Properties, performance, and applications of structural composite lumber (SCL), laminated veneer lumber (LVL), and engineered wood products. Covers grading, allowable stresses, connections, and field inspection of engineered wood members.
2
hours
0.2
CEUs
Building Products
1.7.2
This course covers material relevant to the following ICC certification exams:
Properties, performance, and applications of structural composite lumber (SCL), laminated veneer lumber (LVL), and engineered wood products. Covers grading, allowable stresses, connections, and field inspection of engineered wood members.
Format
On-Demand Online
Delivery
Self-Paced
Access
24/7 After Enrollment
Certification
Certificate of Completion
Have questions about this course or our platform?
Contact our support teamUnderstand manufacturing and grading standards for engineered wood products
Solid sawn lumber is a natural material — its strength depends on the tree it came from, the grain, the knots, and the moisture it happened to carry when it was cut. Engineered wood exists to remove that unpredictability. By breaking wood down into veneers, strands, or laminations and re-bonding it under controlled factory conditions, manufacturers can produce a structural member whose strength is known and repeatable in a way sawn lumber can never quite match. That predictability is why engineered wood products can span farther and carry more than a comparably sized piece of dimensional lumber, and it is also why they behave so differently in the field. A sawn joist is a piece of a tree; an engineered joist is a manufactured product, and it depends entirely on the manufacturer's design values, evaluation report, and installation instructions to perform as engineered. An inspector who treats an engineered member like ordinary lumber — assuming it can be cut, notched, or loaded the way a solid joist might tolerate — is working from the wrong mental model entirely.
The product families an inspector encounters on a typical jobsite share this manufactured-strength concept but are built in different ways for different purposes. Glued-laminated timber, or glulam, is built from individual dimension-lumber laminations stacked and bonded face-to-face into large beams, headers, and columns — it is the product most often chosen where a long, exposed, or heavily loaded beam is called for. Laminated veneer lumber (LVL) is made from thin wood veneers glued together with the grain running the same direction, producing a dense, solid-feeling beam or header material commonly used for headers, beams, and rim board. Parallel strand lumber (PSL) takes long, narrow wood strands, aligns them along the length of the member, and bonds them under heat and pressure — it is typically reserved for the most heavily loaded columns and beams on a project. Laminated strand lumber (LSL) uses shorter strands arranged more randomly within the cross-section, giving a product valued for its dimensional stability that shows up frequently as headers, studs, and rim board. Wood I-joists take a different approach, pairing top and bottom flanges — commonly sawn lumber or LVL — with a thin web, typically oriented strand board or plywood, bonded into an I-shaped cross-section that is efficient for floor and roof framing but also easy to damage if the flanges or web are compromised. Structural finger-jointed lumber joins shorter pieces of wood end-to-end with interlocking, glued finger joints to produce longer graded structural pieces that perform like a continuous piece of dimension lumber. None of these products is exotic on a modern jobsite — an inspector who cannot tell them apart by sight and function cannot evaluate whether what is installed matches the design.
During plan review, a set of framing drawings calls out several different engineered wood products by product family — glulam headers over garage door openings, LVL beams supporting a floor, and I-joists framing the floor system between them. Rather than treating "engineered wood" as one undifferentiated material, the plans examiner works through the drawings product by product, confirming that each specified member is paired with a current ICC-ES evaluation report or equivalent listing that covers the application shown. Where the drawings show a layout or connection detail that departs from a standard prescriptive assembly, the reviewer treats that departure the same way any other alternative materials and methods request would be treated — by looking for engineering justification rather than approving it on familiarity alone. The goal is not to redesign the framing, but to confirm every engineered product named on the plans has a documented basis for how it is being used.
A recurring mistake is treating all "engineered wood" as functionally interchangeable, when in fact each product family has its own manufacturing process, its own evaluation basis, and its own limitations. An inspector who cannot distinguish an LVL header from a PSL column from an I-joist may approve — or reject — a submittal for the wrong reasons, simply because the products look similar on paper. Another common error is assuming that because a product looks like solid lumber, it can be treated like solid lumber in the field, ignoring the manufactured nature of the material and the documentation that governs its use. A third mistake is skimming past the evaluation report once a product is recognized as "the usual" engineered wood member, rather than confirming the report still applies to the specific application shown. The correction is the same discipline that runs through this course: identify the product family correctly, confirm the current listing or evaluation report covers the proposed use, and treat any departure from a standard assembly as a request for engineering justification rather than a routine approval.
