# Rough framing for wall remodel



## pathanay (Jan 3, 2017)

A 25'x11' room addition was built to my house in 1980. I'm planning on remodeling the south wall to change the windows and door, and also to add an interior partition wall. Here is the intended completed room:





Here is the rough framing for this wall:




Is this wall framing ok?
One issue I see is that it may not meet table R602.7.5:




Is there a way to meet this table's requirements without decreasing the window sizes?

Another question I have is that I have three headers in the same wall. Would it be better to have a single long header spanning all three openings?

Thanks.


----------



## pathanay (Jan 3, 2017)

pathanay said:


> I'm planning on remodeling the south wall to change the windows and door, and also to add an interior partition wall.


I meant to say, "I'm planning on remodeling the south wall to change the windows and door *sizes and locations*."


----------



## north star (Jan 4, 2017)

*& ~ &*


What code & edition are you using ?
Also, where are your Shear Wall framing elements ?
Begin with Section R602.10, `15 IRC.


*& ~ &*


----------



## mark handler (Jan 4, 2017)

If you design the wall as a portal. Similar to a garage door.  Have a continuous header with strong walls on each side you can meet the lateral loads.


----------



## steveray (Jan 4, 2017)

I imagine that is tough in Cali and you might need an engineer anyway? But with panels on the corners, you would probably meet the bracing requirements here...


----------



## Joe Engel (Jan 4, 2017)

R308.4.2 requires window adjacent to door (within 24 inches) shall be considered a hazardous location. That would triple the cost of that window.


----------



## Joe Engel (Jan 4, 2017)

Joe Engel said:


> R308.4.2 requires window adjacent to door (within 24 inches) shall be considered a hazardous location. That would triple the cost of that window.


Sorry... 2012 IRC


----------



## pathanay (Jan 4, 2017)

Thanks everyone for your helpful replies.


north star said:


> *& ~ &*
> 
> 
> What code & edition are you using ?
> ...


I'm using the 2016 triennial edition California residential code. Using method CS-WSP, the total braced wall line length is 64 inches, with minimum brced wall panel length = 25.5 inches. My plan is to have two braced wall panels, one on each end of this wall: 28" and 36". See this document for calculations:
http://docdro.id/i7h3Z1G



Joe Engel said:


> R308.4.2 requires window adjacent to door (within 24 inches) shall be considered a hazardous location. That would triple the cost of that window.


Yes, that is correct. I'm planning on using mulled windows so only the one unit of each rough opening will have to be tempered. But you're right. It is something to consider.



mark handler said:


> If you design the wall as a portal. Similar to a garage door.  Have a continuous header with strong walls on each side you can meet the lateral loads.


I think a CS-WSP will also work as detailed in the above document. I'm hesitant to go with a CS-PF because it seems to complicated for my DIY skill level and I'm also waryof having to drill into the slab for the anchoring tie-down.
All your points are valid and worth thinking about. Did you have any thoughts on Table R602.7.5, and if it could be met?


----------



## pathanay (Jan 4, 2017)

Correction (can't find the edit button): The minimum braced wall panel length is 27".




Length of braced wall panel A1 = 28"
Length of braced wall panel A2 = 36"


----------



## steveray (Jan 4, 2017)

_Certainly seems like there is room to meet minimum studs per Table R602.7.5...._


----------



## pathanay (Jan 4, 2017)

steveray said:


> _Certainly seems like there is room to meet minimum studs per Table R602.7.5...._


So, because I have openings of 6' for both windows, I need at least 3 full-height studs 16" o.c.

But does that mean I need 32" (3 studs) length of full-height wall at each end of the header, before another header begins? I don't think I have room for that. On the west (left) corner, I only have 28" of a braced wall panel. And between the two windows I have a patio door which is only 12" or so from each window.

Or can I simply place the full-height studs closer to each other than 16" o.c. to meet this requirement?


----------



## steveray (Jan 4, 2017)

We do not have that table but I assumed it was referring to king studs for the header as it is in the header section, not the bracing section...


----------



## pathanay (Jan 4, 2017)

steveray said:


> We do not have that table but I assumed it was referring to king studs for the header as it is in the header section, not the bracing section...


