[Wildie]

I live in Ontario Canada and have run into a problem regarding the attachment of wood framing to concrete.
I intend to attach a hand rail post to the concrete deck with a Simpson fitting!
As the project is being done, under the scrutiny of a building inspector, I solicited his advice, as to what would be acceptable for this purpose!
I have been informed that OBC doesn't address the attachment of wood to concrete, so I must have it engineered.
Now it seems to me, that if the law does not address a subject specifically, that I am free to install it as I see fit.
My question being, if the 'code' doesn't mention what must be followed, why does it mean that it must automatically be engineered!

 

[Willie T]

The answer to this is really quite simple. And if you were being less "homeowner subjective" and more "logically objective", you would see it. But you are vying for your own interest and agenda. And few of us can be truly objective in that position.

To begin with, as I have mentioned, it's highly doubtful that Simpson post base is going to work. And, I'm fairly certain your inspector realizes that. But he isn't paid to get into all the legal hassles about those sorts of decisions. I suspect that you are being placated with polite conversation while left to get your own arse covered legally by having an engineer take the onus of responsibility off the building department.

Common sense has to prevail here. If there is no speed limit posted at a severe curve, would you take that to mean you are free to take that curve at any speed you felt you could push your car? I certainly hope not. And if you slid off into oncoming traffic through a careless and reckless decision to do whatever you felt you could get away with, be assured that you would quickly learn that someone is going to be tasked with taking the responsibility in such an undeclared and unmarked moving violation.

Same thing in construction. Too many variables exist in literally thousands of unforeseen situations and circumstances for that one man standing in front of you, the inspector, to invent rules and make engineering decisions on the spot as to what is safe in this particular incidence, and what is not. And they are certainly NOT going to let every single homeowner make their own arbitrary decisions.

Thus, in cases where such decisions and declarations of rule may be beyond an inspector's realm of expertise, they, the building department officials, have wisely decreed that someone who DOES possess those qualifications make the pertinent decisions. That is, hopefully, an engineer.

 

[Scuba_Dave]

Code also doesn't cover a cantilever deck like this
Thus it requires engineering

 

[My Old House]

The code sets forth minumum dimensional requirements (height, picket spacing, rail locations, extensions, etc.), as well as minumum strength requirements for the guardrail. They must withstand specific loads both from above and laterally. How you do it is up to you - and your engineer. A Simpson bracket will likely be sufficient (depending on how you use it), and you will probable need to use concrete lags or expansion bolts for anchoring into a concrete wall. But you really should consult an engineer on the specifics - it won't cost much for this limited scope of information.

 

[Wildie]

Thanks for your replies, guys!

I have all the pertinent requirements on hand and do not have an issue with these requirements.

The requirements for a deck that is less than 23 5/8" are non.
If its greater than this, but less than 61" a hand rail must be provided that is no less than 36". It shall not have any openings that will allow a 4" sphere to pass through.
It must be capable of resisting a horizontal force of 200 lbs and a post must be provided at a 8' (max) intervals.
The last statement applies to myself!
My deck has a 6X6 post at each corner supporting the roof! These posts are 12' apart and support a 6X10 beam.
These posts are anchored to the concrete deck using Simpson ABU66 fasteners. As per an engineered drawing!
Its my intention that I would install a 4X4 post at the mid-point between the 2, 6X6 posts.
The OBC allows me to connect the top of the 4X4 post to the beam with a standard Simpson fastener as its wood to wood.
However, I'm not allowed to connect the bottom of this post to the concrete deck using a Simpson ABU44 fastener, without an engineers signature.
My question is, is this normal in all jurisdictions, or is this just incompetance here in Ontario.

 

[Willie T]

Here is Florida's product approval listing for the base in question... http://www.strongtie.com/ftp/coderpts/FL10849(ESR-1622).pdf

As you now say, used as the base for an intermediate floor-to-beam post, it is more than adequate. I think the uplift is well in excess of 2,000 pounds. Sounds like the inspector is way off base on this one.

However, used as you initially suggested, as a railing post (That's just "free-standing", supporting a railing, and not extending to an overhead support), it is not sufficient for lateral support.

Saying you are putting in a centered floor-to-beam post makes ALL the difference in the world. Here in Florida, our wind resistance codes make most of the rest of the continent's look like child's play, and the application you described in that last post would be easily approved here.

 

[Wildie]

Here is Florida's product approval listing for the base in question... http://www.strongtie.com/ftp/coderpts/FL10849(ESR-1622).pdf

As you now say, used as the base for an intermediate floor-to-beam post, it is more than adequate. I think the uplift is well in excess of 2,000 pounds. Sounds like the inspector is way off base on this one.

However, used as you initially suggested, as a railing post (That's just "free-standing", supporting a railing, and not extending to an overhead support), it is not sufficient for lateral support.

Saying you are putting in a centered floor-to-beam post makes ALL the difference in the world. Here in Florida, our wind resistance codes make most of the rest of the continent's look like child's play, and the application you described in that last post would be easily approved here.

Thanks for the link, Willy! You're fortunate that Florida has seen fit to provide direction for this application.
The OBC just ignores this matter and our local inspector won't accept the use of the Simpson fastener without an engineers stamp because its not address'd by the OBC.

It wasn't my intention to use the Simpson fastener on a post without support for horizontal movement.
I wasn't clear about this in my initial post, and I apologize.

 

[eidol]

ok here

that application would past inspection here in maryland also
just do it,will be prefectly fine

 

[Willie T]

I have to admit I was having a heck of a time trying to figure out why I just wasn't able to get across that these great support post bases simply don't make acceptable railing posts. :huh::wink: