Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

[SEAOC] Fwd: Conventional construction provisions

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Forwarded message:
Subj:    Conventional construction provisions
Date:    96-05-23 01:07:09 EDT
From:    RLFOLEY
To:      seaoc(--nospam--at)

I have just read your letter regarding the 1994 UBC conventional construction
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.