FHB Logo Facebook LinkedIn Email Pinterest Twitter X Instagram Tiktok YouTube Plus Icon Close Icon Navigation Search Icon Navigation Search Icon Arrow Down Icon Video Guide Icon Article Guide Icon Modal Close Icon Guide Search Icon Skip to content
Subscribe
Log In
  • How-To
  • Design
  • Tools & Materials
  • Restoration
  • Videos
  • Blogs
  • Forum
  • Magazine
  • Members
  • FHB House
  • Podcast
Log In

Discussion Forum

Discussion Forum

TGI Span

chief4car | Posted in Construction Techniques on August 23, 2007 05:51am

Hi guys,

I am building a new home soon and had a question on TJI span.

Some details; the widest portion of the basement foundation is 35’6″. There will be a 2X6 bearing wall (instead of a beam) that splits the span into two sections – one that will span 16′ and the other will span 19′.

My question is that the lumberyards/truss companies have all spec’d 11 7/8 inch TJI’s 16 inches on center for the floor system, will this be adequate?

I do not want a bouncy floor or one with a lot of vibration. The portion with the larger 19′ span will be under the master bedroom, master bath, and hall bath (a lot of weight and some tile).

Would it be a better idea to go with 14 inch TJI’s to be on the safe side? I would rather spend the extra and have a solid floor.

Need some expertise.

 

Thanks

Jim

Reply
  • X
  • facebook
  • linkedin
  • pinterest
  • email
  • add to favorites Log in or Sign up to save your favorite articles

Replies

  1. hqian | Aug 23, 2007 06:28am | #1

    I saw a buider did 12 oc cross whole two car garage that is over 20', probably 24'.  I went to the master bed above the garage and surprised to see the floor being very sturdy.  I also think too thick of joists doesn't look good.

  2. User avater
    Gene_Davis | Aug 23, 2007 06:31am | #2

    From a table found here  http://www.ilevel.com/literature/TJ-4000.pdf, the TJI 230 series joist at 11.875 depth will handle spans up to 19'2" and deliver floor performance of L/480 at a loading of 40 psf live / 20 psf dead.

    As Miles Davis said to a reporter when asked whether he smoked dope, "Wuz wrong wid dat?"

    What are you hiding in your grand piano that makes it so heavy?

    1. Ragnar17 | Aug 23, 2007 06:40am | #3

      Gene,

      Do you happen to have access to the "TJ Pro Ratings" as described on page six of the link you posted?

      I recently spec'd some TJIs using only the manufacturer deflection tables, but apparently that table led to a design that did not typically result in "customer satisfaction."

      I'm assuming the "TJ Pro Ratings" have something to do with floor vibration as BossHog has mentioned numerous times.

      1. User avater
        Gene_Davis | Aug 23, 2007 06:51pm | #7

        One thing to consider in this particular case is that the floorjoist design is not for a simple span, but for one continuous across a single central bearing, with the spans being unequal.

        Equal or no, a beam sized for a simple span condition (in this case the larger side, or 19 feet) but that will actually be done as a longlength continuous, results in a selection of a larger section than what might otherwise be chosen.

        I speak of "beam" in the structural engineer's sense (I can't help it.) Any floor joist is analyzed as a beam, one whose loading is figured from the tributary area (sorry for the engineer-speak) of floor load being carried, which is of course dependent on joist spacing.

        Thus, the TJI230 11.875 will likely deliver higher "performance" (i.e. less deflection, less vibration) than otherwise, the design being for a continuous span.

        A word about span.  Sizing for a floor frame, the building width being 16 plus 19 feet, total 35 feet, but with end bearings of, say, 2x8s sitting atop ICF walls, and the partition bearing being a 2x6 wall centered on the 19-foot line, the two between-bearing spans turn out to be 15'2" and 18'2".  One wants to be sure to use these, and not the "nominal" numbers of 16 and 19.  Loading correlate to the square of span, and inches count.

