|
|
You are not authorized to post a reply.
|
 Prev Next
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
|
|
James Eggert
Registered Users
Posts:1001
 |
| 06/29/2008 4:48 PM |
|
And CT uses the IRC2003 also and calls it the Connecticut Building Code plus supplements. Both of our IRC codes are based on the 2003IRC. In this case, FL and CT, we use the same base code anyway :-)
These are not points to argue about, because I think both codes are basically only a minimum standard to build by anyway.
In a generalized sense, I agree that wood near grade should be PT, I do not agree that it has to be pt when its multiple feet in the air? As an example, trusses on the second floor of a 2 story do not have to be placed on PT wall plates.
I think we agree all in all!
|
|
Take Care
Jim
Design/Build/Consulting
"Not So Big" Design Proponent |
|
|
cmkavala
Registered Users
Posts:818
|
| 06/29/2008 4:55 PM |
|
Posted By James Eggert on 06/29/2008 4:48 PM
As an example, trusses on the second floor of a 2 story do not have to be placed on PT wall plates.
I think we agree all in all!
James,
now see that is a blanket statement
In FL. they either need a PT plate or barrier , trusses in FL. have galvanized steel plate on the heal
|
|
Chris Kavala
chris@southernsips.com
1-877-321-SIPS |
|
|
James Eggert
Registered Users
Posts:1001
|
| 06/30/2008 9:34 PM |
|
Interesting how I can't justify a pt plate for anything in Florida if its more than 8" above grade, and its not exposed directly to the weather?? I looked at the 2007 Florida residential code, final draft with amendments, and geeee.. I can't find where the code dictates PT has to be used when its more than 8" above grade?? Is there a Florida code book you have thats different?
As to the barrier, if you mean a sillsealer, I'm all for it. And all of our truss plates are also galv, but if truss mfg add a bottom heel plate, thats a good thing for your high wind requirements! I don't care for direct galv to concrete placement of trusses, although some builders do a direct connect with Simpson straps. If I did it, I would still place some type of barrier, probably a strip of I&W.
I suggest you once again read carefully the words in a code section, because those one or two words definately can change the actual stipualation that the code is requiring.
So in closing, either note a specific code section you are quoting or using which states pt or decay resistant wood is required when more than 8" above grade, or let it drop. No specific code section from you, I can't respond to something which doesn't exist.
Our codes based on the same book, IRC2000 or IRC 2003, as a baseline are so similar as typically every state is the main differences wind up being amendments that usually are climate based or seismic based. The incidentals we all do the same way.
States typically adopt every other book version in order to eliminate printing costs and replacement costs, when amendments work just as well for a few extra years. |
|
Take Care
Jim
Design/Build/Consulting
"Not So Big" Design Proponent |
|
|
cmkavala
Registered Users
Posts:818
|
| 07/01/2008 6:46 AM |
|
Jim;
The 2007 code is not yet being used, but in any event did you also take into consideration FEMA regulations which overide any code in Florida?
Use of PT is mandated in all below base flood elevations, regardless of wether it contacts concrete or how far it id from the grade
The reason PT is used extensively in all lower levels along all coasts in FL. other materials approved for use are... ICFs& metal SIPs. OSB are absolutely not allowed |
|
Chris Kavala
chris@southernsips.com
1-877-321-SIPS |
|
|
cmkavala
Registered Users
Posts:818
|
| 07/01/2008 11:35 AM |
|
Posted By icfcontractor on 06/29/2008 12:09 PM
Chris,
2. All wood framing members that rest on concrete or masonry exterior foundation walls and are less than 8 inches from exposed ground."
Not meaning to cause a rift but before you blast someone for a misquote or wrong material maybe you should make sure you are 100% correct and have read fully what you are quoting.
ICF Contractor ICFcontractor that entire section is stating where the protection applies it is not and exclusion!
If a wood member is 3 ft off the ground and in contact with concrete it need to be PT, durable or a barrier
I understand it, the code is saying where you need protection, where ist is in contact with concrete and if not incontact with concrete closer than 8" to the ground
If you are using wood bucks in ICFs they are in contact with the wood and need protected
|
|
Chris Kavala
chris@southernsips.com
1-877-321-SIPS |
|
|
cmkavala
Registered Users
Posts:818
|
| 07/01/2008 3:01 PM |
|
James;
if you continue in your interpretation of that same code my guess would be that you would not need any PT or protected lumber on interior foundation walls because the statement says exterior?
Your interpretation runs counter to most CBO's interpretation of the code and In my opinion it would be bad advise to the many DIY's that read these posts.
because most codes leave the final decision to the BO as stated below
"Another point: The only "legal" interpretation of the building code is
the building official. If he has something to "hang his hat on" so be
it. Most may disagree but the decision is his and his alone. IMHO
treated lumber is required when moisture is an issue.(i.e. lumber in
contact with concrete or masonry)"
Randy Jones
Santa Rosa County
Compliance Investigator, Plan Examiner,
Building Inspector |
|
Chris Kavala
chris@southernsips.com
1-877-321-SIPS |
|
|
James Eggert
Registered Users
Posts:1001
|
| 07/01/2008 8:43 PM |
|
I don't get it, the ICC site provides the info for each staes adopted codes and versions; a google search brings up under multiple choices the 2007 Florida Building Code final draft and amendements, but its not adopted yet? This is a little confusing.
No, I didn't address FEMA at all, I didn't think it was part of what we are discussing. However, even though its a govt agency, I think FEMA is trying to have us all build better.
Use of PT is mandated in all below base flood elevations, ....this is a statement which is simple practical common sense, and I heartily agree that if it means PT below what 12'? above mean water level? In other words this would be a no brainer to me if I built in Florida!
