Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: 16d Common vs 16d Sinker vs 16d Short

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
that's the conference paper that Charley mentioned in his post

1997 SEAOC Convention Proceedings 

cheers
Bob


On 7/19/05, Raymond Shreenan <rshreenan(--nospam--at)adelphia.net> wrote:
> If my memory serves me right, Seb Ficcadenti tested 8d box  vs 8d common
> nails in 8' high plywood shear panels using cyclic loading and within
> useable drift limits there wasn't much difference in strength.
> 
> Ray Shreenan
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Kazanjy" <rkazanjy(--nospam--at)gmail.com>
> To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 8:48 AM
> Subject: Re: 16d Common vs 16d Sinker vs 16d Short
> 
> 
> Ah,yes the old "sinkers" vs "common" debate
> 
> Yes in a perfect world everything would be built per plan & at least
> you'd be getting what the designer had specified  but.......
> 
> would that be the "best"  (or at least, the better structure)?
> 
> imo (& experience) the 16d common (.162 dia x 3.5") is a rather burly
> nail, sure to split wood much more frequently than a sinker
> 
> Many years ago (~10)  I did a series of tests comparing the
> performance of Simpson MST48s nailed into 4x6 timber as inter storey
> ties.   Sinkers (16d)  vs commons (16d).....................
> 
> the sinkers reliably (100% of the time) developed the straps to strap
> failure
> the commons typically failed the system by causing the timber to split
> wide open before reaching strap ultimate
> 
> When the commons did not cause splitting failure, they provided a
> stiffer system but considering all the tests, the commons yielded a
> variety of failure modes with an accompanying larger spread of
> strength values.
> 
> Simpson finally figured this out (after years of calling out 16
> commons for strap installation)
> I don't have the Simpson catalog memorized but they do call for
> sinkers in some applications.   additionally, their nail spacing is
> rather close,   jmho
> 
> imo  .162 dia is just too big a nail to drive into most common framing
> members w/o causing damage.   So unless predrilling is going to be
> done, a  nail dia of .148 seems to be a good compromise, .131 is
> getting pretty skinny though
> 
> Quoted nail values are all well & good but what happens to them when
> the wood splits?
> 
> 
> 
> cheers
> Bob
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/19/05, Gary Grinstead <Gary.Grinstead(--nospam--at)ci.stockton.ca.us> wrote:
> > It has come to my attention that virtually all houses in my area are using
> > 16d sinkers instead of the 16d commons typically specified on the plans.
> > Additionally in some instances 16d shorts are being used.  The nail sizes
> > are as follows:
> >
> > 16d common = 3-1/2" x 0.162"  diameter
> > 16d sinker = 3-1/4" x 0.148" diameter
> > 16d short = 3-1/4" x 0.131" diameter
> >
> > There is no way I'd accept a 16d short which has less than 70% of the
> > capacity of the 16d common.  My question is about the 16d sinker which has
> > about 84% capacity.  Is the general feeling that a combination of (1)
> > factor of safety on capacity, (2) conservative live loads, and (3)
> > additional nailing (calc'd to 3.4 nails --- use 4 nails) will make up for
> > the shortfall or is this something you'd call the contractor on?
> >
> > Gary Grinstead, SE
> > Plancheck Engineer
> > City of Stockton, CA
> >
> >
> >
> > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> > *
> > *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> > *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> > *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> > *
> > *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> > *
> > *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> > *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> > *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> > *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> >
> 
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> 
> 
> 
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********