Q&A Board links
  • REGISTER

  • FAQ

  • LOGIN

  • Q&A BOARD INDEX

  • View New Questions

  • View Unanswered Questions

  • View Active Questions/Answers

  • Mark Questions as read

  • View Your Questions

  • Go To Your User Control Panel




  • Links to:
  • Construction Litigation Consultants


  • Florida Building Commission

  • Florida Building Codes Online


  • International Code Council

  • ICC Codes Free Online


  • Building Officials and Administrators of Florida




  • Product Approvals
  • Florida Product Approval

  • ICC Evaluation Reports Search

  • Miami-Dade NOA Search




  • Inspector and Contractor License Search
  • Search Florida Licenses




  • Technical links
  • Technical Information page


























































  • Contact Codeman



  • Custom Search
    Page 1 of 1

    No Tight Butts Here

    New postPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 7:05 am
    by aaronm
    Codeman:

    I am at my wit’s end working to convince production homebuilders that gaps in framing butt, and other, joints are poor workmanship; are the cause of what they euphemistically refer to as “normal settlement” when drywall cracks appear; and are merely the end result of corporate American trying to pass as homebuilders.

    Gaps between headers and studs and other members as much as ½” in width are not uncommon. While I find code support for stud-to-plate, and rafter-to-rafter contact requirements, these requirements for joints in other framing members appear to be elusive. I have scoured the IRC, AWC, NDS, JLC Manual of Best Practices, NAHB Performance Standards, and Gypsum Association, et al., to no avail.

    As we all know, builders – especially Texas builders – do not respond to anything other than a codified reference replete with the terms shall and require. Can you help with this?

    Re: No Tight Butts Here

    New postPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 11:05 am
    by Jerry Peck - Codeman
    Aaron,

    I am not aware of any requirement regarding header-to-stud contact either; however, if the header is bearing on the top end of a single jack stud, I doubt that provides the minimum bearing required for the header. The minimum bearing requirement would depend on the header size (basically the width) and, as I recall, is 1-1/2" minimum.

    From the 2009 IRC: (bold and underlining are mine)
    - R602.7 Headers. For header spans see Tables R502.5(1) and R502.5(2).
    - (Tables R502.5(1) and R502.5(2) give sizes and spans for headers)
    - R502.6 Bearing. The ends of each joist, beam or girder shall have not less than 1.5 inches (38 mm) of bearing on wood or metal and not less than 3 inches (76 mm) on masonry or concrete except where supported on a 1-inch-by-4-inch (25.4 mm by 102 mm) ribbon strip and nailed to the adjacent stud or by the use of approved joist hangers.
    - (being as R502.6 is applicable to the two referenced Tables, this minimum bearing requirement would also be applicable to sections which reference those Tables (such as headers).

    If they are using a single jack stud which is 1-1/2" wide, then the 1-1/2" minimum bearing would have the header touching the adjacent king studs,

    Now, if those headers are non-bearing ... all bets (and butts) are off.

    Re: No Tight Butts Here

    New postPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 11:09 am
    by aaronm
    Good call Codeman.

    Thanks.