Research, Technology 

Transfer, and Education 

Needs Assessment for 

Non-Residential Wood 

Structures in California

Tom Williamson

Jennifer O’Connor

Karen L. Martinson

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Forest

Products

Laboratory

General

Technical

Report

FPL–GTR–183
June 2009

Williamson, Tom; O’Connor, Jennifer; Martinson, Karen L. 2009. 

Research, technology transfer, and education needs assessment for nonresidential wood structures in California. General Technical Report

FPL-GTR-183. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 10 p.

A limited number of free copies of this publication are available to the 

public from the Forest Products Laboratory, One Gifford Pinchot Drive, 

Madison, WI 53726–2398. This publication is also available online at 

www.fpl.fs.fed.us. Laboratory publications are sent to hundreds of libraries 

in the United States and elsewhere.

The Forest Products Laboratory is maintained in cooperation with the 

University of Wisconsin. 

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information 

and does not imply endorsement by the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) of any product or service.

The USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the 

basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, 

sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part 

of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. 

(Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities 

who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET 

Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250–9410, or call (800) 795–3272 

(voice) or (202) 720–6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider 

and employer.

Abstract

Market share growth for wood products in the area of nonresidential construction will require research, technology 

transfer, and education for architects, engineers, general 

contractors, and others involved in the decision-making 

process. To accomplish this in the most efficient and costeffective manner, an assessment of user-based needs is 

desirable. This paper summarizes the results of three halfday needs assessment workshops with design professionals 

and wood product suppliers from southern California. From 

these workshops, an overall assessment of wood as a building material was formulated and recommendations were 

made for new products and systems, research activities, and 

education and technology transfer. This assessment will 

serve as the basis for development and implementation of a 

national research program for wood-frame non-residential 

buildings through the U.S. Forest Service, Forest Products 

Laboratory, FPInnovations, and the Coalition for Advanced 

Wood Structures.

Keywords: Wood, non-residential, research, technology 

transfer, needs assessment, priorities, design, construction

Contents

Page

Introduction...........................................................................1

Objective and Scope .............................................................1

Methodology.........................................................................1

Results...................................................................................2

 Focus Group Overall Assessment ......................................2

 Focus Group Recommendations for New Products 

 or Systems..........................................................................3

 Focus Group Recommendations for Research 

 Activities............................................................................4

 Focus Group Recommendations for Education and

 Technology Transfer ..........................................................4

Concluding Remarks.............................................................5

Appendix—Detailed Focus Group Notes.............................6

 Workshop No. 1—Engineers—June 5, 2007 .....................6

 Workshop No. 2—Vendors/Suppliers—June 5, 2007........8

 Workshop No. 3—Engineers—June 6, 2007 .....................8
Research, Technology Transfer, and 

Education Needs Assessment for NonResidential Wood Structures in California

Tom Williamson, Vice President, Quality Assurance and Technical Services

APA–The Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, Washington

Jennifer O’Connor, Building Industry Advisor

FPInnovations – Forintek Division, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Karen L. Martinson, Program Specialist

Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin

Introduction

Wood has been used as a structural material in North 

America for hundreds of years. Historically, the primary 

markets for structural wood applications have been singleand multiple-family housing and transportation structures 

such as bridges. Although wood has been used with a good 

performance record in non-residential building applications 

such as schools, hotels, strip malls, and offices, the relative 

market share for wood has been small compared with that of 

other construction materials.

In recent years, the combination of strong, rising domestic 

wood production capacity, weak demand for structural wood 

products, and increasing competition worldwide has driven 

the wood products industry to pursue enhanced access to 

markets that could consume additional wood products. In 

relation to other opportunities, the non-residential building 

market compares favorably because it is large, the opportunity to gain share is high, the challenges are not overwhelming, and positive results can be achieved in a reasonable 

time period. In response to this opportunity, the North 

American wood products industry formed the Wood Products Council (WPC) and initiated action on a multi-year, 

multi-million dollar marketing, technical, and technology 

transfer program to increase the non-residential market for 

wood. 

Previous investigation has identified that the hurdles to be 

overcome are a lack of knowledge and education in wood 

design and a lack of simple solutions to common problems 

associated with durability, maintenance, codes, design, and 

connections. Research applicable specifically to markets 

targeted by the WPC is required to ensure that the obstacles 

and their solutions are well understood.

The U.S. Forest Service’s interest is to develop a national 

priority-based assessment of relevant research areas and 

topics related to wood-frame non-residential construction. 

These findings will provide guidance in research program 

development and implementation. The WPC’s interest is to 

understand the challenges that must be addressed to remove 

the barriers to wood use in the non-residential market. Additionally important is how research, technology transfer, and 

education results can be integrated into a marketing effort 

required to achieve market growth. 

