I saw this question posted on another forum, and it languished without a response.
Where did 16″ O.C. framing come from? When did it start?
I assume it had somehting to do with the introduction of 4’X 8′ plywood, but am mostly guessing. Or was plywood made 4X8 to match 16″ O.C. framing?
Is Piffin the only one around here old enough to remember this?
(Just kidding, Piffin)
I have the body of a God. (buddha)
Join some of the most experienced and recognized building professionals for two days of presentations, panel discussions, networking, and more.
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Dig into cutting-edge approaches and decades of proven solutions with total access to our experts and tradespeople.
Start Free Trial NowGet instant access to the latest developments in green building, research, and reports from the field.
Start Free Trial Now
Replies
May not be right but I believe 16 oc predates plywood and drywall. Plaster and lathe did not need it and often see 24 oc there.
Just finished a reno on a 1914 house and it was all 16" centers.
Be interesting to see who has seen the oldest example.
Rik
I renovated my son's house 10 years ago. Built in 1845, 16" centers, combination of post and beam and balloon framing.
mike
Mike
I did a renovation of a 1840's house and found exactly the same thing.
I tore out some walls where the lath had been hand split. I saved it, kinda cool, I think its hickory from the looks of it. Its definitely not a soft wood.
Doug
Doug, my sons house also had hand split laths. I saved about a dozen pieces,why I don't know. Now that you reminded me, I'm trying to remember where I put them.All the lumber appears to be sawn with a sash saw. This is a saw that uses an up and down motion and is driven with either water power or even a large wheel turned by men.The saw marks are very visible, and coarse. They are straight up and down somewhat like a bandsaw but clearly different when you compare the two.
I do not recall the website but there is one sawmill that still cuts wood this way. If I recall the saw is driven with a diesel engine. I built one myself two years ago to saw three cherry trees. Cost me exactly nothing to build, works slow but sure. When I get a chance to look around for a larger electric motor than I'm using now ,the sawing will go faster.
mike
My place is 1910 & has 16" centers.
Edit: Never mind... Looks like quite a few others have me beat.
Edited 9/28/2005 11:27 pm ET by Lew
Just as the chariot axle width eventually dictated contemporary wheeled travel, the commonly accepted 16" modulus for construction was based on multiples of the ordinary brick.
From an article on Light Weight Concrete:
http://www.geckostone.com/lwc.html
OK, so how did the size of an ordinary brick get standardized????
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
My 1901 house has 16-ish" centers and even that is adjusted greatly for the available lathe. There are many stud scraps in the walls that serve no other purpose than as end nailers for the lathe. And to drive me crazy running wiring, etc....that's not a mistake, it's rustic
i'm curious if it would have something to do with the blade and tongue of a framing square being 16" and 24". Kind of a chicken and egg thing. Did 16" and 24" dictate the size of the square or did the size of the square dictate the spacing of framing.
Any idea when the rafter tables on some squares were standardized? Common difference for jacks is listed at 16" and 24". I would assume those scales were used for roofs before stud framing became popular
Maybe after spending the time to calculate all that stuff by hand, they just used those dimentions as standards. Maybe???
Bowz
That's fine. Lot's of comments make for a stronger sense of concensus.lot of them here from a developement in around 1896-1904 had 16"OC too
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
1852 Greek Revival.
Interestingly enough, the exterior walls are baloon framed with "16" wide brick walls" built in each stud cavity. Makes for a solid, quiet house, but a bicht to run wires in.
Brick goes from top of foundation almost to roof of second floor. Stops at 24" down from top plate which is where the ceil joists are.
Could the spacing have been derived from the bricks? Have seen many old houses around here have the brick fill, and pretty much two bricks wide, touches studs on both sides.
Edited 9/29/2005 10:59 am ET by pickings
It has to do with the size of the carpenters. A carp in decent shape can walk through a 16" stud wall. A fatty always builds on 24" centers.
(Actually, I suspect that there is some truth to this.)
I had asked this question when I started in carpentry and it was explained to me that lathing was usually cut to 4' lengths, stud spacing was originally often 12" and then eventually that spacing increased to 16" as 12" was deemed overkill. The 4'x8' standards of plywood and sheetrock evolved around this common standard.
"...stud spacing was originally often 12" and then eventually that spacing increased to 16"..."
O.K. - Going along with what DanH said -
Maybe carpenters were originally REALLY thin. As they got fatter, stud spacing was increased to 16" O.C. to allow for that...
(-:
There's only one way to look thin: hang out with fat people.
