 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneralRural LivingHome AutomationSecurity AlarmsConstructionRepairPlumbingCleaningPest ControlLawn and Garden |
Homeowner Forum / Construction / August 2005Bearing / Non-Bearing wall fit
We are building a large new house. The roof is constructed of large beams (there are a number of ridges, most beams are 5"x20" LVL) and engineered rafters. At one point (of a large span) where a number of beams meet there is a post that extends all the way down (24') to a footing in the basement to carry the loads. Many of the walls in the upstairs (we are having cathedral ceilings everywhere) cross the beams, and sometimes even run directly under the beams for various lengths but on the plans these are all shown as non-bearing - and the plans show a dropped ceiling with attic space as an option. Our contractor has commented a number of times about the fact that the walls he is putting under the beams are helping to carry the load and should make the roof that much stronger. I have pointed out that the floor below these walls was not necessarily designed to carry the load of the beams and that the beams should be entirely supported by the post shown and exterior walls. He tells me that the floor is plenty strong to handle it. My question is what is the correct way to frame a non-bearing wall such as one of those running under a beam, when you want to insure that it will not be sharing in the bearing of the loads above it? > We are building a large new house. The roof is constructed of large > beams (there are a number of ridges, most beams are 5"x20" LVL) and [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > as one of those running under a beam, when you want to insure that it > will not be sharing in the bearing of the loads above it? This all sounds like a job for an Architect or a Structural Engineer. Where I live you have to submits plans and calculations for this sort of thing to the local authority. We hired an SE to do them and his submission ran to about 60 pages. Then as the house is built it has to be inspected to ensure it's built as per the drawings. All plans were made by an Architect along with Structural Engineer. All calculations are done, my question is concerning the correct way to frame the non-bearing wall to insure that it is not sharing load. I think this is a pretty general questions. I live on a farm and there are not building inspections required (although electrical and plumbing are). > All calculations are done, my question is concerning the correct way to > frame the non-bearing wall to insure that it is not sharing load. I'm no architect, but if the beams are properly sized, the non-bearing wall shouldn't bear ANY of the weight. In other words, if you took the wall out completely, everything should still be structurally intact. I suppose if the beam deflects down slightly it could transfer some weight to the wall, but I wouldn't think it would be significant enough to matter. Putting a wall under the beam would only add the weight of the wall itself. No problem if it runs perpendicular to the floor joists. If it runs parallel to the joists, you might need to add extra joists or blocking to support the wall, but it shouldn't be supporting the structure above. Just my two cents... Anthony > > All calculations are done, my question is concerning the correct way to > > frame the non-bearing wall to insure that it is not sharing load. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I suppose if the beam deflects down slightly it could transfer some weight > to the wall, but I wouldn't think it would be significant enough to matter. I think the is the joint - how you stop the bending of the beam cracking whatever finish is applied to the joint area. I think I'd ask the Architect or the SE to comment of come take a look. In a previous post wrote... > My question is what is the correct way to frame a non-bearing wall such > as one of those running under a beam, when you want to insure that it > will not be sharing in the bearing of the loads above it? The beams MUST be allowed to deflect vertically in order to carry loads. For properly sized beams, the deflection is small, but it MUST be allowed to happen. This has to do with physics and the principle of Work (force x distance). Basically it means that if there is no deflection, then there is no load transfer to the beam in the from of bending stress. A wall running parallel to and under a large beam should have an method to provide stability to the top of the wall, but still allow deflection. This could be done as an upside down U-shaped piece of sheet metal that gets covered. I've even uses a series of lag bolts in a oversized hole through the top plates, with the top plates being held below the bottom of the beam a 1/2-inch or so depending on the expected deflections. I recommend that you have the Structural Engineer do a brief inspection and make recommendations.  SignatureBob Morrison, PE, SE R L Morrison Engineering Co Structural & Civil Engineering Poulsbo WA > In a previous post wrote... > > My question is what is the correct way to frame a non-bearing wall such [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I recommend that you have the Structural Engineer do a brief inspection > and make recommendations. Probably not necessary to have the engineer of record make an inspection. He owes you the detail drawing for the connection. It should have been detailed in the first place. It's something he could draw up in his office and send to you. R Bob, > The beams MUST be allowed to deflect vertically in order to carry > loads. For properly sized beams, the deflection is small, but it MUST > be allowed to happen. This has to do with physics and the principle > of Work (force x distance). Interesting... I learn something new every day! :) Thanks for correcting my error... Anthony > Bob, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Thanks for correcting my error... The wall should be built after the beam is loaded so that it's already deflected. The wall should be built after the beam is loaded so that it's already deflected. *************************************************************************************** If a snow load was figured in........you will have to wait a long time before building that wall. <g> SignatureJerryD(upstateNY) Bob, thanks for the information. The wall is actually already in place and was built right up to the beam. The studs right now have very little weight on them but the roof is yet to be shingled, and we do get snow of course in this area. I talked to the structural engineer and he didn't seem overly concerned. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.