Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Tall stud wall framing / IRC rant

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
 
Scott -

I understood you fully and can appreciate your opinion to a point.
Sure, if someone doesn't want to read all the fine print in any
document, then shame on them.  The problem I see is when the fine print
should in reality be the featured information.  It's misleading and
confusing when a document is written like that.  I don't even imagine
that it was done intentionally in the case of the IRC as it often is by
banks with their low interest rates (and in many other immoral
instances) or if the headline to a story is simply WRONG when taken in
the context of the complete article, but that's not the point.  If a
table is constructed to make building a home more simple for the average
builder, then it should be done so that questions like this aren't the
norm.  They (the questions) are.

The builder doesn't understand why 2x6s aren't allowed because the table
tells him that they are.  It's the entire point of this conversation -
and that's the table is misleading.  I said it before and I'll say it
again - it doesn't matter who's right and who's wrong.  You can carry
yourself above others knowing you're right (and you are - you really
are!) but it doesn't matter when they aren't understanding or willing to
bother with all the details of the construction documents.  The table
should be constructed such that minimum strengths are built into them.
It's really not that difficult really.  You can have a table with
heights (lengths), loading and tributary widths for each grade and
species of lumber.  We all know that would be easy to create - in fact
some of us already do that for our typical loading and framing
conditions.  

I agree though - you could try to idiot-proof the whole thing and you're
still going to have that idiot who busts it.  No matter how many tables
and charts you write to clearly show what he's allowed to do he'll
mis-read them and then argue with you.  We've all met him.  I say if you
want to work with him then good luck.  


=================================
Christopher S. Campbell
O'Connor Freeman & Assoc., Inc.
916.441.5721     fax 916.441.5697
 
"They're only mad at me because I'm right"
=================================


From: Scott Maxwell <smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu>
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: Tall stud wall framing / IRC rant

Chris,

To me, the issue was the original messages seemed to imply that the
building did not even bother to read the whole table (i.e. read the
footnotes).  I agree that the code is about communication...but that
"communication" does not happen if one does not read the whole item of
communication.  If you read only the headline of a news article and get
the wrong impression from just headline while reading the whole article
would give you a completely different impression, then it is not "poor"
communication...it is the fact that you were lazy and did not read the
whole thing.  In this case, if the builder just looked at the table, but
did not read the footnotes, then I view that as the builder's problem
not
a problem with the code.

Now, since then Jordan mentioned in a later message that even AFTER the
footnotes and limitations were pointed out to the builder, the builder
still did not understand why 2x6s where not permitted.  This could be
because the information in the table was unclear (although 25 psf snow
load seems pretty clear to me) or it could be due to the builder doing
good ol' "I've been doing it this way for XX number of years without a
problem" and just wanting to ignore the code.  That I dunno.

My original contention (and it stil is) is that ANYTHING and/or
EVERYTHING
will be "misleading" if you only read part of it.  So, why are we
blaming
the people who wrote it if some moron chooses to only read part of it?
Now, if in fact it was read completely and was confusing/easy to
misinterpret, then maybe it needs to be fixed.

But like what you kind of said, I am not aware of everything that
happened, so I am only in a position to comment on what has been
mentioned
here.  And from that, it seemed like to me that the real problem was not
with the IRC table but rather a builder that had it in his/her head to
use
2x6s (or less) and was grasping at anything that s/he could to justify
it.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI


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