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.
. 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.
>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.
. 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.
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.
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.
TJ-I's "Wooden I-beams" from Truss Joist.
Visit their website and take a look at all the "engineered" wood
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
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
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
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.
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 10:05:06 -0800 (PST), email@example.com
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
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.
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).
On Feb 17, 4:03 pm, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Urban legend ... I've done the testing.
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.
On Feb 18, 7:48 pm, email@example.com wrote:
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.
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
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.