You are exactly the reason I decided not to pursue my career as a licensed architect. You fit the profile of about 90 % of the architects I deal with. You treat everyone as if they’re incompetent and helpless without your “wisdom” and you must always be right. I’m sorry those kids bullied you and beat you up in college, but perhaps there’s an outreach program of some sort that could help you better integrate with other members of society. In the mean time, we’ll wait for pictures of historic square nails vs. modern round and your subsequent comparison of their inherent shear strength properties.
bahahaha
you must be reading a different thread than me…allow me to summarize…
how i see it is i asked an innocent question early on regarding the structure pictured since it appeared to be undersized. those suspicions were confirmed. at that time you gave the somewhat harmless (although ineffective) advice of gluing the corners as a means for making up for the lack of additional studs- i said nothing about this.
the OP and i went on to have a discussion as to why he might be required to have studs at 16oc instead of 24oc based on the requirements of the building code not my personal opinion or some made up standard of construction… at which point you again suggested gluing the corners as a solution. to save the OP the additional time and expense of pursuing such a pointless solution i indicated that a cheaper and more effective solution would be to add horizontal blocking behind all unsupported plywood edges…you continued with your glue solution…
you then inquired as to my professional background and proceeded to deride my experience and knowledge because of it…
i’m not going to have a guy who twice gives useless advice on a matter start questioning my knowledge of that subject. i don’t need to be right and i wasn’t treating you as an incompetent until you felt the need to question the validity of my knowledge based solely upon my professional background. you are the only one here who has given entirely wrong advice on this thread…i’m sorry you are upset that someone pointed it out in hopes of saving the OP wasted money, time and effort.
Less talk more pics.
Not up to code, code requirements, required by code, code code code code code.
Quote it suckas! 
Seriously BLAH BLAH BLAH Code, wouldn’t the inspector that is signing off on all of this be the one to determine if it is up to code or not?
I’m sure I’m looking at the wrong code, but here’s one that shows the exact damn same spacing requirements for 2x4’s and 2x6’s in load bearing walls supporting only roof and ceiling. (24")
http://publicecodes.citation.com/st/ny/st/b200v10/st_ny_st_b200v10_23_sec008_par025.htm
:ohyeah:
---------- Post added at 10:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 AM ----------
Granted in limitations it says “2. Maximum floor-to-floor height shall not exceed 11 feet 7 inches (3531 mm). Bearing wall height shall not exceed a stud height of 10 feet (3048 mm).”
But it also says if you exceed the above limitation you just have to make sure your engineering is solid “2308.1.1 Portions exceeding limitations of conventional construction. When portions of a building of otherwise conventional construction exceed the limits of Section 2308.2, these portions and the supporting load path shall be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice and the provisions of this code.”
So yeah, assuming this garage falls into general light frame construction, 24" spacing is fine. The >10’ height exceeds the code, but if you really need to you could probably run some calcs to show that your loading falls within 15 PSF or some such shit that I’m sure Slo Ride can do for you.
that is in fact the final issue at hand…the code enforcement officer/official for your municipality is the one responsable for reviewing your design documentation prior to providing a building permit for construction, he is the same person who comes out to inspect during and after construction, and the same person who has the final say on whether or not you are granted a certificate of occupancy closing out the permit and allowing use of the structure. The code itself has no real bearing on the situation, it is how that specific individual intreprets the code and what he feels the code says your building requires within the rules/regulations of your state and local municipality.
Everything Slo Ride posted is true and pertinent…but not necessarily going to be “required” by the local code enforcement office…I’ve seen people go in with a napkin they sketched on with a pencil and get a permit…
1QikZ also knows his shit, in-feild contractor experience is equally as valuable as an architect’s…as long as it’s a competent contractor…I’ve got some SCARY pictures from an addition I designed where the contractor blatently ignored my design drawings and essentially built an addition that needed to be torn down and completely re-done…and boy was he pissed when I explained why what he did was completely rediculous and unacceptable.
(I have a degree in architecture, certified in NYS code enforcement, and work as a civil engineer) <- my internet-knowledge-dick wins LOL
that is only up to a 10’ height…this garage has a 12’ height…2’ doesn’t seem like much, but supporting a 32’ span with that extra 2’ is problemmatic
“a. Listed heights are distances between points of lateral support placed perpendicular to the plane of the wall. Increases in unsupported height are permitted where justified by an analysis.”
no analysis, not up to code.
EDIT: i see you found that for yourself
basically what this is saying is that your building can be approved if it is within the “prescriptive methods” (known/proven to be appropriate in the eyes of the state) of <24" OC spacing and <10’ wall height you can just submit design drawings…if it excedes the prescriptive methods, it needs to be of engineered design with approriate load calcs and diagrams sufficient to show the code enforcement official the designed method will perform equal to or better than the prescribed methods within the code.