Code Reference: IBC 2303 / ASTM D5456 - The code establishes minimum requirements for manufacturing to ensure public health, safety, and welfare. Requirements vary based on occupancy classification, construction type, and building height and area.
Apply allowable stress values and design considerations in plan review
The single principle that should organize an inspector's thinking about engineered wood is this: these are proprietary products, and their design values live in the manufacturer's evaluation report and installation instructions — not in a prescriptive table in the base code the way solid sawn lumber's values do. Two beams that look identical in size and species can carry very different loads depending on how they were manufactured, and the only way to know what a specific engineered member is rated to do is to consult the listing or evaluation report that applies to that product. This is a fundamentally different review posture than working with dimensional lumber, where prescriptive span tables in the code answer most questions directly. With engineered wood, the code sends the reviewer to the product's own documentation, and the install-per-the-listing principle follows from that: the product must be installed exactly the way its evaluation report and the manufacturer's instructions describe, because that installation method is what the tested design values assume.
This principle has direct consequences for how plan review and documentation should proceed. The layout of engineered wood members on a project — which product goes where, how it bears, and how it connects to adjacent framing — is typically established by the engineer of record or by the product supplier's own layout drawings, both grounded in the product's evaluation report. The approved construction documents are expected to specify not just a generic "engineered beam" but the actual product and the installation conditions it was evaluated under. When a substitution is proposed — a different manufacturer's product, a different product family, or the same product used in a different orientation than what was laid out — that substitution needs engineering review before acceptance, the same way any other structural product substitution would. A structural plan review that treats the engineered wood layout as a field-coordination detail rather than part of the structural design misses one of the more consequential coordination points in a modern wood-framed building.
A plans examiner reviewing a structural plan review submittal for a wood-framed building notices that the floor framing plan references a specific engineered wood supplier's layout package rather than showing every member sized directly on the architectural drawings. Instead of treating this as incomplete documentation, the examiner recognizes the layout package as the vehicle through which the design professional's structural intent and the product's evaluation report come together, and checks that the package is referenced in the approved construction documents, that it corresponds to the products actually specified, and that any deviation between the layout package and field conditions returns to the design professional rather than being resolved on-site. During the later field inspection, the same discipline continues: the inspector compares what is actually installed against the layout package and confirms no product substitution occurred without a documented engineering basis.
A frequent mistake is assuming that because two engineered wood products share a nominal size or general product family, they can be swapped without consequence — ignoring that the manufacturer's design values, not the nominal dimensions, actually govern capacity. Another common error is losing track of the supplier's layout package during review, treating it as a contractor convenience rather than the document tying the structural design to the specific products being installed. Some reviewers also wave through a proposed substitution because the replacement product "looks similar," without routing the change back through the engineer of record for a documented equivalency review. The correction is to keep the manufacturer's evaluation report and the design professional's layout at the center of the review: verify the specific product against its documentation, and require engineering sign-off before accepting any substitution.
Code Reference: IBC 2303 / ASTM D5456 - The code establishes minimum requirements for allowable stress values to ensure public health, safety, and welfare. Requirements vary based on occupancy classification, construction type, and building height and area.
Inspect connections and installation compliance for composite lumber
Field inspection of engineered wood turns the manufacturing and design principles from the earlier modules into concrete verification tasks, and the single most important one involves wood I-joists: never assume a hole, notch, or cut is acceptable unless it falls within the manufacturer's specified allowances for that exact product. Solid sawn lumber has some tolerance for field modification precisely because it is a solid, more forgiving material; an I-joist's flanges and web work together as an engineered system, and cutting, notching, or boring outside the manufacturer's allowable locations and sizes can remove or damage exactly the material the design relies on. Field-modified I-joists — holes cut wherever a trade needed to run something through, notches cut into a flange to make a beam fit — are one of the most common and most dangerous failures an inspector will encounter in engineered wood framing, precisely because the damage is often invisible to anyone who does not know what to look for.
