With 1/4"Ø lag you might meet edge distance even in a single ply of the (2)2x. Any way you can shift the fastener over to the middle of a single ply of the (2)2x?
I am not as familiar with the IRC provisions and limits as IBC, but both of these sounds like rated walls (Fire barriers, fire partitions) as opposed to firewalls. Firewalls are more rigorous and intended for very specific instances. Rated partitions and/or fire barriers are less restrictive...
Rated walls (Fire barriers, fire partitions) and firewalls are two related but separate things.
I agree that a 2 hour wall may be able to consist of 2 - 1 hour walls (see the "wiggle room" I referenced above with combined assemblies), and there are other materials besides brick that can make...
The code is pretty specific on these, and unless the existing wall can be considered to have a rating (using existing brick finishes or similar), it is likely a no-go. This topic is often misunderstood and misinterpreted by contractors (and sometime code officials)..
Here is some good content...
I am not sure this is accurate. I think a "firewall" needs to be one of three things. 1. A Freestanding wall that will remain with collapse of either structure. 2 A double wall where each wall has a rating that meets code intent (there is some code wiggle room here with combining assembles)...
Many may get a bit squeamish in assigning a "partially fixed" joint, as it feels like a bit of hocus pocus.. but is assuming a random % fixity to meet frame drift requirements (even if we know this fixity likely does not match reality), and designing for the resulting moment in the foundation...
Whelp there goes that.. Ha!
At the end of the day, whether ASD or LRFD in design, the hill I am fighting to defend (and likely a battle lost before I was even aware it was a fight) is design criteria being discussed and communicated to the public around service-level loading/events.. I know I...
It seems to me every discussion around this mostly includes people that fall into 2 camps
1. More accurate/consistent is better
-Probabilistic analysis the best.
-Generally these are LRFD-folks (after all it is based on more of a probabilistic approach) and trend towards the academics - or at...
I wish I knew enough about the probabilistic determination to know if it is feasible/practical to "factor down" design criteria/maps to service level as I am proposing without sacrificing the overall method (Similar to the way we currently factor down loads for ASD designs) and maintain the...
I'm thinking about bringing back my .ftp site.. Then I'll really look oldschool.
Many clients on the contractor side use Procore or Autodesk Const Cloud or similar for submittal and RFI exchange. I am finding myself needing to send files larger than email can handle much less often these days.
I can't stand Onedrive for their aggressive tactics (moving windows "my documents" desktop and photos files automatically to onedrive forcing many users to quickly ruin out of "free" space, reinstalling after windows updates, etc..) If it is up to me no computer in my office will ever use...
We already do this to an extent. We factor loads all day. Design maps should be based on reliability design but "factored" to service level, similar to Vasd. Load factors should be put back on ultimate (LRFD) load cases. Most of the conversation around design criteria (during design, with code...
By the way phamENG - We've hashed this out before .. https://www.eng-tips.com/threads/asce-7-22-snow-load-revisions-big-load-increases.502736/
This thread hit on two "rant topics" of mine at once.. Ultimate-level loading and constantly updating software/subscription models (to the extent that...
I agree that wind has not been straightforward, and that I oversimplified a bit, but most wind reports I see relating to a storm are gust speeds as I understand it ( mostly because it is more sensational and this is the news.. ha!). This has roughly correlated to the code wind since IBC adoption...
Just one example of many of why consistency is important in the "language" of engineering. I maintain that changing wind and snow loading to ultimate-level was/is a mistake. I understand the reasoning behind ultimate-level loading and reliability-based methodologies, however loads have...
If it is a shear wall designed via AISI tabulated values I think the limitations found in AiSi Supplement No 1. for shear walls would need to be followed. (ex. studs no greater than 24" o.c. all sheet steel edges attached to blocking or track @ required spacing.. etc.) While not specifically...
...required by NDS (prescriptively or otherwise).
3. Where it may not quite be needed for 1 or 2 but can be easily provided and is fairly cheap.
(*4. Where required for stability of a beam/column joint. For now I am assuming the case of a gyp-sheathed wall low and diaphragm high, and am tabling...
The blocking I was referring to is truss blocking between trussed at interior bearing (No LFRS). Lets say a 50' span truss @ 8:12 with a bearing right at midspan. Are you planning on 16'-8" tall x 2' blocking panels between each truss? That may be a big ask, and not commonplace in my experience.
