Thread: Framing question - 24' Wall

New construction - under 2006 IRC. The gable end walls are 24' high at their apex and 12' at their lowest and just support the roof. They are constructed using 2x6s 16"OC. The walls are not balloon framed. I told the builder the walls must be engineered as I do not believe they are constructed properly. I used Table R602.3.1 as my reference. Do not all walls of this height have to be balloon framed?

Similar Threads:

• Single Wall Window Installation
• Who needs 6" of clearance for single wall
• Crack in the wall
• Steel framing
• Staining on exterior wall near A/C

Originally Posted by Bob Spermo

New construction - under 2006 IRC. The gable end walls are 24' high at their apex and 12' at their lowest and just support the roof. They are constructed using 2x6s 16"OC. The walls are not balloon framed. I told the builder the walls must be engineered as I do not believe they are constructed properly. I used Table R602.3.1 as my reference. Do not all walls of this height have to be balloon framed?

No

If anything that top plate of the lower wall should have or could have gone from side to side and the lower window framed under that top plat.

You say the wall was not balloon framed. Balloon framing went out a long time ago. Besides, to me it appears that the king studds beside the window go all the way up. The upper window does not appear to be framed right.

As far as the end wall supporting anything, well, it does not have any load bearing for the roof. Are there any collar ties at all for that roof support ??? I hope something is there to keep the side walls from just bowing out and collapsing from the roof load and spread.

Ted,

Thanks. I used the words balloon framing because a structural engineer told me that because of new building requirements for wind you could no longer build a wall on top of a wall (without a floor) that is higher than 12'. He took me to a house under construction, pointed to a 20' load bearing wall and said the studs have to be continuous (sill to top plate). San Antonio is now in a different wind area than it is used to be. No collar ties at this house but there is a huge engineered ridge beam.

Originally Posted by Bob Spermo

Ted,

Thanks. I used the words balloon framing because a structural engineer told me that because of new building requirements for wind you could no longer build a wall on top of a wall (without a floor) that is higher than 12'. He took me to a house under construction, pointed to a 20' load bearing wall and said the studs have to be continuous (sill to top plate). San Antonio is now in a different wind area than it is used to be. No collar ties at this house but there is a huge engineered ridge beam.

Bob: Refer and defer to the design professional's detailed wall framing plans.

The section you are stating references stud height. Section R602.3.1 refers to TABLE R602.3(5) which talks about laterally unsupported stud heights.

You do not count the studs as a single stud when there are top plates dividing them. The top plate gives latteral support. I do not see a problem with the way this is framed.

I do agree with Ted's statement "should have or could have gone from side to side and the lower window framed under that top plate."

If framed the way Ted described it would make for a stiffer end wall.

As I recall, if not balloon framed (full height studs slab to roof) then the hinge joint (where the two platform framed walls meet) would need to be supported by a diaphragm or some other support.

Jeez! OK, if you really feel the need to second guess the designer:

http://www.apawood.org/pdfs/managed/L350.pdf

Originally Posted by Bob Spermo

New construction - under 2006 IRC. The gable end walls are 24' high at their apex and 12' at their lowest and just support the roof. They are constructed using 2x6s 16"OC. The walls are not balloon framed. I told the builder the walls must be engineered as I do not believe they are constructed properly. I used Table R602.3.1 as my reference. Do not all walls of this height have to be balloon framed?

I recently saw a similar situation on a commercial job with tall gable end walls. They used diagonal braces that braced the end wall hinge-point up to the roof diaphragm.

Originally Posted by Bob Spermo

New construction - under 2006 IRC. The gable end walls are 24' high at their apex and 12' at their lowest and just support the roof. They are constructed using 2x6s 16"OC. The walls are not balloon framed. I told the builder the walls must be engineered as I do not believe they are constructed properly. I used Table R602.3.1 as my reference. Do not all walls of this height have to be balloon framed?

Bob,

Look at Table 602.3(5), I believe that is what you are looking for.

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

No

If anything that top plate of the lower wall should have or could have gone from side to side and the lower window framed under that top plat.

You say the wall was not balloon framed. Balloon framing went out a long time ago. Besides, to me it appears that the king studds beside the window go all the way up. The upper window does not appear to be framed right.

As far as the end wall supporting anything, well, it does not have any load bearing for the roof. Are there any collar ties at all for that roof support ??? I hope something is there to keep the side walls from just bowing out and collapsing from the roof load and spread.

If the top plate of the lower wall would have gone from side to side, the wall would flap like flag in a mild wind. Building that wall with another wall on top creates a hinge point where the horizontal plates meet. Not to mention- it appears the OSB was also joined over the plates.

Balloon framing used in conjunction with platform framing is still in practice today. I do it all the time. It's the only way to stiffen high gable walls and meet deflection requirements. The king studs that continue from bottom to top are the only correct things done in the wall.

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

No

If anything that top plate of the lower wall should have or could have gone from side to side and the lower window framed under that top plat.

You say the wall was not balloon framed. Balloon framing went out a long time ago. Besides, to me it appears that the king studds beside the window go all the way up. The upper window does not appear to be framed right.

As far as the end wall supporting anything, well, it does not have any load bearing for the roof. Are there any collar ties at all for that roof support ??? I hope something is there to keep the side walls from just bowing out and collapsing from the roof load and spread.

this wall is supporting the roof thru the ridge beam.
this wall probably should get a layer of osb on the inside nailed and glued like a shear wall with the joints staggered to make up for the outside osb landing on the double plate.
the transfer of ridge load appears adequate.
all in all the wall will probably be alright ,i just don't like the outside osb joint landing on that hinge point

I agree with Richard, the wall is supporting the ridge beam and needs better wind bracing. Also, the king studs should probably be 3 1/2" wide PSLs and the intermediate plates should have metal connectors to tie into the PSL's. an engineer should look at it.

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

If anything that top plate of the lower wall should have or could have gone from side to side and the lower window framed under that top plat.

Actually, that would have made the wall worse. The one good thing about the wall is the doubled king studs that are full length. The two things that are wrong with that wall are that the sheathing joint landed at the double place and there's no blocking at the other sheathing joints. Fix those two things and you could have a solid wall there.

You say the wall was not balloon framed. Balloon framing went out a long time ago.

Except for gable walls.

As far as the end wall supporting anything, well, it does not have any load bearing for the roof. Are there any collar ties at all for that roof support ??? I hope something is there to keep the side walls from just bowing out and collapsing from the roof load and spread.

Well, I suspect those gable walls are bearing the load for the roof. Collar ties near the peak are insufficient for preventing spread - you need either ties within the bottom third of the rafter span (ceiling joists usually serve this additional purpose in roof framing) or you need a load bearing structural ridge to carry the roof weight to the gable walls. This would be standard for stick built (as opposed to scissor truss or other engineered) cathedral ceilings.

Guys there is obviously a ridge beam that is carrying the roof load. The gable wall is NOT load bearing... well only where the load is transfered to the upper window header and once again to the lower window LVL header. That is why the builder balloon framed the king studs there. Look at the pic again, you can see it all. Again, the rest of the wall should have been framed from top to bottom with NO horizontal plates. Horizontal plates will NOT add strength but will only weaken it. Bob, you are correct 2006 IRC dictates these walls must be balloon framed.

Have you clicked the 'Contact Us' link below and asked Brian to change your name to your real name yet?

It really does help for everyone here.

Originally Posted by Door Guy

Guys there is obviously a ridge beam that is carrying the roof load. The gable wall is NOT load bearing... well only where the load is transfered to the upper window header and once again to the lower window LVL header.

Which ... drum roll ... MAKES THE GABLE WALL LOAD BEARING.

is there a code number or section for that plate being a violation.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Have you clicked the 'Contact Us' link below and asked Brian to change your name to your real name yet?

It really does help for everyone here.



Which ... drum roll ... MAKES THE GABLE WALL LOAD BEARING.

Jerry, I do agree, it's load bearing but only at the point of the window openings. The rest of the wall where it's not balloon framed is not load bearing. You could remove those studs and the roof will not collaspe. In fact that is why that part of the wall is weak. There in NO load on it.

Yes, I have contacted Brian, however he was away on his honeymoon. I'm sure he had other things on his mind instead of making sure my name got changed...

Originally Posted by Door Guy

Yes, I have contacted Brian, however he was away on his honeymoon. I'm sure he had other things on his mind instead of making sure my name got changed...

