2010 CRC - table 802.5.1 - rafter spans - species and grade repeat information

[Keith]

Hi,

In table 802.5.1 of the 2010 CRC, Douglas Fir-larch is listed as SS, #1, #2, #3 and then right below that, (same table), Douglas fir-larch SS, #1, #2, etc. are repeated again but this time with different spans.

Why the repeat of species/grade with DIFFERENT spans between the upper and lower repeated list?

What is the difference between the two?

Here is a link to the table:

http://publicecodes.citation.com/st/ca/st/b400v10/st_ca_st_b400v10_8_sec002_par022.htm

Thanks.

 

[mark handler]

Some kind of typo

Refer to

http://ftp.resource.org/codes.gov/bsc.ca.gov/gov.ca.bsc.2010.02.5.html#p431

 

[DRP]

I suspect the second set of listings should read Dougfir-Larch(South), a slightly lower set of allowable strength values in the southern portion of the range.

 

[Phil]

DRP,

No - it is not Douglas Fir South. The table is not formatted correctly. Note that the internet table are no maximum spans for Spruce-Pine_Fir.

 

[imhotep]

Hi, In table 802.5.1 of the 2010 CRC, Douglas Fir-larch is listed as SS, #1, #2, #3 and then right below that, (same table), Douglas fir-larch SS, #1, #2, etc. are repeated again but this time with different spans.

Why the repeat of species/grade with DIFFERENT spans between the upper and lower repeated list?

What is the difference between the two?

Here is a link to the table:

http://publicecodes.citation.com/st/ca/st/b400v10/st_ca_st_b400v10_8_sec002_par022.htm

Thanks.

They spans change because the tables account for variables.

The tables allow for prescriptive sizing of rafters based on spacing (12 - 16 or 24 inches on center), live load (20 psf or 30 psf), and stiffness (l/180 - no ceiling or l/240 - ceiling).

 

[mark handler]

They spans change because the tables account for variables. The tables allow for prescriptive sizing of rafters based on spacing (12 - 16 or 24 inches on center), live load (20 psf or 30 psf), and stiffness (l/180 - no ceiling or l/240 - ceiling).

Obviously didn't look at the link

There are different areas for alternate spacings and deflections

 

[Keith]

Ok, now it is reading ok.

Looks like a glitch which has corrected itself.

Thanks.

 

[Keith]

No spans for spruce-Pine Fir I assume because not allowed...

 

[mark handler]

No spans for spruce-Pine Fir I assume because not allowed...

Of course it's allowed

http://ftp.resource.org/codes.gov/bsc.ca.gov/gov.ca.bsc.2010.02.5.html#p431

TABLE R802.5.1(1)

 

[DRP]

DRP,No - it is not Douglas Fir South. The table is not formatted correctly. Note that the internet table are no maximum spans for Spruce-Pine_Fir.

Ummm, never mind.

Mark and Phil have it, on the publicEcodes tables where the heading "Douglas Fir-Larch" occupies two lines it screwed the tables up. Further down that heading occupies one line of type and the tables are correct.

 

[mark handler]

How could you ever believe the ICC and the great state of CA would not screw things up