Is Continuous building/structure frame Reinforcing the Consistancy we want?

Hello Randy,

I believe that I am well qualified to respond to your Blog!

I am a retired Commercial and Residential Building Contractor. I have constructed in the mountains of Nevada and California, the Eastern United States as well as the South Eastern USA. and of course let us not for get Texas. I have found that the Code Adopted by the Southern Building Congress to be generally superior to all other codes. It too, however, is over done. Especially when it comes to single family homes constructed on individual lots.

For more than 10,000 years the construction industry has been evolving to meet the needs of human survival. We can construct buildings that will withstand hurricane force winds at reasonable prices. We have yet to design and construct a residential building that can withstand the direct confrontation of "tornado" winds, at any price. Within the last ten years or so I have seen the state bldg. code evolve to consider uplift loads as more important than over all loads. Yet I live in a commonly constructed home circa 1973 that was in the direct center path of two of the most damaging hurricanes ever to strike Florida. Damage was minimal. I lost a lot of the bottom half of shingle tabs, from a 10 yr. old roof. I lost the screens only, on my screen porch and some windows and some limbs from several trees, that's all!

My next door neighbor had damage similar to mine except he experienced some tornado damage. This destroyed most of his large old Oak Trees.

Every time someone manages to come up with another great idea for increasing the strength of residential home construction, it seems to get adopted and incorporated into the code because the Local building Depts. recommend that the local commissioners adopt it to protect against another legal risk of being sued. Yet, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THESE NEW AND WONDERFUL IDEAS REDUCES THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. NOTHING IS EVER ELIMINATED FROM THE CONSTRUCTION CODE THAT EQUALS THE ADDED NEW COST.

We are required to pay for over priced insurance for our homes by our Mortgage Financing Industry, that is unjust, but is a way of life for many. Wood framed and cement block houses with wood trusses are estimated to have only a 20 year lifespan by said industry, even though the vast majority of homes we live in are over 50 years old. This just adds to the cost of home ownership.

Every Time some great new idea is added to the bldg code that increases the cost of construction a mere $1,000 we have just knocked the bottom 10% of the buying market out of the possibility of achieving the American Dream.

I do not see your additions preventing sink hole, flood and tornado damage to the extent that the building would not ultimately be condemed and raised. While they would likely make wood frame buildings stronger, I sincerely doubt that this increase in strength would ever equal the overall strength of light steel framing for residential buildings. I believe that those who have mega bucks and insist on wood framed buildings for their homes and can afford the added expense should consider your offer. However: I consider it another grave mistake to add it to the Building Codes of this Nation, as I don't see it preventing sufficient damage to prevent enough destruction that a residential building would not likely be raised anyway. Good idea though!

Oh, and just an after thought, A late friend of mine was an air traffic controller, at Miami International Airport, the night that Hurricane Hugo struck south Florida. The news reports all condemed it as the most destructive hurricane in many years and almost nothing was mentioned regarding the tornadoes that actually were ultimately were responsible for most of the damage. I sincerely doubt that your addition to the construction of these residences would have made much of a worth while impact.

TMF

Howdy, Toomuchfun; Glad to talk to a Fellow Construction Industry Veteran!!

I appreciate your critique of Continuous Connector-Reinforcing Structural Strap-Nets and Extensions, and agree with some and disagree with some of your observations.

I am in full agreement with the Southern States and Florida Building Codes, as superior Local Code Adoptions, and the Legal Retribution possibilities of Jurisdictions which do not Adopt structural innovations and upgrades. High Insurance Premiums and/or none-available for Natural Disasters seems to be the norm in the Southeastern U.S.

Compared to Isolated Location Reinforcing Connectors (by Simpson's and others), Structural Strap-Nets save between 8% and 45% of Materials, Time, & Labor, of the total structure frame (foundation-footing through roof-ridge) minimum required current Structural Design Code Reinforcing, depending on which type of frame/frame combination you are constructing. (Structural Strap-Nets are made from solid steel strapping, connectors, and fasteners, that can be supplied by Simpson Strong-Tie/Other Steel Reinforcing Products Manufacturers.)

Structural Strap-Nets require fewer fasteners and connectors per linear foot of wall than the combinations of wind/seismic twist and strap-ties, holddowns, post bases and caps, shear-diaphragms/sheathings, midwall blocking and cross-frame bridge-blocking, cross-bracing, etc; reducing the amounts of structural materials and structural reinforcing products. The Construction-Labor reductions is not in hours of work, rather in reduced amounts of hazardous-duty hours worked. In other words, the strapping cords installations will make up for the lost time in placing fewer fasteners and connectors. The Labor cost-savings comes from the reduced number of times the Skilled/Journey Laborer has to climb ladders a/o scaffolding (high-work), and the reduced amounts of Worker's Hazard-Duty Insurance Coverages realized (Contractor/Subcontractor Overhead).

