CountryPlans Forum

  A while back some one asked this question. Here's how I'm doing it on the job we're framing right now .


  Racked the studs / trimmers / and upper cripple studs interior side up on the deck using the gable end wall as the upper stop , and a floor sheathing seam as a 90° guide . Nailed a block along the seam to hold the stud etc true. And used two pipe clamps to pull the works together.

  I laid out the ledger location as per plan.

  I used a cut off piece of plywood as a saw guide , tacking it on 1 1/2 " away from the desired cut line , and ran the upper kerf. Set the saw just a fuzz shallow , trying for 1/ 16".

 (https://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/PEG688/apr101.jpg)

 Then moved the guide to the lower kerf ,

 (https://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/PEG688/ap10r2.jpg%20 )

 After the kerfs where cut I used my hammer to knock the waste out ,

  (https://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/PEG688/apr103.jpg)

  After sweeping the area / studs etc off , I used  a plunge router with a  1/2 " shank , top guide bearing , pattern bit.

  (https://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/PEG688/apr104.jpg%20 )

 I added the 3/8 " plywood base to span the area of the let in , by taking out most of the waste the router doesn't work as hard , and in the long run that saves time . Instead of hogging all that wood with the router .

 (https://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/PEG688/apr105.jpg)


  Makes a nice clean cut,  :)

  (https://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/PEG688/apr106.jpg)


  The south wall I did last week without the router , same process only bottom of the let in was cleaned up with a chisel, and I set the skil saw a fuzz deep , 1/16" so the ledger would be just a little bit set back from the stud faces.

  (https://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/PEG688/apr109.jpg)  

  The wide one  :)

  (https://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/PEG688/3.jpg)

   All in all the router was cleaner but I'm not sure faster , which means $$$ to a builder. Both ways work  :)

 You might notice these walls are made up of 2x6 spruce , 4x6 fir and 4x6 LSL. 24" OC , the joist will be nailed , one joist each side for  a "look" and nailed to the 4x s with 4 ea. 16d nails , staggered, per joist.

  Couple of long shots ,
 
  (https://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/PEG688/apr107.jpg%20 )

  (https://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/PEG688/apr1010.jpg)  

   Good luck , PEG

Great How-To PEG.

Thanks,  :)

Good show-n-tell PEG :)

That was me originally asking the question!  Thanks!!  That helps me out!!

[size=12] Your welcome  :) [/size]

Seems like I used not to bother cleaning it up much if at all after knocking the sawed space out.  If I'd done a good job sawing it still worked (and besides the only chisel I had at the time was a ¹/₂ inch one), but, good grief that router method makes it look sooooo nice.  And it's sturdier than a half-assed smoothed space to nail the ledger into.

And I'd have come close to killing for a port-a-potti on a fair number of jobs.  :)

Are the walls framed 24"OC? I was told on this forum that it would cause wavy walls inside and out.
Jared

QuoteAre the walls framed 24"OC? I was told on this forum that it would cause wavy walls inside and out.
Jared

 [size=12]IMO ,when we're done the walls will look wavy.  
[highlight]
 I'm just the lead carpenter, I did not design this house, I only buildum , to the specs. provided ;)[/highlight]

  Those issue's are beyond my control.   I would not build my house or cabin on 24" centers. But that is just my opinion.  24" OC meets required code.

 The other thing with this place is all the 4 x6 material , all driven by the project [highlight]engineer. ::)[/highlight]  

 PEG    
[/size]

I like the technique by which you notched, but I'm not sure why you are notching the studs in the first place.

Is it to bear a 'let-in' floor joist?

If so, it appears to be a code violation under the International Residential Code 2003 (Washington State's Code) on a number of counts.

The Code limits how deep walls studs can be notched.

For bearing walls, the maximum depth of the notch is only 7/8" for a 2x4 and 1 3/8" for a 2x6. (Section R606.2 Drilling and Notching Studs).

This creates a problem because floor joists need to be borne on a minimum of 1 1/2" of lumber. This means according to Code, you cannot do what you just did because A) it weakens the bearing wall joists too much to allow them to carry the weight of the floor and roof system from above from overnotching and B) it does not allow for a deep enough notch at 1 3/8" for the joist to be properly borne. Bearing joists need to be carried on at least 1 1/2" of wood. (Section R502.6)

Be interested to have this explained in further detail because it appears that what you may have done is a serious code violation and may have seriously compromised the structural integrity of the building.

Perhaps I misunderstand.

Could you explain in better detail what you are trying to do and why?

Is it really a notch if you fill it all up with basically the same material you took out of it (even if it's going th opposite direction)??

I don't know.

QuoteI like the technique by which you notched,

  Thanks  :)


    but I'm not sure why you are notching the studs in the first place.

   


 [highlight]  For a loft area , 2x12 joist , 4x6 fir post / and 4x6 LSL post 24" oc. as per architectural drawing , BTW the owner/ person who designed the place  is a Professor of Architecture , as is his wife ,at a major west coast Univ. .

  The plans have been approved/ stamped/ added to etc. by a  PE Registered in the State of Wa.  to spec.s of  

    - IBC '03' and IRC '00'  

     -Exposurer B
 
     - 85 mph winds
 
      -Seismic Design Cat. D1

 The plans have pasted code check for the city they where submitted to.

 Const. has followed the plans" to the letter" with no major changes to  the drawing/ approved plans  detail.

 17 [size=18]PAGES[/size] of engineering
[/highlight]
   
Is it to bear a 'let-in' floor joist?

No,  a 2x6 SPF ledger is let in.

 The joist run 90° to the ledger.  

 Joists run N/S , ledgers runs E/W

 
If so, it appears to be a code violation under the International Residential Code 2003 (Washington State's Code) on a number of counts.

The Code limits how deep walls studs can be notched.

For bearing walls, the maximum depth of the notch is only 7/8" for a 2x4 and 1 3/8" for a 2x6. (Section R606.2 Drilling and Notching Studs).

   That may be why the post are 4x6 LSL and 4x6 D. Fir



This creates a problem because floor joists need to be borne on a minimum of 1 1/2" of lumber. This means according to Code, you cannot do what you just did because A) it weakens the bearing wall joists too much to allow them to carry the weight of the floor and roof system from above from overnotching and B) it does not allow for a deep enough notch at 1 3/8" for the joist to be properly borne. Bearing joists need to be carried on at least 1 1/2" of wood. (Section R502.6)


 

Be interested to have this explained in further detail because it appears that what you may have done is a serious code violation and may have seriously compromised the structural integrity of the building.

Perhaps I misunderstand.

Could you explain in better detail what you are trying to do and why?


   I'm following the approved plans  ;)

(https://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/PEG688/apr134.jpg)

 The staging is sitting on top of the 2 x12 D, Fir joist , top of joist 9' above lower sub floor , as per plan , resting on let in 2x6 SPF ledger, nailed  to ea. stud and or 4x6 post with 2 ea. 16d nails .  Joist are nailed to ea. side of the 4x6 posts with4 ea . 16 d nails staggered as per plan.

 You may be able to see the top plate on the right hand side is a 4x6 D.F. beam, this acts as both T/P and headers for a few windows 8-)  

 (https://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/PEG688/apr135.jpg)

 2x10 D.Fir rafters 24" OC , with 2x12 DF ridge board , nailed with 4ea, 16d nails .

  Nice cuts , Eh ;)

 Hopefully this is enough info.   ;)

 PEG

What is the solution for this, Manhattan, because this has been a standard practice in balloon framing for a hundred years.  In the old days they used to use a 1x4 instead of a 2x4.  Does the UBC permit this as many of the areas around here are still using UBC, since they didn't like a lot of the changes in the IBC.

Looks like PEG has his covered but it is still common practice to do this I believe.

