Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report

Prepared in cooperation with:

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Affordable Housing Research and Technology Division
451 7
th
Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20410
Submitted by:
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance
2109 Broadway, Suite 200
New York, NY 10023
(212) 496-0900
December 2003
PATH (Partnership for Advancing Technology
in Housing) is a private/public effort to devel-
op, demonstrate, and gain widespread market
acceptance for the next generation of American
housing. Through the use of new or innovative
technologies, the goal of PATH is to improve
the quality, durability, environmental efficiency,
and affordability of tomorrows homes.
PATH is managed and supported by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). In addition, all federal
agencies that engage in housing research and
technology development are PATH partners,
including the departments of Energy and
Commerce, as well as the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
State and local governments and other partici-
pants from the public sector are also partners in
PATH. Product manufacturers, home builders,
insurance companies, and lenders represent pri-
vate industry in the PATH partnership.
To learn more about PATH, please contact:
451 7th Street, SW, Room 8134
Washington, DC 20410-0001
(800) 245-2691 ext. 2
email: pathnet@pathnet.org
Visit PD&Rs Web Site
www.huduser.org
to find this report and others sponsored by
HUDs Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R).
Other services of HUD USER, PD&Rs Research Information Service, include listservs;
special interest, bimonthly publications (best practices, significant studies from other sources);
access to public use databases; hotline 1-800-245-2691 for help accessing the information you need.
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This document was prepared by the Manufactured Housing Research Alliance (MHRA) with
funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the North American
Steel Framing Alliance. In coordination with other project sponsors, MHRA appoints a project
steering committee to oversee individual research efforts. MHRA staff, contractors, and industry
advisors assist the steering committee. The following individuals participated in the development
of this document:
Rick Boyd, Clayton Homes, Inc., Chairman
Frederic Berg, Quality Homes of the Pacific, LLC
Michael Blanford, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Ed Bryant, Champion Enterprises
Randy Cosby, R-Anell Housing Group, LLC
Courtney Hanson, Nucor Steel
Gary Johnson, Fleetwood Enterprises
Dennis Jones, R-Anell Housing Group, LLC
Donald Moody, Nucor Steel
Mark Nunn, Manufactured Housing Institute
Robert (Pat) Patterson, Quality Homes of the Pacific, LLC
Alex Toback, Toback and Associates
Kali Watson, Quality Homes of the Pacific, LLC
Larry Williams, North American Steel Framing Alliance
Harold Woodside, R-Anell Housing Group, LLC
Project coordination staff and contractors
Jordan Dentz, Manufactured Housing Research Alliance
Sandra Ho, Manufactured Housing Research Alliance
Jeffrey Klaiman, ADTEK Engineers, Inc.
Emanuel Levy, Manufactured Housing Research Alliance
Dean Peyton, Anderson-Peyton
Chris St. Clair, Steel Truss Systems
Ray Tucker, RADCO, Inc
Jim Walfish, P.E.
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance ii
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
While the information in this document is believed to be accurate, neither the authors nor
reviewers, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Manufactured Housing
Research Alliance, the North American Steel Framing Alliance, 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 contents of this report are the view 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.
The U.S. government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade names or manufacturer
names that appear herein are used solely because they are considered essential to the objective of
the report.
About the Manufactured Housing Research Alliance
The Manufactured Housing Research Alliance (MHRA) is a non-profit organization with the
mission of developing new technologies to enhance the value, quality, and performance of the
nations manufactured and modular homes. Research conducted by MHRA supports the industry
by developing new methods for using factory built homes in a wide array of housing applications;
solving technical challenges; and paving the way for innovations in home design, construction,
and installation.
To carry out its mission, MHRA develops, tests, and promotes better methods and materials for
designing, manufacturing, and marketing factory built homes. These activities include research,
new product development, training and educational programs, testing programs and
demonstrations, commercialization efforts, workshops, conferences, and other events.
MHRA has over 400 members who build, supply materials for, sell, develop, and finance more
than 80 percent of all new manufactured homes.
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance iii
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1
1.1 Objective ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Steel use in residential construction ................................................................................ 2
1.3 Previous research............................................................................................................. 4
1.4 Structure of this report..................................................................................................... 5
2 CASE STUDY: QUALITY HOMES OF THE PACIFIC ..................................................6
2.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Objectives of the work with QHP.................................................................................... 7
2.3 First-generation designs................................................................................................... 8
2.4 Second-generation design.............................................................................................. 14
2.5 Summary of second-generation design changes............................................................ 33
2.6 Suggested next steps...................................................................................................... 35
3 CASE STUDY: R-ANELL HOUSING GROUP, LLC .....................................................36
3.1 Objectives of the work with R-Anell............................................................................. 36
3.2 General design criteria................................................................................................... 37
3.3 Design development ...................................................................................................... 38
3.4 Suggested next steps...................................................................................................... 45
APPENDIX A R-ANELL DRAWINGS .....................................................................................47
APPENDIX B RESOURCES ......................................................................................................73
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance iv
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 2-1 Summary of QHP design changes................................................................................. 34
Figure 2-1 The Quality Homes of the Pacific plant......................................................................... 6
Figure 2-2 The QHP production line............................................................................................... 8
Figure 2-3 Steel chassis being welded on the production line ........................................................ 9
Figure 2-4 Tires are inset into the chassis ....................................................................................... 9
Figure 2-5 Steel studs and other components are produced in the plant ......................................... 9
Figure 2-6 Assembled steel roof trusses........................................................................................ 10
Figure 2-7 Roof assembly ............................................................................................................. 10
Figure 2-8 Gypsum board applied to the ceiling .......................................................................... 10
Figure 2-9 Home section prior to roof installation ....................................................................... 11
Figure 2-10 Insulation being placed in assembled home section .................................................. 11
Figure 2-11 Portion of framed home section showing cross-bracing and header ......................... 11
Figure 2-12 Cross-brace connection detail.................................................................................... 11
Figure 2-13 Home sections in the finishing station ....................................................................... 12
Figure 2-14 Installed home with attached garage......................................................................... 12
Figure 2-15 Installed home with wrap around porch ................................................................... 12
Figure 2-16 Steel roof truss (original design)................................................................................ 15
Figure 2-17 Steel roof assembly sequence (original design)......................................................... 15
Figure 2-18 Roof trusses being connected to the ceiling board.................................................... 16
Figure 2-19 Trusses and assembled home sections ...................................................................... 16
Figure 2-20 Typical truss and joint stud alignment (original design) ........................................... 16
Figure 2-21 Truss rafter and ceiling panels (original design)........................................................ 18
Figure 2-22 The eave overhang with soffit vent........................................................................... 18
Figure 2-23 Connection of the truss to the wall studs .................................................................. 18
Figure 2-24 Eave detail with non-structural top track (revised design) ........................................ 19
Figure 2-25 Eave detail with structural wood top plate (revised design) ...................................... 20
Figure 2-26 Eave detail with structural light-gauge steel box track (revised design) ................... 20
Figure 2-27 Eave detail with non-structural track and metal roof truss (revised design).............. 21
Figure 2-28 Ridge line pony wall and continuous beam (original design).................................... 22
Figure 2-29 View into the roof cavity showing the box ridge beam ............................................ 22
Figure 2-30 Ridge (original design) .............................................................................................. 23
Figure 2-31 Split girder truss ridge beam (revised design) ........................................................... 23
Figure 2-32 Typical X-brace isometric (original design) .............................................................. 24
