Thanks for the response. I was surprised that he would suggest screws, and on top of that, declare it "better". Given the difficulty in the QC of screw installation upside down 18' feet in the air, an argument might be made that it is even less "better".
From: Jim Wilson [mailto: wilsonengineers@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 10:42 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Design preference for non-bearing wall connectors
I agree. Pins are far easier to install compared to overhead drilling.
The only problems I've encountered with pins into steel is with higher strength steels. But that was worked out by choosing the correct gun and pin for the application.
Jim Wilson, PE
Stroudsburg, PA
David Topete < dtopete@gfdseng.com> wrote:My quick opinion, FWIW...
A #10 screw into the flange of a W24 seems like a difficult task with the
thinnest flange thickness being 1/2". I would say the powder pins are the
way to go.
David A. Topete, SE
-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Bruckman [mailto: bruckmandesign@verizon.net]
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 8:56 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Design preference for non-bearing wall connectors
I have a non-bearing metal stud wall that is to be attached to the underside
of a W24. The detail was missed by the SE on the permit set and so I
sketched up a detail of a slip track with shot pins into the bottom flange
to connect the track. The SE revised the detail to self drilling screws,
claiming it was a "better" connection. (I'm not quite sure which element
became "better"), but...nevertheless, it begs this question:
Is there any consensus here about whether either version is a "better" or
"worse" version of this detail? Does the shot pin mess with the flange
integrity in any way that could be considered more deleterious than an S-D
screw? (The exact detail was 6" metal stud x 18' high, GWB both sides. I
guessed 145 shots @ 16"oc, his came back #10 SD screws at 8"oc.).
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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@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@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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
Friday, July 20, 2007
Re: Design preference for non-bearing wall connectors
I would suggest shot pins if the connection of the track to the WF is flush. If there is supposed to be fireproofing on the WF, you usually end up shot pinning zee strips to the WF, then applying the track to the zee furing with screws and filling the space between the track and WF with fireproofing.
Paul.
Phoenix
On 7/20/07, Donald Bruckman <bruckmandesign@verizon.net> wrote: