• 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.

Point load on basement slab

The standards for LVL and I-joists provide the user with the allowable values to be used in the calculations. The manufactures span charts while useful are not code. Implicit in span charts are certain assumptions. In the code are span charts for sawn lumber but not for engineered lumber.

It would be informative if you can show us a standard included in the IBC or IRC to determine the capacity of joist hangers.

Is the code what was legally adopted or is it "...whatever we will "approve"...." Then why do you need a building code?
 
At what point does the building department transition from checking for code compliance and in effect becomes the de facto engineer of the project? When this line is crossed most legal theories would recognize that the building department legal immunity no longer exists
 
Mark K said:
At what point does the building department transition from checking for code compliance and in effect becomes the de facto engineer of the project? When this line is crossed most legal theories would recognize that the building department legal immunity no longer exists
Click to expand...
I don't believe there is a fine line, I believe it is our duty to work within the scope of the code. All span tables are the result of engineering. If every single job had to be engineered, although to you, it may be utopia, to the rest of the world it is not practical. We are not specifying the job, we are ensuring that what was submitted meets the intent of the code, which may include using data from manufacturers such as Simpson Strong-Tie provides in their manuals. You, as an architect may provide a drawing with specs but if we find out that you spec'd out the wrong metal ties for the lateral load then we will will question you on it. We are not telling you what to use, just telling you that what you spec'd out is inadequate.

Again, LVL manufacturers will provide cut sheets showing the exact use and loading of each LVL. I don't need their span tables but I will accept them as an alternative method and material when there is sufficient evidence from the manufacturer that it is being used within the design and meets or exceeds the loading.
 
jar546 said:
We accept cut sheets from the manufacturer showing exactly how the lvl will be used. Most of the manufacturers have PE on staff to provide these so we don't need to go to an outside engineer.
Click to expand...
Does the manufacture have an engineer stamp and sign the recommendations? What does your state licensing law say. The need to have a professional engineer involved is determined by the states licensing laws and not by he building code or the policy of the building department.
 
Mark K said:
Does the manufacture have an engineer stamp and sign the recommendations? What does your state licensing law say. The need to have a professional engineer involved is determined by the states licensing laws and not by he building code or the policy of the building department.
Click to expand...
They do extensive testing and provide ESR reports, all done by engineers. Lumber yards will also size and stamp engineered lumber for projects. Are you suggesting Weyerhauser just guesses at their technical specifications? Is there something more complicated about sizing simple span beams from Weyerhausers tables than from the IRC tables for dimensional lumber?

When is the last time you even heard of a structural failure in IRC construction? Light frame structures are exceedingly redundant structurally.

You seem to be making a problem where there isn't one.
 
I am just pointing out that if your state licensing laws require a professional engineer sign and seal documents then either the manufacturers, or lumber yards, engineer must stamp and sign the document or the Owner must hire an engineer to to provide the engineering oversight. The building code or the building official cannot change the licensing law.

From a legal perspective until the building code provides span tables for engineered lumber there are no span tables that can be quoted to establish compliance. This is not a question of the validity of the manufacturers calculations but rather a reflection of the legal reality.

While light frame construction is fairly forgiving, individuals who do not know what they are doing can create situations where there is non compliance. My experience is that licensed engineers are less likely to cause these problems related to their scope of services.

There is a need to have a discussion of he difference between the plan checker and inspectors checking for code compliance and acting as the designer of the project. This is of concern because of liability exposure but also because a building department employee who lacks an engineering education may not identify a problem.
 
Mark K said:
I am just pointing out that if your state licensing laws require a professional engineer sign and seal documents then either the manufacturers, or lumber yards, engineer must stamp and sign the document or the Owner must hire an engineer to to provide the engineering oversight. The building code or the building official cannot change the licensing law.

From a legal perspective until the building code provides span tables for engineered lumber there are no span tables that can be quoted to establish compliance. This is not a question of the validity of the manufacturers calculations but rather a reflection of the legal reality.

While light frame construction is fairly forgiving, individuals who do not know what they are doing can create situations where there is non compliance. My experience is that licensed engineers are less likely to cause these problems related to their scope of services.