Figure 2-33 Floor plan showing shear walls (original design) ...................................................... 25
Figure 2-34 Typical X-brace top (original design)........................................................................ 25
Figure 2-35 Cross-bracing with reduced number of screws (revised design) .............................. 26
Figure 2-36 Hardy Frame wall track ............................................................................................. 27
Figure 2-37 Exterior wall-to-floor joist connection (original design) ........................................... 28
Figure 2-38 C channel floor detail (revised design) ...................................................................... 29
Figure 2-39 HSS chassis beam with Dietrich floor system (revised design) ................................ 29
Figure 2-40 Top of floor decking in same plane as top of chassis channel................................... 30
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance v
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
Figure 2-41 Detail of wall framing at chassis edge ....................................................................... 30
Figure 2-42 Typical wall-to-floor strap (original design) ............................................................. 30
Figure 2-43 Isometric view of interior (original design) ............................................................... 31
Figure 2-44 Foundation to sidewall connection (original design)................................................. 31
Figure 2-45 Wall anchor plate detail (revised design) .................................................................. 32
Figure 2-46 Seven different screw types used in the plant............................................................ 32
Figure 2-47 Framing at window showing welds, header, and stud-truss alignment ..................... 33
Figure 2-48 Welded studs at window opening .............................................................................. 33
Figure 3-1 Building section ........................................................................................................... 38
Figure 3-2 Roof truss section ........................................................................................................ 39
Figure 3-3 Typical overbuild frame detail..................................................................................... 40
Figure 3-4 Typical section at side wall.......................................................................................... 41
Figure 3-5 Section at marriage wall .............................................................................................. 42
Figure 3-6 First floor wall framing plan........................................................................................ 43
Figure 3-7 Typical floor bracing detail ......................................................................................... 44
Figure 3-8 Typical rim joist connection detail .............................................................................. 44
Figure 3-9 Typical detail at foundation edge................................................................................ 44
Figure A-1 First floor framing plan............................................................................................... 51
Figure A-2 First floor wall framing plan ....................................................................................... 52
Figure A-3 Second floor framing at truss bottom chord ............................................................... 53
Figure A-4 Second floor wall framing plan................................................................................... 54
Figure A-5 Roof framing plan at truss top chord .......................................................................... 55
Figure A-6 Building section .......................................................................................................... 56
Figure A-7 Building section at front gable.................................................................................... 56
Figure A-8 Typical section at side wall......................................................................................... 57
Figure A-9 Section at marriage wall ............................................................................................. 58
Figure A-10 Typical section at gable end...................................................................................... 59
Figure A-11 Dormer section.......................................................................................................... 60
Figure A-12 Dormer plan .............................................................................................................. 60
Figure A-13 Dormer section (detail) ............................................................................................. 61
Figure A-14 Opening elevation at dormer..................................................................................... 61
Figure A-15 Typical track-to-stud connection detail .................................................................... 62
Figure A-16 Typical corner wall details........................................................................................ 62
Figure A-17 Typical stud and rafter bridging details .................................................................... 63
Figure A-18 Typical unsupported track splice detail .................................................................... 63
Figure A-19 Typical bulkhead connection detail .......................................................................... 63
Figure A-20 Typical connection detail.......................................................................................... 64
Figure A-21 Typical box beam detail............................................................................................ 64
Figure A-22 Typical beam connection detail ................................................................................ 64
Figure A-23 Typical floor bracing detail....................................................................................... 65
Figure A-24 Typical rim joist connection detail ........................................................................... 65
Figure A-25 Typical roof truss connection detail.......................................................................... 66
Figure A-26 Typical foundation edge detail ................................................................................. 66
Figure A-27 Typical detail at pier ................................................................................................. 66
Figure A-28 Typical rim beam splice detail.................................................................................. 67
Figure A-29 Typical overbuild frame detail.................................................................................. 67
Figure A-30 Optional wood truss connection detail...................................................................... 68
Figure A-31 Typical truss connection detail ................................................................................. 68
Figure A-32 Typical truss bridging details.................................................................................... 68
Figure A-33 Typical truss connection detail ................................................................................. 69
Figure A-34 Typical truss connection detail ................................................................................. 69
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance vi
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
Figure A-35 Typical exterior light-gage bearing stud elevation at opening.................................. 70
Figure A-36 Typical interior light-gage bearing stud elevation at opening .................................. 70
Figure A-37 Alternate jamb details ............................................................................................... 71
Figure A-38 Typical bearing wall opening section ....................................................................... 71
Figure A-39 Header to jamb connection detail ............................................................................. 72
Figure A-40 Truss section ............................................................................................................. 72
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance vii
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 OBJECTIVE
The use of light-gauge steel framing as a structural framework for residential construction has
taken hold in some site-built markets but potentially offers even more value in the manufactured
housing environment. Steel is lightweight, fire-resistant, dimensionally stable, and can be
manufactured to any size or shape. When used by properly trained manufacturing plant personnel
in a manner that takes advantage of its structural properties, steel may offer some compelling
economic advantages over wood as a framing material.
The research effort described in this report explores the potential of steel framing for the
construction of factory built homes that conform to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) code, or the International Residential Code (IRC), with the goal of
developing technologies that are competitive with wood framing. This research critically
assesses and refines the use of light-gauge steel design in the factory environment. MHRA first
explored the use of light-gauge steel for factory building in 2001 when developing a design
intended to demonstrate the economic and regulatory viability of steel for HUD-code
construction. The current work builds on this earlier effort by exploring the commercial viability
of light-gauge steel-frame designs through a case study approach conducted in cooperation with
industry partners.
The objectives of this research tightly mesh with the goals of HUDs Partnership for Advancing
Technology in Housing (PATH), the overall mission of which is to improve the affordability and
value of America's homes through technology, including the development of new housing
technologies. Steel framing of factory built homes has the potential to improve home durability,
quality, affordability, and resistance to natural disaster damage, and to reduce their environmental
impact.
An earlier phase of steel framing research (completed in 2002
1
) demonstrated that steel is an
acceptable framing material under the performance-based HUD standards. The HUD
certification of a plant featured in one of the case studies, Quality Homes of the Pacific (QHP) in
Hawaii, reinforces this point. While many in the manufactured housing industry are cautiously
optimistic about steel framing, it is recognized that numerous technical and economic issues
remain to be resolved and that steel framing will most likely start as a niche technology for
factory built housing. The objective of the Phase II research was to develop steel framing to the
point of viability as a technology that can offer advantages consistent with the PATH goals. As an
alternative to wood, steel can help keep housing costs down, particularly if wood costs rise or in
inner-city locations where wood framing is not permitted.
