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



## steveray (Jan 18, 2013)

Any of the professionals out there have a problem with this..........







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....


----------



## globe trekker (Jan 18, 2013)

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!



.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 18, 2013)

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.


----------



## steveray (Jan 18, 2013)

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.


   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".....


----------



## brudgers (Jan 18, 2013)

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".....


  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.


----------



## AegisFPE (Jan 18, 2013)

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.


----------



## Architect1281 (Jan 18, 2013)

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?


----------



## fatboy (Jan 19, 2013)

I'm with Architect 1281........


----------



## Mark K (Jan 19, 2013)

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.


----------



## jar546 (Jan 19, 2013)

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.


----------



## Mark K (Jan 19, 2013)

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.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 19, 2013)

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?


  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?


----------



## brudgers (Jan 19, 2013)

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.


  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.


----------



## incognito (Jan 21, 2013)

One RDP is just as good as another. Letter is signed and stamped, put it in the file and move on.


----------



## Mark K (Jan 21, 2013)

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.


----------



## rktect 1 (Jan 21, 2013)

He states in his letter that "Based on thier calculations..."  so ask for the calcs.  And be done.


----------



## kilitact (Jan 21, 2013)

Ask for the calculations and review them. If code compliant then approve.


----------



## ICE (Jan 21, 2013)

steveray said:
			
		

> Any of the professionals out there have a problem with this..........
> 
> 
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## ICE (Jan 21, 2013)

kilitact said:
			
		

> Ask for the calculations and review them. If code compliant then approve.


That would stall the project while Stevray attends engineering school.


----------



## ICE (Jan 21, 2013)

rktect 1 said:
			
		

> He states in his letter that "Based on thier calculations..."  so ask for the calcs.  And be done.


Plenty of times I've gotten calcs that were gibberish....of course I didn't know that by looking at them.


----------



## kilitact (Jan 21, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> That would stall the project while Stevray attends engineering school.


Perhaps you could review them for him


----------



## ICE (Jan 21, 2013)

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.


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 (Jan 21, 2013)

kilitact said:
			
		

> Perhaps you could review them for him


I'm a professional driver, not a professional engineer.


----------



## kilitact (Jan 21, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> I'm a professional driver, not a professional engineer.


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.


----------



## kilitact (Jan 21, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> I'm a professional driver, not a professional engineer.


What do you drive on a professional basis.


----------



## rktect 1 (Jan 21, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> Plenty of times I've gotten calcs that were gibberish....of course I didn't know that by looking at them.


I did not say that you should review them.  But I would ask for them to go with the signed and sealed comments.  Sometimes I'll ask this question knowing full well that NO calcs were done.  Possibly because the architect is not capable of it.  Then they hire someone to get that done and some other solution is provided to me which comes in signed sealed and with calcs.


----------



## ICE (Jan 21, 2013)

> 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.


The people with the title Plans Examiner at my AHJ are engineers. I don't know what state law has to say about it.  Being an ICC certified plans examiner is an indication that one might know a thing or two about the code and has nothing to do with engineering.

As an inspector I review engineering all day long.  Not the numbers....gosh that must be boring.  I have the advantage of the actual object.  I won't bother with describing my area but Shirley it's obvious that I do a fair amount of engineering review...revising....creation.

I respect trusses more than the simple beam, etc.  Trusses can be too busy.  The idea behind a truss is to support as much weight as possible with the least possible amount of material.  I've seen trusses that were downright spooky.

All truss engineers should roll trusses for a day.  I bet that there would be a lot more bracing.  They could build in steps on the tall ones.  I still have clamp-on steps which I must say I thought was a really good idea.  Too bad it died on the vine.  I'll get a picture.  It must have been the liability insurance that killed it.

Here we are,  I've won a few bets with these.







The pointed shaft is spring loaded and bites the wood well enough to keep the step there even if it's grip is lost.











Made of aluminum.  Green was my color.  I found them in a small tool store in a small town.  Cost $25 each 25years ago.  I talked them down.  I should have bought all he had.  They look bigger than they are and fit a nail bag.  They are great for rolling tall trusses....well unless you're the size of fatboy....webs will twist

.


----------



## ICE (Jan 21, 2013)

kilitact said:
			
		

> What do you drive on a professional basis.


Quite naturally, a good humor truck.


----------



## Mark K (Jan 21, 2013)

California's board that regulates the practice of engineering has made it clear that the building department cannot require a Structural Engineer stamp and sign the documents when state law allows a Civil Engineer to perform that act.  This is because the local jurisdictions do not have the authority to regulate the practice of engineering and as such cannot require additional qualifications from the individuals providing those services.  The continuing problem is that some rogue individuals do not realize or care that they are impinging on others rights.

