Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: (no subject)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

I am familiar with the use and necessity for testing and verification of
products.  I am not trying to use an untested product.

I always list where the "allowable" capacity of a product is taken from in
the calculations, whether it be the AISC tables, the NDS tables, or an ICBO

The project specifications indicate what materials and approvals are
required.  The structural notes indicate the materials and requirements for
construction (with ICBO, ASTM, or whatever criteria is required)

My question is, where in the code is the requirement that in addition to the
above, one must list the ICBO number on the plan or detail sheet in addition
to specifying TJI or ITW....

----- Original Message -----
From: <MCIORTEA(--nospam--at)>
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)>
Cc: <pfeather(--nospam--at)>
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 10:05 PM
Subject: (no subject)

> Paul,
> You do not have to provide the ICBO number; here's a way to get around it:
> 1. establish an extensive testing program for the specific product that
> want to use. Keep in mind that the product is not covered by standard code
> calculations, otherwise it would not be a "product" or "device"
> 2. Pay a (rather large) fee to have it evaluated by the building agengy
> you deal with
> 3. Hire Lab, do the testing
> 4. Submit results to the agency, with a statistical analysis, etc.
> 5. Go back after a year to take your approval, if you're lucky.
> My point is that others (manufacturers of the specific product or device)
> have already done that for you. When you write "ITW expansion anchors" or
> "TJI" on a plan there is nothing in the Code that mentions such things.
> why should they be acceptable? because the manufacturer demonstrated once
> that they are and wrote the allowable values and method of installation in
> the ICBO. By writing the ICBO # on the plan, you define by reference all
> these propertis. Simpler than the way around suggested above.
> Mike Ciortea