# Unresponsive Inspector



## Energystar (Apr 1, 2021)

How long can an inspector hold up a project while trying to determine whether an inspection passes or fails? It has been 10 days since my inspection and still no decision. They will not answer my emails or calls. What can I do?


----------



## classicT (Apr 1, 2021)

What was the issue that they found on site?

If the inspector believed it passed, I am sure they would get that logged in. However, it sounds more like the inspection did not pass, and the inspector may be doing further research into a possible deficiency? Not sure, but we don't have much information to go on here...

Heck, maybe the good inspector got lost on his way home and hasn't been back to the office in the last 10 days.


----------



## Energystar (Apr 1, 2021)

The issue is the absence of a header over a window in a gable end (nonbearing exterior wall). The inspector has been okay. It's his boss that cannot make a decision up or down and won't return any calls. I have sent them plenty of info making my case. No response.

I also have a related question:  Is it proper for an inspector to directly contact my engineer or architect or even customer without going through me. Because this code official does this all the time as well. My engineer is irate.


----------



## classicT (Apr 1, 2021)

I contact  the project engineer/architect all the time. That is not even remotely wrong.

As for the header being required over a gable end, how is the gable framed? Is it a truss? Most gable ends (truss or conventional framing) require continuous bearing, which means that the wall is bearing and a header is required.

Does your gable truss or gable wall framing look like this?


If so, a header is required.


----------



## classicT (Apr 1, 2021)

This (image below) type of gable end truss does not require continuous bearing (note diagonal cords for compression/tension and vertical members for sheathing).


Even with this type of truss, the truss should be allowed to deflect without bearing down upon the wall. Otherwise the wall is still acting as a load bearing wall.


----------



## e hilton (Apr 1, 2021)

Energystar said:


> Is it proper for an inspector to directly contact my engineer or architect or even customer without going through me.


Sounds like a good idea.  The inspector is trying to get clarification directly from the source.  If he is doing it through emails, he should copy you.  But phone calls?  The architect should document the conversation and send you an email.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Apr 1, 2021)

classicT said:


> I contact the project engineer/architect all the time. That is not even remotely wrong.


Me too! 

They are a wealth of knowledge and can revise or give an option when let's say the framer didn't frame something correct. Not all plans have enough detail and they may need to be involved to solve the issue at hand.


----------



## Energystar (Apr 1, 2021)

The roof is not trussed. The gable is only 16'. However, your first picture is still applicable. If I wanted to put a 3' wide window in this gable you would require me to use a header? If so, what size header? Where would I go to look this up? The header tables only refer to walls parallel to the ridge (roof and ceiling load only).
Assuming the trusses or rafters are on 2' centers, I suppose the gable end does support 1 s.f. of roof load per lineal foot plus the overhang. Wouldn't the 2x4 top cord of the truss be strong enough to support this "load"? Is the solid osb boxing not worth anything? Note that in my case it is a 2x6. The pair of rafters just inside the gable end support 2 s.f./lin.ft. with NO help from gable studs, yet they are not in question.
My point is, if this is not what the code refers to as a nonbearing exterior wall, then what is? See R602.7.4.


----------



## jar546 (Apr 1, 2021)

If I had an unresponsive inspector, I would check for breathing, a pulse and then start CPR.  
#wordchoices


----------



## jar546 (Apr 1, 2021)

Energystar said:


> The roof is not trussed. The gable is only 16'. However, your first picture is still applicable. If I wanted to put a 3' wide window in this gable you would require me to use a header? If so, what size header? Where would I go to look this up? The header tables only refer to walls parallel to the ridge (roof and ceiling load only).
> Assuming the trusses or rafters are on 2' centers, I suppose the gable end does support 1 s.f. of roof load per lineal foot plus the overhang. Wouldn't the 2x4 top cord of the truss be strong enough to support this "load"? Is the solid osb boxing not worth anything? Note that in my case it is a 2x6. The pair of rafters just inside the gable end support 2 s.f./lin.ft. with NO help from gable studs, yet they are not in question.
> My point is, if this is not what the code refers to as a nonbearing exterior wall, then what is? See R602.7.4.


You do not need a header for a gable end wall that does not carry a roof or floor load.  I am not sure what the problem is here.


----------



## Mark K (Apr 1, 2021)

10 days is too long.  I would contact the building official's boss.  Ask if the building official still works  there.

Raise the issue at the city council meeting.

The building official should notify the building owner of the reason for the delay.   If it is technical it is likely that the engineer could help resolve it.


----------



## cda (Apr 1, 2021)

Energystar said:


> How long can an inspector hold up a project while trying to determine whether an inspection passes or fails? It has been 10 days since my inspection and still no decision. They will not answer my emails or calls. What can I do?