California is clear that if the review and acceptance of construction documents involves exercising engineering judgement then a registered engineer or architect must perform the review.  In general that would mean that review of calculations would have to be performed by a registered engineer or architect.  Wnen a city does not have such individuals on staff it is common for them to use outside consultants.


----------



## ICE (Jan 21, 2013)

Mark K said:
			
		

> The continuing problem is that some rogue individuals do not realize or care that they are impinging on others rights.


Yet another continuing problem with rogue individuals.  How could someone, who doesn't realize their wrongdoing, be characterized as a rogue individual?  Now the guy that doesn't care...he's got rogue written all over him.  Where does a guy that knows better and cares but does it anyway fit in.



> the local jurisdictions do not have the authority to regulate the practice of engineering and as such cannot require additional qualifications from the individuals providing those services


I once did an inspection of an el system comprised of two 2000 amp services and was greeted by an electrical engineer.  Not far into the inspection I grew concerned about the engineer and asked him what type of engineer he was.  He designed circuit boards.  So there you go.



> In general that would mean that review of calculations would have to be performed by a registered engineer or architect.  Wnen a city does not have such individuals on staff it is common for them to use outside consultants.


It's also common for a city or county to accept everything on face value and not check the engineering at all.  I mean. what's the point of hiring a licensed professional if you have to double check his work?


----------



## Keystone (Jan 21, 2013)

"we have reviewed the reported fastener substitution", IMO SteveRay's concern is that wording. If you are not comfortable with this letter, send a response or place a call to the licensed DP. Require the wording "we have reviewed ........." to be re-evaluated and draw conclusive acceptance.


----------



## Architect1281 (Jan 21, 2013)

Beugers: Yeah I would work on a structure that contained trusses IF The engineering of the originals was available; and would consult with the original engineering documents- Otherwise My Civil engineer would re analize and either replace or be responsible for any necessary alterations. I do structurally modify (recent project Original 1870 Timber Truss) and re inspect; re engineer; to modified codes and re certify; or replace product.

The above report is not undanting basically the rdp is saying that screws are a s good as the nails specified. In such a case I would re do the original and use the installed as built conditions and certify the repair. I would not say Yeah what we said before but different is similar.

ICE you are a professional as the next guy maybe more so!!!


----------



## Architect1281 (Jan 21, 2013)

How did that post end up here Never Mind??


----------



## Architect1281 (Jan 21, 2013)

Beugers: Yeah I would work on a structure that contained trusses IF The engineering of the originals was available; and would consult with the original engineering documents- Otherwise My Civil engineer would re analize and either replace or be responsible for any necessary alterations. I do structurally modify (recent project Original 1870 Timber Truss) and re inspect; re engineer; to modified codes and re certify; or replace product.

The above report is not undanting basically the rdp is saying that screws are a s good as the nails specified. In such a case I would re do the original and use the installed as built conditions and certify the repair. I would not say Yeah what we said before but different is similar.

ICE you are a professional as the next guy maybe more so!!!

And so it belongs here.


----------



## DRP (Jan 22, 2013)

Who needs calcs, its a materials problem. I think the engineer stated that framing screws were at least equivalent to the nails specified. Carry a structural screw out to the jobsite with the letter and hand it to the contractor, have him back out a deck screw and compare it to a structural screw. This is not a non issue, I had a helper cut out on a roof when he had screwed down some toeboards with regular screws. My deck has one board loose that has 4 broken deck screws in it, just from moisture cycling. Stand inside a house when they stock the roof... yes that impact load does happen and early in the life of the building. The specified framing screw will do the job without that brittle failure.


----------



## steveray (Jan 22, 2013)

"we have reviewed the reported fastener substitution", IMO SteveRay's concern .........

     This is part of it, IMO if you are going to call out an engineered connection, you need to be specific....Anyone here know exactly what A "10 ga framing screw" is? I don't!.....I can tell you that the deckmates they used only show up on websites in 9ga.....But I am not an engineer.....If they show up (or lie to me) and say they were there and saw it and it is fine, it is their ethics and license on the line, and they can play through....

    If they want to send BS letters and make me check and doubt everything, that is exactly what I am going to do.....I have seen several drilled trusses coming back with "no repair necessary" letters from the engineers "because the hole was in the middle depth of the member".....in the field it is in the bottom third or quarter.....


----------



## DRP (Jan 22, 2013)

Well.. can I change my answer?

A common rolled thread wood screw with a bending yield strength of 100,000 psi, the same steel called for in a nail, is the screw in the NDS. That's the soft bright, cuss the stripped head, screws (not a hardened, brittle, deck or drywall screw). A #9 has a root dia of .142", a #10- .152". A 16 sinker is .148" dia. In single shear in SPF the nail is good for 100 lbs, the #10 screw... 99 lbs.