The first geographic focus of this effort was in California 

because wood is generally accepted and the local design 

community has a degree of familiarity with and expertise 

in wood use. Our assessment also determined that California had the highest market-share growth potential of any 

geographic area in the United States. This assessment will 

serve as the basis for development and implementation of a 

national research program for wood-frame non-residential 

buildings through the Forest Products Laboratory (FPL), its 

Canadian counterpart, FPInnovations, and the Coalition for 

Advanced Wood Structures (CAWS).

Objective and Scope

The objective of this study was to compile a summary of 

user-identified research, technology transfer, and educational needs for wood-frame non-residential buildings in 

California. The scope was primarily focused on material 

selection, design, and construction, but other topics such 

as maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement were also 

considered.

Methodology

To accomplish the objectives of this study, two half-day 

focus group workshops were held with structural engineers 

and architects in Irvine, California, on June 5 and 6, 2007. 

Eighteen design professionals representing some of the top 

wood-design consulting engineering firms from southern 

California, senior researchers from FPL and FPInnovations, 

and representatives of the wood products industry participated. Additionally, one half-day focus group workshop 

was held on June 5 with representatives from four major 
2

companies that supply wood products to the southern California non-residential building market. The observations and 

recommendations from each of the focus group workshops 

were recorded and consolidated under similar headings in 

this paper.

Results

The summarized results of the focus group workshops were 

categorized into an overall assessment, plus recommendations for new products or systems, research activities, 

technology transfer, and education. A combined overall 

summary of these areas for all workshops follows. Detailed 

recommendations from individual focus groups are in the 

Appendix.

Focus Group Overall Assessment

When wood is used in non-residential construction, it is often because wood is the low-cost option, and this is important to owners and contractors. If wood can meet the design 

and performance requirements for a particular project and 

the designer is familiar with using wood, wood will usually 

be considered. Contractors are a key part of this decisionmaking process, and they must be comfortable using wood. 

Unfortunately, in recent years wood has been losing its 

share in some applications, such as commercial roofs. In addition, the trend toward bigger store-front openings requires 

some type of moment frame that cannot be easily achieved 

with wood construction. A moment frame is a box-shaped 

frame with special moment connections or joints that help 

in resisting wind and earthquake damage. The frame helps 

a building to flex as necessary to retain the building’s structural integrity. Seismic requirements in recent code changes 

are becoming increasingly problematic for wood. Also, the 

tendency of eastern designers affiliated with large developers to consider only steel is moving into the California 

market. Therefore, there is a risk of substitution in other key 

segments where wood-frame construction has traditionally 

dominated, such as multi-family construction.

Image Problems for Wood

Several of the participating engineers noted that wood is 

generally not considered to be a modern construction material and is often perceived as a “second cousin” to steel and 

concrete. Some designers view wood mostly as a residential 

construction material and not an engineered material for 

non-residential uses. One example cited was that it is difficult for wood buildings to get a leased office space “A” 

rating because this rating is typically restricted to Type I and 

Type II non-combustible construction. 

Design professionals generally do not consider wood to 

be a “green” building material. The U.S. Green Building 

Council’s (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program, the dominant green building 

rating system in California, appears to favor steel and be 

biased against wood. Therefore, if a green rating is required, 

designers typically turn to steel.

The design community appears to be confused about the 

benefits of renewable (wood) compared with recyclable 

(steel) materials, and the sustainability aspect of wood needs 

to be better promoted to groups such as the USGBC. In addition, greater emphasis needs to be placed on life cycle 

assessment when comparing building materials to determine 

their true environmental impact and thus improve the image 

of wood as “green.” 

The industry needs to address confusion about various forest 

certification programs such as the Forest Stewardship Council, Sustainable Forestry Initiative, and the Canadian Standards Association and LEED, which only recognizes Forest 

Stewardship Council-certified wood products. 

Design Methodology

Concrete is designed using only load and resistance factor design (LRFD), and steel is moving in that direction. 

Although an LRFD standard exists for wood, it is lagging 

behind the other materials in its implementation. This adds 

to the perception of wood being considered “old-fashioned,” 

although the current National Design Specification for 

Wood Construction includes an LRFD design methodology 

in parallel with allowable stress design (ASD) methodology. While most of the current generation of wood-design 

engineers prefers ASD, this creates a problem for hybrid 

or mixed construction because of the difficulty of tracking 

loads under mixed ASD and LRFD methodologies. The 

wood industry needs to move forward with implementing 

LRFD design in California, as many structures are hybrid 

and combine wood with steel or concrete or both. 

University Education

The universities in California are generally not teaching 

wood design in civil engineering departments. If wood design is taught, it is usually an elective and space is limited. 