Thank you, when Brian gets back from his "other things" , he will, no doubt, change it. Thanking you in advance.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Have you clicked the 'Contact Us' link below and asked Brian to change your name to your real name yet?

It really does help for everyone here.

Using your real name in online forums is a horrible idea. It is hard to imagine that there is a forum like this that encourages this type of foolish online behavior. It's this kind of thing that probably explains why this forum seems to have so few female members. Forums that think people should use their real names are creepy. There are plenty of reasons why it is not a good idea. I'd quit a forum before I would let them dictate the use of real names.

Originally Posted by Mike Truss Guy

Using your real name in online forums is a horrible idea. It is hard to imagine that there is a forum like this that encourages this type of foolish online behavior. It's this kind of thing that probably explains why this forum seems to have so few female members. Forums that think people should use their real names are creepy. There are plenty of reasons why it is not a good idea. I'd quit a forum before I would let them dictate the use of real names.

Yes, because anonymity on forums has promoted professional and courteous interactions between people.

I agree, there are some forums where you want to be anonymous, trying on a persona while shielding yourself from the repercussions that might attend public knowledge of your identity. A random sampling of the internet would quickly confirm that the 32yo mid-level executive would not want his boss to be aware of his YouTube comment saying "SUCK MY BALLZ UR STOOPID BEETCH!" Anonymity allows him to continue his public juvenile speech while shielding his private life from potential repercussions.

There are other classes of public speech that one might want to keep anonymous. Political and religious speech, especially speech contravening the dominant view, could cause loss of property, liberty, and livelihood. Speech related to the commission of a criminal act can be used against you. Whistleblowers require anonymity to protect them from litigation or termination. A woman dissatisfied with (or even abused by) her husband may use the anonymity of a forum to share with others and receive support. Or perhaps even just to arrange an affair. These types of forums require robust protections of privacy that extend beyond just having an anonymous username. The forum operators must be committed to maintaining that privacy through policies and protection of log files.

This doesn't appear to be that type of forum. That is, this doesn't appear to be the type of forum where ideas are interchanged that could or should cause injury to a person. Misrepresentation on this forum doesn't appear to serve anyone's purpose, nor does this appear to be the place where one might promulgate offensive or provocative speech. At the same time, I don't see "real names" as placing a chilling effect on the types of interactions users have here. There are still plenty of pissing matches and spirited arguments even without the masking of identities. Were anonymity encouraged on this forum, I predict the quality and tenor of the conversation would suffer as it has for nearly every other "anonymous" forum I've seen.

All that said, I don't believe there is a "requirement" that you use your real name here. But understand that a forum is more than its host; it is a self-selected community that, through the interactions of members with one another, creates a series of expectations and guidelines, both formal and informal, that become de facto rules of participation. The consequences for ignoring those rules may be nothing more than that some members refuse to interact with you, and it is in that light that I think we can all make decisions about the value and cost of anonymity on a forum such as this.

Well said, including:

Originally Posted by Corn Walker

All that said, I don't believe there is a "requirement" that you use your real name here. But understand that a forum is more than it's host; it is a self-selected community that, through the interactions of members with one another, creates a series of expectations and guidelines, both formal and informal, that become de facto rules of participation. The consequences for ignoring those rules may be nothing more than that some members refuse to interact with you, and it is in that light that I think we can all make decisions about the value and cost of anonymity on a forum such as this.

I would also add that, if you don't want *your name* associated with what you post here, it is quite likely that *you should not* be posting that here.

We'll miss you Truss Guy...........

Originally Posted by Corn Walker

Yes, because anonymity on forums has promoted professional and courteous interactions between people.

I agree, there are some forums where you want to be anonymous, trying on a persona while shielding yourself from the repercussions that might attend public knowledge of your identity. A random sampling of the internet would quickly confirm that the 32yo mid-level executive would not want his boss to be aware of his YouTube comment saying "SUCK MY BALLZ UR STOOPID BEETCH!" Anonymity allows him to continue his public juvenile speech while shielding his private life from potential repercussions.

