# Micro Lam Specifications



## bozobozo (Apr 7, 2012)

My application for a building permit is held up right now.  The approving official wants "specs on micro lams from manufacturer (not generalized) for this job".  I'm a little confused. I just got the notice in the mail and have not been able to talk to him yet.

Each microlam in the plans is specifically called out, eg. over the 9ft garage door we are calling for a "triple  1 3/4" x 117/8" 1.9E Microlam".  Each was either specified by or load checked by a structural engineer.  As long as we use the specific type of microlam called out, shouldn't the manufacturer be irrelevant?


----------



## mark handler (Apr 7, 2012)

Each manufacturers Microllam have different properties.  Specified Strengths and Moduli of Elasticity vary.   Boise Cascade, Georgia-Pacific and Trus Joist are some of the manufacturers. Find the one that meets your structural engineers design and provide the cut sheets for that Microllam


----------



## Mark K (Apr 7, 2012)

The material is LVL lumber and is recognized by the code in IBC Section 2303.1.9 as structurally composit lumber.

To ask for a specific manufacturers data at time of plan check would be equivalent to requiring you to specify a particular manufacturer of glu-lam at time of permitting.  If this is the case I would suggest that the building official is over stepping.

The engineer should specify that the product complies with the provisions of IBC Section 2303.1.8.  Reference compliance with ASTM D 5456 and clearly specify all of the options listed in the standare.  This should be all that the plan checker needs during the plan check.

During construction evidence should be provided that the product installed complies with the product specified.  Normal pratice is that this information is reviewed by the design professional but is not submitted to the building official.

There are several options for the building official that wishes to close the loop.  The easiest would be for the building department inspector to look at the stamp on the installed LVL members and verify strength and other properties listed on the stamp.  Under IBC Section 1703.4 the building official can require an engineering report showing compliance with ASTM D 5456 but there is no reason why this information cannot be provided during construction.  If the building official is halfway reasonable this should not be an unreasonable burden.  Unless there are problems or specific reason to suspect that the delivered members are not compliant te building official should have noreason to require more.


----------



## Sifu (Apr 7, 2012)

You don't say if the plans are sealed.  I see a lot of people that specify an LVL that are not engineers, though they are often thought to be.  If your plans are sealed and you follow the direction of the plans I would accept them unless I had a reasonable suspicion that something wasn't right.  I guess the level of detail provided would make a big difference.  If the plans are not sealed then I would definately require beam calculations and specs for each beam, specific to the job and particular location.


----------



## Mark K (Apr 7, 2012)

The appropriate level of calculations should not be determined by whether or not a design professional seals the drawings.  The design professional's seal does not excuse the building official from his obligation to review the submittal documents.

In most states the preparation of the calculations would constitute the practice of engineering or architecture and would require that the documents be sealed and signed by a registered design professional.  Thus unless there was a specific exemption in the licensing laws calculations could not be  prepared by a non-licensed individual.


----------



## Sifu (Apr 8, 2012)

Not saying an engineered design constitutes an excusal to review.  I'm saying if the plans are not sealed then the calculations need to be performed.  Whether a particular jurisdiction or state law requires an individual LVL to be designed and sealed is another matter.  In the original post it sounds like the plans showed up with LVL's drawn on the plan but no seal and maybe a spec book.  I get this from time to time too.  It is possible a DP "called them out" and "load checked" them but without a seal who knows?  It sounds like the reviewer is looking for a beam calc from the manufacturer/designer that is specific to the job and location, that can be checked for accuracy.   Since we still don't know the detail level of the plans submitted its all just speculation at this point.


----------



## bozobozo (Apr 8, 2012)

Before we submitted the plans for review we asked if the plans needed to be sealed.  We we told "no...unless we were planning something unusual or outside of code".  Official used an example of a "concrete ceiling" as something unusual.

I had a licensed structural engineer review the plans prior to submission and he performed all the header calculations and submitted those calculations (using StruCalc) in a "sealed" package.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 8, 2012)

The StruCalc calculations will identify the manufacturer of the Micros

Look up that manufacturer on the web and provide the ICC or NER report to the planchecker

http://www.icc-es.org/reports/index.cfm?csi_num=06 17 13 &view_details

Also put the manufacturer and size on the plans


----------



## Mark K (Apr 8, 2012)

Mark H

If the calculations were based on a particular manufacturer the manufacturer should be shown on the contract documents but the impression given by the original posting was that they wanted to specify the product generically.  If the product is being specified generically, and there is no reason why this is not allowed by the code, it will not be possible to provide the data prior to bidding.

The code does not require an ICC report (NER reports are no longer being issued).  What the code requires is an engineering report showing how the design values are determined based on ASTM D 5456.  The ICC report summarizes the results from such an engineering report but is not the report and is not sealed and signed as such reports should be.  I realize ICC reports are commonly accepted but formally this is not what the code requires.

You may find that the manufacturer may have a report issued by the APA which is similar to the ICC report.  If the building official will accept an ICC report there is no reason why they should not accept an APA report.

Sifu

Unless there is an exemption in state law allowing a non-licensed individual to perform engineering calculations you cannot have calculations that are not sealed and signed.


