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

Re: Field Observations - Stupid things I've seen

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
In a message dated 6/28/99 11:09:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
jbseegert(--nospam--at) writes:

<< Unfortunately, your retrofit doesn't sound like it's code compliant.
 From my understanding, you have a shear wall that is constructed out of
 structural wood panels that is 2' wide by 9' to 12' high.  The maximum
 h./d ratio for this type of wall (with blocking installed) is 3.5:1
 which results in a maximum of 7' high.  Hopefully I misunderstood your
 problem. >>

You did, the plans called for a 3' wide by 9' high wall and the contractor 
moved the door opening thus reducing the shearwall width to 2'.  This was my 
point that he did not follow the plans and had no understanding of the 
importance of a shearwalls length. 
The wall height (plate to plate) was 12', however, I reduced the walls 
effective height to 9'-0" (the header heights) by sheathing above all doors 
and windows and straping the headers and ultimately blocking and strapping 
them to the shearwall. This would make an effective drag strut and reduce the 
panels effective height in the process.

I personally feel that any "Framer" should be required to prove his knowledge 
of load paths and how to protect the structural system before he steps on a 
job site or lifts a hammer.