Nice cuts is right PEG - I never get mine that close when cutting with a chain saw.  I find I can make them look better by taking the picture off to the side so the the sunlight doesn't show through the cracks. :-/

Quote

 
Nice cuts is right PEG - I never get mine that close when cutting with a chain saw.  I find I can make them look better by taking the picture off to the side so the the sunlight doesn't show through the cracks. :-/

 [size=12]   ::) ::)  Hoy, we got some  work to do here  ::) ::)[/size]

Amanda_931 asked:

"Is it really a notch if you fill it all up with basically the same material you took out of it (even if it's going th opposite direction)?? "

To my knowledge, it is still a notch and weakens the bearing studs by creating kind of a 'hinge' point at which lateral forces could bend or ultimately snap them.

The lateral force can came from wind sheer, snow loads on the roof, excessive loads on floors, etc...

Excessive bending can cause the lumber to split, further weakening the structure.

PEG688:

Thanks for the further input.

Under IRC 2000, notching of dimensional studs is limited to 25% of the depth for bearing walls and 40% for non-bearing walls. I observed what appeared to be notches deeper than the 1 3/8" maximum for 2x6s which is what prompted my questions.

Engineered lumber notching and boring is determined by the engineered lumber manufacturer, not the code.

Since the plans have been stamped, it is possible that the structure may have been designed under a different approved standard, such as the National Design Specification or International Building Code rather than the International Residential Code.

The IRC also permits other engineered designs and methods.

BTW, I wasn't questioning you or your work. It is impressive.

Just wondered what the specs were because some of what appeared in your photos raised questions.

glenn kangiser asked:

"What is the solution for this, Manhattan, because this has been a standard practice in balloon framing for a hundred years.  In the old days they used to use a 1x4 instead of a 2x4.  Does the UBC permit this as many of the areas around here are still using UBC, since they didn't like a lot of the changes in the IBC."

Balloon framing is still allowed under the International Residential Code as is let-in bracing of walls. The key is to not notch the studs more than 25% of the depth for 2x4 bearing walls or more than 40% for 2x6 bearing walls.

Maximum notch depth of a nominal bearing 2x4 stud is 7/8", so 3/4" let-in boards are still acceptable today just as they were back when. With older true 2" by 4" studs, the permissable notch depth would have been deeper.

Using nominal 2x lumber as a let-in is not allowed under IRC today because it notches the studs deeper than permitted.

I'm not really familiar with the UBC which California currently uses.

But California has opted to replace the UBC with the full compliment of International Codes beginning in 2006, and is in the process of implementing them once the State makes amendments to these model codes to make them more applicable to the California environment. Expect California's UBC to be obsolete by next year.

Thanks, Manhattan.   That makes sense.

Good to have someone around here who knows the code issues. For most owner/builder/designers the mere mass of regulation-style text overwhelms potential understanding - that and the fact that it can seem to be always changing and subject to interpretation.

It is very helpful when someone like Mr. NY here explains it in a way that makes perfect sense.

Heres a few more photos Manhatten , and by the book you are right ,1 3/8" is the max let in for a 5 1/2" framing member.  Even on that is 3 1/2" in thickness :o as in a post.

 [highlight]This project with the engineering goes beyond the basic "book" code . [/highlight]  I wonder why they chose 1 3/8"  :-/Knowing that would rule out dementional lumber ,IE , 2x4 / 6 for the ledger.  

I think you'd agree that the 1/8 " difference is moot , it would not be  the 1/8th Inch that would break the camels back , so to speak :o

 That being said  from a inspector stand point some where you have to have a # / rule to go by . This one seems to me to not make any sense, a 1x4 on paper would work but in application I'd not trust a 1x4 common fir to do the job , so a 2x4 would be the natural next step as 5/4 material is not avaible in framing type stock .  Buying a 5/4 x 4 D. Fir board at about $3.00 a  foot would be a hard sell.  

So either the writers of the new code want to make this type of semi" ballon " framing impractical  for cost and compliance or they just screwed the pooch by going with the hard and fast 25% rule ::)

 (https://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/PEG688/apr148.jpg%20)

 Close up of the nail pattern for attaching the 2x12 to the 4x6's.

 (https://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/PEG688/apr147.jpg%20)

 General view of joist and ledger.


 Views of joist to post detail.


 (https://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/PEG688/apr146.jpg%20)



 (https://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/PEG688/apr145.jpg)


 (https://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/PEG688/apr144.jpg)


 View from my office this week :)

 (https://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/PEG688/apr136.jpg%20)

 That sail boat might be a better office  ;)

 PEG

Would it be acceptable to use a vertical 2x nailer ("jack-post", "crutch", ?? ... I don't know the correct term) attached to the inside face of the stud to support the joists?  This would eliminate the ledger and the letting-in.  If acceptable, would such an element have to extend all the way down to the sill ... or would the shear loading on "x" number of nails or screws be sufficient?

BTW, great looking framing PEG!

QuoteGood to have someone around here who knows the code issues.

   [size=12]   Yup :)  [/size]

  For most owner/builder/designers the mere mass of regulation-style text overwhelms potential understanding - that and the fact that it can seem to be always changing and subject to interpretation.

  [size=12]  Yes it is a PITA ::)   [/size]

It is very helpful when someone like Mr. NY here explains it in a way that makes perfect sense.

   [size=12] Now on this specfic issue, 1 3/8 " max depth as apposed to 1 1/2" depth  ::)  I can't say that "MAKE SENSE", ::) seems nit picky , bean counter , anal retentive to me  ::)  That 1/8"x5 1/2 " taken out is infinitesimal ,  there is still a 4" net of material left undisturbed .

    And of course that is not manhatten's fault ;)

   PEG      [/size]

Are y'all having to put diagonal bracing to keep the whole building from tilting?  Or is that just belt-and-suspenders?

(Manhattan could be Kansas)

this last lot of pictures told me exactly what was going on.   Getting pictures that do that really is an art form.  Good work.

Quote

 Are y'all having to put diagonal bracing to keep the whole building from tilting?  Or is that just belt-and-suspenders?

 [size=12]    Amanda the old diagonal bracing thing around here is long gone  :) It was also a PITA, IMO.    These days we have Brace Wall Panels , BWP , and Alternate BWP  ABWP, Interior BWP IBWP , etc  

 All these different panels have to be  [highlight]at least[/highlight] 1/2 CDX or 7/16 OSB .  Some times we sheet both sides . The nailing is generally 4 "OC on the edges and 6" in the field  althought I have seen 2" OC all edges and 4" OC in the field . You'd think all those nails would degrade the lumber / split the crap out of it , and you'd be right , BUT the book/ engineers want the nails , generally 6d gun nails .   Unless they go into the new ACQ lumber then the nails have to be Galv.

 Not much for a old carpenter to remember these days  :o

 All sorts of different "Hold downs " from Simpson . They must have a boat load of lobbyist we use more metal straps , hold downs , clips , than ya can shake a stick at.   ''  These straps are generally nailed about ever 2 to 3 inches with 16d nails  :o Each strap generally have the nail size and ya fill all the holes with the "right " nail size.

 All that hardware drives up the cost, they contend these places will hold up in a quake , some day we'll see  :o :o  or some one will ;)  I hope not me  :)

 A break down of what Katrina did to newer homes would be nice[highlight] , IF they build down south like we do here in PNW[/highlight] .

  I doubt they do as quakes are not suppost to happen down there , but high winds / hurricane / tornados do about the same thing I would think .       [/size]

[highlight]
 Another thing eng. don't figure in is how the sheathing is applied , as in,, does the crew break the sheets so they over lap the box sill so the" hinge point " is supported by the sheathing , or is it just put on willy nilly , cut up,,, not lapped so window headers , plates , changes in levels are thought about.

 As they can't control that they slap a strap , or a clip , or a threaded rod from a bolt inbeded in the concrete to a coupling to a rod thru the floor , up the wall cavity thru the top plates toa big washer and nut to pull hold the whole works together :o :o[/highlight]


this last lot of pictures told me exactly what was going on.   Getting pictures that do that really is an art form.  Good work.

 [highlight]Ya a picture is worth a thousands words  :)  So I'm a artist ;D jee I wonder if I can charge more  ;D

 Thanks  :)

 PEG[/highlight]

  [size=12]  PS I forgot to change color so to not confuse your quote I highlighted , to lazy to go back and redo the whole works  :-[   [/size]

Quote


 Would it be acceptable to use a vertical 2x nailer ("jack-post", "crutch", ?? ... I don't know the correct term) attached to the inside face of the stud to support the joists?  

 [size=12]     I'd call that a  trimmer like under a header, it would have to go to the plate full bearing . It would work , but in this case the look is for the two joist pairs to be exposed , finished natural .  so you'd need one on each side of the 4x6 post.   It might work , but again these plans don't call for it that way. Good question though :)     [/size]



 is would eliminate the ledger and the letting-in.  If acceptable, would such an element have to extend all the way down to the sill ... or would the shear loading on "x" number of nails or screws be sufficient?


  [size=12]See above  :)    [/size]

BTW, great looking framing PEG!


 [size=12]   Thanks  :) [/size]
 

John Raabe said:

"Good to have someone around here who knows the code issues. For most owner/builder/designers the mere mass of regulation-style text overwhelms potential understanding - that and the fact that it can seem to be always changing and subject to interpretation.

It is very helpful when someone like Mr. NY here explains it in a way that makes perfect sense. "

Well, I'm not only a code official, but a builder as well.

I have to try to make sense of the codes on a daily and very practical basis. :o ;D

PEG688 said:

"Heres a few more photos Manhatten , and by the book you are right ,1 3/8" is the max let in for a 5 1/2" framing member.  Even on that is 3 1/2" in thickness  as in a post.  

 This project with the engineering goes beyond the basic "book" code .  I wonder why they chose 1 3/8"  Knowing that would rule out dementional lumber ,IE , 2x4 / 6 for the ledger.  

I think you'd agree that the 1/8 " difference is moot , it would not be  the 1/8th Inch that would break the camels back , so to speak  

 That being said  from a inspector stand point some where you have to have a # / rule to go by . This one seems to me to not make any sense, a 1x4 on paper would work but in application I'd not trust a 1x4 common fir to do the job , so a 2x4 would be the natural next step as 5/4 material is not avaible in framing type stock .  Buying a 5/4 x 4 D. Fir board at about $3.00 a  foot would be a hard sell.    

So either the writers of the new code want to make this type of semi" ballon " framing impractical  for cost and compliance or they just screwed the pooch by going with the hard and fast 25% rule  "

PEG688:

I believe that what has occurred is that the research has indicated that notching bearing studs over 25% of their depth simply weakens their bearing capacity too much and that the 7/8" maximum notch depth for nominal 2x4 or 1 3/8" maximum notch depth for 2x6s is incidental.

I don't think it's correct to look at 1 3/8" and think it's almost 1 1/2" so why not 1 1/2". There's more to it than that.

The problem is that notched studs weaken the structure when done beyond 25% on bearing walls or 40% on non bearing walls.

You also have to understand that especially for exterior bearing walls that have a roof above, the action of loads on the roof is going to be not only to bear down on these studs but also to bear these walls out....and that the weakest point will be at the notch where the studs could literally snapoff or split.

Wood fibers are also not so precise as to flow in perfectly straight lines.

What this means is that with a notch, you have created a starting point at which a split is going to readily occur.

Not so with planed smooth lumber.

What this means is that wherever you have a notch, you also have a greater likelihood of the lumber splitting, and when lumber splits, as you know, it does not do so in a perfectly straight planed line.

It follows the fibers in the lumber which, depending on the cut, are not all that straight.

When you notch studs, they can split outward causing the stud to be sheared in two over the length of the split.

Keeping the notches to less than 25% for bearing walls is the optimal maximum depth the stud should be bored.

And it goes without saying that the most stable stud is one that hasn't been notched at all.

That said and even though the design of your structure has been approved and stamped, it is in my opinion still a very poor one, and there are much better methods to attain essentially the same floor construction without having had to notch any studs.

In this particular case, architectural professor or no, it's a very poorly thought out framing plan, imho.

One could have achieved the same thing without notches by simply placing jacks under each floor joist and ended up with a stronger structure in the process.

Doesn't mean it is 'wrong'. There are many ways to skin the structural cat.

Be that as it may, a maximum notch in a 2x4 at 25% is 1 3/8".

Cut into a nominal 2x6 this leaves you with 4 1/8" of wood left.

One might think, "Well, Gee. That left over 4 1/8" is deeper than an undisturbed 2x4 nominal stud (3 1/2")"....But this notched 2x6 is actually potentially weaker than an undistrubed 2x4 because the potential for splitting is greater with a notch in deeper material than with no notches in narrower lumber.

This is why is some cases a 2x4 #SS of one species can be ultimately stronger than an economy grade of another species at say 2x6 because of all the greater potentials for splitting and failure with the less pristine lumber with more knots.

Anyhow, notching in a ledger board would not be how I would recommend this job to have been designed, but your designers did and got their approvals and will be the one's living with their decisions.

Best regards.

QuoteAmanda_931 asked:

"Is it really a notch if you fill it all up with basically the same material you took out of it (even if it's going th opposite direction)?? "

To my knowledge, it is still a notch and weakens the bearing studs by creating kind of a 'hinge' point at which lateral forces could bend or ultimately snap them.

I'm puzzled by this too. With platform framing you also get a hinge point where the bottom plate is nailed down. But of course you don't depend on those nails to keep the wall from falling over. The wall is usually braced upright by the perpendicular walls. So why would it be any different with balloon framing? If anything, the deeply notched balloon frame wall would be stronger.

  [size=12] The thrust of the roof load in wind / snow loaded or earthquake would be pressing on/ out  those notch's , as in the photo's the roof stress/ load is to push out . The lowered joist are in tension  collar ties but lower than "normal" . So the notch is in effect the weakest point , as I see it.     [/size]

 This shot , shows it best I think , althought that wasn't the intent of the photo , I'd show it better if that was what I was shooting for  :)

 (https://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/PEG688/apr134.jpg%20)

Ah, thanks PEG, that explains the engineering requirements on this structure. I was thinking more generally of a structural ridge or trusses. I also just read Manhattan's description of the increased splitting potential when the notch is in tension, which is definitely relevant to your structure, but I'm not really sure to what degree that applies if you don't have the roof thrust.

bartholomew asked:

"I'm puzzled by this too. With platform framing you also get a hinge point where the bottom plate is nailed down. But of course you don't depend on those nails to keep the wall from falling over. The wall is usually braced upright by the perpendicular walls. So why would it be any different with balloon framing? If anything, the deeply notched balloon frame wall would be stronger."

Again, notching weakens the stud, joist or rafter by decreasing it's designed ability to resist loads.

This weakened point and the fact that it is notched will also encourage splitting at the notch.

Any because of lumber fiber orientation, does not mean the split is going to be clean.

This gives a notched stud of say a 2x6 a weaker status in life than say a 2x4 un-notched because it has no particular weak spot along its length and no point at which splitting is prone to occur.

True, joints between floors in a platform frame are also 'hinged' points, but they are less weak than notched studs.

Placing fasteners into the notches through ledger boards face nailing can futher weaken the notched point.

The fact that there will be a 'cathedral ceiling' above this lot further weakens this entire roof system and adds considerably more load pushing out against these notched studs than normallywould be extered in platform framing.

