Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Hardy Frames

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Bill,

The new ICBO report is nice because it gives values for R=4.4 and R=5.5
for 1997 UBC. This way, you don't have to fight with plan checkers about
the different R values (Some would want you to design the wood walls for
R=4.4) when most engineers would reduce the capacity of the Hardy Frames
by this ratio. The new ICBO (I mean ICC report) takes care of this and
already reduces the values. This way, you can sub shearwalls with hardy
products on a force demand basis. Also make sure you have some space on
either side for trimmer studs or posts (I like to use wood posts or dbl
2x's at the ends of the frames and try to avoid compression on the
chords of the frame when possible due to adjacent header/beams). I
ignore the DL contribution to overturning resistance to be conservative
(unless I absolutely must)

Things to be careful with are walls with penetrations (I had a
contractor try to install a vent through the bottom of the hardy
template). The main thing to watch for is how it's mounted, directly on
concrete, on mudsill, or on a raised floor. The ICBO has different
values for each installation, and the details are slightly different for
the bottom of the frame.

It's all in the ICBO report, you can get the details from their website
(just have to modify them so they match your drafting style).

If you need more info, email me privately.
HTH
-gerard
Lodi, CA

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Allen [mailto:T.W.Allen(--nospam--at)cox.net] 
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 9:31 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Hardy Frames

I am looking for advice from those who have used Hardy frames in
residential construction in high seismic zones (particularly in CA with
the 1997 UBC / 2001 CBC).

I've seen the literature, scanned the ICBO report, but, frankly, I don't
pay attention to things very well until I have to use it on one of my
projects. Well, I did a stoopid thing and mentioned Hardy frames to a
client of mine and he would like to substitute all double sided shear
walls with Hardy frames.

For those of you who have used them, any pitfalls? Anything to watch out
for? Any change in the analysis? To me, they look like OCBFs requiring a
different R, requiring multiplying design forces by 1.5 (or worse,
limited applicability due to AISC Seismic Provisions), etc. but possibly
the ICBO report has avoided all of this.

Input would be most appreciated.

Regards,

T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E. (CA #2607)
V/F (949) 248-8588
San Juan Capistrano, CA
http://members.cox.net/ballense/





******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********