# You Make The Call, Residential Framing 101



## jar546 (Jan 3, 2015)

If you are making the call, we need a section of the code please.  No unsubstantiated opinions.  If you call it either way, back it up.What would you do if you were inspecting this?

View attachment 2116


View attachment 2116


/monthly_2015_01/IMAG0104.jpg.d39522065a308f8c447c6373cebd5189.jpg


----------



## Sifu (Jan 3, 2015)

T602.3(1), missing 3-16d nails in ledger

802.3.1, missing a continuous rafter tie

802.6, missing bearing of 1 1/2" on far side cj (can't really see the connection but even though it is a small span and light load it is still a code requirement)

Can't quite tell what is going on with the rafter tails with the small 2x4's


----------



## Sifu (Jan 3, 2015)

Also, N1102.2.1, doesn't appear to be adequate space at the eave for insulation, but not sure of your requirements.....PA?? Requires r38 and up so doesn't look like enough.


----------



## ICE (Jan 3, 2015)

> No unsubstantiated opinions.


But.... But that's all I've got.


----------



## 4thorns (Jan 3, 2015)

R802.7.1 (I think)

Looks like 2x8 rafters. Also looks like 3" to 3 1/2" of the level cut at the crows foot of the rafter protruding into the room over the exterior wall, effectively reducing the rafter to just over a 2x6. The bonus would be if the CJ are secured to the rafters well enough they'll help with bearing.

Seems like an odd place for a beam given the short ceiling span in the background (Looks like it's not centered in the room). If the foreground span is the same length then is the beam holding up the ridge, thus negating the need for the continuous collar tie?

Do you have any more pics of this?


----------



## 4thorns (Jan 4, 2015)

> thus negating the need for the continuous collar tie?


Meant rafter tie.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Jan 4, 2015)

Well, to the MASSDRIVER CODE OF COMMON SENSE, I could walk away from that overbuilt ridiculousness and sleep like a baby.

But to the rest of the world, and not knowing the code page or reference, there is a distinct lack of Simpson Strong-Tie crap polluting the work. So if I were an inspector, I would want the H-1's on the rafter to plates, and  Baby Jesus in the Manger get some A-35's on those plane intersections.

Brent.


----------



## ICE (Jan 4, 2015)

I've gotten used to seeing frieze blocks.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 4, 2015)

What would you do if you were inspecting this?

See if it meets the design plans submitted at plan review, IMO, administration section of the IRC

Pc1


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 4, 2015)

And what Massdriver said!


----------



## steveray (Jan 5, 2015)

Thrust and maybe the rafter cut....and then insulation around here....


----------



## jar546 (Jan 5, 2015)

Pcinspector1 said:
			
		

> What would you do if you were inspecting this?See if it meets the design plans submitted at plan review, IMO, administration section of the IRC
> 
> Pc1


I like the answer because it makes you looked at the submitted and hopefully "approved" plans.

Now for further discussion, we all know that plan review is not perfect and there are things that get past plan review.

If this was approved at plan review, would you as an inspector red tag it or approve it?


----------



## steveray (Jan 5, 2015)

jar546 said:
			
		

> I like the answer because it makes you looked at the submitted and hopefully "approved" plans.Now for further discussion, we all know that plan review is not perfect and there are things that get past plan review.
> 
> If this was approved at plan review, would you as an inspector red tag it or approve it?


If the engineer signs and stamps it you can build it out of Jell-o for all I care!


----------



## jar546 (Jan 5, 2015)

steveray said:
			
		

> If the engineer signs and stamps it you can build it out of Jell-o for all I care!


So you don't do plan review on permit submissions that come from an engineer?  I forgot they don't make mistakes.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 5, 2015)

Concern with the ceiling tie, no hanger or strapping being used. Also would be concerned with ceiling joist rolling over, have seen 2x over the top used to prevent the roll. Some Simpson JB's might do the trick.

Would be ok with a 1.5 ledger or even a notched CJ over the ledger but would be concerned with the tie to the beam. Beam? can't tell if it's an LVL or a buildup beam.

Can't see anything on the rafters to comment on notching??

R802.3.1

CJ spans start @ R802.4 no attic storage

pc1


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 5, 2015)

> Also would be concerned with ceiling joist rolling over


Lateral support might be required per R802.8 at the rafter/ceiling joist connection

I don't believe R802.8.1 wood require bridging or "rat runs" unless the ceiling joist are 2 X 8


----------



## Sifu (Jan 5, 2015)

jar546 said:
			
		

> So you don't do plan review on permit submissions that come from an engineer?  I forgot they don't make mistakes.


We all make mistakes, I will call out a correction, approved plan or not if it is a concern.  How it is handled makes the difference.  Most plan reviewers I have worked with appreciate it when an inspector can act as a little bit of a backstop.  Often I find the reviewer didn't "miss" something, just made an informed decision based on a differing information.  It is usually worked out pretty easily.  Anyone who thinks a review is a complete acceptance that everything meets code is kidding themselves.  As for the OP, I list the things I see as code violations as an exercise based on what I can see.  Good judgement, experience and a more complete picture of the condition and project as a whole would determine what I write down.


----------



## JBI (Jan 5, 2015)

IF it is not prescriptive, AND IF it is not shown in the accepted plans, THEN the DPR will need to address it and make a determination in accordance with accepted Engineering practice, provide his calculations for the file - or his corrections - and move on.


----------



## 4thorns (Jan 5, 2015)

> Can't see anything on the rafters to comment on notching??


Look at the second rafter from the right. Seems to stand out more than the rest. I took a screen shot and zoomed in on it. Looks over cut to me. Then again if the rafters *are* 2x8 then they might just be looking for insulation quality. If it's built as designed then the loads can't be that high.


----------



## jar546 (Jan 6, 2015)

Oh yeah, by the way.  This is in an area with a 50 psf ground snow load.  Feel free to convert to LL if you want.


----------



## steveray (Jan 6, 2015)

jar546 said:
			
		

> So you don't do plan review on permit submissions that come from an engineer?  I forgot they don't make mistakes.


No....I call it out for not meeting structural IRC code and he overrules me with his stamp....I fail RDP plans every Wednesday from 9-5 and whenever else I get time....


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 6, 2015)

"Can't see anything on the rafters to comment on notching??"

I could not enlarge the posted picture to make comments on the rafter cuts. Sorry for being so inept!


----------



## 4thorns (Jan 6, 2015)

Pcinspector1 said:
			
		

> "Can't see anything on the rafters to comment on notching??"I could not enlarge the posted picture to make comments on the rafter cuts. Sorry for being so inept!


PC. My post included a quote from your post. I wasn't bustin your n#ts in any way shape or form. I was just "Quoting" the post that I was replying to and sharing the process that I used to make my observation.

I guarantee that you know more about codes than I do! I'm just here to learn.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 7, 2015)

4thorns,

There's a lot of knowledgeable people on this form and I pick up valuable information all the time. The inspection photos that are posted gets the visual thinking process for me going.

Thanks for your post, no harm has occurred.

pc1


----------

