30% of the time you have no clue if the correction was right or wrong. 60% of the time you didn't get a code reference and you were okay with that. If I was right 10% of the time I would hang it up. 100% of the time the inspector was toiling away.
I have always known that you have a well developed imagination. I figured that it was a thread about some guy that pissed off an inspector.Is it just me or does anyone else think that the heading for this thread could have been written better? "Unresponsive Inspector?" How about "Lack of response from inspector?"
When I first saw this I thought it was a thread about an accident
On a simple gable roof system. The gable ends are not load-bearing walls. They usually will only have a single header plate at top of wall. In which case, that will would not need a header over the windows or doors. Only on the load bearing walls would you actually need it. However, having said that, there may exceptions to the rule. Say, parts of the gable-end wall must have a shear braced and the gable part above the the windows, and doors and along the sides or where a brace wall pattern is required, there may need to be continuous header over the windows and doors. Headers would be as thick as the wall and the height of the header (top to bottom) would be like any beam which needs to carry the above deadload and other applicable loads without deflecting to unacceptable levels across the span of the opening for windows or doors. For typical size windows and doors not exceeding 4-ft. in width, a 10" to 12" tall header should suffice and support the loads. If you can not determine this, consult a design professional (architect, engineer, or a competent building designer (likely one that is certified as a CPBD [certified professional building designer]). They should be able to figure this out for you. I can not with absolute certainty, answer the OP's question on a professional capacity without a very thorough review of the design.
If the header area of the window is in the parts of the wall for shear resistance then it is necessary to have a header and it also provides for a nailing point for shear wall panels. Gable-end wall might not be directly supporting the floor loads but it may need to be designed to resist racking. I would, if I was designing the home unless that is adequately addressed elsewhere. This is for not just seismic for also hurricane force winds. Where I am, we are in a special wind zone category and designing would need to be designed for wind speeds upwards of 150+ mph (potential) and seismic zone to deal with earthquakes in the 8.5 to 9.5+ magnitude scale (subduction zone megathrust earthquakes). Therefore, design-wise, I would be looking to that level and up to 175 (maybe even 200) mph (depending on location and open exposure). Therefore, even the gable-end would need to be adequate shear resistance.
For headers above doors and windows, there a section on it in the IRC and IBC. Look at the index and look for what section it's listed and go there. Design professionals should be familiar with the code book and how to look through it. Ideally, so should clients/property owners get their head around it as well.
Rick, you are on fire this morning. I am thrilled to see all of your well-thought-out posts. Have a great day.Okay, to clarify, you won't need a "header beam" just a simple "header" plate which would by a flat 2x4 or 2x6 (match with the rest of the wall stud framing.... 2x4 for 2x4 wall and 2x6 for 2x6 wall. A poster did make a post with the pertinent code section and language. However, there can be exceptions for design/engineering principles. You wouldn't need to use a 2 to 3 ply 2x (8, 10, or 12) beam and sheet(s) of plywood to bring it to flush with the wall studs on non-bearing walls and where windows or door is not in the shear resistance areas of the wall paneling. The wall should be adequately designed for shear resistance as required by code and should be when it is prudent.
The definition determines if it is a load bearing wall
[BS] WALL, LOAD-BEARING. Any wall meeting either of the following classifications:
1. Any metal or wood stud wall that supports more than 100 pounds per linear foot (1459 N/m) of vertical load in addition to its own weight.
2. Any masonry or concrete wall that supports more than 200 pounds per linear foot (2919 N/m) of vertical load in addition to its own weight.
View attachment 8243
This typical drop top chord gable end truss typically what we see around here. 36' to 40' spans are common and a 45psf roof snow load and 115 mph ultimate wind speed exposure "C".
Question If this truss Has a 2 ft tributary load on each side and all of the supports for the top are vertical how is that not transferring the top chord loads evenly to the bottom chord and thus to the wall? Is it less than 100 lbs per linear foot and therefore of no concern?
Most of the verticals in the gable truss drawings I looked at considered a load of less than 250lbs at each vertical. I think this is probably a calculation based on the overhand designed into the truss and the tributary load from 1/2 of the truss spacing. IMHO, these trusses are bearing. Does that mean that prescriptively we are going to require a built up header? Typically not for me. And even if I wanted to, there doesn't appear to be a table for trusses bearing parallel to the building width. (Never really liked these tables, but they are what we have). In the OP, it sounds like the inspector and/or the boss didn't have a clear understanding of this, and then everyone dug their heels in. If there are truss design drawings I think the issue could be resolved rather quickly...if personal feelings and opinions can be put aside. My comment was based on the contention that they are typically non-bearing. Some trusses require continuous bearing ( for various reasons as others have noted), some have concentrated loads.
In the 1st drawing, the hatched bottom chord indicates a requirement for continuous bottom chord bearing, which is verified by note 7.
In the second drawing, even thought the truss looks to be symmetrical, one side is clearly non-bearing, but the other is bearing. And, in fact, joint 12 has considerably more reaction than the similar joint 9, which has no bearing requirement.
I am not an engineer so maybe my understanding of these drawings is wrong. When I inspected I required the layouts and shops on site. Even though I typically considered a standard gable truss as "non-bearing", I would look for the hatch, and if I saw it I would consider why.
View attachment 8245
View attachment 8246
It's stamped by an engineer. Consult the engineer and do accordingly. Any window or door under the 'hatched' "continuous bearing support" should have header beams over the window. The areas that do not have a continuous bearing support requirement, does not necessarily require header beams over the window. If any portion of a door or window is under that continuous load bearing area, you should have a header beam continuous over the window and door. Like I said, consult the engineer that stamped the drawings.