Thread: 3x4 Cripple Studs

1980, 2 story condo built on a downsloped lot. The cripple wall studs on the foundation crawlspace were 3x4. Generally, I seen 2x6 studs when supporting two stories. The studs are sized-up, just not in the same dimension that I typically see.

I will probably flag it anyway, but I was hoping for some feedback.

So... Whachoo think?

Similar Threads:

• Need pic: Cripple wall bolted to foundation
• Pressure treated for wall studs
• Correcting bowed studs
• Function of Vertical Studs in Rafter Roofs?
• Refrigerant line protection at studs and top plates

Duh, never mind. I found it.

IRC 602.3.1
Table 602.3(5)

Too bad I can't delete stupidity.

Originally Posted by Gunnar Alquist

Too bad I can't delete stupidity.

This is a good thing, because a lot of us would be gone.

I have never seen 3x4's, and would have never thought that they were specifically mentioned in the IRC. Thanks for the code cite.

Originally Posted by fritzkelly

....... were there any obvious issues from the undersized studs?

Studs are not undersized .

Table R 602.3(5)
Maximum spacing when supporting two floors, roof and ceiling (inches) 3x4's, 16"

Maybe a portable mill guy made some lumber. Might have been a tree right on the lot.
I see roughcut milled lumber once in a while "out in the sticks". The town Code inspectors only want to see stamped wood from the mill, wood that is sanded and graded.

Gunnar, did you see a timber stamp? I just relooked the pics, too smooth for homemade, unless he planed it too. Maybe metric lumber meant for export?

Is relooked a word? It should be. []

Originally Posted by John Kogel

Maybe a portable mill guy made some lumber. Might have been a tree right on the lot. I see roughcut milled lumber once in a while "out in the sticks". The town Code inspectors only want to see stamped wood from the mill, wood that is sanded and graded. Gunnar, did you see a timber stamp? I just relooked the pics, too smooth for homemade, unless he planed it too. Maybe metric lumber meant for export? Is relooked a word? It should be. []

Unlikely to be homemade. Condo development. Multiple buildings. I did not think to look for a stamp, I was more interested in the unusual (to me) dimension. I have only seen 2x6s used in situations like this. However, according to the IRC, 3x4s are interchangeable. However, I too have never seen 3x4s. Must have been a special order.

By the way, the IN spell check does not recognize "relook" or its variants.

Originally Posted by Gunnar Alquist

By the way, the IN spell check does not recognize "relook" or its variants.

Well I've relooked lots of stuff and it's always worked for me.

Originally Posted by Gunnar Alquist

Unlikely to be homemade. Condo development. Multiple buildings. I did not think to look for a stamp, I was more interested in the unusual (to me) dimension. I have only seen 2x6s used in situations like this. However, according to the IRC, 3x4s are interchangeable. However, I too have never seen 3x4s. Must have been a special order.

By the way, the IN spell check does not recognize "relook" or its variants.

2x6=12

3x4=12

Sounds good to me

You are in California. Things are a bit differnet out there. Arn't they? Isn't that the state where the words were written "You can get anything you want at ......" Maybe it has something to do with all those workers smokin medical weed. 3x4, 2x6, sounds the same to me!

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

2x6=12

3x4=12

Sounds good to me

You are in California. Things are a bit differnet out there. Arn't they? Isn't that the state where the words were written "You can get anything you want at ......" Maybe it has something to do with all those workers smokin medical weed. 3x4, 2x6, sounds the same to me!

1x12=12

Originally Posted by James Risley

Hey, I looked at the pictures again and it appears that the floor joists are also 3x?

Really?

gunnar,
i am not seeing a mudsill or bolts of any kind? i am not seeing insulation either? what's up?

Originally Posted by James Risley

Hey, I looked at the pictures again and it appears that the floor joists are also 3x? stock probably due to sizing for span. The supporting studs under the plates then should be at least the same size as the joists being supported. It is possible that the short 3x4 studs were ripped at the jobsite from excess 3x? joists. I would order extra joists to be able to reject some joists as something I would prefer to not use as joists due to excess crown or end checking etc.

Joists were 2x something. Don't remember offhand.

Originally Posted by brian schmitt

gunnar,
i am not seeing a mudsill or bolts of any kind? i am not seeing insulation either? what's up?

Anchor bolts were there. Hard to see in the pic. No insulation. Built prior to requirements for insulation.

The few times i have seen unusual sized framing is when the buiding is a pre-fab modular. This must have been cost saving.

In my rush review of comments I saw simple math (section "area") to demonstrate some kind of strength equivalency in resistance to "crippling".
It doesn't really work that way. Formula to check/compare column strength (compression along its vertical axis and in this case fully supported along each cripple's length by the sheathing and redundant in members) is to look at the member's section modulus about it's narrow central axis. Compare this to a 2 x 6's section modulus (greater or equal is desirable). Specie and grade factors into this also. BUT why analyze all this if the structure has apparently not been altered and has stood the test of time??

Originally Posted by Gunnar Alquist

Joists were 2x something. Don't remember offhand.



Anchor bolts were there. Hard to see in the pic. No insulation. Built prior to requirements for insulation.

gunnar,
i built my first home in 1978 and still have the original required energy calcs and the underfloor was required to be insulated with r-11, walls r-11 and roof r-19! my second and current house i built in 1982 and it required r-11 under floor, 19 ceiling and 19 walls.i live in the mt shasta area so it may have been different from the flatlands at the time or not enforced by the local ahj!
the 3x4 studs as you discovered are currently and were code complying at the time of construction.

Daniel,
1rst- Welcome to the board.

2nd-

Originally Posted by Daniel Mummey

I saw simple math (section "area") to demonstrate some kind of strength equivalency in resistance to "crippling".
It doesn't really work that way.

Ted was being facetious, and I was making a joke (or at least attempting to).

3rd-

BUT why analyze all this if the structure has apparently not been altered and has stood the test of time??

To quote others, "just because it has not failed yet, does not mean it is not wrong", and there are MANY,MANY, variations of this quote. Also sharing ideas, and getting different opinion helps inform and educate all of us, which leads me to point #4.........

4th-

Formula to check/compare column strength (compression along its vertical axis and in this case fully supported along each cripple's length by the sheathing and redundant in members) is to look at the member's section modulus about it's narrow central axis. Compare this to a 2 x 6's section modulus (greater or equal is desirable). Specie and grade factors into this also.

See, the good news is, you have shared an opinion that has not been mentioned.
The bad news for me is, I have no idea what the hell it means.