Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: SDM Vol 2

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Regarding galvanized fasteners in PT lumber per the 97 UBC:

It is true what Doug says that the exception was omitted in the 97 UBC.  The
exception in the 94 UBC was that fasteners in contact with PT lumber need
NOT be galvanized (or equivalent) if they are protected from the weather.

I posted to this list something regarding this topic several months ago and
got NO response.  I assumed it was a non-issue based upon the response.  I
assumed that I was just being picky for actually READING the code.

Now it is in the SDM Vol II!!!!  I guess NONE of the authors of this
example, nor any of the editors, are members of this list....

I think it is time that the members of SEAOC demand that their leaders lobby
the CA state legislature to change the law so that amendments and
corrections such as this can be made to the CA version of the UBC.  If it is
a bad law, it should be changed ASAP, particularly if it was a simple
procedural error.  From what I understand, it is nearly impossible for the
language of the UBC to be changed once the CA version is published.  It is
nearly always adopted as is (except of course for schools and hospitals).
>From what I understand, the 2000 IBC is a done deal (no further revisions)
and the 2003 IBC nearly so.

Let me give an example of what CA could do.  In Massachusetts, there is a
state building code that is unique to MA.  Some of the chapters are entirely
unique to MA, while others follow the national standards.  For example,
Chapter 16 is entirely unique, although the majority is based upon NEHRP and
the UBC.  However, Chapter 22 simply references ASD, LRFD, and AISC seismic.
Chapter 23 references the NDS for design values, but not in its entirety
(this issue of galvanized fasteners in PT does not exist in MA).

In Massachusetts, the significant difference is not in the adoption of the
code, but in the provisions for changes.  If this situation (galvanized
fasteners being required in PT lumber) were to occur in MA, it could simply
be brought to the attention of the State Board of Building Regulations and
Standards (BBRS), and the BBRS has the authority to issue an emergency
change (effective immediately) to the State Building Code.

The BBRS is comprised of engineers, contractors, building officials, an
architect, and the state fire marshal.  The BBRS also has other boards and
advisory committees such as the Construction Materials Safety Board, the
Fire Prevention - Fire Protection Board, the Geotechnical Advisory
Committee, the Seismic Advisory Committee, and the Loads Advisory Committee.
The BBRS does take action based upon the recommendations of the various
committees.

As an example, if the rho factor fiasco had happened in MA, it would have
been stricken from the code long ago, not because the engineers are
"better", but because the mechanism for changes to the code are amenable to
reasoned opinions.

It is high time that CA had a Board with similar powers.

Mark Swingle

----------------------

On 27 Jul 00 Oshin Tosounian wrote the following:

|| In a message dated 7/27/00 10:02:17 AM Pacific
|| Daylight Time, SThompsonB writes:
||
||     << Oshin:
||
||     What happened was the "Exception" in 1994
||     UBC(Section 2311.1) somehow got omitted
||     and nobody knows why (SEAOC, ICBO and NDS).
||     Since the SDM is a "litteral" application
||     of the code, the book calls for the
||     galvanized bolts and nails.
|| 
||     Doug Thompson >>
||
|| Thanks Doug.
||
|| Now, what do we do? Do we specify galvanized bolts and 
|| nails and risk getting hit by a 2x4 on the job site, 
|| which we almost are for other code ambiguities, 
|| or ignore the code and give ammunition to a future expert 
|| witness? you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

|| What do SEAOC, ICBO and NDS plan to do? Any remedies in
|| the works?

|| Regards,

||   Oshin Tosounian, S.E.
||   Los Angeles, CA



******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** 
*   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) to the list, send email to 
*   admin(--nospam--at)seaint.org and in the body of the message type 
*   "join seaint" (no quotes). To Unsubscribe, send email 
*   to admin(--nospam--at)seaint.org and in the body of the message 
*   type "leave seaint" (no quotes). For questions, send 
*   email to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********