# Headers not flush - 2x6 walls



## BoRegard (Oct 3, 2017)

Hi, new member here. I?m building a house and hired a GC. Framing is in progress and I noticed the window and door headers are not flush. We are using 2x6?s for all exterior walls. I brought it up to the GC and his response was:

?Those will be furred out with plywood when all the backing and blocking is done.?

I?m not sure what this means and also not sure why they didn?t follow the blue prints which call for 1/2? plywood between the 2x12?s. Thoughts? Advice? Would you complain more or is the GC?s plan sufficient?

Thanks,
BoRegard


----------



## BIG Johnson (Apr 9, 2017)

BoRegard said:


> Hi, new member here. I?m building a house and hired a GC. Framing is in progress and I noticed the window and door headers are not flush. We are using 2x6?s for all exterior walls. I brought it up to the GC and his response was:
> 
> ?Those will be furred out with plywood when all the backing and blocking is done.?
> 
> ...



That's standard practice around here. It's fine.

If you put 2 layers of 7/16" or 1/2" osb in there, it would be swelled up to 1-1/4 or more by the time the house is dried in. Then the header would stick out. Framers around here never fill that in. Drywall CBS. Float over that. Ideally you'd put foam insulation in there before drywall though.


----------



## Nealtw (Jun 22, 2017)

You are building with wet lumber. as it drys it shrinks, plywood in between does not shrink.
Where I live a normal header would be 2 ply 2x10 and any space left over is left for insulation. Plans can call for more like you have but we never add plywood and never fill the space.


----------



## ron45 (Feb 25, 2014)

They should have followed the blue prints.
If the blueprints were not followed who authorized the change and why.
The change needs to be in writing, and or the drawing corrected or amended.
Should the inspector become aware of this he could ( if he finds it unacceptable and doesn't meet code ) simply not pass it.

Just my opinion.
That is not acceptable and doesn't meet code.
It calls for a 2 x 12 header with 1/2 ply between ( the norm where I'm from) If there's a second floor.
Still, you can't just up and change from the plans.


----------



## NotyeruncleBob (Mar 9, 2017)

ron45 said:


> They should have followed the blue prints.
> If the blueprints were not followed who authorized the change and why.
> The change needs to be in writing, and or the drawing corrected or amended.
> Should the inspector become aware of this he could ( if he finds it unacceptable and doesn't meet code ) simply not pass it.
> ...


They most likely did follow the plans where the headers are called out with a nominal size and "typ" or as typical. The plans also aren't go to say when the 1/2" ply needs to go in, and as Neal and Johnson have pointed out it's standard practice to do it this way so that the ply/OSB isn't getting wet before the house is dried in. This will pass inspection just fine, but if it were me, I'd be using an insulated header wherever possible.


----------



## BoRegard (Oct 3, 2017)

NotyeruncleBob said:


> ron45 said:
> 
> 
> > They should have followed the blue prints.
> ...


See attached pic taken directly from the plans. Seems pretty clear to me. Do you agree?


----------



## Nealtw (Jun 22, 2017)

That might be on the plan but may not be called for in your area and sometimes it is frowned on.
The more important info would be the nail pattern to be used and how many jack studs under them.


----------



## KC_Jones (Dec 1, 2014)

I'm with @ron45 on this one. Some state how it's done in their area. I can say where I live the plywood is standard and honestly I have never seen it done without the plywood. The blueprints are made for a reason, they are to be followed unless found in error. If an error is found it should be addressed in writing before work continues.

If the contract states to build to the print the GC is essentially in breach of the contract at this point. This is what you found, what else might they not be following?


----------



## jlhaslip (Dec 31, 2009)

Like Neal, the practice around here is to go without the plywood spacer.
If you research the topic in other sources on the Interwebs, I think you will find that the plywood does very little from an Engineering perspective. 

Fill the space with Styrofoam insulation and you will be fine. Subject to your local AHJ allowing it.


----------



## chandler48 (Jun 5, 2017)

One more opinion in the fray. If it was called for on the plans it must be followed. No room for interpretation. We can't leave a gaping hole like that in a header. It is obviously a regional thing. I have never had OSB or plywood "swell" to oversize the header......ever. I honestly don't see how a sandwiched piece of plywood could swell when the outer pieces are nailed/screwed together. 

Go with the blueprints or it will bite you later.


