tail joist connection 1

[jim57]

I am analyzing a deck that has a double 2 x 8" girder that supports floor joist with a tail joist connection, three nails through the girder into the side of the joist. Need a code reference that says this is or is not acceptable. I need to prove why it is not acceptable and if and when it ever was

 

[msquared48]

1985 UBC Section 2510(f)2 (Timber Connectrions and Fastenings) specifically sates that "[highlight #CC0000]Nails driven parallel to the grain of the wood shall not be allowed for resisting withdrawl forces[/highlight]."

That is why you need either a hanger with side nailing, or a strap over the top.

This sounds like a situation where both parties are at fault, but the existing owner has the deeper pocket, as he is here.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

http://mmcengineering.tripod.com

 

[MiketheEngineer]

In 1967 - I believe it was either BOCA, UBC or Southeast East Building Code - depending on where the project was. You might be able to Google those??

 

[msquared48]

My 1973 UBC also states the same in section 2510 (f)2, the second paragraph - "Nails driven parallel to the grain of the wood shall not be allowed for resisting withdrawl forces". I have no UBC's older than that.

However, in the First Edition of the AITC Timber Construction Manual (1966), on page 5-50, under "Withdrawl Loads", it very specifically states that "Loading of nails or spikes in withdrawl from end grain is not permitted."

This basic engineering principle for wood goes back a long way in the codes...

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

http://mmcengineering.tripod.com

 

[hokie66]

Mike,
I agree that nails in end grain should not be used, but in the situation described by the OP, the nails are in shear, not withdrawal.

 

[msquared48]

OK. I guess I read rotation into the problem here...

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

http://mmcengineering.tripod.com