Home constructions questions

Hello, I am having a house built in South Carolina by a large home builder and have seen some issues with a couple of things and have been told several reasons by the builder but haven't gotten a straight answer. I would like some help here.
First - there are studs that have a saw cut halfway through them on a downward 45 degree angle, there were nails put in upward just below the cut and a 2 foot board nailed along side of the stud. I have been told that those were the board that were being replace. I was also told that they do that to remove any bending or twisting in the studs, this seemed more logical but for the fact that I see several studs that had obvious bends or twists that this was not done to. Also on one wall where the studs looked to be in pretty good shape, they did it to every stud in the wall. Can anyone give me a reason for doing this and is it a standard building practice.
Second - When they built the 10x10 deck on the back of the house they nailed a 2" x 2" on to the bottom edge of the ledger board and the deck joists sit on that board and were toenailed to the ledger. I thought everyone used joist hangers when building decks. My wife was told that this method made the deck stronger then when hangers were used. I said then why did they use hangers when the put our floor joist in the house? I am not familiar with SC building codes but question this practice and would like the correct answer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Reply inline below:

Seen this done with studs with excessive crowns/bowing. Does nothing for twisting. If studs have excessive bowing, and/or twisting, they should have be replaced with suitable studs at time of original framing of the wall. Its a patchwork fix for someone in a hurry.
Usually, if such is done on a given wall, its because it has a long run where bowing would be obvious. Closets and other small spaces, not so obvious, may be left alone. Again, someone in a hurry. Can't do it right the first time.
Normally, the framers eyeball the studs, and throw the unsuitables in a pile to exchange for suitables from the lumber supplier. Again, someone in a hurry.

Standard practice before joist hangers came along. The joist should have a cutout for the 2X2 on its bottom. The top of the joists should be even across. The bottom may have some unevenness due to dimensional lumber not always perfect in size from board to board. If the framer did not account for this, the top of the joists may be slightly uneven. Forgivable as joist hangers do the same thing. Have seen a form of bridging at the ledger board between the joists in some cases.
Unaware of any building code for S.C. Last I looked in TX, its specified IRC 2001 minimum, with the local municipalities (10,000 or more population) making their own building code based on that. Dave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
South Carolina uses the 2003 IRC, with 2005 NEC.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And the locale where the original poster uses what specific building code other than specifically IRC 2003? If you don't know what I mean, see previously what I said about Texas municipalities. Dave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sorry Dave, I don't understand your point. He said he was having a home built in South Carolina. South Caroilna uses the 2003 IRC statewide with very few amendments. I can't see what requirements Texas has, that could possibly impact home construction in South Carolina. (I'm licensed in Texas and do work in both states.)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Is SC imposing IRC 2003 on municipalities, municipalities unable to make such more strict locally? IE - not a minimum standard, it is the standard. Or, is the municipality in SC allowed to legislate locally stricter standards? If so, IRC 2003 may not be the rule here in this specific case. That is my point. Dave

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I believe that South Carolina is a mandatory standard (state wide). More-and-more that seems to be the trend.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@wachovia.com wrote:

Certainly not "standard practice".
The correction of some bow or twist is (barely) plausible; it would be far more likely a framing crew would throw it out and use other stock rather than take the time to cut and add the cripple since (unless they're an hourly crew of the builder) they get paid on a piecework basis.
The room that has them all that way would make me question both stories. My guess would be they had a stack of framing lumber that somebody used as a sawhorse and cut through them while trimming for an angle cut on some other stock. Then, they had a bunch of studs w/ a kerf across them they needed to use up.
Whether it's is significant will depend in part on whether you're close enough to coast to be in a hurricane zone and whether they're exterior or interior walls.

That's BS and cheap, tract-housing construction and needs correcting. A deck of that construction in the KC area failed just a couple of months ago during the opening weekend open house and killed at least two, iirc, with several other serious injuries.
I certainly don't know what Code, if any, is in force in SC, but you should immediately contact whoever issued the building permit and find out what is Code and follow up imo.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The studs were cut to remove a bow in the wall. The 2' piece is called a "scab." A few of these here and there are not atypical. However, that wall where every stud was cut should be looked at carefully. If it is a load bearing interior wall, some straight studs can be installed next to the cut studs. If it is an exterior wall, replacement would be better as doubled studs affects your insulation.
The deck was built with joists that are resting on "bond timber." Dave talks about a 2x2 cut out on the bottom of the joist. Since this is a deck, you probably won't have that cut out. Most likely, the "band" of the deck is one size larger than the joists. So, on a 10x10 from a large home builder, you probably have 2x10 band and 2x8 joists resting on 2x2 bond timber. The only problem I see with your description is the 2x2. The code requires a minimum 2" bond timber. A 2x2 that is used for "balusters" or "pickets" is not actually 2". This is a common code violation around here, and I've learned to watch out for it. Also, there should be 3 nails in the bond timber below each joist.
You should ignore the response by dpb. Calling this method "cheap, tract-house construction" absolutely incorrect.
Shannon Pate ASP Home Building, Inc.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Shannon Pate wrote: ...

...
If, as I think OP said, the deck joists are simply resting on a nominal 2x2 ledger and only toenailed into the rim joist, I stand by my characterization.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I've not ever heard it called a bond timber. I do know and use the term ledger strip. It is a very normal and time honored method of carrying joists long before joist hangers.
I agree, there is absolutely nothing shoddy or 2nd rate about the method. Joist hangers could be argued to be faster, cheaper, and easier except for the ones on the ends of the rim joist.
--
______________________________
Keep the whole world singing . . . .
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Go with the flow, I'll top post this time.
Many decades ago when I was framing, a 2X2 birdmouth at the bottom was common on joists. They road on 2X2s. Actual 1.5"X1.5". The ledger board was that measurement as well. Was done both internally and on external decks. The carrying beam was either doubled with 1/2" plywood inbetween minimum/tripled/ or doubled with 1/2" steel between. The width of the beam timber depended on the joist width (IE - largest number in 2X?). The joist width depended on it run. The joists were same lumber (2X?) as the beams. Those homes still stand today.
I find some discrepancy in 2X8 resting on an actual 2" piece of lumber attached to a 2X10 beam vs. the height of the beam and the height of the joist at the top. Dave

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.