I think you should butt up the top one first up against the ceiling to
get a tight joint, then do the bottom one. You can leave space at the
bottom since you will put molding anyway and no one will see the space.
Over the 28 or so years I've been doing it, maybe 4 or 5 times. But, I
learned to also have a couple of 1 foot long by 4 foot wide pieces
that I "dry fit" first to make sure all is going to work. It's not
rocket science. You just do a little pre-planning. A level and a
drywall T-square and a few little "jigs" make things go a lot faster.
Jesh, just put the top sheet on FIRST..God,shim this , jig that , dry fit
this..In the time you spend jigging and shimming I could hang an entire
room..It's only drywall , not finish carpentry....It's not rocket science
but you're trying to make it that way...In the 20 years I've been doing
drywall I've NEVER seen a pro do what you say ...Even angled walls aren't
that damn complicated...I can see why it's taken you 28 years to sheetrock
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 21:48:17 -0600, "Steve Barker DLT"
Generally, that's practice. Especially if you're working with a lift
or a partner.
But hanging an eight foot piece alone, many pros place the bottom
piece first and use it to rest the top piece into place. If there is
a slight gap, it can always be flat taped.
Horizontal would be best. Vertical a close second. One each way a
Horizontal seams are easier to finish and less likely to telegraph.
Drywall adds structural stability to the wall. Horizontally hung sheets
give twice the shear resistance as vertically hung sheets. (Although it
wouldn't be that big a factor on a 8' long wall.)
I would beg to differ on your statement "Horizontally hung sheets
give twice the shear resistance as vertically hung sheets."
its just not true, an urban (or suburban) myth. Twice?
Hung horizontally (& with the mid height seam unblocked) it would be
an unblocked diaphragm. Hung vertically, with the seam falling on a
stud, you'd have better continuity. No un-nailed edges, no unblocked
The truth be told, drywall sucks as shear resisting material and the
whole discussion about drywall strength is rather silly.
I don't remember where, but that's what I remember reading many years ago.
Here's one cite with similar claims:
"EFFECT OF INTERIOR FINISH ON RACKING RESISTANCE
Although not commonly considered as a structural component, interior
finish does in fact contribute substantially to the racking resistance
of buildings. According to Table 1, gypsum lath and plaster increased
the ultimate shear load of braced lumber-sheathed walls by five times,
while gypsum wallboard doubled it even though the latter was attached
only to the studs.
Wallboard orientation was also significant. When wall lengths were
increased to three times the wall height, horizontally applied gypsum
wallboard gave almost twice the shear resistance as the vertically
applied board, presumably due to the greater average distance of the
nails from the cut edges of the board."
Agreed, which is why I said it wouldn't be that big a factor on an 8' wall.
"The following conclusions can be drawn from these tests:
2. Shear values for parallel application exceed those for perpendicular
This test doesn't show anything approaching 2x. I'm neither an architect
nor engineer so the numbers don't mean all that much to me. Would it be
fair to say that horizontal beats vertical, but 2*insignificant is still
If you know of a good article or study explaining this further I'd
appreciate a link.
replying to BobK207, Iggy wrote:
OH YEAH, you got it PERFECTLY RIGHT BobK207!!! "Racking Resistance" is just
another absolute fraud of the Horizontal Installer's LIES. It's even part of
(#11) my list below, since they always mention that nonsense. Here's what's
wrong with Horizontal and why it'll never be right:
1 – DEFECTIVE SEAM - Horizontal rows needing more than one drywall panel
CREATES (instead of AVOIDS) a butt-joint HUMP, which are NOT flat and are a
TWICE (minimum) effort DEFECT. Outlet and switch cover-plates, window and door
trim, baseboards, pictures, mirrors and cabinets don’t sit flat. Using ANY
"butt-joint product" erases ALL "claimed benefits" of Horizontal!
2 – UNSUPPORTED SEAM – Horizontal’s tapered edge is MOSTLY unsupported,
only 10% (instead of Vertical's 100%) contacts framing, the seam WILL AND DOES
crack. Light switch and countertop electrical boxes within the seam equals MORE
weakness and butt-joint doubled, MINIMUM, efforts.
3 – STRUCTURAL DEFECT - Horizontal only reinforces a wall height of 4’ or
less and the wall's top-plate is never connected to the bottom-plate. As in and
due to #2 above, Frictional Contact is MINIMIZED (instead of maximized by
4 – SEAM DECEPTION...(4'x8' PANELS) – Example 1: 48” tall by 102” long
wall, Horizontal = 48” (technically) and it’s a 24” wide butt-joint
(Vertical = the same, generously, 96” but they’re easy 6” wide joints).
