# Garage Door Opening & Wall Bracing



## Joe Black (Jan 1, 2020)

I couldn't quite find the answer to this one in the other posts about bracing, but I apologize if this information is already out there.  I'm building a garage with adjacent 16' wide overhead doors.  Originally, these were to be 9' tall walls with 7' doors.  So, I had the foundation installed to allow 3' between the doors, and 3' of wall to the right of the right door, and 16' to the left of the left door.  That allowed more than the minimum of 32" of braced panel for this type of opening, according to Table R602.10.5.  But, my wife talked me into buying a camper. Uh-oh.  So, I want to increase the height of my walls to 12' and use 10' high doors instead.  According to that same table, my bracing walls are now too narrow, as they should be 48".  But, it looks like I can use portal framing techniques to accommodate this situation, which I'm comfortable with.  This raises the two questions I have for this forum, and I'm a DIYer, so I really appreciate any help you all could offer:

1)  Is this actually allowable? Table R602.10.5 has footnote e that says maximum wall height of 12' is alright, with 10' opening, which is cool, in accordance with figure 602.10.4.  BUT, fig 602.10.4 shows that 10' is the maximum to the TOP of the header, and not the opening height.  Is a 12' wall with 10' opening allowable?  Using portal framing, I can have a wall as narrow as 24", but both of my "narrow" walls are 36", so it would seem that's fine.  

2)  Assuming that opening is allowed, how long must the header extend into the wall for portal framing?  If my wall were only 24" wide, according the fig 602.10.4, it looks like my header would reach through the full width.  But, I have a 36" wide wall, and if it were 48" I wouldn't even need portal framing.  Would it be reasonable to extend my header 12" beyond the opening on each side?  The code seems unclear on this.

I really appreciate any help.  I've got a really easy-going building inspector, and I'm 100% sure he'd be cool with almost anything reasonable that I put up, but I want to make sure it satisfies the actual code.  Thank you in advance.


----------



## cda (Jan 2, 2020)

Welcome

Give it a few days for replies


----------



## jar546 (Jan 2, 2020)

Joe Black said:


> I couldn't quite find the answer to this one in the other posts about bracing, but I apologize if this information is already out there.  I'm building a garage with adjacent 16' wide overhead doors.  Originally, these were to be 9' tall walls with 7' doors.  So, I had the foundation installed to allow 3' between the doors, and 3' of wall to the right of the right door, and 16' to the left of the left door.  That allowed more than the minimum of 32" of braced panel for this type of opening, according to Table R602.10.5.  But, my wife talked me into buying a camper. Uh-oh.  So, I want to increase the height of my walls to 12' and use 10' high doors instead.  According to that same table, my bracing walls are now too narrow, as they should be 48".  But, it looks like I can use portal framing techniques to accommodate this situation, which I'm comfortable with.  This raises the two questions I have for this forum, and I'm a DIYer, so I really appreciate any help you all could offer:
> 
> 1)  Is this actually allowable? Table R602.10.5 has footnote e that says maximum wall height of 12' is alright, with 10' opening, which is cool, in accordance with figure 602.10.4.  BUT, fig 602.10.4 shows that 10' is the maximum to the TOP of the header, and not the opening height.  Is a 12' wall with 10' opening allowable?  Using portal framing, I can have a wall as narrow as 24", but both of my "narrow" walls are 36", so it would seem that's fine.
> 
> ...



First of all thank you for coming here to post your question.  It is a great question and one that we can certainly help you with.  I for one appreciate your ethical choice of wanting to be code compliant knowing you have an easy going inspector.  Often and "easy going" inspector often (but not always) means they don't really understand the codes and are more about being a good guy rather than do their job which at times makes you unpopular.  It is important that the installation meet the code for a lot of reasons and your safety is one of them.  I had an existing, non-compliant situation happen where the family had their garage door open one day and we had a thunderstorm moving in so the winds kicked up and before they could get it closed, the side, outside wall blew out about 24" as the framing for the garage was inadequate.  Portal openings are extremely important.

So, with that being said:

1) What code book and cycle applies to your municipality?
2) Are there any code amendments or ordinance changes to the code cycle?
3) Are you framing with 2x4, 2x6 wood or metal studs?
4) What will be above the garage?  Attic space or living space?

These questions may help getting you the answer or at least a good discussion.


----------



## cda (Jan 2, 2020)

Do you have to or have you submitted plans?


----------



## ADAguy (Jan 2, 2020)

HMMMM?