My mind was going to proprietary structural framing screws above, Simpson RSS's, Fastenmaster's etc, each of those has an ESR or independent testing data to flesh out their interchanges. For instance if I were shooting .131 nails @82 lbs each and he was looking for 1000 lbs in his repair spec, I would divide 1000/82 and shoot 13 gun nails. The goal is the total connection strength, be at least equivalent.

How in the heck do you know what is in a generic soft screw... I'll bet there is an astm number that can be traced to a report on the box if they were intended for load. I think that number is on a box of nails, haven't paid attention to regular screws. I'll owe the house a beer if a deck or drywall screw meets the min bending strength requirement.


----------



## north star (Jan 22, 2013)

*% = +*



I concur with **steveray'** concerns about what type of screw was

actually installed......Some installers will overtorque the screws

when installing & snap off the heads and just leave the damaged

screw in place......No one knows that but the installer, and any letter

from any RDP will not adress this discrepancy.

If 10D nails were spec`d but not installed, then specific type screws

were spec`d, ...how is the inspector or the RDP going to know what

was actually installed?

How about having the truss designers come out to the site and evaluate

the install, ...fasteners and all, then submit a letter?



*% = +*


----------



## RickAstoria (Jan 22, 2013)

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".....


First off, deck screws comes in different types of metals. If they are stainless steel (or hot dipped galvanized steel screws fine) but we got zinc coated pewter used for deck screws. Yes, pewter. Mostly, those ones come from China. I would have a metallurgical engineer analyze a sample of the screws for material testing to see if they meet the test and are what is specified.

The reason this needs to be known is the contractors are often idiots when it comes to this stuff. They don't know the difference between zinc coated pewter screws from a zinc coated steel screw. A lot of times, they just grab a bag full (hint: bag full) from a bin of otherwise loose screws that can be mix and matched with a bunch of otherwise visually identical until you saw a screw in half to see what it is under the coat of zinc.

If they have the boxes from which the screws comes from then we can determine if they are in fact what they are. I would require that in situations like this to remove all screws and have them replaced with either nails or screws with an inspection of the box of screws from which the screws come from and the complete data sheet from the manufacturer of the screws detailing not jus dimensional properties but the load properties of the screws and I would call upon the engineer to specify manufacturer and specifications of the screws to be used that they used as their specification. In addition, I would request they show calculations that can be confirmed by a third-party structural engineer to test the numbers out as well as make comparison between the screws the contractor picked up and the ones that the engineer specified as an alternative.

If these can not be performed, the nails as originally called for shall be installed and new plates be made and new calculation adjustments by a new STRUCTURAL ENGINEER be made now that there are new holes in the truss to be repaired. At the same time, the original engineer would also be reported to the engineering board.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jan 22, 2013)

Welcome back from the dead as it seems, Kilitact.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jan 22, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> That would stall the project while Stevray attends engineering school.


No, all Steveray has to do is pull in a structural engineer via contract to check the calcs. In general, a building department would use the engineering department but if no one is qualified to check the calcs there, then it would be something on a contract. The calcs would be checked for correctness not for determining if it violates. He would then just have the returned report from the contracted engineer to draw upon in making an approval or disapproval decision.


----------



## elowpop (Jan 23, 2013)

The letter  is enough to put this issue away.

This is a silly  issue.


----------



## RickAstoria (Jan 23, 2013)

northstar,

Your suggestion is only good for trusses in the last 5 or 10 years. Over that, things get tricky and if you are dealing with a 1940s or 1920s era truss, GOOD (blipping) LUCK unless you are REALLY luck to have info on who made or installed the truss and the company is still around. It would be a miracle to find the original truss designer/engineer.  Maybe on something from the 1970s but they would likely be on near retirement track. if they are still practicing.


----------



## Mac (Jan 23, 2013)

Personally I would check the installation to see how the engineer statement compares with the "as built" truss repair. Including screw size & placement. If its OK then its OK. If not, well...


----------



## DRP (Jan 23, 2013)

Size, placement, And type.

I was building the wife a plant stand yesterday using odds and ends, a few types of screws crossed my path. The primeguards had no approvals or astm numbers, I looked at my gun nails, an ESR #, the 16 common hand drives conformed to ASTM 1667. Then I was working with a box of Grabber deck screws, the lid of the box said shear, pullout and tech data were here;

http://grabberman.com/Media/TechnicalData/459.pdf

Cool, I was about to find out that I could use them for shear applications... Not. No lateral info for deck screws that I see and ultimate withdrawal numbers given.


----------



## kilitact (Jan 23, 2013)

RickAstoria said:
			
		

> Welcome back from the dead as it seems, Kilitact.


Hey Rick. Hows your studies coming?


----------



## RickAstoria (Jan 23, 2013)

kilitact said:
			
		

> Hey Rick. Hows your studies coming?


Bit by bit. So far, doing fine.


----------

