×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

IBC Table 2305.3.7.2

IBC Table 2305.3.7.2

IBC Table 2305.3.7.2

(OP)
With a Maximum Opening Height equal to the Wall Height, this seems to be an unacceptable interruption in the shear wall, thus preventing a "simple" transfer of force, if any transfer at all, from one full-height sheathing segment to another.

Simplicity, I believe, is the intent for the use of this table.  Would'nt a full height opening require us to detail and show/prove force transfer around openings?

Further, with a full-height opening and 0% full-height sheathing, how can we apply an Effective Shear Capacity Ratio of 0.33 to a wall void of any sheathing?

I'm not trying to make our job more difficult - just trying to determine the logic to allow me to be comfortable utilizing this table in such a manner as may be implied.

Please advise...  Thank you...

RE: IBC Table 2305.3.7.2

I designed a wall with a full height opening once--I used a Simpson Drag Strut Connector at each end of the header across the opening, to transfer the diaphragm force in the header to each shear wall.  I used the Shear Capacity Adjustment Factor, and assumed the two walls to be one wall, for checking overturning.

DaveAtkins

RE: IBC Table 2305.3.7.2

That 0% in the IBC 2000 was removed in IBC 2003, I think. I beleive the plywood over and under only the windows and only over the doors is where this 0% originally came from. Its totally misleading, DO NOT USE IT. IBC with the best of intentions in this case is not logical and WRONG!! They relied on someones lab test results that they came up with 0% and just printed it hap-hazardly. Good Luck.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources