 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneralRural LivingHome AutomationSecurity AlarmsConstructionRepairPlumbingCleaningPest ControlLawn and Garden |
Homeowner Forum / Construction / February 2007Structural framing query
30x50x16high wood framed shop. (2x6 rough cut lumber framed walls) Friend wants to delete the intermediate horizontal wall framing between the vertical studs. Spacing is currently at 5' o/c between plates in the vertical plane. They've decided on steel sheeting for side/end walls. Diagonal 2x6 bracing from top to bottom is still in place and placed at the face of the exterior by cutting into face of vertical studs. Query 1. Their desire is to replace the intermediate framing with a 1x4 on the exterior face of the vertical studs at the same elevation as the intermediate framing and fasten the steel sheets to the 1x4's. IE:sheeting girts Albeit the wall depth is increased to 7", anyone see a structural problem with this? Query 2. In lieu of the inset 2x6 diagonal bracing into the vertical wall studs, what about substituting metal banding that's screwed/nailed to the face of the studs (interior and or exterior [mutltiple?]) that would wrap/fasten to the upper & lower plates? As in diagonal brace rods in a PEB? Sort of a mix between a PEB and wood framed structure............... Plz don't delve into; a.. hurricane strapping b.. proper seismic tie ins c.. footing details d.. interior design/mechanics/usage e.. insulation factors f.. rafter framing g.. building usage h.. dimensional sizes i.. codes Not trying to be a wise acre here but .....everything here is very loose, metaphorically speaking.............. Dan > 30x50x16high wood framed shop. (2x6 rough cut lumber framed walls) > Friend wants to delete the intermediate horizontal wall framing between the vertical studs. Spacing is currently at [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Dan Not trying to be a wise acre here but .....since everything there is very loose, And you don't want to delve into; a.. hurricane strapping b.. proper seismic tie ins c.. footing details d.. interior design/mechanics/usage e.. insulation factors f.. rafter framing g.. building usage h.. dimensional sizes i.. codes And you don't give the location of the "shop"....... I guess you can do pretty much whatever you want. btw what is "intermediate horizontal wall framing" ? cheers Bob >> 30x50x16high wood framed shop. (2x6 rough cut lumber framed walls) >> Friend wants to delete the intermediate horizontal wall framing between [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > btw what is "intermediate horizontal wall framing" ? I think he means 'blocking' or 'fire-stopping'. well, I agree with the other response - seeing as how you don't want to be told about a.. hurricane strapping b.. proper seismic tie ins c.. footing details d.. interior design/mechanics/usage e.. insulation factors f.. rafter framing g.. building usage h.. dimensional sizes i.. codes or any other "structural" matters pertinent to your question, i suppose you've excluded pretty much any comments regarding your situation. why did you even bother posting ? 30x50x16high wood framed shop. (2x6 rough cut lumber framed walls) Friend wants to delete the intermediate horizontal wall framing between the vertical studs. Spacing is currently at 5' o/c between plates in the vertical plane. They've decided on steel sheeting for side/end walls. Diagonal 2x6 bracing from top to bottom is still in place and placed at the face of the exterior by cutting into face of vertical studs. Query 1. Their desire is to replace the intermediate framing with a 1x4 on the exterior face of the vertical studs at the same elevation as the intermediate framing and fasten the steel sheets to the 1x4's. IE:sheeting girts Albeit the wall depth is increased to 7", anyone see a structural problem with this? Query 2. In lieu of the inset 2x6 diagonal bracing into the vertical wall studs, what about substituting metal banding that's screwed/nailed to the face of the studs (interior and or exterior [mutltiple?]) that would wrap/fasten to the upper & lower plates? As in diagonal brace rods in a PEB? Sort of a mix between a PEB and wood framed structure............... Plz don't delve into; a.. hurricane strapping b.. proper seismic tie ins c.. footing details d.. interior design/mechanics/usage e.. insulation factors f.. rafter framing g.. building usage h.. dimensional sizes i.. codes Not trying to be a wise acre here but .....everything here is very loose, metaphorically speaking.............. Dan well, I agree with the other response - seeing as how you don't want to be told about a.. hurricane strapping b.. proper seismic tie ins c.. footing details d.. interior design/mechanics/usage e.. insulation factors f.. rafter framing g.. building usage h.. dimensional sizes i.. codes or any other "structural" matters pertinent to your question, i suppose you've excluded pretty much any comments regarding your situation. why did you even bother posting ? I'll tell you why; Because I only needed answers to the original questions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't need, nor require, answers to extraneous/frivolous queries pertaining to any who, what, why, suppositions. I thought the questions would be extremely simple for people that build with wood, but perhaps I was wrong. A simple wall, different framing details, end of story! Not asking for loads for wind, snow, siesmic, etc. 2 questions, end of story..................I know what works with steel, I'm not fully cognizant with what works for wood, henceforth, my 2 questions............................. In the event you're one of those individuals that needs a picture, plz. respond with an address. I can send one to you as a jpg, bmp, gif, wmf, cdr, png, psd, pdd, rle, dib, eps, psb, pcx, pdp, raw, pct, pict, pxr, pbm, pgm, ppm, pnm, pdf, sct, tga, vda, icg, vst, tif, tiff, dwg, dwf, skp, skb, 3ds, zip, rar, mpeg, qtv, psp, etc, etc etc. Just name the format please. The reality within this NG is people 'tend', at times, to read more into a query then is asked. Henceforth my msg. requesting no answers nor queries regarding; a.. hurricane strapping a.. proper seismic tie ins a.. footing details a.. interior design/mechanics/usage a.. insulation factors a.. rafter framing a.. building usage a.. dimensional sizes a.. codes Michael's response is correct. (The intermediate blocking between the vertical studs @ 5' O/C.) Per; >>>BOBk207 >>>And you don't give the location of the "shop"....... I guess you can >>>do pretty much whatever you want. Yes they can! They could build it out of cheese if they wanted to. FYI: No seismic, water, wind. Northeastern Washington State if that affects the design.............. Dan Query 1. Their desire is to replace the intermediate framing with a 1x4 on the exterior face of the vertical studs at the same elevation as the intermediate framing and fasten the steel sheets to the 1x4's. IE:sheeting girts Albeit the wall depth is increased to 7", anyone see a structural problem with this? Query 2. In lieu of the inset 2x6 diagonal bracing into the vertical wall studs, what about substituting metal banding that's screwed/nailed to the face of the studs (interior and or exterior [mutltiple?]) that would wrap/fasten to the upper & lower plates? As in diagonal brace rods in a PEB? > "nospam" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message > > well, I agree with the other response - [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I'll tell you why; > Because I only needed answers to the original questions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What? You're the only one that's allowed to ask questions? > I don't need, nor require, answers to extraneous/frivolous queries pertaining to any who, what, why, suppositions. I thought the questions would be extremely simple for people that build with wood, but perhaps I was wrong. You don't have enough experience in this area of construction to answer your own questions, but you understand enough to know what you _don't_ need answered? Doesn't appear that way from the answers. > A simple wall, different framing details, end of story! Not asking for loads for wind, snow, siesmic, etc. 2 questions, end of story..................I know what works with steel, I'm not fully cognizant with what works for wood, henceforth, my 2 questions............................. > > In the event you're one of those individuals that needs a picture, plz. respond with an address. I can send one to you as a jpg, bmp, gif, wmf, cdr, png, psd, pdd, rle, dib, eps, psb, pcx, pdp, raw, pct, pict, pxr, pbm, pgm, ppm, pnm, pdf, sct, tga, vda, icg, vst, tif, tiff, dwg, dwf, skp, skb, 3ds, zip, rar, mpeg, qtv, psp, etc, etc etc. Just name the format please. A suggestion. If you are willing to type a list of forty formats, you have the time to post a couple of pictures so everyone can see what's going on, and _then_ ask your questions. Answering the odd question about additional building information/conditions, instead of fielding questions and comments about your attitude, would probably get you better answers a whole hell of a lot faster and with less aggravation. > The reality within this NG is people 'tend', at times, to read more into a query then is asked. Henceforth my msg. requesting no answers nor queries regarding; > a.. hurricane strapping [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Yes they can! They could build it out of cheese if they wanted to. > FYI: No seismic, water, wind. Northeastern Washington State if that affects the design.............. If they can build it out of cheese, and that's okay with them, then let 'em. If they care about the building, whether there are governing codes or not, it should be built to last. This implies understanding the loads likely to be encountered and designing the building accordingly. > Query 1. > Their desire is to replace the intermediate framing with a 1x4 on the exterior face of the vertical studs at the same elevation as the intermediate framing and fasten the steel sheets to the 1x4's. IE:sheeting girts > Albeit the wall depth is increased to 7", anyone see a structural problem with this? What is the purpose of removing the horizontal blocking? > Query 2. > In lieu of the inset 2x6 diagonal bracing into the vertical wall studs, what about substituting metal banding that's screwed/nailed to the face of the studs (interior and or exterior [mutltiple?]) that would wrap/fasten to the upper & lower plates? As in diagonal brace rods in a PEB? General idea is fine. You could sheath the corners of the building in plywood/OSB, suitably nailed, to handle the shear load. Either way, metal strapping or OSB, the nailing patterns and connections are either designed to handle specific loads or you're just guessing at them. R > If they can build it out of cheese, and that's okay with them, then > let 'em. If they care about the building, whether there are governing > codes or not, it