• 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.

Making a door larger to accommodate a 6' slider

jar546

jar546

CBO
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,967
Location
Not where I really want to be
Was there for an electrical service inspection only. Not my jurisdiction, covering an area that does not have an electrical inspector. This is a load bearing wall that supports the floor above and a roof load (we are 40# gsl)

I told the contractor that this is a problem and to consult with the AHJ on this.

He told me it was not a problem and there was no need to fix it or pull a permit for a "cosmetic" change. The only reason I was even called is because without a cut in card, there is no power......

Nice! Love Pennsyltucky!

IMAG0006.jpg
 
jar546 said:
Was there for an electrical service inspection only. Not my jurisdiction, covering an area that does not have an electrical inspector. This is a load bearing wall that supports the floor above and a roof load (we are 40# gsl)I told the contractor that this is a problem and to consult with the AHJ on this.

He told me it was not a problem and there was no need to fix it or pull a permit for a "cosmetic" change. The only reason I was even called is because without a cut in card, there is no power......

Nice! Love Pennsyltucky!

IMAG0006.jpg
Click to expand...
At least it's over the fixed panel. The tempered glass will take it! :? Not!

Bill
 
think structural double top plates, structural rim joist on floor#2, should pencil out! wheres our resident engineer george?:mrgreen:
 
jar546 said:
Was there for an electrical service inspection only. Not my jurisdiction, covering an area that does not have an electrical inspector. This is a load bearing wall that supports the floor above and a roof load (we are 40# gsl)I told the contractor that this is a problem and to consult with the AHJ on this.
Click to expand...
Electrical inspectors should not give structural engineering advice. It is seldom taken well.
 
GHRoberts said:
Electrical inspectors should not give structural engineering advice. It is seldom taken well.
Click to expand...
On the other hand - an inspector representing any jurisdiction should never turn a blind eye to something this egregious. In my book - Jar did the right thing.
 
GHRoberts said:
Electrical inspectors should not give structural engineering advice. It is seldom taken well.
Click to expand...
I hope this was said in jest. I don't see telling the contractor to contact the AHJ as giving structural engineering advice.

With that said, I think this is one of those new structural sliders...
 
GHRoberts said:
Electrical inspectors should not give structural engineering advice. It is seldom taken well.
Click to expand...
Jeff is more than just an electrical inspector.

Certified Building Code Official (BCO), PA-UCC

Certified Residential Building Inspector, ICC, PA-UCC

Certified Residential Electrical Inspector Inspector, ICC, PA-UCC

Certified Commercial Building Inspector, ICC, PA-UCC

Certified Commercial Plumbing Inspector, ICC, PA-UCC

Certified Commercial Mechanical Inspector, ICC, PA-UCC

Certified Commercial Electrical Inspector, ICC, PA-UCC

Certified Commercial Energy Inspector, ICC, PA-UCC

Certified Commercial Building Plans Examiner, ICC, PA-UCC

Certified Electrical Plans Examiner, ICC, PA-UCC

Certified Plumbing Plans Examiner, ICC, PA-UCC

Certified Mechanical Plans Examiner, ICC, PA-UCC

Certified Commercial Energy Plans Examiner, ICC, PA-UCC
 
Jar,

The trees in the backyard must be "weeping Willows"!

Pc1

I think that's code for something in the Marines
 
That should'nt be allowed to stand and go unchallenged, because I suspect it won’t for long, without problems. Creep, settlement, joint movement, etc. will all take their toll. And, whether the guy likes structural advice or not from an electrical inspector, he sure needs it.

Surprisingly enough, something like that might stand for some time before it shows up as a problem. As mentioned by Pwood in post #5, any plywood sheathing, and 2nd floor framing including double top wall plate, rim joist, floor sheathing and joists, and the 2nd floor sole plate, if properly nailed together act as a pretty effective deep beam to span that opening. They are just not something any respectable Structural Engineer would hang his hat on, except in an emergency or for a short period of time. And then, only after careful inspection of the existing conditions to see if he felt this might work for a short time. I have seen 30 or 40' long exterior bearing walls continue to support floors and roof without much sag, after the found. wall below failed inward, into the basement. Full snow load did not exist at the time.

