Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]
RE: 3x_ versus (2)-2x_
[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]- To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: RE: 3x_ versus (2)-2x_
- From: Charles Espenlaub <Cespenlaub(--nospam--at)martinaia.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:53:16 -0500
You are asking a lot for a framer to spike together every (2)2x at 16", 12". etc. for bearing walls studs. If they are just required at shear wall panel edge studs, then he will also have to coordinate all of the stud layouts with his planned sheathing sheet layout. I would be most concerned about the shear wall panel edge condition, because here the size and quantity of spikes is critical to the design. At bearing studs, you just need enough nails to ensure that the stud not nailed to the sheathing won't buckle in the minor axis. (Odds are they will not nail the sheathing and non-panel edges to both studs of the (2)2x replacement studs.) Charles F. Espenlaub, III, P.E. Martin-Espenlaub Engineering -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Creagan [mailto:jeffc(--nospam--at)kpff.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 11:02 PM To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org Subject: 3x_ versus (2)-2x_ A common request by contractors is can they substitute (2)-2x_ for the 3x_ studs we specify heavily nailed shear walls and bearing studs in the lower levels of multi-story buildings (here in Seattle, 5 story wood-framed structures are permitted) so long as the studs are spiked together adequately to ensure shear transfer at panel edges. Opinions?
- Prev by Subject: 3x_ versus (2)-2x_
- Next by Subject: Re: 3x_ versus (2)-2x_
- Previous by thread: RE: 3x_ versus (2)-2x_
- Next by thread: Re: 3x_ versus (2)-2x_
- About this archive
- Messages sorted by: [Subject][Thread][Author][Date]