IBC Table 2305.3.7.2 1

[jopalu]

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...

 

[DaveAtkins]

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

 

[cap4000]

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.