If a wood member is 3 ft off the ground and in contact with concrete it need to be PT, durable or a barrier...AHHHH, this is where our conflict is. I am using only the code as it is printed in our books, I am not also incorporating any interaction with say FEMA and coastal building which does require more of a common sense approach to using decay resistant practices. Is FEMA where the pt in flood plain comes from??
because most codes leave the final decision to the BO as stated below.........this is true, we hold the final say however, it does sometimes fall to the State Building Inspector to sometimes over-rule the local. Doesn't happen often but there are cases where the BO can be very wrong but not held liable. The clarification and/or modification process is fairly simple. My interpretation of the 8" rule is not misinterpeted at all, however, it appears there may be other extenuating circumstances for your building practices in Florida. I do not mean to interpret the whole gamut of what you do in Florida because no where did I see anything about using pt below base flood elevations. Perhaps now you see i was trying to strickly stay with the r319 Decay section, and not incorporate "other" requirements your Coastal Mgmt may require. The whole base of our arguing was me using what I have and am used to whereas you appear to also need another supplemental book, so be it. I'm not in any way trying to change Florida Building code or practices.
And to finish..."and In my opinion it would be bad advise to the many DIY's that read these posts." This is an unfortunate comment, and its apparent you have not read thru the numerous threads here where I and many others try to post careful and intuitive answers so DIYs can think about an answer and determine whether they can handle some technique or structural aspect, or whether they should get some outside help. I, for one, am very careful about my structural comments or answers in that I don't want someone to attempt "what they think I said" and ultimately hurt themselves, or their family because they don't understand the complete process involved.
In the same manner, that is why I asked you to reread and watch how one or two words formulates the intent of a code section. The careful application of every word in its context is how I was trained. In some cases it doesn't matter what I believe or want; its how do I enforce the code fairly. A simple "and" "or" "all" changes the whole complexity of a sentence, and sometimes I don't like it. But I'm paid to enforce it, once again fairly in hopefully all circumstances.
Doesn't always work, I'll tell you that!
|
|
Take Care
Jim
Design/Build/Consulting
"Not So Big" Design Proponent |
|
|
cmkavala
Registered Users
Posts:818
|
| 07/02/2008 7:47 AM |
|
James;
You don't get it? I thought you were the be all end all authority?
If you were reading the "Final Draft"code online...."draft" was the keyword.
Iv'e run across inspector's like you before, Its more about your ego and your distortion of the "intent" of the code.
And as stated by Randy Jones "Most may disagree but the decision is his and his alone."
By your own admission you say it is a "conflict" But, So you can "hang your hat" on an improperly stated line in the code and as I stated previously based on your interpretaion, since the "verbatum" code says exterior, you would then allow interior foundation wood to be under 8" and unprotected?
I canvassed several other Building Officials and their comments were all similar and said you are not using logic in your interpretaion. But you can be right in your little "Eggert" world that you have juristiction in.
It is bad advise because your perverted view is not shared with most building officials and/or experienced builders.
So a unsuspecting owner/builder (especially in the southeast) following your advise could build an entire house with unprotected wood in contact with concrete. Only to find out its got to come back down or retrofitted somehow. Bottom line your bad interpretation will cost some poor guy thousands of dollars to correct.
In regards to FEMA, all of a sudden you want to invoke "common sense" it is obvious you are clueless there too .... "12' ? above mean water level ?" no brainer? its based on none of those comments. Its based on BFE established by FEMA & US Army Corp. of Engineers. Guess you don't know as much as you think you do |
|
Chris Kavala
chris@southernsips.com
1-877-321-SIPS |
|
|
James Eggert
Registered Users
Posts:1001
|
| 07/02/2008 8:48 AM |
|
Chris
I never said I was the be-all of BOs.
However,instead of looking at each issue we discuss, you seem to spend more time castrating me than looking at the efforts all of us , meaning you and me, do to build better.
The 12' above flood plain as we call it up here is where that came from. I did ask if that was the same as your bfe
interior foundation wood to be under 8" and unprotected? Once again you're distorting the issue. Unprotected, depends on if its on a slab with a VB, as the code mentions. However, as I also said most builders just use pt and call it a day! However, also depending on how far joists are above grade along the shoreline, pt is advisable or required, but we were not even discussing that section of the code.
For christ' sake, I'm not trying to argue with you, I said there appears to be some obvious climatic differences in our codes.
However, I stand by the fact that up here and in many if not most states, pt lumber in wood bucks for windows IN ICFS is not required once you're above a specific dimension, which to be fair may vary state to state. Most doors say on floor one or two won't need it, but a door at grade or one step off the entry slab sure would! But to use pt for a second floor bedroom off a ablcony is ludicrious and wasteful. If your code and/or amendments call for pt IN ALL CASES OF CONTACT, then you are right for your area.
However, you can't seem to post a specific code section stating so, so I'll go on your word thats how it is in FLorida.
We are arguing over nothing, and in fact you didn't notice, i have not spent my time attacking you, but rather looking into your differences of the code versus here! What part of that is doing a diservice to clients? In this and other threads many builders use SPF or DF for their above grade bucks. Now all of us are wrong?? What the hell is your problem with looking at how others do their building practices?
Nobody is picking on SIPS, hell, their a great product depending of the implementation? |
|
Take Care
Jim
Design/Build/Consulting
"Not So Big" Design Proponent |
|
|
cmkavala
Registered Users
Posts:818
|
| 07/02/2008 8:54 AM |
|
| Your previous posts are condescending, I guess you can only dish it out! |
|
Chris Kavala
chris@southernsips.com
1-877-321-SIPS |
|
|
miformguy
Registered Users
Posts:25
|
| 07/02/2008 12:02 PM |
|
Boys, Boys.....Take it outside!! |
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.6
|
Professionals Serving
Your Location:
GBT Project Albums:
|