Question for the framers….
Typical “2 x” exterior header….2 x 6 to the underside…..does it extend from king to king or only from jack to jack?
“But JD is dead right….”
Stephen Hazlett
Question for the framers….
Typical “2 x” exterior header….2 x 6 to the underside…..does it extend from king to king or only from jack to jack?
“But JD is dead right….”
Stephen Hazlett
By considering things like energy-efficient mechanicals, window orientation, and renewable energy sources, homes can be evaluated to meet the energy codes. Here's what the IRC has to say.
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Get home building tips, offers, and expert advice in your inbox
Fine Homebuilding
Get home building tips, offers, and expert advice in your inbox
© 2024 Active Interest Media. All rights reserved.
Get home building tips, offers, and expert advice in your inbox
Become a member and get instant access to thousands of videos, how-tos, tool reviews, and design features.
Start Your Free TrialStart your subscription today and save up to 81%
SubscribeGet complete site access to expert advice, how-to videos, Code Check, and more, plus the print magazine.
Already a member? Log in
Replies
If possible in the given wall height I put it from king to king.
I usually build my headers as 2 ply with 7/16" osb sammiched in between.
dbl jack to dbl jack and I'll raise you one queen
I have dreamt of an open world, borderless and wide... where the people move from place to place, and nobody's taking sides.. http://www.yusufislam.com
http://WWW.CLIFFORDRENOVATIONS.COM
Not sure I'm following you......"2x6 to the underside"..... by that do you mean just a 2x6 nailed to the bottom of the header to create the size you're shooting for? What I mean is, do you have a 2x10 header but want to pack it out so that it's 10 3/4" instead of 9 1/4"?
If that's what you're asking, then I'd run it king to king with the jacks up under it. But there really isn't a right or wrong way. Either one works if it's just "packing".
Or did I miss the boat big time on the question?
Either one works if it's just "packing".<<<<<Thats why I said dbl jacks. Right? or no?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV460jyubzII have dreamt of an open world, borderless and wide... where the people move from place to place, and nobody's taking sides.. http://www.yusufislam.com
http://WWW.CLIFFORDRENOVATIONS.COM
I'm not sure why you'd need double jacks Andy. Maybe I'm missing the boat here on this thread and the original question though. I'd use double jacks on any header over 6' and where called out on the plans but I'm not following what that would have to do with the original question unless I'm just totally misunderstanding it.
I think he's just talking about adding a 2x to the bottom of his header. Either to flush it out with the framing (if he's not using ply in between the layers). Or to just pack it down so that his header height is where he wants it to be. But in either of those situations I'd run it the full length of the header.... king to king. But running it jack to jack so the jacks run right up to the bottom of the header and not the packing is fine too. In what I'm envisioning, the 2x's only purpose if as filler or packing.
Double jacks? What am I missing? Maybe I need to read the original Q again.View Image
I think this thread belongs in the Tavern..lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV460jyubzII have dreamt of an open world, borderless and wide... where the people move from place to place, and nobody's taking sides.. http://www.yusufislam.com
http://WWW.CLIFFORDRENOVATIONS.COM
Yeah, this thing is going "Laurel and Hardy" on us real fast. View Image
OK....I've attached a quick sketch of what I consider a typical header. The 2 x 6s on top and bottom serve to "pack out" the header....bring it flush top and bottom with framing members. The 2 x 6 on top is more "optional". It also serves as a "bottom plate" for any cripples that will sit on top of header. I usually only add it when wall height allows and cripples won't become to short to work with. (Way back when, the header would be padded with plywood to make it a full 5 1/2" thick....today I use insulation in the void.)
The reason I'm asking....A buddy of mine...fellow contractor....asked me to give him a hand this week. He just started an addition, but will be cutting out of town midweek. He's got a framer he hires from time to time to run the job....but felt he needed a bit more expertise on site while he's away.
Anyhow...I was cut man today. After cutting everything to length, I began smacking the headers together. Hauled the first header over to a window opening and slid it onto the deck. This guy says..."whoa, whoa.....no good. 2 x 6 goes on after the header goes in. The jack studs gotta go right up to the 2 x 10. Absolutely useless that way" (Meaning, the way I had them.)
I've been in this field for some twenty plus years now. Done more than just a fair amount of framing. I've worked with a good number of crews....and an even greater number of individual carpenters. While I have built and installed headers without 2 x 6s attached to either the top or bottom.....I have never heard anyone suggest that it "defeats the purpose of the jacks" to have them. He insisted that the jacks had to go up to the 2 x 10s....and that the 2 x 6s only ran from jack stud to jack stud.
Left me shakin' my head. Figured if he was so adiment about it, some of youse guys must feel the same way. Or at least heard the theory before.