should be built to last. This implies understanding > the loads likely to be encountered and designing the building > accordingly. Cheese is OK, but tofu is better for lateral loads, unless of course the cheese is one of those soft, unpasteurized ones. > "RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Cheese is OK, but tofu is better for lateral loads, unless of course the > cheese is one of those soft, unpasteurized ones. You Canuckiadians! I suppose in the frigid white North tofu would behave more predictably due to the lowered temperatures, but if you'd ever seen a tofu structure that had been baked by the sun you'd be singing a different tune. Cheese technology is far more advanced. Ceramics are just non-edible cheese substitutes. R > > "RicodJour" <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > R Rico- You're not keeping up with the latest structural research. UC Berkeley has developed & patented radiation crosslinked sunlight resistant tofu, excellent structural performance from +160F to -65F. It has anICC approval pending for high wind & e/q resistant design plus in a pinch after the natural disaster (before FEMA arrives) you can scrape the walls & make a nutritious survival soup. This tofu also has anti bacterial effects that can be used to purify water from compromised municipal water supplies. Additionally it can be used as a wound dressing. Cheese is SO last century! cheers Bob >> > "RicodJour" <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Cheese is SO last century! And subject to nibbling. That never happens with tofu. > well, I agree with the other response - > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > Query 2. > In lieu of the inset 2x6 diagonal bracing into the vertical wall studs, what about substituting metal banding that's screwed/nailed to the face of the studs (interior and or exterior [mutltiple?]) that would wrap/fasten to the upper & lower plates? As in diagonal brace rods in a PEB? Chill Dan........... >>>Not asking for loads for wind, snow, siesmic, etc. 2 questions, end of story..................I know what works with steel, I'm not fully cognizant with what works for wood, henceforth, my questions ....... Simple response to Query 1. Why & Yes Simple response to Query 2 Yes if done correctly. Sorry Dan but timber framed structures either have to satisfy "convention construction" prescriptive "design", be designed per some sort of code or be engineered. In order to do these things one must know the operational environment of the structure. Changing from convention construction to alternative materials & construction methods requires evaluating whether the substitute meets / exceeds that of the original. "the devil is in the details" >>>>I thought the questions would be extremely simple for people that build with wood, but perhaps I was wrong. <<<<<< If the 2x6 brace is already in place, why the question about the metal banding? If the walls are 16' high, why is the blocking at 5' o/c? Have your friends visit http://www.strongtie.com/ cheers Bob In a previous post Dan Deckert wrote... > I'll tell you why; > Because I only needed answers to the original questions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > I don't need, nor require, answers to extraneous/frivolous queries pertaining to any who, what, why, suppositions. I thought the questions would be extremely simple for people that build with wood, but perhaps I was wrong. Dan: I would not even venture to guess at the answers to these questions in a post to a newsgroup. There may be issues unrelated to the structural design (such as fire blocking) that are part of the question and part of the problem. You said the project is in NE Washington State. AS I'm sure you know, Washington uses IBC2003 for any non-residential structure. Most jurisdictions in Washington State will require engineering calculations for any changes to the structural system. And yes, I could do this work, but it would be 6-8 weeks before I could pick it up.  SignatureBob Morrison, PE, SE R L Morrison Engineering Co Structural & Civil Engineering Poulsbo WA bob at rlmorrisonengr dot com > In a previous post Dan Deckert wrote... > > I'll tell you why; > Dan: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > jurisdictions in Washington State will require engineering calculations > for any changes to the structural system. Bob, Therein lies the gist of my query. According to the property owner, the only inspection required is septic and power. Building permit comes from the county with no plan review, according to the owner and I've never known this guy to lie. Seemed strange to me but.........Building is in the county. The owner asked for a mix of design. He didn't want a full blown wood framed wall as one usually would. He wanted to eliminate the fire blocking, although the walls are 16' high, because the interior is not covered (sheetrock/OSB, etc.) in any way. It would be open like a pole building on the interior with faced insulation between the studs. I asked if the wood diagonal bracing could be replaced with properly fastened steel banding to provide shear loads because the owner asked. Much like diagonal cabling or diagonal brace rods in a PEB. The exterior of the building will be gauge metal sheets. Hence my question of the 1x4's with the wall sheets as a part of the shear. The 1x4's would act as sheeting girts like a PEB or pole building. Owner has no plans to install OSB or like sheathing to the exterior walls. Owners comment was if he can do it differently and faster and cheaper but still be solid as hell and meet or surpass any codes that might come up, why not. Rico......... >A suggestion. If you are willing to type a list of forty formats, you >have the time to post a couple of pictures so everyone can see what's >going on, and _then_ ask your questions. I would have IF I had a place to post them. I suppose there are places but I've never been there. It's my understanding it's not within etiquette to include them as attachments within the NG. But as I stated, I can send them 'as type' if someone asks. >You don't have enough experience in this area of construction to >answer your own questions, but you understand enough to know what you >_don't_ need answered? Doesn't appear that way from the answers. 26 years in construction in almost every field but wood. Some formwork but darn little. Completly remodeled/reframed/rewired/replumed (including newly framed doors/windows/etc) my last house with no mistakes in the city & passed all inspections. However, I didn't feel that made me qualified to answer the questions I raised. Steel, yes, wood, no! At this juncture Rico, we can't even seem to get past this wall, let alone other details. Bobk207 >Sorry Dan but timber framed structures either have to satisfy >"convention construction" prescriptive "design", be designed per some [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >that of the original. >"the devil is in the details" The owner is looking at different methods that will meet/exceed any current codes, albeit he states there's no plan review, yet can be done faster & cheaper. As in why install fire blocking if the interior is open? Why cut diagonal 2x6's into the face for shear if you can use properly attached metal strapping with the addition of the exterior 1x4's with metal siding? When the owner started asking me why not, it made me wonder as well. Dan > And yes, I could do this work, but it would be 6-8 weeks before I could > pick it up. > > In a previous post Dan Deckert wrote... > > > I'll tell you why; [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > > Poulsbo WA > > bob at rlmorrisonengr dot com Dan- >>>>The owner is looking at different methods that will meet/exceed any current codes<<<<<< if he's looking to meet or exceed a code....we kinda have to know which one OR at the very least where the building is going to be; snow? wind? seismic? desired performance level? life safety only? moderate damage from a 50 year event? minimal damage? fully elastic? >>>>>>As in why install fire blocking if the interior is open? <<<<< I must have missed that in the OP, nothing on the interior? >>>Why cut diagonal 2x6's into the face for shear if you can use properly attached metal strapping with the addition of the exterior <<<,, Metal strapping is an alternative to a let-in brace system, not much of an alternative IMO I've tested let-in braces (1x4 or 1x6) in a 2x6 wall.....they're amazingly strong, IMO straps are a crappy cheap alternative. Who came up with a 2x6 let-in brace? >>>>>exterior 1x4's with metal siding?<<<<<< Is the metal siding, siding or structural sheathing? What are the surfaced mounted 1x4's supposed to accomplish? How thick is the steel "sheeting"; flat or corrugated / ridged? fastener style, size & spacing? How is metal supposed to work as structural sheathing if it's held off the framing (studs) by the surface mounted 1x4's ? what is the estimated demand on the 1x4 when it acts as "shear transfer blocking"? Is 1x4 adequate to provide continuity of load path for the metal sheathing? I doubt it. In order to design something like this this (& not use a code, convention construction or a prescriptive design methodology) you have bounce back & forth between "capacity" & "demand" and constantly thinking about load path ..... Oh but not foundation or any of the other "off limits" topics from the OP. What's gonna hold this thing together when the wind sucks the roof off as a single unit.....better not discuss any hurricane ties. Just because the process might appear to be simple (it ain't) or the process appears easy (it is, IF you know what you're doing; & know what to consider, what to ignore......it's called experience) Seismic in Texas...probably not a huge factor, wind in WA....maybe something to consider Snow is Orange County, CA not a concern snow in WA....I don't know, I'd have to check.....elevation Snow in SoCal not a problem....oops! I forgot to tell you, the building site is at 6000 ft! & the roof slope is only 4/12! Got me a cheap set of plans off the internet. cheers Bob btw construction ain't design & design ain't construction......but both are required to get the job done. The best jobs are gotten when each part considers the other......... > Dan- > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > which one OR at the very least where the building is going to be; > snow? wind? seismic? OK Bob, I''ll try to cover this. Building in NE Wa. St. Snow load is @ least rated @ 3'. Wind is zero. Siesmic.?? unk 60 miles +/- north of Spokane > desired performance level? life safety only? moderate damage from a > 50 year event? minimal damage? fully elastic? A minimal workshop for life. > >>>>>>As in why install fire blocking if the interior is open? <<<<< > > I must have missed that in the OP, nothing on the interior? Nope! Well, insulation between the studs. > Why cut diagonal 2x6's into the face for shear if you can use properly attached > metal strapping with the addition of the exterior <,, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > amazingly strong, IMO straps are a crappy cheap alternative. Who > came up with a 2x6 let-in brace? Now here's the question, why can't metal banding/strapping work, properly applied, as well as cut in diagonal bracing for shear? Whether it's interior/exterior or both? > >>>>>exterior 1x4's with metal siding?