Call the city manager, mayor

Whoever runs the city


----------



## classicT (Apr 1, 2021)

Yo folks... a gable end, where framed as a wall, is load bearing.

May not carry much load, but none-the-less, it is load bearing. Carries 1/2 of the span b/w rafters, and the whole eave. Unless, as I indicated previously, the rafters are allowed to deflect without loading the wall below. If the gable wall is framed tight to the rafters or sheathing, it is load bearing. (And yes, I get that it is likely less than 100plf)


----------



## Energystar (Apr 1, 2021)

Then give me an example of a nonbearing exterior wall as stated in R602.7.4?


----------



## Energystar (Apr 1, 2021)

Thanks everyone. I called the code administrators boss and . . .


----------



## Energystar (Apr 1, 2021)

left a message.


----------



## classicT (Apr 1, 2021)

Energystar said:


> Then give me an example of a nonbearing exterior wall as stated in R602.7.4?


I'm not meaning to suggest that a header is required in your situation, just that the wall is load bearing. It carries a minor amount of roof load, and the weight of the wall itself. Really, the rafter is designed to carry the roof load at a span much greater than the width of the window opening.

Just a pet peeve of mine I suppose when exterior walls are referred to being non-load-bearing.

If the opening is larger and a header is not provided, then during a snow load event, the rafters will deflect, load the gable end wall, deflect the double top plate, load the jacks over the opening, and "may" damage the window/slider. Very unlikely that the deflection would be significant enough to cause damage, but I do believe that it is not entirely accurate to interpret a gable wall as non-load-bearing.


----------



## Energystar (Apr 1, 2021)

I agree that there is a slight "load" involved. To be clear, I am not the one calling it a nonbearing wall, it is the IRC. 
If the 2x6 rafter can support the roof over an 8' span, then why can't it support it over a 3' span? We are not really talking about supporting roof load here. It is simply the intervening material between the rafter and the top of the window, i.e., osb, siding, drywall, insulation.


----------



## ICE (Apr 1, 2021)

Would a 4x4 header in a 3' opening be a deal breaker?  I am surprised by the recalcitrance in the face of such a simple request.


----------



## classicT (Apr 1, 2021)

ICE said:


> Would a 4x4 header in a 3' opening be a deal breaker?  I am surprised by the recalcitrance in the face of such a simple request.


Since I had to look it up, I'll go ahead and share the definition.   

*recalcitrance* - the trait of being unmanageable. recalcitrancy, refractoriness, unmanageableness. intractability, intractableness - the trait of being hard to influence or control.


----------



## e hilton (Apr 1, 2021)

Maybe reluctance is a better word?  .Oh wait, i looked it up, got a different definition:
_recalcitrant ... adjective ... having an obstinately uncooperative attitude toward authority._  Yep, that fits.  And you are exactly right.   Could have had a simple 2x6 header in by now.


----------



## Energystar (Apr 1, 2021)

That's me. 
There is much more here that I have not discussed in order to focus the discussion on the key point. Suffice it to say that it would be a huge headache to add a header and no chance of using jack studs. Some weird sort of hanger would have to be used.


----------



## ICE (Apr 1, 2021)

classicT said:


> Since I had to look it up, I'll go ahead and share the definition.
> 
> *recalcitrance* - the trait of being unmanageable. recalcitrancy, refractoriness, unmanageableness. intractability, intractableness - the trait of being hard to influence or control.


Fatboy thought it was a bone disease.


----------



## jar546 (Apr 2, 2021)

Mark K said:


> 10 days is too long.  I would contact the building official's boss.  Ask if the building official still works  there.
> 
> Raise the issue at the city council meeting.
> 
> The building official should notify the building owner of the reason for the delay.   If it is technical it is likely that the engineer could help resolve it.


Agree


----------



## fatboy (Apr 2, 2021)

jar546 said:


> Agree


And I agree also, FWIW.


----------



## ICE (Apr 2, 2021)

Energystar said:


> That's me.
> There is much more here that I have not discussed in order to focus the discussion on the key point. Suffice it to say that it would be a huge headache to add a header and no chance of using jack studs. Some weird sort of hanger would have to be used.


A 4x4 and one of these would do the trick. After all, the siding a trim guy needs backing around the windows.  Even us folks in stucco-land provide backing for window trim. Actually, I should have said two of those...you'll need one at each end of the 4x4.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (May 6, 2021)

What is supporting the ridge beam at the end wall gable? Is there a 2x6 support to the top plate? 

I agree there is some weight being transferred.

Sometimes we see a gable end full of windows and a roof support beam or ridge member needing support at the gable end wall. And if there's a window in that area, a header is typically used to transfer the weight to the plates. Not sure if this is the case here or not.


----------



## Yikes (May 6, 2021)

Curious as to how/if this was resolved.

My 2 cents as an architect:
1.  If the inspector has a problem with what they are seeing in the field, he should provide a code citation.  If not, they should let it pass.
2.  If the inspector sees a code deficiency in the plans that somehow managed to slip past the plan checker, he should provide a code citation.
3.  If the inspector is not sure but thinks their might be a code deficiency, and the plans seem silent on the issue, and he wants a clarification from the DPOR prior to approving the inspection, he should provide a code citation.

The inspector should not be the one to initiate the call to the DPOR.  It is possible the DPOR gets paid hourly during construction, and the owner will want to remain in control of their A/E budget.  Instead, with the code citation, the owner is free to pass it along to the DPOR, then the DPOR initiates the call to the inspector.

I've had superintendents call me in a panic saying the inspector has a problem.  I tell the superintendent to make me the bad guy, and tell the inspector I want him to write it up, including the applicable code reference.  30% of the time, the problem goes away right then.  60% of the time, a clarification call or email from me will lay the issue to rest. 10% of the time, the inspector was right, and I'm glad he found the issue and brought it to our attention.


----------



## ICE (May 6, 2021)

Yikes said:


> Curious as to how/if this was resolved.
> 
> My 2 cents as an architect:
> 1.  If the inspector has a problem with what they are seeing in the field, he should provide a code citation.  If not, they should let it pass.
> ...


30% of the time you have no clue if the correction was right or wrong. 60% of the time you didn't get a code reference and you were okay with that.  If I was right 10% of the time I would hang it up.  100% of the time the inspector was toiling away.


----------



## Yikes (May 7, 2021)

ICE, to clarify:
My comment is not about the number of times an inspector finds something wrong with the construction.  That happens all the time.  In the context of this thread, my comment is about the number of times the inspector says something is wrong or missing with the DESIGN on the approved plans.

I said that when I ask for a correction inspector to write up a citation and reference the applicable code, 30% of the time they don't write it up; I suspect that's because they dig into the code and find out the plans are in compliance.
60% of the time, they cite a code, and then I have a basis upon which I can demonstrate code compliance to them and convince them it' still OK.
10% of the time, they find something legit.

And to be clear, that doesn't mean my plans are 10% defective; otherwise, I should hang it up, too.
I am referring solely to that much smaller and rarer subset of inspector citations for issues that he might have with the approved permit set of plans - - something that both the DPOR and the plan checker may have gotten wrong.


----------



## Sifu (May 19, 2021)

Energystar said:


> The issue is the absence of a header over a window in a gable end (nonbearing exterior wall). The inspector has been okay. It's his boss that cannot make a decision up or down and won't return any calls. I have sent them plenty of info making my case. No response.
> 
> I also have a related question:  Is it proper for an inspector to directly contact my engineer or architect or even customer without going through me. Because this code official does this all the time as well. My engineer is irate.


Just got off the phone with an MEP engineer out of state.  I find they greatly appreciate reasonable discourse and questions in an effort to achieve the goal, which is to move forward.  Nothing wrong with honest questions.


----------



## Sifu (May 19, 2021)

8 or 9 days too long, no matter what the situations.  Either it failed for cause (CITE A CODE), or it didn't.  The inspector should do one or the other, and put the responsibility to argue the case back on you if it failed.  If they called the engineer to get clarification, that should have resolved it.  I think there must be more than meets the eye here.

But, I am unclear, is this a sealed design, and the inspector or his boss called the DP to discuss, or are we talking about two different issues?


----------



## Mark K (May 19, 2021)

I cannot recall being contacted by the City's inspector.  It is very appropriate for the Owner to designate an individual to receive communications from the city but would still expect the contractor to be given a copy before the inspector leaves the project.

The way it has worked is:
--The inspector gives the contractor a list of the comments.
--The Contractor resolves the easy uncontroversial comments.
--When the comments are inappropriate, in conflict with the construction documents, or are very expensive to resolve the the Contractor shares the comments with the designers who  then help to resolve the comments.


----------



## tmurray (May 20, 2021)

I have contacted an engineer directly only with the permission of the owner/contractor. Usually it is because we are discussing something very technical that the contractor or owner cannot relay themselves. I try to involve the owner/contractor in the discussion as they will sometimes need to make a decision on going forward. This seems to work well since it respects everyone's responsibilities.


----------



## Rick18071 (May 20, 2021)

On our applications we have "responsible person on site contact". We don't care what name they put there but this is the person we use for all inspection contacts.


----------



## steveray (May 21, 2021)

Yikes said:


> ICE, to clarify:
> My comment is not about the number of times an inspector finds something wrong with the construction.  That happens all the time.  In the context of this thread, my comment is about the number of times the inspector says something is wrong or missing with the DESIGN on the approved plans.
> 
> I said that when I ask for a correction inspector to write up a citation and reference the applicable code, 30% of the time they don't write it up; I suspect that's because they dig into the code and find out the plans are in compliance.
> ...


Being 90% gets you into several "halls of fame" and millions a year......


----------



## Energystar (Sep 7, 2021)

I thought I should follow up on this old posting. After spending 2 weeks and multiple trips to the job to inspect the framing (large home, but still no excuse), the inspectors said I must install headers over the windows in this non-bearing gable wall. I responded by saying that I would if they would tell me what size header to install. Seems like a reasonable request. Big mistake. They deliberated for 4 more days and told me to contact my engineer of record.  

As the firm was extremely busy, it took them two weeks to look at it. In the end they agreed with me that it was fine with no headers. The inspectors held my job up for just over a month for no reason. Recalcitrant indeed.


----------



## steveray (Sep 7, 2021)

R602.7.4 Nonbearing walls. Load-bearing headers are not
required in interior or exterior nonbearing walls. A single
flat 2-inch by 4-inch (51 mm by 102 mm) member shall be
permitted to be used as a header in interior or exterior nonbearing
walls for openings up to 8 feet (2438 mm) in width
if the vertical distance to the parallel nailing surface above
is not more than 24 inches (610 mm). For such nonbearing
headers, cripples or blocking are not required above the
header.

BEARING WALL STRUCTURE. A building or other
structure in which vertical loads from floors and roofs are primarily
supported by walls.

But I would also agree that a gable could be some sort of bearing...

[RB] WALLS. Walls shall be defined as follows:
Load-bearing wall. A wall supporting any vertical load in
addition to its own weight.
Nonbearing wall. A wall which does not support vertical
loads other than its own weight.


----------



## cda (Sep 7, 2021)

Now I need to look up those other words



recalcitrance - the trait of being *unmanageable. recalcitrancy, refractoriness, unmanageableness. intractability, intractableness* - the trait of being hard to influence or control.

It sounds like me


----------



## Energystar (Sep 7, 2021)

It kind of goes with that rolling in the mud stuff.

Steveray, you nailed it. This is precisely what I sent to the inspector. Btw, how do you paste those code sections in like that if they are in picture form?


----------



## steveray (Sep 7, 2021)

I snip clip them from my pdf codes...


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Sep 7, 2021)

ICE said:


> 30% of the time you have no clue if the correction was right or wrong. 60% of the time you didn't get a code reference and you were okay with that. If I was right 10% of the time I would hang it up. 100% of the time the inspector was toiling away.



Ahhh.... the 30%-60%-10% Rule, I forgot that one.

You know in baseball you only need to get 3 out of 10 hits to cash in!


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 7, 2021)

Energystar said:


> Btw, how do you paste those code sections in like that if they are in picture form?


He is  a sawhorse member which allows you to cut and past photos in. Otherwise  you place them somewhere else and provide a link to them


----------



## jar546 (Sep 7, 2021)

Is it just me or does anyone else think that the heading for this thread could have been written better?  "Unresponsive Inspector?"  How about "Lack of response from inspector?"
When I first saw this I thought it was a thread about an accident


----------



## ICE (Sep 7, 2021)

jar546 said:


> Is it just me or does anyone else think that the heading for this thread could have been written better?  "Unresponsive Inspector?"  How about "Lack of response from inspector?"
> When I first saw this I thought it was a thread about an accident


I have always known that you have a well developed imagination.  I figured that it was a thread about some guy that pissed off an inspector.

This long into it it's obvious that the inspector had bigger fish to fry.  

I envision myself hearing from some job where I asked for a window header and there is confusion.  I would have done my best work and failed to get the point across.  Then off I go to real world issues.


----------



## steveray (Sep 8, 2021)

ICE said:


> .....  Then off I go to real world issues.


I've seen your pictures....More like Third World issues....


----------



## RickAstoria (Sep 17, 2021)

On a simple gable roof system. The gable ends are not load-bearing walls. They usually will only have a single header plate at top of wall. In which case, that will would not need a header over the windows or doors. Only on the load bearing walls would you actually need it. However, having said that, there may exceptions to the rule. Say, parts of the gable-end wall must have a shear braced and the gable part above the the windows, and doors and along the sides or where a brace wall pattern is required, there may need to be continuous header over the windows and doors. Headers would be as thick as the wall and the height of the header (top to bottom) would be like any beam which needs to carry the above deadload and other applicable loads without deflecting to unacceptable levels across the span of the opening for windows or doors. For typical size windows and doors not exceeding 4-ft. in width, a 10" to 12" tall header should suffice and support the loads. If you can not determine this, consult a design professional (architect, engineer, or a competent building designer (likely one that is certified as a CPBD [certified professional building designer]). They should be able to figure this out for you. I can not with absolute certainty, answer the OP's question on a professional capacity without a very thorough review of the design. 

