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]
>From my understanding the requirements for 14" studs only apply to
foundation cripple wall studs and not the cripple studs above or below a
window.  Therefore, this situation would be satisfactory per code.

I do not know the history of the code but I believe there are more
restrictive requirements on foundation cripple walls because (at least is
heavy seismic zones) buildings have a tendency to "slip" off their
foundation if they are not well supported.  And even though it is possible
to cut a stud to short lengths, it is unlikely that a framer will do this
properly with no splits and studs flush to the sill and top plates.

Joseph Goldbronn


-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Hauer [mailto:lrhauer(--nospam--at)hotmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 7:39 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: Cripple wall stud length

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.

_________________________________________________________________
Don't miss your chance to WIN $10,000 and other great prizes from Microsoft 
Office Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/aub0540003042mrt/direct/01/


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