<<<<<< > > Is the metal siding, siding or structural sheathing? What are the > surfaced mounted 1x4's supposed to accomplish? How thick is the steel > "sheeting"; flat or corrugated / ridged? fastener style, size & > spacing? Corrugated wall sheathing. 1.5" highs. Ribbed panels as in a PEB. > How is metal supposed to work as structural sheathing if it's held off > the framing (studs) by the surface mounted 1x4's ? what is the > estimated demand on the 1x4 when it acts as "shear transfer > blocking"? Is 1x4 adequate to provide continuity of load path for the > metal sheathing? I doubt it. Therein was a purpose for my query. I stated my expertise relative to wood is nil. > In order to design something like this this (& not use a code, > convention construction or a prescriptive design methodology) you have > bounce back & forth between "capacity" & "demand" and constantly > thinking about load path ..... yep! > Oh but not foundation or any of the other "off limits" topics from the > OP. Bob, you know as well as I do, there are extraneous answers and queries unrelated to a post that detour from the OP. I just wanted to avoid the extraneous and subjctive stuff. Albeit it seemed to irritate some.... > What's gonna hold this thing together when the wind sucks the roof off > as a single unit.....better not discuss any hurricane ties. Here and again, we're not at that point in the design, henceforth, irrelevant. I'm just asking about a DCN for a wall. > Just because the process might appear to be simple (it ain't) or the > process appears easy (it is, IF you know what you're doing; & know > what to consider, what to ignore......it's called experience) Been there, done that! But my experience is primarily steel. Which is why I asked about the faced 1x4 for shear, with the metal wall sheathing. A PEB is a freak until the wall sheets are applied to get shear. > Seismic in Texas...probably not a huge factor, wind in WA....maybe > something to consider No wind in 60 years. Per owners father that lives there. > Snow is Orange County, CA not a concern snow in WA....I don't > know, I'd have to check.....elevation Elev. unk. <3000' Snow loads are a different consideration but will be addressed for enginereed trusses and purlins. > Snow in SoCal not a problem....oops! I forgot to tell you, the > building site is at 6000 ft! & the roof slope is only 4/12! Got me a > cheap set of plans off the internet. LOL................................ Lookin fwd to hearin from you..................... Dan > cheers > Bob > > btw construction ain't design & design ain't construction......but > both are required to get the job done. AMEN to that. Can you plz fwd that to our engineers and fabricators? I've got over 300 manhours in rework and some of it is from going to hell to get it done. > The best jobs are gotten when each part considers the other......... best jobs?, consideration? what the hell are those? ;-) Dan > > > "Bob Morrison" <SpamFigh...@junk.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 106 lines] > best jobs?, consideration? what the hell are those? ;-) > Dan Dan- I give up, too many variables floating in the wind.......overall objective unclear (minimze labor cost?) as are desired performance levels & building configuration for example.... > > >>>>>>As in why install fire blocking if the interior is open? <<<<< > > > I must have missed that in the OP, nothing on the interior? > > Nope! Well, insulation between the studs. It's either open on the interior or it ain't......which it is will drive the design. another example >I just wanted to avoid the extraneous and subjective stuff. Albeit it seemed to irritate some.... > > > What's gonna hold this thing together when the wind sucks the roof off > > as a single unit.....better not discuss any hurricane ties. > > Here and again, we're not at that point in the design, henceforth, irrelevant. I'm just asking about a DCN for a wall. What you consider extraneous may important to the building designer...... "we're not at that point in the design, henceforth, irrelevant." again, might be best to consider it now......IMO best design practice is to bounce between "the big picture" & the "details" ....leaving stuff off until later invites re-design.... a balance is needed enough "big picture" & "details" to move the project forward w/o having to redo stuff. >>>>Everything will meet or exceed any codes.<<<< How can you possibly say that with any certainty? >>> The owner is just looking for alternatives to beat the costs of construction costs (read labor costs)as in standard framing. <<< Pretty hard to beat stick framing & wood sheathing for speed of construction & minimal labor. Gun nails are faster than screws. >>Basically speaking, everything will be be overbuilt. It comes from working for the federal govt. where he is employed. <<<< Again, how can you possibly know it will be "overbuilt"? Using excessive amounts of material or overly large members might seem "overbuilt" but it may not result in an increase in strength....just wasted material... for example using 2x6 framing over 2x4 framing in a standard 8' plywood shear wall will buy you little increased strength. Thicker plywood without bigger nails or more frequent nailing again won't buy much improved performance. This project needs a lead designer who can interact with the customer; someone who understands design & construction and can get the owners desires on paper. cheers Bob >> > > "Bob Morrison" <SpamFigh...