Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]
RE: 16d Common vs 16d Sinker vs 16d Short
[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]- To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: 16d Common vs 16d Sinker vs 16d Short
- From: "Haan, Scott M POA" <Scott.M.Haan(--nospam--at)poa02.usace.army.mil>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:46:13 -0800
There is the way it ought to be and the way it is. As a plan checker you are now in a nasty situation because you have been too attentive:(. Some engineers will argue that you need to make the builders use what is specified while others would modify how they were designing when they know what the builders are using and the builders will probably go berserk when you mention this. I admire your moxy. -----Original Message----- From: Gary Grinstead [mailto:Gary.Grinstead(--nospam--at)ci.stockton.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 7:22 AM To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org Subject: 16d Common vs 16d Sinker vs 16d Short It has come to my attention that virtually all houses in my area are using 16d sinkers instead of the 16d commons typically specified on the plans. Additionally in some instances 16d shorts are being used. The nail sizes are as follows: 16d common = 3-1/2" x 0.162" diameter 16d sinker = 3-1/4" x 0.148" diameter 16d short = 3-1/4" x 0.131" diameter There is no way I'd accept a 16d short which has less than 70% of the capacity of the 16d common. My question is about the 16d sinker which has about 84% capacity. Is the general feeling that a combination of (1) factor of safety on capacity, (2) conservative live loads, and (3) additional nailing (calc'd to 3.4 nails --- use 4 nails) will make up for the shortfall or is this something you'd call the contractor on? Gary Grinstead, SE Plancheck Engineer City of Stockton, CA ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp * * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to: * * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp * * Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web * site at: http://www.seaint.org ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ******** ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp * * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to: * * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp * * Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web * site at: http://www.seaint.org ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
- Follow-Ups:
- RE: 16d Common vs. 16d Sinker vs. 16d Short and Plan Stamping
- From: Arvel L. Williams, P.E.
- RE: 16d Common vs. 16d Sinker vs. 16d Short and Plan Stamping
- Prev by Subject: Re: 16d Common vs 16d Sinker vs 16d Short
- Next by Subject: RE: 16d Common vs. 16d Sinker vs. 16d Short and Plan Stamping
- Previous by thread: RE: 16d Common vs 16d Sinker vs 16d Short
- Next by thread: RE: 16d Common vs. 16d Sinker vs. 16d Short and Plan Stamping
- About this archive
- Messages sorted by: [Subject][Thread][Author][Date]