Header For Garage Man Door

[Alias]

Plans call for a 4" X 6" header over the door and this is what I found while doing the inspection:View attachment 882Um, I think we have a big problem..........opsElectrician was working on the electrical and cleaned-up the wiring left of the door frame.Sue, where the west still lives..........

View attachment 1521

View attachment 1521

/monthly_2011_03/572953e1641e4_HEADER2a.jpg.a03d3751155c0a92fcf263d00be94ec1.jpg

 

[mark handler]

Is that a 2x10?

 

[incognito]

Worst case about a 10 minute fix. The 2 x 10 is probably plenty of header above that size of door.

 

[conarb]

Sue:

I think that it complies with Code for two reasons:

1. Minimum header in an exterior wall is 4x6, a 2x10 calculates stronger than a 4x6.
   
2. It appears from the picture that there is a gable above that wall, therefore no load so headers are being eliminated in non-bearing situations in California's new Green Standards.
   

704.1.2 Framing specifications.


Advanced framing techniques include following:


1. Building design using 2-foot modules,


2. Spacing wall studs up to 24 inches on center,


3. Spacing floor and roof framing members up to 24 inches on center,


4. Using 2-stud corner framing and drywall clips or scrap lumber for drywall backing,





5. Eliminating solid headers in nonload-bearing walls,


6. Using in-line framing, aligning floor, wall and roof


framing members vertically for direct transfer of


loads, and


7. Using single lumber headers and top plates where


appropriate.

I don't agree with this, but it's now code.

 

[Darren Emery]

"Minimum header in an exterior wall is 4x6, a 2x10 calculates stronger than a 4x6. It appears from the picture that there is a gable above that wall, therefore no load so headers are being eliminated in non-bearing situations in California's new Green Standards."

It may indeed be enough header to carry the load - but I must disagree with the above statement. Gable truss above the wall does not mean "no load" - it usually means the load is evenly distributed all across the bottom chord.

 

[Coug Dad]

At least they didn't grab some empty pallets.

 

[GHRoberts]

Regardless of what the plans show ...

Is the construction prescriptive? If so, there is no problem.

 

[conarb]

OVE framing is being adopted all over the country to "save the forests" and "save the planet" (from the evil oil companies), it's being used a lot in the cold parts of the country, what they do is use one 2x10 or 2x12 and put EPS or XPS styrofoam behind it to prevent "thermal bridging".

Again I don't agree but that's code.

 

[Alias]

Is that a 2x10?

Yes.

Sue

 

[Alias]

CA -

Not built under 2008 CA Green Building, 2007 CBC.

Sue

 

[Alias]

Regardless of what the plans show ...Is the construction prescriptive? If so, there is no problem.

The problem I have is that this contractor keeps building not according to the plans. This is the same garage with the problem concrete slab and the dimensional problems (32'2" instead of 32'). I show up for an inspection and am lucky if he even has the plans on site. :roll:

Sue, a bit nit picky today ;-)

 

[Alias]

Worst case about a 10 minute fix. The 2 x 10 is probably plenty of header above that size of door.

One concern is the pre-hung door and the fact that the the top doesn't have a lot of anything to nail to.

Sue, learning something new everyday.....

 

[brudgers]

2" in 32' is 0.52% error.

Unless it's related to zoning, it seems trifling.

Sounds like you're looking for gotcha's.

 

[brudgers]

One concern is the pre-hung door and the fact that the the top doesn't have a lot of anything to nail to. Sue, learning something new everyday.....

Not installed per manufacturer = fail.

 

[Alias]

OVE framing is being adopted all over the country to "save the forests" and "save the planet" (from the evil oil companies), it's being used a lot in the cold parts of the country, what they do is use one 2x10 or 2x12 and put EPS or XPS styrofoam behind it to prevent "thermal bridging".Again I don't agree but that's code.

I don't like it, looks very funky, especially in a garage that isn't going to be finished.

Is this type of framing typical in the rest of the country?

Sue, in CA, where the west still lives................

 

[Alias]

2" in 32' is 0.52% error.Unless it's related to zoning, it seems trifling.

Sounds like you're looking for gotcha's.

Maybe I am, but, this particular contractor has stood me up for inspections; not followed the plans, and has done some switches on critical holddowns and seismic hardware without providing information on new products or consulting anyone, designer included. :banghd

I am getting really tired of showing up for the inspection and finding some new quirk that has been incorporated into the building that isn't on the plans.

Sue, this is the third project in about 2 yrs., I'm tired........

 

[conarb]

2304.3.2 Framing over openings. Headers, double joists, trusses or other approved assemblies that are of adequate size to transfer loads to the vertical members shall be provided over window and door openings in load-bearing walls and partitions.

2308.9.5 Openings in exterior walls.2308.9.5.1 Headers. Headers shall be provided over each opening in exterior-bearing walls. The spans in Table 2308.9.5 are permitted to be used for one- and two-family dwellings. Headers for other buildings, shall be designed in accordance with Section 2301.2, Item 1 or 2. Headers shall be of two pieces of nominal 2-inch (51 mm) framing lumber set on edge as permitted by Table 2308.9.5 and nailed together in accordance with Table 2304.9.1 or of solid lumber of equivalent size.

2301.2 General design requirements. The design of structural elements or systems, constructed partially or wholly of wood or wood-based products, shall be in accordance with one of the following methods:1. Allowable stress design in accordance with Sections 2304, 2305 and 2306.

2. Load and resistance factor design in accordance with Sections 2304, 2305 and 2307.

3. Conventional light-frame construction in accordance with Sections 2304 and 2308.

Exception: Buildings designed in accordance with the provisions of the AF&PA WFCM shall be deemed to meet the requirements of the provisions of Section 2308.

2304.3.2 Framing over openings. Headers, double joists, trusses or other approved assemblies that are of adequate size to transfer loads to the vertical members shall be provided over window and door openings in load-bearing walls and partitions.

I'd say a 2x10 is "of adequate size to transfer loads to the vertical members shall be provided over window and door openings in load-bearing walls and partitions.", and there is always the question as to whether that is a load bearing wall?

 

[brudgers]

Maybe I am, but, this particular contractor has stood me up for inspections; not followed the plans, and has done some switches on critical holddowns and seismic hardware without providing information on new products or consulting anyone, designer included. :banghdI am getting really tired of showing up for the inspection and finding some new quirk that has been incorporated into the building that isn't on the plans.

Sue, this is the third project in about 2 yrs., I'm tired........

If you cannot determine if it is right during the inspection because it is different from the plans, fail them and move on without worrying about it - they have the option of providing proper documentation at your office.

 

[steveray]

Headers shall be of two pieces of nominal 2-inch

I know the x10 will work.......but it does not meet that code

 

[conarb]

But 2304.3.2 precedes the prescription in 2308.9.5.1, as a matter of fact back in the 50s and 60s (I know, a prior code) we built 3 story+ penthouse apartments over Class A garages with 2x10 headers with a flat 2x4 on the bottom up to 10' long, the only reason I stopped (many others didn't) was decorators and women complaining about attaching window treatments, those buildings have ridden out earthquakes fine, this is a less than a 3' man door in a U occupancy. What's failing here is engineered wood products, not smaller sawn lumber.

 

[Alias]

Steveray & ConArb -

Thanks to the both of you. I knew that there should be two, just couldn't find the exact section to quote for contractor. This one contractor is gonna give me an ulcer before I retire.

Sue

 

[conarb]

Sue:

This one isn't worth fighting, it was legal in the past, arguably legal at the time this garage was permitted, and legal now under the new code. I equate it to guard rails, we always built them at 36", during one code cycle (1975 to 1978?) we went up to 42" in single family and everyone hated them, I built them at 36" in a home and the inspector called me, I asked him to overlook it because the new code due out was dropping them back down to 36", he was reasonable and did, they stayed at 36" until the 2007 IBC based code raised them back up to 42" and our new IRC based code continues the ugly 42" requirement.

 

[Glennman CBO]

I would pass it and move on (including the 2" in 32'). I'm sure there are larger fish to fry somewhere else.

 

[conarb]

I would pass it and move on (including the 2" in 32'). I'm sure there are larger fish to fry somewhere else.

This is particularly true in Sue's case in the State of Jefferson, she is now having to enforce radical left-wing political codes like our Green and Energy Codes in an area with a very conservative population, to say nothing of a commercially generated requirement like the fire sprinkler mandate. These code mandates alone could cause a ground swell for the secession of several counties from Southern Oregon and Northern California and the formation of the new State of Jefferson, a movement derailed by WWII but gaining momentum again as our society becomes more totalitarian. I don't think that Sue would make a good "Green Policeman".