Talk:Blocking (construction)

Untitled

Blocking has an important structural purpose that is not mentioned in this article. There is an article, Dwang at Nogging that deals properly with the structural engineering role of blocking that should be merged here. Gbuchana (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I propose that Dwang be merged into Blocking_(construction). They are synonyms. Lelek (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Better that Blocking be merged into Dwang as subset because: 1. Blocking is a term used only in the USA insofar as I am aware, possibly also Canada, and 2. because in other English speaking countries using Dwangs or Noggins blocking is also used but refers to something distinctly different, the adding of non-structural grounds in specific locations for the purposes of fixing heavy items to stud wall whereas the Noggins or Dwangs are there for the structural integrity of the wall to counter Euler bending moments under compression. I have not seen the USA building Code in a very long while but I believe it does not make this distinction but others in UK, NZ, Australia, South Africa specify, or require the specification of calculated dwang intervals but refer to fixing grounds as Grounds or Blocking and these are not included in the structural calculations. Blocking is already mentioned in the article if Blocking has any additional material just transfer it and make Blocking a redirect. Ex nihil ^(talk) 04:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Merging the two articles seems sensible to me. Indifferent as to which into which. Should likely be sure to explicitly distinguish the synonymous and distinct uses of the term 'blocking'. --Kevjonesin (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Something to consider: List of countries by English-speaking population. Perhaps some weight should be given to U.S. usage when titling the merged article. Especially if Canadian usage concurs. In which countries is English the primary language used in the building sector? I'm guessing, for instance, that it's not first choice amongst tradesmen, contractors, and architects in India and Pakistan. And it seems likely that (U.S. (+ Canada)) > (UK + NZ + Australia (+ part of South Africa)) in terms of population and building sector. --Kevjonesin (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• • Just a note. For legal and technical reasons, a very large number of countries use English in building construction, even countries where English is spoken but is not an official language or is a minority language. This applies to India, where almost everything technical tends to be in English but not in Pakistan, I think, until it involves international tendering. South Africa has several languages but anything bigger than a village hut is in English. Fifty-three of those English speaking countries are part of the British Commonwealth and almost all adopt British English usage, dwarfing the North American contingent usage. I work in PNG right now, it has about 600 languages, but everything official is in British English. So, perhaps US English doesn't carry the weight? Ex nihil ^(talk) 00:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Right on, so British English usage may well be the common language of choice across numerous former U.K. colonial areas. At least at the level of formal planning and licensing and such. Sounds reasonable/plausible. --Kevjonesin (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Neutral. I came across dwang a little over a year ago and was intrigued that as a lifetime carpenter in the U.S. I had never heard the term. I did some research back then and added some info to dwang. At that time I chose not to suggest a merge even though I think the terms are synonyms. I just did a Google search with the terms "blocking studs plate sill brace" and two more searches replacing blocking with dwang and nogging. The search with blocking had the most hits by far. Keep in mind that nogging in the U.S. primarily means brick infill, not dwang or blocking. If more countries use the term maybe that has more significance than the number of times the term is used. The Oxford English Dictionary does have definitions for nogging-pieces, dwang (added in 1999) and blocking. As an American carpenter I have a preference for blocking but that is just a personal opinion. Knight's American Mechanical Dictionary defines dwang as a type of wrench or a masons crow bar. The Imperial Dictionary by Ogilvie (1911) and the Century Dictionary defined dwang as the Scotch term with the meaning discussed in the article. Jim Derby (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. They're not synonymous, and weighting for U.S. usage because of population is a non-flyer. If that were the case the whole of Wikipedia would be mandated as American English ... ridiculous. Any Australasian builder inserting American style blocking in a wall instead of nogs/dwangs would fail inspection and be told to rebuild it. FanN | talk | 00:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Fanx. I am curious how blocking and dwangs are not synonymous, could you explain? I have been unable to find sources discussing the installation and purpose of dwangs and the references for the content of these articles is lacking. Could you direct us to a source or two which describes the purpose and importance of correctly locating and installing dwangs. If dwangs are structurally important in walls that information should be given more weight in the article. I agree that blocking between floor joists instead of cross bracing must fit tightly to function properly and pass inspection and all good carpenters know that. Thanks Jim Derby (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Jim, the two undoubtedly overlap but the prime function of the dwangs is to resist Euler's bending moment in the studs and not for hanging things off. Usually the dwangs are required to be inserted at intervals that don't suit hanging things off them anyway so additional elements, generally called 'grounds' are put in. The grounds don't have to make any contribution to the structure and are not code required like the dwangs, they have just got to be in the right place to put a fixing in later and big enough to support that thing and they could end up being placed very close to a dwang. Doubtless there are many references, I know there are because many years ago I had to study all that stuff, but they are buried in the building codes or books on structural engineering and I am very happy to have left all that behind. One reference is the publication from where the dwangs diagram came from, but that is a set of carpentry books and wouldn't be Googleable. I worked in the US briefly as an architect and they do all the carpentry quite differently, same result, all works. Balloon framing I think it was. The old Australian building code used to tell you where to put them, the new one just says you must prove it's not going to fall down. Ex nihil ^(talk) 07:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• FWIW, when I worked on a framing crew in the U.S. for a few months—some years ago—it was my impression that most of what we referred to as 'blocking' was not simply "for hanging things off" but instead to stabilize long studs and such. --Kevjonesin (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• I do not have any first-hand experience with framing in New Zealand but this study primarily uses nog as a synonym for dwang and describes nogs as having little structural effect in walls and being used for non-structural uses including grounds and fire stops just like blocking. I am not convinced dwang and blocking are not synonyms. However, because the building codes, terminology and measuring systems are different between the U. S. and the places dwang is commonly used I think it would be reasonable to keep both articles with the article dwang clearly identified as discussing nogs in specific countries and the article blocking only discussing U. S. issues in American English and both articles acknowledging the similar terms used in other countries. I just learned that in Scotland dwang can also mean herringbone strutting. Jim Derby (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• I just rewrote the blocking article based on U.S. and at least some Canadian usage. What do you think? Jim Derby (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Seems much improved to me. --Kevjonesin (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)