Holddowns, posts, and acceptable alternatives

[MikeT]

If I am framing with 2x6's and I have hold downs called for, it is acceptable by code to use doubled up 2x6's instead of a 4x6 post?  Does it depend on the inspector?  

Thanks,
mt

[peg_688]

Depends , are [highlight]4x6 spec'ed on your plans [/highlight]??

If they are John's plans the dbl. 2x6 will work .  
 

IF it's engineered additions / amendments and the [highlight]engineer spec'ed , or used the wording[/highlight] (the fasteners must penetrate 3" into) , or some such   you will have to use a 4x member.

[MikeT]

Well...I used John's plans as the base and the structural engineer riffed off them.  He did not specify a 4x post but in a few places and in none of the shearwall places.  I know if I ask him, he will say, "well a 4x would be better...."

mt

[peg_688]

#1: He did not specify a 4x post but in a few places and in none of the shearwall places.


#2:   I know if I ask him, he will say, "well a 4x would be better...."

#1: HuH  :-/  No comprenday  senior???


#2: Don't ask , the inspector  might but plead "No Comprenday senior"  

 On one  job,  about 4 years ago I got called on the 3" nominal nailing thing , I ca't remember the exact wording the that was used but thats what the inspector devined from it.   Pre adoption of IRC 2003 , haven't had it call since IRC 2003 was put in play . It was a Lindal cedar home.

The place I posted about last year was spec'ed with 4x6 D fir and 4x6 LSL both in specific locations . So if it's not called for don't use it unless it will make you think better about it.

Note  not "feel" better , it would be a thinking thing.