I have a very old (1902) home in Wa. , stud framed with shiplap fir as interior and exterior sheathing. We’re working on re-doing the kitchen where there is an archway that spans the width of the room….
It runs parallel to the ceiling joists so I’m thinking it is either the remnants of an old partition wall or purely decoration.
any good way to tell if it’s necessary?
Replies
hey bill
if it runs the same direction as the ceiling joist i wouldn't think that there would be any bearing on it at all. also think about what is above it. might help you determine if its infact bearing or not.
hope this helps
Bill,
If you have decided to take the wall out regardless of whether it is Bearing or Not, take off the sheetrock/sheeting/whatever and test the studs. When you strike a stud which is bearing weight it has a much different sound than one that is not (similiar to string on a piano, the more tension the higher the sound). If you can cut through the stud with a hard saw, with out the weight of the house pushing down and trapping your saw, it's a good bet it is not bearing. Do this on a couple studs. Also like the other message if it runs parallel to the joist it's likely not a bearing wall, but may be a shear wall.
You can always do what a potetial customer did me. Went out for a bid, discussed plans with customer, crawled up in their attic, made decision that walls not bearing. One week later they called and said they appreciated my time, but had decided to do the remodel by themselves. That's life
Rand
Sort of a new thread. I have a wall that is off set from the main bearing wall ( and steel beam below) by 2 1/2'. The wall is perp. to the second floor joists and is built from studs turned 90 degrees (1 1/2") with 2-3/4" top plates. The wall is 4' from an exterior wall. The second floor joists are 2x8's and the span is 10' to the wall +4' to the exterior wall. This is a 1931 house. Is the wall bearing (or helping to carry the load) and if I remove it will the second floor be bouncey? I had a similar situation at the bathroom and I added a beam and posts at the steel line below just to be safe. I would like to not have to do that again
I would hate to say whether it was intended to be a loaaad bearing wall but as to the Q, if I remove it will the second floor be bouncey? the answer is definitely yes. 2x8 should not be used to span 14 feet.
Excellence is its own reward!
Also, as houses age and settle about, even the lightest of partition walls may become loaded. When even a non-load bearing wall is removed, it is possible that the plaster can develope hairline cracks and doors can get stuck....that's not a mistake, it's rustic
The fact that the studs are 1 1/2" suggests that the wall is not from the original 1931 construction. They were a full 2" when my place was built in 1926, and 1 5/8" in the mid 1950's. Is it lath and plaster or drywall? Consistent with the rest of the house? Studs used on the flat like that suggests a bootleg job. But 14' is too far to span with 2x8's, so I'd look around for evidence of another wall parallel to this one having been removed.
Code today requires that a bearing wall be no more than one joist depth away from the wall or girder below that supports it. But in old buildings things aren't like that. You can find bearing walls most anywhere.
-- J.S.
Improper statement alert!
blue
> Improper statement alert!
blue
OK, specifically what do I have wrong?
-- J.S.
John, I don't know exactly what your original statement was. I don't know how to navigate this site to reread it. I do remember a specific situation that legally contradicted your statement.
Recently, I framed a house that had a load bearing wall, that was approximately four feet offset from the beams. Code allowed us to frame it that way with the doubling of every other joist.
I guess your code statement wasn't properly qualified.
blue
Blue --
You're right, I didn't consider exceptions to the code. The code in question is UBC 2320.8.5. I'm fairly sure that the house you did with every other joist doubled is the kind of exception that requires an engineer to draw it and wet stamp the drawing. Of course when you look at an existing building, you don't have access to all that information, so it could very well be that a legit exception exists.
As for navigating back, in the upper right hand corner of this message window, there should be some small print that says something like "20235.16 in reply to 20235.15" If you click on the second number, it takes you to the message this is replying to, and you can just walk it back up the chain that way.
Thanks --
-- J.S.
It is an orginal wall with wood lath and plaster. Most of the second floor framing are 2 x 8's spanning 10'. Over the living room the joists are 3 x 8's @ 12" o.c. spanning 17' with no problem.
"The second floor joists are 2x8's and the span is
10' to the wall +4' to the exterior wall. "
"Over the living room the joists
are 3 x 8's @ 12" o.c. spanning 17' "
Perfect example why we shy away from structural advice online offsite. The information given is confusing, confused, and confoundingly conflicting.
