] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

["Gary Grinstead" <Gary.Grinstead(--nospam--at)ci.stockton.ca.us>]

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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********