Structural Strap-Nets are unique in that they reduce costs of construction in addition to improving structural performances of building/structure frames a/o bodies.

Structural Strap-Nets are an ALL-FORCES, ALL-DIRECTIONS, ALL-STRUCTURE Reinforcing System that are tension-resistance based, Rigid, Flexible, and Elastic inclusive Continuous Frame/Body Accessory Sub-Frame/Reinforcing-Net. They resist Building/Structure applied Lateral, Uplift, and Overturning forces/loads, all Building/Structure Floor-, Wall-, Ceiling-, Roof-Panel Expansion and Contraction, Bowing and Concaving, Sliding and Leaning, and Separations and Dislodgements. You get F-1, F-2, and F-3 added resistance in any/all Structure-Panel/Component X-X, Y-Y, and Z-Z directions!!

Structural Strap-Nets and Extensions are adaptable to continuous, isolated, and non-foundationed anchorages, straight and curved walls, flat, pitched, jack-raftered, conventional, trussed, and domed ceilings and roofs. They are modifiable/adjustable around door, window, and vent openings; and they can have extensions to and include patio/porch/carport roofs, decks, cantilevers, stairs, ramps, shafts, atriums, facades, mechanical equipment, and so on.

Structural Designers can size and strengthen the Structural Strap-Nets, the Accessorized Building/Structure Frame/Body, a/o BOTH, for any known applied force condition, and with the added overall building/structure stabilities, more water, temperature, and fire/chemical-hazard protections can be added to the Building/Structure Exteriors, at the Exterior Surfaces or Underlayments. Since the Strap-Netted Building/Structure frame/body is stronger, more stable, and separation-resistant, less movement will occur during the settling stages, temperature changes, and material aging.

These improvements are economical at the Design and Design-Review Stages, Construction and Construction-Inspection Stages, and during the Lifespan of the Building/Structure.

Some of the long-term cost-savings include reduced building/structure damages in tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires, floods, stormsurges, etc; which translates into Reduced Risks for Investors and Lenders, Reduced building/structure Disaster Insurance Claims Payouts and Coverage Premiums, that opens up Credit Lines and Mortgage/Equity Value Appreciations; reduced Mechanical Heating and Cooling Operating Costs, which translates into lower-output and smaller (more efficient and lighter-weight) AC/Boiler/Evap/Central/Other sources of Building Energy, that reduces Utility Bills, Energy Consumption and Pollution, etc; and improved Efficiencies of Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Wave/Tidal, Hydro, Nuclear, rtc; Clean Energies, that saves demands and stress on the Community's/Nation's Power and Energy Grids!!

I am finding continuous building/structure frame/body reinforcing to be beneficial for low-income to high-wealth, Individuals to Neighborhoods, to Communities to Nations, to even Globally, comparative to the Technology of Electricity, in Scopes of Applicability, Job and Business Creation, Economic and Innovation Growth and Expansion, and so on.

Hope you can understand where I have some friendly disagreements with you, Toomuchfun! I am sold on Continuous Connector-Reinforcing with Structural Strap-Nets and Extensions!! Built some partial and total frame models that are doing just fine, and have extended past the time-frame of most Building Contractor's Warrantees!!

RLD

Good Morning Randy!

I well understood all of your many descriptions regarding the almost over whelming quantity of increased protection and seemingly industructble qualities of the structual net concept. I must point out however that in my opinion the many engineered products that we are caused to use in today's buildings are, "to put it as clearly as one possibly can" much stronger than the material it is applied to.

In this case I believe that you are referring to wood frame construction, as I am also. I have constructed post and beam structures that called for 3/4" bolts, several of them, installed within the last 8" of 6X6 , 8X8 and other similar, and assorted sizes. 1/2" bolts are stronger than the wood the above they are installed in. Larger bolts are a great example of over kill. Another example is the number of nails, teco or other, that are required to be installed in hurricane clips, and do not even pass through the wood so as to be bent over on the opposite side. Post bases that are anchored on top of a continuous footing and mono slab are another really bad joke played against the codes and ultimate owners.

I constructed an out door pavillion that was designed by a local engineer that called for posts, 8X8X8', 12 of them, 6 on each side. I asked the engineer to redesign the structure so that the posts would be placed at least 4 ft under ground. She refused and stated that the Simpsons Ties were designed by engineers just for that application and the design would remain un changed. I constructed the building as per plan and code. This building was stated to be able to withstand 100 mph winds. During a stormy evening about three weeks later, sustained winds of 35 to 40 Mph were noted in that area with a few gusts to 55/60 mph. At dawn it was noted that the pavillion was on the ground, with the roof completely in tact. The Local Building Dept. Inspector and Supervisor along with the Engineer inspected the destruction. I was there, The Engineer tried in vain to place the responsibility on me the Contractor by claiming that some of the bolts were clearly not tight enough as there was no report of them being torqued to specification.

First of all, tightening bolts placed through wood beyond the beginning of deformation or visible crushing of said material weakens the material. If one tightens the nuts enough to flatten the lock washer and slightly compress the wood, they should go no further as you only create a weakness beyond the ability of the wood to retain its structual ability. I informed the Engineer that if she placed that information in her report, I would sue her for slander and defamation of character. I also informed her that I would name the County as a co-respondant as the Building Dept. reviewed and signed off on her design, and Oh, by the way there existed this letter that I had written to requesting a redesign to place the posts in the ground. The county decided to eat the damage, and I was offered the contract to remove the roof, install posts as I had suggested and re set the roof back where it fell from. I declined!

I relate this information only to support my statement from the previous reply. In my humble opinion, there is absolutely no good reason for any building to be caused to be held together by metal parts that clearly exceed the ability of the material it is installed in to retain its structual integrety. Your net may be suitable for keeping most of the rubbish in one area if the building happens to be impacted by a tornado, but it is absolutely incapable of preventing total destruction of a wood framed building. I would be willing to bet your Engineers license on that one.

Heavy timbered construction designs has incorporated metal ties for longer than I have been alive, and I am only 66 yrs old. And it is well known that the carpenters years ago managed to build with out them and the buildings they constructed often outlived the ability of the materials to survive. Rarely did the methods used in said construction cause failure.

There may one day be limited application for your design/net/materials, and if so, then likely, engineers will demand that they be thicker, longer, stronger, and far more than needed will be called out in the plans and specs.

TMF

Oh, by the way Randy,

I do see significant value in your Engineered Product. I see where it could be valuable for preventing a building from racking in high winds and especially in areas like the mountain states where high winds coupled with snow loads can exceed a buildings ability to with stand these pressures. However I see resistance to contractors appreciating what you have created much in the same way that carpenters resent light gage steel framing. Carpenters use hammers, not screw guns, drive nails not screws. As a matter of fact the average framer uses the head of the screw to remove it, and his hammer to install it. I do not see your net concept as a way to supercede the nailing schedule for plywood sheeting. I do see all those metal straps as being a royal pain in the butt for carpenters driving nails that strike them, and the posibility of injury from nails driven with air guns glancing away and hitting hitting someone at high speed. Another issue I see is in the installation effects. I presume that your net/strap installation requires the material to be either nailed or screwed to the surface of the framing members, tho I have not seen anything that shows that. It could be applied over the sheeting I guess. but either of these installation methods maked lumps and bumps to deal with when applying many of todays surface finnishes.

Here in sunny Florida, the Hurricane State, the building code permits the property owner to be his own Engineer, Architec, residential building contractor and do all of the work that he feels qualified to under take. It is that way in many states. I don't see owner/builders paying a fee to you to incorporate your idea into their building. I do see contractors not familiar with your system charging the property owner more money to install your engineered designed materials. They did it to me when I attempted to bring Light Gage Steel Framing to this area. Most of the buildings in Florida are constructed with concrete block. Even so we do not have a lot of brick and block masons. We do however have an abundence of "stackers" of cement block. We don't have a lot of truly qualified carpenters either, they are predominately just framers and installers of factory manufactured componants.

I am retired and somewhat disabled and I am going to construct just one more home. I have not yet determined whether to go for log construction or light gage steel, but it is for certain that it will not be cement block nor wood framed. Before I became a contractor, my historical background was as a carpenter, from the ground work, footings etc., through the millwork. I can do everything needed to be done to construct a home, including the plumbing, electrical and AC, drywall stucco, etc., etc. and I am a perfectionist regarding the quality of my work. There is not many like me around anymore.

I do not see where your net system will be of any value in either of the above building methods that I have selected, but good luck anyway.

Remember this, It is not what one does, it is what one gets done that he gets paid for.

TMF

Thanks for the racking prevention critique, and you bet your life I am pushing the load-combination increased resistances that Structural Strap-Nets add to buildings!!

Personal preference biases are the biggest resistance to these systems. Both the Engineering and Building Fields are stubborn, that is for sure.

Great point on the nail-glancing!! About time somebody addressed this issue. I am with Simpson's Engineers on this one, and specify for pre-punched/pre-drilled holes in any steel connectors and strappings.

The plywood sheathing and any/all frame structural coverings are, per Engineer of Record, allowed to be converted to non-structural Veneers, if/when the structural strap-net wall perpendicular deflection is limited to 1/4" or less. This requires at least one vertical linking cord along the wall in addition to the two diagonal linking cords at the corners. This means that the exterior and interior frame coverings both. Drywall to 1/4" plywood/vinyl/other light interior frame covering sound like less strain to you?

I am constantly communicating with State and Local Officials and Builders in Florida about these systems, without too much direct feedback. If you are up to it, and have some extra wood, slap one of these together in a small box-frame that you could haul and show around. The connectors, strapping, and fasteners are available in most supply stores, including Lowes and Home Depot. Everyone that I have shown the models of these systems have given them thumbs-up, and you can really get a good visual on them in 3-D. I tested one of my strap-netted box-frames by dropping it from various heights, and trying to separate it with a 3,000 pound hydraulic jack at various locations, and I am still hauling it around and showing People.

I'm off for the day, God Bless and Speed; Randy

Good afternoon, Toomuchfun!!

Structural Strap-Nets develop resistance strengths of the structure frame seams, first, and framing connections second. In this approach, the Building Designer can call out for smaller and fewer connection bolts, fasteners, etc; that deform the wood/steel/masonry/concrete. The strength increase goes to the structure's framing materials, the framing component movement reductions goes to the structural strap-net. The strapping cords are the "defense" of last resort, and maintain the compromised/under-duress structure for a longer time period than isolated reinforcing connectors do.

The biggest difference between connected/reinforced structure frames and structural strap-netted structure frames is that strap-netted frames are dual-frames. Two is better than one, even in stationary assembled objects. A continuous load-path frame is a single load-path frame, a continuously reinforced structure frame/body is a dual/multiple load-path frame. Single load-path frames rely on the connection fasteners, dual/multiple load-path frames rely on the number of tributaries that the forces/loads travel through, similar to layered clothing is warmer than heavier jackets.

Remember, the Adopted Building Codes rely on Engineering Standards, who rely on Field & Product Structural Engineers, who only work with continuous load-path frames, double-walls (two rigid walls/wall-frames anchored together into a continuous load-path frame), and modifications of continuous load-path frames. Continuous Reinforcing with tension-based frame-movement resisting strap-nets are a whole new world to Building Designers. The Municipality Plans Examiners and Building Inspectors also follow the Field Structural Engineered Designs.

I sympathise with your Pavillion Structure collapse and hope nobody was physically injured or worse. I'm pretty sure there was some cost factors involved for someone. The same thing happens at trusses when 8-20 10d nails are added within a 3" surface area of the truss/plate, and the nails aren't even tightened!! The amount of removed material by the bolts/nails, structurally, always weakens the wood truss/post/beam at that location, and speeds up shearing of the wood member at/near that location under various stresses!!

Good call on the Structural Engineer!! I am in agreement that alternate designs are allowable by the Municipality (the County in your case), and smart thinking, adding the redesign request in your Permit Application!

"I would be willing to bet your Engineering License..." Well, Toomuchfun; I am willing to bet my Technology License!! It is a higher accreditation, thank you verymuch!!

Only total destruction of the structure frame can compromise the Structural Strap-Nets. Fire/Extreme-Heat, Chemical/Acidic Reaction/Metamorphous, a Heavier Object than the strap-netted structure frame crushing the entire frame at one time. The continuity factor gives the strap-net several anchorage points around the structure frame, at high. middle, and lower levels, meaning that some of the strap-net can be sheared away, and the remaining structure will remain intact. (Should be interestingly different after tornados!!)

Continuity was widely incorporated in early heavy timber frames, by using wood dowels, mortise and tenon, connections and connection assemblies, similar with the ancient buildings like the pyramids, colusseums, and other stone/masonry buildings and structures. "Bird-Notching" of conventionally framed roofs also had continuity and connection resistance without destroying the wood. Structural Strap-Nets, with the Dual-Connecting "Claw-Connectors", apply the fewest nails, bolts, and anchors at the widest/most-spread placements possible, for non-matching material doweled/mortise and tenon structure frame assemblages of varying materials. The tenons and dowels moved with the heavy timber instead of against the timber. "Claw-Connectors" are modified mortise and tenon styled connection assemblies, and can work with varying materials. The strapping cords instead of the connectors, move a bit with the frame and component movement, before going into full tension resistance.

Most assembled buildings fail along the horizontal building component seams first, then the connection points, then the vertical corners. Structural Strap-Nets fill the gaps along the horizontal seams, connect to both the upper and lower building component, and continue around the vertical corners along the seams without any gaps, shoring up and stabilizing the vertical building corners, reducing/eliminating the horizontal building seam component separations, strengthening the effects and strengths of the connection points and components' materials, and if that fails, then holding the building components in place for a longer period of time, for Evacuees and Rescuers to have more time and access in and out of the compromised structure.

I have been busy accumulating Professional and non-Professional Opinions, commentaries, critiques, challenges from within and outside of the Construction Industry, and I'm feeling that there may be a little more than "limited applications". Remember when Electricity, HVAC, Softwater tanks, and Plumbing, were outdoor accomodations and conveniences?

God Bless and Speed, Happy New Year; Randy

The short answer is no, though that is not your fault. The industry is already top heavy with code requirements that in my experience as a contractor are almost never ALL met.Yet the inspectors, and carpenters, have to know everything about log homes, steel homes, straw bale homes, concrete homes, rammed earth homes, pressure treated wooden basements, heritage materials, etc.... Any new gadget or technique will cause the entire industry to say "what do I have to learn about on my own time NOW? And there will be resistance, if only through inertia. Code inspectors are universaly overworked and not appreciated on construction sites to the extent that they are obstructed like a cop in the hood. Any new thing that comes along requires years of testing, certification, a mechanism to prevent substandard product, and some way to train the installers and inspectors. The memories of aluminum wiring, formaldahyde foam, and plastic plumbing which appear to be made from mouse treats take a long time to fade away. I STILL do chargebacks on contractors who install hurricane ties (and joist hangars!!!) with roofing nails instead of the proper #10 nails. Anybody who has spent more than a month on a site will have similar stories so I know I am preaching to the converted.

Your system appears to have some advantages. But do the advantages outweigh my training costs, and the higher price (?) for continuous net structure versus hurricane clips. That is the question you have to answer. If you can't sell them, then you will have YOUR answer.

Good luck on your endeavour.

Howdy, Yusif1; Glad to meet a Fellow Construction Veteran and Northerner!!

I appreciate your critique and questions/concerns, and agree with some and disigree with some, as follows;

I spent 2-1/2 years in the 49th State, as a Construction Worker in the 1980's, and as a Building Designer/Civil Engineering Drafter in the 1990's. Earthquake conditions, frost heaves, etc; that I learned about in Alaska, is what inspired me to develop Continuous Connector-Reinforcing Structural Strap-Nets and Extensions. As a matter of fact, it was on a small apartment complex project on the Kenai Peninsula, in 1983, that I learned how much Building Contractors, Project Managers and Superintendents desired continuous reinforcing.

I was applying water-proofing on the inside of a crawl-space/foundation wall one morning while the Carpenters were trying to place and bolt down the sill plates on the 1-1/4" and 3/4" out-of-square foundation walls (40'x 80' per), speaking "construction-french", if you know what I mean, when I spoke up and innocently asked why the Masons/Concrete "Guys" didn't add a short retainer wall around the foundation wall to reduce squaring problems? After getting an earful from the Carpenters, the Project Super., Owner, and PM sprinted over to me and screamed "If you can give me (Super. speaking for the three) a low-wall blocking (indicating the height he wanted with his hand), I'll GIVE you that retainer wall!!"

Well, after work, I sprinted home and drew up the design drawings, and quickly found out the "errors" of my "quick-thinking", as solid horizontal blocking just didn't work, and created more problems than solved!! But I remembered the knowledgeable excitement of the Superintendent, and kept researching and experimenting over the years, until I came up with an idea on making the building wall blocking hollow, and out of solid steel, strong enough to handle the stresses/loads from the building. I then paired up the wall beam with the retaining wall bond beam, found that only 2/3's parallel matching, with the retainer wall bond beam to the lower for the building wall covering attachments, would actually work, as long as there was a continuous attaching element included!! I added the steel strapping and a lower retainer wall bond beam horizontal reinforcing bar, some wire-tie dowels, and "walla" the first working building retaining wall was "hatched"!! I wasn't too sure that I had a working design, until I saw a similar strapping arrangement in 3-D (I was drawing in 2-D cross-sectionals), when my Mother grabbed a book of my drawings I was looking through and sat down in an awkward position, holding the book overhand, on her lap. Her arm and hand represented the steel strapping coming down the interior side of the building wall and her hand's placement over and under the book showed me definitely that the wall strapping had to go under the building wall sill plate/beam, no other location would work!!

Hope you enjoyed the early history of my continuous reinforcing development, which led to the complete building/structure frame/body continuous strap-nets. I taught my 73 yr-old Painting Contractor Dad how to install Structural Strap-Nets in about an hour, as we built one of the early box-frame prototypes,and he said he'd have no problems with installing the foundation through roof-ridge systems (if he "was paid", of course), and I have worked on over a thousand new-construction projects where there are daily/weekly Change orders, that hasn't slowed down the Projects all that much.

Structural Strap-Nets are a little simpler to install than the multiple and high volume reinforcing connectors, shear-walls, braces, blocking, bridging, etc; of current Code-Compliant Reinforcement Products and Materials, and a whole lot more consistant!!

With consistancy, it shoud be easier for the Structural Designer to size and strengthen the appropriate areas of the building/structure, the structural strap-net, or BOTH, for what applied forces the building/structure will/can face, and for the Contractor's to estimate, and the Construction trades to install. Consistancy and Continuity leads to easier inspections by the Designers, Contractors, Subcontractors, Municipalities, Building Owners, etc; and fewer missed and mis-sized fasteners and connectors should occur also; translating to higher quality end-products!! Pride all-around!!

I have three orders from an Architect, and we are seeking a Contractor currently, to answer your sales question. I hope I have answered your Training question, and in my reply to Toomuchfun above, I tried to best explain the basics of Continuous Connector-Reinforcing Structural Strap-Nets and Extensions, that reduces more building/structure frame reinforcing products and materials than just hurricane clips.

