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
Most treated plate is hemlock?
Here is the one calling for box nails. This is a county close to mine here
in Washington State.
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.
The OP brings up a good point......"quality control" of site built
Unfortunately, the specs for a lot of this stuff are very poorly
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
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
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.
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
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
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"
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.