@junk.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 188 lines] > someone who understands design & construction and can get the owners > desires on paper. Sounds like *work*. <shudders> SignatureMichaelB www.michaelbulatovich.ca In a previous post Dan Deckert wrote... > Bob, > Therein lies the gist of my query. According to the property owner, the only > inspection required is septic and power. Building permit comes from the > county with no plan review, according to the owner and I've never known this > guy to lie. Seemed strange to me but.........Building is in the county. Sounds like one of the rural counties (Pend Oreille? Ferry?). The fact that there is little plan review does not eliminate the need to build according to the state building code, which is IBC2003 for this type of building. > > The owner asked for a mix of design. He didn't want a full blown wood framed > wall as one usually would. He wanted to eliminate the fire blocking, > although the walls are 16' high, because the interior is not covered > (sheetrock/OSB, etc.) in any way. It would be open like a pole building on > the interior with faced insulation between the studs. As soon as he puts in insulation he needs fire blocking. > I asked if the wood diagonal bracing could be replaced with properly > fastened steel banding to provide shear loads because the owner asked. Much [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > differently and faster and cheaper but still be solid as hell and meet or > surpass any codes that might come up, why not. The fact that the building is a hybrid means it requires engineering. A building with 16-foot walls is a pretty significant structure, even if it is only made of wood. I think you should insist on engineering, if nothing else for your own protection. If something happens to the building, your contractor's license is in jeopardy. Perhaps the short answer to your questions might be something like this, "Maybe". The use of bracing of any type in lieu of shear walls requires an engineered design according to IBC2003. The fact that the walls are over 16-feet tall requires an engineered design. The county may not do a complete plan review, but I would not be surprised that they would require an engineered design as part of the submittal package (even if they don't understand it). Please don't misunderstand. I'm not lobbying for more work for myself. I've got too much on plate as it is. If your friend needs help finding an engineer, then I may be able to help with that. SignatureBob Morrison, PE, SE R L Morrison Engineering Co Structural & Civil Engineering Poulsbo WA bob at rlmorrisonengr dot com > In a previous post Dan Deckert wrote... > > Bob, [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > I've got too much on plate as it is. If your friend needs help finding an > engineer, then I may be able to help with that. Bob, Everything will meet or exceed any codes. The owner is just looking for alternatives to beat the costs of construction costs (read labor costs)as in standard framing. Basically speaking, everything will be be overbuilt. It comes from working for the federal govt. where he is employed. Like I stated, he's looking for alternatives to the labor side. His stepson is working for licensed contractors putting up wood framed houses/etc. (10 years) and has some idea of what's going on. But the owner is looking for ways to do different things to cut costs. I was just looking for opinions on the design change. Little did I surmise it would create so much controversy/recoil for what I considered a simple change. Dan In a previous post Dan Deckert wrote... > Everything will meet or exceed any codes. The owner is just looking for > alternatives to beat the costs of construction costs (read labor costs)as in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > it would create so much controversy/recoil for what I considered a simple > change. Dan: When the proposed structure is outside the normal framing methods then it is bound to start a controversy. I understand the concept of trying to cut costs. I make my best attempt to save the owner the cost of my fee in the details of every design I do. I will repeat: a building with 16-foot high walls is anything but ordinary and should be engineered. There is no "build in excess of code" here, because the code does not directly address this type of building. Does this mean strap bracing or even using the steel siding for its shear value is out of the question? No, it doesn't. But, only an engineered design can answer these questions. And that's the point I want to make. Trying to save a couple thousand bucks in engineering fees is not the answer if the building is under-designed from the start. As for loads, minimum ground snow load per SEAW Snow load manual = somewhere between 45 psf and 80 psf depending on project location. Minimum wind load is based on 85 mph (3 second gust) per state building code. If the building is fully enclosed then the 10 psf minimum rule will probably govern. If the building is only partially enclosed, then the design gets more complicated. Seismic load will be minimal, but not