Anyone?
"But JD is dead right...."
Stephen Hazlett
Edited 11/27/2006 10:54 pm ET by JDRHI
I'm no framer but I've stayed at a Holiday Inn Express....
What you describe sounds weird to me. The jacks hold up the header (usually). What difference does it make if there is a 2x6 laying flat on top of the jacks, or 2 - 2x10 on top of the jacks set vertical? Compressive strength of the wood is the same, but you would actually have more bearing surface with the 2x6 laid flat (8.25 square inches per side) versus only 4.5 sq. inches with 2 - 2x10's set vertical. Whether or not you pad out the header to bring your framing flush should not make any difference. Personally I'd rather not see a 2x6 just "hanging" there flat in an opening, tacked to the header and the jacks.
But I could be wrong.
Compressive strength of the wood is the same, but you would actually have more bearing surface with the 2x6 laid flat (8.25 square inches per side) versus only 4.5 sq. inches with 2 - 2x10's set vertical.
Jon,Not to be picky, but I respectfully disagree. While it is true that the bearing area is greater with a 2x6 vs. dbl. 2x's on edge, I think the "weakest link principle" comes in to play here. Your structural members are still the 2x headers so even if you have a 2x12 on the flat (with 2x12 studs), your dbl. 2x header will still be the constraining factor.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
I think we're looking at two sides of the same coin. I agree with you that the doubled-up vertical pieces are the load bearing members. The OP was saying that his colleague in the field insisted on the 2x10's sitting on the jack. I don't see the reasoning behind that, as either way (2x6 flat or not) the doubled up pieces are still going to be the sturctural element. I think that the 2x6, if properly glued and nailed (i.e. like a box beam) will, if anything, add considerably to the strength of the header. I don't see the point in having it "tacked on" after the header is installed. It's just sloppy.
My preference for a 2x6 wall is either a built-up header (3x dimension stock + 2 pieces of 1/2" ply, which is overkill), a microlam 5-1/2" wide, or an insulated box beam, which is what I think the original poster was trying to build and got chewed out for.
Oops....fergot the pic.
"But JD is dead right...."
Stephen Hazlett
theoreticaly ( & practically) the more framing pieces you have the more shrinkage you will get
so.. the "framer" was right... the jacks should bear directly on the 2x10 and the pad 2x6 would not bear
same thing with sills they should run from jack to jack .. the sill shouldn't break the jack
better wall performance in terms of eventual shrinkageMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
I don't agree with your reasoning Mike. I really don't think that 2x6 packing or 'caps' will shrink very much at all. Negligible really. Most of the shrinkage in RO's seems to occur when the header shrinks on edge.... reducing from 9 1/4" to 9 1/8 or so. Not because the jacks shrink along their length or a cap shrinks along the 1.5" edge.
The only legitimate argument I could possibly think of would be that the jacks aren't contacting the cap along the appropriate grain direction... horizontal as opposed to VG. But even that would be severely splitting hairs if you ask me as you have the same situation all over the house where your studs and jacks contact the top and bottom plates.
One other argument in favor of running the cap king to king instead of jack to jack would be that the jacks will help prevent this cap from cupping as it dries.
So I really don't think that "the framer was right". In fact I think he's pretty naive to believe that there's only one right way and anything else is unacceptable. And if it were me and him on that site, I'd dust him with 150 reasons why he's the one who's wrong! LOL.....View Image
the cap is no different than a split jack
IE: if the sill interrupts the jack
split jacks are not allowed.. the jack must be continuous from the shoe to the header
if you add a cap it is the same as having your sill interrupt the jack
now why is a split jack not allowed ? because of shrinkage..
the more cross grain wood you introduce, the more shrinkage you will have
but don't take my word for it.... you can look it up
hey , we gonna say bye-bye , manny ?
or is he gonna refuse the trade ?Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
As usual...Mike Smith has hit the perverbial nail on the head. While I didn't question him yesterday....)not my job...don't know him from Adam....in the middle of too much to stop and hash it out).....I did speak with him today. His concern is the shrinkage that Mike is refering to.
I can see the logic, and understand the theory.....but.....in all the years I've been doing this, its never been an issue. I doubt I'll be changing my habits. especially considering that no inspector has ever brought it to my attention.
Thanks to all for the input!
"But JD is dead right...."
Stephen Hazlett
Tangential shrinkage as a ratio to radial shrinkage in typical S-P-F species is about 2:1. That means that if a board is flatsawn (likely with dimension stock, especially with wider stock), it will shrink along it's width twice as much (based on equal dimension) as it will along it's thickness. So the shrinkage from a vertical header, assuming nominal dimension 2x10 (1.5 x 9.25) will be 0.21" across the width of the 2x10, versus only 0.02" across the thickness. That's making some pretty generic assumptions (red spruce, going from 20% initial MC to 12% final MC, nominal dimensions, standard flatsawn lumber conditions). A 2x6 won't be any different, losing 0.02" of "height" if it sits flat in final assembly. Even if the 2x10's are perfectly quartersawn, you would still lose 0.10" of height in going from 20% to 12% MC, versus 0.03" in thickness.
