• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Engineer's minimum lumber grade callout

4

4thorns

Bronze Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
65
Hello everyone.

I have a few of questions regarding your inspection of residential, structural wood framing based on call outs on an engineered, stamped set of plans.

If it says on the plan (eg.) "All framing lumber to be SPF #2 or Better" or "All floor framing lumber to be SPF #2" (notice the lack of "Or Better" for floor frame) does this restrict me to using only that?
I feel that "Or Better" means anything above and beyond what's called out. To me, if the engineer calls out an SPF #2 2x12, but experience tells me that I can use a Southern Pine 2x10 then I should be able to use it.

Going beyond that, do I have to go back to the engineer to prove to you that the 2x10 works? Suppose I ask you if the 2x10 meets code. If the member species, spacing and load criteria are in the IRC can you make the decision as to whether it meets code or not?

I hope this doesn't sound like I'm bashing anyone.I'm just curious how you would normally handle this simple change of materials to something other than what was called out on the stamped plans.

Thank you.

Doug
 
Thanks for the reply ICE but would you be willing to share your reasoning for this decision?
 
An engineer put his or her name on it and that deserves some respect. Beyond that I am not a fan of value engineering. I am almost always willing to add to a design but I seldom take anything away. There have been hundreds of cases where I tossed in a little something. You know...you look at the work and say, "This is good but adding ???? would be better". More than one engineer has been upset about that but it's what I do.

 
Last edited:
Here's an example of my thinking.

IRC 2006-table R502.3.1(2) Live load 40psf-Dead load 20psf

Stamped Engineered plans specify:
2x12 floor joists-SPF #2 @16" o.c.- IRC says Max. span is 16'-3".

For whatever reason (maybe this all that is available locally) I want to use:
2x10 floor joists-Southern Pine #1 @16" o.c.- IRC says Max. span is 16'-4"

I agree 100% that the engineer deserves respect. I've spent several years learning what they do (self teaching) and it's not an easy task.
But...(you knew the "but" was sure to follow:)) if I come to you and say that the code book tells me that the smaller member with higher design values
will suffice, would you let me use it? I guess what I'm asking is, if the IRC code book is your "Bible" as a code official then can you override a stamped
document from an engineer?

I too (as a designer) may try to lead a perspective home owner or engineer in a different direction based past experiences. Some of them, as you said, will get upset, but those with an open mind will at least think about what we say and maybe have a change of heart.

Thanks for your time ICE.

Doug
 
In this case I certainly agree with ICE. There may be other reasons that the engineers specified the use of a 2x12 other than just the allowable maximum span. Deflection and several other factors also come into effect. I really don't believe that under any circumstance a contractor should downsize the material used without the engineers consent. Think of the quality of the material itself is one thing if you are going to a better grade of material but changing the sizing is a completely different matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JBI
I'm in agreement with Ice & Msradell, lumber upgrade good, size downgrade bad no good. Beit an owner or contractor or whomever wanting this change, I would ask to be provided with a document from the engineer, not necessarily a full blown plan revision but at minimum a brief letter.
 
I can't override a stamped engineered plan. I can reject it in its entirety. Now and then there is a fatal flaw or hardware that did not function as envisioned and I have to send the engineer back to the drawing board. It is rare but it has happened. Contractors get pretty wound up over it because their engineer and my engineer approved whatever it was. The usual resolution is a phone call to their engineer and he asks me what I want to see on the plans. A few have thanked me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JBI
You could try using something labeled 'or better', but changing the species and the size would be a change that would require design professional approval. Once the plans have been accepted for construction, only the design professional can authorize the change.
Even if you convince a Code Official to ignore his duty under local (and often state) law, any issues with the as constructed building will not be a liability for the design professional, but would be a HUGE liability for the contractor AND the Code Official.
The proper way to handle it would be to have the design professional submit the change for approval if you feel that strongly about it.
 
If I can verify it in the IRC, I could approve it....Do the plans "need" to be done by an engineer? Maybe he upsized to allow the plumber to drill a bigger hole?
 
steveray said:
If I can verify it in the IRC, I could approve it....Do the plans "need" to be done by an engineer? Maybe he upsized to allow the plumber to drill a bigger hole?
Click to expand...
So, you would disregard the engineered drawings, without knowing why, he/she upsized it?
 
steveray said:
If I can verify it in the IRC, I could approve it....Do the plans "need" to be done by an engineer? Maybe he upsized to allow the plumber to drill a bigger hole?
Click to expand...

Bingo. The real questions is why are the plans stamped. if everything meets the prescriptive code, then change at will, but if the floors joist are supporting an element that can not be accounted for under the prescriptive code, you can't change it at all. I'm going to go against the grain here, you cant even use larger members than stated. The engineer may have calculated the dead load of the structure and specified load bearing construction that only meets what he/she designed (value engineered). When I see a sealed set of plans, that is exactly what you are building. any change must be accompanied by written approval from the individual that sealed the plans.
 
This is a pet peeve of mine and the story goes like this:
Once upon a time a commercial project was going on and I was called out to do an inspection. Right out of the box (pun intended) I saw redheads (anchors, not girls) boxes all over the place being used and I just reviewed the plans before climbing to the top.