I've pretty much exhausted my knowledge of 'engineering' here.

We'd have to send out for a structural engineer to get the real skinny on how notching and loads work..

Hope this helps anyhow.

Quote

 Best regards.

 [size=12] Jee I had a big , long line by line answer and the computer dumped it  >:(  I'm not redoing it  ;D

  The job is what it is , approved ,stamped , permited  etc .

   I don't designum, I buildum.

  I'm not going to try to tell a  engineer and / or a architect they need to redraw a set of  plans , after the permit is issued  , ain't in my job discription  ;)

 Best back at ya , PEG     [/size]

  

QuoteWe'd have to send out for a structural engineer to get the real skinny on how notching and loads work..


[size=12]  I'll point out here , again,  the owner has payed for a structural engineer and the math/ engineering  of this place ,as draw and as built ,meets or exceeds that engineers requirements.  

     [/size]

And those are the guys (engineers and architects) who come up with plans for all-glass houses (with a little tiny bathroom/closet core) in seismic areas of Japan.  That presumably work, even in that difficult environment.

(at least I think I've seen one of those from Japan--it may even have been two-story)

Or those strange looking arangements featuring cables with turnbuckles instead of plywood sheathing.  Not for me, but they presumably work too.

And it's why one can sometimes substitute an engineering review for standard practice or codes-mandated.

 Heres some engineering ,
 
 (https://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/PEG688/AZtrip2.jpg)

 (https://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/PEG688/AZtrip1.jpg)

 This is a glass eterior wall at SEATAC ,John's MTL seen it . It like , [highlight]approx.[/highlight] 60' to 80' in height and 200' plus long .

It's curved from right to left and bowed from top to bottom held in tension / compression ?? by the cables and turn buckles .

Being a builder this is amazing , to me , how they held it together while building it I have no idea, :-/ way beyond my mind / grasp :o  ::)

Wow!

PEG688 said:

"Jee I had a big , long line by line answer and the computer dumped it    I'm not redoing it  ..."


Shucks. And here I just thought I left you speechless.... :D

PEG688 said:

"The job is what it is , approved ,stamped , permited  etc .

   I don't designum, I buildum.  

  I'm not going to try to tell a  engineer and / or a architect they need to redraw a set of  plans , after the permit is issued  , ain't in my job discription "

I agree. You should have been involved at the design phase on this one, and there likely wouldn't be all these issues.... :o

PEG:

I too have marveled at that huge glazed wall structure at the SeaTac airport. (It no doubt helps to have an hour or two to kill sitting in plastic chairs.)

It is a very elegant structural system with all the tension and compression members so clearly differentiated and expressed. There are cables going into steel ribs going into buttressed pillars. And then the glass panels themselves in their snug rubber mounts. It works together much like a sailing ship with the glass adjusting to the shifting wind loads.

I have no idea what kind of load that wall was designed to meet. I expect it is many times the 85 mph design wind load of our area. I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't expected to survive a terrorist blast impact (from inside or outside?)

Anyway, thanks for the photos... I think I have some somewhere too.

manhatten did you get my PM?

Just did.

The 'notification' for PMs isn't really noticeable.

I would not have even known I had a pm until you asked..

In your profile you can have it do a popup to notify you.  Somehow I still miss the popup once in a while.

We're not in Kansas anymore
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline06/0306feat.html
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline06/0206feat.html
Amazing what can be done when the envelope is pushed just a little...

Cool Design.  Since it is not included in the codes, I assume that if an Engineer designs it, then it supersedes  the codes.  Is that correct?

I'm no structural here, I do site engineering, but I imagine it would be the same red tape.  When I go outside the rules I have to appeal to some board somewhere asking for a variance.  Our plumbing mob union for example dictates all plumbing issues....all piping up to 10-feet from the foundation.  If I wanted to use a pipe material that is not in the plumbing code, I need to file with them for a variance.  If the variance is signficant enough, the board may decide that revisions to the code are needed.  I imagine the structural guys do the same.

Seems that codes cover materials used -strengths etc but ultimately it is the EOR who takes responsibility for odd designs- basicly odd stick -post and beam --built or structural steel etc.  That may even be the case in the design PEG is working on.   EOR says it will stand - special inspectors and inspectors see to it that it is to his design and accept it.  He is responsible.  I saw a 4 story steel structure falling over because of no lateral bracing but city inspectors approved it.

QC keeps telling people they can't make it safe.  They can only speak up if they notice something off.

Mind you some of the old hands can be pretty helpful.  If they want to.  But for the most part they're not engineers.  

I assume this goes for the codes people as well.

Building Codes are 'prescriptive' codes, meaning they try to tell you in advance what to and not to do under the most common building conditions.

But simply because alternate materials or designs are not included in the codes does not mean they are not automatically not allowed or can't be used. The code specifically states they can be used, but only under an engineered design.

For instance, trusses and I-joists are not contained in the codes because they are engineered wood products and need to be either designed by engineers or installed by using the manufacturer's engineering/application charts.

For designs as in PEG's case, such must be submitted with stamped and sealed archtiect or engineering plans and show the appropriate calculations as required by the code officials because it goes beyond the allowances of the prescriptive codes.

Ultimately it is the code official, however, who still gets to approve or disapprove even a stamped engineering design.

The degree to which engineered designs get approved depends upon the sophistication of the code official's plans reviewer/plans department.

In small departments where there may be a single code official who does eveyrthing, the trend is to simply approve anything that comes in with an architect's or engineer's stamp or seal...because the code official doesn't have any way to verify or dispute them.

In larger departments, the code office will have their own engineers on staff who can verify the designs and send them back for correction if they spot errors....and errors do occur even with stamped architect or engineer supplied designs.

I was just involved in a small project (as a builder) for an existing home where my customer needed to replace an existing leaking jetted bathtub on the 3nd floor with a new one.

They decided to replace the old 35 gallon tub with a larger 95 gallon unit and that sparked problems.

After we removed the old tub, we found that floor joists that were to bear this larger tub were already too small for the spans and that 1 of the 3 joists that would bear the full 1400lb weight of the tub when fully loaded was notched nearly clean through by previous plumbers to install the 3" waste pipe. This effectively left 2 already undersized joist 32" on center to bear the full loading.

I told the owners I could not proceed without an architect's or engineer's design approval.

Their son actually worked for an architect and they said they would have the architect come by, look at the project and send us his findings.

Well, he did and declared the floor 'safe' to install the tub.

In the mean time, I had provided the structural details to an architect friend of mine who completely disagreed and said the floors would collapse under the weight given the conditions.

When I told the customer that the only way I could proceed was to bring this to the attention of local code official who would then need to see engineering caulculations for the loads and the floors (the proper thing to do), they chose instead to fire me (because all they could see was that it was going to cost them more money to do things correctly), went and got a permit by tricking the code official using only their architect's letter.

In the mean time, I ran these issues past several other structural engineers and architect colleagues who all agreed that the floors would never hold the weight of the tub.

The moral of the story is, that many code officials would accept an architect's letter or stamp on the face of it, even if it is wrong and unsafe...because they have no way to dispute the design or even know potential problems even if they were there.

In my case, I refused to take the liability for an installation I knew to be questionable even though one professional designer would approve it. Ultimately it wasn't his liability, it was mine.

The bottom line was that the people got their jetted tub, and I'm off the hook should the floors give way.

Ultimately, however, it is the code officials who issue permits and grant approvals.

In this case, the code offical got snookered by some less than forthright owner's using what were flawed architectural opinions.

