• 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.

Is This Normal?

When I see an unusual detail like this, if I really am concerned I just highlight it or make a note that draws attention to it. Almost every time I have any feedback I get a revised plan with an RFI or ASI and that is the end of it. If I don't get feedback I like to assume it was installed as designed. OR....nobody ever looked at the plans. Many times I have seen lumber grading requirements that make me wonder why, but my job isn't to ask for redundant information if it is spelled out. I have enough to worry about when the information isn't found anywhere.

On my screen right now is a design for post installed anchorage. The engineer specifically points out that special inspections are not required per the ESR report. I specifically pointed out that both the IBC and ESR report do require special inspections. I use the comment to point out what would likely never be caught in the field. The comment serves to advise of the code requirement, serves to advise the inspector to verify the inspection reports, and as an added benefit serves to cover my six. The note is now forever captured on the contract documents. It is not something I am going to hold up the review for, which could take weeks. Instead everyone gets what they need to succeed. If I am wrong they will show me the err of my ways. If I am right, everyone wins. In the case of the OP, why couldn't they just highlight the note already provided if they are concerned? So short answer...I don't think it is normal.
 
arwat23 said:
Seems I need to schedule a discussion with the engineer lol.
Click to expand...
I have observed that many engineers will spec out items that are either hard to find products for, or very difficult to physically do, just because they never get any feedback from the field. It's not necessarily that they would mind using an easier way or a cheaper way, they just don't know the hardship they are causing in the field because they never get any feedback on the details they spec out. Our industry gets too siloed for our own good.
 
Joe.B said:
They have to be fine with it; it's above the minimum. They can't make a comment like "hey, it's going to be ridiculously hard to find DF#1 and they're probably going to use #2 anyways so why don't you get with the program dude." Probably wouldn't go over well. So instead, they're saying "well okay, if you really want it to be DF#1, go ahead, but I'm going to do whatever I can to make sure people see it and actually build what you're designing..."
Click to expand...
Quote from the engineer. "Almost every lumber yard carries #1 in dimensional lumbar and is industry standard."

I have no idea if it's true. Based on basically every other comment here, I'd say it's probably not. But that's what they told me and why they spec it.
 
You asked if this is normal and clearly it is not. It is not normal to place flags around the plans. It is even more abnormal to specify #1 DFL. The bigger not normal is the #1 lumber, so that justifies the added flags.
The example that I provided regarding the use of Unistrut, while not normal for a warehouse, it is absolutely normal for a food handling facility. There was no reason to highlight that normal thing while using #1 lumber in a residential setting is strange enough to warrant extra attention.
I don't understand the reluctance to humor the plan checker.
 
ICE said:
I don't understand the reluctance to humor the plan checker.
Click to expand...
The reluctance comes from two things:

1. This is the only comment we received. A resubmittal would delay the project by about a month due to how the town operates. If they could review this incredibly minor change quickly, or if we had more than just this comment, I'd have no issue with making this correction.

2. The structural engineer thinks the comment is "incredibly stupid" and is effectively refusing to make the correction. He says that "most lumber yards have #1" and "it's industry standard". He's apparently one of those very prideful fellows. I just learned that he fights the town on almost every comment he gets. I don't really care if he's right or wrong. Seems like he's wrong based on what you and everyone else here has said. Not my scope, not my area of expertise. But I do care if he won't make the correction. Can't really resubmit without the engineer adding that note.
 
arwat23 said:
The reluctance comes from two things:

1. This is the only comment we received. A resubmittal would delay the project by about a month due to how the town operates. If they could review this incredibly minor change quickly, or if we had more than just this comment, I'd have no issue with making this correction.

2. The structural engineer thinks the comment is "incredibly stupid" and is effectively refusing to make the correction. He says that "most lumber yards have #1" and "it's industry standard". He's apparently one of those very prideful fellows. I just learned that he fights the town on almost every comment he gets. I don't really care if he's right or wrong. Seems like he's wrong based on what you and everyone else here has said. Not my scope, not my area of expertise. But I do care if he won't make the correction. Can't really resubmit without the engineer adding that note.
Click to expand...
Shirley you need a new engineer...
 
arwat23 said:
"Almost every lumber yard carries #1 in dimensional lumbar and is industry standard."
Click to expand...
I mean, it exists. Probably the dusty pile in the back of some warehouse, definitely not standard. There's really no reason to spec it though. Anything that needs more strength than #2 is usually designed as an LVL unless it needs to be FRT but then they would go to SS or MSR.

I know engineers like that...
 
Put yourself in the jurisdiction's shoes. A field inspector notices the note on a set of plans and correctly tells the contractor, "This says #1 and you used #2, I know #2 is okay, but your engineer stamped these plans, and I don't have the authority to override the engineer's design. Look, don't freak out, you don't need to tear this out, just get the engineer to stamp a revision or a letter or something and we can all move on."

Contractor is happy because the inspector is a reasonable guy, so he reaches out to the engineer and the guy refuses to make the change. Now the projects been held up and the contractor and owner are breathing down the AHJ's neck. First time it's happened though, so they tell them to proceed and try to get it sorted out before final. Still never resolved and people are ready to move in, so they issue a TCO and say please get this resolved. Never does.

This happens again.

Maybe a third time.

AHJ says we've had enough of this BS. If the engineer is too stubborn and thick-headed to change the way they engineer things (and we can't tell him too) let's make sure it's VERY clear to the contractor and owners BEFORE they build this that they're going to have to find that dusty pile of #1's (or more likely place a special order) so we don't have to go through this nonsense again.


Side rant:

We have a local engineer here who refuses to change the way he does things and tells everybody and their mother that he's god and us building department folks are a bunch of idiots. I've gone toe to toe with him on every project for three years now. I've told him now that anything submitted here with his stamp is going out for third-party review and a real structural engineer (this guy's a civil) will be reviewing it.
 
Joe.B said:
Put yourself in the jurisdiction's shoes. A field inspector notices the note on a set of plans and correctly tells the contractor, "This says #1 and you used #2, I know #2 is okay, but your engineer stamped these plans, and I don't have the authority to override the engineer's design. Look, don't freak out, you don't need to tear this out, just get the engineer to stamp a revision or a letter or something and we can all move on."
Click to expand...
If this happened, I'm willing to bet the engineer would issue a letter saying #2 is fine. Based on what the plan reviewers at the town told me, I think their beef is specifically with AHJs telling them they're wrong.

Joe.B said:
We have a local engineer here who refuses to change the way he does things and tells everybody and their mother that he's god and us building department folks are a bunch of idiots. I've gone toe to toe with him on every project for three years now. I've told him now that anything submitted here with his stamp is going out for third-party review and a real structural engineer (this guy's a civil) will be reviewing it.
Click to expand...
Sounds similar to something I saw a few years ago. Civil engineer promises their client that they know what they're doing, that the alterations they want are simple. First application gets rejected, no review due to lack of basic info. Second submission gets a ton of comments, mostly from IBC Ch 1. Third submission gets more comments, mostly related to structural issues and accessibility. Fourth submission gets mostly the same accessibility comments again. Fifth submission they forgot to sign the drawings... The entire time this is happening, the civil engineer is complaining about the city being "strict" and complaining they didn't know the city had all these extra requirements (the city had no extra requirements, it was all standard building code stuff). Took about 9 months to finally get a permit because the engineer tried to fight every plan check comment. I saw their response letters... It was wild.
 
mtlogcabin said:
Resubmittals should be reviewed within 2 or 3 working days.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not.

Ideally yes. But, at least in my state, we have a statutory 30-day window within which to review a permit application. We're typically struggling to met that deadline so, if (actually "when") someone submits drawings with issues requiring revision and resubmittal, it's not fair to the applicants waiting for their first review to set their application aside while taking a second (or third, or fourth, or fifth -- highest I've gone was sixth) look at an application we rejected. We treat resubmittals as new submittals and slot them into the 30-day window in the order received.
 
arwat23 said:
Quote from the engineer. "Almost every lumber yard carries #1 in dimensional lumbar and is industry standard."

I have no idea if it's true. Based on basically every other comment here, I'd say it's probably not. But that's what they told me and why they spec it.
Click to expand...

Not true around here. The bulk of what they stock used to be Hem-For, now it's SPF. Those that stock Douglas Fir typically stock #2.
 
arwat23 said:
Also, just to clarify, none of the structural engineers I work with put the grade in the location the plan reviewer wants it added. They almost always put it on the framing plans. Unless we're just weird here (these are mostly small firms in CA and NV, so that's always a possibility) or do things in a non-standard way (again, I don't do structural work myself, so idk what industry standard is for those types of plans), I don't see why this is being required other than maybe pride.
Click to expand...

Where else would you put it?

Where does the plan reviewer want it?

As to your engineer, obviously you are in a different part of the country. Around here, to whatever [minor] extent Doug Fir is specified at all, the "standard" is #2 common. #1 is virtually unheard of and EXTREMELY expensive.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
Where else would you put it?

Where does the plan reviewer want it?

As to your engineer, obviously you are in a different part of the country. Around here, to whatever [minor] extent Doug Fir is specified at all, the "standard" is #2 common. #1 is virtually unheard of and EXTREMELY expensive.
Click to expand...
Our engineers usually specify this on both the framing plan and on their cover sheet (specs).

The reviewer wants it ALSO listed on the header schedule.

I just did some googling (grain of salt), and apparently it's readily available at a number of local lumber yards. DF #1 seems to be a bit more common around here, although there's still obviously a lot more of #2. Gemini and ChatGPT says it's due to being so close to Oregon and Washington and being in a generally more expensive part of California. No idea how much truth there is to that, but that's what I'm reading.

DF is the default here usually, at least in my experience.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top