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: "Tom Liberty" <picpc(--nospam--at)2xtreme.net>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 07:17:23 -0800
UBC Table 23-II-I-1, footnote 3 clearly has the minimum requirement for"all framing members receiving edge nailing from abutting panels shall not be less than a single 3-inch nominal member (for allowable shear >350PLF)" This would clearly indicate that 2-2x's are not acceptable. As an alternative, 4x's may also be used. In the 5 jurisdictions that we do the Building Department administration for, 2-2x's are not acceptable. Conceder is failure occurred how 2-2x's instead of the required minimum single 3x would stand in a court of law. Thanks Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: "SEConsultant" <seconsultant(--nospam--at)earthlink.net> To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2000 10:05 PM Subject: RE: 3x_ versus (2)-2x_ > I might be confused on the issue of 3x vs. 2x lumber since I have had no > problems with contractors obtaining the materials. Isn't it reasonable to > assume that as the code requires the use of 3x material for shear above 350 > plf that the demand will resolve the shortage issues in a very short period > of time? Or, is this problem typical in area's outside the higher seismic > regions? > > Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rhkratzse(--nospam--at)aol.com [mailto:Rhkratzse(--nospam--at)aol.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2000 9:27 PM > To: jeffc(--nospam--at)kpff.com; seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org > Subject: Re: 3x_ versus (2)-2x_ > > > I'm curious, Jeff, how heavy are your "heavily nailed shear walls"? How > much > double-stud nailing would be required? What are the chances that all of > this > nailing will be properly completed? Will the 2x studs take all these nails > into 2 faces without expiring (AKA splitting)? > > Ralph Hueston Kratz, S.E. > Richmond CA USA > > In a message dated 1/25/00 7:58:24 PM, jeffc(--nospam--at)kpff.com writes: > > << 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? > > >> > > > > >
- References:
- RE: 3x_ versus (2)-2x_
- From: SEConsultant
- RE: 3x_ versus (2)-2x_
- Prev by Subject: RE: 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]