If the header area of the window is in the parts of the wall for shear resistance then it is necessary to have a header and it also provides for a nailing point for shear wall panels. Gable-end wall might not be directly supporting the floor loads but it may need to be designed to resist racking. I would, if I was designing the home unless that is adequately addressed elsewhere. This is for not just seismic for also hurricane force winds. Where I am, we are in a special wind zone category and designing would need to be designed for wind speeds upwards of 150+ mph (potential) and seismic zone to deal with earthquakes in the 8.5 to 9.5+ magnitude scale (subduction zone megathrust earthquakes). Therefore, design-wise, I would be looking to that level and up to 175 (maybe even 200) mph (depending on location and open exposure). Therefore, even the gable-end would need to be adequate shear resistance. 

For headers above doors and windows, there a section on it in the IRC and IBC. Look at the index and look for what section it's listed and go there. Design professionals should be familiar with the code book and how to look through it. Ideally, so should clients/property owners get their head around it as well.


----------



## RickAstoria (Sep 18, 2021)

RickAstoria said:


> On a simple gable roof system. The gable ends are not load-bearing walls. They usually will only have a single header plate at top of wall. In which case, that will would not need a header over the windows or doors. Only on the load bearing walls would you actually need it. However, having said that, there may exceptions to the rule. Say, parts of the gable-end wall must have a shear braced and the gable part above the the windows, and doors and along the sides or where a brace wall pattern is required, there may need to be continuous header over the windows and doors. Headers would be as thick as the wall and the height of the header (top to bottom) would be like any beam which needs to carry the above deadload and other applicable loads without deflecting to unacceptable levels across the span of the opening for windows or doors. For typical size windows and doors not exceeding 4-ft. in width, a 10" to 12" tall header should suffice and support the loads. If you can not determine this, consult a design professional (architect, engineer, or a competent building designer (likely one that is certified as a CPBD [certified professional building designer]). They should be able to figure this out for you. I can not with absolute certainty, answer the OP's question on a professional capacity without a very thorough review of the design.
> 
> If the header area of the window is in the parts of the wall for shear resistance then it is necessary to have a header and it also provides for a nailing point for shear wall panels. Gable-end wall might not be directly supporting the floor loads but it may need to be designed to resist racking. I would, if I was designing the home unless that is adequately addressed elsewhere. This is for not just seismic for also hurricane force winds. Where I am, we are in a special wind zone category and designing would need to be designed for wind speeds upwards of 150+ mph (potential) and seismic zone to deal with earthquakes in the 8.5 to 9.5+ magnitude scale (subduction zone megathrust earthquakes). Therefore, design-wise, I would be looking to that level and up to 175 (maybe even 200) mph (depending on location and open exposure). Therefore, even the gable-end would need to be adequate shear resistance.
> 
> For headers above doors and windows, there a section on it in the IRC and IBC. Look at the index and look for what section it's listed and go there. Design professionals should be familiar with the code book and how to look through it. Ideally, so should clients/property owners get their head around it as well.



Okay, to clarify, you won't need a "header beam" just a simple "header" plate which would by a flat 2x4 or 2x6 (match with the rest of the wall stud framing.... 2x4 for 2x4 wall and 2x6 for 2x6 wall. A poster did make a post with the pertinent code section and language. However, there can be exceptions for design/engineering principles. You wouldn't need to use a 2 to 3 ply 2x (8, 10, or 12) beam and sheet(s) of plywood to bring it to flush with the wall studs on non-bearing walls and where windows or door is not in the shear resistance areas of the wall paneling. The wall should be adequately designed for shear resistance as required by code and should be when it is prudent.


----------



## jar546 (Sep 18, 2021)

RickAstoria said:


> Okay, to clarify, you won't need a "header beam" just a simple "header" plate which would by a flat 2x4 or 2x6 (match with the rest of the wall stud framing.... 2x4 for 2x4 wall and 2x6 for 2x6 wall. A poster did make a post with the pertinent code section and language. However, there can be exceptions for design/engineering principles. You wouldn't need to use a 2 to 3 ply 2x (8, 10, or 12) beam and sheet(s) of plywood to bring it to flush with the wall studs on non-bearing walls and where windows or door is not in the shear resistance areas of the wall paneling. The wall should be adequately designed for shear resistance as required by code and should be when it is prudent.


Rick, you are on fire this morning.  I am thrilled to see all of your well-thought-out posts.  Have a great day.


----------



## Sifu (Sep 20, 2021)

I would be cautious saying a gable truss isn't bearing.  I just checked a few and found that most were, though not much.  The only way to say for sure is to see the design drawing.  In the the ones I just looked at there would be about 500 to 750lbs over a typical size window.  This would be distributed somewhat by the plates and sheathing, but they definitely do "bear" in the location.  This is a very light load, and the as far as I can tell the prescriptive tables do not account for the load in that plane, but it is something to watch out for.  Here is one such gable truss I found in my files.  Clearly non-bearing on one side, clearly bearing on the other.  In the field, without this drawing, it could be mistaken for a non-bearing location.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 20, 2021)

The definition determines if it is a load bearing wall

[BS] WALL, LOAD-BEARING. Any wall meeting either of the following classifications:

1.    Any metal or wood stud wall that supports more than 100 pounds per linear foot (1459 N/m) of vertical load in addition to its own weight.

2.    Any masonry or concrete wall that supports more than 200 pounds per linear foot (2919 N/m) of vertical load in addition to its own weight.


----------



## RickAstoria (Sep 20, 2021)

The ends of the gable truss would be bearing but trusses are generally design to free-span without intermediate supports. Otherwise, it is not a proper truss when we are talking about "truss" roofs. The gable end exterior walls don't normally require header BEAMS (just a simple flat 2x4 or 2x6 header around the window opening. This is because the roof loads on the truss runs across the top chord to the bottom left and right. The bottom chord functions much like a rafter tie. This bottom chord is not structurally resting on intermediate walls unless it is a really big roof and you then are doing something like you would with truss joists. On a residential home, the roofs just aren't likely to have that large of a span. The gable end wall (exterior wall) would be transferring its loads to those two corners which WOULD be where you would bearing walls or a row of pilasters or moment frame ( Post-Beam frame) going perpendicular to the direction of the truss span to support each of the roof trusses above.  Trusses are engineered systems and engineering principle is for trusses to span from end to end without requiring intermediate or continuous support. Otherwise, your entire gable-end wall from the bottom chord of the truss to the ground would be your bottom chord. 

Generally, in residential buildings, you don't have a truss at the gable end wall. You would have a simple gable pointed stud frame wall and rafters going up to and ultimately supporting the very ends of the purlins. The trusses would be intermediate in between the gable-ended stud frame walls & simple gable-end rafters to support  the end of the purlins. If you are dealing with an unusually high load. You might need to incorporate a horizontal member in the stud framing that is connected to the rafters (which may be a 4x6 or 6x6 or something like that) and function as a lateral tie However, once, you are pretty much below those truss bottom chords / ceiling joists, etc., the gable end wall would generally be non-bearing and often would not carry loads other than shear/lateral resistance design matters. Of course, you have to assess the design as a whole with the complete set of plans. Having said that, and agree with that, it would be unlikely that the gable end walls being load-bearing. The very engineering principle of gable is to transfer the loads to the side walls. 

A simple example, my house. It's Victorian that is roughly 23 ft wide x 50 ft long. The long axis is north/south. The gable ended walls are the north and south stud framed walls. The load bearing walls bearing the roof is the walls that forms the east and west elevation. The center wall line supports the floors at mid-point. In a gable truss roof, the truss would span the whole 23 ft. It would be these east and west walls that would support the roof. Now, my house actually is rafter roof system with a rafter tie. The rafters goes spans the 23 ft. The north and south exterior roofs are not considered "load-bearing". Yes, it technically supports some load like basic dead load and so forth but the loads are directly transferred to foundation through studs. Being balloon-framed, it literally continuous to sill plate/beam on top of the foundation wall. Otherwise, the rafters would carry the load. A proper truss would span all the way across and needs no interior load bearing walls to support the truss at any intermediate point  other than the bottom left and right corners of the basic roof truss overall triangle. A roof truss is basically a triangle shaped roof or (in some cases other shaped roofs like a barrel vault or dome) made of components forming smaller triangles that ultimately forms the overall roof form. The basic gable roof is that forms an "A" shape where the rafter tie is the bottom chord of the simple truss element in the "A" shaped form. Sometimes, the ceiling joists doubles as a rafter tie and therefore is a simple truss made of rafters and ceiling joists. With a relatively standard engineered truss, they would span 25-40 ft. depending on how you engineer the truss whether that be a truss for typical residential roof spans or if you are dealing with a multi-ply wooden truss or modern steel roof trusses designed for larger tributary load capacity. In any case, they typically span long distances by design otherwise, what's the point in using trusses instead of conventional rafter framing. 

The gable end wall is just part of enclosing the building but is not necessarily there to support the roof live load, dead, load, wind load, etc. I did mention earlier where the gable end wall may serve as part of the shear/lateral resistance system. That would a case where header beams would be used but then it's part of an overall lateral force resisting system. Generally, they are not "load bearing walls". SDS, you are right that you have to see the design drawings. 

