| Author |
Message |
Brett M. Wilbur
Senior Member
Username: brett
Post Number: 29
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 10:36 am: |    |
I saw that there was a previous thread, but it looks like it hadn't been updated in over a year so I thought I would start it up again and see if anyone has any new inforamtion on CCA and ACQ.
I've hear it recently that ACQ is corrosive to hot-dip galv and coated steel also, which originally was thought to resist the copper corrosion, but no long term testing has been achieved. I hear only stainless 304 fasteners and liquid mastic coated (or peel-n-stick) steel will resist corrosion.
Also, can we get a way with using fire retardant lumber instead?
Any new information would be appreciated. |
Anne Whitacre, CCS CSI
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 194
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 01:18 pm: | |
well... as to your last question: "fire retardant" and "preservative treated" are not the same thing, and are not used in the same areas of the building, generally.
The local code will have some say in what is used where: in our area, anything that is in ground contact MUST be preservative treated; anything associated with the roof MUST be fire treated. The two processes are not compatible with each other and cannot be done to the same piece of lumber or plywood. (I've heard that if you try it, the wood more or less turns into dust).
We are using borate treatment more and more often for preservative treatment, but as it is water soluble, it cannot be used in ground contact work. We do use light penta, solvent borne preservative in some conditions and there are no compatibility problems with that and galvanizing. |
David J. Wyatt
Senior Member
Username: dave_wyatt_csi_cca_ccca
Post Number: 12
Registered: 09-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 11:40 am: | |
I recommend reading "Treated Wood: There's A Change in the Landscape," by Mr. Huck DeVenzio in the May 2005 issue of The Construction Specifier (87-92).
The article cleared up some misconceptions I held regarding pressure-treated wood products. The article also provides links to additional resources for further research on the topic. I think it will answer your questions. |
Jo Drummond, FCSI
Senior Member
Username: jo_drummond
Post Number: 11
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 07:36 pm: | |
There is also an article in the current (May 2005) issue of the Specifier. It lists AWPA service conditions for use categories, which might make it clearer and might muddy the water even more.
I think that stainless steel fasteners with preservative treated wood will be a given, as the primary component of the preservative is copper. In some cases, e.g., dry areas, galvanized fasteners are OK, but I have read some other articles (don't remember where) that pointed out that the galvanizing comes off in the fastening, and that article recommended stainless steel throughout. |
Wayne Yancey
Junior Member
Username: wyancey
Post Number: 2
Registered: 05-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 01:31 pm: | |
Anne, in your May 12th posting you say "in our area....anything associated with the roof MUST be fire treated." This may be true for IBC 2003 and Seattle Buidling Code 2003 Type I and Type II construction, but may not be true for Types III, IV, and V. Please clarify. I remember attending a PSCCSI meeting during which the 10 minute quick-pitch rolled out a wood treatment that is both a fire-retardant and a preservative treatment. Damned if I can remember the name of the product but Dricon product line sticks in my memory. Thanks Anne. Enjoy your frequent flier miles. |
Wayne Yancey
Member
Username: wyancey
Post Number: 3
Registered: 05-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 01:57 pm: | |
More stuff from a "junior member"
According to AIA MasterSpec Section 06100 evaluations, a dual treatment with both preservative and fire-retardant treatments is not feasible because the preservative treatment affects the performance of the fire retardant. However, some interior fire-retardant treatments, because of their boron content, do comply with AWPA C31 and are listed as preservatives for aboveground applications that are continuously protected from liquid water. Typical end uses that come to mind are sloped blocking under parapet coping; nailing base for membranes and flashings, etc.
I am on the trail. |
Helaine K. (Holly) Robinson CSI CCS CCCA
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob
Post Number: 226
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 02:16 pm: | |
The Specifier article noted above can be found here: http://www.csinet.org/s_csi/docs/11000/10982.pdf |
|
4specs.com Home Page