Thus, when firms hire recent graduates as junior engineers, 

graduates have a basic understanding of steel and concrete 

design but not wood. Firms that do wood design often teach 

it to the junior engineers, but this is not an option for those 

firms who do not routinely design with wood. And the experienced wood-design firms are finding it more difficult to 

find time to train their junior designers in the art of wood 

design. Further, LRFD or limit state design is being taught 

in the concrete- and steel-design courses, whereas ASD is 

typically taught in the wood-design courses; this is a further 

deterrent to using wood.

Lack of Ease of Use

In general, steel and other materials are easy to design with 

and wood is perceived to be more difficult. This is due primarily to the complexity of the connections associated with 

wood design and the myriad of commodity and proprietary 

wood products from which to select. 

•	 If additional capacity is needed for load transfer at a steel 

connection, additional welding will usually solve the 

problem. This is not true for wood, which may require a 

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–183
3

complete re-engineering of a connection. In other words, 

what might work for a relatively light load may need a 

totally different type of connection for higher loads.

•	 Designers have excellent steel and concrete design software, but no comparable software exists for wood design. 

The American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) offers design consultation services on their website, and the 

masonry industry also provides design assistance. 

•	 Most non-residential buildings with three stories or less 

are steel, and concrete is often used for four-story buildings and higher. This makes steel the primary competitive 

product to wood. A steel-frame structure is easy to design 

with high-end software and welded connections. Because 

engineers have a fixed-fee structure, using steel can mean 

higher profits because it takes far less time to design a 

steel structure compared with wood. 

•	 A typical steel building may have 4 to 6 pages of detail 

drawings, whereas a comparative wood building may 

require 30 to 40 pages of drawings. Developing these details is costly and detracts from the consultant’s fees. For 

experienced wood designers, this is not a major deterrent 

because they have developed many details in advance. 

However, firms that do not design with wood are less 

likely to take the time to develop these details and will 

stay with what they know (which is steel). 

•	 Selecting the design properties of a steel product is 

simple, with limited choices for both the main carrying 

members and the secondary members. The steel stud industry has standardized its product line so that companies 

all make similar products. Wood offers dozens of options 

for generic products such as lumber and glulam and even 

more choices for proprietary products such as I-joists and 

structural composite lumber. The wood industry needs to 

standardize these products through some type of stressclass or rating system. Engineers are reluctant to specify 

a proprietary product because the contractor may make a 

product substitution based on local product availability or 

cost, which can require re-engineering.

•	 Designers prefer steel for floor spans over 30 feet because 

they think that wood is difficult to use when a highdiaphragm shear capacity is needed in large buildings 

and more vibration issues are associated with lightweight 

wood floors. They also don’t like to use wood when a 

precise straight wall is required, which is more easily 

achieved with steel studs.

•	 Designers have concerns about the skill of general contractors and subcontractors who work on wood projects, 

mostly because many workers cross over from the lowskill residential labor pool. This potentially requires the 

engineer to do more on-site quality control, as contractors 

generally don’t understand seismic issues well enough to 

recognize the complex engineering details associated with 

wood design.

Focus Group Recommendations 

for New Products or Systems 

The design professional focus group results identified several ideas for new products or systems that could increase 

the use of wood in non-residential buildings. For newly developed products to be easily adopted, they need to be cost 

competitive, have all necessary code approvals, be readily 

available, have good performance values, and be standardized. Following are recommendations in this context:

1. Not much has been done to improve wood-diaphragm 

and shear-wall design for many decades. New concepts 

are needed, such as the pre-engineered drop-in shear 

panels now available from several manufacturers. 

2. Many projects require large wall openings that can be 

easily accommodated by steel moment frames. The wood 

industry needs to develop comparable wood moment 

frames. One approach may be the post-tensioned heavy 

timber frames currently being researched in New 

Zealand.

3. Better connections are needed for wood systems to resist 

high lateral loads imposed by seismic events. Lateral ties 

of wood roofs to concrete walls are particularly important. For example, self-tapping screws should be implemented in North American wood-design codes. 

4. The wood industry should continue to refine fiberreinforced polymer (FRP) wood reinforcement products 

and introduce them into the marketplace through code 

acceptance reports. 

5. The Tilt-up Concrete Association, representing the tiltup concrete wall industry, routinely conducts research 

on combining metal roofs with tilt-up concrete walls. A 

similar effort for combining wood roofs with concrete 

walls should be initiated. Cross-laminated timber (CLT), 

a product that is gaining popularity in Europe, can be a 

good wood-based candidate to compete against tilt-up 

concrete in non-residential construction.

6. More research is needed on the performance of perforated shear walls under seismic loading.

7. A mechanics-based approach or finite-element analysis is 

needed for the design of shear walls with openings. 