----------



## steveray (Jan 2, 2020)

The header has to extend to the end of the braced panel.....The wall height gets a little wierder..Is there anything (other floors) above the garage? There are different portal frame techniques and you have to match them specifically in the code or engineer it....

c. Maximum header height for PFH is 10 feet in accordance with Figure R602.10.6.2, but wall height shall be permitted to be increased to 12 feet with pony wall.
d. Maximum opening height for PFG is 10 feet in accordance with Figure R602.10.6.3, but wall height shall be permitted to be increased to 12 feet with pony wall.
e. Maximum opening height for CS-PF is 10 feet in accordance with Figure R602.10.6.4, but wall height shall be permitted to be increased to 12 feet with pony wall.


----------



## Joe Black (Jan 6, 2020)

Hey thanks for the fast reply.  Again, I really appreciate the insights.  Here are my answers:

1) What code book and cycle applies to your municipality?  
_I'm subject to Wisconsin's Universal Dwelling Code, but it appears that the language on bracing is taken directly from the 2012 IRC. _
2) Are there any code amendments or ordinance changes to the code cycle?
_Not that I am aware of._
3) Are you framing with 2x4, 2x6 wood or metal studs?
_2x6 wood studs_
4) What will be above the garage?  Attic space or living space?
_Attic space only, in the form of trusses._


----------



## Joe Black (Jan 6, 2020)

cda said:


> Do you have to or have you submitted plans?


_I only had to submit a general set of plans, which I did, back when I was planning on a shorter building, which were approved.  I didn't need to submit framing plans. When I told my inspector I plan in increase the height, he said there was no need to resubmit plans.  Probably music to the ears of most DIYers, but I like doing things right to avoid problems later.  _


----------



## Joe Black (Jan 7, 2020)

steveray said:


> The header has to extend to the end of the braced panel.....The wall height gets a little wierder..Is there anything (other floors) above the garage? There are different portal frame techniques and you have to match them specifically in the code or engineer it....
> 
> _Only attic space (trusses) above this detached garage.  For my situation, I cannot see any difference between the requirements of PFG and CS-PF.  1/2" Anchor bolts being used, and I plan to use OSB sheathing on the entire structure.  And yes, the height is the real hang-up for me.  It says the opening height can be 10 feet (cool) but the figures show a maximum of 10 feet to the top of the header (not cool).  Given that there are two double garage doors, with 3' between, 3' on the right, and about 16' on the left, the complete wall should be adequately braced if I portal frame the right door.  I don't even think I'd need to use portal framing on the left door, since there's plenty of bracing on one side of it.  Am I way off base?_
> 
> ...


----------



## steveray (Jan 7, 2020)

multiplier for contributing length is the biggest difference, but it you don't need the 1.5X you can call it CS-G...You may need a panel on the other end as you need a panel within the first 10' or 12' from the corner depending on code edition....if your panels are long enough, you might not even need the portal techniques....Look at the bottom of T602.10.5 for CS-WSP, if you can meet that for wall vs. opening height and min. panel size, you are good...maybe shift the doors to the 16' side and increase panel sizes to work that way?


----------



## mark handler (Jan 7, 2020)

Garage portal design from the APA
https://collierville.com/images/codes/1221 APA Narrow Walll Bracing Method 2008.pdf


----------



## Trent Carter (May 13, 2020)

mark handler said:


> Garage portal design from the APA
> https://collierville.com/images/codes/1221 APA Narrow Walll Bracing Method 2008.pdf



That's some old info.  Better and easier to read tables in 2012 IRC.  6:1 height to opening ratio is calculated for you.


----------



## jar546 (May 14, 2020)

mark handler said:


> Garage portal design from the APA
> https://collierville.com/images/codes/1221 APA Narrow Walll Bracing Method 2008.pdf



I can't accept that anymore.  Do they have one for a 170mph wind zone, exposure D?


----------



## cda (May 14, 2020)

Trent Carter said:


> That's some old info.  Better and easier to read tables in 2012 IRC.  6:1 height to opening ratio is calculated for you.




Welcome

Since no one else has said it.

How long have you been Directoring?


----------



## mark handler (May 15, 2020)

jar546 said:


> I can't accept that anymore.  Do they have one for a 170mph wind zone, exposure D?


No they don't
It was not intended as a one size fits all, document.
Most of us do not live in Hurricane Country

That's my major complaint with the code, it try's to be that one size fits all, document.
And that's why, in the code, the exceptions are the rule....

the nice thing about the document, it give background info for those that don't understand why they are needed, something lacking, some would say unneeded, in the code.


----------

