Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Conventional Light Framed Construction Vs. Engineered Building

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



The only time we use the CLFC method, is when we’re working with a Contractor who is used to building to the CLFC requirements and feels they can save the owner money by doing so.


Sometimes we find that, for whatever building configuration we may be working with at the time, it will be cheaper to do the traditional engineering with shear walls b/c there will be less of them.  For instance, when you have wall segments along a length of wall which are shorter than the 4’-0”, by using the perforated shear wall design method; you might be able to eliminate the ‘heavy hold-downs’ at the ends if it is a load bearing wall.




Andy Heigley, PE



-----Original Message-----
From: Guadalupe Rivera [mailto:grivera(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 5:58 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: Conventional Light Framed Construction Vs. Engineered Building



I mistakenly posed these questions as a response to an earlier post rather than as it's own inquiry and it may have gotten lost in the shuffle.

I'd like to get some of your input on the following:

Do many of you use conventional light framed construction requirements as opposed to providing full engineering calculations for the structure? 

What drives your decision for going the conventional construction route, cost to the owner? 

Any thoughts on mixing conventional light framed construction braced wall lines with engineered shearwall lines in the same structure?  For example, any thoughts/concerns/warnings on having three distinct braced wall lines and two distinct engineered shearwall lines all in the north/south direction......or an entire second story of conventional light framed construction over an entirely engineered first story?

Thanks for any input shared.