There are other classes of public speech that one might want to keep anonymous. Political and religious speech, especially speech contravening the dominant view, could cause loss of property, liberty, and livelihood. Speech related to the commission of a criminal act can be used against you. Whistleblowers require anonymity to protect them from litigation or termination. A woman dissatisfied with (or even abused by) her husband may use the anonymity of a forum to share with others and receive support. Or perhaps even just to arrange an affair. These types of forums require robust protections of privacy that extend beyond just having an anonymous username. The forum operators must be committed to maintaining that privacy through policies and protection of log files.

This doesn't appear to be that type of forum. That is, this doesn't appear to be the type of forum where ideas are interchanged that could or should cause injury to a person. Misrepresentation on this forum doesn't appear to serve anyone's purpose, nor does this appear to be the place where one might promulgate offensive or provocative speech. At the same time, I don't see "real names" as placing a chilling effect on the types of interactions users have here. There are still plenty of pissing matches and spirited arguments even without the masking of identities. Were anonymity encouraged on this forum, I predict the quality and tenor of the conversation would suffer as it has for nearly every other "anonymous" forum I've seen.

All that said, I don't believe there is a "requirement" that you use your real name here. But understand that a forum is more than its host; it is a self-selected community that, through the interactions of members with one another, creates a series of expectations and guidelines, both formal and informal, that become de facto rules of participation. The consequences for ignoring those rules may be nothing more than that some members refuse to interact with you, and it is in that light that I think we can all make decisions about the value and cost of anonymity on a forum such as this.

Recently I spoke at a local city meeting. The type that is often broadcast on local television channels where you can address the mayor and city leaders. At those meetings you are required to state your full name and address. Those logs are placed online including your address. Some of us are also listed on state web site that lists people permitted by state to do certain professional tasks. These also typically include a business address and sometimes a home address. Our local government has a database that allows you to search for all real estate by either address or by name. So with a name and an address you can know how much a person paid for their house, how much property tax they paid, and when they last paid. You can also see any liens on their property. Our state also has a search that allows you to search for all businesses and corporations to which you are either a stockholder or officer. So given a name you can find an address. An address gets you all businesses owned by that person. If you happen to be named John Smith you are more anonymous, but not everyone has a common name. Some people have unusual or very uncommon names. I have one family member who when you search for them it instantly brings up two things - their Facebook page and their home address. Their facebook page tells what church they belong to. Depending on their privavy setting viewing their friends list on Facebook you can find out the names of all of their cousins, uncles, parents, kids, and friends. Facebook also defaults to telling the world your exact birth date. If they are foolish enough to post in other forums or blogs with their full name you can find out much, much more.

So just because this particular forum is intended for only discussing inspections that does not preclude anybody from finding out your address, place of business, birth date, friends, phone numbers, E-mail address, names of relatives, real estate holdings, professional licenses and probably much more. Is this sinking in? How much do you want out there for anonymous people viewing a forum to see. These people in this forum could be former disgruntled employees, former bosses who hate your guts, ex spouses. You do not have any control over who sees this information or what they will do with it.

Oh and I forgot. All you need is an address and Google probably has a street view of your house. There is also satellite photos of your car in the driveway.

Originally Posted by Mike Truss Guy

So just because this particular forum is intended for only discussing inspections that does not preclude anybody from finding out your address, place of business, birth date, friends, phone numbers, E-mail address, names of relatives, real estate holdings, professional licenses and probably much more. Is this sinking in? How much do you want out there for anonymous people viewing a forum to see. These people in this forum could be former disgruntled employees, former bosses who hate your guts, ex spouses. You do not have any control over who sees this information or what they will do with it.

Oh and I forgot. All you need is an address and Google probably has a street view of your house. There is also satellite photos of your car in the driveway.

The genie is already out of the bottle my friend. Many people try to stuff him back in but to no avail. And as someone with a less than common name, I'm all too aware of what a quick search on Google will yield. (As you might discover, my day job is not as a home inspector but as a technology consultant where my particular interest happens to be on privacy and security. Construction literacy is just a hobby of mine).

I've spent countless hours teaching people not how to try and disappear from the internet but how to be aware of information persistence and availability. The best advice I have to offer is to not post information on the internet that you don't want tied back to you. Anonymity on the internet is only an illusion and we're all only one subpoena (or data security breach) away from having that mask ripped away.

By the way, what kind of car is that in your driveway on Google Maps? My driveway is the one in front of the detached "garage" 120 ft north of the house but the image is outdated and shows the previous owner's vehicle.