# Making a door larger to accommodate a 6' slider



## jar546 (Jan 5, 2011)

Was there for an electrical service inspection only.  Not my jurisdiction, covering an area that does not have an electrical inspector.  This is a load bearing wall that supports the floor above and a roof load (we are 40# gsl)

I told the contractor that this is a problem and to consult with the AHJ on this.

He told me it was not a problem and there was no need to fix it or pull a permit for a "cosmetic" change.  The only reason I was even called is because without a cut in card, there is no power......

Nice!  Love Pennsyltucky!


----------



## KZQuixote (Jan 5, 2011)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Was there for an electrical service inspection only.  Not my jurisdiction, covering an area that does not have an electrical inspector.  This is a load bearing wall that supports the floor above and a roof load (we are 40# gsl)I told the contractor that this is a problem and to consult with the AHJ on this.
> 
> He told me it was not a problem and there was no need to fix it or pull a permit for a "cosmetic" change.  The only reason I was even called is because without a cut in card, there is no power......
> 
> Nice!  Love Pennsyltucky!


At least it's over the fixed panel. The tempered glass will take it! :? Not!

Bill


----------



## Glennman CBO (Jan 5, 2011)

What do they have on the right side of the door? More of the same?


----------



## Jobsaver (Jan 5, 2011)

I thought the crown moulding would serve as the header supporting the second story and roof? (ha!)


----------



## pwood (Jan 5, 2011)

think structural double top plates, structural rim joist on floor#2, should pencil out! wheres our resident engineer george?:mrgreen:


----------



## peach (Jan 5, 2011)

the plywood is already hating it..


----------



## Forest (Jan 5, 2011)

structural change in pa = permit....How long has the contractor been the AJH?Maybe he needs to read his PA UCC book again!


----------



## GHRoberts (Jan 5, 2011)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Was there for an electrical service inspection only.  Not my jurisdiction, covering an area that does not have an electrical inspector.  This is a load bearing wall that supports the floor above and a roof load (we are 40# gsl)I told the contractor that this is a problem and to consult with the AHJ on this.


Electrical inspectors should not give structural engineering advice. It is seldom taken well.


----------



## Darren Emery (Jan 6, 2011)

GHRoberts said:
			
		

> Electrical inspectors should not give structural engineering advice. It is seldom taken well.


On the other hand - an inspector representing any jurisdiction should never turn a blind eye to something this egregious.  In my book - Jar did the right thing.


----------



## texasbo (Jan 6, 2011)

GHRoberts said:
			
		

> Electrical inspectors should not give structural engineering advice. It is seldom taken well.


I hope this was said in jest. I don't see telling the contractor to contact the AHJ as giving structural engineering advice.

With that said, I think this is one of those new structural sliders...


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 6, 2011)

GHRoberts said:
			
		

> Electrical inspectors should not give structural engineering advice. It is seldom taken well.


Jeff is more than just an electrical inspector.

Certified Building Code Official (BCO), PA-UCC

Certified Residential Building Inspector, ICC, PA-UCC

Certified Residential Electrical Inspector Inspector, ICC, PA-UCC

Certified Commercial Building Inspector, ICC, PA-UCC

Certified Commercial Plumbing Inspector, ICC, PA-UCC

Certified Commercial Mechanical Inspector, ICC, PA-UCC

Certified Commercial Electrical Inspector, ICC, PA-UCC

Certified Commercial Energy Inspector, ICC, PA-UCC

Certified Commercial Building Plans Examiner, ICC, PA-UCC

Certified Electrical Plans Examiner, ICC, PA-UCC

Certified Plumbing Plans Examiner, ICC, PA-UCC

Certified Mechanical Plans Examiner, ICC, PA-UCC

Certified Commercial Energy Plans Examiner, ICC, PA-UCC


----------



## fatboy (Jan 6, 2011)

Looks darn close to a MCP.........maybe 4 certs away?


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 6, 2011)

Jar,

The trees in the backyard must be "weeping Willows"!

Pc1

I think that's code for something in the Marines


----------



## dhengr (Jan 6, 2011)

That should'nt be allowed to stand and go unchallenged, because I suspect it won’t for long, without problems.  Creep, settlement, joint movement, etc. will all take their toll.  And, whether the guy likes structural advice or not from an electrical inspector, he sure needs it.

Surprisingly enough, something like that might stand for some time before it shows up as a problem.  As mentioned by Pwood in post #5, any plywood sheathing, and 2nd floor framing including double top wall plate, rim joist, floor sheathing and joists, and the 2nd floor sole plate, if properly nailed together act as a pretty effective deep beam to span that opening.  They are just not something any respectable Structural Engineer would hang his hat on, except in an emergency or for a short period of time.  And then, only after careful inspection of the existing conditions to see if he felt this might work for a short time.  I have seen 30 or 40' long exterior bearing walls continue to support floors and roof without much sag, after the found. wall below failed inward, into the basement.  Full snow load did not exist at the time.

What kind of a finished frame is 1/2 or 5/8" plywood for a 6' sliding door system?  The bend in that plywd. isn’t just from the wall loads above or the rest of the head joint would be closed too, and the header would be rotated down also.   There isn’t much evidence that that header was sized right or put in correctly in the first place.  Was there a cripple or jack stud in the first place, why the double common or king studs, the fit-up and joinery looks awful.  Well, I guess that’s why they call it rough framing.


----------



## Min&Max (Jan 6, 2011)

Looks like it was originally built with a 5' slider. At some point someone decided they wanted a wider door and cobbled this in. I'm guessing that they drove shim shingles into the gap between the header and plywood jamb in an effort to prevent the header from sagging. I think this falls in the category of "really? What the --ll are you thinking"?


----------



## Min&Max (Jan 6, 2011)

Looks like it was originally built with a 5' slider or french door. At some point someone decided they wanted a wider door and cobbled this in. I'm guessing that they drove shim shingles into the gap between the header and plywood jamb in an effort to prevent the header from sagging. I think this falls in the category of "really? What the --ll are you thinking"?


----------



## GHRoberts (Jan 6, 2011)

dhengr said:
			
		

> As mentioned by Pwood in post #5, any plywood sheathing, and 2nd floor framing including double top wall plate, rim joist, floor sheathing and joists, and the 2nd floor sole plate, if properly nailed together act as a pretty effective deep beam to span that opening.  They are just not something any respectable Structural Engineer would hang his hat on, except in an emergency or for a short period of time.


Those fine engineers who work for the APA might take exception to your statement. Even those engineers who do the shear prescriptions for the building codes should take exception.

If you think it is unsafe, do the engineering that shows it is unsafe. (The advantage of being an inspector and saying that it is not prescriptive is that the inspector an ask for engineering showing it is safe. An easy job for an engineer. The disadvantage of being an engineer and making statements about the unsafeness is that you now need to show that the structure will not support the loads. A really hard job. But you made the claim and now need to back it up.)


----------



## texasbo (Jan 6, 2011)

GHRoberts said:
			
		

> Those fine engineers who work for the APA might take exception to your statement. Even those engineers who do the shear prescriptions for the building codes should take exception.If you think it is unsafe, do the engineering that shows it is unsafe. (The advantage of being an inspector and saying that it is not prescriptive is that the inspector an ask for engineering showing it is safe. An easy job for an engineer. The disadvantage of being an engineer and making statements about the unsafeness is that you now need to show that the structure will not support the loads. A really hard job. But you made the claim and now need to back it up.)


Mr Roberts, we have a rim joist that is carrying floor and roof loads, that was once supported by studs (albeit incorrectly), that were cut, and are now supported by a sliver of plywood shim and a door frame. Does it really take engineering calculations to back up that there is a problem with the load path?


----------



## incognito (Jan 7, 2011)

Actually all I have to do as the  inspector is identify that the installation does not meet the IRC and that they need to modify to meet IRC requirements. If they do not wish to make the corrections it is up to the owner/contractor to enlist the services of an engineer and prove that the nonconventional installation is structurally satisfactory.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 7, 2011)

incognito,

I agree, my thoughts exactly.

pc1


----------



## GHRoberts (Jan 7, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Mr Roberts, we have a rim joist that is carrying floor and roof loads, that was once supported by studs (albeit incorrectly), that were cut, and are now supported by a sliver of plywood shim and a door frame. Does it really take engineering calculations to back up that there is a problem with the load path?


