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.

http://i46.tinypic.com/14uhopl.jpg. 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.

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 21:28:06 -0800, SMS
wrote:

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.

http://i46.tinypic.com/14uhopl.jpg. 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.

I believe those are called "I-Joists". Very strong actually. The
construction method gives them strength while being easier to handle
and install.... liquid nails reduces squeaks in the floor above.
Screws or nails need to be placed, spaced correctly.

Think I-beam. I see nothing wrong in the construction.

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 21:28:06 -0800, SMS
wrote:

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.

http://i46.tinypic.com/14uhopl.jpg. 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.

http://www.homeadditionplus.com/fram...awn-Lumber.htm
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.

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 21:28:06 -0800, SMS
wrote:

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.

http://i46.tinypic.com/14uhopl.jpg. 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.
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.

On Feb 16, 9:28*pm, SMS wrote:
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.

http://i46.tinypic.com/14uhopl.jpg. 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.

TJ-I's "Wooden I-beams" from Truss Joist.

Visit their website and take a look at all the "engineered" wood
products.
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
natural wood.

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
sawn lumber.
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
materials.

cheers
Bob

On Feb 17, 5:28*am, SMS wrote:
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.

http://i46.tinypic.com/14uhopl.jpg. 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 common in Europe for years. Called engineered timber over here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered_Lumber

Lots of different components are made.

On Sunday 17 February 2013 05:28 SMS wrote in alt.home.repair:

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.

http://i46.tinypic.com/14uhopl.jpg. 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.

Deja-vu/Didn't we do this a couple of months back


--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

On 2/17/2013 12:28 AM, SMS wrote:
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.

http://i46.tinypic.com/14uhopl.jpg. You can see that this "joist" is
inserted into Simpson joist hangers and it looks rather absurd to me.


Do you also thing say a typical truss bridge as used for a road or
railway is absurd?


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.

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 21:28:06 -0800, SMS
wrote:

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.

http://i46.tinypic.com/14uhopl.jpg. 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.

If you didn't live in such a hell hole, you wouldn't need to spend
$700K for a piece of ****.

On Saturday, February 16, 2013 9:28:06 PM UTC-8, SMS wrote:
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.



http://i46.tinypic.com/14uhopl.jpg. 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.

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),
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.

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
them.

wrote:

-snip-
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.

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.

Jim

On 2/17/2013 12:53 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 21:28:06 -0800, SMS
wrote:

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.

http://i46.tinypic.com/14uhopl.jpg. 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.


I imagine that if the was ever on an commercial aircraft they would be
rather upset to learn that a great deal of modern aircraft structures
are bonded together with adhesives.


http://www.homeadditionplus.com/fram...awn-Lumber.htm
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.

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 18:50:27 -0500, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:

wrote:

-snip-
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.

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, 10:05*am, wrote:
On Saturday, February 16, 2013 9:28:06 PM UTC-8, SMS wrote:
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.

http://i46.tinypic.com/14uhopl.jpg. 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.

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.

Years ago... nearly 20, I did some work for a grumpy old structural
engineer.

He hated OSB, he thought OSB was junk.
He paid me to build and test some cripple walls.

We used full dimension old timber for framing and a number of
sheathing materials.
We used plywood on some specimens & OSB on others.
We "over drove" the sheathing nails, we left the specimens outside &
"watered them" everyday for weeks.

Much to his dismay... the OSB sheathed cripple walls (watered or
unwatered, over driven or flush driven nails) all performed just fine.

We came away with a new respect to OSB.

TImber structures are designed & built to keep the materials dry, they
do get wet at times but even sawn lumber has its limits.

OSB is good product, you can use it without concern.

I built a "temporary" shed out of OSB. I never painted it.
It weathered about 8 years in SoCal...not a huge amount of rain (~15
inches pre year on average but a couple years with 20"+)

The surface of the OSB suffered a bit & generated some roughness but
no delimitation & no loss of strength.

cheers
Bob

On Feb 17, 4:03*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 18:50:27 -0500, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:









wrote:

-snip-
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.

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).

OSB doesn't hold nails well, either, so it's iffy for sheathing.

Urban legend ... I've done the testing.

http://netinfo.ladbs.org/ladbsec.nsf/d3450fd072c7344c882564e5005d0db4/180e63b3b0caa3e588256b200081a4f3/$FILE/CoLA_Rpt.pdf

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.

cheers
Bob

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 22:48:49 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Feb 17, 4:03*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 18:50:27 -0500, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:









wrote:

-snip-
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.

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).

OSB doesn't hold nails well, either, so it's iffy for sheathing.

