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

Re: Fastener for presure treated wood

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rhkratzse(--nospam--at)>
To: <smthengr(--nospam--at)>; <seaint(--nospam--at)>
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: Fastener for presure treated wood

> In a message dated 6/13/01 6:34:30 PM, smthengr(--nospam--at) writes:
> << I don't think the code writers intended for sill plate
> anchors to be galvanized >>
> Then why did they specifically require it?  I'm no lawyer, but it seems to
> that anchor bolts are "fasteners."
> Ralph Hueston Kratz, S.E.
> Richmond CA USA


The same question was raised last year and the answer was that the exception
got omitted from the 1997 UBC for un unknown reason. See below for a reply
from Doug Thompson on July 27, 2000 which I retreived from the archives.

Oshin Tosounian, S.E.
Los Angeles, CA

In a message dated 7/27/00 10:02:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time, SThompsonB

<< 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
hit by a 2x4 on the job site, which we almost are for other code
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?


Oshin Tosounian, S.E.
Los Angeles, CA

*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) 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: