• 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

Use of ungraded rough sawn lumber

It's probably not that difficult to grade lumber. I've done it when the lumber didn't make the grade. I have seen some pretty nasty wood called #2 or better. Things like 3' of wane on the bottom of a ceiling joist.
 
Mark K said:
In general you cannot compensate for ungraded lumber by using a larger size. Slope of the grain, checks, nots and other characteristics play a role.

If a specific grade is called for and ungraded lumber is used or is proposed to be used require a report from a lumber grading agency. I believe that is what the code says. Why can the building official not enforce the code?

Without an understanding of the grade of the lumber I do not see how an engineer can state that the member has greater strength than required.
Click to expand...
It's not an issue of enforcing the code, it's being enforced, no ungraded lumber is being used for any project that falls under the under the code. I agree that upsizing alone would not suffice if there are excessive knots, splits, checks or cross grain that would weaken the member. We have one lumber yard in 1,200 square miles. They more or less have a monopoly, the only alternative is to have materials trucked in from hours away. All of the residences are custom one off homes with a large percentage of solid log (ICC-400) and Timber Frame homes that are for the most part engineered designs. Most of the lumber coming out of these small mills is very clear with few knots, no wanes, a lot is used for furniture, siding, floor covering and finish trim, custom doors, cabinets, etc. The nearest metro area is five hours drive time away and we are surrounded by National Forests that allow limited logging. It's an unusual environment to say the least and with a 70 psf snow load I wouldn't want to take any chances when it comes to structure.
ICE said:
It's probably not that difficult to grade lumber. I've done it when the lumber didn't make the grade. I have seen some pretty nasty wood called #2 or better. Things like 3' of wane on the bottom of a ceiling joist.
Click to expand...
I agree!
 
Grading lumber, It sound easy, that lumber goes by pretty fast when its being milled and graded.

A good lumber grader can make a lumber mill a lot of money and a bad lumber grader eventually learns which end of a broom is best for pushing sawdust.
 
The IRC may not be explicitly clear but when you look at the wood design standards in the IBC it becomes clear that the wood should be graded by a lumber grader. When you cannot comply with the IRC provisions you have permission, and I suggest it is good practice, to go to the IBC to see how to deal with the situation. Thus I contend it is a matter of enforcing the code.

The reality is that in much of the US lumber is trucked in from more than hours away. The building official's job is not to support local businesses.

One of the problems with locally milled lumber is that it will be green and will inevitably have shrinkage problems as it dries in place but this is not generally a major code issue.. What does the IRC say about moisture content of lumber?
 
Mark K said:
What does the IRC say about moisture content of lumber?
Click to expand...
Maybe of help;

Sawn Lumber: See the 2015 American Wood Council NDS (National Design Specification)
NDS 4.1.7 Resawn lumber or re-manufactured lumber, shall be re-graded

4.1.4 Maximum 19% moisture content


2012 IBC section 2301 through 2301.1.1.1
Sawn lumber 2303.1

2303.1.8.2 Moisture content - treated lumber 19%
2303.2.8 Moisture content - fire treated lumber 15%
2303.1.10 structural log members - grading of log members by approved agency
 
2012 IBC, 2301.2, exception, see the WFCM (Wood Frame Construction Manual)

2301.2 (4) Log structures shall be in accordance with the provisions of ICC 400 Reference standards....2301.2
 
4x6's are usually used for posts.But I seen some used as headers instead of 2- 2x6's usually for a porch or deck roof. Even if they are stamped how do you know that it can be used as a header rather than a post even as one 2x6? Would the grain be different if used horizontally or vertical?
 
Rick18071 said:
4x6's are usually used for posts.But I seen some used as headers instead of 2- 2x6's usually for a porch or deck roof. Even if they are stamped how do you know that it can be used as a header rather than a post even as one 2x6? Would the grain be different if used horizontally or vertical?
Click to expand...
If it is stamped Stud Grade it should not be used for a header or beam. I believe it isn't the grain so much as the knots that would separate a 4x4 post from a 4x4 header beam.
 
4x6's can and are used as posts and headers and Lumber is not grades as per headers or posts.

The grading of a piece of wood assigns specific allowable stresses and material properties that are to be used in evaluating the appropriateness of that piece of wood for a particular situation. In some cases the IBC and the IRC specify a particular size member for use in specific situations. When this is done somebody with engineering training has estimated the loads that the member will have to resist and has determined that the member size is appropriate for those limited conditions.

If your situation does not satisfy the proscriptive code provisions then an engineer should be involved. An engineer would be able to determine whether stud grade material could be used as a header in a specific situation..

Based on the allowable moisture contents reported above the locally sawn green lumber would most likely not be compliant based on failure to meet moisture content limits.

Suggest that many of the issues raised in this thread and others would go away if the building official was a registered engineer or had one he could consult with. Part of the problem is that in many jurisdictions an individual with no engineering education is expected to interpret and enforce provisions that require an understanding of technical codes. This is not a reasonable expectation. The building official then is put in a situation where he is expected to make a determination. It is then not surprising if the determination does not make sense from an engineers perspective. We expect too much from building officials.

You cannot blame the building official or inspector for the lack of training but you can blame the system that does not provide a mechanism for the building official to consult with somebody with appropriate expertise. Where the department has an engineer on staff the inspector should defer the question to this engineer.

If it is not possible for the jurisdiction to provide the building official with the necessary resources then suggest consider creating a larger department by giving the county building department jurisdiction.
 
Mark K said:
4x6's can and are used as posts and headers and Lumber is not grades as per headers or posts.

The grading of a piece of wood assigns specific allowable stresses and material properties that are to be used in evaluating the appropriateness of that piece of wood for a particular situation. In some cases the IBC and the IRC specify a particular size member for use in specific situations. When this is done somebody with engineering training has estimated the loads that the member will have to resist and has determined that the member size is appropriate for those limited conditions.

If your situation does not satisfy the proscriptive code provisions then an engineer should be involved. An engineer would be able to determine whether stud grade material could be used as a header in a specific situation..

Based on the allowable moisture contents reported above the locally sawn green lumber would most likely not be compliant based on failure to meet moisture content limits.

Suggest that many of the issues raised in this thread and others would go away if the building official was a registered engineer or had one he could consult with. Part of the problem is that in many jurisdictions an individual with no engineering education is expected to interpret and enforce provisions that require an understanding of technical codes. This is not a reasonable expectation. The building official then is put in a situation where he is expected to make a determination. It is then not surprising if the determination does not make sense from an engineers perspective. We expect too much from building officials.

You cannot blame the building official or inspector for the lack of training but you can blame the system that does not provide a mechanism for the building official to consult with somebody with appropriate expertise. Where the department has an engineer on staff the inspector should defer the question to this engineer.

If it is not possible for the jurisdiction to provide the building official with the necessary resources then suggest consider creating a larger department by giving the county building department jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
I am not an engineer but I was an architect before becoming a code official. Sure, I could design and spec materials but I feel that would be a conflict of interest so I do not design anything or act in any capacity as a designer. Stamped lumber makes it easy to determine if a framing member is used in the correct application. The code also specifies proper moisture content and that is easy to confirm in the field with a digital moisture content tester. Most of the jurisdictions I have worked for have an engineer on staff or contract in one department or another, if not the building department there is usually one in public works. That is not the case in my current jurisdiction, it is too small and not in the budget. Posts and stud grade lumber is approved for vertical loads along it's length. Headers and joists are approved for horizontal loads and are a higher grade of lumber than post or stud grade. There is more to specifying the right framing member than just it's nominal dimensions. Engineered wood products take the guesswork out of determining if a particular framing member is appropriate for the loads imposed on it. Ungraded lumber throws a "wild card" in the mix and is hard to quantify but let's say someone wanted to build a single story home with 12" x 12" sawn logs, that had been air dried for a year. I would feel confident that there would not be a structural failure, but an attorney could say that I did not follow the code in approving such a house, and he would be correct. As far as moisture content even stamped and graded solid logs meeting ICC-400 criteria will shrink over time and most log homes today have threaded tension rods running through the walls that can, and need to be re-torqued at the top plate after a year or two once the home is finished, and these are dry logs, usually about 12% to 14% moisture.
By the way, I forget who mentioned the movie "Still Mine" but I watched it last night, thanks, it's on YouTube.
 
ADAguy said:
You did keep your license active, didn't you?
Click to expand...
No, I did not keep my license active. It was in California and I let it expire when I moved out of CA. California AIA does not recognize other states for reciprocal licensing so other states do not recognize CA licenses. Not only would I have had to retest in another state the insurance alone was prohibitive. My other option would have been to go through NCARB, and again, the insurance was way too high to justify when I was not working in that field any longer. I let my NGBS (Green Building) certification expire for the same reasons. The insurance for NGBS is double the cost of insurance as an ICC Inspector and the demand is not very high for NGBS certified verifiers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top