Basically, for FRT in interior dry applications, you'll now be directed to the manufacturer recommendations. So if they say their standard coating (like the G90) or plain steel fastener is OK, you'll be good to go.
Also, the 2009 IBC will carry an exception for using plain steel fasteners with borates in interior dry applications.
On the electroplated versus HDG I'm not sure I have much advice. I know there has been substantial debate in the code arena among the various fastener manufacturers and coating reps on the quality of mechanical versus HD galvanizing, and attempts to allow more mechanical galvanizing have failed. I vaguely recall some discussion of electroplating somewhere along the line but I can't remember the context at the moment.
Gary
Gary J. Ehrlich, PE
Program Manager, Structural Codes & Standards
National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)
1201 15th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005
ph: 202-266-8545 or 800-368-5242 x8545
fax: 202-266-8369
gehrlich@nahb.com
Attend the 2010 International Builders' Show
January 19-22, 2010, Las Vegas, NV
www.buildersshow.com
www.builderbooks.com
www.housingeconomics.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Thor Matteson [mailto:thorm@sti.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:18 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: galvanized vs electroplate
I'm on digest mode, so forgive me if this has already been answered....
You probably are referring to IBC/CBC section 2304.9.5, which does not
discriminate between the many different kinds of chemicals used for
preservative or fire-retardant treating.
Don'tcha love the building code? Some treating chemicals (borates) are
almost completely benign, and some others (ACQ, ACZA) will eat through
foundation bolts in a matter of months, according to observations by
contractors. Yet the code lumps them all into the same category. Remind me
not to buy a house built after 2004, when the new, higher-copper-content
treatments came into widespread use. More info at
www.shearwalls.com/treated_wood.html
My recommendation: Use borate-treated wood for mudsills and anything else
that will be protected from water or rain-splash. Borates do not corrode
fasteners and they don't harm mammals (in case you want to use mammals to
hold your structure together ;-)
There's also the exception to Section 2304.9.5 that allows anything BESIDES
nails, timber rivets, screws and lags to be mechanically galvanized. I
assume that this permits bolts, all-thread, and apparantly
hangers/clips/straps/tie-downs etc. to be mechanically galvanized instead of
HDG (note that electroplated is NOT the same as mechanically galvanized).
But from the reports I hear from contractors in the field, I would only
recommend HDG unless using borate-treated wood, and Stainless Steel for the
more aggressive chemicals. Simpson's website and catalog also have some
good information and recommendations.
Good luck--
Thor Matteson, SE
www.shearwalls.com
> From: PFFEI@aol.com
> Subject: galvanized vs electroplate
>
> the building code specifically requires hot dip galvanized wherever metal
> is in contact with pressure treated framing. city of LA plan includes
> this
> in plan check correction sheets and requires it to be written onto plans.
> in practical application, suppliers do not seem to be changing stock to
> hot dip galvanized for rods and hangers (hot dip galvanized nails seem to
> be
> readily available). we have contacted a couple of suppliers and they do
> not stocking hot dip galvanized rods and Simpson hangers in hot dip
> galvanized are a special order.
>
> i am curious how others are handling this issue. is electroplated steel
> (readily available) sufficient for rods and is the standard Simpson
> coating
> (galvanized G90) adequate for hangers?
>
> thank you for your comments.
>
> sincerely,
>
> paul franceschi, s.e.
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********