhang
occurs on a windward side of the building (i.e., positive wall pressure).
Chapter 7 - Connections
Generally, manufacturers publish loading data for metal connectors for multiple
loading directions. The designer should verify that these values are for
simultaneous multidirectional loading or make reasonable adjustments as needed. In
this example problem, the NDS will be used to design a simple roof tie-down strap
and slant nail connection. A tie down strap will be used to resist the uplift load
and typical slant nailing will be used to resist the lateral load. The slant
nailing, however, does not contribute appreciably to the uplift capacity when a
strap or metal connector is used; refer to Section 7.3.6.
Assuming an 18g (minimum 0.043 inches thick) metal strap is used, determine the
number of 6d common nails required to connect the strap to the truss and to the
wall top plate to resist the design uplift load.
Z = 60 lb Z = ZCD
= (60 lb)(1.6) = 96 lb
The above Z value for metal side-plates implicitly addresses failure modes that may
be associated with strap/nail head tear-through. However, the width of the strap
must be calculated. Assuming a minimum 33 ksi steel yield strength and a standard
0.6 safety factor, the width of the strap is determined as follows:
w = 0.55 in
Therefore, use a minimum 1-inch wide strap to allow for the width of nail holes and
an a staggered nail pattern. Alternatively, a thinner strap may be used (i.e., 20g
or 0.033 inches thick) which may create less problem with installing finishes over
the connection.
Assuming that a 16d pneumatic nail will be used (0.131 in diameter by 3.5 inches
long), determine the number of slant-driven nails required to transfer the lateral
load from the wall to the roof sheathing diaphragm through the roof trusses. Assume
that the wall framing is Spruce-Pine-Fir (G = 0.42).
7-31
Chapter 7 - Connections
Z = 88 lb Z = ZCD**
(NDS Table 12.3A)* *A 1-1/4- inch side member thickness is used to account for the
slant nail penetration through the truss at an angle. **The Ctn value of 0.83 is
not used because the nail is slant driven and is not a toe-nail; refer to Section
7.3.6.
Therefore, the number of nails required to transfer the transverse shear load is
determined as follows:
Conclusion
The beginning of the uplift load path is on the roof sheathing which is transferred
to the roof framing through the sheathing nails; refer to Example 7.1. The uplift
load is then passed through the roof-to-wall connections as demonstrated in this
example problem. It should be noted that the load path for wind uplift cannot
overlook any joint in the framing.
One common error is to attach small roof tie-straps or clips to only the top member
of the wall top plate. Thus, the uplift load must be transferred between the two
members of the double top plate which are usually only face nailed together for the
purpose of assembly, not to transfer large uplift loads. This would not normally be
a problem if the wall sheathing were attached to the top member of the double top
plate, but walls are usually built to an 8 ft 1 in height to allow for assembly
of interior finishes and to result in a full 8 ft ceiling height after floor and
ceiling finishes. Since sheathing is a nominal 8 ft in length, it cannot span the
full wall height and may not be attached to the top member of the top plate. Also,
the strap should be placed on the structural sheathing side of the wall unless
framing joints within the wall (i.e., stud-to-plates) are adequately reinforced.
Longer sheathing can be special ordered and is often used to transfer uplift and
shear loads across floor levels by lapping the sheathing over the floor framing to
the wall below. The sheathing may also be laced at the floor band joist to transfer
uplift load, but the cross grain tension of the band joist should not exceed a
suitably low stress value (i.e., 1/3Fv); refer to Chapter 5, Section 5.3.1.
Chapter 7 - Connections
EXAMPLE 7.3
Rafter and ceiling joist roof construction (without intermediate rafter braces)
Roof horizontal span is 28 ft and rafter slope is 6:12 (26 degrees) Roof
framing is Hem-Fir (G=0.43) with a spacing of 16 inches on-center Roof snow load
is 25 psf Rafter & roofing dead load is 10 psf Ceiling dead load is 5 psf
1. The tension load on the heel joint connection 2. Nailing requirements
Using basic principles of mechanics and pinned-joint analysis of the rafter and
ceiling joist truss system, the forces on the heel joint can be determined.
First, the rafter bearing reaction is determined as follows:
Summing forces in the y-direction (vertical) for equilibrium of the heel joint
connection, the compression (axial) force in the rafter is determined as follows:
C = (652 lb)/sin(26o) = 1,487 lb
Now, summing the forces in the x-direction (horizontal) for equilibrium of the heel
joint connection, the tension (axial) force in the ceiling joist is determined as
follows:
T = (1,487 lb)cos(26o) = 1,337 lb
Try a 12d box nail. Using NDS Table 12.3A, the following Z value is obtained:
Z = 80 lb Z = ZCDCd
(Section 7.3.2)
CD = 1.25*
Cd = p/(12D)
(NDS12.3.4)
Cd = 1.5/[12(0.128)] = 0.98
Z = (80 lb)(1.25)(0.98) = 98 lb
In Section 5.6.1, a system factor of 1.1 for tension members and connections in
trussed, light-frame roofing systems was discussed for repetitive member
applications (i.e., framing spaced no greater than 24 inches on center). Therefore,
the Z value may be adjusted as follows:
7-33
Chapter 7 - Connections
Z = (98 lb)(1.1) = 108 lb The total number of 12d box nails required is determined
as follows:
(1,337 lb)/(108 lb/nail) = 12.3 If a 16d common nail is substituted, the number of
nails may be reduced to about 8. If, in addition, the species of framing lumber was
changed to Southern Yellow Pine (G = 0.55), the number of nails could be reduced to
6.
Conclusion This example problem demonstrates the design of one of the most critical
roof framing connections for site-built rafter and ceiling joist framing. In some
cases, the ceiling joist or cross-tie may be located at a higher point on the
rafter than the wall bearing location which will increase the load on the joint. In
most designs, a simple pinned-joint analysis of the roof framing is used to
determine the connection forces for various roof framing configurations. The snow
load duration factor of 1.25 was used in lieu of the 1.15 factor recommended by the
NDS; refer to Table 5.3. In addition, a system factor for repetitive member, light-
frame roof systems was used. The 1.1 factor is considered to be conservative which
may explain the difference between the design solution in this example and the
nailing required in Table 7.1 by conventional practice (i.e., four 16d common
nails). If the slant nailing of the rafter to the wall top plate and wall top plate
to the ceiling joist are considered in transferring the tension load, then the
number of nails may be reduced relative to that calculated above. If a larger
system factor than 1.1 is considered (say 1.3), then the analysis will become more
closely aligned with conventional practice; refer to the roof framing system
effects discussion in Section 5.6.1. It should also be remembered that the NDS
safety factor on nail lateral capacity is generally in the range of 3 to 5.
