• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Need terminology for "non-bearing" exterior wall

I'm saying that based on a literal reading of the code, in the illustration below (if you assume a flat roof joist, not the trusses shown):
-the blue represents the tributary roof load that gets transferred into the exterior wall
- the red represents the tributary floor load that gets transferred into the exterior wall that's on the left.
Basically, it's 1/2 the distance between the inside face of wall stud to the first parallel floor or roof joist.
Yes, it's a very tiny amount.

1715043183471.png
 
Why doesn't that joist in gable wall carry the 2nd floor load? ought to be able to remove wall under.

So, a simple gable wall could be designed to be load bearing or non-loadbearing.
 
We have a lot of discussions on what structural means here a lot because you can do anything in a house without a permit as long as it is not structural in PA. Some think it means non load bearing. But we never argued that adding an opening in a gable end of a one-story house as non-structural work. I feel if they drill a hole in a stud in any exterior wall as structural work.
 
bill1952 said:
Why doesn't that joist in gable wall carry the 2nd floor load? ought to be able to remove wall under.

So, a simple gable wall could be designed to be load bearing or non-loadbearing.
Click to expand...
Yes, that could work if you designed the joist not to bear on the wall below, perhaps with a gap and a slip joint; otherwise the joist becomes a sleeper, pushing the load onto the studs.
Here in California our exterior wall are typically used as shear walls, so the connection is needed for loads other than gravity loads.
 
Lateral bracing is an issue, but not a part of load bearing determination.

If that joist is same as rest, and you can remove wall below it, I'd say that wall is not load bearing - gap or not. Will that joist now deflect as much as the others? Probably. If its the same s the rest in that floor it shouldn't deflect so much as to crack gwb.
 
R301.1 Application
Buildings and structures, and parts thereof, shall be constructed to safely support all loads, including dead loads, live loads, roof loads, flood loads, snow loads, wind loads and seismic loads as prescribed by this code. The construction of buildings and structures in accordance with the provisions of this code shall result in a system that provides a complete load path that meets the requirements for the transfer of loads from their point of origin through the load-resisting elements to the foundation. Buildings and structures constructed as prescribed by this code are deemed to comply with the requirements of this section.

Buildings (walls) in Seismic zones shall be designed to resist seismic and wind loads.

Those walls are bearing the load.


Back in the day, I attended a ICBO seminar, in which they informed us "All exterior walls (elements) are load bearing"
 
mark handler said:
R301.1 Application
Buildings and structures, and parts thereof, shall be constructed to safely support all loads, including dead loads, live loads, roof loads, flood loads, snow loads, wind loads and seismic loads as prescribed by this code. The construction of buildings and structures in accordance with the provisions of this code shall result in a system that provides a complete load path that meets the requirements for the transfer of loads from their point of origin through the load-resisting elements to the foundation. Buildings and structures constructed as prescribed by this code are deemed to comply with the requirements of this section.

Buildings (walls) in Seismic zones shall be designed to resist seismic and wind loads.

Those walls are bearing the load.
Click to expand...

Exterior gable walls are "transmitting" or "resisting" lateral (wind and seismic) loads, but they aren't "bearing" (carrying/supporting) them. Once again, refer to the code definitions of load-bearing and nonload-bearing.

Back in the day, I attended a ICBO seminar, in which they informed us "All exterior walls (elements) are load bearing"
Click to expand...

That was ICBO. We are currently under the ICC model codes. I can't speak to other states, but several years ago the state attorney assigned to the Office of State Building Inspector formally ruled that the State Building Inspector cannot interpret the code to mean something other than what the plain language of the code says. The definitions are part of the plain language of the code.
 
A Wall resisting exterior forces are "bearing" those loads.
Bearing, A wall carrying of a load, lateral loads are still loads.
 
Mark, we're going to have to agree to disagree. An interior partition in a one-story house with a trussed roof doesn't carry any of the roof loads but may be one of the braced walls. According to your view, this partition would be a bearing wall by virtue of being part of the braced wall system. However, the definitions in the IBC clearly don't support this. While the IRC doesn't include the definitions of Wall, Load-bearing and Wall, Nonload-bearing, the ICC codes also provide that where terms are not defined in one code the definitions from other ICC codes may be used. By definition, a wall that acts as a braced wall but does not support part of a roof or floor (or wall) above is not a load-bearing wall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDS
Yankee Chronicler said:
Mark, we're going to have to agree to disagree. An interior partition in a one-story house with a trussed roof doesn't carry any of the roof loads but may be one of the braced walls. According to your view, this partition would be a bearing wall by virtue of being part of the braced wall system. However, the definitions in the IBC clearly don't support this. While the IRC doesn't include the definitions of Wall, Load-bearing and Wall, Nonload-bearing, the ICC codes also provide that where terms are not defined in one code the definitions from other ICC codes may be used. By definition, a wall that acts as a braced wall but does not support part of a roof or floor (or wall) above is not a load-bearing wall.
Click to expand...
A multiple point bearing truss, Does carry a load, so just because you have trusses, does not mean all interior walls are non-bearing.
1715181179474.png
 
