• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Stainless Steel vs Hot Dipped Galvanized for Decks

jar546

jar546

CBO
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,723
Location
Not where I really want to be
We have an issue where elevated beach walkovers are subject to hot, humid, salty sea air 24/7/365 and an occasional storm surge with spraying salt water. What this means is that historically, those that used galvanized bolts, washers, nuts, connectors, and joist hangars have experienced a very, very short life span. Basically, hot-dipped galvanized products simply don't work well at all in this application. Stainless steel is the way to go. However, I can't find any code requirements that would specify stainless over galvanized.

Is there a section of the code I am missing, or are there any pending changes that address issues like this?
 
e hilton said:
Wouldn’t that fall under a local modification? For most of the country, galvanized works well.
Click to expand...
There are 95,471 miles of salt water shoreline in the US, so it is not a small percentage. It would be nice to see that added to the code in lieu of a local ordinance that often comes with a lot of red tape to accomplish.
 
Reach out to simpson strongtie in your area....they will tell you how to get there....Probably installation instructions... or remember that all hangers have to be "approved", so approve whatever you want...

1669826196521.png
 
jar546 said:
There are 95,471 miles of salt water shoreline in the US, so it is not a small percentage. It would be nice to see that added to the code in lieu of a local ordinance that often comes with a lot of red tape to accomplish.
Click to expand...
True, but that's still a very small portion of the total land area of the US. In order to make it acceptable it would have to be specified for areas a certain distance from the coast or some other criteria.
 
The IRC covers this in Footnote b of Table R507.2.3 for decks. That's all I got.
 
Glenn said:
The IRC covers this in Footnote b of Table R507.2.3 for decks. That's all I got.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, that does not exist in the FBC Residential, even though the majority of it is verbatim to the IRC.

Digital Codes

ICC Digital Codes is the largest provider of model codes, custom codes and standards used worldwide to construct safe, sustainable, affordable and resilient structures.
codes.iccsafe.org codes.iccsafe.org
 
The IRC was intended to be a simplified code applicable to a limited number of situations yet everybody wants it to cover any issue The role of the IBC is to be the general code but I will suggest that the IBC was not developed to address severe environmental conditions. Maybe the building code is not the answer for everything.
 
R104.9 Approved materials and equipment.
Materials, equipment and devices approved by the building official shall be constructed and installed in accordance with such approval.

If a building official can decide to approve a material the building official can decide to not approve a material. If that is not true then why bother stating that materials and equipment shall be installed per the the building official's approval.

R104.11.1 Tests
This section empowers the building official to require a test to determine if a material meets the intent of the code. Granted it is for an alternate material etc. but it establishes a scenario where a test is used to convince a building official that the material should be approved.

You have a real world test where the material failed and therefor does not meet the intent of the code. Just say no and see what happens.
 
Have to agree with Mark on this one. This is an owner and designer decision. There are too many variables that come into play. Trying to regulate that would be a huge and odious task that is specific to one location. A normal install that would last decades on the mainland will have a much shorter lifespan having salt air and water blown on it all day. I've seen AAMA 2605 alum rotted out in less than 5 years (usually has a 20 year, or more, warranty) on the beach about half an hour north of Highland. Spec'ing the right materials is one thing, but if there's even a tiny installation error it will corrode in no time.

Setting aside the cost and availability of SS (not just because of current market conditions, but the larger pieces aren't available off the shelf) you have to spec the right SS (or no SS), the right coating, etc. based on the conditions of the installation and at that point it's a design exercise.
 
Here fixed it for you:

steveray said:
Good idea...leave it up to the owners/ HOA, developer & the town...That worked out so well in the surfside condos.....
Click to expand...

If the owner wants to cheap out, then I'll spec G185 instead of 305 or 316. If the developer bribes the inspectors to pass G60 and it fails after decades of neglect then I'll of course be named in the lawsuit, but at least I'll be dead by then.
 
Here and in AZ the UV is hard on all roofing materials and most manu. lower their warranty time. We also have high winds thru out the year so the BO has a local policy to not except 3 tab shingles. My point is you have avenues as pointed out that can be used. Trying to get it in the code book will be difficult.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top