We have a separate shear wall inspection in the locale where I generally build, and you are correct, the nailing pattern for that inspection, as well as full height structural sheathing on single story, and required overlap of structural sheathing between floors, is very specific.
I don't think he was addressing "approval by political elect", but structural reliability.
WTF does "approval by political elect" have to do with building codes and structural requirements set forth by an engineer?
Um, remove the ... and give us the actual URL, please. Parsing error! Silly wabbit.
-- Happiness is not a station you arrive at, but a manner of traveling. -- Margaret Lee Runbeck
Clare's a pretty decent engineer.
For certain values of "code". Building codes in the US are not standardized. There is a model code but no requirement that it be used by any given locality.
Then he should know better than to make a blanket statement indicating that a fastener/method claiming to be "fully code compliant" with a model building code is not necessarily accepted by any jurisdiction using that model building code as a basis for building standards.
Pex is "fully code compliant", just try using it in building a house many in jurisdictions across the US.
When an engineer calls for a specific fastener, joist hanger, strapping method, etc, in an approved structural/framing plan, he does so in compliance with the specifics of the local code in the jurisdiction in which the structure is built. Any deviation from the engineer's specific fastener, joist hanger, strapping method by someone implementing the plan risks obtaining both engineering approval of the "as built" structure, and failure of any inspection under that jurisdition's code.
In short, just because something is claiming to be "fully code compliant", does not mean that it can be used.
Once again, check your local building code, and your engineer approved structural plan, BEFORE using any fastener in structural members.
Has there been noticeable resistance to it? To me anyway, it looks like the ultimate plumbing product. At least for the current state of the art.
Have you heard about this Karl?
Absolutely in some areas, to the point that it can not be used. Although as soon as some of these old farts on jurisdiction's zoning and building standards boards retire, that should be subject to change.
Yeah, I think Chicago still requires flex conduit instead. :)
--
Tru dat. Most resistance to new, better technology comes from old school technophobes often entrenched in a corrupt system protecting their fellow old schoolers and the technology they profit the most from. If you can sit on a house for 3 days, sweating copper and charging like it's rocket surgery, why would you switch to Pex and only get a 1/2 day's labor, then have to go find another client?
+1
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:44:11 -0500, -MIKE-
I'm thinking there might be less labour for plumbers on the home owner side of the issue. I'd expect home owners doing a pex install for themselves where they might run to a plumber to have a copper water pipe soldered.
I mean, how difficult is it to install pex? Don't bend it too much and crimp a collar onto a line. Can't get too much simpler than that.
That's why I said google it and the hacked up URL was just to identify the post, Dumb bunny ;)
I recently installed a bunch for my bathroom remodel and I'm still scratching my head thinking, "It can't be this easy, there has to be more to it than this."
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.
Makes a lot of sense when you quote the job on a contract basis instead of time and materials. Contractor is used to, say, $3500 to plumb the house in copper, so he's REAL happy to pay $2500 to have it done in PEX - while $1400 would still be making the plumber money.
But in MY opinion, a house plumbed with copper just looks so much NEATER, and more professional than the "spiderwebs" of PEX that I see in a lot of new houses. Nothing requires PEX to be run in straight lines with neat 90 degree bends - so the "cheap" plumber just runs the crap in the shortest, easiest route, looks be damned.
Except that a good General Contractor isn't an idiot and keeps track of the prevailing labor rates and costs of materials and know what a job should cost. Free market would drive that other plumber out of business real quick when the $1400 guy starts getting all the work. Hence, his other old school buddy down on the local code board.
Boooo! Bad answer, you sound like an old guy. :-) There are lazy, sloppy plumbers who do shoddy work with whatever material they are working with. I've seen some ugly ass copper piping with big balls of solder stuck all over the joints and all kinds of extraneous elbows and crap with bad decisions in where to run the lines where the lines are in the way of everything that comes later, pipes too close to the outside of studs and plates. And I've seen great copper jobs.... the kind that belongs in instruction books.
In my experience, the guys who care about their work, care about it when they did copper and they care about it after moving to Pex. Why run Pex in straight run with 90 degree bends if you don't have to? If it's not in the way and it makes sense, why do it it based on the same physical restrictions as copper? If it's neater to do it that way and works out better, then do it. But don't do it just because "that's the way we did copper."
I've seen some beautiful Pex runs from manifolds and nothing was messy and you could trace every line. It's the plumber, not the plumbing.
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.
I would rank it higher given the claims to be impervious to freeze burst. I'm also in love with these gator/shark/etc. connectors and valves.
While remodeling the bathrooms, I planned to keep a working vanity sink while it's all going on. Those gator valves and a rubber P-trap connected with a hose clamp allow me to move the vanity in and out in about 3 minutes. I leave the P-trap connected to the wall waste and it maintains the trap water to keep out the stink.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.