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

Re: Fastener for presure treated wood

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Oshin Tosounian wrote:

------------Begin Quote--------------

----- 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

-----------------End Quote--------------

How many other things were "inadvertently omitted" or "not included" in the 
'97 UBC and the IBC 2000?  In going from the classical version of the UBC to 
the "common code format" in one code change cycle, then to the "transition 
version" in the next code change cycle, to the IBC 2000 in the following code 
change cycle has too many things changed which can result in serious errors 
in the code.

This is one of the serious hazards of major rewrites of the Code or sections 
of the Code.  Things get omitted or not included and nobody knows why.  
Things get included with a narrow application in mind, but has a broad impact 
that was not considered by the proponent or reviewers of the change.

Since Simpson questions the use of galvanizing with preservative treated 
lumber and the code requires the use of corrosion resistant connectors and 
we are required to comply with the code, maybe we should specify stainless 
steel products where they are in contact with treated lumber.  *Something* 
has got to call the code writers' attention to the mess that we now have.

Is anyone aware of any incompatibilities between stainless steel and treated 
wood?  :-[

A. Roger Turk, P.E.(Structural)
Tucson, Arizona

*   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: