On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 14:21:53 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 4/12/2012 12:32 PM, wrote:

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.

Absolutely no argument that anything can be spec'ed ... (and this has
gotten off the intended beaten path and onto a rabbit trail).

However, and in MY experience, an engineer or architect will rarely
attempt to specify (as with the aforementioned use of PEX) something
that is specifically disallowed in the jurisdiction's building code
(even if by default, as when specifically stating where they (screws in
this case) _can_ be used ... as with ledger boards, decks, etc) if a
solution that is unquestionably, and specifically in compliance, is
indeed available.

And for good reason ... it _always_ costs (me, mostly) time, money and,
most importantly, GOOD WILL, for any of the parties involved being
forced to take issue with an inspector ... and any architect or engineer
who puts me in that position without good reason stands a good chance of
not being on the next job.

That said, back to the main issue:

No disrespect intended at all, I was simply taking exception to what
appears to be an qualified statement that since a screw type fastener is
deemed to be "fully code compliant", to infer that it may be used,
without regard, as an optional replacement, is both arguably incorrect,
and misleading to the intended audience.

I maintain, once again, that the ONLY reasonable action is to check both
your local building code, and engineer approved structural plan, BEFORE
using _any_ fastener in structural members just about anywhere in North
America.
Correct - you give the spec sheet of the product you would like to use
to the inspector and tell him you want to use these - does he have any
problems allowing them.
It's a nobrainer to use ONE device that installs in a minute or two
and costs a buck instead of a complex strap arrangement that takes 5
minutes or more to install, in 13 pieces, and costs two bucks, if you
can get the inspector's permission. The inspector may want to see a
sample of an installation that he can whack at with a crow-bar or
hammer to satisfy HIMSELF that it is an acceptable solution.

Had a friend designed a very thermally efficient house, using modular
insulated panels, built on-site, instead of a traditional studded
wall. The inspector said "prove to me this panel is as strong as or
stronger than the traditional wall and I'll allow it".

When he drove his 3/4 ton 4X4 up a ramp consisting of a wall panel,
the inspector was duly impressed and gave him the go-ahead.