Comments on: Carpenters of Steel

By: Duane Heil

Duane Heil — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 22:11:02 +0000

Sim,
Like you, I have been framing in Calif and Arizona since 1974. I built about 60 of the very complex structures in the Oakland Hills after the 91 fire.

Becoming more and more frustrated with the ‘SIMPSON’ solution to everything, I decided to adopt the new, modern form of framing of light gauge steel. See my site http://www.vitruvianbuilt.com to learn more.

Enjoy
Duane Heil, president

By: Sim Ayers

Sim Ayers — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:53:23 +0000

Don, like I said before “We the people of California do here by release all of our engineers to serve the rest of the nation for better or worse.” No matter what the’ve been smoking.

Sim

By: Don Lucas

Don Lucas — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:16:07 +0000

I just got permits for a two story 19′x20′ in Southern California and also is in the new “wind calcs area”. It has 16 pages of engineering and is being built with two strong walls at the portal and standard shear walls with HD2′s and HD4′s, nothing new, Having dealt with some engineers with the response of what have you been smoking, find a better engineer, the solutions are not black and white but gray.
Don

By: larry haun

larry haun — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:24:31 +0000

Hi Sim,
One more post. I, of course, witnessed the trtansition from no metal connectors to thousands. The first houses we built in the San Fernando Valley (1950)didn’t even have foundation anchor bolts.
Part of the reason, I think, that more and more steel was added to building (besides making houses more stable) had to do with building departments not wanting to be liable for what happened to houses they OKed. So they turned most of their worries over to engineers who stamped their OK on the plans. Once the engineers got hold of a good thing (along with Simpson Strong-Tie) metal started appearing on jobs by the truckload.
Does that make sense to you. Larry

By: Lavrans

Lavrans — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:54:39 +0000

I don’t agree with that, really. The structure can be wood beams- the problem is really that the structural steel is largely an attempt to create structures that aren’t designed for the materials, to provide security that the structure will stand even if built by unskilled workers, and to meet insurance company hopes for absolute profits.

I’m betting Sim or Larry or many of the skilled carpenters could build a house with no structural steel that would stand up as well as the same house built to the tee with structural hardware by the current industry standard carpenters. Of course, rational design would be important.

By: Lavrans

Lavrans — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:50:07 +0000

Joe- I really do suspect that the regulations would change with real-world testing. I doubt (actually, I know) that Simpson builds houses and then takes them apart 5-10 years later. They rely on testing (in house and out-of-house) to generate the data, but none of that reliably can mimic 10 years away.

I think there’s a section in “the Japanese House” where they talk about looking at traditional Japanese house construction and why it tended to do very well in earthquakes (but not so great in fires) was because of how the joinery allowed the house to move, rather than stay rigid. Some of that data went to changing the design of very large buildings away from looking for absolute rigidity to a certain amount of elasticity.

By: William Cazeault

William Cazeault — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:58:22 +0000

Guess with all that steel the home owners insurance rate goes down,because all of this is to save the insurance industry so they don’t have to pay.On the East coast we have the the “GET THE LEAD OUT”Great article

By: j. watson

j. watson — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:14:59 +0000

Hi Larry—

I had some trouble with your link, but a Google search got me to a couple of sites presenting swisscell.

I have samples of a similar product from a manufacturer who touted one of its’ uses as floor panels in aircraft construction. I was interested in using it as a floor for a trailer I was planning.

After a decent search of their site, the joinery process remains a mystery. It is versatile stuff, apparently able to take a wide variety of veneers. It’s light weight has great appeal to me.

I’ve always questioned the building industries’ insistence on using some of the heaviest materials imaginable when there are so many advantages to using lightweight materials. Solid MDF doors? sheetROCK? The cost savings in shipping and handling and the costs associated with the physical toll on construction workers alone argue for a change in how we build.

The biggest concern from my finish carpenter’s perspective is that what I’ve loved most about buildings is their different historical and regional vernacular styles. I’d hate to see building materials dictate a world of those Swiss-designed houses.

By: Teeg Merchant

Teeg Merchant — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 04:56:51 +0000

Sim,
I very much enjoyed you’re article. I hadn’t realized that things had gotten so out out hand. There is an interesting passage in Sam Nakashima’s book “Soul Of A Tree” where he goes on a full page rant about framing hardware. At the time I first read the book, I thought, yeah, but we need to provide safety and affordibility. In retrospect, he was probably correct, although not in the way he envisioned.
I too am a long time Ca. builder (son of an architect, started “helping” as a child, built spec, “blow and go”, class of 69-etc.etc.). I started with steel framing (just tin can studs) for chimneys after the 94 quake. Over time I have come to prefer steel framing for a number of reasons, such as: doesn’t burn, doesn’t rot, and termites won’t eat it. If I were able to build a home for myself, there would be zero wood involved (though I now spend most of my time in a woodshop) besides all of the interior finishes, which is what we primarily experience anyway. I find that most of the difficulties we face with the massive amounts of framing hardware can be traced to trying to build a fish with wings-a mutant love child of a fir tree and a steel beam. I am convinced that the solution is to eliminate ALL lumber in the structual portion of the building. Obviously, this a very old idea, albeit limited (primarily) to high rise construction-but it works, to well over 100 stories! If the design is coherent, a series of moment frames can be shop built with final assembly and series connections done on site. At that point the seismic integrity and load bearing requirements of the structure are complete and you’re a carpenter again, installing infill and partion walls but with different saw blades and a screw gun instead of a hammer, plus the studs are way lighter than the soggy junk currently for sale in my area. Also, you won’t have to pull string and rectify framing in order to get straight drywall and the plumber and electrician will be ever so happy using the standard clips and grommets and provided holes instead of repeatedly drilling and fastening their pipe/tube/flex and cables. The difficulties that remain are related to the horizontal portions of the structure. They have long been solved in regards to the thousands of high rise buildings that spread like a disease across all our cities, but the adaptation of steel pan and light weight concrete to smaller buildings is uncommon (although I (we) have done it) There is no inherent problem with this method of construction, as witnessed by the millions of acres of floor space built since the 1930′s without any lumber whatsoever. Your residntial inspector may initially get the vapors, but if he talks to his boss and looks at the 20 story bank/hospital, whatever, across the street he should calm down soon enough.
Thanks for your article,
TGM

By: larry haun

larry haun — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:01:43 +0000

Hi JW,
While framing in Calif., I came to a personal conclusion that you can actually build houses that are too rigid. I say personal because of my own experience and observation. I am not an engineer.
I had an article published in Fine Homebuilding Magazine on earthquake damage after the Northridge quake. I checked on many of the houses and apartments that we had framed. Shear walls nailed 2 in. o.c. with 10d commons were often split apart because there was no give for them to rock and roll. They rocked and split.
Yes, wearing long sleeve shirts out in the hot sun can help keep us skin cancer free.
Check out http://www.swisscell.com. I would be interested in what you think about this type of construction.
larry Haun