Thread: Attic framing

Is this acceptable practice. Stacking 2x4's as a "filler" and resting rafters on the installation. There are 2x6's supporting the installation. SFH built in 2004.

Similar Threads:

• Hi/Low vents terminate in the attic?!
• Short Attic Ladder
• Deck framing
• Steel framing
• Protection of wiring in the attic

Originally Posted by mathew stouffer

Is this acceptable practice. Stacking 2x4's as a "filler" and resting rafters on the installation. There are 2x6's supporting the installation. SFH built in 2004.

Would that not be considered a double doubled top plate?

As long as that stack can't rotate and is well nailed together, it is not a problem. A proper top plate would rest squarely on top of the studs, not tilted like that.

Originally Posted by John Kogel

As long as that stack can't rotate and is well nailed together, it is not a problem. A proper top plate would rest squarely on top of the studs, not tilted like that.

Is there a code or other written requirement that the top plate be square to the top of the studs?

Nope.

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

Is there a code or other written requirement that the top plate be square to the top of the studs?

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Nope.

Having the plate tilted defies the Law of Gravity, which was scratched on a tablet by Sir Isaac Newton. Not recognized in Utah, apparently.

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

Is there a code or other written requirement that the top plate be square to the top of the studs?

The intention is to carry the load *vertically* down to the studs, not to guide it down the ski slope and off the top plate.

By the way, there 'is' something in the code which address the top plates:
- R602.3 Design and construction. Exterior walls of wood-frame construction shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and Figures R602.3(1) and R602.3(2) or in accordance with AF&PA’s NDS. Components of exterior walls shall be fastened in accordance with Tables R602.3(1) through R602.3(4). Exterior walls covered with foam plastic sheathing shall be braced in accordance with Section R602.10. Structural sheathing shall be fastened directly to structural framing members.
- - (then look at the two referenced drawings )

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

The intention is to carry the load *vertically* down to the studs, not to guide it down the ski slope and off the top plate.

By the way, there 'is' something in the code which address the top plates:
- R602.3 Design and construction. Exterior walls of wood-frame construction shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and Figures R602.3(1) and R602.3(2) or in accordance with AF&PA’s NDS. Components of exterior walls shall be fastened in accordance with Tables R602.3(1) through R602.3(4). Exterior walls covered with foam plastic sheathing shall be braced in accordance with Section R602.10. Structural sheathing shall be fastened directly to structural framing members.
- - (then look at the two referenced drawings )

I do agree with the Figures argument, but technicaly not an exterior wall as I see it in the picture. What would cause the vertical load vector of the rafter to change direction? Collar or rafter ties are required to prevent outward thrust, not the wall top plate.

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

I do agree with the Figures argument, but technicaly not an exterior wall as I see it in the picture.

A wall does not need to be an exterior wall to be a load bearing wall.

What would cause the vertical load vector of the rafter to change direction?

The surface it is resting on. When you stand on an icy patch which is level, what happens? You stand there. When you stand on an icy patch which is on the side of a slope, what happens? You slide downhill.

Collar or rafter ties are required to prevent outward thrust, not the wall top plate.

Yep, and that is not a collar tie, it is a load bearing wall.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

A wall does not need to be an exterior wall to be a load bearing wall.


The surface it is resting on. When you stand on an icy patch which is level, what happens? You stand there. When you stand on an icy patch which is on the side of a slope, what happens? You slide downhill.



Yep, and that is not a collar tie, it is a load bearing wall.

"- R602.3 Design and construction. Exterior walls of wood-frame construction shall be ...."

Ice or gravel, the downward force is still vertical.

We can't see if collar ties are installed, and the point is that the wall is not responsible to hold the rafter from pushing outward but to hold it up.

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

"- R602.3 Design and construction. Exterior walls of wood-frame construction shall be ...."

Strange that you choose to stop the quote there, I will add the applicable part to the quote: "... designed and constructed in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and Figures R602.3(1) and R602.3(2) ... "

Now, did you bother to look at Figure R602.3(1)? If so, did you look past the "exterior wall" part? Did you look at the center "intermediate bearing wall"? If so, did you notice the double top plate on it? Oh ... gosh ... ... it is just like the "exterior wall" part.

Ice or gravel, the downward force is still vertical.

The downward force of the ice or gravel is still vertical, but, as I said, if you were standing on an ice patch which was sloped ... which way would you go? Would you still be standing there because your gravity load is vertical, or would be sliding downhill because the bearing spot you were standing on was sloped and not horizontal?

We can't see if collar ties are installed, and the point is that the wall is not responsible to hold the rafter from pushing outward but to hold it up.

Precisely! That is why the top plate should be level, not sloping.

For clarification, since my post has been taken out of context, as I was responding to the OP:

Originally Posted by mathew stouffer

Is this acceptable practice. Stacking 2x4's as a "filler" and resting rafters on the installation. There are 2x6's supporting the installation. SFH built in 2004.

My reply was "Nope."

Solid blocking for stacked short walls/pony walls, etc. refers to beams, lumber in the correct orientation. Stacking 2x lumber on the flat x4 regardless of how it is fastened, is not acceptable practice. Build-up of any member beyond 3 requires engineering.

The orientation of the lumber "filler" is incorrect.

I do not agree that the pictured is as built "a load bearing 'wall'."