Need terminology for "non-bearing" exterior wall

[Yikes]

Existing 3 story wood framed motel has its floor and roof joists bearing on the demising walls. The joists are parallel to the long-side exterior walls. The structural engineer calls these exterior walls "nonbearing" because the ends of the joists don't bear on them.
However, with floor + roof framing at 2' on center, aren't the wall technically a little bit "bearing", even if the tributary area supported by the wall is only one foot wide?

If so, is there a better or more accurate term to describe "only bears a small amount"? Or is it industry standard practice to call it non-loadbearing?

 

[RLGA]

See the defintion of "WALL, LOAD-BEARING" in Chapter 2.

 

[Joe.B]

See the defintion of "WALL, LOAD-BEARING" in Chapter 2.

@RLGA Does this mean only and Engineer (or Architect) can determine if a wall is load-bearing or not? Mark will be so happy...

 

[Plumb-bob]

Fair question, but I think largely semantics. These exterior walls are subject to dead load form construction materials and live loads form occupancy, wind, snow etc.

I would think it is the purview of the structural engineer to calculate exactly how much loading these walls are subject to, but to call them non-load bearing is wrong.

Ask the engineer if these walls would be fine without footings, lintels etc.

 

[RLGA]

@RLGA Does this mean only and Engineer (or Architect) can determine if a wall is load-bearing or not? Mark will be so happy...

Probably. It should be rather straightforward that a wall is not load-bearing if the wall does not support any roof and floor joists. Otherwise, a load calculation would be needed to determine what a wall is carrying, and that would likely be limited to a structural engineer.

 

[RLGA]

Fair question, but I think largely semantics. These exterior walls are subject to dead load form construction materials and live loads form occupancy, wind, snow etc.

I would think it is the purview of the structural engineer to calculate exactly how much loading these walls are subject to, but to call them non-load bearing is wrong.

Ask the engineer if these walls would be fine without footings, lintels etc.

The definition excludes the wall's own dead load; thus, it would be 100 plf or 200 plf (depending on the wall construction) in addition to the weight of the wall. Only vertical loads are considered, so wind and seismic loads would not factor into the load-bearing determination.

 

[Joe.B]

I had an experience early on when I was still new at this. (Okay, really new. I'm still new at this...) Anyways, a car crashed into the lower story of a two-story apartment building, car was extracted and damaged wall was removed. No bracing or any extra supports added. I was going a little nuts, "how can this not be load-bearing?!?" I thought. My boss at the time explained it to me, and then it made sense. That wall wasn't carrying any floor or ceiling load. Some quick math determined that the wall above (~24ft long) probably didn't weigh more than 2400lbs, boss didn't require an engineer, but did require a licensed contractor on the emergency repair permit.

 

[Yikes]

In this case, the owner wants to add a 6' wide opening in the ground floor exterior wall. Seismic / lateral is not an issue.

The combined loads from the upper two floors + roof are 100 PLF tributary live load and probably another 25 plf dead load, plus the weight of the wall+parapet itself. So all told, about 750 lbs on the bean, not counting wall load.
I agree the load is so small as to be "virtually" nonloadbearing form the standpoint that a 6x8 header is plenty adequate without significant calcs, but it still feels weird to have the engineer use this "nonbearing" term in a colloquial sense.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Existing 3 story wood framed motel has its floor and roof joists bearing on the demising walls. The joists are parallel to the long-side exterior walls. The structural engineer calls these exterior walls "nonbearing" because the ends of the joists don't bear on them.
However, with floor + roof framing at 2' on center, aren't the wall technically a little bit "bearing", even if the tributary area supported by the wall is only one foot wide?

If so, is there a better or more accurate term to describe "only bears a small amount"? Or is it industry standard practice to call it non-loadbearing?

As someone who has been licensed as an architect for [a very long time] and licensed as a building official for [almost as long], I would consider them to be non-load-bearing. As described, contrary to typical residential construction, in this case all vertical floor and roof loads are transmitted to the end walls. In a typical house (at least around here), the roof and floor(s) span the short dimension of the building and the end (gable) walls are always considered to be non-load-bearing -- despite the fact that they support their own weight.

Definitions:

[BS] WALL, LOAD-BEARING. Any wall meeting either
of the following classifications:
1. Any metal or wood stud wall that supports more than
100 pounds per linear foot (1459 N/m) of vertical
load in addition to its own weight.
2. Any masonry, concrete or mass timber wall that
supports more than 200 pounds per linear foot (2919
N/m) of vertical load in addition to its own weight.

[BS] WALL, NONLOAD-BEARING. Any wall that is not
a load-bearing wall.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

As someone who has been licensed as an architect for [a very long time] and licensed as a building official for [almost as long], I would consider them to be non-load-bearing. As described, contrary to typical residential construction, in this case all vertical floor and roof loads are transmitted to the end walls. In a typical house (at least around here), the roof and floor(s) span the short dimension of the building and the end (gable) walls are always considered to be non-load-bearing -- despite the fact that they support their own weight.

