# rquired to be level and/or plumb?



## bgingras (Aug 8, 2011)

I have a frame inspection that i failed based on the beam under the deck rolling and the posts being out of level to the point where the beam is not over the base of the post. I'm on the 2003 IRC currently bat cannot find a specific section showing posts must be plumb and beams restrained from rolling...I hope it's just me having a bad day and going blind.


----------



## steveray (Aug 8, 2011)

Probably wood frame construction manual......I don't think you will find it spelled out in the code....unfortunately


----------



## fatboy (Aug 8, 2011)

I'd have to agree with steveray.........closest you could get would be R301.1, and that would be a stretch.


----------



## Frank (Aug 8, 2011)

I don't think it is in there.

But there is a point where it becomes a structural issue.


----------



## RJJ (Aug 8, 2011)

Agree with above! Should be level! Or real close. Must have been bad if it was failed.


----------



## NH09 (Aug 8, 2011)

I would agree, the columns need to be plumb. If he feels they can still support the load without tipping or rolling the beam let him prove it with an engineers letter.


----------



## ewenme (Aug 8, 2011)

The only place in the I-Codes that I could find a decent reference is the definitions of the Int'l Property Maintenance Code, 2009 Edition Chapter 2:  "workmanship". That definition is not in the IRC or IBC, but it is in the UMC; a kick-back to the Uniform Code days? The rule I have followed, but can't find the source right now is: if a plumb-bob from the center of the top plate falls outside the center one-third of the bottom plate, it is not safe, nor is it good practice.


----------



## Mark K (Aug 8, 2011)

This points out some of the problems inherent in the IRC when they do not provide a general solution and do not provide clear limitations on the applicability of the IRC provisions.

Using the provisions in the IBC an engineer can determine whether the out of plumb column can be accepted without doing something to mitigate the problem.

It is not clear what is meant by the beam rolling.  It would appear that this is normally addressed by the code provisions regarding lateral support of the beam.  In any case a structural engineer can help you determine if it is a problem.


----------



## bgingras (Aug 8, 2011)

Mark K said:
			
		

> This points out some of the problems inherent in the IRC when they do not provide a general solution and do not provide clear limitations on the applicability of the IRC provisions.Using the provisions in the IBC an engineer can determine whether the out of plumb column can be accepted without doing something to mitigate the problem.
> 
> It is not clear what is meant bythe beam rolling.  It would appear that this is normally addressed by the code provisions regarding lateral support of the beam.  In any case a structural engineer can help you determine if it is a problem.


by rolling I mean twisting. It's a (3)2x10 that is twisted so that one end is out of plumb about 5 degrees, the other end out of plumb the other way by 5 degrees. There are 3 posts. Each end post is out of plumb opposite the beam, the center one is plumb. The property owner caught me on the final and told me she wasn't going to pay the last check because she was not happy with it. I told her I question it but not sure it's a clear violation of any one code item other than workmanship which we have in out chapter 1 amended IRC 2003. the whole thing was caused by them putting in the materials and not securing them for 3 months while adding a sunroom to the deck. The last day they nailed on some ties and left them all where they were.


----------



## pete_t (Aug 8, 2011)

I don't like the NAHB particularly but they do have published standards.

NAHB Residential Construction Performance Guidelines Third Edition

*3-2-3 Observation:* An exposed wood beam or post is twisted or bowed.

*Performance Guideline:* Exposed wood posts and beams shall

meet the grading standard for the species used. Posts and beams

with bows and twists exceeding 3/4-inch in an 8-foot section shall

not be installed, and those that develop bows and twists exceeding

3/4-inch in an 8-foot section are considered excessive.

*Corrective Measure:* The contractor will repair or replace any

beam or post with a bow or twist that exceeds the guideline.

*Discussion:* Beams and posts, especially those 3 1/2 inches or

greater in thickness (which normally are not kiln dried) will

sometimes twist or bow as they dry after milling or installation.

Twisting or bowing is usually not a structural concern if posts and

beams have been sized according to manufacturers' specifications

or local building codes.


----------



## codeworks (Aug 9, 2011)

It never ceases to amaze me how "builders" think sloppiness and poor workmanship is acceptable. A good level, a joist tweaking bar and a 2 foot framing square (plus the willingness to use them) might solve this problem


----------



## ICE (Aug 9, 2011)

Where I work, a walk-on deck doesn't require a permit unless it is 30" or greater above grade.  I haven't encountered a permitted deck that wasn't a second story deck so I may not be much help with your situation.  Given that it is a permitted deck, an engineered plan is required.  If your problem deck is engineered, you could ask the engineer but he will most likely say that the twisted beam and out of plumb post are not significant structural problems.

