Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Solid blocking between 2x outlookers

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I agree about joist rotation, but the question was regarding outlookers...I
don't think you would have any rotation issues with outlookers. In any case,
I would still use blocking even at the outlookers.

~~ Eli ~~


-----Original Message-----
From: Honles, Thomas [mailto:Thomas.Honles(--nospam--at)ladwp.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 10:58 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: Solid blocking between 2x outlookers

Solid 2x blocking is necessary to prevent joist rotation. In the case of
diaphragm shear transfer through end blocking  to the bearing top plate of a
shear wall, I always include a framing clip detail, as I do not rely on
toenailing through the blocking.

Best regards,

Thomas Honles, SE, PE
Los Angeles, CA

-----Original Message-----
From: Eli Grassley [mailto:elig(--nospam--at)psm-engineers.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 10:51 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: Solid blocking between 2x outlookers


I don't know about the specifics of the WFCM, but in regards to your second
question: blocking should typically be the same depth as the framing or
outlooker. In most cases you are relying on the nailing of the roof
sheathing into the top of the blocking to get a shear transfer out of your
diaphragm and into the shear wall top plate. If a shorter block is used then
you would need some type of mechanical clips at the top and bottom of the
framing member itself to get an effective load path.

IMO, blocking is not worth cutting corners on, and I would always use it at
exterior wall conditions, whether the WFCM is clear about it or not.


Eli Grassley
PSM Engineers
Seattle, WA

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Wilson [mailto:wilsonengineers(--nospam--at)yahoo.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 10:18 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Solid blocking between 2x outlookers

Does anyone have a clarification on this?

WFCM Table 2.2C has a detail of framing requirements
for gable endwall outlookers.  One note points to the
solid blocking and refers to it as "Required
blocking."  It does not seem clear if it is saying
that blocking IS required, or that blocking is to be
provided as required, as if when designed by an
engineer.

And is blocking always just equal in proportion to the
member it is bracing?  i.e. 2x10 blocking for 2x10
framing, or can smaller pieces be used?

Thanks,
Jim Wilson, PE
Stroudsburg, PA



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

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



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