However, in more heavily loaded conditions (i.e., lower roof slope, higher snow
load, etc.) the connection design should be expected to depart somewhat from
conventional practice that is intended for typical conditions of use. In any
event, 12 nails per rafter-ceiling joist joint may be considered unacceptable by
some builders and designers since the connection is marginally over-crowed with
fasteners. Therefore, alternative analysis methods and fastener solutions should be
considered with some regard to extensive experience in conventional practice; refer
to NDS7.1.1.4 and the discussion above.
7-34 Residential Structural Design Guide
Chapter 7 - Connections
EXAMPLE 7.4
Given
Find Solution
7-35
Chapter 7 - Connections
Conclusion The number of 16d pneumatic nails (0.131 inch diameter) required is 2
nails per foot of wall bottom plate for the moderate loading condition evaluated.
The number of nails may be reduced by using a larger diameter nail or by evaluating
the nail lateral capacity using the yield equations of NDS12.3.1. As in Example
7.3, some consideration of extensive experience in conventional residential
construction should also be considered in view of the conventional fastening
requirements of Table 7.1 for wood sole plate to floor framing connections (i.e.,
one 16d nail at 16 inches on center); refer to NDS7.1.1.4. Perhaps 2 nails per 16
inches on center is adequate for the loads assumed in this example problem. Testing
has indicated that the ultimate capacity of 2 16d pneumatic nails (0.131 inch
diameter) can exceed 600 lb per nail for conditions similar to those assumed in
this example problem; refer to Section 7.3.6. The general dowel equations under
predict the ultimate capacity by about a factor of two. Using 2 16d pneumatic nails
at 16 inches on center may be expected to provide a safety factor of greater than 3
relative to the design lateral load assumed in this problem (i.e., [600 lb/nail] x
[2nails/1.33 ft]/277 plf = 3.2). As noted in Chapter 6, the ultimate capacity of
base connections for shear walls should at least exceed the ultimate capacity of
the shear wall for seismic design and, for wind design, the connection should at
least provide a safety factor of 2 relative to the wind load. For seismic design,
the safety factor for shear walls recommended in this guide is 2.5; refer to
Chapter 6, Section 6.5.2.3. Therefore, the fastening schedule of 2-16d pneumatic
nails at 16 inches on center is not quite adequate for seismic design loads of the
magnitude assumed in this problem (i.e., the connection does not provide a safety
factor of at least 2.5). The reader is referred to Chapter 3, Section 3.8.4 for
additional discussion on seismic design considerations and the concept of
balanced design.
7-36 Residential Structural Design Guide
Chapter 7 - Connections
EXAMPLE 7.5
Given
Find
1. The number of 16d box toenails required to transfer the side-bearing (shear)
load.
2. A suitable joist hanger
Solution 1.
(NDS Table 12.3A) (normal duration load) (penetration into main member > 12D)
(NDS12.3.7)
Use 6 toenails with 3 on each side of the joist to allow for reasonable
construction tolerance in assembling the connection in the field.
Data on metal joist hangers and various other connectors are available from a
number of manufacturers of these products. The design process simply involves the
selection of a properly rated connector of the appropriate size and configuration
for the application. Rated capacities of specialty connectors are generally
associated with a particular fastener and species of framing lumber. Adjustments
may be necessary for use with various lumber species and fastener types.
Conclusion
The example problem details the design approach for two simple methods of
transferring shear loads through a side-bearing connection. One approach uses a
conventional practice of toe-nailing the joist to a wood girder. This approach is
commonly used for short-span floor joists (i.e., tail joist to header joist
connections at a floor stairwell framing). For more heavily loaded applications, a
metal joist hanger is the preferred solution.
7-37
Chapter 7 - Connections
EXAMPLE 7.6
Given
Find
Solution 1.
Z = ZCDCgCCd
(Section 7.3.2)
Zs = 630 lb*
CD = 1.0
C = 1.0**
(NDS9.3.3)
*The Zs value is used for joints when the shear load is perpendicular to the grain
of the side member (or ledger in this case).
**A C value of 1.0 is predicated on meeting the minimum edge and end distances
required for lag screws and bolts; refer to NDS8.5.3 and NDS9.4. The required
edge distance in the side member is 4D from the top of the ledger (loaded edge) and
1.5D from the bottom of the ledger (unloaded edge), where D is the diameter of the
bolt or lag screw. The edge distance of 1.5D is barely met for the nominal 3-inch-
wide (2.5 inch actual) stud provided the lag screws are installed along the center
line of the stud. ***A 6-inch-long lag screw will extend through the side member
(2.5 inches thick) and penetrate into the main member 3.5 inches. The design
penetration into the main member must be reduced by the length of the tapered tip
on the lag screw (see Appendix L of NDS for lag screw dimensions).
Therefore, one lag screw per stud-ledger intersection may be used (i.e., 1.33 ft
spacing). The lag screws should be staggered about 2 inches from the top and bottom
of the 3x8 ledger board. Since the bolts are staggered (i.e., not two bolts in a
row), the value of Cg may be revised to 1.0 in the above calculations.
Chapter 7 - Connections
Z = ZCDCgC
(Section 7.3.2)
Z = 650 lb* CD = 1.0 Cg = 1.0**
C = 1.0***
* The Z value is used since the ledger is loaded perpendicular to grain **The
bolts will be spaced and staggered, not placed in a row.
***Edge and end distance requirements of NDS8.5.3 and NDS8.5.4 will be met for
full design value.
Therefore, the anchor bolts should be spaced at about 2 ft on center and staggered
from the top and bottom edge of the ledger by a distance of about 2 inches.
