that you have to use the lower values, as long as you are still using
3x at the adjoining edges?
WH
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 9:47 AM, AWC Info <AWCInfo@afandpa.org> wrote:
> We don't specifically address it in the 2005 SDPWS Commentary. However,
> it looks like we tried to clarify it in the 2008 SDPWS
> http://www.awc.org/Standards/SDPWS.html section 4.2.7.1.1 which states
> that both blocked and unblocked diaphragms shall be constructed as
> follows:
>
> "The width of the nailed face of framing members and blocking shall be
> 2" nominal or greater at adjoining panel edges except that a 3" nominal
> or greater width at adjoining panel edges and staggered nailing at all
> panel edges are required where:
> a. Nail spacing of 2-1/2" on center or less at adjoining panel edges is
> specified, or
> b. 10d common nails having penetration in to framing members and
> blocking of more than 1-1/2" are specified at 3" on center or less at
> adjoining panel edges."
>
> So, my interpretation is if you have 2" nominal framing or blocking for
> intermediate members for field nailing, you would use the lower
> tabulated value that corresponds to the Minimum Nominal Framing Width of
> 2". I'd be interested to know if you all have seen or specify 2x
> blocking or intermediate framing with 3x framing at adjoining panel
> edges? Seems like that could be potentially confusing for the
> contractor.
>
> Not sure of the background on that, but Tom Skaggs at APA could probably
> shed some light or weigh-in if I'm wrong.
>
> HTH
>
> Buddy
>
> John "Buddy" Showalter, P.E.
> Director, Technical Media
> AF&PA/American Wood Council
> 1111 19th Street, NW, Suite 800
> Washington, DC 20036
> P: 202-463-2769
> F: 202-463-2791
> http://www.awc.org
>
> The American Wood Council (AWC) is the wood products division of the
> American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA). AWC develops
> internationally recognized standards for wood design and construction.
> Its efforts with building codes and standards, engineering and research,
> and technology transfer ensure proper application for engineered and
> traditional wood products.
>
> *********************
> The guidance provided herein is not a formal interpretation of any AF&PA
> standard. Interpretations of AF&PA standards are only available through
> a formal process outlined in AF&PA's standards development procedures.
>
> *********************
>
> From: "David Topete" <d.topete73@gmail.com>
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: Re: More Plywood Diaphragm's
>
> Note "d" is in the nail size column for 10d nailing... note "c" takes
> precedence at the tighter nail spacing. And, i agree that note "g"
> allows 2x intermediate members for field nailing. It leads me to believe
> that the you can use either value listed. Obviously the lower value
> would be more conservative for your design... I'll be curious to check
> the NDS Commentar= y for an explanation on the two values being
> listed... Good question, Doug.
>
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Doug Mayer
> <doug.mayer@taylorteter.com>wrot=
> e:
>> In Table 2306.3.1 of the 2007 CBC (I would assume this also appears
>> in the 2006 IBC), plywood diaphragms with nail spacing at less the 3"
>> o.c. require 3x framing at all panel edges per note "c" and "d". In
>> light of this, why are there shear values for both 2x and 3x framing
>> members at pa=
> nel
>> edges and boundaries for nail spacings of 2.5" o.c. and 2" o.c.? Is
>> it because you could still have 2x framing at field nailing? I'm
>> thinking n=
> ot
>> because note "g" states that "The minimum nominal width of framing
>> member=
> s
>> not located at boundaries or adjoining panel edges shall be 2 inches."
>
>> T=
> his
>> leads me to believe that the intermediate framing member, as long as
>> it i=
> s a
>> 2x, does not play a role in the capacities of the diaphragm.
>>
>> By the way, where is note "d" in the table? I can't seem to find it.
>> Anyway, what am I missing here? I'm surprised I haven't noticed this
>> apparent contradiction until now. Thanks for any help=85.
>>
>> Doug Mayer, SE
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> * site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********