• 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

Micro Lam Specifications

OK, I understand the point of engineering each LVL. I even agree with it. BUT, how do I institute that in a state that doesn't seem to be too worried about it. As I mentioned, most are not even requesting beam calcs, plans for review etc. One adjacent inspector told me he can "pretty much tell" if an LVL is the right size so they don't require calc's. I have met with considerable resistance just requiring things like calc's, I-joist layouts, truss shop drawings etc. Requiring them to be sealed every time would definately not keep me employed. Most are not verifying the installation of engineered floor systems or roofs against the drawings, they are simply "relying on the builder to do it right". Most do not do an open floor frame inspection, and most assuredly don't crawl around at framing to check the floor frame. Does this fall back on the responsibility of the builder to comply with codes argument? That is what they are saying. The engineers around here must love me, I imagine their business has increased greatly. They are the only ones, if I tried to require this other stuff they would be millionaires.
 
DRP said:
If the LVL was specified using a manufacturer's software then it will specify which of their products the calculations apply to. Specify that product on the plan, use that product in the field. If the inspector desires a sealed set of calcs notify the supplier and you'll have a set back from the manufacturer in a few days.You can substitute with a product that has the same or higher allowable stresses.

I use that type software to check humans all the time. It is well understood that engineers are human and on repetitive boring tasks humans tend to lose focus. Those programs are less buggy than several engineers I've met. They get updated to current code, that is flat out rare in human engineers. That door swings both ways :)

Decide just how many enforcement hats you want to wear, "according to accepted engineering practices" holds the house up, a seal is a chain of responsibility. I don't typically call an engineer for a built up sawn girder, the builder is responsible. My old code book has design values for many species and grades and simply asks that the user size members according to accepted engineering practice. The intent is to get a properly sized member. The question becomes not how to do it properly, that computer can size a beam as well as any human if the input is correct, we need to decide how many incidental side actors a person needs to hire to achieve the goal.

The math being protected here is 7th grade stuff. I'm sure we can legislate that calculating change can only be done in the presence of a CPA, cash registers are notoriously flippant and subject to input error.
Click to expand...
Thats the way I think of it and the way I do it.
 
Asking for LVL specs is no different than asking for truss drawings. Our plan reviewer rarely asks for LVL engineering, but I ask for them when I do a framing inspection. I am very familiar with LVL design, so I only ask for engineering when something is irregular or has a large span.
 
Sifu

It is the responsbility of the Owner to comply with the code but he often delegates this to the contractor. But irregardless the building official still has an obligation to check for code compliance that cannot be delegated to the Owner, an engineer, or the contractor.

It is obvious from this and similar discussions that in many jurisdictions the building code is not being effectively enforced. In many instances this is the result of lack of support from the jurisdiction but the lack of training of the building official and inspectors plays a role. When the only experience of the building official was as a carpenter he will inevitably not understand the need to require sealed documents.
 
So where do you draw the line between what you verify or check for code compliance and what you don't? An inspector is only able to see a small part of what takes place on the job, therefore the contractor/owner absolutely has been delegated the responsibility to comply in the absence of the inspection. An inspector's failure to identify a defficiency does not give approval to that defficiency. I for one believe that the LVL's this thread was started about need review but I question if they always need to be sealed by a PE. Some others may believe they all need sealed all the time. Some others (at least here) don't review anything about them. My belief may indeed be based on lack of training as you mentioned. It may also be influenced by my experience. I have installed or inspected an untold number of them but only ever been asked for a seal on a few. To be fair, most of the plans I built I had fully engineered and the LVL's were specified by the PE. When that occured I was never asked for a separate beam calc (with or without a seal). If I built anything that was not engineered inspectors only asked for the calc's (no seal), don't recall many times when that wasn't good enough. After becoming an inspector I found the exact same practices held in a different jurisdiction than those I had built in. Where I am now there is no question if support existed I would be much more prone to the idea, however I would have to seek more guidance on this issue before I made that call. None of the suppliers have a PE on staff, (that was the first thing I researched when I started this jurisdiction) so that would mean an additional step, additional cost, additional time. Those are things I wouldn't want to do without being sure it is necessary and right now I'm not 100% sure.
 
Sifu,

as far as lumber yards and PE's most do not have one, but their supplier up the food chain usually does. If not then the mill certainly does. I usually get the lumber yard to provide the engineer's stamp and provide it to the building department and myself. Saves my client money, and the BD get's what it's looking for.
 
I have done that in the past as well. That may work here but my initial suggestions of such action were pretty much met with the 1000 yard stare. It is a little different here, the PE's I have dealt with require a site visit to verify their design. I don't know if they don't trust an inspector to do it or what. The MFR PE obviously wouldn't do that but things are so backwards it may not work. For example, here is the typical order of things.

Builder or framer orders lumber, including what he thinks he needs for LVL's (all based on what he has done for the last 10 years)

Framer builds it, putting what he thinks needs to be put wherever he wants

Inspector fails it, requires specs on LVL's

Builder calls salesman who records what is installed where and reports back to designer

Designer tries to make what builder has done work, often can't and must order remedies

Inspector receives specs, verifies against install and passes inspection

Notice that in that timeline the word plans or prints don't appear. That would be something a designer or MFR PE would need for the system you mention to work, and no I am not allowed to require plans or plan review. Went through this very process today only I added an actual conversation with the designer to figure stuff out.
 
not allowed to require plans or plan review?????? sounds like my area when I first moved here. I worked in a engineering office and we'd get "house plans" on the back of a napkin, it would have a rectangle drawn and marked 24' x 36' cape. And if the building inspector (only in certain towns back then) knew the builder he'd get a permit with that napkin. Now all building departments (since we adopted hurricane wind & ICC codes) require full detailed drawings and sometimes PE stamps on residential construction.
 