Garbage in, garbage out...
Take the wall down and see if anything falls down, then you'll know.
How's that for a definative answer?
Excellence is its own reward!
if you want to save some bucks by doing your own work, OK. But get a qualified proffesional opinion. An engineer.Old Pro, not quite old, not quite pro, but closer every day on both...
Right on! All this hocus pocus of sawing studs and seeing what happens is NUTS! If you can't clearly see that the wall is merely a partition, or is truly load bearing......FIND someone who can do so! Call an engineer.
REMEMBER: Loads are calculated for maximum potential. If the roof is involved, this means the worst snowstorm in memory. If you want to cut studs and see what happens, wait until that day and where a hard hat....don't conduct your experiments in June.
Pablo, you may have missed it but the advise to cut and see... was tongue in cheek for the guy who can't give pertinent information and isn't intrested in taking good advice. No one here thinks the cut and see method is realistic.
Hard to see that tongue in cheek, wink and twinkling eye through the monitor though isn't it?
;>)
Excellence is its own reward!
Dear piffin,
Thanks for the clarification! Some people might just get out their chainsaw and 'peek around the place'!
The problem with most alterations that are totally incorrect is they do not fail right there and then. In many cases, it can take years, or decades in the event of that mother-of-all snowstorms.
I have done a lot of this kind of work on my 140 year old home. My process is One, 'see' the situation and solution before doing anything, Two, run any solution by my engineer step-Pop before moving forward.
[Of course step Three is to measure twice and cut once!]
Kind regards,
/p
pablo, I like your thinking. BTW we share more than thought style. My name is Paul too.
Excellence is its own reward!
"How's that for a definative answer? "
Nice response. I could have gotten that from my kid's school. I do understand the structure of a house, but this is a little unusual for me. I had hoped for a real response from someone that had seen a similar condition, but instead I got your moronic response.
Thank you so much for your help.
I did not want or ask for strutrual advise but only an opion if the wall could be bearing. I glad that you responded so that I now know that anything that I read that you have posted will be deleted.
Thanks again (*&**^@19)
It's always a shame when a fool does not get the magic answer to his problems.
Fact: You do not know what you are doing, or looking at.
Fact: That you may want to do some work to a possible load -bearing wall is unerving.
Go hire a pro and quit your whining....that's not a mistake, it's rustic
Bunghole Jeff,
It is a shame that you cannot read the post and provide any type of useful answer. The question was is it possible that this wall is bearing or has become bearing and if removed will the floor be bouncy. All of the signs say that the wall is not bearing (studs turned sideways, wall located a couple of feet from the line of steel below, etc.). The existing 2 x 8's span 10' -12' and the removal of this wall will add +- 3' to the span. Now the question is does anyone have experiance with a 1931 house framing. The lumber was stronger in 1931 (the new span tables (recently changed to reduce spans due to the low quality of lumber avalible) and the fact wood gains strenght over time makes the situation different. My house would not meet current codes with a 17' span of 3 x 8's but yet the floor is extremely stiff (I (230#) walk and sometimes run on the floor with not a bounce). Now if you had a clue and wished to offer an opion I would gladly discuss it with you. As far as professional's, I did have two ball scratching pros look at the condition. Both looked like a dog with out a clue (head tilted to one side with a slight grin). Granted these may have not been the correct people but they were the only ones that were willing to setup an appointment. The others I contacted said that they would get to it in a couple of days and never called back. I offered to pay them for their time.
So Jeff in my opion you too are just another ball scratching jerk and I mean that in a good way.
You asked a question. You got an answer.
Is the wall load bearing? likely not but maybe yes. Amateurs doing non-inspected work can build a load bearing walls any way they wish and place them as they see fit. You will probably do exactly the same thing. Your lack of a adequate description doesn't help. So, as shown by the people who have looked at it, there is little reason to think a description given on the web will give better or more reliable analysis. Your abuse of the people trying to help you doesn't make things easier. The best and safest advice has been given and rejected. Get a qualified engineer on site to look at it.
If your not going to accept the advice given don't ask the question. The alternative is:
Sure no problem I absolutely know, I have conferred with God on this, that this is not a load bearing wall. While you could chainsaw the wall out of the way why not do it with style. Use a D9 at high throttle. After this I suggest placing a 10 person hot tub and a half dozen water beds on the floor above centered on the previous location of the wall below. To celebrate your completed job you can find the nearest biker bar and kick over a row of Harleys and finish by tapdancing through a mine field.
Take this advice any way you please. Your dead set to do as you please and ask only to have your preconceived notions confirmed. It won't be an unfortunate loss of life. It's a culling of the flock. Some people are impossible to help.
Edited 5/21/2002 9:56:49 PM ET by 4LORN1
Bear in mind that "load bearing" is a legal term used in building codes. Gravity doesn't give a s*** whether we call a wall "load bearing" or not. Even this flimsy partition contributes to the stiffness of the floor upstairs.
-- J.S.
It won't be an unfortunate loss of life. It's a culling of the flock. Some people are impossible to help.
Thanks for all your advise. I appreciate the few people that responded and asked for more information that I then provided.
Yours is another good response. Thank you so much. The description that I gave is more than adequate and I responded to people that asked real questions to get down to the answer of my query. I did talk to a structural engineer and his opion was that since it was and old house with old framing it would more than likely be OK. I had hope for a more definitive answer from all of you Pro's. Since I believe that natural selection is a moving force in our environment I will not have to worry that my children will ever have to deal with people like you.
Thank you again.
There will be no more responses from me on this issue. A fact that I'm sure will make you happy.
What your not catching on to is that your more modern wall could have been a poor substitute for a needed structural support. Not all remodelers or old time builders followed the rules.
After talking with a friendly engineer, I showed him a printout of the posts, he comes to the same conclusion. You need a qualified engineer to do an analysis of the situation. He would not give a definitive answer, and risk his reputation and license, on information posted on the web or phoned in. Too much vital information can be overlooked or misunderstood. Get an engineer or builder with a engineering background physically on site to look at the structure and run the numbers.
That said I suspect your going to do as you please. Your attempts to get vital and valuable structural advice for free point in that direction. If you documented everything in reliable blueprints you might get close to getting a sound answer. But you want a quick and dirty answer. The dirty answer is: Do as you please and blame no one but your self if things go wrong.
Archy,
I did read your original post. Did you read my earlier comment to some of the first posts? Your name calling is amusing however. By the way, I know how my house is framed (nyah). You got several credible answers, including some tongue-in-cheek. The earlier posts gave advice how to answer your own question. But, as others have explained, a definite answer can not, and will not, be given over the internet.
A real structural engineer has access to tables of structural properties (not simple span charts) for all species and grades of wood and could run numbers on your actual situation. 1931 codes were more lenient than todays, however major structural modifications have to meet todays codes. So, you need to hire a structural engineer. If they say the job is too small, ask them for references. Many engineers never deal with old buildings and may not be as helpful as someone who has done several old homes. And, although your a healthy weight, it's the long term load on timber that more often cause failures.
...that's not a mistake, it's rustic
Edited 5/23/2002 1:04:31 AM ET by Bungalow Jeff
I am sorry.
It just appeared that your were a ball scratching contractor :-) and bunghole Jeff was a beer induce inspiration.
Thank you for your recent reply. I will remove the wall but as I did when I remodeled the bathroom I will place a beam (2-2 x10's Doug fir) under the floor joists. Posts will carry the ends of the new beam to triple 2x10's that will span the 4' from the masonry wall to the steel beam in the basement. I plan on bolting the 2x10 together. The main thing I learned in structures class is when in doubt make it stout (also easy come easy go as long it is the clients dough).
Sorry about the name calling it was but very unproductive except for the guy who thought it would be a better world if i were dead, that name calling I rather enjoyed.
Very well said!
Archy, I think you're a bit harsh with Piffin. Piffin's response gets to the heart of the matter. Although it is delivered rather flippantly, he actually provides a very basic definition of a load bearing wall, in terms that are very easy to understand. In fact, his definition is my definition, and I have used that exact sentence when I have trained every person that has ever apprenticed under me. Your defensiveness and anger will prevent you from ever finding the answer to your question.
Before you pull that wall out, decide whether something is going to crash down and smash your pumpkin. It's as simple as that.
