Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: History of conventional wood framing.

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Reference  History of concentional wood framing

Mostly I just listen but Gary Wheeler's definition of conventional 
Framing forces me to jump in.
Conventional framing, in my opinion, is perfectly legal and quite 
often quite appropriate, safe, durable, and totally in conformance 
with the applicable building code.
Conventional merely implies that the construction is done in 
accordance with the prescriptive requirements of the residential 
building code.  It does not even exclusively imply wood framing.When 
conventional construction is done, it is usually inspected for 
compliance with the applicable building code. Any construction can be 
done badly, even properly engineered designs. Any construction can be 
poorly inspected, even properly engineered designs.  Bad framers and 
conventional construction are not the same thing.  Poor quality 
construction and conventiona;l construction are also not the same 
thing. Let's not make conventional framing a bad thing.  There are 
many areas outside of severe seismic and/or high wind areas where 
conventional framing is both legal and appropriate.  Don't forget, 
the codes are conservative and frequently result in an overbuilt 
Don Carr

> "Conventional" as opposed to "Engineered" or specially-designed.
> Conventional implies wood framing built by north american carpenters
> using their "traditional" methods.  2x4 studs 16" on center, three
> studs at each corner, stud walls with double top plate & single
> bottom plate, 4' lap at plate splices,  plate splices over studs
> only, two 16 penny nails endnailed thru plate to each stud, 1x4
> let-in braces at each corner and say 25' apart, etc.   Wood 2x
> rafter and joists per the tables in the building code and toenailed
> to the top plate.  Vernacular construction.  No special inspections.
>  No special plywood nailing patterns, no boundary nailing, no
> collector ties or fancy seismic holdowns.  The only bolts involved
> are the 1/2" anchor bolts 6' on center holding the mudsill to the
> foundation.  No glulams or steel beams.  No engineer or architect 
> involved usually, and carpenters can do whatever the owner doesn't
> notice and the inspector okays.
> I guess we should not assume so much when we use the term
> "conventional".
> Gary M. Wheeler, AIA, Architect
> American Architecture Service.  Try our Portal at
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Rodrigo Lema <rodrigolema(--nospam--at)>
>     To: seaint <seaint(--nospam--at)>
>     Date: Thursday, February 25, 1999 9:22 PM
>     Subject: History of conventional wood framing.
>    > I hope you understand that, living in a country where wood is
>    not used
> >as a structural material (at least not frequentrly and certainly not in
> >framing), I'm not failiar with certain terms.
> >   I'd like to know what is conventional, I mean conventional as opposed to
> >what?
> >    Thanks in advance.
> >
> >    Rodrigo Lema.
Donald L. Carr
NAHB Research Center, Inc.
400 Prince Georges Blvd.
Upper Marlboro, MD 20774
301-249-4000 x575