Garage Header for non-load bearing wall

[llyons]

I am new to this forum, and not sure if replying to a thread that is 5 years old will work, but here goes:

Similar to the original question asked, I am putting up a SteelMaster USA metal building (their A model) that is 25' wide by 26' deep. The two side walls, consisting of 13 overlapping arches that are bolted together, are the load-bearing walls that go down to the concrete slab and bolt to an Industrial Base Connector. The back wall is from the same company and is a non-load bearing metal wall. The front of the building is open, and I am building a "standard" stud wall using 2x6 studs, 16" O.C. I want to put a 16' x 7' garage door in the center of this front wall. The company has provided me with the proper connectors to tie the front wall to the load-bearing side walls where they end at the front of the building.

Here's my question: since the front wall is NON load-bearing, and will only have the weight of the wall, the garage door and the garage door header, without doing any engineering (and I don't have any programs mentioned in other replies to this thread), does anyone have an opinion on me using three 2x12x16' boards, with two 1/2" plywood spacers sandwiched between them, for my header? I intend to put copious amounts of glue between all pieces, and also stagger 3/8" x 6" carriage bolts about 12" center to center along the beam. In essence, I'm building a glue-lam beam I think. I will then use double-jack studs on each side of the door for more bearing surface for the beam to sit on. I just need to research the best way to tie the beam to the jack studs and king studs.

What do you think? Is it overkill? Is it not enough? I read here about someone that used 2x12s to span 16' and had a 5/8" deflection - probably a load-bearing wall. I don't see how, given what I intend to do, that this would not be very sufficient, but since I'm not an engineer nor an inspector, I thought I'd see if I can get some expert opinions! Thanks in advance for any advice you can give. And lastly, should I post this as a new thread so subscribers will see it?

Thanks! LES

 

[ICE]

What do you think? Is it overkill? Is it not enough?

I would rip the plywood on the long dimension, use nails instead of bolts and not worry about the beam. Of course I'm not an engineer so I'm not educated enough to worry.

I fashioned similar beams out of just plywood. It was scraps from siding apartment buildings with T1-11. I built a storage loft in a barn. I can't remember for sure but I don't think I used adhesive (too cheap for that). I stored fruit picking boxes and it's still there, twenty years later.

It is a surprise that this thread is over 27,000 views.

 

[fatboy]

Well, first Welcome to the forum llyons!

Second, yes this thread is 4.5 years old.

Third, a non-bearing wall, what you are proposing looks to be great, might be overkill, I would buy it............

 

[SCBO1]

Quote: "The Braille method of plan review is not very reliable".....brugers

 

[steveray]

Quote: "The Braille method of plan review is not very reliable".....brugers

Sometimes I miss Brudgers.....

 

[jar546]

I split this from the other thread so it may get more activity and since it is a separate subject from the original post.

 

[TimNY]

Sometimes I miss Brudgers.....

Said nobody, ever.

 

[TimNY]

Here's my question: since the front wall is NON load-bearing, and will only have the weight of the wall, the garage door and the garage door header, without doing any engineering (and I don't have any programs mentioned in other replies to this thread), does anyone have an opinion on me using three 2x12x16' boards, with two 1/2" plywood spacers sandwiched between them, for my header? I intend to put copious amounts of glue between all pieces, and also stagger 3/8" x 6" carriage bolts about 12" center to center along the beam. In essence, I'm building a glue-lam beam I think. I will then use double-jack studs on each side of the door for more bearing surface for the beam to sit on. I just need to research the best way to tie the beam to the jack studs and king studs.

The applicable section:

R602.7.3 Nonbearing walls.

Load-bearing headers are not required in interior or exterior nonbearing walls. A single flat 2-inch by 4-inch (51 mm by 102 mm) member may be used as a header in interior or exterior nonbearing walls for openings up to 8 feet (2438 mm) in width if the vertical distance to the parallel nailing surface above is not more than 24 inches (610 mm). For such nonbearing headers, no cripples or blocking are required above the header.

I would stick with the first sentence, although it's interesting to note they give a solution up to 8 feet. What happens after 8 feet?

Anyway, I wouldn't have an issue with your proposed design, and I would use the first sentence of 602.7.3 to justify my decision.

Tim

 

[ICE]

Said nobody, ever.

I have.....several times

 

[Francis Vineyard]

First it appears this is an pre-engineered steel building and I would consult with the manufacturer for additional wind resistance connections if necessary. That said look at portal frame methods as applicable to California wind and seismic design category. The sized prescribed in the IRC is min. 3" x 11.25".

May an architect or engineer see the need to provide additional information.

 

[ICE]

First it appears this is an pre-engineered steel building and I would consult with the manufacturer for additional wind resistance connections if necessary. That said look at portal frame methods as applicable to California wind and seismic design category. The sized prescribed in the IRC is min. 3" x 11.25".May an architect or engineer see the need to provide additional information.

The structure was designed and apparently approved/permitted without a wall on one end. Looking at the shape, I doubt anything but a large earthquake could knock it down. It is also a wind sock so it must be anchored as wind probably governs.

 

[Francis Vineyard]

The structure was designed and apparently approved/permitted without a wall on one end. Looking at the shape, I doubt anything but a large earthquake could knock it down. It is also a wind sock so it must be anchored as wind probably governs.

Not in disagreement with your logic to a point but adding a wall would be different to remove one end if it were designed with 4 walls?

Second item am I overlooking a section of the code that addresses adding an exterior wood wall to the steel framing?

 

[ICE]

Second item am I overlooking a section of the code that addresses adding an exterior wood wall to the steel framing?

In all honesty, I've not spent any time with the steel framing sections of the Residential Code. Only because nobody has built a residence with steel in my little corner of the jungle.

Adding a wall to a building that hasn't got a wall changes things up. It would gain stiffness. The wind force towards that wall would change the force from a pull against the structure to a push against the structure. How that translates is beyond my knowledge.

I understand that it is easier to pull a weight up an incline than it is to push a weight up an incline.... but that has nothing to do with a wind load on a building. I mention this only because it's one of those engineering facts that most people wouldn't know, as I didn't, until they are told. So there may be some engineering fact related to adding a wall that buggers the whole idea.

 

[fatboy]

I still would not have heartburn over it.

Except maybe the pizza ad beer that ICE will say I consumed on this Friday night.

 

[ICE]

I still would not have heartburn over it.Except maybe the pizzas and beer that ICE will say I consumed on this Friday night.

I fixed it for you fatboy?

 

[jar546]

Here is the issue that I have with this thread.

The OP is shooting from the hip with zero code or technical justification. What sounds like it might work and what will work depends on a lot of things including wind loading of the building or seismic zone which were not even discussed. There needs to be more clarification and information shared. Until then, this is simply shooting from the hip.

 

[ICE]

Here is the issue that I have with this thread.The OP is shooting from the hip with zero code or technical justification. What sounds like it might work and what will work depends on a lot of things including wind loading of the building or seismic zone which were not even discussed. There needs to be more clarification and information shared. Until then, this is simply shooting from the hip.

In post #11 I said this: "The structure was designed and apparently approved/permitted without a wall on one end." That puts the onus on llyons to fess up. That being said, I've seen more than a few of these that were approved and permitted. Wind governs and it is 100 MPH in my territory.

But yes Jeff, I do see your concern and did at the beginning. Prudence demands that you point this out for those that Shirley wouldn't know.

This is from a Google search on the wind speed at Ramona, Ca. Of course these are averages and not maximum wind speed.

Over the course of the year typical wind speeds vary from 0 mph to 13 mph (calm to moderate breeze), rarely exceeding 19 mph (fresh breeze).The highest average wind speed of 5 mph (light breeze) occurs around July 13, at which time the average daily maximum wind speed is 13 mph (moderate breeze).

The lowest average wind speed of 4 mph (light breeze) occurs around November 4, at which time the average daily maximum wind speed is 12 mph (moderate breeze).