I hope you can understand my friendly disagreements with your critique, Yusif1, as I am sold on Continuous Connector-Reinforcing with Structural Strap-nets and Extensions, and see many benefits for Commercial and Residential Builders, their Architects and Engineers, and additional Subcontractors!! Happy New Year!!

RLD

You said...."Compared to Isolated Location Reinforcing Connectors (by Simpson's and others), Structural Strap-Nets save between 8% and 45% of Materials, Time, & Labor, of the total structure frame (foundation-footing through roof-ridge) minimum required current Structural Design Code Reinforcing, depending on which type of frame/frame combination you are constructing. (Structural Strap-Nets are made from solid steel strapping, connectors, and fasteners, that can be supplied by Simpson Strong-Tie/Other Steel Reinforcing Products Manufacturers.)"

Bold claims, since framing of a typical single family home consumes as much as 8 percent of the final cost of the home, this could be significant.

Simpson has bought the licencing then? Then Simpson will do the engineering like the have for the rest of their products. They also have the distribution network in place. On your web site you state you have this system patented. What is the patent number please?

(Oh, and your web site address you posted here seems to be a bit wonky....I had to find it by means of Yahoo search and your profile)

Yusef1;

"Bold Claims..." If you have a 'National Construction Estimator' software program or similar, try a simple building work-up through rough frame, and compare with a conventional frame reinforced with strap-ties, post bases & caps, blocking, bridging, etc. There is more metal, but far less fastening, high-work, and pain-in-the-butt mid-panel and fill-blocking. You can also line up cross-framing tributaries with wall-framing tributaries, widening out the O.C. spacing of wood/light-steel stud walls, and post & beam assemblies; and you can shrink the widths of the walls, because of the added deflection-resistances from the steel strap-nets. I've ran the comparisons for wood-stud, -log, -heavy timber, -composite walls, masonry stone, brick and block walls, concrete tilt-up, grid, ICF walls, and light and heavy steel post & beam, girder, and stud walls, without a single cost increase.

"Simpson...Licensing...": I am the Licensee; Working on/with Simpson's, currently, but need a Jusisdictional Approval First, waiting on a Building Official's Public Response that Structural Strap-Nets exceed Code, to forward to Simpson's. My and Building Official Statements made on 11/20/2008, Public Meeting Minutes, Minute's Approval, Full Disclosures should be available early 2009. We are hoping for Simpson's purchasing Copyrights soon after.

"Simpson will do Engineering...": No; Simpson only can Engineer for Isolated, Patented Connectors. I/we are seeking Simpson's/Other Steel Reinforcing Products Manufacturers to include specific additional Product Lines for 'Engineered Dual-Tributary Continuous Connector-Reinforcing Systems that require additional Engineering', in addition to Simpson's. Basically, there will be Project Engineering, Standard Engineering, of Continuous Reinforced Structure frames/Bodies, that Simpson's, etc; will supply the Materials for. Their current Patented & Engineered Product lines will continue, and hopefully, complimented by Continuous Reinforcing Products Sales.

"You state your systems are Patented": Not on your life!! These are Engineered Systems for buildings and structures, from a New Technology!! I developed continuous reinforcing to reduce building movement, and ended up with a whole New Technology in Dual-Connected, Dual-Tributary, Dual-Wall, Dual-Body Structures!! I had to deny myself and others to obtain a Patent! This way, all the Innovated-Products and End-Products developed with continuous reinforcing technology, like the technology of electricity, can then be Patentable and Patented. Took three years of Witnessing, patience, Public Disclosures, Registrations, etc; to get the New Technology, Licensing and Copyrights in my name, so that these other things can move forward. If Ben Franklin had today's Legal Rights available (he hit electricity in 1752, while we (the U.S.) were still under British Rule, and our Patents Office and Treasury Department were still years away from existance), these are the steps he would take. He got his fame, but not a single dollar (except for publishing some of his works)!! As a matter of fact, he never even saw a working product using his discovered and developed technology of Electricity in his lifetime!! The first working Electric Commercial Product was the Telegraph Wire, built in Baltimore in 1848!! I have had many Collaborators over the years since 1983, and we are doing what we can to fast-track the Continuous Connector-Reinforcing Technology, and the best-case scenario for the first Commercial use is Buildings and Structures, with the car/truck/plane Body-Frame a close Competitor. There are applications for infrastructure, storage containers, medical, robotics, etc; also.

The Legal Info at the bottom of my website pages and on my Business Card are sufficient for Legal Concerns, Sales, Purchases. I will be updating and reconstructing the website with more confirmations, better technical details, in January, '09. I have been granted the entire Concept through Development of Continuous Connector-Reinforcing Technologies and any/all similar Systems and Technologies, and all the Legal Rights and Protections as Owner of the Technology, not the end-products.

Basically, to go with Structural Strap-Nets and Extensions, "ya-gotta buy the license", and since the U.S. Government hasn't bought me out yet, you get the license, legal protections, and rights through me. I feel like a Prospector with a Mining Claim, or a Rancher with Water Rights.

I have put together Design Packets/Reports for Residential Builders and Commercial Builders and their Structural Engineers that I include with the Copy/Design Use Licensing I offer, to cover all Building Project Scenarios.

I hope this helps; RLD

Oh so thats what the hype is about, you are seeking licencees. But you don't own the patent. This is generally considered to be a red flag.

Good luck with that.

I quote.... I have been granted the entire Concept through Development of Continuous Connector-Reinforcing Technologies and any/all similar Systems and Technologies, and all the Legal Rights and Protections as Owner of the Technology, not the end-products." unquote. Sounds really fine. However, you forgot to mention who did the granting. Thats what patent offices do. So your statement is lacking something. I am sure you just forgot in your distress about poor Ben Franklin.

I wish you all the luck in the world. Your claw system seemed particularly innovative. My recommendation (because you asked it in the original question) is to ignore the stories about Ben Franklin, remember the stories about how Nocola Tesla refused to patent his generator, George Westinghouse DID, and who is a household name nowadays? and get your system patented.

Then get Home Depot to sell it.

Yusef1; Why are you stuck on Patents?

Engineered Systems/Frames are higher rated and hold more power.

Technology is different from product. Technology falls under Engineering Seals. Product falls under Patents.

Continuous Connector-Reinforcing, Structural Strap-Nets and Extensions, and all Continuous Reinforcing Systems fall under Technology.

Put the Technology to a Product, go and get your Patent!!

Buy the Technology License before you do, though, so that you don't run into any Legal problems or Approval blocks. I am not stopping you from adding these technologies to your products, but you will be stopped somewhere along the line if you do not have the Licensing. Some Companies here already tried to skip the Licensing and got stopped by someone.

I own the Technology, and Original Rights to Continuous Connector-Reinforcing Technologies, including any/all Continuous Reinforcing Systems and any/all Dual-Tributary Structure Frames/Bodies.

Red Flags to those who put out, tested, approved, etc; the 300,000 destroyed buildings in hurricane Katrina, 100,000 in Ike, 25,000 in Gustav, and so on. Improving the Structure Frames of Buildings and similar Structures might be a good idea for the Construction Industry in whole, don't you think?

FYI: Tesla and Westinghouse would have never had a Generator without the Technology (non-patented) of Electricity.

Happy New Years, God Bless and Speed; Randy Lee Dube

A technology certificate becomes useless the day some patent somewhere pops up that shows that your idea may have been thought of by somebody else first. You don't know unless you do the patent search, and if you go to all that trouble, you may as well own the patent. If you own that patent, you don't have that problem.

Thats why.

I personally have no interest in doing a patent search as a prerequisite to obtaining a licence. When I lay in rebar into a footing, I don't worry about infringing some technolgy patent, but I DO worry about code compliance. Maybe some company which is in the business will do it, and do the engineering for you. A google search for "frame supported tension structures" yielded only 219,000 results. A search should not take too long.

As I said before, good luck with that. I'll buy it when Lowes sells it...it looks like it could reduce costs by a few dollars per house...maybe even more than a few. I look forward to seeing your product in Home Depot and smiling that I knew you back in the beginning.

Again, I wish you all the luck in the world.

Thank you Yusef1; for the search reference.

The Patent Office Representative I met and spoke with in October explained the Public Disclosure rules, gave me a pamphlet explaining the Physics Phenomenae Rules and Restrictions, and gave me the U.S. Code Provision, that at least in a Court of Law, States that the new Technology of Continuous Connector-Reinforcing, Structural Strap-Nets and Extensions, and Dual-Tributary structure frames and bodies of varying properties and actions, will never ever receive a Patent from the U.S. or any Patent's Office on the Planet, for any Individual, Business, Organization, or Government.

Before I announced the discovery and early developments of my systems, I performed about a thousand Patent searches, in all fields. I still perform a Patent search yearly, and nothing even close to continuous reinforcing systems ever pops up. The closest Patented Product, Physically, is the trampoline, and the closest Patented Products, shape and body wise, are the various nets.

Tension-Resistant Structural Frames and Bodies are erected in full tension at the outset, and Structural Strap-Nets differ in that the strapping rings and cords are placed in slack tension. This is what gives the strap-net its three separate functions of A) Initial impact force resistance (where isolated reinforcing connectors are now), B) Force-Load Reductions, via the additional load distribution tributaries that also dissipate the absorbed loads by vibrating some, and C) the Tension-Resistance when the strap-net is stretched to its limits, which is what limits the accessorized structure frame/body movements and separations. This is the Momentum Conservation and Equilibrium section on my website.