----------



## carpdad (Oct 11, 2010)

Is this (btw, only this and not generalizing into entire build) worth nit picking and possibly arguing over the competence?, definitely not. It is good that you notice things, talk to your builder and then confirms the info. Your builder also gave you a reasonable reply. A blueprint can't say everything about the build, it's impossible. A builder comes with experience who can look at a plan and comes up with own schedule. 
What your builder did is normal, following the plan, and shows experience. It is not even technicality.
Insulation must not be sandwiched to make a header. Rigid boards are not structural enough to tie smaller lumber together to make bigger lumber.


----------



## chandler48 (Jun 5, 2017)

Structurally not worth nitpicking. But if the plans and drawings called for something different, the builder is in error. There is no latitude in that respect. Furthering the builder's taking of liberties is reflected in the window transoms thread. http://www.diychatroom.com/f19/sufficient-headers-large-windows-551337/


----------



## robl (Oct 5, 2017)

inferior framing,


----------



## NotyeruncleBob (Mar 9, 2017)

chandler48 said:


> Structurally not worth nitpicking. But if the plans and drawings called for something different, the builder is in error. *There is no latitude in that respect. * Furthering the builder's taking of liberties is reflected in the window transoms thread. http://www.diychatroom.com/f19/sufficient-headers-large-windows-551337/


That's a pretty absolutist approach. In real life though there's a lot of instances where the builder must deviate from the specifics of the plan in order to build the house correctly. Yes, sometimes the plans are wrong, sometimes the builder is wrong, sometimes the inspector will require something else, but typically there just isn't some detail or things in the field need to be adjusted because the architect just can't think of everything. 
Having OSB/Plywood in that spot might be on the plans, but if the framers know that putting it in before the roof is on results in it swelling from water, they might not put it in until the roof is on. Is that wrong? Under the absolutist ideal it is, and you'd get swelled up OSB and a header that sits proud of the wall and needs to be fixed later. 
It's still a good idea to keep an eye on the progress and ask questions.


----------



## chandler48 (Jun 5, 2017)

I have worked commercial construction a few times and it is an eye opener when it comes to specifications. You do not deviate without the plans being initialed by the engineer and architect. For that type work and the liability that goes with it, I understand. But having an absolutist approach can save your butt later on if the builder decides to cut corners (like the window post) and causes a failure. The header is a non issue, but the builder's integrity is, considering what we have seen on the same house, twice.


----------



## woodworkbykirk (Sep 25, 2011)

im in canada along with neil.. packing headers with plywood is not required and we have some of the strictest codes in the world. we dont have to deal with seismic however we do have severe snow and wind loads along with hurricane codes depending on the region.. 

the only time we pack headers with plywood is if its a massive opening and we want to achieve a thickess that stays within the wall space where a 3 ply lvl will not..

if something is spec'd its by a engineer not always by the one who drew the plans.. its very common for homeowners to get plans drawn up for additions by designers NOT ARCHITECTS... so the gc has to have a engineer look things over anyway. you have to follow the engineers specs not the designers


----------



## 123pugsy (Oct 6, 2012)

I see 3 - 2x12's.
Plans call for 2 - 2x12's and plywood. 
What's the problem?

Space for insulation is great. Drywall will span 11-1/4" w/o support.


----------



## sixeightten (Feb 10, 2009)

chandler48 said:


> One more opinion in the fray. If it was called for on the plans it must be followed. No room for interpretation. We can't leave a gaping hole like that in a header. It is obviously a regional thing. I have never had OSB or plywood "swell" to oversize the header......ever. I honestly don't see how a sandwiched piece of plywood could swell when the outer pieces are nailed/screwed together.
> 
> Go with the blueprints or it will bite you later.


I disagree with you here, as I have seen it way too often. A lot of it has to do with climate. Here in the northeast, if framing during the winter or spring, the swelling will happen. When it does, you are left with headers sticking out past the wall and then the fun really begins. 

As for the pic on the print, that is just basic boilerplate Archy stuff. The ply or osb does nothing. If an engineer specs it out, that is one thing, but what he shows there is not specific to that house. It does take a little more work to go back and furr it out later, but in the end you will get a much better product.


----------



## chandler48 (Jun 5, 2017)

Not sure why you would "disagree" with me, then agree in the second paragraph. It WAS spec'd by the prints. If it had to do with geographic regions, the engineer should have been aware. There are no what if's. Either the prints and specs are changed or it goes as it was written.

Just because uncle joe did it back in his day doesn't preclude the engineer's drawings and prints. Local custom as it is, sometimes works, and sometimes it won't. Don't be caught with out of spec construction when the insurance claim is filed for a failure (not saying this would cause a failure), but other skirting of issues in the drawings could cause problems.


----------



## sixeightten (Feb 10, 2009)

chandler48 said:


> Not sure why you would "disagree" with me, then agree in the second paragraph. It WAS spec'd by the prints. If it had to do with geographic regions, the engineer should have been aware. There are no what if's. Either the prints and specs are changed or it goes as it was written.
> 
> Just because uncle joe did it back in his day doesn't preclude the engineer's drawings and prints. Local custom as it is, sometimes works, and sometimes it won't. Don't be caught with out of spec construction when the insurance claim is filed for a failure (not saying this would cause a failure), but other skirting of issues in the drawings could cause problems.


Let me clarify.

I will never again frame a 2x6 wall with any plywood or osb between the headers. I work a lot with engineers and architects. All that I have worked with are in agreement here. Any archy who would spec that and make me stick with it is someone I would not work with. I have seen with my own eyes what happens in our climate when that method is used. I have also dealt with fixing it.


----------



## sixeightten (Feb 10, 2009)

Go back and look at that schematic. That was not spec'd by an engineer. 

"Standard" loads? Give me a break.


----------



## miamicuse (Nov 13, 2011)

NotyeruncleBob said:


> That's a pretty absolutist approach. In real life though there's a lot of instances where the builder must deviate from the specifics of the plan in order to build the house correctly. Yes, sometimes the plans are wrong, sometimes the builder is wrong, sometimes the inspector will require something else, but typically there just isn't some detail or things in the field need to be adjusted because the architect just can't think of everything.


I am not experienced in residential construction, but my day job is highway and drainage engineering. We had to deal with a lot of regulatory agencies, at the state and local levels. I have to agree with those who believe this is an issue. Not from a structural standpoint but not following the spec is an issue.

"sometimes the plans are wrong, sometimes the builder is wrong, sometimes the inspector will require something else, but typically there just isn't some detail or things in the field need to be adjusted because the architect just can't think of everything." that's exactly why there are plans to begin with is to eliminate the ambiguity. We don't think of the plans as what the engineers' dictated, but what the engineers' initially proposed, and after plan reviews and revisions, approvals, the plans become a document everyone ALL AGREED on. If the plans are wrong, then everyone agreed on being wrong, including the architect, owner, building plan reviews, and the GC who bidded on the project based on the document. Any deviation should have been raised and mutually agreed on. If the GC had come to me or the architect first and proposed to skip the filler, that would be one thing but if I had to catch it myself I would be wondering what other deviations are there?

If I were the owner, I would definitely have a conversation with the GC and not only to get an explanation but also to make sure that things don't go off track in the future. What if the next thing he does is to decide to use CPVC supply pipes through out the house instead of the spec'ed type L copper? It still works and it's much easier to install and much cheaper materials...so it's OK?


----------



## SeniorSitizen (Sep 10, 2012)

That's a cost/time saving shortcut and the drywall will go right over what you see.

Speaking of drywall, you better watch for cost/time saving shortcuts there as well or expect cracks above each door and window.


----------



## chandler48 (Jun 5, 2017)

> Any archy who would spec that and make me stick with it is someone I would not work with.


You have that option. All I am saying, as Miamicuse stated, is everyone must be in agreement on any changes to specs. If not, you can get into trouble later on. Just because one thing is interpreted by a carpenter to be too much trouble, what is to say he will not go and do everything in the house that way? You can't have it both ways.


----------



## BIG Johnson (Apr 9, 2017)

blueprints call out spacing with plywood because they want the header lumber laminated. They don't want gaps between laminations. Pushing the structural (2x or LVL) laminations together accomplishes that but it leaves you with a cavity. In OP picture, that cavity is inconsequential because the header is some distance above the window opening. In some cases headers are directly above the window which would leave nothing to nail drywall or trim to. Those need ~3" strips of plywood to fill in above the window. 

You could have sheets of 1/4" osb delivered to use for laminating headers but that's extra cost and time. As long as there are no girder trusses bearing on a header, your code books span table will tell you what you need. If there are going to be girders bearing on headers, your lumber yards engineer needs to resize the header anyways. Span tables and most blueprints are worthless.


----------



## XSleeper (Sep 23, 2007)

chandler48 said:


> All I am saying, as Miamicuse stated, is everyone must be in agreement on any changes to specs. If not, you can get into trouble later on.


That's spot on. Otherwise a $12 hr carpenter could overrule a $150 hr architect. The carpenter could think, I wanna do it this way... it's only a minor change. Or... I don't see what it will hurt if this is 1/2" smaller than the print shows.

It's why the architects make the big bucks, and it's why they often get upset if you deviate from the plans without asking them. If something in the field doesn't match the plans you usually need to communicate that, and they usually determine the best course of action. 

Now, if the architect provides the prints and is in agreement that the details in the drawings are "typical"... in other words, what is usually done (an example of how it might be done) but your experience has shown that he is not the type that sweats the details as long as the end result is not inferior, then there may be room for some "artistic license".

Depends what it is, of course. I suppose some prints are "worthless" like Big Johnson says.

At any rate, I have seen some framers leave space inside on a 2x6 wall header for foam insulation. A practice more common in cold climates than warm.


----------



## BIG Johnson (Apr 9, 2017)

> Depends what it is, of course. I suppose some prints are "worthless" like Big Johnson says.




I said worthless if they are drawn up fir a stick framed roof and the roof was changed to trussed. If the plans call out every header to be 2-2x12 and you have a giant girder truss centered over the header, chances are the print will be wrong and so will span tables. 


Most house blueprints are not drawn by real architects. And the $12/hr carpenter better be doing what the foreman says.


----------



## woodworkbykirk (Sep 25, 2011)

BIG Johnson said:


> I said worthless if they are drawn up fir a stick framed roof and the roof was changed to trussed. If the plans call out every header to be 2-2x12 and you have a giant girder truss centered over the header, chances are the print will be wrong and so will span tables.
> 
> 
> Most house blueprints are not drawn by real architects. And the $12/hr carpenter better be doing what the foreman says.


very good points. here if a girder truss lands over top of a header, nominal lumber will not pass.. it has to be switched to lvl which has double jacks under each end of it


----------



## carpdad (Oct 11, 2010)

All this assumes the plan specs are absolute last word. How do I know what the planner knows? Planner may know that the "traditional" practice was to sandwich the ply to match the stud width, not for additional load caps, and just drew it in. I think also that if the ply is for additional load caps, it has to be protected from weather.
This is why the builder has to have the experience. Blindly following the plan is no guarantee.


----------



## ront02769 (Nov 28, 2008)

Speaking strictly standard residential construction, basic Windows and doors, etc., Plywood/osb in the header is not for strength, just for filling out the space. Basically go read any header table and it is going to call out the dimensionL lumber (e.g. (2) 2x8 ) and give you the required number of jack studs but it will contain nothing about "plywood".


----------



## NotyeruncleBob (Mar 9, 2017)

miamicuse said:


> I am not experienced in residential construction, but my day job is highway and drainage engineering. We had to deal with a lot of regulatory agencies, at the state and local levels. I have to agree with those who believe this is an issue. Not from a structural standpoint but not following the spec is an issue.


I am not experienced in highway drainage engineering, but I am fairly experienced in residential construction. I don't doubt for a second that when building a highway or a jet engine, that you need to follow the specs to the letter or go through the chain for confirmation before any changes are attempted. But this isn't a case of engineered drainage, jet engine building, or even commercial construction. 
The reality is that residential construction isn't nearly as comprehensive in the plans as these other fields where the plans are absolute. 
You do have to follow the engineering details to the letter like nailing patterns for shear panels, spec'd metal connectors, point load details, etc. But, there are a few places where the details don't always match the reality on the ground. Floor joists will be every 16" but that will put an I joist smack dab where the toilet drain needs to go, so what then? Follow the framing plan and no toilet? Move the wet wall? Stop all work and call the architect, engineer and planning department? 




miamicuse said:


> If I were the owner, I would definitely have a conversation with the GC and not only to get an explanation but also to make sure that things don't go off track in the future. What if the next thing he does is to decide to use CPVC supply pipes through out the house instead of the spec'ed type L copper? It still works and it's much easier to install and much cheaper materials...so it's OK?


The plans in front of me right now are pretty detailed compared to most, including 8 pages of engineering specs and details in the plans plus another 50 pages of engineering calculations attached to the approved plan set. So, guess how many pages of plumbing details are in there? Zero.
I completely agree that the owner needs to communicate with the builder and double check that it's being built right and following the agreed specs, and I guess this is why we're all having this conversation now. 
Packing out the header with OSB or ply is not a structural concern. It's also not even clear if the builder is just waiting to be dried in before installing ply to avoid moisture swelling it, so it could all be a moot point anyway. 
The real point here is that yes, in general, and in most cases, the plans need to be followed, but there are some points at which minor deviations are not only acceptable, but warranted and the right thing to do. The trick is to know when.


----------



## ron45 (Feb 25, 2014)

What does the building inspector say.?


----------



## 123pugsy (Oct 6, 2012)

ron45 said:


> What does the building inspector say.?


When he sees 3 without plywood instead of two with plywood, I'm sure he'll say nothing.

The whole cavity doesn't need to be filled to meet code.


----------

