| Posted By |
|
|
|
| |
 |
Samantha, AL
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sep, 2004
|  offline
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
Gaston, Oregon
Posts: 8080
Joined: Dec, 2003
| offline
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
Samantha, AL
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sep, 2004
| offline
|
|
 Todays deck
[#3] Posted: 08/01/2007 - 2:39:08 PM |  |  |
|
Jim,
No and No
Here are the size of the post
Image Insert:
126.57 KB
Image Insert:
138.99 KB
|
Have a good day inspecting.
Phillip R. Smith Sr.
Samantha (Tuscaloosa) AL
www.homesweethomeinspectionsal.com
"When you inspect crap, you find crap." Phillip 2010
"Always desire to learn something useful."
- Sophocles
|
| |
|
|
| |
 |
chicago, il
Posts: 692
Joined: Sep, 2006
| offline
|
|
Todays deck
[#4] Posted: 08/01/2007 - 3:14:31 PM | | |
|
Nice ledger support.
Is there even an L bracket where that timber is sitting?
Just one little kick should lead to loads of laughs.
|
Bob.E
owner operated consumer protection
http://chicagopropertyinspection.com/
|
| |
|
|
| |
 |
Columbus, Mississippi
Posts: 3169
Joined: Dec, 2003
| offline
|
|
Todays deck
[#5] Posted: 08/01/2007 - 5:51:17 PM | | |
|
Originally posted by Jim Katen
A piece of wood in this location is supposed to be pressure-treated *and* bear a bear a quality mark for the pressure treatment.
As far as I know they're rated for "outdoor use", but not "ground contact". I'm not sure if that makes them officially "treated" or not.
I hate those landscape timbers. I find them used in contact with the ground all the time, often as a substitute for the slightly more expensive honest-to-goodness treated 4 x 4.
The lumber dimension also has to comply with those in the code tables. That looks like an odd size.
They are a bit odd, being rounded on two sides. I've long thought they had less beef than a real 4 x 4, but I haven't checked up on it.
Brian G.
Anything to Save a Buck 
|
| www.accuspecllc.com |
| |
|
|
| |
 |
Severna Park, Maryland
Posts: 3458
Joined: May, 2007
| offline
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
Gaston, Oregon
Posts: 8080
Joined: Dec, 2003
| offline
|
|
Todays deck
[#7] Posted: 08/01/2007 - 6:54:41 PM | | |
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Brian G.
[navy]As far as I know they're rated for "outdoor use", but not "ground contact". I'm not sure if that makes them officially "treated" or not.
The ones up here have no marking on the wood at all. Certainly they're treated with some amount of some chemical. But what it is and how much is there is a mystery. That's fine if you're going to use them as a border for your garden, but it won't do if you're supporting a structure with them.
Quote: [navy]They are a bit odd, being rounded on two sides. I've long thought they had less beef than a real 4 x 4, but I haven't checked up on it.
Without a species and grade stamp, no one knows. That's why those marks are required.
- Jim Katen, Oregon
|
Jim Katen, Oregon
www.amipdx.com |
| |
|
|
| | |
|
Samantha, AL
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sep, 2004
| offline
|
|
Todays deck
[#8] Posted: 08/01/2007 - 8:05:33 PM | | |
|
Jim,
Thanks for the info, That just what I needed.
|
Have a good day inspecting.
Phillip R. Smith Sr.
Samantha (Tuscaloosa) AL
www.homesweethomeinspectionsal.com
"When you inspect crap, you find crap." Phillip 2010
"Always desire to learn something useful."
- Sophocles
|
| |
|
|
| | |
|
Samantha, AL
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sep, 2004
| offline
|
|
Todays deck
[#9] Posted: 08/02/2007 - 04:36:50 AM | | |
|
John,
No it was not.
|
Have a good day inspecting.
Phillip R. Smith Sr.
Samantha (Tuscaloosa) AL
www.homesweethomeinspectionsal.com
"When you inspect crap, you find crap." Phillip 2010
"Always desire to learn something useful."
- Sophocles
|
| |
|
|
| | |
|
Columbus, Mississippi
Posts: 3169
Joined: Dec, 2003
| offline
|
|
Todays deck
[#10] Posted: 08/02/2007 - 07:08:25 AM | | |
|
Originally posted by Jim Katen
The ones up here have no marking on the wood at all. Certainly they're treated with some amount of some chemical. But what it is and how much is there is a mystery. That's fine if you're going to use them as a border for your garden, but it won't do if you're supporting a structure with them.
Without a species and grade stamp, no one knows. That's why those marks are required.
Good, I can use that. What's the reference for that? Is it in the IRC somewhere?
Brian G.
Another Bullet in My Gun 
|
| www.accuspecllc.com |
| |
|
|
| |
 |
Albany, NY
Posts: 356
Joined: Nov, 2005
| offline
|
|
Todays deck
[#11] Posted: 08/02/2007 - 09:57:26 AM | | |
|
In 2000 IRC see §R404.2.1 for required grade marks on all load bearing lumber. For markings on wood that needs protection from decay, see §R323.2.
|
| |
|
|
| | |
|
Gaston, Oregon
Posts: 8080
Joined: Dec, 2003
| offline
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
Comer, GA
Posts: 998
Joined: Apr, 2004
| offline
|
|
Todays deck
[#13] Posted: 08/03/2007 - 7:27:54 PM | | |
|
Those landscape timbers fool lots of DIYers. They are not grade stamped nor treated to any standard, but they are really cheap. Near my home is a big plant where they peel off wood fibers to make oriented or parallel strand beams. One of their by-products are these little 3-inch spindles that are hauled out of there by big truck-loads. Treat them heavily enough and you get a good fence post. Dress them two sides and dip thru a green bath and you get "landscape timber". The name is the giveaway, they're not listed for use in buildings, period.
|
| "Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, for only ourselves can free our minds"-Bob Marley |
| |
|
|
| | |
|
Severna Park, Maryland
Posts: 3458
Joined: May, 2007
| offline
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
Albany, NY
Posts: 356
Joined: Nov, 2005
| offline
|
|
Todays deck
[#15] Posted: 08/11/2007 - 08:07:14 AM | | |
|
Quote: Originally posted by Jim KatenQuote: Originally posted by Brandon Chew
In 2000 IRC see §R404.2.1 for required grade marks on all load bearing lumber. For markings on wood that needs protection from decay, see §R323.2. I think that last one should be 319.2 - Jim Katen, Oregon
I think you are correct, Jim. NY is currently moving from a code based on the 2000 IRC to one based on the 2003 IRC. I have the 2000 on CD to do quick key word searches and to copy & paste, but I haven't yet purchased the electronic version of the 2003. I just checked my paper 2003 IRC and the section I was referencing was moved to 319.2.
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Thread Start First Page