Well I suppose door heights have increased over the centuries so there may be credence to that theory. I am waiting for the post that dates it to Roman chariot wheel widths or something of the like.
"Maybe carpenters were originally REALLY thin. As they got fatter, stud spacing was increased to 16" O.C. to allow for that..."Frank Lloyd Wright was a skinny little guy (smoker, too). Ceilings on Falling Water were around 7'-6" or so. He would've fit between studs 12" o.c., maybe even 8". I blame the anti-smoking and CADD lobbyists for making the architects fat and stationary (which spread the studs apart further . . .)this doesn't apply to me, of course
so by that theory you build everything using the black diamonds?
Yeah, if you frame everything using the black diamonds for layout you won't get visited by the Men in Black and the black choppers will stay away too. 'Specially if you wear a tin foil liner in your stocking cap.
my forearm elbow to finger tip is 24'' exact.
Piffin I always heard that in the Biblical times the legal cubit was set by the king's length of arm.
That would really suck when you got a new pharoah, and the inspector came out and told you that all your pyramid dimentions were off.
When in doubt, get a bigger hammer!
Well, if the dynasties were a bloodline succession, genetics would suggest a fairly standard size without too much deviation.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Back before sheetrock and plywood, the 16" OC spacing was less accurately done than it is now. In my 1926 house, I'm finding runs of 16 1/4", 16 1/2", or thereabouts. Wood lath was nailed up and then cut to length. It seems that the nominal 4 ft. was generally a minimum, and they could count on having a couple extra inches.
The very first sheetrock was in 1908, and plywood evolved slowly before WWII. Both became widely used in the post-war building boom. My place has sheetrock in the stairwell and around the water heaters, but wood lath everywhere else.
That leads to a couple more questions: What's the oldest sheetrock you've seen? What's the oldest plywood you've seen?
-- J.S.
The building I'm in now was built in the early 50s and has some (very few) of the original walls built with welded-wire metal studs and roughly 16x32 sheets of rock lath, held together with metal clips.I remember as a kid some homes (probably late 40s) with drywall-like walls, though I believe they were probably skim-coated. I know my dad spoke derisively of drywall when we looked at new homes in the 50s, and our mid/late 50s homes were plaster (probably on rock lath).
I think rock lath came before sheetrock. It came 16" x 96" and was essentially a backerboard that was skimcoated. I've seen it on houses built in the 1910-1920's. I have heard that the plaster trades resisted drywall, because it really cut into their market.
Yes, that's what it is. It has holes in it to key the plaster.
-- J.S.
The rock lath I've seen didn't have holes. It was in small sheets (roughly 16x32) and the joints there plus the rough paper surface was apparently sufficient to "key" the plaster.
I've seen new houses framed with runs of 16 1/4", 16 1/2" or thereabouts.
Just shows there's still guys who can't read a rule.
Royal pain for sheathing and drywall -- maybe somebody had one of those fiberglass tapes that could stretch?
-- J.S.
Our 1905 house has 16 OC, no plywood.
Similarily, Grandma's 1907 house is 16" oc. all the plaster lath is 4 ft pieces or 8 ft pieces. Edge sawn 1x4 T&Gflooring is also in 8 ft or 12 ft lengths.
Went in a basement in S. Carolina at a B&B from ante-bellum days, joists looked like 16'C there also.
Ron: Lincoln's house is a few blocks down the street, believe it is 16" O.C also.
Interesting query as to the earliest origins, maybe like roman chariot wheels and railroad track gauge???
Elbow to finger tips is about 16". MAybe that is where it started.
You've got a darn short arm!The definition of the biblical and Egyptian "cubit" is elbow and figures to be 18" to 21" my forearm is alm,ost 21" from elbow to outspread fingertips' A clenched fist gives me 18" on the button.I have done a lot on houses that were framed at random sizings, usually averaging 19" ( here we go with the black diamond theories...) from over a hundred years ago - some where 4"pealed poles were used for roof rafters at 38" OCSo off the cuff, my thinking would be that the cubit was a standard for a long time, until more modern mills around 1830 or so standardized the length sizing of clapboards and lathe to four feet.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
> I have done a lot on houses that were framed at random sizings, usually averaging 19" ( here we go with the black diamond theories...) from over a hundred years ago ....
That brings up more questions: When did those black diamonds first appear? When was the first roll-up measuring tape? Did carpenters ever use cloth tapes that might stretch and be inaccurate? Were there black diamonds on folding rules before there were tapes? ;-)
-- J.S.
or they all had 16" hammer handles
Of course, if the hammer handle was 16" it would likely have derived from the need to measure that distance, vs the other way around. The handle length of a shingle hatchet is commonly used for measuring the distance between courses.
