BRACED WALL PANELS

I read that braced wall panels made onsite with osb have to be:
1) nailed with common nails 2) framed with fir. 3) use structureal 1 osb.
I was lucky to stumble onto this site. Does that mean if some poor dude uses box or sinkers to nail his panels the inspector would have them rip it out?
Most treated plate is hemlock? RO
--
Robert Olin
Bob\'s Water & Septic LLC
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Where did you find that information? Provide a link. Codes vary, but the fir framing and box nail prohibition don't show up in the IRC.

Most treated wood around here is SYP.
R
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Here is the one calling for box nails. This is a county close to mine here in Washington State.
http://74.125.93.132/search?q Κche:BIlE1zT9tPAJ:www.kitsapgov.com/dcd/brochures/62.pdf+BRACED+WALL+PANEL%2BCOMMON+NAILS&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
--
Robert Olin
Bob\'s Water & Septic LLC
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Also - http://www.ci.neenah.wi.us/services/inspections/docs/braced_wall.pdf
--
Robert Olin
Bob\'s Water & Septic LLC
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, that approves galvanized box nails. Your earlier post referred to code having a problem with them. I didn't see anything in there about the framing species requirement...and it's very unlikely that it's in any sane code.
R
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thanks for the input. RO
--
Robert Olin
Bob\'s Water & Septic LLC
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The OP brings up a good point......"quality control" of site built shear walls
Unfortunately, the specs for a lot of this stuff are very poorly delineated.
IMO we need to stop using "penny designations" for nails and go with a simplier & more accurate means.
Diameter & length.....and head dimensions.
FF-N-105 (a nail spec) controls a lot of nail dimensions BUT it allows the head dimensions of gun nails to be "as required / determined" by nail gun mfrs!
So if one examines nails (6d thru 16d - shorts) for a NR83A (full round head nailer) often the heads ALL have the same dimensions! Does this make sense? Large diameter nails (.131 to .148) have the same head as smaller nails diameter (.113)
The code allow "box" nails the same value as common nails...but this was based on hand driven style nails.
The cyclic shear wall testing that I have done (100's of panels) yielded results......common gun nails (8d - .131 x 2 1/2") and box (8d - .113) had similar peak strengths but the commons had higher wall stiffness.
We also tested non-structural graded sheathing with STR I sheathing......no signifcant differences
I think 10d commons (.148") are the largest diameter nail that should be used and actually .131 is probably better (less trauma to the framing)
wrt whether a wall gets torn out....depends on the inspector, the jurisdiction & whether it gets noticed. The simplest fix for "wrong nail size" (as long as the wall isnt nailed at 2"/12") is to add a few more nails.
I'm not up on the IRC but do know actual shear wall performance....and the best way to get walls built correctly is to have the designer spec the nails by length & diameter, not merely penny size and "name". And then make sure the framer uses the spec'd nails.
One issue with "gun common" nails, is that the head diameter relative to shank diameter.....no enough difference. With gun nails; .113, . 131 & .148 shank diameter will all have the same heads. :(
Not so good in e/q country.
cheers Bob
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Did you do any tests on the effect of head diameter?
Cheers, Wayne
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, buried somewhere.
I wrote a lengthy reply but somehow it didnt post.
I teste common vs box vs casing....but (imo) results of testing (esp cyclic testing) are a strong function of test protocol. Test protocols back in the 90's tended to have lots of cycles that (again, imo) tended to force the dominance of certain failure modes. Lots of cycles cause low cycle fatigue fracture of the nails just below the surface of the framing members.
Thus a test protocol with lots of cycles would mask the influence of head diameter / shank diameter ratio. Even head thickness is an issue; hand drive / old school nails tended to have thicker heads that would penetrate the first ply.
If you collect a sampling of nail styles; gun, hand drive, box, common (all the variations) and drawn up head / shank profiles.....I think one could see that larger nails (like 10d common gun nails) might have a somewhat skimpy head to prevent pull through IF the shear wall was stressed to large deflections in a very few cycles. Think Northridge '94 "fling".
Just my opinion but a 8d gun box nail (.113 x 2 3/8") and a 10d gun common (.148 x 3") both having the same head configuration doesnt seem like a good idea. Yeah maybe from a mfg point of view or for ease of gun design but for best e/q shear wall performance?
FF-N-105 ceded its nail head dimensional control to nail gun designers.
I may have tested rooing nails in shear walls but at this point I cannot remember if it was an actual test or a on a testing "wish list"
cheers Bob
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thanks for the great info! RO
--
Robert Olin
Bob\'s Water & Septic LLC
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.