There’s been a slew of framing topics lately for which I’m thankful. It must be winter and there’s a lot of guys off…..
Anyways, this picture inspired me to post a lumber and labor saving tip.
The tip deals with that arch leading into the study. I guess I could blurt it right out, but instead I’ll play a little guessing game. First one that guesses what we do wins their choice of one deluxe milkbone, or two gravy flavored milkbones.
This is an easy one and I expect more than one prize to be sent out. Don’t peek till you post your guess.
blue
Note: all downsizing done with Arcsoft PhotoStudio
Replies
At looks like 9'4" wide RO, I'd say the arch would be half of an elipse or eliptical in shape anyway (just my guess at how I'd expect to see such a wide opening). Save lumber framing an elipse, hmm. Must be a rookie, but I give. Buy a preformed elipse and nail it to your RO? Do I get a milkbone?
Only thing I can come up with is to cut two pieces of ply in the eliptical shape to fill the rectagular space, and run the framing within that horizontally instead of vertically (framing would have to be cut down to account for width of ply), keeping the framing 1 1/2" back of the ply at the top and sides of the elipse assembly (to slide over blocking as about to describe). Nail blocking inside the RO (blocking width = framing width less width of the 2 layers total plywood). Slide the elipse "assembly" over the blocking and nail off. Seems like a lot of work, but I don't have anything better.
Seeking perfection in an imperfect world is a fool's errand. Making something look perfect is a whole 'nother story . . . .
I must be missing something. I don't see an arch in this picture.
View Image
"he...never charged nothing for his preaching, and it was worth it, too" - Mark Twain
I'm guessing Blue is turning the rectangular opening into an arch. Maybe someone put something funny in my smokes, but that's what I'm imagining.
Seeking perfection in an imperfect world is a fool's errand. Making something look perfect is a whole 'nother story . . . .
I'm guessing Blue is turning the rectangular opening into an arch
I thought of that, but isn't that an exterior opening? Can't imagine putting an archway in an exterior opening."he...never charged nothing for his preaching, and it was worth it, too" - Mark Twain
ummmm, you curve a piece of masonite in there and let the drywallers skim it
yeah, I'm kiddin
"A bore is a man who, when you ask him how he is, tells you." -Bert Taylor
i'm thinking you would shove the header up under the band joist and then frame the cripples directly to your arch that isn't there ( yet ? )
Your work is slow for you to be traveling all the way to Jersey to help Joe with that jkob!
;)
I don't understand the question teacher.
Welcome to the
Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime.
where ...
Excellence is its own reward!
Double jacks holding a non-bearing header.
Jon Blakemore
RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
looks like a second floor going over that header - I'm thinking its gotta be load bearing"he...never charged nothing for his preaching, and it was worth it, too" - Mark Twain
Well, first off I gotta get some reading glasses. Blue mentioned the arch in his first post, clear as day. No wonder I felt like I was missing something.Secondly, I'm guessing Blue will say that the rim joist could be used to pick up the load from above, maybe double the rim over the opening and it will be just as effective as the header. If I'm right, I may or may not agree with Blue.If I'm wrong...
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
not understanding your question either prof but I'd double up that band joist and use that superfluous header somewhere else maybe winning a dogbone but kicked to the back of the class by the inspectoralso I get my header the heck out of there w/ all those 2 x 4s standing on end like that w/ no banding
"lso I get my header the heck out of there w/ all those 2 x 4s standing on end like that w/ no banding"Are you for real? If you stack them right you can stack 100 studs without them going anywhere.Joe Carola
I'm lost, where is this arch everyone is talking about?
Did you use white colored text or something?
Jon Blakemore
RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
Yeah, I don't get it, too.
Gimme a milkbone anyway.
"Citius, Altius, Fortius"
Edited 3/4/2006 8:03 pm by Heck
"Anyways, this picture inspired me to post a lumber and labor saving tip."
"The tip deals with that arch leading into the study. I guess I could blurt it right out, but instead I'll play a little guessing game. First one that guesses what we do wins their choice of one deluxe milkbone, or two gravy flavored milkbones."
Blue,
Since that my house that I framed I'd just like to clear things up with you first. What makes you think it's an arch way when it isn't?
Next, have you looked at the way the decking is running above? It's running perpendicular to the floor joists that are running side by side sitting on top of that load bearing header that supports those joists.
Here's two pictures with me standing in them with blue arrows coming out of my header going onto the header you posted.
So what were you trying to get at here?
OK Joe, that picture is clearer than the first. So its not an exterior opening. But the joists run perpendicular to the wall, so it is definitely a load-bearing header. Plus, from Blue's picture it looked like another wall would sit right atop that one, and we can't tell what kind of load will be on that wall, transferred down to the one below it. And its not an archway. Although I have heard some people refer to a framed opening as a "square arch", I've never heard anyone in the trades use that expresson.
You framed that wall exactly like I would have, and exactly like everyone I know would have. But, my question is: Would a doubled-up rim joist over that opening be adequate bearing to eliminate the header below? Seems like that is what Blue is getting at, even 'tho he hasn't come back to clarify. "he...never charged nothing for his preaching, and it was worth it, too" - Mark Twain
"But, my question is: Would a doubled-up rim joist over that opening be adequate bearing to eliminate the header below? Seems like that is what Blue is getting at, even 'tho he hasn't come back to clarify."Huck,No, because the headers were specked at 2x12's to carry the load and the joists were 2x10's.Even if the headers were 2x10's like the joists I wouldn't do it because it doesn't make sense for me because I wouldn't want to put a solid header in for no reason under the wall and then have to hang every floor joists with hangers for no reason. Also it's not good to put solid headers for mechanical reasons unless there a special bearing lam beam for something. Then I would have to go back down and frame 2x4 ladders to the correct header high wasting more time and 2x4's.I've framed many flush headers before under different circumstances but with your question. You might as well frame the whole house that way if you feel it's worth it with all doubled up joists and hangers and then go back a frame ladders on every opening. I would never do that.Joe Carola
joe... you sure look different than the picture in had in mind..
and it ain't just the blue lightning bolts comming out of your head neither
View Image
lemme guess: 5'- 11" , say 180 ... ????Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
That's his 'spider-sense' telling him there's a header lurking behind and above him.
"Citius, Altius, Fortius"
Yeah, good response. I've put flush headers in also, but always for special circumstances (i.e. bay window where they don't want the header to show in the bay, because of the awkward niche it creates). And you're right, the joists would need to be hangered. 1/2" bearing is not adequate.
Of course, at this point its all conjecture and speculation, since we don't really know what Blue was getting at. It just seemed like the direction he was heading. Thanks for your explanation. Like I said, you framed it the way I've always seen it done, and the way I would do it. So I'm as curious as the next guy to see what he's up to."he...never charged nothing for his preaching, and it was worth it, too" - Mark Twain
Joe, I just called that an arch because there aren't any doors hanging in there yet. I was also guessing it was a study, because thats where we normally put our studys here in MI.
So what were you trying to get at here?
The moment is lost because the orientation of the joist renders my tip null and void. I'd have done it exactly as you have so all the fun of discovering new things is gone.
Sorry for the bad thread and I hope you didn't take as much offense as Diesel did. If you did, I'm sorry and I'll post 100 pictures of my stuff and we all can have a field day!
blue
I hope you didn't take as much offense as Diesel did
Now you're just being a dick. Did I ever say I was "offended"? I just said it was a lousy thing to do.... and it was.
The moment is lost because the orientation of the joist renders my tip null and void.
Is that a fancy way of saying "I over-looked the obvious in my enthusiasm to crap all over someone else's work?". Or does it simply mean, "I was wrong"?
You preach speed and efficiency above all else. And then you point out a "framing tip" that saves a miniscule amount of material and adds a disproportionate amount of labor to a relatively simple task. So you stuff the header up into the box? You save what appears to be about an 8' stick of 2x12. But you still need to go back and frame down the opening to the proper R/O, right? So now you need a pair of 8' 2X's as well as the, now longer, cripple studs. I gotta wonder what the actual saving would amount to in board feet, don't you?
I'm sorry if you don't like what I have to say Blue. Like I said, it's just my opinion. I often appreciate your insight and expertise in regards to framing tips and techniques. Just not this time.
Regardless of all of that, I just disagree with the nature of this thread you started. The object of the thread was to critique the job in the photo. And I'm just not sure you had any right to open someone else's job up to criticism. I'd bet Joe doesn't have much of a problem with it He's got pretty thick skin and is an accomplished framer. I'm sure he knows that his work is of the highest calibur and doesn't need validation from any of us. But that really ain't the point now is it?