----------



## Mark K (Apr 8, 2012)

Requiring that the design be based on a particular manufacture of the LVL could be in conflict with public contracting codes that generally require that multiple manufacturers be able to bid on the project.  If this was a public project would the building official be able to override the state contracting laws and require that the LVL's be sole sourced?


----------



## mark handler (Apr 8, 2012)

Mark K said:
			
		

> Mark HIf the calculations were based on a particular manufacturer the manufacturer should be shown on the contract documents but the impression given by the original posting was that they wanted to specify the product generically.  If the product is being specified generically, and there is no reason why this is not allowed by the code, it will not be possible to provide the data prior to bidding.
> 
> The code does not require an ICC report (NER reports are no longer being issued).  What the code requires is an engineering report showing how the design values are determined based on ASTM D 5456.  The ICC report summarizes the results from such an engineering report but is not the report and is not sealed and signed as such reports should be.  I realize ICC reports are commonly accepted but formally this is not what the code requires.
> 
> You may find that the manufacturer may have a report issued by the APA which is similar to the ICC report.  If the building official will accept an ICC report there is no reason why they should not accept an APA report..


Mark

Stop twisting what is said (posted)

read the original post and reread what I posted

And on a side note Not everyone is on the same code as you are, Some NER reports are still vailid, some were renewed as late as 2008, with a three year renewal cycle, contact the ICC-ES Evaluation Service before you make pronouncements.


----------



## brudgers (Apr 8, 2012)

Mark K said:
			
		

> The material is LVL lumber and is recognized by the code in IBC Section 2303.1.9 as structurally composit lumber.


  By that logic, SPF No. 3 are the same SP SS.


----------



## brudgers (Apr 8, 2012)

Mark K said:
			
		

> Requiring that the design be based on a particular manufacture of the LVL could be in conflict with public contracting codes that generally require that multiple manufacturers be able to bid on the project.  If this was a public project would the building official be able to override the state contracting laws and require that the LVL's be sole sourced?


  If this was a public bid project, acceptable products would be listed in the project manual.  As would substitution procedures.

  If you'd seen such a project, I would think you would be aware of that.


----------



## GBrackins (Apr 8, 2012)

LVL's can be tricky, sometimes. Microlam is the name of proprietary product produced by ILevel/Weyerhaeuser. The use of microlam is similar to someone referring to his circular saw as a Skil saw. Each mill has their own specifications for their LVL's. The closest generic standard I know of is the APA's Engineered Wood Systems LVL stress classification. Of course using this standard as generic specifications eliminates all mills that are not members of the APA because their products do not contain the APA stamp on them.

I specify LVL's in my drawings using the APA EWS LVL stress classifications, or approved equal. We further specify that once the project is awarded to a builder he must have his vendor (lumber yard) provide the building department and us with calculations by a professional engineer certifying their products's compliance with the building code based upon the manufacturer's specifications, and the location and use of each LVL.

This allows the plans examiner to proceed with the knowledge the building department will receive the certified calculations, but only after it has been determined which LVL manufacturer will be providing the LVL's.

I've had issues with building departments wanting to hold up permitting because they did not have a stamp for the calculations. I asked would they hold up permitting if it was a truss floor system? They say, "no, because we'll get stamped drawings from the manufacturer." I tell them the LVL is an engineered piece of wood just like a truss is an engineered piece of wood. I explain their is not blanket "stamp" that covers all LVL's and as soon as we know which product the lumber yard will be providing they will get the stamped calcs before the product is installed. So far no issues.


----------



## Sifu (Apr 8, 2012)

Mark K said:
			
		

> Mark HSifu
> 
> Unless there is an exemption in state law allowing a non-licensed individual to perform engineering calculations you cannot have calculations that are not sealed and signed.


This brings up a point on which I have long been unclear.  Does a beam calc for a given LVL need to be a sealed document?  The beam calc's I received as a builder from the manufacturer and the ones I accept as an inspector have a given set of criteria.  That criteria can be verified.  The programs used to design the LVL use a defined set of criteria, stated to be in compliance with the given code.  If the criteria used to design the LVL meet the correct code and the input data used to determine what the loads imposed will be are verified, is the LVL not "designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice"?  I know this may not count for much but under general conditions none of the jurisdictions I worked in as a builder or an inspector required them to be sealed as a general rule, though I am sure some do somewhere.  And FWIW where I am now, as far as I know, I am the first and only person to even require a beam calc, much less verify the conditions under which it is installed.  I know that even if many are doing it wrong it doesn't make it right but I would be interested to know how many are doing wrong if my way is wrong.

Is it like a RESCHECK report?  That is a report based on trade-off calculations performed by a program.  That report should be verified to ensure the input data is what is actually in use and if it is, is not the RESCHECK report accepted without further design oversight?


----------



## Sifu (Apr 8, 2012)

bozobozo said:
			
		

> I had a licensed structural engineer review the plans prior to submission and he performed all the header calculations and submitted those calculations (using StruCalc) in a "sealed" package.


Now I am confused.  You seem to have provided a sealed design for the LVL's, which would be specific for the job and locations.  I don't know what else the reviewer would be looking for.  I must be missing something here.