What kind of a finished frame is 1/2 or 5/8" plywood for a 6' sliding door system? The bend in that plywd. isn’t just from the wall loads above or the rest of the head joint would be closed too, and the header would be rotated down also. There isn’t much evidence that that header was sized right or put in correctly in the first place. Was there a cripple or jack stud in the first place, why the double common or king studs, the fit-up and joinery looks awful. Well, I guess that’s why they call it rough framing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Looks like it was originally built with a 5' slider. At some point someone decided they wanted a wider door and cobbled this in. I'm guessing that they drove shim shingles into the gap between the header and plywood jamb in an effort to prevent the header from sagging. I think this falls in the category of "really? What the --ll are you thinking"?
 
Looks like it was originally built with a 5' slider or french door. At some point someone decided they wanted a wider door and cobbled this in. I'm guessing that they drove shim shingles into the gap between the header and plywood jamb in an effort to prevent the header from sagging. I think this falls in the category of "really? What the --ll are you thinking"?
 
dhengr said:
As mentioned by Pwood in post #5, any plywood sheathing, and 2nd floor framing including double top wall plate, rim joist, floor sheathing and joists, and the 2nd floor sole plate, if properly nailed together act as a pretty effective deep beam to span that opening. They are just not something any respectable Structural Engineer would hang his hat on, except in an emergency or for a short period of time.
Click to expand...
Those fine engineers who work for the APA might take exception to your statement. Even those engineers who do the shear prescriptions for the building codes should take exception.

If you think it is unsafe, do the engineering that shows it is unsafe. (The advantage of being an inspector and saying that it is not prescriptive is that the inspector an ask for engineering showing it is safe. An easy job for an engineer. The disadvantage of being an engineer and making statements about the unsafeness is that you now need to show that the structure will not support the loads. A really hard job. But you made the claim and now need to back it up.)
 
GHRoberts said:
Those fine engineers who work for the APA might take exception to your statement. Even those engineers who do the shear prescriptions for the building codes should take exception.If you think it is unsafe, do the engineering that shows it is unsafe. (The advantage of being an inspector and saying that it is not prescriptive is that the inspector an ask for engineering showing it is safe. An easy job for an engineer. The disadvantage of being an engineer and making statements about the unsafeness is that you now need to show that the structure will not support the loads. A really hard job. But you made the claim and now need to back it up.)
Click to expand...
Mr Roberts, we have a rim joist that is carrying floor and roof loads, that was once supported by studs (albeit incorrectly), that were cut, and are now supported by a sliver of plywood shim and a door frame. Does it really take engineering calculations to back up that there is a problem with the load path?
 
Actually all I have to do as the inspector is identify that the installation does not meet the IRC and that they need to modify to meet IRC requirements. If they do not wish to make the corrections it is up to the owner/contractor to enlist the services of an engineer and prove that the nonconventional installation is structurally satisfactory.
 
texasbo said:
Mr Roberts, we have a rim joist that is carrying floor and roof loads, that was once supported by studs (albeit incorrectly), that were cut, and are now supported by a sliver of plywood shim and a door frame. Does it really take engineering calculations to back up that there is a problem with the load path?
Click to expand...
Yes, it does require engineering calculations.

---

incognito and Pcinspector1 seem to understand the process.
 
Ya'll are arguing with brick wall,

George, assumes all framing requires engineering; and that all inspectors and BOs have no business and no authority to enforce the codes, because they are not Injun Ears.

Example: if you are inspecting a standard framed two story house; and three exterior wall studs are 3 1/2 feet on center, with a triple LVL on top of a single 2X4 top plate, centered between two of the 3 1/2 feet centered studs; and all the other studs on that wall are 16" on center (first floor load bearing wall) it's none of your damn business; and your just a power happy duffus.

Keep this in mind when you debate George; and, you learn not to agrue with him.

But, George always makes my day; so be nice to him.

Uncle Bob
 
Thats just poor framing! We should all take a minute and think of the trees used to make the building materials for this application, the trees have feelings. While in the woods the other day the trees told me they should stand up to this poor use of their brothern. The saplings said they should all stick together. I replied then you would be called LVL's and be considered engineered lumber!

The trees replied #%@# that!

Pc1 has never used drugs! except for caffeine
 
Well I guess I would agree with George that the services of a structural engineer are required if they want to leave the door and header as it is. If they modify to meet IRC requirements no engineer required.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top