1
Design for a Cold Formed Steel Framed Manufactured Home: Technical Support Document,
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance, 2002.
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 1
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
1.2 STEEL USE IN RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
Sheet metal is the base material for steel framing. Sheet steel is readily transformed into shapes
used for framing and galvanized to prevent corrosion. The primary framing member shapes in
residential construction are the C-shaped stud and joist and the U-shaped track. Steel framing
members are typically manufactured at thicknesses of between 24- and 14-gauge.
2
These pieces
can be cut with a chop saw, aviation snips, or electric shears.
Steel framing members meet nationally established standards of strength, consistency, and
dimensional stability, and are manufactured throughout the country. Each manufacturer typically
has a network of distributors that sell directly to builders. An increasing number of building
suppliers also stock steel framing.
3
When used in site-built or conventional home construction, steel-framing members typically
substitute one-for-one for wood-framing members in both non-load-bearing and load-bearing
applications. The C-shaped steel piecesstuds, joists, and raftersfit into U-shaped top and
bottom steel tracks.
All major building codes allow structural steel framing. The Council of American Building
Officials (CABO), in the CABO One and Two Family Dwelling Code, and the International
Residential Code (IRC 2000) specify methods for residential use of steel framing. These methods
prescribe stud sizing and spacing, joist and rafter spans, fastener schedules, and construction
details. In locales that adopt these codes, the application of the prescribed methods permits
construction of site-built steel-framed houses without the certification of a professional engineer.
In other areas, or if the prescriptive methods are not endorsed by local code bodies, a professional
engineer may be required to design, review, and seal plans.
In 2001, more than 50,000 new housing units in the United States used steel framing as their
primary structural material for walls.
4
The vast majority of these homes were site built. Steel
framing has been used far less for modular construction and until this effort, steel was not used
for HUD-code homes.
Steel framing can potentially provide many benefits for factory built residential housing. The
many benefits enumerated by the steel industry include:
5
Steel framing members are consistently straight and square, resulting in straight walls and
square corners. This eliminates the need to cull or sort through a pile of studs of varying
quality. The consistent material quality is a result of production in strict accordance with
national standards.
Pre-punched holes in the framing members simplify the installation of electrical wiring
and plumbing.
Because steel can be roll-formed in the plant and/or ordered to specific lengths, less scrap
and waste is produced. The waste generated is 100 percent recyclable, and the framing
members themselves contain up to 28 percent recycled material.
2
Steel thickness increases as gauge size decreases.
3
See http://www.toolbase.org/tertiaryT.asp?TrackID=andDocumentID=2037andCategoryID=1024
4
See http://www.steelframingalliance.com/dispatch.php?what=displayHome
5
See http://www.toolbase.org/docs/MainNav/SteelFraming/2898_WhatAboutSteelFramingBrochure.pdf
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 2
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
Steel is up to two-thirds lighter than other framing materials and has the highest strength-
to-weight ratio of any major building material. Its light weight imposes less of a load on
the foundation, which reduces the chance of a home being damaged by foundation
settlement. The lower load may also allow structural changes to the transportation
system used with HUD-code homes, thereby reducing costs.
Because steel-framed structures are lighter and have strong connections (screwed rather
than nailed), they can better withstand stresses caused by high winds and seismic forces.
Steel is non-combustible; it does not burn and will not contribute to the spread of a fire,
but it will lose structural integrity as temperatures increase in a fire.
Steel is dimensionally stable; it does not expand or contract in reaction to moisture in the
environment; it does not rot, warp, split, crack, or creep; nor is it vulnerable to termites or
any type of organism.
Despite these benefits, there are many challenges to the more widespread adoption of steel
framing for residential construction. Steels drawbacks include the following:
The primary connector used in steel framing is the self-drilling screw. This fastener is
labor intensive when compared to framing a wood-frame home with a pneumatic nailing
gun. While new fastening systems are available that utilize crimping, welding, and
pneumatics to speed up the construction process, the viability of these alternatives have
yet to be demonstrated in residential construction.
The transfer of vertical loads relies on vertical alignment of studs, joists, and rafters
because the top track typically is not capable of transferring these loads. This framing
technique is called in-line framing. An alternative to in-line framing for vertical load
transfer uses heavier framing members, often made of wood, structural steel or built-up
light-gauge steel members, in addition to the top or bottom steel track.
While the framing layout of a steel house is similar to that of a wood house, the assembly
skills are significantly different. Carpenters must substantially adjust their movements
and practices to use a screw gun rather than a hammer or pneumatic nail gun.
To fasten steel members requires two steps: clamping the assembly and driving the
screw. Overhead connections are particularly difficult, and a step ladder may be required
to assemble a steel wall in the air.
Steel conducts heat and cold at a much higher rate than wood. Low resistance to heat
flow is referred to as thermal bridging: steel studs are an effective medium for heat
transport, thereby reducing the overall thermal resistance of the building envelope.
Thermal bridging can be mitigated by installing an exterior rigid insulating sheathing that
completely covers the steel framing members. However, such insulation can be costly.
While not vulnerable to rotting or termites, steel is susceptible to corrosion, especially if
exposed to salt-laden air in seaside environments.
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 3
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
Presently in the United States, steel is in ample supply and prices are stable. In many areas, steel
framing is cost effective compared to wood framing.
6
However, its cost effectiveness is largely a
function of the relative cost of wood and light-gauge steel materials. In fact, the price of steel
materials has been consistent since 1980, while the price of wood materials has fluctuated, often
dramatically.
7
At current steel price levels, steel is less expensive than wood on a first-cost basis
when the Random Lengths Composite Index for wood framing lumber is $359 or higher.
However, if the builder/framing contractor is new to steel, labor costs could be significantly
higher for steel framingas much as $1.00 to $2.50 higher per square foot.
8
1.3 PREVIOUS RESEARCH
The work to develop a cost-effective light-gauge steel frame solution for factory built homes
began in 1998 with an effort to assess the viability of substituting steel for wood as the structural
skeleton of homes built under the HUD manufactured home standards. That work culminated in
the publication of a design for a steel-framed HUD-code home that was nearly equal to a wood-
framed home on a first-cost basis. This design was approved by a Design Approval Primary
Inspection Agency (DAPIA), demonstrating acceptance of steel framing under the HUD
standards. The results were published by MHRA in March 2002 as Design for a Cold Formed
Steel Framed Manufactured Home: Technical Support Document. This design, however, was not
cost optimized, suggesting that the benefits of steel could be improved by value engineering and
design refinements. The major findings of this research included the following:
Cold-formed steel is a viable structural alternative to wood; it can meet the requirements
of the HUD standards.
On a materials-only cost basis, a steel design, even one that is not cost-optimized, can be
competitive with wood for least-stringent design conditions (HUD wind zone I and
southern thermal zone).
Hybrid designs deserve consideration. In some instances, it may be more cost effective
to use cold-formed steel in conjunction with wood (such as steel floors and walls with
wood trusses).
Future development of steel designs should include suppliers that might contribute
proprietary solutions that are cost-effective and flexible. For example, certain companies
have proprietary truss shapes or flooring systems that could prove to be economical
solutions.
