Home Repair forum - Load Bearing Wall Question

Author

Load Bearing Wall Question

celticsoc@aol.com

2006-03-28, 12:21 pm

I want to move a wall. The house is a wood frame ranch in the
60-years-plus age range.

The wall runs directly under the peak of the roof, but only runs about
10-15 feet. There are two walls perpendicular to it, and both of these
run essentially from front to back of the house, and they have
doorways. My assumption is that the wall which I want to move is not
load-bearing because it runs only a short span, along the same line as
the peak of the roof.

Is this a reasonable assumption? If more information is necessary, let
me know.

Thanks!

Chris Lewis

2006-03-28, 1:21 pm

According to celticsoc@aol.com <celticsoc@aol.com>:
> I want to move a wall. The house is a wood frame ranch in the
> 60-years-plus age range.

> The wall runs directly under the peak of the roof, but only runs about
> 10-15 feet. There are two walls perpendicular to it, and both of these
> run essentially from front to back of the house, and they have
> doorways. My assumption is that the wall which I want to move is not
> load-bearing because it runs only a short span, along the same line as
> the peak of the roof.

> Is this a reasonable assumption? If more information is necessary, let
> me know.

No. It's more important to find out whether the wall you want to
move is running at right angles to the ceiling joists, and/or whether
the top of the wall frame is being used as a support point for the
ceiling joists or roof structure. The roof peak could be running any
old direction compared to the joists.

Even then.

If in doubt, ask a professional.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

kevin

2006-03-28, 4:21 pm

No, infact you have it backwards. If the peak of the roof runs say from
side-to-side of the house, then most likely your joists run
front-to-back (part of their job is to tie the opposite eves of the
roof together, else the eves would spread and the peak would collapse
flat). So your wall is perpendicular to the joists, most likely, which
generally hints that it is load bearing.

Doors have nothing to do with anything, and neither does the length of
the wall. A wall just 1/2 a foot long could be critical, depending on
the construction. (aka, a post).

You can get a better idea by looking in your attic at the joists, and
even try to see how the various walls are attached.

On the other hand, some roofs are designed to span the whole distance
without support. It is hard to tell from here, but it sounds like it IS
load bearing.

Joseph Meehan

2006-03-28, 4:21 pm

celticsoc@aol.com wrote:
>I want to move a wall. The house is a wood frame ranch in the
> 60-years-plus age range.
>
> The wall runs directly under the peak of the roof, but only runs about
> 10-15 feet. There are two walls perpendicular to it, and both of
> these run essentially from front to back of the house, and they have
> doorways. My assumption is that the wall which I want to move is not
> load-bearing because it runs only a short span, along the same line as
> the peak of the roof.
>
> Is this a reasonable assumption? If more information is necessary,
> let me know.
>
> Thanks!

It may be reasonable, but it may not be correct. If it were my roof, I
would not guess. I would have a it checked by a structural engineer.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

Frank Boettcher

2006-03-28, 5:21 pm

On 28 Mar 2006 08:15:35 -0800, "celticsoc@aol.com" <celticsoc@aol.com>
wrote:

>I want to move a wall. The house is a wood frame ranch in the
>60-years-plus age range.
>
>The wall runs directly under the peak of the roof, but only runs about
>10-15 feet. There are two walls perpendicular to it, and both of these
>run essentially from front to back of the house, and they have
>doorways. My assumption is that the wall which I want to move is not
>load-bearing because it runs only a short span, along the same line as
>the peak of the roof.
>
>Is this a reasonable assumption? If more information is necessary, let
>me know.
>
No it is not a reasonable assmumption. Yes more info is needed.

In that age construction you could have roof trusses instead of stick
framed rafters and joists. Normally they would be designed to use a
center wall for support. The part of the center wall that is missing
could be supported by a jack truss or a header. You need to do a
little more investigating before you make that assumption.

>Thanks!

David Combs

2006-04-27, 10:21 pm

In article <p99j2218kiv5km8njd1b9nodllrbuge5vm@4ax.com>,
Frank Boettcher <fboettcher@comcast.net> wrote:
....
>No it is not a reasonable assmumption. Yes more info is needed.
>
>In that age construction you could have roof trusses instead of stick
>framed rafters and joists. Normally they would be designed to use a
>center wall for support. The part of the center wall that is missing
>could be supported by a jack truss or a header. You need to do a
>little more investigating before you make that assumption.
>
>

A probably very stupid question, especially from
someone who, eons ago, took a structures course:

In another thread that also discussed stick-built vs
prefab, etc, and load-bearing walls, and trusses too,
someone said the OP should have a large beam
from one end of the house to the other, and as
for a truss there, that it should hang from the beam.

I suppose that "hanging from" means bolted-solid to,
not loosely hanging from?

If so, then (I dig deep into my memory of some
35 years back!) with a load on top of, or pushing
(pulling) down on the beam-truss combo, that
would put the top, ie the beam, into compression?

Can someone more current with structures finish
(or correct) what little I've said thus far,
and say something about how the truss, etc,
works?

Thanks,

David

Goedjn

2006-04-28, 3:21 pm

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:56:10 +0000 (UTC), dkcombs@panix.com (David
Combs) wrote:

>In article <p99j2218kiv5km8njd1b9nodllrbuge5vm@4ax.com>,
>Frank Boettcher <fboettcher@comcast.net> wrote:
>...
>
>A probably very stupid question, especially from
>someone who, eons ago, took a structures course:
>
>In another thread that also discussed stick-built vs
>prefab, etc, and load-bearing walls, and trusses too,
>someone said the OP should have a large beam
>from one end of the house to the other, and as
>for a truss there, that it should hang from the beam.
>
>I suppose that "hanging from" means bolted-solid to,
>not loosely hanging from?
>
>If so, then (I dig deep into my memory of some
>35 years back!) with a load on top of, or pushing
>(pulling) down on the beam-truss combo, that
>would put the top, ie the beam, into compression?
>
>Can someone more current with structures finish
>(or correct) what little I've said thus far,
>and say something about how the truss, etc,
>works?
>
>Thanks,
>
>David
>

If you're talking about what I think you're talking
about, the beam in question is resting on and tying
together the bottom chords of the trusses (assuming
A-shaped attic trusses) Or on the top chord of
standard flat trusses, , because
those that were resting on an interior wall were
rising/falling differently than those that were
clear-span. The beam simply forces them all to
move in unison, (or close enough). It's perpendicular
to the individual trusses.

The beam therefore would exert shear force down
on those chords which previously floated higher
then average, and (If tied) up on those which
tended lower than average.

If I'm right about what both you (and they)
are talking about, one of the images at
www.goedjn.com/beamtruss.gif
should be close to what's going on.

In the top image, the webbing near the center
and the top chord of the beam get extra
compressive loads from weight on the red beam,
and the bottom chord gets extra tension.

In the bottom image, the bottom chord, (and to
a lesser extent, the webbing), get tension
and the diagonal rafters get compression.

In neither case does the red beam see anything like
the loads it applies to the rest of the truss(es)

--Goedjn

LinkBot