Note: In conditions where this connection is also required to support the wall
laterally (i.e., an outward tension load due to seismic loading on a heavy concrete
wall), the tension forces may dictate additional connectors to transfer the load
into the floor diaphragm. In lower wind or seismic load conditions, the ledger
connection to the wall and the floor sheathing connection to the ledger are usually
sufficient to transfer the design tension loading, even though it may induce some
cross grain tension forces in the ledger. The cross-grain tension stress may be
minimized by locating every other bolt as close to the top of the ledger as
practical or by using a larger plate washer on the bolts.
Conclusion
The design of bolted side-bearing connections was presented in this design example
for two wall construction conditions. While not a common connection detail in
residential framing, it is one that requires careful design consideration and
installation since it must transfer the floor loads (i.e., people) through a shear
connection rather than simple bearing. The example also addresses the issue of
appropriate bolt location with respect to edge and end distances. Finally, the
designer was alerted to special connection detailing considerations in high wind
and seismic conditions.
7-39
Chapter 7 - Connections
EXAMPLE 7.7
Given
1. The lateral load on the foundation wall to sill plate connection due to the
backfill lateral pressure
2. The required spacing of -inch-diameter anchor bolts in the sill plate
Determine the lateral load on the sill plate connection
Using the procedure in Section 3.5 of Chapter 3 and the associated beam equations
in Appendix A, the reaction at the top of the foundation wall is determined as
follows:
Rtop = ql3/(6L) = (30 pcf)(7.5 ft)3/[6(8 ft)] = 264 plf
Chapter 7 - Connections
2. Determine the design lateral capacity of the anchor bolt and the required
spacing
Z = ZCDCMCtCgC
(Section 7.3.2)
CM = 1.0 Ct = 1.0
Cg = 1.0
bolt into the concrete wall. Based on conventional construction experience, this
value may also be applied to masonry foundation wall construction when bolts are
properly grouted into the masonry wall (i.e., by use of a bond beam).
7-41
Chapter 7 - Connections
EXAMPLE 7.8
Given
Find
Determine if two 5/8-inch-diameter bolts are sufficient to resist the design load.
Solution
Calculate the design shear capacity of the bolted joint assuming that the bolts are
located approximately 2 inches from the top and bottom edge of the 2x8 headers
along the centerline of the 4x4 post.
Z = ZCDCMCtCgCd
(Section 7.3.2)
Zs = 1,130 lb*
CD = 1.0**
CM = 1.0 Ct = 1.0
*The Zs value is used because the side members (2x8) are loaded perpendicular to
grain and the
**A normal duration of load is assumed for the deck live load. However, load
duration studies for
deck live loads have not been conducted. Some recent research has indicated that a
load duration
factor of 1.25 is appropriate for floor live loads; refer to Table 5.3 of Chapter
5.
***The top bolt is placed 2 inches from the top (loaded) edge of the 2x8 header and
does not meet
the 4D (2.5 inch) edge distance requirement of NDS8.5.3. However, neglecting the
bolt entirely
If the top bolt is considered to be 80 percent effective based on its edge distance
relative to the required edge distance (i.e., 2 inches / 2.5 inches = 0.8), then
the design shear capacity for the two bolts in double shear may be estimated as
follows:
NG?
Conclusion
The calculation of the design shear capacity of a double shear bolted connection is
demonstrated in this example. As shown in the calculations, the connection doesnt
meet the required load in the manner analyzed. A larger bolt diameter or 3 bolts
may be used to meet the required design load. However, as in previous examples,
this connection is typical in residential deck construction (i.e., supporting deck
spans of about 8 ft each way) and may be approved by the extensive experience
clause of NDS7.1.1.4. As additional rationale, the
7-43
Chapter 7 - Connections
EXAMPLE 7.9
Given
Find Solution 1.
2.
From Example 7.2, the net design uplift load at the roof-to-wall connection was
determined to be 234 plf for a 120 mph gust, open exposure wind condition.
Assume that the uplift loads at the top of the wall are adequately transferred
through interconnection of wall framing members (i.e. top plates, sheathing, studs,
headers to king and jamb studs, etc.) to the base of the upper story wall.
The framing lumber is Hem-Fir
1. The net uplift load at the base of the king and jamb studs adjacent to a 6 ft
wide wall opening
2. An adequate connection detail to transfer the uplift load
Determine the net design uplift load at the base of the king and jamb studs
supporting the 6 ft header using the ASD load combinations in Chapter 3.
Tributary load = (1/2 header span + 1/2 stud spacing)[uplift load 0.6(wall dead
load)] = [0.5(6 ft) + 0.5(1.33 ft)][234 plf 0.6(64 plf)] = 717 lb (uplift)
Determine the number of 8d common nails in each end of an 18g (0.043 inch minimum
thickness) steel strap
Z = ZCD
(Section 7.3.2)
Z = 82 lb CD = 1.6
The number of nails required in each end of the strap is determined as follows:
Note: As an option to the above solution, the same strap used on the layout studs
may be used on the jamb and king stud connection by using multiple straps. The
uplift strap on the layout studs would be required to resist 234 plf (1.33 ft) =
311 lb. Therefore, two or three of these straps could be used at wall opening
location and attached to the jamb and king studs. If the single strap is used as
calculated in the example problem, the jamb and king studs should be adequately
interconnected (i.e., face nailed) to transfer shear load from one to the other.
For example, if the header is strapped down to the top of the jamb stud and the
king stud is strapped at its base, then the two members must be adequately fastened
together. To some degree, the sheathing connections and other conventional
connections will assist in strengthening the overall load path and their
contribution should be considered or enhanced as appropriate.
