Code confusion

1829 Views 8 Replies 5 Participants Last post by Willie T, May 3, 2009

Wildie

Discussion Starter · May 1, 2009

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!

Save

1 - 3 of 9 Posts

Wildie

Discussion Starter · #5 · May 2, 2009

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.

See less See more

Save

Wildie

Discussion Starter · #7 · May 2, 2009

Willie T said:
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.

Save

1 - 3 of 9 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.

Top Contributors this Month