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

Re: Common versus box nails

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
seaint(--nospam--at) wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This message is too long to be posted to this list.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, so if I delete the rest of Charles' original, will you take it now?Mark T. Swingle

> Thank you Charles for yet another informative, eloquent, and timely post on this
> most recent issue of common vs box nails.  I also appreciate your comments on the
> diaphragm rigidity issue, among others.  I truly appreciate your insight and writing
> abilities, and your generous gifts of time in order to compose these messages for the
> benefit of the profession and its practitioners.
> Regarding your specific point about using box nails at a tighter spacing, I agree
> completely with the framers you cited that common nails are a problem in the
> tighter spacing allowed in the code.  Box nails are a fine idea, even if tighter
> spacing  makes you feel more comfortable.  If you need common nails, increasing
> the thickness of the studs at adjoining panel edges <and particularly the blocking>
> is absolutely necessary in my opinion.
> My prediction is that in a few years we will all be looking back as Ray is now and
> thinking: "How could we have allowed 8d commons 3 inches oc, from adjoining
> panels, into a 2x member and not realize the stud or block would split?"  (This is no
> longer allowed starting July 1st under 97 UBC if shear exceeds 350 plf.)
> There's one question I have though: my 94 UBC Table 23-I-K-1 and 97 UBC
> Table 23-II-I-1 still allow galvanized box nails (97 UBC now says HDG), and the
> allowable values haven't changed at least since 88 UBC.  In your post you said the
> 94 UBC removed the equivalence between common and box as far as the sw table is
> concerned.  Am I missing something?
> Please keep up the good work.
> Mark T. Swingle, SE
> Oakland, CA
> -----------------------------------
> Charles Greenlaw wrote on 21 June 1999:
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 33                               Message:0033                           33
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To: seaint(--nospam--at)
> > From: Charles Greenlaw <cgreenlaw(--nospam--at)>
> > Subject: Re: Common versus box nails
> >
> > At 01:46 AM 6/21/99 EDT, Ray Shreenan wrote:
> > >I am an expert witness for the defense (the framer) in a law suit involving
> > >structural defects in a large housing tract. The plaintiff's structural
> > >listed as one of the defects, the nailing of plywood shear walls with box
> > >nails. I pulled nails out of  several walls in several units and they were
> > >all box nails.
> > -----
> > C.G.-  Ray, thanks for clarifying. I just had to use the occasion to tell
> > some stories about a certain aspect of expert work that might have been the
> > case for you, but isn't. It will be for others; some will be on the
> > receiving end.
> >
> etc (remainder of Charles' post snipped)