If the treating company could not or did not take the time to explain to
ICBO ES why galv. nails did not apply to their chemical then why should I
take it on my back to permit them to do otherwise. That is not to say that
they did not get a bad reviewer at ICBO but the fellows I have met there are
just like most engineers, just trying to do the right thing by asking the
right questions and coming to rational recommendations with the data given
them. I would not accept the "boiler plate" reason.
IMHO, George Richards, P.E.
From: Jeff Creagan [mailto:jeffc(--nospam--at)kpff.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 5:37 PM
To: SEAOC Listserver
Subject: Fasteners in Fire Resistant Treated Wood (FRTW)
I'm working on a project where the contractor has submitted a substitution
request to use common nails in FRTW; our General Structural Notes require
corrosion- resistant fasteners. The chemical company literature indicates
their product is non-corrosive to carbon steel, they back it up with a
single research study performed at Mississippi State. However, the National
Evaluation Report indicates that corrosion-resistant fasteners are required
(the chemical company maintains this is a boilerplate requirement placed in
all FRTW reports but is not appropriate for their product). The product is
D-Blaze, the chemical company is CSI; I'm interested in any experience
others have had with this product? Many thanks in advance.
Jeff Creagan, S.E.
KPFF Consulting Engineers
1201 Third Avenue - Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98101
Ph: (206) 622-5822
Direct: (206) 926-0455
Cell: (206) 852-5588
Fax: (206) 622-8130
e-mail: jeffc(--nospam--at)kpff.com <mailto:jeffc(--nospam--at)kpff.com>