However, in your truss example, the load bearing point in truss is moved further in instead of at the very end corner. You can do that with the truss design. Therefore you need to support the roof with a load-bearing system but you don't need to continuously support the bottom chord of a truss. The wall that parallels but under the truss chords needs not be "load-bearing" unless it's part of a shear resistance system. In your example, that right hand area where the hash pattern could have been required by design for lateral force resisting system (bearing wall with shear wall paneling, etc.) in some buildings/homes. In which case, you would have a header beam if you have any windows in that area below the truss. Generally, as in normal rule of thumb, the gable ended wall would not be "load bearing" because the roof loads are transferred to the end points where rafter or truss are seated on the walls at the end or near the end. In my example of the 23x50 foot house using a truss roof would be the east and west walls. The north and south walls would not usually be load bearing. They would not be taking the roof load because the load by force of gravity would be transferring primarily to the end. The studs would just kind of mitigate deflection issues because they do technically absorb dead load but are not absolutely necessary to be double-top plated because even a single-top plate would suffice with the partial load from only a partial tributary area.  If you get really scientific about it, "non-load bearing" walls are not "zero-load bearing wall".


----------



## RickAstoria (Sep 20, 2021)

mtlogcabin said:


> The definition determines if it is a load bearing wall
> 
> [BS] WALL, LOAD-BEARING. Any wall meeting either of the following classifications:
> 
> ...



Any wall intended to support weight is loadbearing walls. Non-load bearing walls are not zero-load bearing wall. It supports itself and will incidentally support some load that by a structural design reason, if non-load bearing walls were removed, the structural systems would not collapse. They may help the overall structural system. This would be contingent on the buildings being adequately and properly designed/engineer. With old buildings from way before building codes, there can be all kinds of crazy situations where a wall the is "non-loadbearing" by how its framed is in fact carrying load that if removed would result in some part possibly collapsing because it was idiotically designed/built.


----------



## Mark K (Sep 20, 2021)

Ignorance is empowering.

The prescriptive code provisions are applicable in certain limited conditions.  When these conditions do not exist you need to deal with the non-prescriptive code provisions which inevitably requires consulting with a registered engineer or architect.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 20, 2021)

This typical drop top chord gable end truss typically what we see around here. 36' to 40' spans are common and a 45psf roof snow load and 115 mph ultimate wind speed exposure "C".
Question  If this truss Has a 2 ft tributary load on each side and all of the supports for the top are vertical how is that not transferring the top chord loads evenly to the bottom chord and thus to the wall? Is it less than 100 lbs per linear foot and therefore of no concern?


----------



## Sifu (Sep 21, 2021)

Most of the verticals in the gable truss drawings I looked at considered a load of less than 250lbs at each vertical.  I think this is probably a calculation based on the overhand designed into the truss and the tributary load from 1/2 of the truss spacing.  IMHO, these trusses are bearing.  Does that mean that prescriptively we are going to require a built up header?  Typically not for me.  And even if I wanted to, there doesn't appear to be a table for trusses bearing parallel to the building width.  (Never really liked these tables, but they are what we have).  In the OP, it sounds like the inspector and/or the boss didn't have a clear understanding of this, and then everyone dug their heels in.  If there are truss design drawings I think the issue could be resolved rather quickly...if personal feelings and opinions can be put aside.  My comment was based on the contention that they are typically non-bearing.  Some trusses require continuous bearing ( for various reasons as others have noted), some have concentrated loads.

In the 1st drawing, the hatched bottom chord indicates a requirement for continuous bottom chord bearing, which is verified by note 7.  
In the second drawing, even thought the truss looks to be symmetrical, one side is clearly non-bearing, but the other is bearing.  And, in fact, joint 12 has considerably more reaction than the similar joint 9, which has no bearing requirement.

I am not an engineer so maybe my understanding of these drawings is wrong.  When I inspected I required the layouts and shops on site.  Even though I typically considered a standard gable truss as "non-bearing", I would look for the hatch, and if I saw it I would consider why.


----------



## RickAstoria (Sep 21, 2021)

mtlogcabin said:


> View attachment 8243
> 
> This typical drop top chord gable end truss typically what we see around here. 36' to 40' spans are common and a 45psf roof snow load and 115 mph ultimate wind speed exposure "C".
> Question  If this truss Has a 2 ft tributary load on each side and all of the supports for the top are vertical how is that not transferring the top chord loads evenly to the bottom chord and thus to the wall? Is it less than 100 lbs per linear foot and therefore of no concern?



The truss is just the trusses. It is not the wall. The picture doesn't show the wall itself. Typically, the load bearing walls would be running in the same direction as those cantilevered overhang supports and at a point likely where the gable end truss top chord joins the bottom chord. No wall or any bearing wall would not necessarily be needed running in-line (parallel) with the bottom chord. The bottom chord of a truss does not typically required to have intermediate walls or other supports under it other than at or near the end points. You're trusses may overhang and the load bearing wall in maybe about 18" to 36" or so in-set from the very end of the trusses at bottom left & right corner. Any wall under the truss except those running perpendicular to the direction of truss span (end to end), normally, does not require load-bearing walls or any wall. Those walls, posts&beam systems, etc. are more for moisture envelope and subdividing the interior spaces into rooms or defining function areas. Those vertical studs are not normally requiring to transfer through to ground. You may, if you want to. You can have a wall under it with double-top plates.


