Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Conventional Framing Provisions Inadequate?[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: Conventional Framing Provisions Inadequate?
- From: NRoselund(--nospam--at)aol.com
- Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 13:07:38 EDT
In a recent post, Mark Deardorff said, "I disagree, however, with the option of eliminating conventional framing provisions as such. I agree that they are inadequate and should be strengthened." I'm not convinced that the conventional framing provisions are even "inadequate" if applied consistently. I think that strict interpretation of the "not of unusual size or shape" provisions is the principal need. I've looked at many homes built using the conventional framing provisions of the past. They survive earthquake shaking with damage consisting of cracked plaster (occasionally extensively cracked) and little else. Exceptions, of course include the need, in the case of older houses, for underfloor bracing on cripple walls to keep them from "parallelograming", and bolting of mudsills to keep the framing from sliding on the foundation during an earthquake. Provided a conventionally framed house is maintained to repair termite and rot damaged framing and to keep water leaks and deteriorating drainage systems under control, and provided a knowledgeable carpenter follows the plumber and HVAC guys with their chain saws through the house to correct their damage, it seems to be capable of remaining quite serviceable in earthquake country. I believe that strict interpretation of the "unusual size, or shape" provisions is important. Masonry chimneys are a serious problem. But they are not included in the Conventional Framing Provisions and should not be allowed as part of a house built by the Provisions in earthquake country. Can anyone cite seismic damage, beyond cracked-up plaster, to a house without a masonry chimney built by the Conventional Construction Provisions of the UBC, not of unusual size, or shape, cripple walls braced and mudsills bolted that is not due to failure to follow the Provisions, or due to damage done post-construction by plumbers, termites, fungi, or others who have no concern for the structural significance of their intrusions? Any such cited damage may provide a pattern that could appropriately become a basis for modifications to the Provisions. The fact that we "can't make them figure" shouldn't be considered an appropriate basis for modifications to the Provisions, if they actually work in real earthquakes. Nels Roselund Structural Engineer
- Prev by Subject: Convention Pictures
- Next by Subject: Conventional Framing Provisions Inadequate? -Reply
- Previous by thread: Re: UCI-CoLA Research
- Next by thread: Conventional Framing Provisions Inadequate? -Reply