8. The interaction of acoustics, fire, and structural needs in 

wood-frame buildings must be addressed through 

research.

9. The wood industry needs to investigate whether the 

property insurance industry is creating incentives to use 

non-combustible materials.

Focus Group Recommendations 

for Research Activities

Recommended activities aimed at simplifying the use 

of wood for engineers (both in terms of the regulatory 

Research, Technology Transfer, and Education Needs Assessment
4

environment and in terms of their workload as designers) 

include the following:

1. Increased use of wood systems and products in combination with other materials is a crucial opportunity. An 

important means to achieve this is through simplicity 

and consistency in design philosophy (such as moving 

toward the use of an LRFD methodology). 

•	 Technology transfer activities related to LRFD use for 

hybrid buildings, including information on related issues such as fire, acoustics, seismic, and energy, and 

pre-engineered “cookbook” examples should be offered for typical wood structures.

2. Standard designs and connections are important to 

simplify the design and use of wood products. Recommendations in this context include—

•	 Developing more hybrid and non-hybrid systems

•	 Simplifying proprietary engineering for proprietary 

wood products

•	 Offering packaged technology transfer activities and 

teaching current options and opportunities

3. Standard products are important to simplify the selection 

of wood products. The wood products industry needs 

to develop standard stress-class systems for lumber and 

glulam and a comparable system to identify proprietary 

products, such as I-joists and structural composite lumber. To achieve this objective for each product category, 

the design classes would have to be defined, manufacturers convinced to participate (some testing of proprietary products may be necessary), and follow-up efforts 

undertaken to ensure that the results are recognized in 

building codes.

4. Improved or new design software is an important means 

to achieve some of the required simplification. Current software packages, including the Canadian Wood 

Council (CWC) Wood WORKS! and manufacturers’ 

proprietary software, are not sufficient for the needs of 

engineers. Some of the more experienced wood-design 

firms have developed Excel spreadsheets to solve lateral 

designs for both rigid and flexible diaphragms as a possible option. These custom-designed spreadsheets need 

to be eventually packaged with a “whole building” design system. 

•	 Software solutions should be sought by either improving on the CWC’s existing Wood WORKS! software, 

or partnering with proprietary companies such as The 

RAM Structural System (Exton, Pennsylvania ) or 

RISA structural analysis and design software (RISA 

Technologies, Foothill Ranch, California), which 

already dominate the non-residential market for steel 

and concrete design. 

Activities Aimed at Filling in the Wood 

Information Gaps

Research is needed to better define the performance characteristics for wood diaphragms (both flexible and rigid), shear 

walls, connections for lateral design, and floor performance. 

This research must lead to simplified design procedures for 

these components of a building system. Recommendations 

in this context include assessment and development of innovative opportunities related to the following:

•	 Braced frames

•	 Moment-resisting frames

•	 Mixed material systems combining wood with steel or 

concrete

•	 Material hybrids combining non-wood reinforcement 

with wood

•	 High-load diaphragms for combination with tilt-up concrete and other wall systems

Activities Aimed at Developing New Research 

Products that Better Meet the Needs of Engineers

Innovative solutions, such as putting steel ends on wood 

members so they can be welded, should be considered along 

with the FRP and CLT technologies for enhancing the performance characteristics of wood to change its image of 

being a second-class product. 

•	 Given this context, we recommend research and technology transfer related to commercializing innovative 

products.

Focus Group Recommendations 

for Education and Technology Transfer

Focus groups identified several needs in the areas of education and technology transfer to increase use of wood 

in non-residential buildings. Although research and new 

product solutions are important to increase wood use in the 

non-residential market, increased education and technology transfer—as they relate to current research and knowledge—could provide considerable payback in the short 

term. Representatives of the steel industry call on engineers 

frequently with good design information. Examples of 

booklets from the masonry institute and “steel tips” from the 

American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) are good 

models. Conversely, calls by representatives of the wood industry are very infrequent and are usually made to promote 

proprietary wood systems. Therefore, wood industry representatives need to call on engineers with creditable design 

information. Following are more examples of how the wood 

products industry can be proactive: 

1. Whereas research data are available within the wood 

products industry, we do not often communicate these 

data to the design community. We need to bridge the gap 

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–183
5

between research and designers through better technology 

transfer of this information.

2. Develop standardized connection details for commercial 

building designs, particularly for lateral loads 

3. Create a set of design aids (handbook) that will simplify 

the design of a wood-frame structure 

4. Develop one or more pre-engineered designs of simple 

wood-frame buildings that could be peer-reviewed and 

shared with designers not familiar with wood design. 

This would walk them through a typical wood-design 

process. 

5. Simplify the process for wood designs to make it easier 

for a number of users, including designers, plan checkers, 

inspectors, and contractors.