View Image
Edited 3/4/2006 10:46 pm ET by dieselpig
brian... i didn't think the object was to critique the construction..i thought it was simply to use the photo as a starting point of discussion
'sides.. you're taking a fence against the guy who gave us "boogerin with blue"
he gets lots of latitude for that attitude in my book..
i don't think joe was offended either.. blue lightning bolts or not Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
I disagree. But that's what the forums are for I guess.View Image
Diesel, I don't agree with your assessment, but I do appreciate you taking a stance and standing up for someone that appears to be under attack. I've felt the wrath of many and I always appreciate when someone steps up for me.
blue
LOL... c'mon Blue. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck brother.
You can't take a little dig in one post:I did learn that some people would be offended to learn something about their own work though. For instance, I now know that I would never use one of Diesel's photos to make a point, becasue he thinks it's lousy thing to do. I'm okay with that.
And then try to pat me on the back in the next:
but I do appreciate you taking a stance and standing up for someone that appears to be under attack. I've felt the wrath of many and I always appreciate when someone steps up for me.
Brother, those tactics of pursuasion are older than you are! Geez... give me a little credit.... it's still morning, but it ain't that early.
I'd be offended to "learn something about my own work"? You're pure genius. That's some sweet spin you put on it. Fact or fiction, your delivery is flawless... even if it doesn't even resemble what I said. Who cares about that anyway, right?
Hey... right or wrong.... I call it like I see it. If I'm dead wrong, then I truly apologize to you Blue. But who the heck wants to open up a thread, come across a picture of their own work, and see a "what's wrong with this picture?" caption under it? You can't see why that might bother someone, whether they admit it or not? Maybe Joe's too courteous to call you on it, but I sure ain't. You telling me you couldn't find a picture of your own work with a mistake in it to use for the topic of the thread? LOL...
I guess we just disagree on this one. No blood, no foul. Carry on.View Image
You telling me you couldn't find a picture of your own work with a mistake in it to use for the topic of the thread?
This is the point you seem to keep missing Diesel. There isn't a "mistake" in that picture. It shows a typical headered situation and it's done that way in 99.999% of frames. It struck me as being the perfect picture to point out an alternative way. Unfortunatly, the joist are oriented wrong and that situation is wrong for the idea.
I'll look for my any pictures of that particular situation.
blue
You telling me you couldn't find a picture of your own work with a mistake in it to use for the topic of the thread?
No mistake, but here's a pic that is similar.
That is the situation that I envisioned: an opening parallel to a foyer that will have a wall on top of it on the second floor. The joist will not bear on it, but the wall above does.
In that particular opening, 99.999% of the framers in MI would put a doubled 2x header. As you can see, I do it differently. I have a net savings on lumber and a net savings on labor and it provides significantly more flexibility, therby serving both the homeowers and builders interests. In short, it's a great benefit and saves me time and money and saves the builder time and money.
blue
No jacks or anything... Not even a doubled king on the right side? So, there is to be absolutely no load from above what so ever? What is above it? A plant shelf?
BTW - the use of the word arch in the origional post threw me and a few others. As shown in your pic, I'd call it a cased or wrapped opening. Unless there is still some wood to be added.
And yes it does annoy me to see carpenters just throwing 2x10 headers at everything in sight.
Like I said Blue.... if I was dead wrong then I truly apologize. But the whole thread struck me as.... odd, to say the least.
So let's see if I'm understanding you correctly, because now I must admit, I'm a little confused. I was under the impression that the situation you were referring to was one where you had a non-bearing wall. A wall that was running parallel to the joists above. Instead of using a beam (header) to span the opening, you propose to just frame it in using 2x4 stock like the opening in your own photograph.
Where's the magic in that? That's pretty much industry standard on most every frame I've ever walked through. Using a beam (that's what a header really is, right?) to span an opening where no beam is required is just ignorance. It's a matter of done right vs. done wrong IMO, no tips, tricks, or wizardry about it.
Am I still misunderstanding you? Are you saying that most framers in your area use structural headers at any and all openings whether there is a load above or not?
Originally, I thought you were suggesting to stuff the header up into the box. In some situations that's the best solution. But not for an opening without any height restrictions. Usually putting the header up into the box is a technique we reserve for situations where a structural header is needed, but there is no room for it below the floor framing above. I can't imagine using that technique for lumber savings either. You save one stick of 2x8, 10, 12, or whatever. But you'd still need a double 2x4 to span the opening to provide good trim nailing around the frame. You'd also need longer cripples. That's why I asked you what you thought the lumber savings might be in board feet. Negligible at best. And whatever saved would be more than eaten up by the additional labor.
Now what I'd really like to know more about is how additional king studs help to support loads above. That's a concept I see from time to time detailed on drawings, but don't understand. I always follow the prescription on the plans, but in this particular case, don't understand the forces in play. Maybe you could explain that one to me if you're not too put off on my stance regarding Joe's picture.View Image
Diesel, the situation depicted in the picture shows a partition that is parallel to the joist, so it's non bearing in that sense. Each opening has two studs on it, even if the picture doesn't seem to show it. I've never left a single stud on the sides of an opening, except in commercial applications. We used to only put one metal stud and the metal frame screwed into that. It seemed to hold up quite well even if solid core doors were used.
Anyways, t hat same wall will have the weight of two storys of drywall on it, so some consideration must be given to carrying that weight. In most cases, the plans will call for a doubled up joist to be placed under that wall in the first floor framing. Sometimes it calls for a single or double microlam.
Of course, when the framers do that, they also add a bearing header over that size opening. So, the total lumber being used would be two 2 x 10's in the basement, one on the upper rim and one for the bearing header.
So, we simply move the doubled up two by ten from the basement to the first floor and eliminate the bearing header. Everybody wins in that case. The load is carried. We use less lumber, therefore handling less and saving time. The builder save a stick of lumber and the homeowner has total flexibility on where to locate that opening.
Why do you think that I'm so impressed with total flexibility for locating that opening? Well if you guessed that I've had to alter an opening like that after it was built (about a dozen times at least), then you would be right. Quite often the homeowners walk through the rough and decide that the opening seems to small and they thought it would be much bigger when they looked at it on the plans. Or, someone might want to set a particular piece of furniture and they need more wall space. On some, I've had to change the way the stair run into them, thereby forcing the alteration of the opening.
After about 15 years of continuously dealing with that exact situation, I finally started getting smart about it by placing the bearing joists in the upper floor. I have never been sorry since! Every time I need to make a change, I feel like I won the lottery.
One more bonus: this particular wall rarely receives mechanicals, but if a wall vent is needed for the foyer (some clients don't like their floor heats in the tile right there), the wall is available for a heat.
I'm going to accept your apology because I never had any intent of showing anyone up nor looking to pick apart someone's work. Like Mike said, that original pic was justa starting point but it also happens to be a classic example of how they do it around here. Joe has to follow his engineered drawings, we have flexibility (in most localities) to carry that upper load in the manner I described. I also want to say that I was sincere in thanking you for sticking up for Joe, or for anyone that you feel is being abused in any way. I don't care for dirty deeds and malicious posts and sometimes some of the guys need a helping hand. I will however file this episode in my mental trunk and will probably refrain from ever doing anything like that again. I did apologize to Joe and I'm glad he didn't demand that I post 100 pics for you guys to pick apart. Y'all would have a field day!
blue
If you are sincere, then I stand corrected and my apology too is sincere. I thought you may be targeting Joe for some prior disagreement or something weird like that or just felt like taking pot shots at an easy target like a photograph on the internet.
Now how about those doubled up king studs? I've never understood the concept. Doubled up jack studs, sure. But doubled up kings, I can't wrap my head around. Care to shed some light on that one for me? I see it on drawings from time to time, and do what is asked of me, but still can't put the concept together.View Image
>>"Now how about those doubled up king studs? I've never understood the concept. Doubled up jack studs, sure. But doubled up kings, I can't wrap my head around. Care to shed some light on that one for me? I see it on drawings from time to time, and do what is asked of me, but still can't put the concept together."
I'm not an engineer, but here's a stab. As I said before, kings are for lateral loads only. Among other things, the king also stiffens the jack to prevent hinging at the joint between the jack and the header, and prevents the jack from bending in any direction along its length (but doubled jacks do that too, so I'm more focused on the hinging). If there's a huge load on the header, might need a double king to resist those loads. Additional thing that jumps to mind at the minute is that if it's a tall wall, need a double king to resist the lateral load (seems most prefer doubling the 2x at the top of the RO if the header is flush to the plate with the cripples below -- doubling the kings has the same effect at the sides).
Seeking perfection in an imperfect world is a fool's errand. Making something look perfect is a whole 'nother story . . . .
Diesel, I certainly am sincere. I still have a bad taste in my mouth from the rounds I had to take with Gabe and Joe Fusco. There is nothing to be gained from starting a discussion that leads to that stuff and the information being exchanged on this site suffers. Framer Joe has been a significant poster on here and he hasn't been one to back off any technical framing discussion. I see him as a strong character, with a strong framing backgroudn that would easily fend off anything that I tried to pull on him.
You will not see me post another picture of someone else's work, no matter how innocent the idea was.
The doubled king studs just add strength and stability to the rough door frames. I guess there are doubled to help hold the entire door structure in place when Mama slams the solid core doors. It also helps to prevent that dreaded drying bows that could seriously affect a hung door.
blue
Blue,No offense taken on this thread. I don't think there's anyone on this forum that would post a picture of someone's work who contributes to this forum and pick it apart. I think it's great that there's many ways of doing things and learning everyone's techniques or even using someone technique.I'm trying to find a picture of a roof I framed almost 20 years ago that looks like crap because the fascia line was lower than the rest of the roof but it showed that on the plans but I was a young punk kid at the time and followed the plans instead of raising the plate so that the overhangs matched. If I find it I'll post it. I did post it a couple years ago here.Joe Carola
I'd rather see pics of anonymous jobsites targeted. If there were much framing going on in MI then Blue would be shooting pics of the next-door lot instead.
Maybe I should go get some shots of a job I know pretty close to here, with plenty to pick apart. And there's another one where the quantity of lumber and Simpson stuff used would have built two houses.
Maybe I should go get some shots of a job I know pretty close to here, with plenty to pick apart.
Your buying into Diesels statement that the intent was to pick apart someone's work. That was nothing but innuendo. There was and is no intent to "pick apart someone's work".
This site is getting to sound like a bunch of school marms. Where have all the carpenters went?
blue
Now I'm seeing a little better.
I just opened your own picture again and I understand a little bit better. You guys don't necessarily double up the framing around penetrations. I see single sills, single 2x4 'headers', single kings with no jacks around the openings. I can certainly see where your lumber/labor savings are being derived from now.
That wouldn't be acceptable work in my area. I'm not saying that doubling up the framing around openings is always necessary, but it's what the builders expect to see. Without it the trim carps would be cursing us for not leaving them enough good nailing for their casements. I would also be wary about hanging a big heavy french door from one of those openings framed with a single stud on each side and having only the sheetrock and screws to keep it from deflecting under the weight.
Must be a regional thing.View Image
Are you saying that most framers in your area use structural headers at any and all openings whether there is a load above or not?
That's the way its done here. I suspect that most the framers here don't speak English, and don't know how to read a plan well enough to determine which openings require a structural header and which ones don't. They work cheap enough that it pays for the builder to just buy 4x12 for all openings. No cripples involved, for the walls that are 8'.
Now what I'd really like to know more about is how additional king studs help to support loads above. That's a concept I see from time to time detailed on drawings, but don't understand.
Me either.
I would also be wary about hanging a big heavy french door from one of those openings framed with a single stud on each side and having only the sheetrock and screws to keep it from deflecting under the weight.
My impression was that by calling it an arch, he meant to show that there were no doors going in the opening. Myself, I always tend to "overbuild" with the thought that some day doors might be added."he...never charged nothing for his preaching, and it was worth it, too" - Mark Twain
Geez, I guess I really am in the dark then. A 4x12 header in an opening with no load above? I guess if I were a builder, I'd be more concerned about the additional drywall cracks associated with a structural header vs. one that's 'sticked in' than I would be with the cost of the material used.
Most of the cracks I've seen in drywall around openings tend to be from structural headers drying out, warping, or having never been flush with the rest of the framing to begin with.
Regarding the single sticks around the "arch". Yeah I guess you guys are right. If it was just a cased opening, I suppose the single stud would suffice for support. I wonder how the trimmers feel about it though? Or is that a non-issue. I don't do much interior trim myself, but when I do I appreciate the solid nailing.
Maybe we're just different here in the East. We strap our ceilings and still use blueboard and plaster instead of drywall too. Maybe we do 'waste' more materials than is absolutely necessary. I don't know. What I do know is that I'm hired and paid to build what the builder wants.... not what I think it needs. So until then, I'll keep giving them what they want instead of the bare minimum. It seems to pay the bills anyway.
But at least I'm learnin' something!View Image
I don't frame anymore. Except small remodels. And I use double sills, double top plates, cripples above wherever there's a trimmer below. Blocks on either side of all openings. I don't think of it as being wasteful, since most of the extra wood is just utilizing the materials fully, and minimizing the trash pile. And since I'm usually the finish carp on these small projects, I tend to spoil myself with something to nail into. I've even "let-in" a full sheet of plywood when the HO wouldn't give me specifics on where he needed backing for his wall-mounted big screen."he...never charged nothing for his preaching, and it was worth it, too" - Mark Twain
I don't suppose I should even mention split-trimmers (jacks) or 'floating' trimmers, huh?
LOL
"Citius, Altius, Fortius"
I've never heard either of those terms Heck. What are they? You just mean using a couple scraps to make up the jack in a non-bearing door or window frame?View Image
Around here, those terms refer to window trimmers that do not run continuous to the bottom plate, but are broken at the sill. The sill plate is framed between the king studs, then the trimmers are added. With the attendant cripples below. That way, the trimmers can be adjusted after the window is installed. Not sure if that's what he had in mind, or why he brouht it up?"he...never charged nothing for his preaching, and it was worth it, too" - Mark Twain
I see. We don't break the jacks at the sill here either. But I don't think I'd have a problem with it if it was SOP here. Only problem I see with it is that you've got two extra parts to cut, no?View Image
we used to do a split jack like that too... with the sill interrupting the jack
the BI said is was a no-no , so we stopped, wanted the jack to be continuousMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Any mention of why? Just curious. I don't really see the design flaw, do you?View Image
yes, the sill will shrink, the jack won't so the continuous jack will maintain contract and support of the header
the split jack will notMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Mike, would you say that framing lumber shrinks more across its' thickness than along its' length?
I don't really remember. If so, that is a valid criticism of split trimmers.
"Citius, Altius, Fortius"
Heck,I'm not Mike, but pretty much all wood shrinks more across its width than its length. A really wet 2x can shrink 1/8" in thickness as it dries, so an opening with a single sill can go from tight when framed to 1/8" of air at the sill as it dries. This is significant, although nothing when compared to the height shrinkage of 2x12 or 4x12 header stock that is green.I used split trimmers in my house I built in 1984 because they prevented the 2x6 sills from twisting as they sat a long time drying in the open. It worked well at restraining them.A building inspector who rejects split trimmers under heavily loaded headers has a couple of valid reasons to do so, whether he knows it or not.The first is lateral loads. Window sills are usually closer to the halfway height of a wall than headers are, so the interruption of the trimmer at the sill removes wood from where the bending moment under wind or seismic is likely to be greatest.The second is vertical loads. The wood in a single trimmer is stronger in compression endwise than the joint at the sill is, even when tight. The government's Wood Handbook discusses the failure of wood loaded in several orientations. I recall that there is more deformation at changes in grain direction than there is in continuous boards. The split trimmer doubles the number of such transitions between the bottom plate and the header.Bill
I realize that there is a compromise of sorts connected with split trimmers at window openings and I have considered the points you have brought up.
I feel that the process has proven itself sound in the areas where I have built , in Arizona, Washington, and New Mexico. I feel that there is a redundancy of strength as it applies to framing techniques.
The proof is in the structures still standing, trouble-free, despite regional differences in methods.
The primary reason I used split trimmers was to eliminate the cripples needed to support the sill ends when using full trimmers. I was framing before air nailers were prevalent, and eliminating steps was part of the game, however I would never knowingly sacrifice quality. I have always considered myself somewhat of an 'overbuilder'.
Since moving to Colorado, I find that the locals do not use split trimmers. OK by me.
To address one point of your post concerning wood shrinkage: You state that a 'really wet' 2x can shrink as much as 1/8" in dimension. I propose that the same 'really wet' 2x at 81" long will shrink at least as much in length as well. The question in my mind now is, does that mean that the 'really wet' 2x cut into split trimmers shrinks twice as much?
Thanks for your thoughts.
"Citius, Altius, Fortius"
What is a split trimmer?
blue
blue, this is how we did window frames:
Nail in your kings to sole and top plate.
Nail in header.
Cut trimmers to window height RO, jam against bottom of header and nail.
Jam and nail sill to bottom of 'split trimmer' of window. Also nail through king to sill.
Install remainder of trimmer under sill and against king. Nail in all cripples.
Wa-la....split trimmer.
"Citius, Altius, Fortius"
When you (or anyone else who cares to comment) frame walls, do you cut your window/door parts as you're framing? Or do you make a cut sheet and gang cut all those parts ahead of time?