Thanks for taking the time to explain that, Manhattan.  I'm sure if it fell through you would be the one they would try to sue.  I always try to watch for potential liability issues, as in the case here in town where I took own the old warehouse. The owner and one of the building inspectors wanted to just rip it down with an excavator.  I explained that we needed to know exactly how everything connected into the common wall or the second building could go down.  As I suspected, half the roof of the adjoining building was supported on the common wall.  I plainly told the owner of the second building that if something went wrong during the demolition of the warehouse, that half of his building would go down with it.  He ok'ed adding a shoring wall.

I removed 6 joists attached to wrought iron tees in the failing wall, and then cut loose about 40 joists pocketed into the top of the failing common wall to prevent side pressure from being exerted on it as the building fell.  The mortar holding the 2 foot thick 25 foot tall walls was tested at 19 psi strength - little more than wet sand.

The owner of the building being demolished thanked me.  He said if it was not for my insistance on checking everything, he would have owned 2 buildings in town.  I just ignored the little building official with the big cowboy hat spewing tear it down without checking opinions-- it was obvious he didn't have a clue.  The local engineer dropped by and totally agreed with me and offered helpful suggestions on tearing down the canopy.  I'm not sure if he was on a retainer or not but it was nice of him to offer help anyway.

You made the right call Glenn, and I'm glad it worked out for you.

Here's one in my area where the building official screwed up big time.

(https://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c126/homebild/MVC-013S2.jpg)


The house under construction is a two family residential that was being built on an existing foundation after the old structure was demolished.

Although the owner was granted permission through zoning to construct the building so close to the property line, the code official simply ok'd the job without any thought to fire separation distance between the structures.

Under the International Residential Code 2003, structures that are within 3 feet of the property line must have fire rated construction: There must be no window or door openings in these walls, and have fire rated construction for  the walls and all projections (eaves) into the fire separation space. (Sections R302/R317)

This structure ended up being 2 1/2 feet from the property line.

The eaves were not fire rated construction and had perforated soffits.

I counted 6 windows on the wall that was supposed to have none.

Fire rated wall construction is required to prevent one structure from catching another on fire when in such close proximity, and this is a amjor life safety concern.

This building was being constructed in a community near mine and I alerted the code official and their solicitor of the problem.

The solution was to shut down the job until the building's owner could install a sprinkler system.

It turned out that the code official had misread the 2.5' distance from the property line that was listed on the submitted documents as 7.5' and hence neglected to reject the plans based on the fire separation distance.

His error ended up costing the building's owners many thousands of dollar for the sprinkler system.

So as in Glenn's case with the demolition project, the building official's errors could have or did result in unnecessary costs to the owners.

Does the sprinkler system reduce the clearance per code?  

Most of our town burned down in 1866 with the building I just demo'ed being one of a couple left standing due to their fireproof construction including steel firedoors.

Glenn asked:


"Does the sprinkler system reduce the clearance per code?"  


Well, no, not really. But it will provide equal or better protection given that the building is within the fire separation distance....

But if you think about it, the sprinkler system will only protect the older building to the left if the new house catches on fire, but won't do anything to protect the new building on the right if the old building catches on fire....then begins to burn the new house.

Why? Because the new building will have to have caught on fire from the old building and be pretty fully engulfed before its sprinkler systems go off to suppress the flames.

Again, the code is prescriptive telling you what you should do in most instances, but the Code allows for alternative methods that meet or exceed the minimums the code prescribes.

In plain English, the Code tells you the easiest way to comply but does not tell you that is the only way you can comply.

The sprinkler system becomes an engineered alternative that meets or exceeds the requirements.

But in this case, is still not a complete answer to the problem and not something I would have allowed. I don't think it meets or exceeds the requirements of a fire rated wall design which protects both structures equally.

But that municipality's code offical and insurers did....

So that's all that counts.

Bumping just for fun ;)

My county only recently adopted the IRBC so I'm very slowly becoming acquainted with it.  One things comes to mind about the code prescribed notches for the ledgers.  Since it's an "International" code I'd bet all the measurements were metric and we are simply dealing with inconsistent rounding off in converting to inches.    Maybe Jonsey, or someone else, has the measurements in cm.  The depth of the notches in cm. may well be identical to the common thickness of metric dimension lumber.

When I built my existing house the was no building department and no code.  Now we have an alphabet soup of  dept.'s  to go through.    IMHO each is no more than sanctioned extortion.  I'd best stop or Glenn will have to move this to rants.   I'll do that later.

I'm trying to mellow out ---

That looks like a wonderful excuse, John and may even be convincing if you act like you know with conviction, when you explain it to the inspector. :)

That wasn't my intent but I wouldn't hold my breath that the inspector would find a 1/8" discrepancy.

My Florida stilt house had a poured concrete roof.  The concrete sub scheduled the steel inspection with three days lead time expecting his crew would have the steel in place by then.  Of course it rained steadily for two days.  When the inspector arrived he got about ten feet off the ground on a shaky ladder, came back down and signed off on the steel inspection while standing next to the pile of rebar in the front yard.  I was there, on the roof, doing some electrical rough in at the time and he never spoke to me.  

I had an inspector sign off a basement without walking down into it to check anything.  I'm not complaining, mind you.  Permit fees ($21000) and taxes were paid already.  That's the main thing.

Dang it, John.  There I go again. :-/

Glenn,
Just curious how things work out there.  Many of John's plans and quite a few of ,for example, Ross Chapin's have very steep stairs or Jefferson stairs.  Do people actually get approval for those?  We've gone from nothing a few years ago to thousands of pages of code and three re-writes in two years.  We had "all new" regulations go into effect Mar. 1, and nobody seems to know much except it really "at the discretion of the inspector".  

I've asked two inspectors and the building dept office about post & pier foundations and I've gotten three different answers.  Stairs, rainwater collection, cisterns, euro washer dryer combos that don't require a vent (and run on 120v).....   Can't get answers but they'll be quick to red tag it and require a fee, penalty, additional permit, once the job is underway.

I could get worked up over it, but i've got to go work on my taxes.  :-[

Trying to work with the tax act is like trying to understand the logic of building code. Good Luck!

Probably about the same thing as you find there.  Code stairways should pass but non-code is more likely going to be discretionary here also and vary from place to place.  Hopefully they will tell you at plan check.  

I was in an gold rush era  building yesterday that had recently been sold and improvements had been made but the antique stove that was in use did not have code required clearances.  Obviously some things are ignored at the inspectors discretion.

Here is the ledger thread. :)

QuoteHere is the ledger thread. :)

Glenn, you did a "MtnDon" and forgot to paste in the link..,     :'(

and I thought I was being cute by not saying bump...

No-- I meant that this is it -- the one we are on -- I think I linked it over there though. :)

Bump . maybe this should be a "stickie"  what ya think Glenn ?  

This is a fairly common problem.  I can stick it for a while.  See how response is.    

My only reluctance is having to page down past the stickies on the first page -- if it gets too bad I can drop some of the slower stickies. :)

Ya,  I know,  it's a balance thing , what ever works .

I generally can find it when I have to . I just search my back posts. It doesn't come up if I use "letting in ledgers"  which maybe I should change the title to as I never remember to include "for floor joist." in my search .

 6400 + views  [cool] This must be helping someone some where :)

  Only 65 posts  ??? Must be to clear. :o

Could you help me with terminology?  The ledger-let-in is the two inch cut out from the 2x6 framings, correct?  What precisely is "balloon" framing?  (A Google search revealed contradictory results.)  And what is a "Kneeling Wall"?

-Jack

A let-in for the ledger is the "notch" cut to recess the ledger board into the stud. For a 2x6 it is not an actual 2 inches deep as 2x6's are really 1.5x5.5 inches. The surface of the ledger should be flush with the stud face, not as hurriedly drawn.  d*

(https://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q75/djmillerbucket/construction/balloon-knee.jpg)

It's called balloon because as a rule, you build the entire shell (balloon) before getting the intermediate floors in place. If this was platform type instead of balloon, that short loft wall would be a separate piece sitting (nailed) on top of the loft floor material. As shown it makes for a wall that will resist outward forces better. Each has it's own advantages/disadvantages.

I hope your studs are truer than my illustration.  :D

In your illustration the loft joist rests on top of the ledger; could it instead be secured directly to the ledger with hanging brackets?

No problem with that. I illustrated it as resting on top primarily as that eliminates the hangers which probably cost 0.75 to a dollar each. Hangers will work.

One advantage to hangers is that their use will lower the loft floor level, affording greater max headroom up there. And max headroom is in short supply on a narrow cabin. Everything's a trade off.

Are you going to finish the lower part of the joists as some kind of a normal ceiling? Or use heavier planking (like 2x6 T&G decking) over top of the joists and leave the more rustic look of the open joists?  The joists on top of the ledgers gives a more pleasing appearance (no visible hardware) to my eye. Many solutions to the same problem.

For what it's worth: 

On my place, instead of brackets or letting in a ledger, I have my beams resting on posts that sit in the stud bays and are secured to the studs.  For the posts, I used tripled up 2x4s.  Doubled up 2x6's would have worked too as would 4x6 posts.  I just had the extra 2x4s around and used them for this purpose.

My structural engineer friend and I talked about the three options and he felt that this was the strongest.  And from my perspective, it was the easiest to construct.

mt

On the same issue of names - MikeT, are your posts "jack shims?" 

MountainDon, I really like the look of the rafters and planned to leave them open to see the joists.  If we did that, and rested the joists on top of the ledger, wouldn't that require cut-outs (name?) to go between the joists so as to cover up the insulation between studs? 

Perilces-  I am not familiar with the term "Jack shims"  I don't know jack, I guess.

All I know is that on one side of my house where I have a large beam spanning my kitchen bumpout, the joists/beams (that make up the loft)  that run perpendicular to that beam are hung on that side by HUC610 brackets, then are supported mid beam by the 2x6 bathroom wall and then finally are supported on the other side by these posts that I fashioned out of spare 2x4's that are then set inside the stud bays.

It seems to have worked so far for me-- I will leave the beams exposed as well as the 2x6 T&G flooring/ceiling above.

mt

Quote from: pericles on April 09, 2008, 09:25:18 AM
MountainDon, I really like the look of the rafters and planned to leave them open to see the joists.  If we did that, and rested the joists on top of the ledger, wouldn't that require cut-outs (name?) to go between the joists so as to cover up the insulation between studs?

When you say that you...

Quote...like the look of the rafters and planned to leave them open to see the joists

it's a little confusing.

The rafters hold up the roof sheathing. Joists hold up floors and ceilings.

So, (1) are you saying you like the appearance of having the main floor ceiling joists open to view from the downstairs? That's what I think you mean. (2) Not yet discussed is the roof. Do you also want the roof rafters exposed for the same visual effect? Let's leave that aside for the moment and return to (1).

You're right, if the ceiling joists are set on top of the ledgers, and if the joists are left open to view from below there will have to be some sort of filler between the joists, to cover the insulation in that area. What will the final interior walls be once the insulation is installed?

On the other hand, if you use the hangers and leave the joists open to view from below you have the galvanized brackets in plain view as well. To me, these...
(https://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q75/djmillerbucket/construction/joist-hanger-U.jpg) ,,,are meant to be hidden. But that's my outlook. I'd rather deal with the other problem than trying to disguise/hide the hangers or have them in plain view.

The above are my views and not the only way to attach the ceiling joists.   :D

Sorry - this is exactly why I need to be more careful about names.  I don't want to yell "watch out for that rafter!" and have a joist fall on my wife's head while she's wondering what I mean.

What I MEANT is that I'd like to have the loft joists exposed, and the loft floor boards exposed from below.  I think actually that I don't mind the hanging brackets visible, but that's an aesthetic question I suppose, and we'll just have to agree to disagree.

In terms of what we're using for the walls:

Probably we'd like to insulate LAST.  We can get the shell up, put in the loft, and have fun with the cabin this summer.  We won't use it much in the winter anyway, so no reason to spend the time or money insulating now.  I spent nine summers in a cabin with no insulation and exposed wall studs, and loved every one of them.

Eventually we'd like to insulate though, and after that, we'll throw vertical 1x4s from the floor to maybe 3.5 feet, and OSB above that, with some sort of molding between the two.  I'd like to maybe prime (and prime and prime) and paint the OSB white and stain and the 1x4s and molding. 

Good to see this thread active again  :)

Prec , you should think about going to the beam 4 x option for the ceiling joist with 2x6 T&G car decking for the loft flooring.

I haven't followed all the other things you've kicked around so maybe you have looked at that. The let in ledger , or the post under each beam option would be better than the hanger , keeping hangers to a min. is generally the best option. Squeaks , mis-aligned parts , cost etc , some times hangers are the best / only option , but IF they can be eliminated , IMO , your better off for a variety of reasons.     

I would second PEG's suggestion. A beam and deck ceiling will give a sense of a higher ceiling height and you can often go to 4x joists spaced 36" to 48" o/c. The downside is that the floor is a bit noisier transmitting impact noise below, and, it can cause plumbing issues when traps want to be hidden in the joist cavity.

pericles just to give you some idea of the look that is what I did on my cabin.  While most of the pic's are of the beam to log it will still give you some idea.  I just didn't take any pic's of the framed room with the beams and flooring.  If you want to take a look I will but the post below.  If I think of it I will take a pic of the framed room to give you some idea.  The first page (most recent) is mostly of the floor and ceiling if you care to look. 

http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=3613.msg49416#msg49416

I remember admiring that, John

What was the span approx? 4xwhat? and what is the decking; 2x4or6 T&G?

Don it ws 36"OC and was 2X6.  Actually the floor above only covers 5".  The 5-1/2 minus the T&G.  It is standard V groove on the ceiling.  The only span tht is larger is where it meets the chimney.  48" there on the kitchen side.  The foyer worked out to 54" to the chimney. I had an extra beam and put it in between that.  Didn't feel comfortable with that amount of span since the steps emptied onto there(landing).

pericles this is the way I did my ceiling beams/joist in my loft.  Some may disagree with the method but I think it works very well.  Adding 2X support blocks to the studs(full thickness). Then placing two header blocks (stud to stud) and allowing the beams to sit on them.  I finally remembered to take my camera this time.  Hope it helps.

(https://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd161/redoverfarm/scenes/country%20plans/100_1681-1.jpg)

(https://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd161/redoverfarm/scenes/country%20plans/100_1682-1.jpg)

 I disagree , those 2by blocks under your "header" should go all the way to the bottom plate . You are essentially counting on sheer strenght of the nails to hold the "headers" up.

Yes it will work , MTL, BUT it will not pass inspection and they may settle some over the years.

That same situation can be found in may old balloon framed buildings , generally the floors are way out of level due to unequal settling / shifting , as some nails hold good , some not so good.

Much better to run full length "trimmers",  other than that she's cherry.  :) 

Peg you are probably right in that they "may" settle.  Given the construction practices now it is less likely to occur.  Floor joist on 16OC as well as wall studs. The 2X blocks are approx 16" and nailed as least 6 times and some more often from the opposite direction.  I was thinking about this when I was doing and angles the nails toward the ceiling.  The header is also nailed to the studs.  If a ledger were set in the partition it too could settle by the failure of the footing or foundation and cause the same problem irregardless of long trimmers.  I guess we will just have to wait and see.  I feel pretty good about the foundation as it is on solid shale, 12" X 24" footing, 8" block. 

Thanks for your insight. 

Modern foundation such as yours do not "commonly " fail , your ceiling joist/ beams are 32 " OC. You have mixed and matched old "common" failure  points / short comings  with newer / better const. ,( your good foundation ),  practices. This  re-introducing common balloon const. failure points  , IE joist only supported by nail strenght.

My desire here is not to make you look bad , but to point out to others that , as you put it, " works very well" , in fact is  old method that has failed consistently in the past. Other may choose to do the same thing , I'd expect the same result I've seen in 50 to 100 years , sagging unlevel / uneven loft floor.

Wood moves , drys out , splits , twists , etc . All those , did you say 6 nails , will exacerbate those  tendencies to split , twist etc. 

  It may be fine for your life time , but to "build green " IMO means to build a wood framed structure that will last at least 3 life times (250 years or more). On the subject of "green building " using products that are recycled  as such is fine BUT overall longevity of the structure SHOULD play into the green title.

Now let me get down off this soap box.  ;)       

I guess we'll have to check back in a 100 years or so...

Just for reference, a 16d nail has a design shear value of 128 lbs. A 10d about 75 lbs.

If that wall is still open I would squeeze in a couple of after the fact cripples for insurance.

Quote from: John Raabe on April 18, 2008, 12:47:18 PM
Just for reference, a 16d nail has a design shear value of 128 lbs. A 10d about 75 lbs.

If that wall is still open I would squeeze in a couple of after the fact cripples for insurance.

I would have to agree on that. 2 cripples even crummy ones would go a long ways for strength on those beams. Stopping just a tiny little settling will be worth it not having sheet rock mud later cracking on the taped seams. Mark

Quote from: pericles on April 10, 2008, 09:03:26 AM



Eventually we'd like to insulate though, and after that, we'll throw vertical 1x4s from the floor to maybe 3.5 feet, and OSB above that, with some sort of molding between the two.  I'd like to maybe prime (and prime and prime) and paint the OSB white and stain and the 1x4s and molding. 

Jack Larkin
jlarkin1@law.villanova.edu

I would suggest plywood instead of the OSB for the upper walls.  Will paint better, and won't offgas.  Smoother too.  Don't forget to let-in (cut into the face of the studs) some 1x4's for all of the verticals on the wainscot to fasten to.  Could be nailed to the face as well.  Or you could cover lower section of wall with plywood also, giving 100% nailing surface for the wainscot, as well as blocking drafts, and pest infiltration.  Use T&G, or shiplap for the boards, and you won't notice the wood movement so much. 

Peg, I totally agree with you about the green issue.  I hate seeing MDF and particleboard used everywhere (especially bathrooms and kitchens) on these DIY shows simply because it is green.  What is so green about re-trimming your house, or replacing cabinets in 10 years because the wood swelled up crazy?

Manhattan, I think that nailing the joists to the sides of the studs, would reduce the tendancy for them to want to snap, as they would be fastened above the notch.  In theory (for my mind at least), this actually seperates the wall framing into two sections, while still having >2/3 of material connecting the upper and lower studs.  The cathedral ceiling, probably has a load bearing ridge, so shear forces would not be exerted by the rafters, and the joists would want to keep the walls from spreading even if the rafters did push out. 

Peg, I have thought about gang cutting the studs many times while reading on this forum over the last few years, but somehow never saw this thread!  In the production world I used to frame in, the boss would shoot us for using a router for anything but cutting out door and window holes in sheeting.  We would have done it the same way the top of a rafter gets let in for an outrigger...two crosscuts 1 1/2 deep, turn board on side, set edge of baseplate (1 1/2 inches from blade) on edge of stock, and plunge in connecting the lines.  Have to overcut a bit, and I'm sure there is data on this from all the engineers out there as to why this shouldn't be done, but thats how we would do it.  Or just the two kerfs, and three taps with a sharp chisel to clear the waste (two light taps to set the line next to the sawkerfs, one sharp cleave in between to finish the job.

I think I would trust a 1x4 let in as a ledger...better 1x6 though, as I am pretty sure that the shear force of the joist, which is nailed to the side of the stud, wouldn't actually be enough to comprimise the 1x when it is that close to the stud.  I would just run the ledger on the face of the studs, or let in 3/4" and use it as the half beams for a coffered ceiling underneath a drywalled ceiling.  Then you can have joist bays filled with insulation, electrical, plumbing, and HVAC. 

I think I covered everything I wanted to say there...whew!  Tired now!

I'm new to this thread and the site but I'm facing the same dilemma!
I trust the let in and don't think the extra 1/8th of an inch of let in will ever be a big deal. BUT - I have access to a planner and why not just run those 2x4s (1 1/2 by 3 1/2) through and make my own 5/4 boards - they are still framing grade ? ? ? and I don't need all those extra trimmers.

Quote from: Zavoot on April 27, 2009, 08:48:54 PM


I'm new to this thread and the site but I'm facing the same dilemma!
I trust the let in and don't think the extra 1/8th of an inch of let in will ever be a big deal. BUT - I have access to a planner and why not just run those 2x4s (1 1/2 by 3 1/2) through and make my own 5/4 boards - they are still framing grade ? ? ? and I don't need all those extra trimmers.

All you need to do is take a couple , maybe one depends on the planer pass to meet the prescriptive code , 1 3/8" thick and your golden , no need to plane it down to a net 5/4" which is 1" net BTW.  Maybe take it down to 1 1/4" net.   

  You are using 2x6 studs right? (Net 1 1/2" x  5 1/2" stock)


  Jen's the saw cut pass -by deal I don't like for obvious reasons  especially on this type situation , sure to knock in a rafter look-out or some such , but not on let in bracing , or stair jacks.  The router made fast work of it , you need the right router and the right type of bit but it does a fine job.


  Fast sloppy framing does NOT impress me, fast clean framing does , few do the later.  Set myself apart from what everyone else does has kept me busier than most for many years.


  The architect on the big window job told the project manager he'd never seen the level of detail and care we've put into that house on the outside, I feel pretty good about that.

And just today I contacted another local architect that I'd worked for in the past to let him know where I was working now and he was happy that he could contact the company I work for his next project.

Good work goes further then the street, at least thats been my experience.

  BTW Glenn banned ole Manhattan not long after this thread was started , he didn't play well with others, as Glenn put it.  ;)
       


 
     

Quote from: PEG688 on April 27, 2009, 10:22:43 PM
And just today I contacted another local architect that I'd worked for in the past to let him know where I was working now and he was happy that he could contact the company I work for his next project.
     

Great to hear that PEG.  :)

Work will always follow you around, PEG.  You are above doing anything less than the best job you can.  People talk. d*

For ol' Manhattan, he was the inspector from hell, right next to the god of the underworld.  I told him we could use his advice but he would have to stop attacking the members of the forum.  He banned himself as he would not follow my requests.  I commonly either straighten his type out on my jobs or get rid of them if necessary through major unrelenting complaints to their bosses.

I had one who would pass things in the morning, get drunk at noon, and make us tear apart everything in the afternoon.  A time or two of that and he was begging me to stop the calls to his boss - I suggested to his boss that I may take him to court.  Bill, the drunk, called a special meeting at the job to start over -- he was fine after that.

We are all glad you can find or make time to instruct us here on the forum, PEG.  Thanks. :)

Quote from: glenn kangiser on May 03, 2009, 07:51:22 AM



For ol' Manhattan, he was the inspector from hell, right next to the god of the underworld.  I told him we could use his advice but he would have to stop attacking the members of the forum.  He banned himself as he would not follow my requests.  I commonly either straighten his type out on my jobs or get rid of them if necessary through major unrelenting complaints to their bosses.

Your right , he did it to himself. BUT that way of looking at it / spinning it / phrasing it , diminishes your power base. You won't make much of a dictator / king / power broker  should the situation present itself  ;)



   

I offered him a chance to educate others if he would.  Don't worry... I could have easily destroyed him if necessary... d*

I can be cold blooded without a second thought when required... you only see my nice guy side.... rofl

Did you see my PM Mr. Kangiser?