----------



## Mark K (Apr 8, 2012)

The original posting suggested a desire to specify the product generically thus at the time of permitting the manufacturer cannot be defined.  The ICC or NER reports are issued for a particular manufacture.

My research suggests that the building code in PA is based on the 2009 IBC thus it is unclear how an NER issued in 2008 would be referencing the 2009 IBC.


----------



## Mark K (Apr 8, 2012)

Sifu

The need for sealed calculations is defined by state licensing laws.  Unless the calculations provided by the manufacturer are sealed they would not be acceptable is state licensing laws require sealed calculations.

There is no legal basis for accepting calculations based solely on the fact that they were generated by a specific computer program.  It is well understood that any decent sized program will have errors it in.  If the program does not comply with the addopted regulations the computer output is wrong.  It is the responsibility of the one submitting the RESCHECK report to verify that the results are correct.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 8, 2012)

The need for sealed calculations was not in the OP. The idea of "sealing" was added by others. The OP stated that his engineer used "StruCalc". The StruCalc program identifies the "manufacture" of the fabricated members. The Spans, Strengths and Moduli of Elasticity vary with the "manufacture". the way I see it the planchecker is just requesting the "manufacture" of the fabricated members, be placed on the drawing. If a different product is to be used, It needs to be verified that it conforms to the required Spans, Strengths and Moduli of Elasticity

This is not brain surgery


----------



## jar546 (Apr 8, 2012)

In PA, the plan reviewer can ask for just about anything he/she wants.

We also ask for the manufacturer specific calculations since the span ability varies by mfg and model #.

This is real simple, just provide it and make sure you use the brand that you spec'd out.  We have had that problem before.


----------



## KZQuixote (Apr 8, 2012)

jar546 said:
			
		

> In PA, the plan reviewer can ask for just about anything he/she wants.We also ask for the manufacturer specific calculations since the span ability varies by mfg and model #.
> 
> This is real simple, just provide it and make sure you use the brand that you spec'd out.  We have had that problem before.


Come on Jeff. Pennsylvania is a special case, being underlain with so many coal mines the gravitational coefficient is reduced by at least a third.

Bill


----------



## bozobozo (Apr 9, 2012)

That is what I plan to do - provide the requested info.


----------



## DRP (Apr 9, 2012)

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.


----------



## DennisK (Apr 9, 2012)

Bozobozo, the reviewer may be a bit of an *** but you don’t seem to know your drawings. As pointed out by Gbrackens, you specified a particular manufacturer when you called the LVL’s MicroLams and you specified a particular grade of ML when you called them 1.9E.

It sounds like the reviewer just wanted the design values on the drawing. Granted he could easily look those up but he has a right to expect to see them somewhere.

Print ESR-1387, highlight the right row in Table 5 and give it to the building department. Offer to write the values on the drawing in ink. If your framer buys a different product you will have to submit a change to the building department.

Tried to upload a pdf of the ESR but the size exceeds the limits of this forum. The following link is for the TJ/W specifiers guide that covers the product.

http://www.ce.udel.edu/courses/CIEG407/Class_17/microllam%20design%20properties%20and%20load%20tables.pdf

This is the link to the ESR

http://www.icc-es.org/reports/pdf_files/ICC-ES/ESR-1387.pdf

Dennis

DKEngineering PLLC

dkengineer.com


----------



## Sifu (Apr 9, 2012)

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.


----------



## Sifu (Apr 9, 2012)

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
> 
> ...


Thats the way I think of it and the way I do it.


----------



## kyhowey (Apr 9, 2012)

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.


----------



## GBrackins (Apr 9, 2012)

DennisK,

Welcome to the forum!


----------



## Big Mac (Apr 9, 2012)

Welcome Dennis


----------



## Mark K (Apr 9, 2012)

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.


----------



## Sifu (Apr 9, 2012)

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.


----------



## GBrackins (Apr 9, 2012)

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.


----------



## Sifu (Apr 9, 2012)

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.


----------



## GBrackins (Apr 9, 2012)

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.


----------



## DRP (Apr 9, 2012)

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.


----------



## GBrackins (Apr 9, 2012)

yes, forte was updated last week


----------



## GBrackins (Apr 9, 2012)

or may be the week before .... getting too old to remember   LOL


----------



## Frank (Apr 10, 2012)

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.


----------



## Big Mac (Apr 10, 2012)

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.


----------



## Sifu (Apr 10, 2012)

So you've been where I am...... at least you got a napkin.


----------



## Sifu (Apr 10, 2012)

DRP said:
			
		

> Sifu, You're doing plan review at the framing inspection.


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.


----------



## rleibowitz (Apr 11, 2012)

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.


----------



## TheCommish (Apr 11, 2012)

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.


----------



## Sifu (Apr 12, 2012)

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!


----------



## Mac (Apr 13, 2012)

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.


----------



## Sifu (Apr 13, 2012)

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.


Thats the way we did it in my last jurisdiction and thats the way I'm fighting to do it in this new one.


----------



## Mark K (Apr 13, 2012)

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.


----------



## TheCommish (Apr 13, 2012)

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


----------