So the guy's fears about shrinkage are generally incorrect. As the header dries to equlibrium moisture content, it will open a gap, somewhere in the framing assembly, of almost a quarter of an inch.
FWIW, I got most of these numbers and data from a shrinkage calculator called "shrinkulator" on the WoodBin website.
Let's drop it because I still don't agree. FWIW, split jacks will pass inspection in MA. I don't frame that way, but just a little FYI. Someone just posted the facts on shrinkage (sounds like a bad half-time commercial) and I think he did a nice job of explaining what it is I was muddling around in trying to spit out.
Now... onto more important matters. Yeah, I think Manny is gone. And from what I hear, he's once again asking for a trade anyway. Now's the time to get out from underneath him. Once he's a free agent you know he's going to test the waters and then we won't get anything at all for him. The thing that really has me rattled though is J.D. Drew. I can't believe the kind of money they're going to give him. Why the deep pockets now? Shoulda spent it on Johnny Damon. If they don't come to terms with that Japanese pitcher I'm gonna go through the roof. There's nothing around for starting pitching in free agency so if we don't sign him, we're finished before we start. And I still want to see Miggy Tejada call Fenway home.View Image
and andru jonesMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
OK.....so I'm working with this guy for three days now. Turns out he aint the framer I was led to believe.
I won't get into the details of how good he isn't....but I will say that because of his concern of shrinkage, he starts his first course of sidewall sheathing flush with the bottom wall plate, and uses scraps to fill in below. (Box beams and sill plates.) Claims the shrinking of the floor framing will cause sheathing to buckle if it spans such a joint. I suppose he feels locking the wall framing to the floor framing is not as great a concern.
One thing that has come out of this experience.....I need to recognize that the skills and knowledge I have gained over the years I've been doing this are actually greater than I give myself credit for. As I don't frame as regularly as I once did I rarely tout myself as a framing carpenter. I consider myself a remodeler who can frame. Turns out....what I lack in speed, not doing it regularly.....I quite often more than make up for in ability and quality.
Lesson learned, paycheck earned. I'll finish out the week for the contractor, but I will not again work under his "framer".
"But JD is dead right...."
Stephen Hazlett
Does your code require your sheathing to lap the wall plate/rim joist joint?
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
Yes it does....several inspectors I deal with want it split dead center...two feet below, two feet above.
"But JD is dead right...."
Stephen Hazlett
That surprised me. I would think that you guys would not have the wind loading requirements to make that necessary.If you install your sheathing horizontally, do you have to block all the joints?
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
Dunno that wind load requirements is what determines it. The joint where the walls meet the floors is just naturally weak. Landing a plywood seam there is just asking for trouble.
Horizontally is the only way we install. No blocking of joints.
"But JD is dead right...."
Stephen Hazlett
Weird what gets in some peoples' heads. Both ways work, 2 x 6 all the way across is easier to do.
Do easier._______________________________________________________________
Wanted: Meaningful overnight relationship.
I guess it all depends on how long the jacks are. If they are cut too tall then you'll have to add a 2x on the bottom again.
I put a 2x top and bottom of headers, it seams to keep them from cupping apart. Whoever is putting them together does it. Maybe your buddy likes to be able to shim the bottom of the header down to perfect window reveals ???
>> This guy says..."whoa, whoa.....no good. 2 x 6 goes on after the header goes in. The jack studs gotta go right up to the 2 x 10. Absolutely useless that way" (Meaning, the way I had them.)<<That guy is 100% WRONG!I've never done that or seen that done before unless you had to pack a header down for some reason. If that guy thinks that in his mind then you can't change his thoughts because you were only there to help.The only time you will see a problem around here when the 2x cap(that's what I call them)goes from king stud to king stud is if you made a mistake with the height and run a sawzall up the jack and cut the cap off and have that little 1-1/2" piece of cap sitting there. That will fail inspection and I agree with that.I've had that happen a few times and I just replace the whole jack. Other than that when I make my headers, I nail the caps right to the bottom of the headers and install them and the jacks go tight to the 2x caps.
Joe Carola
JD, I like to do box headers like you describe, with 2" rigid foam in the middle. 2x6 on top and on bottom go all the way to the kings. Yesterday I started framing a house that will have that detail on all the openings, except the garage doors. I don't buy any of the arguments for putting it in later.