The area of fasteners is rapidly evolving and will be one of the major factors that
determine the future viability of steel framing in manufactured housing.
More testing is needed to demonstrate the soundness of using cold-formed steel framing
in more economical and structurally efficient ways.
A design that uses steel studs for virtually a one-to-one replacement of wood studs is not
likely to be the most cost-effective solution. The opportunity exists to develop more
unconventional and potentially more cost-effective solutions using cold-formed steel in
6
See http://www.toolbase.org/tertiaryT.asp?TrackID=andDocumentID=2037andCategoryID=1024
7
See http://www.toolbase.org/tertiaryT.asp?TrackID=andDocumentID=2188andCategoryID=1142
8
See http://www.toolbase.org/tertiaryT.asp?TrackID=andDocumentID=2188andCategoryID=1142
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 4
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
the future. Such solutions would take advantage of the structural properties and variety
of shapes available in steel to develop innovative and highly efficient designs.
The current work takes up the challenge of several of these points, applying the lessons learned in
Phase I and building on those results through the application of steel framing in two
manufacturing plants.
1.4 STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT
The research consists of two case studies of the application of steel framing in a factory
environment. A case study approach was taken as a way of addressing head-on the major
technical issues associated with steel framing in a home manufacturing plant. In each case study,
engineers worked with plant staff to develop solutions for a unique combination of market and
product-specific conditions.
The first case study focuses on Quality Homes of the Pacific (QHP), a HUD-code home producer
that was formed in 2001 in Hawaii. QHP started with the light-gauge steel framing design
developed under the Phase I MHRA research. This design, as well as revisions to it, is presented
in Chapter 2. Work with QHP was given considerable attention as the company committed to
building a new manufacturing facility dedicated to 100 percent steel construction. The technical
hurdles faced by QHP and their solutions covered a wide range of issues important to proving the
value of steel in the factory environment. Given this unique environment for product
development, evolving a viable steel design in partnership with QHP was the major focus of
Phase II research.
The second case study documents the engineering of a steel-frame, factory built home design
developed in conjunction with R-Anell Housing Group, a producer of HUD-code and modular
homes, and commercial modular structures. R-Anell is headquartered in Denver, North Carolina.
The company was interested in investigating the feasibility of transferring steel framing
technology, which it uses for its commercial modular structures, to its residential HUD-code
and/or modular production. This case study is presented in Chapter 3.
Selected elements of the R-Anell modular steel design are included in Chapter 3 with the full set
of details contained in Appendix A. Appendix B provides a list of resources including
organizations and events that focus on light-gauge steel framing.
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 5
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
2
CASE STUDY:
QUALITY HOMES OF THE PACIFIC
2.1 BACKGROUND
Quality Homes of the Pacific (QHP), located near Honolulu, Hawaii, originated as a producer of
manufactured homes. QHP began manufacturing homes under the HUD standards in early 2002
and is the second HUD-code producer to be certified in Hawaii (the first producer ceased
operations several years ago). QHP is 50 percent privately owned, with the balance owned by the
Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the non-profit Hawaiian Community Development Board
(HCDB).
The company operates out of a former aircraft hanger facility (Figure 2-1) about eight miles west
of Honolulu and within easy reach of shipping ports used to barge homes to nearby islands. The
plant has shipped HUD-code homes to sites on Oahu and Kauai, with a approximately 25 homes
shipped since operations began. HCDB has recently placed an order for 50 homes to be delivered
over the course of the next six months.
Figure 2-1 The Quality Homes of the Pacific plant
As part of the case study research for this report, MHRA provided technical and logistical support
to QHP. QHP started with the designs developed by MHRAs Phase I steel framing research. In
2002 these designs were modified for the Hawaiian market and its HUD-code wind zone III
requirements. The company shipped the first all-steel production homes later that year. For
reasons discussed below, the company determined that the steel designs were not cost competitive
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 6
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
with alternative methods of construction. In response, QHP shifted from building HUD-code
homes to building light-gauge steel-framed modular homes under the Uniform Building Code
(UBC) as adopted by the City and County of Honolulu. MHRA continued to work in partnership
with QHP during this product transition, playing a supporting role in conducting the re-
engineering effort and identifying value improvements to the designs. The changes in
manufacturing method and design were largely driven by economic considerations (the main goal
of this value engineering was to find a least-cost solution, taking into consideration material,
labor, and production costs) and the desire for greater design flexibility. The implications of
these changes are discussed later in this chapter. Production volume has been low as the
company develops and refines its manufacturing methods and grows sales.
2.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE WORK WITH QHP
QHPs target market is affordable housing for native Hawaiians. High construction costs in
Hawaii have placed new housing out of reach to affordable housing buyers, leading to an
enormous pent up housing demand. With most materials imported to the Hawaiian Islands, costs
far exceed comparable construction on the mainland. Factory built housing holds forth the
promise of substantially reducing building costs and putting quality shelter within reach of buyers
with modest incomes.
The particular characteristics of the Hawaiian housing market increase the competitiveness of
steel as an option for residential construction and result in a more tolerant environment for
refining what is fundamentally a new technology for HUD-code homes. These characteristics
include:
Hawaii has a devastating problem with the Formosan termite, which gives an advantage
to any building product not made of wood, particularly materials in contact with or near
the foundation.
Almost all building products must be imported from the mainland. Steel is lighter in
weight and less bulky than wood framing.
Land values are quite high and therefore slight increases in the cost of a structure do not
have a great impact on overall affordability. However, the state of Hawaii has made land
available to native Hawaiians for a nominal fee, creating the opportunity to build
affordable housing if construction costs can be reduced.
Hawaii is in a high wind speed region (HUD wind zone III); therefore, stiffer structures
with stronger connections have an advantage.
The thermal challenges of using steel are a minor factor in Hawaii given the islands mild
climate.
Because of these factors, the Hawaiian site-built residential construction industry has grown
accustomed to using steel framing and homebuyers accept steel-framed homes and understand
their advantages. In fact, more than 70 percent of all new homes constructed in Hawaii use light-
gauge steel for all or part of their structural frame. Despite this, no light-gauge steel framing
system for factory built housing had been developed in the islands.
Because the Hawaiian market is quite different from, and not easily comparable to, the mainland
housing market, some of the methods used at QHP may be cost-competitive in Hawaii but not on
the mainland. However, as described below, QHP provides an ideal laboratory for refining the
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 7
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
use of steel framing technologies in a factory environment by addressing many of the product
design and manufacturing issues confronting factory builders in other market areas. In the first
years of operation, QHP overcame many technical, marketing, and production hurdles to bring its
steel-frame product to market. Nevertheless, considerable opportunities remained for value
engineering of the homes to improve QHPs position in the Hawaiian market and to provide the
basis for exporting the technology to the mainland.
The underlying problem with the original design was that it was not cost-competitive with site
building alternatives. As the initial designs evolved, it became clear to the company that it had to
make radical changes in its building practices if it was to produce housing within the financial
reach of the affordable home buyer. MHRA helped facilitate this value engineering work partly
with the expectation of finding more cost-effective solutions that could be transferred to the
mainland.
