PDA

View Full Version : Finger-joint lumber for rafters



Durant
August 12th, 2012, 11:01
I'm in a new area to me and seeing a lot of finger joint lumber used for rafters. 2009 IRC does allow it with building official's approval. It does meet the manufacturer's requirements and the stamp is correct but I don't like it, but has been used for some time before I showed up and has been approved in the past here.

Anyone seeing any problems with this crap?

ICE
August 12th, 2012, 12:30
To answer your question, no I haven't seen any problems.... mostly I suppose because I have never seen it used.

IRC
SECTION R502
WOOD FLOOR FRAMING
R502.1.3 End-jointed lumber. Approved end-jointed lumber identified by a grade mark conforming to Section
R502.1 may be used interchangeably with solid-sawn members of the same species and grade.

SECTION R602
WOOD WALL FRAMING
R602.1.1 End-jointed lumber. Approved end-jointed lumber identified by a grade mark conforming to Section
R602.1 may be used interchangeably with solid-sawn members of the same species and grade.

SECTION R802
WOOD ROOF FRAMING
R802.1.2 End-jointed lumber. Approved end-jointed lumber identified by a grade mark conforming to Section
R802.1 may be used interchangeably with solid-sawn members of the same species and grade.


IBC

SECTION 2303
MINIMUM STANDARDS AND QUALITY

2303.1 General.
Structural sawn lumber; end-jointed lumber;.............. shall conform to the applicable provisions of this section.

2303.1.1 Sawn lumber. Sawn lumber used for load-supporting purposes, including end-jointed .........

Approved end-jointed lumber is permitted to be used interchangeably with solid-sawn members of the same species and grade.

Mark K
August 12th, 2012, 14:25
It seems to me that it is clear jointed lumber can be used.

When the word approved it means based on the criteria specificied in the code. Otherwise this would mean that the building official could modify the code at his whim which he cannot.

If the code clearly allows something your preferences are irrelevant.

Durant
August 12th, 2012, 15:36
Mark K,

You stated:

"It seems to me that it is clear jointed lumber can be used.

When the word approved it means based on the criteria specificied in the code. Otherwise this would mean that the building official could modify the code at his whim which he cannot.

If the code clearly allows something your preferences are irrelevant."


Please note in the Preface to the 2009 IRC it states; Selected terms set forth in Chapter 2. Definitions, are italicized where they appear in code text. Such terms are not italicized where the definiton set forth in Chapter 2 does not impart the intended meaning in the use of the term. The terms selected have definitions which the user should read caefully to facilitate better understanding of the code.

R802.1.2 End-jointed lumber. (excerpt) "Approved end-jointed lumber". The word approved is italicized.

Chapter 2. Definitions: Approved. Acceptable to the building official.

The code clearly leaves the decision to approve or not, to the building official.

Sometimes it helps to read all of the pertenent information in the code books.

ICE
August 12th, 2012, 18:43
R802.1.2 End-jointed lumber. Approved end-jointed lumber
identified by a grade mark conforming to Section
R802.1 may be used interchangeably with solid-sawn members
of the same species and grade.

R802.1 Identification. Load-bearing dimension lumber for rafters, trusses and ceiling joists shall be identified by a grade
mark of a lumber grading or inspection agency that has been approved by an accreditation body that complies with DOC PS
20. In lieu of a grade mark, a certificate of inspection issued by a lumber grading or inspection agency meeting the requirements
of this section shall be accepted.


"APPROVED. Meeting the approval of the enforcing agency, except as otherwise provided by law, when used in connection
with any system, material, type of construction, fixture or appliance as the result of investigations and tests conducted by
the agency, or by reason of accepted principles or tests by national authorities or technical, health, or scientific organizations
or agencies."


The code clearly leaves the decision to approve or not, to the building official.

Well then what gets done that isn't one of two things....approved or not....and by whom?....the building official, that's who. So I can look at an end-jointed rafter and say no or yes as I see fit.....within reason. I can say no if it has a crack, excessive wane, a huge knot or some other gross defect. I could say no if it wasn't approved per R802.1. On the flip side, I can say yes only if it complies with R802.1.

So where did the approval to use the material emanate from?
Was it the building official or the national authorities or technical, health, or scientific organizations or agencies? Did a building official approve the material by virtue of tests or did that BO find a stamp from an approved agency granting an approval?

APPROVED AGENCY. An established and recognized agency regularly engaged in conducting tests or furnishing
inspection services, when such agency has been approved by the building official. “Approved agency” shall mean “Listing
agency” and “Testing agency."

APPROVED LISTING AGENCY. Any agency approved by the enforcing agency, unless otherwise provided by statute,
which is in the business of listing and labeling and which makes available at least an annual published report of such listings in
which specific information is included that the product has been tested to recognized standards and found to comply.

APPROVED TESTING AGENCY. Any agency which is determined by the enforcing agency, except as otherwise provided by
statute, to have adequate personnel and expertise to carry out the testing of systems, materials, and construction fixtures or
appliances.


Sometimes it helps to read all of the pertenent information in the code books.

It's never helps to read too much into what the code says.

Mark K
August 12th, 2012, 20:57
If you adopt the view that the building official can accept or reject the use of this product on a whim then you are effectively saying that the building official can modify the building code as he whishes which is contrary to the law as explained in "Legal Aspects of Code Administration" as published by ICC.

If such a power were to be given to the building official it would have to be done by the state legislature and not as a part of the process by which regulations are adopted. Even then it would be held illegal since this would violate the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution which gurantees the right to due process in the adoption of laws and regulations.

Due process protects the population, in this case the permit applicant, from having his rights trampled upon by the building official. While the government has great powers to impose regulations they must be done in accordance with formal procedures.

Thus any approval needs to be based upon the criteria established by the building code and the standards referenced by the code. The building official has great flexibility in interpreting the code but any interpretation has to be closely tied to the provisions in the code. Once the building official determines that a product and its use complies with the applicable code provisions the building official is compelled to approve its use.

If the product has the proper grade stamps or certificates and the building official has no reason to question that they are proper then he is compelled to accept the use of the product.

Durant
August 12th, 2012, 21:37
ICE,

You have changed some of the definitions in chapter 2 of the 2009 IRC and add your own definitions:

"APPROVED. Meeting the approval of the enforcing agency, except as otherwise provided by law, when used in connection with any system, material, type of construction, fixture or appliance as the result of investigations and tests conducted by he agency, or by reason of accepted principles or tests by national authorities or technical, health, or scientific organizationsor agencies."

This defintion is not in Chapter 2 of the 2009 IRC.


The code clearly leaves the decision to approve or not, to the building official.
Well then what gets done that isn't one of two things....approved or not....and by whom?....the building official, that's who. So I can look at an end-jointed rafter and say no or yes as I see fit.....within reason. I can say no if it has a crack, excessive wane, a huge knot or some other gross defect. I could say no if it wasn't approved per R802.1. On the flip side, I can say yes only if it complies with R802.1.

So where did the approval to use the material emanate from? Was it the building official or the national authorities or technical, health, or scientific organizations or agencies? Did a building official approve the material by virtue of tests or did that BO find a stamp from an approved agency granting an approval?

APPROVED AGENCY. An established and recognized agency regularly engaged in conducting tests or furnishing
inspection services, when such agency has been approved by the building official. “Approved agency” shall mean “Listing agency” and “Testing agency."

You add the underline part above. It is not in the definition.

*APPROVED LISTING AGENCY. Any agency approved by the enforcing agency, unless otherwise provided by statute,
which is in the business of listing and labeling and which makes available at least an annual published report of such listings in which specific information is included that the product has been tested to recognized standards and found to comply.

*APPROVED TESTING AGENCY. Any agency which is determined by the enforcing agency, except as otherwise provided by statute, to have adequate personnel and expertise to carry out the testing of systems, materials, and construction fixtures or appliances.

*These two are not in Chapter 2 of the 2009 IRC.


Sometimes it helps to read all of the pertenent information in the code books.
It's never helps to read too much into what the code says.

Two Engineers or an Engineer and an Architect?

Durant
August 12th, 2012, 21:44
ICE,

You have changed some of the definitions in chapter 2 of the 2009 IRC and add your own definitions:

"APPROVED. Meeting the approval of the enforcing agency, except as otherwise provided by law, when used in connection with any system, material, type of construction, fixture or appliance as the result of investigations and tests conducted by he agency, or by reason of accepted principles or tests by national authorities or technical, health, or scientific organizationsor agencies."

This defintion is not in Chapter 2 of the 2009 IRC.


The code clearly leaves the decision to approve or not, to the building official.
Well then what gets done that isn't one of two things....approved or not....and by whom?....the building official, that's who. So I can look at an end-jointed rafter and say no or yes as I see fit.....within reason. I can say no if it has a crack, excessive wane, a huge knot or some other gross defect. I could say no if it wasn't approved per R802.1. On the flip side, I can say yes only if it complies with R802.1.

So where did the approval to use the material emanate from? Was it the building official or the national authorities or technical, health, or scientific organizations or agencies? Did a building official approve the material by virtue of tests or did that BO find a stamp from an approved agency granting an approval?