The plans called out Hilti anchors. I asked the GC why their not following the plans and I got a strange look and a Q, "What you mean?" these anchors are not to specs or design and your also using the wrong length. A. That's what the lumberyard had in stock? Come on guys! Have your engineer inspect and send me a letter allowing this size and brand as an alternate anchor or replace them!

Got a letter the next day allowing alternate anchors with a stamp and signature.

If there's plans done buy an engineer then "Engineers Rule Dude!" It's there tail (butt) on the line not mine!

pc1
 
I'm not an engineer so if stamped, letter or submit draws for change from the engineer. It is as said earlier in the thread more for liability and C Y A!
 
Engineered plans means only the engineer makes changes. Those changes must come back to plan review before going to the field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JBI
I will entertain suggestions and questions but Contractors who claim they know better and believe they can make changes without getting them approved scare me. These contractors are cowboys and should be run off of any construction project.

When we see damage from tornados I will suggest that much of the damage is the result of contractors doing it their way. It has been suggested that this same attitude contributed to some of the failures of newer buildings as a result of the recent Italian earthquake. When individuals die because of this attitude does this not make the contractor a murderer?
 
Mark K said:
I will entertain suggestions and questions but Contractors who claim they know better and believe they can make changes without getting them approved scare me. These contractors are cowboys and should be run off of any construction project.

When we see damage from tornados I will suggest that much of the damage is the result of contractors doing it their way. It has been suggested that this same attitude contributed to some of the failures of newer buildings as a result of the recent Italian earthquake. When individuals die because of this attitude does this not make the contractor a murderer?
Click to expand...

Wow Mark, I am not seeing that at all, I can only presume it is the difference between Southern California and The Bay Area. I actually get several Structural Observations from the structural Engineers to protect myself, the owner, and even the AHJ, when I present the observations to the field inspectors I tell them it's for their protection, it greases the way through inspections. With all the required Special Inspections we are required to get I don't see how any contractor could get by with much if anything. I have more a problem with the plan checkers trying to override the engineers, I told the story a few years ago of a SE degreed plan checker demanding more ridged column connections, the AHJ didn't even have the computerized program the building was designed with, even providing nodal points so she could use a generic program didn't work, I finally brought my SE in with the program in his laptop to demonstrate compliance, she then wanted calculations for seismic compliance from 4 directions instead of 2, then superimposed wind loading in all 4 directions. She was demanding engineering for a 1,000 year event, one night about 6:00 when I was arguing with her at the counter I guess I raised my voice (we hard-of-hearing people all tend to do that) and the CBO came out and stood behind her, I said: "If a Japan style earthquake occurs right under this house it could cause the connections to crack rather then flex, the owner will sue me, I will cross complain against the engineer, and he will cross complain against you for forcing him to change his design", the CBO kept telling her that I was right, when I returned a few days later with the agreed upon changes she just stamped everything telling me she was told not to demand any changes.

As to your comments about the Italian earthquake I didn't even see an pictures of newer buildings, it would be interesting to see any examples.
 
Mark K said:
When we see damage from tornados I will suggest that much of the damage is the result of contractors doing it their way.
Click to expand...

Tornadoes don't leave much in the way of evidence. Oh and mobile homes are built in a factory.
 
Plan checkers who ask for more than what is in the building code are a separate problem. These plan checkers typically are not acting out of ignorance but rather are trying to impose what they think should be required. As such they should be considered to being involved in the moral equivalent of extortion in that they increase the cost to the Owner and cause the engineer to spend additional time he or she is not compensated for.
 
I always have a problem with "or equal" or "or better". How is that really determined? And by whom? Better to say, "Minimum Vertical pull out of Xlbs in concrete and Minimum Horizontal shear resistance of X lbs. Product example is Redhead Part X123."
Or something along those lines. Basically, they write a performance specification so as to not be "sole sourcing" a product.
 
When dealing with lumber "or better" is clear. For example in the case given No. 1 or Select Structural would be acceptable.

In general "or equal" is not clear unless specific criteria is given to determine what is equal. In the case of concrete anchors because the values are based on testing it gets real complex and may require information regarding the type of loading that the designer has not shared. In these situations it is better to send the proposal to the engineer.

In the case of mechanical anchors, unless it is not possible to obtain what was specified, I suggest providing what was specified. The cost of the engineering time to evaluate an alternate can very easily be more than any saving in purchase price.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ICE
It was always my practice to give the field inspector ICBO Reports on all bolts and anchors whether what was being used was specified or I was using an alternative. "Or equal" is always required or manufacturers' reps will bribe architects and engineers to specify their products. If "or equal" is not specified and a brand name is required the architect or engineer better have good reason not to allow an alternative.
 
What contractors have a hard time understanding is that it costs the engineer time and as a result money to evaluate the alternates. In the case of mechanical concrete anchors this is not as simple as comparing numbers in the catalogs. The engineer could increase his fee to evaluate alternates or the contractor should be asked to reimburse the Owner for the engineers time, but the engineer should not be expected to do this for free. At a certain point it is cheaper overall for the project if one product is specified and the contractor provides what was specified.

There are also some Owners who have this quaint idea that if the substitution will save the contractor money that the savings should be shared with the Owner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top