I bet we got that one covered now :)

OK I was led here by another post and began doing this:  ???

If the plans called for 2x4 studs (which would work) but you chose 2x6 studs (more insulation) then would not, in theory the point be moot?  After all a 2x4 stud is really only a 1 1/2 x 3 1/2 stud and the 2x6 stud is 1 1/2 x 5 1/2.  Therefore, notching 2 inches out of the 2x6 stud would leave you the same 3 1/2 inches of stud you would have had with the 2x4.

Now, of course, you can probably use some engineering formula to determine the difference between a 3 1/2 inch stud notched 3/4" to 2 3/4" width vs. a 5 1/2 inch stud notched 1 1/2" to a 4" width but I'd venture that the 4" width is stronger then the 2 3/4" width any day.

In which case it's nothing more then a case of stupid regulations for the purpose of controlling someone or something that may not need to be controlled.

Codes are often too blanket because they are attempting to meet all cases and situations (like speed limits on interstates) but in the practical world...well let me put it this way:  If it is safe for a Mack Truck pulling 20,000 pounds of stuff in it's trailer to travel at 65 miles per hour on the highway I can assure you that is also safe for a Ferrari F40 to travel on that same stretch of road at 100 miles per hour.  The Ferrari will, in fact, still turn faster, break faster and excellerate faster then the 65 MPH truck as well as avoid accidents faster but regulations (speed limit) determine that they are equal for the purpose of driving.

Thus, we find ourselves looking at codes telling us we must have 2x6 walls for example, while sitting in a nearly 60 year old home (two stories) with 2x4 walls which clearly take the weight of the second floor....

I think the issue is more complicated than that.  I have done a fair bit of reading today on the subject.  It seems the bigger issue is that notching more than a certain percentage might weaken the stud and lead to fracture or failure.  Based on code, you are correct that a 2x4 would be adequate by itself for this plan.  The issue (and I don't know the answer) is if an over-notched 2x6 is as strong as a full 2x4.  Stated another way, an over-notched 2x6 might be weaker than an un-notched 2x4 even though there is more "meat" on its bones.

I'll let you know what the good doctor (PhD engineer and PE) comes back with.  I sent him a link to this specific thread. 

Quote from: Native_NM on June 03, 2010, 06:36:58 PM
I think the issue is more complicated than that.  I have done a fair bit of reading today on the subject.  It seems the bigger issue is that notching more than a certain percentage might weaken the stud and lead to fracture or failure.  Based on code, you are correct that a 2x4 would be adequate by itself for this plan.  The issue (and I don't know the answer) is if an over-notched 2x6 is as strong as a full 2x4.  Stated another way, an over-notched 2x6 might be weaker than an un-notched 2x4 even though there is more "meat" on its bones.

I'll let you know what the good doctor (PhD engineer and PE) comes back with.  I sent him a link to this specific thread. 

Thanks!  I'd be VERY interested in the answer.
Erik

So if notching a 2x6 1 1/2" is weakening a stud to the point it could split and have less strength whether it be compression, shear or what ever then a  2"x4". Would there be any different, stronger, weaker   then a 2"x4" with a ledger nail/ bolted to it and then scabbing on a 2"x2" under and over the ledger to help support the ledger and bring the combo out flush with the 2"x6" studs not supporting a ledger?  ???
It just seems like one way or another there should be a way to do this.  

The codebook is referencing the NDS on notching restrictions. The NDS is assuming graded lumber. One thing I can think of is defect sizes vary with lumber dimensions. Assuming the driver of the ferrari knows to look for knots in the notch area then the 2x6 stud is stronger. If it's a dumb kid driving a ferrari at 100 mph I'd buckle up.

I'm not worried about the notch or ledger dimensions if they were being done as per the drawing in the codebook, a box on top of a box. That isn't what is being done here. Studs notched on their tension face are running 2-4' above floor level where rafters with ties in the upper third of the roof height are supported by them. That is where my concern level kicks in. I'd also be interested in an opinion on putting a 2x ledger on the outside compression face of the wall and then running sheathing over the notched area.

A traditional dutch barn is somewhat similar. They are built with H frame bents with rafters supported by the upright legs of the H. There have been 3 threads relating to failures in the past year on the TF Guild forum. The latest was a tour of multiple historic softwood barns. All had some degree of failure in that area.

Quote from: Don_P on June 03, 2010, 09:19:46 PM
The codebook is referencing the NDS on notching restrictions. The NDS is assuming graded lumber. One thing I can think of is defect sizes vary with lumber dimensions. Assuming the driver of the ferrari knows to look for knots in the notch area then the 2x6 stud is stronger. If it's a dumb kid driving a ferrari at 100 mph I'd buckle up.

I'm not worried about the notch or ledger dimensions if they were being done as per the drawing in the codebook, a box on top of a box. That isn't what is being done here. Studs notched on their tension face are running 2-4' above floor level where rafters with ties in the upper third of the roof height are supported by them. That is where my concern level kicks in. I'd also be interested in an opinion on putting a 2x ledger on the outside compression face of the wall and then running sheathing over the notched area.

A traditional dutch barn is somewhat similar. They are built with H frame bents with rafters supported by the upright legs of the H. There have been 3 threads relating to failures in the past year on the TF Guild forum. The latest was a tour of multiple historic softwood barns. All had some degree of failure in that area.

Were the historic barns still standing?  If so, how old where they?

I have to wonder if another factor must be included:  The small house factor.  After all, a 14 foot whide 24 foot long house is going to have a great deal less weight then a 20 foot wide 40 foot long house under the same conditions.

I give my engineer all the information I have that might be pertinent to help come up with the right solution. In that vein, a stud is intended to be axially loaded, look at the allowable slope of grain for a stud 1:4 and then for a #2, 1:8 , 3 times as steep as Select Struc at 1:12. I look at this situation more as a beam overhanging a post with a point load on the end, notched over the support on the tension face. Turn that diagram 90 degrees in your head and there is the kneewall with thrusting rafters except that we have a combined load.

Quote from: Don_P on June 04, 2010, 02:03:36 PM
I give my engineer all the information I have that might be pertinent to help come up with the right solution. In that vein, a stud is intended to be axially loaded, look at the allowable slope of grain for a stud 1:4 and then for a #2, 1:8 , 3 times as steep as Select Struc at 1:12. I look at this situation more as a beam overhanging a post with a point load on the end, notched over the support on the tension face. Turn that diagram 90 degrees in your head and there is the kneewall with thrusting rafters except that we have a combined load.

Sorry Don but you lost me...way over my head here.

I'm guessing you are saying that a 1 1/2" beam sitting on top of a 3 1/2" stud is different then a 1 1/2" beam sitting inside a 5 1/2" stud?

That isn't what I said, my comments were for others.
It wouldn't hurt to read up on tributary area and loads while you wait, that should help with this;

QuoteI have to wonder if another factor must be included:  The small house factor.  After all, a 14 foot whide 24 foot long house is going to have a great deal less weight then a 20 foot wide 40 foot long house under the same conditions.

re-reading this the other day, I saw the possible need for clarification...

Quoteallowable slope of grain for a stud 1:4 and then for a #2, 1:8 , 3 times as steep as Select Struc at 1:12.

What is slope of grain?

(https://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q305/djmbucket/construction%20oddnends/slopeofgrain.jpg)

The lower the lumber the grade the more defects are allowed, including how much the grain veers off the straight and narrow.

1:4 on a 2x6 stud grade stud means that the grain can cross from one side to the other in the length of 22 inches (the height above the let in in some situations).

A stud is meant to carry the load down its axis, (axially), from top to bottom. When sideways forces are encountered, well, that was not included in the studs original job description.