Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
[SEAOC] Conventional construction provisions[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
- Subject: [SEAOC] Conventional construction provisions
- From: RLFOLEY(--nospam--at)aol.com
- Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 01:07:10 -0400
I have just read your letter regarding the 1994 UBC conventional construction provisions. While I haven't focused as much attention on the subject as you obviously have, I would like to discuss this. I noticed that a couple of connections have been added to the nailing schedule table. Sorry I dont have all the code section references as I am home without my code as I am writing this, but one is nailing from rafter blocking to top plate and the other is from rim rafter to top plate. These connections may represent the shear transfer from roof diaphram to shear wall you were concerned with. I'm sure you are familiar also with the testing that was done last year as UCI by Seb Ficcadente and others which sought to explain why, although a lack of shear transfer nailing from roof to walls was routinely lacking, roofs were not sliding off the walls. It seems the toenails from the rafters to the top plates alone was capable of transfering loads at least as great as the allowable shear capacity of an unblocked diaphram. I don't feel that the conventional construction provisions themselves were to blame for the damage we saw after Northridge as much as poor construction practices, inspection, and lack of structural observation. Keep the thread going. ...
- Prev by Subject: [SEAOC] Continuing Education Credits Online?
- Next by Subject: [SEAOC] Cost of retrofit of structural members
- Previous by thread: [SEAOC] Re: [SEAOC] Structural Jobs!
- Next by thread: [SEAOC] Re: [SEAOC] Conventional construction provisions