Steel Jack Posts & loss of "permanent load" rating...
Steel Jack Posts & loss of "permanent load" rating...
(OP)
Jack Posts - Anyone else seeing more and more of these little steel screw-columns which are not rated for permanent loads? They seem to be pushing the old standard steel jack post out of the market. The one's I've seen are all painted grey, and the most common manufacturer seems to be "Tiger Brand".
Anyone allowing these? Are people noticing a problem? Thoughts?
Anyone allowing these? Are people noticing a problem? Thoughts?






RE: Steel Jack Posts & loss of "permanent load" rating...
Sounds like the welds will be brittle and the threads will shear easily. Better to use Simpson J/JP.
RE: Steel Jack Posts & loss of "permanent load" rating...
The biggest issue i have seen are sloped installation, the thin caps walk away or crush under loading, and sub-par footings. Most of the problems were with contractors not the product, besides the flimsy caps! I have not allowed these jacks, but my more senior co-worker has. He specified better caps and bases as well as other specifics, but the product was the same/similar.
RE: Steel Jack Posts & loss of "permanent load" rating...
Any number of those jack posts have served the building industry for generations, and many of them have been in place that long too. Like everything else in our business these days, the ICC and their testing and certifying arm would like everything to go through them, for what it is worth to sustaining their profit centers and cottage industry. Then once you have their expensive and less than tidy reports, maybe you can use them, if they still meet the ever changing code. You and I can certainly design and fab. our own jack posts, but that’s not an off the shelf item without their blessing, and probably requires our stamp. My guess is that some of the junk the big box stores are buying is getting thinner and lighter to keep the price down, so it is suspect. Certainly, they should have some installation instructions and height/load rating standards. There has also been code discussion about immobilizing the jacking feature after installation, so they can’t be messed with. I always thought that was why you took the round bar out of the screw stock hole after you adjusted the height, but that has been deemed not to be foolproof enough. Now, I’ve heard talk that some AHJ’s want you to tack weld the threads or put them in upside down and bury them in conc. at the ftg. As we dumb-down the people we allow to pretend to be builders, and try to protect them from themselves, even more must be codified to the last letter.
RE: Steel Jack Posts & loss of "permanent load" rating...
I have nothing against what I'd call the "real deal" but these simply aren't it. They appeared a while ago and seem to now be pushing out the proper structural jacks. It may very well be a costing issue as you say dhengr, but to me this is a liability minefield. They are labelled and marketted as for "temporary loads", "secondary loads" and repair of "lively floors", and in use as main structural elements!
RE: Steel Jack Posts & loss of "permanent load" rating...
RE: Steel Jack Posts & loss of "permanent load" rating...
RE: Steel Jack Posts & loss of "permanent load" rating...
@JStephen: Could very well be a cheeky liability dodge attempt.
RE: Steel Jack Posts & loss of "permanent load" rating...
RE: Steel Jack Posts & loss of "permanent load" rating...
Excel: Do you mean to say you allow this with the CHEAP NEW ONES, or the rated "been around forever" proper Jack Post?
RE: Steel Jack Posts & loss of "permanent load" rating...