As the deck is going down, I usually pull a guy aside and set him up with a chopsaw, a pile of studs, and a list I've created the night before. He then whacks out every jack, sill, header, and cripple stud for the whole floor. They get sorted, stacked, rough labled and set on a sheet of plywood or something that I can set right down on the deck as soon as the floor is down.
I'm curious how others do it. I like doing it this way for a bunch of reasons, but I'm curious to see how and why others do it their way.View Image
I have done it both ways, both have their merits.
I have been around long enough to have seen and tried most framing methods, the best one is the one that works for you.
When I was at my most productive, we used both methods at once. Headers, sills, trimmers were precut.
Cripples and other blocking was cut on the wall, no tape or square, just eyeball and cut and nail in.
In those days you practically had a skilsaw in your pouch. But there were no airhoses in the way, either.
"Citius, Altius, Fortius"
I've done it both ways too Heck.
I spent the firt fifteen years prebuilding all headers. The "saw man" did the prebuilds.
I spent the last fifteen doing them individually as we go. A guy from Texas talked me into doing them as we go. After much resistance I tried his idea and decided that I liked it. I got rid of an expensive "cut man" and didn't have to do homework lists, that were actually quite complicated. I also eliminated the usualy confusion that surrounded similar openings with different header requirements.
I prefer the latter. It eliminates a double handling. Double handlings are deadly to time issues.
The learning curve is greater for framers if they have to build headers, but let's face it, building a header isn't exactly rocket science either. Most rookie framers will screw one or two up before they learn how to get them done.
Building the headers in the walls adds a little variety to each guys jobs. It makes the days go faster for some.
All in all, I think it's probably a wash in terms of lumber usage and time issues.
blue
Hmmmmm, interesting perspective.
I agree that building a header isn't rocket science, in fact it's one of the first things I'll teach. I'm more worried about that header getting set at the appropriate height or the sills ending up too close to the floor for an untempered window, or someone not noticing a window seat or something like that. Custom houses with 20 different RO's and a couple different plate heights still can confuse the heck out of me if I'm not 100% focused.
That's why I like to do my "homework" in the peace and quiet of my distraction free office. (unless you count Breaktime!) On site, I'm getting pulled in 15 directions, answering questions, answering the phone, and keeping the flow going. I like to put the plans away after the plates are detailed and never look back. Just build by the numbers at that point. All the pieces are pre-cut so your header height is pre-determined for you and as long as you use the right (labeled) parts, all your R/O's will be spot on. To be honest, I'm as much or more worried about making a mistake myself as I am with the guys messing up.
We run a four man crew. Takes two guys to put a deck down... at least the way we do it. That leaves someone to play cut-man for an hour, and me to either start framing the stairs or detailing plates. We never have a dedicated "expensive cut-man" but I could see how trying to keep a guy at the horses busy all day every day could get expensive.
I can't say that pre-cutting is any faster over the stretch of the job, but I think it makes us feel faster when we're putting them together and sometimes that energy can go a long way. Are you still panelizing most of your walls? I guess that could change the equation too, expecially when you're dispersing your remaining guys while the deck is going down. I just can't ever seem to find the space to panelize and set them on our postage stamp lots. Makes me miss the big developments a bit. Well... just a little bit anyway. Seems I'm never ready to start building walls until the deck is down anyway, so even if I could panelize it ends up just as easy for us to build them right where they go. We can only do so many things at once and it seems that the natural progession of the job dictates when and where we build whatever comes next. I tend to view panelizing and then relocating walls as what you call 'double handling'.
You run a pretty small crew too, right? I guess that's where I don't understand the logistics of panelizing walls. You'd have to pull someone away from framing the floor system to start building the walls. That slows down the floor framing, but speeds up the wall framing doesn't it? I know I'm missing something here with my logic, so what is it? I keep seeing it as putting the cart before the horse and not gaining any time. I'm sure there's a benefit or you wouldn't entertain the thought, I just can't see it.
What's the missing link?View Image
Diesel, I too think the optimal crew for framing is four guys. It usually makes for very efficient framing.
We used to platform frame with four guys before we started panelizing. Instead of sending a cut man to the saw horses though, we'd put two guys out in the attached garage and start building walls there. The other two guys frame the deck.
Two guys framing a deck is the optimal amount. They can easily co-ordinate their activities and work their way around the hole without leap frogging or getting in one another's way. They never feel rushed to do something out of order to "keep a laborer or other carpenter busy". They have enough hands to quickly square their work (as opposed to working alone).
Typically, when I framed a deck with only one guy, I'd get my baselines and mark out a layout starting point on the front, rear and beamplates. Then, I'd immediately start framing the weird/hard stuff such as stairwell and fireplace holes, and cantilevered bays, etc. The other guy would do the routine "commons". Basically, we'd work one section at a time and also typically I'd have the other guy get the deck section that would contain the hardest wall assemblies done first. Then when that section was done, we'd sheet it, even though the rest of the deck was unfinished. This would quickly create a working platform for the wall guys if they happened to quickly finish the garage walls.
If everything was humming smoothly, I normally would immediately start the basement stairs before I layed any routine common joist, or layed any plywood.
So, as you can see, in my old system, we didn't have anyone available to cut headers because they were already busy doing something.
We run a four man crew. Takes two guys to put a deck down... at least the way we do it. That leaves someone to play cut-man for an hour, and me to either start framing the stairs or detailing plates. We never have a dedicated "expensive cut-man" but I could see how trying to keep a guy at the horses busy all day every day could get expensive.
I never tried to keep the guy at the horses. Usually, the guy on the horses would cut all the down headers, then start building the stairs. It wasn't a bad system, but it created a culture that required a decent carpenter besides myself and all the other guys could be "laborers". The laborers tended to think a little lower of themselves because the two carpenters seemed to "hog" all the important technical stuff and there was very little meaningful learning being done by the "laborers".
Forcing the laborers to be more involved in the framing process and decisions speeds up their learning curve. They appreciate that.
Panel talk in next post.
blue
You run a pretty small crew too, right? I guess that's where I don't understand the logistics of panelizing walls. You'd have to pull someone away from framing the floor system to start building the walls. That slows down the floor framing, but speeds up the wall framing doesn't it? I know I'm missing something here with my logic, so what is it? I keep seeing it as putting the cart before the horse and not gaining any time. I'm sure there's a benefit or you wouldn't entertain the thought, I just can't see it.
There are a lot of benefits to panelizing: quality control, speed, safety, logistics management, etc. In the winter, I just like knowing that I'm always within 10' of a firebucket! I can hear the music without blaring it so loud that the entire neighborhood hears it. It's like setting up an assembly line for walls.
We don't pull someone from framing the floor because we always framed the floor with only two guys anyways.
The day we start framing is the day I start building my first walls. Typically, they will be the garage. Nowadays, the deck builders will concentrate on getting the furthermost section framed and sheathed so we can swing a wall in while they are finishing the deck.
This idea of framing is a little bit foreign to many because framers tend to think that they should frame all the sticks of a deck before starting the plywood. I don't let that line of thinking control me however and we've always found it faster to do the sections of the deck in stages. This system works very well with panelizing.
The question of double handling is valid. It would appear that we are double handling but lets compare it. To frame on the deck, you have to place each part. The same thing happen when panelizing. The walls have to be raised, we have to swing them into place. I have raised many walls with poles and rigging and I can say that using the crane and swinging them in is faster and safer and less strenuos and stressful. I'd call it a wash if you are using a machine for lifting vs our transporting with a machine. We've raised enough walls with a machine, trying to keep the bottom fastened to the deck to say that it's much faster just to pick it up in it's entirety and shuttle it to wherever it's final resting place is.
The real time benefits are probably made in the material handling logistics, and because we can simultaneously frame all the interior partitions. Even in big customs, it's often tricky to find a perfect place to stage all the things you need to frame an exterior wall, especially if you install all the overhangs and windows and siding before you raise them. The guys doing the interior partitioins can easily stock studs and linial. They often just dump one pile somewhere and leave the other on the forks sticking into the house as far as they want. They don't have to co-ordinate and avoid the wall builders. This in itself can be a huge benefit. We think nothing of dumping a huge load of materials in the open study at the front of the house without having to keep the first 9' clear for the future wall building.
The other nice thing is that the machine is not tied up and conflicted with the two groups. We rarely have simultaneous demands for the machine because we place all of our wall building materials where we need them in the first hour of the job.
Working on postage sized lots is demanding. We had to leave the machine home on two jobs last year, but we managed to find a spot to park the crane. We were able to leave enough room to have the material dropped in phases and we'd crane it next to the table. Craneing it takes a lot more time than using the Skytrak though but I like it because it saves my back.
