The way that I understood it was that you designed a repair as a result
of the contractor moving the door over 1'. You discussed how hard it
was to "retrofit" a hold down in the wall with such a high uplift value.
I assumed that this high value was as a result of the shorter length of
I would hope that a contractor was able to follow a set of drawings. I
would also never expect a contractor to change a wall that was clearly
identified as a shear wall. But to expect a contractor to understand
minimum height to length ratios and other design requirements for
constructing shear walls is like hoping the Cubs win the World Series;
its not impossible but it doesn't happen very often.
From: Seaintonln(--nospam--at)aol.com [mailto:Seaintonln(--nospam--at)aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 12:39 AM
Subject: Re: Field Observations - Stupid things I've seen
In a message dated 6/28/99 11:09:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
<< 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
You did, the plans called for a 3' wide by 9' high wall and the
moved the door opening thus reducing the shearwall width to 2'. This
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
and windows and straping the headers and ultimately blocking and
them to the shearwall. This would make an effective drag strut and
panels effective height in the process.
I personally feel that any "Framer" should be required to prove his
of load paths and how to protect the structural system before he steps
job site or lifts a hammer.