Think about a purlin brace.  It provides support all the way to a 45 degree angle.  In as much as the beam is restrained, the post can lean a bunch and still function.

What you can do is defer to the plans.  The plans will show everything plumb, level and square.

I had a gable end truss that leaned 4" in 5'.  It was obvious to the naked eye.  The contractor went to the trouble of asking his engineer if it was a structural issue and the engineer said no.  The plans showed a plumb gable that was a straight line from foundation to peak.  The contractor fixed it, not because the engineer said to, but because I said he had to match the plans.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Aug 9, 2011)

See IRC2006 R502.9. You could enforce this I think?

pc1


----------



## righter101 (Aug 9, 2011)

2006 International Existing Building Code

In 2006 IEBC definintions, under "dangerous", #5

"5. The exterior walls or other vertical structural members

list, lean, or buckle to such an extent that a plumb line

passing through the center of gravity does not fall inside

the middle one third of the base."

Under 2006 IRC Ch 2.

R201.3 Terms defined in other codes. Where terms are not

defined in this code such terms shall have meanings ascribed to

them as in other code publications of the International Code

Council.

This might help.


----------



## ewenme (Aug 9, 2011)

Thank you righter101... I love it when my memory serves me right. Thanks for the code section.

The sad news is #5 no longer exists in the 2009 IEBC. Anyone else see a decline in the code, generally?


----------



## righter101 (Aug 9, 2011)

I saw that too.  Since they were operating under 2003, I thought it would work.

I am working on our county adoption ordinance and we can ammend certain sections.  I will check in to the legality of adopting the old definition.

If you read the 09, I agree they pared it way down, but it is still worded, in my opinion, to require members to be significantly plumb (... exists a significant risk of collapse, detachment or dislodgement....").

I would cite them in the framing inspection and indicate it is a "dangerous" condition, as defined by other adopted codes, as allowed by IRC for terms not defined.

I would put the burden on the contractor to demonstrate that it is not "dangerous".  This write up should survive any challenge or appeal.


----------



## ICE (Aug 9, 2011)

I spotted the curve in the wall so I asked for someone to hold a straight edge.  The owner was present and asked me to overlook it because she didn't want a delay in the work.  Knowing that I couldn't require the contractor to fix it anyway, I said no problem Maam.  Later on I pointed out that most of the windows were radically out of square.  It wasn't a pretty sight; her or the windows.


----------



## bgingras (Aug 10, 2011)

got a call from the contractor. He doesn't agree with me, howver the property owner won't pay him until her punch list is done, and she has also told him that she wanted them replaces becuase they were ugly and "contractor friend of hers" told her they should be replaced. I was simply going to stand my ground based on workmanship under our chapter 1.


----------



## DRP (Aug 10, 2011)

I saw this up the thread and wanted to comment;



> Think about a purlin brace.  It provides support all the way to a 45 degree angle.  In as much as the beam is restrained, the post can lean a bunch and still function.


As that 45* brace delivers its' load to the post, half the load is delivered vertically and half is delivered horizontally. The brace is also one side of a triangle, a simple truss, an immutable shape. The bottom edge of the girder is not very well restrained, there is not a third side to this, no tie. A rolling girder can continue to load the post horizontally and the post in turn thrusts against the girder. As they push one another out of plumb the horizontal force increases, pushing it out of plumb further, increasing the horizontal component, which pushes it sideways a bit more until the horizontal force causes the beam to spit the post out. I've got a pretty good scar from a master class in eccentric loading a temporary post and hydraulic jack under a house.


----------



## Mule (Aug 11, 2011)

In the picture that could be just one bowed stud. Or it could be just the way they layed the studs out when they framed them. One crown up one crown down.

I don't really see a problem in the picture as far as the code applies. Could it have been built a little better??? Yes! Is it structurally unsafe?? No!


----------



## ICE (Aug 14, 2011)

Mule said:
			
		

> In the picture that could be just one bowed stud. Or it could be just the way they laid the studs out when they framed them. One crown up one crown down.I don't really see a problem in the picture as far as the code applies. Could it have been built a little better??? Yes! Is it structurally unsafe?? No!


If you look at where the stud meets the Hardi Frame, you will see a straight line so the stud is not bowed.


----------