Chapter 7 - Connections
As another alternative design, the king/jamb stud uplift connection may serve a
dual role as a wind uplift strap and a shear wall hold-down restraint if the wall
segment adjacent to the opening is designed to be a part of the buildings lateral
force resisting system (i.e., shear wall segment). The method to calculate holddown
restraint forces for a shear wall is detailed in Chapter 6, Section 6.5.2.4. The
uplift force due to wind would be simply added to the uplift force due to shear
wall restraint to properly size a hold-down bracket or larger strap than required
for wind uplift alone. Regardless of whether or not the wall segment is intended to
be a shear wall segment, the presence of wind uplift straps will provide
overturning restraint to the wall such that it effectively resists shear load and
creates overturning restraint forces in the uplift straps. This condition is
practically unavoidable because the load paths are practically inseparable, even if
the intention in the design analysis is to have separate load paths. For this
reason, the opposite of the approach described in the paragraph above may be
considered to be more efficient. In other words, the wind uplift strap capacity may
be increased so that these multiple straps also provide multiple overturning
restraints for perforated shear walls; refer to Chapter 6, Section 6.5.2.2. Thus,
one type of strap or bracket can be used for the entire job to simplify
construction detailing and reduce the potential for error in the field. This latter
approach is applicable to seismic design (i.e., no wind uplift) and wind design
conditions. Conclusion In this example, the transfer of wind uplift loads through
wall framing adjacent to a wall opening is addressed. In addition, several
alternate design approaches are noted that may optimize the design and improve
construction efficiency even in severe wind or seismic design conditions.
7-46 Residential Structural Design Guide
Chapter 7 - Connections
EXAMPLE 7.10
Given
Find Solution 1.
2.
Maximum transverse shear load on bottom of wall = 1,050 plf (due to soil) Dead load
on wall = 1,704 plf Yield strength of reinforcement = 60,000 psi Wall thickness = 8
inches Assume = 0.6 for concrete placed against hardened concrete not
intentionally roughened. fc = 3,000 psi
Whether a dowel or key is required to provide increased shear transfer capacity
If a dowel or key is required, size accordingly
Determine factored shear load on wall due to soil load (i.e., 1.6H per Chapter 3,
Table 3.1)
V = 1,050 plf Vu = 1.6 (1,050 plf)= 1,680 plf
Check friction resistance between the concrete footing and wall
Vfriction = N = (dead load per foot of wall)
= (0.6)(1,704 plf) = 1,022 plf < Vu = 1,680 plf
Therefore, a dowel or key is needed to secure the foundation wall to the footing.
3. Determine a required dowel size and spacing (Section 7..2 and ACI-3185.14)
Avf = Vu / (fy)
= (1,680 plf)/[(0.85)(60,000)(0.6)] = 0.05 in2 per foot of wall
Try a No. 4 bar (Av = 0.20 in2) and determine the required dowel spacing as
follows:
Avf = Av/S 0.05 in2/lf = (0.2 in2)/S S = 48 inches
Conclusion
This example problem demonstrates that for the given conditions a minimum of one
No. 4 rebar at 48 inches on center is required to adequately restrict the wall from
slipping. Alternatively, a key may be used or the base of the foundation wall may
be laterally supported by the basement slab.
It should be noted that the factored shear load due to the soil lateral pressure is
compared to the estimated friction resistance in Step 1 without factoring the
friction resistance. There is no clear guideline in this matter of designer
judgment.
7-47
Chapter 7 - Connections
EXAMPLE 7.11
Given
Find Solution 1.
2.
3.
Concrete Anchor
1/2-inch diameter anchor bolt at 4 feet on center with a 6 inch embedment depth
in an 8-inch thick concrete wall
The bolt is an ASTM A36 bolt with fy = 36 ksi and the following design properties
for ASD; refer to AISC Manual of Steel Construction (AISC,1989): Ft = 19,100 psi
(allowable tensile stress) Fu = 58,000 psi (ultimate tensile stress) Fv = 10,000
psi (allowable shear stress)
The specified concrete has fc = 3,000 psi The nominal design (unfactored)
loading conditions are as follows:
Shear load = 116 plf Uplift load = 285 plf Dead load = 180 plf
Determine if the bolt and concrete are adequate for the given conditions.
Check shear in bolt using appropriate ASD steel design specifications (AISC, 1989)
and the ASD load combinations in Chapter 3.
fv
(4 ft) in 2 )
Fv = 10,000 psi fv Fv
OK
2,367 psi
Check tension in bolt due to uplift using appropriate ASD steel design
specifications (AISC, 1989) and the appropriate ASD load combination in Chapter 3.
ft
T A bolt
708 0.196
lb in 2
= 3,612 psi
ft Ft
OK
Av
minimum of
(6 in) 2 (8 in) 2
= 113 in 2 = 201 in 2
Vu Vc 1,062 lb 21,044 lb
OK
Chapter 7 - Connections
Conclusion
A 1/2-inch diameter anchor bolt with a 6 inch concrete embedment and spaced 4 feet
on center is adequate for the given loading conditions. In lieu of using an anchor
bolt, there are many strap anchors that are also available. The strap anchor
manufacturer typically lists the embedment length and concrete compressive strength
required corresponding to strap gauge and shear and tension ratings. In this
instance, a design is not typically requiredthe designer simply ensures that the
design loads do not exceed the strap anchors rated capacity.
7-49
Chapter 7 - Connections
7.6 References
ACI, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, ACI
Standard 318-99, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1999a.
ACI, Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures, ACI Standard 530, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1999b.
AF&PA, General Dowel Equations for Calculating Lateral Connection Values, Technical
Report 12, American Forest & Paper Association, Washington, DC, 1999.
AF&PA, National Design Specification for Wood Construction (NDS), American Forest &
Paper Association, Washington, DC, 1997.
AISC, Manual of Steel Construction Allowable Stress Design, Ninth Edition, American
Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago, 1989.
ASTM, Standard Specification for Driven Fasteners: Nails, Spikes, and Staples (ASTM
F 1667), American Society of Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 1995.
ASTM, Standard Terminology of Nails for Use with Wood and Wood-Base Materials (ASTM
F 547), American Society of Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 1990.
Conner, H., Gromala, D., and Burgess, D., Roof Connections in Houses: Key to Wind
Resistance, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 12, American Society
of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 1987.
Cunningham, T.P., Roof Sheathing Fastening Schedules For Wind Uplift, APA Report
T92-28, American Plywood Association, Tacoma, WA, 1993.
Hoyle, R.J. and Woeste, F.R., Wood Technology in the Design of Structures, fifth
edition, Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA, 1989.
HUD, Reliability of Conventional Residential Construction: An Assessment of Roof
Component Performance in Hurricane Andrew and Typical Wind Regions of the United
States, prepared by the NAHB Research Center, Inc., for the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC, 1999a.
HUD, Perforated Shear Walls with Conventional and Innovative Base Restraint
Connections, prepared by the NAHB Research Center, Inc., for the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC, 1999b.
7-50 Residential Structural Design Guide
Chapter 7 - Connections
ICC, International One- and Two-Family Dwelling Code, International Code Council,
Inc., Falls Church, VA, 1998.
McClain, T.E., Design Axial Withdrawal Strength from Wood: II. Plain-Shank Common
Wire Nails, Forest Products Journal, Volume 47, No. 6, Madison, WI, 1997.
Mizzell, D.P. and Schiff, S.D., Wind Resistance of Sheathing for Residential Roofs,
Clemson University, Clemson, SC, 1994.
Murphy, S., Pye, S., and Rosowsky, D., System Effects and Uplift Capacity of Roof
Sheathing Fasteners, Structures Congress, American Society of Civil Engineers, New
York, NY, 1995.
NAHB, Cost Effective Home Building: A Design and Construction Handbook, prepared by
the NAHB Research Center, Inc., for the National Association of Home Builders,
Washington, DC, 1994.
NAHB, Wood Frame House Construction, Second Edition, edited by Robert Stroh, Ph.D.,
and Gerald Sherwood, P.E., Delmar Publications and NAHB Home Builder Press,
Washington, DC, 1982.
NES, Power-Driven Staples and Nails for Use in All Types of Building Construction,
NER-272, National Evaluation Service, Inc., Falls Church, VA, 1997.
Reed, T.D., Rosowsky, D.V., and Schiff, S.D., Uplift Capacity of Rafter-to-Wall
Connections in Light-Frame Construction, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, 1996.
Showalter, J., Line, P., and Douglas, P., Calculation of Lateral Connection Values
Using General Gowel Equations, Paper No. 994176, American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, St. Joseph, MI, 1999.
Stieda, C.K.A, et al., Lateral Strength of Bolted Wood-to-Concrete Connections,
Forintek Canada Corp., Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, February 1999.
7-51
V2 L -h R 2
V2
R2
qh 3 6L
L h
x qh
R1
V1 SHEAR
M m ax M O M ENT
V1 = R1 =
1 qh 2 2
(l h ) 3L
Vx
V1
1 2
xq (2h x)
(where
x
<
h)
Vx = V2 (where x h)
Mx
V1x
1 2
qhx
1 6
qx 3
(where x < h)
Mx = V2 (L - x) (where x h)
x @ Mmax = h
h 2 2V1 q
max
(at x L 2)
qL3 EI
hL 128
L2 960
h2 48
h3 144L
A-1
P 1 P 2 V m ax M 1 M 2
e1
e2
R
1
M m ax
L=
R2
SHEAR
M O M ENT
Vmax
= R2
M max L
M1 = P1e1
Mx
max
x L
V M m ax
L x
R
L /2
R
L /2
SHEAR
Vmax
wL 2
Vx
w L 2
M max
wL2 8
(at x =
L) 2
Mx
wx 2
(L
x)
max
=
5wL4 384EI
(at
L) 2
( )x
wx 24EI
L3
2Lx 2
+ x3
M O M ENT
Figure A.3 - Simple Beam - Uniformly Distributed Load
L x
w m ax
R1
0 .5 8 L
V1 SHEAR
R2
0 .4 2 L
V2
M m ax
M O M ENT
R1
V1
w max 3
R2
=
V2
2w max 3
Vx
w max 3
w max 2 L2
Mx
max (at x = L 1
8 ) = w max L3 15 77EI
w max x 180EIL2
(3x 4
10L2 x 2
+ 7L4 )
x
R1
a
V1
L P
R2
b
SHEAR
M m ax
M O M ENT
Pa L
Pbx
Mx (when x<a) = L
V2
max [at x =
Pa 2b 2 3EIL
x (when x<a) =
A-3
L x
P1
R1
a
V1 SHEAR
P2 R2
b
V2
R1 = V1 =
P1 (L a) + P2b L
R2 = V2 =
P1a + P2 (L b) L
Vx [when a<x <(L-b)] = R1 P1 M1 (max when R1<P1) = R1a M2 (max when R2<P2) = R2b
Mx (when x<a) = R1x Mx [when a<x <(L-b)] = R1x - P1(x-a)
M1 M O M ENT
M2
Figure A.6 - Simple Beam - Two Unequal Concentrated Loads Unsymmetrically Placed
L w
x
SHEAR M O M ENT
R V m ax M m ax
R = Vmax = wL
Vx = wx wL2
Mmax (at fixed end) = 2
wx 2 Mx = 2
wL4 8EI
x =
w 24EI
L xP
R
ab
SHEAR M O M ENT
V M m ax
R=V=P
Pb 2 (3L-b)
6EI
Pb 3 3EI
x (when x<a) =
Pb 2 6EI
(3L-3x-b)
x (when x>a) =
P(L x)2 6EI
(3b-L+x)
L w
R1 V1
M1
x 3 /8 L S H E A R
M O M ENT
R2
1 /4 L
V2 M m ax
3wL R1 = V1 = 8
5wL R2 = V2 = Vmax = 8
Vx = R1 - wx wL2
Mmax = 8
M1 (at x = ) =
3L 8
9 wL2 128
wx 2 Mx = R1x - 2
max
(at
x=
L (1 16
x =
wx 48EI
Figure A.9 - Beam Fixed at One End, Supported at Other - Uniformly Distributed Load
R1 V1
M1
L xP
R2
ab
SHEAR
M O M ENT
P a /R 2
V2 M2
R1 = V1 =
Pb 2 2L3
(a + 2L)
Pa R2 = V2 = 2L3
(3L2 - a2)
Pab 2L2
(a + L)
L L2 + a 2 3L2 a 2
