Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: More Plywood Diaphragm ?'s

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I read it to mean you can still have 2x framing at the boundaries and
intermediates, just not at adjoining panels. So in a case where you
are using 3x framing at all adjoining panels and 2x at the boundaries,
you would use the 3x values at any interior locations and the 2x
values at the boundaries.  Seems a little weird since the boundaries
should have the highest shears except for sometimes at interior
collectors.

WH

On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Doug Mayer <doug.mayer(--nospam--at)taylorteter.com> wrote:
> In Table 2306.3.1 of the 2007 CBC (I would assume this also appears in the
> 2006 IBC), plywood diaphragms with nail spacing at less the 3" o.c. require
> 3x framing at all panel edges per note "c" and "d".  In light of this, why
> are there shear values for both 2x and 3x framing members at panel edges and
> boundaries for nail spacings of 2.5" o.c. and 2" o.c.?  Is it because you
> could still have 2x framing at field nailing?  I'm thinking not because note
> "g" states that "The minimum nominal width of framing members not located at
> boundaries or adjoining panel edges shall be 2 inches."  This leads me to
> believe that the intermediate framing member, as long as it is a 2x, does
> not play a role in the capacities of the diaphragm.
>
>
>
> By the way, where is note "d" in the table?  I can't seem to find it.
> Anyway, what am I missing here?  I'm surprised I haven't noticed this
> apparent contradiction until now.  Thanks for any help….
>
>
>
> Doug Mayer, SE
>
>
�����������������������������������������Pj�����)��������ӆ+����,z{m�*.�&������I��������b�zJ�����b~�牯����r��{���'J���{���h������)����+-����й��춋j)���梞���g�m�|����ʋ����azX��+)��bq�j)ڝٚɷ�{������ʋ������G������+h��o��m������梞���������������������������������������