Because of all these functions, and that Structural Strap-Nets add force-resistance plus flexure, elasticity, and resilience to the accessorized frame/body, the resulting building, structure, container, vehicle, body/frame functions physically different than either conventional frames, reinforced conventional frames, double-wall body-frames, post-tensioned frame components, and so on. This is why I was denied a Patent in the first place. The Patent Office Representative, thankfully, kind of understood what I was explaining, and referred me to the Treasury Department, who after hearing what I was working on, spoke with a Supervisor, who quickly laid out the steps I needed to take for this kind of development, a New Technology. The only thing they asked was if I had witnesses that could confirm that I was the Person working on this Technology, which I had taken care of before contacting the Patent's Office. I have 8 signed Witnesses on my early drawings, that can/will testify in any Court that I had drawn those early works, and was working on some kind of continuous structure frame/body reinforcing method/system. I also have several Public Disclosure mediums on the topic. I wasn't about to take any chances, just in case these systems are what they are. This is what gives me the Official Discovery credit, Originality ("first come, first serve) and Developer's Legal Rights and Protections. Those who purchase the Licenses also receive these Legal Rights and Protections.

If I could get a Patent, on this Technology, I would (I have placed other of my inventions in the Patents Process, with an Attorney, in the 1990's.) I will be racing those who may/will be obtaining Patents on the resulting new products that use this new technology, though!! I do own the Licensing!

As a former Building Plans Examiner and Building Inspector, and with affirmations from two additional Building Officials (one former, one current), you can be assured that these systems exceed all IBC Structural Code Provisions and Engineering Standards, and meet/exceed all the rest of the Building/Residential/Fire Codes, and meet/not-applicable to the Electrical, Energy, Plumbing, Mechanical, ADA, Codes and Standards.

"Frame Supported Tension Structures" yields tents, geodisic domes, double-walled and similar structures, as far as my research has gone so far on that category. Great Reference though, as it confirms the current Building Official's claim that there are not any structural systems like mine anywhere that he could find. He'll be glad to hear that.

The basic, or Standard Engineering is completed for these systems, but as I mentioned earlier, I have to wait on some Public Meeting Minutes/Records to go Public before I talk with Simpson's about their General Notes for Installers of their Product Lines. I will then be able to Publish these Standards for Continuous Reinforcing of Residential, Under 3,000 square foot Commercial Buildings, Manufactured Buildings, Containers, and any/all Structures and Products that do not require a Project Specific Engineering/Professional Designer's Sealed Calculations.

Again, thank you so much for your input and assistance, and especially a "somewhat" open mind to a new method and system of building/structure reinforcing. Maybe we can reduce some bad things in tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc; in the near future, with these new systems.

God Bless and Speed; Randy

No question that adding tensile elements to a frame will make the frame stronger. When I work out, I build muscle. As the muscle (the tensile element) gets stronger, I can lift heavier weights. A suspension bridge with stronger cables can carry heavier traffic. To me, this doesn't seem like a great physics breakthrough. Smarter people than me seem to have told you that it is. My mind is totally open to this. My wallet is not. (Which makes me less interesting, I know.....) Turning an idea into a business is really hard. Railroads were not built because somebody discovered "hey, we could run a steel wheel on a steel track, that would work". No, the railroads were built and became profitable when they found a use for them.

My business professor told me that that the world is covered in good ideas. There are millions of them. It takes a businessman to turn that idea into a "product". Or a "process". It takes a salesman to sell it and turn it into money. Which come to think of it, is the purpose of business. And if one idea doesn't work, well, there are plenty more. This seems like a good one.

My neighbour nailed metal strapping (like from what you would use for palletizing loads) all over his house, up the sides, over the top of the rafters. (Didn't keep it from burning I notice...grin!). Don't know why he did it...I think he was in a windstorm as a boy and the roof came off and scared him. He did this in addition to the hurricane clips and wind racking clips. I built a steel barn, and attached diagonal aircraft cables in big x's to keep it from racking. Its still standing. The aircraft hangar I worked in for half my life had big tension bars in huge 4 story high x's infilling the bays. My Kayak will fall apart if I take the skin off. And the aircraft I worked on for so many years...all held together by tension skins. (a skin is a just a very wide strap....grin!) So, in my limited experience, tension stabilized structures work, and work well. Any boy scout pegging his pup tent would agree. My statement about the tech certificate being jeopardized by previous patents is taken directly from a patent oriented legal web site because to be honest, I had never heard of a Technology Certificate until you mentioned it.

It will take an engineer to decide if you can get away with using fewer frames because each frame is stronger. And how much. I can't do that. I don't know if you used fewer frames if it would make it harder to use standard sized lumber, or sheet goods such as drywall or sheathing. Would using fewer frames mean a requirement to use heavier sheathing to support snow loads? I dunno. That would be up to the designer. Too many variables for me....

(Must have been expensive to do all those patent searches...they cost upwards of a thousand bucks a search up here in Canada. More if it is a complex thing. Better you than me...)

Yusef1; FYI: I got my Licensing through the U.S Teasury Department Business Licensing Division. I got my Technology through the U.S. Patent's Office via Public Disclosure Regulations, and that no one Claimed the Technology during the allotted Public Disclosure Time-Frame.

RLD