When did builders start using OSB for floor joists?

Page 1 of 2  
We looked at some houses today and since some in the development are not complete I walked in and looked at the construction quality.
I thought that floor joists were normally 2x6es or 2 x 8s, and was amazed to see that they were using a piece of OSB sandwiched between what looked like two 2x3s.
<
http://i46.tinypic.com/14uhopl.jpg . You can see that this "joist" is inserted into Simpson joist hangers and it looks rather absurd to me.
You can't see it in that picture, but the sub-floor above the joists is screwed down to the 2x3s, but about 3/4 of the screws missed the 2x3 and went into nothing. It looked like they used liquid nails as well.
BTW, they are asking around $700K for these houses, which are right next to a noisy freeway.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:
>We looked at some houses today and since some in the development are not >complete I walked in and looked at the construction quality. > >I thought that floor joists were normally 2x6es or 2 x 8s, and was >amazed to see that they were using a piece of OSB sandwiched between >what looked like two 2x3s. > ><
http://i46.tinypic.com/14uhopl.jpg . You can see that this "joist" is >inserted into Simpson joist hangers and it looks rather absurd to me. > >You can't see it in that picture, but the sub-floor above the joists is >screwed down to the 2x3s, but about 3/4 of the screws missed the 2x3 and >went into nothing. It looked like they used liquid nails as well. > >BTW, they are asking around $700K for these houses, which are right next >to a noisy freeway.
Been around about 40 years.
Aside from missed screws, it is good construction. Straighter, stronger and cheaper than solid wood.
The use of liquid nails for the sub-floor helps prevent squeaks in a few years. Adhesives are rather strong.
http://www.homeadditionplus.com/framing-info/Engineered-Wood-I-Beams-vs-Sawn-Lumber.htm Engineered wood I-beams were first introduced in the late 1960's and were used mainly for high-end home construction. However, today up to half the homes built in the United States now use engineered wood I-beams. Engineered wood I-beams are considered an excellent alternative to sawn lumber for floor joists due to their strength and overall lower installation costs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The "engineered Joists" work pretty well - and reduce the requirement for old growth timber - but missing the joists with the screws??? I'd run the other way. Sounds like a cheapskate shoddy builder passing off substandard workmanship at a high quality price.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/17/2013 12:53 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I imagine that if the was ever on an commercial aircraft they would be rather upset to learn that a great deal of modern aircraft structures are bonded together with adhesives.

http://www.homeadditionplus.com/framing-info/Engineered-Wood-I-Beams-vs-Sawn-Lumber.htm

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

TJ-I's "Wooden I-beams" from Truss Joist.
Visit their website and take a look at all the "engineered" wood products. LVL, LSL, etc
In many (if not most) cases, engineered wood products are stronger, stiffer, straighter and drier than sawn lumber. Plus engineered wood conserves timber resources & allows the use of a wider range of species. (Driving factors in the development & use of OSB)
For rectangular sections (and members in general), member strength & stiffness are roughly proportional to wood density. Engineered wood products typically have more wood per cubic inch than natural wood.
I recently purchased an engineered 4 x 10 x 8 (actually 3-1/2 x 9-1/2 x 8') ... only $36 including tax It was WAY stiffer, stronger & drier than a similarly sized piece of sawn lumber. Plus I didn't have to deal with the nearly 3/8" of cross grain shrinkage that a green sawn 4 x 10 would have experienced.
Any extra cost was easily offset by performance improvements
Don't let the poor assembly workmanship taint your opinion of the materials.
cheers Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Been common in Europe for years. Called engineered timber over here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered_Lumber
Lots of different components are made.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday 17 February 2013 05:28 SMS wrote in alt.home.repair:

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/17/2013 12:28 AM, SMS wrote:

Do you also thing say a typical truss bridge as used for a road or railway is absurd?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

If you didn't live in such a hell hole, you wouldn't need to spend $700K for a piece of shit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, February 16, 2013 9:28:06 PM UTC-8, SMS wrote:





I seriously doubt that they would stand-up well to getting wet as they are bound to do sooner or later if there is a leak somewhere some day, and labor to repair them isn’t relatively cheap here in the U.S. like it is in Europe.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 10:05:06 -0800 (PST), snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

There is risk and reward with every decision and every choice we make. Personally, I cannot think of a single instance in my life where they would have been wet enough to be damaged. I'm sure somewhere at some time they were. But it is not enough to make me think not to use them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:
-snip-

Since those beams have been around [in the US] for 40 years, I think they've proven they hold up 'well enough'.
As for OSB-- I had a 3/4" pice covering a sump hole in my basement for 5-6 years. Now backing, framing, or protection from moisture. An 18" square hole covered with a 30" square chunk of OSB. I stepped in the middle of it regularly. When I finally got around to covering the floor and making a proper cover, that piece kicked around in the garage for years as I whittled it down for various small pieces.
OSB does a lot better than it looks like it ought to do.
Jim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

As long as it doesn't get soggy it's fine. For decking I'd spend the extra for plywood. There's too much chance of water on floors. OSB doesn't hold nails well, either, so it's iffy for sheathing. There doesn't seem to be much downside to the beams. They seem to be coated with a waterproofing that should repel water that may come in contact with them (leaks, and such).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 17, 4:03 pm, snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote:

  An

Urban legend ... I've done the testing.
http://netinfo.ladbs.org/ladbsec.nsf/d3450fd072c7344c882564e5005d0db4/180e6 3b3b0caa3e588256b200081a4f3/$FILE/CoLA_Rpt.pdf
If anyone is interested, I could probably find an electronic copy of the report & attendant data.
It's fine for sheathing. Visit APA website for information about OSB.
cheers Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

What is sold as OSB today IS significantly better than the old "Aspenite" "Chipboard" crap. There is more resin in it - and a better grade as far as water resistance is concerned.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

So have I. In my own houses. It sucks.

If you get the nails into the framing, it's fine. Otherwise it sucks.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 18, 2:35 pm, snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote:

You've built structures, instrumented them and tested them to destruction?
SNIP

<<<
And where are sheathing nails supposed to go?
OSB is a decent product, especially when you consider its price and utilization of a wide range of wood specimen.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

And where do roofing nails go? When using OSB roof sheathing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 18, 7:48 pm, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

s. <<<

Good point about roof sheathing..my bad. I was thinking floor diaphragms & shear walls.
but I stand by my comment...
OSB is a decent product, especially when you consider its price and utilization of a wide range of wood specimen.
check out http://www.gp.com/build/pageviewer.aspx?repository=bp&elementida32 http://bct.eco.umass.edu/publications/by-title/choosing-between-oriented-st randboard-and-plywood/
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

cks. <<<

da32http://bct.eco.umass.edu/publications/by-title/choosing-between-ori en...- Hide quoted text -

From what I've seen in some looking at plywood vs OSB for roof sheathing, I tend to agree. Most info indicated that they had similar and certainly acceptable nail holding ability. Another data point would be the shingle manufacturers. You would think that if OSB were not acceptable and plywood was preferred, they would have something to say on the subject. I have not seen one that says you can't use OSB.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    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.