Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Galvanized Box Nails and Common Nails

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Michael:

I believe the "galvanized" box nail equivalency was thought up before
electroplating was common; thus hot-dipped shank diameters are
similar to common shanks.

Recent plywood shear wall tests conducted at UCI published in the
SEAOC convention proceedings several years back make a good argument
that non-galv. box nails exhibit stronger capacity than common nails.
 This is due to the failure mode of plywood shear walls being
buckling plywood pulling past the nail heads.  Box nails with the
larger head diameter and head net surface area produce greater
resistance to this failure mode.  I agree with you that common nails
tend to split the wood prematurely.

John Lawson
Kramer & Associates Structural Engineers, Inc.
Tustin, CA
jlawson(--nospam--at)Kramerinc.com

> From: BCASE1356(--nospam--at)aol.com
> To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
> Subject: Galvanized Box Nails and Common Nails
> Date: Friday, August 08, 1997 9:08 PM
> 
> General question regarding use of common and galvanized box nails
in plywood
> shear walls.  
> 
> Per UBC table 23-I-K-1 you are allowed to use either common nails
or
> galvanized box nails for the nailing of the plywood sheathing, with
no
> reduction  in design capacity based upon type of nail used.  For
each size of
> nail (8d, 10d, etc.), the box nail has a smaller shank diameter
than the
> common nail and a smaller shear capacity (UBC table 23-I-G).  Does
this mean
> that the plywood is the limiting factor, and if so why require the
use of
> Common nails which have tendancy to split wood more than the box
nail.  If
> the galvanized box nail is allowed for shear panels per table
23-I-K-1 why is
> the box nail not also included for horizontal diaphragms (table
23-I-J-2).
>  Does anyone have any information on this.
> 
> Thanks in Advance.
> 
> Michael Cochran
> 
>