Note to all: a wall that is 1.5" thick, using 2x4 stock, has the same amount of board feet of wall that is 3.5" thick that uses 2x4. The orientation of the framing does not reduce the ability to carry a load, assuming that all pertinent walls are adequately windbraced.
blue
> Note to all: a wall that is 1.5" thick, using 2x4 stock, has the same amount of board feet of wall that is 3.5" thick that uses 2x4. The orientation of the framing does not reduce the ability to carry a load, assuming that all pertinent walls are adequately windbraced.
Blue, I have a lot of respect for your knowledge and experience. You have vastly more experience than I ever will. But on this one, well, I think there might be reasons why the wall done on the flat would be weaker.
Studs in a wall are basically columns. They're columns that are restrained by blocking and by whatever sheet material is used for the wall surfaces. Columns start to fail by bending a little. As soon as the bend begins, the strength of the column goes way down, and the bend increases rapidly until the wood breaks.
2x4's bend more easily the narrow way than the wide way, 5.44 times more easily in terms of section modulus. In a conventional wall, the blocking effectively divides the studs into two columns in the weak direction. It takes only a tiny amount of support to prevent bending in a column. A column with half the length has four times the strength. Sheet materials on the surface also serve to restrain bending in the direction of the wall. Together these things produce a pretty good match of strength parallel and perpendicular to the wall.
With the wall done on the flat, the blocking and surface materials would resist bending of the studs in their strong direction. They'd help where we don't need it, and not help where we do. The big problem would be bending perpendicular to the wall, oil canning. Surface materials might help a little, but the blocking doesn't divide the column in half in that direction. Since that's the weak direction of the studs, we'd have a weaker wall.
Even in conditions short of total failure, I'd expect the wall on the flat to bend more and have more twang to it. Can you see anything wrong with any of this?
Thanks --
-- J.S.
John, you and Boss Hog are now getting technical. Okay, lets get technical.
The orientation does not increase, nor decrease the amount of weight a stud can carry, if it stands alone unbraced.
It's the bracing that increases the stud's capability.
My statement assumed no bracing. It assumed that the adjoning walls were adequately braced to prevent lateral pressures on the wall in question.
The point, relative to the poster is this: it is possible to have a load bearing wall that is orientated in either way. Some load bearing walls do not need the extra carrying capacity of a well braced wall, with the blocking and shear sheathing. Some load bearing walls could be simple, unbraced stud walls with the studs oriented in the 1.5" manner.
blue
"The orientation of the framing does not reduce the ability to carry a load"
Yes it does. In a typical 2X4 wall (3.5" thick), the studs are braced in their narrow direction. Frame the wall so it's 4X2 (1.5" thick) and the studs can't carry as much weight before buckling.
BTW - I agree with your assesment of Piffin's post...
.
> Although it is delivered rather flippantly, he actually provides a very basic definition of a load bearing wall, in terms that are very easy to understand. In fact, his definition is my definition,
I checked out the legal definition, at least for the LA code. For non-masonry walls, a load bearing wall is any wall that supports 100 pounds per foot or more -- Simple, easy to understand, completely useless. (Unless somebody has a top-plate-o-meter that I've never heard of....) ;-)
-- J.S.
OK archy2(*&**^@19)
,
"I could have gotten that from my kid's school"
not if you give them conflicting information and expect a clear answer. You speak of ten foot, fourteen foot, and seventeen foot spans intrechangeably without clarifying which joists are where and it seems some might be 2x8, some 2x10, and some 3x8, then expect us to magicly understand what your beer inspire stupourus self is typing about.
"I got your moronic response.
Thank you so much for your help."
if my response was moronic, go back and read your info provided someday when you are sober and see what it looks like.
"I did not want or ask for strutrual advise but only an opion if the wall could be bearing."
an opinion whether the wall is load bearing just happens to be structural advice but maybe you meant strut-ur-al advice as you spelled it. I guess that comes from your struting attitude. Of course my response will be deleted by you so you'll never read this advice, Sober up and use your brain more than your mouth. Open your lips to often and you'll learn that flies are attracted to crap. Now go scratch yer own balls...
Excellence is its own reward!
Edited 5/25/2002 10:43:25 AM ET by piffin
Crawl around in the attic and take a look at the top of this wall. Look for any part of the roof framing being supported by it. If you have no joists and no roof framing held up by it, the wall isn't bearing.
-- J.S.
Or look down below. If there is no structural transferance of load, it is only pretending to be bearing.
Excellence is its own reward!