----------



## RickAstoria (Sep 21, 2021)

Sifu said:


> Most of the verticals in the gable truss drawings I looked at considered a load of less than 250lbs at each vertical.  I think this is probably a calculation based on the overhand designed into the truss and the tributary load from 1/2 of the truss spacing.  IMHO, these trusses are bearing.  Does that mean that prescriptively we are going to require a built up header?  Typically not for me.  And even if I wanted to, there doesn't appear to be a table for trusses bearing parallel to the building width.  (Never really liked these tables, but they are what we have).  In the OP, it sounds like the inspector and/or the boss didn't have a clear understanding of this, and then everyone dug their heels in.  If there are truss design drawings I think the issue could be resolved rather quickly...if personal feelings and opinions can be put aside.  My comment was based on the contention that they are typically non-bearing.  Some trusses require continuous bearing ( for various reasons as others have noted), some have concentrated loads.
> 
> In the 1st drawing, the hatched bottom chord indicates a requirement for continuous bottom chord bearing, which is verified by note 7.
> In the second drawing, even thought the truss looks to be symmetrical, one side is clearly non-bearing, but the other is bearing.  And, in fact, joint 12 has considerably more reaction than the similar joint 9, which has no bearing requirement.
> ...



It's stamped by an engineer. Consult the engineer and do accordingly. Any window or door under the 'hatched' "continuous bearing support" should have header beams over the window. The areas that do not have a continuous bearing support requirement, does not necessarily require header beams over the window. If any portion of a door or window is under that continuous load bearing area, you should have a header beam continuous over the window and door.  Like I said, consult the engineer that stamped the drawings.


----------



## RickAstoria (Sep 21, 2021)

RickAstoria said:


> It's stamped by an engineer. Consult the engineer and do accordingly. Any window or door under the 'hatched' "continuous bearing support" should have header beams over the window. The areas that do not have a continuous bearing support requirement, does not necessarily require header beams over the window. If any portion of a door or window is under that continuous load bearing area, you should have a header beam continuous over the window and door.  Like I said, consult the engineer that stamped the drawings.



Usually walls in-line under the truss's bottom chord is not required to be load-bearing. This is because trusses do not usually require continuous load-bearing support running in-line with the truss. Typical roof trusses are bearing load on each end within 5-ft. from the end of the trusses on each side and those run perpendicular to the direction of truss span so the continuous bearing wall supports each truss on that end. Maybe I'll have to sketch something to illustrate.


----------



## Katy.Kjelvik (Sep 21, 2021)

Comment from the peanut gallery...I would physically go in to the permit/inspection counter if at all possible. You never know what's going on. Was the inspection accidentally passed in the computer system? Has the BO been sick? Is there a director who you can contact? I agree with working up the chain of command. I would first do your due diligence, which means doing a little more than just leaving voice mails. Personal experience....it can take up to 4-5 days to get through voice mails.
If not - default to classic T's tag lines...


----------



## Min&Max (Sep 27, 2021)

Energystar said:


> I agree that there is a slight "load" involved. To be clear, I am not the one calling it a nonbearing wall, it is the IRC.
> If the 2x6 rafter can support the roof over an 8' span, then why can't it support it over a 3' span? We are not really talking about supporting roof load here. It is simply the intervening material between the rafter and the top of the window, i.e., osb, siding, drywall, insulation.


So you have waited ten days. Wouldn't it have been faster to just put in a double 2 x 6/2 x 8 header and be done and progressing? A true truss above the wall would make it non-loadbearing. Not what you got. You indicated that you agreed that it is slightly load bearing, with that admission you just lost the debate.


----------



## Inspector Gadget (Jul 12, 2022)

Yikes said:


> Curious as to how/if this was resolved.
> 
> My 2 cents as an architect:
> 1.  If the inspector has a problem with what they are seeing in the field, he should provide a code citation.  If not, they should let it pass.
> ...


When I find issues in field inspections, or, alternately, if I find issues during a plans review, I will *always* provide reference to the appropriate section of the Code or standard. 
That does three things
1) provides the contractor/customer/designer some confidence that I didn't just pull something out of my yin-yang
2) Gives folks a chance to question my interpretation by checking the code themselves
3) Forces me, in odd situations, to actually verify that I am doing what I think I am doing, that I am in the right section of Code for the right building.

Reports on field inspections are to be written onsite, and provided before the inspector leaves...with the logical exception of "this is dang complex, I am going to have to delve into an obscure NFPA standard" situations. 
Lintel over an opening in an exterior wall - that doesn't count as an exception in my book.


----------

