Thoughts about milling lumber for home addition?

[geofore]

span tables

The residential wood doesn't have to be graded, but you need to stick with the span/load tables unless you are an engineer and can calculate the wood/span/loads. No, you would not use 2x6 to span 18' on a floor, though I've used them on 12" centers to span 12' on a 40'x40' flat roof but it would never do for a floor load. 3' of wet snow is nowhere near the load a floor would be required to hold. Uniform building codes would not permit 2x6 on 18' span for any floor. You could use them to build trusses but that's a whole different animal.

 

[clearance]

Geo, thanks, I wondered. I have done lots of framing over the years, I pretty well know what is cool but some people are funny. I like to overbuild the code myself, costs more but makes for a stronger, tighter house, like 2x10 where 2x8 is code and 2x6 for walls instead of 2x4s. I have span tables to rely on if I have to.

 

[Lakeside53]

The residential wood doesn't have to be graded, but you need to stick with the span/load tables unless you are an engineer and can calculate the wood/span/loads.

You could use them to build trusses but that's a whole different animal.

Sure wish we could get away with that out here... (King County WA). you "might' get the inspector to turn a blind eye, but generally no stamp means no go. An engineer can approve the wood, but then you may as well pay to have it graded on location. A few pieces here and there generally don't noticed

 

[mackie]

if your house will be conventional framed construction with nothing out of the ordinary, you probably can design/build it yourself with no engineer. if its obviously homemade, unconventional, or otherwise makes your inspector nervous, he's going to want you to hire an engineer. not too many places anymore where you dont have to deal with inspectors and a bunch of b.s.

the timbersale idea is the way to go if you want to get your house done. let a crew come in and clear the land, you get a big check and save the time it would have taken to cut all the wood. you can save your back and energy to build the house, instead of dink around with cutting, moving, stacking, and storing a bunch of heavy wood.

 

[coveredinsap]

I've been a carpenter for years and years and years and years, residential and commercial, forms to finish, from custom homes to shopping centers...traveled all around the country too, and I've never actually witnessed any inspector actually look for or at a stamp on a piece of lumber to see if it matches the plan specs. I've also run jobs and have been in charge of inspections, both residential and commercial...babysitting the inspector as they examine the job and getting their John Hancock on the permit. Now, they may see something stamped on the wood out of the corner of their eye as they glance at things during a walkthrough, but they sure as hell never actually read it up close. You could make your own potato stamp and stamp it with a picture of Mickey Mouse and some numbers in faded green or black food coloring and it would never draw a second glance 99.9% of the time. (OK, well maybe not Mickey Mouse, but you get the idea.)

RE: Spans ...As someone mentioned, there are published rule-of-thumb span tables for different species of wood.
(A good basic rule of thumb for sturdy building is to use the nominal dimensions to determine the span and you will generally be OK. A 2x4 shouldn't span more than 4' on edge, a 2x6...6', 2x8...8', 2x10..10', and so on. You'll rarely run into any problems using that basic rule and sticking to 16" centers, no matter what you're building.)

 

[geofore]

rule of thumb

You don't need the rule of thumb if you go to the wood university and do a little research, then download the specs on spans. I post the site because I thought it had the information he asked for. From how the wood is tested to what the tests require. From how to put it together to what nails or screws/glues to use.

 

[Lakeside53]

I've been a carpenter for years and years and years and years, residential and commercial, forms to finish, from custom homes to shopping centers...traveled all around the country too, and I've never actually witnessed any inspector actually look for or at a stamp on a piece of lumber to see if it matches the plan specs. I've also run jobs and have been in charge of inspections, both residential and commercial...babysitting the inspector as they examine the job and getting their John Hancock on the permit. Now, they may see something stamped on the wood out of the corner of their eye as they glance at things during a walkthrough, but they sure as hell never actually read it up close. You could make your own potato stamp and stamp it with a picture of Mickey Mouse and some numbers in faded green or black food coloring and it would never draw a second glance 99.9% of the time. (OK, well maybe not Mickey Mouse, but you get the idea.)

RE: Spans ...As someone mentioned, there are published rule-of-thumb span tables for different species of wood.
(A good basic rule of thumb for sturdy building is to use the nominal dimensions to determine the span and you will generally be OK. A 2x4 shouldn't span more than 4' on edge, a 2x6...6', 2x8...8', 2x10..10', and so on. You'll rarely run into any problems using that basic rule and sticking to 16" centers, no matter what you're building.)

You obviously haven't done much work around San Francisco or where I live (KC Washington). Here (for residential) it's follow the code exactly (UBC97 in transition to IRC/IBC 2000 with local overrides) or get a wet-stamp engineered plan with appropriate inspection. No rules of thumb allowed here, and yes, they do check the stamps. Sure, if you are a "known good contractor" to the inspector, his checking is cursory at best; if your workmanship is suspect, they just happen to "notice some thing unusual", or you're a homeowner, they check a lot closer... too many lawsuits.

As for rules of thumb - these are are the old way, before real application of code. Yes, in some circumstances they were fine, but with increase application of seismic, wind codes etc, a better way was required; that's why the span tables are published and the wood is organized by species and strength, and applied to various live and dead loadings. Why even bother with an obsolete "rule" when in a few seconds you can look up a span table. I've had several jobs where going from SPF or HF to doug fir #1 or sel-str was the only way to span the floors and rafters without going up to the next size of lumber or going to 12 inch centers, and you can be sure it was looked at closely by the plans examiner and the site inspector.

Even if the reader doesn't intend to get an inspection, building to code an using the correct tables for your wind/seismic zones and other applicable loadings is just good practice. If caught for "no-permit", at least you can show you built to code.... a lot cheaper than a tear down or a engineered retrofit. And take a lot of pictures of the hidden areas like foundation rebar, sheeting nail patterns etc..

 

[coveredinsap]

You obviously haven't done much work around San Francisco or where I live (KC Washington). Here (for residential) it's follow the code exactly (UBC97 in transition to IRC/IBC 2000 with local overrides) or get a wet-stamp engineered plan with appropriate inspection. No rules of thumb allowed here, and yes, they do check the stamps. Sure, if you are a "known good contractor" to the inspector, his checking is cursory at best; if your workmanship is suspect, they just happen to "notice some thing unusual", or you're a homeowner, they check a lot closer... too many lawsuits.

As for rules of thumb - these are are the old way, before real application of code. Yes, in some circumstances they were fine, but with increase application of seismic, wind codes etc, a better way was required; that's why the span tables are published and the wood is organized by species and strength, and applied to various live and dead loadings. Why even bother with an obsolete "rule" when in a few seconds you can look up a span table. I've had several jobs where going from SPF or HF to doug fir #1 or sel-str was the only way to span the floors and rafters without going up to the next size of lumber or going to 12 inch centers, and you can be sure it was looked at closely by the plans examiner and the site inspector.

Even if the reader doesn't intend to get an inspection, building to code an using the correct tables for your wind/seismic zones and other applicable loadings is just good practice. If caught for "no-permit", at least you can show you built to code.... a lot cheaper than a tear down or a engineered retrofit. And take a lot of pictures of the hidden areas like foundation rebar, sheeting nail patterns etc..

That response is so rediculous to the simple subject being discussed that it doesn't even deserve a response other than... No sh#t, Sherlock.

Leaving out entirely the fact that most building inspectors don't know their arse from a hole in the ground...it's all mainly an exercise in red tape. I (and most other halfway decent carpenters worth their salt) could compile a punch list a mile long of things that inspectors miss for any given project. Sad but true.

 

[Lakeside53]

That response is so rediculous to the simple subject being discussed that it doesn't even deserve a response other than... No sh#t, Sherlock.

Leaving out entirely the fact that most building inspectors don't know their arse from a hole in the ground...it's all mainly an exercise in red tape. I (and most other halfway decent carpenters worth their salt) could compile a punch list a mile long of things that inspectors miss for any given project. Sad but true.

Sorry to insult your nail-pounding ways... but you widened the scope by saying you'd been been everywhere.. so careful with your wild generalisations... yes, it is often an exercise in red tape, but don't you think home milled wood will stick out a mile? It's actually supposed to be a check-and-balance, and just because some inspectors don't have it all together doesn't invalidate the process or the others that do. Some of our inspectors were contractors, have their crap together (which can be a pain, but) and are actually quite useful if you work with them rather than against. I too have had inspections that were joke, but not all of them, and less as time goes on. Hurricane Andrew and a few recent tremors have been a wakeup call in many areas, but of course you know all of this...

