Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While looking at some houses under construction, I noticed that they were building the Great-room walls by simply stacking two 8' standard walls on top of each other. No continuous structure, no shear wall, just a stack nailed together at the plates. They put some metal mesh fasteners across the connection here and there, but that is not really going to do anything.
Is this code?
I know a lot of new houses soon have problems with cracks and leaks in great-room walls. This would explain why. I would think that the walls would often bow as well, especially in windy conditions.
If this is the norm, I would never consider buying a house with a great-room (I would not anyway because it is a tremendous waste of space, materials, heat, etc, but if this is how they normally build them, it is crazy to buy one. )
You saw a new house being built? Come on now. Where? You are kidding right? I can't remember the last time I saw a new home being built, it's been a couple years, but nearly daily do I see yet another home builder pulling down the curtains and locking the doors forever.
Aside from the truthful sarcasm, no that does not appear to be proper construction framing procedure. If it's what I think you are talking about, that wall should be 2x6 continuous in height which you can get up to 24' long I do believe.
Perhaps if our resident builder K'ledge comes around he can elaborate further.
You saw a new house being built? Come on now. Where? You are kidding right? I can't remember the last time I saw a new home being built, it's been a couple years, but nearly daily do I see yet another home builder pulling down the curtains and locking the doors forever.
Aside from the truthful sarcasm, no that does not appear to be proper construction framing procedure. If it's what I think you are talking about, that wall should be 2x6 continuous in height which you can get up to 24' long I do believe.
Perhaps if our resident builder K'ledge comes around he can elaborate further.
Yes, They are findings off some subdivisions here and there. Not 50 house projects but maybe 6 in one place and 4 in another. There is a little bit going on.
Tha is what I thought. I do not see any way that a great room can be built except balloon framing. However this was just platform framing without the floor where it should be.
Yes, They are findings off some subdivisions here and there. Not 50 house projects but maybe 6 in one place and 4 in another. There is a little bit going on.
Tha is what I thought. I do not see any way that a great room can be built except balloon framing. However this was just platform framing without the floor where it should be.
I have to take a very educated guess that wall will bow outwards. Who knows, maybe even inwards. Maybe due to the deep deep economic depression your town/city/municipality has laid off all the Building Code Officials and it's a free for all? Hey I'm being sarcastic again.
As always, there seems to be wiggle room when reading the IRC. For the sake of argument I wish it were much more cut and dry. But, due to the vast differences in building materials, climate, geographic locations, and political bureaucracy there is no pure definition to a lot of the code. As for the question at hand-
According to the IRC (International Residential Code): TABLE R602.3.1 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LENGTH OF WOOD WALL STUDS EXPOSED TO WIND SPEEDS OF 100 MPH OR LESS IN SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORIES
Walls of 20-24' in height (supporting roof only) shall be constructed of 2X6 #2 or better- 12" or 8" o/c depending on the seismic load.
That sounds pretty straight forward right? Well, the paragraph before that table reads: R602.3 Design and construction.
Studs shall be continuous from support at the sole plate to a support at the top plate to resist loads perpendicular to the wall. The support shall be a foundation or floor, ceiling or roof diaphragm or shall be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice.
"...or shall be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice"- well that just blew everything out the window!
If the use of metal connector plates along with OSB sheathing makes for a correct shear wall for the climate and/or geography, then I guess it would be acceptable according to that statement I quoted. I just hope that those walls aren't site built and the connector plates aren't being hammered on.
As always, there seems to be wiggle room when reading the IRC. For the sake of argument I wish it were much more cut and dry. But, due to the vast differences in building materials, climate, geographic locations, and political bureaucracy there is no pure definition to a lot of the code. As for the question at hand-
According to the IRC (International Residential Code): TABLE R602.3.1 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LENGTH OF WOOD WALL STUDS EXPOSED TO WIND SPEEDS OF 100 MPH OR LESS IN SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORIES
Walls of 20-24' in height (supporting roof only) shall be constructed of 2X6 #2 or better- 12" or 8" o/c depending on the seismic load.
That sounds pretty straight forward right? Well, the paragraph before that table reads: R602.3 Design and construction.
Studs shall be continuous from support at the sole plate to a support at the top plate to resist loads perpendicular to the wall. The support shall be a foundation or floor, ceiling or roof diaphragm or shall be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice.
"...or shall be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice"- well that just blew everything out the window!
If the use of metal connector plates along with OSB sheathing makes for a correct shear wall for the climate and/or geography, then I guess it would be acceptable according to that statement I quoted. I just hope that those walls aren't site built and the connector plates aren't being hammered on.
That is pretty much what I said only I did not know about the 12" or 8" OC which should be obvious. I didn't think of that part.
It would be interesting to see if this gets past the Code Officials. Keep us informed as you drive by it daily to the OP
I do not see it every day, but I will look next time I am there. However Continuous from a support at the sole plate to a support at the top plate could be interpreted to mean the sole and top plates for each wall section couldn't it? If you are basically nailing two complete walls together, you have two sole plates and two top plates. That is how it was built. They did not have a single "mid-plate". They had two separate and complete walls stacked on top of each other. Besides, these walls are 16' 4" (less milling), so this section may not apply.
16' walls (supporting roof only)- 2X6 stud (or #2 or better) can be built 24, 16, or 12" o/c. It can be 2X4 if it's 8" o/c.
Whatever they're doing doesn't sound like it's to code but,...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