6. Develop sophisticated computer software that will analyze all loads imposed on the structure, track the load 

paths, size the members, and design the connections between members. Having only member-design software is 

not adequate. 

7. Material suppliers will often provide basic design solutions and software for their proprietary products, but they 

are typically only component-based solutions and not 

entire building design solutions as available to designers 

through other software.

8. Conduct research on fire-rated assemblies to develop 

more cost-competitive systems, especially for light-frame 

wood construction. 

9. Communicate more effectively to avoid reinforcing the 

image of wood as a “non-modern” product.

In addition to the specific recommendations noted above, 

the wood products industry needs a strong generic sales 

kit and a better system for communicating and influencing 

engineers. The focus groups identified several education 

and technology transfer activity recommendations in this 

context:

1. Reviewing existing academic and practical technical information to identify new communication opportunities.

2. Assessing existing education and technology transfer materials for knowledge gaps; for instance, good material on 

price comparisons.

3. Supporting a strong information management and dissemination system, including—

•	 A one-stop shop to simplify the transfer of information

•	 A search-enabled library of existing technical 

information

•	 Online continuing education opportunities

4. Facilitating best practices and other synergy opportunities.

•	 Holding annual gatherings of the marketing, research, 

and academic communities working to expand wood 

use, including offshore participation. 

•	 Seeking means to increase the number of education 

hours in key universities.

Concluding Remarks

Although wood has dominated the market as a structural 

material for housing, numerous obstacles must be overcome for wood to fully capitalize on opportunities in the 

non-residential building markets. The results from the 

workshops held in California indicate that these obstacles 

range from basic image to a lack of wood-related university 

courses and insufficient design aids. In addition, designers 

lack confidence in using wood in engineered buildings. It 

is vital that code acceptance and design tools are provided 

for wood-based systems so that they can be used alone or in 

combination with systems made with other materials. It is 

also imperative that design values for wood-based materials 

are simplified under strength classes. The information compiled from these workshops will be used by FPL, FPInnovations, and CAWS as a basis for developing future research 

and technology transfer programs. In so doing, we recognize 

that additional high-priority projects may surface as research 

is completed and the use of wood in non-residential structures develops further. The process of project identification 

and prioritization is considered to be a dynamic one, and 

additional input related to research needs will be solicited 

from interested parties in the future. By allowing for a free 

exchange of information and ideas, both the effectiveness 

and efficiency of completed research will be maximized to 

provide the greatest national benefit. 

Research, Technology Transfer, and Education Needs Assessment
6

Appendix—Detailed Focus Group 

Notes

Workshop No. 1—Engineers—June 5, 2007

General Observations Regarding Wood as a 

Non-Residential Building Material

1. Wood design is not taught in civil engineering courses in 

universities.

2. Many designers consider wood to be suitable only for 

residential construction.

3. Wood is not seen as a “modern” material. 

4. Wood lost the panelized roof market to steel in the early 

1990s, and the wood industry has had no success in regaining this market. 

5. Hybrid designs using steel girder trusses, steel bar joists, 

and wood structural panels are the norm, representing 

millions of square feet of roof area in California each 

year. 

6. The hybrid system is more cost effective, but because of 

a lack of diaphragm capacity in wood systems, the wood 

industry is at risk of losing the decking market to steel. 

7. Expansion of steel is a problem for large roofs because it 

leads to leaking. Because wood is more stable than steel, 

the wood industry should capitalize on this. 

8. Because of the requirement for early fire suppression 

and fast response sprinkler systems in larger roofs, use 

of trusses for secondary members is imperative. 

9. Commercial buildings are engineered, and to compete 

with steel and concrete, wood needs to have a ductile design based on load and resistance factor design (LRFD). 

A common perception among owners, architects and 

engineers is that wood is not an engineered product. 

10. Because of load path issues, LRFD for wood is needed 

for hybrid structures.

11. Designers are reluctant to move from familiar allowed 

stress design (ASD) to LRFD for wood.

12. The lack of education in wood design at the university 

level is a deterrent to the use of wood.

13. Current designers have to teach wood design to junior 

engineers. 

14. Contractors and developers are getting more involved in 

the decision-making process, but they often understand 

steel and not wood framing. 

15. Some contractors drive projects to wood use because of 

cost and availability. 

16. Public perception is that wood is the least expensive 

building material in southern California.

17. Staff architects from the east are developing corporate 

prototype steel roofs. The influence of this eastern construction method is moving into California and working 

against wood.

18. Designers can make more money designing with steel 

because less detailing is involved and they can optimize 

their design time.

19. When floor spans exceed 30 to 40 feet, steel becomes 

the preferred choice because of depth limitations and 

potential vibration considerations. 