Right you are....chickens and eggs......but not all the spacing on these old houses measure 16". It seems to vary from 15 to 19". Maybe depending on which hammer was used to frame that particular portion of the house.
"The handle length of a shingle hatchet is commonly used for measuring the distance between courses."Fist time I ever heard that one. Handles are any where from 13" to 17", but shingles course between 5" and 6"
Maybe your handle is short;)
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Well, it's been a few years, but I remember a guy showing me how it worked. The head width was used for one measurement (maybe that was the distance between courses) and the handle length was used for another. A spot on the blade was used for spacing between adjacent shingles.
Edited 9/29/2005 8:04 pm ET by DanH
Like others are saying, 16" OC has been around for 100 years or more. What's interesting to me is that it's common all around the country from that period, when there was no Breaktime where we could all tell each other to frame 16" OC. I'm not sure how trade standards spread in those days, but I'm sure it was a LOT slower than today.
Carpenters had 8" feet on average many moons ago. So they braced their stud against 2 feet, heel of first foot to one stud and heel of second foot toe of first foot, and stud against toe of second foot. Then they toenailed the stud in place. Sometimes they nailed their toe by accident and that is where the expression toenail came from. Surprized you didn't know that!
And I was always wondering why I couldn't use my toe to drive that nail!
"Carpenters had 8" feet on average many moons ago. So they braced their stud against 2 feet, heel of first foot to one stud and heel of second foot toe of first foot, and stud against toe of second foot."
That would mean there was 16" BETWEEN the studs - Not that they were 16" O.C.
Absurdity, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion. [Ambrose Bierce]
Not after they nailed their toes a few times.
> Carpenters had 8" feet on average many moons ago.
Amazing. My feet are 12" on average. ;-)
-- J.S.
They're poetic.
I've seen 16" OC on houses built as far back as 1873. I heard it had to do with the introduction of "baloon framing" which became popular in the 1860's.
Renaissance Restorations
Antique & Victorian Home Restoration Services
http://www.renaissancerestorations.com
My guess is that it is structural and later evolved into the system used today Tyr
Balloon frame construction started about 1845, and was co-incidental with dimensional lumber (from memory, could not find a good web reference wor who invented balloon framing)
Did find:
Plywood, 1905 http://www.apawood.org/plywoodcentennial/history.htm
http://geography.berkeley.edu/PeopleHistory/faculty/R_Walker/NorthAmerica500Years.pdf
US lumber production peaked in 1909, after which
concrete and other wood substitutes chipped away at demand.
the key developments in mass production in the 19th century was balloon frame
construction, made possible by dimensional lumber (and subsequently plywood).
Been working on an 1840s farmhouse that I was corrected by a neighbor lady that use to live in the house as a child and is into geneolgy.
She told me the house dated to the 1830's and knew the name of the builder and knew of the exact same house built 30 miles from this one by the same builder.
2 storey balloon walls inside a timberframe, plaster lath on interior, horizontal t&g on the exterior.
Story handed down is the original building was sided by a guy who lived a tent on the grounds. Made one layer of siding on the perimeter of the house per day.
r u a feckless dastard?
In the book recently reviewed in FHB, (I forgot the name of the book, something like Cost Effective Building, Tricks of the Trades--I don't have the second to the last issue that it was in, so can't check) the author said 16" o.c. framing came over from England, something to do with withes or lath being that long.
Last spring did some remodeling on a mid 1800´s house..... When I tore of the plaster and lathe I found 16 inch on center framing, and a baseball and kids homework dated 1856.....
Wanted to save the stuff but a ´beloved coworker´ threw it in with the trash and hauled it out when I wasn´t looking!
Something I saw many years ago might provide some insight. An old timer on a job didn't use a tape to lay out studs. He spaced the studs by laying down his hammer. The length of the hammer handle and head giving the exact dimension needed every time.
Seems to me a hammer head with something close to a 13" handle, giving you 14.5" OA, makes for a handy and effective hammer.
16" OC isn't based on engineering. A 2x4 stud wall 16" OC is overbuilt for single or two-story residential structures. It makes sense as a nailing pattern for 4' base unit sized panels.
I have noted that 16" OC isn't always used and less so the older the building. I have had to literally jump from joist to joist on a few jobs where the joists were slightly more than 3'OC. The roof and ceiling below was planked in what looked like 5/4 clear, knotless, Florida heart pine that is immune to termites and rot but that burns quite well. Makes for an interesting, and tiring, day hopping from joist to joist.
