GBA Logo horizontal Facebook LinkedIn Email Pinterest Twitter Instagram YouTube Icon Navigation Search Icon Main Search Icon Video Play Icon Plus Icon Minus Icon Picture icon Hamburger Icon Close Icon Sorted

Community and Q&A

Single versus double header for energy-efficient framing

ranson | Posted in Green Building Techniques on

There are two headers that I could use for a short span in a 2×6 wall: one 2×10, or two 2×6’s. With the 2×10, I would fill the open space with cellulose on the inside. With the 2×6’s, I would sandwich in a 2.5″ layer of rigid foam. Since code would require the 2×10 header to be boxed in with 2×6 plates, it seems like the doubled 2×6 header will present less of a thermal bridge and use less wood.

Am I missing anything? I’ve seen a number of sources suggest single member headers to improve efficiency, but the code requirement for extra plates seems to make them worse.

–John

GBA Prime

Join the leading community of building science experts

Become a GBA Prime member and get instant access to the latest developments in green building, research, and reports from the field.

Replies

  1. GBA Editor
    Martin Holladay | | #1

    John,
    If you are correct that the code requires single 2x10 headers to be boxed in with 2x6 plates -- I was unaware of that requirement -- then you're right about the thermal bridging being worse with the 2x10 option.

    It may be worth noting that the double 2x6 option (assuming the use of polyiso) also results in a higher R-value for the header area (ignoring the plates). The R-value of the insulation in this area (ignoring the R-value of the header lumber) is about R-16 for 2.5 inches of polyiso vs. R-14.8 for 4 inches of cellulose.

  2. ranson | | #2

    Hi Martin,

    Thanks for confirming my thoughts.

    FYI, the code reference for boxing in single member headers is IRC 2015 R602.7.1: "Single headers shall be framed with a single flat 2-inch-nominal (51mm) member or wall plate not less in width than the wall studs on the top and bottom of the header [...]"

    --John

  3. user-2310254 | | #3

    John. Are you using advanced framing techniques? That's what I did on my home and really didn't run into any issues with code enforcement. Of course, I didn't have to worry about snow load, hurricanes, or earthquakes (in all probability).

    FYI. Martin has an article on advanced framing here: https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/musings/pros-and-cons-advanced-framing

  4. ranson | | #4

    Hi Steve,

    I am using advanced framing techniques. It sounds like I've got a few more worries where I'm building. We've got a 40psf ground snow load here, and the house will be on a 19 acre open field exposed to the wind.

    I want my design to be pretty much entirely by the book so I don't have any issues with the building department. Breaking with tradition and building slab-on-grade is enough to get the stink eye here.

    --John

  5. Expert Member
    MALCOLM TAYLOR | | #5

    John,
    Code requirements aside, I'm having trouble imagining how you could frame an exterior wall using single headers without including a plate above and below them. The one above is needed to attach the cripples between it and the top plates, The one below to frame the opening.

  6. ranson | | #6

    Malcolm,

    I agree. I don't see how a single member header would work without the plates. It seems like this portion of advanced framing is perhaps misguided.

    --John

  7. Expert Member
    MALCOLM TAYLOR | | #7

    John,
    Maybe it's because I came from a framing background but I don't think any of the benefits of advanced framing outweigh the downsides.

Log in or create an account to post an answer.

Community

Recent Questions and Replies

  • |
  • |
  • |
  • |