Bearing and support are equally important and equally easy to get wrong. Engineered wood members are designed around specific bearing lengths and support conditions, and a member that is under-supported, resting on an inadequate bearing surface, or lacking the blocking and bracing called for in the installation instructions may not perform as designed even if the member itself is undamaged. Hangers and connectors matter just as much as the wood itself — engineered wood members typically require connectors and hangers specified for that particular product, and substituting a generic connector or an undersized hanger can undermine a connection even when the wood member is installed correctly. Fire performance is another concern specific to engineered wood, and particularly to I-joists: because the web and flanges are thinner and bonded with adhesive rather than being a solid section of wood, engineered members — I-joists especially — can lose structural integrity faster in a fire than a comparable solid sawn member, which is part of why some occupancies call for additional protection over exposed engineered wood framing. Moisture and storage matter before a member is ever installed: engineered wood products need to be protected from prolonged wetting and improper storage on the jobsite, since moisture intrusion before installation can compromise the adhesive bonds and long-term performance.
During a framing inspection, the inspector walks the floor system and notices a wood I-joist with a large hole cut through the web near mid-span — clearly cut in the field by a trade needing to route something through the joist, and clearly larger, and in a different location, than anything shown as an allowable opening in the manufacturer's installation guidance for that product. This is exactly the kind of field modification the earlier discussion of I-joist web and flange integrity warns about: an oversized or misplaced hole in an engineered joist is a structural hazard, not a cosmetic issue, because it can remove load-carrying capacity the design depends on. The correct response is to stop the work at that location and require the contractor to obtain an engineering evaluation of the opening — from the engineer of record, the joist manufacturer, or both — before the framing is covered. Approving the condition without that evaluation, or assuming it is probably fine because the joist still looks intact, would mean signing off on a member whose actual capacity is now unknown.
The most consequential and most common field mistake is allowing unauthorized cutting, notching, or boring of engineered wood members to pass without verification against the manufacturer's allowable openings, simply because the framing otherwise looks complete and workmanlike. A closely related error is accepting inadequate bearing or missing blocking because the member "looks supported," without confirming the bearing length and support conditions called for in the installation instructions. Inspectors also sometimes overlook hanger and connector substitutions — a generic hanger swapped in for the product-specific connector the manufacturer called for — because the difference is not obvious without checking the hardware specified. Fire-protection requirements over exposed engineered framing are easy to miss in fast-moving inspections, and moisture damage from job-site storage is easy to miss once a member is already installed and covered. The correction across all of these is the same field habit: verify cuts, bearing, connectors, fire protection, and storage condition against the manufacturer's documentation before the work is covered, and treat any unauthorized field modification as a stop-and-require-engineering condition rather than a judgment call made on-site.
Code Reference: IBC 2303 / ASTM D5456 - The code establishes minimum requirements for inspect connections to ensure public health, safety, and welfare. Requirements vary based on occupancy classification, construction type, and building height and area.
This course provides comprehensive professional development in structural composite lumber and engineered wood products. Properties, performance, and applications of structural composite lumber (SCL), laminated veneer lumber (LVL), and engineered wood products. Covers grading, allowable stresses, connections, and field inspection of engineered wood members. Engineered wood products replace the natural variability of sawn lumber with manufactured, predictable strength, but that predictability depends on installing the product exactly as its evaluation report and manufacturer's instructions describe — the design values live in that documentation, not in a prescriptive code table. Building professionals who can identify the product families by how they are made, keep the manufacturer's evaluation report and the design professional's layout at the center of every review, and treat unauthorized field cutting, notching, or boring of engineered members as a stop-and-require-engineering condition are equipped to catch the failures — on paper and in the field — that undermine engineered wood's structural performance. Through structured learning modules, practical scenarios, and code reference integration, participants develop the competencies needed for effective professional practice. The content emphasizes real-world application, systematic approaches to compliance verification, and the critical thinking skills required for sound professional judgment in building safety and code enforcement.