Urban legend ... I've done the testing.

http://netinfo.ladbs.org/ladbsec.nsf/d3450fd072c7344c882564e5005d0db4/180e63b3b0caa3e588256b200081a4f3/$FILE/CoLA_Rpt.pdf

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.

cheers
Bob
What is sold as OSB today IS significantly better than the old
"Aspenite" "Chipboard" crap. There is more resin in it - and a better
grade as far as water resistance is concerned.

On Sunday, February 17, 2013 10:41:51 PM UTC-8, DD_BobK wrote:
On Feb 17, 10:05*am, wrote:

On Saturday, February 16, 2013 9:28:06 PM UTC-8, SMS wrote:

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.



http://i46.tinypic.com/14uhopl.jpg. 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.



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.



Years ago... nearly 20, I did some work for a grumpy old structural

engineer.



He hated OSB, he thought OSB was junk.

He paid me to build and test some cripple walls.



We used full dimension old timber for framing and a number of

sheathing materials.

We used plywood on some specimens & OSB on others.

We "over drove" the sheathing nails, we left the specimens outside &

"watered them" everyday for weeks.



Much to his dismay... the OSB sheathed cripple walls (watered or

unwatered, over driven or flush driven nails) all performed just fine.



We came away with a new respect to OSB.



TImber structures are designed & built to keep the materials dry, they

do get wet at times but even sawn lumber has its limits.



OSB is good product, you can use it without concern.



I built a "temporary" shed out of OSB. I never painted it.

It weathered about 8 years in SoCal...not a huge amount of rain (~15

inches pre year on average but a couple years with 20"+)



The surface of the OSB suffered a bit & generated some roughness but

no delimitation & no loss of strength.



cheers

Bob

When I see and smell genuine lumber
I KNOW that what’s in it is pure Mother Nature.
With OSB you can’t tell if and or how much of what is in it.

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.

I used 1-1/4" T&G OSB flooring for our house (Don't recall the brand now).
It's strong and doesn't have voids like plywood does. They also put some
kind of coating on the sheets (wax?) that repels water nicely. Ours was
exposed to rain for 3-4 months during construction. The water would bead up
on top and we would just sweep it off each morning.

I'm sure long term water exposure would cause rot, but you would get that
with regular plywood also.

OSB doesn't hold nails well, either, so it's iffy for sheathing.

I used CDX plywood for our roof sheathing because it's slightly stronger
than OSB, and because it's lighter and was easier to carry up to the roof.

I also used CDX plywood for our wall sheathing, because I wanted a rough
sawn face for simulated board and batten (even though we decided not to
install the battens). I didn't care for the look of the textured OSB
plywood.

Otherwise, I usually use OSB and CDX interchangeably. OSB is usually
cheaper, so I tend to use it where appearance isn't an issue.

Anthony Watson
Mountain Software
www.mountain-software.com/about.htm

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 22:48:49 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Feb 17, 4:03*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 18:50:27 -0500, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:









wrote:

-snip-
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.

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).

OSB doesn't hold nails well, either, so it's iffy for sheathing.

Urban legend ... I've done the testing.

So have I. In my own houses. It sucks.

http://netinfo.ladbs.org/ladbsec.nsf/d3450fd072c7344c882564e5005d0db4/180e63b3b0caa3e588256b200081a4f3/$FILE/CoLA_Rpt.pdf

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.

If you get the nails into the framing, it's fine. Otherwise it sucks.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:46:39 +0000 (UTC), HerHusband
wrote:

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.

I used 1-1/4" T&G OSB flooring for our house (Don't recall the brand now).
It's strong and doesn't have voids like plywood does. They also put some
kind of coating on the sheets (wax?) that repels water nicely. Ours was
exposed to rain for 3-4 months during construction. The water would bead up
on top and we would just sweep it off each morning.

OSB or particle board? I've seen some nice T&G engineered subflooring
(decided to use 3/4" ply, though). It's a *long* way from the crap
they use for sheathing.

I'm sure long term water exposure would cause rot, but you would get that
with regular plywood also.

Sure, I just worry about the bathroom. I've had ply disintegrate due
to a very slow unseen leak. Termite barf will be worse.

SMS:

The reason why these "engineered joists" are shaped like an I-beam is that for an I-beam to bend, then the flange at either the top or the bottom of the I-beam has to stretch in order to conform to the new bent shape of the beam.

By having the flange further from the mid-point of the I-beam, it takes a greater force to stretch the flange because the flange is further away from the middle of the beam where nothing is stretching.