2.3 FIRST-GENERATION DESIGNS
QHP started as a manufacturer of HUD-code homes, partly because one of the founding partners
was a HUD-code producer on the mainland and, with a target market of affordable housing
buyers, HUD-code represented what it believed would be the least-cost construction method. The
company made the decision to build the entire structural frame from light-gauge steel, a decision
that required resolving product design, fabrication, crew training, regulatory, and installation
issues simultaneously. The early months of operation engendered a steep learning curve and low
production rates. Over this period, QHP built approximately 25 HUD-code homes that used steel
for the entire structural frame.
2.3.1 Design and manufacturing
The plant uses a horseshoe-shaped production line, as shown in Figure 2-2. Wall panels are
fabricated in the center of the plant on horizontal framing tables.
Figure 2-2 The QHP production line
The first-generation design had an all-steel welded chassis (Figure 2-3) with inset tires (Figure 2-
4) that allowed a home to ride low to the ground, permitting higher wall heights and steeper roof
pitches (8- to 9-foot walls are typical, and the minimum roof slope is 4 in 12). This low-profile
floor system can easily accommodate openings for stairs. The mild Hawaiian climate requires
only electric resistance space heaters, and QHP uses through-the-wall air conditioning units,
eliminating the need for a duct system.
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 8
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
Figure 2-3 Steel chassis being welded on
Figure 2-4 Tires are inset into
the production line
the chassis
Studs are produced to precise lengths at the QHP plant from coils of steel and are pre-punched for
screws and wiring (Figure 2-5). The stud forming equipment produces components for walls,
floors and roofs. Some thicker material needed for headers is purchased from outside fabricators.
Lightweight, high-strength roof trusses are assembled in the plant from precisely cut parts.
Figure 2-5 Steel studs and other components are produced in the plant
Walls are produced off line and assembled on the floor of the home. Next, the roof trusses are
fabricated off line and assembled to form the roof structure (Figure 2-6). The ceiling is sheathed
and taped prior to joining it with the home. As can be seen in Figure 2-7 and Figure 2-8, the roof
is flipped before being set on the walls. Figure 2-9 and Figure 2-10 show home sections with and
without the roof in place.
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 9
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
Figure 2-6 Assembled steel roof trusses
Figure 2-7 Roof assembly
Figure 2-8 Gypsum board
applied to the ceiling
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 10
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
Figure 2-9 Home section prior to Figure 2-10 Insulation being
roof installation placed in assembled home section
Cross-bracing was provided for shear protection, which is required under the HUD standards for
wind zone III (Figure 2-11). Many screws are required to fasten the cross-bracing (Figure 2-12).
A typical header composed of steel angles is also visible in Figure 2-11. Welding was also used
in critical stud connection points. Figure 2-13 shows a home in the finishing station, where
interior work is completed.
Figure 2-11 Portion of framed home Figure 2-12 Cross-brace connection detail
section showing cross-bracing and header
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 11
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
Figure 2-13 Home sections in the finishing station
Home sections are delivered to the home site using standard manufactured home totters. Figure 2-
14 and Figure 2-15 show two early home sets on the island of Oahu. The attached garage seen in
Figure 2-14 was fabricated at the plant as a kit and shipped separately. Like most homes in
Hawaii, these houses were built over crawl spaces.
Figure 2-14 Installed home with Figure 2-15 Installed home with
attached garage wrap around porch
2.3.2 Issues encountered
Despite the impressive progress made by QHP in creating a steel production process from the
ground up, the plant has experienced several major barriers to proving the technology and to
gaining a foothold in the local housing market. Issues include the following:
Fasteners. By far the largest technical and economic issue is the number of fasteners and
connections required for assembly of a home, and the associated labor time. The plant
manager estimates that more than 20,000 screws were needed to complete each home.
Each screw is installed individually by hand with a screw gun. QHP estimates that about
15 percent of the total cost of a home (FOB plant) is attributable to connectors alone.
About 50 percent of the total plant costs are labor versus about 12 percent (average) for a
plant on the mainland.
Labor training. According to the plant manager, carpenters familiar with wood often
have a difficult time with the precision and care required in handling steel. QHP had
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 12
Steel Frami n g Prototype Devel o pment: Fi nal Report
more success training plant personnel who had little site building experience than with
workers experienced with wood framing.
Component delivery. Producing components such as wall studs in the plant is a distinct
advantage, particularly in Hawaiiwhere most materials are imported and deliveries can
be slow. While plant managers would like to produce as many steel components as
possible in-house, some of the heavier gauge material needed for headers and beams must
be special ordered. Delays in getting these parts or rejection of parts that arrive out of
compliance with specifications have the potential to wreak havoc on the production
process, particularly as production rates rise.
HUD wind zone I I I requirements. The local building code requires homes to withstand
105-mile-per-hour (mph) winds (three second gust wind speed). The HUD-code
requirement for wind zone III requires even sturdier construction capable of resisting
approximately 125-mph wind forces when converted to a three second gust wind speed.
This was one of the major driving factors behind QHPs shift to constructing homes
under the Uniform Building Code rather than the HUD standards (see second-generation
design discussion below). This shift permitted a number of design modifications,
including a reduction in the number of fasteners and the elimination of some dedicated
shear walls. The shear walls often limited the number and placement of windows in
sidewalls. These changes produced savings in both material and labor costs.
2.3.3 Lessons learned from the first-generation design effort
Despite the progress made with using steel framing, the QHP first-generation effort suggested
that considerable changes would be required before it could be proven viable in a factory
environment. Despite, or as a result of building to the HUD-code, the first-generation homes
built by QHP were far from being cost competitive with site-built wood or steel-framed homes in
Hawaii.
The high production costs were, as noted, partly a result of the considerable number of fasteners
and the time required for their installation. The number of fasteners alone should not account for
the high relative cost since site builders are using similar practices (albeit the companys goal is
to produce homes that are much less expensive than site built). QHP also discovered, however,
that the structural requirements for homes produced in Hawaii under the HUD-code exceed the
code followed by site builders (Uniform Building Code). Therefore, while perhaps unique to
Hawaii, building to the HUD-code became a barrier to producing affordable homes for this
market.
In the course of developing their first-generation designs, QHP identified a number of
opportunities for improving the factory built, steel-framed homes, including:
Build the homes to the modular code rather than HUD standards
Value engineer the structure, taking advantage of the structural properties of steel
Simplify the connection details, reducing the number of fasteners
Re-think connection methods so there is less reliance on screw-type mechanical fasteners
Reduce the number of fasteners generally, particularly in the trusses and siding
Use a less costly, improved ridge beam design
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 13
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
Employ a better system for cross-bracing the shear walls
Develop simpler, more robust methods of squaring the chassis frame for welding
Improve labor training methods
These opportunities were pursued by QHP with assistance from MHRA starting in early 2003
resulting in the second-generation design.