Sifu,

You're doing plan review at the framing inspection. As a builder that has made me better at plan review. I check what the designer has specified and satisfy myself. I argued with designer and homeowner a couple of houses ago until the designer hired an engineer, who specified the same ridge beam I had said it needed. I didn't point that out during inspection but did have the paperwork, it was a thinking problem that we rectified and the fix was just a major upsize.

I've needed to make changes to fairly complex situations, I'll have a conversation with the inspector in advance and see what he is comfortable with. I've generally already prepped the homeowner for an engineers bill at that point. In a situation where I am given broad latitude I do calculate or use tables to specify simple beams, no differently than using the tables, or the math behind them, in the codebook. Knowing full well I might be asked to bring in someone to show proof on any of it, I keep it conservative. I was asked to provided sealed calcs last year, which I did. I also laid mine on the desk, which were more conservative. Didn't mean anything other than showing I wouldn't buffalo him.

I hadn't tried to open my iLevel forte software recently, just tried, it has shut down and is asking me to update to the current version. Their spreadsheet, design values, etc. get reviewed and updated at least annually.
 
LVLs and I joists vary in Fb and E by model and manufacturer. There has been some standardization but each manufacturer is trying to develop stronger products for a sniggle of competative edge.

Either manufacturer's specifications or a generic description including I Fb and E ratings is needed.

Usually the design is based on a particular LVL using that manufacturer's free software or charts.
 
If the applicant did not provide the requested information, you could always assume worst case scenario of all the LVL type products out there. If it failed on that basis, maybe you will get their attention and th einformation you need to make an informed decision. If it still passed you should have a comfort level that even under the worst case scenario it would be safe.
 
So you've been where I am...... at least you got a napkin.
 
DRP said:
Sifu, You're doing plan review at the framing inspection.
Click to expand...
Yes I am. The problem with that is what has already been done that shouldn't have been done. Run into that all the time. If I get any sort of plan I review it as both a courtesy to the applicant and to try and eliminate confrontation later. The only way I have to do this is to write a list of possible problems, questions or areas that will not meet code and give it to the applicant at the footing inspection since the permit is issued the day they pay the fee and I may not get the "plan" until much later. BTW I don't think many of the jurisdictions actually have a residential plan review around here.

I use forte too but havn't in a couple of weeks. I did get an email telling me of the upgrade, guess I should look at it.
 
In our town we ask for Microlam calc. sheets because they have the installation information required to do our inspections i.e. bearing lengths, total design loads, fastening schedules for multiple beams etc.
 
Sifu, how do you get past the 2009 IRC requiement of R106.1 Submittal documents. Submittal documents consisting

of construction documents, and other data shall be submitted in two or more sets with each application for a permit. The

construction documents shall be prepared by a registered design professional where required by the statutes of the jurisdiction

in which the project is to be constructed. Where special conditions exist, the building official is authorized to require

additional construction documents to be prepared by a registered design professional. and more...

In Mass, we exempt 1& 2 family homes from RDP except in the cases of engineered items such as LVL, trusses or out there buildings, regardless I always get plans and do a review before issue the permit, much easy to change the paper than to fix it in the field.
 
We are in the 06. It has an exception that allows the official to waive the doc submittal if compliance with the code can be demonstrated without documents. And its not me thats getting past the requirement. If it were up to me I would require submittal per 106.1. Alas, since time immemorial they have built without plans here, their attitude......"plans, we don't need no stinkin' plans" permiates the building community AND the governing authorities. I got a "plan" and permit issued today for a footing that was dug yesterday. The excavator called me twice yesterday to try and get me to come inspect the footing. I told him that no permit had been issued, how can I inspect a footing that doesn't exist? The plan was a copy of a copy of a cut sheet downloaded from the web. But if I'm not allowed to require plans they will just have to find out the hard way. BTW the house will probably be 750k or more....OFF A CUT SHEET!
 
It's uncommon to get the specs for engineered framing products at the time of permit application. I make it clear that the info must be onsite when a framing inspection is called for, and if its not the job stops until the framing passes inspection.
 
Mac said:
It's uncommon to get the specs for engineered framing products at the time of permit application. I make it clear that the info must be onsite when a framing inspection is called for, and if its not the job stops until the framing passes inspection.
Click to expand...
Thats the way we did it in my last jurisdiction and thats the way I'm fighting to do it in this new one.
 
If there are products that will not be fully defined until after bidding they should be listed as deferred approvals on the approved construction documents. Some jurisdictions put limits on what kind of dererred submittal will be accepted.

The IBC is set up to support doing things a certain way. I generally works best when the preferred way is followed.
 
Sifu,

when i took over 9 yeas ago permits were issued by the pile of paper, no appricable pland review, just check the square foottage for the fee and off they went.

I stood my ground stoped accepting napkins and tore out spiral paper the first day, showed the code vers and said if you would like a permit i will do a a plan review, I have 30 day to revie or deny in writing.

The clearer you make the plans and the more complete the submittal the faster I can turn the permit loose to you.I would do a good plan review and fix it on paper rather than cut it out in the field.

for trusses and microlam, give me then manufactures caculations, the lumber yards herehave the computer programs, lable the beam locations and i will accept, no engineering requiered unless it get rely complex.

there was kicking and screaming, some stop work orders issued for work without permit, I stod my ground and now most have no problem with the system.

If if find problems I offer solutions both in plans and on the site. If it is bad they get to call an RDP, design a fix and we move on.

good luck
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top