In my house, built around 1865, the studs are 12" on center and the floor joists are about 14" on center. The joists will vary from about 12" to about 17". Often the joists were not even parallel to each other.
One more idea. Just shooting in the dark here.....
Since baloon framing was pretty much the norm back then, could they have developed the stud spacing to accomodate the floor joist spacing (+/- 16") which was necessary for 1x pine flooring to not sag. This would make sense since they needed to tie each joist to the side of a stud on the exterior walls, and they needed to tie the top of each interior stud to a floor joist (although my 1852 house has baloon frmg on the ext, but the interior walls have a top plate ....go figure).
Between the brick in the ext walls, and the top plate on the int walls, I think they framed my house to mess with anyone trying to run wires through "their framing" in the future. Be it electricians, cable guys, phone guys, computer network guys, or just some homeowner.
Wow still no definitive answer. It of course has to do with the use of 16 penny nails used to hold the studs at 16" oc.
Point taken. Of course I am not sure if my "cut nails" are actually 16 penny. I think they vary froom 15 to 19 penny. Wait a minute.....that explains the apparent deviations on the framing spacing......you are on to something here.
Here some info.
Balloon Frame
During the period of time when the European pioneers were moving across the United States and Canada, they adapted a Scandinavian method of building houses called mortise-and-tenon construction, in which the projecting tenon at the end of one log was fitted into the mortise, or notch, of another to form a corner joint. This technique required more lumber than other methods that used one log to make several boards, but it provided a simple way to construct homes--the familiar log cabins--in the forests of timber-rich North America.
By the 1830s, however, city dwellers were exploring new a type of construction, the balloon frame. The balloon frame was developed at a time when North American cities were growing and as the mass production of nails to standard specifications allowed carpenters and architects to specify the type of nail for each particular job required. The balloon frame borrowed its essential elements from the log cabin. Most other structures required an internal skeleton for support, but the log cabin's integrity was based on the fact that its interlocking logs created a "shell" that could support itself and the roof. Like the mortar-and-tenon cabin, the balloon frame structure required only its wooden "exoskeleton" for its support, hence its name--internal walls were nothing more than room partitions.
The new technique used milled timbers instead of the traditional heavy timbers and raw logs. In the 1820s, sawmills began creating lumber in standard sizes, which made it easier to transport, and also to design houses ahead of their construction. Instead of having to be interlocked in the mortar-and-tenon way or fastened by large wooden pegs, the milled timbers were small enough to receive nails. Joining them required little skill and only a few hand tools, and was also inexpensive. The job of joining them became significantly easier. The exterior of the balloon frame building could be of any veneer, or covering: wood, brick, stone or stucco for walls, shingle, ceramic tile or tin for roofs.
The person generally credited with the invention of the balloon frame was Chicagoan George W. Snow. Snow built a balloon-frame warehouse in Chicago in 1832. This building employed the now classic two-by-four (inch) vertical building stud, and established the standard 16-inch spacing between them. The studs supported two-by-ten inch roof and floor joists. A year later, carpenter Augustus D. Taylor used the balloon frame in the construction of Chicago's St. Mary's Church. The church was taken down and reassembled three times during its existence.
The frame-support system was later adopted by James Bogardus and the architects that followed him in the late 1800s for the construction of office buildings. The frames were of iron and steel beams and columns and were fastened with steel bolts and rivets. Balloon frame construction of residential and commercial buildings increased in the twentieth century and continues to be the standard building form for ranch houses, "garden" apartments and other small-building construction. The early 1900s marked the height of popularity for balloon frame construction when Sears, Roebuck and Company offered frame house kits in its mail order catalogs. The offer has long been discontinued, but thousands of the neat, white, two-story Sears and Roebuck houses remain in towns and cities throughout Illinois, Iowa, and other Midwestern states.
I had heard that balloon framing declined because of the lack of old-growth trees available for the longer studs.True?
Platform framing (the current common method) was developed from balloon framing mainly because it made it easier for a small number of carps to erect multi-story buildings, and because it produced a more reliable structure (less chance of the intermediate floors failing). [Platform framing is also safer in fires.] Lumber is still readily available in 16-foot and longer lengths, with no premium over the expected board-foot cost.
Edited 9/29/2005 5:37 pm ET by DanH
No definitive answer but it also dawns on me that 16" OC leaves spaces that are about as narrow as a tradesman can easily get through with a tool belt on. Being able to walk through a framed wall, before sheet goods are up of course, is a tremendous time saver. In fact I have seen a few cases where sheathing and drywall were purposely left off for a time to allow faster movement of personnel and materials.