Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Light ga. steel publ.

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
-----Original Message-----
From: Silva John (sj) <SILVA(--nospam--at)>
To: 'seaoc(--nospam--at)' <seaoc(--nospam--at)>
Date: Monday, January 12, 1998 5:30 AM
Subject: RE: Light ga. steel publ.

>Dennis,  thanks for your response.  I've been following the development
>of residential steel (as opposed to metal framing in general) from the
>standpoint of whether this trend has got legs and why (I'm in R&D).  Any
>information from my colleagues regarding experiences with residential
>steel projects, pros and cons, outlook for the future, is welcome.  Same
>goes for feedback regarding fasteners.
>John Silva, SE

The latest controversy has to do with the discrepency of the APA report 154
which was date back around 1993 and the upcomming '97 UBC requirments for
Steel Stud Shear walls. The APA report indicates the minumum stud thickness
at 14-18 gauge for shearwalls with a failure mode in the studs rather than
the plywood connection.
Professor Serette's work at Santa Clara University tested 20 gauge studs for
shear walls. My understanding is that the tests were done at Simpson
Strong-tie on their shear rack. The 97 UBC recommends 20 gauge studs for
shear walls.
I would be very cautious of using 20 gauge studs for shearwalls when past
testing (non-cyclic) has proven that stud buckeling occurs at 16 or 18 gauge
studs before the panel connection. What is the basis for recommending 20
gauge studs in the next code? Is the testing as reported by APA wrong????
These questions need to be addressed. Until then, I'll stick with specifying
16 or 18 gauge studs in accordance with APA 154.
We have had some communication on the list regarding this subject, but I
don't think it has been resolved since cyclic testing has not be evaluated
(I believe it has finally been done) and published.

Dennis Wish PE