) = Pa 3EI
(L2 a 2 )3 (3L2 a 2) 2
a ) = Pab2 2L + a 6EI
a 2L + a
(at
point
of
load)
Pa 2 b3 12EIL3
(3L + a)
(when
x<a)
Pa 2 x 12EIL3
(when
x>a)
Pa 12EIL3
Figure A.10 - Beam Fixed at One End, Supported at Other - Concentrated Load at Any
Point
V
M1 M m ax
L xw R
L /2
R
L /2
SHEAR
V
0 .2 L
M O M ENT
M m ax
R = V = wL 2
Vx
=
w L x 2
M1 (at center) =
wL2 24
Mx =
w 12
(6Lx -
L2
6x2)
wL4 384EI
x =
wx 2 24EI
(L - x)2
x R1
L P
ab
V1
SHEAR
M 1 M O M ENT
Pb 2 L3
(3a + b)
Pa 2 L3
(a + 3b)
Pab 2 L2
V2
Pa 2b L2
2Pa 2b 2
Mp M2
Mx (when x<a) =
Pab L2
2aL 3a + b
)=
Pa 3b3 3EIL3
x (when x<a) =
Pb 2 x 2 6EIL3
Figure A.12 - Beam Fixed at Both Ends - Concentrated Load at Any Point
L x
x1 w
R1 = V1 =
w (L2 - a2) 2L
R2 = V2 + V3 =
w (L + a)2 2L
V2 = wa
R 1 R2
V3 =
w (L2 + a2) 2L
Vx (between supports) = R1 - wx
V1 SHEAR
M1 M O M ENT
V2 V3
M1 (at x =
L 2
a2 L2
w 8L2
(L + a)2 (L a)2
wa 2
M2 (at R2) = 2
M
2
Mx (between supports) =
wx 2L
(L2 - a2 - xL)
w 2
(a - x1)2
x (between supports) =
x1 (for overhang) =
wx1 24EI
A-7
L x
x1 P
R1 R2
V1 SHEAR
V2
M O M ENT
M m ax
Pa R1 = V1 = L
R2 = V1 + V2 =
P (L + a) L
V2 = P
Mx (between supports) =
Pax L
Pa 2 3EI
(L + a)
x (between supports) =
Pax (L2 - x3) 6EIL
x (for overhang) =
Px1 6EI
(2aL
3ax1
x12)
Figure A.14 - Beam Overhanging One Support - Concentrated Load at End of Overhang
2L x
L
R1 R 2 V1 V2
V2 3 /8 L S H E A R
w
L
R3
V3
3 /8 L
Mx
x
M O M ENT
M m ax
3wL R1 = V1 = R3 = V3 = 8
R2
10wL 8
5wL V2 = Vm = 8
Mmax =
wL2 8
3L 9wL2
M1 [at x =
]= 8
128
Mx [at x < L] =
3wLx 8
wx 2 2
max
[at
0.46L]
wL4 185EI
Figure A.15 - Continuous Beam - Two Equal Spans and Uniformly Distributed Load
2L x
w
L
R1 R 2
L
R3
V1
7 /1 6 L
V2 SHEAR
V3
M m ax
M O M ENT
M1
7 R1 = V1 = 16 wL
R2 = V2 + V3 =
5 8
wL
R3
V3 =
1 16
wL
V2
9 16
wL
Mmax [at x =
7 L]= 16
49 wL2 512
M1
[at
R2]
1 16
wL2
Mx [at x < L] =
wx 16
(7L - 8x)
max
[at
0.47L] =
wL4 109EI
Figure A.16 - Continuous Beam - Two Equal Spans with Uniform Load on One Span
x
L1
R1 R2
x1 w
L2
R3
V1 V3 V2 V4
SHEAR
M1 M O M ENT
M3 M2
R1 = V1 =
M1 L1
wL1 2
R2 = wL1 + wL2 - R1 - R3
R3 = V4 =
M1 L1
wL 2 2
V2 = wL1 - R1
V3 = wL2 - R3
R1 w
] = R1x =
wx 2 2
M2
wL 23 + wL13 8 (L1 + L2 )
R3 w
R3x1
-
wx 1 2 2
Figure A.17 - Continuous Beam - Two Unequal Spans and Uniformly Distributed Load
A-9
A-10
The following list provides the conversion relationship between U.S. customary
units and the International System (SI) units. A complete guide to the SI system
and its use can be found in ASTM E 380, Metric Practice.
To convert from
to
multiply by
Length
inch (in.) inch (in.) inch (in.) foot (ft) yard (yd) mile (mi)
Area square foot (sq ft) square inch (sq in) square inch (sq in.) square yard (sq
yd) square mile (sq mi)
Volume cubic inch (cu in.) cubic inch (cu in.) cubic foot (cu ft) cubic yard (cu
yd) gallon (gal) Can. liquid gallon (gal) Can. liquid gallon (gal) U.S. liquid*
gallon (gal) U.S. liquid fluid ounce (fl oz) fluid ounce (fl oz)
cubic centimeter(cu cm) cubic meter(cu m) cubic meter(cu m) cubic meter(cu m) liter
cubic meter(cu m) liter cubic meter(cu m) milliliters(ml) cubic meter(cu m)
Force kip (1000 lb) kip (1000 lb) pound (lb) pound (lb)
6.894757 70.31
B-1
to
multiply by
0.07031
6,894.757 0.00689476 4.8824
47.88
0.001488 1.488
Newton-meter (N-m)
1.356
kilogram per cubic meter (kg/cu m) kilogram per cubic meter (kg/cu m)
16.01846 0.5933
Temperature
degree Fahrenheit (F) degree Fahrenheit (F) degree Kelvin (F)
*One U.S. gallon equals 0.8327 Canadian gallon **A pascal equals 1000 Newton per
square meter.
The prefixes and symbols below are commonly used to form names and symbols of the
decimal multiples and submultiples of the SI units.