Example 2: 96” tall by 102” long wall, Horizontal = 222” with 50% being
24” wide butts (Vertical = 192” of 6” wide easy joints, yes LESS)...in a
Kitchen Horizontal = 100% of 24” wide butts (Vertical = 0%). Yes, Horizontal
does the taper area twice (minimum) in order to hide its butts, so very
minimally just another 24” was added and #5 below was not factored in to
Horizontal's monumental FRAUD.
5 – SELF-DEFEATING ANGLES – Horizontal only uses ONE of a panel’s tapered
edges and PUTS the other taper at the ceiling corner and baseboard, CREATING
(instead of AVOIDING) a twisted angle that MUST be shimmed or ADDITIONALLY
mudded. This too, instantly ERASES ALL claimed benefits of Horizontal! The
Panels are designed to be installed Vertically!
6 – UNFRIENDLY SEAMS – Horizontal celebrates the chest height seam and
PRETENDS there’s no 24”-WIDE floor to ceiling butt-joint that needs to be
DONE AND DRY BEFORE doing the ceiling corner (Vertical has easy joints and the
top's done later with the ceiling corner).
7 - FIRE VIOLATION AND HAZARD - Horizontal only fills the coin-thin SEAM'S FACE
and has NO back-blocking, inviting smoke and fire’s spread, including fuel-air
for a fire's growth (Vertical is full depth and CONTINUOUSLY airtight).
8 - UNSAFE INSTALLATION - Horizontal needs 2-PEOPLE for a safe installation and
the panel is airborne, literally CREATING the chance to CAUSE injury (Vertical
easily tilts-up with just 1-person). Panel lifters aren't even as easy and safe
as Vertical’s tilt-up.
9 - ADDITIONAL WASTE - When correctly covering a knee or half wall, tub front,
column or soffit by first removing both tapered edges, Horizontal CAN'T use the
tapers elsewhere (Vertical can and does).
10 - SELFISH IGNORANCE - Foundation and Framing crews go to great pains to make
everything flat, level, plumb and square. Horizontal DESTROYS those efforts with
their DEFECTIVE humps (Vertical keeps them all).
11 - GRASPING AT STRAWS WITH OUTRIGHT FRAUD - Horizontals FALSELY AND
UNKNOWINGLY wave the absurdly INVALID (FPL439) 1983 testing “Contribution of
Gypsum Wallboard to Racking Resistance of Light-Frame Walls” by the
self-indicted fraud Ronald W. Wolfe. FPL439 found that ALL tapered or paper
wrapped edges must be FULLY INTACT for Horizontal to beat Vertical
"structurally", PERIOD. In the real-world, bottom paper wrapped edges are
REMOVED (at a minimum), BY LAW, for spacing from all floors and thereby
COMPLETELY NEGATE Wolfe’s inexcusably deceitful and worthless "study" and
12 - JOINT OR SEAM TREATMENT - According to the ASTM's C840, Horizontal's joints
and seams MUST be mudded to provide ANY fire, smoke and air travel resistance.
Vertical is SO GOOD that it's NOT REQUIRED to have its joints or seams treated.
13 - FIRE RATING FRAUD - Most Single-ply or layer drywalling for Commercial Work
is required to be installed Vertically, to obtain drywall's actual fire
rating...known by the majority of builders and drywall installers. But, they
only provide Builder's Grade work, the legal minimum with the look expected by
the market. Good for the warranty term with an eternal future of patching and
Only promote HORIZONTAL AS WRONG and confidently cite the above incontestable
Where are you guys getting this "information" that advances the notion
that one hanging configuration is MUCH stronger than the other?
I have actually tested 100's of shear walls (gyp, plywood, OSB,
stucco; wood framed, light gage steel framed) and the data just does
not support a huge strength increase for drywall Horz vs Vert.
btw drywall can deliver only about 10 to 20% of the shear capacity of
a comparable plywood shear wall, so to even be discussing drywall
"shear wall" is a bit silly. Yes, there are LOTS of drywall walls in
the typical house compared to the amount of plywood or OSB. In parts
of the country where one really needs shear capacity (high wind or
Shear wall performance is driven by many competing & interrelated
factors; sheathing material, blocked vs unblocked, fastener schedule,
fastener size sheathing .......sheathing orientation is, at best, a
second order effect.
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.