Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Brick with Metal Stud Backup

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Daryl,

Thanks for the background.  The Canadian work was by far the most
definitive.

Regards,
Harold O. Sprague

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Daryl Richardson [SMTP:h.d.richardson(--nospam--at)shaw.ca]
> Sent:	Friday, July 19, 2002 12:17 PM
> To:	seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject:	Re: Brick with Metal Stud Backup
> 
> Harold,
> 
>         There is some interesting background to the Canadian position on
> this
> system.
> 
>         A few years ago engineers and architects were faced with a large
> number
> of claims relating to failures with the system which at that time was
> significantly inferior to what it is today.  As a result, ENCON (the
> organization providing insurance for architects and engineers) wrote to
> all
> engineers and architects requesting that they stop using the system.
> Period.
> Of course there were loud screams of anguish from the suppliers, the
> loudest
> coming from the Canadian Sheet Steel Building Institute (CSSBI), whose
> counter
> proposal led to the present requirements (which also include increased
> site
> inspections relative to what was previously being done).
> 
> Regards,
> 
> H. Daryl Richardson
> 
> "Sprague, Harold O." wrote:
> 
> > This topic has been discussed on the list on several occasions.  The
> Metal
> > Lath / Steel Framing Association and the Brick Institute of America both
> > predicated their recommendations on the same 222 page Clemson study, but
> > they came up with markedly different conclusions.  The MLSFA recommended
> > L/360.  The BIA recommended L/600.  They did not want to have their
> brick
> > joints cracked.
> >
> > In the mean time, the Canadians did their own thing.  The Canada
> Mortgage
> > and Housing Corporation did some very good research.  Re: Technics Steel
> > Stud / Brick Veneer Walls, by Trestain and Rousseau, Progressive
> > Architecture.  The Canadians went with L/720.  The reference also
> contains
> > some additional design and construction recommendations that are very
> good.
> >
> > My personal preference is to infer a 10 year wind with L/720 by
> designing to
> > L/600 for the 50 year wind.  I also go to a G90 stud, and if I am pushed
> I
> > will go to hot rolled channels.
> >
> > Not to make your problem worse, but your 25 psf sounds light for the
> corner
> > condition.
> >
> > Read all about it in the references at:
> > http://www.masonconf.com/miw/veneer/refandbib.html
> >
> > Regards,
> > Harold O. Sprague
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: richard lewis [SMTP:rlewistx(--nospam--at)juno.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 3:15 PM
> > > To:   seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > > Subject:      Brick with Metal Stud Backup
> > >
> > > I am designing a brick wall with a metal stud backup.  The BIA notes
> > > recommend the metal stud be sized to support all the wind load with a
> > > maximum deflection of h/600.  The building has a few areas with very
> tall
> > > walls.  The worst case unbraced height is about 19 feet.  The
> component
> > > and cladding wind pressure is 25 psf.
> > >
> > > I have several questions:
> > >
> > > 1. Should the wind load be the 10 year wind load or the 50 year wind
> > > load?  The 50 year wind load blows this out of the water for
> deflection
> > > criteria, although the 10 year is not much better.
> > > 2. What have others done as solutions to tall stud walls?  Any
> > > suggestions of how to economically reduce the wall height?  Perhaps
> > > double studs or something like that?
> > >
> > > Rich
> > >
> >
> > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> > *
> > *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> > *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> > *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> > *
> > *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> > *
> > *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> > *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> > *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> > *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> 
> 
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> * 
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
> *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ******** 

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********