• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

2021 IRC Insulation

bill1952 said:
I ask again if the full 14" of uncompressed R49 has to be fully above the top plate of the wall OR can some or all of it be below the top plate as long as it extends to the exterior wall sheathing? Something that might look like balloon framing or a dropped ceiling or soffit at the walls both could allow a full uncompressed insulation membrane from wall to wall.
Click to expand...
My house has a 4:12 pitch with 2x8 rafters, full hips, so I've actually thought about what you are suggesting. A sort of "large crown molding" around the exterior walls, but then I thought about the retrofit cost of that at an existing home vs the energy savings and realized I was drunk. But in new construction, that's a different story. Of course at that point, why not just get energy trusses. It seems to me that would be a reasonable alternative if you can provide the R-value and the envelope equivalent to conventional.
 
Glenn said:
My house has a 4:12 pitch with 2x8 rafters, full hips, so I've actually thought about what you are suggesting. A sort of "large crown molding" around the exterior walls, but then I thought about the retrofit cost of that at an existing home vs the energy savings and realized I was drunk. But in new construction, that's a different story. Of course at that point, why not just get energy trusses. It seems to me that would be a reasonable alternative if you can provide the R-value and the envelope equivalent to conventional.
Click to expand...
In the instance I have in mind, insulating an existing building with trusses. Actually looking at a vaulted (arched) ceiling. Not sure "plate" wording permits it.

Agree not many instances where "uncovential framing" proves practical.
 
I have allowed an "insulated interior soffit"....
bill1952 said:
I ask again if the full 14" of uncompressed R49 has to be fully above the top plate of the wall OR can some or all of it be below the top plate as long as it extends to the exterior wall sheathing? Something that might look like balloon framing or a dropped ceiling or soffit at the walls both could allow a full uncompressed insulation membrane from wall to wall.
Click to expand...
 
bill1952 said:
In the instance I have in mind, insulating an existing building with trusses. Actually looking at a vaulted (arched) ceiling. Not sure "plate" wording permits it.

Agree not many instances where "uncovential framing" proves practical.
Click to expand...
It's really a killer in additions to match roof lines and wall thicknesses now...
 
Ignorant me here,

Understanding it's not a specifically conventional material, wouldn't the use of a TJI rafter (+14" or better) address the insulated heel issue, while still providing all of the features conventional material does, without going to a energy heel truss system?

Should the IRC address the 'conventional' use of engineered materials in light of the insulation issues now inherent to true conventional framing?

Perhaps it does already...
 
SDS said:
Ignorant me here,

Understanding it's not a specifically conventional material, wouldn't the use of a TJI rafter (+14" or better) address the insulated heel issue, while still providing all of the features conventional material does, without going to a energy heel truss system?

Should the IRC address the 'conventional' use of engineered materials in light of the insulation issues now inherent to true conventional framing?

Perhaps it does already...
Click to expand...
So I think you're suggesting that because the IRC doesnt include TJIs in rafter span tables, they are not prescriptively allowed? I'd guess quite a few officials would accept it without a sealed drawing. I've wondered if they'd be accepted as adequate for rafter tie purpose, used for an attic floor?
 
bill1952 said:
So I think you're suggesting that because the IRC doesnt include TJIs in rafter span tables, they are not prescriptively allowed? I'd guess quite a few officials would accept it without a sealed drawing. I've wondered if they'd be accepted as adequate for rafter tie purpose, used for an attic floor?
Click to expand...

No, I realize the mfg's span tables are an acceptable alt to the IRC's prescriptive tables. The impression I've gotten from following the thread is that there are only the two options available....2x12 conventional lumber, or a raised heel truss, prescriptively, but that's not correct.

I'm only trying to follow along and maybe learn something and wanted some clarification on using engineered alternatives prescriptively.
 
As a fan of rafter roof construction, I get it. Trying to imagine downsides of setting a plate on top of rafter ties/ceiling joists. Besides a band joist and another plate or double plate, seems simple.

Interesting to think about.
 
SDS said:
Ignorant me here,

Understanding it's not a specifically conventional material, wouldn't the use of a TJI rafter (+14" or better) address the insulated heel issue, while still providing all of the features conventional material does, without going to a energy heel truss system?

Should the IRC address the 'conventional' use of engineered materials in light of the insulation issues now inherent to true conventional framing?

Perhaps it does already...
Click to expand...
Yes....they just don't have a good detail for a thrust connection to the ceiling joist last time i looked....And getting guys to cut rafters well is a challenge, TJI's will be impossible....
 
In a word, NO. R-60 does not make sense As you can see above the math has been done, only conductive transfer, but the point remains. At what point will time and money be considered resources that also need conserving?
 
Wooly said:
In a word, NO. R-60 does not make sense As you can see above the math has been done, only conductive transfer, but the point remains. At what point will time and money be considered resources that also need conserving?
Click to expand...
Old discussion revived by the weird post, but I was looking at this today and coincidentally saw the revived thread. Did someone else realize this and revert back? I see this in the 2024 IECC table, but I am not able to find a corresponding code change proposal yet.

1731429189259.png

Can someone deal with this poster's multiple posts?
 
Sifu said:
Old discussion revived by the weird post, but I was looking at this today and coincidentally saw the revived thread. Did someone else realize this and revert back? I see this in the 2024 IECC table, but I am not able to find a corresponding code change proposal yet.

View attachment 14646

Can someone deal with this poster's multiple posts?
Click to expand...
Yes....this was the "backroom" deal the energy folks made to push electrification in and gain homebuilder support for that crap...And then we beat the electrification....
 
I have been digging on this. I can't find a code change proposal that changes from the 2018 R49 to the 2021 R60, nor a proposal to change from the 2021 R60 back to the 2024 R49. It is also not listed as errata to the 2021 IECC, and is carried into the referenced reduction where R60 is required down to R49 as long as it is full height, so it doesn't seem like this was accidental. This troubles me. As does mention of any "backroom" deal.
 
Sifu said:
I have been digging on this. I can't find a code change proposal that changes from the 2018 R49 to the 2021 R60, nor a proposal to change from the 2021 R60 back to the 2024 R49. It is also not listed as errata to the 2021 IECC, and is carried into the referenced reduction where R60 is required down to R49 as long as it is full height, so it doesn't seem like this was accidental. This troubles me. As does mention of any "backroom" deal.
Click to expand...
They call it the "omnibus"....And they ran us over with it.....But ultimately the ICC BOD did the right thing....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top