Multiplication Factor
1,000,000,000 = 109 1,000,000 = 106 1,000 = 103 0.01 = 10-2 0.001 = 10-3 0.000001 =
10-6
0.000000001 = 10-9
Prefix Symbol
G M k c m n
B-2
Index
A zone, 4-52 Adhesive, 6-75 Admixtures, 4-5, 4-6 Allowable masonry stress, 4-35, 4-
39 Anchor bolt, 7-41 Aspect ratio, 6-46 Axial load, 4-20, 4-40, 5-64 Backfill, 4-
34, 4-35, 4-47, 4-64, 4-70, 4-72, 4-80, 4-84 Base shear, 6-42, 6-43, 6-49 Basement,
3-9, 5-70 Beams and stringers, 5-5 Bearing, 4-8, 4-9, 4-12, 4-14, 5-11, 5-16, 5-17,
5-50,
5-53, 5-55, 5-56, 5-63, 7-27 Bending, 4-14, 4-22, 4-31, 5-13, 5-14, 5-16, 5-17, 5-
18,
5-20, 5-53, 5-56, 5-74, 5-81, 5-84 Blocking, 6-24 Board, 5-62, 6-24, 7-2 Bolt, 7-8,
7-9 Bottom plate, 6-27, 6-43 Box nail, 7-5 Bracing, 1-20, 1-22, 1-23, 1-24, 4-2, 5-
15, 5-19, 5-23,
5-27, 5-34, 5-43, 5-44, 5-46, 5-48, 5-63, 5-72, 5-74, 6-2, 6-9, 6-24, 6-26, 6-74
Bridging, 5-27, 5-83 Built-up beam, 5-28 Built-up column, 5-38 Cantilever, 4-14, 5-
55, 5-56, 5-57, 5-58, 6-60, 6-66 Capacity, 4-8, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-25, 4-32, 4-36,
4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-42, 5-16, 6-25, 6-26, 6-29, 7-27, 7-51 Ceiling joist, 5-
21, 5-40, 7-2 Checks, 5-16 Chord, 6-42, 6-49 Cold-formed steel, 1-9, 5-26
Collector, 6-8, 6-54, 6-67 Column, 4-28, 5-11, 5-15, 5-18, 5-39, 5-70, 5-81
Combined bending and axial load, 5-16 Common nail, 7-4 Composite action, 2-4
Compression parallel to grain, 5-10 Compression perpendicular to grain, 5-10
Concentrated load, 3-6 Concrete masonry unit, 4-6, 4-7 Concrete masonry, 1-10, 4-6,
4-7 Concrete, 1-6, 1-7, 1-10, 1-11, 1-25, 1-26, 3-5, 3-6, 3-38, 4-2, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6,
4-7, 4-10, 4-11, 4-13, 4-14, 4-16, 4-20, 4-22, 4-23, 4-25, 4-28, 4-29, 4-30, 4-31,
4-32, 4-41, 4-44, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-50, 4-58, 4-64, 4-68, 4-70, 4-72, 4-75, 4-77,
4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 7-1, 7-23, 7-24, 7-25, 7-26, 7-27, 7-38, 7-47, 7-48, 7-50
Connection, 7-8, 7-9, 7-11, 7-30, 7-33, 7-35, 7-37, 7-38, 7-43, 7-45, 7-47, 7-50,
7-51 Cripple stud, 5-32 Cyclic, 3-38 Cyclic, 6-74, 6-75 Damage, 1-19, 1-22, 1-25,
1-26, 2-23, 3-39 Dampening, 3-25
Residential Structural Design Guide
Dead load, 3-4, 3-24, 3-31, 3-32, 4-58, 4-61, 4-64, 4-70, 4-72, 4-77, 4-80, 4-84,
5-49, 5-52, 5-72, 7-30, 7-47, 7-48
Decking, 5-5 Defects, 1-17 Deflection, 3-28, 3-38, 4-30, 4-32, 5-14, 5-16, 5-20,
5-21, 5-22, 5-55, 5-56, 5-80, 5-82, 5-83 Deformation, 2-13, 3-40 Density, 3-6, 3-8,
3-9, 3-10, 3-18, 3-34, 4-4, 4-35,
4-64, 4-67, 4-70, 4-72, 4-80, 4-84, 4-87, 6-29 Design load, 4-64, 5-72, 7-28, 7-30
Diaphragm, 6-11, 6-12, 6-14, 6-18, 6-38, 6-39, 6-40,
6-56 Dimension lumber, 5-5 Dowel, 4-24, 7-26, 7-50 Drainage, 4-34, 4-47 Drift, 6-
35, 6-37 Durability, 3-19, 5-6 Earthquake (see Seismic also), 1-21, 1-22, 1-23, 1-
25,
2-15, 2-17, 3-22, 3-24, 3-25, 3-29, 3-37, 3-39, 6-1, 6-2, 6-19, 6-75, 6-78
Eccentricity, 4-26, 4-27, 4-82, 4-86 Engineered wood, 1-8, 5-16, 5-30 Epoxy-set
anchor, 7-17 Euler buckling, 4-25, 4-82, 5-15, 5-38 Expansive soil, 3-30 Exposure,
5-8 Failure, 1-20, 4-13, 6-3, 6-8 Fastener, 3-34, 5-31, 6-24 Flexure, 4-14, 4-15,
4-17 Flitch plate beam, 5-30 Flood load, 2-4 Floor joist, 5-24 Footing, 4-8, 4-10,
4-11, 4-14, 4-16, 4-47, 4-54, 4-58, 4-61, 4-62, 7-23, 7-47 Foundation wall, 1-17,
3-4, 4-25, 4-34, 4-47, 4-85 Free water, 5-6 Fungi, 5-6 Geometry, 1-13, 2-3, 3-11,
4-76, 5-79, 6-11, 6-20, 6-36 Grade, 4-5, 4-6, 4-20, 4-42, 4-49, 4-50, 5-8, 5-55, 5-
58, 5-63, 5-70, 6-22, 6-23 Gravel footing, 4-11 Gravity load, 2-3, 3-31, 3-32
Grout, 3-5, 4-8 Gypsum, 1-17, 3-6, 6-24, 6-78 Header, 5-14, 5-37, 5-67, 5-82, 7-2,
7-43 Hold-down, 6-9, 6-27, 6-28, 7-9 Horizontal diaphragm, 2-11, 6-6 Horizontal
reinforcement, 4-83 Horizontal shear, 5-53 Hurricane, 1-18, 1-19, 1-20, 1-21, 1-26,