Yes, it does require engineering calculations.

---

incognito and Pcinspector1 seem to understand the process.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Jan 7, 2011)

Ya'll are arguing with brick wall,

George, assumes all framing requires engineering; and that all inspectors and BOs have no business and no authority to enforce the codes, because they are not Injun Ears.

Example: if you are inspecting a standard framed two story house; and three exterior wall studs are 3 1/2 feet on center, with a triple LVL on top of a single 2X4 top plate, centered between two of the 3 1/2 feet centered studs; and all the other studs on that wall are 16" on center (first floor load bearing wall) it's none of your damn business; and your just a power happy duffus.

Keep this in mind when you debate George; and, you learn not to agrue with him.

But, George always makes my day; so be nice to him.

Uncle Bob


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 7, 2011)

Thats just poor framing! We should all take a minute and think of the trees used to make the building materials for this application, the trees have feelings. While in the woods the other day the trees told me they should stand up to this poor use of their brothern. The saplings said they should all stick together. I replied then you would be called LVL's and be considered engineered lumber!

The trees replied #%@# that!

Pc1 has never used drugs! except for caffeine


----------



## Min&Max (Jan 7, 2011)

Well I guess I would agree with George that the services of a structural engineer are required if they want to leave the door and header as it is. If they modify to meet IRC requirements no engineer required.


----------



## TJacobs (Jan 7, 2011)

Good luck trying to verify the nailing of the plywood sheathing supposedly holding up this deep beam...sheeez


----------



## GHRoberts (Jan 7, 2011)

Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> Ya'll are arguing with brick wall,George, assumes all framing requires engineering; and that all inspectors and BOs have no business and no authority to enforce the codes, because they are not Injun Ears.


Misstating my position is not the way to prevail.

AHJs have authority to accept prescriptive code compliant issues and to accept engineering for non-prescriptive issues. Any and all non-prescriptive structural issues issues need to be dealt with by doing engineering. Comments like "That's just poor framing!" Don't really cut it in a discussion.

---

Looking at the door at hand. If I had plans or was on site, I could do enough engineering to give an opinion. But few of us have plans or on site. Those who are on site lack a license to give an engineering opinion. So you fail it because it is not prescriptive. Not because it is unsafe.


----------



## righter101 (Jan 7, 2011)

Isn't there just some Simpson product with an ICC-ES report that you can attach, call it good????


----------



## TJacobs (Jan 7, 2011)

If you think there are plans for this job, I have some swamp land to sell you.


----------



## TimNY (Jan 7, 2011)

ah.. another thread disappears into absurdity..

I believe economics would dictate to just do it prescriptively.  As TJ already noted, the engineer would either have to expose the siding to the extent necessary to develop a design, or he could just design it and then the BO would have to have it exposed to make sure it complies with the design.

Don't make me break out R103.4.


----------



## JBI (Jan 7, 2011)

This is why we need a 'like' button... incognito is SPOT ON CORRECT. If it isn't prescriptive, it must be engineered.


----------



## peach (Jan 8, 2011)

Leave it as it is.. that door will stop sliding sooner rather than later.. document it and move on.  When you get a scathing call from the owner. .direct him/her to this link.

Problem solved.. hit the easy button


----------



## fatboy (Jan 8, 2011)

I agree JBI, and I think that was George's point earlier, which sometimes it's hard to figure out. It is not OK for inpectors/building officials to say it is not safe, or dangerous, but we can say it is not compliant with the prescriptive codes. Semantics in my opinion.......fine, not compliant, provide engineering.

And I agree peach, the problem will become obvious to the owner soon.........


----------



## peach (Jan 8, 2011)

Thanks fat..

never enforce what you're not there for. Giving a heads up to the owner/contractor is great.. report it to the AHJ.. great.. don't lose any sleep over it.. you do what you're hired to do.. period.