Thanks Steveray. It does seem to be a new addition to the 2015 IRC (2016 California RC). I found one other person who ran into trouble with this table here: https://www.ok.gov/oubcc/documents/Building Presentation.pdf
Here is the relevant page (pg. 52):




It seems like they made an exception in Oklahoma to only use this table for two-stroreys or more.

By the way, I tried to make some plans to meet this table's requirements. I wasn't able to keep the symmetry of the two windows, but at least this way I can avoid needing tempered glass for the windows. What do you all think?


----------



## jwilly3879 (Jan 4, 2017)

I take that table to be (3) full height studs if the wall is framed 16"o.c. and a framing connector is used to support the header where no jack studs are used. If using king and jack then jacks are from 602.7(1).  The full length stud at the end of the header is fastened with (4) 16d nails into the end of the header.


----------



## mark handler (Jan 4, 2017)

Only applies to Buildings with eaves over 22 feet high.


----------



## jwilly3879 (Jan 4, 2017)

In Oklahoma.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Jan 5, 2017)

If this is a single story addition, and you're not in the mountains in northern California, each header should only be carrying a few hundred pounds of roof load, and a single jack stud at each end should be sufficient.

However, 4 additional 2x4s will be a lot cheaper than an engineered drawing.


----------



## mark handler (Jan 5, 2017)

mark handler said:


> Only applies to Buildings with eaves over 22 feet high.


Why are we discussing this?
Only applies to Buildings with eaves over 22 feet high


----------



## pathanay (Jan 5, 2017)

mark handler said:


> Only applies to Buildings with eaves over 22 feet high.


Hi Mark,
The exception for eaves over 22 feet that I quoted in post #13 was from a gov website in Oklahoma. I can't find a similar exception in my jurisdiction.


jwilly3879 said:


> I take that table to be (3) full height studs if the wall is framed 16"o.c. and a framing connector is used to support the header where no jack studs are used. If using king and jack then jacks are from 602.7(1).  The full length stud at the end of the header is fastened with (4) 16d nails into the end of the header.


But I see that figure R602.3(2) refers to table R602.7.5 even with jack studs:







Paul Sweet said:


> If this is a single story addition, and you're not in the mountains in northern California, each header should only be carrying a few hundred pounds of roof load, and a single jack stud at each end should be sufficient.
> 
> However, 4 additional 2x4s will be a lot cheaper than an engineered drawing.


I'm in the SF bay area. I'm not sure that the reasoning behind this table is to distribute the load of the header. Because the table calls for full-height spaced studs. So maybe it's to account for some lateral pivoting loads?

In any case I agree that it will be cheaper to meet the requirements of the table than get it engineered. But it is too restrictive on the size and location of openings.


----------



## pathanay (Jan 5, 2017)

Sorry for the many posts. I was able to find similar language ("number of full-height studs at each end of a header") in section R602.7.2 of the CRC 2016 (IRC 2015) as well:




Here, fortunately, they have a diagram showing that these full-height studs are not spaced, but are adjacent king studs (see red rectangle).

So personally, all I need to do are hammer in more king studs for each window opening, which should not be a big deal.

By the way, I was also able to find that section R602.7.5 was found problematic in Washington state as well. Here is a proposed change:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ga/apps/sbcc/File.ashx?cid=5129
The text reads





> This proposal is to delete code section R602.7.5 in its entirety until further study can determine the full impact of the new provision both financially and physically.
> 
> This section specifies the number of king studs at headers and while this is practical information to include in the code, the number of studs shown as needed raises concerns and conflicts in other areas of the code.  For example: the new code provision requires (6) king studs at each end of a 16’ garage door header regardless of wall height, wind pressure or vertical loading.  If the garage door is flanked on each side by a portal frame (PFH) as permitted in Table R602.10.5, it is not feasible to install the required king studs, jack studs and corner framing in the minimum 16” panel width.  There are several other types of braced panels in which this requirement would place the proximity of the required hold downs such that they do not provide the appropriate overturning resistance needed for the capacity of the wall.
> 
> In addition, what are the impacts to the energy code when the wall is solid wood? Are there other options that can provide the structural stability and feasibility that meet the intent of the code?


Thanks, everyone, for your help and patience.


----------



## pathanay (Jan 5, 2017)

steveray said:


> We do not have that table but I assumed it was referring to king studs for the header as it is in the header section, not the bracing section...


This seems to have been the right answer.


----------

