Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Load Paths

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Dennis S. Wish, PE wrote:

The answer is simply to compare prescriptive conventional framing to engineered design. The walls can be designed to 10-feet in conventional construction but may not calculate in full-compliance. So regardless of whether your stamp is on the project or not, there is a strong argument probably coming from NAHB-RC to support taller walls subject to out-of-plane forces.

This is part of my frustration right there. I realize we've discussed this before but prescriptive provisions outlining "conventional construction" really screw me up when trying to discuss things with builders.

I can handle the "well, the inspector lets us do that" argument, but NOT the "but the Code says it's okay" argument when the calculations don't work!

GRRRRRR!

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