        1. Ragnar17 | Aug 23, 2007 08:47pm | #12

          Gene,

          The "engineer-speak" is fine -- using the right vocabulary aids in the discussion.  And I have an ME degree myself, so I remember basic beam loading scenarios.  The more complex loading arrangements are things I've managed to forget since college.  ;)

          in this particular case is that the floorjoist design is not for a simple span, but for one continuous across a single central bearing, with the spans being unequal.

          Where did the OP say he was going to be using a continuous beam?

          Anyway, I think you forgot to answer my question about the "TJ Pro Ratings" as described on page six of the link you posted -- do you have access to that, or have you used that database before?

           

          1. User avater
            Gene_Davis | Aug 23, 2007 09:36pm | #14

            Re continuous, since TrusJoist makes the joists in long lengths, I presumed his vendor was quoting full length stock.  Depending on your dealer's ability to handle things, joists are available at lengths close to 45 feet. 

            Yes, the I-Level download I cited shows the ProRatings stuff on a later page.  As you know, tables aren't given, or at least they are not seen in my download.  It looks as if the TrusJoist wholesalers have some company-provided software that permits some more detailed analysis and sizing.

          2. User avater
            BossHog | Aug 23, 2007 10:08pm | #16

            "Depending on your dealer's ability to handle things, joists are available at lengths close to 45 feet. "

            Around here (where the OP is located) everyone stocks 48' I-joists.

            I've never known of anyone to stock longer ones than that. Eventually they get too heavy and too flimsy to handle.
            Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

          3. User avater
            BossHog | Aug 23, 2007 10:04pm | #15

            "Where did the OP say he was going to be using a continuous beam?"

            With I-joists, I think that's generally assumed. One of the benifits of I-joists is that you can use one long piece instead of lapping them over a beam.

            I don't think I've ever done lapped I-joists where a one piece I-joist would work.
            In the city, you can only see from horizon the horizon what man has made.
            In the country, you can see from horizon to horizon what God has made.

  3. GHR | Aug 23, 2007 05:46pm | #4

    If you want is solid, put in 12" high steel "I" beams.

    Unless you have a standard there is no way you will be happy.

    I find a l/360 deflection at 40# live load suitable.

    1. chief4car | Aug 23, 2007 06:10pm | #6

      Thnaks guys for the helpfull answers. Sounds like the 11 7/8 TJI's should be fine.

       

      GHR - I was looking for some real feedback not a smart a** answer.

       

      Jim

      1. User avater
        BossHog | Aug 23, 2007 06:52pm | #8

        Ignore GHR - He's never once posted anything useful on BT. He just likes listening to himself. Have you read the thread I did on floor vibration? You can find it here:http://forums.taunton.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=tp-breaktime&msg=21010.1Persnally, I don't like going over 18' with 11 7/8" I-joists. But the brand and series we sell is rated for 19' 8" at L/480, and many people go right up to that. We haven't had too many problems with vibration call backs.And chance you can move the wall, even a few inches? Any amount that you can reduce the span will help. Is the 19' you mention the clear span between walls, or is that maybe from the outside of the foundation to the center of the wall?I would not recommend going to 14" I-joists if you can avoid it. The 11 7/8" I-joists are a hot commodity around here, and are fairly inexpensive. But 14" I-joists are a special order, and there's a significant upcharge. Best of luck with the house...
        Happiness, n.: An agreeable sensation arising from contemplating the misery of another.

        1. chief4car | Aug 23, 2007 07:46pm | #10

          The 19' is the clear span between the walls. From outside of the foundation to the center of the 2X6 wall is 19' 10".

          As far as the spans, I have read span tables that are broken down to simple span and multiple span - I think Gene was refering to these.

           

          Thanks Again

          Jim

           

          1. User avater
            BossHog | Aug 23, 2007 07:53pm | #11

            I've never seen anything that suffested that mulitple spans made any difference when it comes to vibration. It certainly affects strength. But vibration is a different issue altogether.
            I have a great new motivation tecnique, it is donuts, and the possibility of more donuts. [Homer Simpson]

      2. GHR | Aug 23, 2007 07:41pm | #9

        You took your plans with all the dimensions and loadings to a professional with software and you were uncertain about the professional's design.Now, you come here ready to take advice from a bunch of idiots who know nothing about your needs or your design.---As I said without a standard you will be unhappy.

        1. Ragnar17 | Aug 23, 2007 08:48pm | #13

          Now, you come here ready to take advice from a bunch of idiots who know nothing about your needs or your design.

          Don't be so hard on yourself, GHR.  Not everyone here thinks you're an idiot.

        2. CAGIV | Aug 24, 2007 01:56am | #24

          I can't decide if you're a dumbasz or a just a dick...?

           

          1. User avater
            dieselpig | Aug 24, 2007 02:43am | #25

            LOL.....View Image

          2. bobtim | Aug 24, 2007 04:07am | #26

            reducing the spacing of joists always seems to not give you a lot in return.  It seems like you gain little in stregth or stiffnes for the amount of lumber added. Always struck me a sort of odd. 

            look in the span charts

          3. hqian | Aug 24, 2007 06:15am | #28

            Thank you all for your opinions!

            Reading from the Floor Span Table, a TJI-560 Joist 16" depth, 16" oc can span 29'-8".  So if I have a 28x40 foundation, there's no lally posts are needed.  This will sure make a large, nice basement.  But I haven't seen any house without lally columns.  Is this a good construction w/o lally posts?  Thanks.

          4. BillBrennen | Aug 24, 2007 09:20am | #29

            The 16" TJI's will be fine, but expensive. Might be worth it for the design freedom you gain in the basement. Will it be a shop, living space, or just a basement?BillP.S. You might be better off with floor trusses at 28' span. Ask Boss Hog.

            Edited 8/24/2007 2:22 am by BillBrennen

          5. hqian | Aug 24, 2007 06:10pm | #33

            It will be a living space.

            Thank you all for your responses.

          6. DanH | Aug 24, 2007 06:27pm | #34

            My 95-year-old aunt has a roughly 20-year-old "garden apartment" condo with floors that squeek big time. I investigated to figure out why and found that the joists span the width of the home, with no center support (crawl below). The squeeking comes from the floor moving up and down relative to the wall running down the center. I suspect it's then nails in the bottom plate that are squeeking as they slide in and out of the floor. The floor motion is imperceptable, but it squeeks big time.
            So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin

          7. Piffin | Aug 25, 2007 02:12pm | #40

            Anything that suggests using at that layout would be for live load on the floor system only. Add walls and roof load transmitting and you come up with serious problems. 

             

            Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!

          8. User avater
            BossHog | Aug 24, 2007 02:03pm | #30

            A 16" I-joist spanning 29'-8" would have TERRIBLE performance, IMHO.I ran it through my spreadsheet, and it came up with a score of 10 for the "F" value. Ideally, the "F" value should be 15 or more.
            Because most men are timid, the world is ruled by those who seize the initiative.

          9. john7g | Aug 24, 2007 03:39pm | #31

            Out of cuiroisty, Boss. What depth of truss woud be needed to make that span?

          10. User avater
            BossHog | Aug 24, 2007 03:51pm | #32

            If you were talking wood webbed trusses, I'd go 22" or 24" deep. That's a lot of depth. But you can get all your mechanicals in there that way - Even HVAC. And having no beams or posts is great.
            Life is what happens to you when you're making other plans. [John Lennon]

          11. Ragnar17 | Aug 24, 2007 10:54pm | #36

            I ran it through my spreadsheet, and it came up with a score of 10 for the "F" value. Ideally, the "F" value should be 15 or more.

            What's the "F" value, Boss?  Frequency? 

            Edited 8/24/2007 3:54 pm ET by Ragnar17

          12. User avater
            BossHog | Aug 25, 2007 05:18am | #38

            A value of 15 or more for the "F" value should be acceptable to most anyone. A value between 12 and 15 is marginal.Anything below 12 is generally unacceptable.

          13. Ragnar17 | Aug 25, 2007 06:38am | #39

            Thanks for the response, Boss.  I guess my question should have been: how is the "F" parameter calculated, and what are its units?

            Since you said you got the number out of your spreadsheet, I'm assuming it's something more quantifiable than TJI's "customer satisfaction index" (or whatever it is they call it).

          14. User avater
            BossHog | Aug 25, 2007 10:18pm | #41

            The "F" value is calculated in the spreadsheet. And I based the spreadsheet on info I got from some research at a university. Unfortunately I'm at my Brother's house now, so I don't have any of that stuff available to me at the moment. (That's also why I'm not adding tag lines)If you don't mind replying to this message so I see it on Monday, I'll try to dig up some more info then.

          15. Ragnar17 | Aug 25, 2007 11:00pm | #42

            Thanks, I'll try to remember to do that.

          16. BilljustBill | Aug 26, 2007 12:38am | #45

            Boss,

            You have my pure and total interest with your spreadsheet knowledge.

              I'm building a two story cabin that 16'x32'.  Lumber costs are only 15%-25% of retail, so I've aquired a lot of lumber.  For the ceiling joists that support the second floor I made them using 16' long 2x8's with a 2x4 glued, ringshank nailed and screwed together, making an I-beam.  They actually measure 10-1/4" by 16', and are placed on 16" centers. 

             Because of the heavy bouts with a very wet spring and summer, after I had mounted them across the 16' span, I discovered I had some extra time and many long 2x4's left over.  So, applying subfloor adhesive, I clamped and face glued one on each side of the 2x8 I-beam web, and ringshank nailed one on each side so they formed an "X".

              I just finished using 14 sheets of Sturd-i-board decking, subfloor adhesive, and ringshank nails.  I am amazed at the solid feeling this floor has.  I weigh 275, and when I jumped up and down, the only tiny flex I could feel was if I happend to come down on the plywood between the I-beams.

              How does this type of I-beam construction with the addition of the 2x4's-16' "X" figure using your spreadsheet?  Your insight, please.

            Bill

          17. BillBrennen | Aug 26, 2007 07:49am | #47

            Just Bill,Very cool. What sort of glue did you use? If the bond holds, your floor should be about as stiff as one framed with 4x11's would be. 275# jumping on midspan is quite the field test!Bill

          18. Ragnar17 | Aug 26, 2007 12:01pm | #48

            Bill,

            You've made an interesting joist, to say the least.  ;)

            Ignoring those diagonals, I can tell you that you increased the bending strength of the 2x8s by a factor of 5.26 just by applying the 2x4 flanges at top and bottom.  That's theoretical, of course, assuming that you have a perfect glue bond between the web and the flanges.

            In case Boss needs these numbers for his frequency analysis (or whatever it is his spreadsheet does), the "moment of inertia" of a 2x8 is 47.6 in^4, and your I-joist has a moment of inertia of 251 in^4.  (Again, these numbers ignore the 2x4 diagonals on the web).  In case you're interested, a 1-1/2 x 10-1/4 joist would have an I-value of about 135 in^4, so yours are nearly twice as strong due to the added width of the flange.

            Looking at the joists with the diagonals, the bending strength is actually going to vary along the length of the joist.  The way you laid it out, the maximum bending strength will be nearest the supporting walls, and the minimum bending strength will be right at midspan (the opposite of what you really need).

            Fortunately, those I-joists are very stout even without the diagonals, as I'm sure you already know without me having to tell you.

            I'll be interested in what Boss says about them, too. 

             

          19. seeyou | Aug 25, 2007 11:01pm | #43

            I can't decide if you're a dumbasz or a just a dick...?