Yep, you can either keep doing the same thing wrong or do it right the first time. There is no code involved in that thought process.
this is all true until something bad happens…code officials carry very little liability when push comes to shove. if there is a building failure that results in injury, death or property damage the code official is not going to be the one taken off to court unless it can be shown that they were reckless…such as those that have been caught in NYC over the past few years who were being paid off by contractors and it took a crane collapse to catch them.
an approved permit is not a release from liability for either the designer or the contractor…the code official never takes on the professional responsibility of either of those groups.
now in a residential setting such as this i would suggest the worst thing that is most likely to happen is some sort of insurance claim issue. say a big snow or wind storm comes through and takes out this garage full of cars and whatnot. the owner puts a claim into their insurance company. the insurance company seeing a claim for 10’s of thousands of dollars is looking to limit their exposure. they will investigate and if they determine that the structure was not compliant they will use that as a means to not pay the full coverage on the structure. the owner can hold up their approved permit all day but the insurance company doesn’t have to acknowledge that one bit… somewhere in your policy there is a rider about not covering non-compliant structures regardless of if they have an approved permit associated with them. the insurance company employs adjusters, engineers and architects who’s job it is to determine whether or not the company should be paying out on particular claims.
the owner will be upset with the inspector but all they can do is attempt to sue the municipality…good luck with that.
the likelihood that this will happen to the garage builder is slim but it is real… code officials do not take on liability for the construction they inspect. in a big failure they will likely be named in the lawsuit but they will not be culpable unless corruption or recklessness can be demonstrated.
…i thought civil engineers just design parking lots? 
that’s all true as well, all I’m saying in a perfect world all he needs is design calculations showing what the structure is meant/designed to handle. If the numbers that crunch out meet or exceed the numbers required by code, an insurance company is going to have an awful hard time disproving real math.
all he needs is design calcs.
i concur…but my gut feeling is that it wouldn’t be a good result…just with really fast and dirty math i think you end up with about 3/4 ton on each stud with just snow load and not counting any dead loads for weight of the trusses, roof sheathing, roofing, hanging lights, ceiling, garage doors in the up position…etc etc…you are probably around a ton on each stud…that doesn’t feel very good…
of course this is only under particular loading conditions…guessing 40psf snow load…on day 1 of completion in the summer it obviously won’t be experiencing these loads.
This guy sees no issue with your hypothetical
I like how not only is the truck being held up with 2x4’s but he’s also welding a gastank
atleast he was thinking and blocked the wheels so it won’t roll away
i work with architects everyday and i know exactly the personality you are talking about. i make sure to point out when they do something stupid after getting on my case for doing something they thought was incorrect.
when we put the addition on my garage we used 2x4’s 16" on center. 2x6’s 16" on center for the roof joists as well as for the “support” of the storage above. used plywood for the roof and walls. it will probably still be standing when the existing garage falls down.
It has been my experience that the suburban building departments will not issue a permit without plans (drawn to their liking) with the signed stamp of a NYS licensed engineer or architect. This does not prove the structure is aesthetic, functional, economically sound, or any derivation thereof. It is simply to release, or lessen the burden of liability on the town and it’s building department in the event of some form of failure. I have also had building inspectors change previously approved prints, under construction, because there was something they missed in their initial review of the prints. I am not saying your building inspector has no knowledge of construction, as many have more than you may know, but I find it unusual (but not unheard of) that he would review and approve a building permit based on his “OK” of the provided documentation.
I will only mention the “glue” issue this one last time. With the walls already framed and standing he was asking of a way to strengthen the walls prior to proceeding. Barring any applicable codes for stud spacing / size, live and dead loads on the roof system, lateral wind loads, horizontal seam blocking, and any other conjecture, adding additional fasteners or fastening products will not detract from the strength of the wall system. Studs support the vertical loads, sheathing adds lateral stability (with some vertical support). If the system gains strengths by joining of the two components, would it not stand to reason that the means of fastening itself is just as important? Whether or not it’s an economical stand or not, no one here will disagree with me (except for one who will go unnamed) that the addition of an adhesive will not be detrimental to the strength and stability of the wall system.
I believe the builder is looking for input, and in the end, will do as he pleases. Was the structure under designed? Possibly. Will he be tearing it down to rectify? Not likely. Will it withstand years of use? Most likely. Does it pass State and local building codes? Unknown. Can there be changes made from here forward to increase strength? Certainly.
^ well-summarized.