Speaking of backs: eliminating the bent over framing goes a long way toward maintaining a healthy back.
blue
I can't argue with any of it Blue. It all sounds... well.... sound. The problem for me is that to make it effective, I'd have to drastically overhaul our entire system of production. That's scary. Of course, we could always switch back if it was a disaster for us, but sometimes I'm hesistant to rock the boat myself. Seems everytime I do I find out there was already a big wave headed our way anyway.
Speaking of backs: eliminating the bent over framing goes a long way toward maintaining a healthy back.
That right there is reason enough to consider it though. Framing upright is a luxury.
The crane.... yeah I don't have one of those. Can't say I can justify one right now either, but I really don't know anything about them. How much crane would I need for framing? If you were going to buy one, what would you look for? What would you expect to pay for a decent used one? Nothing fancy, just servicable. What sort of specs are important for residential framing?
EDIT: To simplify the crane questions.... what do you have? I can do the research myself instead of making you answer 100 questions.
View Image
Edited 3/6/2006 3:16 pm ET by dieselpig
Diesel, I bought a junker a few years ago for 16k or so...I cant' really remember. It lasted a few years and the engine blew. We put a new engine in for 6k or something like that including the substantial towing bill.
A guy that I know just bought one for 9k. It is a newer stronger model. I think it's roadworthy or very close to it.
Another guy I knew bought a very impressive one for 39k from a firm in Iowa. I was so impressed that I immediately called because he said there were two others. Too bad, they were sold.
There are some very reasonable deals out there if you keep looking. I'd sell mine today for somewhere's around 15k.
blue
I do what you do, pre-cut and label a pile of parts, a holdover from many years as a cabinetmaker. I have a guy coming today to frame with me for about three weeks, and all he's going to be doing is pulling pre-cut parts off a stack I made for him.
I think we're on the same page. I try to keep the work done on site as 'dumb' as possible. Nail A to B and you'll have a C. Keeps the guys producing instead of scratching their heads.... that's my job.View Image
We cut all studs to length ahead of time but the cut man cuts headers, jacks, cripples, sills, as we build. Problem is in the heat of battle helper inevitably grab pieces off the cut pile to use for something else and then we're short a few pieces and it breaks the rhythm. Yelling down what we need to the cut man and having a helper hand it up when we yell "wood" seems to keep it flowing well enough.
I'm never boss on a crew though so when on framing crew I do as boss says -- unless I'm pretty darn sure I can suggest a much better way.
Seeking perfection in an imperfect world is a fool's errand. Making something look perfect is a whole 'nother story . . . .
The way I do it is all my crew decks the house, when that is done I have one guy laying out walls and snapping plate lines on the floor. I start cutting all my headers, double 2x12's with a 7/16 OSB filler, and the other two guys are building corners and partitions. When I have all the pieces cut for the headers I build a 2x4 "T" header jig one side is a king the other is a plate each leg about four foot long and nail them together. I can slam a whole house full of headers together by noon.
Once all the headers are built I nail all the kings on the headers, slide a cripple up to the bottom of the header mark the length, cut then nail in place. Then put sills in if they are windows. By the end of the day all the windows and doors are built and the plates are all laid out.
The next day all you do is frame 4 guys with guns running like madmen. We can stand up a 1500 sq. ft house in a day sheeted and all this way. Looks like a house fell out of the sky when you leave at the end of the day. I didn't realize how much time doing this actually saved. My crew isn't anything special either me and one other guy know whats going on, the other two get outsmarted by their alarm clock 3 times a week!
We can stand up a 1500 sq. ft house in a day sheeted and all this way.
If that's your barometer, I'd say we're doing pretty good with our own method as well. I'm not trying to say one of us is faster than the other, because that's a recipe for disaster as well as being pretty much impossible to quantify. I'm just saying that we could compete with those numbers, which is good to know.
Sometimes when I hear about how other guys are doing things, I wonder how badly am I messing this up? So it's good to hear that a different system produces fairly similar results. I can't for the life of me wrap my head around the "jungle framing" (which I've always called dangle framing) thread, but I have to believe that it's fairly fast or the technique would have been given up on years ago. Another one I don't get is studding in, sheathing, and then trimming gables ends after the rafters are up. Like I said, it must be pretty fast or guys wouldn't be doing it. But the thought of framing bumped out rakes with oodles of pine trim on them from staging makes my skin crawl. I guess it's all what you're used to.
the other two get outsmarted by their alarm clock 3 times a week!
Now that's just funny, right there. Sounds like we're running about the same crew. Me, a hard-charger, and a pair of well meaning knuckleheads.
View Image
I wasn't comparing you and your guys to us, just passing on what works for me. I don't understand how "jungle framing" works for some people either, probably just repitition like everything else in framing the more you do it the faster you get.
I sheet all my gable trusses on the ground and put the overhangs on as well, when the crane sets it on the house it's done. I see people climbing ladders with a piece of sheeting and a nail gun and wonder if they are having fun.
I'm with you sometimes people talk about how they do stuff and wonder if the guy(s) I learned from knew what they were doing or not. All my houses pass the building inspections the first time and that's what counts.
I know you weren't comparing our crews, and I was trying to make it clear that I wasn't really either. I hope that translated. I was really trying to compare systems, because while I often see things that look slow to me.... I sometimes wonder if it's me who's missing the big picture.
Do you own a crane or rent their services? I've only used a crane a handful of times. The two times in the last year were for monster LVL ridge beams. It always seems to be money well spent.
I see people climbing ladders with a piece of sheeting and a nail gun and wonder if they are having fun.
I hear you. Anything I can do from the safety and comfort of the deck is time well spent to me. I gotta admit though, if the price was right, I'd love to sub out all my sheathing to a sheathing crew like Joe (Framer) does. I despise extension ladders myself. Even though I'm on them a fair amount of time, it always feels like I'm a second away from having the ride of my life. I'll take the platform on the forklift any day of the week. OSHA approved one or not.
Here's a ridge beam we had a boom swing in for us last winter. It was pretty fun. 50 something feet long, and I think it was a 2 ply (3 1/2") 1 3/4" x 16" LVLView Image
I know you weren't comparing even if you were I might learn something. As for the crane I don't own one I have a good ol' boy with a dinosaur of a crane that is probably from the 60's come on every job and set my trusses, $75 an hour is what he charges me and it's worth every penny most jobs are around $300. I would have called him in for that widow maker of a ridge you had there. I don't own a crane or a skytrak. If I had the money I'd have the skytrak with the platform too. Funny thing is the Amish carpenter in town owns one.
I'd love to have sheathing crews around here never heard of one before posting here, but every job has to have it's downfalls it all can't be rainbows and roses.
I'd use a sheathing crew in a hearbeat too if there was one available. I'd still put the overhangs on first and just leave a 1" slot for the sheathing to tuck under.
blue
Somebody say "Platform" :-) http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL293/2163851/4215098/106870204.jpg
We don't frame too many rakewalls now that we have the platform. One guy can frame and sheathe them pretty fast, BUT on the house we are on now, I'll build some rakewalls. 23' to the peak hopefully tomorrow.
We used to build rakewalls and Tyvek them to make our siding job easier, but now we have shear inspections.
Everytime I see that platform it makes me all weepy. Man, I'd love one of those, but just don't have anyway to move it around.... so I'm stuck with my 8'er. But at least it swings!
View ImageView Image
I love the way that thing swings Diesel. Does it meet osha?
That, combined with our articulating boom would be the cats meow for some applications.
I'm currently using a site built 10'er and if I had one as big as Tim's, I'd put a couch in there!
blue
Yes, that one does meet OSHA guidlines IF.... you're also harnessed in to it and I don't believe you're supposed to drive the machine with anyone in it, just move the boom.
To be honest, I'm not sure how it passes. The platform itself is built like a tank and it attaches very securely to the forks and also has a safety chain as a back-up that passes through the carriage on the machine. The weak spot is actually the guard rails which mount in stake pockets. Even that part is not too bad, but the clasps (don't know what else to call them) that secure the guard rails (they're removeable) to the deck are made out of cheap pot metal. A couple have already broken and I've only had it since August. The front and back railings are seperate and the two sides are actually inswing gates.
You've got an articulated boom, huh? I assume that means it has an additional hinge point somewhere in the boom? What does that allow you to do?
Tim's is pretty awesome. You could stay over night in that thing.
View Image
Edited 3/6/2006 10:58 pm ET by dieselpig
The proper term is called a swing carriage. The carriage swings up to 45 degrees (I think). It's useful because we don't have to approach things straight on.
Here's a pic taken from the Skytrak site.
We added the boom, swing carriage, bucket and foam filled tires when we made the original purchase. I'd hate to try to go without any of them. I think we may have a subdivision in our future and if we do, we'lll probably add the broom attachment. I hate muddy streets.
blue
Now that looks very handy. We don't have that on ours. Overall, how do you like your Skytrack? Would you buy another? This past year, I've seen some of the design flaws in my Cat, and so has Caterpillar apparently. I forget who they just partnered up with, but it was one of the bigger names in telehandlers. They're redesigning they're telehandlers again this year. Hopefully they'll get some of the quirks worked out. Nothing major, just nuisances.