1-27, 2-15, 2-25, 7-20, 7-50 I-joists, 1-8, 5-22, 5-24, 5-25, 5-26, 5-28, 5-30, 5-
54 Impact, 3-18, 3-40, 5-12, 5-83 Insulating concrete form (ICF), 1-10, 4-51
Jetting, 4-52 Joist hanger, 7-9 Key, 1-18, 1-20, 1-23, 2-15, 3-29, 5-10, 6-18, 7-
24, 7-25, 7-50
Index
Lag screw, 7-11, 7-18, 7-19 Lateral load, 2-4, 3-12, 3-15, 4-21, 4-36, 4-39, 7-31
Lateral support, 4-34 Limit state, 2-15, 2-17, 5-9, 5-10, 5-51, 5-65, 5-66 Lintel,
4-31, 4-32, 4-44, 4-77 Live load, 3-6, 3-31, 3-32, 4-58, 4-61, 4-64, 4-70, 4-72,
4-77, 4-80, 4-84, 5-49, 5-52 Load combination, 3-2, 4-87, 5-25 Load duration, 5-9,
5-11, 5-12, 5-36 Load sharing, 2-4 Load-bearing wall, 5-35 Machine stress rated, 5-
5 Minimum reinforcement, 4-77, 4-83 Model building code, 1-13 Modular housing, 1-6
Modulus of elasticity, 5-10 Moisture, 5-6 Monolithic slab, 4-49 Mortar, 4-7, 4-36,
4-88 Nail size, 5-31, 5-45, 6-30 Nail, 5-31, 5-45, 6-22, 6-30, 6-38, 6-74, 7-2, 7-
4, 7-5,
7-6, 7-28 NBS, 2-4, 2-24, 6-14, 6-76 Nonsway frame, 4-70 One-way shear, 4-12
Oriented strand board (OSB), 1-6, 1-8, 5-7, 5-8, 5-31,
5-63, 6-23, 6-41, 6-42, 6-48, 6-67 Overturning, 6-31, 6-33 Parallel shear, 4-21, 4-
85 Partition, 5-44 Permafrost, 3-39, 4-57 Permanent wood foundation, 4-47
Perpendicular shear, 4-21, 4-23 Pile cap, 4-50 Piles, 4-2, 4-50 Plate, 2-25, 5-23,
5-42, 5-44, 5-84, 7-35 Platform framing, 1-1 Plywood box beam, 5-30 Plywood, 1-26,
5-7, 5-8, 5-30, 5-31, 5-81, 5-83, 6-77,
7-50 Pneumatic nail, 7-6 Portal frame, 6-37 Portland cement, 1-22, 1-23, 4-4, 4-6
Post-and-beam framing, 1-1 Posts and timbers, 5-5 Preservative-treated wood, 4-1,
4-45 Probability, 2-16, 2-23, 2-24, 3-38 Punching shear, 4-12 Rafter, 3-35, 5-40,
5-43, 5-72, 5-76, 5-77, 5-78, 7-2,
7-9, 7-33 Rankine, 3-8 REACH, 1-15 Rebar, 4-6 Reinforcement, 4-5, 4-18, 4-30, 4-43,
4-49 Reliability, 1-26, 2-16, 2-24, 2-25, 5-13, 5-14, 5-82,
5-84, 7-50 Resistance, 2-19, 2-21, 3-40, 5-81, 5-82, 6-1, 6-22,
6-23, 6-25, 6-29, 6-75, 6-77, 6-78, 7-50, 7-51 Ridge beam, 5-76
Risk, 1-27, 2-22 Roof overhang, 3-19, 3-34 Roof truss, 3-35, 5-41, 5-42, 5-43
Safety, 2-1, 2-14, 2-16, 2-17, 2-19, 2-21, 2-22, 2-24,
3-39, 3-40, 5-16, 6-29 Seismic (see Earthquake also), 1-25, 2-2, 2-3, 3-23,
3-24, 3-26, 3-39, 3-40, 4-34, 6-29, 6-41, 6-48, 6-60, 6-62, 6-63, 6-64, 6-67, 6-75,
6-76, 6-78 Shakes, 3-5 Shank, 7-7 Shear parallel to grain, 5-10 Shear wall, 2-11
Sheathing, 5-31, 5-45, 5-62, 6-38, 6-74, 7-20, 7-28, 7-50, 7-51 Shrinkage, 5-6, 5-
16, 5-23, 5-51 Single shear, 3-28, 6-9, 6-28, 6-30 Sinker nail, 7-5 Site-fabricated
beam, 5-30 Slab-on-grade, 4-49 Sliding, 6-35, 6-40 Slump, 4-5, 4-88 Snow load, 2-
17, 4-64 Softwood, 5-6, 5-83 Soil bearing test, 4-8 Sole plate, 7-2 Solid, 3-5, 4-
7, 4-35, 4-36, 4-48 Spaced column, 5-38 Species, 5-4, 5-55, 5-59, 5-63, 5-67, 6-29,
7-12 Specific gravity, 3-6, 6-25, 6-29, 6-36, 6-37, 6-41, 6-48, 6-52 Splice, 7-9
Static, 6-75 Stiffness, 5-11, 6-14, 6-35, 6-40 Strap tie, 7-9 Structural wood
panel, 3-6, 5-7 Strut, 6-6 Stucco, 6-23 Stud, 4-47, 5-5, 5-14, 5-63, 5-84, 6-41, 6-
48, 7-2, 7-45 Sway frame, 4-25 System, 2-2, 3-4, 3-26, 5-13, 5-14, 5-22, 5-25, 5-
33, 5-37, 5-40, 5-67, 5-82, 5-83, 6-4, 7-19, 7-51 Temperature, 3-30, 5-11, 7-43
Tension capacity, 5-63 Tension parallel to grain, 5-10 Termites, 5-7 Tie-down, 1-
20, 3-16, 3-17, 3-19, 3-20, 3-34 Timber pile, 4-50 Toenail, 3-34, 6-3, 7-2 Top
plate, 6-27 Topographic effect, 3-15 Tributary area, 6-11 Tributary load, 7-45
Truss, 1-5, 1-7, 2-25, 2-9, 2-10, 3-17, 3-33, 3-35, 3-19, 4-87, 5-18, 5-23, 5-28,
5-41, 5-42, 5-43, 5-44, 5-45, 5-46, 5-79, 5-23, 5-42, 5-44, 5-84, 6-18, 6-66 V
zone, 4-51 Vibration, 5-22, 5-84 Visually graded, 5-5 Water reducer, 4-5
Residential Structural Design Guide
Weight, 3-10, 4-4, 4-7, 4-80, 6-23, 6-74 Wind load, 3-14, 3-15, 3-33, 5-63, 5-72,
7-28, 7-30 Withdrawal, 3-34, 6-66, 7-12, 7-16, 7-20, 7-28, 7-51
Index