Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Cripple wall stud length

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Good thought.  I've never heard anyone complain about them, and it's a pretty common situation.

Ralph

In a message dated 6/2/07 7:40:04 AM, lrhauer(--nospam--at)hotmail.com writes:
Ralph,

I don't have any answer to your question, but I was thinking: What about the
studs between a double top plate and a header? They are generally less than
14" high, so it would seem to be this is contrary to the code requirement.

Larry Hauer S.E.


>From: Rhkratzse(--nospam--at)aol.com
>Reply-To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
>To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
>Subject: Cripple wall stud length
>Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 12:18:56 EDT
>
>Folks,
>
>I've been curious for a long time about the reason for the UBC limitation
>[2320.11.5] on stud length in cripple walls.   [I'm not familiar with the
>IBC,
>but I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't have a similar limitation.]  
>Studs
>are required to be 14" minimum length, or solid blocking must be used.   I
>understand that there may be concerns about splitting of very short (e.g.
>3")
>studs, but it seems to me that sometimes it might be more desirable to use
>larger,
>short studs -- say 4x4 x 12" tall -- rather than a solid horizontal member.
>Less shrinkage, less wood, less cost, etc.   Yes, of course we could use
>manufactured wood, but that's expensive and from an engineering point of
>view may
>not be necessary.
>
>Does anyone know the reason for this 14" limitation, its history, and/or
>whether it is ever considered acceptable to violate it in certain
>circumstances?
>
>TIA,
>
>Ralph Hueston Kratz, S.E.
>Richmond CA USA



**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com.