So, taller I-beams are stronger and more rigid than shorter ones, and it's entirely because the thicker and wider the flange at the top or bottom of the I-beam, the more force it takes to stretch that flange. And, the further that flange is away from the middle of the I-beam (height-wise) the more that I beam will resist bending, so the stronger (more rigid) it will be.

The web of the I-beam (which is the piece between the flanges) doesn't have to be nearly as strong. It's job is just to keep the flanges separated by the height of the beam. So, normally the web on an I-beam carries very little stress compared to the flanges at the top and bottom. So, the next time you watch a 1950's movie involving rocket ships, keep an eye out for "cellular I-beams" like these:



Notice that the webs of those I-beams have holes cut in them. Since the web doesn't carry nearly as much stress as the flanges at the top and the bottom of the beam, you can reduce the weight of the I-beam significantly without sacrificing much strength by removing material from the web. However, about the only place where reducing weight is important enough to justify the cost of cutting those holes is in aerospace design where less weight means less fuel needed to take off and/or achieve orbit. That's why every self-respecting 1950's era science fiction movie about rocket ships will have lots of cellular I-beams everywhere inside every rocket ship. They were trying to be scientifically accurate when it came to rocket ship design.

(Since whatever they're building in that picture is going to be too big to fly, my guess is that they're building a ship or a offshore oil rig. Otherwise they'd just be wasting a lot of money by using cellular I-beams instead or regular ones. And, they seem to know what they're doing so I'm guessing the cellular I beams aren't a collossal mistake.)

In fact, you can even reduce the amount of OSB in the web of an engineered wood I-beam without significantly reducing the strength as in this Georgia Pacific XJ85 engineered joist:



But here, the objective is not to reduce weight as it is with rocket ships, but to save on construction time and cost by providing openings through the joists for running plumbing pipes, electrical wiring and maybe even HVAC ducts.

An architect is what you get when you teach an artist engineering.

The fact that the web of I-beams doesn't carry nearly as much stress as the flanges have prompted some companies to product I-beams with GLASS webs. In Sweden, one company is producing decorative wooden I-beams with 1/2 inch thick glass webs:



And the Poles, not to be outdone, are producing I beams with stainless steel flanges bonded to glass webs with adhesives:



Now, neither of these composite beams are built solely with strength and rigidity in mind, but they're not purely decorative either. They provide strength while also achieving other priorities, like allowing better lighting and better "opening up" the occupied space.

Still, it just goes to show that in a traditional 2X lumber joist, much of the lumber near the middle of the joist's height is wasted wood. That's because the lumber near the middle of the joist's height won't stretch hardly at all if the joists bends, and therefore won't help the wood at the flanges to resist bending. So, there is simply no need to have the middle of a floor joist just as thick as the wood at the top and bottom of the joist. We've been making 2X lumber joists the same thickness from top to bottom only because that extra lumber in the middle doesn't do any harm, and it would cost more to remove it. But, suffice it to say that if Mother Nature were in charge, floor joists would be considerably thinner in the middle, but still 99% as strong as with that extra wood in the middle. Mother Nature is not one for wasting anything.

On Feb 18, 2:35*pm, wrote:

So have I. In my own houses. It sucks.

You've built structures, instrumented them and tested them to
destruction?

SNIP

If you get the nails into the framing, it's fine. *Otherwise it sucks.

And where are sheathing nails supposed to go?

OSB is a decent product, especially when you consider its price and
utilization of a wide range of wood specimen.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:06:22 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Feb 18, 2:35*pm, wrote:

So have I. In my own houses. It sucks.

You've built structures, instrumented them and tested them to
destruction?

SNIP

If you get the nails into the framing, it's fine. *Otherwise it sucks.

And where are sheathing nails supposed to go?

OSB is a decent product, especially when you consider its price and
utilization of a wide range of wood specimen.
And where do roofing nails go? When using OSB roof sheathing.

On Feb 18, 7:48*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:06:22 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Feb 18, 2:35*pm, wrote:

So have I. *In my own houses. *It sucks.

You've built structures, instrumented them and tested them to
destruction?

SNIP

If you get the nails into the framing, it's fine. *Otherwise it sucks.

And where are sheathing nails supposed to go?

OSB is a decent product, especially when you consider its price and
utilization of a wide range of wood specimen.

*And where do roofing nails go? When using OSB roof sheathing.

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.

check out
http://www.gp.com/build/pageviewer.a...elementid=6132
http://bct.eco.umass.edu/publication...d-and-plywood/

"OSB is a decent product, especially when you consider its price and
utilization of a wide range of wood specimen."

I don't want to be a stickler for details, but I think you meant to say:

"OSB is a decent product, especially when you consider its price and
utilization of a wide range of wood species."

Here in Canada, we've had huge areas planted with only one kind of tree laid to waste by the Formosan Pine Beetle. Having multiple species of pine, spruce, fir and other fast growing coniferious trees not only slows the spread of such parasites, but it helps the forest recover better after after an attack.

Ditto for agriculture. Mixed farming is the most sustainable form of agriculture. It's not great for maximizing profits, but it prevents any one parasite from destroying the farmer's whole crop, and that's good for sustainability.

I used 1-1/4" T&G OSB flooring for our house

OSB or particle board? I've seen some nice T&G engineered subflooring
(decided to use 3/4" ply, though).

I guess my memory is failing me. After looking through our building photos
(from 2003) it appears we used 3/4" Structurwood Gold OSB T&G subflooring.

In any case, when nailed to the joists with construction adhesive it made a
rock solid floor. We didn't notice any edge swelling or other issues
despite being exposed to the weather for a few months during construction.

It's a *long* way from the crap they use for sheathing.

Many years ago my father-in-law closed in his carport with "waferwood".
Kind of a really cheap version of OSB. Surprisingly, other than looking
terrible, it held up fairly well to nearly 30 years of weather exposure.

Anthony Watson
Mountain Software
www.mountain-software.com/about.htm

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:06:22 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Feb 18, 2:35*pm, wrote:

So have I. In my own houses. It sucks.

You've built structures, instrumented them and tested them to
destruction?

I've pulled siding nails out with my bare fingers. That's enough
"instrumentation" for me.

SNIP

If you get the nails into the framing, it's fine. *Otherwise it sucks.

And where are sheathing nails supposed to go?

Where are the siding nails supposed to go, moron?

OSB is a decent product, especially when you consider its price and
utilization of a wide range of wood specimen.

It's crap, you're right, it's cheap crap.

replying to SMS, Rondog wrote:
I first saw it built into our then new 100k sq ft.building back in 1990 here
in calif. We thought it was sketchy but the building is still there. However
when we walked on the roof, there was a noticeable bounce to our steps.

--
posted from
http://www.homeownershub.com/mainten...ts-736968-.htm

On Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 9:49:25 PM UTC-8, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 21:28:06 -0800, SMS
wrote:

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.

http://i46.tinypic.com/14uhopl.jpg. 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.

I believe those are called "I-Joists". Very strong actually. The
construction method gives them strength while being easier to handle
and install.... liquid nails reduces squeaks in the floor above.
Screws or nails need to be placed, spaced correctly.

Think I-beam. I see nothing wrong in the construction.

It is actually stronger and better than 2x6, 8, or 10 as they are all identical and stronger.

Those type joists have been in use since at least the 1960s.

On Monday, February 18, 2013 at 2:35:48 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 22:48:49 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Feb 17, 4:03�pm, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 18:50:27 -0500, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:









wrote:

-snip-
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.

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).

OSB doesn't hold nails well, either, so it's iffy for sheathing.

Urban legend ... I've done the testing.

So have I. In my own houses. It sucks.

http://netinfo.ladbs.org/ladbsec.nsf/d3450fd072c7344c882564e5005d0db4/180e63b3b0caa3e588256b200081a4f3/$FILE/CoLA_Rpt.pdf

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.

If you get the nails into the framing, it's fine. Otherwise it sucks.

But then it is not meant to have driving "into" it, only through it.

Same as gyp rock.

On Monday, February 18, 2013 at 7:48:33 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:06:22 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Feb 18, 2:35�pm, wrote:

So have I. In my own houses. It sucks.

You've built structures, instrumented them and tested them to
destruction?

SNIP

If you get the nails into the framing, it's fine. �Otherwise it sucks.

And where are sheathing nails supposed to go?

OSB is a decent product, especially when you consider its price and
utilization of a wide range of wood specimen.
And where do roofing nails go? When using OSB roof sheathing.

And they hold just fine in that use.

On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 3:35:51 PM UTC-4, Harry K wrote:
sucks.

But then it is not meant to have driving "into" it, only through it.

Same as gyp rock.

I bet if you look hard enough, you can find some more 13 year old
posts to reply to.

On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 3:35:51 PM UTC-4, Harry K wrote:
sucks.

But then it is not meant to have driving "into" it, only through it.

Same as gyp rock.


I bet if you look hard enough, you can find some more 13 year old
posts to reply to.

I don't know how you count, but using the common counting mode in use here it is only 3 years.