Last edited:
Yikes said:
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.
Click to expand...
Does your code have section 2308? Referencing the 2018 IBC for this post, it seems like this might fall under conventional light frame construction. In order to get out of the load/not load bearing issue, could you simply use the prescriptive code to provide a header for a load bearing wall from t2308.4.1.1(1)? Might cost an extra 20 bucks for the lumber, but avoid the engineer.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
Mark, we're going to have to agree to disagree. An interior partition in a one-story house with a trussed roof doesn't carry any of the roof loads but may be one of the braced walls. According to your view, this partition would be a bearing wall by virtue of being part of the braced wall system. However, the definitions in the IBC clearly don't support this. While the IRC doesn't include the definitions of Wall, Load-bearing and Wall, Nonload-bearing, the ICC codes also provide that where terms are not defined in one code the definitions from other ICC codes may be used. By definition, a wall that acts as a braced wall but does not support part of a roof or floor (or wall) above is not a load-bearing wall.
Click to expand...
You also may have floor or ceiling joists running perpendicular to the roof framing. Thus making it bearing.
 
mark handler said:
You also may have floor or ceiling joists running perpendicular to the roof framing. Thus making it bearing.
Click to expand...

Really?

In the design that started this discussion, the floor/roof framing runs parallel to the long walls and bear on the end walls. The question related to the nonload-bearing side walls.

Certainly, if a joist or a truss is supported on a wall,. that wall is a load-bearing wall. Let's not get too far into the weeds.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
Really?

In the design that started this discussion, the floor/roof framing runs parallel to the long walls and bear on the end walls. The question related to the nonload-bearing side walls.

Certainly, if a joist or a truss is supported on a wall,. that wall is a load-bearing wall. Let's not get too far into the weeds.
Click to expand...
Into the weeds is exactly why I made the comments.
Brood statements are being made:
If it is a truss roof, interior walls are non-bearing.​
All exterior walls that do not support the roof or floor are non-bearing.​
Neither statement is always true.

It is a traditional fallacy in logic:
'Denying the antecedent' is a logical fallacy based on drawing an untrue conclusion from an 'if–then' argument. We can represent it like this: If X is true, then Y is also true. X is not true, so Y is not true either.
 
mark handler said:
Into the weeds is exactly why I made the comments.
Brood statements are being made:
If it is a truss roof, interior walls are non-bearing.​
All exterior walls that do not support the roof or floor are non-bearing.​
Neither statement is always true.
Click to expand...

Which is why I continue to refer to the definitions, which define when a wall IS load-bearing. If the verical load is less than 100 PLF (for wood and light-gauge steel) or 200 PLF (for masonry), despite any vertical loads the wall may carry it is still a nonload-bearing wall under the IBC.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
Which is why I continue to refer to the definitions, which define when a wall IS load-bearing. If the verical load is less than 100 PLF (for wood and light-gauge steel) or 200 PLF (for masonry), despite any vertical loads the wall may carry it is still a nonload-bearing wall under the IBC.
Click to expand...

please provide a screenshot of that definition, as you defined it.
 
Last edited:
Yikes said:
I'm saying that based on a literal reading of the code, in the illustration below (if you assume a flat roof joist, not the trusses shown):
-the blue represents the tributary roof load that gets transferred into the exterior wall
- the red represents the tributary floor load that gets transferred into the exterior wall that's on the left.
Basically, it's 1/2 the distance between the inside face of wall stud to the first parallel floor or roof joist.
Yes, it's a very tiny amount.
Click to expand...
Be carful, not wall buildings have floor framing and roof framing in the same direction.
To save lumber, sometimes framing will switch directions, so that the spans are reduced, allowing for 2x10's vs 2x12.
 
I don't think anyone suggested the determination wasnt based on both the definitions and the design. It should be relatively easy for a designer, competent builder, or administrative authority to make that determination based on an accurately drawn wall section. And I agree determining a wall is or isn't load bearing doesn't change the need to design for wind, seismic, and other "loads".

Kudos to Yankee Clipper for standing his ground on this one.
 
Mr. Inspector said:
We do here.
So gable end windows do not need headers?
Click to expand...
No....not really


R602.7.4 Nonbearing Walls​

Diagram
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 shall be permitted to 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, cripples or blocking are not required above the header.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top