            Why do you have to choose?

            View Imagehttp://grantlogan.net/

             

            "he ot the placed closed down whyyy thhhattt nnooo gooodddd" - sancho

          20. CAGIV | Aug 25, 2007 11:12pm | #44

            Because if someone is a DA then you can forgive them being a dick.

             

  4. formula1 | Aug 23, 2007 06:06pm | #5

    Also plan on strapping the bottom o the joists together at 1/3 span per the APA document "Construction Practices for Wood I-Joist Floor Vibration Retrofit".

    http://www.apawood.org/level_c.cfm?content=pub_joi_libmain

  5. DanH | Aug 23, 2007 10:58pm | #17

    One thing that I've never seen mentioned is what I might call "relative bounce". The bounce of a specific joist may be well within "reasonable" limits, but if it runs parallel to a joist or whatever that doesn't bounce at all, AND if you place, eg, a curio cabinet on top of the floor between the two, you can have the sensation of bad bounce, as the curio cabinet rolls forward and back and everything in it rattles.

    So where a joist runs parallel to a wall, it may be worthwhile to double up on the joists, or at least pay extra attention to blocking. (And note that this is an area where blockiing may be omitted because it's too inconvenient to install.)

    So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
    1. hqian | Aug 23, 2007 11:40pm | #18

      Anyone has an opinion on 12" oc instead of 16" oc floor joist?  Is it good or bad?  Thanks.

      1. DanH | Aug 23, 2007 11:50pm | #19

        Well, closer will always be better for the same size joist, but also more expensive, and it makes the mechanicals much more difficult.
        So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin

      2. Ragnar17 | Aug 24, 2007 01:41am | #21

        Spacing the joists closer together will typically work to reduce deflection to within spec.  However, in general terms, deeper joists at wider spacing result in less bounce/vibration than shallower joists at denser spacing. 

        And like Dan said, the denser joist spacing can make running mechanicals more difficult.

  6. DanH | Aug 24, 2007 01:41am | #20

    Sure. Doubling up joists doubles strength, but doubling the height of the joist roughly quadruples the strength, IIRC.

    But as I was pointing out earlier in the thread, you may only need the added strength in certain areas, in order to control bounce.

    So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin



    Edited 8/23/2007 6:48 pm by DanH

    1. Ragnar17 | Aug 24, 2007 01:44am | #22

      Since bending strength is a cubic function of the depth of the joist, doubling the depth would actually increase bending strength by a factor of eight. 

      Lots of bang for your buck when increasing joist depth.  ;)

      1. DanH | Aug 24, 2007 01:49am | #23

        Yeah, couldn't remember whether it was squared or cubed.
        So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin

        1. User avater
          CapnMac | Aug 24, 2007 10:18pm | #35

          couldn't remember whether it was squared or cubed

          The mnemonic I use is "centroids cube."  Just about any change in centroid location has a cubic effect from changing the moment arm distances.

          Now my father, who is still a brilliant mathematician (all learned analog) remembers these things by remember the the curve order you graph by.  Moments are third order, ergo you cube. 

          Me, I'm happy if I remember to wake up breathing in the morning.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)

  7. User avater
    Jeff_Clarke | Aug 24, 2007 05:51am | #27

    From direct, recent experience, 19' with 11 7/8" 16" o.c. will feel very *live*.   I would go to 12" o.c. or a deeper joist.

    Jeff

  8. User avater
    Matt | Aug 25, 2007 04:43am | #37

    Acceptable floor performance is a subjective thing, but here is another way to think about it (in a very basic way):

    A 19' span at L/360 allows .633" deflection.
    A 19' span at L/480 allows .475" deflection.

    Do you think either of those would be acceptable to you?

    Also, when comparing projected performance #s, be sure that you know if #s are for live load, total load, etc.

  9. User avater
    user-246028 | Aug 26, 2007 05:50am | #46

    Call Penner Building Centre (905) 468-3242, Ask for Darren Ward or John Redikop. These guys are great and really know their stuff. Tell them Dave Bevington referred you.

