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

Braced Timber Frames

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

I have been told by several building officials that I couldn't use timber moment resisting "frames" because there was no "R" value for the system. I offered to use "R" for undefined systems but was still shot down. My solution was to embed the columns in a deep pier footing, like you would use for a pole building, and use the "R" for Inverted Pendulum Systems. The owner was not happy about the expense, but he got his permit.

The APA just recently released a technical note "TT-074" for the design of timber portal "frames". They recommend using the "R" value for light framing with wood structural panels (6-1/2). This is not much to rely on, but your BO might accept it.

Dmitri Wright, PE
Portland, OR

From: "Christopher Haffner" <chaffner(--nospam--at)>
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)>
Subject: Braced Timber Frames - try again

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Sorry to do this again but I'm on an island until I get some feedback on

The UBC had an R-Value of 2.8 for braced timber-frames in Table 16-O but
that listing disappeared in the IBC Table

1617.6.2.  Is there any kind of Code guidance on this type of structure any
more?  Is this type of SFRS even allowed anymore?  What are others doing?
It's pretty hard convincing people why a braced timber frame can no longer
be used when it's "been done like that for years."


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at:
* * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
* Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) 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: ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********