I'd love to get more attachments, but I just don't have any way to move them from site to site. I have a couple of aquaintences with excavation businesses who I pay to move the machine around, but there's no room left on the trailer after the machine and platform are loaded. I suppose I could load some attachments into the bed of the dump truck and then unload them at the next site, but that would require me to tag along for all the moves. My machine gets shuffled around at some crazy hours of the day as it's not a huge priority or money maker for them. They'll get it there for me on "Monday" but the move might happen at 8pm on a Sunday night.View Image
Diesel, we are very happy with our skytrak. We have a big dealer and the service is excellent (we had a few minor warranty issues). But, ever since I got that lesson from Frenchy, I think I'd buy on his recomendations. I think he suggests the Lulls.
The attachements could be loaded into the bed of a pickup I think. Your about ready for a ten ton trailer anyways and that would easily move everthing. We use an 8 ton to move our stuff, but the Skytrak hauler puts the attachments on their trailer and hauls them.
The best thing is to get settled in one sub for a year or so.
you would like the swing attachment. It helps us get our platform into some tough spots. The one thing I would really like would be if I could get that boom attached to the swing attachment, but it doesn't work that way.
The other good thing that the swing is good for is setting walls. When you get the wall close to where you want to drop it, you can sometimes use the swing to make minor changes in location that save a lot of "fine tuning" with the sledge. That benefit is less important now that we are gluing the exterior walls down. That bead of glue makes a nice slippery grease pad and heavy walls move quite easily.
blue
That bead of glue idea is genius Blue. It's easy, already on site, and makes perfect sense. I'll be stealing that one, thank you.
I used to work in the subdivisions for my old boss. We stayed in one for about 18 months. There's just not much money in the subdivisions out here. The builder sets the price. The developments are usually full of "guys with a truck" type start up companies and immigrant crews working for peanuts from sunup until sundown.
I wish it were different, but the smaller independant spec builders and custom builders just pay better. View Image
We are experiencing the same financials here too Brian.
I'm thinking I'm going to start gluing the vertical connection between the exterior walls. We don't lap our osb and sometimes I see daylight. I realize that the foamers will fill those cracks but the small ones are impossible to fill and the glue bond will eliminate those daylight gaps that would get the attention of homeowners.
blue
Brian,All I have to say is that I love ya man. Hopefully I can get to Andy's this summer to meet you and everyone else here and you can strap me down soemwhere and I'll toenail you down soemwhere...........;-)Joe Carola
I'd put a couch in there!
We are looking to add two massage chairs and a plasma screen tv :-)
You are in MI? I think it's Illinois where the framer lives who gave me the plans for our platform. They've got them OSHA approved, but I think the new rule might make that unreliable. I could email the guy if you want. There's a shop that makes the platforms and then sells them. I guess all the guys around this framer use them. I think he told me he has a 24'er!! They build theirs lighter than ours was built. But that hasn't been a problem
Here is a pic http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL293/2163851/4215098/132230651.jpg
Thanks Tim. I wouldn't mind knowing if they are still available.
blue
Since Joe has now offered his position, I thought I'd bring up the other night's misunderstanding one final time.
Since I called you out publicly, the least I can do is publicly tell you that I was being a total jackazz the other night and was basically dead wrong in accusing you of posting Joe's picture under less than innocent intentions.
I'm sorry for trying to throw you under the bus like that Blue. You didn't deserve it and I hope you don't hold it against me because I've got a lot of respect for you. Even if my mouth (fingers) works faster than my brain.View Image
Your a big man for offering that post Diesel and I want you to know that I didn't let it affect me in any way. Don't feel so bad though because I still learned my lesson from it. Even though Joe has okayed it now, I still wouldn't post someone else's pic again, without first asking. If you found it awkward, I'm sure others did too but didn't say anything.
Don't feel bad, there were a lot of better ways I could have handled that idea.
blue
Blue,I found it. It's really an example of now what I would tell the builder that he should change because of how bad it looks especially because it's on the same wall as the other roof. Even though the other roof is a different pitch and the rafters are sitting on top of the ceiling joists. The walls should've been raised on this Bay Roof so that the fascia lines and soffits matched.Joe Carola
Whatever its worth, reminds me of when I get a bad haircut. I don't like it, but somebody always does.
Also reminds me of what a couple of kind mentors taught me early on.
De gustibus non est disputandum (of taste, there is no argument)
another: High work is not eye work.
"A job well done is its own reward. Now would you prefer to make the final payment by cash, check or Master Card?"
I like that quote. How do you pronounce it?
blue
>>"I like that quote. How do you pronounce it?"
Hey Blue:
It's an old latin phrase (my first mentor out of school was a wise old guy who tried to teach me something new every single day -- that was one of them -- it was like going to school just working with the guy).
It's pronounced just like it reads -- High work is not eye work.
Oh, maybe you mean the other one -- De gustibus non est disputandum.
The way I learned it, it's pronounced (I'll do the best I can here) something like "day guus tee bus non est disputandum."
Makes one sound erudite, don't you think?
If I don't get off this computer soon, I see bankruptcy in my near future. I'm supposed to be doing paperwork for this am and I ... must ... pry ... fingers ... off ... keyboard ...
"A job well done is its own reward. Now would you prefer to make the final payment by cash, check or Master Card?"
Edited 3/8/2006 10:19 am ET by philarenewal
Thanks, I wanted that latin version My latin days were limited to my altar boy days...
That particular statment lacks the necessary oompha without first speaking it in latin.
Nearing bankruptcy myself...
blue
Hi Blue,I grew up hearing "De gustibus..." from my dad. Another good one in a similar vein is French: "Chaque un son gout." which means "Each one his own taste." Pronounced, "Shack ahn sawn goo(t)." The t in parentheses is barely audible. If in doubt, omit it.Bill
Nearing bankruptcy myself...
My dad taught me that if you haven't gone bankrupt 3 or 4 times, you aren't trying hard enough.
I've been there once, and a second time is only one bad decision away.I did like this, I did it like that, I did it with a wiffleball bat.
Oh, Joe....that hurts! Such a beautiful lady with whacked out fascia lines!
You must hate driving by that one LOL!
I did a lot of stupid things in my youth too. Thank gooness cameras weren't so prevalent.
blue
I found another picture from the back.Joe Carola
Joe, that second picture doesn't look so bad. That kinda makes me think that the other picture just makes the detail worse than what it really is.
Is it really bad, or just annoying because you know better now?
blue
Is it really bad, or just annoying because you know better now?Blue,For me, I think it's both. When the two fascia lines are so close like that in height especially on the same wall like in this picture. It looks like a mistake. Even when you look at the continuous freeze board on top of the windows being the same height how small the frieze is above the bay windows.If the bay windows were a different height and the fascia was a lot lower it would at least look like two separate roofs.Joe Carola
Edited 3/8/2006 7:48 pm ET by Framer
BTDT.... tried to talk them out of it but it still haunts me.View Image
As the deck is going down, I usually pull a guy aside and set him up with a chopsaw, a pile of studs, and a list I've created the night before. He then whacks out every jack, sill, header, and cripple stud for the whole floor. They get sorted, stacked, rough labled and set on a sheet of plywood or something that I can set right down on the deck as soon as the floor is down.
That's the way we do it. If he gets done first, he nails trimmers to king studs and builds corners. We use ladder blocking now at intersecting walls to use up scrap and keep our climbing skills sharp :-) Who needs a ladder?
Matt is the fastest at setting up the SCMS w/sawhelper outfeed so he does a lot of the cutting. Since we have so many windows that are the same height, he sets up a stop and just goes to town.
Just for you DP http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL293/2163851/9368298/132181005.jpg
Edited 3/6/2006 8:48 pm ET by Timuhler
Heck,We agree on most of these points. I lived in Colorado when I built my home in 1984 with the split trimmers at every window. The lumber there came a lot drier than the lumber in sunny SoCal where I now live. When I learned to do split trimmers it was from an older carpenter, and was considered the quality approach. Not only does it eliminate a pair of sill cripples and prevent the rough sill from twisting out of position, but it also gives more room for insulation in the cavity, less thermal bridging.At the time I never considered the aspects I pointed out in my post as potential weaknesses of that system. That house is still one of the finest in its town, although no longer mine. With 2x6 walls, the bending issue is pretty unlikely, and with the drier wood I was using, the shrinkage was also minimal.Now for the wet lumber shrinking "twice as much" vertically when split trimmers are used, I think that may be an understatement. I think an 81" wet fir stud will still be 81" when it dries. With a full length trimmer there are two ends where an assembly gap could exist. With splits there are 4 ends that could have a gap, plus the 1/8" shrinkage at the sill. Depending upon workmanship and the particular boards used in that opening, it could be more like 4 times as much movement below the header.As I mentioned in my previous post, the shrinkage in a solid sawn header completely dwarfs the shrinkage in the assembly below it. Dry engineered lumber for headers does a lot to reduce frame distortion due to shrinkage. Extra king studs do more for wall stiffness than full length trimmers, IMO, because they run all the way to the plate, no hinge point at the header.Like you say, framing is blessed with redundancy. This is a good thing.Bill
Makes sense.View Image
Well, I don't see a reason not to do it, either.