    Good luck

    Dave

Log in or create an account to post a comment.

Sign up Log in

Become a member and get full access to FineHomebuilding.com

Video Shorts

Categories

  • Business
  • Code Questions
  • Construction Techniques
  • Energy, Heating & Insulation
  • General Discussion
  • Help/Work Wanted
  • Photo Gallery
  • Reader Classified
  • Tools for Home Building

Discussion Forum

Recent Posts and Replies

  • |
  • |
  • |
  • |
  • |
  • |
View More Create Post

Up Next

Video Shorts

Featured Story

Putting Drywall Sanders to the Test: Power, Precision, and Dust Control

A pro painter evaluates a variety of drywall sanders and dust collection systems for quality of finish, user fatigue, and more.

Featured Video

SawStop's Portable Tablesaw is Bigger and Better Than Before

The 10-in. Jobsite Saw PRO has a wider table, a new dust-control port, and a more versatile fence, along with the same reliable safety mechanism included in all SawStop tablesaws.

Related Stories

  • A Summer Retreat Preserved in the Catskill Mountains
  • Fine Homebuilding Issue #332 Online Highlights
  • The Trump Administration Wants to Eliminate the Energy Star Program
  • Podcast Episode 685: Patching Drywall, Adding Air Barriers, and Rotted Walls

Highlights

Fine Homebuilding All Access
Fine Homebuilding Podcast
Tool Tech
Plus, get an extra 20% off with code GIFT20

"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.

Get home building tips, offers, and expert advice in your inbox

Signing you up...

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
See all newsletters
See all newsletters

Fine Homebuilding Magazine

  • Issue 331 - June 2025
    • A More Resilient Roof
    • Tool Test: You Need a Drywall Sander
    • Ducted vs. Ductless Heat Pumps
  • Issue 330 - April/May 2025
    • Deck Details for Durability
    • FAQs on HPWHs
    • 10 Tips for a Long-Lasting Paint Job
  • Issue 329 - Feb/Mar 2025
    • Smart Foundation for a Small Addition
    • A Kominka Comes West
    • Making Small Kitchens Work
  • Issue 328 - Dec/Jan 2024
    • How a Pro Replaces Columns
    • Passive House 3.0
    • Tool Test: Compact Line Lasers
  • Issue 327 - November 2024
    • Repairing Damaged Walls and Ceilings
    • Plumbing Protection
    • Talking Shop

Fine Home Building

Newsletter Sign-up

  • Fine Homebuilding

    Home building tips, offers, and expert advice in your inbox.

  • Green Building Advisor

    Building science and energy efficiency advice, plus special offers, in your inbox.

  • Old House Journal

    Repair, renovation, and restoration tips, plus special offers, in your inbox.

Signing you up...

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
See all newsletters

Follow

  • Fine Homebuilding

    Dig into cutting-edge approaches and decades of proven solutions with total access to our experts and tradespeople.

    Start Free Trial Now
    • Facebook
    • Instagram
    • X
    • LinkedIn
  • GBA Prime

    Get instant access to the latest developments in green building, research, and reports from the field.

    Start Free Trial Now
    • Facebook
    • YouTube
  • Old House Journal

    Learn how to restore, repair, update, and decorate your home.

    Subscribe Now
    • Facebook
    • Instagram
    • X
  • Fine Homebuilding

    Dig into cutting-edge approaches and decades of proven solutions with total access to our experts and tradespeople.

    Start Free Trial Now
    • Facebook
    • Instagram
    • X
    • LinkedIn
  • GBA Prime

    Get instant access to the latest developments in green building, research, and reports from the field.

    Start Free Trial Now
    • Facebook
    • YouTube
  • Old House Journal

    Learn how to restore, repair, update, and decorate your home.