 

[clearance]

You obviously haven't done much work around San Francisco or where I live (KC Washington). Here (for residential) it's follow the code exactly (UBC97 in transition to IRC/IBC 2000 with local overrides) or get a wet-stamp engineered plan with appropriate inspection. No rules of thumb allowed here, and yes, they do check the stamps. Sure, if you are a "known good contractor" to the inspector, his checking is cursory at best; if your workmanship is suspect, they just happen to "notice some thing unusual", or you're a homeowner, they check a lot closer... too many lawsuits.

As for rules of thumb - these are are the old way, before real application of code. Yes, in some circumstances they were fine, but with increase application of seismic, wind codes etc, a better way was required; that's why the span tables are published and the wood is organized by species and strength, and applied to various live and dead loadings. Why even bother with an obsolete "rule" when in a few seconds you can look up a span table. I've had several jobs where going from SPF or HF to doug fir #1 or sel-str was the only way to span the floors and rafters without going up to the next size of lumber or going to 12 inch centers, and you can be sure it was looked at closely by the plans examiner and the site inspector.

Even if the reader doesn't intend to get an inspection, building to code an using the correct tables for your wind/seismic zones and other applicable loadings is just good practice. If caught for "no-permit", at least you can show you built to code.... a lot cheaper than a tear down or a engineered retrofit. And take a lot of pictures of the hidden areas like foundation rebar, sheeting nail patterns etc..

Yes, Andy, that is the way it is in BC, and the way it should be, I have seen inspectors notice a finger jointed 2x4 used as a top plate (only allowed for studs) and have us replace it. Any one competent can tell the diff. between #2 and #3 by looking at it, you don't need to always see the stamp but it has to be there. Covered in Sh-- knows it all, in his mind, good for him, back in the real world, use the tables and you won't go wrong, thats what they are for.

 

[Lakeside53]

I had a case where we'd remodeled a real nice 1906 house and reused the original 2x12 floor joists. These were actually 1 3/4 rough sawn doug fir, and better then anything you can get today except in VG! They were originally on 24 inch centers with 3/4 diagonal planking on top, and we flipped them over, put them on 16 inch centers, added in some #1 2x12 to make up the difference, and nailed/glued down flooring grade T&G ply. The inspector red-tagged us for no grade stamps and it took a bunch of dancing to "explain" that these were stronger and better than anything around today, and..... it was real close. He reluctantly signed off after we asked if he'd "please" hang around for a hour while an engineer drove out to inspect and approve the re-use...

 

[coveredinsap]

Yes, Andy, that is the way it is in BC, and the way it should be, I have seen inspectors notice a finger jointed 2x4 used as a top plate (only allowed for studs) and have us replace it. Any one competent can tell the diff. between #2 and #3 by looking at it, you don't need to always see the stamp but it has to be there. Covered in Sh-- knows it all, in his mind, good for him, back in the real world, use the tables and you won't go wrong, thats what they are for.

There is a prime example of useless inspecting...allowing a finger-jointed anything as structural lumber.....'stud' or otherwise. The cheapest, most garbage looking piece of solid lumber is better than the most highest-rated piece of finger joint. Any building dept allowing finger-jointed anything as structural components is as useless as tits on a bull. Ditto for allowing OSB to be used as shear....absolutely useless.

I had a case where we'd remodeled a real nice 1906 house and reused the original 2x12 floor joists. These were actually 1 3/4 rough sawn doug fir, and better then anything you can get today except in VG! They were originally on 24 inch centers with 3/4 diagonal planking on top, and we flipped them over, put them on 16 inch centers, added in some #1 2x12 to make up the difference, and nailed/glued down flooring grade T&G ply. The inspector red-tagged us for no grade stamps and it took a bunch of dancing to "explain" that these were stronger and better than anything around today, and..... it was real close. He reluctantly signed off after we asked if he'd "please" hang around for a hour while an engineer drove out to inspect and approve the re-use...

Now here's where you can use the "even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while" ...line. Of course the inspector is going to notice and flag the old reused lumber. The stuff looks old. Even a half-blind rookie inspector would flag that job. As you well know, the proper way would have been to get permission from the building dept beforehand to reuse the lumber, and if they say 'no' outright, then bring in your own engineer.
There is no reason why it shouldn't be allowed, as it's done everyday...no different than doing a remodel on an old building and leaving parts of the old structure that don't need replacing.
But it sounds like the inspector was just busting your balls....which happens frequently.

Let's face it, with the lousy quality of modern mass-produced lumber, milling your own starts looking better and better.

I'll save you the trouble of replying ....I'm just an idiot.

 

[Tree Sling'r]

In 2000 I did a 500sq ft addition on my house with rough cut pine and it was a non-issue with the building department. The only thing I used in doug fir were the girders for my floor joyce and my ridge beam for my rafters. Which were also milled by me. Everything else was 2x4 pine.

 

[coveredinsap]

Any one competent can tell the diff. between #2 and #3 by looking at it, you don't need to always see the stamp but it has to be there. Covered in Sh-- knows it all, in his mind, good for him, back in the real world, use the tables and you won't go wrong, thats what they are for.

By the way....this statement is just plain funny, and is typical of a wannabe. No.. you can't tell the difference anymore. The fact is, all lumber looks like junk nowdays.

While that statement may ....and I stress 'may' have been true 20 years ago, it certainly isn't true today. #2 and #3 lumber were never much different even back then....shades of grey is all. A good piece of #3 is/was no different that a crappy piece of #2.

 

[Lakeside53]

There is a prime example of useless inspecting...allowing a finger-jointed anything as structural lumber.....'stud' or otherwise. The cheapest, most garbage looking piece of solid lumber is better than the most highest-rated piece of finger joint. Any building dept allowing finger-jointed anything as structural components is as useless as tits on a bull. Ditto for allowing OSB to be used as shear....absolutely useless.

I'll save you the trouble of replying ....I'm just an idiot.

In that case, they are building one heck of a lot of "useless" homes out here... Almost never see plywood for sheathing anymore... all OSB.. and as for finger-joint, best straight studs available... use them in all the time - particularly in kitchens (cabinet hanging) and tall walls (and yes, they are definitely structural)... and the finish and sheetrock crews love them.

And thanks for saving me the trouble!

 

[coveredinsap]

In that case, they are building one heck of a lot of "useless" homes out here

There it is right there...you hit the nail on the head.

 

[Lakeside53]

There it is right there...you hit the nail on the head.

Sound like you're living on the wrong planet or the wrong time - don't like pro chainsaws, don't like modern construction methods, don't like building departments, the building code, or the inspectors... Do you like ice-cream?

There must be another forum for your problems... maybe you should start your own?

 

[clearance]

By the way....this statement is just plain funny, and is typical of a wannabe. No.. you can't tell the difference anymore. The fact is, all lumber looks like junk nowdays.

While that statement may ....and I stress 'may' have been true 20 years ago, it certainly isn't true today. #2 and #3 lumber were never much different even back then....shades of grey is all. A good piece of #3 is/was no different that a crappy piece of #2.

When I say you can tell just by looking at it, you usually can, thats what stamps are for. The large knots and wane that are allowed in #3 are your first clue, not found in #2. Finger joint 2x4 are just fine for studs, as strong as solid 2x4s, I have busted a few to find this out. You are right about the wood being, in all categegories, of a much lower quality now, the stuff we frame with now got left in the bush in the old days. And, Covered, I found all the lumber for an addition on my mother in laws house, could have built with 2x8 joists, 2x4 walls, trusses and osb. It was built out of 2x10s, 2x6s, hand framed 10/12 roof with 2x10 rafters and plywood. The joists were blocked, the floors are 5/8 t&g glued and screwed, the posts in the basement are 6x6s. Is that good enough for you?

 

[coveredinsap]

And, Covered, I found all the lumber for an addition on my mother in laws house, could have built with 2x8 joists, 2x4 walls, trusses and osb. It was built out of 2x10s, 2x6s, hand framed 10/12 roof with 2x10 rafters and plywood. The joists were blocked, the floors are 5/8 t&g glued and screwed, the posts in the basement are 6x6s. Is that good enough for you?

Works for me. And it's much better than the majority of what passes for 'building' these days. Good job.