Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Nominal lumber specifications

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
My house was built in California in 1958 using nominal lumber: 1 5/8" thick.  I believe in the '70s, they went to the 1 1/2" nominal thickness x whatever depth dimensions were used.  UBC '67 notes nominal lumber dimensions but I can't find an older code.

Time to place a little bet with an Architect.



-----Original Message-----
From: erik_g(--nospam--at)cox.net [mailto:erik_g(--nospam--at)cox.net] 
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 1:24 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Nominal lumber specifications

Does anyone have any information when the "UBC" or other building codes for California 1st started specifying nominal lumber dimensions? For example 1.5" x 3.5" instead of 2" x 4".  



We have a project and the architect is saying that nominal lumber began to be used during the 1970's, but I have seen homes in the 50's and 60's framed with nominal lumber and not "rough" dimensions.

Any information would be greatly appreciated

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ******** 
�����������������������������������������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���������������������������������������