2.4 SECOND-GENERATION DESIGN
QHPs commitment to steel framing and desire to minimize cost and value engineer the first-
generation design continued to represent a living laboratory for evolving a competitive steel-
framed solution for factory building. Since this work promised to have direct application for
manufacturers operating on the mainland and create an affordable home for Hawaii, MHRA
continued to support QHPs efforts, providing engineering and design support.
The entire home design was open for redesign, and much of the structural system was re-
engineered. However the focus was on parts of the home that were most in need of value
engineering, including most of the light-gauge steel framing members and connections. The
engineers did not change the chassis (except for reversing the outer C channel and providing
the option for hollow structural section [HSS] members) or the roof trusses (except for the
connection details at the ridge and eave). Additionally, the engineers only considered the design
loads on the installed home and did not consider additional loads imparted on the home during
transportation, as QHP had not experienced significant transportation damage in the first-
generation designs
9
.
This re-engineering process, conducted in consultation and cooperation with QHP staff, resulted
in many design changes intended to yield materials and labor savings, as described below.
2.4.1 Roof
The original design utilized metal roof trusses spaced 16 inches on center. The steel trusses were
produced in the factory from a top chord, bottom chord, pony wall, and diagonal brace (Figure 2-
16). The homes were shipped with the roof folded down and then assembled on site using the
process shown in Figure 2-17. During assembly, the top chords with roof deck are lifted up and
the pony wall and diagonal brace are fastened into place. This hinged roof system proved
difficult to erect on site and the plant switched to building fully assembled steel trusses (Figure 2-
18) in the plant and shipping the homes with the roof pre-finished (Figure 2-19).
9
Homes that traveled approximately 70 miles across Oahu over poor roads were inspected and found to
have only minor wallboard cracking over windows, and were easily repaired.
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 14
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
Figure 2-16 Steel roof truss (original design)
Figure 2-17 Steel roof assembly sequence (original design)
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 15
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
Figure 2-18 Roof trusses being
connected to the ceiling board
Figure 2-19 Trusses and assembled
home sections
The new design replaces the steel trusses with wood roof trusses. Both wood and steel trusses are
competitively priced from a variety of local suppliers and are less costly than the steel trusses
produced by QHP in-house. Wood trusses were selected over steel trusses (although an option
for steel trusses is retained in the design) because the additional cost of constructing an eave soffit
is unnecessary with wood trusses and the exposed rafter ends is a desirable design feature in
Hawaii.
The wood trusses are drag trusses, meaning they have heavier duty connection plates, enabling
them to contribute to the lateral stiffness of the home by distributing the load to all wall segments.
In addition, the trusses can now be placed further apart (24 inches on center), eliminating one-
third of the roof trusses, reducing labor and material costs by about 33 percent of the truss system
cost.
10
This is possible without any increase in strength of the individual trusses. The original
truss spacing (16 inches on center) was necessary to align with the wall studs (Figure 2-20). The
use of a structural top track or the increase in the wall stud spacing to 24 inches on center
(permitted by the reduction in the design wind speed) allows this increase in truss spacing.
Figure 2-20 Typical truss and joint stud alignment (original design)
10
All cost figures and comparisons were provided by Quality Homes of the Pacific personnel.
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 16
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
Under the HUD standard requirements for wind zone III (approximately 125-mph three second
gust design wind speed); QHP built only straight gable roofs because it was an easier
architectural solution to meet the structural requirements. Under the UBC wind speed
requirements, it is simpler for the plant to build Dutch hip and hip roofs in addition to straight
gables, which increases home acceptability in the marketplace.
2.4.2 Walls
The original exterior wall design utilized 5/16-inch fiber-cement siding over 3-inch, 20-gauge
steel studs spaced 16 inches on center. The new design utilizes 3-inch, 18-gauge steel studs.
18-gauge studs and track yield higher screw connection strengths, permitting a reduction in the
number of screws and associated reductions in labor costs, although it does reduce the throughput
on the stud fabrication equipment by 10 to 15 percent.
The new design also offers QHP the option of using 16-inch on center stud spacing with one of
two structural top plate designs (see Section 2.4.3 and Figure 2-25 and Figure 2-26), or spacing
the studs at 24 inches on center to maintain alignment with the trusses and eliminating the
structural top plate. Without aligning studs and trusses, a structural top plate is required as the
light-gauge steel top track is not able to distribute vertical roof truss loads laterally to the studs.
Moving to studs spaced 24 inches on center reduces the material and labor costs for the wall stud
system by approximately 20 to 25 percent.
Aligning the studs and trusses is sometimes a challenge: it requires greater assembly precision in
the plant and may increase labor time. Using a structural top plate with studs spaced 16 inches on
center increases costs (approximately $400 in materials and labor for the top plate) but provides
additional design flexibility and structural redundancy. It also enables a homeowner to retrofit
windows and doors with greater ease because studs can be relocated without the need to place
them directly under roof truss locations. Additionally, planned testing may provide evidence that
inclusion of a structural top plate permits the elimination of headers over small (3-to-4 foot wide)
windows and doors, although this would have to be accepted by the building code agency before
it could be specified for use in the new design.
Moving to 24-inch on center stud spacing poses no problem; however, the fiber-cement board has
not been rated by the siding manufacturer for a 24-inch span at the 105-mph design wind speed.
The other option under consideration is switching to an exterior-grade plywood siding product,
which has the drawback of requiring priming as well as painting. Fiber-cement siding is
preferred due to its low maintenance, termite resistance, and need for only a finish coat of paint
(it is pre-primed). Finally, regardless of the type of siding material, the walls with studs spaced at
24 inches on center feel less solid, which is a marketing drawback.
QHP plans to experiment with both options and determine which design is preferable from a cost
and marketing standpoint. In both the old and new designs, the interior walls utilize 3-inch, 20-
gauge studs at 24 inches on center with gypsum board on both sides.
2.4.3 Eave overhang
Homes in Hawaii typically have large eave overhangs to shield them from the strong tropical sun.
To facilitate transport of a house over narrow roadways, the eaves in the original design were
hinged to the end of the roof truss (Figure 2-21). On site, the eave was flipped up and the soffit
panel was inserted to hold it in place (Figure 2-17). This system never worked properly in the
field and was modified by plant personnel to eliminate the hinge shortly after production
commenced. The bulk of the plants production employed a fixed eave that was an extension of
the steel truss top chord (Figure 2-22).
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 17
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
Figure 2-21 Truss rafter and ceiling panels (original design)
Figure 2-22 The eave overhang with Figure 2-23 Connection of the truss
soffit vent to the wall studs
A cap channel runs along the eave and is fastened to the bottom chord of the truss and the wall
stud with a steel strap (Figure 2-23). This detail provides a simple and strong tie-down
connection. The new design will offer this detail as an option in the event that steel trusses are
used. Because the primary version of the new design uses wood trusses, however, the eave detail
has been modified as shown in Figure 2-24 through Figure 2-27. In the new design, the eave is
also shipped fully assembled.