I thought it would raise a stir here, as we were arguing about non-bearing cripples.
Huck is right: Split trimmers are trimmers interrupted by the sill. They save a lower cripple used to support the sill when a full trimmer is used. Only lower crips on layout are needed.
Floating trimmers are trimmers on door openings or the split trimmers at window openings that are tacked to the kings when framing, and then plumbed/moved/whatever is needed and secured when the doors/windows go in.
I haven't used the floaters in 25 years, but I have used the split trimmers at least that long.
"Citius, Altius, Fortius"
brian... i didn't think the object was to critique the construction..i thought it was simply to use the photo as a starting point of discussion
Mike, that was exactly what that photo was, a starting point. If I had posed the question without any photo, and Joe recognized that he had photo to compliment the question, I'm sure he would have willingly posted it.
I honestly did give a second thought about posting Joes photo. In my small mind, I concluded that Joe has been very confident about everything about his framing career and I really didn't think he would mind. I wouldn't intentionally do any harm to anyone in here.
I did learn that some people would be offended to learn something about their own work though. For instance, I now know that I would never use one of Diesel's photos to make a point, becasue he thinks it's lousy thing to do. I'm okay with that.
One other thing that swayed my decision to post Joe's photo. He has said many times that everything he does requires an engineer. Therefore, even if he agreed that something we did made sense, he still wouldn't be able to use the tip because he's tied into following the engineers directives. Around here, were not becaue the engineers aren't usually involved to any significant degree regarding that particular opening, as I had originally envisioned it.
In any event, I really didn't want to create a firestorm. I just wanted to talk about framing techniques...which is what I originally stated in the opening post.
blue
You preach speed and efficiency above all else. And then you point out a "framing tip" that saves a miniscule amount of material and adds a disproportionate amount of labor to a relatively simple task. So you stuff the header up into the box? You save what appears to be about an 8' stick of 2x12. But you still need to go back and frame down the opening to the proper R/O, right? So now you need a pair of 8' 2X's as well as the, now longer, cripple studs. I gotta wonder what the actual saving would amount to in board feet, don't you?
If you really want to have a legitimate discussion about whatever technique I was thinking about, it might be important for you to actually understand what the situation was supposed to be, and what the solution really is. I said that I would save lumber AND TIME and I'll stand by that statement, for the situation that I envisoned.
You preach speed and efficiency above all else
Not entirely true. I preach that speed and efficency normally results in a better product. My claim is that when you save enough time on mundane routine jobs, you'll have more time to spend doing the more important technical things that most people look at. I don't give a hoot about installing extra cripples in areas that don't need them, but I care dearly about the actual structural veracity of a stair system. I routinely see rough framed stairs on other sites and in pictures here that I would make my guys do over. Just saw a pic the other day in here that I wouldn't accept.
blue
The first thing I noticed in that pic is all that lumber stacked in one place on a floor system. We oughta fine you one milkbone fer that. (-:I also don't like to have a bunch of lumber standing up like that. One bump and it's knocking someone in the head.
There's only one thing wrong with wife swapping.
You get another wife.
but if your head is as hard as mine, you'd just shrug off the blow, roar, hitch your bags a little higher and go back to work :-)
I can't find the arch or the study. Guess I'm buying my own milkbones tonight. Looks like good clean framing to me.... can't say I'd have done it any different myself.
I suppose you could stuff the header up into the rim. You'd add about $100 in labor to the job and save $8 in materials, but at least you'd get to tell someone they did something wrong.
We make an arch by framing a square hole and leaving it. The drywall amigos cover the hole with a big piece of board and draw the arch on the board. Then they cut out the arch, fill in the bottom with some short pieces of meetal stud,bend a strip of drywall for the bottom and put the corner bead on. Done.
Sorry for the false milkbone alert. I was all set to share little secret that we've used many times over the years but when Joe posted his response, I figured out that this situation is different. It caught me by surprise, even though I now can see the plywood joints which should have been a clue for me.
If I had noticed the direction of the joists, I'd have rephrased the quiz.
Anyways, no milkbones for anyone...sorry. Maybe I should send a complimentary milkbone to Joe for posting that picture.
I suppose someone could have suggested saving the four extra top cripples and I'd have to honor the prize, but since no one mentioned them, I'm declaring this contest to be dead and buried.
blue
I saw the extra unnecessary cripples, but I was still lookin' for an arch.
Gimme a milkbone.
"Citius, Altius, Fortius"
how do you arrive at 4 extra top cripples ... i see zero extra ones..
i do think the header could have been shoved to the top and the opening framed below.. but not neccessarily for any gain
View ImageMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
I see two extra cripples, not 4 or zero. There are 2 at each end, only need one at each end.
DG/Builder
Dgbldr, I understand what the cripples that land under each joist are doing, but what do the cripples at each end do?
blue
Ps, you're not allowed to say "' 'cause my grandpappy told me to put them there".
Dgbldr, I understand what the cripples that land under each joist are doing, but what do the cripples at each end do?
Prevent overfilling the dumpster :)
Good question. Counter-levering. There are 2 jacks at each end. As/if the beam is overloaded slightly and wants to bow, the ends of the beam will want to bend UP at the very ends and unload the outer jacks. The load is then supported by the inner jacks alone. Clearly this is not acceptable, otherwise you woudn't need 2 jacks on each side.
Tight fitting cripples at the ends counteract this and keep you from unloading the outer jacks.
DG/Builder
>>"Tight fitting cripples at the ends counteract this and keep you from unloading the outer jacks."
I can't comment on that, but we always threw in the two extra cripples, nailed to the trimmers, under the subsills to speed up nailing 'em in (takes less skill and less time and only "wastes" a few scraps of 2x). Our headers were always flush to the plate with the cripples below. Maybe it wastes wood that way (?), but it seemed to make it all go together faster.
Seeking perfection in an imperfect world is a fool's errand. Making something look perfect is a whole 'nother story . . . .
Philarenewal, that is probably the best reason why cripples should be placed on the end. It does take less skill to get that header level, if you don't place the jacks first. When you analyze the time it takes to cut the extra cripples though, I think eliminating them is faster, depending on the skill level of the installer.
blue
>>"Philarenewal, that is probably the best reason why cripples should be placed on the end. It does take less skill to get that header level, if you don't place the jacks first. When you analyze the time it takes to cut the extra cripples though, I think eliminating them is faster, depending on the skill level of the installer."
Yeah, that's exactly why we did it that way. Even the guy driving the broom and handing up the wood could help out on the walls (no cracks about that -- no, that wasn't me) ;-).
Seeking perfection in an imperfect world is a fool's errand. Making something look perfect is a whole 'nother story . . . .
Theoretically speaking, DGBldr, your idea has merit. Practically speaking it doesn't because of the laws of physics.
If you think about the forces generated with a lever and fulcrum, then apply them to your discussion, you'd see that those cripples would have no effect should that header decide to deflect downward.
At least your explanation has a shred of logic to it. you get one milkbone for effort
blue
no.. you're WRONG !
the header is supported by double jacks below , since the header exceeds the RO width for single jacks.. in order to transfer that load from above it will also require double cripples above..
but hey, whadda i no ?Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
The header is supported by double jacks from below due to the width of the opening.
The header supports the loads that would have been taken by studs if there had been no opening.
Any cripple that is not on layout or directly supporting a point load is unnecessary.
"Citius, Altius, Fortius"
well.. i might be wrong .. but i think the reason for the double jacks is because of the increased load on the header , due to it's width.. all of this load is carried on the jacks and the code says they have to be doubled to prevent fiber crushing on a 1.5 inch bearing area.. thus doubling the bearing area to 3"
i think this crushing is a point load and transfers to the crips, so the double jacks requires the double crips
or... maybe that's the way joe thinks too, or that's the way the BI thinks..
don't know, since i'm not an engineer
Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
I don't know what an engineer might say about it, I would be afraid to ask, might have to solid block it! <g>
Just seems to me that the header (to simplify) is taking the place of the studs it interrupts. The header is supported on however many jacks are required and is secured to the king studs, why add cripples not on layout?
