• 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

Let's play whatever the inspector will accept...

steveray

steveray

SAWHORSE
Joined
Nov 25, 2009
Messages
11,751
Location
West of the river CT
Any of the professionals out there have a problem with this..........

20130118_133554_zps658b97d2.jpg


I went out for the inspection, contractor used deck screws to repair a roof truss instead of the engineer specified 10d nails, I failed it and this is what I am supposed to accept from a licensed DP.....Who I attempted to keep nameless....
 
Request a letter from the DP specifying the type & size of screws to be used, in

lieu of the 10D nails. Now, have the contactor pull out all screws and have them

install the approved type, while you are there on the site! Place all letters

& comments in to the file!



.
 
What I see is a sealed letter that states that the design professional has reviewed the situation and that screws meet the requirements for the repair - just as 10d nails would. The adequacy of screws in lieu of nails isn't surprising. I'm not getting what exactly is ****ing in your cornflakes.
 
brudgers said:
What I see is a sealed letter that states that the design professional has reviewed the situation and that screws meet the requirements for the repair - just as 10d nails would. The adequacy of screws in lieu of nails isn't surprising. I'm not getting what exactly is ****ing in your cornflakes.
Click to expand...
It's the "reportedly" installed screws...he never saw them, he does not know they are 10 gauge or what quality steel they might be.....can you give me a manufacturer or something to go on......he reviewed what someone told him and said it is adequate.....I might as well just accept letters that say "everything is rainbows and sunshine".....
 
steveray said:
It's the "reportedly" installed screws...he never saw them, he does not know they are 10 gauge or what quality steel they might be.....can you give me a manufacturer or something to go on......he reviewed what someone told him and said it is adequate.....I might as well just accept letters that say "everything is rainbows and sunshine".....
Click to expand...
If they had installed nails, that would have been "reportedly" too. If he had walked the jobsite and asked the contractor, "What did you use?" that would have been "reportedly. If you make the contractor remove a screw, and then call the design professional on your cell phone and tell him what it is, that would also be "reportedly." IMO, you're throwing a hissy.
 
I interpret this letter to say that for the March 12 report, they evaluated the type, quantity and spacing of nails required for the project. Based upon further analysis, they conclude that 3-inch long 10 gauge framing screws may be used in lieu of 10d nails.

They could have spent extra time and engineered 2 solutions originally, and include a note in the March 12 report: "3-inch long 10 gauge framing screws may be substituted for 10d nails."

If you are concerned that the screws used are not consistent with those specified by the engineer, you may save yourself a bunch of time if you call them and ask if the screws you observed are consistent with the screws specified in their report.
 
Steve as a RDP and as a CBO I would only accept a repair by the truss fabrcator documented and stamped by the same engineer that original was certified by.

As a RDP I would never offer this to an official

and as an official I would never accept it?
 
I disagree. While the preference is to have the truss manufacturer provide the repair/modification there are a number of situations where this would not be feasible. For example what do you do when the engineer is dead or no longer works for the truss manufacturer, or what do you do when the truss is modified years later. Does this mean modifications cannot be made?

Provide a legal reason why you as a building official could refuse to accept the report just because the engineer was not the original one.

The reality is that the engineer designing the fix accepts responsibility for the truss if any problem could be related to the fix. In some ways the question about financial liability is more of a concern for the Owner than for the Building Official.

If this is an ongoing construction project I am assuming that the design professional of record for the project has reviewed the proposed fix and this is being submitted as a formal revision to the permit documents.

The building officials concerns are whether the truss with the fix complies with the code and whether the individual is properly licensed.
 
I would accept it because the RDP is accepting liability for this situation. Whether or not they have the documentation to back it up is another story but they did stamp it and say it is OK. I would not be wasting anyone else's time on this and move on but make sure that the building owner was aware of the situation. I find that when the owners are aware of situation, the contractors are not so cocky.
 
Many individuals seem to believe that just because a professional engineer had stamped and signed something that it is ok and does not need to be reviewed. Where is this stated in the laws or regulations?

Irregardless of the stamp and signature the building official has an obligation under the IBC to review the submission. I appreciate the fact that some building departments do not have an engineer on staff but many departments handle this by contracting with outside engineers to provide these services.

I appreciate that there are financial and other realities which means that the building official must prioritize and is unable to check every detail. Still the decision on how detailed of a review is appropriate should not be based solely on the fact that an engineer stamped and sealed the document.
 
Architect1281 said:
Steve as a RDP and as a CBO I would only accept a repair by the truss fabrcator documented and stamped by the same engineer that original was certified by. As a RDP I would never offer this to an official and as an official I would never accept it?
Click to expand...
Are you saying that if you were designing a renovation, and a truss had to be modified, you wouldn't let your structural consultant design the modification unless they had designed the original truss? Or are you saying that you don't design renovations which involve structural modifications?
 
Mark K said:
Many individuals seem to believe that just because a professional engineer had stamped and signed something that it is ok and does not need to be reviewed.
Click to expand...
That's certainly not what I believe. What I believe is that the letter adequately addresses the *stated* reason the OP failed the modification.

And that it does so in a professional way.
 
The IRC says that the building official will:

"R104.2 Applications and permits.

The building official shall receive applications, review construction documents and issue permits for the erection and alteration of buildings and structures, inspect the premises for which such permits have been issued and enforce compliance with the provisions of this code."

I do not see where it says the obligation to review construction documents does not apply when a design professional signs the documents.
 
He states in his letter that "Based on thier calculations..." so ask for the calcs. And be done.
 
steveray said:
Any of the professionals out there have a problem with this..........
20130118_133554_zps658b97d2.jpg


I went out for the inspection, contractor used deck screws to repair a roof truss instead of the engineer specified 10d nails, I failed it and this is what I am supposed to accept from a licensed DP.....Who I attempted to keep nameless....
Click to expand...
The licensed DP that produced this letter is assumed to be the engineer that provided the original repair design. So if you bought the design for the repair, where's the beef with this change of course by that same engineer..

As a side note, for a truss repair, I ask for a Structural Engineer. The other thing to consider is that if you aren't comfortable with the design, double everything..... Ya I know, I'm a bad boy huh.

Aw crap, I just noticed this: "Any of the professionals out there". Well I'm gonna chime in anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kilitact said:
Ask for the calculations and review them. If code compliant then approve.
Click to expand...
That would stall the project while Stevray attends engineering school.
 
rktect 1 said:
He states in his letter that "Based on thier calculations..." so ask for the calcs. And be done.
Click to expand...
Plenty of times I've gotten calcs that were gibberish....of course I didn't know that by looking at them.
 
jar546 said:
I would accept it because the RDP is accepting liability for this situation. Whether or not they have the documentation to back it up is another story but they did stamp it and say it is OK. I would not be wasting anyone else's time on this and move on but make sure that the building owner was aware of the situation. I find that when the owners are aware of situation, the contractors are not so cocky.
Click to expand...
I hadn't thought about turning stuff over to the building owner....now that I've thought about it, I have concluded that it's a damned, dumb idea. Oh and stamps without calcs....you're kidding us right?
 
ICE said:
I'm a professional driver, not a professional engineer.
Click to expand...
Does your state required that you be a professional engineer in order to review calculations for code compliance. Seems strange that a plans examiner wouldn't review calculations as part of the plans review.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top