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 18
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
Figure 2-24 Eave detail with non-structural top track (revised design)
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 19
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
Figure 2-25 Eave detail with structural wood top plate (revised design)
Figure 2-26 Eave detail with structural light-gauge steel box track (revised design)
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 20
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
Figure 2-27 Eave detail with non-structural track and metal roof truss (revised design)
The increased width of the home due to the fixed eave has not posed a problem for transportation.
2.4.4 Ridge beam
In the original design, a box ridge beam (Figure 2-28 and Figure 2-29) was pre-attached to the
bottom chord of the truss on half of the home and connected to the second half in the field after
the roofs were lifted up and the halves of the home joined together. This system required making
difficult field connections from inside the attic crawl space at each truss location along the ridge
line (Figure 2-30) and along the box ridge beam. The new design calls for installing a split girder
truss on each half of the house, permitting a simpler connection detail (Figure 2-31). The two
trusses are fastened together at convenient locations, substantially reducing field assembly time.
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 21
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
Figure 2-28 Ridge line pony wall and continuous beam (original design)
Box ridge beam
Figure 2-29 View into the roof
cavity showing the box ridge beam
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 22
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
Figure 2-30 Ridge (original design)
Figure 2-31 Split girder truss ridge beam (revised design)
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 23
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
2.4.5 Shear wall design
Lateral stiffness was imparted to the home in the original design by steel cross-braces built into 8-
foot wall sections (Figure 2-32 and Figure 2-33).
11
This design did not take advantage of the
contribution of the exterior and interior walls to the lateral stiffness of the home. At each leg of
the cross-brace was a 9-inch wide strap connected to the framing with twenty-eight #10 screws
(Figure 2-34). Not only were these fasteners extremely labor intensive to install, but the
numerous screw heads caused the exterior sheathing to bulge over them, compromising the
esthetics of the home. The switch to the UBC code and its resulting decrease in design wind
speed
12
reduced the structural requirements on these braces (which were over-designed, even for
the 125-mph three second gust design wind speed). This switch permitted a reduction in the
number of screws per connectiona reduction of approximately 100 screws per house (Figure 2-
35).
Figure 2-32 Typical X-brace isometric (original design)
11
During transportation of the houses, the longer models (i.e., 44-foot and 52-foot) had showed some minor
cracking in drywall due to flexing of the cantilever portion of the chassis. (The section between the axle
and truck frame performed satisfactorily.) Several ideas, such as adding an interior cross-brace shear wall,
were tried to stiffen the system, without success.
12
With regard to shear wall design, UBC is less restrictive than the HUD standards in that it allows the
interior and exterior walls, and the roof/ceiling diaphragm, to be calculated as contributing to the lateral
strength of the home.
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 24
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
Figure 2-33 Floor plan showing shear walls (original design)
Figure 2-34 Typical X-brace top (original design)
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 25
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
Figure 2-35 Cross-bracing with reduced
number of screws (revised design)
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 26
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
QHP is also considering the possibility of eliminating the plant-fabricated cross-braces
completely and utilizing a proprietary product called Hardy Frame. Hardy Frame is a pre-
manufactured 4-foot section of wall that can be bolted to the top and bottom tracks to provide
shear strength (Figure 2-36). One Hardy Frame would be used per side of a finished home. The
narrower Hardy Frames provide greater design flexibility and allow larger windows and door
areas. However, using Hardy Frame is a more expensive option than the cross-brace system, and
so a decision was made to only use them when additional design flexibility is critical.
Figure 2-36 Hardy Frame wall track
2.4.6 Floor joists
The light-gauge steel floor joists in the original design were spaced at 16 inches on center for
both the 24-foot-wide homes (12-foot joist span) and the 28-foot-wide homes (14-foot joist span).
From an engineering standpoint, spacing the joists at 24 inches on center is technically possible,
but in the judgment of QHP, the resulting floor tends to flex and feel soft. The plant therefore
elected to maintain 16-inch on center spacing. As discussed below, the plant will consider
converting to the Dietrich floor system.
2.4.7 Chassis and floor system
The new design continues to use an all-steel welded chassis with inset tires. This allows the
home to ride low to the ground, permitting higher walls and steeper roof pitches (8- to 9-foot
walls are typical and the minimum roof slope is 4 in 12). This low-profile floor system can easily
accommodate openings for stairs.
However, the chassis design was significantly changed. Originally, the C8 x 11 C channels at
the perimeter of the chassis were oriented with the open side of the C facing outward and the
floor joists welded to the flat, back side of the C (Figure 2-37).
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 27
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
Figure 2-37 Exterior wall-to-floor joist connection (original design)
A continuous L angle was fastened to the bottom of the channel to provide an attachment point
for the bottom of the siding. The new design calls for the channels to be reversed such that the
open portion of the C faces inward instead of outward (Figure 2-38). While this change provides
a cleaner exterior finish, eliminating the L angle, it also complicates the joist-to-chassis
connection. The back of the C channel provided a large flat surface for welding. The inside of
the C channel does not provide enough space for the 16-gauge, 6-inch deep joists, so the joists
must be chamfered to slide into the C and then welded to the inside of the channel.
To simplify this connection detail and to reduce the amount of welding, the plant is considering
switching from the C channels to HSS tubes (Figure 2-39) in combination with a Dietrich floor
system.
13
The HSS members are slightly heavier (and therefore more costly than the C channels.
14
However, their flat surfaces would offer an ideal location to mount the Dietrich rim track, which
comes prefabricated with tabs to accept the 18-gauge, 7-inch deep Dietrich joists. A side
benefit of the heavier HSS members is that they are approximately 50 percent stiffer than the
existing C channel, which may reduce the incidence of drywall cracking in the cantilever portion
of the chassis. The additional material costs associated with the heavier chassis will be weighed
against the decrease in plant fabrication time and the improvement in chassis stiffness.
13
Dietrich is a proprietary floor system. The Dietrich Company provides pre-engineered and precut light-
gauge steel components from plant locations in most major U.S. markets, including Hawaii.
14
The C channel weighs 11-1/2 pounds per linear foot. QHP would use either a 3/16-inch thick 3 x 8 HSS
weighing 13-1/4 pounds per linear foot, or a 3/16-inch thick 4 x 8 HSS weighing 14-1/2 pounds per foot.
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 28
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
Figure 2-38 C channel floor detail (revised design)
Figure 2-39 HSS chassis beam with Dietrich floor system (revised design)
Another part of the connection detail revision involved relocation of the wood floor decking to
make it flush with the top of the C channel. This allows the wall bottom track to rest directly on
top of the C channel (Figure 2-40 and Figure 2-41). This metal-to-metal connection is superior to
the previous design, which sandwiched the plywood floor decking between the wall bottom track
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 29
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
Figure 2-40 Top of floor decking in same Figure 2-41 Detail of wall framing at
plane as top of chassis channel chassis edge
Figure 2-42 Typical wall-to-floor strap (original design)
and the C channel (Figure 2-42). The new connection is stronger and easier to attach with
screws.