----------



## Yankee (Jan 8, 2011)

peach said:
			
		

> Thanks fat..never enforce what you're not there for. Giving a heads up to the owner/contractor is great.. report it to the AHJ.. great.. don't lose any sleep over it.. you do what you're hired to do.. period.


I agree, a heads up to whomever has authority and also send a copy to your personal CYA file. Unless someone is about to die, in that case call in the flashing lights.


----------



## peach (Jan 8, 2011)

Thanks Yank... can't save the world.. it'll make you nuts to try.


----------



## RJJ (Jan 8, 2011)

Peach I agree you can't save the world and that is why I am becoming a little nuts. In PA they would need a permit for the alteration. In that light it has to comply. Even if you had been call to the site for something else we do have responsibility. Informing the owner is a start, but I would cite them if they didn't get a permit and install the header that is needed.

I red tag things all the time. We are supposed to have life safety as our first goal.


----------



## Yankee (Jan 8, 2011)

RJJ said:
			
		

> Peach I agree you can't save the world and that is why I am becoming a little nuts. In PA they would need a permit for the alteration. In that light it has to comply. Even if you had been call to the site for something else we do have responsibility. Informing the owner is a start, but I would cite them if they didn't get a permit and install the header that is needed. I red tag things all the time. We are supposed to have life safety as our first goal.


Agreed assuming it is yours to cite, if not send it along to the BO/AHJ or whatever.


----------



## RJJ (Jan 8, 2011)

It would be mind to cite!


----------



## peach (Jan 8, 2011)

Cite.. not red tag or stop work.. that's the beauty of 3rd party.. report to the AHJ (since I'm not them)


----------



## Jobsaver (Jan 8, 2011)

RJJ said:
			
		

> Peach I agree you can't save the world and that is why I am becoming a little nuts.





			
				RJJ said:
			
		

> It would be mind to cite!


If one is a multi-tasking inspector covering a large area, one must learn to pick battles judiciously. It is important to pace yourself as would a long-distance runner. It is also important not to become so depleted as to have lost all reserve capacity . . . for those certain aspects of our jobs that demand accurate and urgent response.


----------



## KZQuixote (Jan 8, 2011)

GHRoberts said:
			
		

> Misstating my position is not the way to prevail.AHJs have authority to accept prescriptive code compliant issues and to accept engineering for non-prescriptive issues. Any and all non-prescriptive structural issues issues need to be dealt with by doing engineering. Comments like "That's just poor framing!" Don't really cut it in a discussion.
> 
> ---
> 
> Looking at the door at hand. If I had plans or was on site, I could do enough engineering to give an opinion. But few of us have plans or on site. Those who are on site lack a license to give an engineering opinion. So you fail it because it is not prescriptive. Not because it is unsafe.


George,

Huggnh, Huggnh! Huggnh.

That violation is so egregious, that offering an opinion that it was not compliant with any known standard, is reasonably safe. Unfortunately, that don't mean that you won't need council to defend you should the shiite really hit the fan.

Bill


----------



## peach (Jan 9, 2011)

even if this wasn't a code violation (which it is).. the nature of the impending failure should be obvious to the contractor, owner, framer (butcher, baker, candlestick maker) that fixing it shouldn't even be a question.


----------



## GHRoberts (Jan 9, 2011)

peach said:
			
		

> the nature of the impending failure should be obvious to the contractor, owner, framer (butcher, baker, candlestick maker) that fixing it shouldn't even be a question.


Geodesic domes and the Rainbow Bridge in China.

All nonprofessionals, most professionals, and many engineers cannot do an accurate assessment of designs they are not familiar with.

---

The Rainbow Bridge, a bunch of short slender pieces of wood used to span long distances without any fasteners, was the subject of a PBS Nova program. The smart engineering students and the faculty at MIT got the engineering wrong.


----------



## peach (Jan 10, 2011)

True, GH...

This is a pretty easy assessment.. they should have kept the smaller door... now they have an issue.


----------