It depends on how the trusses are designed. If the end truss has vertical studs instead of a web the weight of the truss and the end of the roof is on the gable end wall.
Even with regular rafters with snow on the roof they and deflect and the weight can come down to the wall if there are studs under the rafter.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

It depends on how the trusses are designed. If the end truss has vertical studs instead of a web the weight of the truss and the end of the roof is on the gable end wall.
Even with regular rafters with snow on the roof they and deflect and the weight can come down to the wall if there are studs under the rafter.

The question asked in the opening post was:

If so, is there a better or more accurate term to describe "only bears a small amount"? Or is it industry standard practice to call it non-loadbearing?

My answer is that in over 50 years of practice as a licensed architect, gable end walls have never been considered to be load-bearing by me or any architect, engineer, or code official I have encountered in this state. That's as close as I can come to describing industry standard practice.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

My answer is that in over 50 years of practice as a licensed architect, gable end walls have never been considered to be load-bearing by me or any architect, engineer, or code official I have encountered in this state. That's as close as I can come to describing industry standard practice.

We do here.
So gable end windows do not need headers?

 

[Inspector Gadget]

My answer is that in over 50 years of practice as a licensed architect, gable end walls have never been considered to be load-bearing by me or any architect, engineer, or code official I have encountered in this state. That's as close as I can come to describing industry standard practice.

What about walls resisting wind/seismic forces?

 

[Joe.B]

We do here.
So gable end windows do not need headers?

It still has a header, just not nearly as substantial. Here's a picture I found on the internet, I will say though that when I've seen this in reality it was a double 2x and criples.

 

[ICE]

is there a better or more accurate term to describe "only bears a small amount"? Or is it industry standard practice to call it non-loadbearing?

The people that I am around don’t use “non” or “load”. “It’s a bearing wall”. …. “It’s not a bearing wall”.

Gable end walls are usually not bearing. Gable end walls are usually built the same as the bearing walls. Now if the project is tract housing that has been value engineered, the gable end walls might have skimpy headers but not much else is different than bearing walls. Another consideration is braced wall segments which occurred often in gable end walls.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

What about walls resisting wind/seismic forces?

Not covered by the definition.

 

[Plumb-bob]

It has been a long time since I looked at this definition.



This is from the BCBC (Canada), and wind/seismic loads do not make a bearing wall.
However, in the original question I understand the walls in question to be taking a small tributary load, so I would define these as loadbearing.

 

[bill1952]

The structural engineer calls these exterior walls "nonbearing" because the ends of the joists don't bear on them.
However, with floor + roof framing at 2' on center, aren't the wall technically a little bit "bearing", even if the tributary area supported by the wall is only one foot wide?

Seems it gets to some details. Where is the edge of floor and last joist in relation to the "nonbearing" wall? Ditto roof and how much overhang and how is it supported?

What do you get out of if indeed it is non-loadbearing? Headers over openings? Having lived in houses with no headers over doors and (big) windows - just cut the studs and stuck in a window - I'm not concerned by calling a wall that might support a square foot per lineal foot non-load bearing. It will support it just fine.

Feels like lawyers debating the meaning of the word "is".

 

[Yikes]

The opening will have a header.
I’ts a last-minute change on a building owned by a not-for-profit, and they would rather not pay the engineer for additional calculations. The engineer is fine with that. I’m only a little nervous about it being called “no load bearing” on approved plans.
When I was in architecture school, one of my old-time engineering professors would declare some designs “safe by inspection”, meaning that the loads were so light and/or the framing and connections were so oversized that any reasonable person could see that it was obviously safe, no further calcs needed.
However in our litigious society, I’m not sure that reasonable heads prevail. If something ever were to happen on the building, I’m picturing some aggressive lawyer twisting the interpretation of “non-load bearing” into an absolute startement.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

However in our litigious society, I’m not sure that reasonable heads prevail. If something ever were to happen on the building, I’m picturing some aggressive lawyer twisting the interpretation of “non-load bearing” into an absolute startement.

Go back to the definitions. Where terms used in the codes are defined in the codes, those definitions override any generic, dictionary definitions.

 

[Yikes]

Using the code definition, yes to be technically precise it is "bearing at least 6 SF of roof, about 4 SF of 3rd floor, and about 4 SF of 2nd floor.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Using the code definition, yes to be technically precise it is "bearing at least 6 SF of roof, about 4 SF of 3rd floor, and about 4 SF of 2nd floor.

And does that add up to more than 100 pounds per lineal foot?

 

[Yikes]

And does that add up to more than 100 pounds per lineal foot?

Figuring conservatively with typical DL of 15 psf:
Roof = (20 psf LL + 15 psf DL) x (0.5x24" spaced joists) = 35 plf
3rd floor = (40 psf LL + 15 psf DL) x (0.5x16" spaced joists)= 36.9 plf
2nd floor = same as 3rd = 36.9 plf
Total load = 108.8 plf

However, when you consider the "dead load" of 1/2 of one floor joist bay is really just the thickness of the 3/4" plywood, the 3/4" gypcrete, and the 5/8" drywall, and some vinyl flooring plank, I could make a case for coming in under 100 PSF.

 

[bill1952]

Yikes, just curious how you are framing the edge of 2nd floor to make wall bear it's load. This seems pretty typical to me and I'd say no 2nd floor load on table wall. (No roof either but understand reasons not to put a truss at gable wall.