Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]
Re: 10/lw factor....why can't we get along?
[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]- To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: Re: 10/lw factor....why can't we get along?
- From: THunt(--nospam--at)absconsulting.com
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:29:00 -0700
Verne,
In California the 10/lw factor has been corrected for OSHPD projects. The 2001 California Building Code Section 1630A.1.1 has added a sentence that reads "The value of the ratio of 10/Lw need not be taken as greater than 1.0 for light-framed construction".
Thomas Hunt, S.E.
ABS Consulting
| VerneK(--nospam--at)aol.com
06/21/2003 04:27 AM
|
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org cc: Subject: 10/lw factor....why can't we get along? |
If the intent of the 10/lw factor in section 1630.1.1 was to reward long shearwalls and not to penalize short shearwalls, why doesn't the UBC adopt SEAONC's recommendation and say that this factor does not have to be greater than 1?
Does the UBC know how much this one omission is costing builders? I'd like to
get opinions from Building Officials & other code agencies on this subject.
Verne
- Prev by Subject: Re: 10/lw factor....why can't we get along?
- Next by Subject: Re: 10/lw factor....why can't we get along?
- Previous by thread: Re: 10/lw factor....why can't we get along?
- Next by thread: Re: 10/lw factor....why can't we get along?
- About this archive
- Messages sorted by: [Subject][Thread][Author][Date]