non- existent. For a light structure such as that proposed, wind load will definitely govern. I recently designed a shop/garage building in the Quilcene area using embedded poles. Eave height was only 9 feet. The building was not, however, a conventional pole building since the contractor did not want to deal with the heavy bolted truss connections required because of the labor involved. The roof system was metal over a plywood diaphragm transferring loads to the end walls. The end walls were plywood sheathed with metal siding. The back wall was metal siding only because it was a long wall and the shear value of the siding was sufficient to act as a shear wall. Shear walls were attached to the poles via strut/plate at the bottom of the wall. Pole embedment carried the loads into the ground. The above example is intended to show that it is possible to design unconventionally framed structures to save labor, but they must be properly engineered. SignatureBob Morrison, PE, SE R L Morrison Engineering Co Structural & Civil Engineering Poulsbo WA bob at rlmorrisonengr dot com > In a previous post Dan Deckert wrote... > > Everything will meet or exceed any codes. The owner is just looking for [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > unconventionally framed structures to save labor, but they must be > properly engineered. The above example is intended to show that it is possible to design unconventionally framed structures to save labor, but they must be properly engineered. Agreed and without dispute. In this particular case, the owner wanted to explore different ideas/designs with respect to labor costs. Relative to Bobk207's answer of; Pretty hard to beat stick framing & wood sheathing for speed of construction & minimal labor. Gun nails are faster than screws. While the above is true, the owner has no desire to include interior/exterior wood sheating. In addition, it's faster, and less expensive, (material/labor) to build the walls on a slab and fasten diagonal shear metal banding (interior/exterior?) with screws then to cut/install diagonal 2x6 shear bracing into the walls. There's no doubt in my mind a Licensed Engineer needs to look at this and approve of it, for comfort of mind if nothing else. Irrespective of that, I still have a need to know whether this would a viable alternative. In my mind, I don't see the 1x4 proposal being as solid as stick framed with exterior wood sheathing. To that degree, I wonder how much structural integrity will be lost by using the 1x4's on the face of the studs, with structural metal ribbed panels on those, as opposed to using OSB on the studs. I can 'see' the metal panels being worth next to nothing (shear) as they would depend on the 1x4 connections to the wall studs. I have no idea where this will wind up, but if it gets wierd, out of scope and approved, I'll definitly post some dwg's someplace for all to see. Thnx to all for posts....................... Dan > Relative to Bobk207's answer of; > Pretty hard to beat stick framing & wood sheathing for speed of > construction & minimal labor. Gun nails are faster than screws. True, but if you have an auto feed screw gun and you deduct for all of the nails that missed the framing (nail gun cowboys), it's probably close to a wash. > While the above is true, the owner has no desire to include > interior/exterior wood sheating. In addition, it's faster, and less > expensive, (material/labor) to build the walls on a slab and fasten diagonal > shear metal banding (interior/exterior?) with screws then to cut/install > diagonal 2x6 shear bracing into the walls. Cutting a let-in brace should take, what?, ten minutes if you're loafing. I can't see how the difference between one type of bracing and the other would have any real impact on the budget. R > > Relative to Bobk207's answer of; > > Pretty hard to beat stick framing & wood sheathing for speed of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > R R- Keep the cowboys away from the nail guns & just tighten up on the nailing schedule slightly, don't worry about the few misses, nobody fixes them......btw don't all shearwalls get nailed at about 4" independent of what the dwg says; 3, 4 or 6? :) cheers Bob > Keep the cowboys away from the nail guns & just tighten up on the > nailing schedule slightly, don't worry about the few misses, nobody > fixes them......btw don't all shearwalls get nailed at about 4" > independent of what the dwg says; 3, 4 or 6? :) Not if I'm around. Even a few misses compromises the strength, although I don't worry about the odd miss here and there. It's the row of missed nails that pisses me off. R > > Keep the cowboys away from the nail guns & just tighten up on the > > nailing schedule slightly, don't worry about the few misses, nobody [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > R R- Yeah, a row of misses is bad, even if is it only field nailing...turns out that for cyclic loading, one of the possible failure modes is "out of plane" sheet buckling. This is esp a problem with thin sheathing, even a few missed field nails (since they're only 12" oc) w/ 3/8 ply will allow the sheet to buckle. This buckling action actually pulls the boundary nails (that's why those wimpy .113 nails aren't so good) & compromises the overall strength. This doesn't seem happen with 1/2 (15/32) plywood. The field nails closest to the sheet corners are the most important. That's why, I really don't like 3/8 but the code drives shea rwalls to 3/8 since it gives your best plf per $. Additionally field nailing should be more like 8 o/c not 12" Slight over nailing allows for occasional miss btw never used a screw gun w/ auto feed.....don't the cowboys miss with those as well? cheers Bob > btw never used a screw gun w/ auto feed.....don't the cowboys miss > with those as well? Sure, but there's more feedback driving screws than shooting nails so they're more likely to discover their error and compensate. R >> Keep the cowboys away from the nail guns & just tighten up on the >> nailing schedule slightly, don't worry about the few misses, nobody [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > although I don't worry about the odd miss here and there. It's the > row of missed nails that pisses me off. Tear along the perforations, and mail in for your liability settlement. > In a previous post Dan Deckert wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > Poulsbo WA > bob at rlmorrisonengr dot com Dan- You said the owner wanted to "would over build", wanted to exceed any & all codes. but............ >>>>the owner has no desire to include interior/exterior wood sheating. In addition, it's faster, and less expensive, (material/labor) to build the walls on a slab and fasten diagonal shear metal banding (interior/exterior?) with screws then to cut/ install diagonal 2x6 shear bracing into the walls. <<<<<<<< I've got news for you & him...... a metal brace will be much less stiff & probably much less strong than a 1x6 let in brace and WAY less strong / stiff than OSB or plywood sheathing. btw a let-in brace is actually pretty quick to install besides I thought you said you didn't have much timber experience but you're telling what's "faster"? >>>>n addition, it's faster, and less expensive, (material/labor) to build the walls on a slab and fasten diagonal shear metal banding (interior/exterior?) with screws then to cut/install diagonal 2x6 shear bracing into the walls.<<<<< Those Simpson diagonal straps suck, they're easy to install but hard to get tight. Plywood / OSB are the way to go. If this design / build project continues in the direction its headed........ >>>>Everything will meet or exceed any codes.<<<<< I don't think so. Simpson style straps are way down the list when it comes to performance. Sheathing as thin as 3/8 will be SO much stronger. If you want that place to "meet or exceed any codes", it's gonna need a structural skin; its just physics Seems like the owner has his own ideas about what's faster / stronger / cheaper and doesn't want to be confused with the facts. cheers Bob > Seems like the owner has his own ideas about what's faster / > stronger / cheaper and doesn't want to be confused with the facts. > > cheers > Bob Now that's a STRONG POSSIBILITY! Irrespective of all the suggetsions & controversy, I do know this guy will eventually do everything right. I also know he'll wind up overbuilding. He's engaged in the Nuclear industry where safety factors (4:1 minimum) run way past what the world lives by............... Dan > > Seems like the owner has his own ideas about what's faster / > > stronger / cheaper and doesn't want to be confused with the facts. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Dan Yeah, he'll wind up overbuilding from HIS point of view......... I really don't care if he's from the nuke industry....this ain't the nuke industry, he has his own set of experience but it doesn't have much to do with timber framing. >>>I do know this guy will eventually do everything right. <<<< based on what? divine intervention? He is probably the most dangerous kind of owner builder.....he thinks he knows better but he doesn't. My first first career was aerospace / defense, weapons systems, FEM, computer programing, analysis & design. My second career was in civil / structural research..... It took me YEARS to learn the ins & outs of a new field even though it was still "engineering" Do I know how shearwalls behave under cyclic testing...yes Do I know the fastest / best way to build a house.....no, that's why I defer to the experience of those who do. Your friend may know all sorts of nuke stuff but building this garage is something different and his desire to deviate from "normal practice" could be a recipe for disaster. When I have a "non-standard" concept that I think MIGHT be a good idea, I have at least a half dozen practicing CE/SE's / Phd's I can bounce the idea off. They can tell me whether or not its a good idea BEFORE I get into trouble. Timber framing has evolved over the years & it's pretty good now. Could it be better? Definitely but deviating from standard practice based on a gut feeling from a totally different field doesn't sound like a great idea. How can he have safety factors of 4 when he doesn't even know the loads? One of your earlier posts, no wind....a design wind speed of "zero"?! Tell him to stop over thinking the garage.......just put OSB or plywood sheathing on it & forget about anything exotic. Good luck Cheers Bob >> Tell him to stop over thinking the garage.......just put OSB or > plywood sheathing on it & forget about anything exotic. Exactly, or if you want to do something exotic, get qualified people to do it for you. It seems like 75% of the posts here are, "I want to do something everyone tells me I shouldn't, but is cheaper and probably illegal. Can one of you internet experts tell me it's OK, so I can go ahead and do what I'm going to do anyway?" SignatureMichaelB www.michaelbulatovich.ca |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.