Seems to me that if anything else were necessary to account for large spans or heavy loading, it would be more effective to double the kings.
"Citius, Altius, Fortius"
hmmmmm... maybe joe will set us straightMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
I'm with you, Heck. The cripples replace the full length studs on layout that were removed for the opening. If it was wall instead of header, just studs on layout would be used. The double jacks under the header carry the header load, the cripples directly above the jacks do not carry any load unless they are on layout or under a floor joist. Follow the load path down to the foundation. Joist, top plate, cripple, header, jack studs, bottom plate, subfloor, whatever else. If the cripple in question is not in this path, then it has no (or negligeble) load and the other cripples will do fine.Frank DuVal You can never make something foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
Correct but incomplete. Read my post (#40) and try to understand it.
DG/builder
Last time on this:
I understood your attempt at justifying the unnecessary cripples the first time.
What you are saying is that they are needed just in case someone forgot to fasten the header to the king, and that somehow an unusual load suddenly pushes down in the exact center of the header.
Don't think I will change your mind, and it is really not that important as it does no harm to the structure to add them.
Carry on.
"Citius, Altius, Fortius"
>>"Seems to me that if anything else were necessary to account for large spans or heavy loading, it would be more effective to double the kings.
The Kings take the lateral load. Might also add to vertical load bearing, but they are there to take the lateral load.
Seeking perfection in an imperfect world is a fool's errand. Making something look perfect is a whole 'nother story . . . .
Phil:
A few times I have had carpenters leave out one of doubled, tripled, etc jacks that were specified on the plans. The bummer was that an expensive 2 ply LVL would need to be trashed for a replacement that was 1.5, or 3", etc longer. Also, window & siding & etc removal would be involved. The fix delivered by the engineer who stamped the plans for the jobs was to add kings and add some more spikes.
Not the best of situations, but I have to deduce that some of the header load is picked up by the kings.
Nailed in place metal mending plates can also be used to transfer header loads to kings, but you probably already knew that.
Yeah, I agree that if you can transfer the vertical load to the kings, then adding kings adds to the vertical strength of the assembly. In the usual configuration, though, it's the jacks (I sometimes call them trimmers -- tomatoe, tomahto) that really take the vertical load.
Adding kings and spikes is another idea I will tuck away for when the BI gets ornery. Thanks.
Seeking perfection in an imperfect world is a fool's errand. Making something look perfect is a whole 'nother story . . . .
Heck, doubling the Kings is often more important than doubling the jacks that support the header! We used to have to do that with one particular builder that overengineered everything and we'd follow the section drawings. When someone would challenge our doubled king with a single jack, they'd be shocked to see that we were simply following the engineered specs!
I acutally saw one detail from a Pulte plan that called for SIX KINGS!
blue
Mike, your explantion is the most logical that I've ever heard, but it still doesn't make sense unless there is some weight directly over those doubled cripples. Nine times out of ten, there is only air above them.
blue
Any cripple that is not on layout or directly supporting a point load is unnecessary
That's my theory too Heck.
I've had inspectors point out a lack of cripples next to the king stud and when I asked them what they would be supporting, they looked above the top plates and saw air, and then dropped the discussion.
I really don't know if I'm right or wrong about this particular part, but I just eliminate them because I can't see a need. I've been wrong before though!
blue
Foul! Foul! Milkbones for all participants, or you're gonna lose your credibility!"he...never charged nothing for his preaching, and it was worth it, too" - Mark Twain
Hey Blue,
It's just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth. But I think that posting a picture of someone else's work up on the web and starting a thread dedicated to picking it apart is a pretty lousy thing to do. Call it a 'contest' or whatever you want, but it's still lousy if you ask me.
I think you owe Joe a little more than a milkbone.View Image
dedicated to picking it apart
Nice innuendo!
Diesel, I detected your wrath in your original post, and I chose to ignore it. I probably should ignore it now too but I feel you are taking this entire exercise in the wrong light.
Lets suffice to say that not everyone is interested in being a minimalist and reducing the amount of lumber and time that goes into a frame. I'm sure that even if this was the situation that I thought it was, a full 50% of the fine homebuilders would not agree with what I normally do. I was tossing it out there for those that care about our spotted owls and are willing to look "out of the box" at something as simple as a framed archway.
I could have posted a picture of my own frame, but the typical framing that is pictured in Joe's wouldn't be there, would it. Joe's frame is typical and probably 90% of the framers in here do it that way and there's nothing wrong with it. I do things my way and I'm not wrong and he does things his way, and he's not wrong.
What is wrong is when everyone gets defensive when we attempt to discuss anything about anything. Do we now have to be politically sensitive about rough frames?!!! Sorry I'm not.
I did think twice about posting that pic of Joes, then thought...he's a framer...surely he's not too sensitive about discussing alternative methods of framing an arch? Maybe I should have asked him first? Possibly, but I kinda figure that if he wanted that picture to be kept private, he wouldn't have posted it.
We make an arch by framing a square hole and leaving it. The drywall amigos cover the hole with a big piece of board and draw the arch on the board. Then they cut out the arch, fill in the bottom with some short pieces of meetal stud,bend a strip of drywall for the bottom and put the corner bead on. Done.
In the heat of the firestorm started by BlueEyedDevil (which he claims is unintentional, but with a screen name like that, I know better), this great suggestion almost got lost. If your drywall sub is up to it, it sounds like a great way to save time. When I think of all those time-eating arches I've cut out of plywood, with countless tiny little blocks nailed fastidiously in place..."he...never charged nothing for his preaching, and it was worth it, too" - Mark Twain
huck.... i first posted here about '99, maybe '98
first thing that happened was blue and draganic busted my chops
i've been posting with them ever since....i've met both personally
lemme tell ya.. they both have good hearts and would not set out to belittle anyone...and they are both fairly blunt
have you learned anything from this thread ? i have..
thanks to all who participate..
when someone steps over the line, i think the injured party will let them know
and i also appreciate brian stepping up for justice, it's a big motivator for me... justice
anyways.. i assume you have your tongue in your cheek , or is that a fireball ?
give & take, yin & yang, what goes around comes around...
Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Yeah, my comment was tongue-in-cheek. You might not have picked up on it, but I think Blue would have, since we had a conversation about this awhile back. We all call him "Blue" for short, but one poster shortened it to "Devil" instead. I told him I liked that nickname better for him, and he told me he did too. Said he liked that 'rough-edge' it gave to his persona, or something to that effect. I actually saw and felt both sides of the interchange betw him and DP, because I've been on both sides, at one time or another.
I always learn here. That's why I keep hangin' around!"he...never charged nothing for his preaching, and it was worth it, too" - Mark Twain
nudder ting.. i get confused about some on-line personnas :
huck, heck, alias, doug, dgbldr.. i can't really sort them out..
but i know who blue, jeff buck , doud, blodgett , t8 , dieselpig ...jerrald .
hell, i even know who sancho & intrepid cat are by now...
i think we need scorecards and programs
"Get 'cher redhots ! "
Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
You will save beaucoup $$$$ if you buy precuts long enuf that you don't need 8 plates???
Mr. T.
There's a steering-wheel in me pants and it's driving me nuts!!!
Now maybe if Blue wanted to comment on the size of the debris pile...View Image
Jon Blakemore
RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette!"he...never charged nothing for his preaching, and it was worth it, too" - Mark Twain
That's not a debris pile. That is a staging area for pieces of lumber that they have not yet found a use for.=0)
Geekbox hero who once visited the glass city.
I have framed a knats arse's amount to the most of you carrying this conversation but besides building up an area around say a pair of 3 - 0 pocket doors I like to build up the kings for blocking some wider casings
isn`t the header located to low to put the arch in......
OK - so I got the discussions about moving the header up, the disadvantage to a flush header, the controversy about the side cripples above the jacks, but how would you build the arch?
Frame down with some more cripples that were ripped to 2.5", take 2 piece of plywood (assuming a =< 8' opening) and cut out the arcs, nail them up to the cripples, and then add a number of 2.5" blocks along the bottom edge, or what?
And I'm not interested in the milkbones, just interested in how you would do it...
Edited 3/5/2006 10:12 am ET by Matt
Matt, that's typically how I frame curved arches. I rip 1x material and sandwhich it between osb forms.
When I said the word arch, I wasn't thinking in terms of curved, round, elliptical arches. I was simply thinking that it was a rectangular shaped arch. That opening would be labled an "arch" on our plans, if it didn't receive doors.
On that particular type of opening, leading to a study, we normally frame it in for french doors, even if it calls for an arch (level arch). That way, if the homeowner later decides to put french doors in, the opening will be prepped for it. That would have been a secondary tip.
blue
Go to Home Depot- I think they have some 2 x 6's almost curved into and arch- of course they are supposed to be straight.
DP