    Subscribe Now
    • Facebook
    • Instagram
    • X

Membership & Magazine

  • Online Archive
  • Start Free Trial
  • Magazine Subscription
  • Magazine Renewal
  • Gift a Subscription
  • Customer Support
  • Privacy Preferences
  • About
  • Contact
  • Advertise
  • Careers
  • Terms of Use
  • Site Map
  • Do not sell or share my information
  • Privacy Policy
  • Accessibility
  • California Privacy Rights

© 2025 Active Interest Media. All rights reserved.

Fine Homebuilding receives a commission for items purchased through links on this site, including Amazon Associates and other affiliate advertising programs.

  • Home Group
  • Antique Trader
  • Arts & Crafts Homes
  • Bank Note Reporter
  • Cabin Life
  • Cuisine at Home
  • Fine Gardening
  • Fine Woodworking
  • Green Building Advisor
  • Garden Gate
  • Horticulture
  • Keep Craft Alive
  • Log Home Living
  • Military Trader/Vehicles
  • Numismatic News
  • Numismaster
  • Old Cars Weekly
  • Old House Journal
  • Period Homes
  • Popular Woodworking
  • Script
  • ShopNotes
  • Sports Collectors Digest
  • Threads
  • Timber Home Living
  • Traditional Building
  • Woodsmith
  • World Coin News
  • Writer's Digest
Active Interest Media logo
X
X
This is a dialog window which overlays the main content of the page. The modal window is a 'site map' of the most critical areas of the site. Pressing the Escape (ESC) button will close the modal and bring you back to where you were on the page.

Main Menu

  • How-To
  • Design
  • Tools & Materials
  • Video
  • Blogs
  • Forum
  • Project Guides
  • Reader Projects
  • Magazine
  • Members
  • FHB House

Podcasts

  • FHB Podcast
  • ProTalk

Webinars

  • Upcoming and On-Demand

Podcasts

  • FHB Podcast
  • ProTalk

Webinars

  • Upcoming and On-Demand

Popular Topics

  • Kitchens
  • Business
  • Bedrooms
  • Roofs
  • Architecture and Design
  • Green Building
  • Decks
  • Framing
  • Safety
  • Remodeling
  • Bathrooms
  • Windows
  • Tilework
  • Ceilings
  • HVAC

Magazine

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Magazine Index
  • Subscribe
  • Online Archive
  • Author Guidelines

All Access

  • Member Home
  • Start Free Trial
  • Gift Membership

Online Learning

  • Courses
  • Project Guides
  • Reader Projects
  • Podcast

More

  • FHB Ambassadors
  • FHB House
  • Customer Support

Account

  • Log In
  • Join

Newsletter

Get home building tips, offers, and expert advice in your inbox

Signing you up...

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
See all newsletters
See all newsletters

Follow

  • X
  • YouTube
  • instagram
  • facebook
  • pinterest
  • Tiktok

Join All Access

Become a member and get instant access to thousands of videos, how-tos, tool reviews, and design features.

Start Your Free Trial

Subscribe

FHB Magazine

Start your subscription today and save up to 70%

Subscribe

Enjoy unlimited access to Fine Homebuilding. Join Now

Already a member? Log in

We hope you’ve enjoyed your free articles. To keep reading, become a member today.

Get complete site access to expert advice, how-to videos, Code Check, and more, plus the print magazine.

Start your FREE trial

Already a member? Log in

Privacy Policy Update

We use cookies, pixels, script and other tracking technologies to analyze and improve our service, to improve and personalize content, and for advertising to you. We also share information about your use of our site with third-party social media, advertising and analytics partners. You can view our Privacy Policy here and our Terms of Use here.

Cookies

Analytics

These cookies help us track site metrics to improve our sites and provide a better user experience.

Advertising/Social Media

These cookies are used to serve advertisements aligned with your interests.

Essential

These cookies are required to provide basic functions like page navigation and access to secure areas of the website.

Delete My Data

Delete all cookies and associated data