2.4.8 Foundation system
Like most homes in Hawaii, QHPs homes are typically installed over crawl spaces. The original
design anticipated home placement on relatively costly poured concrete foundation walls (Figure
2-43). After experimenting with several proprietary foundation systems, QHP settled on a
foundation using discontinuous concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls.
Lateral strength is provided by grouted and reinforced short CMU walls, which is less costly than
the alternatives, and more resistant to corrosion than the exposed metal components of some
proprietary foundation products.
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 30
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
Figure 2-43 Isometric view of interior (original design)
The connection from the chassis to the foundation was also modified to eliminate the need for on-
site welding that requires special skills, permits, and the cumbersome installation and relocation
of shielding to protect the homes combustible bottom board. Instead of welding the chassis to a
steel plate cast into the concrete foundation (Figure 2-44), the new design uses a modified
standard metal strap connection (Figure 2-45). This greatly increases the flexibility of home
placement and takes 75 percent less time to install than the original welded connections.
Figure 2-44 Foundation to sidewall connection (original design)
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 31
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
Figure 2-45 Wall anchor plate detail (revised design)
2.4.9 Fasteners
As mentioned above, one of the major issues with the first generation QHP steel design was the
large amount of labor that went into fastening the frame together. Additionally, the large vaariety
of screws (up to seven screw sizes, as seen in Figure 2-46) caused confusion in the plant.
Workers carry all of these screw types and must select the oneor several typesspecified for
each connection.
The new design decreased the overall number of screws in the home (partially due to reduced
requirements of the UBC code) by reducing the number of screws in many connections, replacing
screws with pins (which are much simpler to install) in some connections, and eliminating some
connections altogether.
Multiple screw types are still required; however, since connections between varying materials
such as cold-formed steel framing members, red-iron chassis members, and fiber cement or
plywood siding, have diverse structural and long-term performance requirements.
The pin connections are used as an alternative to T-5 screws for connections between light-gauge
members and the chassis. The company is not prepared to specify pins for light-gauge to light-
gauge connections until their reliability has been more thoroughly demonstrated.
Figure 2-46 Seven different
screw types used in the plant
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 32
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
Not only does the HUD standard translate into requirements for screws that exceed the UBC
structural requirements, but it also requires a substantial amount of welding that the plant was
able to eliminate with the switch to the UBC. The solution developed and approved under the
HUD standard dictated support of boundary elements, such as headers, with welded double studs
that had to be strap-welded to the chassis (Figure 2-47 and Figure 2-48). The UBC code permits
screwing the double studs together and connecting them to the chassis with straps screwed to both
the studs and the chassis (Figure 2-48).
welds, header, and stud-truss alignment
Welds
Welds
Figure 2-47 Framing at window showing
Figure 2-48 Welded studs at
window opening
In the future, QHP hopes to further reduce the amount of welding and quantity of screws and
convert more connections to pins or other alternative connection types such as rivets.
2.4.10 Corrosion protection
Recent research conducted by the National Steel Framing Alliance and the University of Hawaii
has concluded that there is a significant risk of corrosion of steel-framed structures exposed to
extreme coastal conditions. The research suggests protecting all exposed steel framing members
and connections with an air/vapor barrier. The new QHP design will make every effort to comply
with this recommendation.
2.5 SUMMARY OF SECOND-GENERATION DESIGN CHANGES
The re-engineering effort considerably improved the QHP design, reducing the cost of materials
and labor, speeding fabrication time, and adding design flexibility. As the company moves
through prototyping, the benefits of these changes will be quantified. Table 2-1 below provides a
summary of the changes between the two design generations.
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 33
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
Table 2-1. Summary of QHP design changes
Component First Generation Design (HUD Second Generation Design
code) (modular built to UBC)
Roof truss spacing 16 inches on center 24 inches on center
Roof truss type Steel Wood drag trusses, option for steel
Roof design* Gable only Choice of gable, Dutch hip, and hip
Truss/stud Aligned Option for aligned or not aligned
alignment
Exterior siding 5/16-inch fiber cement 5/16-inch fiber cement if wall studs 16
inches on center, or exterior grade
plywood if wall studs 24 inches on
center
Wall stud spacing 16 inches on center Option for 16-inch or 24-inch on center
spacing
Wall top track Non-structural Option for one of two structural top
tracks if wall studs 16 inches on center;
none if wall studs 24 inches on center
Stud size Exterior walls: 3-inch, 20-gauge Exterior: 3-inch, 18-gauge
Interior: 3-inch, 20-gauge Interior: 3-inch, 20-gauge
Eave overhang Hinged design Fixed eave
Ridge beam Box beam one side of house Split girder truss on each half of house
Foundation Poured concrete foundation system CMU discontinuous wall
Chassis connection Chassis welded to steel plate cast-in- Modified mechanical strap connection
concrete foundation detail
Wall bottom track Fastened to chassis through floor Fastened directly to chassis
to chassis decking
connection
Shear walls
15
Factory fabricated X braces, 96
inches long
Modified factory fabricated X braces
(96 inches long) or Hardy frame (48
inches long)
Elements X braced walls designed to withstand Contribution to lateral resistance
contributing to all lateral forces (HUD standards) provided by all walls and the roof
lateral strength* (UBC)
Fasteners Seven screw types, more than 20,000 Seven screw types, fewer screws,
screws, substantial amount of welding reduced welding, more pin connections
Boundary elements Welded double studs and strap welds to Screw connections (UBC)
the chassis (HUD standards)
Floor joists 16-gauge, 6-inch joists, 16 inches on 16-gauge, 6-inch joists, 16 inches on
center center; may convert to Dietrich system
* These changes are the result of building under the UBC as adopted by the City and County of
Honolulu, rather than the HUD standards. Among these benefits are the less stringent wind design
requirements (reduction to a 105-mph design wind speed from 125-mph) and the cost of the HUD
inspection process.
15
During transportation of the houses, the longer models (i.e., 44-foot and 52-foot) showed some minor
cracking in drywall due to flexing of the cantilever portion of the chassis. (The section between the axle
and truck frame seemed to perform satisfactorily.) Several ideas, such as adding an interior X brace shear
wall, were tried to stiffen the system. These were not successful.
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 34
Steel Framing Prototype Development: Final Report
2.6 SUGGESTED NEXT STEPS
MHRA provided technical assistance to the QHP plant to assist in refining steel frame design.
This research began the process of optimizing the QHP system and identifies areas where further
research is necessary. It will be up to the company to continue this process to the point of
developing a highly competitive steel frame product.
Future efforts may address the following technical issues:
Fastening options such as pins and clinching as an alternative to screws, as well as
reducing the overall number of fasteners.
Testing of certain components, such as fiber-cement siding on exterior walls with studs
spaced 24 inches on center with 105-mph design wind speeds.
Determination of what steel components are most efficient to produce in-house at the
plant versus out-sourced to fabricators.
Development of a more efficient system for installing the homes to the foundation.
Important cost, manufacturing, systems integration, and marketing issues must also be addressed:
In-depth cost analysis for both materials and labor for production by QHP.
Process engineering analysis to cost optimize the production process and quality control
systems.
Effective methods for training plant staff in the use of steel.
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance 35