On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:05:03 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 4/12/2012 12:54 AM, Richard wrote:
On 4/11/2012 10:20 PM, Swingman wrote:
wrote:
On 4/11/2012 9:00 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 4/11/2012 8:33 PM, wrote:

TimberLok screws can be used in place of
hurricane straps to connect trusses to sills. Fully code compliant,
and you won't mistake them for a common screw or lag bolt - and you
don't need to remove them or X-Ray to know how long the timberlok is
(they are clearly marked on their black hex heads)

You simply cannot make a blanket statement like the above without
checking your local building code, as well as the Engineering
specifications for the particular structure.

Without question, you will most assuredly find that your options in
that
regard are severely limited when it comes to structural members.



I don't think he was addressing "approval by political elect", but
structural reliability.

WTF does "approval by political elect" have to do with building codes and
structural requirements set forth by an engineer?


Clare's a pretty decent engineer.

Then he should know better than to make a blanket statement indicating
that a fastener/method claiming to be "fully code compliant" with a
model building code is not necessarily accepted by any jurisdiction
using that model building code as a basis for building standards.

Pex is "fully code compliant", just try using it in building a house
many in jurisdictions across the US.

When an engineer calls for a specific fastener, joist hanger, strapping
method, etc, in an approved structural/framing plan, he does so in
compliance with the specifics of the local code in the jurisdiction in
which the structure is built. Any deviation from the engineer's specific
fastener, joist hanger, strapping method by someone implementing the
plan risks obtaining both engineering approval of the "as built"
structure, and failure of any inspection under that jurisdition's code.

In short, just because something is claiming to be "fully code
compliant", does not mean that it can be used.

No, but it means it can be SPEC'd. If the engineer signs off on the
design using a "code compliant" Timberlok in place of say, aStrongTie
and 12 nails, it is going to be pretty difficult for an inspector to
fail the structure on the basis of their correctly applied use.
And it IS acceptable for an engineer to spec "or equivalent" in the
design, particularly if he provides the specification the device must
meet -such as pull-out strength and shear strength.

Once again, check your local building code, and your engineer approved
structural plan, BEFORE using any fastener in structural members.