• 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.

How to run PVC DWV within a Load Bearing Wall

R602.6, Hole bored closer than 5/8 from edge! Maximum bore exceeded
 
= | = | =

I do not see any purple primer..........Did they use any ?

= | = | =
 
Unbore the studs of course...maybe take them out and show them a good time.. :) ...Stud shoes should work and the structural strap/ nailplate for the top plate...Or an engineer....Where is GR?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think that holes are limited to 40% of the stud width. Could they nail a 2x4 perpendicular to the overdrilled studs?
 
Supports my contention that electricians and plumbers should not be allowed any cutting tool larger than nail clippers.
 
They make stud shoes for 1.5, 2 and 3 inch. Make sure they use the correct shoe with the screws that come with the shoes.



BTW are those the end nails bent over at the underside of the top plate next to the studs?
 
R602.6.1 Drilling and notching of top plate. When piping or ductwork is placed in or partly in an exterior wall or interior load-bearing wall, necessitating cutting, drilling or notching of the top plate by more than 50 percent of its width, a galvanized metal tie not less than 0.054 inch thick (1.37 mm) (16 ga) and 11/2 inches (38 mm) wide shall be fastened across and to the plate at each side of the opening with not less than eight 10d (0.148 inch diameter) having a minimum length of 11/2 inches (38 mm) at each side or equivalent. The metal tie must extend a minimum of 6 inches past the opening. See Figure R602.6.1.
 
An excerpt from Simpson's ESR-2608 for stud shoes:

"When the size of the cut, notch, or drill hole exceeds the maximum specified in the code, The Simpson Strong Tie stud shoes may be used provided an engineered design is submitted in accordance with Section 2301.2 of the IBC or Section R301.1.3 of the IRC as applicable."

If it were an exterior wall subject to wind loads, a stud shoe alone might not work.
 
I see it as requiring both sides in a wall without sheathing.
 
Northstar, I think purple primer may not be a requirement in the next code cycle.

Might want to check into that, you may want to amend it as a requirement in your jurisdiction.

If its a vent, could have been a 2-inch with a change to 3-inch in the attic but I think it's a water closet, oops new code term "toilet" drain line.

pc1
 
Sifu said:
I see it as requiring both sides in a wall without sheathing.
Click to expand...
Exception: When the entire side of the wall with the notch or cut is covered by wood structural panel sheathing.

Sheathing is only required on one side which effectively makes this a nonissue in exterior walls....except for the plating....
 
If sheathing is required for a braced wall, the top plate are a chord. Technically speaking, if the chord is cut it takes an engineered fix.
 
ICE said:
If sheathing is required for a braced wall, the top plate are a chord. Technically speaking, if the chord is cut it takes an engineered fix.
Click to expand...
Where in the IRC are there different requirements for boring for braced wall elements? Maybe in Ca.....
 
To me the code isn't entirely clear (go figure) on whether the boring of a plate more than 50% requires the tie on one or both sides. (The exception refers to a notch or cut, not a bore) And without knowing whether the code is designed to resist an imposed load that is intended for tension, gravity or lateral I have assumed the code intended for both sides to be protected from failure. The sheathing would eliminate the need for a tie on the side that is sheathed but would do little to strengthen the side without sheathing and if the force is from the outside pushing in, say from wind, you end up with essentially nothing to resist that force where the code intends a plate (or double plate) to resist that force. That is my assumption and maybe it is an overly cautious reaction, but for the cost and time involved it seems reasonable until I am shown the error of my thinking. I don't have the commentary with me but I will check again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top