An average day

[TheCommish]

I would fire the carpenter also, what is supporting the 4 ply beam on the close end and far end

 

[SCBO1]

Wonder if there's a beam behind that drywall, that would provide support for the 4-ply beam?
Post #4,732

 

[SCBO1]

Also looks like the floor joist are without joist hangers and they used friction blocks between the joist cavities, is that still permitted?

 

[ICE]

The framing is partition walls that divide a large family room, The result is a bedroom/bathroom and smaller family room. None of what has been built is bearing any loads. The floor / ceiling framing was not altered and a large existing beam has an infill wall under it.

 

[SCBO1]

Okay, so the beam bearing is beyond the partition wall, that makes since.

 

[e hilton]

Is it ok to have individual THHN conductors in the wall?

 

[SCBO1]

Is it ok to have individual THHN conductors in the wall?

Yah, is that allowed? I never seen that before, always in conduit.

 

[fatboy]

Not allowed to be run w/o conduit.

 

[BN4537]

2017 NEC 300.3(A) says that single conductors shall only be installed as part of a recognized wiring method from Chapter 3, which basically means in a raceway or as part of a cable.

That is the best code reference I could come up with.

 

[ICE]

The pictures came from an inspector. Apparently the plans call for a flush beam where the dimensional lumber is below the ceiling. I was told that the original post was a 4"x4" and it bowed. Kinda missed the post base.

 

[Norcal]

Is it ok to have individual THHN conductors in the wall?

By the Handy Hack Electrical Code it is. By any other, no.

 

[BN4537]

The rafter bearing is pretty sketchy too, but probably can't do anything about it since it's existing.

 

[ICE]

 

[steveray]

Did you ask where the pimp was? That's a lot of hose.....

 

[ICE]

 

[patrickjames]

The 2006 IBC requires a 6 inch base. It changes to 4 inches in the 2009 and stays 4 inches in the 2012 in Section 1210.2.1.

2018 IBC 1209.2.1 Floors and Wall Bases

In other than dwelling units, toilet, bathing and shower room floor finish materials shall have a smooth, hard, nonabsorbent surface. The intersections of such floors with walls shall have a smooth, hard, nonabsorbent vertical base that extends upward onto the walls not less than 4 inches (102 mm).

 

[patrickjames]

I have a unrelated question but didn't want to start another thread.

We have an out of town project, a large retail store. The building inspector has been a "little over the top" with some of his interpertations of the code. We've played nice and done what he's asked. But today one of the things he failed us for on a final was "install 6" cove base in the restrooms" We'll go ahead and change out the 4" to 6" like he asked but I spent an hour looking in the IBC and can't find any requirement for 6" base. Does this exist or is this something he just likes to see?

Thanks in advance.

2018 IBC 1209.2.1 Floors and Wall Bases

In other than dwelling units, toilet, bathing and shower room floor finish materials shall have a smooth, hard, nonabsorbent surface. The intersections of such floors with walls shall have a smooth, hard, nonabsorbent vertical base that extends upward onto the walls not less than 4 inches (102 mm).

 

[e hilton]

Now that is a first class cover.
And i like the gold colored sheetrock screws securing the panel to the studs. The upper left screw isnt carrying much weight.

 

[Norcal]

The gas connectors on that tankless WH is scary, the connectors on the EMT to sealtite transition look like compression EMT to rigid, so totally wrong, those twisted black cables in background of the panel with the sealtite entering the top raise red flags, are they NM cables or single conductors? The dead front on the ITE panel is a real nice touch, not exactly code gauge metal.

 

[ICE]

I guess that they think I don't look at this stuff.

 

[ICE]

The job is a re-roof where asphalt shingles are being replaced with tile that weighs 9.7 lbs. per square foot. That required an engineer to asses the roof structure and provide any modifications that might be required. The roof structure has been deemed sufficient for the weight....with the caveat that the rafters can be expected to sag but other than looking awful, there is no concern. I do believe that would be a deal breaker were this my building.

 

[fatboy]

" I do believe that would be a deal breaker were this my building."

Ditto!

 

[Joe.B]

Lots of legalese in there, "small amount," "may be observed," "should not affect," "we believe," "our opinion,"

I read "we want to sell you on this, but are not responsible in any way."

 

[e hilton]

I read "we want to sell you on this, but are not responsible in any way."

I read it … “if you really want to install the tile it probably won’t collapse, but we wouldn’t do it”