There is a need to have a discussion of he difference between the plan checker and inspectors checking for code compliance and acting as the designer of the project. This is of concern because of liability exposure but also because a building department employee who lacks an engineering education may not identify a problem.
Click to expand...
I think the relevant code sections are provided above to establish that engineered lumber is in compliance if it follows the manufacturers published technical requirements. I AM a structural engineer and I don't think you need an engineer to design typical IRC. I was sizing Microllams long before I ever set foot in an engineering classroom.

Fun fact, the SEOR typically doesn't design I-joists for IBC projects. They delegate it to the I-joist supplier. They are a deferred submittal and come with a PE stamp from the supplier. They'll provide the same service for IRC.
 

redeyedfly​


You have obviously practiced structural engineering in another state than I have. In California the SEOR does design/select the I-Joists and there is no need for the I-joist supplier to provide an engineers stamp since the SEOR's stamp is all that is needed. By the way in California Civil Engineers can be the EOR for most projects.

The fact that the supplier has an engineer stamp and sign the design supports my contention that there is no prescriptive provisions, such as span tables, for engineered lumber and that an engineers involvement is needed.

Whether you you need an engineer to design a typical IRC project really is two questions. They are, can a non licensed individual perform the tasks and whether it is legal under the licensing laws. The answer to the first is largely subjective. While there are some non-licensed individuals can produce a "satisfactory" design in some situations, those without the technical training often do not have an appreciation of their limitations. I have seen too many individuals who believe they know more than they really do. The real question is how much risk/uncertainty are you willing to accept.

Compliance with the licensing laws is a separate issue that is defined by the state licensing laws and not by the building code or the preferences of the building official. Unless there is a clear exemption in state law an engineers involvement is needed.

From a building code perspective the manufacturers published technical requirements are not relevant. What is relevant are the standards adopted by the code and the properties of the manufacturers I-joist derived from a testing program defined by the code standards. Yes the engineer should be aware of the manufacturers recommendations but that is not a code compliance issue.
 
Mark K said:

redeyedfly​


You have obviously practiced structural engineering in another state than I have. In California the SEOR does design/select the I-Joists and there is no need for the I-joist supplier to provide an engineers stamp since the SEOR's stamp is all that is needed. By the way in California Civil Engineers can be the EOR for most projects.
Click to expand...
Nearly all structural engineers are civil engineers, a few are architectural engineers. In California you need to be an SE to sign as an SEOR, not a PE.
You might want to look a little closer at who is actually signing the I-joist designs. The SEOR will size the I-joists for coordination with arch but they leave the final detailed design to the supplier. If the SEOR is laying out the location of every I-joist to accommodate all superimposed loads and other coordination for MEP they are wasting their fee.

I'm not going to show you again where the code allows engineered lumber prescriptively, others have done that. You go ahead and die on this pointless hill.
 
In California a Civil Engineer can sign for any structural work with the exception of hospitals and public schools. All Structural Engineers are registered Civil Engineers. Thus in these cases the engineer taking responsibility for the design of the structural work can be a Civil Engineer without the structural authority. In reality the vast majority of engineers signing for structural work are Structural Engineers even if not required by licensing law. In these cases it is their authority as a Civil Engineer that allows them to act as the engineer or record for the structural work.

Not all jurisdictions would accept I-joists as a deferred submittal.

California does not recognize architectural engineers as being a separate license. I am a CE and a SE and my undergraduate degree was in architectural engineering. While California recognizes that a CE is a PE there is no generic PE license, instead engineers are licensed by discipline.

It needs to be appreciated that licensing laws vary in different states. In addition local practice can vary.
 
Who can identify the standard referenced in the CBC or one of the reference standards referenced by the CBC that defines the required testing for joist hangers?
 
Not into CA, but per the IRC, this is what I will hang my hat on.

R502.6 Bearing​
The ends of each joist, beam or girder shall have not less than 11/2 inches (38 mm) of bearing on wood or metal, have not less than 3 inches of bearing (76 mm) on masonry or concrete or be supported by approved joist hangers. Alternatively, the ends of joists shall be supported on a 1-inch by 4-inch (25 mm by 102 mm) ribbon strip and shall be nailed to the adjacent stud. The bearing on masonry or concrete shall be direct, or a sill plate of 2-inch-minimum (51 mm) nominal thickness shall be provided under the joist, beam or girder. The sill plate shall provide a minimum nominal bearing area of 48 square inches (30 865 mm2).​

Note that the word "approved" is italicized, meaning that it is a defined term. Per Ch. 2, definition as follows.

[RB] APPROVED. Acceptable to the building official.​

So not to be blunt, but I think it is due.... "It is approved because I say it is", is an acceptable answer. Simpson/MiTEK/etc. all have sufficient documentation and testing to support the design and use of their products. If used per the manufacturers specifications, it is well within my authority as a building official to accept the use of these products.
 
We need objective criteria that has been properly adopted. Then the acceptance by the building official would be based on whether the products complied with the standard.

We are a country of laws not an authoritarian state where individuals act as the sovereign.

Many states would consider delegating the decision to a non governmental entity such as Simpson to be illegal.

The words "acceptable to the building official" are an illegal power grab by building officials.

How would you feel if the police gave you a ticket with no other justification that the police officer wished to? According to the proposed interpretation a criminal has more rights than the individual who applies for a building permit.
 
classicT said:
Not into CA, but per the IRC, this is what I will hang my hat on.

R502.6 Bearing​
The ends of each joist, beam or girder shall have not less than 11/2 inches (38 mm) of bearing on wood or metal, have not less than 3 inches of bearing (76 mm) on masonry or concrete or be supported by approved joist hangers. Alternatively, the ends of joists shall be supported on a 1-inch by 4-inch (25 mm by 102 mm) ribbon strip and shall be nailed to the adjacent stud. The bearing on masonry or concrete shall be direct, or a sill plate of 2-inch-minimum (51 mm) nominal thickness shall be provided under the joist, beam or girder. The sill plate shall provide a minimum nominal bearing area of 48 square inches (30 865 mm2).​

Note that the word "approved" is italicized, meaning that it is a defined term. Per Ch. 2, definition as follows.

[RB] APPROVED. Acceptable to the building official.​

So not to be blunt, but I think it is due.... "It is approved because I say it is", is an acceptable answer. Simpson/MiTEK/etc. all have sufficient documentation and testing to support the design and use of their products. If used per the manufacturers specifications, it is well within my authority as a building official to accept the use of these products.
Click to expand...
I'm with this guy.
 
Mark K said:
We need objective criteria that has been properly adopted. Then the acceptance by the building official would be based on whether the products complied with the standard.

We are a country of laws not an authoritarian state where individuals act as the sovereign.

Many states would consider delegating the decision to a non governmental entity such as Simpson to be illegal.

The words "acceptable to the building official" are an illegal power grab by building officials.

How would you feel if the police gave you a ticket with no other justification that the police officer wished to? According to the proposed interpretation a criminal has more rights than the individual who applies for a building permit.
Click to expand...

Which is why I use the search function of the Florida Building Code Commission to find products like this:
 
My sense is that Florida is unique in the way they deal with approval of products. I would assume such approvals are only bestowed after they have gone through a process similar to the adoption of regulations.
 
Allowable loads for engineered lumber, joist hangers, etc. are based on load tests as well as calculations and include a very conservative factor of safety. Professional Engineers are involved in generating the numbers in the tables. The manufacturers want to produce a safe product. If they didn't, people would find out and stop using them, and there would be plenty of attorneys anxious to start a class action lawsuit for everything the manufacturer is worth.
 
There are several questions. Is the methodology used by the manufacturer appropriate? Do you trust the manufacturer? What do you feel is appropriate? What can be legally compelled?

Building departments are concerned with the question of what can be compelled. The other questions are the providence of the code writers, the applicant, and the design professional on the project.
 
Mark K said:
There are several questions. Is the methodology used by the manufacturer appropriate? Do you trust the manufacturer? What do you feel is appropriate? What can be legally compelled?

Building departments are concerned with the question of what can be compelled. The other questions are the providence of the code writers, the applicant, and the design professional on the project.
Click to expand...
You've heard of ESRs? Nothing is specified on a commercial project without an ESR. That covers everything you're asking about.

https://icc-es.org/evaluation-report-program/
 
The ESR has no legal standing.

I have identified an ESR based on test procedure that was inconsistent with the code. The manufacture was not happy with me but I understand the ESR was changed. The point is that you cannot blindly trust them. That is one case where I had reason not to trust the manufacturer.
 
You found one ESR out of thousands with an error?

Better throw out that baby when the bath is done!

The entire point of ESRs is to provide all the information to establish that a product complies with the code for a particular use. I think you just like to pick things apart that aren't broken. There are plenty of ambiguities and inconsistencies in the code, justification of joist hangers isn't one of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top