Which costs more to construct?
A) A single tributary building frame with an extra 3,400 isolated reinforcing connectors, 27,200 additional fasteners, 14 post caps, 14 post bases, 18 seismic hold-down straps, 4 wind braces, 2 draft-stops, 400 bird-blocks, 5/8″ sheetrock, 16 let-in braces, 4 steel shear walls, and 100 cross-framing bridging blocks; or…
B) A dual-tributary, double-wall building frame with an extra 126 isolated reinforcing connectors, 1,008 fasteners, 14 post bases, 400 bird blocking wire mesh vents, 1/4″ interior wall frame coverings, and 2,000 feet of 1-1/4″ wide steel strapping.
A) = a Reinforced Continuous Load-Path building frame, and B) = a Continuous Connector-Reinforcing Structural Strap-Netted building frame.
Since nobody has answered your question, I’ll try to block out one approach, although from your extensive experience and development in reinforcing building frames it is likely you are mostly sampling the perceptions of people interested in the cost/effectiveness of different frames.
Although this is steel construction, it gives an overview of building design specifications.
http://www.unitedsteelbuilding.com/building-design-specifications
This site gives building steps between continuous and dual load-path frames:
http://tor-eggs-torclosed-nets.org/continuous_load-path_to_dual_load-path_frames
From reviewing the above sites, and scouring the web for actual cost relationships, the dual-tributary, double-wall frame (B) seems better for most uses, but the single-tributary unit has many labor-intensive features which tend to raise costs disproportionately. I haven’t been able to do much more than guess from the above, but I think A would cost more.
Did I guess right?
hth.
Tagged as:
cross framed,
cross framed art,
cross framed pictures,
cross framed prints,
cross framed wall art