APPROVED AGENCY. An established and recognized agency regularly engaged in conducting tests or furnishing
inspection services, when such agency has been approved by the building official. “Approved agency” shall mean “Listing agency” and “Testing agency."

You add the underline part above. It is not in the definition.

*APPROVED LISTING AGENCY. Any agency approved by the enforcing agency, unless otherwise provided by statute,
which is in the business of listing and labeling and which makes available at least an annual published report of such listings in which specific information is included that the product has been tested to recognized standards and found to comply.

*APPROVED TESTING AGENCY. Any agency which is determined by the enforcing agency, except as otherwise provided by statute, to have adequate personnel and expertise to carry out the testing of systems, materials, and construction fixtures or appliances.

*These two are not in Chapter 2 of the 2009 IRC.


Sometimes it helps to read all of the pertenent information in the code books.
It's never helps to read too much into what the code says.

Two Engineers or an Engineer and an Architect?

Thanks fellas

ICE
August 12th, 2012, 21:53
Durant,

I'm thinking that we have different code books. Mine is the California Building Code based on the 2009 IRC.

Sifu
August 13th, 2012, 10:52
FJ lumber is used here all the time. I have seen no problems, then again who would tell me if they had problems? The research I did not too long ago revealed that under testing the FJ lumber performed as good as non FJ lumber and in many cases better. When failures occured most were not in the joints but in the solid sawn portions of the wood, and usually only under stresses that exceeded the test criteria. Of course one can and maybe should be skeptical of the data if it is provided only by the material providers and those with a vested interest. However I assume (I know what that spells) since the codes approve, the testing has been evaluated and determined to be legitimate. Add to that the continued degradation in quality of the solid sawn lumber (see the posts concerning the upcoming 30% reduction in values for some wood species) and I think the FJ should be given a fair shot. Also, I am certainly not a greenie but if given the opportunity to turn a waste product into a productive and profitable material presents itself I am all for it. I think not approving something because you don't like it or know enough about it is a slippery slope. When I find something I don't know about I research it, ask opinions about it and ultimately try to determine if someone smarter and further up the food chain than me approves of it.

Durant
August 13th, 2012, 14:04
Ice,

Yes, California has different criteria for sure.

Thanks

Durant
August 13th, 2012, 14:13
Sifu,

I have seen the FJ studs, but have been out of inspections for a few years. This is the first time I have come across FJ used for rafters. I did check the manufacturer's and downloaded the Western Wood Products Assocaition's Tech sheet of Structural-Glued Finger-Jointed lumber; and now I can be sure they are using the right product by checking the stamp on the lumber (although it's sometimes like looking for a needle in a haystack).

Thanks,

conarb
August 13th, 2012, 19:35
FWIW, several years ago the fire people posted a video of a fireguy going around giving presentations of finger jointed rafters failing in fires.

ICE
August 13th, 2012, 19:51
FWIW, several years ago the fire people posted a video of a fireguy going around giving presentations of finger jointed rafters failing in fires.

Glue could be a problem.

DRP
August 14th, 2012, 00:31
Glue comes from horses :) These are thermosetting rather than thermoplastic adhesives, have undergone their own set of review, yada yada, it's not a horse worth beating. If they really fail disproportionately I think somebody will be the first to point to the slew of articles.

tmurray
August 14th, 2012, 15:38
I'm in a new area to me and seeing a lot of finger joint lumber used for rafters. 2009 IRC does allow it with building official's approval. It does meet the manufacturer's requirements and the stamp is correct but I don't like it, but has been used for some time before I showed up and has been approved in the past here.

Anyone seeing any problems with this crap?

If it meets the manufacturer's requirements and the stamp is correct why don't you like it? is it over spanned? incorrect notching and splicing?

Finger joints are stronger than the lumber beside it.

http://www.woodworks.org/education-events/online-training-library/online-seminars/

Check out the session on glulam and it briefly goes into finger jointing. I thought there was a better one, but I can't seem to find it right off...

Sifu
August 14th, 2012, 19:14
Glue comes from horses :) These are thermosetting rather than thermoplastic adhesives, have undergone their own set of review, yada yada, it's not a horse worth beating. If they really fail disproportionately I think somebody will be the first to point to the slew of articles.

Was I the only one to see the obscure reference to the great race horse from Seattle or was that purely an accident? If not, very clever!

DRP
August 14th, 2012, 22:40
I think the closest is my sister called me obtuse one time. Even I didn't know I could pitch that good :)
Thanks for that link tmurray, that looks good.

tmurray
August 20th, 2012, 11:14
Thanks for that link tmurray, that looks good.

Last year I had someone build a burm house with curved glulam trusses, timber frame support and straw bale curtain walls. This website was a huge help in getting information on wood systems that we don't see everyday.