20. Wood framing problems include moisture intrusion and 

durability.

21. Tenant occupancy can cause moisture problems in a 

wood structure. 

22. One advantage of wood is the labor pool available to 

work on wood construction jobs. 

23. Composite wood products and systems, not sawn lumber, are the future. 

24. Shifts in material uses come in response to cost changes.

25. The code needs high-load diaphragm tables.

26. Standardization of the vertical-load carrying system will 

help promote the use of wood; a standardized lateralload carrying system will come later. 

27. Focus should be on the inherent capabilities of wood and 

not on the steel and concrete competition. Certain types 

of buildings just favor certain materials. 

28. One big concern that the wood products industry should 

have is losing wood multi-family residential opportunities to metal studs, sheet metal shear walls, stucco 

exterior, and drywall interior.

Obstacles Facing the Wood Products Industry’s Ability 

to Expand the Use of Wood in Non-Residential 

Construction

1. The interaction of acoustics, fire, and structural needs 

must be addressed.

2. Retail shopping centers are requiring more openings 

where it is difficult to develop wood-framed shear walls. 

This is driving designers to select steel moment frames 

over wood moment frames. 

3. The design of the lateral design system needs to be simplified.

4. Seismic ties for wood-frame roofs are expensive. Also, 

the multiplicity of connectors available that make design 

confusing is a deterrent. 

5. Seismic connection designs are becoming more difficult for wood as higher seismic loads are imposed on a 

structure. 

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–183
7

6. There is nothing new in wood shear walls. Higher capacities and higher shear wall and diaphragm test results 

in the codes are needed. 

7. Because load transfers are not intuitive, stacking wood 

shear walls is a problem.

8. The ability to weld steel connections is a huge advantage 

for steel; therefore, the wood industry needs to develop 

wood connections that are simple and intuitive for 

designers.

9. The level of detailing is more complex for wood; an 

example is the edge nailing of diaphragms, which is 

critical for performance.

10. Designers who are not familiar with wood design face a 

huge challenge in developing details.

11. Multiplicity and availability of lumber products is a 

problem. To ensure availability for each geographic area 

and to avoid a redesign, designers often specify the low 

end of the lumber spectrum.

12. The need exists for simplified design choices for wood. 

13. A stress-class system similar to Europe’s would provide 

advantages for the lumber industry. 

14. Proprietary products have similar problems; therefore, 

the industry needs standardization for structural composite lumber and I-joists. 

15. The proliferation of glulam combinations is confusing.

16. Proprietary product substitution is a problem, and the 

evaluation is often done at the shop drawing level, 

which may require redesign. 

Introduction of New Technologies

1. Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) products need more 

than one supplier and must have code acceptance. 

2. Fiber-reinforced polymer glulam seems to offer a solution for longer spans, which will allow depths to be 

minimized. 

3. Group members expressed interest in FRP panels for 

high-load diaphragms and shear walls. 

4. The panel questioned whether wood could be reinforced 

with other materials, such as steel fibers.

5. Research in New Zealand on wood moment frames may 

have potential for addressing seismic concerns. 

Research Needs 

1. Connection of wood roofs to concrete tilt-up walls is a 

concern, so research on connection details is needed.

2. Wood framing is incompatible with concrete; for instance, does the flexible diaphragm actually redistribute 

the loads?

3. The design of flexible versus rigid diaphragms is confusing in the codes. Can research be conducted to support the use of flexible diaphragms?

4. Research is needed on 2- and 4-hour fire-rated walls; for 

instance, can the plywood diaphragm penetrate through 

the wall, which is important from a seismic performance 

standpoint?

5. Rigid walls and flexible diaphragms need to be reanalyzed to determine how loads are transferred. 

Research is being conducted by the metal deck industry 

that could be detrimental to wood.

6. In two-story construction, what should the second floor 

be? A steel and concrete composite floor has a solid feel 

compared with wood, and heavy concentrated load distribution is better with a steel and concrete composite 

floor. Therefore, there is a need for an alternative wood 

floor system, perhaps a wood and concrete composite. 

7. Wood is fine for one-story schools, but steel is preferred 

for two-story construction because of the perceived floor 

performance. In addition, durability is more of an issue 

with wood and a 30-foot classroom module is more of a 

design challenge for wood.

8. A perception exists that a wood floor is not as good as 

a steel–concrete floor, so a technology transfer solution 

would be useful.

9. Designers and contractors are using steel studs to obtain 

straight walls. Structural composite lumber studs could 

be a solution for wood.

10. Consider partnering with the drywall and stucco industries to develop better composite wood wall systems.

11. Consider using an adhesive to stiffen joints. 

Education/Technology Transfer

1. Develop a handbook that simplifies the wood-design 

process.

2. Bridge the gap between research and designers through 

better technology transfer.

3. Complicated designs tend to go to steel because connections are easy to design and software is available. New 

software addressing connection design could possibly 

solve some of the complex design issues for wood. 

4. Wood has the least available software packages, and the 

Canadian Wood Council’s Wood WORKS! is not sophisticated enough for California designers. 

5. Design aids and software need to address the design of 

“bread and butter” structures and not necessarily the 

“unusual” one-of-a-kind project.

6. The wood industry needs to get better information to 

the designers, such as “steel tips” from the American 

Research, Technology Transfer, and Education Needs Assessment
8

Institute of Steel Construction and the design aids from 

the masonry industry. Both are very beneficial to 

designers.

7. A step-by-step design process could help new designers. This would probably work best for components and 

should not become too prescriptive. 

8. A standard set of details for wood design frame systems 

is needed.

Workshop No. 2—Vendors/Suppliers—June 5, 

2007

General Observations Regarding Wood as a 

Non-Residential Building Material

1. Schools and retail stores are good opportunities for 

expanding wood as a building material.

2. The market is good, but builders hesitate to move 

forward because of economic constraints.

3. Although bidding activity is high, conversion is low. 

Therefore, contractors are sitting on projects.

4. Codes and local jurisdictions need to be positively influenced about using wood in non-residential construction.

5. Wood continues to lose to steel in industrial markets.

6. The wood industry needs to work with engineers to not 

over-design structures.

7. “Green” should benefit wood, but LEED does not 

favor wood. LEED promotes recyclability and not 

renewability. 

8. That LEED only permits the use of wood certified by 

the Forest Stewardship Council hurts wood and drives 

the cost up.

9. Although the wood industry is designing to a stiffer criteria and floor spans do not seem to be a major concern, 

a perception exists that steel is better. 

10. The question is who makes the product decision that depends on the end use? This is different whether the end 

use is industrial, office buildings, or strip malls. 

11. Designers are requesting standardized products, standard connections, and standard assemblies. 

12. Engineered wood products are driven by innovation, and 

this might not continue if products are standardized. 

13. The availability of multiple wood products leads to 

cost-efficiency. 

Obstacles that Face the Wood Products Industry for 

Expanding the Use of Wood in Non-Residential 

Construction

1. Wood education is not being taught at the university 

level; therefore, junior engineers must learn wood 

design on the job.

2. Seismic requirements after the January 17, 1994, Northridge earthquake in the San Fernando Valley region put 

a huge strain on traditional wood connections, whereas 

steel connections can use additional welding to resist 

increased forces. 

3. Wood construction tolerances can lead to misapplication 

of wall straps to purlins using proprietary straps. This 

has disappeared as an option and has been replaced 

by very expensive hold-downs and other anchorage 

systems.

4. Engineers are used to designing with steel and can easily add a few extra inches of weld; this is not easy to 

achieve with wood. 

Research Needs

The wood industry needs to study—

1. The corrosion of connectors with new preservative treatments, which is becoming a problem in commercial 

construction in California. 

2. Whether property insurance rates are fair and equitable 

for both wood and steel framed buildings when comparing the cost of insuring buildings.

3. A more cost-competitive single layer gypsum 1-hour 

fire-rated system for light wood-framed construction. 

4. Engineered wood product studs, which could be an opportunity for some unusual applications, such as long 

lengths. 

Education/Technology Transfer 

1. Software is needed that is competitive with that provided by the steel industry. 

2. Contractor education to minimize misapplications and 

callbacks would be beneficial.

3. There is a need for a stronger role in “green building” 

activities.

4. Lunchtime meetings are a tool used by each of the suppliers. Engineers may have five vendors knocking on 

their doors promoting their products, but this is not the 

case with wood.

5. Continuing education credits probably do not benefit 

engineers but would benefit architects.

Workshop No. 3—Engineers—June 6, 2007

General Observations Regarding Wood as a 

Non-Residential Building Material

1. Wood is being used by industrial and mid- and low-rise 

elementary schools. 

2. Designing with wood is challenging and detailing can be 

stimulating, whereas steel design is pretty routine. 

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–183
9

3. Because wood is so complex, wood designers need to be 

highly competent.

4. Working with wood actually teaches a young engineer 

how to design, as they must understand load paths. 

However, most firms do not have the capability nor the 

time to teach them. 

5. Often young designers coming to firms do not have adequate training in wood design.

6. Carefully detailed structures, such as those needed for 

wood, do not always get built properly.

7. There is a need to educate contractors and implement 

field quality control (QC). 

8. Engineers need to do more jobsite QC. 

9. Owners need to be convinced that jobsite QC by the 

engineer is very important.

10. The need exists for special building inspector training.

11. Decay is a problem caused by lack of proper moisture 

detailing. This is addressed in residential construction, 

but not in commercial building design.

12. More durable products would be desirable. 

13. Mixed-use structures offer an opportunity for upper 

stories, but mixing ASD (wood) and LRFD (steel and 

concrete) is a design challenge. 

14. The city dictated all that wood be used for the new city 

hall in Tracy, California; otherwise, steel would have 

been used. 

15. The cost of the steel compared with wood concept is a 

big factor. Engineers do not have budgets to redesign 

if steel is initially selected; therefore, initial material 

selection is a key factor.

16. Engineers need better cost information.

17. The use of wood is cost-driven, and the speed of 

installation favors wood.

18. Hotel chains use wood because it is less expensive.

Obstacles Facing the Wood Products Industry to 

Expand the Use of Wood in Non-Residential 

Construction

1. Moment-resistant frames are needed for commercial 

construction.

2. From a structural performance perspective, it is difficult 

to get wood to perform the same way as steel and concrete do. 

3. High-load wood shear walls are needed; designers prefer to use concrete shear walls and steel-braced frames. 

4. Changing nailing patterns around the roof with wood 

requires more complex analysis than does steel, which 

just requires more welds. 

5. Wood floors have been used for second stories, but it is 

difficult to combine wood with a braced steel frame.

6. Seismic demands are difficult to achieve in commercial 

buildings using wood framing.

7. Tilt-up buildings are becoming more common in retail 

structures with dominant large openings that favor steel.

8. Using wood requires complicated rigid/flexible 

diaphragm analyses.

9. A heavy amount of detailing is needed for wood.

10. Plan checkers have problems with complex wood-frame 

structures and may not accept software analysis. 

11. Help is needed for wood connections.

12. It is easier to design steel using welded connections.

13. Develop software for wood that is similar to other programs that are used extensively for steel. The Portland 

Cement Association also offers concrete design software. 

14. The Wood Products Council needs to come up with 

software solutions, especially for lateral load.

15. Wood connections are not intuitively obvious, and wood 

has directional considerations that steel does not. 

16. Diaphragm to shear wall connections is a major 

concern. 

17. The deflection for wood portal frames must identify a 

degree of fixity.

18. The transfer of loads from a high to low roof is very 

difficult to achieve with wood.

Introduction of New Technologies

These new technologies are needed:

1. Fiber-reinforced polymer panels that increase stiffness 

and ductility.

2. Code-accepted FRP glulam that provides a cost savings.

Research Needs 

1. Research should have an end purpose and not be research conducted for the sake of research.

2. A wood moment frame needs to be developed using 

something better than nails.

3. Revaluate prefabricated C- or L-shaped moment frame 

elements that can be bolted together at the jobsite. 

4. Diaphragm capacity based on deflection is important 

and needs to be better understood. 

5. There is a need to understand how to determine the 

R values for a wood moment frame. 

6. Develop innovative shear walls that are not height limited. Consider developing 14-foot-high wood-framed 

Research, Technology Transfer, and Education Needs Assessment
10

General Technical Report FPL–GTR–183

shear-wall solutions where buckling is a concern to 

compete with proprietary steel shear walls. Shear-wall 

calculations now need to consider rigidity. Is it a good 

assumption that the tributary area approach would be 

easier, if flexible performance is assumed?

7. Fire retardant treated (FRT) studs that come in contact 

with threaded steel hold-down rods are becoming a 

problem because of the corrosive effects of the treatment. Research needs to consider the effects of where 

the steel contacts the FRT material.

8. Conduct cyclic testing to evaluate the effects of eccentricity on end posts using hold downs. 

9. Is it possible to better determine how shear wall performance is affected by small openings?

10. Performance of perforated shear walls under cyclic 

loading.

11. Mechanics-based approach or finite element analysis is 

needed for perforated shear walls. 

12. The wood industry needs to be more active in diaphragm testing and not just accept what the metal deck 

industry is focusing on for design criteria. 

13. Determine how flexible diaphragms really work.

14. Evaluate systems that reduce cost. 

15. Need to tap into the southern California engineers for 

research guidance. 

Education/Technology Transfer

1. The step-by-step “recipe” design has potential, if the 

design guideline includes examples in an appendix. 

2. Detailing guidelines are needed. 

3. Simplify the wood-design process for the designer, plan 

checker, inspector, and contractor.

4. Technical transfer of existing seismic information is 

needed for the regulatory agencies and design engineers. 

5. Education for non-wood engineers and contractors is 

needed to minimize problems caused by inexperience.

6. Software programs would help designers track loads.

7. Justify the use of flexible diaphragm analysis and develop simplified design procedures.

8. Timber design at the university level is needed to teach 

principles with design examples.